"Revelation 13:18 (ESV)
"This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666."
Introduction:
To instill fear and encourage church membership, Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) pastors, evangelists, and members disseminate Ellen G. White's "Mark of the Beast" doctrine through seminars, books, Bible studies, and online platforms. Consequently, no one wishes to receive the dreaded mark. The SDA interpretation of the mark of the beast in Revelation 13:18 emphasizes the importance of the Sabbath and the cosmic conflict between good and evil. SDAs believe the mark of the beast symbolizes allegiance to earthly powers that oppose God's commandments, specifically through a global decree mandating Sunday worship, which they see as a counterfeit Sabbath. But how did they arrive at this conclusion? What was their strong basis for linking the mark of the beast to the Sabbath vs. Sunday controversy? How did their theory originate? This is how their publication, The Ellen White Encyclopedia, presents it:
“From the very beginning, Adventists applied the mark of the beast to the historic tampering with the Law of God, and the change of the seventh-day Sabbath to the first day of the week. Joseph Bates was the first among the Sabbatarian Adventists to equate the “mark of the beast” with the observance of Sunday (The Seventh-day Sabbath, a Perpetual Sign [1847], p. 59). This view was soon endorsed by Ellen White. . . “she identified the receiving of the mark of the beast as the act of giving up “God’s Sabbath” and keeping “the Pope’s” sabbath. This soon became the accepted position among Sabbatarian Adventists. . . all held that the mark of the beast constituted the observance of Sunday as a papal institution, over against the observance of the biblical seventh-day Sabbath ” [1]
Joseph Bates, a co-founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, concluded—based on a mix of theological reasoning and his weird interpretation—that Sunday worship is tied to the mark of the beast. Bates first proposed the idea in 1847. He argued that Sunday observance, which he saw as a human-made tradition, was a mark of allegiance to the beast. Later on, Ellen G. White then confirmed and approved this interpretation in a vision. Bates was instrumental in convincing Ellen G. White and James White of the validity of the seventh-day Sabbath.
To make it easier for us to understand and remember our refutations of their false teachings, I have divided this study into three key points:
#1. Sunday Worship as the Mark of the Beast: Invention of Joseph Bates!
#2. Sunday as the Mark of the Beast: A Misinterpretation of Daniel 7:25 Prophecy!
#3. Sunday worship as the Mark of the Beast: 666 is not Vicarius Filii Dei!
Let's begin examining this SDA notion to expose the false teachings of the SDA Church and free them from the darkness and the spell and bondage of the spirit behind the SDA Church, none other than the false prophet Ellen G. White.
#1. Sunday Worship as the Mark of the Beast: Invention of Joseph Bates
How does Joseph Bates justify his claim that observance of Sunday relates to the mark of the beast? Renowned SDA church historian George Knight clarifies:
"Bates set forth what would become the Sabbatarian understanding of the mark of the beast. Building upon Revelation 12:17 with its idea that God would have a last-day remnant that would 'keep the commandments of God,' he noted that 'there will yet be a mighty struggle about the restoring and keeping [of] the seventh day Sabbath, that will test every living soul that enters the gates of the city' (SDS [1847], 60). God's people would be 'persecuted for keeping the commandments' by those who had the mark of the beast. 'Is it not clear,' Bates asked in examining Revelation 14:9-12, 'that the first day of the week for the Sabbath or holy day is a mark of the beast[?]' Thus at the end of time, only two groups would live on earth—those having the mark of the beast and those keeping God's commandments, including the seventh-day Sabbath (ibid. 59)."[2]
Bates interpreted Revelation 12:17 and 14:9-12 to mean that in the last days, there would be a clear division between those who keep God’s commandments, including the Sabbath, and those who follow the beast who will receive its mark. In a letter to Bates that same year, Ellen G. White described receiving the mark of the beast as abandoning "God's Sabbath" in favor of keeping "the Pope's" sabbath. This followed her vision of Christ beside the ark of the covenant in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary, with a halo of light surrounding the fourth commandment. Furthermore, Ellen G. White's vision indicated that the Pope's decision to change the day of worship to Sunday fulfilled the prophecy in Daniel 7:25 about the "little horn" who would "change times and laws." She remarked:
"I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws."[3]
This interpretation quickly became the accepted position within the Sabbatarian Adventist community. But the question is: Can we trust Joseph Bates’s interpretation of the Scriptures? How reliable is he as an interpreter of the prophetic book of Revelation? This is yet another test of Ellen G. White’s authority in her claim as a messenger of God or a true prophet.
