Come Out of Babylon

This is truth, and truth for our times.

Just as J.N. Andrews spoke of the marks of those who needed to come out of Babylon in His day, we need to add on a continuation to those- NOT replacing them- but ADDING to them all that is appropriate for those who need to come out of the apostatized church that is Babylon today right along with the others already spoken of.

'BELIEVING THAT THE FALL OF BABYLON IS A MORAL FALL, AND THAT IT DENOTES HER REJECTION, AS A BODY, OF GOD.'  J.N. Andrews Three Messages of Revelation 14

A moral fall.  God has a true people, a true church.  There is a false church and that is Babylon, holding false concepts and truly people need to come out of the false church if they would be a part of God's true church.

Why is the corporate SDA Church today apostate? Why do those who would be God's need to come out of the false church? Here are a few reasons… all TRUTH!

*******

THE GODHEAD STATEMENT

1872 - 1914 - 1931 - 1980

                                                                  

                                                                 

Editor's Preface

In this issue of WWN we carefully compare the major doctrinal statements which the Seventh-day Adventist Church issued from 1872 to 1980 in the area of one doctrine only; that is, the doctrine of God.

This study and comparison has been most enlightening and stimulating to the editor, and we pray that you will find it likewise challenging. There are some unanswered questions. How could the unchanged statement on God from 1872 through 1914 be written as it was, and "thought" leaders - editors, theologians and writers - during the same period express concepts concerning God which did not harmonize with the Statement?

Furthermore the concept held as to the "origin" of the pre-existent Christ by "many" changed from the belief that He was the first of the creation of God to the concept that in the remote eternity of the past He proceeded forth from the Father. Yet there is no reflection of this original concept nor the changed perception, expressed in the wording of the Statements of Belief during this period.

"Some of the earliest SDA's - for example James White and Joseph Bates - had formerly been members of the "Christian Connection," a church that at that time held to a form of the Arian belief concerning Christ's nature .... Upon becoming SDA's they retained this belief, which found expression in their writings." (SDA Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pp. 286, 287: 1976 ed.) Thus these earlier concepts cannot be considered as "pillars" of the Adventist faith, because they never ORIGINATED with Adventism such as the sanctuary teaching and the Three Angels' Messages.

Technically, it could be stated using Adventist terminology that these concepts came from "Babylon," the same as the Trinitarian teaching expressed in the Nicene Creed and made a part of the 1980 Statement.

We are hearing much about what the "Pioneers" taught. The word is misapplied. In a published booklet there are omissions which, had they been included, would have altered the deduction drawn. We would be hesitant to judge this as intentional, rather it represents a "zeal without knowledge."

THE GODHEAD STATEMENT    1872 - 1914 - 1931 - 1980

(((My interjection- From Truth to Apostasy))))

In comparing these statements certain factors must govern our thinking.

Changes made from a previous statement do not necessarily make the new statement apostate; it could be a reflection of a deeper insight into truth. However, such changes could reflect apostasy from truth.

Any given statement is not the ultimate enunciation of truth of a doctrinal position; the Holy Scriptures must remain the final word.

A Statement of Beliefs is what a group of people perceive truth to be at a given time in their corporate experience.

There is NO QUESTION but that the 1980 Statement on the subject of God is not saying the same thing that the 1872 Statement did.

Further, it will be observed that ALL statements, official and unofficial, from 1872 through 1914 did say the same thing in the same way concerning God.

This data also means that during the lifetime of Ellen G. White, the stated position of the Church not only on the doctrine of God, but in all other major areas of doctrinal thought, remained constant.

This is not saying that sincere men, devoted to the work of the Church were saying the same things on the subject of God. They were not. From Uriah Smith, theologian, prophetic writer and editor of the Review & Herald, who stated that Christ was the first of all created beings, to Dr. E. J. Waggoner, who perceived of Christ as having proceeded forth from the Father so far back "in the ages of eternity as to be far beyond the grasp of the mind of man," these men reflected beliefs NOT stated in the published statements of the Church.

In fact the authorship of the 1914 Statement is assigned to Uriah Smith. The tragedy of this present anti-Trinitarian agitation is that men are selecting from among the "pioneers" those who wrote what they want to believe, and present these "pioneer" positions as the basis for belief. The fact remains you cannot find in any Statement of Beliefs from 1872 through 1914 a position on Christ's origin which stated what either Uriah Smith or E. J. Waggoner taught.

Would it not be the point of wisdom just to take the TWO STATEMENTS defining the Godhead which DID NOT VARY in any published statement from 1872 to 1914, and read these carefully to find out what the Church said it believed at that time?

When the 1872 Statement was published in Battle Creek, the preface read that it was not being "put forth as having any authority with our people, nor is it designed to secure uniformity among them, as a system of faith, but is it brief statement of what is, and has been, with great unanimity held by them"

Two years later when James White launched the Signs of the Times, his first editorial was the 1872 Statement with the same preface note.

When the, 1914 Statement of Beliefs credited to Uriah Smith first appeared in the 1889 Year Book, it was prefaced by the assertion that "the following propositions may be taken as a summary of the principle features of [the Church's] religious faith, upon which there is, so far as is known, entire unanimity throughout the body."

It is interesting to NOTE that from the 1872 Statement, thought to be largely the work of James White, to the 1889 Statement, the work of Uriah Smith, the phrase was changed from "GREAT UNANIMITY" to "ENTIRE UNANIMITY" as far as the acceptance of the stated beliefs "throughout the body."

What did the two statements on God actually state?

Article # I reads:

That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by His representative, the Holy Spirit.

Article #2 as it states the relationship of Jesus Christ to the Godhead reads:

That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist. ...

What is NOT stated is as consequential as what IS stated.

The eternal Deity of Christ is not affirmed.

Either Christ was innately divine, the I AM, or His was a derived divinity.

The statement affirms that He was before all creation for by Him "God created all things."

Jesus is declared to be "the Son of the Eternal Father" which would infer that at some point in eternity, He was derived. It does not say, "the Eternal Son of God." The "how" is left unstated. The word, "birthed," used by the neo anti-Trinitarians is not used, neither the word, “generated."

In setting forth the Word as Lord and the Father As "one God" there was Biblical precedence (Eph. 4:5-6). However, the word, "God" and the word, "Lord" as used in the Scriptures are synonyms. The issue turns on worship.

"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4:8).

Yet, "the Lord thy God" whom Jesus referenced in this verse, commanded the angels at His birth to worship Him (Heb. 1:6).

In this 1872 Statement, the Holy Spirit is defined as the "representative" of the "one God."

The word, "representative" does not mean "force," "power," nor "influence," nor is it a synonym of any of these words. In Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, (2nd Edition) the word is defined:

1. a person or thing enough like the others in its class or kind to serve as an example or type of the class or kind.

2. a person duly authorized to act or speak for another or others; agent, delegate, deputy, etc. ...

A group of synonyms are, given:

Syn. - agent, commissioner, proxy, deputy, substitute, embodiment, personation, delegate, vicar, vicegerent, principal.

An analytical reading of the 1872 number one statement on God reveals that of the three attributes usually assigned to Deity - omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing) are ascribed to "the one God," while omnipresence ("everywhere present") is manifest in a "representative, the Holy Spirit."

Two decades later this same dichotomy would be used by Ellen White to describe the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. She wrote:

Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for [the disciples] advantage that He should leave them, go to His Father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself, divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent. (Letter 119, 1895)

Some of the "pioneers" were very specific in what they believed relative to the Holy Spirit.

