“Hidden” Protestant Origins?! SDA Claims Debunked

Well, hey there. Thank you for being here, especially if this is your first time with us, Adventist or otherwise. So, I have a question for you. What are the origins of Protestantism? That is the question of the night. What are the origins of Protestantism? So, someone sent us a video from the guys over at Amazing Discoveries that is titled The Hidden Origins of Protestantism. And when I saw it, I immediately knew it warranted discussing. These gentlemen are by no means formal representatives of the SDA church, but they do however put forth some very standard claims that are made

By lots of Adventists, and unfortunately, lots of people fall for it. So tonight we’re going to be talking a little bit about the Protestant relationship to the church universal in history as well as the preservation of the church. What actually is a reformation? What is the Protestant relationship to the church in history? That sort of stuff. We’re going to start by looking at some qualified sources on the subject uh before proceeding to hear what McKenzie and Matthew have to say. But before we get started, if you like what we’re doing here and

You want to support us by helping us fulfill our uh mission to equip as many Christians as possible to reach as many Seventh Day Adventists as possible, consider becoming a channel member. You’ll gain access to our growing library of membersonly content, including membersonly live streams. To do so, you can simply click the little join button down below this video or visit our channel homepage like you see on screen, and you’ll find the same one in multiple places. I always let people know you may not see the join button if you are not on a desktop computer. I do

Not know why YouTube does that, but that is something of their doing, not mine. I’m always astounded at the reach this platform has developed in such a small time between all of our platforms, YouTube, social media, and our website. We have reached millions, yes folks, millions of people and have hundreds of testimonies of individuals and families that through the efforts of this platform have come to know the true Christ and the actual way that they can be made right with him. It’s the generosity of our members as well as our partners through our website that make

This a reality. And I’m just so grateful for each and every one of you. Little by little, we’re making a big big impact. So, thank you, thank you, thank you. All right. So, the origins of Protestantism. I love this subject. First, I want to look at a statement from Martin Luther’s bondage of the will. For those that do not know, this was a written debate and a correspondence between Martin Luther and Desadarius Arasmus, both of which is uh not the revolutionary act that it is often portrayed as. Meaning when Luther nailed the 95 thesis to the door

Of Vittenberg, it was not this uh revolutionary act that it is often proposed as. It was simply the way in that day that people proposed subjects to debate. So Luther by no means understood that what he was doing was going to set off this massive spark like it did. But by divine providence, he got his wish, he got a debate, and the ball began rolling. So notice, depending on the translation that you use, the sections are titled a little bit differently. This is from Van’s 1823 translation, and it’s in section 8, which is titled absolute necessity of

The subject of free will or true piety. And Luther writes, quote, “It is not irreligious then, nor curious, nor superolous, but it is most of all useful and necessary to a Christian to know whether the will does anything or nothing in the matter of salvation.”

In the matter of salvation. Indeed, to tell the truth, this is the very hinge of our disputation. The very question at issue turns upon it. We are occupied in discussing what the free will does, what the free will allows, and what its proportion is to the grace of God. If we are ignorant of these things, we will know nothing at all about Christianity and will be worse than heathens. Ah, that’s an interesting phrase. If you know, you know. Let the man who does not understand this subject acknowledge that he is no Christian. Let the man who centures or despises it

Know that he is the worst enemy of Christians. For if I do not know what, how far, and how much I can of my own natural powers do and effect towards God, then it will be alike uncertain and unknown to me what, how far, and how much God can and does effect in me. Whereas God works all in all. Close quote. This is to say that the heart of the Protestant Reformation, the origins was monism over and against synergism. What do these terms mean for those that are unaware? Now, I know Roman Catholics are not the only Christian tradition that is synergistic, but our focus tonight is on

The western branch of the church because the reformation was a western move. Modernism is the belief that the Holy Spirit is the only agent that brings about the regeneration of a believer. Whereas synergism is the belief that there is a cooperation between the divine and the human in the process of regeneration. Hence why Luther says what he did in the quote we read and the title of his response is the bondage of the will. It was not the claim that man does not possess a will, but that the will of man is enslaved. And until God as the first cause frees

That will from bondage, man will continue to make choices in accordance with that bondage. This was the central hinge upon which in Luther’s mind the entire Reformation swung. So whether you agree with Luther or not, that’s not the point here. I’m simply presenting the historical data, the facts. So when we talk about the origins of Protestantism, monarchism is at the heart of that discussion. This was universal across the board in the Reformation. Didn’t matter if it was the German Reformation, the Swiss Reformation in the Canton regions, the uh English Reformation, the Italian

Reformation. And if you haven’t read bondage of the will, Protestant, Catholic, Adventist, or otherwise, I highly recommend it for the sake of better understanding the issues. But I also want to look at some statements from church historian Dr. Philip Schoff from his book, Principles of Protestantism, which provides us with some other insights into the origins of Protestantism. First, notice what Shaw writes. Schoff is wellresected across the board in the context of church history. Protestant, Catholic, even Adventist scholarship cites Shaw when they think

He helps their case. Quote, “In the first place, we contemplate the Reformation in its strictly historical condition, its Catholic union with the past. This is a vastly important point which thousands in our day appear to overlook entirely. they see in the 31st of October 8 uh 1517 when Martin Luther nailed the 95 thesis. It is true the birthday of the evangelical church and find her certificate of baptism in the 95 thesis of Luther, but at the same time cast a deep stain upon the legitimacy of this birth itself by separating it from all right relation to the time that went

Before. Before moving forward, I want to note that when Schoff uses the term Catholic, by the way, that is lowercase C, he means that in the universal sense, not the Roman Catholic sense. He continues, in this way, all interest is renounced in the spiritual wealth of the Middle Ages, which however belongs to us of right as fully at least it does to the church of Rome. And what is worse still, the lie is given practically to the Lord’s promise itself. Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world. Genuine Protestant Protestantism is no such sudden growth springing up like a

Mushroom of the night as the papist and certain narrow-minded ultraroestants would fain have us believe. Its roots reach back to the day of Pentecost. In all periods of the church, in connection with the gradual progress of Rish corruption, it has had its witness, though not always fully conscious of their own vocation. Close quote. So, Protestantism was a reform movement, not a restorationist one. And there’s a vast difference. We’re going to look at that momentarily. But now notice that even SDA historian George Knight recognizes such in his book Search for Identity.

Quote, “North North American Protestantism is the n of the 19th century was a child of the 16th century Reformation. Many Adventists are aware of that fact but have mistakenly concluded that their church is an heir of those branches of the reformation initiated by Martin Luther, John Calvin or or Olrich Zwingley. While it is true that Adventist concept of salvation by grace through faith comes through the mainline reformers, the theological orientation of Adventism really finds itself most at home with what church historians call the radical reformation or the Anabaptists.

Close quote. So when SDAs try and argue that they are the true Protestants, they are sorely mistaken. And I appreciate Dr. Knight’s forthright statement in his book. This is exactly correct. The SDA church is not a child of the Protestant Reformation. They are a sect that is more akin to the katabaptists, which is just another term for the Anabaptist. They are a restorationist group. So what is the difference between reformation and restoration? Schoffigan writes, quote, “To be true to its own idea, a reformation must hold its course midway or through the deep rather between two

Extremes in opposition on the one side to revolution or the radical and violent overthrow of an existing system. It must attach itself organically to what is already at hand and grow forth thus from the trunk of history in regular living union with its previous development. In opposition to simple restoration on the other side or a mere repetition of the old, it must produce from the womb of this the birth of something new. Close quote. So regarding the origins of Protestantism, the Reformation was a pruning of the tree. Think of Christianity like a tree. The

Reformation was a pruning of branches. It wasn’t the idea that the entire tree was diseased and a new one needed to be planted, but that certain branches on the tree were diseased and needed pruned off. the branches being representative of doctrinal accretions that were argued to not actually be apostolic in origin. However, these are not the roots of the tree trunk. They are branches. This is key. The substance and root of the Christian faith did not disappear and then need revived or restored. It became overshadowed due to diseased branches clouding things making it the core

Harder to see. And this is going to be important to remember when we get into listening to these gentlemen. So make a mental note of this analogy. But this is the origins of Protestantism in a nutshell. Okay? Modernism being at the core of that attached to the church in history but recognizing doctrinal accretions and oftentimes not entirely even abandoning those doctrines. You know the caricature is out there often times that Protestants don’t believe in the real presence in the Eucharist. That’s not true. Modern-day evangelicals don’t. But modern day evangelicals are not

