The 1896 Sabbath School Lesson -- What changed?

[Pastor_Chick]

There were some principles taught in 1896, just four years after EGW said, "the loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of the righteousness of Christ," that are no longer taken seriously among leaders and laity of mainline Adventism.

Why the change?

It was understood by the 1896 SDA Church that two dangerous categories of corporate back-sliding exist:

1) "Babylon": after having imbibed pagan errors causing confusion (from which recovery is possible), and

2) "Babylon fallen": the condition of no return as the result of joining hands with the state and using the power of civil government rather than the word of God

Here is an online source in case the images below do not load:

http://home.netcom.com/~crmin/csdachurch/1896sabb.html

Looking forward to your understandings.

[Dr. Rich]

Pastor_chick, first of all, EGW's writings show that she was mislead or mistaken with her belief that the time of trouble had even started. It is clear that those three angels don't toot their horns until after the start of the tribulation. All one has to do is read the words in Revelation to see that Rev. 8:7-12 has not ever happened.

I keep scratching my head and wondering when the leaders of the SDA church are going to wake up and smell the coffee. But then Jesus did say that NONE of the wicked would ever understand!

[phkrause]

Pastor_chick, first of all, EGW's writings show that she was mislead or mistaken with her belief that the time of trouble had even started. It is clear that those three angels don't toot their horns until after the start of the tribulation. All one has to do is read the words in Revelation to see that Rev. 8:7-12 has not ever happened.

I keep scratching my head and wondering when the leaders of the SDA church are going to wake up and smell the coffee. But then Jesus did say that NONE of the wicked would ever understand!

That's a sad commentary Dr. Rich. I could understand if you said that EGW was mistaken, but mislead???? God was the one leading her. And I don't believe that he would've mislead her. She could've misunderstood but that's it. Its like many reading the Bible, we might misunderstand something but can't believe that God would mislead us.

[Pastor_Chick]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

Pastor_chick, first of all, EGW's writings show that she was mislead or mistaken with her belief that the time of trouble had even started. It is clear that those three angels don't toot their horns until after the start of the tribulation. All one has to do is read the words in Revelation to see that Rev. 8:7-12 has not ever happened.

I keep scratching my head and wondering when the leaders of the SDA church are going to wake up and smell the coffee. But then Jesus did say that NONE of the wicked would ever understand!

That's a sad commentary Dr. Rich. I could understand if you said that EGW was mistaken, but mislead???? God was the one leading her. And I don't believe that he would've mislead her. She could've misunderstood but that's it. Its like many reading the Bible, we might misunderstand something but can't believe that God would mislead us.

Brethren,

In the basic evidence from the 1896 International Sabbath School Quarterly, I am NOT quoting EGW but the General Conference publishers. I did mention a short statement from EGW, and I hope that did not muddy the waters. I am looking at what the CHURCH taught, not EGW.

[phkrause]

Brethren,

In the basic evidence from the 1896 International Sabbath School Quarterly, I am NOT quoting EGW but the General Conference publishers. I did mention a short statement from EGW, and I hope that did not muddy the waters. I am looking at what the CHURCH taught, not EGW.

I understand that Pastor Chick, but Dr. Rich can't see past his dislike of EGW or Paul. I have no problem with what you posted.

[Dr. Rich]

PK and Pastorchick, it does not matter who or what caused the leaders of the Adventists to falsly believe and proclaim what they have done. Those three angels toot thier horns ONLY after the tribulation starts. The fact is---and still is---the tribulation still has not started, yet the Adventists keep wanting to toot the horns that belong to the angels--not to the Adventists! That my friends is pure nonsense! Not only that, it is blaspheming the Holy Spirit!

So why remain in darkness? That darkness is what Adventists are in because they are spiritually sleeping as found in Matthew 25:1-13 and Rev. 3:1-29. If I am wrong, please provide me with evidence from the words of Jesus to correct my understanding. Thanks!

[Pastor_Chick]

Dr. Rich,

I really do not know you. I have begun to see your posts recently. On one occasion I actually agreed with something you said about the NSL.

After reading several of your comments, I have come to wonder what your motivation is. I ask myself this because of the spirit that I often discern. I have also questioned whether you are SDA, and if so, then why?

Now, to be honest with you, I am not SDA. I am of a more conservative persuasion called by CSDA, tending to adhere to what might be considered "pioneer SDA" doctrine. We are non-Trinitarian which fully sets us apart from the mainline denomination. We share a common name and have suffered the consequences thereof via the United States Federal court system. Sanctions continue.