For example, Uriah Smith, in answer to the question from a reader of the Review and Herald, who asked, "Are we to understand that the Holy Ghost is a person, the same as the Father and the Son?" replied:

This Spirit is the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ; the Spirit being the same whether it is spoken of as pertaining to God or Christ. But respecting this Spirit, the Bible uses expressions which cannot be harmonized with the idea that it is a person like the Father and the Son. Rather it is shown to be a divine influence from them both, the medium which represents their presence and by which they have knowledge and power through all the universe, when not personally present. (October 28, 1890, p. 664)

Here we have a CONDUNDRUM. The 1872 Statement on God declared the Holy Spirit to be "HIS REPRESENTATIVE," yet in his answer Smith uses terms - "medium" and "influence," which are neither synonyms nor definitions of the word, "representative."

Besides this, in the Statement of Beliefs which first appeared in 1889 and continued intermittently till 1914 authored byhimself, Smith retained without changes the statement on God as in the 1872 Statement.

The, conundrums do not end with Smith in 1890. This same question was basic in the controversy which developed over the book, The Living Temple, which J. H. Kellogg published in 1903. ln a letter which he wrote to George I. Butler on October 28 of that year, Kellogg plainly stated - "As far as I can fathom, the difficulty which is found in Living Temple, the whole thing may be simmered down to this question: Is the Holy Spirit a person?" Kellogg's solution, if' A. G. Daniell's interpretation of a letter sent to him the same day by Kellogg can be relied upon, was that"it was God the Holy Ghost, and not God the Father that filled all living space." (Letter from Daniells to W. C. White, October 29, 1903)

This same distinction is found in the 1872 Statement. Omnipotence and omniscience are attributed to the “one God," while omnipresence Is assigned to His "representative, the Holy Spirit."

According to Daniells, Kellogg in his letter opted for the Trinity doctrine, and used Trinitarian terminology, "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost."

Earlier in 1903 (March 16), Ellen White had written to Kellogg and cautioned him - "You are definitely NOT clear on the personality of God." (Letter 300)

Late in 1905, she would cite "spiritualistic representations" which those of the "medical fraternity" were using to define God. While condemning these representations by stating that "God cannot be compared with the things His hand have made," she emphatically wrote - "There are THREE LIVING PERSONS OF THE HEAVENLY TRIO." (Special Testimonies, Series B, #7, p. 62)

In plain English, this is what the 1872 Statement and the succeeding statements from 1889 through 1914 said about God - there is "one God," and "Lord Jesus Christ." These with the "Representative, the Holy Spirit," make a Trio and are declared to be "living persons."

It is true that the "pioneers" did not perceive of the Holy Spirit as a "person" even though they used the word "representative" to define His work in the Statement of Beliefs. Neither did they profess the eternal Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. This they declared by omission.

Does this then make the writings of these "pioneers" the basis of our faith, and what Ellen White wrote on this point, error?

Keep in mind that she used the word, "trio," not "trinity" nor "triune God." There is a difference.

What Makes a Statement Official?

As we pass to the consideration of the 1914 Statement, which in reality first appeared in 1889, the question is raised as to whether it was an official Statement of Beliefs. (We used the 1914 Statement, because it was the final year that it appeared in a Church publication, and thus the 1872 Statement and the 1914 Statements covered the lifespan of Ellen White with the Church)

There are some variations between the two statements, but on the Statements concerning God, they are identical.

As noted above the 1872 Statement was prefaced with the fact that the beliefs set forth were held "with great unanimity" by them, while the Statement first appearing in 1889 was prefaced with the assertion that there was " entire unanimity" in regard to the stated beliefs.

The litmus test for being official is now stated to be the action of the Church in general session. However, this criterion was NOT set until the 1946 General Conference session when it was voted that "no revision of this [1931] Statement of Fundamental Beliefs as it now appears in the Manual shall be made at any time except at a General Conference session." (GC Bulletin, June 14, 1946, p. 197) Because of this action, some have concluded that the only "official" doctrinal pronouncement by the Church is the 1980 Dallas Statement of Fundamental Beliefs. This conclusion CANNOT be sustained.

In December 1882, the General Conference Committee voted to publish a Yearbook. When, published it contained "the statistics of [the] denomination, the proceedings of [the] General Conference, T & M [Tract and Missionary] Society, and other associations, the financial condition of [the Church's] institutions, [the] General Conference Constitutions, and a good calendar, and full directories of all Conference and various societies throughout the country." (Quoted in the SDA Encyclopedia , Vol. 11, p. 595)

Such made the Yearbook an authoritative voice of the Church's position and standing.

In this Yearbook of 1889 was placed the Statement of Beliefs which appeared again in 1905, 1907-1914 and which were authored by Uriah Smith. It was as official as any Statement could be until a new criterion was set as in 1946. In fact the 1931 Statement was prepared for publication in the Yearbook. "It, was not until 1932 that an official Adventist Church Manual appeared issued by the General Conference."

A Change in Wording – 1931

By a request from the African Division, the General Conference Committee authorized on December 29, 1930, the preparation of a Statement of Beliefs for inclusion in the Yearbook. On the subject of the Godhead, a change was made. The new Statement read:

That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption.

That Jesus Christ is very God, being of the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father. ...

There can be no question but that the change of wording of the Statement on the doctrine of God also was a substantive change. Not only are the attributes of God - omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient - consigned to the Eternal Father, but also while the Holy Spirit is declared to be a "person" it is defined as a "power."

Jesus Christ is declared to be "very God" thus eternally co-existent with "the Eternal Father."

There is NO suggestion of "there is one God" as in both the 1872 and 1980 Statement.

Being "very God," is amplified to mean "of the same nature and essence" as God.

In this there is an echo from the Nicene Creed which states of Jesus Christ, " being of one substance [essence] with the Father." (Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 2, p. 58; the word, "essence" being a substitution for the word, "substance," in the Western text)

Was this Statement to be coconsidered an official Statement? The answer is clearly, "Yes."

It was placed in the Yearbook, and as noted above the 1946 General Conference took an action which affirmed the Statement. It read: - "No revision of this Statement of Fundamental Beliefs as it now appears in the Manual shall be made at any time except at a General Conference session. (GC Bulletin, June 14, 1946, #8, p. 197)

How was this 1931 Statement on the Godhead understood in Adventism? We know of NO specific analysis, but we do have a current illustration.

In 1979, one year prior to the adoption of the current Statements of Belief, the Southern Publishing Association released a book, Knowing God, by Dr. Edwin R. Thiele. This book was used as the basis of the Adult Sabbath School Lessons for the last quarter of 1998. The lessons reflected what Dr. Thiele had written, except for one chapter, "The .Triune God" (Third Lesson). Some editor for the Sabbath School Department of the General Conference wrote a substitute lesson differing from Thiele's presentation knowing that what Thlele had written which reflected the 1931 Statement did NOT harmonize with the current 1980 Statement.

Dr. Thiele summarized his understanding of the Godhead in the final paragraphs of the chapter on "The Triune God." He wrote:

Each member of the Trinity of Heaven is a divine personage in His own right and is worthy of our homage and petitions. ...

If any of the Three Personages of the Holy Triad were not divine, it would not be proper to recognize Him as holy or to pay homage to Him. As God is holy, so also is Christ, and likewise the Holy Spirit. All three being divine and holy, each must receive recognition for the part He plays, and to each we must accord the deference and veneration that is His due. (pp. 33, 34)

Observe that Dr. Thlele perceived the Godhead as composed of "Persons" even as we are individually persons.

