Adventist Denomination Again Goes to Court to Force Congregation to Stop Using Name
By Andrew Hanson, August 14, 2015: Walter McGill, pastor of The Creation Seventh Day and Adventist Church, has told Adventist Today that he has received notice of new litigation in the district court in Jackson, Tennessee. He and his assistant, Lucan Chartier, were previously jailed for their refusal to stop using the name.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church v. McGill is the latest legal action to eliminate the name “Creation Seventh Day & Adventist Church” from any “document, file, blog, bulletin board, video, post, tweet, webpage, social media page, social media account, social media post.” The legal action seeks to prohibit the use of the name in “domain name registries, domain name hosts, web servers, blog publishing services, search engines, social networks, social media companies and other service providers.”
According to McGill, if the court orders this legal action it will allow trademark law to control or the use of words or phrases in every-day communication so long as that communication is done via computer. Adventist Today has ask the denomination’s General Conference (GC) why this lawsuit is necessary, who authorized it and its potential cost. No one from the GC has returned the phone calls of the Adventist Today reporter.
McGill and Chartier will likely refuse to comply with any such court order and go to jail to protest what they consider to be a matter of conscience. McGill previously served 30 days in jail and Chartier served 10 days related to similar issues.
The small congregation is located in rural Tennessee in the southern United States, although it claims adherents elsewhere and missionary projects in Uganda. It left the denomination in 1988 because of doctrinal disagreement with the GC acquisition and enforcement of a trademark on the name “Seventh-day Adventist.”
The name “Creation Seventh Day & Adventist” was based upon what they believe to be a divine revelation received by both Danny Smith and McGill. At a meeting held in Plant City, Florida, the official Creation Seventh Day & Adventist (CSDA) was organized as an association of believers.
They believe that the name Seventh-day Adventist was given by God to describe the Adventist faith and that those who accept the Adventist beliefs must use the name in identifying themselves and their organizations, according to a Wikipedia article on the group. They consider this to be a matter of conscience equivalent to denying or affirming the name “Christian” and cite several quotes from Adventist cofounder Ellen G. White regarding the adoption and use of the name being Divinely commissioned.
The group has similar teachings to those of the denomination on the Sabbath, the imminent Second Coming of Christ, the investigative judgment and other doctrines. It says that it differs from modern Adventists on the Trinity, separation of church and state, and victory over all known sins.
The conclusion of the original litigation was a 2 to1 split decision by a three-judge panel, with two judges deciding in favor of the denomination and one judge in favor of cancelling the trademark on the name “Seventh-day Adventist.” The dissenting judge wrote an opinion regarding the problems with treating a religious name as a property right. It can be found at: https://archive.org/details/StockerPerryVsG.CCorporationofSDAs
The Phillip M. Kirkpatrick law firm in Nashville, Tennessee, has been retained by the GC to litigate this current case. It is considered to be one of the top law firms in the nation for this type of case. The firm that represented McGill at the Supreme Court level pro bono is on record stating that it would normally cost about $1 million to file such a claim, according to Chartier in the online edition of Spectrum, the journal of the largest organization of Adventist academics, July 20, 2012.
Adventist Today has previously reported on this ongoing conflict: “Is Protecting the Denomination’s Name Important Enough to Send People to Jail?” by Andrew Hanson, Adventist Today Magazine, December, 2012, p. 18.
“No one from the GC has returned the phone calls of the Adventist Today reporter.”
The reporter should call the GC and say that he has a substantial donation for the GC. I bet they will call back within 10 minutes! So simple…
This is what Walter McGill is teaching while using all the trade mark symbols of the Seventh-day Adventist church.
That his movement is the 7th thunder of Revelation and the 144,000. 21.
▪ That his group has achieved complete victory over known sins.
▪ That the Seventh-day Adventist church is Babylon.
▪ That he has a mandate from God to call true Adventists out of Babylon to join his organization.
▪ That the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is issuing the mark of the beast, thus fulfilling Revelation 13:16-17.
▪ That Christians must use the names יהוה (Yahweh) and יהושע (Yahshua) for the Father and Son in worship.
▪ That Christians must keep the New Moons and some of the Annual Feasts found in the Old Testament.
I got this from off Walter McGills website.
Some of those statements are incorrect. Can you let me know which website you saw this on?
No matter what this group teaches, affixing “Creation” to the beginning of its name as “Creation Seventh-day Adventist Church” distinguishes it from the Seventh-day Adventist Church Corporation, which is the only entity that could possibly claim protection for its name.
I believe that this harassment of a small group of Christians is unconscionable – not to mention a misuse of funds that should be spent on better projects.
Is there anyone holding these lawyers accountable? Who in the GC has ultimate responsibility for this sort of thing?
Inge,
Can you point me to evidence that there is any such thing as a “Seventh-day Adventist Church Corporation” by that specific name?
If I’m not mistaken, the name of the first Seventh-day Adventist corporation was the Review and Harold Publiching Assoication; the next was the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Then, after some other local conferences were incorporated, in 1863, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists was incorporated.
P.S. Inge, I seem to have lost your email address. If you would like to discuss this privately, please email me at r.metzger44@gmail.com
I thoroughly agree with you, Inge. This is folly and holds the church up to ridicule. if the church chooses to call itself whatever, God knows the difference. Leave them alone, I say. We are not taking the advice of Gamaliel: if it is not of God, it will fail; if it is of God, you will find yourself fighting against Him, which is dangerous folly. I do not think it is significant enough to warrant an expensive trial, and even if it were, God is capable of dealing with it. We have become too corporate – too worldly and litigious and it will come back to haunt us.
So here’s what I will do: Create a Facebook page entitled
“Exhibitionist Inge Anderson” and post photos of an unclothed woman and claim that they are of me, Exhibitionist Inge Anderson. Then post narratives of how to scare old people with phone calls late at night, and the best way to charge my neighbor with child abuse by calling Child Protective Services. I can write about the best places to purchase discount heroine (everyone like a discount.)
So simple to add one word to a name and claim that it’s different.
Marilyn, I really would like to rebut that website if you would share the URL. Could it be that you discovered Eugene Shubert’s commentary on Walter McGill and the CSDA Church? Those statements did not come from me, I assure you.
McGill should follow the LAW of Jesus given in the sermon on the mount;
Matthew 5:25-26 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
25 “If anyone wants to take you to court, make friends with them quickly. Try to do that before you get to the court. If you don’t, they might hand you over to the judge. And the judge will hand you over to a guard, who will throw you into jail. 26 I assure you that you will not leave there until you have paid everything you owe.
AND he is clearly contradicting the counsel of EGW by calling the SDA Church Organization “Babylon,” and by this one error of his, his entirety of his message and his church is in validated. It deflates their claim to be the Remnant Church of Bible Prophecy, and they fail because the Remnant Church is identified by its presence in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people while the “Creation Church” is only a local entity, that once you leave the shores of the USA they practically evaporate and disappear.
They teach the heresy of Anti-Trinitarianism, and therefore do NOT believe in the ONE True God.
AT support of them is making them an accomplice with the Creation Church error and they should delete their articles on the issue.
“Adventist Today has ask the denomination’s General Conference (GC) why this lawsuit is necessary”
It is abundantly clear why this is necessary. I support the GC on this. A name (both biblical and in modern intellectual property terms of “good will”) is about the most precious thing a person can own. A person can lose virtually everything and yet retain their good name.
What this group is doing is engaging in theft – plain and simple. We Adventists have enough problem with protecting our good name from those who confuse our group with others. McGill’s group simply adds further confusion and thus impedes our own efforts to spread the Gospel.
I totally agree with you, Steve. If they are not part of the organization, then they should not be using the name.
“A good name is rather to be had than great riches,” Solomon tells us, and it is true. Who knows what these people are teaching. We know they are not teaching the same things our denomination teaches or there would have been no split. By holding themselves out as Seventh-Day Adventists they tie themselves to our denomination and every thing they do will be attributed to us. Walter McGill use was previously ruled illegal because he is using trademarks of our denomination on his newsletters, his church and handouts. Even though he has made the name slightly different, the fact that he uses our identifying marks makes what he is doing illegal, and as such of Satan. Believing differently from us, but using symbols that are associated with our church is underhanded and false advertising. In other words, lies. Using this subterfuge, anything he does that is wrong is seen as being done by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
“These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth [silence] you will think that he doeth God service.
“And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.” John 16: 1-3
The Church of Christ is not a persecutor. I know that for sure.
Well I CERTAINLY DO NOT SUPPORT THE GC ON THIS! What happened to heeding 1 Corinthiana 6? We are not to go to court against each other, doing so is dragging God’s name and reputation in the mud. The GC is doing WRONG!!! THEY ABOVE ALL should know AND DO better. It’s making our Movement look like fools and imbeciles, who don’t know better. We will judge angels, yet we’re going to court with one a other? Jesus is coming soon, the pope is coming in just a few short weeks and our GC is getting on like the worldly? I’m ashamed of the GC and ANYONE ELSE who agrees with the GC’s ungodly, unbiblical disobedient action.
It’s perfectly kosher for the church to go to court with other Christians but never for an Adventist to sue the church. See “Merikay Silver lawsuit.” BTW: she won!
What a waste of money. For the church to sue like this is directly against biblical counsel. Kinship won a similar suit like this decades ago. will the church never learn?
Elaine, you wrote, “It’s perfectly kosher for the church to go to court with other Christians.” Can you explain to me the Biblical basis for that reasoning? I am not familiar with your doctrine, nor your religion. It doesn’t sound like Seventh-day Adventism.
What I find in the Scriptures are that even the “least” in the Church should be involved before the flawed reasoning of the world. (1Cor 6) What I find is that taking religious disputes before the secular courts puts the Church of Christ to “open shame,” according to a number of Spirit of Prophecy passages.
What I find is that the Spirit of Christ is to rely on God to settle matters of where the use of a name, even the name of “Jesus” Himself, (Mark 9:39, Acts 5:38) not representatives of the United States Government, which we acknowledge as the Second Beast of Revelation. Who are was asking to defend the Church of Christ? What does He say about this action, supposdly done in His name?
Apparently, you are unfamiliar with a lawsuit filed by Merikay Silver against the Adventist church for failing to live by the law in paying equal salaries to females doing the same work as a male. She won, and the church had to pay the costs of a very expensive trial (the church always hires the be$t lawyers.
I am unclear why your statement below demonstrates anything. Because someone sued the Church and won, this means the Church is Biblically justified in bringing lawsuits.
Perhaps my request above was not clear. I asked for a BIBLICAL justification for why you say it is “perfectly kosher for the church to go to court with other Christians.” I asked for any inspired source that woudl back your opinion, which I believe to be very anti-Christian. What you say about the Mericak Silver suit has absolutely no bearing on that request.
Merikay Silver; please forgive my misspelling.
Seventh-day Adventist is just that. If that million were spent in promulgation of the gospel, then there would be no need to assert ourselves through the court. God is capable of protecting our good name, [if it is indeed good] and Creation Seventh-day & Adventist is not it. We have got too worldly and defensive about the wrong things. We should be defending the church against the emerging church doctrine, the promotion of the teaching of evolution, the invasion of the Catholic doctrine of spiritual formation and such like things. Are we still fighting Kinship or have we given in to their agenda? if not, why are harassing a little congregation that might eventually find its way back to the fold and at least is not embracing open sin?
It’s called “identity theft” and its really criminal and not Christian for the Creation Church to make such demands of their “rights” to STEAL that which was GIVEN to the SDA Church Organization, with the approval of EGW, back in 1861 when the GC of Seventh-day Adventist was formally and legally organized.
READ Testimonies To Ministers pages 1-60 and you will see the McGill has lost his way and his “rights” to that worthy name which was Given BY God as the property of this Remnant Church.
Ellen White’s writings have no validity in court, but anti-theft laws based on the 8th Commandment do. Add the volumes of copyright and trademark laws that have existed in almost every civilized nation since ancient times and you have a large foundation for defending against copyright infringement.
