Laodicea will not fall, but Babylon will. Once the Laodicean Church is shaken and puried, during the MOB crisis, she will boldly proclaim the 3AMs. The faithful believers in Babylon will embrace the marvelous light and come out of Babylon and so escape her doom and destruction.

The faithful in Babylon are not lukewarm Laodiceans. It is not possible for a Babylonian, whether faithful or unfaithful, to be a lukewarm Laodicean. Why? Because they are a Babylonian, not a Laodicean.

A Babylonian is someone who is a member of a non-SDA Christian church. A Laodicean is someone who is a member of the SDA church, whether or not they have bought the gold, raiment, or salve.

Please read what God revealed to her regarding the Laodicean message. If you disagree with her conclusions, then show from the Bible how and why she is wrong. There is nothing unbiblical about this approach.

Setting aside what she wrote in order to learn for yourself what John wrote about it is akin to setting aside what Paul wrote about a certain subject in order to learn for yourself what Moses said about it. Sister White is as inspired and authoritative as was Paul.

Taking your advice, Mike, I read the following:

quote:

---

The message given us by A. T. Jones, and E. J. Waggoner is the message of God to the Laodicean church, and woe be unto anyone who professes to believe the truth and yet does not reflect to others the God-given rays.(1888 Mat. 1052)

---

I agree with here, and have studied the message she identifies as the message of God to the Laodicean church. My study of this message leads to me conclude that this message does not agree with your conclusions. Particularly, if memory serves, the 1893 General Conference Bulliten deals at length with the subject we have been discussing. The person giving the message, A. T. Jones, did not include himself outside those addressed by Christ in His message, but as one included in the message. Paul considered himself the chief of sinners.

If the SDA church is Laodicea, and the message which Christ gave in Rev. 3 is a message to Laodiceans, then it is a message to any of us who are SDA's. That's simple logic. The only way to conclude that the message does not apply to us would be to either conclude that the message is not for the SDA church as a whole, or that we are not a part of the church to whom the message was addressed.

From the Spirit of Prophesy one learns that what causes the shaking is not the MOB crisis, but the Laodicean message! (also called the message of the straight testimony, and the loud cry of the third angel's message; she applied all of these prhases to the message of Jones and Waggoner). The crisis results as a response by Satan who sees his time is short and he is lost if he does not respond.

Let's not get the cart before the horse! The horse is the message, and the message says that we are wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked. We think we are rich, but we aren't. The Lord in His great mercy sent us a most precious message, identified by the Lord's servant as the message of God to the Laodicean church. But our response is that we don't need it. We don't need it because we already know the truth. The irony is thick.

The Lord in His mercy sends us a message to heal us of our lukewarm condition, but we insist we don't need the message the Lord sent us to heal us of our condition, thus confirming the Lord's diagnosis is correct.

We are poor, wretched, miserable, blind and naked, and desperately need the message which the Lord in His great mercy sent us.

quote:

---

The message given us by A. T. Jones, and E. J. Waggoner is the message of God to the Laodicean church, and woe be unto anyone who professes to believe the truth and yet does not reflect to others the God-given rays. (1888 Mat. 1052)

---

quote:

---

The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones.This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It presented justification through faith in the Surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God.(TM 91, 92)

---

quote:

---

An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord's message through Brethren {E.J.} Waggoner and {A.T.} Jones. By exciting that opposition Satan succeeded in shutting away from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world, as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world. (1SM 234, 235)

---

quote:

---

The time of test is just upon us, for the loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of the righteousness of Christ, the sin-pardoning Redeemer. This is the beginning of the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth. (1SM 363)

---

Sorry MountainMan I was hoping that a Biblical based answer would be the approach one uses to defend his or her faith, but it appears that you are not able to at the moment to give some solid Bible evidence regarding who those churches are. Not being able to defend one's faith using the Bible is disturbing to say the least since it appears one does not know what they believe in, and it does not do anyone any good to try and wield "her authority" over the Bible in order to cause someone to submit for answers when they cannot be gathered from Scripture. The Bible is its own expositor in other words it interprets itself, why not start from there, or did some of us forget that so quickly?
So how do we know who those churches are? Enquiring minds want to know, now is the time to let that light shine forth.
God Bless,
Will

I noticed the right questions have been raised from more than one person this last 24 hours. This gives me hope that the right sources will be consulted for the answere in the follwing 24.
The SDA church is a biblical church and Ellen would surely turn in her grave if she could had she known that her authority surpasses the authority of the bible among parts of todays SDAs. For someone who saw as her message to point people back to the bible to be used as an excuse not to go back to the bible is disrespect at the least. This on account of the argument that "why reinvent the wheel by going back to the bible when Ellen has it all spelled out for us in her books".

As to your quotes Mike, I dont think you need to provide any more profe that SDA fits the Laodicea prophecy. How about providing some profe other than your personal oppinion that the other churches do not? The Babylon vs Laodicea argument is, well, it could do with some meat on those bones.