Bates has often been deemed unreliable because of his numerous unconventional theories, which contemporary SDAs do not accept. For instance, his seven-year theory of the Day of Atonement is one such example. He read in Leviticus 16:19 that to "cleanse" and "hallow" the children of Israel on the Day of Atonement, the High Priest dipped his finger in blood seven times (Leviticus 16:19). Unaware that the Hebrew word for "times" refers to events rather than duration, Bates interpreted the text as referring to time, using it as the foundation for his shut door theory. By utilizing the biblical prophecy of the year-day principle about the "seven times," Bates determined that the Adventists were in a seven-year window of opportunity to be purified and hallowed—but only if they accepted the Sabbath teaching. He concluded that the door of redemption would remain closed from 1844 until 1851, a period of seven years. At the end of those seven years, in October 1851, Christ would return to collect those Adventists who had observed the Sabbath, which he referred to as the Seal of God. In his work, he explains this idea as follows:
"The seven spots of blood on the Golden Altar and before the mercy seat, I fully believe, represent the duration of the judicial proceedings on the living saints in the Most Holy, all of which time they will be in their affliction, even seven years; God by his voice will deliver them, 'for it is the blood that maketh the atonement for the soul' (Lev. 17:11). Then the number seven will finish the day of atonement (not redemption)."[4]
Christ was prophesied to return to Earth in 1851, concluding seven years. Those who observed the Sabbath and received the "Seal of God" would be redeemed. Conversely, all non-Christians, including Adventists who did not keep the Sabbath, would perish. These individuals would join Sunday-keeping churches and receive the "Mark of the Beast." Subsequently, the Seventh-day Adventist eschatology would be influenced by Bates' teachings on the Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast.
After October 22, 1844, Bates held the mistaken belief that non-adventists were beyond salvation and that efforts to save lost souls should end. Unlike other "shut door" brethren, he did not personally attempt to save lost souls. In 1847, he expressed this view:
"Here then of course ended the 2300 days of the vision, because there is to be a tarrying after. Don't forget this, neither. 'For at the time appointed the end shall be.' Here too ended our last work in warning the world, and our labor ceased. Why? Because the messages ceased and left us entirely destitute of labor. And there was silence in heaven for the space of half an hour, a whole week or seven and a half days. Here we say our glorious High Priest began the cleansing of the sanctuary, and 'received his kingdom, dominion, and glory,' the 'New Jerusalem.'" [5]
Given Joseph Bates’ two false teachings and many others, can we trust his interpretation that Revelation 13:18 refers to the Mark of the Beast as Sunday observance? It’s doubtful, isn’t it? More importantly, Ellen G. White, the supposed prophet of the SDA church, was convinced by Joseph Bates to the point that she supported his view with her alleged vision. Adventist friends, do you believe a true prophet of God would support a false preacher? Have you seen such an example in the Bible? If your answer is no, then you should leave Ellen G. White because she was confused and truly a false prophet.
