Are you in Christ? Not if you do not acknowledge......

[skyblue888]

The latter rain is a message, a message which uncovers various facets of the Gospel which has been lost sight of since its rejection in 1888. For the last 25 years I have searched and searched to unravel the mystery surrounding 1888. To begin with there is the Laodicean message which was repeated by A.T. Jones at the 1893 General Conference with "added power and glory." No one can say that we have no record of that message. It is recorded in the 1893 Bulletin. This message must be proclaimed again and again in the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't know of anyone who understood the Laodicean message and who could present it better than brother Jones. It is indeed a straight testimony but it is also a message of hope.

Generally speaking, we believe that once we are "in Christ" we no longer need to acknowledge ourselves as wretched, miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked, and that we don't know it. The fact is, we are not "in Christ" unless, moment by moment, we acknowledge ourselves to be exactly that! We are not "in Christ" unless, moment by moment, we acknowledge that we are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, and that we don't know it as we ought to know it! There is no condemnation for those who continually acknowledge that, trusting wholly in the all-sufficient merits of Christ for their salvation.

"Any moment that I do not confess that I am blind and have Him as my sight, I am in sin; He says so." A.T. Jones, 1893 General Conference, p.167.

Any moment that I do not confess that I am wretched, miserable, poor, blind, naked, and that I don't know it as I ought to know it, and have Him as my comfort, my joy, my sight, my riches, I am in sin. He says so!

"Are you in Christ? Not if you do not acknowledge yourselves erring, helpless, condemned sinners." E.G. White, Testimony No.31, p.44; 1893 General Conference Bulletin, p.178.

There is no condemnation for those who confess that they in themselves they are condemned sinners! Insn't that a beautiful Christian paradox!

This is the essence of the Laodicean message.

Next: More excerpts on the Laodicean message from A.T. Jones.

sky

_________________________

"Through the merits of Christ we may find the approval of God." Our Father Cares, p.122.

[skyblue888]

"The message given by A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner is the message of God to the Laodicean church." E.G. White, Letter S-24, 1892.

The following is taken from lecture #8 brother Jones gave at the 1893 General Conference. May God be our Teacher that we may come to the true understanding of this message is my prayer today! sky

A.T. Jones:

"Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth." John 9:41.

When Jesus tells you and me we are blind, (Rev.3:17) the thing for us to do is to say, "Lord, we are blind." He told those folks they were blind, and they were blind; but they said it was not so. It was so. Well, then, brethren, the thing for us to do is to come square up to that Laodicean message, and say that every word He says is so!

When He says you and I are wretched, tell him, "It is so, I am wretched; miserable, it is so, I am miserable; poor, it is so; I am poor, a perfect beggar, I shall never be anything else in the world; blind, I am blind, and shall never be anything else; naked, that is so; and I do not know it; that is so too. I do not know it at all, as I ought to know it." (1 Cor.8:2)

And then I will say to Him every day and every hour, "Lord, that is all so; but, oh, instead of my wretchedness, give me Thine own satisfaction; instead of my misery, give me Thine own comfort; instead of my poverty, supply all Thine own riches; instead of my blindness, be Thou my sight; instead of my nakedness, oh do Thou clothe me with Thine own righteousness; and what I know not, Lord, teach Thou me."

Brethren, when we come with one heart and one mind to that place, we shall have no difficulty at all in repenting. It will not be difficult to repent, and there will be no lack of repentance. The difficulty about our not being able to repent is that we have not confessed that what the Lord has told us is the truth." A.T. Jones, 1893 G.C. Bulletin, p.186, 187

The next day, brother Jones addressed the delegates saying,

"Some have said they cannot see how a man can acknowledge himself to be wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, and don't know it, and at the same time be rejoicing in the Lord." 1893 General Conference Bulletin, p. 178.

"Well," he said, "I would like to know how any one else can! I would like to know how a man is going to rejoice in the Lord when he thinks he is all right himself. Can you tell? I can't imagnine. Why, brethren, the Lord does not save us because we are so good but because He is so good. Do not forget that." Ibid, 178.

"There is none good but one, that is, God." Mark 10:18.

"Every moment that I do not see and confess that I am blind, and have not Him as my sight, I am in sin; He says so. 'Now you say you see; therefore your sin remains.' And every moment that I do not see and confess my nakedness and depend only and absolutely upon Him and His righteousness to clothe me, why so certainly I am ruined, utterly ruined, and every moment that I begin to say, 'Now I know so much,' no, I do not know that at all. Well, then, the thing that I am to do is to say, 'Lord, I do not know it; I depend upon You to teach me everything, even to teach me that I am wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked, and that I need all these things. And when I tell Him all that, He will give all I need. He will do it. That is our situation." Ibid, 187.

And now about that thought last night--some thought that I was going entirely too far. They could say, it is well enough when He says, 'You are wretched,' I say I am wretched. When He says, 'You are poor,' I say I am poor. When He says, 'You are blind,' I say I am blind. When He says, 'You are naked,' I say, I am naked. And when He says, 'You don't know it, then I am to say, "I know it!'? No, no. When He says, 'You don't know it,' I am to say, 'I don't know it.' Do not go to putting constructions upon His way. When I say I am wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, and on top of it He says that I don't know it, I say, "Lord, I dont' know it.' That brings us right to the text we started with that night,--'If any man thinks he knows anything, he does not know anything yet as he ought to know it.' 1 Cor.8:2. I do not know yet, as long as I have been acknowledging that thing, I know not how wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked I am.

Just as certainly as we take that Laodicean message as He speaks it, we shall receive all He has in it for us. Then brethren, that is what it is intended for. That is just what the Laodicean message is intended to do. Let it do its own work in His own way." Ibid, 178,179.

Amen!

"Those who live nearest to Jesus discern most clearly the frailty and sinfulness of humanity, and their only hope is in the merits of a crucified and risen Saviour." The Great Controversy, p.471.

[skyblue888]

Now, brother, sister, is this not the Laodicean message in clear, distinct lines? Is not this message heavenly illumination? Let me ask you this: Have you ever heard it in this fashion before? When was the last time you heard it preached just this way in your local church or in camp-meetings? Have you ever come across it in any book you have read? Have you seen it posted on any adventist forum?

Whenever I read it, I marvel at its simplicity and yet I find it to be so profound, so inspiring! It is simple as ABC and yet we don't understand it as it is our privilege to understand it. Because we don't understand it, we can't appreciate it for what it is and, therefore, we can't share it. But if we would take that message and apply it to ourselves personally just as it reads and begin to share it with our loved ones and brothers and sisters, I believe the Holy Spirit would put His seal upon it and there would be a revival among us! One of the reasons we have not appreciated that message is because over the years we have heard so many false or incorrect interpretations of it, leaving us with a bad taste in the mouth. We have been left with the impressioin that it was a very negative message. But I firmly believe that if we would receive it, believe it, and act upon it just as brother Jones presented it, it would have its effect upon our hearts and we would be led to exalt and pour forth the straight truth! See E.W.270.

[Denise]

Quote:

There is no condemnation for those who confess that they in themselves they are condemned sinners! Insn't that a beautiful Christian paradox!

Yes, beautiful, brother or sister! (don't know, lol) I am so blessed and refreshed reading your posts, keep posting! I have a book at home called Lessons on Faith by Jones and Waggoner that I read through. It is an excellent book.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

EGW said:

Quote:

"Every moment that I do not see and confess that I am blind, and have not Him as my sight, I am in sin; He says so. 'Now you say you see; therefore your sin remains.' And every moment that I do not see and confess my nakedness and depend only and absolutely upon Him and His righteousness to clothe me, why so certainly I am ruined, utterly ruined, and every moment that I begin to say, 'Now I know so much,' no, I do not know that at all. Well, then, the thing that I am to do is to say, 'Lord, I do not know it; I depend upon You to teach me everything, even to teach me that I am wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked, and that I need all these things. And when I tell Him all that, He will give all I need. He will do it. That is our situation."

Okay, that makes sense. I don't know something, and admit it to God. Then I am to depend on the Lord to TEACH me what I do not know. That seems like a good and true statement.

But then I read:

Quote:

When He says, 'You don't know it,' I am to say, 'I don't know it.' Do not go to putting constructions upon His way. When I say I am wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, and on top of it He says that I don't know it, I say, "Lord, I dont' know it.' That brings us right to the text we started with that night,--'If any man thinks he knows anything, he does not know anything yet as he ought to know it.' 1 Cor.8:2. I do not know yet, as long as I have been acknowledging that thing, I know not how wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked I am.

That makes it sound like the Lord is a very poor teacher, or that the message is unteachable, or that I am just plain stupid.

[David Koot]

That makes it sound like the Lord is a very poor teacher, or that the message is unteachable, or that I am just plain stupid.

Fortunately, there is no claim of inspiration for herr Jones. Like the rest of us, he gave his opinion on various topics. Ellen G. White did counsel him at times on how he expressed his ideas and came across to people.

Dave

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

That makes it sound like the Lord is a very poor teacher, or that the message is unteachable, or that I am just plain stupid.

Fortunately, there is no claim of inspiration for her Jones. Like the rest of us, he gave his opinion on various topics. Ellen G. White did counsel him at times on how he expressed his ideas and came across to people.

Dave

Dave, I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you here because the lectures Elder Jones gave at the 1893 General Conference were a repeat of his 1888 lectures. Here is what Mrs. White had to say about them:

"There have been things written to me in regard to the movings of the Spirit at the last conference (1893), and at the college, which clearly indicate that because these blessings were not lived up to, minds have been confused, and that which was light from Heaven has been called excitement. I have been made sad to have this matter viewed in this light. We must be very careful not to grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in pronouncing the ministration of His Holy Spirit a species of fanaticism. How shall we understand the workings of the Spirit of God if it was not revealed in clear and unmistakable lines, not only in Battle Creek but in many places?.. and let no one venture to say that this is not the Spirit of God." 1 S.M.130.

"I fear that the people have permitted the enemy to work along these very lines, so that the good which emanated from God, the rich blessing which He has given, have come to be regarded by some as fanaticism. If this attitude is preserved, then when the Lord shall again let His light shine upon the people, they will turn from the heavenly illumination, saying, 'I felt the same in 1893, and some in whom I have had confidence, said that the work was fanaticism."1 S.M.143.

Rudy, you have not given us any plausible reason to believe that the message is unteachable! On the contrary, this is the very message the Lord designed that it should come to His people as the latter rain. Is it not the Lord Himself who says that we do not know how wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked we are? What does brother Jones have anything to do with it? He is only repeating what the Lord Himself has stated.

Interestingly enough, in 1888, the leading brethren reacted in a similar fashion. They thought he was being unreasonable. They responded to the message the same way some will today. Mrs. White warned us that when the Lord shall again let His light shine upon the people, they will turn from the heavenly illumination!

sky

[David Koot]

Yes, Sky, I have read all that, but I have also read what Sr. White wrote to Bro. Jones privately, and other comments she made (not in the Review etc., but in letters) about Jones and Waggoner and the whole Minneapolis deal. She did, however, publicly continue to be very supportive, and made an effort to 'present a united front,' as was very appropriate.

Dave

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

skyblue888 said:

Quote:

Rudy, you have not given us any plausible reason to believe that the message is unteachable!

I didn't say the message (whatever that is you are trying to put forth) is unteachable.

You stated that

Quote:

I depend upon You to teach me everything, even to teach me that I am wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked, and that I need all these things. And when I tell Him all that, He will give all I need. He will do it.

okay.

BUT THEN

it is stated:

Quote:

Is it not the Lord Himself who says that we do not know how wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked we are?

So. Are we all just stupid? Or do we all hop on the train of doctrinal twilight zone?

It is not logical to say we do not know something, then say the Lord teaches us what we claim we do not know, THEN turn around and say we still don't know it.

And btw, I'm getting tired of the red flag of the past, i.e., 1888, as being a time when the Lord would have returned, if such and so had happened, if so and so had listened, yadda yadda yadda. If God had deemed 1888 as the time for Christ to return, then I do think it was in His power to make it so.

There. I said it.

[skyblue888]

Yes Denise, I have this book too. I have had it for many many years. It is excellent. Glad you are blessed and refreshed!

sky

[skyblue888]

Rudy, it is only an apparent contradiction. We know that the Bible says that "There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Rom.8:1. And yet we read, "Are you in Christ? Not if you do not acknowledge yourselves erring, helpless, condemned sinners." E.G.White, Testimony No.31, p.44.

Rightly understood, these two statements do not contradict themselves any more than the Lord is contradicting Himself when, on the one hand, He declares that we are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked and on the other that we don't know it!

In any case, we don't know it as we ought to know it! He says so! 1 Cor.8:2.

[skyblue888]

Yes, Sky, I have read all that, but I have also read what Sr. White wrote to Bro. Jones privately, and other comments she made (not in the Review etc., but in letters) about Jones and Waggoner and the whole Minneapolis deal. She did, however, publicly continue to be very supportive, and made an effort to 'present a united front,' as was very appropriate.

*****************************************************

Dave, you've read all that! What exactly have you read? The statement I have just quoted is about 1893. We are dealing with 1893 here. The statements are clear. As far as 1893 is concerned, the messages he gave at that Conference were the movings of the Spirit of God. Regardless of the "private letters" you say you have read, are you ready to acknowledge that his lectures in 1893 were the workings of the Holy Spirit or not?

Thanks.

sky

p.s. And if you believe brother Jones taught some errors in 1893, are you prepared to show us where?

[John317]

And btw, I'm getting tired of the red flag of the past, i.e., 1888, as being a time when the Lord would have returned, if such and so had happened, if so and so had listened, yadda yadda yadda. If God had deemed 1888 as the time for Christ to return, then I do think it was in His power to make it so.

There. I said it.

God honors our freedom too much to "make" people ready for Christ's return. He won't change us if we don't want Him to. We have to give Him our permission to come in. Too many are holding on to their sins and He refuses to take them from us unless we surrender them to Him and ask Him to cleanse us from all sin. God, then, is waiting for a certain spiritual condition to be met among His people willingly before He allows them to go through the events that are to occur just before the Second Coming. If God were to allow those end-time events to occur before we are ready for them, (events that include the closing of human probation and the falling of the seven last plagues) there are many who would be lost that God is trying to save. So, God waits, and waits...

The truth is that God presents every generation with the opportunity to accept and give the Three Angel's Messages, which must happen before Christ's return; but up to the present time every generation as a whole has rejected it. God will continue to wait. He has no certain time for Christ to return. But God does have a certain condition that must occur before Christ's return for His church.

What then is God waiting for? Two things: (1) This gospel of the Kingdom must be proclaimed to all people, the gospel that teaches us to observe all that Jesus commanded his disciples (Matt. 24: 14; 28: 19, 20); and (2) His bride, the church, must have made herself ready and be like her Lord, keeping His commandments, and sealed with the seal of God in their foreheads (Rev. 19: 7,8; 1 John 3: 2,3; 2 Cor. 3: 14-18; Rev. 7: 3; 14: 14: 1,5; 12: 17; 14: 12.)

In the same way God presented the children of Israel with the opportunity of entering into the Promised Land soon after they left Egypt, but they rebelled against God's prophet and refused God's offer and therefore had to wander in the wilderness for many years. (Hebrews 3: 12-19.) That is where we are today. Someday God will have a generation who will listen and obey and be ready for Christ's return. Will we be that generation? We could be but it is up to each of us.

[David Koot]

Sr. White wrote that Bros. Jones and Waggoners did go to some extremes. She also, however, wrote that she agreed with a great deal of what they taught. And, at Minneapolis and later, she was supportive publicly. After sifting through the materials, my conclusion is that there was a good message presented, however the human agents added their own stuff. And, Jones' own combative personality interfered with the acceptance of the message by others. Sr. White did appeal to him to manifest the fruits of the Holy Spirit in his life and interaction with others.

I agree with Rudywoofs, by the way. '1888' has become a cause celebre, of the magnitude of the 'Lost Cause' in the Southern States after Appomattox. I am waiting for a reenactment, though. After all, there is 'Gettysburg redux' every summer. How 'bout 'Minneapolis II'?

Dave

[John317]

Quote:

She also, however, wrote that she agreed with a great deal of what they taught. And, at Minneapolis and later, she was supportive publicly.

But the point is that as a church we have not yet even accepted and put into practice those things that she publically supported in the 1888 Message.

Quote:

Sr. White wrote that Bros. Jones and Waggoners did go to some extremes...the human agents added their own stuff. And, Jones' own combative personality interfered with the acceptance of the message by others. Sr. White did appeal to him to manifest the fruits of the Holy Spirit in his life and interaction with others.

Even granting this to be true, Ellen White never disagreed with the essential message that those two men gave from 1888 to 1895. On the contrary, she said many times the message was from God and that if the church had accepted the message and given it to the world, Christ would have come about 1890. Interestingly, she also said Christ could have come before 1888.

There are many voices in the church--some rather popular voices--that are teaching exactly opposite of what Mrs. White, Jones, and Waggoner, were teaching in 1888.

There is resistence to this central teaching of the 1888 Message:

"All the power which Christ had dwelling in Him by nature, we may have dwelling in us by grace, for He freely bestows it upon us." (Quoted in Movement of Destiny Froom, p. 198)

For White, Waggoner and Jones, that is an essential part of the gospel.

[David Koot]

Interestingly, she also said Christ could have come before 1888.

True. As early as the 1850', if I'm not mistaken. But the church had entered into the Laodicean phase. That is why we are still here.

[David Koot]

But I still think it might be interesting to have a reenactment of the Minneapolis Conference. For starters, Skyblue could be Jones, John317 Waggoner, and Rudywoofs Ellen G. White.

Dave

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

and Rudywoofs Ellen G. White.

Uh...I don't think so..

[olger]

But I still think it might be interesting to have a reenactment of the Minneapolis Conference. For starters, Skyblue could be Jones, John317 Waggoner, and Rudywoofs Ellen G. White.

Dave

smile

[skyblue888]

Sr. White wrote that Bros. Jones and Waggoners did go to some extremes. She also, however, wrote that she agreed with a great deal of what they taught. And, at Minneapolis and later, she was supportive publicly. After sifting through the materials, my conclusion is that there was a good message presented, however the human agents added their own stuff. And, Jones' own combative personality interfered with the acceptance of the message by others. Sr. White did appeal to him to manifest the fruits of the Holy Spirit in his life and interaction with others.

I agree with Rudywoofs, by the way. '1888' has become a cause celebre, of the magnitude of the 'Lost Cause' in the Southern States after Appomattox. I am waiting for a reenactment, though. After all, there is 'Gettysburg redux' every summer. How 'bout 'Minneapolis II'?

Dave

Dave, earlier I quoted from Selected Messages, Vol.1, p.130 where Mrs. White, in no uncertain terms, gives us the reason why minds were confused in 1893. They were confused, not because brother Jones was unbanlanced or because he was "adding his own stuff" but because those who were attending did not live up to the blessings received, since they called the movings of the Spirit a species of fanaticism!!!

Now it is a fact that those who were in position of leadership at that time, as in 1888, continued to oppose the light and the result was that there was much prejudice against Jones and Waggoner.

Now, on page 377 of the same book, you will find, inserted, a letter which Mrs. White wrote to brother Jones on April 9 of the same year, just a few days after the Conference, in which letter she is now blaming brother Jones for the confusion that ensued, following his lectures!

Which is it? Were minds confused because they did not live up to the blessings received, because they called the movings of the Spirit a species of fanaticism or because brother Jones was unbanlanced? Both can't be true!

I believe that Mrs. White, on page 130, stated the truth. Don't you? If so, we have every right to question the authenticity of that letter which was inserted on page 377 to the attention of brother Jones. Please take a closer look at these two pages, will you? Thanks Dave.

sky

p.s. john317, I would really appreciate if you too would take a look at these pages and give us your feedback. Thanks.

[skyblue888]

But I still think it might be interesting to have a reenactment of the Minneapolis Conference. For starters, Skyblue could be Jones, John317 Waggoner, and Rudywoofs Ellen G. White.

Dave

How about you Dave, who would you be? Buttler? :)

[Robert]

Are you in Christ? Not if you do not acknowledge yourselves erring, helpless, condemned sinners." E.G. White, Testimony No.31, p.44; 1893 General Conference Bulletin, p.178.

The truth of the "In Christ" motif has nothing to with faith. Yes, the message accepted by faith is very important, but again the "In Christ" motif is a truth concerning "all men". Let me quote the Bible:

2 Cor 5:14 "One died for all, and therefore all died."

Rom 5:18 "So then as through one transgression [Adam's] there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness [Christ's - the 2nd Adam] there resulted [past tense] justification of life to all men."

[David Koot]

How about you Dave, who would you be? Buttler?

Nah, I would be a spectator, and give you guys the thumbs-up or thumbs-down hehehe.

Dave

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

How about you Dave, who would you be? Buttler?

Nah, I would be a spectator, and give you guys the thumbs-up or thumbs-down hehehe.

Dave

hmmmmmm

[pacunurse30]

My husband is reading lessons on faith as well. I have peeked at a few snippets myself.