The 1896 Sabbath School Lesson -- What changed?

[miz3]

Thank you pastorchick.

You just made my point in the post just before yours.

[Pastor_Chick]

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

Why the change?

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

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

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

[...]

From page one respecting the 1896 SSL:

Applying a purely historical Adventist understanding of Scripture, the "imbib[ing] of pagan errors" would relate to the Trinity doctrine. Since the full-blown SDA acceptance of the Trinity, confusion has escalated in the SDA denomination. That erroneous position could have been corrected had the constituency repented and returned to "apostolic truth."

With the passing of time, confusion became so significant that it threatened to completely undo the SDA empire. When the homosexual SDA community began to be a viable threat, the leading men decided to "join hands with the state" in order to employ "the power of civil government rather than the word of God." They reasoned that by employing Caesar, they could impede the homosexual movement's progress.

That was proven to be a fatal mistake when in 1991 the General Conference lost in court to the SDA Kinship International (gay support group). However, it was already "too late" for the denomination since they had married the world and "trodden under foot the Son of God, and ha[d] counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and ha[d] done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" (Heb. 10:29)

[Scion]

So, I thought I would have a lot of catching up to do. I last posted on page 16 of this thread, and I come back to find myself on page 21 with little done to actually talk about the stated topic.

Now the last person who actually discussed the matter, and responded to my post, was this pastor, who asked:

Quote:

My questions to you are these. Have you considered what I posted at the top from the 1896 SSL? AND, can you see any possible application(s) here regarding how "the law works" or if it is working "in accordance with God's will"?

I am going to deliberately ignore all the personal back-and-forth that's gone on since then. I think there could be threads for that purpose, but I'm not planning to visit them. I think that if a donkey can speak for God, then we should ignore the messenger as a general rule and concentrate on the message itself (not that I am calling anyone a donkey!).

That being said, I maintain what I said all those many pages ago, that those who are defending the Church's actions in taking this thing to court are NOT using Biblical reasoning. They are just saying, "This is how the law works," or something that boils down to that. I haven't seen any further defense when I've questioned the Christianity of that kind of statement - not the person, mind you, just the reasoning that goes into that conclusion. I'm not trying to pick a fight.

What I am trying to do is keep an open mind, and I find that Galamiel, whom I quoted in my last post, really sets a great example for us, and we don't even know if he ever became a follower of Christ. Wisdom is just wisdom, I suppose.

So to answer the last question asked to me (from whoever), yes, I see a problem with how the Church has handled this matter. Yes, I see a difference between how the law in the US is working and what I see as Divine Law in places like 1 Cor 6, where Paul tells Christians not to take each other to court. The fact that Paul had to tell them NOT to shows me that they had legal recourse... the law would work in such a way as to allow Christians to take people to court, 2000 years ago and today. But what does the apostle say about it? "Don't you dare do it."

Some may say, "Well, the members of this 'CSDA church,' or this 'Davidian church' are not part of our organization, so that scripture doesn't apply." But doesn't it? What does the parable of the Samaritan teach us?

It is not disloyalty to admit there's a problem. Not even to an organization, much less to Christ. Paul said it straight to the Ephesians, "Wolves are going to rise up among you and corrupt this message, and mislead people." I don't see why we have to go to these lengths, and strain at a gnat, and say, "There's no problem with a Church acting this way."

Now, how bad that problem is, and what we are supposed to do about it, that's another question. But that question will never be asked if we just turn a blind eye to what is being done in the name of "Adventists" to people who don't agree with the Conference. That's not how Christ taught us to act. I'm disgusted that people think that this is something He will reward when He comes to judge His people.

So maybe, maybe we can go back to talking about this thread's topic now. I don't think this other stuff is very productive. I am not sure how often I will get to check this thread, but I hope that 5 pages from now we're just right here again.

[miz3]

With the passing of time, confusion became so significant that it threatened to completely undo the SDA empire. When the homosexual SDA community began to be a viable threat, the leading men decided to "join hands with the state" in order to employ "the power of civil government rather than the word of God." They reasoned that by employing Caesar, they could impede the homosexual movement's progress.

As I have repeatedly stated everything pastorchick writes on this website comes down to this. All roads lead to the SDA Church being Babylon and the CSDA Church being the "pristine people of God".

The reason they are the "pristine people of God" is because they self-testify that they have overcome every known sin and that they constitute the 144,000.

The "messianic nature" of pastorchick being a Prophet in the same way that Ellen White is a Prophet is also troubling.

It is these cultish fetishes that are an obstacle to having a true debate for the Truth on this thread.

[Scion]

Quote:

It is these cultish fetishes that are an obstacle to having a true debate for the Truth on this thread.

I don't see how that is an obstacle to anyone answering the questions that I ask. I'm trying to keep this as general as possible.

[Israfel]

Talking about "cult" Miz3, I was just thinking that this was the term that the Jews used on the Early Christians as well but were they a Sect or "cult"? No, it was a label Satan wished to stick on them in order to hurt God's Message but you know the result, the more they tried to annihilate them, the more they spread out and multiplied!

What did Gamaliel say to the Jewish Council?

"And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." Acts 5:38,39

[Guest]

That's right Israfel...

[Pastor_Chick]

[...] the more they tried to annihilate them, the more they spread out and multiplied! [...]

Now, that is so simple! Satan and his host just can't get it. Carry on...