The Sunday Law

[John317]

...In Ms 130, it is not a message to the disciples, it is a message to Christ's followers: SDA's in particular. It would be nice to know it the context of Ms 145

I think in this case, the confusion is cleared up when we understand that disciples are Christ's followers. However, the question of "the disciples" doesn't change the signifiance of the statement with regard to the identity and work of the "three heavenly dignitaries."

Because questions were raised before about those particular pages in the book, Evangelism, I have verified them by going to the White Estate in Loma Linda and examininbg for myself the writings in Ellen White's own handwriting or the original printed version. You can also find online some of the quotes in her own handwriting. These quotes in Evangelism have been studied very closely by many people because they are about the Trinity, a doctrine that has come under fire within the SDA church in recent years. I did not see any quotes in Evangelism 614-617 that are different from their original writing or printing. This does not, of course, include the side headings in bold type at the beginning of the paragraphs, such as the line, "The Eternal Dignitaries of the Trinity" on page 616. Ellen White never used the word "Trinity" in her writings, and neither does the Bible.

I do certainly agree with you that it is always important to consider the context of statements, and whenever possible, we need to look at the statements as they were originally published and not merely as they occur in an anthology or collection of quotes.

[hch]

Originally Posted By: hch

...In Ms 130, it is not a message to the disciples, it is a message to Christ's followers: SDA's in particular. It would be nice to know it the context of Ms 145

I think in this case, the confusion is cleared up when we understand that disciples are Christ's followers.

Because questions were raised before about those particular pages in the book, Evangelism, I have verified them by going to the White Estate in Loma Linda and examininbg for myself the writings in Ellen White's own handwriting or the original printed version. You can also find online some of the quotes in her own handwriting. These quotes in Evangleism have been studied very closely by many people because they are about the Trinity, a doctrine that has come under fire within the SDA church in recent years. I did not see any quotes in Evangelism 614-617 that are different from their original writing or printing. Ellen White made at least one change in her own handwriting, and this change can be scrutinized online if people are interested.

But I do certainly agree with you that it is always important to consider the context of statements, and whenever possible, we need to look at the statements as they were originally published and not merely as they occur in an anthology or collection of quotes.

Thanks for the feedback. I don't disagree.

But "the disciples" conveys the 12 Apostles that lived 2000-years ago not the followers of Jesus that live today. Applying a statement to ancients times that should be applicable today may be akin to crying peace and safety when sudden danger is at hand???

It would be great to have access to the original Ms.

And I am not comforted by the fact that many SDA's have read the statements over the years. With subtle changes made to EGW's writings and accepted: errors hoary with age are embraced by the Church as though they are truth. And the cause is that man's wisdom has crept into the work.

[John317]

But "the disciples" conveys the 12 Apostles that lived 2000-years ago not the followers of Jesus that live today. Applying a statement to ancients times that should be applicable today may be akin to crying peace and safety when sudden danger is at hand???

It would be great to have access to the original Ms.

Let me look into the original manuscript or printing of that manuscript and get back with you about it. In fact, I'll check out again both questions about that quote.

[Naraiel]

The statement in further context:

Quote:

Your case has been shown me to be worse than that of Elder R, because you had greater light, capacity, and influence; and his course is a beacon to warn you off from following in his steps. Elder R's credentials were taken away from him; he is a deeply repentant man, humbled in the dust. {TSB 188.1}

Supposing David should, after being reproved by Nathan, have repeated the same offense, would the Lord then have had compassion upon him? But he repented bitterly; he declared his transgression was ever before him. Hear his humiliating confession, and listen to his despairing cries. {TSB 188.2}

We must as a people arouse and cleanse the camp of Israel. Licentiousness, unlawful intimacy, and unholy practices are coming in among us in a large degree; and ministers who are handling sacred things are guilty of sin in this respect. They are coveting their neighbors' wives, and the seventh commandment is broken. We are in danger of becoming a sister to fallen Babylon, of allowing our churches to become corrupted, and filled with every foul spirit, a cage for every unclean and hateful bird; and will we be clear unless we make decided movements to cure the existing evil? {TSB 188.3}

Will you have others follow your example? Will you wish them to pass over the ground you have traveled, and feel that they have done no great wrong? Without repentance and conversion, you are a ruined man. {TSB 188.4}

I hear you [Elder H] are taking treatment at the sanitarium, acting as chaplain, speaking in the Tabernacle. Now, this does not look right for you to take such positions, until you have done all in your power to correct past evils. {TSB 189.1}

I have felt, for your sake, restrained from opening the matter of Mrs. S's infidelity to her husband, but I fear I have neglected my duty. If we had dealt with this matter as if it had been the case of a lay member of the church, I believe God would have then sent you repentance that needed not to be repented of. {TSB 189.2}

Our pity, our love, to save you from reproach, has hurt you. My heart is so sad and agonized at times for you, I can only weep. I say, "Must he be lost? Must he, after suffering for the truth's sake, after standing in its defense until he is old and gray-headed, become an idolater, as did Solomon? Will he, for the love of a woman, trample down the law of God and look about him as much as to say, I do no sin; I am all right?"

