Is the Church Babylon?

[Scion]

Hi Ov,

Quote:

You claim , with a fairly long and fancy explanation, how you should be able to say what you want, without proof, but that John 317 must, because of his position, provide proof? Thats an interesting approach - sort of gives us a clue what we are really dealing with here.

If you say 'the early pioneers" held views that were more correct that today's views, then you must give references for what you are saying. Why? Because not all of the pioneers held the same views. So we need to know exactly what you are talking about here. I suspect you are pointing at the Arian views held by some of Adventist pioneers. Of course, if you are, then you are making the classic mistake of saying: "If these ones are like this, then the whole church must be." Nothing could be further from the truth; because the official position of the church has not been, is not always, the same as individual people within the church, including our leaders.

My apologies, I thought you'd already read some of the previous posts.

For the record, YES, of course I should be able to say what I want, and so should you. When it comes to matters of FAITH, it is going to be "without proof" until faith becomes sight. I also claim that if John wishes to convince me of his stand, he's going to have to provide SOME kind of evidence. Yes, that's how it works... and not just in matters of religion. You have a problem with this, it seems... but it's what I call freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.

As for references for what I am saying about the Pioneer position, do you really want me to post quotes from them? I certainly could, from pretty much every one of note, so here's but a single instance:

Quote:

“As fundamental errors, we might class with this counterfeit Sabbath other errors which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic church, such as sprinkling for baptism, the trinity, the consciousness of the dead, and eternal life in misery. ... can it be supposed that the church of Christ will carry along with her these errors till the judgment scenes burst upon the world? We think not.” (James White, Sep 12 1854, Review and Herald, Vol. 6, No. 5, P 36, Par 8)

To be sure, there are SO many of them, the majority of the time I spent writing this post was just in the selection of which one of the dozens I could provide. We have a remarkable body of work from them that has a single, clear voice on this matter.

So, it is NOT a matter of evidence regarding whether or not the pioneers believed in a Trinity or not. It is clear they did not. The only question is, were THEY correct, or was Sunday-keeping protestantism that never shook of Pagan/Catholic errors correct? Now, some will say, "They (the Catholics et. al) didn't get EVERYTHING wrong."

That's certainly true, but I happen to believe that our spirit-led forerunners in the Adventist faith were more correct, AND yes... I would need to see Biblical evidence that they were wrong before my position could possibly change. That is my right, and my very soul's duty before God. As for the early pioneers holding "different views," I have yet to find ONE Trinitarian statement among them! They may not have agreed on all the particulars and specifics, but they were - it is clear to me from simply reading their extensive writings extant to this day - that they were just about unanimously against this particular doctrine. If you know of a reference to even one quote in exception of this, please educate me... I am eager, as always, to learn.

I would certainly like to see some Bible verses or S.O.P. quotes to support the Trinity doctrine, except we both know that no such verses or quotes exist. It cannot possibly, therefore, be a part of the true Church's "creed."

P.S. I wasn't really going for "fancy," but I'm glad you can appreciate its linguistic qualities.

[Overaged]

Methinks you do not, for one thing, understand the difference between the Roman Catholic trinity doctrine; and the Adventist understanding of the "Trinity." The whole reason for the counterfeight is because there is a genuine. I did post some of the Roman Catholic viewpoints on this ealier in this topic. Have you seen that post?

John 3 17 has actually been posting a lot of references for what he posts. Something I wish more people would do.

[Overaged]

It might have been in another topic on the Holy Spirit where I posted those Roman Catholic view points. I will have to check myself...lol I'll be back tonight or tomorrow with a link - unless someone here beats me to it...

[Scion]

Quote:

Methinks you do not, for one thing, understand the difference between the Roman Catholic trinity doctrine; and the Adventist understanding of the "Trinity."

Oh, I see So there is a Catholic Trinity, and an Adventist Trinity. Well... that's much less confusing, isn't it? I understand both quite well, and it is largely a matter of hair-splitting. The distinctions, to those few who actually know or care about them, make not one whit of difference in terms of how the deceived ones view the relationship between the Father and Son.

I'm going to go ahead and... stick with what the Scriptures actually say about the Godhead, and what the original Adventist faith originally taught about the Godhead. I think that's best for me, and advisable for anyone who is not going to have to rely on anyone's traditions on the Day of Reckoning.

Yes, I've seen the proof-texts that people tend to advance in support of the doctrine, but, it just doesn't hold up to the most cursory scrutiny. The Bible says that Everlasting Life is to know the Father and the Son (John, chapter 17) with no mention of "knowledge" of the third Person of this paradigm. That is Biblical doctrine, no interpretation needed.

[John317]

So there is a Catholic Trinity, and an Adventist Trinity. Well... that's much less confusing, isn't it? I understand both quite well, and it is largely a matter of hair-splitting. The distinctions, to those few who actually know or care about them, make not one whit of difference in terms of how the deceived ones view the relationship between the Father and Son.