Lastly I got the question, whats the irony about us having a "open eyes" debate about being blind? Very few people, I imagen, would be proud to be blind and even fewer would stay put boasting about it if a cure was aviable, within reach by a sincere request.

/Thomas

It's been awhile (i.e. many, many years) since I've studied this, but I'll try to remember a few thoughts that I hope are interesting.

There are several schools of interpretation for Revelation including preteritism, futurism, and historical. The historical interpretation was the first, and gave great force to the Reformation, when the identity of the little horn power was discovered. To counteract this view, which identified the anti-Christ with Rome, the preterist theory and futurist view came about. The preterist view (having to do with the past) put the anti-Christ in the past, while the futuristic view put the anti-Christ in the future.

The preterist view has been taken over by those who have a liberal view of Scripture, as it puts the prophesies in the past, which allows them to be explained without the miracle of foreknowledge.

The futuristic view got a large shot in the arm after the Great Disappointment in 1844. When Christ did not come, the historical view, which had been the predominate view, was questioned by many. The group that would become SDA's stuck with it, but almost everyone else gave it up.

The interesting thing about the Seven Churches is that almost everyone, excluding those who deny theat the prophesies involve the future being revealed to the prophet, agrees with the idea that they represent historical eras.

Here's one I picked at random:

quote:

---

1.First Church Period: Ephesus - 33 - 270 AD
2.Second Church Period: Smyrna - 270 - 530 AD
3.Third Church Period: Pergamos - 530-1530 AD
4.Fourth Church Period: Thyatira - 1530-1730 AD
5.Fifth Church Period: Sardis - 1730-1880 AD
6.Sixth Church Period: Philadelphia -1880-1967 AD
7.Seventh Church Period:Laodicia-1967-Jesus Return

---

http://www.siscom.net/~direct/revelation/

Even though the years are not agreed upon, the basic structure is. The Seven Churches are about the only point in Revelation which there is such agreement on, in spite of being from different schools of interpretation.

The first church had the most light, as does the seventh, which reclaims the lost light. The second and second to last churches are the only ones without any complaints. For this reason, the teacher I had (Dr. Waterhouse, if anyone knows him) thought the time periods for these two churches (Smyrna and Philadelphia) were very short (around ten years) which is a shorter period than most give them. I thought this sounded reasonable.

Notice the above time line had the seventh-church start in 1967. That's pretty interesting! We have it starting in 1844, and have since the 1850's. The earliest starting period I saw for the seventh church was 1776; the latest 1967 (above).

The sites I saw saw the same problems in the seventh church as we do.

Tom, I agree with everything you posted in your last three posts. I never intended to imply it is the MOB crisis that causes the Shaking. Rather, the Shaking, caused by the Laodicean message, reaches its climax during the MOB crisis.

Will, I’m not asking you to choose the SOP over the Bible. God forbid. Instead, I’m asking you to include her in your study of the Bible. Her inspired insights are far more reliable and authoritative than anything you and I can come up with ourselves. So why exclude her? Do you trust her Bible study on this topic? How did she use the Bible to explain it?

As we can see from Tom’s last post not everyone agrees as to the correct interpretation of the 7 churches. So, how can we hope to come up with the only right and true interpretation without the inspired guidance and insights God shared with Sister White? To exclude her is to invite chaos and confusion. It is tantamount to making the testimony of Jesus Christ of none effect.

Why would Jesus give us the SOP to lead the Remnant Church into all truth if He didn't expect us to be benefited and blessed by it? Thomas, the way we use the SOP insights and conclusions with non-SDAs is to simply share the interpretation using the same logic and scriptures Sister White did - without quoting her. Also, the details regarding the Laodicean message shouldn't be shared with non-SDAs until after they have finished extensive studies first. Once they are comfortable with the more basic and fundamental SDA doctrinal beliefs then it isn't difficult for them to accept the rest of it - including the truth about Sister White.

This is an interesting question (why the Spirit of Prophesy was given). A lot of our differences has to do with different ideas as to the role and function of inspiration.

Did the Lord give the Spirit of Prophesy with the intention that it serve as an inspired Bible Commentary? Was that the purpose? Can we know the meaning of a verse or text without her explanation?

MountaiMan,
Didn't Jesus say He would send the Holy Spirit to teach us? Didn't He also pray to His Father to "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth"
Didn't God reveal to us in the book of James that any man who lacks wisdom let him ask the Father who will not withhold it from him?
Aren't we admonished to search for understanding as if it were gold in the book of Proverbs? DOnt we have a hymn called "Give me the Bible"? Am I making any sense here?

I have major difficulties inusing Ellen White to study the Bible because I dont know how. Its like asking me to write an essay using my left hand, its awkward, I dont have the coordination, and I end up getting frustrated.
I go the other way around, I read the Bible, and then I pick up one of the several books I have from Ellen White and read it separately. In other words I dont pick up PK and study the life of King Solomon. I read it cause I want to learn, and if I pick up some things then Amen, but I dont use it as a Bible study, I use the Bible, look up words in the back of it as we all do including non-sda's, and is freely available even at Chapters book store. From there I gather the words put them together and study, easy as 123.
God Bless,
Will