A Closer Look at the Big "B" Word

Looking At The Big “B”

(Temcat) Why is there so much dissention and confusion on the ‘Babylon’ Issue? I really feel that the main problem in many folks' understanding about it is that we aren't clear on the meanings of Babylon and Laodecia. We tend to think Laodecia is OK but Babylon is real bad! But when you look at it all, this is not so.

I am going to stick in a couple of responses I had that, in addition really started me thinking. I'd like you to take a look just to consider the views and insight in them.

"If the Adventist Church is Babylon, and we know that it is also Laodecia, (for we have many, many SOP quotes establishing that)--then why does Jesus knock on the door of Laodecia and request entrance? Does Jesus want to come into Babylon? I think not. Laodecia is in worse condition than Babylon for she has rejected greater light, but to call Laodecia Babylon is to confuse the prophetic symbols, at which point the clarity of the prophetic word turns into a spiritual shell game." J.P.

[Ron Beaulieu--Can we equivocate Babylon with Laodicea? Is there evidence that such a parallel exists? Yes there is. Notice:

"The warning for the last church [Laodicea] also must be proclaimed to all who claim to be Christians. The Laodicean message, like a sharp, two--edged sword, must go to ALL THE CHURCHES:...It is our work to proclaim this message. Are we putting forth every effort that the churches may be warned?" Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 77.

"If the church of God becomes LUKEWARM [LAODICEAN] it does not stand in favor with God any more than do the churches that are represented as having fallen and become the habitation of devils and the hold of every foul spirit and the cage of every unclean and hateful bird. Those who have had opportunities to hear and receive the truth, and who have united with the Seventh-day Adventist church, calling themselves the commandment keeping people of God, and yet possess no more vitality and consecration to God than do the nominal churches, will receive of the plagues of God just as verily as the churches who oppose the law of God." E.G. White, Letter 35, 1898.

If Laodicea is not regarded with any more favor by God than the fallen churches, and the call of Laodicea is to all churches, then there is no difference between Laodicea and the fallen churches as far as being in a fallen state is concerned. Different churches believe different aspects of Babylonian teachings, but Ellen White equates them all as far as falling from the favor of God is concerned, and as far as constituting the habitation of devils and the hold of every foul spirit and the cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

So the answer to Temcat's questions based on the above Spirit of Prophecy statements are: 1. Temcat, you say: "...why does Jesus knock on the door of Laodicea and request entrance? Does Jesus want to come into Babylon? I think not."

[Ron Beaulieu-- Yes, Temcat, Jesus knocks on the door of Laodicea, and since all the churches are Laodicean, and the Laodicean message applies to them all; and since Laodicea is not regarded with any more favor than the fallen churches, and like them becomes the hold of every unclean and hateful bird, the answer is yes, yes! God is knocking on the door to all Laodicean churches. 2. Is the professing SDA Church worse that the fallen churches? Yes. Why? Because it had advanced truth and renounced that truth to return to the iniquities of their forefathers (Jer. 11:9-15). Notice:

"God's professed people are selfish and self-caring....They are idolaters, and are worse, in the sight of God, than the heathen, graven-image worshippers who have had no knowledge of a better way." Testimonies, vol. 2, 441-442.

So, Temcat, if God want's to "come in" to those who are worse than heathen, graven image worshippers, why would He not want to come into some in Babylon? If the Laodicean message applies to all churches, then God wants to come in to all of them. Some entire Babylonian churches will change. But there is a crucial factor here. Will God change an entire denomination that once knew the truth (the Three Angel's messages and the Midnight Cry Light), but rejected these messages in favor of the iniquities (errors) of its fathers? Ellen White says that all churches and individuals who heard the truth in 1844, but who rejected it, fell off the path and it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to get back on the path again. Does this same principle apply to SDA's? If not, why not? End Ron's Comment]

(Temcat) You see, many of the references the Babylon folk, or sister to Babylon folk are using say that Jesus has left the church, His Spirit is driven out etc. Well, that is what you would find in Laodecia- because Jesus is on the outside trying to get their attention and waiting to be invited in.