The bottom line: using the name Seventh-day Adventist without permission from the owner of that name is theft, pure and simple. I have firsthand experience with copyright infringement as a writer from a couple of times when someone used my work without permission, once where they listed me as the author and once where they did not and neither time was I paid anything for the value of my work. In one case we settled out-of-court and in the other I filed a legal claim but the publisher went bankrupt so it was not possible to recover any monetary damages. Had I claimed a larger monetary value for my work in each case I could have filed criminal charges, but then I would have received nothing.
I totally agree with Steve Ferguson that the Seventh-day Adventist “brand name” is worth protecting.
That being said I think it is worth asking whether some of the remedies sought in this lawsuit may do more harm than good to our “brand name”. What may be a legal remedy might not always be a wise remedy. Where is the appropriate line between Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech in cyber-space?
Live by the Sword – Die by the Sword. I am wondering if they teach that principle in law school?
Jim, BRAND NAME? The Seventh day Adventist Movement is supposed to represent GOD, NOT the GC! It’s not OUR BRAND NAME, WE’RE NOT IN BUSINESS FOR SELF BUT FOR GOD! AND, IT’S GOD’S NAME THAT’S WORTH PROTECTING MUCH MUCH MORE, and going to court against our brethren does NOT promote God or the order and decency HE portrays, or wants US to portray. Putting what WE want or believe means that we are practicing SELF IDOLATRY!!! WHERE in God’s word does it say that it’s okay to go to court against a brother or sister to protect a church name? We should be saying, “BETTER TO OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MAN. COME ON BRETHREN, LET’S GET IT TOGETHER, JESUS US COMING SOON, THE POPE IS COMING NEXT MONTH, THE SUNDAY LAW IS UPON US, ISN’T THERE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO AND PROMOTE THAN THIS???
Do you really need to yell at others (capital letters) to make your point?
Totally agree. We do not have special right on the Seventh Day name. This is a description of what we believe in. Besides the fact that they use Creation before their name differentiates us. The million which is our money should be put to better use.
Hmmm…. I’m not an attorney but I don’t see how adding Creation sidesteps possible confusion among the public about the Seventh-day Adventist Church and its beliefs. Confusion is, I believe, basis for trademark enforcement.
Thus, imagine you are the Coca-Cola Corp. You have a product called “Coca Cola” or “Coke” and it is a registered trademark. Now suppose you come up with a new product, and it is called New Coke, and then another called Classic Coke. The adjectives don’t take away the trademark protection of Coke. And if someone comes along with Creation Coke they would still be infringing your trademark.
If the SDA movement is to represent God, it is doing a lousy job of it right about now.
Matthew 5:25-26Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
25 “If anyone wants to take you to court, make friends with them quickly. Try to do that before you get to the court. If you don’t, they might hand you over to the judge. And the judge will hand you over to a guard, who will throw you into jail. 26 I assure you that you will not leave there until you have paid everything you owe.
Sometimes it is easier to get an apology and agreement to cease and desist from a habitual criminal than a critic of the church.
Do we really have to be so technical as to judge even similar phrasiology worthy of going to court over? I am eager to read the dissenting judge and his reasoning behind why trademark isn’t good for a church organization.
We never learn. Obviously, God cannot do anything to protect His name.
To know why this will come back to haunt us is that Government has been given a free hand to meddle in our affairs and the judge said so when we won our first case fighting these battles.The church has been made a government corporation; expect trouble.
i have to disagree with this decision by the SDA church; not because they haven’t cause, but because they are making a much larger problem. Had they just ignored this very small group in the beginning, it would have remained a very small (Christian) group, exercising their worship as they chose, having some variations of FB’s, as do many of us here. They could have been more creative in choosing their corporate name, however here is the problem for the SDA Church. By at the first instance of taking this group to court and losing the decision by 2/1. They are now doubling down in what lines up as additional loss of prestige, by their hassling a small insignificant victim.
“CATCHABLE FATAL ERROR”?? Please advise me in language i can understand, what this disclaimer describes. Am i being marginalized, for reasons i am not aware of??
Andrew Hanson:
Am I correct that this is merely a motion filed within a 2006 case, rather than a new case or action?
I would not consider their beliefs the same as the Adventist Church, except in the three areas you mention. There was something drastically different when I dialogued with some of these folks some time ago.
Bob, this is a new motion filed July 23, 2015. The URL where the entire motion can be read is following:
https://archive.org/details/NewSDAMotionofCompleteCivilAnnhilation
This motion comes three years following my release from the San Bernardino County Central Detention Center. Experts in the field of IT tell me that if the GC prevails on this motion, freedom of speech and net neutrality will be threatened. In addition, the GC is seeking to extend the boundaries of the Lanham Act jurisdiction beyond the USA. This is not the work of Christ.
McGill, you divorced yourself from the SDA church. Change your name and stop using the SDA logos. That is deceitful at the least because when people see that logo, they understand that you are a SDA member in good standing with the original organization. I am sure that what you got was not a revelation but the product of indigestion. In my experience with offshoots, when they persist in their rebellion, God intervenes and they get defeated. I remember erasing 70 members on a Sabbath afternoon on their own request. They formed their own church and kept trying to get other members to leave the SDA church to join their spurious movement. They did not last long as internal quarrels divided them. Where are Ford, Brinsmead and Koresh now? What happened to their movements? They did not endure because they were delusional. They and many others were just puppets in Satan’s hands. So it will happen to your movement. Repent and come back to the fold. Help us now in the last push to finish the spread of the gospel. Satan has you in his fold, but God can use you in his with great power. “Give at least two warnings to those who cause divisions, and then have nothing more to do with them. You know that such people are corrupt, and their sins prove that they are wrong.” Titus 3:10,11. Your energies should not be spent against the SDA church, but against the darkness in which the souls are in this world. Go and win souls for Christ with your own name and logos. You will earn my respect.
Hi Martin. You wrote, “Repent and come back to the fold. Help us now in the last push to finish the spread of the gospel.”
The problem is, for me, I do not believe a Church that persecutes Christians can be “the fold.” I do not believe that a Church that uses civil government’s power to enforce its will can genuinely teach the Gospel.
There is a problem here, and it cannot be swept under the rug by making statements about indigestion, or pointing to the failures of false prophets in the past.
I have noticed these two logos are very different and cannot be confused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Seventh_Day_Adventist_Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seventh-Day_Adventist_Church_logo.svg
The controverted name “Creation Seventh Day Adventist,” according to court record, was taken after McGill received a “divine revelation.” I would assume anyone who loves God and receives what they believe to be a command from Him would obey. I do not have to believe in the revelation myself.
The historical record indicates that CSDA has been around since about 1991, and according to their website, they have work in Africa, Belize, and Canada which indicates some expansion.
The court record further substantiates that no “actual confusion” has ever occurred between the CSDA and the mainline SDA. This seems to be over a period of more than 17 years.
Martin, I know you think you are speaking for God. It is good to take a stand and not ride the fence.
In response to your complaints, I find these two “logos” to be rather different:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Seventh_Day_Adventist_Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seventh-Day_Adventist_Church_logo.svg
As for the “word mark,” which is the religious name, I have a mandate from God (by divine revelation) to use the name “Creation 7th Day Adventist” to describe my faith and in the practice of my religious observances.
The CSDA has lasted since 1991 and spread into international fields. Evey time the GC seeks to silence us it blackens their own eye, giving us even more publicity. And, BTW, the court record substantiates that during the time of our existence, there has not been ONE instance of “actual confusion.” The similarity in name must not be too relevant in this controversy. Oh, and the charge that I defrauded the GC of money has never been proven. How could it be? I never in over 25 years accepted tithe OR collected money in a worship service. 🙂
Shalom Martin, because of sincere seeking, this must be answered: Enclosed here is a response from Pastor Chick that shows two very different logos and no confusion:
“Martin, I know you think you are speaking for God. It is good to take a stand and not ride the fence. In response to your complaints, I find these two logos to be very different:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Seventh_Day_Adventist_Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church#/media/File:Seventh-Day_Adventist_Church_logo.svg
As for the “word mark” which is the religious name, I have a mandate from GOD (by Divine revelation) to use the name Creation 7th day Adventist to describe my faith and in the practice of my religious observances.
The CSDA has lasted since 1991 and spread into International fields. Every time the GC seeks to silence us it blackens its own eye, giving us more publicity. And, BTW, the court record substantiates that during the time of our existence, there has not been one instance of “actual confusion.” The similarity in name must not be too relevant in this controversy. Oh, and the charge that I defrauded the GC of money has never been proven. How could it be? I never in over 25 years collected tithe OR money in any worship service.”
http://creation7thdayadventist.to/images/ATpost_2Martin8-16-15.jpg
Classic Catch-22 situation. See why the church should just overlook this storm in a teacup? I have begun to realise that these little storms blow themselves out eventually. But when we fuss over them and take them to court, we puff them up into more than what they really are, further alienate them and make ourselves look bad in the eyes of the public we wish to reach. Above all, we have big enemies lurking which are ready to pick up the pieces after our friendly fire have done the job for them. Why give them easy victories? Why spend resources that should be more properly applied to finishing the work? The law is not our friend. let us stop putting into its hands the means to destroy us.
I have always thought that this issue comes down to the applicability of the trademark law. If the name of the Church falls under “intellectual property,” then the claim is made that the name Seventh-day Adventist is the intellectual creation of the SDA organization.
Since those who accept the Spirit of Prophecy writings understand that the name was created and given by God, then that makes the entire premise of the lawsuit invalid. The name that God gives to a people is certainly worth protecting, but by Him, not by leaning on the arm of human civil laws. As someone above said, even if the “cause” was just, the problems resulting from violating Biblical principle are always going to result in a curse.
Brethren, if we don’t see that this is satan’s distraction, so that we can be lost then we WILL be lost!!! THIS IS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS TELLING THE WORLD THAT JESUS IS SOON TO COME! WE NEED TO BE TELLING THE WORLD WHAT ALL THESE SIGNS MEAN, NOT TAKING BRETHREN TO COURT, WHAT KIND OF WITNESS IS THIS???
I believe this religious issue is important because before Christ comes to this earth, for a pure remnant church, the Bible and Ellen White’s inspired writings tell us that the close of human probation, the Judgment of the Living and the 7 plagues of Revelation would have fallen and finished some time before His Second Coming.
Before Christ comes everybody who has professed to be His follower will be investigated to see if he has cherished any sin, or become a partaker of a corporate sin by association and agreement or support. (Rev 18)
Let us remember what kind of union kill our Savior, my brethren, it was the Jewish church, a keeper of the 7th day of the week, who went to the civil roman authorities against God’s counsel to silence Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath, for ever. The same principle is clearly applying here.
Ellen White also tell us that neutrality in a religious crisis is the worst act we can do against God.
How can a church where Christ dwells can ever become a persecutor power, unless she has become one with the world?
I agree with you, Giselle Bautista. Your point is very well stated.
This is not a crisis issue. A crisis happens WITHIN the ranks. These have already left. Real crisis issues are Hermeneutics, Spiritual Formation, Celebrationism and the emergent church; going to the Willow Creek/Saddleback modern Egypt for help in teaching evangelism; open rebellion from NAD and Southern California, Northern Europe, etc. and all the bacteria that is being allowed to infect the church and that should be purged.
Well, we can say that the Apostolic Church was formed out of a faithful remnant called to come out of the previous and fallen Jewish religious system.
In those days there was a religious crisis going on, when the members of the Apostolic Church (a small sect in those days)were being persecuted by the church of Saul of Tarsus. The spirit that rules and motivates a persecuting religious system also will affect like a plague the spirit and minds of its members. Choose today who are you following, the mind of Christ or the mind of a strange god and prince of this world.
Just because a crisis is internal or external, doesn’t remove our responsibility as Christians to protest against all unrighteousness and iniquity. Hating our fellow men, inside or outside a church, is still considered homicide before God.
What about the use of SDAnet.com or org? It is not invariably friendly to the SDA church. What about Adventist today? Where does it begin and where does it stop?
I understand the gay group Kinship whose full name I don’t know won a lawsuit when it used the church’s name.
I tend to agree that it is hardly worthwhile to get involved in a lawsuit with such a small group I’m certain they want publicity and now they are receiving free publicity.
I totally agree IF.
