Religion and the State
by
James Franks
Name Seventh-day
Adventist:—“A company was presented before me under the name of Seventh-day
Adventists, who were advising that the banner or sign which makes us a
distinctive people should not be held out so strikingly; for they claimed it
was not the best policy in securing success to our institutions. This distinctive banner is to be borne
through the world to the close of probation. In describing the remnant
people of God, John says, "Here is the patience of the saints: here are
they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" (Rev.
14:12). This is the law and the gospel. The world and the churches are uniting
in harmony in transgressing the law of God, in tearing away God's memorial, and
in exalting a sabbath that bears the signature of the man of sin. But the
Sabbath of the Lord thy God is to be a sign to show the difference between the
obedient and the disobedient. I saw some reaching out their hands to remove the
banner, and to obscure its significance. . . . {2SM
385.2}
Click to go to our Home Page
----- Original
Message ----- From:
jayj To: AdventistHotIssues@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 10:02 AM Subject: [AdventistHotIssues]
Re: Name till the end..... Amen Lynn! --
I believed you summed it up quite well. Over the past
few years, I have noticed quite a few well-meaning but misguided
folk forwarding the notion that we should no longer refer to ourselves as Seventh-day
Adventists, (or SDA, etc..). Of course, these folk usually bring forth an
argument/documentation in support of their claim. But one thing
I have yet to see ANY of them mention is this: This actual
"name" scenario is equivalent to the church of Rome using the
secular Government to decree who can and/or cannot refer to themselves as
"Christian". For those of you who would scoff at this
notion, declaring, such notion to be absurd, or such thing could never occur;
it is my privilege to inform you, that this very thing indeed has happened! Notice: In the month of
March, A.D. 313, Constantine and Licinius met at
Milan, and formed an alliance, and jointly issued an edict, granting 'to the
Christians, and to all, the free choice to follow that mode of worship which
they may wish;' decreeing 'that no freedom at all shall be refused to
Christians to follow or to keep their observances or worship, but that to
each one power be granted to devote his mind to that worship which he may
think adapted to himself.' This freedom was 'absolutely granted to them.' The
privilege was 'also granted to others to pursue that worship and religion
they wish,...that each may have the privilege to select and to worship
whatsoever divinity he pleases.' Plainly, with
reference to the separation of religion and the state, this edict put the
Roman empire exactly in the attitude in which the United States government
stood at its organization and under its Constitution. But, as we have
seen, the rulers of the apostate church were anxious 'to assert the
government as a kind of sovereignty for themselves;' and there was another
portion of this edict upon which they seized and which they made to work to
their advantage, in securing a union of the church with the state, by which
they could indeed assert the imperial government as a kind of sovereignty for
themselves. That other portion of the edict commanded that all the property
of the Christians which had been destroyed, or confiscated, in the late
persecution, should be restored 'to the Christians.' And it was definitely
stated in the edict that this contemplated 'the right of the whole body of
Christians,' and commanded that this property should 'without any hesitancy,'
'be restored to these same Christians; that is, to their body, and to each
conventicle respectively.' Now no sooner
were the claims presented, and restitution begun, according to the edict,
than the Catholic Church raised the issue that only those in communion with
her were Christians: and so insisted that only these were entitled to the
restored property. She thus forced a governmental interpretation of the term
'Christians,' and a governmental decision as to who could properly bear the
title of 'Christians.' And, since that church had given to Constantine her active
support, in his campaign against Masentius, which
brought to him the whole power of the Western empire, this issue which she
raised, was pressed with this added force of the political favor which
she has rendered to him and for which she demanded a corresponding return. Accordingly,
upon the first appeal, Constantine issued an edict to the proconsul in the
province from which the appeal came, in which he said: 'It is our will that
when thou shalt receive this epistle, if any of those things belonging to the
Catholic Church of the Christians in the several cities of other
places, are now possessed either by the decurions
or any others, these thou shalt cause immediately to be restored to their
churches; since we have previously determined that whatsoever these
same churches before possessed, shall be restored to their right.' This
was not true in fact: it was not 'the Catholic Church of those Christians,'
but 'the Christians,' 'the whole body of Christians,' to whom it was
'previously determined' that the property should be restored. Yet this
interpretation being that of the supreme imperial power, was final as to what
was implied in this edict. And this interpretation was in effect a
decision that those of the Catholic Church were the only Christians, and made
the edict of Milan, from the beginning, bear that meaning. It having now
been decided that only those of the Catholic Church were Christians, the
issue was next raised as to what was in truth the Catholic Church. A division of
the church in Africa, that was not just then in communion with the bishop of
Rome, claimed, equally with the communion of Rome, to be the Catholic Church.
This also called for a decision on the part of the emperor. Accordingly,
still in the same month of the issue of the original edict of Milan,-- March,
A.D. 313,-- Constantine addressed an edict to the proconsul of the province
in which the question was raised, in which he specified that to be 'the
Catholic Church, over which Caecilianus presides.'
Caecilianus was the principal bishop in that province
over that portion of the church which was in communion with the bishop of
Rome. This was, therefore, in effect, with the decisions already made, to
settle it that only those of the Catholic Church were Christians, and only
those who were in communion with the bishop of Rome were the Catholic Church.
The effect of this was, of course, to make the Church of Rome the standard in
the new imperial religion. However, the
opposite party was not satisfied with this decision, but sent a petition to
the emperor, requesting that he refer the matter to the bishops of Gaul for a
decision. Constantine accepted their petition, and responded, so far as to
refer it to a council of bishops. But, instead of having the council composed
of the bishops of Gaul, he had it composed of the bishop of Rome and
eighteen others, of Italy, before whom the contending parties were required
to appear in Rome for the hearing. The bishop of
Rome here concerned and definitely named in the edict, was 'Miltiades;' the
same as 'Melchiades' who was the very bishop who
had invited Constantine to come from Gaul to the rescue of oppressed Israel
under the Pharaoh, Maxentius; and who thus early
began to reap in imperial and joint authority, the fruit of that episcopal-political endeavor. And, thus, one of the very
first steps in that union of church and state, was that 'the bishop of Rome
sits, by the imperial authority, at the head of a synod of Italian
bishops, to judge the disputes of the African Donatists.'- Milman. The council met Oct. 2, A.D. 313. Of course, the
council decided in favor of the Church of Rome. The defeated party appealed
again to the emperor, asking for a larger council to consider the matters
involved. Again their appeal was heard, and a council composed of 'many
bishops' was appointed and held at Aries, in Gaul, August, A.D. 314. This
council confirmed the decision of the previous council, in favor of the
Church of Rome as the Catholic Church. The defeated
party again appealed-- this time for a decision from the emperor himself.
Constantine held a consistory, listened to their plea, and, in harmony with
the councils already held, pronounced in favor of the church of Rome as the
Catholic Church. The course of
the positive growth, in favor and distinction, of the Catholic Church,
throughout this whole procedure, is distinctly and most suggestively marked
in the expressions used by the emperor in the successive documents which he
issued in connection with the question. As we have seen,
in the edict of Milan, March, A.D. 313, 'the whole body of Christians' were
included, without any distinctions or any suggestions as to any distinction. But, when the
issue was raised that only those of the Catholic Church were Christians, the
next edict ran, in the same month: 'The Catholic Church of the
Christians.' Next, in his
epistle summoning the first council, in the autumn of A.D. 313, he calls it 'the
holy Catholic Church.' Next, in the
summer of A.D. 314, in his epistle summoning the second council, he referred
to the doctrine of the Catholic Church as embodying 'our most holy religion.' Then, at last,
when the controversy had run its course of appeal to where it came to him in
person, and he had rendered the final decision, a document issued A.D. 316,
granted money, and announced the imperial favor, to the 'ministers of the legitimate
and most holy Catholic religion.' This final
document also gave to Caecilianus and to the party
who, with him, were in communion with the bishop of Rome, authority to call
upon the imperial officers of the province, to enforce conformity upon
those who 'wished to divert the people from the most holy Catholic Church by
a certain pernicious adulteration;' and commanded him: 'If thou seest any of
these men persevering in this madness, thou shalt without any hesitancy
proceed to the aforesaid judges, and report it to them, that they may
animadvert upon them, as I have commanded them when present.' Thus was formed
the union of church and state, out of which came the Beast, and all that the
papacy has ever been, or ever can be. And it all grew out of the
interpretation of a governmental document that was perfectly just and
innocent in itself. - A. T. Jones
(First published in Review and Herald, May 8th, 1900) Let us make
the obvious parallel from history to present-day concerning a portion of this
article: "The
issue was next raised as to what was in truth the [Adventist] Church. A
division of the church in [The U.S.], that was not just then in communion
with the [General Conference], claimed, equally with the [General Conference],
to be the [Adventist] Church. This also called for a decision on the part of
the emperor." -- Thus was formed the union of church and state, out of
which came the image of the Beast, and all that apostate Protestantism using
civil power ever has been, or ever can be. Since it has
been revealed (via various agencies) to the entire world that the General
Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists has indeed created
"an" image to the beast (not necessarily "the"
image, nor unlike it - Revelation 13:11-16), and have in fact, begun to move
adamantly forward with their expected "legal" persecution
of those who would stand in their way, (that is, those who cling to
the commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ - Revelation
12:17; 19:10), even to the point of confiscating internet domain names [and
all of it's documents therein] on the world scale,
simply because such folk refer to themselves as "Seventh-day
Adventists". For those of
us who are sincerely trying to remain faithful to the word of God, regardless
of what the World's secular governments and their courts decree, the question
begs: "What
are we to do, are we to stop calling ourselves Seventh-day Adventist,
or Adventist, or SDA?" Note: There
is at least one Independent "Adventist" Ministry that
attempts to address this question, and they do present a very good argument
proclaiming "I am a Seventh-day Remnant". Here is the web
address: http://www.sdaapostasy.org/remnantout.htm and also http://www.sdrvoice.org/ Personally, I
believe these folk are well-meaning but misguided concerning this particular
subject matter. -end note. This is a
legitimate question, that one day very soon we each will have to address
personally. The reason presented to us, of course, is that our continued
using of these names is sub-ject to controversy and
ridicule, accusations of theft, and subsequent legal battles. Thus, we are
confronted with "Why not, simply give the name up and teach the same
gospel under some other name?" As it
presently stands, the United States Government has banned Seventh-day Adventism
of any form - outside of denominational control and regulation. It is said to
us, "You can still believe whatever you want; you simply have to call
it something else". Yet this
we cannot do. It can (and
should) be noted that the name "Christian" is not one
that is "required" for the preaching of Christ; one could
call themselves a Baptist, or a Messianic, or a Nazarene, or a host of other
terms. Yet were our government or anyone else to demand us (us being: any
"Christian" group) to deny the name "Christian",
how many would consent to "just change their name?" Few; for
this would violate liberty. No man, when
faced with the options of death or denying he is a Christian,
has ever rightly reasoned thus: "I can say I am not a Christian here
and now, but still believe I am in my heart". None of the Reformers
in the Middle Ages ever reasoned thusly, and they were indeed addresses with
that very issue! (Read: The Great Controversy and/or Foxe's Book of
Martyrs). For, such declaration would be labeled
cowardice, and dishonesty - and rightly so! To deny oneself as a Christian
is to deny all that the term Christianity embodies and
represents. To deny Christianity is to deny the acceptance and
faith of Christ - even if you were to call yourself something else to
justify it in your mind. Is this not so? We cannot [and
should not] acknowledge the united demand of church and state as a sound
reason to abandon our namesake; for we are Seventh Day Adventists. We
are as much Seventh Day Adventists as we are Christians, for
the terms are equivalent, and to deny the name Seventh Day Adventist is
to deny the acceptance and faith of true Seventh-day Adventism.
It is NOT "simply a name"; it is what we are; it is what we
believe - even though the apostate demonination
no longer believes such. For us to
deny the name Seventh day Adventist would be for us to deny who and
what we are, no matter the reasoning. The "powers that be"
have thus made it illegal for us to be what we are - they have
demanded that we deny it "in name only", yet the name is the
very representation of it. What are we, if not Seventh Day Adventists? Liberty that
is extended only to the majority is not liberty at all. Liberty, by it's very nature, extends the same freedom to all, no
matter how few or many they may be composed of. And we, as Seventh Day
Adventists, as Christians, cannot surrender our liberty. WE ARE Christians,
WE ARE Protestants, and WE ARE Seventh Day Adventists. These
things can never change. Note: I
personally have NO affiliation with "The Creation 7th Day &
Adventist Church". I am however, a Seventh-day Adventist, who for
obvious reasons, is very interested in the "Adventist Trademark issue".
James
|