Would you please explain the differences that you see between the SDA view of the Trinity and the view of the Roman Catholic Church?

[John317]

... I also claim that if John wishes to convince me of his stand, he's going to have to provide SOME kind of evidence. Yes, that's how it works... and not just in matters of religion. You have a problem with this, it seems... but it's what I call freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.

I've already posted many pages of quotes from both the Bible and from EGW's writings, on quite a number of threads on this Forum. You'll find them by doing a search of ClubAdventistForum. All you need to do is look for "John317" and "Trinity" in both the subject and body.

Originally Posted By: Scion

As for references for what I am saying about the Pioneer position, do you really want me to post quotes from them? I certainly could, from pretty much every one of note, so here's but a single instance:

As fundamental errors, we might class with this counterfeit Sabbath other errors which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic church, such as sprinkling for baptism, the trinity, the consciousness of the dead, and eternal life in misery. ... can it be supposed that the church of Christ will carry along with her these errors till the judgment scenes burst upon the world? We think not. (James White, Sep 12 1854, Review and Herald, Vol. 6, No. 5, P 36, Par 8)

Most SDAs are well aware that the SDA Church was generally non-Trinitarian from 1863 to about 1900. By 1940 or so, almost all of the Church had accepted the Trinity. There have been a number of good books and articles which discuss the change.

The question is, why would we want to base our doctrines on church tradition or on the beliefs of men rather than on the Bible and on the Spirit of prophecy? While we have a prophet of God among us, who wrote a great deal on subject of the Godhead, why would anyone choose to depend on the words of uninspired people? I know that James White and the other Adventist Pioneers would never have wanted us to base our doctrines and beliefs on their ideas. If they were alive now, they would urge us to study the Bible and SoP for the truth. That's really what we need to do. We don't help anyone by basing our beliefs on any other source.

[Gibs]

Trinity, no I can not see that and the differece between the catholic and sda version is really not different. It'd be pretty hard to pin down as all trinitarians hold it some different.

You have plenty of Bible to dispell the trinity of gods but people are sold on believing there is.

Some Bible is pretty strong,

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

THE GOD dwelt in Jesus Christ, Yahweh the Father, there is no other God left to dwell in Him.

Yes Jesus said so,

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

You see He wasn't another God but THE ONE AND ONLY ONE was in Him.

The Holy Spirit isn't another God either but is also THE GOD! Jesus again tells us,

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Scion]

HiJohn,

The point I am making is that I see NO significant differences between them. Certainly the Godhead is not glorified by mixing around a few words and saying, "This is the truth."

I agree that there must be some truth in order for there to be a counterfeit. The truth is that there IS a Father, there IS a Son, and there IS a Holy Spirit.

But the Bible does NOT describe the Spirit in anything like "personal" terms. In fact, it is written: "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." (1Cor 2:11)

Paul is making a clear parallel between man and his spirit, and God and His Spirit. My spirit is not a separate person, it is my Me-ness, it is the part of me that is not restricted by the flesh. This is precisely why Ellen White said that the Spirit was Christ "himself, divested of human form" and therefore able to represent Himself as everywhere at once. It is not a separate person, but the life of Christ.

Non-Trinitarians are often accused of being less than orthodox, often less than Christian. But the fact of the matter is, I believe every word that is actually written of the Father, Son and Spirit in the Word. I simply reject the non-Biblical paradigms that have cropped up thereafter.

But really, the matter of the Trinity, I did not intend for it to dominate this thread. It is just ONE example of deviations made by the SDA Church from its original, Biblically-founded doctrines. That is the issue at stake here.

[Scion]

Quote:

By 1940 or so, almost all of the Church had accepted the Trinity. There have been a number of good books and articles which discuss the change.

I understand there was a change. I've read the several "good books" that discuss it. They do not bring a Biblical argument to bear on why this change was made. I, and many others, believe it was an error to do so, because 1)the BIBLE did not change "by 1940" or so. It's still saying the same thing, and 2) the reasons the pioneers had for rejecting the Trinity as a pagan absurdity were NOT sufficiently refuted in our minds.

And again, this is an example of the alterations made to doctrine by the SDA Church.

Quote:

The question is, why would we want to base our doctrines on church tradition or on the beliefs of men rather than on the Bible and on the Spirit of prophecy?

We wouldn't. This is why I reject the Trinity paradigm... for no other reason than that. This is why I believe that the "sacred cow" of modern Adventism, the General Conference Corporation at its "head" is "the voice of God no longer," has become - in the words of inspiration - "a sister to fallen Babylon."

[Overaged]

We wouldn't. This is why I reject the Trinity paradigm... for no other reason than that. This is why I believe that the "sacred cow" of modern Adventism, the General Conference Corporation at its "head" is "the voice of God no longer," has become - in the words of inspiration - "a sister to fallen Babylon."