My guess is that they think that if they don’t squash this others will do so too. Then there is the question of who IS a member of our church. Having said that, once they changed their name to something somewhat different, it should have been left alone. Seems petty to me. As to the belief in the trinity, feasts, the name to use for God – I know some pretty well-accepted people who are like minded on those things and other items as well. This is embarrassing.
ROSITA on August 14, 2015 at 10:31 am said:
“Well I CERTAINLY DO NOT SUPPORT THE GC ON THIS! …I’m ashamed of the GC and ANYONE ELSE who agrees with the GC’s ungodly, unbiblical disobedient action.”
Pretend you cooked a dish, something really delicious, for the next potluck at your church. The habit is having a little card next to each dish telling who made it. Then I come in and put a card with my name next to your dish, and stay there to get all the compliments for the delicious dish.
I hope you will be good enough of a Christian to keep quiet and never tell anybody that you actually made that … “delicious dish”… And if you do tell, expect some people to be “ashamed of you”… in name of “good religion!”
George, the real irony of the story is that the SDA church is not really what they want to emulate at all (even though they seem to do on a lot of points). Thus why would they want to be mixed up with Adventists? Beats me.
Andreas, it seems that they have some kind of rotten cake (way beyond expiration date)they want to deliver but want to present it as “just from the oven”… 🙂
Shame on you for throwing insults at others that don’t believe the same as you. That’s not Christian behavior. This type of behavior will not help influence anyone but rather builds a wall.
Thanks Rosita for the example, but it is my understanding that the CSDA church has never identified itself with the main church. They have purposefully claimed NOT to be members of the main church. It is also my understanding that they have never even been confused with the main church.
That is not a relevant comparison!
This little group clearly identifies itself as *Creation* Seventh-day Adventist Church.
More relevant would be something like this: Rosita makes a dish and calls it “Heavenly Zucchini Bread.” (Anyone want some zucchini??!)
Next Sabbath you come along and put up a card beside your dish labeled “George’s Heavenly Zucchini Bread.” Rosita might be a bit miffed, but she would have no reason to deny your right to label your dish as you do. People would know that it’s not Rosita’s dish.
OK, suppose that your Heavenly Zucchini Bread is famous and people come from all over the world to buy it from you because it is so good. Now George, who spends more time on his computer than in the kitchen, can’t cook or bake if his life depended on it. His zucchini bread superficially looks like yours but when you taste it, it is horrible. You find that after a few weeks of George’s Heavenly Zucchini Bread being on the table, you are getting fewer new customers. When you investigate why, you find that people who heard that Heavenly Zucchini Bread was heavenly tried George’s and found it rather hellish, so have not contacted you to buy any, assuming it is similar to George’s. You have been materially harmed by George’s misuse of your bread’s name.
I agree Inge. SDA Kinship does the same thing. This majoring in minors isa a very poor way for the church to project itself to the world.
Trademark law, itself, is a valid and reasonable thing. If we were two businesses in this situation, they would have the absolute right of it. The problem is that the G.C is taking something meant for the civil realm and misapplying it in the religious.
You cannot own something that does not belong to you or to a corporation, but to the Creator; be it a faith or a name of a faith. Trademark law cannot rightly apply to this.
This is a misuse of trademark law, and the G.C SDA Church is supporting and manipulating this state’s law and its civil courts to persecute others and strip them out of their religious freedom and silence/kill their conscience. The Creator is the only one who has jurisdiction over human conscience.
I read the dissenting judge’s statements, and it surprises me how the Creator can talk sometimes thru secular agents, when needed, as His witness.
“By 1850, although there were still differences in interpretation, the essential doctrines of what was to become known as Seventh-day Adventism had been established: 1) the Bible alone as the rule of faith and practice; 2) the Old Testament law as binding and immutable, including the Seventh-day Sabbath; 3) the imminent second coming of Christ; 4) the immortality of the soul; and 5) the doctrine of sanctuary. The first congregation of practicing Seventh-day Adventists was formed in Washington, New Hampshire in May of 1845, although there is no persuasive evidence that they called themselves that at the time….The General Conference [Corporation] of Seventh-day Adventists was not formed until May of 1863, marking the official organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
“The term “Seventh-day Adventist” has a dual meaning: it refers not only to the Church, but to adherents of the religion of Seventh-day Adventism.
“Like other names of familiar religious denominations which have been recognized or considered to be generic, such as “Christian Science” in Evans and both “Methodist” and “Episcopal” in Purcell v. Summers, 145 F.2d 979, 988 (4th Cir.1944), the designation “SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST” primarily signifies the name of a religion to the relevant public.”
Hello Giselle and all, here is the link to the dissenting judges’ portion of the case if you want to get straight to his views.
https://archive.org/stream/StockerPerryVsG.CCorporationofSDAs/StockerPerryVsG.cCorporationOfSdas#page/n5/mode/2up
“The term “Seventh-day Adventist” has a dual meaning: it refers not only to the Church, but to adherents of the religion of Seventh-day Adventism.”
The judge seems to understand the genesis of the Seventh-day Adventist organization far better than most of its lay members do but: 1: He is using the dictionary definition with regard to the present without taking into account that, by the very history to which he refers, there were adventists before there was a Seventh-day Adventist organization; 2: In the 1850s, the advent movement was a free association of diligent Bible students. It still is. It is not a “religion” in the sense that the Roman Church or the LDS Church is; 3: Because the advent movement is not a religion, it has no “adherents” in the sense that people “adhere” to the Roman Church or the LDS Church.
My religion is biblical Christianity. My denominational affiliation is Seventh-day Adventist. BIG difference!
Whether the Seventh-day Adventist ORGANIZATION has become a religion–encouraging “adherence” instead of promoting the doctrine of scriputura sola–is an entirely different question.
I am just wondering, why the issue is picked up now? Is it the change of FB 6 that triggered this? After all – the word “Creation” had been added to this splinter group’s name. Sad thing is that we tend to create such off-shoots we suddenly don’t want to have anything to do with. Perhaps because they allow us to look into a mirror (distorted as it may be) and we dislike what we see….
This has nothing to do with FB 6. The GC has been suing groups like this for many years since it got the trademark. Not only have they registered the single word ADVENTIST but many others you’d be surprised at. It’s the use of the single word Adventist they will sure you over. There are some groups they cannot sure and so they keep going after the little ones. As mentioned Kinship is one they lost a lawsuit. Also there are Free Seventh-day Adventists (you don’t see the Methodists trying to sue the Free Methodists…). Also there’s the very large Remnant Seventh-day Adventist organization complete with a General Conference, etc. which they’ve never tried to sue. I find it very curious they are spending large sums of time money to sue these very small groups.
This has nothing to do with FB 6. The GC has been suing groups like this for many years since it got the trademark. Not only have they registered the single word ADVENTIST but many others you’d be surprised at. It’s the use of the single word Adventist they will sue you over. There are some groups they cannot sure and so they keep going after the little ones. As mentioned Kinship is one they lost a lawsuit. Also there are Free Seventh-day Adventists (you don’t see the Methodists trying to sue the Free Methodists…). Also there’s the very large Remnant Seventh-day Adventist organization complete with a General Conference, etc. which they’ve never tried to sue. I find it very curious they are spending large sums of time money to sue these very small groups.
I meant …tithe money…
In the 19th century The Christian Church had a major dust-up in court over rights to the name. Cambpellites, Stoneites, others all tussled in the courts for years. The Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ all lost out to a much smaller competitor for the name, Christian Church. I think there was also a Christian Connection that fought for the rights.
I guess that’s Americans for you: We are still a litigious people.
Is the name, Creation Seventh Day and Adventist Church different enough from Seventh-day Adventist so as to eliminate or at least minimize confusion between the two?
I can easily see how, if that is the way the judges perceive the issue, a third or more of them might say that the difference is adequate. The larger organization doesn’t use the word, Creation, in its name. The larger organization uses a hyphen between Seventh and day.
I can just as easily see how a third of more of the judges might agree with the GC that the name is similar enough to constitute an infringement of the “trademark”.
I think the advent movement could be advanced more rapidly by an organization other than the one that holds the trademark (reasons provided on request to r.metzger44@gmail.com) so I have given a lot of thought and prayer to the subject of what name could be used by an organization that is organically separate from the SdA denomination but that, like the SdA organization, DOESN’T teach Sunday sacredness, the natural immortality of the soul, futurist eschatology. Not that I’d necessarily “join” such an organization but please let me know of any such groups that take care to avoid referring to their organization as a “church” and that aren’t–as the CSDA group obviously is–in the ditch on the right side of the road.
I am the defendant in this SDA trademark case. If you wish to ask me questions, I am pleased to answer without malice. I hope that discussion with proper and accurate knowledge will be of benefit to all of us.
Do you know (or even have an opinion about) when the pioneers of the advent movement started teaching that the only way to “come our of Babylon” was to join the Seventh-day Adventist organization?
It certainly wasn’t in the 1850s. There wasn’t any Seventh-day Adventist organization to join. Did that teaching develop after the demise of the pioneers of the movement?
Do you teach that the only way to “come out of Babylon” is to join your organization?
Just curious.
Roger,
I am not sure you were addressing me, but it appears to be the case. I think your question(s) are good ones, and I doubt we have space here to adequately treat the subject.
The simple answer regarding us (CSDA) is, “No.” Then, some of us may answer, “Yes.” There are various reasons for this.
1) We are not really an “organization.” (a technicality, but a potentially significant one)
2) “Babylon” must be defined in order to be on the same page regarding the term. (EGW once said a SDA church was “very Babylon” in her writings)
3) There are 12 gates to the City where the redeemed will enter, one for each “tribe of Israel.” (differing views as to how this should be applied in the last days)
4) Light is progressive, and any who reject the light from Heaven are in grave danger.
I will say this for some expansion on the “Babylon” topic. Our early pioneers, 1896 to be precise, taught what is not any longer being believed in the main denomination. That is, there are two different conditions of “confusion” found in Scripture:
1) “Babylon” (confusion): A spiritually sick condition which can cause splintering, taking on worldly policy, teaching doctrines that do not mesh perfectly with the Bible, and other apostate characteristics. This condition can be remedied by revival and reformation. There is NEVER to be a “coming out” except to RETURN to their “first love.”
2) (see next post)
2) “Babylon fallen” (confusion that has crossed the line of no return): This condition exists AFTER God has made appeals without any positive response, and the group has sealed themselves with a “creed” of sorts to define who can be one of them and then join hands with the strong arm of civil power to sustain its institutions. This fornication with the kings of the earth demonstrates that the group no longer rests in Christ, maintaining the most holy marriage with Him. The unholy union of church and state, which ultimately ends in persecution of the saints, can never be restored to a vital relationship with God.
CSDA teaches that the main SDA organization has manifested the character of condition #2, after having passed through the condition of “Babylon” (#1).
We have arrived at this conclusion through divine revelations and in-depth study of pioneer writings, the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy.
This is what sister White wrote to someone who shared your opinion: “Your letter addressed to me was received at the beginning of the Sabbath I should advise you to attend the school, and not to leave this country until you become thoroughly settled in your mind as to what is truth. I sincerely hope that you will attend this term of school and learn all you can in regard to this message of truth that is to go to the world. {2SM 63.1}
“The Lord has not given you a message to call the Seventh-day Adventists 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. {2SM 63.2}
“I do not doubt your sincerity or honesty. I have written long letters at different times to those who were accusing the church of Seventh-day Adventists of being Babylon, that they were not handling the truth. You think individuals have prejudiced my mind. If I am in this state, I am not fitted to be entrusted with the work of God. But this matter has been brought before my mind in other cases where individuals have claimed to have messages for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, of a similar character, and the word has been given me, “Believe them not.” “I have not sent them, and yet they ran.” {2SM 63.3}
Please come back to the SDA church brother. God loves you and can use you to finish His work. Be blessed.
Ellen White did, indeed, say that the SDA Church was not Babylon. 100+ years ago. She also wrote that the SDA Church was “in danger of becoming a sister to fallen Babylon,” so clearly, one cannot use statements that applied to the Church in one state, and apply it to the Church in another state and time.
Israel was once the People of God, and it was written of Israel that the moon and stars would fail before God put them away as His people. Well, the moon and stars are still shining… but the promise no longer applies, because Israel violated God’s covenant.
