Advent Talk

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Click Here to Enter Maritime SDA OnLine.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: 1888  (Read 15163 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

christian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 345
Re: 1888
« Reply #30 on: July 03, 2015, 08:01:47 AM »

Adventist call the protestant churches Babylon  because they don't follow all the commandments, yet in the same breath from the pulpit it is preached that you cannot keep the commandments.

As far as preaching that you can't keep the commandments, even with he help of God, that doesn't get preached here.

The reason most Protestant churches are considered part of Babylon is because (a) they are teaching the same false doctrines, the same wine of Babylon, that Rome is, (b) they are considered her "daughters," even by Rome herself, which calls herself the "mother church," and (c) the Protestant churches rejected the biblical message that Christ's coming is near, because they preferred post-millennialism.


"The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall." I take it that you believe that Ellen White was not referring to the Seventh-day Adventist Church when she wrote that. What evidence do you have to support that conclusion?

An earlier portion of the same Letter 55, 1886 said, "Let the churches who claim to believe the truth, who are advocating the law of God, keep that law and depart from all iniquity. Let the individual members of the church resist the temptations to practice evils and indulge in sin. Let the church commence the work of purification before God by repentance, humiliation, deep heart searching, for we are in the antitypical day of atonement--solemn hour fraught with eternal results" (2SM 378; 12MR 320-321). Whatever we say that Ellen White meant by "church" in that later sentence must jive with what she meant by "church" in this earlier paragraph.
Why do you not finish the quote “The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out—the chaff separated from the precious wheat. This is a terrible ordeal, but nevertheless it must take place.”

   This conversation is a little unfair in that I know the ties that hold you. You have a doctrine that is no where mentioned in the bible and the writings of Ellen White have been distorted to keep you beholding to the corporation instead of to Christ. I suspect that you see the sin in the church and the utter disregard of the writings of Ellen White by the corporation but believe that despite a disregard for the truth they are still the chosen of God. You for the sake of unity practice the same sin as the Nominal first day churches and don't realize it. If I ask you personally if you keep the commandments you will say you do not, inwardly you understand that you do not have the power and frankly have been unable to obtain the power to live a sinless life, why? Because the organization you deem the church is a business by their own admission, but you hearing their own words denying they are a church, still call it the church. You call the headquarters and ask them are they a business corporation or a church and let me know what they tell you, okay? Why are you questioning me when the owners of the corporation the leaders of the business say they are not a church but a corporation. Why did they trademark the name given by God, why did they start a new organization when Ellen G. White told them not to?

And the seventh day Adventist corporation did not give homage to the Catholic church? Please be frank and honest, you are a student of the church and know what I am saying is truth.
 Q: What is a corporation?
A: an legal entity whose purpose is to deliver economic value while turning a profit. They are often open to the public to invest in by purchasing bonds and stocks...

How can you use Ellen Whites writings to support something Ellen White does not support? How can you say the Adventist church is a church and use Ellen White writing to support it when they say they are not a church? Why question me in what Ellen White thought when they say they are not the church.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2015, 08:59:34 AM by christian »
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4051
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: 1888
« Reply #31 on: July 05, 2015, 07:31:51 AM »

A not-for-profit corporation does not seek to "turn a profit."

I don't understand why you are saying that a church cannot be incorporated. Here in Minnesota, a church must be incorporated in order to own property. An unincorporated association cannot own property. Are you saying that no church in Minnesota can legally own property, since churches cease to be churches as soon as they incorporate?

Here in Minnesota the Minnesota Conference was organized as both an association and a corporation, until these two entities were merged at the last constituency meeting. This was common, to have both a corporation and an association. Thus, I don't understand why you think having a nonprofit corporation is such a big deal.

http://www.adventist.org/copyright/legal-notice/ says that "General Conference" refers to both the nonprofit corporation General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists, and the unincorporated association General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. When exactly are you saying that there was a new organization? Are you objecting to the corporation, the unincorporated association, or both?

What significance did you see in the rest of the quote? What church do you think Ellen White was referring to if it wasn't the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and in what way does that other church appear as about to fall?
Logged

christian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 345
Re: 1888
« Reply #32 on: July 05, 2015, 01:03:21 PM »

A not-for-profit corporation does not seek to "turn a profit."

I don't understand why you are saying that a church cannot be incorporated. Here in Minnesota, a church must be incorporated in order to own property. An unincorporated association cannot own property. Are you saying that no church in Minnesota can legally own property, since churches cease to be churches as soon as they incorporate?

Here in Minnesota the Minnesota Conference was organized as both an association and a corporation, until these two entities were merged at the last constituency meeting. This was common, to have both a corporation and an association. Thus, I don't understand why you think having a nonprofit corporation is such a big deal.

