The Doctrines of Babylon...

[skyblue888]

AN ASTOUNDING PROPOSITION

And what is the reason given by "the General Conference Committee," that at the head of this denomination there must be this fixture of a president of the whole world, instead of a chairman of the committee? Here it is, on page 17 and 18 of the Statement: It is because--

"The chairman could be changed at the will and caprice of the committee." And this was "the sensible thing to do in order to save the cause from sudden changes and erratic movements."

"The will and caprice"! "At the will and caprice" and "erratic movements" "of the committee"! Just look at that! Just consider that, will you? The twenty-four substantial men, chosen by the deliberation of the General Conference in session, could not be trusted for two years because of the enormity of the danger that they would act by "will and caprice"! But lo! one man must be fixed for four years at the head of affairs for the whole world --of course because there is no danger at all that he will ever act by will or caprice! Twenty-four of the most trustworthy men in the whole field could not be trusted for only two years, because of the certainty of their acting "by will and caprice" and making "erratic movements."

But one man must be trusted for twice as long--inevitably because of the absolute certainty that he will never act by will or caprice.

No more monarchical argument was ever written in human language than lies in these two lines of that "Statement." Nor does that argument stop with only monarchy: it openly approaches a far more serious thing. See:

Why is it that the twenty-four most trustworthy men of the denomination could not be trusted for two years with the charge of affairs?-- because of the certainty that they would act "by will and caprice." Then why is it that at the head of affairs in the whole world, one man can be trusted for four years? Manifestly because there is no danger that he will ever act by "will" or "caprice."

Twenty-four trustworthy men are so certain to act "by will and caprice" that they cannot be rusted for even two years. But one man is so certain never to act by will or caprice that he must be trusted more than the twenty-four, and for twice as long.

But when twenty-four sober and trustworthy men are so certain to act "by will and caprice," what is the surety that one man will not act by will and caprice? Just where does that surety lie? It could not be in the man himself, for he was one of the twenty-four, and was the chairman. Then does it come to him through the title? Or from the position? Or from the chair? And does this surety of exemption from his acting by will or caprice attach to him everywhere, and in every capacity? Or does it attach to him only when he speaks officially under the title, and ex-cathedra--from the chair?

Wherever may lie this surety of exemption from will or caprice, of one man over twenty-four men, or in whatever capacity it may attach to him, there is one thing certain, and that is that the claim of it is nothing else than identical with the claim of the infallibility of the pope. In argument and in essence, it is just that.

And that is why I said above that their argument for a one-man power does not stop with only monarchy; but openly approaches a far more serious thing. And that far more serious thing than monarchy, is the infallibility of the monarch. And that awful statement, containing that astounding argument, is issued by "the General Conference Committee" of the Seventh-day Adventists and bears the imprint of "the General Conference Committee"! All this too in the face of the patent fact that the one man already there did act by sheer will, if not also caprice, in assuming in 1902, that very title and office.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

FOLLOWING IN THE TRACK OF ROME!

Before the General Conference of 1897, the Spirit of prophecy said that this denomination was "following in the track of Romanism." To the General Conference of 1897, the Spirit of prophecy said, "It is not wise to choose one man as President of the General Conference." This started the denomination away from "the track of Romanism." But the start was not followed.

Therefore, before the General Conference of 1901 the Spirit of prophecy declared that in the General Conference circle "a king" was enthroned;" that the thing was "confused in itself"; and that finally it would "come to nought."

In the General Conference of 1901 the denomination was again started away from "the track of Romanism." But in 1902, by one man or two men or a few men, it was swung back to that "track," and in the General Conference of 1903, it was fastened there. And now, in 1906, it is so entrenched, and so confident of its position, that "the General Conference Committee" issues a "Statement" in which in behalf of one man at the head of this denomination, a reason is given that reasons nothing less than a claim that is identical with that of the infallibility of the pope!

The question now is, Do the people of this denomination endorse the position that one man is so much less liable than are twenty-four most trustworthy men to act "by will and caprice," that he must be trusted more and twice as long as could the twenty-four?

