This editorial statement is occasioned by the strongly held belief of a Contributor whose views are disclosed in the adjacent column.  In my perception these views are at variance with the exegetical statements of Elder Wm. H. Grotheer which are published on this website.

It has always been the policy of this website to publish only what is in harmony with Adventist Laymen's Foundation theology. was conceived entirely on my initiative.  I supervised construction of the site, and have always been its Webmaster and Manager.  The website was not commissioned by Elder Grotheer.  My purpose was to devote the website exclusively to Adventist Laymen's Foundation theology, and this was reinforced by Elder Grotheer's own request to that effect.  He also expressed and demonstrated complete confidence in my understanding of Adventist Laymen's Foundation theology and my commitment to the promotion of his biblical expositions.

My authority as Webmaster was first questioned by this Contributor when I published my commentary on the National Sunday law issue in October, 2009.  (NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW - Present Truth or Distraction?)  The Contributor expressed strong disagreement with my analysis, on the basis of his long-held view that the Trinity dogma will be the central issue in the final test, and the death decree will be imposed for blasphemy against it.  He also complained that I was publishing my viewpoint while excluding his.  In the light of this history, I have been constrained to publish the Contributor's submission and my own critique in adjacent columns.


I begin with a point which may be debatable.  The Contributor highlights a statement that the death sentence on Jesus Christ was for blasphemy.  Yet he mentions the refusal of the Jewish leaders to recognize Jesus' claim to divinity.  If one regarded as mere man claims to be God, what other charge than blasphemy will be levelled against him?  This in my view proves nothing at all about the final test for God's people.

Moreover, this is more related to the Incarnation than the Trinity.  Significantly, it was corruption of the SDA doctrine of the Incarnation that opened the door to a flood of doctrinal apostasy in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  Note the degree of emphasis on the Incarnation in the writings and sermons of Elder Grotheer.  It is the doctrine that linked Christ to humanity at Bethlehem and for eternity.  It is also at the heart of the Final Atonement, which will prepare the Final Generation of God's people to stand when Jesus Christ appears.  Interestingly, Elder Grotheer wrote about the Incarnation in the context of the final conflict.  (Cf. The Incarnation in the Final Conflict)

Now I turn to the points that are not debatable on a rational basis:


There is a quotation from the Writings of Ellen G. White which is used in a strange way to contradict what she expressly stated within the quotation.  Note the bold text in the passages bookmarked in red in the adjoining column - (go to bookmark.)  By no stretch of the imagination can the phrase "false sabbath" refer to the dogma of the Trinity.  It is crystal clear that Ellen White is referring to Sunday.  What more can one say?


I have been able to find no logical connection between what is stated in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Vol. 7 p. 675 and the Contributor's comment  (go to bookmark.)

Although not specifically mentioned in the adjacent column, the Contributor regularly sends me reports on the Muslim penalty of death for blaphemy, and the enforcement of certain categories of Sharia Court judgments in non-Muslim nations.  There is no logical connection between the death penalty for blasphemy in Muslim countries and the ultimate death penaly that is prophesied in Rev. 13.  Neither the Church of Rome nor Apostate Protestantism (the False Prophet) has any need to resort to Sharia law to impose the death penalty in the Final Conflict.  There is ample precedent in the history of both Rome and the Protestant world for imposition of the death penalty for violation of church laws.


There is no foundation in the writings or sermons of Elder Grotheer for the views of this Contributor.  In fact he has, seemingly without realizing it, revealed himself to be in disagreement with Elder Grotheer's prophetic analyses of the ultimate test for God's people.  He is therefore in oppositon to Adventist Laymen's Foundation theology in this area of prophetic interpretation. A search for the words "Sunday" and "Eucharist" in Elder Grotheer's writings, using the internal search engine, verifies that fact.  (Cf. DIES DOMINI The “New” Theology of the Papacy Regarding Sunday.)  I will now cite  some passages which leave no doubt about the Foundation's position.

In The Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast Elder Grotheer stated:

The test will not be a Sunday closing law which forbids work on Sunday such as could be termed a "National Sunday Law" but what is perceived by Rome as "the religious observance" of Sunday. This "religious observance" is clearly defined in the Catechism - the celebration of the Mass! . . .
The Seal of God involves not only the observance of the Sabbath as the memorial of God's creative work, but also the Gospel of God's redemptive work in and through the Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the Mark of the Beast involves the first day of the week of Rome's sanctification and the false gospel in the worship and sacrifice of a wafer-god created by man.  (Emphasis added.)

In The End-time Crisis Elder Grotheer stated:

The crisis could come in one of two ways: 1) Forbidding worship on the Sabbath, or 2) Mandating attendance at a Eucharistic service on Sunday. The first in some form will occur. We have been warned of Satan's intents. He plans:

"I will so control the minds under my power that God's Sabbath shall be a special object of contempt. A sign? - will make the observance of the seventh day a sign of disloyalty to the authorities of earth. Human laws will be made so stringent that men and women will not dare to observe the seventh-day Sabbath." (Prophets and Kings, p. 184) . . .

