Is the Church Babylon?

[Light Fox]

Sky,

I've noticed something in your last two posts that I would like to bring to your attention. It seems that when you are sufficiently challenged on your scholarship, as opposed to receiving it with humility, you open your responses with "Nice try" and don't really address the person's post itself.

For example, Pastor Chick's post with the context of the CoL statement; it's rather brazen to say that there is "definitely something wrong with us" if we don't read a quote talking about people in the world who call themselves Christians and believe the law was abrogated as referring to the SDA Church. Frankly, I can't see how anyone could possibly see that it was.

Scion's post seemed to get a similar attitude from you, but as far as it's content, I actually made a reply to your somewhat unusual - and very new - interpretation of the Matthew 22 parable over on your judgment of the living thread that I never saw you respond to. Suffice to say, the Inspired Writings seem to leave the idea that Matthew 22 has a secondary modern application to the SDA denomination entirely unsupported.

Now, that said, I'd like to ask you something. What, exactly, is it that you believe other posters here are "trying," that you are commending them for their "nice try" at doing? If you are finding your views challenged, I would suggest you humbly reassess if they are accurate rather than taking a condescending attitude towards people for providing the context to your quotes.

As far as the actual content of this thread, I'm not seeing any solid points that you've contributed to the discussion... correct me if I've missed it, but it seems your whole point as to why a calling out cannot occur is based on this unusual view of Matthew 22. Was there something else that I didn't catch in one of your posts? I hesitate to turn a thread about the fallen or unfallen condition of the SDA denomination into a side-discussion of your personal teachings on certain parables - especially when other threads exist for that purpose - so if you have anything other than that, I'd be interested.

[skyblue888]

Brother, my view on Matt.22 is not a private one.

Mrs. White makes a second and final application of it beginning in 1844. This parable ends with the investigative judgment of the living, the closing work in the sanctuary above, as this statement clearly shows:

"In the parable of Matt.22 the same figure of the marriage is introduced, and the investigative judgment is clearly represented as taking place before the marriage. Previous to the wedding the king comes in to see the guests, to see if all are attired in the wedding garment, the spotless robe of character washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb. Matt.22:11; Rev.7:14. He who is found wanting is cast out, but all who upon examination are seen to have the wedding garment on are accepted of God and accounted worthy of a share in His kingdom and a seat upon His throne. This work of examination of character, of determining who are prepared for the kingdom of God, is that of the investigagive judgment, the closing work in the sanctuary above." The Great Controversy, 428.

When Jesus spoke that parable He was looking down the ages with His eyes fixed upon our time.

sky

[skyblue888]

"Scion's post seemed to get a similar attitude from you, but as far as it's content, I actually made a reply to your somewhat unusual - and very new - interpretation of the Matthew 22 parable over on your judgment of the living thread that I never saw you respond to. Suffice to say, the Inspired Writings seem to leave the idea that Matthew 22 has a secondary modern application to the SDA denomination entirely unsupported."

____________

What post are you talking about from Scion?

I haven't visited the thread "the judgment of the living" for a while.

I will go there now and check it out.

sky

[skyblue888]

I just checked. I did answer him indirectly on page 6 of the thread.

sky

[Light Fox]

Sky,

I think you misunderstood me; I was referring to the post from Scion - specifically, your reply to that post - in this thread as far as your attitude towards him. As far as your lack of reply / misuse of Matthew 22, I was referring to my post to you in the JoL thread; I provided a link to that post above, in case you missed it. As I pointed out in that thread, there's nothing in the quote you've provided that talks about a second application regarding churches standing or falling. We're in the third call, and have been since the time of the Apostles. As a result, it is in that period - the present one - that the judgment happens.

Unless you specify otherwise, I'm going to conclude that "no" was your answer to my question about whether you had anything other than your Matthew 22 teaching to support the idea that the SDA church could not have fallen through a church-state union. Frankly, I'm not comfortable with building a doctrine on such a variable interpretation of the parables of Christ when we have the plain principles of what causes a church to fall spelled out plainly before us in the Word and the Writings.

[skyblue888]

Mrs. White makes a second and final application of it beginning in 1844. This parable ends with the investigative judgment of the living, the closing work in the sanctuary above, as this statement clearly shows:

"In the parable of Matt.22 the same figure of the marriage is introduced, and the investigative judgment is clearly represented as taking place before the marriage. Previous to the wedding the king comes in to see the guests, to see if all are attired in the wedding garment, the spotless robe of character washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb. Matt.22:11; Rev.7:14. He who is found wanting is cast out, but all who upon examination are seen to have the wedding garment on are accepted of God and accounted worthy of a share in His kingdom and a seat upon His throne. This work of examination of character, of determining who are prepared for the kingdom of God, is that of the investigagive judgment, the closing work in the sanctuary above." The Great Controversy, 428.

When Jesus spoke that parable He was looking down the ages with His eyes fixed upon our time.