   

http://www.adventist.org/copyright/legal-notice/ says that "General Conference" refers to both the nonprofit corporation General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists, and the unincorporated association General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. When exactly are you saying that there was a new organization? Are you objecting to the corporation, the unincorporated association, or both?

What significance did you see in the rest of the quote? What church do you think Ellen White was referring to if it wasn't the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and in what way does that other church appear as about to fall?
Once the bait has been taken, and the catch is reeled in, another church has been transformed into a "legal fiction" subject to the tyrannical control of the federal government. The truth is that "incorporated churches" are not, by definition, churches at all! They are merely "non-profit organizations" (or should I say "non-prophet organizations"). The truth is, any "church" that is incorporated has deposed Jesus Christ from His rightful position as Head over His own Body and has surrendered that Body to the dominion of the State.

The truth is, "incorporated churches" are subject to total governmental control -- whom they may hire, what they may and may not teach and preach, they cannot conflict with "public policy" nor assault the hearer's sense of mental well-being, self esteem, sexual orientation, etc. The IRS prohibits such organizations from "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation" (26 USC 501-C-3). This prohibition extends, not only to the endorsement of a political candidate, but also any other attempts to "influence legislation," including taking a public stand against such government-protected abominations as abortion or homosexuality. Now, the church is discovering that favors from Washington, DC have strings attached. In this case, the string is a rope that is being used to throttle her once-powerful voice, to squeeze out her very life and, eventually, to hang her by the neck until dead!

  As I have said before it is difficult to talk to people so brainwashed (not meant to be an insult) but just stating a fact. The same thinking goes into everything the corporation does and the brainwashed members except the lie. Your same logic was applied to accreditation of the schools and colleges too.

     The reason for the entire quote is because Zion is talking about the true church (believers and imposters). The same thinking came from Jesus when he label the leaders of Israel as workers for Satan and not Him. But clearly the leaders at that time thought (like you) that they were the chosen vessels of God when in reality they were the workers of Satan. They had the truth (Israels Leaders) but did not practice what they preached, thus disqualifying them for the Job God had intended. Why are you defending deception? I Identified them for what they are and you justify them taking Satan and the world in their institutions and colleges etc... The reason you do that (I believe) is because you see salvation in the corporation.
     You think if I keep the sabbath I must be an Seventh day Adventist corporation member or I am not legitimate. And the institution that you are defining as Gods ordained have become a corporation not to obtain and sell land, but to control the word and workers of God. You are too blind to understand that God is not dead and can defend the truth himself. Every step towards the world in their institutions have always been justified by them and upheld by those brainwashed into believing salvation comes by their institution instead of God.

     If I ask you if the church during Israels time is the example for us today, you will tell me it is. But when I label them as thus you defend them when the bible and Ellen White says that we will repeat the sins of Israel but in a more marked way. You are like the men walking with Jesus after his resurrection thinking that all was lost because things did not go as they thought. Open your eyes guy, God does not need the corporation, he is not dead.

     



   
« Last Edit: July 05, 2015, 01:38:45 PM by christian »
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4051
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: 1888
« Reply #33 on: July 05, 2015, 02:50:30 PM »

Actually, christian, I think you should consider the possibility that it is you who have been brainwashed. I suggest that because I just searched the EGW CD for incorporat* and found references to the use of the term when the church was considering becoming organized in the 1860's.

So I am left with this question: If incorporating is such a great evil, as you suggest, why was James White all for it?

Additionally, you misquoted that regulation against "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation." The preceding words said that no substantial part of the activities of the organization could do that. It didn't say that none of its activities could do that. The IRS doesn't want to give tax breaks to lobbying organizations, but churches that might do some lobbying, that's a different matter.

If you're not a member of a church that may appear as about to fall, that may appear as about to become Babylon, you may be a member of the wrong church. Think about it.
Logged

christian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 345
Re: 1888
« Reply #34 on: July 05, 2015, 04:17:20 PM »

Actually, christian, I think you should consider the possibility that it is you who have been brainwashed. I suggest that because I just searched the EGW CD for incorporat* and found references to the use of the term when the church was considering becoming organized in the 1860's.

So I am left with this question: If incorporating is such a great evil, as you suggest, why was James White all for it?

Additionally, you misquoted that regulation against "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation." The preceding words said that no substantial part of the activities of the organization could do that. It didn't say that none of its activities could do that. The IRS doesn't want to give tax breaks to lobbying organizations, but churches that might do some lobbying, that's a different matter.