[Ron Beaulieu--A once Laodicean (lukewarm) church, that was privileged with advanced light, but rejected that light in favor of false (idol) doctrines, the iniquities of its forefathers, is no longer LUKEWARM LAODICEA, but rather COLD, APOSTATE and FALLEN. Such constitutes a NEW MOVEMENT that has REMOVED GOD. Such a church relates directly to the churches and individuals who heard the truth in 1844, but who rejected it.

Ellen White pronounced all the churches and individuals who had heard the truth in 1844, but rejected it, as fallen within a twelve week period of hearing it in the summer of 1844. Can the SDA church know the truth for 86 years, from 1844 to the 1930's, when it became married to the world by accepting its accreditation standards to be taught in all its educational institutions, thus becoming married to the world, and thereby Babylon, and still be counted as Laodicea or lukewarm? I think not! I know it cannot!

So your erroneous premise Temcat, is in trying to label a church that was once Laodicean lukewarm, but has become cold apostate, with still being in Laodicean lukewarmness, and this is not possible. According to Ellen White, a church can become Babylon and fallen merely by becoming Laodicean and remaining Laodicean. A church that was once Laodicean can become Babylon by becoming cold apostate. A church that was once Laodicean, but received the Midnight Cry and the first and second angel's messages, only to later reject such, is irretrievably fallen and cannot get on the path again according to Word to the Little Flock, p. 14. Thus it commits corporate unpardonable sin, but individuals may repent if they have not received and thereby knowingly rejected the warning. End Ron's comment].

(Temcat) The Laodecian message is also strongly geared to individuals and must be received as individuals- we are not given the picture that the whole church will ever respond. A remnant will respond and they will go forth with the loud cry at the Latter rain after the tempest spews the other Laodecians out of the mouth of God.

[Ron Beaulieu-- The Laodicean message applies to all individuals in all fallen churches, but it does not apply to any fallen corporate church that has ever heard, embraced, and subsequently rejected the first and second angel's messages and the Midnight Cry, especially after having once accepted and taught such as a commission to the world. A remnant of individuals will respond to the loud cry and the midnight cry to come out of any fallen church and all fallen churches. End Ron's comment].

(Temcat) Some protest my saying that the church can’t become Babylon per say- This is a place where I have failed to put across clearly what I am really trying to say.

[Ron Beaulieu--The reason you cannot clearly put across what you are trying to say Temcat, is because what you are trying to say is based upon a false premise. End Ron's comment].

(Temcat) It isn't because she can't fall or fail- it is because once God has given a particular job to a group of people- they are MORE accountable if they sin than those who didn't have that job given them. Babylon is for all intents and purposes heathen- we may do what the heathen do, and join in with them, but we have to deal with the wrath of God on a different level! It's like if you catch YOUR son smashing windows- he will have to face you on a different level than if a stranger is caught smashing windows.

[Ron Beaulieu--Of course we are dealt with on a different level. Adventists who have once known the truth and rejected it are worse than fallen Babylon who have no knowledge of a better way. This is a given. But this does not preclude the fact that a church that has once known the first and second angel's messages and the Midnight Cry, and then rejects such, is part and parcel with fallen Babylon. These are two separate issues you are mixing. End Ron's comment].

(Temcat) What I am trying to say is, if we don't repent and seek God, we're really gonna catch it from Him- worse than the heathen for whom His mercy lingers after OUR probation has closed!!

[Ron Beaulieu--Probation has already closed for the corporate church because by ecumenical fraternity she has rejected the Midnight Cry and the first and second angel's messages. All the churches that did this in 1844, were pronounced as fallen within twelve weeks of hearing the message in the summer of 1844. Is the SDA church especially privileged and immune to such similar judgment? However, probation has not closed for individuals in the professing new movement SDA church, until they hear and reject the warning to come out of fallen Babylon. This is a most serious and startling issue because it does involve the prospect of committing the unpardonable sin, and should not be construed as anything less. End Ron' comment].