This new approach of the Roman Church to the Sabbath question dare not be overlooked in our zeal to emphasize that John Paul II suggested Pope Leo XIII's dictum that"Sunday rest" is "a worker's right which the State must guarantee" (par. 66), and that "Christians will naturally strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy" (par. 67). But what does keeping Sunday "holy" mean to John Paul II? "The Sunday assembly Is the privileged place of unity: it is the setting for the celebration of the sacramentum unitatis which profoundly marks the Church as a people gathered 'by' and 'In' the unity of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (par. 36). Placed together in this one statement are the concepts covered by "Apostolic," "visible unity," "Trinity," "Eucharist," and "Sunday." Let us be very careful lest our traditional emphasis blind our eyes to any of these facets of the end-time crisis.

"Sunday is coming," but let us not be so naive as to think that the devil is going to seek to accomplish his agenda in a way that will be openly obvious to the professed people of God. Christ has warned us that the delusions of the final crisis will be such that, if possible, "they shall deceive the very elect" (Matt. 24:24). Further, let it be understood that a "Sunday Law" per se, is not the "mark" or "sign" of anything. We have had "Sunday closing laws" among the legal statutes of various states and city ordinances regulating Sunday commerce on the community level. This is not the aspect of Sunday laws that should concern us. It is as Louis Veulliot defined such legislation that we should be watching. His call was for the "religious observance" of Sunday. This Involves the Eucharist in the end time crisis as has been stated in the recent Papal Apostolic Letter.  (Emphasis added)

In the foregoing passage, Elder Grotheer brings together the concepts covered by "Apostolic," "visible unity," "Trinity," "Eucharist," and "Sunday."  "Trinity" is given no special place; but "Sunday" is the central theme of the article (Cf. The Centrality of Sunday.)

I now refer the reader to A National Sunday Law PAST? PRESENT? FUTURE? Part 2.  This was included in my commentary on the National Sunday law issue in October, 2009, with which the Contributor took strong issue.  Note the following passage in which Elder Grotheer clearly endorses the predictions of Ellen G. White:

We need to consider next the implications of the words describing the nature of the "oppressive" Sunday Law which is to occur in this "now" time. It states that there will be a "more decided effort to exalt the false Sabbath, and to cast contempt upon God Himself by supplanting the day He blessed and sanctified." Now go back to the reference from the Review & Herald, April 23, 1901, (p. 2) and compare these same words, and the synonym used for "supplanting" - "substitution." It should be obvious that these two quotations are referring to the same Sabbath law that is to be enacted.

While we do not believe in verbal inspiration, nevertheless words give thought as perceived by the writer. In the paragraph preceding the one quoted from the Review and Herald, Dec. 13, 1892, Ellen G. White speaks of -Sunday as a "rival Sabbath," a "spurious Sabbath." But "after" the truth has been proclaimed as a witness to all "nations," this rival and spurious Sabbath is "exalted" and made to "supplant" the true in seeking to cast contempt upon God. Supplant means "to take the place of and serve as a substitute for especially by reason of superior excellence of power." Thus the exaltation leads to supplanting. There is an interesting calendar in use today in various parts of the world which alters the arrangement of the week, and gives to Sunday the place which God assigned for the true Sabbath - the seventh day.  (Emphasis added.)

Here is not only an endorsement of Ellen G. White's predictions, but also an exegesis of the "oppressive law" to which she referred.  So great is the Contributor's certitude in his promotion of the blasphemy against the Trinity dogma theory, that he appears to have blocked out of his mind all evidence to the contrary.

In conclusion I invite the reader to listen to a sermon which highlights the magnitude of the role of Sunday in the great controversy between Christ and Satan - not a topic to be handled carelessly:

Eschatology - The Period of the Great Controversy
Windows Media
Windows Media 54kbps
Windows Media 11kbps

From: []
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 11:44 AM
Subject: Pontifical Exoneration

Pope exonerates Jews for Jesus' death
• From correspondents in Vatican City
• From: AP
• March 03, 2011 5:24AM

POPE Benedict XVI has made a sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ, tackling one of the most controversial issues in Christianity in a new book.

In Jesus of Nazareth-Part II excerpts released today, Benedict explains biblically and theologically why there is no basis in Scripture for the argument that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for Jesus' death.

Interpretations to the contrary have been used for centuries to justify the persecution of Jews.

While the Catholic Church has for five decades taught that Jews weren't collectively responsible, Jewish scholars said today the argument laid out by the German-born pontiff, who has had his share of mishaps with Jews, was a landmark statement from a pope that would help fight anti-Semitism today.

"Holocaust survivors know only too well how the centuries-long charge of 'Christ killer' against the Jews created a poisonous climate of hate that was the foundation of anti-Semitic persecution whose ultimate expression was realised in the Holocaust," said Elan Steinberg of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants.

The Pope's book, he said, not only confirms church teaching refuting the deicide charge "but seals it for a new generation of Catholics".
The Catholic Church issued its most authoritative teaching on the issue in its 1965 Second Vatican Council document Nostra Aetate, which revolutionised the church's relations with Jews by saying Christ's death could not be attributed to Jews as a whole at the time or today.