It is over this point, that we can deduct from the Sabbath School Lesson "Study Guide" how the 1931 Statement about God was understood. In the third lesson was found this explanatory note:

The word persons used in the title of today's lesson must be understood in a theological sense. If we equate human personality with God, we would say that three persons means three individuals. But then we would have three Gods, or tritheism. But historic Christianity has given to the word person, when used of God, a special meaning: a personal self-distinction, which gives distinctiveness in the Persons of the Godhead without destroying the concept of oneness. (p. 24)

Thiele’s understanding of the 1931 Statement which he expressed in his book as, "Three Personages of the Holy Triad," was seen as Tritheism and not in agreement with the NiceneCredal summation - "one God, Father., Son and Holy, Spirit."

The 1980 Statement

The statement as voted at Dallas, Texas in 1980 is lengthy compared with all previous statements. Not only is there a general statement which embodies the Nicene Creed summary concept, but a paragraph is devoted to each of the "three co-eternal Persons," but “persons" used in a theological sense, as noted above.

The general statement, captioned "The Trinity,"' reads:

There is one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation.

This is a triune - three in one - concept of God, never before expressed officially in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. All previous Statement of Belief perceived of' the Godhead as individual Persons.

To what is this Statement actually confessing? ln a book prepared by the Faith and Order Commission of the WCC - Confessing the One Faith - with a subtitle, "An Ecumenical Explication of the Apostolic Faith as it is Confessed in the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed (381)," it is stated:

The Nicene Creed as a confession of faith belongs to the one, holy, CATHOLIC, apostolic Church.

In the Nicene Creed the individual joins all the baptized gathered in each and every place, now and throughout the ages, in the Church's proclamation of faith: "we believe in." The confession "we believe in" articulates not only the trust of the individuals in God's grace, but it also affirms the trust of the whole Church in God. There is a bond of communion among those who join together in making common confession of their faith. (p. 15)

The Nicene Creed begins with "We believe in" in contrast with the Apostolic Creed, "I believe in." The individual who confesses, "I believe in," then unites in fellowship with those who confess, "we believe in." This is the step the Seventh-day Adventist Church TOOK in 1980 in making the Nicene Creed a part of their Statement of Beliefs.

When the curtains are pulled on the final drama on the stage of time, there will not be much difference between "the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church" and what is now called, "the holy Roman Catholic Church."

The current "unity in diversity" theme now promoted on the basis of the Nicene Creed doctrine of the Trinity will tolerate very little "diversity." It will be "one" Church as it is declared to be "one" God.

The Nicene Creed as written into the 1980 Statement declares, "There is one God," even as the 1872 and 1914 Statements of Belief also declared. What is the difference?

Interestingly, the WCC's Faith and Order Paper (#153) just referenced above explains how three can equal one.

In discussing the second section of the Creed - "We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ" - is found this observation:

The most difficult and controversial expression in this section of the [Nicene] Creed is the homoousios - "of one being with the Father." The main point behind the use of this word was to exclude any idea that the Son was a different kind of reality from the Father, contingent and created. On the contrary, the Son, though dependent on the Father, is inseparable from the life of the Father: ... As later Church Fathers (e.g. Gregory of Nazianzus) were to put it, the word "God" means nothing other than the life which is actively shared by Father, Son and Spirit. (pp. 44-45)

On this point, the difference between all previous statements and the 1980 Statement on the subject of God is that the 1892, 1889-1914, and 1931 Statements contained this phrase describing God - "a personal, spiritual Being." The 1980 Statement OMITS this concept.

The current problem involving the neo-antiTrinitarianism being propagated today is twofold: their rejection of 1) The Eternal Deityship of the Word, and 2) The Holy Spirit as One of "the Heavenly Trio."

In the light of the above "Explication" of the Nicene Creed, to follow “the truth as it is in Jesus" one cannot be a Trinitarian.

The real answer is to find "the truth as it is in Jesus" - the emphasis being placed on "Jesus," as the God-man.

Two Suggested Statements of Belief

(Neither Trinitarian nor non-Trinitarian)

We believe in the oneness of God (Deut. 6:4) as manifest in the "counsel of peace" which was between the Two of Them (Zech. 6:13, Heb). That counsel defined the Father-Son relationship (Ps. 2:7; Heb. 1:5), and outlined the conditions incumbent upon the Son so as to provide for the redemption of man. In the outworking of that plan, the Holy Spirit was manifest to make effective, in the lives of all who believe, the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, our Lord. In the oneness of God is manifest omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. From that oneness flows to all created beings life, truth, love and grace.

We believe that Jesus Christ, who in His pre-existence was eternally and fully God (John 1:1-2), emptied Himself so as to become truly man (Phil 2:6-7). While retaining His divine Identity, He took upon Himself the fallen nature of man (Rom. 1:3), so as to condemn sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3-4), thus becoming our Example, and to die a sacrifice for the redemption of those who accept him as their Substitute. Resurrected from the dead, declared to be the Son of God with power (Rom. 1:4), He carried into highest Heaven a glorified humanity to be incorporated in Himself into the Godhead thus revealing God's purposes for the redeemed. In Christ, God and man remain eternally One.

"Pioneers"?

In the present agitation fostered by the neo-antiTrinitarians in the community of Adventism, much is being made of what the "pioneers" taught on the subject. I have before me a booklet which contains "Quotes from Adventist Pioneers concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity" with the question asked - "Did They Believe in the Trinity?"

By definition a "pioneer" is "a person or group that originates or helps open a new line of thought" (Websters Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary).

In reading the material compiled from various Adventist writers in the early decades of the Movement, I fail to find any "new line of thought."

It is all anti-Trinitarian in emphasis, the religious thinking they brought with them into the Advent Movement. If the compilation had been on the sanctuary doctrine, a true pillar of our faith, then the term "pioneers" would have been appropriate. As it stands in the usage by the author of the booklet, it is deceptive.

Actually, the booklet is an attempt to justify the position held by these neo-antiTrnitarians so as to make it appear that they are in harmony with the earliest leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on the doctrine of the Godhead. This compilation has glossed over certain positions, held by some of these "pioneers" by omission. One leading voice in early Adventism was Uriah Smith. He taught in the first edition of Thoughts on Revelation, in commenting on 3:14, that the pre-existent Christ was "the first created being" (p. 59). This is not found in the booklet. Why? If this "pioneer" view were accepted, it would classify the neo-antiTrinitarians as Arians.

The booklet does quote James White as writing in 1852 of "the old trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal God" (p. 5, col. 1).

Yet in 1876, in writing of the differences between Seventh-day Baptists and the Seventh-day Adventists, White would state that "S. D. Adventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the Trinitarians that we apprehend no trial [problem] here" (R&H Oct. 12, p. 116). This was omitted from the compilation. What is observable in the booklet is the change in thinking on the part of Uriah Smith who was not alone in holding that Christ was "the first created being." This belief was held by "many" early Adventists. One finds E. J. Waggoner openly challenging this teaching. He wrote of "an opinion that is honestly held by many ... who through this opinion do actually deny [Christ's] divinity. It is the idea that Christ is a created being." (See p. 28, col. 2) Waggoner gives his view:

There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father, but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning. (p. 29, col. 1)

By 1898, Uriah Smith had come around to the same view. See Booklet, p. 15, col. 2. This was practically a complete turn around from his original belief along with "many" others of the early Adventists.

Thus by omissions, an important point is missed. The church's earliest "thought" leaders changed from their first position, to that adopted by the second generation of thinkers. (E. J. Waggoner was a second generation Adventist minister, his father being, J. H. Waggoner) Because of this change in position, White could justifiably write that "S.D. Adventists hold (the position on) the divinity of Christ" nearly with the Trinitarians.