If you're not a member of a church that may appear as about to fall, that may appear as about to become Babylon, you may be a member of the wrong church. Think about it.
I can guarantee you there are many Christians that will vehemently disagree with you on that last statement. That statement is not a biblical principle but rather a diabolical statement that would qualify the corporation as the portal to heaven, whether doing right or wrong.  That mindset is the one that allows those at the head of the corporation to control its members, and what eventually will allow them to prosecute those not deemed part of the corporation.

     You use James White as a reason to become controlled by the state, mind blowing. Here is a riddle, when the blind son was cast out of the church doing Christ time was he actually cast out?

     I would like to ask you this, do you believe it was right for the corporation to trademark the name Seventh day Adventist and then go to the state to prosecute those it demeaned using it unjustly?
     If you noticed, I stated you are a student of the church, I stated that because I don't believe you to be an enemy, however I do believe that many true Adventist are being deceived. The logic you use is what kept many from confessing Jesus until after his death. I know you may be offended because I use the word brainwashed, but there is really no other word to use for people that will follow an institution that practices apostasy and still calls itself the leader of the people of God.
     I have not lesson the requirements of submission to God and the Holy Spirits power to rule in my life. Nicodemus came to Jesus because he knew he lacked something. When Jesus told him he must be born again he was astonished because he thought he was a part of the institution of God already. But God told him that he that worshiped him must worship in (Spirit and in Truth).
« Last Edit: July 05, 2015, 04:37:04 PM by christian »
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4051
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: 1888
« Reply #35 on: July 05, 2015, 05:18:54 PM »

I see that you and I are approaching these questions quite differently, if you think that Ellen White's statement, "The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall," is diabolical, a word that comes from the Greek word for "devil." In essence, you just said that what she wrote was demonic, and thus we are poles apart.

And if that is really what you meant, that would explain why you would so readily discount James White, and all the pioneers who sided with him regarding organization, including Ellen White.

I have no problem with the Adventist Church going against SDA Kinship for the misuse of the Adventist name.
Logged

christian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 345
Re: 1888
« Reply #36 on: July 05, 2015, 08:03:59 PM »

I see that you and I are approaching these questions quite differently, if you think that Ellen White's statement, "The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall," is diabolical, a word that comes from the Greek word for "devil." In essence, you just said that what she wrote was demonic, and thus we are poles apart.

And if that is really what you meant, that would explain why you would so readily discount James White, and all the pioneers who sided with him regarding organization, including Ellen White.

I have no problem with the Adventist Church going against SDA Kinship for the misuse of the Adventist name.


 We are poles apart in what and who we think constitutes the church. But I know how difficult it is to talk to individual who are brainwashed and cannot think for themselves. Some things are so outrageous as to not make common sense. The truth is what constitutes and makes up the church and Jesus is the head of the (true church) it really is not that complicated. But you see the corporation and its leaders and the General Conference as your guide and church and they will decide what you believe and where you stand. You think it the prerogative of the corporate church to protect the good Nature and standing of the church, though God has spared the sinner when he could have killed the likes of you.   
     Ellen White would say that the leaders were in a large part responsible for the peoples rejection of Christ. And when talking about the thief on the cross his situation for the most part was also a result of those feigning to the be church. And the wise men and shepherd that came to see Jesus at his birth were the true church of that time.

    But it is your choice to be blind and follow the blind into the ditch.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2015, 09:05:26 PM by christian »
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4051
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: 1888
« Reply #37 on: July 05, 2015, 08:39:51 PM »

To me, you're not making a bit of sense in your accusations and assumptions about what I believe. As a Seventh-day Adventist, I believe the Bible is the final authority, not the church, so you are just plain wrong. Any Adventist who believes otherwise is violating their baptismal vows.

Why didn't you retract your accusation that what Ellen White wrote was demonic?
Logged

christian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 345
Re: 1888
« Reply #38 on: July 05, 2015, 09:13:56 PM »

To me, you're not making a bit of sense in your accusations and assumptions about what I believe. As a Seventh-day Adventist, I believe the Bible is the final authority, not the church, so you are just plain wrong. Any Adventist who believes otherwise is violating their baptismal vows.

Why didn't you retract your accusation that what Ellen White wrote was demonic?
Because you are the one that created the accusation, which is a tactic of most brainwashed Seventh day Adventist. It is very important to you that I appear to be against Ellen G. White, when in fact you are the one that is misrepresenting her writings. You are defending an institution which has long since left the precepts and guidelines of Ellen G. White and to some extent the bible. Do you have any idea the trash that is being taught individual attending the institutions of learning in the Adventist corporation? Do you not realize that the church of Christ day is an example of the institution today?
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4051
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: 1888
« Reply #39 on: July 05, 2015, 09:37:51 PM »

Let's try again.