I believe that the "sacred cow" of all false revival and cult ministries is to attack and tear down, at any cost. I see "Babylon" as including all such who will not stop attacking and tearing down, under the guise of some "good" or "holy" reasoning.

There is no greater love than that of Christ for His Church...

[Woody]

Quote:

I believe that the "sacred cow" of all false revival and cult ministries is to attack and tear down, at any cost.

I've noticed this more and more as of late.

[Scion]

Hi Ov,

I understand that this is what you "see," and I would not dispute, or think to dispute, what you "see." But there are facts, are there are opinions. The FACTS are that these doctrines have changed, and some people (including myself) believe that this is an error. For that reason, we believe that there are errors taught in the mainstream Church, and we have the testimony of the prophets regarding what title such an alteration would garner.

To simply point these out is not to tear anything down. It is to build up believers in a truth that can depend on "It is written," rather than the traditions - the malleable, changeable traditions - of human reasoning. Of course, we will be faulted for this. Of course, the majority will turn against any such attempts to lay this firm foundation. There are no surprises here, but there is certainly sadness to see it being made manifest. I am constantly in prayer for my brethren...

[Overaged]

Hi Ov,

I understand that this is what you "see," and I would not dispute, or think to dispute, what you "see." But there are facts, are there are opinions. The FACTS are that these doctrines have changed, and some people (including myself) believe that this is an error.

[phkrause]

Great posts OA

[Dr. Waite]

QUOTE:

I believe that the "sacred cow" of all false revival and cult ministries is to attack and tear down, at any cost. I see "Babylon" as including all such who will not stop attacking and tearing down, under the guise of some "good" or "holy" reasoning.

YOU telling a person that they belong to a church that is the Mother Harlot or is a daughter of the Mother Harlot because it teaches false doctrine IS THIS "attacking and tearing down"??

[Naomi]

Sometimes you gotta tell it like it is

[Woody]

Great posts OA

[teresaq]

Quote:

what I said was that there comes a time when separation is necessary. That was not really dealt with. History shows that there IS a point when people are called out of Churches, and yes, it usually happens after they have some kind of association with secular powers.

Isn't it more true that people are run out of churches than that they of their own accord separate? Whether by actual persecution, or the cold shoulder?

Is it always after some uniting with secular powers?

I am not saying there is not a lot wrong in the church, and in the way the church behaves herself with others, but shouldn't separation from such be an individual matter?

I haven't read every post so I may be a bit off.

I do believe those who disagree with the mainstream church should always be treated with the deepest respect and dignity as the purchase of God to Whom we will have to answer in that great and horrible day.

Hope you feel likewise towards those who disagree amicably with you . :)

[Overaged]

YOU telling a person that they belong to a church that is the Mother Harlot or is a daughter of the Mother Harlot because it teaches false doctrine IS THIS "attacking and tearing down"??

I have no idea what you re talking about. Where have I said this to anyone? You will have to explain your comment

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite

YOU telling a person that they belong to a church that is the Mother Harlot or is a daughter of the Mother Harlot because it teaches false doctrine IS THIS "attacking and tearing down"??

I have no idea what you re talking about. Where have I said this to anyone? You will have to explain your comment

The "YOU" I am meaning to address the persons who give the second and fourth angel's messages set forth in the book of Revelation.

[Overaged]

The "YOU" I am meaning to address the persons who give the second and fourth angel's messages set forth in the book of Revelation.

Why the mystery? I still have no idea what you are getting at. Can you explain yourself?

[Dr. Waite]

YOU stated:

"I believe that the "sacred cow" of all false revival and cult ministries is to attack and tear down, at any cost. I see "Babylon" as including all such who will not stop attacking and tearing down, under the guise of some "good" or "holy" reasoning."

Many persons who are in "Babylon" think that persons who give the second and fourth angel's messages are part of a "cult ministry" that only attack and tear down.

[Overaged]

Yes, but not a one of them look at us as "Babylon;" because they know they cannot make the Bible fit that one; neither can those who try accusing the Adventist Church of being "Babylon;" and that is the topic of this thread. Is the Adventist Church "Babylon;" the Babylon referred to in the Bible??? No matter where you check in Scripture; the answer has to come back as no.

[Gibs]

OV,

Would you still uphold her if and possibly when she rescinds on the Sabbath?

From some reports some congregations are next to it.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Overaged]

OV,

Would you still uphold her if and possibly when she rescinds on the Sabbath?

From some reports some congregations are next to it.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

"From some reports?" What reports? Have you now reduced your negative pessimestic message to rumors; or do you have solid scriptural evidence?

Gibs; the prodigals are waiting. When they see the love of The Father, in The Father's House, they do come Home to His House. [Church]. By being outside of the Church, and conducting your drive-by theology shootings, you tell the prodigals that you won't be there to welcome them home. Many are the promises of God regarding His Church. It was Jesus who said: "Mine house shall be an house of prayer for ALL NATIONS;" The prodigals are waiting. Why are you?