Protestant in the strict sense. There’s a reformation of that understanding. Christ is still present. But then there’s other things tertiary to that that the Protestant reformers believed were not scriptural and were doctrinal accretions. But at the core, the belief is still the same. Christ is is substantively present. So, let’s listen in on these gentlemen and what they allege to be the hidden origins of Protestantism. Mother’s doctrine are trickling down to the daughters. Let’s say they all share the same doctrine. Let’s say that that’s the case. Well, who had it first? The

Daughters or the mother. The mother. So, like if they’re all the same, you can’t just say, “Oh, well, we also believe that.” You got it from the source and the source is the mother. And it kind of varies. like not all of them have purgatory, but they still have the soul immediately faces judgment by God at the time of death, which isn’t and that’s a very um important point which we’re going to touch on starting in a couple following episodes because this spills into something else that we’ve mentioned which is this 70 weeks and 2300 days and this this time frame

Because when we look in the Bible, judgment is an event. It’s not something that just when everyone dies, everyone goes through a judgment process and it’s just random as people die. No, it’s it’s a sequential event that takes place. And that’s that’s the same thing we believe about hellfire is this an event. It’s not a a constant uh being of something, right? So that’s a very important point and that’s going to play into future discussions. Sure does. So let’s So, I’m not sure what this has to do with the origins of Protestantism, let alone hidden ones. You probably noticed

The plug at the beginning of the clip to watch the full episode, which I did, and it’s literally just them going on all about the standard SDA claims about the nature of the soul. It had nothing to do with the origins of Protestantism or the origination of Protestant beliefs. But Matthew said that the classical Christian belief about the teaching of the soul and facing judgment coming immediately upon death ultimately comes from the Roman Catholic Church and not the Bible. Matthew, I have a challenge for you. Take this same standard and apply it to any other belief that you

Share in common with Roman Catholics, because there are many. How’s about Oh, I don’t know. Synergism. Both you and Roman Catholics are synergists. And since Roman Catholics believed that before your movement was around, that therefore must prove you got it from them, right? So now you guys and your movement are a daughter of Roman Catholicism, right? Because that’s a far more accurate example of your guys’ movement clinging to an incorrect doctrinal vestage of the Middle Ages. And that was an actual issue regarding the origins of Protestantism,

Which makes this video so ironic. The origins of Protestant Protestantism at its root goes back to the issue of synergism versus monarchism. And you guys are firmly on the Roman Catholic side of the Reformation on this, but you guys would not accept this level of argumentation and you would recognize that it’s guilt by association. So, let’s not use a rubber ruler to measure Protestants against. Protestants hold these beliefs because of scripture, including the nature of man’s soul. You might disagree with the ex Jesus used to arrive at said conclusion, but that’s a

Different argument than simply asserting you believe this because you inherited it from the Roman Catholic Church and it has no biblical support. The real reason they are so ardently opposed to this, by the way, is because if it’s true, then the investigative judgment in 1844 aren’t true, which nullifies the entire system. But then McKenzie chimed in and said, “Judgment is an event. It’s not something that when everyone dies, everyone goes through a judgment process. And this is why the semantic range of words have to be looked at and a word has to be

Examined based on its contextual usage. Because McKenzie, this is false. For starters, all Protestants, meaning actual classical by the book Protestants, not this loose modern definition where it’s like, oh, you’re not Roman Catholic, so therefore you’re Protestant. No, that’s not what makes you a Protestant. We define people by what they believe or what they actually are, not by what they aren’t. We don’t say a a car isn’t a cat. A car isn’t a dog. A car isn’t a tree. No, you define the car by what it is, not by what it’s not. All Protestant confessions of faith uphold and affirm a

Final judgment event where every human being that has ever existed will stand before the Almighty. You are conflating this with the other ways the Bible speaks of judgment outside of the final day of judgment. And then you think Protestants don’t affirm both. We do. Notice

This is the Westminster Confession of Faith. For example, we’re going to read the first uh paragraph. There’s three because it states it as clear and as forthright as can be stated along with the scriptural support the framers of the confession pointed to. Notice chapter 33 of the last judgment. Quote, “God hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father, in which day not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that hear or that have lived

Upon the earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil. Yeah, so far not looking too good for this claim. What about the Lutheran Augsburg confession quote also they teach that the consummation of the world or or yeah at the consummation of the world Christ will appear for judgment and will raise up all the dead. He will give to the godly and elect eternal life and everlasting joys but ungodly men and the devils he will condemn to be tormented

Without end. They condemn the Anabaptists who think that there will be an end of the punishments of condemned men and devils. They condemn also others who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions that before the resurrection of the dead, the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed. Again, same thing. All people will stand before the great judge of the universe on the day of judgment. And they include their pronouncement of denunciation on the annihilationism of the Anabaptists which ironically the SDAs are more akin

To which is rather ironic considering you’ll hear some adventists try and argue that Luther affirmed their view of the nature of the soul completely ignoring that this changed later on based on his further analysis of the biblical text. Luther had a visceral response initially to purgatory which initially influenced his position but it then changed and Augsburg correctly captures where Luther landed and presents what scripture actually teaches. So Lutheran also believe in a final day of judgment event. Anglican 39 articles article 4 titled of the resurrection of Christ.

Quote, “Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitth until he returned to judge all men at the last day. Same belief.” And that’s all three of the major branches of the reformation, the Protestant Reformation. And this is because this is fundamental orthodox Christian theology encapsulated in the apostles creed, which Protestants universally affirm. and uphold because it contains fundamental truths of

Scripture. It’s just like almost shocking that he says this. It’s like, dude, have you even studied like the basics of what you’re criticizing? Notice in part, this is the second stance of the creed. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to hell. The third day, he rose again from the dead. He ascended to heaven. and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From there he will come to judge the

Living and the dead. So I’m not sure why Adventists continue to say what McKenzie did, but I’ve been hearing this from basically the time I was born my whole life. It’s not true. Demonstrabably so. Judgment in scripture can be talking about the temporal context, which only happens once at the final day in time, but it can also be referring to the final status pronouncement of an individual’s fate being sealed, which is not a formal event in time. McKenzie has conflated this with the final day and made it sound like it’s an eitheror and not a both. hand.

Just one such example of this. Recently, we’ve been spending a lot of time here in the book of Hebrews, specifically chapter 9, and we’re back at it again. First, let’s read Hebrews 9:23 through 26, or rather 28, actually. And then look at one aspect of this doctrally packed paricopy. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rights, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into

Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own. For then he would have had to have suffered repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal

With sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. Thus, the reading of God’s holy word. So we always have to ask ourselves why the author is saying what they are saying when they are saying it. This is after he explains the function of the Levitical priests and the layout of the earthly tabernacle. He continues his compare and contrast between the lesser the Levitical priests and the greater the MKISDcian eternal priesthood of Christ. In that he says that it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment. which makes one

Wonder why is this being said and is the term judgment here referring referring to the final day of judgment. Notice what Albert Barnes says in his commentary on this. We usually uh I usually look at uh John Owen on here and you guys know why if you’ve been around for a while, but we’re going to switch it up today even though Barnes essentially notes the same thing that Owen does and they’re not alone in this. But commenting on the phrase, “And after this comes judgment,” he says, quote, “The apostle does not say how long after this will be, nor is

It possible for us to know.” Acts 1:7. Compare Matthew 24:36. We may suppose, however, that there will be two periods in which there will be an act of judgment passed on those who die. one immediately after death when they pass into the eternal world when their destiny will be made known to them. This seems to be necessarily implied in the supposition that they will continue to live and to be happy or miserable after death. This act of judgment may not be formal or public, but it will be such as to show them what must be the issues of the final day. And

As the result of that interview with God, they will be made happy or miserable until the final doom shall be pronounced. Two, the more public and formal act of judgment when the whole world will be assembled at the bar of Christ. Matthew 25. The decision of that day will not change or reverse the former. But the trial will be of such a nature as to bring out all the deeds done on earth. And the sentence which will be pronounced will be in view of the universe and will fix the everlasting doom. Then the body will have been raised. The affairs of the world will be

Wound up. The elect will be gathered in. And the state of retribution will commence to continue forever. The main thought of the apostle here may be that after death will commence a state of retribution which can never change. Hence there was a propriety that Christ should die but once in that future world he would not die to make atonement for there uh for there will all be fixed and final. If people therefore neglect to avail themselves of the benefits of the atonement here, the opportunity will be lost forever. In that changeless state which constitutes the eternal judgment,

No sacrifice will again be offered for sin. There will be no opportunity to embrace that savior who has rejected or who was rejected here on earth. Close quote. So Barnes highlights exactly what I said. There is a temporal sense of judgment, meaning an actual event in time that occurs one single time. But there’s also the fact that when a person dies, their status is finalized, which judgment can also be referring to. And once that’s locked in, there’s no going back and no doovers after that. You will then await the day of judgment where the actual pronouncement will be made.