What I’m saying is this, in the words of the prophet, “And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” (Jer 18:9, 10)
How that applies, everyone will have to decide for themselves, but it is clear that one cannot use the promises that God made to a people in the past, and say that this will always be true regardless of apostasy and changes in the nature of that people. Those quotes cannot “prooftext” the current state of the SDA Church.
This I hate. This is a feature of being at ease in Zion – of Jeshurun waxing fat and kicking. These things would not be if we ALL learned the sanctuary doctrine, which involves last day events, and got out there and taught it to those who do not know of it. No other church can teach it, for they do not have it and we who do, get all tied up in our own navels. Meanwhile, Jesus is about to come and we are wasting time taking potshots at each other over silly things.
Pastor Walter “Chick” McGill, instead of looking for a fight in the wrong direction, turn and face your real foe, the devil and fight him as never before. Ask God to truly open your eyes and take away self, if you really wish to help your little flock, and whatever you wish to know will be made plain. Next, the rest of us, let us get the doctrine right in our heads,be kind to those who don’t and teach with conviction without bombardment. Then God can and will truly bless our efforts to spread the gospel message of salvation.
Sending people to jail over a variation of a denominational name is embarrassing.
There are over 60 Baptist national groups in the US alone, plus dozens more within states. All use a variation of Baptist/s in their names. We need to get used to a reality that older denominations accepted a long time ago.
Do we have the wedding garment my friends?
https://eltuboadventista.com/english/watch_video.php?v=0117e218f16c030ea055
Is the modern SDA Church acting according to Christ’s mind, righteusness and example?
There is a fair amount of misinformation circulating, and I want to help set the record straight with facts. I am not saying anyone has purposefully misled anyone. Three witnesses can see the same accident and report apparently conflicting information. We even notice this kind of thing in the synoptic gospels. Some try to read between the lines and err in what may appear to be a logical deductions.
There were two SDA trademark cases where 3-judge panels were involved.
1) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board: Stocker and Perry vs. GC of SDA Corp. — 2 to 1 decision in favor of the SDA mark. CSDA agrees with the dissenting opinion in this case.
2) US Court of Appeals (6th Cirsuit): GC of SDA vs. McGill, et al, where McGill lost on the technicality that a RFRA claim cannot be made in a “private-party lawsuit.” This was a “circuit court split” from other appellant cases. A high-tier law firm in Wash. DC represented McGill pro bono to SCOTUS; an amicus brief was filed in McGill’s behalf by The Rutherford Institute. SCOTUS denied the petition to review the 6th Circuit decision in McGill. The General Conference had hired a special high-tier law firm in Wash. DC and recruited a high-profile attorney from Louisiana to convince SCOTUS that this case was not a good one to remedy the “circuit court splits.”
(more to come with time)
I’m confused about how many think the name “Seventh-day Adventist” was somehow handed down to us by God. What is this tendency to fixate on some things the 19th century founders said or did that makes us think that by sprinkling some rhetorical holy water on it makes it a direct revelation from God? True, they said and did a lot of important things. But don’t you suppose they said or did many things that were simply their approach that day or their opinion that day?
I suppose that depends on whether or not you consider Ellen White’s writings to be inspired. She did explicitly say that “Seventh day Adventist” is the name that God has given us, and that it is the only name appropriate for our faith, and that it would be borne by the Church until the close of probation… so it wasn’t simply a matter specific to that day.
It isn’t confusing if you believe that this is a prophetic source. It also isn’t confusing if you DON’T believe that, because you can easily see why those who do have come to the conclusion that the name is important.
Where did she say that?
Quite a number of places. Anyone who has looked into this matter will surely have come across several, but here are just a couple, and possibly not even the most explicit:
“No name which we can take will be appropriate but that which accords with our profession and expresses our faith and marks us a peculiar people. The name Seventh-day Adventist is a standing rebuke to the Protestant world.” [T1, p. 223]
“We are Seventh-day Adventists. Are we ashamed of our name? We answer, ‘No, no! We are not. It is the name the Lord has given us.* It points out the truth that is to be the test of the churches.’” [Letter 110]
“I have been shown that this name means much, and in adopting it* we have followed the light given us from heaven.” [SM2, p. 384]
*Note that “adopting” it does not mean “creating” it. If it was truly “the name the Lord has given us” then it is not human intelletual property, and thus not legitimately subject to trademark law.
“A company was presented before me under the name of Seventh-day Adventists, who were advising that the banner or sign which makes us a distinctive people should not be held out so strikingly; for they claimed it was not the best policy in securing success to our institutions. This distinctive banner is to be borne through the world to the close of probation.” [SM2, p. 385]
I hope this clarifies any potential confusion, since, whether or not you accept these statements as inspired, many do, and have therefore…
therefore believed the name significant.
Both CSDAs and SDAs accept those words as true; therefore it is not so much a matter of impersonation (as many have accused the smaller group) but of merely sharing a common conviction.
The difference is that the SDA church believes it has exclusive “right” to this name, and so far the world has agreed. This is probably the reason why the Bible has told us NOT to go before secular courts; they are simply not equipped to decide on matters of faith.
What about a name like First Christian Adventist Church? Can someone find a use for such a name?
Oh, Smuts van Rooyen, how you’ve made me laugh. I’d like to attend the First Christian Adventist Church very much indeed!
I would suggest the Final Sabbatarian Christian Adventist Church.
Final here would connote those who have “come-out” from the “Second Babylon”.
Or perhaps you could choose the name Final Adventist Remnant Church Eternal (FARCE).
FARCE = Final Adventist Remnant Church Eternal Mr. Hanstra has outdone himself. Bravo. Jolly good.
It might be possible to convince professional jurists (judges) that the name, Christian Adventist Church” is sufficiently different from “Seventh-day Adventist” enough to minimize confusion. There is a technical sense, however, in which the name “Christian Adventist Church”, when used to describe an organization opposed to the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, would not solve the question of infringement of the name. If I’m not mistaken, it is not only the name, “Seventh-day Adventist” that is “protected”. The General Conference has also registered the word, “Adventist” as a trademark.
Don’t anyone fool themselves into thinking the name needs to be just significantly different. It cannot have the single word ADVENTIST in the name. This is one of the words the GC has trademarked. It will sue anyone, First Christian Adventist Church or whatever, if it contains the word Adventist or any of the other words it has trademarked. Search carefully and you’ll find out all the words and all the groups it’s sued. Also search EGW writings and see what she says about those that use the power of the state to enforce their religious desires.
Roger, it is true the General Conference Corporation owns trademarks/service marks for the term “Adventist.” However, in the TTAB case (Stocker & Perry v. GCCSDA), the GC filed a disclaimer which still appears at the USPTO, for example:
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:pgyupk.9.187
NOTE:
Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE “ADVENTIST” APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
It is true that the GC threatens every group that uses the word “Adventist” because most of these people have no financial resources to defend their position. But, the fact remains that the GCC does not claim “exclusive” rights in that term.
Now, the current permanent injunction against McGill, et al stipulates that we cannot use “SDA”, “SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST”, “SEVENTH DAY”, “ADVENTIST”, etc. We were given a special sanction at the request of the GC attorneys. Consequently, we cannot take the name “Seventh Day Mormon”, “Seventh Day Baptist”, or any other “Seventh Day” church.
Furthermore, on our part, we can take no other name than the one God gave to us via divine mandate, viz., “Creation 7th Day Adventist.” To do otherwise would be a willful disregard of God’s command.
Think spiritually with me for a moment. Adventists have long expected a “national Sunday law” which would require “Sabbath-keeping Adventists” (SDAs) to violate their consciences to keep the 1st day of the week as the “Christian Sabbath.” According to the Spirit of Prophecy, those 7th-day keepers would not be allowed freedom to observe God’s holy 7th day. They would be FORCED to keep a “spurious sabbath.”
If you were CSDA and could not freely testify to your true faith and your religious observances, would that not be a “type” of a “national Sunday law?” Since we (CSDA) are bound by a national law prohibiting us from formally declaring our “Creation 7th Day” faith, and practicing freely our 7th day religion, can you not see how this does the same to CSDA as a national Sunday law might do to SDA?
The GC Corp. went after a tiny independent group in Hawaii a couple of decades ago, and destroyed it. Don’t know how SDA Kinship managed to beat the GC. The CSDA group is also tiny. I think this issue of the giant SDA Corp. stomping on tiny variant groups is going to backfire and cause more bad PR for the good name of Seventh-day Adventism than if they just ignored the tiny splinter groups. “God calls upon this church to make a change. They had a name to live, but their works were destitute of the love of Jesus. Oh, how many have fallen because they trusted in their profession for salvation! How many are lost by their effort to keep up a name!” 7BC 958
This McGill guys is bad news….I’m not justifying what the organization is doing, that is wrong, too…but this McGill guy is very strange….and has strange beliefs and I don’t blame the church for not wanting someone who is so far out there to be identified with the same name. I’ve met this man in person….VERY STRANGE.
Adventism seems “very strange” to a lot of people. When I first heard about Ellen White, I thought it was extremely odd. Fortunately, I did not let that prevent me from giving it a serious look.
The problem is that people will automatically assume “different” means that it is ok to attack, shun, or ignore them. I’m not saying this is what you are suggesting, but I DO “blame the Church” for using forbidden means while believing they are doing God some kind of a favor for protecting His name (the name of the Church belongs to God, after all) using His enemies’ power and authority.
The disciple who tried to defend Jesus with a sword was reprimanded, while the one who was wounded was healed. (Luke 22:50, 51)
Tammy, I have a different view based on multiple sources.
Over the last year or so, I became intrigued by Walter McGill walking over 3,000 miles from the east coast to the west coast, hand-carrying the American flag as a Vietnam Veteran, on a national prayer walk. My online sources included social media, newspapers, radio stations, Wikipedia, and TV stations (Google searches).
From the above, I learned that his efforts were appreciated by city officials, as he stopped to visit with them along the route and pray for their communities.
After completing this national prayer walk at Santa Monica Pier, he was honored as a military hero at Dodger Stadium in LA.
YouTube videos show him stopping and interacting with individuals along the walk, who were apparently being blessed by their visitation. He also was welcomed and appreciated at churches of various denominations, including Seventh-day Adventist.
Walter McGill appears to be a respectable and God-fearing man who is well thought of and appreciated by many across America.
Below is a new piece of news I found online about Walter McGill. He was honored at Dodgers Stadium July 12th!
http://justsaynews.com/tennessee-pastor-veteran-honored-at-dodger-stadium-july-12th/
I hope everyone will note that Walter McGill confirmed what I thought: There is no new lawsuit. This is merely a motion filed within a case that is about 9 years old.
Walter, I have a question for you. Is the mark of the beast the keeping of Sunday when enforced by law, as Ellen White described it in GC? Or is it something else?
Hi Bob,
You will note from the article that it is “new litigation,” not a new lawsuit. The Conference is attempting to add further restrictions to what it has already gained from the original lawsuit, and to that end has again gone to court… so the title and content of the article is correct.
I would not call a new motion “new litigation.” It sounds misleading, but maybe that terminology is customary. I don’t know.
The article states, “The Phillip M. Kirkpatrick law firm in Nashville, Tennessee, has been retained by the GC to litigate this current case.” That certainly gives the impression that the new litigation is a new case.
The term “litigation” refers to practically any court-related action. It is customary, yes.
Bob, I am really glad you asked this question. Again, I have limited space to treat this topic adequately. I am an avid student of the Spirit of Prophecy — over 35 years of study.
Everything that EGW wrote is true “considering time and place.” Everything that Jeremiah wrote is true considering time and place. BUT, times and places do change, and “conditional prophecy” is an important concept to understand. I wish we had room to develop that theme further.
RE the MARK from the God’s Word Translation:
“The second beast forces all people-important and unimportant people, rich and poor people, free people and slaves-to be branded on their right hands or on their foreheads. It does this so that no one may buy or sell unless he has the brand, which is the beast’s name or the number of its name.” (Rev. 13:16, 17)
Trademarks are considered “brands.” We have seen that language employed here in this thread. We are also debating a “name” here as well. Every trademark that is registered has a “number” assigned to identify it. Now, in the above verses, we read “brand,” “name,” and “number.” We also read “buy or sell” which is equivalent to “trade.” Consequently, we can easily conclude this is a “trade brand.” (See the SDA Bible Commentary on this passage.)