REPEATING THE FOLLIES OF ISRAEL

And here is a situation worth thinking of: Years ago the Testimony said that "The follies of Israel in the days of Samuel" would be "repeated" among this people, if there was not a truer devotion to God.

The chief folly of Israel in the days of Samuel, was not only that they asked for a king--that one man should be at their head; but that this was the second time that Israel had come to that point. Read Judges 8::22,23; 9:1-57; 1 Sam. 8:1-22.

And of the General Conference of this Seventh-day Adventist denomination, in the Battle Creek College Library, April 1, 1901, the Spirit of prophecy said that "a king" was enthroned. At that time and in the General Conference following that day, God definitely called the General Conference and the denomination away from that kingship.

But in 1902-03, the General Conference and the denomination were swung back to that "kinglike, kingly ruling power," the second time: exactly repeating the chief folly "of Israel in the days of Samuel." And if this course and the present situation do not mark the fulfillment of that prediction, then if ever the prediction shall be fulfilled, it will be hard to fulfill it more exactly than has been done.

And to argue now that this centralized power must be continued as a barrier against disorganization and anarchy, is sheer vanity. It did not save Israel from disorganization and anarchy. For Israel, disorganization and anarchy was in the thing at the very start: and though this did not show itself immediately, yet it did show itself in all its terrible results in the end. Read again pages 13-19 of my leaflet of March 4-19 of my leaflet of March 4, and see what was said in the College Library that day.

It is too late, brethren, forever too late--the end is too near; to indulge any experiments either with "the follies of Israel" or "in the track of Romanism."

Yet for all this, please bear in mind that I do not say that the brethren know what they are doing, and are of fell purpose doing it. I only say that they and everybody else can know what they are doing, if they will simply sober down and take time to think and consider scrïpture and principles and history as they are. I shall have no war to make on the brethren, nor upon the system that has been formed, nor upon the denomination that accepts it. My work is and shall be only to preach the Third Angel's Message of the everlasting gospel of warning against the worship of the beast and his image; and of salvation from that worship.

I do not believe that in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination there will be disorganization, confusion and anarchy, if the denomination should not have the fixture of one man at its head. I do not believe it, because I do not believe that the Seventh-day Adventists know so little of Christ that He has no control of them and cannot Himself lead and guide and organize them.

And I know by the eternal truth, that the Lord Jesus Christ alone, in His place at and as the Head of His Church, is able to organize His people, His Church, and His cause, far better than can be done without Him in that place, and with a man in that place at he head of His cause.

I will not believe that it is high treason to Christ nor to His people, nor to His cause, nor to His organized Church and work in the world, to teach all people everywhere to find the personal Christ, and be joined to Him, and to live in Him alone as their only Head, and the only Head of His Church, His cause and His work in the world. I never will believe that it is disorganization, or confusion, or anarchy to teach all people everywhere that Christ alone is the Head of every man, and that thus He alone is the Head and organizer of His Church and people, and of His cause and work in the world.

Therefore, my work is, and shall be, only to persuade all people so to seek God, in Christ, by the Holy Spirit, through His word, that each individual shall know God in Christ as his Head: so that I may do all that my ministry can possibly accomplish to restore to Christ, and to God in Christ, the place that belongs to Him alone as the sole Head of the Church; and the place which He occupied alone, when He was on earth and when He ascended to Heaven.

And it is worth remembering that that little company of believers in Him whom He left as His Church on earth when He ascended to Heaven, each one of them through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost finding and holding God in Christ as his personal Head, and knowing Him alone as the only person at he Head of the Church--let it not be forgotten that that little company actually carried the gospel to all the world in that generation.

Let Christ have again in His own Church, the place that belongs to him alone as the only person at and as the Head of His Church, and again it will be, that the gospel will be actually carried to all the world in this generation. And until Christ shall have this His place as sole Head of His Church and cause, that thing never can be done.

A.T. Jones.

After you are done reading this I am ready to post the rest of brother Jones' letter to brother Daniels. Some very interesting things to come. After that, I will post excerpts of his lectures on organization at the 1901 General Conference.

Thank you for taking the time to read everything.

sky

[Twilight]

Do you have a direct quote from Ellen White that we should not have one President Sky?