Joseph Bates' Arrogance Against the Protestant Reformation
For those not very familiar with church history, Joseph Bates's interpretation represents a significant departure from the conventional Protestant doctrines of the 1800s. During that period, Protestants believed that loyalty to the pope signified the Mark of the Beast. Devotion to the pope also entailed adherence to the various myths and fallacies propagated by him, including:
- Veneration of the pope as God on earth, capable of forgiving sins
- Adoration and worship of the Virgin Mary
- Transubstantiation (the belief that bread becomes the actual body of Christ)
- Purgatory (a place of temporary torment for sinners)
- The practice of confession
- An unmarried, celibate priesthood
- Prayers to apostles and saints, prayers for those in purgatory, and repetitive prayers (rosaries)
- Adoration of relics and idols of saints
- Salvation by works
Protestant Bible scholars such as John Huss, Jerome, Martin Luther, and Ulrich Zwingli were men of profound faith and intellect. They were distinguished church leaders, welcomed by princes and kings, and had excelled in universities. Fluent in the original biblical languages, they were acknowledged by both supporters and critics for their brilliance and scholarly accomplishments. In contrast, consider Joseph Bates. Joseph Bates, a marine captain without a college degree or formal biblical training, was ignorant of the Bible's original languages. He misinterpreted prophecies, making rash and irrational statements, and felt mortified when they came true. Despite this, Bates challenged centuries of Protestant biblical scholarship, dismissing the Protestant Reformers and labeling Sunday worship as the Mark of the Beast, a previously unrecognized error.
Therefore, Joseph Bates, one of the founders of the SDA church was an unreliable preacher due to his many erroneous teachings and invented the doctrine that the Mark of the Beast in Revelation 13:18 refers to Sunday worship. This teaching is not supported by the Bible or church history but is a man-made doctrine currently believed by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
#2. Sunday as the Mark of the Beast: A Misinterpretation of Daniel 7:25 Prophecy!
The second foundation of the SDAs to support their concept of Sunday observance as the mark of the beast is that the beast from the sea mentioned in Revelation 13:1 is allegedly identical to the "Little Horn" power in Daniel 7:25, which intends to change laws and times. This is how the General Conference Executive Committee explains it on their official website:
"The mark of the beast is mentioned seven times in Revelation (13:16, 17; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). Four of these appear in its central vision (Rev. 12-14), which is introduced by a view of the ark of the covenant containing the ten commandments (Rev. 11:19). God’s remnant people are identified as those who “keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Rev. 12:17). Immediately after this, John describes two beasts which persecute God’s church: (1) “a beast rising up out of the sea” (Rev. 13:1) and (2) “another beast coming up out of the earth” (Rev. 13:11). The first beast commands false worship and his persecuting activity resembles that of the “little horn” of Daniel 7 that would “intend to change times and law” (Dan 7:25) and persecutes God’s people for 1260 days (Rev. 13:4, 8). The connection with Daniel’s prophecy shows that the false worship involves an attempt to change God’s “times” and His ten commandment law. The one commandment of the ten dealing with time is the fourth— to keep the seventh-day Sabbath holy."[6]
To summarize, the "beast from the sea" in Revelation 13:1 and the "Little Horn" in Daniel 7:25 are allegedly the same power with the same goal: to persecute God's people and lead them into false worship. Part of this false worship involves the "beast of the sea" or the "little horn" changing the "times and law." The "law" supposedly refers to the Ten Commandments, while the "time" refers to the Sabbath in the Ten Commandments. Their argument seems well-constructed. Like a perfect fit! However, this is a sleight of hand illusion, my friends, and I will show you the deception in their explanation, which even they cannot answer to this day.
Let's first read Daniel 7:25 and investigate if this verse truly supports the SDA interpretation.
Daniel 7:25 (ESV) "He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time."
Ellen G. White's explanation of how this was fulfilled:
Ellen G. White assumes that the "little" horn in Daniel 7 refers to the Roman Catholic Papacy without careful attention to the details and context of Daniel 7. The chart below is often used by SDA pastors and evangelists in their evangelistic crusades to help their audience easily understand their explanation.
I will demonstrate here the reason why the Roman Catholic Papacy does not fit and is not qualified for the position of the "little horn" in Daniel 7:25.
Assuming Ellen G. White's interpretation is correct that the Papal Supremacy's "a time, times, and half a time" equals 1,260 years, spanning from 538 AD to 1798 AD, the Seventh-day Adventists refer to this period as the "Papal Supremacy." According to the prophecy in Daniel 7:25, two significant events are prophesied to occur during this time: first, to "wear out the saints of the Most High," and second, to "change the times and law." The phrase "they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time," or 1,260 years, suggests that these two events will unfold between 538 AD and 1798 AD. Since the power mentioned in Daniel 7:25 is the same as that in Revelation 13:5, their meanings are identical. Therefore, comparing Revelation 13:5 and 13:7 reveals the same message and pattern as found in Daniel 7:25.
Revelation 13:5, 7 (ESV) "And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. Also, it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation."

I want to highlight through our comparison that it is firmly established in Daniel 7:25 and Revelation 13:5 that the change of times and the law will occur within the 1260 years between 538 AD and 1798 AD. I emphasized this because many aspiring SDA apologists, both laymen and former pastors, have tried to answer this significant question for the past three years, but none have provided a correct answer so far. Here is my question to the SDAs, and it also serves as a challenge to their belief that Daniel 7:25 was fulfilled when the Pope changed the Sabbath to Sunday. However, to test the validity of their claim, they must first answer these three questions:
1. What is the name of the Pope you claim changed the Sabbath to Sunday?
2. What is the exact date between 538 AD and 1798 AD when this change, mentioned by Ellen G. White, occurred?
3. Which ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church declared that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday, and on what exact date did this occur between 538 AD and 1798 AD?
For over three years, I have been asking SDA apologists and pastors here in the Philippines these three questions, but unfortunately, not a single one has answered them correctly. Many have attempted to answer, but they usually fail at the second question after managing to answer the first. To illustrate my point, let's take an example from an SDA website that attempted to answer which Pope changed the Sabbath to Sunday. Let's read their argument:
"Which Pope Changed the Sabbath to Sunday?
According to prophecy, the Sabbath was predicted to be changed! The first change of the holy Sabbath was made by Emperor Constantine in A.D 321. Later on, however, the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D 363) also changed the day of rest known as the Sabbath, from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week! But which Pope changed the Sabbath day to Sunday? History tells us it was Pope Eusebius and Pope Sylvester, in agreement with Emperor Constantine! [8]
At first glance, the explanation seems correct and well-presented. It appears to pass Question #1: "What is the name of the Pope you claim changed the Sabbath to Sunday?" The answer and explanation are safe because they likely know that Constantine was not a Pope but a Roman Emperor. Hence, their answer is: "History tells us it was Pope Eusebius and Pope Sylvester, in agreement with Emperor Constantine!" Did you notice the error?
What is the error?
Error#1: Eusebius of Caesaria was a fourth-century church father and historian NOT a Pope! [9]
Error #2: Pope Sylvester's authority was limited to the Church of Rome and he was not the supreme Pope above all other bishops at that time. Therefore, he was not part of the "Papal Supremacy" that could change the Sabbath within 1260 years.
This was supported by G.I. Butler in his book "Reply to Elder Canright's Attack on Seventh-day Adventists," where he stated:
"Sylvester was bishop of Rome during most of the reign of Constantine. He decreed that Sunday should be called the Lord's Day. But this could affect the Church of Rome only; for the bishop of Rome had not then yet attained to any authority whatever above the other bishops."[10]
Therefore, he immediately failed Question #1. This is because one of the three names he provided—Constantine, Pope Sylvester, and Eusebius—does not qualify under the category of "Papal Supremacy" to exercise authority within 1260 years according to the beliefs of the SDAs!