[Light Fox]

Sky,

So far as I can tell, you've not only neglected to respond to my reply to that quote, not only neglected to answer any of my questions, but actually reposted exactly the same post that I was replying to. I literally see not one word changed in it.

I'm not seeing any value in continuing discussion with you in this thread. It appears to be becoming a rather one-sided endeavor if you aren't going to even acknowledge responses, and start reposting things that have been replied to.

[skyblue888]

I reposted it because you stated that I was holding "unusual" and "unacceptable" views regarding Matt.22. I quoted Mrs. White applying Matt.22 to the closing work of Christ in the sanctuary above which clearly shows that the judgment of the living will not take place until the very end prior to the close of probation. If I am not mistaken, you completely ignored the statement.

Just because it is "unusual" does not mean it is not true.

sky

[skyblue888]

Sky,

I think you misunderstood me; I was referring to the post from Scion - specifically, your reply to that post - in this thread as far as your attitude towards him. As far as your lack of reply / misuse of Matthew 22, I was referring to my post to you in the JoL thread; I provided a link to that post above, in case you missed it. As I pointed out in that thread, there's nothing in the quote you've provided that talks about a second application regarding churches standing or falling. We're in the third call, and have been since the time of the Apostles. As a result, it is in that period - the present one - that the judgment happens.

Unless you specify otherwise, I'm going to conclude that "no" was your answer to my question about whether you had anything other than your Matthew 22 teaching to support the idea that the SDA church could not have fallen through a church-state union. Frankly, I'm not comfortable with building a doctrine on such a variable interpretation of the parables of Christ when we have the plain principles of what causes a church to fall spelled out plainly before us in the Word and the Writings.

____________

Scion, you say we have been in the time of the third call since the time of the Apostles!!! Scion, the work was not finished then. There was apostasy in the Early Church which led to the Dark Ages. God had to wait eithteen centuries for the conditions to be had to finish the work through another people, namely the Advent people. The parable of Matt.22 began to be re-enacted in 1844.

You apply the message of the fall of Babylon the Great to the SDA church in 1988 and from there, according to you and your followers, the judgment of the living began. The Lord has shown us when Babylon the Great will fall and when the judgment of the living will begin, not the day or the hour, but in the framework of the order of last day events.

What have you done, brother, with the light?

sky

[Light Fox]

Sky,

You seem to be confusing myself and Scion fairly regularly... I was the one who said that we have been in the third call (to the Gentiles, gathering them in for the feast) since the time of the Apostles. And for the record, I do not have any "followers" to my knowledge.

As far as the content of your post, I'm waiting for you to finish posting your series of studies on the Matthew 22 thread; when you've completed, I'll offer my reply there.

To get back on topic, does anyone have any other relevant passages of Scripture or Mrs. White's writing to offer on this question?

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

To get back on topic, does anyone have any other relevant passages of Scripture or Mrs. White's writing to offer on this question?

[skyblue888]

We are still living in the time of Babylon is fallen not Babylon the Great. Babylon the Great is fallen only when her sins will have reached unto heaven and that won't happen until Sunday is enforced by the union of church and state.

sky

[skyblue888]

Sky,

You seem to be confusing myself and Scion fairly regularly... I was the one who said that we have been in the third call (to the Gentiles, gathering them in for the feast) since the time of the Apostles. And for the record, I do not have any "followers" to my knowledge.

As far as the content of your post, I'm waiting for you to finish posting your series of studies on the Matthew 22 thread; when you've completed, I'll offer my reply there.

To get back on topic, does anyone have any other relevant passages of Scripture or Mrs. White's writing to offer on this question?

Okay sorry I mistakened you for Scion but you and Scion and Pastor Chick and a couple of others here on this site are from the same group and you have the same followers.

All right, I will post the second fulfilment today.

Thank you for your attention.

sky :)

[Light Fox]

Sky,

I really think you ought to check your facts better before posting. It's becoming rather taxing. I suggest you review whatever posts gave you the impression that Scion is a member of the same group.

[skyblue888]

Scion is not a member of the CSDA church?

sky

[Scion]

Quote:

Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" They answered and said unto him, 'Art thou also of Galilee?'" (John 7:50-52)

That is an old, old method of trying to discredit someone who disagrees with you, isn't it?

What I am is someone who speaks the truth. It is irrelevant (at least for the purpose of discussing these issues) what "group" I belong to; this forum, and these posts, are about the words I am typing. I really saw nothing in your "reply" to me worth responding to, so even the last couple times I checked this forum, I didn't post on this thread. As I myself said in my previous one, Christ did indeed confirm the covenant with Israel beyond His crucifixion (to the stoning of Stephen, of course); but 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.

I am not trying to make myself anyone's quarrel-buddy, but everything I have stated so far is accurate.

[aPegThatStandsUp]

The church is not Babylon. But there are lots of Sabbath keeping churches that are turning thier backs on pagan traditions. Many SDA are shocked to find these places exist or that quotes related to the subject did not descend from the GC or EGW. Truth is truth.