You’re free to disagree with Barnes. That’s not my point. The point is that McKenzie was incorrect in his claim about Protestants. There may be some random Joe Schmo individuals out there somewhere that call themselves Protestant and believe what he said, but that’s just hasty generalization. It would be no different than if I pointed to random SDAs out there and tried to blanket Adventism proper based on those individuals who may not actually understand fully the system that they are a part of. as it pertains to him saying hell is an event and not a

Place. McKenzie, this is interesting because God tells us he’s going to throw the wicked into the lake of fire which burns forever and ever and those in that place will have no sleep day or night forever and ever. Maybe you can explain for us how people can be thrown into an event that takes place and the place not being somewhere the event occurs. The lake of fire isn’t an event. It is most likely or or is most certainly a place and individuals are put in there which the event then occurs. So this is again another both hand. There’s an event where people are thrown

Into the lake of fire but the lake of fire is a place not just an event. It’s like no matter how much twisting and Edward fudging of the text one does trying to make the the lake of fire an event and out of place, it doesn’t work. And even if you disagree with Protestants on this, the argument is over the text of scripture, not one side appealing to scripture and the other left out in the cold only able to cling to, you know, Roman Catholicism or tradition. Both scripture and tradition support this belief and it’s ancient and apostolic in its origin long before the

Middle Ages like the SDA church claims. And I’ve shown I don’t even know how many sources on this elsewhere. All in all, they were not only wrong here and this has nothing to do with the origins of Protestantism. Protestants don’t believe what we do about the nature of the soul or judgment because of Roman Catholicism. Believe it or not, Rome teaches a lot of biblical and correct doctrines. That doesn’t therefore make the teachings wrong because they’re wrong in other areas. That’s called the genetic fallacy or guilt by association fallacy. The

Issue is actually the Anabaptist mentality of Adventism which throws the baby out with the bathwater or should I say the baptismal water. If this doctrine of the mother carries in to the daughters Anglican teachings, okay, the Anglican church church teaches that the soul of the dead goes to either heaven or hell immediately after death. Exists, it believes is in the existence of a purification place called purgatory. Okay. Did they get that from the mother or did the Anglicans come up with that themselves? Got that from the mother. So the Anglicans are under the mother.

Let’s say the Baptists. The Baptists believe at the moment of death at the moment. So immediately the soul of the believer immediately is in the presence of God. Okay. Did they get that from the mother? Mhm. There’s no such thing as soul sleep. So they didn’t that’s not biblical. Lutheran generally believe at the time of death the soul immediately departs. They don’t believe in soul sleep. The Methodists Methodists believes a person goes to hell heaven or hell when they die. So this is again immediately after they die. The Episcopalians says the

Soul goes immediately while the body remains on earth to the resurrection. So there’s the other mother’s part that it’s going to be they’re going to immediately go and then come back in the body for the time of the event and then go back to heaven or hell when they’re done. So again, did the Episcopalians come up with that of the mother? So the mother, the Episcopalians are under the mother as well. Presbyterians immediately go to heaven or hell. Pentecostals immediately go to heaven or hell. Charismatics, it’s the same thing. Now, there is one in this group that’s

Different. The Church of Christ, maybe they got it right. Well, they don’t emphasize doctrine. They just preach social justice and inclusivity. H maybe that’s not the place to find our answers after all. Uh because they won’t even tell you to prepare for something because they’re not interested in knowing what to prepare for. So then you get to these silly SDAs which suggest that there’s this concept called soul sleep which is matches all the wording in the bible uh regarding the nature of what uh people who pass uh are currently doing which suggests that

The soul is in a dormant or unconscious state after death until the resurrection. Okay. They believe that at the second coming of Jesus Christ the righteous dead will be resurrected and taken to heaven. But that happens at the event, not immediately after death. While the unrighteous will remain dead until the end of the millennium, at which point will be the resurrected for the judgment. Okay, so this is future episode stuff. But fellas, the church of Christ isn’t Protestant. They’re a restorationist sect just like you guys. And your guys’s belief only matches the Bible on the

Subject of death in so much as you guys utilize word association fallacy and language that’s used to speak about the posture of the lifeless body to then say that has to prove the soul isn’t an animate thing. Meaning they point to where the word sleep is used to describe death not realizing this is strictly applying to the posture of the corpse. It’s not a statement about the ontological nature of a human being. I remember when this when somebody explained this to me, I’m like, “Holy smokes, wow.” They’re taking statements and making them ontological statements

When that’s not what any of these statements about the person sleeping are about. It’s not about the ontological nature of their being. But once again, they arrive at faulty conclusions because they begin with faulty premises. Anglicans, for example, do not derive their belief about the soul from Roman Catholicism. trying to say, well, look, they both believe it and one came before the other, so therefore that must mean they got it for Roman Catholicism. That is horrendous reasoning because Matthew, it could it could be the case that the Anglican

Church and robust theological and exoggetical arguments for the position that could be the reason why which you haven’t even sought to engage. I disagree with the Anglican Communion on the particular point of purgatory, for example. But I don’t run around claiming that because Rome also affirms a type of purgatory because yes, they’re not all identical. That therefore means Anglicans have no scriptural support for such a belief. But it’s easier to just run roughshod over information like these guys are doing and just make assertions than it is to actually dig in and seek to engage

What the theological arguments are. The point being they didn’t pro you know they didn’t prove Anglicans inherited this from Rome and that’s why they believe it. No, they they’ve stated reasons or why is because they think it’s biblical and then make theological arguments for such deal with their theological arguments or their ex Jesus. And the same is true of all the other denominations they mentioned. You’ll notice aside from the Methodists, they weren’t even citing actual confessions of faith, but their own deduced summation statements without the

Sources, which is telling because if you look at the confessions of the denominations mentioned, you’ll find that they all provide their scriptural support, their landmarks, their proof text, whatever you want to call it, and you’re free to disagree with it, but that proves the basic point that these denominations are pointing to scripture, not an inheritance from Rome. trying to say they just inherited it from Rome is a caricature of the truth. And it’s actually funny because they included Baptist in there, yet Baptist history literally claims to have never been

Attached to the Roman Catholic Church in any way, shape, or form. Notice Charles Spurgeon on this. Quote, “We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the Reformation. We were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born. We never came from the church of Rome, for we were never in it, but have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. Close quote. Now, I’m not a Baptist, and I obviously disagree with Spurgeon on this, but my point is, it’s very easy to just breeze over stuff like these gentlemen are

Doing, making a bunch of unfounded assertions, slap some cinematic and, you know, and ominous music, uh, background music on it, and then give the video a curious title and get a bunch of clicks. It’s a lot harder to actually get into the theological and historical mud and actually deal with the substance of the arguments and claims. I also find it very interesting that I get hordes of Adventists that criticize me and say, “I need to just focus on what I believe and not my differences with Adventism.” It’s like every week just inundated. Why don’t you just focus on what you

Believe? Why are you constantly talking about Adventists? Yet this sort of talk that these guys are having is common place in Adventism. Constantly focused on their pillar doctrines that make them different from everyone else and talking about how everyone else except them is wrong. Well, that’s what I’m doing. Explaining to Christians our differences with Adventism. It’s not just their pillar doctrines. It’s the whole world view. But Matthew also said the other part of Roman uh uh that the other part of Roman Catholicism, what he calls the mother.

He said that Protestants embrace and uh and it isn’t biblical the idea that the soul goes to heaven to then be reunited with the body on earth to then be taken back to heaven. Did you catch that? He said they believe you go to heaven and then you come back to earth at the resurrection and then go back to heaven. Again, a misunderstanding because of a worldview problem. I hear Adventists bring this up constantly that the classical Christian idea of the soul departing to be with the Lord to await the resurrection makes no sense because you would die, go to heaven, be

Brought back to earth, then be taken back to heaven. And this is only a convoluted mess when you don’t actually understand that this argument is an external one. This is an external critique from Adventists, not an internal critique. They are taking a belief external to their own system and then trying to plug it into their system to say, “See, it doesn’t work. It makes no sense.” Right? Not in your system, but your system is badly flawed and broken. But in the Christian framework, that’s not what happens. Nor is that what Episcopalians or Roman Catholics

Believe. This was another statement written up by them, not actually cited from a primary source. This is supposed to be about Protestantism based on their video title. Well, the classical Protestant view says that when a person dies who is united to Christ, their body remains on earth and they are added unto the church in heaven where they long for and await the resurrection of their body. This is because glorification hasn’t been applied until then. The full chain of salvation includes the final step which is glorification that happens at the resurrection. When Christ

Returns, the souls of the righteous will be reunited with their glorified resurrected body and heaven and earth will unite in the consummation state. Jesus said the righteous will inherit the earth. The meek will inherit the earth. They aren’t then resurrected to then be whisked off back to heaven because heaven will conjoin with the earth such that there will be perfect unity and harmony for eternity. So it’s only convoluted when you present it the way he did by omitting certain aspects like glorification as well as claiming you go to heaven, come back to earth, then go back to

Heaven away from the earth. Part of the promise of the benefits of Christ that he procured for his people is the resurrection and glorification of the body. the same thing that happened to the risen Christ. It’s not far-fetched to understand that the disembodied righteous long for and await for the actual application of that promise that was promised to them. But what the biblical uh the biblical support for this belief, one example of such is found in Hebrews 12. We’ve talked about this before. Hebrews 12:18- 24. For you’ve not what you’ve not come to

What may be touched a blazing fire and darkness and gloom in a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further message be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that was given. If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned. Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” But you’ve come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in

Heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speak that speaks better than the blood uh the a better word than the blood of Abel. Thus, the reading of God’s holy word. So, why is the author saying this? what’s going on at this part of the book. He continues his compare and contrast that he’s been doing throughout the whole book here. He compares and contrasts the better mountain that Christians have access to over and against Mount Si. So, you have to know

The Old Testament here to know what he’s referring to. Remember in Exodus, a cloud of smoke comes down, shrouding Mount Si in darkness, and the Israelites are terrified. God then tells them if anyone including an animal touches the mountain they’ll die. It was a fearful dreadful scene and only Moses could approach the mountain and even he was fearful to do so. You’ll remember Israel asked can Moses be the mediator or terrified. But in contrast to this, the new covenant believer has a better mountain, the heavenly mount Zion, which Sinai pointed to. It was a picture of this.

But at that point, the bridge had not been gapped. The wrath of God toward his people was not uh essentially atoned for. Propitiation had not yet occurred. But this city contains the angels, the assembly of the firstborn, and the spirits of the righteous made perfect. That is the church in heaven. And you can’t say this isn’t a present reality because the author is making a present application to the original hearers of the sermon telling them that they presently right now unlike Israel in the old who couldn’t approach the mountain. The new believer can approach this

Mountain which makes perfect sense because he spent three chapters prior to this explaining how it’s through the blood of Jesus that the way has been open to all believers. Hebrews 10:19-21. The point being, the spirits of the righteous made perfect is not their characters remembered in the mind of God or the individual’s breath that return to God, which are the two things the SDA church claims a person’s spirit are. These spirits are conscious amongst the angels worshiping God. The same picture that’s shown in Revelation, which is supposed to be the SDA church’s book

That they’ve mastered. So, we’re still waiting to hear anything about the alleged hidden origins of Protestantism. Using the genetic fallacy to say Roman Catholics also believe this, therefore you got it from them is not only facious but easily falsifiable. Keep in mind that we’re saying that the thousand-year period doesn’t happen here on Earth where most of the world is going to tell you that it’s happening here on Earth. We say it’s happening in heaven. And during that time, Satan, it says he’s sitting here for a thousand years. And the earth is a desolate

Wasteland with no one to to trick. And that millennium is taking place after the second coming. After the second coming. So this isn’t something that you know we get raptured up and then a thousand years. And no. So what we believe is is biblical is the second coming happens. Christ comes. The dead in Christ rise first it says and then we are taken up in the air and we go to heaven. And in that case there is kind of a rapture at that moment because it is people leaving but it’s not secret but it’s not secret extremely loud rapture as the trumpets the

Earthquakes everything is just shaking the whole world. Yeah. And as people are being translated the people of the world are being destroyed. There’s nobody living uh at the end of this whole catastrophe except for Satan who sits here for a thousand years and you either are translated up or raised with the the dead in Christ or you’re going down to sleep for the next thousand years. Uh but all these things we can touch on on later, but the the doctrine that the millennium happens here on earth, there’s the Jews are thinking that’s going to happen. The

Pentecostals, the evangelicals, they’re all thinking that’s going to happen. So when Satan, as we’ve advocated, comes pretending to be Jesus. And it’s not this seven-year period dispensation where the Antichrist shows up. No, people are going to think this guy is Jesus Christ. And then at that point, he’s going to say, “We’ve started the millennium here on Earth.” And because most of the world already think that’s going to happen, people are going to be ready for that decision. No, the majority of Christians don’t believe the millennium is a 10,000-year

Period here on Earth. Only premillennialists believe this. The majority of Christians recognize the thousand years is symbolically representative of the period of Christ’s rule and reign through to the second coming. From the ascension to the second coming, that’s already underway, my friends. He’s on his throne while all his enemies are being subdued. Whether you agree with this or not, the point is the majority of people do not believe in the literal 10,00 years being a literal 10,000-year period that’s going to happen sometime in the future. But for those that don’t

Know, this is why early Millerites like Charles Fitch were preaching damnation on everyone else of the day who rejected premillennialism and falsely claimed they were lost and didn’t actually believe in the literal return of Christ. That’s where that stemmed from. When you hear SDAs make this silly claim, we we were, you know, rejected in the 19th century because we believed in the literal return of Christ. No, you were rejected and kicked out of churches for being a bunch of fanatics that bought into date setting and you were trying to spread date setting. Christians have

Always believed in the literal return of Christ. Again, this is Apostles Creed level Christianity. The SDA movement inherited this mindset and premillennialism is one of the mutually supportive clusters that as we’ve seen before, Herbert Douglas tells us is necessary for Adventism to work and remain intact. Furthermore, how does the rapture have anything to do with the hidden origins of Protestantism? This is why I see videos like this, I’m like, man, either this is true clickbait. You know, Adventists will tell me your videos are clickbait. Well,

No, because clickbait is when you click on something and it’s not at all what’s what’s actually being advertised. This has nothing to do with the origins of Protestantism. Gentlemen, the rapture is not Protestant. That is a 19th and 20th century doctrinal novelty primarily found amongst Western theologians of the evangelical stripe. What this does show, however, is that the term Protestant has lost all of its actual meaning. And now anything that’s not Roman Catholic is just considered Protestant by default. No. And I’m glad more classical Protestants are starting to

Get vocal about this and call out the abuses. But now he mentioned the millennial reign being in heaven for a thousand years. Now, like I said, I’m not a premillennialist, so I don’t agree with the fundamental premise regarding what the millennial reign is, but I know many who consume our content are. And you’re probably thinking, “What in the world?” Yes, the SDA church teaches that the millennial reign won’t happen on earth for a thousand years, but will happen in heaven. Not just this, but it’s a second phase of judgment that will begin after the pre-advent first

Phase of judgment, which is the investigative judgment. But we heard the claim to support this idea of a heavenly millennium with the earth the the support for this being the earth being desolate and that no one will be living during this event. So this is insight for you Christian into how the SDA mind if you don’t believe what they do. You’ll be deceived. If you don’t believe like they do, you’re leaving yourself susceptible to be deceived. Satan’s going to masquerade as Jesus and you’ll fall for it because you might be one of uh you know holding

This belief that the millennium will happen for a thousand years on earth. No concept at all of Jesus actually being a savior that can keep people that those who are sealed with the Holy Spirit won’t be left to be deceived regardless of your view of the millennium which doesn’t even have it’s not doesn’t even give a full chapter of scripture. You’ve got like seven verses and the word millennium is not even used. It just says the thousand years. But yeah, if you don’t believe exactly like they do that the millennium is going to be a thousand years in heaven,

You’re going to be left susceptible to this coming false messiah. Now, the single greatest problem for their position on this, in my opinion, is that when Jesus returns at the second coming, he’s casting death and Hades into the lake of fire. He’s not whisking people off to heaven for a thousand years for a millennial reign judgment to then return a third time to resurrect the wicked and annihilate them. Notice 1 Corinthians 15 20 through 22-26 Paul says, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive, but each in his own order, Christ the

First fruits. Then it is coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end. Then comes the end when he delivers the kingdom of God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until all until he’s put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. Thus the reading of God’s holy word. So just like Hebrews teaches, Jesus is presently ruling and reigning as a priest king over all of his creation, as a reigning conqueror over sin and death. He did what the first Adam failed to do.