Obviously, from what has transpired so far, you and I cannot "walk together," because we are "made from different cloth" and "march to the beat of a different drummer." YAHWEH will have to judge between us.

My motivation for offering a voice on this forum is to stimulate serious thinking and spiritual discussion in order to facilitate "revival and reformation." I have a heart burden for the "professed people of God."

I have taken this space to "set the record straight" so to speak. And, I am not interested in "heated debate." Thank you for allowing me this disclaimer.

[ClubV12]

Chick, just clear up the confusion and in my opinion, Dr. Rich is a Seventh Day Adventist in name only. His theology is dramatically different than what the SDA organization believes.

[Dr. Rich]

PastorChick, Thank you for your 'honest' post. I will not discriminate between any religion as all of them believe in lies and are not the absolute and singular truth as is the gospel of the Kingdom of God that Jesus testified to as given to us by His eyewitnsses. It makes no difference to me what religion one says he is as my research shows me that only a FEW (Rev. 3:4) will be among the group found in Rev. 12:17.

My motivation to blog here is found in Matthew 24:14 and Dan. 12:3. This gospel is non-other then the same words that Jesus came to this earth to testify to. Now, is there a problem with this? IF so, please explain the problem.

[Dr. Rich]

Oh, another thing chick, IF you and your 'church' would have known about me before the 'fight' with the GC, then you would not have had the trouble you described. If you want to know who I am and what I do, search the web for "How to get out of a 501©" and "The Bible On Trial". You will find that I would have been your best friend in the 'legal' problems with the GC. Many have told me that I am public enemy number ONE of the GC, and for good reason. It is the truth that sets one free from the chains of all of the lies we hear and believe.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Oh, another thing chick, IF you and your 'church' would have known about me before the 'fight' with the GC, then you would not have had the trouble you described. If you want to know who I am and what I do, search the web for "How to get out of a 501©" and "The Bible On Trial". You will find that I would have been your best friend in the 'legal' problems with the GC. Many have told me that I am public enemy number ONE of the GC, and for good reason. It is the truth that sets one free from the chains of all of the lies we hear and believe.

**snicker** Dr. Rich, what makes you think the GC even knows about you and what you espouse?

FWIW, I've done some investigating.

[Dr. Rich]

Rudywoofs, as long as you are investigating, please don't forget to investigate the issue and problems with David Dennis.

[Pastor_Chick]

I would appreciate some serious discussion of the topic initiated about the principles taught in the 1896 International Sabbath School Lesson.

For those SDA believers who have some interest in "the roots" of the Advent movement, I have posed a reasonable question: "Why the change?"

[ClubV12]

Chick, would you give us the "Cliff Notes" version of what changed from then to now?

[Pastor_Chick]

Chick, would you give us the "Cliff Notes" version of what changed from then to now?

RE "CliffsNotes": "...the company claims to promote the reading of the original work, and does not view the study guides as a substitute to the reading." (Wikipedia)

If you need further assistance, let me know.

[BobRyan]

Rudywoofs, as long as you are investigating, please don't forget to investigate the issue and problems with David Dennis.

Let me guess - you now claim to be "David Dennis"??

Please be reasonable.

[BobRyan]

Pastor_chick, first of all, EGW's writings show that she was mislead or mistaken with her belief that the time of trouble had even started. It is clear that those three angels don't toot their horns until after the start of the tribulation.

At this point one begins to wonder just how many different ways Rich has to "get it wrong".

Oh well - we live in a free will Universe.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

In the basic evidence from the 1896 International Sabbath School Quarterly, I am NOT quoting EGW but the General Conference publishers. I did mention a short statement from EGW, and I hope that did not muddy the waters. I am looking at what the CHURCH taught, not EGW.

1. It has not been established that each article in the SSQ in the 1800's was a voted statement or in any other way - approved by the entire denomination any more than it is today.

2. It has been established that a number of our leading men in the 1800's held to differences of opinion on a variety of topics and that they were at times in error in their statements or beliefs.

The same holds for the SSQ for modern times.

Some of them appear to be well grounded and others make you wonder just what they were thinking.

in our present system the Quarterly itself is often written by outside contributors to the department responsible for the Quarterly. You may argue that the editors should have caught this or that - but we have never had a doctrine about "infallible SSQ editors".

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Chick, just clear up the confusion and in my opinion, Dr. Rich ... theology is dramatically different than what the SDA organization believes.