(Temcat) In His ‘Omega at LLU’ article, Bro. Hanson outlines how a spiritualist, New age teacher taught from the pulpit of the church at Loma Linda in 1985. He then pronounced all the audience to be ‘wizards’!

Now this sort of thing has happened over and over again with R.C. Priests, government officials and other New Age Spiritualist profaning SDA pulpits. Well, take a look at these texts-

Zephaniah 3: 4 Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law.

Eze 44:7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.
8 And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves.
Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

Now that's what they did (and do) they pollute God's sanctuary! But it is still His sanctuary. Notice-

Eze 8:6 He said furthermore unto me, Son of man, seest thou what they do? even the great abominations that the house of Israel committeth here, that I should go far off from my sanctuary? but turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations.

I know what it is that governs God's treatment of a chosen people- (By the way there have only been 2 chosen, denominated people- Israel then SDA after 1844) That is something that confuses people- The early Christian congregation was the 'remnant' of Israel- The message that made Israel a special people was that the Messiah would come through her. Then the handful who accepted the fulfillment of that promise- the remnant- became the Christian church.

[Ron Beaulieu--And that remnant was "gathered out" of the apostate Jewish church . The first act of Jesus was to "gather out" those who would take the gospel to the world. Desire of Ages, 232. And a similar "gathering out" has occurred in every succeeding generation because the ecclesiastical leaders refused to tolerate light--same reference. End Ron's comment]

I want you to see this text and you will understand why a nation or church stands or falls before God. Look at this from Ezekiel 20- It is good to read the whole chapter to get the flow but here are the excerpts-

8 But they rebelled against me, and would not hearken unto me: they did not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt: then I said, I will pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt. 9 But I wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted before the heathen, among whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known unto them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt.

13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my Sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them. 14 But I wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted before the heathen, in whose sight I brought them out.

21 Notwithstanding the children rebelled against me: they walked not in my statutes, neither kept my judgments to do them, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; they polluted my sabbaths: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the wilderness. 22 Nevertheless I withdrew mine hand, and wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted in the sight of the heathen, in whose sight I brought them forth.

It is to fulfill a purpose that God calls a people- it is NOT because they are 'special' or to make them 'special' It is for His purpose. The purposes are spelled out in prophecy. The purpose of God for Israel was that Jesus would come through that nation. God had quite a fight- but he kept working with them - maintaining a handful at least until Messiah came- His word was fulfilled.

God has a purpose, a mission, a commission for SDA's since 1844, but no matter how high and sacred that calling, he will give it to others if a church fails to fulfill its commission, (The Upward Look, 131) as was the case with the Jews. They were to be the light of the world? Are they now? Did they fulfill even the commission to prepare the way for the Messiah's coming? Not that I know. End Ron's comment].

(Temcat) Now I could go on and on about this but take a look now at the 'movement of prophecy' the SDA coming out of the great advent awakening in 1844- The prophecy is that the movement that arose in 1844 WILL carry the final loud cry to the world. God's purpose will be carried out! That does not mean that they can't fail- but the remnant of that same movement that began back there WILL fulfill the prophecy.

[Ron Beaulieu--A remnant will come out Isaiah 37:31, 32, and Ezekiel 5:1-3. The true church; the church triumphant, the 144,000, will give the loud cry to the world. This bride will have nothing to do with an apostate new movement calling itself Seventh-day Adventist, Rev. 3:9. End Ron's comment].

(Temcat) Now realize that this does not have anything to do with a SDAGC that is gone off on it's own path. Any more than the Sanhedrin was of God's design. BUT God will have the SDA church hit the Sunday Law tempest and the remnant that survive- They will complete God's purpose.

[Ron Beaulieu--You are precisely right Temcat. The 144,000 called out remnant will have nothing to do with a SDAGC that has formed a new movement that has REMOVED GOD. But a "gathered out" remnant will compete God's purpose. End Ron's comment].

(Temcat) God will not replace the SDA now or even then - it will be the few that stand the final shaking that carry the Loud Cry; Just as it was the few that accepted the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies in Christ's day that were the Christian church.