And now he is continuing to do what the first Adam failed to do and fulfill the dominion mandate perfectly. God told Adam, subdue the earth. Adam failed in that because when Adam fell, he failed to do all of the commands that God told him to do perfectly. Well, Jesus didn’t as the second Adam. So, he will rule and reign until all of his enemies are made his foottool. It is at that point he will then return. And it’s why he hasn’t returned yet. His enemies are still being crushed under his feet. Then comes what? The end. And the final enemy to be

Defeated is death. Well, Revelation tells us what happens to this enemy and when it’s entirely eliminated. The exact chapter that they’re referencing when talking about the millennium. Revelation 20 11-15. Notice then I saw a great white throne and him who seat who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead great and small standing before the throne and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books

According to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it. Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name is not found in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Thus the reading of God’s holy word. Ah so after all of Jesus’s enemies are made his foottool, he will return and the great day of judgment will occur. As a part of that

Judgment, the contents of Hades along with death will be cast into the lake of fire. Hades is the equivalent of a jail cell that the wicked who perish go to until the day of judgment for their final sentencing to then be thrown into hell which is the lake of fire. Hades is not hell. No one’s in hell right now. And very clearly death is cast into the lake of fire. And this is the second death that showcases there is a difference between the physical death of the body which will be eliminated and the second death in the lake of fire which evidences words can mean different

Things based on their contextual usage. But the final enemy which is death along with the wicked are cast into the lake of fire when Jesus returns at the second coming to execute judgment. perfectly consistent with Jesus’s own teaching and words in Matthew 13:24-48 where he says that when he returns, it isn’t to take the righteous people away to somewhere else. It’s to throw the wicked out of his kingdom and to receive the harvest of his laborers. So, do you get the chronology on this? Christ is ruling and reigning presently. all his enemies being made a foottool.

His enemies are not just people. Death is an enemy and death isn’t a a a person. And as all his enemies are being subdued and he is ruling and reigning conquering over all of his enemies, he is left in the parable that he gives in Matthew 13. and his laborers, which is his followers, his people, he expects to come back and to receive the the the fruit of your labors. But those who are not his laborers, he says he’s going to come and throw them out of his kingdom. But his laborers are the ones who are going to inherit the earth. So he returns, and when he

Returns, the great day of judgment happens. All people stand before him. The laborers cast their crowns at his feet. The fruits of their labor, they cast it at his feet. The wicked are condemned and they’ve been waiting in Hades if they’ve died. And they along with that final enemy, death. That’s what the contents of Hades are, is the wicked. They’re cast out into the lake of fire and the righteous remain with him inheriting the earth. So, I agree, Mackenzie. There’s no secret rapture, but you guys are just as wrong. When when Jesus returns, it’s not to

Take people away for a thousand years, to then come back a third time to resurrect the wicked and judge them, to then annihilate them. And Revelation 20 does not say this. Death being abolished at the second coming does not work in their system, despite scripture plainly teaching such. In their model, Jesus will return. The wicked will die by the brightness of his coming. Adventists are then taken to heaven. Then they all return a thousand years later, and the wicked are resurrected to be judged and annihilated, which would be death. Despite scripture saying death is no

More at the second coming, because it will be cast into the lake of fire. You can’t have wicked people being resurrected to then be killed when death has been abolished by that point. So, what they claim is happening in Revelation 27-10 regarding Satan being bound isn’t correct either. Another topic for another day. Though, not too long ago, I did discuss this with Dr. Josh Howard for those that are interested. The link for that will be in the description box. But what’s actually fascinating about the subject of the second coming when it comes to Adventism is what Ellen White

Said regarding the second coming. notice is from manuscript releases volume 19 page 40. Quote, in the days of the early Christians, Christ came the second time. His first advent was at Bethlehem. He came as an infant. His second advent was at the aisle of Patmos when he revealed himself in glory to John the Revelator who fell at his feet as dead when he saw him. Close quote.

Whoops. The inspired pen strikes again. So Jesus didn’t just appear to John on Patmos. That was the second advent in contrast to the first being the incarnation. Now, of course, the SDA defense is no, no, no. She wasn’t referring to that second coming, right? The other second coming. Oh man. And she actually contradicted herself here because Patmos would have been the third coming based on other statements she made because in the desire of ages in the story of redemption, she claimed that John 20 allegedly supports the idea that he secretly ascended to heaven after the

Resurrection because he had to hear from the father’s lips that his sacrifice had been accepted and that he could receive worship. Then he returned to the earth for 40 days before once again ascending back to heaven. Notice this is allegedly what happened immediately after the resurrection and Mary mistakes Jesus for the gardener. The parallel of this is in her book the story of redemption on page 235. But this is desire of ages page 790. Quote Jesus refused to receive the homage of his people until he had the assur the assurance that his sacrifice was

Accepted by the father. He ascended to the heavenly courts and from God himself heard the assurance that his atonement for the sins of men had been ample that through his blood all might gain eternal life. The father ratified the covenant made with Christ that he would receive repentant and obedient men and would love them even even as he loves his son. So Christ was to complete his work and fulfill his pledge to make a man more precious than fine gold, even a man than the golden wedge of oper. All power in heaven and on earth was given to the prince of life and he returned to his

Followers in a world of sin that he might impart to them uh of his power and glory. Close quote. So the second coming would have been after this first ascension and then he returned and then he ascended a second time for the disciples to see and then he returned again on Patmos with John and then is returning again to take Adventist to heaven for a thousand years supposedly. Yeah. Okay. Despite scripture being clear, Jesus entered in one time and sat down there to remain until all his enemies are made his foottool. It’s like the author of Hebrews goes to great lengths to explain

This in contrast to the Levites who would enter into God’s presence, leave, and then re-enter the following year repeat. And unlike them, Jesus only entered once. And unlike them who were always standing, he sat down. What’s honestly sad about all this is that the SDA church thinks they’re preparing people for the return of Christ. We’ve even heard these gentlemen alluding to it. You know, there’s undertones here of and I I love asking Adventists why this. If you’re an Adventist, comment down below. Why do I need to be an Adventist? Why will being

An Adventist prepare me for the second coming? You know, you’ll get Adventists that are like, “No, no, no. We’re Christians just like you, brother. Oh, so I don’t need to become an Adventist. Thank you.” Well, no. you you and then they’re they’re stuck in a catch 22. Why do I need to become an Adventist? Why does being an Adventist now prepare me for the return of Christ? It doesn’t. It doesn’t. But what’s sad is the SDA church thinks they’re preparing people for such and warning people about deception when Adventism is a deception. It’s the thing it claims to be warning

Others about. They think part of their duty is to warn people about a coming deception of a false messiah when the Jesus they preach and believe in is a false Christ. That’s not real. All in all, I’m still waiting to hear how anything they’ve said re reveals hidden origins of Protestantism. What this video really should have entitled is against modern dispensationalism or some variant of that. and he will rally the rest of the people and say, “We got a clean house.” Yeah. And that’s where this this last step in Revelation 13 starts to take place.

And when you think about it that the two pillars that the mother gets the whole world under, it’s not just Christian churches because as we said, Buddhism, Hinduism, uh Taoism, all of these other beliefs that are like these Eastern religions, uh all have immortality of the soul. They may not have the Sunday sacredness, but guess what? They do have worship of the sun. So like it’s sun worship even even if it’s not going to church on Sunday at the core is the serpent the sun uh the the uh immortality this from Ezekiel the biggest thing is and the biggest abomination was they

Were facing the sun. Yeah. And whether you’re facing that by worshiping on its day, basically sanctifying its day or by actually in a pagan sense facing the sun and actually worshiping the sun. Yeah, it’s the same thing. It’s the same system of worship. And so these really are objectively like these two pillars. Somehow the mother has tricked the Protestant world into thinking they’re different in all these ways. And they can be, but where they matter most, they are the exact same. Just like when we looked at that Project 2025 document, they were against each

Other on all these things, but where it mattered most, rebuilding the third temple, getting support for Israel, they were the exact same. And so, we got to see through what looks like a myriad of all of these different denominations and just cut down to the core. And what you’ll find at the base of it is this sun worship system and at the end of it, immortality of the soul. But oh brother, the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness are not two pillars that unite anyone again. So because varying groups hold the similar beliefs in the general,