[Twilight]

So far you have quoted Jones, quoting Ellen White.

Which makes Jones the authority on this issue, which I do not agree with.

You need to show what Ellen White herself said personally on this subject.

Did she say it was wrong to have one president and do you have that source?

[Twilight]

But notice, the issue of the "president" does not affect the doctrines, it affects the leaderships credibility to lead, if we are following a wrong course, but it does not mean our doctrines are Babylonian.

So please Sky, provide the direct quote you would like to make.

This page after page of this letter is beginning to detract from the thread as it is making this one issue you have raised the sole subject.

When we have to discuss whether the leadership engaging in bad practice in 1903 is the same as having bad doctrine.

Mark :-)

[skyblue888]

But notice, the issue of the "president" does not affect the doctrines, it affects the leaderships credibility to lead, if we are following a wrong course, but it does not mean our doctrines are Babylonian.

So please Sky, provide the direct quote you would like to make.

This page after page of this letter is beginning to detract from the thread as it is making this one issue you have raised the sole subject.

When we have to discuss whether the leadership engaging in bad practice in 1903 is the same as having bad doctrine.

Mark :-)

Mark, I am doing my best to give you as much information as possible and all you can do is asking me to provide direct quotes when I have already provided all the quotes you need. I am afraid you are not paying close attention to details, Mark.

The matter of "president" was only incidental. It was the matter of "organization" that was discussed. The leaders had the choice between adopting God's plan of organization, Gospel Order, or continue with their human methods and plans. In 1901 reformatory steps were taken toward adopting Gospel Order but in 1903 these steps were reversed.

Now if Gospel Order is rejected, that can only mean that God has been put aside and that the devisings of men are allowed to continue just as Mrs. White stated happened. When God is put aside and He is not allowed to be the Head of the church in all things, maintaining the appearance of holding to the fundamentals is only hypocrisy, especially when it is a known fact that in the 1950s the fundamentals of our faith were compromised and some repudiated in order to be recognized by the other so-called christian denominations (which compose Babylon) as a Christian denomination.

And in the earlier days before 1906 the church did not have a creed or a set of fundamental beliefs. The Bible was our creed. To have a creed is also papal

What Jones is quoting is coming from the General Conference Bulletins of those years and from the Review and Herald and I have been quoting from Testimonies to Ministers.

On page 83 of the 1901 General Conference Bulletin, Mrs. White said, "This meeting will determine the character of our work in the future. How important that every step is taken under the supervision of God. This work must be carried in a very different manner to what it has been in the past years. There is a great work to be done in all fields."

Years later she said, "The self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men. If you allow this to continue, your faith will soon become extinct." T.M.481.

This order of things, the devisings of men, has been allowed to continue ever since and that explains why the church is in the dire condition that it is today.

sky

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

But notice, the issue of the "president" does not affect the doctrines, it affects the leaderships credibility to lead, if we are following a wrong course, but it does not mean our doctrines are Babylonian.

So please Sky, provide the direct quote you would like to make.

This page after page of this letter is beginning to detract from the thread as it is making this one issue you have raised the sole subject.

When we have to discuss whether the leadership engaging in bad practice in 1903 is the same as having bad doctrine.

Mark :-)

Mark, I am doing my best to give you as much information as possible and all you can do is asking me to provide direct quotes when I have already provided all the quotes you need. I am afraid you are not paying close attention to details, Mark.

The matter of "president" was only incidental. It was the matter of "organization" that was discussed. The leaders had the choice between adopting God's plan of organization, Gospel Order, or continue with their human methods and plans. In 1901 reformatory steps were taken toward adopting Gospel Order but in 1903 these steps were reversed.

Now if Gospel Order is rejected, that can only mean that God has been put aside and that the devisings of men are allowed to continue just as Mrs. White stated happened. When God is put aside and He is not allowed to be the Head of the church in all things, maintaining the appearance of holding to the fundamentals is only hypocrisy, especially when it is a known fact that in the 1950s the fundamentals of our faith were compromised and some repudiated in order to be recognized by the other so-called christian denominations (which compose Babylon) as a Christian denomination.

