The "Unchurched" fallacy.

Questions and conversation about religious beliefs, Scripture, the Spirit of Prophecy, and Creation 7th Day Adventism
User avatar
X-Calibre
Posts: 9
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 5:23 pm

The "Unchurched" fallacy.

Postby X-Calibre » June 4th, 2012, 9:17 am

The CSDA teaching that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is Babylon rests upon a specific web of quotations from Ellen White, A. T. Jones and a few verses from the Bible, linked in a specific way so as to teach that the Seventh-day Adventist Church "unchurched" themselves in 1980 with the trademarking of the name "Seventh-day Adventist". The entire structure is propped up by virtue of these quotations being used together in a very similar order. However, by looking at specific quotations in context, the house of cards is revealed.

One of the major quotations used is this:

"Virtually Caiaphas was no high priest. He wore the priestly robes, but he had no vital connection with God. He was uncircumcised in heart. With the other priests he instructed the people to choose Barabbas instead of Christ. They cried out for the crucifixion of Christ and, as representatives of the Jewish nation, placed themselves under the Roman jurisdiction, which they despised, by saying, "We have no king but Caesar." When they said this, they unchurched themselves." (MS 111, 1897; in 12MR, p. 388)


On the surface, this quotation can quite easily be asserted to mean that when the Jewish leaders appealed to the arm of the state, they ceased to be God's people. However, we need to ask, "what did Ellen White mean by "unchurched"? In the very same manuscript, she says the following:

"In Christ the shadow reached its substance, the type its antitype. Well might Caiaphas rend his clothes in horror for himself and for the nation; for they were separating themselves from God, and were fast becoming a people unchurched by Jehovah. Surely the candlestick was being removed out of its place.
It was not the hand of the priest that rent from top to bottom the gorgeous veil that divided the holy from the Most Holy Place. It was the hand of God. When Christ cried out, "It is finished," the Holy Watcher that was an unseen guest at Belshazzar's feast pronounced the Jewish nation to be a nation unchurched. The same hand that traced on the wall the characters that recorded Belshazzar's doom and the end of the Babylonian kingdom, rent the veil of the Temple from top to bottom, opening a new and living way for all, high and low, rich and poor, Jew and Gentile. From henceforth people might come to God without priest or ruler." (ibid; in ibid, p. 392.1)


It is the "people" and "nation" that were being "unchurched". But notice, in the second use of "unchurched" here, she says that the Jewish nation was "unchurched" when Christ cried out "it is finished." She points out in the very context the rending of the Temple curtain separating the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place.

So which was it? Were they unchurched when they said they had no king but Caesar? or was it several hours later when Jesus said, "it is finished"? What we need to do first is ask how else she described this event, especially in connection with the 70 weeks.

"In the spring of A. D. 31, Christ the true sacrifice was offered on Calvary. Then the veil of the temple was rent in twain, showing that the sacredness and significance of the sacrificial service had departed. The time had come for the earthly sacrifice and oblation to cease." (DA, p. 233)


She states here that the "sacredness and significance of the sacrificial service had departed." Could it be that this is what she means by "unchurched"? Let's read some others:

"The seventy weeks, or 490 years, were to pertain especially to the Jews. At the expiration of this period the nation sealed its rejection of Christ by the persecution of His disciples, and the apostles turned to the Gentiles, A.D. 34." (GC, p. 410)


"The one week--seven years--ended in A.D. 34. Then by the stoning of Stephen the Jews finally sealed their rejection of the gospel; the disciples who were scattered abroad by persecution "went everywhere preaching the word" (Acts 8:4); and shortly after, Saul the persecutor was converted and became Paul the apostle to the Gentiles." (PK, p. 699)


Here she states plainly in two separate instances that it was in AD 34 that the "Jews finally sealed their rejection of the gospel..." This agrees with the Bible. So what then of the "unchurched" statements? Well, there is a peculiarity in what she says in both instances. The first one speaks of when the people said they had no king but Caesar. It doesn't say that heaven or YHWH "unchurched" the people at this point. No... It said that "they unchurched themselves". This is something they did in their own hearts. They were calling darkness light and light darkness. The real point of this was that the Jews were committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

The second statement must agree with what she says in Desire of Ages. The "unchurch[ing]" must then be the "depart[ing]" of "the sacredness and significance of the sacrificial service".

This comes around to the Biblical Principles which underlie this whole thing. The argument that probation closed for the Jews when they said, "we have no king but Caesar," contradicts the probationary period that was "cut off" for the Jews.

Dan 9:24 - Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
to finish the transgression,
and to make an end of sins,
and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
and to seal up the vision and prophecy,
and to anoint the most Holy.