Not the specifics that proves those beliefs are pillars that unite all of these groups together. It’s like how silly. It’s just such abysmal reasoning. It’s like this is just reason five million why I could never be a Seventh Day Adventist again. You have to engage in such I’ll just say it. It’s just like room temperature IQ level reasoning. It it’s just so bad. This is just another argument based on the genetic fallacy, a form of guilt by association. So, because there are Buddhists and Muslims and other Eastern religions out there that believe something that’s only

Superficially believed by Christians, that’s supposed to support this idea that these two things are a pillar of Roman Catholicism that’s being used to unite the world against Adventists and prepare people to be deceived in the It’s just like, oh my goodness, man. And since this isn’t coming from the Bible, where could this possibly be coming from? Oh, right. Ellen White said it, so it must be true. We need to read a few pages here. So bear with me. But Christian, this is where this is coming from because it’s not coming from any primary source documentation. It’s

Not coming from the Roman Catholic Church itself because these two things are not pillars in Roman Catholicism. But notice what she writes. Quote, “The iniquity and spiritual darkness that prevailed under the supremacy of Rome were the inevitable result of her suppression of the scriptures. But where is it to be found the cause of the widespread infidelity, the rejection of the law of God, and the consequent corruption under the full blaze of gospel light in an age of religious freedom. Now that Satan can no longer keep the world under his control by withholding

The scriptures, he resorts to other means to accomplish the same object. To destroy faith in the Bible serves his purpose as well as to destroy the Bible itself. By introducing the belief that God’s law is not binding, he has effectually led men to transgress as if they were wholly ignorant of its precepts. And now, as in former ages, he has worked through the church to further his designs. So, her claim is that Satan through the Roman Catholic Church introduced the idea that God’s law is not binding. She continues, “The religious organizations

Of the day have refused to listen to unpopular truths plainly brought to view in the scriptures, and in combating them, they’ve adopted interpretations and taken positions which have sewn broadcast the seeds of skepticism. Clinging to the papal error of natural immortality and man’s consciousness in death, they have rejected the only defense against the delusions of spiritualism. The doctrine of eternal torment has led many to disbelieve the Bible. And as the claims of the fourth commandment are urged upon the people, it’s found that the observance of the seventh day

Sabbath is enjoined. And as the only way to free themselves from a duty which they are unwilling to perform, many popular teachers declare that the law of God is no longer binding. Thus, they cast away the law and the Sabbath together. Ah, so the classical Christian teaching on the soul is allegedly injected into the world of Christianity by way of Roman Catholicism. And rejecting such a belief is the only defense against the deceptions of spiritualism. Supposedly, she continues, “As the work of Sabbath reform extends, this rejection of the divine law to avoid the claims of the

Fourth commandment will become well nigh universal. The teachings of religious leaders have opened the door to infidelity to spiritualism and to contempt for God’s holy law, and upon these leaders rest a fearful responsibility for the iniquity that exists in the Christian world.” Yet this very class put forth the claim that the fast-spreading corruption is largely attributable to the desecration of the so-called Christian Sabbath and that the enforcement of Sunday observance would greatly improve the morals of society. This claim is especially urged in

America where the doctrine of the true Sabbath has been most widely preached. Oh man, so the Protestant side’s going to be especially headed up by the Presbyterians. You know, those Christian sabotarian Protestants that don’t actually understand the Bible or have any biblical basis for their claims, but are actually stooges of Satan and don’t actually know what they believe and that they’re advocating for lawlessness, aka me and my local church and my pastors. Those of you that go to church with me and watch this channel, yeah, this is us. She continues, “Here, the

Temperance work, one of the most prominent and important of moral reforms, is often combined with the Sunday movement, and the advocates of the latter represent themselves as laboring to promote the highest interest of society, and those who refuse to unite with them are denounced as the enemies of temperance and reform. But the fact that a movement to establish error is connected with a work which is in and of itself good is not an argument in favor of the error. We may distin we may disguise poison by mingling it with wholesome food but we do not change its nature.

On the contrary it is rendered more dangerous as it is more likely to be taken unawares. It is one of Satan’s devices to combine with falsehood just enough truth to give it plausibility. The leaders of the Sunday movement may advocate reforms which the people need principles which are in harmony with the Bible. Yet while there is with these a requirement which is contrary to God’s law, his servants cannot unite with them, nothing can justify them in setting aside the commandments of God for the precepts of men. Through the two great errors, the

Immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome. The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the Gulf to grasp the hand of spiritualism. They will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power and under the influence of this three-fold union. This country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of consciousness. Close quote. So this is where Matthew is

Getting this from. not the Bible, not even Roman cath, you know, Roman Catholic sources themselves because Rome doesn’t teach that these two doctrines are pillars in their theology in any way, shape, or form. You know, when I saw this video, I’ve obviously known about this quote before this. When I saw this video and I’m like, “Oh gosh, this silly great controversy claim again.” I reached out to Joe Heshmire. He’s a Roman Catholic apologist. I said, “Joe, is there any source that you can point me to anywhere that you were aware of? any Roman Catholic source where anything

Like this is said that the the idea of the na the immortality of the soul which they don’t correctly understand by the way which is why I typically use the term the classical uh Christian understanding because they’ve butchered what Christians mean by the term immortality of the soul but nevertheless I asked him is there any source you can point me to he said not a single one like was she pointing to somewhere and then abusing this like she did with number of other things nope Because the Bible doesn’t say this and Roman Catholics don’t teach this. Then

We got the silly notion of worship on Sunday. A worship of the sun if you go to church on Sunday. Like fellas, for one, Christians do have worship of the sun. S O N something the SDA organization does not have because they have a false god and they’re not part of the body of Christ. And there’s only one body of Christ, by the way, not two. But that’s obviously not what he’s trying to say. This tired claim that Christians because they worship on the first day that means we worship the su n it’s day. This is the amazing discoveries way folks. They may be some of the most

Ill-informed individuals that pump this stuff out with Adventist just lapping it up. Which is ironic because many of them make the charge about me that I’m the one that misrepresents Adventism. Yeah. But according to this standard, Adventists have worship of Saturn. You guys have sanctified its day. So great job, gentlemen. It’s like oftentimes Adventists will try and claim Sabbath means Saturday or seventh day, but no, it doesn’t. So you guys are stuck with sanctifying Saturn. Congratulations. Going to church on the first day has nothing to do with the summ. And this

Pathetic claim only works in English. This is the same problem the King James only has run into for a number of their arguments. Their arguments are dependent upon the English language and they don’t transcend beyond that. But then he said where it matters most they are the same. Talking about Protestants and Roman Catholics. Again Matthew where are you getting this from? Aside from Ellen White, who up and deemed that the the the what you believe about the nature of the soul, that’s what matters most? No. Christologology, what one believes about the person and work of Christ is

Foundational Christian theology, which also necessarily entails the gospel. It’s not to say that other doctrines aren’t important, but you can believe, folks, what Adventists teach about the nature of the soul and still end up in hell. That does not save you. You can be wrong on that view and understanding and still be in right relationship and friendship with God. Knowing the true Christ saves you. It’s like in Adventism, it’s it’s treated for those that don’t know. It’s treated as though doctrine will save you. If you believe all the right things, aka the Adventist system, and

You put it to use and you really believe it, then you’ll be prepared for the second coming and you’ll make it. No, my friend. I’m here to tell you, you can believe the Adventist system down to your bones. It’s not going to save you. Only Jesus, the real Jesus, will save you. And your faith being placed in the true Christ and his perfect work. You can have genuine faith in the wrong Christ. Your faith is only as good as the one you place it in. Nowhere does scripture say that what one believes about the nature of the soul is the most important doctrine. Adventists

Have arbitrarily stated this because their prophetist did and they think that what she wrote is coming from God himself. But scripture does not say this. And on top of that, the sort of defenses given to try and support this are abysmal. Claims like Christians believe the the lie of Satan in the garden. Uh no, this is more SDA twisting of scripture to make it say something it doesn’t. Satan didn’t say if you eat from the fruit, you’ll have an immortal soul. He said they wouldn’t die if they ate. And they did die. They died spiritually, which is why all

Of Adam’s parogeny are now born dead in sins and trespasses and have to be born again. Colossians 2, Ephesians 2, etc. So, they can’t even represent the text correctly. Yet, that’s one of the central arguments that you’ll hear from Adventists to try and say that what Christians believe on this topic is a life ordeath matter. If you believe what Protestants do about the nature of the soul, you’ll supposedly be duped by Satan in the end because you’ll be susceptible to spiritualism and the false Messiah’s appearance and follow after a false Jesus. Yeah, this coming from the