[Ron Beaulieu--God will not replace the SDA church now or then because since 1844, there has been a true SDA church and will be to the end. However, there is now another imposter church (Rev. 3:9) posing as the true SDA church. This church is fallen and is the Synagogue of Satan or Babylon. It will cross land and sea to make converts and make them twice the child of hell they already were, if they do not hear and heed the call to come out of Babylon. End Ron's comment].

(Temcat) I wish I could get people to see that by saying this I am not saying that the SDA church as we know it, is 'going through'- I AM saying that God always fulfils His prophecies for the sake of His own name- To have the SDA church gone before the Sunday Law would cause the 'heathen' to say- "There, see- We always knew that this Seventh-day Sabbath thing was crazy and this proves it!" God's Sabbath would be further profaned among the heathen.

[Ron Beaulieu--The SDA "visible" church organization as we know it, IS NOT going through, Temcat. This church will advise folk to keep Sunday sacred. God will fulfill His prophecies through the Philadelphia perfect 144,000 army church of Joel 2. Revelation 3:10 depicts Philadelphia as kept through the greatest time of trouble known to man to try the entire world. This is proof that Philadelphia, the "invisible" church triumphant church will be around to give the final message. End Ron's comment].

(Temcat) We have to stop looking at our selves and each other and the church and start looking at God and His purpose as shown in prophecy if we want to understand this whole thing.

[Ron Beaulieu--I speak for myself and some others, when I say that I am not looking at "ourselves." I am looking at the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy for truth on this matter. End Ron's comment].

(Temcat) Now in spite of the fact that we have been brainwashed for years that the early church had a form of GC and a hierarchy- this is not confirmed by careful study. Just because the brethren came together at one point to decide on an issue that affected the congregations does not mean they took their orders from Jerusalem. This was not so. Any more than our discussing points with one another means that we are taking orders from each other- (although there are some out there that would love to give them!)

Apostolic order is in the individual churches. They are all brethren- no presidents- no popes. The individual congregations are sisters. No kingly rule in God’s Theocracy!!

[Ron Beaulieu--This is preposterous Temcat. This is like saying that the GC or leadership at the top has nothing to do with the church and is not implicated in any way! You totally exonerate them as a governing body, laying down rules and regulations, via a church manual and a statement of fundamental beliefs which the local churches and its members must swear baptismal allegiance to. You are totally out of line on this one sister! You totally deny corporate responsibility and lay out individual responsibility only. Thereby, you set the church up as organized on a "congregationalist" system of organization, and that has never been the case with the professing SDA Church. End Ron's comment].

(Temcat) 1863 this was the same- But in 1873- the first hierarchy was set up in our ranks- like Israel choosing a king, they rejected the leading of Jesus through the Holy Spirit and became Laodecia- ( they were already Laodecia in the 1850's but became more so in '73)

Here is another fascinating point- Many of these folks say SDA crossed the line- 1888- 1900 1901or 1903 but a brother that was studying this out all of a sudden came upon a quote that totally negates all that- look at this read in 1909 !!! at the GC no less by EGW no less:

Notice this conversation- Testimonies for the Church Volume Nine pg: 260

”At times, when a small group of men entrusted with the general management of the work have, in the name of the General Conference, sought to carry out unwise plans and to restrict God's work, I have said that I could no longer regard the voice of the General Conference, represented by these few men, as the voice of God. But this is not saying that the decisions of a General Conference composed of an assembly of duly appointed, representative men from all parts of the field should not be respected. God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work."

[Ron Beaulieu--Temcat, the above Testimonies, vol. 9, statement negates NOTHING! Fact is that one man or a small group of men continued to control the church from 1901 and on, because they did not heed the 15 man committee system. They continued to have a president, and/or one man or a small group of men continued to control the church and this was made most evident in 1955 and on when Froom, Read, and Roy Allan Anderson led the church into the Omega of Apostasy, and a completely new movement and new organization, Selected Messages, vol. 1, 204-5. End Ron's comment].