Ellen White is absolutely consistent with the Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of this prophecy, ending in 34 A.D. It was at that time that the Jewish Church passed their probation. And this final act was committed all by themselves. The state did not carry out their wishes.

Coming back to what happened in the "middle" of the last "week" of this prophecy, we see that Ellen White's "unchurch[ing]" again fits with what happened in the Temple itself:

Dan 9:27 - And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:
and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease...


All this was done in anticipation of the close of Jewish probation, but it was not concurrent with it. Just as the CSDA claim of the SDA Church being judged and found wanting flies in the face of the Biblical teaching on the Day of Atonement, this claim that the declaration of "We have no king but Caesar" constituted the rejection of the Jewish Church by God undermines what should be Prophecy 101 for those with a Seventh-day Adventist background - the 70 Weeks prophecy of Daniel.

User avatar
Lucan
Posts: 104
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 12:51 pm
Contact:

Re: The "Unchurched" fallacy.

Postby Lucan » June 4th, 2012, 11:26 am

Hello,

I believe you are confused. There is no contradiction in the quotes or timeline; when Caiaphas rent his garment, they were "fast becoming a nation unchurched." When they cried "we have no king but Caesar, they unchurched themselves." Finally, when Christ cried out "It is finished", God Himself "made the pronouncement" that they were, indeed, unchurched.

1. They were becoming the thing.
2. They became the thing.
3. God pronounced that they were the thing.

As far as the seventy weeks is concerned, there is a difference between "unchurched" and "probation closed." For a brief time the Jewish church was given space to repent, but they sealed the rejection that had already taken place and closed their probation.

Regarding our teaching about the SDA denomination - which seems to be your real issue - we believe that they "unchurched" themselves by professing Caesar to be their judge and protector in acquiring a trademark (saying "we have no king but Caesar"). For a brief time the Adventist church was given space to repent, but they persisted to the point of imprisoning John Marik 7 years later (the stoning of Stephen). In this they sealed the rejection that had already taken place and closed their probation.
- Lucan Chartier

David Aguilar
Posts: 63
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 4:28 pm

Re: The "Unchurched" fallacy.

Postby David Aguilar » June 4th, 2012, 11:32 am

Hello,

Desiring to keep this brief (because that is all that is needed) I will deal specifically with your conclusion, which is the culmination of our faulty approach. You write:
All this was done in anticipation of the close of Jewish probation, but it was not concurrent with it.


This may surprise you, but we actually agree with that statement, although clearly not with the spirit in which it is made. The declaration of the king as Caesar was done in preparation of the fall of the Jewish Nation, but the actual fall began with the crucifixion and ended with the stoning of Stephen. When the SDA Church united with the United States government, this was the "preparation" for their fall, which actually took place when they submitted to actually begin persecuting Christians. The act of taking Christians to court was, to use your language "an act they committed by themselves." The state was merely the agency through which they did so, but the U.S. Courts would not even have known about, much less come against, the CSDA Church if the complaint had not been filed by the fallen Church. Nothing you have said to the least degree disputes this clear, Biblical pattern, and this is what we have been teaching since the beginning of our ministry.

User avatar
Revealer
Posts: 3
Joined: September 11th, 2012, 1:48 am

Re: The "Unchurched" fallacy.

Postby Revealer » September 11th, 2012, 2:20 am

X-Calibre wrote:The CSDA teaching that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is Babylon rests upon a specific web of quotations from Ellen White, A. T. Jones and a few verses from the Bible, linked in a specific way so as to teach that the Seventh-day Adventist Church "unchurched" themselves in 1980 with the trademarking of the name "Seventh-day Adventist". The entire structure is propped up by virtue of these quotations being used together in a very similar order. However, by looking at specific quotations in context, the house of cards is revealed.


I just want to share something for you to think about:

"Let all be careful not to make an outcry against the only people who are fulfilling the description given of the remnant people, who keep the commandments of God and have the faith in Jesus....God has a distinct people, a church on earth, second to none, but superior to all in their facilities to teach the truth, to vindicate the law of God....My brother, if you are teaching that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is Babylon, you are wrong."-TM 50,58,59 (1893), LDE 43.

"You will take the passages in the Testimonies that speak of the close of probation, of the shaking among God's people, and you will talk of coming out from this people of a purer, holier people that will arise. Now all this pleases the enemy....Should many accept the views you advance, and talk and act upon them, we would see one of the greatest fanatical excitements that has ever been witnessed among Seventh-day Adventist. This is what Satan wants."-1SM 179(1890), LDE 51.

"The Lord has not given you a message to call the Seventh-day Adventist Babylon, and to call the people of God to come out of her. All the reasons you may present cannot have weight with me on this subject, because the Lord has given me decided light that is opposed to such a message....I know that the Lord loves His church. It is not to be disorganized or broken up into independent atoms. There is not the least consistency in this; there is not the least evidence that such a thing will be."-2SM 63,68,69(1893), LDE 51.