(see next post please)
Jeremiah writes of a “new covenant” in the following passage:
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.
33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 “And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jer. 31:31-34)
Jeremiah tells of this new covenant with Israel and Judah, not the Gentiles. Obviously, there is a change of time and place which alters the prophecy according to “conditions.”
This “new covenant” is so powerful that “they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD.
Becoming as little children, we can “know the LORD.” 🙂
(Sorry I cannot take space to develop…
I failed to post a link to an article I wrote some years ago. “THE MARK — From the Caves to the Courts.”
http://www.pastorwalterchickmcgilllawsuit.net/THE_MARK.html
The Seventh Day Advent is name has to be protected. many are coming via in the misuse of the name. The people will not know the difference btn SDA and CSDA. So the GO is vary right to protect the name and it’s members, I will donate what ever small is towards the couse.
Only those that have the Holy Spirit can detect the true vs the untrue. No court of law can determine that. The GC is not protecting anything. It’s persecuting Christians whether they believe the same as you do or not. The disciples also wanted to “protect” the name of Jesus. Remember how they came to him one day complaining about how others where teaching in his name. What did Jesus say… Leave them alone.. So who is following the principles of Jesus here?
I personally don’t accept all the CSDA group beliefs, but I adamantly believe the GC is in error for suing them.
In case some of you are misled to believe CSDA is just a “tiny” group in the USA, I want to share a post I recently received from the Southern Asia Division. I admit the rhetoric is extreme and gives the sound of desperation. However, we have never had the opportunity to counsel with all people who are spiritually “with us.”
“Pastor McGill the general conference led by Ted Wilson has misled the adventists worldwide. He is the modern day anti christ. We have heard about CSDA & we firmly believe that its our answer to a corrupt SDA church led by a dictator like ted anti christ wilson. We support you & your organization wholeheartedly… we know that your teachings are sincere & we want to get out of teds babylon. Our prayers & our support are with you & CSDA. The devil in the GC shall lead them to a bottomless pit… where their arrogance n pride shall be eternally burried. They have been unfair to us in the southern asia division. Ted wilson has racially discriminated against our division in the recently concluded elections at san antonio texas. He is above 65 & shud have retired long ago. We are confident that you will get past the law suit filed the GC… who by the way are a bunch of crooks themselves. Our prayers n support to you eternally.”
We shall never grow weary in well-doing.
, I want to share a post I recently received from the Southern Asia Division.
Are you to lead us to believe this was an official communication from the Southern Asia Division? Or more likely from a small group of disgruntled individuals?
If it is the latter, which I suspect, it sounds like CSDA is a “tiny” group in the Jackson, TN area with a few disgruntled sympathizers. Which it is important to remember that size .great or small, does not make you right or wrong. Overstating the cause might.
Tim, I only know the post came from a person claiming to be SDA in that division. CSDA has “sympathizers” and “members” scattered in different countries. We are a movement of like-minded believers even though we have not become fully organized. My personal ministry has centered in west Tennessee and So. Cal., extending to Canada, Rwanda, and Uganda. My point in the previous post is that we are not confined to the west TN area, though I concede “tiny” in comparison to GCSDA.
If you are pleased with the main-stream organization’s activities, you might likely label all of us “disgruntled individuals.” I personally find a difference in following the leading of God’s Spirit and merely being disgruntled.
I must confess that my ministry in America has not been as fruitful as I would have liked, and part of the reason is the instant trademark lawsuit that has plagued our state-side work since 2005. The GC attorneys managed to obtain a District Court order to subpoena all CSDA members in TN and within a 100-mile radius from Jackson in order to gather personal banking information from each individual. The intention was to recover $107,000 of attorney fees from our membership.
In the original 2006 complaint filed with the District Court in Jackson, the GC accused me of defrauding them of money. Since I have NEVER passed a plate or collected money in a worship service, I find their exaggerations ludicrous.
Yes, there are likely many “disgruntled individuals.”
And my point is truth is not based on size. If you are right you are right, if you are wrong you are wrong. Appealing to size is immaterial.
The bondage that the GC of SDA TM attempts to deliver to others is a power of Satanic design. The purpose of accessing the side of the first advent of Messiah must ask what is that “distinctive banner (that)is to be borne through the world to the close of probation?” The ancient banner of Elias or Elijah is the Vessel of Moses. The exercising of civil power through federal courts is a beguiling tactic of the evil one. Wisdom to discuss the merits of religious freedom and now the loss of freedom to the powers of a mark indeed has a spirit of satanic design. Evil angels aat every moment empower those that will persecute others as Rome has and still does through guise of religion. What about this vision? That night I dreamed that I was in Battle Creek looking out from the side glass at the door and saw a company marching up to the house, two and two. They looked stern and determined. I knew them well and turned to open the parlor door to receive them, but thought I would look again. The scene was changed. The company now presented the appearance of a Catholic procession. One bore in his hand a cross, another a reed. And as they approached, the one carrying a reed made a circle around the house, saying three times: “This house is proscribed. The goods must be confiscated. They have spoken against our holy order.” Terror seized me…1T577. What is proscribed? forbid, especially by law especially a tactic by the Roman Catholic Church. The trial has a Catholic MARK…
Some of you people always have something to say whether you have anything to say or not, which you usually don’t.
But, what does that say about the people who have something to say about those who have nothing to say?
This seems to be a pretty controversial subject, certainly and interesting one; and one about which it is worth having something to say.
How has the Roman Catholic procession of SDA TM leaders now acted to declare Proscribed and to steal others items? http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/433453541.html
Why would a covetous group masquerading as SDA want to steal what is not theirs and go to Federal Court to silence them? There is a battle going on folks that is to be realized as TM lawsuits are rebellion against Almighty GOD of the lowest of the heathen tactics of Rome. The cup of their iniquity of the TM organization is so obvious! Men, bad men, ensnared by evil full of rage like a spoiled child are not in submission to the will of Almighty GOD. The distracted watchmen understand what the term “reed” refers to in Biblical terms. The backslidden state of the SDA TM corporation leaders are those that have left their love of Messiah and are no longer the recipients of the voice of GOD but the voice of the enraged devilish Roman Catholic procession. Consequences of watchmen not warning the erring sister Tammy makes full acknowledgment of her self deceived views. Minister McGill has no fanaticism that deserves slander. The spirit of sister Tammy insisting of ‘strange’ theories has the same ignorant spirit of those that urged my ancestors to be burned at the stake in Auto de Fe. It is a disgusting attitude that prevails as people pretending to be holy swill their ignorant attitudes out that stirs up a persecuting spirit. Servants of GOD are invited to learn about the Vessel of Moses and its banner…
What about the term “reed” is in the versions Rev 11:1, Isaiah 42:3, Matt. 12:20? Why would the Roman Procession be with a reed?
What are the original Scripture hints about the term רָצוּץ֙ Broken קנה reeds? The term קנה indicates instead of just reeds is forced possession, acquiring and purchasing with a warning of jealous envy. The term רָצוּץ֙ indicates breaking and crushing yet it also is about breaking up into smaller portions. What is the Hebrew phrase telling this generation? Persecution against small groups required the GC SDA TM group of envious jealousy to acquire a persecuting crushing arm of law to go after the dwellings of innocent individuals using sacred tithe and offerings in a truly misguided manner! Stealing! The dwelling of the jealous envious SDA TM organization have indeed MOVED OUT and no longer live with the sacred dwelling of Almighty GOD! The symbol of servants of GOD will never be a persecuting power. What about the broken reed as a sign of Messiah? The study of the subject revealed an amazing understanding: “Investigation of every point that has been received as truth will repay the searcher: He will find precious gems. And in closely investigating ever jot and tittle which we think is established truth, in comparing Scripture with Scripture, we may discover errors in our [Versions] interpretation of Scripture.” RH:July 12, 1889; par.15. The broken reed is because it indicates SCHOLARSHIP reeds of Hebrew letters in an interlinear…
The boundary of man’s authority as broken reeds: “Under the showers of the latter rain the inventions of man, the human machinery, will at times be swept away, the boundary of man’s authority will be as broken reeds, and the Holy Spirit will speak through the living, human agent, with convincing power. No one then will watch to see if the sentences are well rounded off, if the grammar is faultless. The living water will flow in God’s own channels”2SM59a This is about translation authority! This is about being able to read the ancient vessel of Moses and determine if the versions reflect the appropriate intent of the WORD OF GOD. “The Finishing Work: The Loud Cry.” Here she writes “Here was shown the nature of the work of the people of GOD. They have a message of such great importance that they are represented as flying in the presentation of it to the world. They are HOLDING IN THEIR HANDS THE BREAD OF LIFE for a famishing world. The love of Messiah constrains them. THIS IS THE LAST MESSAGE. There are no more to follow, no more invitations of mercy to be given after this message has done its work.”5T377 “Prophecy must be fulfilled. The LORD says: ‘Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.’ Somebody is to come in the spirit and power of Elijah, and when he appears, men may say: ‘you are too earnest, you do not interpret the Scriptures in the proper way. Let me tell you how to preach your…
The standard of Rome, the Labarum is prominently placed on the front, the back, at every chapter of the Spanish Desire of Ages. The Labarum remains a Roman conquest sign! http://store.iadpa.org/item280539-40.html
The nature and work of the people of GOD with the bread of life according to the ancient Sacred Scriptures at the time of the great and dreadful day of the LORD is to wave that banner of love of the bread into the grape juice to satisfy the requirements of Almighty GOD regarding serious abominations. The Vessel of Moses, the most sought after relic in history of mankind has been hunted by treasure seekers yet has been elusive to those of unclean hands and hearts. The last message of mercy to those that have a higher calling, those that truly have a Seventh-day Adventist heart to love the LORD GOD with all of their heart, all of their soul and love their neighbor as themselves is to take the right step forward to return to the first love and be a part of a remnant of Messiah. A rebuke to those that attempted to steal the Vessel of Moses and silence its message is that a special court of Heaven has identified your heavier sins and offenses persecuting innocent people such as the Minister McGill. The vessel of Moses gives a black stone verdict of guilty against your dwelling קנה reeds is in reality the eagles nest of Rome for קנה reeds also is an encoded word that indicates the eagle, specifically, the terrorists of Rome. Flee out of the unclean dwelling of the…
While I don’t necessarily agree with Walter “Chick” McGill on every single point, I do believe it is the right of every free citizen to bear the name of his faith and that any citizen, once they call on the legislating authority of the state, has made flesh his arm. The Seventh-day Adventist name has been trademarked because people intending to defend it have become fearful that they will not be able to do so by their faith. They have made their faith subservient to flesh. When fear dictates the actions of a few who have been placed in positions of responsibility, you get the McGill quandary wherein the same have in essence said, “We have no king but Caesar”. The only thing that can be done at that point is to repent if The Lord will indeed accept it.
Yes, this is very true, fear and unbelief was what motivated the building of a wordily kingdom and a tower, as it’s symbolic representation of these fears and arrogance.
“And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”
But those in whom Christ’s lives and remain do not act based on fear. Fear is completely antagonistic to God’s love and His Sabbath Rest in the believer.
What a sad state of affairs. Several years ago I ceased calling myself a SAD.
I am a Christian with two fundamental beliefs. Love the Lord with all my heart and my neighbor at myself. I am spirituality feed at a local Baptit church.
Life has become fuller and much more meaningful.
What a hoot. Fancy going to jail over a name. The unique arrangement of 19 letters.
I could imagine many other things to go to jail over. There are the usual crimes. Then there are occasions where the government instructs you to teach your kids a certain way, or believe a certain belief, or thinks you shouldn’t have stood up for somebody. Or a corporation thinks you have stolen their idea, or brand, or inflicted some damage.
I don’t know of anyone who willingly takes someone else’s name with the knowledge that they are going to be in deep trouble, as in, incarceration. And as for stealing the SDA name, it must only be of value because the owner of it has made it valuable.
Theft is theft. It breaches one of the commandments. God doesn’t endorse the breaking of the commandments. If one needs a great name, invent or buy your own.
But then, one may simply be looking for publicity, or free board and lodging.