That is a fact beyond dispute.

in Christ,

Bob

[ClubV12]

I still don't get it. What is the fundamental problem with the SS lesson as it regards current thinking and/or current established doctrine now as opposed to then?

[Scion]

I still don't get it. What is the fundamental problem with the SS lesson as it regards current thinking and/or current established doctrine now as opposed to then?

Hi ClubV12,

To summarize what the question is asking (Cliff-notes style), the post from the SSQ shows that the Church once accepted the position that to rely upon the state for the establishment or defense of doctrine and the Church's institutions was an indication of a "fallen" system. Since this does not appear to be the position of the Church NOW, as it does (and I've found much evidence to support this myself) tend to rely strongly on the power of the state for a great many things (and protecting its name from "other groups" with a federal trademark and a series of lawsuits is only one of several examples)... the question is, "Why has this position been changed?"

If it was changed based on increasing light, surely there will be Bible verses and passages that support it. If the pioneers were mistaken on their position, and one person who posted before I did seems to say that "Since there is no indication that the SSQ material was voted on, it shouldn't be trusted as the Church's position," then why was the original position embraced by the SSQ author wrong? I think it is a valid question, at least worthy of some consideration.

[ClubV12]

Ah, I suspected that was the issue but wanted some clairity on it.

Reliance on Government "aid", support, counsel, whatever you want to call it. NOT considered a viable approach "then" but is applicable in some manner today. Thus, the apparent "change".

I'm reminded of the accusations of purgery against Ellen White in that regard. What was perfectly acceptable in her day is looked upon in our time as illegal, immoral, unethical. What's changed are "laws" in that regard. Ellen White did not "purger" as we now understand the word, she did what many authors of her time did, shared passages here and there. The response to that, largely by the EGW Estate, has been to acknowledge these other sources that EGW used. I think that's a nice balance, I appreciate seeing the original source for some of her writing.

So the question now becomes: By applying the trademark laws in protection of the name, "Seventh Day Adventist" that we have "hooked up" with the civil authorities. Times and laws have changed, like "purgery" laws. Publications are vast, immediate, readily available. Organizations can form overnight and take whatever name they want much easier and quicker today than in EGW's time. Today the impact of doing that is also much more severe and with much more potential damage. I suspect it is indeed prudent for the Seventh Day Adventist church to take issue with it's trademark, or risk loosing it altogether.

It is true in trademark law, that if you don't take action to defend your trademark, someone else CAN apply for it and STOP you from using it. The argument that you have had that trademark for decades, surprisingly, is NOT valid. The concept here is what you did along the way to protect it! If you did nothing, it could fall into "public domain", or be registered by some other party.

I know the trademark issues fairly well because I have a "Shelby Cobra" that is a "replica". Shelby filed for a tradedress on the shape and design of the car. His intent was to charge ME and all others a certain "fee" to own a car I have owned for years already. Shelby lost the trademark, because for decades he took no action to protect it. The "Cobra" design is now in the public domain and can be used by anyone and no one can file a claim to it. Shelby lost it by simply ignoring others who were using it. When he woke up and smelled the coffee, it was to late.

[BobRyan]

To summarize what the question is asking (Cliff-notes style), the post from the SSQ shows that the Church once accepted the position that to rely upon the state for the establishment or defense of doctrine and the Church's institutions was an indication of a "fallen" system. Since this does not appear to be the position of the Church NOW, as it does (and I've found much evidence to support this myself) tend to rely strongly on the power of the state for a great many things (and protecting its name from "other groups" with a federal trademark and a series of lawsuits is only one of several examples)... the question is, "Why has this position been changed?"

Our position on appealing to the state to enforce doctrine has never changed.

In the 1800's we did appeal to the state to respect our religious liberty.

And we did appeal to the state when we legally organized our publishing houses and our denomination so as to have legally protected rights to ownership of property etc.

That too - has never changed.

in Christ,

Bob

[ClubV12]

This reminds me of the should we vote issue. To which I respond, when it comes to matters of health reform or religious liberty issues (as two examples), certainly vote!

Vote AND lobby against the "Adult Porn Store" trying to get a license. Vote and lobby against Sunday laws, etc.

But let every man be persauded in his own heart as to whether he should vote or how he should lobby.

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

Our position on appealing to the state to enforce doctrine has never changed.

[...]

in Christ,

Bob

Bob,

I have a couple of questions for you:

1) What is "our position on appealing to the state to enforce doctrine?"

2) How does that "position on appealing to the state" affect others' doctrine when not in line with the General Conference position?

Thank you in advance.