I said, "If you're not a member of a church that may appear as about to fall, that may appear as about to become Babylon, you may be a member of the wrong church. Think about it."

You then called what I said diabolical, which means about the same as demonic. And yet all I was doing was quoting what Ellen White wrote, and making a possible application to your situation. She wrote, "The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall."

I don't see any other possible conclusion than that you were attributing what Ellen White wrote to the devil.

I first thought of this idea in 1996 or 1997, when trying to get off the Reformed Movement's mailing address. The fellow I was talking with at headquarters was unaware of the "may appear as about to fall" quote and asked for the reference. He then was telling me that God's people have to come out of Babylon and into the true fold. It dawned on me that he was calling the Seventh-day Adventist Church Babylon. God then gave me that thought, that if he thought his group didn't have any problems, it probably didn't qualify as being the church Ellen White was referring to.

I then told him, "Any group that doesn't appear as about to fall can't be the true fold." That hit home. He didn't accuse me of saying something diabolical. He instead said he would have to study that.

My guess is that it hit home for you as well. If the church you are a member of doesn't seem like it could be about to fall, it doesn't fit the church Ellen White was referring to in that statement.

Moreover, she went on to say that while the church remains the sinners are shaken out. Certainly you don't want to be in that group, right?

But the whole topic appears to be a sensitive one for you.
Logged

christian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 345
Re: 1888
« Reply #40 on: July 05, 2015, 10:06:30 PM »

Let's try again.

I said, "If you're not a member of a church that may appear as about to fall, that may appear as about to become Babylon, you may be a member of the wrong church. Think about it."

You then called what I said diabolical, which means about the same as demonic. And yet all I was doing was quoting what Ellen White wrote, and making a possible application to your situation. She wrote, "The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall."

I don't see any other possible conclusion than that you were attributing what Ellen White wrote to the devil.

I first thought of this idea in 1996 or 1997, when trying to get off the Reformed Movement's mailing address. The fellow I was talking with at headquarters was unaware of the "may appear as about to fall" quote and asked for the reference. He then was telling me that God's people have to come out of Babylon and into the true fold. It dawned on me that he was calling the Seventh-day Adventist Church Babylon. God then gave me that thought, that if he thought his group didn't have any problems, it probably didn't qualify as being the church Ellen White was referring to.

I then told him, "Any group that doesn't appear as about to fall can't be the true fold." That hit home. He didn't accuse me of saying something diabolical. He instead said he would have to study that.

My guess is that it hit home for you as well. If the church you are a member of doesn't seem like it could be about to fall, it doesn't fit the church Ellen White was referring to in that statement.

Moreover, she went on to say that while the church remains the sinners are shaken out. Certainly you don't want to be in that group, right?

But the whole topic appears to be a sensitive one for you.

Only in your mind does the topic appear to be a sensitive one for me. You do not understand that sinning is not appearing as though it is about to fall. You have a misunderstanding about what the church is and who constitutes the church. I started off the topic about women's ordination and the fact that many are choosing between the church and God, because they have been confused by the corporate church. You are stuck on the belief that what constitutes the Church is the Seventh day Adventist corporation. Because you are afraid to except God over sin you see any attack on the corporation as an attack on the church of God whether it is truth or not. So if the church locks up people or approves and excepts the gay life style as being normal. Or if the church preaches and teaches to its pastors about bestiality and disregards the health message you must remain in it in order to be saved. Even though you understand that the true church will be maintained in the mountains and in the desolate places and in the hearts of men.
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4051
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: 1888
« Reply #41 on: July 06, 2015, 01:52:01 AM »

Only in your mind does the topic appear to be a sensitive one for me.

If it wasn't a sensitive subject for you, then I don't think you would be responding this way.

You do not understand that sinning is not appearing as though it is about to fall.

How does that mean that you don't need to retract your accusation that what Ellen White wrote was diabolical? All I did was use the very same words she used, and you know that those were the words she used, and you said it was diabolical. I didn't say that appearing as about to fall meant sinning or didn't mean sinning. All I did was connect "about to fall" with "Babylon is fallen."

You are stuck on the belief that what constitutes the Church is the Seventh day Adventist corporation.

You're the one who brought in this stuff about the Seventh-day Adventist corporation, not me. And I already addressed this in part when I mentioned about unincorporated associations. But my guess is that you don't even think that a Seventh-day Adventist unincorporated association is a Seventh-day Adventist Church. And that would leave us all wondering what you do believe would constitute a Seventh-day Adventist Church if it's neither an unincorporated association nor a corporation. Or maybe you think Ellen White was referring to some other church other than the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Then which one?

But we in effect already dealt with that one too, if I recall correctly. The same Lt 55, 1886, as can be seen from 12MR 326, says, "Salvation is not to be baptized, not to have our names upon the church books, not to preach the truth." What church is she talking about in this sentence? Some mystical thing that has no church books? Clearly not.

Because you are afraid to except God over sin you see any attack on the corporation as an attack on the church of God whether it is truth or not.

My complaint was that you called what Ellen White wrote "diabolical," and you want to turn that around into my saying that you were attacking the church of God? No. My complaint was that you attacked the Spirit of Prophecy by calling what it said "diabolical."

It's not often that I hear someone use such a strong term to denounce Ellen White's counsel.
Logged

christian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 345
Re: 1888
« Reply #42 on: July 06, 2015, 04:34:31 AM »

Only in your mind does the topic appear to be a sensitive one for me.

If it wasn't a sensitive subject for you, then I don't think you would be responding this way.

You do not understand that sinning is not appearing as though it is about to fall.

How does that mean that you don't need to retract your accusation that what Ellen White wrote was diabolical? All I did was use the very same words she used, and you know that those were the words she used, and you said it was diabolical. I didn't say that appearing as about to fall meant sinning or didn't mean sinning. All I did was connect "about to fall" with "Babylon is fallen."

You are stuck on the belief that what constitutes the Church is the Seventh day Adventist corporation.

You're the one who brought in this stuff about the Seventh-day Adventist corporation, not me. And I already addressed this in part when I mentioned about unincorporated associations. But my guess is that you don't even think that a Seventh-day Adventist unincorporated association is a Seventh-day Adventist Church. And that would leave us all wondering what you do believe would constitute a Seventh-day Adventist Church if it's neither an unincorporated association nor a corporation. Or maybe you think Ellen White was referring to some other church other than the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Then which one?

But we in effect already dealt with that one too, if I recall correctly. The same Lt 55, 1886, as can be seen from 12MR 326, says, "Salvation is not to be baptized, not to have our names upon the church books, not to preach the truth." What church is she talking about in this sentence? Some mystical thing that has no church books? Clearly not.

Because you are afraid to except God over sin you see any attack on the corporation as an attack on the church of God whether it is truth or not.

My complaint was that you called what Ellen White wrote "diabolical," and you want to turn that around into my saying that you were attacking the church of God? No. My complaint was that you attacked the Spirit of Prophecy by calling what it said "diabolical."

It's not often that I hear someone use such a strong term to denounce Ellen White's counsel.

     It would be foolish for me to go back and explain to you exactly what I was calling diabolical because then you would simply be just as dull of understanding as you are now to hear what I am saying. You are so set on defending the corporation that you justify their existence as a prophecy of God and your allegiance as mandatory for heaven. Then you feign some indignity at my perceived attack on the Spirit of Prophecy when it is the Seventh day corporation that is the one really attacking the Spirit of Prophecy with people like your endorsement. You are like the lawyers that came to Jesus because they were offended at his words. You don't really care about the Spirit of Prophecy at all because if you did you would not defend those that go against it. There is no biblical model for salvation through the corporation in the bible. The bible through Jesus words make it clear, He said "I am the way the truth and the light, no man commeth unto the father but by me."
     We are right back to my opening remarks the issue of women ordination is not an issue created by some spiritual awakening. The Seventh day corporation has simply taken its agenda from its leaders and created an atmosphere where it can now promote a principle not of spiritual origin. And if they rule in session that women ordination is acceptable, then the brainwashed individuals like you will simply except it and move on because your salvation is connected to the corporate Seventh day Adventist (the one that trade marked its name) and not Jesus.
     You lack the ability to truly debate a topic of this type because you have a vested interest in the outcome instead of the truth. You have yet to even mention the departure from the spirit of prophecy by the corporate church, except to imply we should except it because they are the church. You really don't care about the Spirit of Prophesy do you?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2015, 04:45:57 AM by christian »
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4051
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: 1888
« Reply #43 on: July 08, 2015, 09:08:35 AM »

It's like I said, christian. It must be a sensitive subject for you, since you don't seem to be able to discuss it in an objective manner, without resorting to making various accusations.

Are you a member of a church that appears, has appeared, or may appear in the future as about to fall? Yes or no. If you answer no, how do you justify that given Ellen White's fairly clear statement?
Logged

Snoopy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3052
Re: 1888
« Reply #44 on: July 08, 2015, 11:54:52 AM »


I found christian's perspective to be well thought out, very articulate and quite objective.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up