And in the earlier days before 1906 the church did not have a creed or a set of fundamental beliefs. The Bible was our creed. To have a creed is also papal

What Jones is quoting is coming from the General Conference Bulletins of those years and from the Review and Herald and I have been quoting from Testimonies to Ministers.

On page 83 of the 1901 General Conference Bulletin, Mrs. White said, "This meeting will determine the character of our work in the future. How important that every step is taken under the supervision of God. This work must be carried in a very different manner to what it has been in the past years. There is a great work to be done in all fields."

Years later she said, "The self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men. If you allow this to continue, your faith will soon become extinct." T.M.481.

This order of things, the devisings of men, has been allowed to continue ever since and that explains why the church is in the dire condition that it is today.

sky

Can you supply a quote, directly from Ellen White which states that we should not have a president.

And how do you link this to the subject of the SDA church not having Babylonian doctrines.

Pointing to leadership mismanagement is not the same thing.

Just because some leaders acted unwisely in the past, does not make the SDA Church Doctrines Babylonian...

Are you also stating we should not have 28 fundamentals as a church?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Can you supply a quote, directly from Ellen White which states that we should not have a president.

And how do you link this to the subject of the SDA church not having Babylonian doctrines.

Pointing to leadership mismanagement is not the same thing.

Just because some leaders acted unwisely in the past, does not make the SDA Church Doctrines Babylonian...

Are you also stating we should not have 28 fundamentals as a church? [/quote']

Your questions I have already answered. You are showing that you did not take the time to carefully and prayerfully read the material that I have posted.

Please go back and this time read every word. Don't skim, please, but read every word and if you have to read them more than once, then please do. I had to read this material over and over again over the years before the Lord finally got through my thick head.

sky

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Can you supply a quote, directly from Ellen White which states that we should not have a president.

And how do you link this to the subject of the SDA church not having Babylonian doctrines.

Pointing to leadership mismanagement is not the same thing.

Just because some leaders acted unwisely in the past, does not make the SDA Church Doctrines Babylonian...

Are you also stating we should not have 28 fundamentals as a church?

Your questions I have already answered. You are showing that you did not take the time to carefully and prayerfully read the material that I have posted.

Please go back and this time read every word. Don't skim, please, but read every word and if you have to read them more than once, then please do. I had to read this material over and over again over the years before the Lord finally got through my thick head.

sky

I admit I have skimmed a lot of it Sky.

But this is a testimony from Jones, not Ellen White.

For me to see that having one president is wrong, I need to see that from the scripture or the SOP.

Do you have a quote stating this from Ellen White?

[skyblue888]

[Twilight]

Sky, people are busy and often post on this board whilst doing other things.

Also, long posts can swamp a thread.

So with that in mind, can you, or can you not, supply a quote from Ellen White stating that it is wrong to have a single president over the denomination?

Mark :-)

[skyblue888]

"It is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference." Testimonies to Ministers, p.342.

This position is sometimes referred to as "kingly power" or "high-handed power" in Testimonies to Ministers... The Spirit of the Lord even said that in 1901 "a king was enthroned." Then the position was eliminated only to be reinstated in 1903 against the 1901 Constitution.

The Lord had said, "I want the Holy Ghost king."

But if you do not take the time to read all that has been posted, how can we pursue this discussion, Mark?

sky

[Twilight]

"It is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference." Testimonies to Ministers, p.342.

This position is sometimes referred to as "kingly power" or "high-handed power" in Testimonies to Ministers... The Spirit of the Lord even said that in 1901 "a king was enthroned." Then the position was eliminated only to be reinstated in 1903 against the 1901 Constitution.

The Lord had said, "I want the Holy Ghost king."

But if you do not take the time to read all that has been posted, how can we pursue this discussion, Mark?

sky

[John317]

Sky, it seems to me that Ellen White must not have been told by God that the SDA church should never have a president under any and all circumstances, since she clearly supported her husband as president of the GC for many years.

I agree, though, that the GC president should never be viewed, or function, as a kingly power. He's not a dictator, which is how that office has too often been used.