(Temcat) Note at the bottom of page 257 "Manuscript read before the delegates at the General Conference, Washington, D.C., May 30,1909

If honest we must consider all that is written
God bless
Bill

Hi Temcat - Bob's question shows the problem. With all the quotations that appear that the church became a sister to Babylon, before 1909, how could she write this in 9T261 ? That's the problem
Bill

[Ron Beaulieu--If Laodicea is regarded with no more favor than fallen Babylon, per my earlier statement by Ellen White attesting precisely that, then the church became no better than Babylon when it became Laodicean. But when it became married to Babylon's confederacy and the world, is when it accepted worldly accreditation standards in the early 1930s, and when it aligned itself in association, council, girding and confederacy with God's enemies in the earyl 60's and on. Laodicea is a harlot. Ellen White called Laodicea a harlot, Testimonies, vol. 8, 250. Laodicea is not better than fallen Babylon. But she became a full fledged sister to fallen Babylon when she married the world in the 1930's and its confederacies in the early 1960s. End Ron's comment].

Dear Bill,

How would this statement stand up if we are to believe that following the 1903 GC board decisions making Daniels a pope, God withdrew His presence from the "Church?"

Bob

Anyway- I hope you can see some of my points here.

Below is another response that is worth a consider from a different angle.

Temcat

Pilgrim on issues

Ok here is the revised and prayed over copy:
BABYLON--A THIRD ALTERNATIVE

As was recently pointed out by Temcat, there is no clear definitive statement in the SOP that ends the discussion about who is Babylon today. But both sides appeal to SOP as the final authority for their position. relying on "sound reasoning" (and perhaps a bit of personal bias) I believe that both sides of this issue have a kernel of truth --andmayhaps-- a kernel of error--or at least of omission.. Unfortunately, each side is determined to defend "their kernel of truth" against all attacks. If truth always came in a clear simple package, there would be nothing to discuss. And often, each side assumes that "their view" of truth is indeed a simple and complete package. I would like to suggest that nobody has ALL the truth.

[Ron Beaulieu--The above conclusion flies in the face of God's Word where it says that the Holy Spirit will guide us into ALL TRUTH. End Ron's comment].

Jesus is the Truth. Therefore finite man can never see and appreciate more than a tiny bit of The Truth. Trouble starts when we assume we have the whole truth.

[Ron Beaulieu-- Is this Biblical; that we can never see and appreciate mare than a tiny bit of the truth? Not at all! End Ron's comments].

Having suggested that something significant is missing, let us see if we can discover what is it? Although we need to know "What and Where is Mystery Babylon,?" knowing WHY the Scripture uses Babylon as such a significant symbol may lead us do a deeper understanding of this subject. And maybe we will discover that Babylon is not what we thought it was. Also by knowing the WHY, we may better understand how to escape. Original Babylon (or Babel --it is the same word) was so-called because of the way God rescued a group of people who were about to make a fatal mistake-- by confounding their language. Since Babylon becomes a highly visible symbol in Revelation as the enemy of God and His people, and since it is now applied by some to the corporate denomination, let us consider the details of the Genesis story where Babel is first mentioned.

[Ron Beaulieu--Babylon is confusion. Truth is absence of confusion. To say that we cannot have a total absence of confusion is a lie and is thus a Babylonian principle in and of itself. It is a poor beginning for one to try to tell us the WHAT, WHERE AND WHYS about Babylon, when laying such on a false premise that we cannot know all the truth, If we cannot know all the truth about anything, as the writer has suggested, then we cannot know all the truth about Babylon, and we might be snared by some associated facet of it. This is humbug. End Ron's comments].

So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. Gen 11:8-9

Verse 4 explains why they needed to be rescued by God. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. This is the beginning of Babylon. It begins with a group of people who are willing to build cities and towers to prevent separation. This is the seed that grows into Babylon. The trouble with tower building is that there is always one man at the top (or maybe one[or27] testing doctrines).
Does anyone see a parallel to Adventist "tower-building"? What about Kellogg? And right on down to current happenings? And God intervened once before on this very issue.

There was a time when Adventism spoke with one language. Adventists were called "men of the Word", and they confounded the opposition by the power of the Word.