"I tell you brethren, the Lord has an organized body through whom He will work....When anyone is drawing apart from the organized body of God's commandment-keeping people, when he begins to weigh the church in his human scales and begins to pronounce judgment against them, then you may know that God is not leading him. He is on the wrong track."-3SM 17,18 (1893), LDE 52.

http://telltheworld.forum.net.bz/t453-i ... ch-babylon

Brothers in Christ, God loves us. He is sad to see us separated. :(

btw, regards to Lucan.

User avatar
Lucan
Posts: 104
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 12:51 pm
Contact:

Re: The "Unchurched" fallacy.

Postby Lucan » September 11th, 2012, 10:33 am

Hello :)

Thank you for your post. In truth, these quotes are not new to us, and we've given them a very thorough amount of thought before entering into our work. We actually have a web page available here that shows the entire context of those statements.

You'll notice that all of them referring to calling the SDA Church Babylon were penned in a single year - 1893. They were written in response to the specific issue of the "Loud Cry" tract, which was calling the Adventist church Babylon when it was not Babylon. And she was right - in 1893, the Church was not Babylon. It was as much an error to call people out then as it would have been to have called the Jewish church fallen and come out of her in the days of Jeremiah.

But the Jewish church did eventually fall, and the Adventist church did eventually embrace the principles of Babylon so thoroughly as to have begun persecuting believers with civil power. We simply see these things as the same; just because it was not fallen then does not mean that it never can become such, and the quotes do not imply that. In fact, Mrs. White said specifically to the contrary:

"We are in danger of becoming a sister to fallen Babylon, of allowing our churches to become corrupted, and filled with every foul spirit, a cage for every unclean and hateful bird; and will we be clear unless we make decided movements to cure the existing evil?" [21MR 380]

"In the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed. She will be judged by the privileges and advantages that she has had. If her spiritual experience does not correspond to the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost, has bestowed on her, if the blessings conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her, on her will be pronounced the sentence: “Found wanting.” By the light bestowed, the opportunities given, will she be judged." [8T 247]

"The Lord Jesus will always have a chosen people to serve Him. When the Jewish people rejected Christ, the Prince of life, He took from them the kingdom of God and gave it unto the Gentiles. God will continue to work on this principle with every branch of His work. When a church proves unfaithful to the word of the Lord, whatever their position may be, however high and sacred their calling, the Lord can no longer work with them. Others are then chosen to bear important responsibilities. But if these in turn do not purify their lives from every wrong action; if they do not establish pure and holy principles in all their borders, then the Lord will grievously afflict and humble them, and, unless they repent, will remove them from their place and make them a reproach." [14MR 102]

We simply say that God is no respecter of persons; He will not excuse one Church for the same sins as others because they are "special." God most assuredly does wish to see His people united, and that is our work; calling God's people into the place He has chosen to place His name in this generation.

Thank you again for your post, and I hope we can be of further assistance. :)
- Lucan Chartier

User avatar
Revealer
Posts: 3
Joined: September 11th, 2012, 1:48 am

Re: The "Unchurched" fallacy.

Postby Revealer » September 24th, 2012, 12:08 am

I just want to share this text:

1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

User avatar
Lucan
Posts: 104
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 12:51 pm
Contact:

Re: The "Unchurched" fallacy.

Postby Lucan » September 24th, 2012, 9:34 am

Thank you for sharing. :)

Are you seeking to understand that verse, or simply sharing it? If the former, I will be happy to be of assistance.
- Lucan Chartier

User avatar
Revealer
Posts: 3
Joined: September 11th, 2012, 1:48 am

Re: The "Unchurched" fallacy.

Postby Revealer » September 26th, 2012, 8:06 pm

I am just sharing it. You came out of SDA right? I think you came out because of the people inside the church. If not, why?

Well maybe the answer was already posted here somewhere....

David Aguilar
Posts: 63
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 4:28 pm

Re: The "Unchurched" fallacy.

Postby David Aguilar » September 29th, 2012, 11:08 am

Hi Revealer,

That's a great question. Brother Luke is currently traveling, but I would be happy to reply to what you have asked. I think that your question might have been answered elsewhere on the forum, but it certainly worth addressing as often as possible, because we do not want to give others the opportunity to misunderstand or misrepresent our motivations. Of course, as you might have seen from other threads, there are some who will do just that anyway...

If you've done any reading about Seventh-day Adventism online, you'll no doubt have come across Ex-SDA websites and anti-Ellen-White websites. They are generally managed by hurt, angry people. Some cloak their personal struggles in a pretense of objective criticism, while others (more honestly, perhaps) simply rage against what they see as problems with the Church that did them wrong.