The fact remains that so long as Christ is presumed as "begotten" at some point in the eternity of the past, just so long will the concept of God held by the neo-antiTrinitarians reflect the Nicene Creed. The Creed reads "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of God before all worlds ... begotten, not made." This is exactly the step from Smith's first position, to E. J. Waggoner's formulation.

The simple conclusion to be drawn is that the booklet does not give an accurate picture of what took place from the beginnings of Adventism to 1900. It is deceptive by omission and by an incorrect association of the data, the work of a novice.

One segment of the neo-antiTrinitarians appear to have latched on to the statements of A. T. Jones and W. W. Prescott, and proclaim that they have "new light." These declare that prior to Bethlehem, sometime in the remote past, Christ was "birthed," even as Abraham begat Isaac, which infers the involvement of a direct divine action. Jones had written that Jesus "came from heaven, God's first-born, to the earth and was born again." (Pioneers, op. cit., p. 6, col. 2) Prescott had worded the same thought a bit differently: "As Christ was twice born, once in eternity, the only begotten of the Father, and again here in the flesh ... " (ibid., p, 2, col. 2).

It would be much simpler just to accept the prologue of the Gospel of John (1:1-2, 14), and seek to understand the effect that the Word becoming flesh had on the Godhead. The Godhead paid a price for man's redemption that the human mind can but vaguely perceive.

One could then understand why Ellen G. White was inspired to write - "the Heavenly Trio." Add to this the "second Adam" motif for the enlightened heavenly viewpoint as to why the designation, "Son of God" was given to the Lord Jesus Christ and you will see why Gabriel told the truth when He said that the One born to Mary "shall be called the Son of God."

http://www.adventistlaymen.com/WWN%20Text%20Versions/wwn9(99).htm 

*******

Apostasy-

'Apostasy ('a defection or revolt') is the formal disaffiliation from or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person. One who commits apostasy (or who apostatises) is known as an apostate. The term apostasy is used by sociologists to mean renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person's former religion, in a technical sense and without pejorative connotation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy'

The SDA church in 1980 abandoned the TRUTH by accepting the Catholic inspired creed!

They also did the following--

"An Adventist leader placed the Seventh-day Adventist Church in symbolism into the hands of the Pope. It didn't happen overnight. But it did happen! On May 18, 1977, Dr. B. B. Beach, then Secretary of the Northern Europe-West Africa Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, along with other representatives of the religious bodies which form the Conference of Secretaries of the World Confessional Families (Churches), had an audience with Pope Paul VI. The Pope welcomed these men as "representatives of a considerable portion of Christian people" and sent through them the greetings of the Papacy to their "confessional families." (See RNS, May 19, 1977, Appendix A) Elder W. Duncan Eva, then a General Conference vice president, reported that during the audience, Dr. Beach presented the Pope with a medallion which was "a gold-covered symbol of the Seventh-day Adventist Church." (Review & Herald, August 11, 1977, p. 23; see Appendix B)"

Go here-

http://www.adventistalert.com/steps/steps.htm

And READ it all! These are facts, this is truth, this is history!

The SDA church wants to deceive everyone because they've deceived themselves! They were called to repentance and they decided to remain blind instead!

Please, pray and read God's word, find His truth and ONLY His truth. Man has toyed with God's truth and made subtle lies turning what was supposed to be His people into apostates.   We can't hold fast to something we like when we are face to face with the truth that it has gone bad! Bite into the most beautiful apple only to discover it's rotten from the inside and you spit it out, you don't patch it up and try to just enjoy the way it looks on the outside. Are you disheartened over what you thought would be a magnificent apple through and through? Yes. But you throw it away! You don't keep it!  We cannot keep aligned with a false church, a Babylon, that has gone astray, to do so means losing out on the truth of God, losing out on eternity with HIM, our SAVIOR.

Please, LORD, help us to know the truth! Help us to realize the state of the corporate SDA church and its apostasy before it's too late. Help us to be YOURS, solely and wholly YOURS and no others!

In YOUR love! Only YOUR love!

The Fall of Babylon - A Moral Fall

Do you want to hear the truth?

The three angel's messages have much applicable truth for us.

This next IN-DEPTH study is on Babylon and its fall.  How it is applicable to us today will be discussed after you read this chapter.

Please pray for enlightenment. I pray for it constantly. I need wisdom and understanding. I do not want to be blind, I do not want to call evil good, or good evil. I want TRUTH, and yes, nothing but the TRUTH all by the grace of God.  I hope this is your desire too. I hope if you've read this far you'll want to read further.

I'm not trying to entertain you in any way. I'm hoping and praying these studies can open the eyes of those who were before reading all this, blind. I hoping our Savior's love shines through and into the hearts and minds of all who would know the SAVIOR'S truth!  This is the Savior's truth. The ENTIRE Bible is the Savior's truth! 

Please ask for the Holy Spirit's guidance as we continue to feast on the Word of our Savior!

*******

Chapter Four - The Fall of Babylon

The Fall of Babylon not the Burning of Rome

The Fall of Babylon not the Loss of her Civil Power

It is a Moral Fall

The Wine of Babylon

The Churches tested by the First Proclamation

Connection of the First and Second Messages

Testimonies relative to the Fallen

State of the Churches

Recent Revivals

Spiritualism as a Confirmation of the Views here Presented

Destruction of Babylon

Duty of God's People

Failure of Reformation

WHAT constitutes the fall of Babylon? Those who contend that the Babylon of Revelation isthe city of Rome, answer that the fall of Babylon is the burning of Rome; while those whomake Babylon a symbol of the Church of Rome only, answer that this fall is the loss of hercivil power, -the fall of the woman from the beast. We dissent from both these positions,BELIEVING THAT THE FALL OF BABYLON IS A MORAL FALL, AND THAT IT DENOTES HER REJECTION, AS A BODY, OF GOD.  That the fall of Babylon is not the burning of Rome, appears from the following facts:-

1. The cry, "Come out of her, my people, " is made after the announcement that she has fallen.Rev. 18:2, 4. It is therefore evident that Babylon EXISTS AFTER HER FALL, and that the people of God are still in her midst; therefore HER FALL MUST BE DISTINCT FROM HER DESTRUCTION .

2. When it is said, "Come out of her, my people, " it is added as a reason, "that ye be notpartakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. " Her fall had taken place; but she still existed to sin against God, and her plagues were yet FUTURE; therefore her fall and her destruction were events entirely distinct.

3. When her plagues are named in verse 8, they are said to be death, mourning, and famine,and utter destruction by fire. Her plagues were yet future at the time of her fall; consequently her fall is not her destruction by fire. BETWEEN THOSE TWO EVENTS THE PEOPLE OF GOD MAKE THEIR ESCAPE FROM HER.

4. The burning of Rome would not cause that city to become the hold of foul spirits and thecage of every unclean and hateful bird. Indeed, the only effectual cleansing that wicked citywill ever receive will be by fire. These facts clearly evince that the fall of Babylon is NOT theburning of Rome.

Besides this, we have clearly proved that Rome is not the Babylon of the Apocalypse, whichis sufficient of itself on this point.

That the fall of Babylon is not the loss of civil power by the Papal Church, the following factsclearly prove:-

1. This would make the angel say, Babylon is fallen, that is, has lost her civil power, becauseshe made all nations drink of her wine. Such a statement would be false; for it was by thisvery means that she obtained her power.

2. Babylon becomes the hold of every foul spirit and the cage of every unclean and hatefulbird in consequence of her fall. Rev. 18:1, 2. It would be absurd to represent this as theconsequence of her loss of civil power.

3. The loss of civil power is not the fall of Babylon, for this would not make her more sinfulthan before, nor would such a fall as this furnish a reason why the people of God should leave her.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE FALL OF BABYLONG IS HER REJECTION BY GOD, THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT LEAVES HER IN CONSEQUENCE OF HER ALIENATION FROM GOD AND HER UNION WITH THE WORLD, AND THAT THUS SHE IS LEFT TO THE SPIRITS OF DEVILS. As an illustration, we will refer to the fall of the Jewish Church, the harlot of Eze. 16. This fall is distinctly stated in Rom. 11. Its particulars may be gathered from Matt. 21:43; 23; 12:43-45.

(((Mat 21:43  Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Mat 12:43  When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Mat 12:44  Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Mat 12:45  Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.))))

That her fall was her rejection by God, her destruction being deferred for a considerableperiod, the following facts prove:-

1. The nature of the reasons assigned for the fall of Babylon proves that it is a MORAL FALL; for it is because she has made the nations drunk with her wine. In other words, it is her wickedness that has caused God to reject her. 

2. The consequences of her fall testify that that fall is her rejection by God, and not her destruction; for her  FALL causes her to become the hold of foul spirits, and the cage of unclean and hateful birds. This shows that God has given her up to STRONG DELUSIONS. It is for this reason that the voice from heaven cries, "Come out of her, my people. The cause of the fall of Babylon is thus stated: "She made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. "  Her FORNICATION WAS HER UNLAWFUL UNION WITH THE KINGS OF THE EARTH; and the wine is that with which the church has intoxicated the nations of the earth. There is but one thing that this can refer to; viz. , FALSE DOCTRINE . This harlot, in consequence of her unlawful union with the powers of the earth, has corrupted the pure truths of the Bible, and with the wine of her false doctrine has intoxicated the nations. A few instances of her corruption of the truths of the Bible must suffice:-

(((THE FOLLOWING  ARE ALL LIES TOLD TO DECEIVE AND THEY MOST ASSUREDLY HAVE DONE JUST THAT!))))

1. The doctrine of a thousand years of peace and prosperity before the coming of the Lord.This doctrine will probably prove the ruin of as many souls as any heresy that ever cursed thechurch.  (((So many believe this today!))))

2. The corruption of the ordinance of baptism. Burial in baptism is the divinely authorizedmemorial of our Lord's burial and resurrection. This has been changed to sprinkling, orpouring, the fitting memorial of but one thing; viz. , the folly and presumption of man. (((And this is wide spread accepted.))))

3. The change of the fourth commandment. The pagan festival of Sunday has been substituted by the church for the rest-day of the Lord. The Bible plainly teaches that the sanctified restday of the Lord is the divinely authorized memorial of the rest of Jehovah from the work of creation. But the church has changed this to the first day of the week, to make it a memorial of our Lord's resurrection, in the place of baptism, which has been changed to sprinkling. (((People everywhere are caught up in this lie it's been spun so well by the Papacy and accepted by Protestants everywhere without question!))))

4. The doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul. This was derived from the paganmythology, and was introduced into the church by means of distinguished converts frompaganism, who became "fathers of the church. " This doctrine makes man's last foe - death -the gate to endless joy, and leaves the resurrection as a thing of minor importance. It is thefoundation of modern Spiritualism. (((You can scarcely find ANYONE who doesn't believe in this!))))

5. The doctrine of the saints' inheritance beyond the bounds of time and space. For this fable,multitudes have turned from the scriptural view of the everlasting kingdom in the new earth.

6. The spiritual second advent. It is well known that the great majority of religious teachersand commentators of the present time openly advocate the view that Christ's second advent,as brought to view in Matt. 24, took place at the destruction of Jerusalem; and also that hecomes the second time whenever any person dies.

7. Until the time when slavery was forcibly abolished, the institution was upheld in the mostconfident manner from the Old and New Testaments, by some of the leading doctors ofdivinity of most denominations; and some of the most distinguished and skillful even tried tofind authority for it in the golden rule.

8. Finally, the lowering of the standard of godliness to the dust. This has been carried so farthat the multitudes are made to believe that "every one that saith, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. " In proof of this, I might appeal to almost every tombstone or funeral discourse.   (((So  many believe this lie! And so many will be shocked when our Savior tells them to get away that He never knew them.)))) 

God appointed the church to be the light of the world, and at the same time ordained that his word should be the light of the church. But when the church becomes unfaithful to her trust, and corrupts the pure doctrines of the gospel, as a natural consequence the world becomes intoxicated with her false doctrine. That the nations of the earth are in such a condition at the present time, is too obvious to be denied. The world is intoxicated in the pursuit of riches and honor, but the sin lies at the door of the church; for the church sanctions what the Lord strictly forbade, and she sets the example to the world. If the church had not intoxicated the world with the wine of her false doctrines, the plain truths of the Bible would powerfully move the public mind. But the world seems hopelessly drunken with the wine of Babylon.

At the time of the First Angel's Message, the people of God were in Babylon; or theannouncement of the fall of Babylon, and the cry, "Come out of her, my people, " is madeafter the first proclamation has been heard. Here also we have a most decisive testimony that Babylon includes Protestant as well as Catholic churches.

It is certain that the people of God, at the time of the preaching of the hour of his Judgment,were in all the popular churches; and this fact is a most striking testimony as to whatconstitutes the great city of confusion. In a word, Paul has well described the Babylon of theApocalypse, and the duty of the people of God with reference to it, in 2 Tim. 3:1-5: 

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come; for men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof; from such turn away. " 

Who would dare to limit this description to the Catholic Church?

The preaching of the hour of God's Judgment and the immediate coming of the Lord, was atonce the test of the church, and the means by which she might have been healed. It was thetest of the church in that it showed that her heart was with the world, and not with her Lord;for when the evidences of his immediate advent were set before her, she rejected the tidingswith scorn, and cleaved still closer unto the world. But it might have been the means ofhealing her. Had she received it, what a work would it have wrought for her? Her unscriptural hope of a temporal reign, her false view of the second advent, her unrighteous justification of oppression and wickedness, her pride and conformity to the world, would all have been swept away. Alas! that this warning from Heaven was rejected! The last means that Heaven had in store to heal Babylon having failed, God gave her up to her heart's desires.

It is well known that in immediate connection with the proclamation of the hour of God'sJudgment, the announcement of the fall of Babylon was everywhere made throughout ourland. Its connection with the advent message is well expressed by the following from ElderHimes, dated McConnellsville, O. , Aug. 29, 1844:-

" When we commenced the work of giving the `midnight cry' with Bro. Miller, in 1840, hehad been lecturing nine years. During that time he stood almost alone. But his labors had been incessant and effectual in awakening professors of religion to the true hope of God's people, and the necessary preparation for the advent of the Lord, as also the awakening of all classes of the unconverted to a sense of their lost condition, and the duty of immediate repentance and conversion to God as a preparation to meet the Bridegroom in peace at his coming. These were the great objects of his labor. He made no attempt to convert men to a sect or party, in religion. Hence he labored among all parties and sects without interfering with their organization or discipline, believing that the members of the different communions could retain their standing, and at the same time prepare for the advent of their King and labor for the salvation of men in these relations until the consummation of their hope.  When we were persuaded of the truth of the proclamation that the advent was at hand, and embraced the doctrine publicly, we entertained the same views and pursued the same course among the different sects, where we were called in the providence of God to labor. We told the ministers and churches that it was no part of our business to break them up, or to divide and distract them. 