If one fails Question #1, they will certainly not pass Question #2, which asks, "What is the exact date between 538 AD and 1798 AD when this change, mentioned by Ellen G. White, occurred?" Why did they fail? Referring back to the website mentions several dates that are candidates for the change from Sabbath to Sunday. Here are the following dates:
a.) Emperor Constantine in A.D 321
b.) Council of Laodicea (A.D 363)
c.) Pope Sylvester (AD 325)
d.) Eusebius of Caesaria (AD 338)
The same SDA website acknowledges that the Papacy's full authority was established in AD 538. They note:
"The Papacy came into full power in A.D 538, yet its influence goes way back to the times of the Roman Empire!"[11]
But they miss the point of the discussion! What I'm waiting for them to explain and answer is which Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and on what date the change of the Sabbath to Sunday occurred between 538 AD and 1798 AD so that the SDAs can claim that the prophecy of Daniel 7:25 and Ellen G. White's prophecy about the change of times and law were truly fulfilled. No answer, right? Even their Biblical Research Institute, composed of SDA theologians and Bible scholars, has no satisfactory explanation for this. Why is that? Because the SDA church's interpretation of Daniel 7:25 is incorrect! It's that simple! If they were in the truth, they would be able to answer all of this precisely and without doubt. Therefore, the entire foundation of the SDA church that supports their teaching that Sunday observance is the mark of the beast collapses because:
a.)This was merely invented by an erroneous teacher, one of the founders of the SDA church, Joseph Bates.
b.) Even the SDAs who explain that Sunday observance is the mark of the beast because the Pope changed the Sabbath to Sunday as a fulfillment of prophecy do not have a satisfactory answer or historical evidence to show that the Pope indeed changed the Sabbath to Sunday. They struggle to answer our three questions to test the validity of their teachings:
1. What is the name of the Pope you claim changed the Sabbath to Sunday?
2. What is the exact date between 538 AD and 1798 AD when this change, mentioned by Ellen G. White, occurred?
3. Which ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church declared that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday, and on what exact date did this occur between 538 AD and 1798 AD?
These two tests alone provide a sufficient basis to prove that Sunday observance is not the mark of the beast. Moreover, they offer ample evidence to demonstrate that Ellen G. White is a false prophet and teacher. Consequently, this also proves that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a cult merely pretending to be true Christians, and they will never be saved by God if they continue to harden their hearts instead of repenting for their sins.
#3. Sunday worship as the Mark of the Beast: 666 is not Vicarius Filii Dei!
When it is said that 666 is not Vicarius Filii Dei (Vicar of the Son of God), it simply means that 666 does not refer to the Roman Catholic Pope or one of the titles supposedly used officially by the Pope. Many SDA pastors and evangelists have traditionally interpreted Vicarius Filii Dei as the meaning of 666 when applying Gematria or calculating the numerical value of each letter in the name, even up to the present time. If the title Vicarius Filii Dei truly represented the meaning of 666 at the time Apostle John wrote Revelation for the seven churches, then the SDAs' interpretation would likely be correct, and there would be no doubt that the mark of the beast is indeed related to the authority of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. However, if the SDAs were to be honest, it is impossible that this was John's intended meaning, and the seven churches of Revelation would not have understood it this way, as the title Vicarius Filii Dei had not yet been invented during John's time. This is the explanation provided by SDA theologian and scholar Gerhard Pfandl.
"Vicarius Filii Dei appears first in the Donation of Constantine, a forged Roman imperial decree from the eighth century A.D., by which the Emperor Constantine (fourth century A.D.) supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the pope. Popes used it during the Middle Ages to support their claims of political authority. Lorenzo Valla, an Italian Catholic priest, is credited with exposing the forgery in the fifteenth century. That the numerical value of the letters of Vicarius Filii Dei adds up to 666, however, was not discovered until the seventeenth century."[12]
It is clearly incorrect to assume that Apostle John referred to the Pope as 666 in his letters to the seven churches in Revelation, based on the title "Vicarius Filii Dei." This title was not known during their time and first appeared in a forged document in the eighth century AD, 800 years after John's era and his letters to the seven churches, especially since it was only decoded to equal 666 in the seventeenth century. Another significant problem for the SDA members who continue to use this is that they contradict the explanation of their prophet, Ellen G. White. According to their prophet, the number 666 in Revelation 13:18 represents the number of Protestant churches in her time. Here is what she says in The Ellen G. White Letters and Manuscripts: Volume 1, p. 115:
"I saw all that “would not receive the mark of the Beast, and of his Image, in their foreheads or in their hands,” could not buy or sell. I saw that the number (666) of the Image Beast was made up; and that it was the beast that changed the Sabbath, and the Image Beast had followed on after, and kept the Pope's, and not God's Sabbath. And all we were required to do, was to give up God's Sabbath, and keep the Pope's, and then we should have the mark of the Beast, and of his Image."[13]