[skyblue888]

Mark, you were asking for proof from the Bible and I have asked you many times already, Where in the book of Acts do you find support for a man presiding over the church?

sky

[skyblue888]

Sky, it seems to me that Ellen White must not have been told by God that the SDA church should never have a president under any and all circumstances, since she clearly supported her husband as president of the GC for many years.

I agree, though, that the GC president should never be viewed, or function, as a kingly power. He's not a dictator, which is how that office has too often been used.

John, the position was eliminated at the General Conferene meeting in 1901 just as the Lord would have it. This was one of the reformatory steps taken to bring in Gospel Order. Brother Jones gave all the evidence how the position was usurped in 1902 by A.G. Daniels quoting from the Review and Herald. In the new thread that I have started, Principles of 1901, you will find the statements taken from the 1903 General Conference Bulletin showing how the 1901 Gospel Order was ignored and replaced by a man-made constitution going back to the devisings of men and officially reinstating the position of president of the G.C.

The fact that James White was president of the G.C. does not prove that this was what God wanted. Remember we are repeating the follies of Israel who wanted a man for their king. That was not God's will for them and yet He allowed it in the hope that in time they would see their mistake and return to Him but they did not. Instead they crucified Him and declared that they had no king but Ceasar!

sky

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: John317

Sky, it seems to me that Ellen White must not have been told by God that the SDA church should never have a president under any and all circumstances, since she clearly supported her husband as president of the GC for many years.

I agree, though, that the GC president should never be viewed, or function, as a kingly power. He's not a dictator, which is how that office has too often been used.

John, the position was eliminated at the General Conferene meeting in 1901 just as the Lord would have it. This was one of the reformatory steps taken to bring in Gospel Order. Brother Jones gave all the evidence how the position was usurped in 1902 by A.G. Daniels quoting from the Review and Herald. In the new thread that I have started, Principles of 1901, you will find the statements taken from the 1903 General Conference Bulletin showing how the 1901 Gospel Order was ignored and replaced by a man-made constitution going back to the devisings of men and officially reinstating the position of president of the G.C.

The fact that James White was president of the G.C. does not prove that this was what God wanted. Remember we are repeating the follies of Israel who wanted a man for their king. That was not God's will for them and yet He allowed it in the hope that in time they would see their mistake and return to Him but they did not. Instead they crucified Him and declared that they had no king but Ceasar!

sky

I have read the quote you have supplied my friend.

That quote deals with having one president over a large body.

Which Ellen White opposed as shown.

But she did not state there that we should not have "any" president.

So whilst I respect your right to your viewpoint, the quote you have supplied is not sufficient evidence for your case in my view, as it seems clear to me this was dealing with the size of the conference and one man having sway over all in that large conference.

So I cannot accept it, based on the evidence you have presented so far.

Again, however, it does not show that our doctrines are Babylonian in origin, if that is the case you are trying to make?

[skyblue888]

Mark, you have not spent any serious amount of time studying this issue. You have, on your own admission, "skimmed a lot" over the material that has been posted. You have not even studied the minutes of the General Conference Bulletins of those crucial years. I am sure you have never seen or read those bulletins. Am I not right? The quote I have supplied from Testimonies to Ministers about the presidency is but a mere speck from the bulk of information there is on this subject.

You asked for evidence and when that evidence was produced, you DID NOT even take the time to carefully and prayerfully examine what was presented and shrugged it off as irrelevant. If there was someone who played an important role in what was happening in those days it was A.T. Jones, even more than Ellen G. White for to him was given the burden of presenting the third angel's message and that included giving the light regarding organization. If you had read more carefully you would have seen that even A.G. Daniels in 1901 recognized that brother Jones had been given light for the people on the matter of organization.

I have started a thread on the principles of organization as he presented them in 1901. You asked for this. Will you study that carefully and prayerfully?

These matters concern our eternal interests. The excuse of being too busy to study these things carefully and prayerfully is a poor one especially when we can learn in a very short time what others have taken years to understand.

sky

*Also, in all that I have posted, if there is something that brother Jones said that was not the truth, it needs to be shown. Until we have done this, we cannot make a right judgment or decision on the case. My personal suggestion to you is that you take the time to read everything that has been posted again and again until you really know for yourself what was said. I invite you to go to What Seventh-day Adventists Believe and look for the thread An Appeal by A.T. Jones and read and study the entire thread. Please take your time, all the time you need and get back to me. May God be with you as you study all this material.