Dear Teresa,

Thank you for providing the full context. I appreciate it.

Even with the full context a few things got my attention.

Yes, Teresa, Sis. White is writing to Elder Waggoner about his spiritual condition, especially about his sin of adultery, and she is trying to reason with him, but at the same time she relates his (spiritual) condition with that of the camp of Israel, (representing the SDA Church) which was beginning to show a similar condition. Every principle or warning she is expressing to Elder Waggoner, we should also heed it as a church.

Let’s read the whole passage:

1st Principle

“Your case has been shown me to be worse than that of Elder R, because you had greater light, capacity, and influence; and his course is a beacon to warn you off from following in his steps. Elder R's credentials were taken away from him; he is a deeply repentant man, humbled in the dust.” {TSB 188.1}

As a Church, the Seventh Day Adventist Church has received greater light and the courses of previous fallen Churches (Jewish, Catholic, Protestants) should be a beacon to warn us off from following their steps.

“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” Hebrews 6:4-6

2nd Principle

Supposing David should, after being reproved by Nathan, have repeated the same offense, would the Lord then have had compassion upon him? But he repented bitterly; he declared his transgression was ever before him. Hear his humiliating confession, and listen to his despairing cries.” {TSB 188.2}

Supposing the SDA Church should, after reproved by the Word of God (with previous testimonies), have repeated the same (past) offenses, would the Lord then have had compassion upon her?

Let’s remember that David was loved by God, but when he sinned, he was forgiven because he experienced true repentances and conversion. Otherwise, God could not continue to protect him. For “the righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.” Eze 33:12

"THE PRINCIPLES OF GOD'S DEALING WITH MEN ARE EVER THE SAME."

[Great Controversy page 343]

3rd Principle: Conditionality

“We must as a people arouse and cleanse the camp of Israel. Licentiousness, unlawful intimacy, and unholy practices are coming in among us in a large degree; and ministers who are handling sacred things are guilty of sin in this respect. They are coveting their neighbors' wives, and the seventh commandment is broken. We are in danger of becoming a sister to fallen Babylon, of allowing our churches to become corrupted, and filled with every foul spirit, a cage for every unclean and hateful bird; and will we be clean unless we make decided movements to cure the existing evil?” {TSB 188.3}

Would King David be clean unless he made decided movements to cure the existing evil in him? No, according to God in

Eze 33: 12, and No, according to Ellen White’s insinuation in her statement.

4th Principle

“Will you have others follow your example? Will you wish them to pass over the ground you have traveled, and feel that they have done no great wrong? Without repentance and conversion, you are a ruined man. I hear you are taking treatment at the sanitarium, acting as chaplain, speaking in the Tabernacle. Now, this does not look right for you to take such positions, until you have done all in your power to correct past evils.” {TSB 189.1}

Without repentance and conversion all, individuals and churches, are ruined.

A statement related to Elder Waggoner’s individual case:

“I have felt, for your sake, restrained from opening the matter of Mrs. S's infidelity to her husband, but I fear I have neglected my duty. If we had dealt with this matter as if it had been the case of a lay member of the church, I believe God would have then sent you repentance that needed not to be repented of.” {TSB 189.2}

5th Principle

“Our pity, our love, to save you from reproach, has hurt you. My heart is so sad and agonized at times for you, I can only weep. I say, "Must he be lost? Must he, after suffering for the truth's sake, after standing in its defense until he is old and gray-headed, become an idolater, as did Solomon? Will he, for the love of a woman, trample down the law of God and look about him as much as to say, I do no sin; I am all right?”

Will the SDA Church, for union with another protector, trample down the law of God, and look about him as much as to say, I do not sin?

Fallen Babylon is characterized in the Bible for committing (spiritual) adultery with the kings of the earth, in other words for breaking Christ’s marriage vow. A sister to fallen Babylon may not share the same physical traits of her sister, but she definitely shares the same spirit of unfaithfulness as Fallen Babylon. Ezekiel Chapter 23 is a good comparison of this principle.