The online Encyclopedia of the Seventh-day Adventists further elaborates on the early SDA understanding of the number 666 in Revelation 13:18:
"Early Sabbatarian Adventists on the Number 666 as the Sum of Protestant Churches
Initially, Sabbatarian Adventists applied the numeral 666 to the denominations that had expelled or ill-treated Millerites. They reasoned that the first beast of Revelation 13 was the papacy. Their view of the second, two-horned beast differs in some respects from the present-day Seventh-day Adventist perspective. . . Just five years later, in 1865, Uriah Smith (1832-1903) published the work Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Revelation that would swiftly change the understanding of the number 666 among Seventh-day Adventists. Throughout his writings, Smith consistently declared that the six hundred threescore and six mentioned in Revelation 13:18 referred to "Vicarius Filii Dei."[14]
Many Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) continue to use it today, unaware of its historical context. What puzzles me is why some SDA pastors and laymen made it "official" despite it not being endorsed by Ellen G. White. There is no record in SDA church history of Ellen G. White endorsing this through her visions. Today, SDAs are divided on this issue, especially after many discovered that a prominent Adventist evangelist falsified a picture of the Papal Tiara by adding the inscription "Vicarius Filii Dei" at each level of the Tiara, with a note below stating "From a photograph taken in the Vatican Museum," even though it was not true.
Let's provide an explanation of the controversy and deceit committed by some SDAs in the past. Here is the explanation from Adventist Today:
"Among the titles abandoned? Vicar of Christ. Successor of the Prince of the Apostles. Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. Primate of Italy. Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Province of Rome. Sovereign of Vatican City State. Servant of the Servants of God. Notice that “Vicarius Filii Dei” (Vicar of the Son of God) isn’t listed. That’s because most scholars say that although it’s been used here and there by various Catholic writers, it was never an official title. There’s a story behind this that most people don’t know. It was our own Uriah Smith who, in The United States in the Light of Prophecy, wrote that the phrase “Vicarius Filii Dei” was spelled out in gemstones on the pope’s tiara. The phrase could be used to calculate “666” and therefore identify the pope as the subject of Revelation 13:18. (Smith didn’t invent the 666 calculation; it descended through a chain of conspiracists from numerologist Andreas Helwig, who wrote about it as early as 1612.) “666” on the pope’s tiara became a key teaching in Adventist evangelism."[15]
Here is the critique of SDA theologian Dr. William Johnsson on the misuse of Vicarius Filii Dei by many SDA preachers:
"Any explanation of the cryptic number will have to be tentative. Many Seventh-day expositors have thought that the alleged inscription Vicarius Filii Dei on the papal tiara is the name indicated by the prophecy however, more than 80 years ago W. W. Prescot showed how flimsy is the historical evidence for this interpretation. In my view, the text suggests that 666 is the code for the name of the sea monster, which is blasphemy. It points to a parody of perfection: imperfection upon imperfection, despite the beast's monstrous claims." [16]
Many SDA preachers today are still not updated on the true position of the SDA church regarding the meaning of 666. For the benefit of our SDA friends, I will quote here the official and acceptable position of the General Conference Executive Committee of the SDA church on this matter. Here is their explanation:
"The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not have an official position on this question but there are two major views among us on the number of the beast, 666, in Revelation 13:17, 18. Some interpret it as a cryptic reference to the papal title Vicarius Filii Dei, but we are not told that 666 is the added numerical value of the letters in such a designation. Others view it as a triple six indicative of a Satanic trinity. They point out that the phrase “it is the number of a man” (Rev. 13:18, NIV) could be translated “it is the number of humanity,” that is, of humans separated from God. This number (six used three times) would then symbolize intense rebellion and total independence from God. The Greek text, however, is literally 600 + 60 + 6, not three sixes or a triple six. Recognizing this, many Seventh-day Adventists continue to associate the number of the beast with the Papal title Vicarius Filii Dei, and recent research provides good historical evidence for connecting 666 with that title than was previously recognized. In any case, there are many evidences from the text and from history to identify the first beast of Revelation 13 with the papacy regardless of how 666 is understood."[17]
Therefore, my advice to SDA preachers today is not to be dogmatic about which of the two positions of the SDA church you insist is correct and should be believed by people. Firstly, even within the SDA church, there is no consensus on what it truly is. The fact that more SDAs today no longer believe in Vicarius Filii Dei indicates that your explanation that the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church is the fulfillment of the mark of the beast, which will be enforced through the Sunday law, is indeed weakening.