We had one distinct object, and that was to give the `cry, ' the warning of the `Judgment at the door, ' and to persuade our fellow-men to get ready for the event. Most of the ministers and churches that opened their doors to us and our brethren who were proclaiming the advent doctrine, co-operated with us till the last year. The ministry and membership who availed themselves of our labors, but had not sincerely embraced the doctrine, saw that they must either go with the doctrine, and preach and maintain it, or in the crisis which was right upon them, they would have difficulty with the decided and determined believers.

They therefore decided against the doctrine, and determined, some by one policy and some by another, to suppress the subject. This placed our brethren and sisters among them in a most trying position. Most of them loved their churches, and could not think of leaving. But when they were ridiculed, oppressed, and in various ways cut off from their former privileges and enjoyment, and when the `meat in due season' was withheld from them, and the siren song of `peace and safety' was resounded in their ears from Sabbath to Sabbath, they were soon weaned from their party predilections, and arose in the majesty of their strength, shook off the yoke, and raised the cry, `Come out of her, my people!' This state of things placed us in a trying position.

1. Because we were near the end of our prophetic time in which we expected the Lord wouldgather all his people in one; and 2. We had always preached a different doctrine, and now that the circumstances had changed, it would be regarded as dishonest in us if we should unite in the cry of separation and breaking up of churches that had received us and our message. We therefore hesitated, and continued to act on our first position until the church and ministry carried the matter so far that we were obliged, in the fear of God, to take a position in defense of the truth and the down-trodden children of God. “(Adventist Review 1844)

The testimonies of the churches in 1844, relative to their fallen condition, are worthy ofparticular notice. The Christian Palladium for May 5, 1844, speaks in the following mournful strain: "In every direction we hear the dolorous sound, wafting upon every breeze of heaven, chilling as the blasts from the icebergs of the north, settling like an incubus on the breasts of the timid, and drinking up the energies of the weak, - that lukewarmness, division, anarchy, and desolation are distressing the borders of Zion. "

The Religious Telescope of 1844 uses the following language: "We have never witnessedsuch a general declension of religion as at the present. Truly, the church should awake, andsearch into the cause of this affliction; for as an affliction every one who loves Zion mustview it. When we call to mind how `few and far between' cases of true conversion are, and the almost unparalleled impenitence and hardness of sinners, we almost involuntarily exclaim, `Has God forgotten to be gracious? or is the door of mercy closed?' "

About that time, proclamations of fasts and seasons of prayer for the return of the Holy Spiritwere sent out in the religious papers. Even the Philadelphia Sun, of Nov. 11, 1844, has thefollowing: "The undersigned ministers and members of various denominations in Philadelphia and vicinity, solemnly believing that the present signs of the times - the spiritual dearth in our churches generally, and the extreme evils in the world around us - seem to call loudly on all Christians for a special season of prayer, do therefore hereby agree, by divine permission, to  unite in a week of special prayer to Almighty God, for the outpouring of his Holy Spirit on our city, our country, and the world. "

Prof. Finney, editor of the Oberlin Evangelist, Feb. 1844, says: "We have had the facts beforeour minds that, in general, the Protestant churches of our country, as such, were eitherapathetic or hostile to nearly all the moral reforms of the age. There are partial exceptions, yet not enough to render the fact otherwise than general. We have also another corroborated fact: the almost universal absence of revival influence in the churches. The spiritual apathy is almost all-pervading, and is fearfully deep; so the religious press of the whole land testifies. Very extensively, church members are becoming devotees of fashion - joining hands with the ungodly in parties of pleasure, in dancing, in festivities, etc.But we need not expand this painful subject. Suffice it that the evidence thickens and rollsheavily upon us, to show that the churches generally are becoming sadly degenerate. Theyhave gone very far from the Lord, and he has withdrawn himself from them. "

It may be said that our views of the moral fall and spiritual dearth of the churches are shownto be incorrect by the great revivals of 1858. Of the fruit of these revivals let the leadingCongregational and Baptist papers of Boston bear testimony. 

Says the Congregationalist for Nov. , 1858: "The revival piety of our churches is not such thatone can confidently infer, from its mere existence, its legitimate, practical fruits. It ought, forexample, to be as certain, after such a shower of grace, that the treasuries of our benevolentsocieties would be filled, as it is after a plentiful rain that the streams will swell in theirchannels. But the managers of our societies are bewailing the feebleness of the sympathy and aid of the churches.

"There is another and sadder illustration of the same general truth. The Watchman andReflector recently stated that there had never been, among the Baptists, so lamentable aspread of church dissension as prevails at present. And the sad fact is mentioned that this sininfects the very churches 38 which shared most largely in the late revival. And the still moremelancholy fact is added, that these alienations date back their origin, in most cases, to thevery midst of that scene of awakening. Even a glance at the weekly journals of our owndenomination will evince that the evil is by no means confined to the Baptists. Our owncolumns have, perhaps, never borne so humiliating a record of contentions and ecclesiasticallitigations as during the last few months. "

A Presbyterian pastor, of Belfast, Ireland (1858), uses the following language respecting therecent revivals in this country: "The determination to crush all ministers who say a wordagainst their national sin [slavery], the determination to suffocate and suppress the plainteachings of Scripture, can be persisted in and carried out at the very time these New YorkChristians are expecting the religious world to hail their revivals. Until the wretchedlydegraded churches of America do the work of God in their own land, they have no spiritualvitality to communicate to others; their revivals are in the religious world what their flauntedcries of liberty, intermingled with the groans of the slave, are in the political. "(N.Y.Independent Dec. 1859)

During the time of the great Irish revival of 1859, the General Assembly of the PresbyterianChurch of Ireland held its session in Belfast. Says the Belfast News-Letter, of Sept. 30: "Herein this venerable body of ministers and elders, we find two ministers openly giving each otherthe lie, and the whole General Assembly turned into a scene of confusion bordering upon ariot. "

These sad facts need no comment. In Ireland the ministers of the gospel are unable to meet in General Assembly without a riot among themselves; in America, prayers for the enslavedwere not allowed in the revival meetings. No wonder that fruit of genuine piety is difficult tobe found. 

How unlike what God designed that his people should be, has this great city become! Thechurch of Christ was to be the light of the world, a city set upon a hill, which could not be hid.Matt. 5:14-17. But instead of this, his professed people have united with the world, and joined in affinity with it. THIS UNLAWFUL UNION OF THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD (JAMES 4:4 ) HAS RESULTED IN HER REJECTION BY GOD; FOR HOW CAN THE GOD OF TRUTH AND HOLINESS RECOGNIZE AS HIS PEOPLE THOSE WHO, IN ADDITINO TO THEIR DEPARTURE FROM THEIR LORD, HAVE REJECTED WITH SCORN THE TIDINGS OF HIS SPEEDY COMING?

In Rev. 18 the message announcing the fall of Babylon is presented again, with additions,showing, as we understand, that there is in the future a mighty movement to take place on this subject. We have no doubt that God has many dear saints united with the various bodies of professed Christians. Those, we believe, will yet hear the call given in Rev. 18:4. There is,however, one important fact which demonstrates that it was the providence of God whichcaused the proclamation of the first and second angels' messages within a few years past. Rev. 14:6-8.

Chap. 18, in presenting again the message respecting the fall of Babylon, informs us that shehas become the hold of foul spirits, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. As ademonstration that we are correct in regard to the application of Rev. 14, let the presentmovement respecting the spirits of the dead answer. An innumerable host of demons arespreading themselves over the whole country, flooding the churches and religious bodies ofthe land to a very great extent. The immortality of the soul, a doctrine which is held by almost every church in the world, is the basis and foundation of all their work. This extraordinary movement clearly evinces the rapid approach of the hour of temptation that shall come on all the world, to try them that dwell on the earth.

It is an interesting fact that the judgment on the great harlot, which is so fully described inRev. 18, is shown to John by one of the seven angels having the seven vials filled with thewrath of God. Rev. 17:1. From chap. 16:17-21, we learn that the judgment on the harlotBabylon is inflicted by the angel having the seventh vial. Hence we may justly conclude thatthe angel who shows John the judgment of Babylon, is that one of the seven who has herjudgment to inflict; in other words, it is the angel who has the seventh vial. It is agreed on allhands that the seventh angel of Rev. 16 is yet future. It follows, therefore, that Rev. 18, which describes the judgment on Babylon and gives the call to come out of her, belongs to the future. It is manifest that Babylon is rapidly becoming the hold of foul spirits, and of unclean and hateful birds. The call to come out of her is made while her plagues are immediately impending.

The destruction of Babylon, as described in Rev. 18, takes place under the seventh vial; for itis under that vial that she comes in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of thewine of the fierceness of his wrath. Rev. 16:17-21. The people of God are called out of herjust before the seven last plagues are poured out. Those plagues are future, as we shallhereafter prove. Hence it is certain that Rev. 18 cannot be applied to the events of thesixteenth century. It is manifest that the destruction of Babylon begins before the great battle takes place; for the kings are spared to witness her destruction (Rev. 18); but in the great battle they are all destroyed. Rev. 19. While the saints eat the marriage supper, they behold the smoke of her burning; and in response to the call of Rev. 18:20, they rejoice over her. Rev. 19:1-9.

Babylon is to be thrown down with violence, as a millstone is cast into the great deep, and she is to be utterly burned with fire. If this utter destruction were her "fall", there would be no need of the second angel's proclamation to announce the fact; for her destruction is to bewitnessed by the kings and merchants, and by every ship-master, and by all the company inships, and by sailors, and by as many as trade by sea. This is conclusive proof that the fall anddestruction of Babylon are not the same, and that Babylon itself is not a literal city; for itsdestruction causes results that the destruction of no city on the globe could cause. It is evident from what has been said, that the destruction of Babylon takes place in immediate connection with the second advent. This fact is of itself a sufficient refutation of the view that locates the call, "Come out of her, my people, " in the future age; for Babylon is destroyed at the very commencement of that age.

The duty of the people of God is plainly expressed, "Come out of her, my people, that ye benot partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. " Her sins have reached untoheaven, and God has remembered her iniquities; she has united herself to the kings of earth,and confided in the arm of flesh, and not in Jehovah.

For the sake of this protection, she has smoothed down the terrible threatening's of God's word against sin, and has thrown the mantle of religion over some of the basest of human crimes. As an instance, we will cite the Fugitive Slave Law, which during its existence had thesanction of many of the leading doctors of divinity. Pride, love of the world, and departurefrom God too plainly identify the Babylon of the Apocalypse with St. Paul's description of thepopular church of the last days. 2 Tim. 3:1-5. "From such, " says the apostle, "turn away. " Ifwe would not partake of her sins, and thus share in the plagues that are about to be poured out upon her, we must heed the voice from heaven, "Come out of her, my people. "

The moral fall of the Protestant churches in general brings us to the point where we are able to say, in the language of the Second Angel's Message, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that greatcity. "

This was not true of all Babylon before this moral fall had been witnessed, and consequentlythe second message would not have been appropriate if it had been preached before 1844.Only two divisions of Babylon had fallen before this time. The Bible presents a testimony ofthe most solemn character concerning Babylon. It must be the duty of God's servants to givethis testimony at the proper time, even as God has given it in his word. This testimonycomes from God, and is not dependent upon the will of man, and therefore no person shouldbe offended when it is presented. If that which is said of Babylon is true of a particulardenomination, then that people should receive the light with gratitude, and bring forth thefruits of repentance.

But if any church is found to whom this testimony is not applicable, let them be grateful thatthey do not belong to this great city, and let them not complain that this most solemn message is preached for the benefit of the vast numbers for whom it is appropriate. The servants of God are called to announce the principles of truth with faithfulness, and each one must apply them in his own case according to truth in the fear of God. 

Now, lest any should deny that the Greek and the Protestant churches are included inBabylon, we invite attention to the following facts: It is evident, from the terms of thisprophecy, that Babylon is composed of people who profess to be Christians. It is also evidentthat a great part of the true people of God are found in Babylon, even in the last days. ButBabylon is a harlot because of her unlawful union with the kings of the earth; and as the result of this union she has corrupted the truth of God. Now we will prove that the Greek Church is one of the three grand divisions of Babylon. The Catholic Church became a harlot at an epoch at least as early as the time of Constantine. History records the acts of no other civil ruler who has wrought so great changes in the church as did Constantine. He gave a new form of government to the church, having for his model the government of the empire. He created offices in the church unknown to the New Testament, and he corrupted the doctrines and practices of the church. In his time the Greek Church and the Roman Church formed together the one so-called Catholic Church.

This great church continued to corrupt itself more and more from century to century. Itshistory is full of examples of unlawful union with the kings of the earth. But in the eleventhcentury, as the result of the long quarrel between the bishop of Rome and the bishop ofConstantinople concerning the supremacy, the Catholic Church was divided into two churches, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Greek Catholic Church. After this separation,the Greek Catholic Church continued to be what the general Catholic Church had been before the division. The separation did not cause the Greek Church to renounce a single error of the great Catholic Church, nor to cease her unlawful connection with the kings of the earth. If the Catholic Church was Babylon before it was thus divided, then the Greek Church was, before that separation from Rome, a very considerable part of the great city of Babylon. The principal difference between the Roman Church and the Greek Church since the separation is, that the Greek Church has simply retained the errors held by all in common before the separation, without making much addition to those errors, and without taking a very active part in persecuting others; while the Roman Church has added several other errors to her system of doctrine, particularly such as have respect to the power of the pope, and she has been very active in persecuting those who have not submitted to her authority. The Greek Church is less guilty than the church of Rome; but to deny that she forms an important division of Babylon, would be to deny that Babylon existed before the great schism of the eleventh century.

Five hundred years after the separation of the Greek and Roman churches bring us to theReformation of the sixteenth century, which separated several great nations from thecommunion of the church of Rome. This is the second grand separation from Rome. Sincethat time, the religious world has existed in three grand divisions, the Greek Catholics, theRoman Catholics, and the Protestants. The separation of the Greeks from Rome was notcharacterized by a reformation; it is therefore certain that the Greeks continued to be a part of Babylon. But the separation of the Protestants from Rome was characterized by therenunciation of several great errors. It is therefore worthy of our attention to determinecarefully whether the Protestants made such a reform as would cause them to cease to be apart of Babylon. They rejected the authority of the pope and of the church of Rome; theyappealed to the Bible as the supreme rule of faith; they exposed many errors and sins of thechurch of Rome; and they taught justification by faith.

But to leave Babylon it is not enough to separate from the communion of those who sustainher errors. It is necessary to renounce these errors by receiving the truth of God, and it isnecessary, also, to renounce the sins of Babylon by true repentance. If the Protestants returned to the purity and simplicity of the New Testament, then they ceased to be a part of Babylon; but if they retained a considerable number of the essential errors and sins of Babylon, and contented themselves to preserve their part of the old city, after a partial purification, instead of building anew after the divine model, then they have never ceased to be a part of Babylon.

The churches of the New Testament were composed of those only who repented of their sins, believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and were buried with him in baptism. But the churches which compose the Romish apostasy are organized on a plan essentially different from that of the apostles. By means of infant baptism,  the entire population is brought into the church; the church and the world are no longer distinct, and the church becomes an assembly of unconverted men. This confusion of the world and the church is one of the essential errors which made a Babylon of the Catholic church.