"...the sacred and enduring character of the relation that exists between Christ and His church is represented by the union of Marriage...The unfaithfulness of the church to Christ in permitting her confidence and affection to be turned from Him, and allowing the love of worldly things to occupy the soul, is likened to the violation of the marriage vow..."thou wast exceeding beautiful and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through My comeliness, which I had put upon thee...But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown." [Great Controversy, 381]

"Again, Christ represents His Church as His bride and He her Husband. Thus Paul says to the Corinthian Church, 'I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ' (2 Cor. 11:2; also Rom. 7:4). Christ is, therefore, the Protector and Defender of His Churches; but whenever the Church allows someone else to PROTECT and rule over her she acts just as a woman who leaves her husband and seeks protection of some other man. In a union of Church and State the Church becomes MARRIED, as it were, to the State..." [Letter 51a, 1898]

I think from Sis. White’s letter to Elder Waggoner all of us can learn important and applicable principles.

Another characteristic of Babylon, the mother and her family, is that Babylon is drunk (confused). When a woman is drunk and confused it is more likely for her to commit adultery when the circumstances present themselves, than when she is in her right mind, the same principle applies to a church if her spiritual discernment or sensibilities are absent.

In Ellen White’s day, the SDA was Laodicea, yes! BUT IF NOTHING WAS DONE SINCE THAT TIME, as a church, TO CORRECT THIS, THEN THE NATURAL RESULT WOULD BE TO BECOME COOLER. In fact, God says that if Laodicea does not reform, and improve, “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16) This is utter rejection. Even remaining lukewarm is enough to eventually be rejected as a Church by God. Becoming cooler makes coming out of a lukewarm state even more difficult. It is better to be hot, or completely cold.

Without reform, from the Laodicea condition the church would pass to the Babylonian condition (confusion and apostasy, where truth and error are mixed), HOWEVER both states were not hopeless; they could be reformed from within. But if nothing was done to fix this and in that condition the church chose to abandon her trust in Christ as her Protector to seek protection from the State, she will have committed adultery and broken her covenant or marriage vow with Christ. His promises are no longer applicable to that church, but to another one who accomplishes His will, and finishes His work.

This is not a strange or new doctrine. In fact, SDAs taught it as Bible truth from the very beginning, as mentioned previously in this forum. This is a pair of quotations from a Sabbath School Quarterly printed in 1896, and all that we are doing is revealing the original beliefs of Adventism to the world. Even if you have read this before they apply specifically to this situation:

"When the early church departed from God and imbibed pagan errors, she became Babylon. When she united with the state, she FELL, and, as an organization, was the body of Christ no longer.” [Feb 29, 1896]

“It has ever been true that a backslidden body, one that has turned from God's word to men, from God's power to the state, was never reformed in itself. INVARIABLY God's message has CALLED OUT those FROM THE FALLEN CHURCH who would do His will and preach His gospel.” [March 7, 1896]

When Israel fell, its promises were passed on to other Churches that God raised up in due time.Why will the SDA Church be treated different from the other previous churches that have fallen and have broken His covenant? Isn’t Yah the same yesterday, today and forever? Did He love the Jews and Catholics any less than the SDAs? Were His promises less wonderful to them?

We need to be humble, and not be tempted by arrogance or pride.

If we do what the people of Israel did, Gou would tell us the same words He told to Jeremiah, Chapter 7

Sorry for the delay to reply. I had a busy week.

[Naraiel]

Hi, Jhon 317

My replied to your comment is included also in my reply to Teresa, the last paragraphs. Thanks for your comment.

[Naraiel]

Hi Jhon 317

Well, Yes, I have some doctrines or teachings that have changed, from the Biblical Perspective to the New Theology perspective.

However, this forum is about Sundaw Law, and although it seems to have taken another direction, in reality all the principles that have been mentioned here are key to understand the conditionality nature of the sunday law, for the enforcement of the Sunday Law was intimately related with the faihtfulness of the SDA Church, as a body, but if the SDA Church has changed of Spirit, from a Spirit of love to a Spirit of force and coercion, then all the promises related to that Body become conditional.

"Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

"And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

"But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

"When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

"They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out [his] vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.[...]Jesus said: Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."[Mateo 21:33-41,43]

In these last days, we don't have to kill, literally, God's messengers to reject God. Only by being negligent or indiferent towards His instructions,in His word, and being unfaithful to Him is enough to show that He is not our priority.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Exo 20:3

Friend Jhon 317, If you want to know the doctrines that have changed, you could open another forum related to that subject if you want. I don't want to mention them here for they are not specifcally related with the Sunday Law subject.

Would you agree to open another forum or write me personally for more information?

Thanks, I apreciate it.

[John317]

Hi Jhon 317

Well, Yes, I have some doctrines or teachings that have changed, from the Biblical Perspective to the New Theology perspective.

However, this forum is about Sundaw Law, and although it seems to have taken another direction, in reality all the principles that have been mentioned here are key to understand the conditionality nature of the sunday law, for the enforcement of the Sunday Law was intimately related with the faihtfulness of the SDA Church, as a body, but if the SDA Church has changed of Spirit, from a Spirit of love to a Spirit of force and coercion, then all the promises related to that Body become conditional.

......Friend Jhon 317, If you want to know the doctrines that have changed, you could open another forum related to that subject if you want. I don't want to mention them here for they are not specifcally related with the Sunday Law subject.

Would you agree to open another forum or write me personally for more information?

Thanks, I apreciate it.

Naraiel,

I would very much like to know your viewpoint about the doctrines that you say have changed. Is one of the them in regard to the Godhead-- that is, the Trinity? If so, there are already several discussions that are devoted to that topic. But if you refer to a number of other doctrines, please name them, and then if there's a need to do so, we can open a discussion devoted specifically to them.

[Naraiel]

Correction: If we do what the people of Israel did, GOD would tell us the same words He told to Jeremiah, Chapter 7

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

I take it that you would disagree with those who assert that prophesy indicates that the latter rain began to fall on 9/11/01?

I was not aware that people were teaching that.

There is a movement that is teaching the Angel from Revelation came down on september 11, 2001 and brought the little book of Daniel which is now being opened and eaten, here is one such site.

http://www.pathofthejust.org/Path_of_the_Just_Ministries/Home.html

[John317]

I read the link but didn't see why they believed this. I believe probation will close for the SDA church before it closes for the rest of the world because we have had this truth a long time, but I don't believe what they say happened on Sept. 11, 2001. I know of no reason to believe it. I'd like to see the evidence and reason for it. It sounds very much like a stretch to me. We don't need this message in order to convince us that God wants us to do what Ellen White wrote about on page 425 of The Great Controversy.

I believe Satan would love for such a message to be associated with the necessity of separating sin from us, because he knows it would eventually lead many people to reject the truth.

[hch]

I read the link but ...

You might find this link interesting?

In case you missed, I posted it on some other threads too.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/425907/Re_Egypt.html#Post425907

[hch]

...I believe probation will close for the SDA church before it closes for the rest of the world because we have had this truth a long time, ...

[Naraiel]

Dear Jhon317:

Sorry, for my delay.

Well, when I was referring to some doctrinal changes, I was referring more to the essence of the teachings that have been disregarded, "for It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4

The teaching I had in mind when I was saying this, was the teaching and warning found in 1 Corinthians Chapter 6.

"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

"But brother goeth to law with brother and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.... Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body." [Read the whole chapter Chapter 6]

Who is my brother and Sister?

"And Jesus answered them, saying, who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, behold my mother and my brethren!"For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." Mark 3:33-35

What the will of God includes?

"For this is the will of God, your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication." 1 Th 4:3

"For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing." 1 Pet 3:17

"See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.1 Th 5:15

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Mat 7:12

If Christ is the Head of the current SDA Body, Why is the SDA Body exalting above Christ, replacing His teachings with world's mentality, and worldly policies?

The Head of the Church says: "But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil."Luke 6:35

Only those who believe that a church must be treated as a worldly business (market), and must be defended like other business, by civil law, have forgotten that Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world. Many seem to have forgotten that God, not man, is WHO defines what is righteous and what is (sin)evil. What is a Church, and who is a Christian Seventh Day Adventist.

“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” Jhon 18:36

CONCLUSION: Most of the SDA doctrines have not changed in the "letter", but the whole vision and decisions of the SDA Church are not longer based on Christ’s vision and judgement for the head is not longer Christ’s, it is the SDA General Conference *Corporation.

There is not way that Christ's Spirit defends carnal and worldly views to promote His Gospel of Victory over sin (which in other times was called "Justification by Faith).

"...whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." Jan 4:4

Who is a friend?

Someone with who I share similar thoughts, likes, dislikes, views, mentality. Someone with whom I share many things in common.