Given the weak foundation of the SDA claim that Sunday worship is the mark of the beast, why do many SDA pastors and evangelists continue to teach this? Aren't they afraid of God? If they are truly serious about following the Ten Commandments, why do they persist in spreading falsehoods?
Doesn't the Ninth Commandment tell the SDAs that:
Exodus 20:16 (ESV) “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
Conclusion:
My Concluding Questions for SDAs to think about:
1. Where is the text that tells us the mark of the beast is the observance of Sunday?
2. Where does the Bible state that the "mark of the beast is the papal Sabbath"? Where is the historical proof that any Pope changed the seventh-day Sabbath to Sunday from 538 AD to 1798 AD?
3. Without proof that a Pope changed the Sabbath to Sunday, how can Sunday be a “Papal Sabbath”?
4. Does the Catholic Church's claim that they changed the Sabbath to Sunday make it true?
- Do SDAs believe the Catholic Church when they claim that Peter was the first Pope?
- Or that priests have the power to forgive sins?
- Or that it is biblical to pray to dead saints or that in transubstantiation, the bread and wine in the mass actually turn into the body and blood of Christ?
Footnotes:[1] Fortin, Denis. The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia. Review and Herald Pub Assoc, 2014, p. 2698
[2] Knight, George R. A Search for Identity. Review and Herald Pub Assoc, 2000, pp. 70-71
[3] White, Ellen G. Early Writings of Mrs. White. 1927, p. 32
[4] Bates, Joseph. An Explanation of the Typical and Anti-typical Sanctuary by the Scriptures. 1850, pp. 10-13
[5] Bates, Joseph. Second Advent Way Marks and High Heaps. 1847, p. 84
[6] https://executivecommittee.adventist.org/newsletter/article/answers-to-questions-on-the-mark-of-the-beast-and-end-time-events/ (date accessed August 9, 2024)
[7] White, Ellen Gould. The Great Controversy. Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1911, p. 439.
[8] Sabbathfacts. “Which Pope Changed The Sabbath Day To Sunday?” Sabbath Facts |, 5 May 2024, sabbathfacts.org/which-pope-changed-the-sabbath-day-to-sunday (date accessed August 9, 2024).
[9] Laird, Benjamin. “Eusebius of Caesarea.” The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry et al., Lexham Press, 2016.
[10] Butler, George Ide. Replies to Elder Canright’s Attacks on Seventh-day Adventists. 1888, p. 143
[11] Sabbathfacts. “Which Pope Changed The Sabbath Day To Sunday?” Sabbath Facts |, 5 May 2024, sabbathfacts.org/which-pope-changed-the-sabbath-day-to-sunday (date accessed August 9, 2024)
[12] Pfandel, Gerhard. “The Truth abut 666.” Adventist Review, vol. 191, no. 14, Mar. 2014.
[13] Ellen Gould White.The Ellen G. White Letters and Manuscripts: Volume 1. (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2014, 115
[14] Encyclopedia.adventist.org. The Number of the Beast (date accessed August 9, 2024)
[15] https://atoday.org/the-vatican-hasnt-the-slightest-interest-in-us (date accessed August 9, 2024)
[16] Johnsson, William. The Saint's Victory in the End Time. Adventist Review. November 1994
[17] https://executivecommittee.adventist.org/newsletter/article/answers-to-questions-on-the-mark-of-the-beast-and-end-time-events/(date accessed August 9, 2024)
No comments:
Post a Comment