I do see a trend of judgement in the church. Its as though they are so sure Brother Bob is a tare. Or Sister X is Jesuit conspirator. If the church does not resolve to bring in THE ENTIRE CROP FROM THE FIELD, she may find herself with some late coming workers not under her control. Hired because they obeyed the Master. They invited and kept EVERYONE. (Supposed to leave the tares alone) Make no mistake my church, if we fail, God will not limit himself to our pool of resources to get His work done. Nor is He going to ask us, if bringing person X is OK with us.

For the person who asked about calling people out, perhaps you should refocus your efforts on gathering the lost sheep of Israel. There are tons of outcast SDA's stuck between a cold world and church dispute. Go help them.

[Brother Peter]

Men of faith and prayer will be constrained to go forth with holy zeal, declaring the words which God gives them. The sins of Babylon will be laid open. The fearful results of enforcing the observances of the church by civil authority ["religious observances"], the inroads of spiritualism [relying on the "god of Ekron"],

ed. Thousands upon thousands will listen who have never heard words like these. In amazement they hear the testimony that Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven. (GC 606, 607) [brackets supplied]

We cannot hide the truth.

________________________

Bro.Peter

[skyblue888]

"Thousands upon thousands will listen who have never heard words like these. In amazement they hear the testimony that Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven." (GC 606, 607) [brackets supplied

This statement is not talking about the SDA church but about Babylon the Great at the time when the loud cry message is being proclaimed.

It may be that by that time the SDA denomination will be on the wrong side and be reckoned among the churches that constitute Babylon but that does not make her the whole of Babylon the great. Babylon the Great at the time this message is being proclaimed, after her sins will have reached unto heaven, will be composed of all the churches, Catholic and so-called Protestants. Even all the pagan religions of this world will join Babylon the Great.

We know that they will reject the loud cry message, light sent to them from Heaven. This is the whole context of the chapter this statement was taken from.

sky

The Babylon of Rev.14 fell in 1844 but the Babylon the Great of Rev.18 has not yet fallen, not until her sins has reached unto heaven and that will be when the law of God is made void by the enactment of Sunday as the day of worship.

[12tribes]

The SDA church is not Babylon, it may be lukewarm but it is not Babylon. We need to look at the 3 angels messages which are 3 parts of one message.

The 1st calls us to sabbath worship and to fear God.

The 2nd calls to come out of Babylon. when they come out where will they go? They will come to worship God on sabbath, so that means any worship not on sabbath is Babylon, also Revelation 18 says that Babylon is become the habitation of devils, it becomes that way through the teaching of the immortality of the soul.

The 3rd gives people a choice to either worship God or Babylon, those who worship God keep the commandments so that means those who worship the Babylonian system do not keep the commandments.

So the 2 main characteristics of Babylon according to this are:-

1) Sunday worship

2) Immortality of the soul

Quote:

Confusions of Babylon and Antichrist.--It is our individual duty to walk humbly with God. We are not to seek any strange, new message. We are not to think that the chosen ones of God who are trying to walk in the light, compose Babylon. The fallen denominational churches are Babylon. Babylon has been fostering poisonous doctrines, the wine of error. This wine of error is made up of false doctrines, such as the natural immortality of the soul, the eternal torment of the wicked, the denial of the pre-existence of Christ prior to His birth in Bethlehem, and advocating and exalting the first day of the week above God's holy, sanctified day. These and kindred errors are presented to the world by the various churches. . . . {Ev 365.1}

[Alchemy]

I do believe the SDA Church can become a harlot and apostate, but not Babylon.

We need to remember that this is a movement, not a denomination! This message will always be pure even if 99.9% of SDA's practice heathenism! It is not about us.

God's character is very clearly revealed in this message and it will always be God's Remnant message and church, even if there is only one, like Job. Proverbs 10:30.

Alchemy.

[Pastor_Chick]

"Babylon" means "confusion." Is that so confusing?

[Woodenavaklu]

Babble on guys. :-)

[Gerr]

The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out--the chaff separated from the precious wheat. This is a terrible ordeal, but nevertheless it must take place.--2SM 380 (1886). {LDE 180.5}

It's clear to me that it is the chaff/tares that are to be sifted/rooted out of the church, not the wheat!!!

And who decides who are the wheat and the tares? People who can only the outside are bound to make mistakes. If the "wheat" are the ones to move out of the church and form another group, what will they do when they find out there are still tares within their group? Move out and call that Babylon too? That will go on ad infinitum. Madness!

[Pastor_Chick]

The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out--the chaff separated from the precious wheat. This is a terrible ordeal, but nevertheless it must take place.--2SM 380 (1886). {LDE 180.5}

It's clear to me that it is the chaff/tares that are to be sifted/rooted out of the church, not the wheat!!!

And who decides who are the wheat and the tares? People who can only the outside are bound to make mistakes. If the "wheat" are the ones to move out of the church and form another group, what will they do when they find out there are still tares within their group? Move out and call that Babylon too? That will go on ad infinitum. Madness!