[Ron Beaulieu--The writer here become self-contradictory. The writer just stated a few paragraphs ago that we cannot know but bits of the truth. Now he is saying we once knew pure truth. Which is it? End Ron's comments].

However, like the people at Babel, they are now speaking with many conflicting voices. Are they not now "confounded"? And why? One of the reasons is evident as a kernel of presupposition cherished by both sides that towers to truth MUST BE BUILT! [Ron's Beaulieu--The writer said mere paragraphs ago that in essence we once had a tower of truth. Now he is saying that any attempt at all the truth is "a kernel of presupposition cherished by both sides that towers to truth must be built! [End Ron's comments].

As saith both the denomination and the independent ministries. They turned their attention from evangelism to evangelizing the faithful (not for up-building the body but for building up power--all in the interest of protecting "truth" or sometimes--God forbid--personal opinions?). They have been building towers of truth and cities of refuge. (Did this process start at Battle Creek?)

The very fact that people are unwilling to leave any denomination (with due love and sorrow) when it demonstrates cruelty and/or apostasy proves that it (the denominational tower) contains the seeds --and the fruit-- of Babylon. And the very fact that independents endeavor to establish a new "tower of truth" outside denominational structure proves that they too contain the same seeds of Babylon. The battle seems often to be over which "tower of Babel" is the true tower!

[This entire scenario runs counter to The Upward Look, 131. End Ron's Comments].

Experts on culture tell us that self-contradiction is a fact of modern life.. "Bilig proposes that the capacity for (self) contradiction is essential to the practical demands of life in contemporary society...." (The Saturated Self, page 73) In other words, we cannot participate in this culture without self contradiction! My dear friends! Have we not created an image to Babylon in our "spiritual" culture?. Are we not as confounded as ancient Babel!. And it is not obvious in the endless disputations about The Truth, that incisive clarity sought for in TRUTH has been muddied by the self-contradictory (and unexamined) assumptions unconsciously gleaned from our cultural environment.

[Ron Beaulieu--Are we slaves to the self-contradictory "demands" of contemporary society. Is God 's Word a slave to that circumstance? Can we not know pure truth? End Ron's Comments].

We cannot escape rebellion without divine intervention. Without the Spirit, we speak from the tower of our opinion. Shouting out half truths about God. It costs everything to escape Babylon. And if we carry the seeds of Babylon with us we will be only a "Pillar (tower?) of Salt" in the desert. But if we are willing follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth we may find the disputations about towers of truth shrinking--by comparison-- to insignificance in the Presence of the Lamb. Jesus Himself commented on straining out the gnats of doctrinal distinctions and swallowing the camel of corporate infallibility.

[Ron Beaulieu--Thanks for this qualification: "Without the Spirit, we speak from the tower of our opinion. Shouting out half truths about God." This is often the case because all the facts--all the weight of evidence has not been brought to bear on every given issue. This is a most important device for knowing that we are not in error: Notice:

"1. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible; 2. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by diligent application and study; 3. Nothing revealed in Scripture can or will be hid from those who ask in faith, not wavering; 4. To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know, then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in error; 5. Scripture must be its own expositor, [interpreter] since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom is my rule, and not the Bible." E.G. White, Second Advent Review and Herald, 11-25-34, pr. 24.

......Adventist who claim the heritage of Israel shall be treated as was Israel. They shall surely be scattered for their apostasy. But in that scattering there is hope. Hope that they can be again "the salt of the earth" (adapted from Hot Potatoes & Lukewarm Spudderings © Pilgrim's Pondering)

[Ron Beaulieu--There is no corporate hope for a church that has once known and taught the first, second and third angel's messages and the Midnight Cry, and thereafter abandoned such and in so doing takes its eyes off such. Ellen White says that it is then IMPOSSIBLE to get back on the path again. Word to the Little Flock, p. 14. This implies unpardonable sin. This was applied to churches and all who heard such in 1844. How are professing SDAs exempt today? This is a most serious and searching question.

Sincerely,

Ron Beaulieu