It IS only valuable because its Owner has made it valuable. With that I agree. “It is the name the Lord has given us.” He is the Owner, and He has made it very valuable indeed.
Secular thought may not understand the idea of standing firm for principle and convictions, and even ridicule it, but fortunately there are still some that do, and some (posting here, from inside the GC organization and out) that respect religious liberty with regard to God’s gifts to humanity, even if to the world it just looks like 19 simple letters.
If one is a baptized member of the SDA church and say so publically it may soon be a violation in the eyes of the GC LEGALBEAGLES,(who need to justify their salaries and position), if you disagree with them in some way. Is this going to be the “dire consequences” for those unions ordaining women to Gospel ministry?
The Potomac Conference, with help from GC LB’s sued the Takoma Academy Alumni Association over the use of the name. They did not like the Alumni controlling money they raised for the school after the Alumni incorporated (actually current advice for alumni groups raising money by NAD Risk Management). The Alumni had to agree to change their name, make no references to the school, school address or school mascot, etc. The suit however was dropped by PC when their financials were subpeoned as they have played tricks with their GC sanctioned money laundering. This lawsuit cost the church members, half a million dollars in legal fees, further support for the school from many alumni, bad press in the public arena and more.
This is not Christianity! Members are members if baptized or alumni and should be able to use the label.
This small group has received much publicity and the SDA church Looks petty. Christ told the disciples they were not to stop others telling the Good News.
Chick,
The article states, “They believe that the name Seventh-day Adventist was given by God to describe the Adventist faith and that those who accept the Adventist beliefs must use the name in identifying themselves and their organizations ….”
I explicitly asked you whether the mark of the beast was Sunday observance when enforced by law, as Ellen White stated in GC, and your reply failed to say that it is. Instead, you tried to excuse your rejection of Adventist beliefs about the mark by, in effect, making of none effect the testimonies, which, as you likely know, is the last deception of Satan. But perhaps you think that the “last deception” quote is a conditional prophecy too.
Thus, it is apparent to me that you want to use the Adventist name while rejecting Adventist beliefs, which is quite a different situation than what the above quote from the article suggests.
As far as your conditional prophecy excuse goes, consider that Joshua foretold that whoever built Jericho would lose his eldest and youngest sons in the process. The guy who finally rebuilt it 550 or 600 years later in Ahab’s time, he certainly could argue that circumstances had changed such that that prophecy wasn’t applicable any more, but it tragically came true none the less.
Why not put aside your pet theories and return to Adventism?
Hi Bob,
An interesting analogy with Jericho… but, what were the “conditions” placed on that prophecy? Prophecies based on the spiritual fidelity of a people have a natural condition; that is, that the people remain faithful.
Jericho was destroyed, therefore no spiritual “change” would alter the fulfillment of that prophecy of its rebuilding. The deciding factor is not “time” as you suggest, but “choices.”
It seems perfectly consistent to me that the principle be applied uniformly, and quite in line with historical Adventism to conclude that prophetic fulfillment can be altered by spiritual decisions (as Jeremiah stated outright).
Having different understandings of these matters does not constitute a “rejection” of SDA beliefs simply because it is not the modern, mainstream view. After all, the relatively recent adoption of a Trinitarian view of the Godhead (I know, another can of worms) might be considered as “rejecting Adventist beliefs,” but because the “majority wins” in modern SDA thought on many such matters, it is considered quite orthodox.
David,
If you reject the idea that the mark of the beast is Sunday observance when enforced by law, then you reject a very key belief of Seventh-day Adventism and the 3rd angel’s message.
I have found most non-trinitarians to be more Trinitarian than perhaps most Adventists as it pertains to part of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. But one’s belief on the Godhead has never been considered the reason why God raised up the Advent Movement. To proclaim the 3rd angel’s message, yes, to articulate minutely the nature of God, no.
I always thought that the key belief of Seventh-day Adventistm was the Gospel. It is clear that this is no longer the case, however, at least as far as the GC Corporation goes. I cannot conceive of the Messiah inspiring or approving the kind of harassment and civil litigation currently undertaken by a people claiming to be His. Do they expect to be rewarded for this in the judgment?
According to Ellen White, it is the “personality of God” that is everything to us as a people, and by its very nature, prophecy is conditional. When has any prophecy been fulfilled exactly as God’s professed people expected? Be very, very careful when it comes to being sure you are right about a predicted course of events.
In any case, what you say about the Godhead pertains even more to the SDA Church than the idea of a National Sunday Law. God has raised up a people who are going to be faithful to all His commandments; whether or not a law passes exactly as she envisioned it does not at all affect one’s ability to be a faithful Seventh-day Adventist Christian.
And just for clarity, I do not “reject” the idea that A Mark of The Beast is Sunday Observance. I simply believe that ANY union of Church and State constitutes a Mark of The Beast. Should a Sunday Law pass, forcing a people to choose between their convictions or the law, that is a Mark.
In Daniel and The Revelation by Uriah Smith, the Mark of The Beast is described as “a Sunday Law” or any other law that fulfills its nature. While some may say, “Well, Uriah Smith was not a prophet,” it does show that understanding the Mark in a broader context is NOT a rejection of Seventh-day Adventism, and Ellen White did endorse that particular publication.
As such, should any OTHER law pass forcing a people to choose between their convictions or the law, resulting from a Protestant Church uniting with the United States Civil government… then I have to acknowledge that this, too, fulfills every principle that the Great Controversy describes as a test for the people of God… and that according to SDA teachings on the matter.
This trademark litigation, as I read it, seems to match this in each particular I have listed above.
No, David. Sunday observance when enforced by law is THE mark of the beast referred to in Rev. 13-14, not A mark of the beast.
And that isn’t my opinion. Jesus explicitly testified by the Holy Spirit through an inspired prophet that Sunday observance when enforced by law would be the mark of the beast. Let’s not participate in the last deception of Satan by making of none effect that testimony.
Sorry, Bob… you hadn’t replied in a few days, so I didn’t check this thread.
I understand perfectly the interpretation you currently hold; it is one that I myself held for years. HOWEVER, I cannot ignore the full testimony of Ellen White in favor of this or that individual quote.
Because I respect her inspiration, I must accept all she has to say in much the same way I accept the Biblical prophets, who said that Israel would never fall, Nineveh would be destroyed in three days, and Gog and Magog would be consumed by fire as they rose up against the holy nation.
These things are fulfilled; however, in ways very different than the prophets themselves intended. Certainly, in different ways than the receipients of the prophecies thought (in their self-assurance). We cannot say, “Because the prophet believed…” a certain view (even a very clear one) we must ignore time and changes of circumstanes.
In fact, Ellen White herself said just the opposite: “God bids me urge upon the attention of our people the importance of THEIR study. Let this work begin now.” [1SM 56.3]
“Regarding the testimonies, nothing is ignored; nothing is cast aside; but time and place must be considered.” [1SM 57.3]
Ultimately, it is not your place to determine whether I am a Seventh-day Adventist or not based on your personal criteria, however clearly you may believe you have the traditional truth.
I am an SDA in letter and spirit, AND my beliefs on this point differ from…
… from yours.
walter Mcgill find your own name or else someone else will start another church. Sanctuary seventh day Adventist or just like dsda .this shows lack of innovation. if this bitterness continues I dont know which heaven you are going. Jesus will find u bitter and no heaven for u.and that will be a sorry sight. God has given us a ministry of re reconciliation. with this bitterness whom are u serving, its outright the enemy of souls. Repent or perish and consider reconciliation
I think the issue here is not “innovation,” but “obedience.” If the CSDA Church believes that God has given an instruction, then it is useless to say, “Invent your own rules.” That seems a lot like saying, “God has blessed the Seventh Day, but we will choose the first instead.”
It is true that God has given His people a ministry of reconciliation, but the Bible itself shows there are times when a people must split off from a group that is not advancing in the light.
What will Jesus say about those who are bringing human power to the defense of His Bride? This seems to be far more of an issue for the repent-or-perish ultimatum than simply following a set of beliefs.
What about the book Desire of Ages and John Milton’s book Paradise Lost. Did anyone challenge E.G. White on her book. The SDA seem to have lost its way. To spend that kind of money in the world’s courts show to the world that they profess to be followers of Christ but are typical of the Pharisees of old. No wonder the church has lost so many. I think they would be right at home with the Pharisees of Christ’s day. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
For any who are interested in the legal aspects of RFRA and how it could have applied to this trademark lawsuit, Sara Kohen writes on the subject:
http://works.bepress.com/sara_kohen/3/
Martin wrote, Aug. 15th:
“McGill, you divorced yourself from the SDA church. Change your name and stop using the SDA logos. That is deceitful … when people see that logo, they understand that you are a SDA member in good standing with the original organization. I am sure that what you got was not a revelation but the product of indigestion. In my experience with offshoots, when they persist in their rebellion, God intervenes and they get defeated. … Where are Ford, Brinsmead and Koresh now? What happened to their movements? They did not endure because they were delusional. … So it will happen to your movement. Repent and come back to the fold. … Satan has you in his fold, but God can use you in his with great power. “Give at least two warnings to those who cause divisions, and then have nothing more to do with them. You know that such people are corrupt, and their sins prove that they are wrong.” Titus 3:10,11. Your energies should not be spent against the SDA church, but against the darkness in which the souls are in this world. Go and win souls for Christ with your own name and logos.”
My response:
http://creation7thdayadventist.to/images/2Martin8-18-15.jpg
This reply of Martin is right on target, and a discerning of spirits. McGill is way off track in his claims of “righteousness.” If he is any kind of a Christian he would be like Jesus in the example of the Temple Tax, he should “pay the tax” even if he thinks he does not have to, just like Jesus did (though Jesus could have legitimately not paid it), McGill should follow the Bible and “agree quickly with thy adversary in the way, lest he take you before the judge.” That would be following Jesus and the Christian thing to do.
Matthew 5:25-26Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
Luke 12:55-58 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
55 And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass. 56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time? 57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right? 58 When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into…
Matthew 5:25-26Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
25 “If anyone wants to take you to court, make friends with them quickly. Try to do that before you get to the court. If you don’t, they might hand you over to the judge. And the judge will hand you over to a guard, who will throw you into jail. 26 I assure you that you will not leave there until you have paid everything you owe.
Submitted on 2015/08/21 at 10:21 am | In reply to walkthewalknow.
Pr. Chick,
After much consideration of the pros and cons of your controversy with the church, I have concluded that both the church and you are wasting precious time and resources that could be used for the advance of the Gospel.
To the church I would say: Do not forget what Jesus said to John and James when they discovered that someone was preaching without proper authorization. Jesus’ advice was to let the man alone.
To you I would say: Remember the incident when Peter reported to Jesus that someone was arguing that Jesus needed to pay the Temple Tax. The Jewish Messiah was, of course, exempted from taxation, and Jesus could have fought for his legal rights, but he instructed Peter to go fishing and pay said taxes from the catch.
I conclude that both you and the church would be wise to learn from Jesus’ example.
Hi Nic,
Are you comparing the use of the name “Seventh Day Adventist” to paying the temple tax? I am not sure if I understand the application you are making.
You are aware, I assume, that McGill has claimed that he was inspired to use the name endorsed by Ellen White with the modification “Creation” in front of it? If that is the case, then I don’t think you will convince him (or anyone who accepts that testimony) that this is just a fight for legal rights. It comes down to a matter of legal requirements vs. a stated religious obligation, and this is not just something that someone can stop doing. For any Christian, “we must obey God rather than men” is always going to be the bottom line.
Could you “stop” believing in the Sabbath blessing, or the spiritual element of the Bible’s health laws simply because a law was passed making them illegal. This is a more complex matter than you seem to be portraying.
Nic,
I know you to be a principled man, defending unborn children and their “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” Surely, you are misunderstanding something here!
When I was incarcerated in July of 2012 (by the request of the GC legal team), I endured two attempts on my life by LA gangster inmates. I saw the Hand of God deliver me “supernaturally” both times On another occasion, I experienced physical assault because I refused to clean the bathroom on the Sabbath (it had never been required on Saturday before I testified to being a Sabbath-keeper). I tell you truly, I know what it is to “suffer for His name’s sake,” “love your enemies,” and “turn the other cheek.”
I was a fighter before my conversion to Christ. I am a Vietnam veteran, serving two and a half years in the war zone. I have the training to take on more than one gangster, but I did what Jesus would do, because I am a Christian.
I am also doing what Jesus requires me to do regarding the name “Creation 7th Day Adventist.” My conscience is sacred, and no matter whether you or any other human on this planet cares about my conscience, I MUST “obey God rather than men.” I pray for my enemies daily.
And, to slightly modify what David Aguilar said above, I do NOT cling to the name I have taken merely because of the writings of EGW. I received a direct supernatural visitation by God mandating the use of my religious name. No one has to believe me, but in the judgment, I shall be…
vindicated.
Chick,
In rejecting Adventism’s teaching on the mark of the beast, it seems to me that you are exalting yourself above the Spirit of Prophecy. You refuse to use any other name because of some claimed “supernatural visitation,” while you call Ellen White’s description of the mark of the beast a conditional prophecy. Thus you seem to be making your “supernatural visitation” more authoritative than GC’s descriptions of the final crisis.
Well, then, support your claims. Ellen White experienced supernatural phenomena which self-professed prophets have not. Did you lose all strength during the “supernatural visitation”? Did you receive supernatural strength? Did you speak without breathing?
Above David Aguilar said, “… whether or not a law passes exactly as she envisioned it ….” Would you correct him by pointing out to him that it isn’t just how she envisioned it; it’s how God told her it would be?
David also mistakenly said that Ellen White never endorsed Uriah Smith’s Daniel and the Revelation. Would you correct him by pointing out that she most certainly did, repeatedly? 1MR 60-65 give a sampling of such statements.
Bob,
If you are trying to persuade me to “correct” David, I’ll pass – though I thought he said EGW DID endorse “Daniel and the Revelation” (Uriah Smith).
You apparently misunderstand the *principles* of the mark of the beast. I do NOT dismiss any of those principles regarding the mark of the beast and the seal of God. It IS a “Sabbath issue.” A church or person who must employ the “strong arm of civil government” to sustain themselves, by definition, forms an “image to the beast.” When FORCE is resorted to in religious disputes, there is a “false religion” guiding the “sword of Caesar.” The church or person who MUST be protected by some other than Christ is not keeping Sabbath. They only believe in a “spurious sabbath,” though they might observe it on Saturday. I refer you to a pioneer work entitled “The Three Sabbaths” (Waggoner).
Yes, I misread what David wrote about Ellen White endorsing D&R.
In Dan. 3, the issue of the image to the beast is a legislated time of worship which representatives from various parts of the world were expected to obey, on pain of death.
That issue fits worldwide Sunday legislation, with death as the penalty for infractions. It does not fit trademark law.
If it truly is a religious dispute as you claim, then please explain what supernatural phenomena you experienced during your “supernatural visitation” that justifies your rejection of GC’s identification of the mark of the beast. Or, by passing on that question in your last comment, are you saying that you never experienced any supernatural phenomena, witnessed by others, that would unquestionably demonstrate that the “visitation” was indeed supernatural?
You probably realize that I’m not discussing “principles” of the mark of the beast. I’m discussing GC’s identification of that mark.
Bob,
“An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:” (Matt 12:39) When judgment comes, there is your sign. Pitting me against a prophet or prophettess of God is hopeless.
Your writing indicates to me “principle” is not your focus in our discussion, and that suggests there is a flawed approach to your understanding of God’s Word.
If you are inclined to believe the book “The Great Controversy” as it is written verbatim, then I encourage you to compare EGW’s first installment of it from 1858. I would further encourage you to provide me a reference for her VISION which describes God’s inspired teaching on the national Sunday law. You will finally notice that her view on this topic evolved with the passing of current events.
Two EGW quotes exemplify how she knew the times and future events from that which was being “transacted before [her]”:
1) “The people who will now see what is soon to come upon us by what is being transacted before us, will no longer trust in human inventions, … that they may contend for the glory of God.” (HM Nov. 1, 1893)
2) “The signs of the times—the wars and rumors of wars, the strikes, murders, robberies, and accidents—tell us that the end of all things is at hand.” (RH May 13, 1902)
Now, this TEST concept is interesting to me.
In THE PRESENT TRUTH (August 1, 1849), EGW penned:
“I saw that THE PRESENT TEST on the Sabbath could not come, until the mediation of Jesus in the Holy Place was finished; and he had passed within the second vail; therefore, Christians, who fell asleep before the door was opened in the Most Holy, when the midnight cry was finished, at the seventh month 1844; and had not kept the true Sabbath, now rest in hope; for they had not the light, and the TEST on the Sabbath, which WE NOW HAVE, since that door was opened.
Then, EGW writes in 1882 (5T 137):
“The TEST will surely come. Thirty-six years ago I was shown that WHAT IS NOW TRANSPIRING [1882] would take place, that the observance of an institution of the papacy would be enforced upon the people by a Sunday law, while the sanctified rest day of Jehovah would be trampled underfoot.”
By the 1880’s, it wasn’t hard to see how such a scenario just might occur. In that decade Seventh Day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists were imprisoned and fined for working on Sunday, while Sunday-keepers could often work on Sunday unhindered. Then in 1888 came a national Sunday law bill introduced by U.S. Senator Henry Blair. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union circulated a petition in support of passage of this bill, and that petition drive reportedly obtained 13 million signatures, or roughly 20% of the population of the country at the time.
In 2SM 81 (1890), EGW wrote:
“You…
(cont.)
In 2SM 81 (1890), EGW wrote:
“You claim to believe the testimonies; let them set you right on this point. The Lord has shown me clearly that the image of the beast will be formed before probation closes; for it is to be THE GREAT TEST for the people of God, by which THEIR ETERNAL DESTINY will be decided.”
1898 (RH 07-12-98):
“A GREAT TEST is coming: it will be upon obedience or disobedience to the commandments of God.”
And of course, the Sabbath question is central to the debate, but not only in letter, but also in spirit. Every law God gives can be observed in letter, but if one violates the “spirit of the law,” they are commandment-breakers.
Example: “Do you never manifest rudeness, unkindness, and impoliteness in the family circle? If you do manifest unkindness at your home, no matter how high may be your profession, you are breaking God’s commandments. No matter how much you may preach the commandments to others, if you fail to manifest the love of Christ to others in your home life, you are a transgressor of the law.” (RH 03-29-92)
Let us pass THE GREAT TEST.
Chick,
I never asked for a sign. I asked you to describe the supernatural visitation you claimed to have had, to compare it to what the biblical prophets and Ellen White experienced, phenomena that unquestionably showed that it was no mere claim that they had received a divine message. The Bible says, “Prove all things.”
By emphasizing “principle” when talking about the mark of the beast, you are trying to justify ignoring what the passages clearly say, and by this means are trying to make of none effect the Testimonies, as already mentioned. That is the “very last deception of Satan” (1SM 48).
Lt6-1884 and 3SM 428 describe a dream or vision she had which referred to a universal Sunday law. As EW 85, 86 explains, she had a vision in 1847 about preaching the Sabbath as part of the 3rd angel’s message during the little time of trouble. You can’t get much earlier than that.
But I think you have to expand your search to include what Adventists in general were teaching. For example, before the 1888 Blair Sunday law bill, state Sunday laws were being used to persecute SDAs and Seventh Day Baptists. And before that, I think in the early 1880’s, someone wrote to the Review and asked how Adventist views on prophecy could occur since Sunday observance was getting laxer. Uriah Smith responded that you could expect things to get laxer, and then a reaction to that laxness would set in. That reaction soon came. So our views on Sunday laws came before we could see it…
…happening.
I don’t understand why you say that her views on Sunday legislation and the mark of the beast evolved over time, or even why you asked for a vision. You yourself cited 5T 137, asserting that it was written in 1882, which means that in that passage she is saying that she had a vision in 1846 about Sunday legislation. 1882 – “36 years ago I was shown” = 1846. Where is the evolving?
In RH 3-2-1852, James White connected the mark of the beast to a future enforcement of Sunday observance.
So where is the evolving? Where is the evidence that our views came during the Sunday law agitation of the 1880’s rather than decades before?
“This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women THERE IS NOT A GREATER PROPHET than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” (Luke 7:27, 28)
“And many resorted unto him, and said, JOHN DID NO MIRACLE: but all things that John spake of this man were true.” (John 10:41)
But even if I documented for you, the supernatural phenomena surrounding my ministry, you would not believe. Though I come as a “forrunner of Christ,” you will say, “you do not interpret the Scriptures in the proper way.” [See TM 475] “Somebody is to come [future] in the spirit and power of Elijah, and when he appears, men may say: ‘You are too earnest, you do not interpret the Scriptures in the proper way. Let me tell you how to teach your message.’”
I suggest taking care in how you apply EGWs words regarding the “testimony of the Spirit.” Here again, you fail to apply *principle* when referring to “mak[ing] of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God.” I testify the truth under the unction of the Spirit of God, ” whether men will hear or whether they will forbear.”
From 3SM 428 (see 2MR 207, 208), if you are going to take a literal interpretation, you must include portions such as this:
“They ridiculed our feebleness, they mocked at the smallness of our numbers, and taunted us with words calculated to cut…
…deep. They charged us with taking an independent position from all the rest of the world. They had cut off our resources so that we could not buy or sell, and they referred to our abject poverty and stricken condition. They could not see how we could live without the world. We were dependent on the world, and we must concede to the customs, practices, and laws of the world, or go out of it. If we were the only people in the world whom the Lord favored, the appearances were awfully against us….this little feeble people stood out in defiance of the laws of the land and the law of God, and claimed to be the only ones right on the earth.”
This description cannot be referring to the current Seventh-day Adventist denomination. It does, however, describe “the hated sect.” See the following link:
http://93.88.247.151//h_sect.html
Here is a principle, very important to our discussion: “When new light is presented, they feel as the Pharisees felt when Christ came with new light for the Jewish nation. They want to stop the increase of light. They not only refuse to search the Scriptures for themselves, but they do all in their power to prevent others from searching.
The Scriptures are constantly opening to the people of God. There always has been and always will be a truth specially applicable to each generation. The message given to Noah was present truth for that time;” (RH 06-29-86)
God is presently giving “a truth specially applicable to [this] generation.” There will be “no rest day nor night” and “wailing and gnashing of teeth” for those who reject it.
“Today the signs of the times declare that we are standing on the threshold of great and solemn events….The Bible, and the Bible only, gives a correct view of these things.” (LHU 364)
“God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms.” (RH 06-07-06)
Let us avoid the MARK, which is “the NAME of the beast or the NUMBER of his NAME.”
(Rev. 13:17)
“And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” So they said to him, “Who are you? We need to give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”
He said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straightf the way of the Lord,’(Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.) Jhon 1:22-24
“Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.” Mat 11:11,14
“Then [Jesus] began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent.” Mat 11:20-21
CONCLUSION: John the Baptist answered their question in principle, using different words and from a different angle. Why? Were their hearts really willing to believe John’s statements? No! And John the Baptist never wrote a canonical book like other prophets. Questions that come from unbelievers were not answered directly by John the Baptist and Jesus.
If I were to receive a Divine revelation or a specific instruction from God, it doesn’t matter if you believe me or not, for my conscience is the one accountable before the Throne of God for any word, instruction or light I have received from Him.
I wonder if Christians really understand what it means to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, in whatever form this is manifested, not only…
, not only the 10 commandments.
Chick,
The points you raise are not applicable to the situation at hand, since unlike the Pharisees of old, I object to your rejection of present truth explicitly stated by the Holy Spirit through a divinely inspired prophet. I object to your denial of explicitly stated, divinely revealed truth.
3SM 428 still applies to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. 18.5 million is a small number compared to the world’s population. It’s not even 1%.
I think you are misreading Revelation when you say that the mark is the name of the beast. But let’s see:
(a) Do you believe the seal of God is just the name of God, not the Sabbath, since the 144,000 that are sealed have the Father’s name in their foreheads?