Now it is a painful fact that the reformers did not see it necessary to commence at thefoundation, and form churches of converted persons only; on the contrary, they positivelyrefused to do this, but their first churches were simply Romish churches which had acceptedthe doctrines of the Reformation, but which were composed of persons admitted by infantbaptism, the larger part of whom were unacquainted with Christian experience; and thechurches afterward raised up by them were of a similar character, because formed on the same model.

Now we offer a second decisive proof that the Reformation was not sufficiently complete todeliver the Protestants from Babylon. The unlawful union of Church and State is the naturalconsequence of the prevalence of infant baptism; for that human ordinance made the termschurch and world two names for one thing. This shows how appropriate is the term Babylonas the name for this city of confusion. But Babylon is called a prostitute because of herunlawful union with the kings of the earth. This criminal union is seen when by their royalauthority they exercise their influence informing the doctrines of the church, in giving form to the service and worship of God, and in creating offices in the church, and filling them withtheir favorites; and when the church not only accepts all this, but even sanctions the criminalpractices of kings, so that she may profit by their revenues, and that she may use this power to persecute those who do not accept her dogmas. 

Was it true that the reformers separated Church and State in Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Scotland and England? Did they imitate the apostles in organizing churches without the participation of the civil power? - By no means. In all these countries the civil power has exercised a strong influence in the formation of the confessions of faith, and in deciding what should be the character and manner of the worship, in creating church offices and in selecting the persons to fill those offices, and even in determining who should be the ministers of the word of God. These things are carried so far in England that the king or queen is recognized as the head of the church. This unlawful union of Church and State made Babylon a prostitute, and the reformers did not dissolve this union, but perpetuated it. 

The ordinances of the church have been corrupted in Babylon. To leave Babylon it isnecessary to turn from these corruptions, and to receive the pure ordinances of the NewTestament church. Did the reformers see the necessity of doing this? - They did not. Theywere satisfied with the baptism they had received in their infancy from the Catholic priests,and they perpetuated this corruption of the ordinance of baptism in the Protestant churches.They served in the work of the Christian ministry by virtue of their ordination as Catholicpriests, and they never considered it important to be set apart to the holy ministry byconverted men. They were satisfied with that which they had received from Rome. Even the bishops and archbishops of the ancient Catholic Church of England have been perpetuated in the Church of England and in the Episcopal Church of America, and these churches pretend to be the Catholic Church, or rather, grand divisions of that church, because they can trace their bishops back to the apostles through the long line of popes. These things show that the Reformation formed the third grand division of Babylon, instead of establishing a church upon the model of the ancient apostolic church. This third division is much less soiled with error than are the other two divisions, but it is not clean in the sight of God. Since the Reformation, other Protestant churches have arisen, having less of papal errors than the first reformed churches. But a serious error which is at the foundation of the great Babylonian apostasy is found in nearly all the Protestant churches. That great apostasy has virtually annulled the commandment which forbids graven images, and the commandment which commands men to sanctify the seventh day in memory of the Creator's rest. The action of the church of Rome with respect to the first of these commandments was considered by the reformers a just ground for separation from that church, and yet nearly all the Protestant churches have perpetuated the action of that great apostasy with respect to the fourth commandment. They violate the fourth commandment, and teach men so; or rather, they make void the commandment of God to keep the tradition of the elders. They set asidethe Sabbath of the Lord that they may keep the festival day of the sun; and in thus violatingthe fourth commandment, they actually violate the entire law of God. No church has a right to consider itself apostolic while it violates the commandments of God. So long as a church does this, the stain of apostasy is upon her, and in this respect she is Babylonian rather thanapostolic. Though the account of the judgment upon Babylon in Rev. 18 speaks of Babylon as if she were one city, yet we learn from Rev. 16:19 that Babylon will be divided into three parts before she receives her punishment. This seems to indicate that these three parts are not alike guilty, and that God makes this division that he may punish each part according to the light which it has had, and the crimes which it has committed. It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that Babylon is now composed of three grand sections, which are culpable in different degrees, and that God will judge each according to its deserts. The Roman Catholic Church, having its seat at Rome, and having once had the jurisdiction of the entire ten kingdoms, and now of the greater part of them, is without doubt the central section of this great city; but we have convincing proof that there are also two other sections of Babylon, and that God will punish each as it deserves.

The fall of this great city is announced after the third and last section has fallen. It is only then we are able to say in truth that Babylon is fallen. The place assigned to this proclamation in prophecy is the only place suitable for it. For us to be able to leave Babylon, it is necessary that the angel of God should illuminate the earth with his glory (Rev. 18:1, 2), and thus dissipate the darkness which its errors have caused. This angel accomplishes his work in intimate connection with the angel who announces that the hour of God's Judgment is come, and with that other angel who preaches the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. It is at the time of these messages that the people of God are called out of Babylon, - a proof conclusive that the greater part are in Babylon when this proclamation is made. The coming of Christ must be preceded by a work which shall establish the primitive purity, and this work must be accomplished by the three angels. Consequently, the proclamation concerning Babylon pertains to the end of this dispensation.

*******

Obviously, J.N. Andrews was writing this under the impression the generation he was living in was this last generation. As we've said many times in the past, each generation MUST believe this to some extent, even in a very innocent manner. It's not God wanting to fool anyone into salvation. Salvation is a gift and not something to EVER be trifled with in such a way. God wants us all to comprehend love, and HE is love. He wants us to be HIS, to be in the way of love, not evil.  Two ways- Love and Evil.  No more ways than that. God or Satan. We choose. Everyone single human being chooses, and living with God's love as our primary life's goal is never a wrong thing, never.

J.N. Andrews wasn't living in the last generation before Christ's return. J.N. Andrews COULD have been living in that generation though. I say that in all truthfulness.  Just as I say the Israelites that came out of slavery into the wilderness COULD have entered the promised land early on and not wandered in the desert for forty years.   It's true, my BIBLE tells me it's true. They only wandered in the wilderness for forty years because they turned their back on God and the newly forged covenant they made with Him. THEY turned their backs on truth, God's truth!  But if they had NOT done that, they most certainly could have entered the promised land much earlier, before all the rebellious elders of that generation died.  So too, I fully believe that J.N. Andrew's generation could have been the generation to see our Savior return.  Now, because that means I would not ever have been born and had the unfathomable blessing of being known and loved by my Savior, is irrelevant because I wouldn't have ever known I wasn't born.  The facts are, the SDA Church organization turned their backs on God's truths and never repented of that fact even when called to do so. They left the truths entrusted to them by God. The failed to uphold the truth and because they didn't give the truth to all who they were supposed to give it to, having lost sight of it themselves, God needed to raise up those who would proclaim His truth and all His truth all the way to the end of this world and to His return!  God has done that. There are people who are holding fast to all the truth, and people who are trying to get this truth to those who so desperately need it. These last generation people belong to the generation that will not pass starting in 1980 when the fate was sealed for the SDA Corporate Church. 

This is truth, and truth for our times.

Just as J.N. Andrews spoke of the marks of those who needed to come out of Babylon in His day, we need to add on a continuation to those- NOT replacing them- but ADDING to them all that is appropriate for those who need to come out of the apostatized church that is Babylon right along with the others already spoken of.

We will do this, by the grace of our Savior, tomorrow.

Please, Lord, bless us this Sabbath evening and keep us in YOU in ALL things! You know our every need and we have faith in You to do all You promised to do!  Keep us from evil, Lord, please keep us from evil and keep us in YOU!

In YOUR LOVE!