“What is a corporation?

One dictionary in my library says it is a "fictitious person." A more comprehensive definition is given by Chief Justice Marshall (1819):

"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and if the expression may be allowed, individuality; properties by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered as the same, and may act as a single individual." (4 Wheat, (U.S.) 518)

It is interesting to me that this "fictitious person" has "individuality", "immortality", and a "perpetual succession of many persons" acting as a single person. This character reminds me suspiciously of the office of the "pope." In fact, the historical roots of "ecclesiastical entities" is revealed by Ludwig Teller in CORPORATIONS, (1949):

"The corporation does not appear to have originated as a state franchise, nor as a means of securing limited liability. Roman corporations, originally unregulated by the state, were later licensed by the Emperor apparently to abridge their political activities. . . . After the advent of Christianity, ecclesiastical entities were similarly created by the Pope, who took the view that his fiat was necessary for such purpose." (p.4)

It is very clear that today, since 1981, the fruits of the SDA General Conference Corporation are very similar to the fruits of fallen Babylon for they seem to share the same spirit, the spirit of the papacy, when dealing with dissenters or former brothers. (1 COR 2:14-16)

[John317]

Dear Jhon317:

Sorry, for my delay.

Well, when I was referring to some doctrinal changes, I was referring more to the essence of the teachings that have been disregarded, "for It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4

The teaching I had in mind when I was saying this, was the teaching and warning found in 1 Corinthians Chapter 6.

"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? .....[Read the whole chapter Chapter 6]

....If Christ is the Head of the current SDA Body, Why is the SDA Body exalting above Christ, replacing His teachings with world's mentality, and worldly policies?

....Only those who believe that a church must be treated as a worldly business (market), and must be defended like other business, by civil law, have forgotten that Christ's Kingdom is not of this world. Many seem to have forgotten that God, not man, is WHO defines what is righteous and what is (sin)evil.

....CONCLUSION: Most of the SDA doctrines have not changed in the "letter", but the whole vision and decisions of the SDA Church are not longer based on Christ’s vision and judgement for the head is not longer Christs, it is the SDA General Conference *Corporation.

There is not way that Christ's Spirit defends carnal and worldly views to promote His Gospel of Victory over sin (which in other times was called "Justification by Faith).

It's pretty plain that you disagree with how the church is operated on an organizational level and that you particularly object to the way the SDA church uses the court system to settle legal issues. But how does this relate to the Sunday law and the mark of the beast?

Is there an example or two of this that stands out in your mind that you believe illustrates the problem?

[hch]

... But how does this relate to the Sunday law and the mark of the beast?

Is there an example or two of this that stands out in your mind that you believe illustrates the problem?

The more I study, the more I find that the Sunday is almost upon us!

[hch]

... But how does this relate to the Sunday law and the mark of the beast?

Is there an example or two of this that stands out in your mind that you believe illustrates the problem?

[Tom Wetmore]

... The more I study, the more I find that the Sunday is almost upon us!

Yes, day after tomorrow...

[hch]

Originally Posted By: hch

... The more I study, the more I find that the Sunday is almost upon us!

Yes, day after tomorrow...

Sooner than we once thought

[Light Fox]

Hello,

I see that I've become rather late in responding to this. My apologies; the thread seemed to take off in a different direction, and I lost track of the conversation fairly quickly. It seems that the discussion has died down, however, and I've been able to (somewhat) catch up again. I also notice I haven't responded to John317's reply to me several pages ago.

Quote:

I'm not claiming that the SDA church will be God's Remnant church no matter what happens or no matter what the church does or says. What makes a church Babylon is its rejection of the Three Angels Messages and its rejection of the truth in regard to the judgment, the Second Coming, non-immorality of the wicked, the immutablity of the law of God, and the pre-existence and deity of Christ.

If the SDA church were to teach and practice the same as the fallen churches in regard to those doctrines-- those which Ellen White referred to as the "fundamental pillars of our faith"--- our beloved church would also be Babylonian. (It is true, by the way, that some individuals in the SDA church reject these doctrinal truths.)

I'm not comfortable with forming a "doctrinal checklist" of what constitutes Babylon, and I'm not aware of anywhere in Scripture or the SoP that advocates such a limited application of the term (though I am, of course, open to any references you may share).

Even so, the Three Angel's Messages make a very valid discussion point. If a church talks about the Three Angel's Messages, and repudiates every principle of them in action, is it rejecting them or is it not?

The second angel's message is an announcement regarding Babylon falling through union with the kings of the earth. The third angel's message is a warning against receiving the mark of the beast imposed by a church-state union.

It seems rather apparent to me that, regardless of what may be put on paper, a church that 1) unites with the state and 2) uses civil power to punish heretics 3) who do not receive it's "mark" is rejecting these messages in their entirety. It's practically identical, again, to the Jews of Christ's day - did they reject the Messiah?

They didn't think so. They were very anxiously awaiting the Messiah, teaching about the Messiah, talking about the Messiah, preparing for the Messiah - specifically, their expectation of what and who the Messiah was. When He actually came, they rejected Him. But no one could say that they rejected the idea of the Messiah.

The Adventist church can await the Sunday law, talk about the mark of the beast, prepare for persecution, etc, etc... that doesn't mean they aren't rejecting the Three Angel's Messages when they do the exact same thing themselves, and essentially say "Oh well. I guess its not ideal (or worse - those that say it IS ideal) that we're joining to the state and putting people in jail for their faith, but we're the true Church, and it's not a literal Sunday law, so it's all unimportant in the grand scheme of things."

It is extremely important... and it's exactly what has caused every church before it - no matter how favored by Heaven - to fall. As you put it, the result is they are "not God's channel of truth for these last days."

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

It's pretty plain that you [Naraiel] disagree with how the church is operated on an organizational level and that you particularly object to the way the SDA church uses the court system to settle legal issues. But how does this relate to the Sunday law and the mark of the beast?

[...]

John,

I have clipped yours and underlined your question for emphasis.

Hear a parable of two women:

One called to her servant commanding,

"Make for me A DAY which all will

Respect and call holy."

The other woman summoned her servant instructing,

"Make for me A NAME that no one will defame, and

All will regard blessed."

The first servant returned saying, "I have made a HOLY DAY for you;

It will be respected and enforced by civil pledge."

The second servant returned saying,

"I have made a BLESSED NAME for you,

And the governor has pledged to protect it

From defamation and unauthorized use forever."

Who were the two women?

How do we know the two women agree?

[Dr. Rich]

Hey Qinael, interesting points you have made in regards to who or who isn't Babylon as found in Revelation. But I have a few questions for you. Do you believe that the time of trouble is in the past or the future? Do believe that Jesus could come at any time...like right now? Or, are you going to wait for something called the national sunday law before you make your choice?

[Light Fox]

Hi Dr. Rich,

Thanks for your questions. I'm not certain if I can answer your last one, since I don't know what you're referring to when you say "make your choice." What choice?

As far as your other questions, I believe that terms need to be clearly understood. I assume you are referring to the time of trouble spoken of in the book of Daniel, "such as never was since there was a nation." That's referred to in Mrs. White's writings also as the "Time of Jacob's Trouble," and happens after Christ stands up from mediation, closing human probation. As human probation has not yet closed, no, that time is not quite upon us yet.

Regarding whether Christ could come "right now" or not, my understanding of Mrs. White's writings is that the saints will know the day and the hour before the event occurs. The Scriptures also state that Yahweh will do nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets. So, no - Christ would not come "right now," as there remains the time of Jacob's trouble, the close of probation, and the announcing of the day and the hour to the saints. While we are informed that the final movements will be very rapid ones, I do not believe instantaneous is what was intended.

[Dr. Rich]

Thanks, and I agree.

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

Or, are you going to wait for something called the national sunday law before you make your choice?

Dr. Rich,

I noticed that "Q" asked you about what "choice" you were referring to. I was hoping to read your answer to his question, because it does interest me. Please elaborate on your meaning. Thank you.

[Dr. Rich]

Many SDA's are waiting for the NSL and I just wanted to see if this person was also doing this. It is my educated opinion that there will never be any NSL so these people may be wake up to a real surprise some day.

Many (most) believe that God sets up the rulers and leaders of the Nations of this world because of Rom. 13. I believe Rom. 13 will cause many to take the Mark of the Beast because they have been deceived into believing God is in charge of the leaders of this world.

A few years ago FEMA used Romans 13 in an attempt to get the clergy to tell their flock that God wanted them to obey them because it was God who set them up to be the leaders of this country. However, Romans 13 is the direct opposite of what Jesus said about the Ruler of this world. The final battle as found in Rev. 12:17 will be between those who have rejected what the writer of Romans 13 said, verses those who have built their belief upon the gospel of the writer of Romans 13. In fact, we can see this battle of truth start to form right here on this blog.