Benedict comes to the same conclusion, but he explains how with a thorough, Gospel-by-Gospel analysis that leaves little doubt that he deeply and personally believes it to be the case: That only a few Temple leaders and a small group of supporters were primarily responsible for Christ's crucifixion.

The book is the second instalment to Benedict's 2007 Jesus of Nazareth, his first book as pope, which offered a very personal meditation on the early years of Christ's life and teachings. This second book, set to be released March 10, concerns the final part of Christ's life, his death and resurrection.

In the book, Benedict re-enacts Jesus' final hours, including his death sentence for blasphemy, then analyses each Gospel account to explain why Jews as a whole cannot be blamed for it. Rather, Benedict concludes, it was the "Temple aristocracy" and a few supporters of the figure Barabbas who were responsible.

Benedict said Jesus' death wasn't about punishment, but rather salvation. Jesus' blood, he said, "does not cry out for vengeance and punishment, it brings reconciliation. It is not poured out against anyone, it is poured out for many, for all".

Benedict, who was forced to join the Hitler Youth as a child in Nazi Germany, has made improving relations with Jews a priority of his pontificate. He has visited the Auschwitz Nazi death camp in Poland and Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial.

But he also has had a few missteps that have drawn the ire of Jewish groups, most notably when in 2009 he lifted the excommunication of a traditionalist Catholic bishop who had denied the extent of the Holocaust by saying no Jews were gassed during World War II.


Benedict XVI following on the earlier conclusions of Nostra Aetate has sidestepped the entire principle of corporate accountability. Peter after Pentecost stated to the 'devout' Jews [assembled from far flung provinces and regions] they were guilty for the crucifixion of Jesus. [Acts 2:36ff]. The infallible assertion from the man who resides in a villa along the Tiber is in contrast to the words of Jesus in Matt 23:38.

You will have noted the correct observation about the death sentence of Jesus ... "blasphemy" [Matt 26:62-66]. The issue for Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin was entirely driven over one issue - the First Commandment and it was then as is today about the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour. This forges once more the predicament in Christendom and to the very central doctrine of the Little Horn, the blasphemy of the Triune Trinity. This dogma on the doctrine of God features once more in the pronouncement of Benedict XVI. This highly deceptive doctrine is held aloft as common confession with the WCC's and also Advetnism - see FB's #2,4,5. In other words, the man in red pradas is proclaiming ex cathedra the prior 'great words' of the Little Horn in 1870 encyclical Ineffibilis Deus. One can understand the need for Benedict XVI to follow the theme of John Paul II who described the Jews as the Elder Brothers of the faith. And with the developments of the King of the South in recent times and now the Holy See and this latest and distinctive move of ensuring a close association with the warring inhabitants of the 'glorious holy mountain' we should not forget the additional efforts the Holy See and that is to a peace accord with the Friday Keepers. Things are shaping up for the fulfiment of Dan 11:45.

The messenger of the Lord pointed up something that has been little heeded - an oppressive law in 1892.

After the truth has been proclaimed as a witness to all nations, every conceivable power of evil will be set in operation, and minds will be confused by many voices crying, "Lo, here is Christ, Lo, he is there. This is the truth, I have the message from God, he has sent me with great light." Then there will be a removing of the landmarks, and an attempt to tear down the pillars of our faith. A more decided effort will be made to exalt the false Sabbath, and to cast contempt upon God himself by supplanting the day he has blessed and sanctified. This false Sabbath is to be enforced by an oppressive law. Satan and his angels are wide-awake, and intensely active, working with energy and perseverance through human instrumentalities to bring about his purpose of obliterating from the minds of men the knowledge of God. But while Satan works with his lying wonders, the time will be fulfilled foretold in the Revelation, and the mighty angel that shall lighten the earth with his glory, will proclaim the fall of Babylon, and call upon God's people to forsake her. {RH, December 13, 1892 par. 2}

One has to be totally blind Laodicean to not have noticed the removal of the landmarks and the tearing down of the pillars of Adventism. Since the devil is wide awake and at Midnight the ten virgns are all found sleeping, we need as a people to be watching for the imminent signs of the oppressive law and how this folds into effect.
The culture of lies and deception by the Mother of Harlots are woven so deceptivey that Jesus said the end would decieve if possible the very elect. [Mat 24]. Yet there is today a worldwide common confession ofher central doctrine. Jesus described this woman as an abomination. [Rev 17:5]. And this points up one important point of an oppresive law that can decieve and it cannot ever be disassociated with her central doctrine. There is only one BLUE LAW that effects a death decree. This law is still on the books and it is not about Sunday, its about blasphemy of the most holy Trinity. [See The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary - Vol 7. p. 675 ]

There is only one common denominator that the man with the pointy hat can mold peace and unity and it is on one issue alone - the worship of the same monotheistc God that the two antagonists accept and who both claim right to Jerusalem - the glorious holy mountain. What then of anyone who embitters the possibility of the primary chance of peace in Palestine? It would be quite easy to invoke an oppresive law that amply yet deceptively denigrates the eternal Divinity of He who is the I AM to produce the dire want of the main antagonist in the great controversy. See Isa 14:12-14. We ought not forget Matt 12:31.