Movement that follows their own false Jesus. But then Matthew said, if you cut to the core of most denominations, the immortality of the soul is at the base of it. What? Ma Matthew, this has no this has no bearing on fundamental Protestant teaching, my man. And anyone that says this shows they don’t even understand what they’re criticizing. You have zero business criticizing Protestantism until you’ve done your homework. Blows my mind. Again, I get blown up constantly from Adventists. You’re spreading misinformation. You’re spreading disinformation. You know

Nothing about what we believe. Yet you see none of them, at least that I’ve seen, maybe they’re out there somewhere, criticizing their own massive pe the, you know, massive platforms on their own side, amazing facts, amazing discoveries who are just constantly pumping out misrepresentations and when they site sources don’t even know where they’re citing from. It’s like if I had a nickel for every time I’ve seen them quote the Catholic mirror, thinking that somehow proves their view about the Sabbath being changed. It’s just like, oh my goodness,

Man. Give me a break. At the core of Protestantism is the law gospel distinction, monergism, the trinity, the five solas, the gospel. And by gospel, I mean the person, christologology, and the work of Christ, not the state of the dead. You can believe in conditionalism and annihilationism and not have any issues with the affforementioned core Protestant teachings. It is Adventists that have hyped themselves up on this particular doctrine because it’s one of their pillar doctrines and because their prophet has said all sorts of erroneous stuff about it trying to make it seem

Like what Christians teach is dangerous. My the irony as it unifies almost almost all of Christianity and paganism. Can you believe that the entire Christian world and almost all world views fall under the sun worship and and immortality of the soul, but there’s only three denominations on planet earth that don’t. Mhm. So like if people are like looking for the the remnant definition, those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus and have these two pieces, these pillars, knowing that well it can’t be the day of the sun and

It can’t be unconditional mortality of the soul. There’s only three groups. You don’t actually have to look that that far. And then as we look at these three groups, we can distinguish which one is actually the one that we should be following because it has all the characteristics. Exactly. And so when you’re looking at the characteristics, it’s really important to get all of them because it’s like you have this checklist and you have to put a check next to each one. If each item doesn’t hit the checklist, it can’t qualify. It could hit six of the 10 or seven or eight or

Nine of the 10. If it doesn’t hit all 10, it doesn’t qualify. And so when you look at the last three, you’ve got 7th Day Adventist, you got the Church of God, Seventh Day, which oddly enough was a Millerite movement. So it’s basically Seventh Day Adventism, but they didn’t accept Ellen White’s prophetic writings. And then you had the Seventh Day Baptist, but they’re missing when it says they keep the commandments of God. So they have the seventh day. They obviously teach commandments, but this the testimony of Jesus, which is the spirit of prophecy, understanding the 70

Weeks and the 2,300 days and all of the prophetic elements, who the first and second beast of Revelation 13 are. All of these are important in knowing what our job is supposed to be, which is preach the three angels messages. But if you’re not preaching prophecy, then you actually don’t even qualify to be God’s remnant church. You have to have these attributes in order to be known as that group. Yeah, cuz when we look at Revelation 7, Revelation 14, and then uh 6 to 12 is the three angels messages and it says, “Here’s the patience of the saints. Here

Are those that keep the commands of God and have the faith of Jesus.” And it’s these people who are giving these three messages and they have these criteria. So, it has to have all the criteria in there. It has to have this these three messages that they’re talking about. And there’s only one of these groups that is talking about that. And the third angel’s message is to warn people of the mark of the beast. And so like there’s all these people that are like, “Oh, don’t bother speculating. People are saying it’s all sorts of different things.” But it’s actually a

Requirement of God’s remnant church to give the warning. How are you supposed to give the warning if your church doesn’t need to be giving to the world? Yes, it says warn the world of the mark of the beast so they don’t have to receive of the plagues and the judgments that the beast will receive. And but you also can’t just take that one prophecy and be like, “Well, that’s the only prophecy we need to understand.” There’s a whole bunch of prophecies we need to understand. And they need to be in harmony with the Bible. They can’t like go outside. Like

They’re not talking about computer chips. It’s not talking about Elon Musk’s neural link. Like this is not what the mark of the beast is about. And so when we look at if we’ve only got three denominations left, one of them’s missing prophecy. And you can’t teach the mark of the beast if you don’t even talk prophecy. Only three denominations on the planet that don’t embrace sun worship. Again, more ignorance on full display. Matthew, either you guys are dishonest or ignorant. If you think that there’s only three Saturn worshiping groups out there, you

Clearly haven’t done your research. I mean, you didn’t mention the Assemblies of Yahweh, the Church of God at Jerusalem Acres, True Jesus Church, countless other sects out there that all claim to uphold the seventh day Sabbath. But it wouldn’t matter ultimately because, as we saw, that’s not what matters here. Did you catch that, folks? I’ve brought this up numerous times in the past. I’ve had numerous Adventists try and argue with me about well Sabbathke keeping. No, that’s not enough in your guys’s claim. You have to have the SDA church’s cursed

False gospel and their false prophecy to accomp to accompany all of that. Basically, you have to have the great controversy theme or you’re out. You aren’t part of the supposed remnant. He said, “If someone’s looking for the remnant of God that keep his commandments and have the testimony of Jesus, you have to go with the SDAs.” except they don’t keep the commandments. If you’re a Christian, just go along with this premise for the sake of the argument. What they really mean is that we have Ellen White and we go to church on Saturday because they’re so tunnel

Visioned in on the fourth commandment, which they also don’t keep, that they fail to realize they don’t keep the first, second, and third commandments either. If you have a false god, you violate the first four commandments outright. And to keep the fourth commandment, you have to have the correct gospel. Adventism is just like Israel wandering in the wilderness. They observe a day thinking their piety does something. I’m a commandment keeper cuz I go to church on Saturday. Yeah. Okay. Meanwhile, they haven’t actually entered in by faith to the true substance of the

Sabbath because they don’t believe the actual correct gospel. They believe their own novel message that they call the gospel. Hebrews 4 recounts how Israel didn’t believe the gospel when it was preached to them. They failed to enter into the promised land because of that. Yet, they were observing the seventh day. And that wasn’t good enough because at the end of the day, no pun intended, the day is a memorial. It’s not the substance. I’ve talked about this elsewhere. The true promised land is what Abraham looked forward to. That city on a hill,

Mount Zion, like we looked at earlier, the heavenly eternal state. The wilderness pictures life. The bondage in Egypt, is a picture of bondage and slavery to sin. When we believe the gospel, we enter into Christ who is leading a better Exodus as a better Moses and a better Joshua into that true promised land. He’s already entered into there ahead of us. This is what Hebrews 4 is getting at. And he’s now leading his people through the wilderness of life to that final consummation state. So the Adventist church doesn’t even keep the fourth commandment either,

Which means based on their own standard, they can’t be the remnant of Revelation either. So what is the remnant of Revelation 12:17? For starters, this text had application prior to the 19th century. This is another issue for the SDA interpretation. For 1900 years, the remnant was some other group, but then randomly in the 19th century, it now becomes the SDAs. Yeah. Okay. Notice what Ellen White said in regards to this. It’s from Signs of the Times, January 25th, 1910. Quote, “In this day, God has called his church,” talking about 7th Day Adventism.

As he called ancient Israel to stand as a light in the earth. By the mighty cleaver of truth, the messages of the first, second, and third angels, he has separated a people from the churches and from the world to bring them into a sacred nearness to himself. He has made them the depositories of his law and has committed to them the great truths of prophecy for this time. Like the holy oracles committed to ancient Israel, these are a sacred trust to be communicated to the world. close quote. And this is what these guys are getting at here. Like national Israel in

The Old Testament was a light to the world as God’s people with a unique message. So to the SDA church is the same thing in the end times. They have a unique special present truth gospel that only they have. And they’ve supposedly been made the depositories of God’s law along with given special insights into prophecy that no one else has. And it’s these special truths that they and only they have that are supposed to be shared with the world that are going to protect you from deception in the end. Yeah, that isn’t what Jesus sent the apostles out preaching. This is the problem you

Get with this this hard dichotomy. Yeah, the apo the apostles were not going around preaching the investigative judgment for the forgiveness of sins. They were not preaching the health message for the forgiveness of sins, the seventh day Sabbath for the forgiveness of sins. The SDA church preaches a different message for the forgiveness of sins than Jesus sent the disciples out preaching. The apostles were sent out to proclaim the forgiveness of sins through believing the gospel, the person and work of Jesus. I don’t have to be an Adventist to believe that

Has nothing to do with Adventism quite literally because they have a false Jesus and don’t actually understand the work of Christ. But the apostles were sent out to proclaim that for the forgiveness of sins. And that message was entirely consistent with what the Old Testament foretold. We’re told this in Luke 24:44-47. Trusting in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Not the health message, not the investigative judgment, not the 7th day Sabbath, nothing about a Sunday law or any of their end times paranoia for the forgiveness of sins. And I don’t need to

Be an Adventist to have that. nor do I need to be an Adventist to be prepared for the return of Christ. But the remnant with regards to the remnant of Revelation 12:17, some translators will say the rest of her offspring or some translations or some variation of that versus the word remnant. This refers to all believers in all ages, folks, not an organized body at a period starting in 1844. Notice what GK Beal says in his massive commentary on Revelation. You might be asking, why have I chosen GK Beal as my reference? Because Beal passes the sniff test.