I'll tell you plainly, we find such people as unfortunate as the mainstream Church does; perhaps more. It's certainly true that most people, when they leave a Church, do so for very personal reasons. For our part, we have actually discouraged those who speak to us from doing that. Of course, we teach that Yah is calling His people out of a formerly faithful, and now fallen, religious organization. However, if their reasons for doing so are primarily personal and emotional, they seldom find peace among our membership either. Only those who follow Biblical principles will actually be comfortable within a fellowship that reveres those principles as the aspects of our Father's personality that are manifest in His people. In other words, only faithful obedience draws a believer closer to the character of Christ, and to be motivated by anything born of the flesh, even if the end-result is "good," actually becomes an obstacle to the true goal: sanctification.

We came out of the SDA Church because of the "people" in there only so far as the same can be said of the early Apostolic Church leaving Judaism due to the actions of the Sanhedrin. The leadership of the Jewish Church, on behalf of every individual member, crucified the Messiah and persecuted His followers. As a result of that, every individual member, whether they knew it or not, had become a participant it the slaying of the Heir to the Vineyard (referencing a parable in Matthew) and as such had the kingdom removed from them, unto a new people that would bring forth spiritual fruit.

It was not the "fault" of those individual members, for they had no direct part in the crucifixion; yet the Spirit said, through Peter in Acts 2, that they were considered guilty due to an accountability that they held corporately with their leaders. Those devout Jews, as the Scriptures rightly label them, understood Peter's teaching, and said, "What shall we do?" The instruction of the Spirit was for them to depart the fallen organization, and be newly-baptized into the Body of Messiah.

Now, we have a parallel here. One whom we accept as a modern-day prophet, Ellen White, has said plainly that when the courts are used by a religious organization that should be relying upon Christ for its defense and guidance, Christ is "crucified afresh," in the person of those who suffer from this union of church authority and state power. The members of the General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists, who are very much a parallel to those who once sat on the "seat of Moses," have brought lawsuits against other Bible-believing, Sabbath-keeping, Christ-awaiting Christians (i.e., Seventh-day Adventists) and some have been cast in jail, others have been uprooted from their families and friends, and so on... on behalf of, and with the financial and covenanted support of, every member of the mainstream Seventh-day Adventist Church.

History, Scripture, and inspiration tell us, beyond controversy, that Yahweh, our Father, is seeking those who have the spiritual discernment to realize that the principles of corporate accountability, and personal responsibility, have not become less relevant to the Christian within the past 2000 years. In fact, we have a much clearer picture of the Protestant spirit than the Apostles did... and we are therefore responsible for far more light.

What we, as Creation Seventh Day Adventists, seek is to educate those who are still relying upon a broken covenant for their fellowship and spiritual growth. Of course, salvation always was, and still is, an individual matter... but the sanctification necessary to overcome Satan's temptations and obstacles is a benefit of being sealed in covenant with brothers and sisters. As it is written, "He has given some... for the perfection of the saints." We are justified individually, but we are sanctified together, and we are raised to the inheritance of the saints as a pure, and blessed, nation. You have rightly said that God is sad at the separation of brethren... but He cannot condone or accept unity under a banner that is stained with the persecution of His faithful people. He desires unity, and He has given us a renewed covenant into which He may gather His last harvest.

We came out because our Father called us out. We came out because a union of Church and State is no longer a Church... it is an "image" of Papal Rome. We came out because it is not the true Church of God that makes war with the commandment-keeping believers. We came out, not for any emotional reason, but for a spiritual understanding that the organization, which was NOT Babylon during the life and ministry of Sister White, became, thereafter, "a sister to fallen Babylon, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird." As a result of this, the mighty angel described in Revelation 18 has a message for us, and for all the world, which is to be enlightened with his glory.

Do not think that we have been called out to destroy or undermine Adventism. We have come out in order to fulfill it, and to make it honorable before God and man.

Yes, the people inside the Church are the ones who set the policies in place resulting in this turn of events. But that is as far as it goes. We all greatly love those who remain within the belly of this image. We have not put up any websites explaining how "terrible" they are as people, or calling down any judgments on them as individuals. No... while we zealously testify against their actions, and the results of their actions, we would see them saved, and join hands with us in finishing the work of vindicating our Creator's name before the universe, and preparing a people to meet Him without a shadow of a stain of sin. In order to do this, we must have first obeyed the voice of our Father, as spoken through the Gospel-bearing angels of Revelation 14 and 18... and that is why we have been called, and separated, from the Corporation that was once the Seventh-day Adventist Church.


Return to “Doctrine and Theology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests