Whose are we?
Posted By: Darius
Whose are we? - 09/10/03 10:46 AM
Not only does our God know the end from the beginning, He also willingly shares that knowledge with us. The prophet Amos asserted that "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." Amos 3:7. Given that set of facts and our self-identification as the Remnant, where is the establishment of the Seventh-day Adventist Church specifically foretold, or is it only human effort that has received the blessing of God?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/10/03 05:54 PM
What do you mean by human effort?
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/10/03 07:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
What do you mean by human effort?
Human response to existing circumstances. On the basis of Amos 3 it does not appear to be part of "God's secrets" since it is not foretold in prophecy. No value judgement was intended.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/10/03 09:01 PM
Are you talking about the world series? the super bowl? The remnant church? or what?
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/10/03 10:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
Are you talking about the world series? the super bowl? The remnant church? or what?
Was that an attempt at humor? I suggest you read the original post again.
[ September 10, 2003, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Darius ]
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/11/03 08:45 AM
The prophecies pin pointing the SDA church as the remnant church are found in Rev 12:17 and 19:10.
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/11/03 03:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
The prophecies pin pointing the SDA church as the remnant church are found in Rev 12:17 and 19:10.
In what sense do you call those prophecies? It appears more in line with the truth to say that at any point in history the characteristics mentioned in those texts will be found in the body of Christ.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/12/03 06:37 AM
I agree. And that's the point. The remnant continue to believe and behave according to the truth, whereas others have left off believing the truth as it is in Jesus and have turned unto lies and fables, the doctrines of men.
But would you agree that the truth is and has been progressive, that the truth committed to the remnant church contains elements not previously understood and taught during the apostolic church or the church during the Dark Ages or the church during the early protestant reformation?
In other words, would you agree that the truth committed to the church during the Laodicean Era contains elements not completely understood or taught by the church during other Eras? Such as the 2300 year prophecy, the heavenly sanctuary, the investigative judgment, the mark of the beast, the three angels' messages, etc?
John
16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:
Revelation
2:24 I will put upon you none other burden.
2:25 But that which ye have [already] hold fast till I come.
Mike wrote, "In other words, would you agree that the truth committed to the church during the Laodicean Era contains elements not completely understood or taught by the church during other Eras? Such as the 2300 year prophecy, the heavenly sanctuary, the investigative judgment, the mark of the beast, the three angels' messages, etc?"
Mike everything that you mentioned had specific meanings to the people who were being written to at that time. Can we minimize what those letters, or prophecies meant to them? Do we even know what they meant to the people at that time?
In my opinion our church can say that they are a part of the remnant, but I have real problems with the church saying that they are the remnant..... Lastly to base a belief about being the remnant on 2 or 3 texts is tenuous.....
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/11/03 08:04 PM
Mike, it is one thing to believe and proclaim that we are that part of the body of Christ that calls God's people back to a full understanding of God's will. It is quite another to believe that we are the only genuine part of the body of Christ. Nothing in the texts you have provided could be interpreted to mean that in 1844 a segment of the body of Christ will arise that is uniquely identified as the essence of the church. It is simply not there. We cannot deny the truth while claiming to proclaim the truth.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/12/03 08:17 AM
Thank you. But can you name any other church that is proclaiming the truth about the sabbath, the sanctuary, the three angels' messages, and the mark of the beast? All of which are waymarks of the remnant church since 1844.
The remnant is not without a history. It began with Jesus and led up to 1844 and now beyond. Whatever unfulfilled prophecies meant to remnant believers before 1844 is not as relevant as what they mean to remnant believers today. Testing truths have progressed since the Dark Ages to include the 27 fundamental doctrines.
It wasn't until after the Great Disappointment that they got it completely right (i.e., the truths listed above). None of this means people who still have it wrong will never come out of Babylon and join God's remnant believers. Many will come and many will go - the great two way exodus just before human probation closes.
Mike,
You are missing my point, (or maybe I haven't made it yet) a group cannot say "we are the remnant" because they don't know how many people on this globe are worshipping God and are His. Our saying that we are the remnant is just like Elijah telling God, "Lord I am the last one," and God telling Elijah, you are wrong, there are 7000 who haven't kneeled to Baal......
Doctrinal positions cannot save, and last time I checked, just because someone belonged to a church was no guarantee that they are saved either..... God saves individually.... so no matter how much we wish to brag about being the right church, with the truth, if our relationship with God is nonexistent, we will have missed the boat........
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/13/03 07:21 PM
Steve, thank you for clarifying your point. And I agree with you that church membership doesn't save us. I'm sorry if my words implied such a thing. However, as you said earlier, there has been a remnant church since apostolic times. And as truth has unfolded and expanded so has the message and mission of the remnant church.
I have attempted to define the message and mission of the remnant church since the passing of 1844, but my words have failed to convey my intentions. Would you agree that the remnant church is the depository of present truth, the testing truths for the final generation of mankind? If so, where might one find this church today? is it the SDA church? By church I don't mean its hot or lukewarm members, rather I'm referring specifically its message and mission.
Mike wrote, "I have attempted to define the message and mission of the remnant church since the passing of 1844, but my words have failed to convey my intentions. Would you agree that the remnant church is the depository of present truth, the testing truths for the final generation of mankind? If so, where might one find this church today? is it the SDA church? By church I don't mean its hot or lukewarm members, rather I'm referring specifically its message and mission. "
Mike thanks for the response. I do not agree with your basic premise, that being, that the "remnant" can be readily identified. Consequently I do not agree that the remnant church is the depository of present truth, or that there is a identifiable "remnant church." As I stated earlier, we may be able to say we believe we are part of God's remnant church, but ultimately God and only God knows exactly who the remnant church is comprised of.
The problem I have with our "remnant" theology is that fact that it is exclusionary. We cannot know who is and who is not following God. The parable of the wheats and tares illustrates this point. EGW in Christ Object Lessons points out that we don't know who is who and that if we were to try to separate wheat from tare, we would remove the very one that God has put in the church. The other problem with our "remnant" theology is that it shifts the focus from Jesus the author and perfector of our faith and places it on what qualifies a church as being the remnant. Eventually those members of that church believe that they have a monopoly on truth, and that they are superior because of their "status." That mentality leads to arrogance, much like the Jews in Jesus' day exhibited....just my thoughts...
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/13/03 11:13 PM
Steve, the following passages seem to speak to the issues you raised. Apparently the truth is important. Is it possible that no one church has been entrusted with the truth?
John
8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;
8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Matthew
15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
2 Thessalonians
2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Jude
1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Galatians
1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Revelation
22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
Mike,
It is my belief that no one church has been entrusted with "all" the truth.... In fact if one church had "all" the truth would make that church equal to God, for only God has all the truth....
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/14/03 12:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
Is it possible that no one church has been entrusted with the truth?
You have the words. I pray God you get the strength to straighten that question mark into an explanation point and turn the question into a statement of fact.
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Whose are we? - 09/14/03 12:32 AM
Wasn't Israel once the repository of all the truth that God chose to reveal to this world at that time?
Daryl,
We have no preserved record of how God dealt with His other children throughout the world. For example we now know that there was sabbath keeping among some of the tribes in Africa who lived during the same time as ancient Israel. Who knows what God revealed to the Native Americans on this continent, or elsewhere. Thus I cannot say with certainty that God entrusted all the truth with Israel....
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/15/03 11:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Claborn:
Thus I cannot say with certainty that God entrusted all the truth with Israel....
I believe that Israel had the best revelation of the truth about God, but their performance when Christ arrived demonstrates that they did not correctly understand all that was revealed to them. We all see through a glass darkly.
It begins to worry me how much of the Bible we have ignored. We ignore Paul when he says that Eve was deceived. We also ignore him when he says we see through a glass darkly. We ignore Moses when he says that Eve was not created when the command was given. We don't even realise that our doctrines on salvation ignore Moses when he says God created all in the beginning. In essence, we are teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Whose are we? - 09/16/03 05:14 AM
quote:
Posted by Darius:
We ignore Paul when he says that Eve was deceived. We also ignore him when he says we see through a glass darkly. We ignore Moses when he says that Eve was not created when the command was given. We don't even realise that our doctrines on salvation ignore Moses when he says God created all in the beginning. In essence, we are teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.
Some of what you have posted here seems to be referring to the content of another topic or two.
Who is the we ignore that you are referring to here?
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/16/03 03:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Daryl Fawcett:
Who is the we ignore that you are referring to here?
Christians. I include myself because I do not separate myself from the rest of the family.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/16/03 09:16 PM
If the remnant church does not have all the truth necessary for the great controversy to come to a successful close - then how will it close? Jesus said - Salvation is of the Jews. Nowadays He would say - Salvation is of the church. But if no one church has the truth necessary for salvation and the end of the great controversy, then how do we discover the truth?
Mike,
I would submit that before there was a church, before there was a Jew. God revealed Himself to His children. Thus, He will do that now, He does not need a church to reveal Himself to his children... Ideally a church would be a representative of Him, but far to often the church misrepresents who He is, and He then has to undo all the damage our misrepresentation has caused.....
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/16/03 10:24 PM
But isn't too late to divorce the church from the picture? Seems to me all the world is watching the church to see whether God is right or wrong. Unfortunately many have decided against the Lord on account of unsanctified members. The opposite is true too! Many have been won to Jesus because of godly members. I'm one of them.
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Whose are we? - 09/16/03 11:57 PM
The following quote should answer this question:
quote:
October 3, 1893 Lessons From the Church in the
Wilderness.
-
By Mrs. E. G. White.
In the example of Moses pleading for the children of Israel, is represented the position that we should take in regard to the people of God, however erring, or weak, or defective they may be. By the mighty cleaver of truth, the Lord has brought out a people from the quarry of the world, as he brought out of Egypt a people to keep his commandments, and at every step he has shown them that he is leading them in paths of truth and righteousness.
He has sent his light and his counsels, instructing them to build institutions of learning, to provide sanitariums and publishing houses, and success has attended the carrying out of these plans. The money of the Seventh-day Adventists has not been hoarded in order that they might live delicately, but self-denial and self-sacrifice have marked their history, and still their work is to make progress, and to be aggressive. The world have a light constantly shining upon them, because this people honor God in keeping his commandments. Now can we expect that a message would be true that would designate as Babylon the people for whom God has done so much? Hell would triumph should such a message be received, and the world would be strengthened in iniquity. All the reproaches which Satan has cast upon the character of God, would appear as truth, and the conclusion would be made that God has no chosen or organized church in the world. O, what a triumph would this be to Satan and his confederacy of evil! God does not work in this way. He does just what he said he would do in the 58th chapter of Isaiah:-- {RH, October 3, 1893 par. 13}
This tells me that God does have an organized church on this earth, and that organized church is none other than the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/17/03 01:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Daryl Fawcett:
This tells me that God does have an organized church on this earth, and that organized church is none other than the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Again, you have bypassed the central issue. I am not questioning whether this church is God's chosen instrument in these last days. My question is what is the significance of the fact that there is absolutely no prophecy (no one has produced one) foretelling that a sub-group of the body of Christ would arise anywhere near the time when this church arose. I thought my original question was clear enough, but I clearly was not.
How much of our believe that we are "the church" for these last days has been influenced by the whole concept that the Puritans subscribed to, that being "manifest destiny?"
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/18/03 01:43 AM
The fact there are sub-church groups is evident from the fact Babylon is the mother of harlots. So it is not inconceivable that God also has a sub-church group He has been working through since 1844 to carry the final warning messages to all the world.
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/18/03 02:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
So it is not inconceivable that God also has a sub-church group He has been working through since 1844 to carry the final warning messages to all the world.
The moment you added that date you force us to ask the basis for doing so. We know that men were looking forward to the coming of the Messiah because God told the prophets about it. Is there anything in the Bible that shows that men were supposed to be looking for some sub-group to arise in 1844? I know the answer is know but I am having a difficult time understanding why you are so reluctant to admit that. I get the feeling you think I am trying to make the SDA church irrelevant.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/19/03 10:54 PM
Darius, I assume you are already familiar with SDA church Bible study on the remnant church. Daniel and the Revelation carries the reader from Babylon (606 BC) to the second coming of Christ and the New Earth. Certain dates and time periods have been isolated, namely, 538-1798 (1260 years) and 457-1844 (2300 years). It is natural then for Bible students to ask - Who or what is the remnant of her seed? Rev 12:17. I agree with the well gorunded studies published the SDA chuch, which identify itself as the remnant church of Revelation 12-22.
This topic is wonderful, but the conversation is fabulous!
The topic: Whose are we?
The conversation: Who we are!
Does that mean: we do our own will; we advertise ourselves; we profess to know the truth; we give credit to ourselves; we speak of our achievements…?
Was Christ who he was because: he professed to know the truth; he spoke great words; he attracted great crowds; he did marvelous miracles; he died on the cross…?
Or was Christ who he was because: he came not to do his own will; he spoke not his own words; he sought not his own glory; he did nothing of himself; he was obedient unto death - revealing his father…because of whose he was?
So, whose are we? Self-identification or 'Whose' are we?
You will hear much talk of 'who we are' rather than 'whose we are'. So you also hear a lot about 'what we believe' rather than 'thus saith the Lord'.
What does that tell about 'whose we are'?
My Lord is the King of the Universe, all I have to do is follow.
Shalom
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/20/03 10:49 PM
I am startled at the accuracy with which John's has summarized this discussion. For a long time I have been trying to find the words to express exactly those sentiments. I hope everyone takes the time to give John's post a careful read.
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/20/03 10:52 PM
Mike wrote:
quote:
It is natural then for Bible students to ask - Who or what is the remnant of her seed?
Untrue. Only we have made this an issue. Everyone understands that it is more important to identify the bolt than to be worried about the remnant of the bolt. The remnant is what is left at the end of the bolt. If Christ had returned in Paul's time then the saints who were alive then would have been the remnant. We need to stop giving the impression that there will be two groups of people going to heaven: the remnant and all the rest.
At the end of time I understand by Scripture that there will be a group of people who are characterized by the twin distinctives of (1) Keeping God's commandments including the seventh-day Sabbath, and (2) having the testimony of Jesus active in their midst—the Spirit of prophecy. I know of precisely one religious body that fits these characteristics: the Seventh-day Advnetist Church headquartered in Silver Spring, MD, USA. Is there a question concerning this?
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/22/03 12:20 PM
Do you realize how long EGW has been dead? The year 1915 is a long way away to use this as evidence of "active in their midst." The truth is that anyone who accepts the Bible has the Spirit of Prophecy active in his midst. What is the difference between 88 years and 2000 years. You are so focussed on self-identification that you do not realize the folly of attempting to restrict the operation of the Holy Spirit to a wonderful woman who died almost a century ago. Do you really believe the Spirit of Prophecy stopped working after EGW died?
Darius JDPhD,
You are placing a variety of ideas and words into my mouth. I reccommend you extract these and simply go with what I asked. Again then, is there some definite, particular question you have in mind in regard to the world church's biblical understanding that at the end of time, there will be a group of people characterized by the twin distinctives of (1) Keeping God's commandments including the seventh-day Sabbath, and (2) having the testimony of Jesus active in their midst—the Spirit of prophecy?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/23/03 03:37 AM
Darius, if the SDA church is not the remnant church of Rev 12-22, then who do you believe will fulfill the warning messages of Rev 14?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/23/03 03:39 AM
John, whose we are and who we are should be one and the same - Christ's and Christians.
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/23/03 04:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Kirkpatrick:
Darius JDPhD,
Do you have a problem with my qualifications? You can get them as well. It only requires acceptance into an instution of higher learning and the ability to pay the price. This change in your tone is very informative.
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/23/03 04:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
Darius, if the SDA church is not the remnant church of Rev 12-22, then who do you believe will fulfill the warning messages of Rev 14?
There is a reason why the rise of the SDA church is not prophecied. To quote Elder Floyd Bresee, "God is not stuck with the Seventh-day Adventist church."
Since you have broached the subject of the warning messages, please tell us why you believe that the angels referred to in this passage mean human beings whereas in other related passages they refer to the actual angels. What is the basis for the differential in interpretation?
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/23/03 04:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Kirkpatrick:
Darius JDPhD,
You are placing a variety of ideas and words into my mouth. I reccommend you extract these and simply go with what I asked.
Life is about meaning. Words have meaning. If you are not prepared to stand by the clear meaning of your chosen words it would be of no benefit conversing with you.
Just yesterday I had to tell my son, if you do not have any confidence in the words you have spoken to own up to them why should anyone listen to what you have to say?
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/23/03 04:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Kirkpatrick:
Again then, is there some definite, particular question you have in mind in regard to the world church's biblical understanding that at the end of time, there will be a group of people characterized by the twin distinctives of (1) Keeping God's commandments including the seventh-day Sabbath, and (2) having the testimony of Jesus active in their midst—the Spirit of prophecy?
This is a perennial truth. It was true in Paul's time and will be true when the end actually arrives.
But, don't be so smug about "including the seventh-day Sabbath." Do you truly think that our church is keeping the Sabbath according to the commandment," or do you think that all that is required is intellectual acceptance that the seventh-day is the Sabbath?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/24/03 06:28 AM
Darius, do you believe any and all Christians and churches constitute the remnant according to Rev 12-22? If not, then what do you believe about the remnant of Rev 12-22?
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/23/03 07:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
Darius, do you believe any and all Christians and churches constitute the remnant according to Rev 12-22? If not, then what do you believe about the remnant of Rev 12-22?
The remnant refers to the saints, not to a particular group within the body of Christ. It is the people who constitute the remnant.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/23/03 08:09 PM
What is a saint? And is the end time remnant made up of saints who believe contradicting truths?
quote:
John, whose we are and who we are should be one and the same - Christ's and Christians.
Mike I agree with you wholeheartedly and absolutely. Whose we are absolutely declares who we are!Hmmm…
But now I have a problem…there is this doctrine of imputed and imparted righteousness, which seems to make a difference between the two. You see, they say, imputed is 100%, but the imparted is …5-10-15-25-50-80%. That sort of puts a difference between 'whose we are' and 'who we are'.
So you see, we are rather short of the mind of Christ whenever we look at ourselves and assess our worth. While when our eyes are on him and our conversation is in heaven then we are 100%. But it is so that they whose eyes are on themselves think highly of themselves, and there is the problem.
As you see 'our' self-assessment of 'our' identification as those 'Keeping God's commandments' & 'having the testimony of Jesus active in their midst—the Spirit of prophecy (books on the shelf)', is rather at odds with the testimony of the faithful and true witness.
He says "I know thy works… thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, … and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:" What does that mean to 'our' commandment keeping?
He also says," Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in…" What does that mean to 'us'? If he is knocking on the outside of the door, then he is not 'in the midst', is he?
So friends, I know only of one way to be 100%. - 'not I but Christ'. It is then that all that matters to us is 'whose we are' and when that is so 'who we are' is one with 'whose we are' and there is no difference. Praise be to God!
When we think of ourselves I pray that all come to the realizations that Paul expressed in recounting his qualifications,Philippians 3: 7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
Shalom
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/24/03 09:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
What is a saint? And is the end time remnant made up of saints who believe contradicting truths?
Saints are the same whether they come at the beginning or at the end. The remnant is not different from the rest of the bolt. The answer to contradicting truth is not for one sub-group to unilaterally declare that it holds no contradicting truth. It does not take much to demonstrate that every denomination holds contradicting truth. The answer is to identify the cause of the condition under which rational individuals find themselves holding contradicting truth. This is the area in which the SDA needs to step up and contribute to the Christian community, but in which we have failed them. Instead, we have maintained the same system that leads to contradicting truth.
quote:
The answer is to identify the cause of the condition under which rational individuals find themselves holding contradicting truth.
Yes, yes!
Shalom
Darius,
Usually contradictory beliefs that reside in a body of believers or a person can be attributed to conflicting goals, ideas, or self-exaltation... Don't forget those other motivators fear, and love.... (power is also a factor)
The question is which factors are at work within our church.....
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/25/03 03:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Claborn:
Darius,
Usually contradictory beliefs that reside in a body of believers or a person can be attributed to conflicting goals, ideas, or self-exaltation... Don't forget those other motivators fear, and love.... (power is also a factor)
The question is which factors are at work within our church.....
I don't think these get to the crux of the matter because you have not considered the totality of our human experience. Why is it that people who hold to contradictory beliefs in religion do not do the same in their jobs and professions? The natural response for humans is to resolve logical inconsistencies in every area of life, except religion. You will agree that everything you mentioned above exists in the field in which you work, yet Christians who practice your craft do not countenance contradictory beliefs in their profession. I think we have to go deeper than that.
What do you think? I will give my perspective in my next post on this subject.
Darius,
I would agree that in other areas of our lives we attempt to minimize the tension that conflicting beliefs may cause except for the area of religion. Has it become our sacred cow (as it were) so that we don't or refuse to question those things that contribute to the conflict?
Posted By: Darius
Re: Whose are we? - 09/25/03 05:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Claborn:
Darius,
I would agree that in other areas of our lives we attempt to minimize the tension that conflicting beliefs may cause except for the area of religion. Has it become our sacred cow (as it were) so that we don't or refuse to question those things that contribute to the conflict?
I would suggest that you look to the influence Aquinas had on the way we attain knowledge. He it was who suggested that we should approach religious knowledge differently from other types of knowledge. This became the basis of the philosophy of the Roman Catholic church and has found a home in all Protestant communities, though they claim to be different from the Roman Catholic church. That is the genesis of our problem.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/26/03 08:07 PM
The truth determines what is contradictory. Sabbath keeping, for example, is the truth. Sunday keeping clearly contradicts the truth. Any denomination that violates the sabbath cannot be a part of God's end time remnant. Please notice that I did not say any church member.
Mike,
A denomination cannot (well they can cause we sda's do) self-identify themselves as God's remnant. That presumes that they (the church, in our case the sda church) knows the mind of God. That we know who belong to Him and who don't..... He has not given us that task.......
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Whose are we? - 09/26/03 11:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Darius:
Not only does our God know the end from the beginning, He also willingly shares that knowledge with us. The prophet Amos asserted that "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." Amos 3:7. Given that set of facts and our self-identification as the Remnant, where is the establishment of the Seventh-day Adventist Church specifically foretold, or is it only human effort that has received the blessing of God?
"Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." Amos 3:7.
Seeing that Ellen White was also God's prophet or messenger, does she say anything about the SDA Church being "The Remnant"???
quote:
The truth determines what is contradictory. Sabbath keeping, for example, is the truth. Sunday keeping clearly contradicts the truth. Any denomination that violates the sabbath cannot be a part of God's end time remnant. Please notice that I did not say any church member.
"Here is the church, there is the steeple, but where are the people?"
What is the remnant? How do we identify the remnant with 'denomination' and exclude the people? What is God going to save?
Shalom
quote:
Usually contradictory beliefs that reside in a body of believers or a person can be attributed to conflicting goals, ideas, or self-exaltation... Don't forget those other motivators fear, and love.... (power is also a factor)
The question is which factors are at work within our church.....
Steve, those are all conditions present, but they are conditions and not the cause. What is the cause that those conditions are present?
Shalom
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/27/03 07:11 AM
God is proclaiming the truth through the remnant church. Not all sincere Christians are members of the remnant church. Preaching the 3AM's is the primary mission of the remnant church. The SDA denomination is the only church in the world that is preaching the truth about the 3AM's.
This truth is what makes the SDA church the remnant of Rev 12-22. Which is not to say every member is experiencing salvation. Jesus said, "Salvation is of the Jews' (John 4:22), and yet not every Jew was experiencing salvation. So it is with the SDA church today.
Mike,
Where does it say that the remnant's primary purpose is to preach the 3 angels message? Especially in light of the fact that the bible states in Rev 14 that angels are preaching the message. Before you answer consider that there are 3 additional angels in Rev 14 which are engaged in activity. Now the question is why do we say that the first 3 angels who are preaching a message is something humans are to do, yet the last 3 angels are doing activity that only angels can do? If Rev 14 is prophetic, (and I believe it is) then what do angels represent?
Darius, Could you please summarise for us the principles of Aquinas approach to religious knowledge?
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Whose are we? - 09/30/03 03:29 AM
John,
Darius is presently unable to post in any forum of MSDAOL.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 09/30/03 08:07 PM
Steve, I believe the angels bolded below symbolize the prayers of the 144,000.
Revelation
14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud [one] sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
14:15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
14:16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
14:17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.
14:18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
14:19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast [it] into the great winepress of the wrath of God.
14:20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand [and] six hundred furlongs.
Mike,
How is that possible when the angels are involved in an activity, i.e. carrying a sickle and harvesting? If those angels represent the prayers of the 144,000 then why aren't the 1st set of 3 angels in this same chapter symbolic of the prayers of the 144,000?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 10/01/03 05:56 AM
Steve, I agree the angel that wields a sickle does not symbolize the praying 144,000. The angels I bolded above simply tell the other two that it's time to reap the harvest. It is this command that symbolizes the prayers of the 144,000 after probation closes.
Mike,
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 10/01/03 07:50 PM
Sister White associated the 3AM's with the work of humans preaching the gospel and final warning. It makes sense to me that the other two angels symbolize the prayers of the 144,000 after probation closes. In "A Word to the Little Flock" James White applied it the same way.
Under the appropriate symbol of an angel flying through the midst of heaven is represented the work of the people of God. In this work heavenly intelligences co-operate with human agencies in extending the last message to the inhabitants of the world. {FE 208.2}
The third angel is represented as flying in the midst of heaven, symbolizing the work of those who proclaim the first, second, and third angel's messages; all are linked together. {3SM 405.2}
The fact that an angel is said to be the herald of this warning is significant. By the purity, the glory, and the power of the heavenly messenger, divine wisdom has been pleased to represent the exalted character of the work to be accomplished by the message and the power and glory that were to attend it. And the angel's flight "in the midst of heaven," the "loud voice" with which the warning is uttered, and its promulgation to all "that dwell on the earth,"--"to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,"--give evidence of the rapidity and world-wide extent of the movement. {GC 355.2}
Thank you Mike for your response. Basically what you have shared is that we (our church) has no biblical support to interpret Rev 14 as we have, however our support for our interpretation is found in EGW....
I would hasten to add that since we have abandoned our stand that we use the bible and bible only as our rule of faith per the 27 Fundamental Beliefs, then we can interpret Rev 14 in the manner in which we have....
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 10/01/03 10:14 PM
Steve, it sounds like you are unimpressed with Sister White's insights? I value her input both as a Bible student and as a prophet. It is not uncommon for God to use one prophet to interpret another prophet. I am very comfortable with how God has used Sister White to interpret the prophecies of the Bible. To me that is not the same as saying we have no biblical basis for our 27 fundamental beliefs. We have the inspired commentary of a prophet of God. In my book it's not any different than the inspired commentaries of Matthew, Luke, Peter, Paul or John. Where would we be without their inspired insights?
And where would we be without Sister White? Obviously God thought we needed His help through her gift, otherwise He wouldn't have bothered calling her to serve the church as a prophet. Why do you suppose God felt we needed help understanding the Bible? Could it be because we needed help interpreting the prophecies?
Mike,
Not unimpressed at all. However I was raised as an Adventist to believe in the bible and bible alone as the final word. In my lifetime (I am 43) I have seen a shift in our position as a church from the bible and bible only (sola scriptura) to the bible and EGW. This is not a surprise because even when some members were saying the bible and bible only, they were liberally quoting EGW. At least now we are being honest and saying we believe in the bible and other sources namely EGW.
It does put us in a tenuous position because we can no longer take to task the Mormons who say they believe in the bible as well as The Book of Mormon which was written by their prophet.... Nor can we criticize the Jehovah Witnesses for using a bible of their own making....
Mike wrote, "And where would we be without Sister White? Obviously God thought we needed His help through her gift, otherwise He wouldn't have bothered calling her to serve the church as a prophet. Why do you suppose God felt we needed help understanding the Bible? Could it be because we needed help interpreting the prophecies?"
We would be where the early church was perhaps? They didn't even have the New Testament to read because it was still happening....
As for correct prophetic interpretation, 1Cor 13:1-2 If I make use of the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am like sounding brass, or a loud-tongued bell. (2) And if I have a prophet's power, and have knowledge of all secret things; and if I have all faith, by which mountains may be moved from their place, but have not love, I am nothing.
So which is more important? Interpreting prophecies or love?
Mike wrote, "In my book it's not any different than the inspired commentaries of Matthew, Luke, Peter, Paul or John. Where would we be without their inspired insights?"
Mike,
Your position is somewhat puzzling from this standpoint, the words or thoughts of those who were inspired by God or called to be a prophet were not included in the bible. Should everything that an inspired (by God) person writes be included in the bible? I mean those letters that Paul wrote are now part of the New Testament. Should we include the writings of EGW in the bible also, since you view them equally?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 10/01/03 11:27 PM
Steve, my position on Sister White is not unusual or uncommon. Many good and genuine SDA's feel as as I do. People felt that way about Paul during and shortly after his tenure as a messenger and prophet of God. Not all were in agreement though. It was years before his espistles were canonized. Many of the espistles floating around in those early years were closely scrutinized and found to be uninspired. The criteria used to come to the such conclusions depended mostly on whether or not they agreed doctrinally with the existing canonized word of God.
In my opinion Sister White passes the test. Do I consider her on par with Paul and John. Do I consider Paul on par with John? I believe each apostle and prophet are uniquely called and chosen by God for a specific time and purpose. Sister White was called by God to do a specific work for Him and the Church. Whether she is as inspired as Paul or John is not, in my mind, the real question. They were all inspired by the same Holy Spirit, but each one was called because God was meeting a specific need at the right time and place. Who am I to reject God's chosen messengers and prophets?
Mike,
Here is the church's position, do you agree or disagree with its position (emphasis mine)?
In the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists at Dallas in April, 1980, the Preamble states: "Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures." Paragraph one reflects the church's understanding of the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, while paragraph seventeen reflects the church's understanding of the writings of Ellen White in relation to the Scriptures. These paragraphs read as follows:
1. The Holy Scriptures
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. Support is found in these Bible passages: 2 Peter 1:20,21; 2 Timothy 3:16,17; Psalms 119:105; Proverbs 30:5,6; Isaiah 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Hebrews 4:12.
17. The Gift Of Prophecy
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. Support is found in these Bible passages: Joel 2:28,29; Acts 2:14-21; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 19:10.
The following affirmations and denials speak to the issues which have been raised about the inspiration and authority of the Ellen White writings and their relation to the Bible. These clarifications should be taken as a whole. They are an attempt to express the present understanding of Seventh-day Adventists. They are not to be construed as a substitute for, or a part of, the two doctrinal statements quoted above.
AFFIRMATIONS
We believe that Scripture is the divinely revealed word of God and is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
We believe that the canon of Scripture is composed only of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.
We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
We believe that Scripture is the Word of God in human language.
We believe that Scripture teaches that the gift of prophecy will be manifest in the Christian church after New Testament times.
We believe that the ministry and writings of Ellen White were a manifestation of the gift of prophecy.
We believe that Ellen White was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that her writings, the product of that inspiration, are applicable and authoritative, especially to Seventh-day Adventists.
We believe that the purposes of the Ellen White writings include guidance in understanding the teaching of Scripture and application of these teachings, with prophetic urgency, to the spiritual and moral life.
We believe that the acceptance of the prophetic gift of Ellen White is important to the nurture and unity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
We believe that Ellen White's use of literary sources and assistants finds parallels in some of the writings of the Bible.
DENIALS
We do not believe that the quality or degree of inspiration in the writings of Ellen White is different from that of Scripture.
We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are an addition to the canon of Sacred Scripture.
We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White function as the foundation and final authority of Christian faith as does Scripture.
We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White may be used as the basis of doctrine.
We do not believe that the study of the writings of Ellen White may be used to replace the study of Scripture.
We do not believe that Scripture can be understood only through the writings of Ellen White.
We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White exhaust the meaning of Scripture.
We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are essential for the proclamation of the truths of Scripture to society at large.
We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are the product of mere Christian piety.
We do not believe that Ellen White's use of literary sources and assistants negates the inspiration of her writings.
We conclude, therefore, that a correct understanding of the inspiration and authority of the writings of Ellen White will avoid two extremes: (1) regarding these writings as functioning on a canonical level identical with Scripture, or (2) considering them as ordinary Christian literature.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 10/02/03 10:22 PM
I agree! (with what you posted on the bottom of page 3)
Considdering what was quoted from the 27 fundamental beliefs and what has been said that what Ellen White wrote must not be contrary to established scripture, holy canon, then doesnt it follow naturally that one must be able to find ALL our major beliefs trough studying the bible ONLY? If there is a belief that cannot be made out of biblestudy only, one that requires study of Ellen Whites books, where does that put us in the christian spectra? Not among the sola scriptua denominations but ironically enough just besides the roman catholics who add to the scriptures trough the words of popes and church fathers.
So the question stands thus, can ALL of our beliefs be made trough study of bible only without required references to EWs books?
/Thomas
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 10/03/03 05:33 PM
Thomas, good point. Yes, all of our 27 doctrinal beliefs can be proven from the Bible and the Bible only. However, it must never be forgotten that God placed His stamp of approval upon them through the inspired gift of Sister White. It is her inspired confirmation, more so than anything else, that gives credibility to our doctrines. Otherwise it would be next to impossible to confidently believe in some of our more unique truths (i.e., the pre-advent judgment, the mark of the beast, the historical application of the seven trumpets, etc). Without the inspired insights of Sister White we could not believe so firmly in our hotly debated doctrines.
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Whose are we? - 10/03/03 05:40 PM
In answer to your question, Thomas, I believe they can be doctrinally. It isn't what the Bible says that is the problem, but how people, gropus, etc. have been interpreting it.
In his time, the apostle Paul even warned against false doctrines/teachings creeping into the church.
The function of Ellen White's lesser light is to lead us back to the truth of the Bible, the Greater Light.
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Whose are we? - 10/03/03 05:51 PM
How are these latest round of posts about Ellen G White related to the Whose Are We? topic?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 10/04/03 06:25 AM
Sister White clearly affirms the chosen, remnant status of the SDA Church. People who disagree with her are in essence disagreeing with God. "Whose we are" and what we are is verified by God through the inspired gift of Sister White.
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
Thomas, good point. Yes, all of our 27 doctrinal beliefs can be proven from the Bible and the Bible only. However, it must never be forgotten that God placed His stamp of approval upon them through the inspired gift of Sister White. It is her inspired confirmation, more so than anything else, that gives credibility to our doctrines.
So you say that our "unik" doctrines lack credibility except when seen trough EGW glasses?
Otherwise it would be next to impossible to confidently believe in some of our more unique truths (i.e., the pre-advent judgment, the mark of the beast, the historical application of the seven trumpets, etc).
How do you mean that these doctrines are proved by the bible if you have no confidence(or almost no confidence anyway) in them unless you understand them in the context of the works of EW? I thought the point of proving something was to make them credible and enable people to have confidence in them...
Without the inspired insights of Sister White we could not believe so firmly in our hotly debated doctrines.
quote:
Originally posted by Daryl Fawcett:
How are these latest round of posts about Ellen G White related to the Whose Are We? topic?
Why we belive what we belive may or may not be relevant to in whom we belive.
/Thomas
quote:
Sister White clearly affirms the chosen, remnant status of the SDA Church. People who disagree with her are in essence disagreeing with God.
Mike, could it be that God disagrees with you? Are you and some others here, using EGW today the way Jews used Abraham and Moses?
Luke 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Did not the Jews (from whom salvation is) use Moses and Abraham to justify themselves and thus not repent? Were those the remnant of their day?
quote:
Preaching the 3AM's is the primary mission of the remnant church. The SDA denomination is the only church in the world that is preaching the truth about the 3AM's.
Does one recognise the remnant by its profession or its fruit? Matthew 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Considering then,
- that the faithful and true witness testifies of the SDA denomination (according to testimony) Revelation 3:17 …thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
- and Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Should not one take heed, lest they be found wanting and that the following testimony could be sadly only too true?
Isaiah 29:13 … this people honour me with their lips, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
2 Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof…
What is the fruit, which we should be looking for, which Christ is looking for, in our hearts?
The fruit reveals whose we are. By their fruits you shall know them.
Shalom
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 10/06/03 08:10 AM
Thomas, now that we have God's stamp of approval upon our 27 beliefs we can confidently believe we are right. Thanx to Sister White.
John, the fact the SDA church is lukewarm is evidence she is the remnant church. The remnant church will be shaken during the MOB crisis, if she were perfect there would be no need for a shaking.
Mike,
Forgive me for disagreeing, but being confident in "being right" gets you nowhere. Israel was right, they were God's own, yet they failed to consistently follow God, and worse, when the Messiah arrived, in all their rightness, they missed Him....
There are bible scholars who can run circles around us as far as biblical interpretation is concerned and be "right" in their interpretation, yet they have no relationship with Christ.....
Thus, it's not being right that matters as much as being in Him. So if I have to choose between being "right" and being in a relationship with Christ, I will choose the relationship. While they are not mutually exclusive, I think we as sda's have consistently placed emphasis on "right knowledge" as opposed to a "right relationship."
Steve:
Please define as exactly as you can, what you mean by our "relationship." Thanks.
LK
Larry,
A relationship is an intimate union with another person. While a relationship may have rules that govern it, adherence to rules do not a relationship make. In the case of our relationship with Christ, it would mean (in my opinion) that we are attuned to His voice, that we communicate with Him as opposed to just asking Him for things, and that we surrender our everything to Him. We also allow His Spirit to transform our lives, and we do whatever it is He bids us to do....
Posted By: Justin
Re: Whose are we? - 10/06/03 10:37 PM
There is no need to have a dichotmy between right knowledge (doctrine) and right relationship with Christ. There cannot be such a state where one has truly the right relationship with Christ and at the same time cherishes wrong (or incorrect) knowledges about Him.
There may be a state when a believer maintains insufficient (but growing) knowledge, but a true disciple shall not reject the right knowledge when it is revealed to him by God.
In my experience, one who cherished a wrong doctrine always was lead to the road of digression in matters of faith.
The word "relationship" tends to have loaded (and negative) meaning - unfortunately due to its careless & idelogical use by the liberal theologians and their cohorts. I'd rather use instead following terms - "a daily walk with Christ" or "a life hidden in Christ".
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Whose are we? - 10/07/03 07:51 AM
I see that:
Smugness in doctrinal traditions or personal "discoveries" is just as dangerous as smugness in relationship.
You can be arrogantly right as well as being patronizing and assumptive in your relationships to loved ones and Christ.
The key is the heart, for out of it "springs forth" the issue.
Old hearts=equal smugness in all things.
New hearts=highly sensitive to His personal directions.
If you were told by Him, unquestionably, to give up:
a "bible" theory of yours
a "christian" habit of yours
an unhealthy relationship of yours
a way of speaking
a loyalty to a group (cultural,racial, club)
a treasure(Caddy, Vette, Chevette,donkey-cart)
and you find yourself hesitating, then all the claims of "right relationship" or "right knowledge" are right shaky.
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
Thomas, now that we have God's stamp of approval upon our 27 beliefs we can confidently believe we are right. Thanx to Sister White.
I dont think you really answered the objections and questions but just restated in different words. Perhaps there isnt an answere fit to print...
John, the fact the SDA church is lukewarm is evidence she is the remnant church. The remnant church will be shaken during the MOB crisis, if she were perfect there would be no need for a shaking.
If lukewarmness is evidence of being the remnant, then the remnant section in heavens books will sure be crowded...
What does MOB stand for?
That a shaking will produce any positive result is in it self evidence that not all is asleap and apatic in the church, if sda is homogenly lukewarm a shaking would just result in an empty vessle. Also notices that wheat and weeds must grow together till harvest time, or thats what Jesus says anyway.(matt 13:24+)
/Thomas
Ikan,
I agree with your post, the key is the heart....
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 10/07/03 11:25 PM
I agree with Justin, being "right" and being in "relationship" means having the right relationship with Jesus. No paradox here.
Thomas, sorry my answer failed to address your question. Let me try again. You asked, Do we need Sister White in order to correctly interpret and understand the truths revealed in the Bible? My answer is, Yes. But now that we know what is right we can go back show how the Bible confirms it.
Otherwise, you end up with people arguing over opinions as to what this or that text means. It has to do with the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning. It's always best to start off with the answer and prove it using the evidence rather than the other way round (i.e., start off with the evidence and arrive at the answer).
For example, we know the earth was created in 6 days. Starting off with the answer makes it easier to deal with seemingly contradictory evidence. When the evidence appears to support evolution we are not up ended because we know somehow, someway it agrees with the truth. The same can be said of the Flood and other controversial Bible truths. We know the evidence supports the truth, it's just that it's not always apparent at first glance.
This same principle applies to Sister White and our unique doctrinal truths. We know the answer because it has been confirmed by God through Sister White. So, anytime there's a question about this or that text we know that somehow, someway it supports the truth, it's just that it's not always obvious at first glance.
Does that make sense?
Mike,
Your explanation is circular. You state that we know what's right, then confirm it with EGW, who confirms what was was written.......
Additionally your explanation gives the true nature of the so-called study that we engage in. We study not for truth but to confirm what we believe the truth to be. We do this by memorizing verses or finding ways to bend texts to our particular truth..... I would call that something, but studying it isn't.......
Mike you also wrote, ou asked, Do we need Sister White in order to correctly interpret and understand the truths revealed in the Bible? My answer is, Yes. But now that we know what is right we can go back show how the Bible confirms it."
I thought we use the bible to interpret EGW and not the other way around. I would submit that we have the writings of EGW and can make use of them, however even if we didn't the Holy Spirit would help us correctly interpret what truths are revealed in the bible.
Thus, what we need is the Holy Spirit which will lead and guide into all truth, and yes he may choose to utilize the writings of EGW to accomplish His goal , however He (the Holy Spirit) is not limited to using EGW to correctly interpret the bible......
Posted By: Justin
Re: Whose are we? - 10/08/03 12:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Claborn:
Mike,
Your explanation is circular. You state that we know what's right, then confirm it with EGW, who confirms what was was written.......
Additionally your explanation gives the true nature of the so-called study that we engage in. We study not for truth but to confirm what we believe the truth to be......
Well, steve,
If we are Adventists who subscribe to the belief that Ellen White in her writings is in harmony with the biblical principles, then using and quoting EGW to confirm the validity of our beliefs among us is perfectly OK. If an Adventist, at one point or another, has come to the place where he or she accepted (aftere a careful examination) Ellen White's status as God's messenger for the remnant, there is no point in repeatedly confirming her writing with the biblical evidence. Conversation with non-Adventists is altogether a different matter.
Why would this be a problem for you, Steve, is beyond my comprehension. If you have issues with EGW writings so as to cause you (as an Adventist) not to accept her statements as confirmation of our beliefs, then we should talk about specific points (or statements) of EGW that you may have questions on.
Also, we should be honest enough to admit that all of us (including you, Mike and me) have our already formed beliefs (based on our previous studies), which we tend to study the Bible to confirm. There's nothing wrong with this approach in itself as long as we do not become beholden to our formed beliefs despite the filing evidences (given to us by the HS) questioning their validity.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 10/08/03 12:09 AM
Steve, I agree with you that God has used Sister White to help us correctly understand the truth as revealed in the Bible. But I do not believe it is possible to confidently affirm some of our more controversial doctrines without the Holy Spirit's stamp of approval as manifested in the writings of Sister White.
There are just too many uncertainties concerning the various Bible manuscripts and translations to leave the important work of "rightly dividing the word of truth" to uninspired minds. The devil is very clever at causing doctrinal divisions over the exact meaning of this or that text. If the truth were plainly known then there wouldn't be catholic and protestant churches.
We need the sure word of prophecy to help us know without a doubt what is truth. God gave us Sister White so we can know that what we believe is from the hand and mouth of God. No more guess work. No more wondering if it could be this or that way. I am 100% convinced that our understanding of the plan of salvation is right and true. Having this blessed assurance feels great. Thank you Jesus.
Justin wrote, "Why would this be a problem for you, Steve, is beyond my comprehension. If you have issues with EGW writings so as to cause you (as an Adventist) not to accept her statements as confirmation of our beliefs, then we should talk about specific points (or statements) of EGW that you may have questions on."
Justin,
Do you have a problem with me expressing my opinion about how we utilize the writings of EGW? Perhaps when reviewing the 27 fundamental beliefs and the info from the White Estate regarding how her writings should be used, you would understand my position. If however you are uncomfortable with my questions, I will gladly keep them to myself...
Mike,
Again I direct your attention to the affirmations and denials issued by our church (emphasis mine) and ask if you agree with them. Clearly there is a conflict with what you have posted and what the official church stance is:
AFFIRMATIONS
We believe that Scripture is the divinely revealed word of God and is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
We believe that the canon of Scripture is composed only of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.
We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
We believe that Scripture is the Word of God in human language.
We believe that Scripture teaches that the gift of prophecy will be manifest in the Christian church after New Testament times.
We believe that the ministry and writings of Ellen White were a manifestation of the gift of prophecy.
We believe that Ellen White was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that her writings, the product of that inspiration, are applicable and authoritative, especially to Seventh-day Adventists.
We believe that the purposes of the Ellen White writings include guidance in understanding the teaching of Scripture and application of these teachings, with prophetic urgency, to the spiritual and moral life.
We believe that the acceptance of the prophetic gift of Ellen White is important to the nurture and unity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
We believe that Ellen White's use of literary sources and assistants finds parallels in some of the writings of the Bible.
DENIALS
We do not believe that the quality or degree of inspiration in the writings of Ellen White is different from that of Scripture.
We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are an addition to the canon of Sacred Scripture.
We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White function as the foundation and final authority of Christian faith as does Scripture.
We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White may be used as the basis of doctrine.
We do not believe that the study of the writings of Ellen White may be used to replace the study of Scripture.
We do not believe that Scripture can be understood only through the writings of Ellen White.
We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White exhaust the meaning of Scripture.
We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are essential for the proclamation of the truths of Scripture to society at large.
We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are the product of mere Christian piety.
We do not believe that Ellen White's use of literary sources and assistants negates the inspiration of her writings.
We conclude, therefore, that a correct understanding of the inspiration and authority of the writings of Ellen White will avoid two extremes: (1) regarding these writings as functioning on a canonical level identical with Scripture, or (2) considering them as ordinary Christian literature.
Mike, if I have understood you correctly, I am supprised and shocked by the results of this discussion. What I thought was an ironical tounge in cheek comparasion in my first post on this subject seems the more likely to be true all the time. Can it really be true that the writings and words of ellen white is the bottom line of how sda read the bible comparable to how the words of popes is the bottom line of how catholics read the bible? Ellens books has been and are important to the sda, but in my oppinion, doctrine should be made from the 66 books of canon. If the case cant be clearly or at least satisfactorily made from the bible, then its the doctrine that needs mending and not the bible. The biblical predictions for people adding to the words of the bible are no pretty sight...
/Thomas
Posted By: Justin
Re: Whose are we? - 10/08/03 02:16 PM
Steve,
You would do well to highlight the following as well to understand my point in more balanced way:
We believe that Ellen White was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that her writings, the product of that inspiration, are applicable and authoritative, especially to Seventh-day Adventists.
We do not believe that the quality or degree of inspiration in the writings of Ellen White is different from that of Scripture.
We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are the product of mere Christian piety.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 10/09/03 06:12 AM
Steve and Thomas, please understand me. I totally agree with the SDA position on Sister White. I would appreciate it if you could show me how my last post contradicts the statements Steve posted. Thank you.
To clarify further - I believe our fundamental beliefs are canonical and biblical. I know this with absolute certainty on two accounts, 1) they can be proven from the Bible, and 2) they have been confirmed by God through the spirit of prophecy.
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
Steve and Thomas, please understand me. I totally agree with the SDA position on Sister White. I would appreciate it if you could show me how my last post contradicts the statements Steve posted. Thank you.
To clarify further - I believe our fundamental beliefs are canonical and biblical. I know this with absolute certainty on two accounts, 1) they can be proven from the Bible, and 2) they have been confirmed by God through the spirit of prophecy.
Hi Mike,
I wouldnt have written what I wrote last for your #1 comment here, however for these quotes
quote:
You asked, Do we need Sister White in order to correctly interpret and understand the truths revealed in the Bible? My answer is, Yes. But now that we know what is right we can go back show how the Bible confirms it.
AND
Steve, I agree with you that God has used Sister White to help us correctly understand the truth as revealed in the Bible. But I do not believe it is possible to confidently affirm some of our more controversial doctrines without the Holy Spirit's stamp of approval as manifested in the writings of Sister White.
I did.
Perhaps I have been studying to much science but this quote:
It's always best to start off with the answer and prove it using the evidence rather than the other way round (i.e., start off with the evidence and arrive at the answer).
,well, this isnt really how honest studying is meant to be done...
Then again, your probably the honest one here for confessing that this is how you do it...
As for general feeling on this issue, Id agree with Steve quote:
I thought we use the bible to interpret EGW and not the other way around. I would submit that we have the writings of EGW and can make use of them, however even if we didn't the Holy Spirit would help us correctly interpret what truths are revealed in the bible.
Thus, what we need is the Holy Spirit which will lead and guide into all truth, and yes he may choose to utilize the writings of EGW to accomplish His goal , however He (the Holy Spirit) is not limited to using EGW to correctly interpret the bible......
As to the question you asked:
You said quote:
Steve, I agree with you that God has used Sister White to help us correctly understand the truth as revealed in the Bible. But I do not believe it is possible to confidently affirm some of our more controversial doctrines without the Holy Spirit's stamp of approval as manifested in the writings of Sister White.
There are just too many uncertainties concerning the various Bible manuscripts and translations to leave the important work of "rightly dividing the word of truth" to uninspired minds. The devil is very clever at causing doctrinal divisions over the exact meaning of this or that text. If the truth were plainly known then there wouldn't be catholic and protestant churches.
We need the sure word of prophecy to help us know without a doubt what is truth. God gave us Sister White so we can know that what we believe is from the hand and mouth of God. No more guess work. No more wondering if it could be this or that way. I am 100% convinced that our understanding of the plan of salvation is right and true. Having this blessed assurance feels great. Thank you Jesus.
SDA affirmations/denials said quote:
We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White may be used as the basis of doctrine.
We do not believe that Scripture can be understood only through the writings of Ellen White.
We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are essential for the proclamation of the truths of Scripture to society at large.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 10/10/03 04:06 AM
Thomas, I believe our doctrines can be proven from the Bible. But I would not have the same confidence in some of our more controversial truths were it not for the confirmation of the Lord through the spirit of prophecy. I'm sorry that sounds like a contradiction, but in my mind they go hand in hand.
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
Thomas, I believe our doctrines can be proven from the Bible. But I would not have the same confidence in some of our more controversial truths were it not for the confirmation of the Lord through the spirit of prophecy. I'm sorry that sounds like a contradiction, but in my mind they go hand in hand.
Which are these controversial truths that are not doctrine? Whats the difference between doctrine and other truths? If it is true, why not doctrine. If it cannot be confirmed by the bible, is it true at all? (assuming we talking about spirituall truths) I hope im not to hard on you, Im not after you, im after the principle behind why we belive what we belive, especially concerning things that as you say, cannot be confirmed outside of Ellens work.
/Thomas
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 10/10/03 07:03 PM
Actually, I believe all our 27 doctrines are truth and that they can all be "proven" without Sister White's confirmation. My point is that God's confirmation through the spirit of prophecy is what makes me 100% sure and confident all 27 are right. And that's important for me personally because doctrines/truths like the sanctuary, the investigative judgment, the mark of the beast, etc., have been hotly contested and debated within and without the church for years.
And to be honest were it not for God placing His seal of approval upon them through the spirit of prophecy I would not be as convinced of our translation and interpretation of certain disputed passages in the Bible. I believe our views are exegetically and hermeneutically sound, and I can conscientiously support them, but I also believe the opposition feels the same about their views. The difference is we have God's stamp of approval and they don't. And isn't that why we have the spirit of prophecy? Do you see what I mean?
John
16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show [it] unto you.
Daniel
8:16 And I heard a man's voice between [the banks of] Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this [man] to understand the vision.
10:14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision [is] for [many] days.
Mike,
Perhaps you don't see it, but by your admission, the bible alone was not enough to convince you of these "truths." By saying that you are saying that EGW is more significant that the bible, because only through her writings do you fully believe the "truth." Now that may not be what you are saying, but that's what I am hearing......
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 10/10/03 10:14 PM
Steve, what I am saying is what makes sense to me. I don't expect a non-SDA to accept it. I have no problem with our doctrines especially since they have been verified and confirmed by God.
If Bible study alone was enough why then did God bother to coach our pioneers through the spirit of prophecy? They studied and prayed long and hard wrestling over troubling passages. When they came to an impasse God would reveal the correct interpretation to Sister White.
Mike,
I am a SDA, born and raised, and I don't understand your position.......
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Whose are we? - 10/11/03 01:54 AM
"I am a SDA, born and raised, and I don't understand your position......."
Steve: You mention nothing here about Christ saving you and giving you a new mind and heart.
Being a cultural/hereditary Adventist(or any other denomination) is a major draw-back, one I have found, creates a knee-jerk distaste for most things of personal/spiritual species, especially if it crosses one's pet theories or assumptions.
One cannot by logic rationalize Scripture. One cannot by reasoning compass the purpose of God on Present Truth or Past.
One cannot by argument summarize the actions of the Spirit.
But we can know Him, if we are born again.
quote:
The function of Ellen White's lesser light is to lead us back to the truth of the Bible, the Greater Light.
The use of any light is meaningful in darkness, to dispel darkness. SO if we bring a small light into a place of darkness, it will shine and dispel the darkness to the degree of its strength. If we bring the greater light to that same place it will dispel darkness which the lesser light was not able to do. But if we bring the small light to lighten the greater light, we act rather foolishly, for there the smaller light does not enlighten anything due to the greater light.
How do you use the lesser light? Is the bible a dark place? John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. … That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world…And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Are we more comfortable with the lesser light than the greater light?
Some light, some darkness?
Sounds Lukewarm?
Shalom
Mike said
quote:
John, the fact the SDA church is lukewarm is evidence she is the remnant church. The remnant church will be shaken during the MOB crisis, if she were perfect there would be no need for a shaking.
So then the traits by which the remnant is known are that,
- they profess to know and have and need nothing, but do not know that they are wretched miserable and naked
- they profess to keep the commandments, but do not do them
- they profess to have the spirit of prophecy, but he is not in their hearts
- they profess to preach God's last message to this world (3AM's), but have not received his word to them
That sounds like, the kind of remnant one throws away, not the kind that is saved when the whole was bad.
Shalom
John, I think you are confusing the remnant with those in the Laodicean condition.
LK
Ikan,
I was addressing the fact that Mike indicated that he did not expect a non SDA to understand, I was clarifying that I am quite familar with adventism.... Your other points notwithstanding, I agree somewhat realizing that for those of us who grew up "in the church" God reveals Himself to us somewhat differently, and our rebirth usually comes after a period of rebellion and discovery......
Larry
quote:
John, I think you are confusing the remnant with those in the Laodicean condition.
Mike said, quote:
the fact the SDA church is lukewarm is evidence she is the remnant church
Does that mean that the remnant is yet to be revealed after the shaking?
What will be its characteristics?
Can the church lay claim to it in its Laodicean, lukewarm condition?
Shalom
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 10/14/03 01:26 AM
John, as I see it, the endtime Remnant Church of prophecy is a mixture of hot, cold and lukewarm members. The shaking simply roots out the time serving members leaving a pure membership to proclaim the final warning messages during the little time of trouble.
Does this agree with your understanding of prophecy?
Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. John 8:39
Luke 3:8 … begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
It benefited the descendants of Abraham nothing to think themselves special before God if they did not partake of the spirit of Abraham. The only thing they garnered is incurring judgments. This same folly has been and is being repeated by the so-called "Church/es".
Romans 2:28,29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly;
If the Israelites were only Israelites if they were so spiritually; then, that much more so, can 'Spiritual Israel' be 'Spiritual Israel' only according to spirit, and not by definition of any other entity. The true church is only ever defined as a spiritual body, and never as a physical entity/denomination.
Thus the concept of being the remnant, without the spirit of him whose remnant one is, is null and void.
The spiritual condition of the whole world, as well as that of any of the so-called churches, fit your description of the remnant; for, there are those that are cold, lukewarm, and hot.
The purpose of prophecy was not to establish various entities/denominations as the true church in its corresponding age, but to warn against that very deception by revealing the spiritual condition/s of their deception. In so that, ALL WHO HAVE AN EAR TO HEAR
what the spirit saith to the 'churches' may overcome and repent and be saved. Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.Proverbs 27:1
The Adventist concept of hanging their hope on a future shaking, which will purify the entity/denomination and thereby acquire its spiritual state of remnant, is a terrible deception of Satan, so that they do not repent and overcome TODAY, but wait for tomorrow. TODAY is the day of the Lord. Today if you will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham Luke 3:8.
Shalom
Six or seven generations of Adventists have come and gone seeking to avert, avoid, prolong, and delay the day when this shaking will occur. Who are they that will stop compromising (being lukewarm) tomorrow?
- Do you think that the 'Organization' will tomorrow want to take such a stand that would cause such a shaking in the denomination?
- Do you think that the 'Organization' will tomorrow be spiritual enough to take such a vote? Especially since it continues to wait for the shaking to happen before it becomes purified?
- It is only basic, that those that compromise (are lukewarm) will continue to seek to find a compromise, as many already have.
The Lord did not say that when persecution arises people will become righteous! But rather he said, "blessed are they, which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven".
Wherefore as the Holy Spirit says, Today if you will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. (Adventists-140+ years) Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do always err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. So I swore in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest. Hebrews 3:7-11.
You have only today to be the remnant, today to be God's child, today to hear his voice, today to repent and overcome.
Tomorrow is not yours, tomorrow you cannot repent, tomorrow you cannot overcome, tomorrow you cannot become the remnant. And you cannot be the remnant today without the spiritual reality.
What is the repentance and overcoming? It is real when one 'listens attentively with faith' to the Lord; receives the word of the Lord into the heart. Today, if you will hear his voice!Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
There is the remnant! They are known for whose they are.
Shalom
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/01/03 11:52 PM
John, I agree with you concerning having the faith of a shaken Remnant Church today! Thank you for sharing. What do you think will cause a shaking and purification within Adventism?
Hello Mike, God bless you today.
You asked:
quote:
What do you think will cause a shaking and purification (tomorrow) within Adventism?
It will never happen tomorrow. Nothing will ever cause it.
If we ask what does it take to shake and awake an Adventist today then we will come to an answer.
Shalom
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Whose are we? - 11/02/03 01:46 AM
I agree John:
Adventist must stop looking for some "event" that will change everything somewhere down the road, and face The Shaker Himself, personally NOW.....
It's like a newlywed always daydreaming of her 50 wedding anniversary, and yet brushing off the attentions and pleas of her husband.
Very self-defeating...
"Come unto me..." is The Lover's plea, not an authoritarian demand or dogma.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/02/03 09:17 AM
John, thank you for rephrasing my question. What would it take, in light of Sister White's testimony, to shake Adventism today? or in the future?
EW 270.2
I asked the meaning of the shaking I had seen and was shown that it would be caused by the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans. This will have its effect upon the heart of the receiver, and will lead him to exalt the standard and pour forth the straight truth. Some will not bear this straight testimony. They will rise up against it, and this is what will cause a shaking among God's people.
Yes Ikan, it is as you said.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/03/03 07:28 AM
What is the "straight truth" that will cause a shaking among Laodiceans? Is it being preached today? how can we identify the message? and is it purifying the membership of Adventism?
Thank you Mike.
It is one thing to cite the well-worn quotes,
it is quite the other thing to be the living transaction of it. As you can see this was not the qualifying trait proffered for the remnant in this thread. Was it?
Now that the mask of Adventism is partly off, and a breach has been made in one of the walls (remnant doctrine) that Adventism has built between itself and God, while smugly thinking that it is between themselves and the world.
The question of 'whose one is' is tested and answered by whether one
is heeding/receiving the testimony of the faithful and true witness.
But we have all heard numerous flowery sermons on the Laodicean condition, expounding the historical, geographical, economical, scholastical, etc virtues of Laodicea. Tucked in there somewhere was the 'warning message', but instead it made one feel rather proud and special to be Laodicean. Is it not fantastic how the word can be made to be pleasant and stupefying to the membership? Even the word that should make one broken and trembling!?
And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes. Mark 1:22
It takes a genuine person to deliver a genuine message. One who has heeded the message to be the messenger. But as you see, since it is only one or few, it is easy for the majority 'to rise up against it' and to do away with such, as they did with the Lord, for such upset the common peace and content. There is the shaking.
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. James 4:4
Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 2 Timothy 3:12
Anyone who receives the message will experience this.
Yes, to receive the word, means to be crucified with Christ. It is the Gospel applied. No longer living for self, not doing one's own will, one's own plans. But to count all things but dung, for the excellency of knowing Christ.
Just as Ikan intimated. As the bride leaves her home, her own life, to become the wife; take on the new life of her husband, to give herself body, soul, and spirit to him (where have you seen such a marriage lately?). With all your strength, with your entire mind, with all your heart, with all your soul! It is such a marriage today, living each day that 'one life' with the Lord (which by the way is a delight). This is not church religion. This is not church going. This is not Adventism.
This is LIFE ETERNAL.
What does it take? Remember that it is all or nothing. It is not that we have, say, 70% and need the other 30%. The Lord has no part in part. If we think we have, say, 70%, then he has no part in it. It is not an addendum.
What is the message? What Gospel does one have?
There is no difference between the Gospel of Salvation and the message to Laodicea! It is the Gospel applied! It is shocking. You have crucified the Lord of glory!
Shalom
Posted By: Will
Re: Whose are we? - 11/02/03 11:01 PM
John,
You had asked:
quote:
What is the message?
Here is the message:
quote:
Revelation 14:6-10
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
You had also asked:
quote:
What Gospel does one have?
quote:
Revelation 12:17
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
quote:
2 Timothy 4:3,4
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
God Bless,
Will
quote:
Originally posted by John Boskovic:
But we have all heard numerous flowery sermons on the Laodicean condition, expounding the historical, geographical, economical, scholastical, etc virtues of Laodicea. Tucked in there somewhere was the 'warning message', but instead it made one feel rather proud and special to be Laodicean. Is it not fantastic how the word can be made to be pleasant and stupefying to the membership? Even the word that should make one broken and trembling!?And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes. Mark 1:22
It takes a genuine person to deliver a genuine message. One who has heeded the message to be the messenger. But as you see, since it is only one or few, it is easy for the majority 'to rise up against it' and to do away with such, as they did with the Lord, for such upset the common peace and content. There is the shaking. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. James 4:4
What is the message? What Gospel does one have?
There is no difference between the Gospel of Salvation and the message to Laodicea! It is the Gospel applied! It is shocking. You have crucified the Lord of glory!
Shalom
Hi
The virtues of being laodicea you say, I wasnt aware of the laodicea described in revelation having any virtues. What they do have is delusions and grace, grace in Jesus knocking at the door of their/our hearts. but virtues...
Proud to be laodicea, that would mean proud to be "wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked" or?
To will;
That is part of the message but not the whole, let me suggest another part.
"Matt 22:34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[2] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[3] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." "
And John 3:1-21
/Thomas
Posted By: Will
Re: Whose are we? - 11/03/03 12:43 AM
That's right västergötland
![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif)
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/03/03 01:31 AM
The condition of Laodicea is lukewarmness not doctrinal error. The counsel to Laodicea is to purchase gold, white raiment, and eyesalve. Once possessed of these things a Laodicean is ready for translation. But before the Remnant Church can proclaim the final warning messages it must be shaken and purified. Once purified the remaining members will boldly declare the truth under the influence of the latter rain. The faithful in Babylon will respond to the message and join the ranks of Adventism during the final crisis. Then Jesus will return to reward them with eternal life in the new earth. The Laodicean Church is the translation church.
Revelation
3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
The condition of Laodicea is lukewarmness not doctrinal error. The counsel to Laodicea is to purchase gold, white raiment, and eyesalve. Once possessed of these things a Laodicean is ready for translation. But before the Remnant Church can proclaim the final warning messages it must be shaken and purified. Once purified the remaining members will boldly declare the truth under the influence of the latter rain. The faithful in Babylon will respond to the message and join the ranks of Adventism during the final crisis. Then Jesus will return to reward them with eternal life in the new earth. The Laodicean Church is the translation church.
Revelation
3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Hi Mike
The rest of the text: rev 3:14"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. 15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.
The problem of laodicea is lukewarmness. Now, what does it mean to be lukewarm? From the text it appears that they who are lukewarm belive they have all that they need, they think themselves rich and possessors of pleanty of all that they could possibly need. What is the reality of the lukewarm people? They are poor, blind and naked. What is the sollution to laodiceas problem? To buy from Jesus wealth that stood the test of fire, white clothes and salve to be able to see. He is the source to the sollution to the laodiceans problem.
Assuming that your post is in some degree atleast in response to mine, It would follow that you disagree with my conclution that what this groups problem is, is delusion. I dont think it very farfetched to say that someone who thinks himself to be rich when in fact he is poor is deluded. I also dont think it to be an overstatement to say that it is only by grace that Jesus is knocking at the doors of our hearts. Wheather being spiritually poor, blind and naked implies doctrinal error or not is an interesting point. Perhaps worth of further investigation.
/Thomas
Will,
quote:
EW 270.2
I asked the meaning of the shaking I had seen and was shown that it would be caused by the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans. This will have its effect upon the heart of the receiver, and will lead him to exalt the standard and pour forth the straight truth. Some will not bear this straight testimony. They will rise up against it, and this is what will cause a shaking among God's people.
This message is found in Rev 3:14-22
I do not dispute that the 3 Angels messages you quoted as well as all other are also applicable to Adventists, and need to be heard by Adventists.
Shalom
Yes Thomas, as incredible as it may seem Laodicea is proud to be Laodicea and finds comfort and security in being Laodicea.
Mike
quote:
The condition of Laodicea is lukewarmness not doctrinal error.
…and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
- Is it possible to hold truth in unrighteousness?
- Is it possible to understand the truth of the Lord without the spirit of the Lord?
- Is it possible to have truth, without it's riches?
- Is it possible to see without eyes?
- Is it possible to know, when the true witness says "knowest not"?
The counsel to Laodicea is to purchase gold, white raiment, and eyesalve. Once possessed of these things a Laodicean is no longer Laodicean.
Shalom
Posted By: Will
Re: Whose are we? - 11/03/03 05:51 AM
Hi John,
You had said:
quote:
I do not dispute that the 3 Angels messages you quoted as well as all other are also applicable to Adventists, and need to be heard by Adventists.
Do you mean only Seventh-Day Adventists, or do you agree that the 3 Angels message needs to be heard by everyone?
God has His people everywhere, and I believe that He is calling His people out of Babylon, and this people keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Do you agree with that? Sorry if I am going the long way but I wanted to understand if you only feel that the 3 Angels message is for Seventh-Day Adventist only or for the whole world.
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/03/03 08:20 AM
Thomas wrote - "Wheather being spiritually poor, blind and naked implies doctrinal error or not is an interesting point. Perhaps worth of further investigation."
Perhaps this quote can help shed some light on the subject:
FW 83.1
The True Witness says of a cold, lifeless, Christless church, "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of My mouth" (Revelation 3:15, 16). Mark the following words: "Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." Here is represented a people who pride themselves in their possession of spiritual knowledge and advantages. But they have not responded to the unmerited blessings that God has bestowed upon them. They have been full of rebellion, ingratitude, and forgetfulness of God; and still He has dealt with them as a loving, forgiving father deals with an ungrateful, wayward son. They have resisted His grace, abused His privileges, slighted His opportunities, and have been satisfied to sink down in contentment, in lamentable ingratitude, hollow formalism, and hypocritical insincerity. With pharisaic pride they have vaunted themselves till it has been said of them, "Thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing" (verse 17).
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/03/03 08:29 AM
John wrote - "The counsel to Laodicea is to purchase gold, white raiment, and eyesalve. Once possessed of these things a Laodicean is no longer Laodicean."
Interesting? I have always thought a Laodicean is someone who is a member of the Laodicean Church. Just because a Laodicean purchases the gold, white raiment and eyesalve does that suddenly mean he is no longer a member of the Laodicean Church? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it Laodiceans who overcome as Jesus overcame? who sing the song of Moses and the Lamb?
Revelation
3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
Thomas wrote - "Wheather being spiritually poor, blind and naked implies doctrinal error or not is an interesting point. Perhaps worth of further investigation."
Perhaps this quote can help shed some light on the subject:
FW 83.1
The True Witness says of a cold, lifeless, Christless church, "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of My mouth" (Revelation 3:15, 16). Mark the following words: "Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." Here is represented a people who pride themselves in their possession of spiritual knowledge and advantages. But they have not responded to the unmerited blessings that God has bestowed upon them. They have been full of rebellion, ingratitude, and forgetfulness of God; and still He has dealt with them as a loving, forgiving father deals with an ungrateful, wayward son. They have resisted His grace, abused His privileges, slighted His opportunities, and have been satisfied to sink down in contentment, in lamentable ingratitude, hollow formalism, and hypocritical insincerity. With pharisaic pride they have vaunted themselves till it has been said of them, "Thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing" (verse 17).
Hi,
Hmm, do you mean that the laodicean church could be described in the words of Paul in 1 cor 13, except without having love? Othervise the quoted text didnt give that much, perhaps the answere to the question comes further down in the text...
About who is a laodicean, what or who is the laodicean church? Is it a organised body like SDA or is it like Gods church without boundaries detectable to human eyes?
If its an existing organised church, wouldnt the easieset way to avoid being blind, naked and poor be to change church and start seeing, being clothed and gaining of Gods riches? For surely knowingly ignoring God and His blessings would be almost comparable to spiritual suicide?
/Thomas
Will, All messages are applicable to all, according to their spiritual condition.
Shalom
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/03/03 06:03 PM
7BC 961, 962
Revelation 3:14-18
Our Condition Revealed.--The message to the Laodicean church reveals our condition as a people (RH Dec. 15, 1904). {7BC 961.3}
Message for the Idlers in the Vineyard.--To the idlers in the Lord's vineyard the Laodicean message is sent (MS 26, 1905). {7BC 961.4}
Application of Laodicean Message.--The message to the Laodicean church is applicable to all who have had great light and many opportunities, and yet have not appreciated them (RH March 11, 1902). {7BC 961.5}
Fervor of Love Lacking.--The message to the Laodicean church is applicable to our condition. How plainly is pictured the position of those who think they have all the truth, who take pride in their knowledge of the Word of God, while its sanctifying power has not been felt in their lives. The fervor of the love of God is wanting in their hearts, but it is this very fervor of love that makes God's people the light of the world (RH July 23, 1889). {7BC 961.6}
Laodicean Message for Adventists.--The message to the Laodicean church is highly applicable to us as a people. It has been placed before us for a long time, but has not been heeded as it should have been. When the work of repentance is earnest and deep, the individual members of the church will buy the rich goods of heaven. [Rev. 3:18 quoted.] Oh, how many behold things in a perverted light, in the light in which Satan would have them see. {7BC 961.7}
You may manifest great zeal in missionary effort, and yet because it is corrupted with selfishness, and tastes strongly of self, it is nought in the sight of God; for it is a tainted, corrupted offering. Unless the door of the heart is open to Jesus, unless He occupies the soul temple, unless the heart is imbued with His divine attributes, human actions when weighed in the heavenly balances, will be pronounced "Wanting." The love of Christ would make you rich; but many do not realize the value of His love. Many do not realize that the spirit which they cherish is destitute of the meekness and lowliness of Christ, destitute of the love that would constitute them channels of light (MS 33, 1894). {7BC 961.8}
Has God Made a Mistake?--The Laodicean message is applicable to the church at this time. Do you believe this message? Have you hearts that feel? Or are you constantly saying, We are rich and increased in goods, and have need of nothing? Is it in vain that the declaration of eternal truth has been given to this nation to be carried to all the nations of the world? God has chosen a people and made them the repositories of truth weighty with eternal results. To them has been given the light that must illuminate the world. Has God made a mistake? Are we indeed His chosen instrumentalities? Are we the men and women who are to bear to the world the messages of Revelation fourteen, to proclaim the message of salvation to those who are standing on the brink of ruin? Do we act as if we were (MS 51, 1901)? {7BC 961.9}
Professors but Not Doers.--The Laodicean message applies to all who profess to keep the law of God, and yet are not doers of it. We are not to be selfish in anything. Every phase of the Christian life is to be a representation of the life of Christ. If it is not, we shall hear the terrible words, "I know you not" (RH Oct. 17, 1899). {7BC 962.1}
An Insipid Religious Experience.--The message to the Laodicean church applies most decidedly to those whose religious experience is insipid, who do not bear decided witness in favor of the truth (Letter 98, 1901). {7BC 962.2}
"Hear, O Hear."--I tell you in the name of the Lord, that those who have had great light are today in the state described by Christ in His message to the Laodicean church. They think that they are rich, and increased in goods, and feel that they have need of nothing. Christ speaks to you. Hear, O hear, if you have any regard for your souls, the words of the great Counselor, and act upon them (Rev. 3:18 quoted] (Letter 5, 1897). {7BC 962.3}
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/03/03 06:26 PM
As I see it, the SDA church is the only religious organization in the world that can experience the Laodicean condition and counsel. Why? Because it is the only church since 1844 that God has given the truth about the 3AM's. Thus the SDA church is the only church that can become complacent about experiencing or expressing the 3AM's. Being lukewarm about the mission of the 3AM's is the condition of Laodicea, and being on fire about them is the result of complying with the counsel to Laodicea.
Babylon symbolizes the rest of Christendom - Catholics and Protestantists. The Laodicean Church has been commissioned by God to 1) understand and experience the 3AM's, 2) proclaim and explain them to Babylonians, and 3) to call them out of Babylon and to join the ranks of Laodicea (Adventism). Since Babylon symbolizes non-SDA Christian organizations it cannot also symbolize Laodicea. Therefore the condition and counsel of Laodicea applies exclusively to the SDA Church.
Hi
My first impression was to ask myself, "is the secound post a case study on the egw quotes"? Anyhow...
How does this all work if we would look away from the 13 million body of SDA and close in on individual persons. After all, none of us are saved by being members of the SDA church but as idividuals who accept what Jesus did for us personally at calvary ~2000 years ago and open our hearts for Him to come in and be worshiped.
Im not entierly clear over where the 3 angels message enters the picture here. I thought we where talking about a group that thought they had everything while having nothing, would this imply that we dont have the 3 angels message? The 3 angels message, 3 angles telling the inhabitants of earth #1 worship Him who created earth and the heavens, #2 babylon is fallen, #3 they who worship the beast will burn, the holy ones will keep Gods commandments and the faith in Jesus. The only way this could work is if you belive that SDA IS the 3 angles. In that case I would wonder who the 7 angles in chapter 15-16 are, doing Gods will in cursing earth and its inhabbitants.
The catholic and protestantic churches that are babyoln here, are their characteristics their structures or their members? Can any sertain person or group of persons be babylon or is babylon a thought building, set of ideas or doctrines?
Many loose threads there is, or so I feel anyway... And an unexplainable desire to define the SDA church by spiritual arrogance...
/Thomas
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/03/03 09:23 PM
Oops! Sorry about all those Ellen White quotes. I thought you were interested in taking a closer look at the Laodicean message in light of my comment on doctrinal error. I just assumed her insights would be helpful and appreciated. Her assessment of the Laodicean condition suggests they have a head knowledge of the mission and message of the SDA Church but are lacking in heart service and committment.
The connection between the 3AM's and Laodicea has to do with the mission and message of the final generation of born again believers. It's based on the idea or interpretation that the Laodiceans who have purchased the gold, white raiment and eyesalve are the ones who fulfill the prophecy recorded in Rev 14:6-12.
Since Jesus commissioned the church to preach the gospel to everyone everywhere it stands to reason that the final generation of believers are the ones who finish proclaiming the gospel. It also makes sense to me that since the 3AM's are an integral part of the gospel commission, and that since Laodiceans compose the final generation, then they are the ones who preach the 3AM's during the MOB crisis.
Matthew
24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.
Revelation
14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
See what I mean?
Hi
You dont have to appologize for the quotes. The reaction was partly based on the quotes not saying the same thing as the following post by you. Not without some major assuming being done anyway.
And where did the interpretation became so exclusive that you could state that laodicea is SDA and no other christians. Neither the bible nor the quoted ellen white texts gives foundation for that IMO, again this without the addition of some major assumptions...
And what does "MOB crisis" stand for?
/Thomas
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/03/03 11:58 PM
You're right, the quotes I provided were intended to establish her thoughts on the Laodicean message as it applies to SDA Church. The other stuff I posted was intended to demonstrate the link between Laodicea and the 3AM's. Sorry I misrepresented the EGW quotes. I didn't mean to imply they supported my thoughts on linking Laodicea and the 3AM's. Aside from this mess, what did you think about my rationale for linking the two?
MOB stands for mark of the beast.
Based on what you wrote now and earlier, I still seems that you see SDA as doing the work of the three angels, is this right and if yes, could you comment on who will do the work of the angles in the following chapters.
I would also follow that this all will be finnished some time in the future, right? For the SDA as a group, has it bought an collective eyesalve and clothes to give out.
Perhaps you could tell me why we are to assume that the seven churches are a timeline compared to view them as different aspects of the church present at all times between when it was written till Jesus comes back for His church/bride.
/Thomas
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/04/03 12:47 AM
I subscribe to the historical view of interpreting the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation. Which is why I believe the 7 churches symbolize the history of Christendom - beginning with the apostolic era and ending with the translation generation of born again remnant believers. There are other threads which vindicate the historical view, so perhaps it is not best to rehash it here.
If a person can conclude that Laodicea symbolizes the translation generation of saints then it stands to reason that they are the ones who finish the gospel commission. Since the everlasting gospel is part of the 3AM's, and since it is not ludicrous to suggest the messages of the three angels could be fulfilled by humans, I believe it is reasonable to conclude the three angels symbolize Laodiceans proclaiming the final warning messages.
On the other hand, I do not believe it makes sense to suggest that the natural disasters and spiritual darkness associated with the 7 last plagues can be fulfilled by the translation generation of saints. Thus I am led to conclude Rev 16 describes events fulfilled by real angels and not symbolic ones.
GC 594.2
"When God sends to men warnings so important that they are represented as proclaimed by holy angels flying in the midst of heaven, He requires every person endowed with reasoning powers to heed the message."
GC 614.2
"The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere."
About the angles. You are ofcourse right that God could use the last time christians to spread the 3 anlges message. The objection or question here ofcourse is if it wouldnt be awfully inconsistent to say angles and mean the church in one place and then a dozen sentences further on say angles and mean real nonhuman angles...
And then there is still the question of why laodicea would be equal to and limmited with SDA, here you said what you believe but the references where lacking, at best.
/Thomas
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/04/03 01:07 AM
I guess I don't perceive it as an inconsistency. The Revelation is full of symbolism. I've tried to explain why I believe Laodicea symbolizes the SDA Church, maybe at this point it would be better to hear what you believe about it? I'm not dodging your questions, but sometimes it helps to know where someone is coming from. Would you be willing to support your views at this point? or would you prefer it if we labored over my views instead? I'm game either way.
Yes, revelation is full of symbolism, but the symbols shouldnt change meaning without explanation in the middle of it all...
About what I believe in this all. I have heard the view that the churches is a timeline and I have heard that they are all coexistent different angles of christendom. I dont know which is right and which is wrong, or if it perhaps can be seen as both, perhaps you know things I dont that would clarify things. In any case, I feel kind of sceptical to the idea that revelation should deal specificly with the SDA church. Salvation isnt a group buissness even though group belonging may help with growing in faith. So assuming the timeline interpretation of the seven churches is right, laodicea is christians who may or may not be members of the SDA church.
Thats this about this particular issue, lets play two sets at once, your serve.
/Thomas
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/04/03 05:50 AM
Okay. I believe God chose Israel to proclaim the gospel to everyone everywhere. When they rejected Jesus in AD 34, at the termination of their 490 year probationary time, I believe God chose the Church to finish preaching the gospel. Over the years the Church splintered, but through it all God preserved the truth through a remnant of saints. In 1844, after the Great Disappointment, I believe God raise up the SDA Church to proclaim the gospel and the three final warning messages. No other church organization can preach the whole truth about the gospel and the 3AM's. Yes, each one has bits and pieces of it, but only the SDA Church has been entrusted with all of it.
Your serve.
Sorry to interrupt
Mike,
quote:
The message to the Laodicean church reveals our condition as a people
The message to the Laodicean church is applicable to all who have had great light and many opportunities, and yet have not appreciated them
The Laodicean message applies to all who profess to keep the law of God, and yet are not doers of it.
The message to the Laodicean church applies most decidedly to those whose religious experience is insipid,
How plainly is pictured the position of those who think they have all the truth, who take pride in their knowledge of the Word of God, while its sanctifying power has not been felt in their lives.
Oh, how many behold things in a perverted light, in the light in which Satan would have them see. {7BC 961.7}
The message to the Laodicean church reveals our condition as a people - not SDA qualification as the remnant organisation.
Perverted light is DOCTRINAL ERROR. HOWEVER, THEY THINK THEY HAVE ALL THE TRUTH.
Shalom
Mike,
quote:
As I see it, the SDA church is the only religious organization in the world that can experience the Laodicean condition and counsel. Why? Because it is the only church since 1844 that God has given the truth about the 3AM's.
The condition of Laodicea is not dependent on having great light. The condition of Laodicea is a result of them thinking/believing that they have great light while they are in darkness. If they have had great light, that much more pathetic their situation.
Shalom
Also Mike,
- When did the Adventists change from Philadelphia to Laodicea? Why?
- Was it a timeline; a particular prophetic date?
- Did a particular organisation get formed to be the Laodicea of prophecy?
You know the testimony and the record. When the spiritual condition set in, then the message of Laodicea became applicable.
Laodicean message is applicable to Adventists, not because they are the last of the seven churches, but because they are Laodicean spiritually.
Shalom
The letters to the seven Churches!
These letters were applicable to the respective Churches, existing at the time John received them.
These seven spiritual Characteristics have also been significant in sequence through history.
These seven spiritual Characteristics have been present continually, since the time they were testified.
The messages are applicable wherever/whenever the according conditions exist.
They are for WHOSOEVER HAS AN EAR TO HEAR WHAT THE SPIRIT SAYS.
Shalom
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/04/03 05:14 PM
John, while I agree with the idea that any church organization can be guilty of lukewarmness I do not agree that Laodicea symbolizes any and all churches guilty of lukewarmness. According to the historical interpretation of prophecy the 7 churches trace the history of Christendom to the end of time. Since Laodicea is the last church it must necessarily represent the remnant church during the final crisis and second advent.
The prophecies focus on the chosen people of God, their mission and message, and the way the rest of the world responds to the final warning. Laodiceans are the ones who extend the offer to Babylonians to come out of Babylon - "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Rev 18:4. The only church since 1844 that can proclaim this message is the SDA Church. It is the only church that God has entrusted with the 3AM's.
Hi,
The question is, how can we be so sure that the last scenes of earths history stand and fall with the SDA church only? For honestys sake, lets just conclude that SDA in the only church we know of with these characteristics. Perhaps the only church in the west, but the world is bigger than europe and america, what if God has risen other churches in other parts of the world? Can we really honestly say that acting on Gods side in the last scene is tightly bound to membership in this particular church...
/Thomas
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/05/03 07:20 AM
Thomas, please show me another organization that God has commissioned to preach the 3AM's? I know of only one - the SDA Church. Is that arrogant or ignorant? Personally, I don't think so, at least not any more than what Jesus said to the Samaritan women - "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." John 4:22.
If God doesn't have a chosen church to share the truth about the 3AM's then God is cruel. Why? Reread the 3AM's! How can God promise such certain destruction without first explaining the warnings? Our Lord and Saviour doesn't operate that way. That's why He commissioned the SDA Church to warn the world first. As it was in the days of Noah!
I dont know any other church, but Im not ready to limmit God by my ignorance... I have to ask, what is a church? Is the church the organisation with the headquarters in the GC building in washington or is the church the members. Is your local church defined by the building you gather in or by the members who gather in the building? When the warning goes out from the church, what is the focal point? Is the important thing the program for missionary x amount of people before z date or is the important thing the humans, the christians who acctually do something to bring the word to those who dont know yet? I dont think God needs a human organisation to give people the three angles message, what God needs is humans, individuals who are willing to go out and witness and share.
/Thomas
Mike, you did not answer any of my questions.
Shalom
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/06/03 07:34 AM
John wrote - "When did the Adventists change from Philadelphia to Laodicea? Why? Was it a timeline; a particular prophetic date? Did a particular organisation get formed to be the Laodicea of prophecy?"
Sorry my initial response failed to answer these questions. I believe the Philadelphian Era ended and the Laodicean Era began in 1844 (according to the historical view of prophecy).
I believe the 7 churches symbolize the history of Christendom - beginning with the apostolic believers and ending with the translated believers.
I believe the focus of prophecy is the remnant within each Church Era and how they interact with the rest of Christendom and the world at large.
The SDA Church was organized by God after the Great Disappointment in 1844 for the sole purpose of finishing the Gospel Commission, which involves experiencing and expressing the 3AM's.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/06/03 07:53 AM
Thomas, your questions regarding organized religion have been cussed and discussed since apostolic times. The conclusion, according to the word of God, is - organization and membership are one and the same thing. Baptized members joined the church. Leaders are voted to serve the church family - the body of Christ. How can an individual believer vote himself to serve himself? God has always functioned through an organized body of believers - in heaven, here and in the new earth.
Acts
2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Matthew
18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.
1 Corinthians
12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Colossians
1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
1 Timothy
3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his soul? quote:
Mike had asked,
What is the "straight truth" that will cause a shaking among Laodiceans? Is it being preached today? how can we identify the message? and is it purifying the membership of Adventism?
And then Mike had gone on to establish that SDA is the true last church because of its prophetic timeline - being the Laodicean Church starting in 1844, commissioned to preach the last warning message (3Ams) to this world because God is love and will not destroy without warning first.
Thus the SDAs have found a way of being the "remnant church" by using prophecy in perverted light, so that they find no need for the "fruit of the Spirit" in their life. So the SDA Church prides itself in being the Remnant according to prophecy but not according to spirit. For does not the prophecy indeed say that they are Laodicean? So if they had the spirit they would not be able to be the fulfilment of prophecy as Laodicean. Since they have the sure word of prophecy they do not need the spirit.
Is this the message that has shaken the Laodicean Church?
For over 140 years the church has been pacifying its conscience and stupefying itself with this doctrine (of being the remnant church - according to prophecy and not according to spirit) that it holds in this perverted light. Why is it perverted light? It establishes a sense of security, smugness, pride, conceit, and vainglory. Thus the church sees nothing wrong with itself, except that they are not quite zealous enough.
Is this the message that has shaken the Laodicean Church?
If God is Love, would he choose a lethargic, Laodicean church to bring the final warning, with a message that could not even rouse the messengers, never mind it ever getting through to the hearers?
Is this the message that has shaken the Laodicean Church? - but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; for it is not by might nor by power (nor by prophecy) but by 'my spirit' says the Lord
Not until the remnant will be sought for and recognised according to 'spirit' will there be any truth.
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Revelation 3:20
ANY MAN, is not restricted to Laodiceans. 'Any man that opens the door' is not a Laodicean!
The purpose of prophecy was not to establish various entities/denominations as the true church in its corresponding era, but to warn against that very deception by revealing the spiritual condition/s of their deception. In so that, ALL WHO HAVE AN EAR TO HEAR what the spirit saith to the 'churches' may overcome and repent and be saved.
What is the "straight truth" that will cause a shaking among Laodiceans?
Shalom
John:
You sound rather certain that you have ears to hear, and just as certain that the bulk of SDA Christians do not. That is the impression I obtain from reading your material. You make some rather sweeping condemnatory statements concerning the SDA church. I was wondering if perhaps you could tell us whether you can think of anything good regarding the SDA church too. Surely you can think of something universally positive about SDAs just as easily as you can universally negative. —LK
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Whose are we? - 11/10/03 04:57 AM
John,
Your sweeping condemnatory statements concerning the SDA church, as Pastor Larry has aptly stated, is in violation of our forum rules.
I trust you didn't mean to come across that way?
Far be it. There is no thought of condemnation, but rather to the contrary.
Shalom - Peace be with you
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Whose are we? - 11/10/03 06:54 PM
Then, John, can you explain what your intent was behind your previous post that Pastor Larry and I have both taken exception to?
John, that is a very short answer after a very continuous string of troubling posts. You have not added one positive thing at all, only denied you have it in for Seventh-day Adventism. Now friend, look back over just a few of your remarks. I think you will find some problems there.
October 17, 2003 04:34 PM
The true church is only ever defined as a spiritual body, and never as a physical entity/denomination.
Thus the concept of being the remnant, without the spirit of him whose remnant one is, is null and void.
You are wrong here. The church is manifest in both aspects. there is a spiritual body and a physical body, visible and invisible as the common terminology runs. If you want to look for this concept, you will find it in both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy. Now the idea of being the remnant without having the Spirit, where are you getting that? SDAs do not believe that we can be God's people in the end and not have the Spirit of God. It is true that Cliff Goldstein wrote an item on this but some of us have refuted it, as I did in my book _Real Grace for Real people_. We do understand that connected to the church organization until the shaking are wheat and tares both. The shaking will make evident who is and is not truly on the Lord's side. You seem to have a bit of George Storrs in you, a gripping dislike of spiritual bodies embracing any kind of organized form. The organization of the SDA church, we believe, is of God. Again, the Bible and the SOP will confirm this, if you accept those as authority as we do here at Maritime.
October 17, 2003 04:39 PM
The Adventist concept of hanging their hope on a future shaking, which will purify the entity/denomination and thereby acquire its spiritual state of remnant, is a terrible deception of Satan, so that they do not repent and overcome TODAY, but wait for tomorrow.
John, the shaking is only future in the sense of its climax and completion. We believe along with Ellen G. White that the shaking has been underway since the 1840s at least when her first statements concerning the shaking came. I do not know where you are coming up with this "Adventist" concept of a "future" shaking. Who is more Adventist than Ellen G. White? It is dangerous to be waiting for something that has been underway for a century and a half. Fortunately, by no means are all Adventists guilty of this. Your statements are too sweeping. You have no means of reading the heart of every Adventist.
November 02, 2003 10:26 AM
Now that the mask of Adventism is partly off, and a breach has been made in one of the walls (remnant doctrine) that Adventism has built between itself and God, while smugly thinking that it is between themselves and the world.
As the bride leaves her home, her own life, to become the wife; take on the new life of her husband, to give herself body, soul, and spirit to him (where have you seen such a marriage lately?). With all your strength, with your entire mind, with all your heart, with all your soul! It is such a marriage today, living each day that 'one life' with the Lord (which by the way is a delight). This is not church religion. This is not church going. This is not Adventism.
The "mask of Adventism partly off" implies a deception Adventism is wearing. Remnant doctrine is Bible doctrine; it is part of the beliefs of the church. Again, I remind you that the forum rules of MSDAOL say that the teachings of the SDA church shall be respected. You are not doing that here but the contrary. Adventism has not built the doctrine of the remnant between herself and God, but the teaching has been derived from the Bible. If you want to deal with it in Bible terms look up what Gerhard Hasel has written about the remnant: Scripture through and through with nary a reference to the writings of Ellen G. White. And the "smugly" part. This is your own invention or surmising. If you could pause from between your sniper-shots at God's people, you might see that in fact the remnant doctrine is no bulwark of smugness but of self-reproach and responsibility. Our mission is to carry the three angel's message of Jesus love and mercy in His gospel of power tot he world—something which we have not always done well.
The marriage analogy is biblical. Your use of it to promote an anti-church-organization viewpoint is not. By all means, I expect that many Adventists want to see a closer relationship between themselves and Jesus. But there is no disconnect between the idea of a church organization to push forward the message of Jesus and relationship to Him in the end-time context as you suggest. Organized religion is not evil. Indeed, Paul warned that everything should be done decently and in order, something that organized religion is meant to facilitate. Would you have us have disorganized religion?
November 03, 2003 07:11 PM
THEY THINK THEY HAVE ALL THE TRUTH.
They do, eh? This is a flat out universal condemnation. I don't believe I've ever known one person of any stripe in my years in the church, speaking to persons stationed everywhere along the spectrum of conservative and of liberal thinking in the church, who really thinks they have all the truth. Names and addresses of those who think they have all the truth please. I am waiting.
November 08, 2003 05:25 PM
Thus the SDAs have found a way of being the "remnant church" by using prophecy in perverted light, so that they find no need for the "fruit of the Spirit" in their life. So the SDA Church prides itself in being the Remnant according to prophecy but not according to spirit.
For over 140 years the church has been pacifying its conscience and stupefying itself with this doctrine (of being the remnant church - according to prophecy and not according to spirit) that it holds in this perverted light. Why is it perverted light? It establishes a sense of security, smugness, pride, conceit, and vainglory. Thus the church sees nothing wrong with itself, except that they are not quite zealous enough.
Again, you here throw a rather blanketing accusation. I already noted above that your notions have a high ratio of error to truth and fact. You do not understand the ideas of church organization, of remnant, nor of Laodicea, shaking, or some of the other points which you so grandly make. No need for the fruit of the Spirit? To the contrary. Many Adventists are seeking for the fruit of the spirit. How do you know the hearts of Adventists, that they are rife with security and smugness and pride and conceit and vainglory? How is it that you tell us that the church sees nothing wrong with itself, when we have, at various times, come out and quite said so?
Consider for example the 1973 and 1974 General Conference Annual Council appeals to the church that said that we were here because of our spiritual failings and that this church has delayed the second coming of Jesus? You won't see any denominational pride in those documents. Our leaders acknowledged the unfortunate condition of many among our people at that time. Why don't you mention that? Is it because it didn't occur to you, or because you didn't know about it, or because it doesn't fit your machine-gun-of-denominational-condemnation approach?
I think we can agree with you that we have a great need to have more of the Spirit and that the church is not all that it can be. But you are assigning the reason for such problems in places where you are mistaken.
You are in violation of the forum rules here too because you have not respected the beliefs of this church which God organized and raised up through His servants.
Pleased think on these things. Unless your approach changes you may be discontinued from the forum.
LK
Sorry I did not have time to answer more. I'll post as soon as I get opportunity. Thanks,
Shalom
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/20/03 06:49 PM
John, while you are working on your response to Pastor Larry I would like to address your earlier posts. I've been away until today. Again, I subscribe to the traditional SDA historical view of the 7 churches, therefore my understanding of the Laodicean message is consistent with Sister White and our founding fathers. I realize your conclusions do not concur with this view point. And I am not here to say you are wrong and I am right. To each his own. I am merely expressing what makes sense to me. I respect your right to disagree.
I think it is safe to say we agree on the overall condition of the Laodicean Church and Era - lukewarm, smug, content, complacent and inactive (not unlike Israel during the time of Christ). At least 50% of the remnant membership has to be guilty of this condition otherwise God would not have labeled them as such. Yes, the wheat and tares grow together until the counsel of the True Witness shakes and sifts the church.
And I think it is safe to say we disagree on the counsel to the Laodicean Church. "Let him hear" - who is doing the speaking and listening? I believe the counsel of the True Witness has been entrusted to the faithful SDA's within the SDA church. They do the speaking for Jesus.
The ones listening are lukewarm SDA's in the church. Some will respond favorably and others will not. Those who don't will leave the church. Only the faithful remain. Once purified the SDA church will proclaim the 3AM's to the world under the power of the latter rain. Once everyone everywhere has either accepted or rejected their message Jesus will return in the clouds of glory.
Who was the remnant before there was any seventh day adventists?
/Thomas
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
Thomas, your questions regarding organized religion have been cussed and discussed since apostolic times. The conclusion, according to the word of God, is - organization and membership are one and the same thing. Baptized members joined the church. Leaders are voted to serve the church family - the body of Christ. How can an individual believer vote himself to serve himself? God has always functioned through an organized body of believers - in heaven, here and in the new earth.
Acts
2:47
Matthew
18:17
1 Corinthians
12:27
12:28
Colossians
1:18
1 Timothy
3:15
Hi Mike
I see your point here I think. These verses are describeing the ideal way a church should work. However, isnt it in line with the remnant idea that since most of the church is in apostacy, there is a group here and a group there that are remnant, one group in sda, one group in baptist, one group in ortodox etc... It may perhaps be that the group in one like sda is bigger than the groups in other parts of christendom. You wrote yourself in a recent post that at least half of sda must be unspiritual/spiritually arrogant for sda alone to be laodicea, therefore at this point of time it must follow that its more important for each individual person to be in a remnant group than in any specific remnant group.
Now assuming that there are no Gods people in any other part of christendom, who are being called out by the babylon call? After all, the call says, come out MY people.
Now to the original church question, would it be wrong to say that Jesus is the head of a body made up of ALL humans who sincerely call to Him for strength and redemption and salvation? and not just the ones who at this particular moment call themselves seventh day adventists? If yes, then SDA is one part of a whole, and not the whole. As to if the church is the building you meet in or the members, if your congregation would change building and meet somewhere else, it would still be the same church wouldnt it? And lastly, a big congregation with lots of organisation but no missionary fire will do less for Gods work than a small group that hasnt developed all the usuall structure but where the members are filled with the Holy Spirit and out in the community witnessing about their blessed hope. [1 Peter 3:15]
I hope I was clearer this time.
/Thomas
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/20/03 09:37 PM
Thomas, I agree that God has faithful members in other church organizations. And in a sense they are part of His remnant people. They will respond to the call - Come out of her, My people. Where are they? Members of babylonian or non-SDA churches! So in another sense they are not remnant members.
I'm talking about a remnant church which God has entrusted with the 3AM's. Whether or not every baptized member of the remnant church is faithfully proclaiming the truth is another matter altogether. Clearly they are not. Thus technically they are not remnant members in the eyes of God. But neither are non-SDA's. Why? Because they do not understand the 3AM's.
God has had a remnant church since the fall of Adam and Eve. The SDA church is merely the last of the remnant church line. What constitutes the remnant church? In a word - the truth. Whoever God has entrusted the truth is the remnant church. Shortly after 1844 God chose the SDA church to finish the gospel commission. That's what I'm talking about.
The question arises, does this lead to the conclusion that everyone who believes like you or I or some mainstram SDA do is part of Gods special people and they who dont agree are lost until they change what they believe or add to it till differences are gone? Here we would need a huge red light and a beeping sound warning for "holier than thou" attitude and just general spiritual arrognce. Somehow quite close to what Jesus said would be the characteristics of laodicea. Might part of the problem be that people let this belief go to their heads and with lost focus on Jesus as result?
/Thomas
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/20/03 10:19 PM
People who become puffed up and arrogant over the chosen status of the SDA church are not behaving like remnant people. They are tares in the church and will be shaken out during the MOB crisis if they ignore or refuse to comply with the counsel to Laodicea. The Loadicean attitude of the tares within the remnant church does not disqualify the remnant status of the church itself.
Romans
11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
1 Thessalonians
1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
2 Peter
1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
Colossians
3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
3:13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also [do] ye.
1 Peter
1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Posted By: John H.
Re: Whose are we? - 11/23/03 03:09 PM
I think the history of Israel at the time of Jesus' first coming can be instructive to us here at the time just before His second coming.
"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." 1 Corinthians 10:11
Many of the Jews thought that by virtue of their nationality, they were guaranteed salvation, special favored status with God, etc. etc. A country-club religion. But they ended up crucifying God in the flesh!
We can (and do) make the same mistake if we think we're going to heaven just because we sit in an SDA church every sabbath. All the things Jesus said to the Pharisees, Sadducees, and other Jews 1970 years ago can apply equally to us today if we aren't careful. We have more light from God than any group of church people that's ever lived; so we have that much more responsibility to live as God would have us live. "Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48
We won't be judged as a group; when it comes time to be judged, our case is a one-on-one thing with God.
That's not to say that it's a bad thing to count the SDA Church as being God's remnant, and to be glad about being a member, about having the truth that we have. There's no other body on earth that comes even close to fulfilling the prophetic identifiers of the last-days remnant. I guess what I mean is that being an SDAINO (Seventh-day Adventist In Name Only) won't get the job done.
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." John 4:24
As for the question, who was God's remnant before the SDA Church showed up on the scene; there have always been groups of people throughout history who held true to the "faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). The early Christians in the British Isles, the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Syrian and Assyrian churches, and others all refused to bow the knee to Rome. These are symbolized by the woman who fled into the wilderness in Revelation 12:6,14. Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson's book
Truth Triumphant is a great narrative on that subject -- online at
http://members.cox.net/jhowardjr/sda/Wilkinson_Truth_Triumphant.pdf
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Whose are we? - 11/23/03 03:56 PM
Solid Truth, there, John.
And "Truth Triumphant" is my all time favourite Adventist book, not written by Sister White. Should be owned by every sincere Adventist and read often. Talk about getting "God's eyeview"!!!
Posted By: John H.
Re: Whose are we? - 11/23/03 06:24 PM
Great book indeed, Ikan -- and you're the one who originally 'turned me on' to it.
Thanks!
It's a super education about church history. The more we know about such things the better, IMHO.
quote:
Originally posted by John:
We have more light from God than any group of church people that's ever lived; so we have that much more responsibility to live as God would have us live. "Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48
There's no other body on earth that comes even close to fulfilling the prophetic identifiers of the last-days remnant. I guess what I mean is that being an SDAINO (Seventh-day Adventist In Name Only) won't get the job done.
As for the question, who was God's remnant before the SDA Church showed up on the scene; there have always been groups of people throughout history who held true to the "faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). The early Christians in the British Isles, the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Syrian and Assyrian churches, and others all refused to bow the knee to Rome. These are symbolized by the woman who fled into the wilderness in Revelation 12:6,14. Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson's book Truth Triumphant is a great narrative on that subject -- online at
Hi John
When did these groups stop being Gods remnant? Where they exterminated? apostatied? died out by natural causes(though I find that very unlikely in the light of what happends when Gods word is preahced in Gods power). At least the syrian church still exists, so what happened.
/Thomas
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/24/03 01:01 AM
I would like to answer this question while we're waiting for John. I hope you don't mind John?
When the various remnant believers fled into the "wilderness" during the 1260 years of papal persecution (Rev 12) I believe they gradually began to reappear during the protestant reformation and grouped together according to truths each found most important.
Then after the great disappointment in 1844 God began to gather together the remnant believers, which were and are dispersed here and there throughout the world.
This gathering eventually became known as the SDA Church, and has been commissioned to continue gathering the elect who are still in the many different babylonian churches. Jesus will return when all the world has either joined or refused to join the SDA Church.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Whose are we? - 11/24/03 03:30 AM
Yes, there are some churches of the elder remnant still hobbling along, though you are right, Mike, they have long ago compromised their stands for the Lord, especially over the Sabbath. Few can withstand the pressures of years of papal or Protestant oppression to conform, wither or die.
The Waldensians still exist (as a form of Presbyterian/Methodists) in Valdese, N.C. and in Rome and S.America.
The Assyrian/Chaldean church has mixed groups here and there, mostly of an Orthodox blend, and the famous St. Thomas christians are still thriving in Kerala, India. The Moravian church is still alive, as well.
I have visted all of these churches in person, or have met and talked with church memebers. I know that they have a rich history which few of them even know about.
But I see your statement below as a bit unclear:
"Jesus will return when all the world has either joined or refused to join the SDA Church."
Do you mean that there will remain a well-organized, structural church like today's at Christ return, or do you actually mean to say "...or refused to accept the truth of the Third Angel's message, upheld by the persecuted and scattered companies of the commandment-keepers"?
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
Then after the great disappointment in 1844 God began to gather together the remnant believers, which were and are dispersed here and there throughout the world.
How does this work with the fact that no SDA missionary reached outside of america first and then out of the western world for a very long time. Was for instance the St Thomas christians still a valid remnant group untill they met the first SDA and heard him or her preach?
/Thomas
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/24/03 04:35 AM
The gathering of God's faithful believers into the Remnant Church began in 1844. Had these early believers worked earnestly the world would have been warned and Christ would have come long ago. Everyone everywhere would have had ample time and opportunity to decide for or against joining the ranks of God's remnant church.
Ev 695,696
"Had Adventists, after the great disappointment in 1844, held fast their faith and followed on unitedly in the opening providence of God, receiving the message of the third angel and in the power of the Holy Spirit proclaiming it to the world, they would have seen the salvation of God, the Lord would have wrought mightily with their efforts, the work would have been completed, and Christ would have come ere this to receive His people to their reward. But in the period of doubt and uncertainty that followed the disappointment, many of the advent believers yielded their faith. . . . Thus the work was hindered, and the world was left in darkness. Had the whole Adventist body united upon the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, how widely different would have been our history!
"It was not the will of God that the coming of Christ should be thus delayed. God did not design that His people, Israel, should wander forty years in the wilderness. He promised to lead them directly to the land of Canaan, and establish them there a holy, healthy, happy people. But those to whom it was first preached, went not in "because of unbelief." Their hearts were filled with murmuring, rebellion, and hatred, and He could not fulfill His covenant with them.
"For forty years did unbelief, murmuring, and rebellion shut out ancient Israel from the land of Canaan. The same sins have delayed the entrance of modern Israel into the heavenly Canaan. In neither case were the promises of God at fault. It is the unbelief, the worldliness, unconsecration, and strife among the Lord's professed people that have kept us in this world of sin and sorrow so many years.--Manuscript 4, 1883.
LDE 211.6
"In heathen Africa, in the Catholic lands of Europe and of South America, in China, in India, in the islands of the sea, and in all the dark corners of the earth, God has in reserve a firmament of chosen ones that will yet shine forth amidst the darkness, revealing clearly to an apostate world the transforming power of obedience to His law. Even now they are appearing in every nation, among every tongue and people; and in the hour of deepest apostasy, when Satan's supreme effort is made to cause "all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond," to receive, under penalty of death, the sign of allegiance to a false rest day, these faithful ones, "blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke," will "shine as lights in the world."--PK 188, 189 (c. 1914).
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Whose are we? - 11/24/03 04:49 AM
As Jesus is returning and the unsaved are lamenting their lost condition they refer to those who preached the 3AM's as Seventh-day Adventists. Although SDA's will be unable, in most places, to meet in SDA owned and/or operated buildings during the little time of trouble (just before probation closes) all those who refuse to comply with the MOB laws will be known and persecuted as Seventh-day Adventists or accused of being a Seveth-day Adventist.
Mar 290.3
"The people who have braved out their rebellion will fulfill the description given in Revelation 6:15-17. In these very caves and dens they find the very statement of truth in the letters and in the publications as witness against them. The shepherds who lead the sheep in false paths will hear the charge made against them, "It was you who made light of truth. It was you who told us that God's law was abrogated, that it was a yoke of bondage. It was you who voiced the false doctrines when I was convicted that these Seventh-day Adventists had the truth. The blood of our souls is upon your priestly garments. . . . Now will you pay the ransom for my soul? . . . What shall we do who listened to your garbling of the Scriptures and your turning into a lie the truth which if obeyed would have saved us?"