*What is worse than Babylonians teaching Babylonian doctrines?

[Twilight]

Mark, you have not spent any serious amount of time studying this issue. You have, on your own admission, "skimmed a lot" over the material that has been posted. You have not even studied the minutes of the General Conference Bulletins of those crucial years. I am sure you have never seen or read those bulletins. Am I not right? The quote I have supplied from Testimonies to Ministers about the presidency is but a mere speck from the bulk of information there is on this subject.

You asked for evidence and when that evidence was produced, you DID NOT even take the time to carefully and prayerfully examine what was presented and shrugged it off as irrelevant. If there was someone who played an important role in what was happening in those days it was A.T. Jones, even more than Ellen G. White for to him was given the burden of presenting the third angel's message and that included giving the light regarding organization. If you had read more carefully you would have seen that even A.G. Daniels in 1901 recognized that brother Jones had been given light for the people on the matter of organization.

I have started a thread on the principles of organization as he presented them in 1901. You asked for this. Will you study that carefully and prayerfully?

These matters concern our eternal interests. The excuse of being too busy to study these things carefully and prayerfully is a poor one especially when we can learn in a very short time what others have taken years to understand.

sky

*Also, in all that I have posted, if there is something that brother Jones said that was not the truth, it needs to be shown. Until we have done this, we cannot make a right judgment or decision on the case. My personal suggestion to you is that you take the time to read everything that has been posted again and again until you really know for yourself what was said. I invite you to go to What Seventh-day Adventists Believe and look for the thread An Appeal by A.T. Jones and read and study the entire thread. Please take your time, all the time you need and get back to me. May God be with you as you study all this material.

*What is worse than Babylonians teaching Babylonian doctrines?

I am not agreeing with your summary of the issue Sky.

I think you have taken one issue and derived another from it, that is not the issue, based on what you have presented so far.

Can I suggest you carry on ths discourse on the other thread though Sky?

As this thread is specifically about the "doctrines of Babylon" and not the "apostacy of the church leaders"?

[skyblue888]

Mark, it is only a facade. To tell our members that we still hold on to the pillars of our faith--merely holding on to the theory of the truth--while in private meetings with the Evangelicals we tell them a different stoty, that we believe just as they do on the atonement and the nature of Christ in His humanity is hypocrisy and apostasy of the worse kind in the sight of God.

The Jews were the professed people of God. They were Seventh-day Adventists just as we. Of them it is written that "from generation to generation they were working on false theories, carrying out principles opposed to the truth, and combining with their religion thoughts and plans that were the product of human minds. Human inventions were made supreme." T.M.359.

On that same page and on page 481 it is stated that we, the professed people of God today, are guilty of doing the very same thing.

On page 365 of the same book we read, "They look for a god in humanity and Satan personifies the one they seek. Multitudes will be so deluded through their rejection of truth that they will accept the counterfeit. Humanity is hailed as God."

This we are guilty of. We have become so much like the world that no difference can be seen.

So, I ask again, what is worse than Babylonians teaching false doctrines?

sky

[Dr. Rich]

Good post Sky!

[John317]

What do you agree with?

[John317]

....So, I ask again, what is worse than Babylonians teaching false doctrines?

Do you consider the SDA church to be fallen and a part of Babylon?

Do you think the church itself teaches Babylonian doctrines?

To answer your question, sky, I believe what is worse is for us as individuals to turn our back on the truth and compromise what we know (or did once know) to be from God.

[John317]

Sky and Mark, let's talk about some of the other Babylonian doctrines that we need to be aware of.

For instance, what about the belief that Christ saves us IN our sins rather than FROM our sins?

[Twilight]

My point is this Sky.

An individuals, or even leaders apostacy is not a sign that the whole church has apostacised until that church accepts that apostacy.

That can only be down by the church adopting those teachings in its fundamental beliefs.

This has not happened.

So I disagree with you.

The church at this point has not apostacised, considering your arguments and rejecting them.