I prefer citing scholars on topics that they are known for and excel at and have have dedicated large copious amounts of time to specific subjects and topics. That’s why I cite John Owen, for example, oftentimes his commentary set on Hebrews. And notice quote that the rest of her seed in verse 17 is to be linked with Christ in verses 5 and 13 is probable since only those verses in all of verses 1-6 refer to a firstborn offspring. Such a contrast between individual and corporate seeds is supposed by observing that verse 17 alludes to Genesis 3:16

Where John would have seen that Eve’s messianic seed has both individual and corporate meaning as also did Jewish interpretation for the wider notion of corporate representation in biblical literature see re his his comments on revelation 120. Consequently, the point of verses 13-1 17 is that the one heavenly church being persecuted on earth cannot be destroyed because it is heavenly and ultimately involvable spiritually. Inviable, sorry. But the many who individually compose the church can suffer physically from earthly dangers. In relation to Revelation 11, this means

That the woman is equivalent to the spiritually invincible inner court of the temple and her seed equivalent to the outer court which is susceptible to physical harm. Close quote. aka one viable position. Yes, I say one viable position is that the remnant in Revelation is more than likely referring to all Christians in all ages and a point of contrast is being made between the fact that the church is pure and invincible with Jesus as her head. Yet the individual members that make up the body of Christ can still be persecuted despite this and be

Physically harmed. The book of Revelation was written as encouragement for Christians in the first or second century who were about to undergo severe persecution. But he continues accordingly verses six as well as 13-1 17 portrays the devil as beginning his attack against the church in the church’s early stages in order to destroy it quickly and continuing the the attack as long as the church exists. The pictorial distinction between the woman and her seed could represent the distinction between the early Jewish church and the church’s subsequent

Jewish and Gentile growth. But there is no intention to distinguish between a Jewish church and a later gentile church since the church continued to contain a remnant of Jews. Nor is there a distinction between uh an earlier Gentile church and a latter Jewish remnant of 144,000 living during a severe tribulation of the final few years of history. Nor is there a distinction between the whole nation and a remnant in the nation existing during the same period. The description of the seed as those who keep the commandments of God and who hold to the testimony of Jesus is

Open-ended and points to uh an including of Jews and Gentiles. Indeed, there is no clear indication elsewhere in the apocalypse that John emphasized any national distinctions in the church. The description here probably conotes how all the early church throughout the ages withstands the devil’s attacks according to Lads and Beck’s view. Though very very possibly the verse depicts how the last historical stage of the church’s offspring withstand Satan’s oppression. The church gives the same testimony of Jesus. We have concluded already in the comments on one two that the phrase

Testimony of Jesus is intentionally ambiguous including both the testimony from Jesus given to the church and the testimony to Jesus given by the church. The focus of the phrase may be on Jesus’s testimony to God, which the church is to reproduce. Close quote. Adventists are free to disagree and obviously will, but the idea that there is no viable interpretation outside of theirs and that no one outside of their little sect understands Daniel and Revelation is laughable. All esqueological frameworks have their shortcomings. All of them. Yes, even the

Adventist one. Just because you assert that you have a prophetus that gives you an infallible understanding and you have this special deposit of understanding around prophecies doesn’t make it true. They all have their shortcomings. They all have their difficulties because this is an advanced area of theology. This isn’t like didactic teaching passages like the epistles. Apocalyptic literature has certain guidelines and principles for understanding. This was a popular literary genre in the first century. There’s certain rules and guidelines around understanding it. There’s a

Certain I mean there’s just so many moving parts on this. The point being the context of the passage should drive the interpretation. And the context of this verse has nothing to do with Jesus speaking in a woman’s writings from the 19th century and that they have the hallmark of being God’s last day people because of it. It’s like Satan isn’t attacking the SDA church. Satan loves the SDA church because it heralds a false gospel that will send people to hell with him. The remnant is all Christians in all ages who are in union with Christ, the head

Of the body. And anyone attached to that body is in spiritual warfare with spiritual darkness. and the devil is seeking to devour them. It’s not just SDAs because they supposedly keep the Ten Commandments. It is a remnant of the world. The Christian is called out from the world. They’re attached to Jesus and united to him by faith. But then Matthew mentioned the goal of the SDA church is to preach their cursed gospel. And if you aren’t preaching prophecy, you aren’t qualified to be God’s church. Just wow. When I heard this, I’m like, “Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow.

Yeah, you aren’t qualified to be God’s church if you don’t have the correct God either. You’re not part of God’s church if you’re preaching a false gospel that’s under the curse of God according to Galatians 1. The everlasting gospel of Revelation 14 is the same gospel the apostles received from Jesus. identical, not a present truth special only for a time after 1844 gospel that includes all sorts of doctrines that were not even known before then, let alone known and taught by the apostles. Not possible. Paul says there’s only one gospel, the one the apostles received from Jesus

Himself. Galatians 1:12. Jesus didn’t show John a false gospel different than what he had previous previously shown the apostles of which John was one of them. And the thing that’s so difficult about this is that the gospel is so obvious and clear to Christians. It’s like at any moment or any time of the day someone could ask you could wake me up from asleep and say what’s the gospel and I could give you the answer in two minutes. Adventists hear the term gospel and in their mind it’s flooded with every doctrine of the Adventist system. It’s like anything the Bible says is the

Gospel. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it many, many, many more times. The gospel is not systematic theology. You’re not saved by theology. Romans 1:16-17. The gospel is the power of God to salvation for all that believe it. Believing the health message isn’t the power of God to salvation. Believing the seventh day Sabbath isn’t the power of God to salvation. Armenianism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Wesleyanism, not the gospel. Those are systematic theologies. Friend, the gospel is the person and work of Jesus Christ. Who is he? God in the flesh, the second person of

The triune God, fully God, fully man. He lived a perfect sinless life leading to his brutal death and burial, followed by his glorious resurrection and ascension. All who turn to him in faith and repentance will find that he is sufficient to save. He will regenerate you, make you a new creation. That is the message. That’s the power of God to salvation. When a person comes over overwhelming conviction over their sin and realizes, “Wow, I need a savior.” Turns to Christ. God, forgive me. Save me. I’m a sinner. He’ll change you. Yeah, that’s going to bring about a

Change in your life. But also, the Christian church does preach prophecy. Every time that a a Christian pastor, bishop, whatever priest, every time they preach about Christ and him crucified, they’re preaching prophecy. The most important prophecies in all of scripture are actually the ones about Jesus. Because there’s more prophecy in scripture that points to Jesus and the work that he would come to do than there is quote unquote end times prophecy about events, which the SDA system is zeroed in on. But that’s not the only prophecy in scripture. On top of that,

Matthew, you guys aren’t the only ones preaching about end times prophecy. Not even in the framework of premillennialism. We didn’t hear anything about the actual origins of Protestantism. Instead, what we heard was a bunch of standard SDA talking point assertions that come from Ellen White, general appeals to proof texts, and a whole lot of misunderstanding of Protestantism. The fact of the matter is the actual origins of Protestantism go back to the debate between monism and synergism. The SDA sect lands on the Roman Catholic side of that discussion, which is quite

Ironic, isn’t it? But that’s why it’s important to periodically listen and respond to videos like th this. Despite these guys not being formal representatives of the SDA church, they still represent the standard SDA talking points that someone like myself has only heard 2500 times. So, if you like a video or come across a video and you’d like us to listen to it and potentially do the same thing with it, let us know in the comments down below. And don’t forget to like, subscribe, and ring the notification bell so you can be notified when we go live. May Christ richly bless you in the

Grace and peace won by him and his vicarious death on the cross for sinners. Hallelujah. Marinatha and come Lord Jesus. Until next time.