(b) I already mentioned that the worship of the image alludes to Dan. 3, where we have a legislated time of worship. The mark goes in the forehead or the hand, which is where Deut. 6 says that we need to put the 10 Commandments. Thus the end-time issue has something to do with a legislated time of worship, something to do with the 10 Commandments, which is what Rev. 12:17 and 14:12 basically tell us anyway. But I suppose you think this is just a coincidence?
Regarding your claimed supernatural visitation, which thus far you have not described: In 1MR 64, part of Ellen White’s endorsement of Uriah’s D&R, she wrote, “Many of these teachers who bring in heresies, and thus undermine the faith of some, are regarded as men of God, who walk in the light, and are seeking to deliver the church from wrong practices. But they are the servants of sin.” So, many of these folks are charlatans.
Since we have such a clearly stated warning, and since the Bible tells us to prove all things and to beware of false prophets, and since you are attacking the third angel’s message, and the Spirit of Prophecy, even though you also quote it in your support, it is clearly appropriate for me to ask you to back up your claim that you had a supernatural visitation. Saying that I would not believe if you did so is a cop out.
I do not dispute that some out there regard you as a man of God who walks in the light and is trying to deliver the church from wrong practices. But in light of that statement and your teachings, I think you should ask yourself whether the part that says, “But they are the servants of sin,” is applicable as well.
It seems my last response to Bob has disappeared.
OK, Bob, so it seems you fear being misled by some “false prophet.” Of course all seasoned Adventists know what the prophetess wrote: “Several have written to me, inquiring if the message of justification by faith is the third angel’s message, and I have answered, ‘It is the third angel’s message in verity.’” It is that “most precious message” of “righteousness by faith.” This has nothing to do with a national Sunday law in particular. No one needs a national Sunday law to “walk by faith.”
Hear A PARABLE OF TWO WOMEN:
There were two women…
One called to her servant commanding, “Make for me A DAY which all will respect and call holy.”
The other woman summoned her servant instructing, “Make for me A NAME that no one
will defame, and all will regard blessed.”
The first servant returned saying, “I have made a HOLY DAY for you; it will be respected and enforced by civil pledge.”
The second servant returned saying, “I have made a BLESSED NAME for you, and the governor has pledged to protect it from defamation and unauthorized use forever.”
Who were the two women?
How do we know the two women agree?
I refer you to a couple of relevant links for further reading:
http://93.88.247.151//nsl_del.html
http://93.88.247.151//Binary/essays/eSunlaw.html
Let us not be deceived by the devices of the enemy.
OK, Bob, so it seems you fear being misled by some “false prophet.” Of course all seasoned Adventists know what the prophetess wrote: “Several have written to me, inquiring if the message of justification by faith is the third angel’s message, and I have answered, ‘It is the third angel’s message in verity.’” It is that “most precious message” of “righteousness by faith.” This has nothing to do with a national Sunday law in particular. No one needs a national Sunday law to “walk by faith.”
Hear A PARABLE OF TWO WOMEN:
There were two women…
One called to her servant commanding, “Make for me A DAY which all will respect and call holy.”
The other woman summoned her servant instructing, “Make for me A NAME that no one will defame, and all will regard blessed.”
The first servant returned saying, “I have made a HOLY DAY for you; it will be respected and enforced by civil pledge.”
The second servant returned saying, “I have made a BLESSED NAME for you, and the governor has pledged to protect it from defamation and unauthorized use forever.”
Who were the two women?
How do we know the two women agree?
I refer you to a relevant link for further reading:
http://93.88.247.151//nsl_del.html
Let us not be deceived by any of the enemy’s devices.
Chick,
Yes, let’s not be deceived by any of the enemy’s devices. Therefore, stop spreading around the last deception of Satan by making of none effect what Jesus testified by His Spirit through the prophet about the mark of the beast being an enforcement of Sunday observance. It’s pretty simple and straightforward.
Really, Chick, that’s pretty pathetic to use a statement about justification by faith being the third angel’s message in verity to support the idea that the third angel’s message isn’t a warning about Sunday observance.
1. The discussion about the mark of the beast is sandwiched between Rev. 12:17 and 14:12, which verses mention the commandments of God. The issue therefore has to do with the commandments.
2. Revelation only mentions the commandments after mentioning the ark in 11:19, thus indicating that the commandments are the 10 Commandments in the ark.
3. The mark goes in the forehead or hand. Deut. 5 repeats the 10 Commandments, and Deut. 6 says they are supposed to go in the forehead and hand. Thus the mark is in some way a counterfeit of the 10 Commandments.
4. Revelation’s warning against worshiping the image is an allusion to Dan. 3, where we have an enforcement of a particular time of worship. Thus the issue in the end of time must be an enforcement of a particular time of worship.
5. Revelation warns that the earth AND its inhabitants will worship the beast. Lev. 25 gives the only Bible example of the earth/dirt/land…
… worshiping: keeping a sabbath. Thus the end-time issue must involve a sabbath.
6. Thus, in warning us about worshiping the beast or image, and receiving the mark, the 3rd angel’s message is warning against a counterfeit to the 10 Commandments, an enforcement of a time of worship, and a counterfeit sabbath. Can you think of anything that would fit these three things? How about a Sunday law?
7. The seal of God in the forehead in Rev. 7 is connected to the Father’s name in Rev. 14. The only person who literally wore God’s name in his forehead was the high priest, upon whose miter was a golden plate engraved like a seal that said “Holiness unto the LORD.”
8. The Sabbath is also said to be “Holy to the LORD,” and thus contains the seal of God. Similarly, it is said to be a sign of sanctification, and thus its observance is supposed to be a sign that we are “holy to the Lord.” The mark of the beast, being an enforcement of Sunday observance, is in clear opposition to the seal.
9. Other places in Revelation allude to the Sabbath issue. In Rev. 2 we have a reference to Balaam (worldly bishops) who got Balak (Constantine) to sponsor a festival to Baal the sun god. The overcomer at Pergamos is to eat of the “hidden manna,” which fell on every day but the Sabbath, and which is hidden in the heavenly ark next to the 4th commandment.
I could mention other allusions as well. I highly doubt you can martial anything close to this in favor of your theory. Since the connection between the seal and the name of God does not mean that the seal does not have to do with the 4th commandment, citing a verse that connects the mark with the beast’s name to prove that the mark isn’t Sunday enforcement simply doesn’t cut it.
Hi Bob,
Your statements all make sense… IF we understand the Sabbath to be only a day and nothing more. The Scriptures and Spirit of Prophecy, however, describe a “Sabbath more fully,” which involves a spirit of rest, a state of unity with the Father and Son that results in victory over sin and righteousness by faith, which is ultimately what the Mark of The Beast will identify, separating mankind into two categories based on this, not what day they consider sacred.
Of course, all true Sabbath-keepers will keep both the letter and spirit of the law, but the Sunday Law as described in traditional SDA literature is only concerned with the letter.
As we discussed in an earlier post, prophecies and predictions are inherently conditional based on the spiritual state of those to whom the prophecies are delivered (cf. Jeremiah’s passages) therefore your statement “what Jesus testified by His Spirit through the prophet” only holds true if you believe that the General Conference Corp. is a faithful religious organization, and has continued to advance in light since the time those words were penned.
I think that this is a laughable contention. I, and several others, believe that it has fallen short, has been weighed in the balances and found wanting.
David,
“Victory over sin” … since honoring a different day than what the 4th commandment specifies is by definition sin, then I think your attempted distinction in your first paragraph is not as clear as you would like.
Rev. 13 & 14, if conditional, would be conditioned upon continued unrepentance of the papacy, and apostasy of American Protestantism. It would not be conditioned upon the faithfulness of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
For clarity, why don’t we just stick to talking about the General Conference, not the General Conference Corporation. Or am I incorrect that your comments might differ if we talk about the unincorporated association rather than the corporation? But then, if we touch on ownership of property, we might have to talk about the corporation.
In light of that belief, your statements fail to convincingly overcome the conditionality associated with Ellen White’s statements about the Sunday Law.
But for all that, let me be clear, I am still a Seventh-day Adventist according to everything that name means. I do not doubt her inspiration any more than I doubt the inspiration of Jonah or Ezekiel, both of whom made predictions that were fulfilled – not in the letter – but in the Spirit. The prophecies of Gog and Magog, which applied to physical Israel in Ezekiel’s book are revealed in the Book of Revelation to apply to the New Jerusalem of Christ’s covenant, and it would be an error to say, “It happened to other predictions and other churches, but it cannot happen to MY prophecies and MY Church.”
Ellen White says this: “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. [continuing…]
You haven’t established that GC’s prediction of Sunday laws is conditional. And you certainly haven’t established that Revelation’s prediction of Sunday laws is conditional.
David, we’ve got something strange here. You seem to want to attack the Seventh-day Adventist Church for apostasy, and yet you yourself are teaching that the third angel’s message is not a warning against the enforcement of Sunday observance. If you were an Adventist minister and preached such things, someone ought there would use such sermons to justify calling the Adventist Church Babylon.
“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 (1903)]
So the question is NOT, as you would frame it, whether or not the Mark of The Beast continues along its course to be fulfilled as a Sunday Law. The question is bigger than that. It is, HAs the Seventh-day Adventist denomination been faithful to its calling? According to the Spirit of Prophecy itself, it has not. In fact, the article on which we are commenting is the proof of it in just one narrow area. Consider, for example: “Those church members who appeal to the courts of the world show that they have chosen the world as their judge, and their names are registered in Heaven as one with unbelievers. How eagerly the world seizes the statements of those who betray sacred trusts!” [SM3,p. 303] Speaking of “marhsalling” evidence, I could fill a book with statements like this and stronger, indicating that the GC organization has “betrayed” Christ by going to the world with its assumed troubles, and this is the context in which we are discussing the Mark.
I think the bigger question is why you are quoting Ellen White at all, if you don’t believe what she says. Has the SoP become a smorgasboard, where you pick and choose what you want and leave the rest?
Unless you can show that Rev. 13 & 14, and our pioneers’ teachings, and all the SoP statements about the mark of the beast, are conditioned upon the obedience of the remnant of Rev. 12:17, all your assertions fail.
I gave 9 biblical points to support what we teach about the mark of the beast, and you haven’t listed one in support of your view. That should tell you something.
Here’s another:
10. Ezek. 8 depicts various sun worship practices that had infiltrated Israel. Ezek. 9 pictures a mark being set upon the foreheads of those who opposed this infiltration. Rev. 13-14 in borrowing this imagery is telling us that the final conflict will again involve sun worship practices.
You wrote of me, “I think the bigger question is why you are quoting Ellen White at all, if you don’t believe what she says.”
The Bible says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” (Exo 20:16) In your zeal to “win the argument,” Bob, you are skirting dangously close to the manifestation of a rebellious character.
I believe the writings of Ellen White. I also believe that she, like EVERY prophet in history, also wrote some things that are conditionally fulfilled. You may cast all manner of aspersions on my character because I do not agree with your interpretation, but that doesn’t make anything you say actually true. I wish that we could “reason together,” but you do not seem to want to actually do that.
See below with regard to the conditional nature of prophecy. Your denying my statements does not mean I have not made them.
This isn’t a side-issue, Bob. The Mark of The Beast is described as the “final test” for the Churches, but a Sunday Law that identifies a weekly day of worship does nothing to separate the saints from the sinners when it is the Sabbath-keepers that have gone to the world, have become the union of Church and state, have become the very persecuting power that The Great Controversy tells us will be the ones to form the Image-Beast.
And of course, those who read Ellen White without an understanding of the principles of prophecy, conditionality, and righteousness by faith will always be able to say, “Just look! It’s written down! How can you be so stupid/deceived/etc. for not just believing the text?” Blind adherance has never been God’s plan for His people. We are told to “watch,” and “pray,” and “study,” because our test from the Savior will not be, “Did you believe Ellen White,” but “Did you believe in ME? Were you able to understand the sign of the times, and refrain from worshipping the Beast?” Many who keep Saturdays as a day of rest verily have the mind of the beast, using force for their creed, and intimidation for their Gospel. A Sunday Law as originally described would do nothing to distinguish them from the true Christians.
David,
How is your approach to this issue different than anyone else who is warring against Adventism? You said, “… a Sunday Law that identifies a weekly day of worship does nothing to separate the saints from the sinners ….” Why did you not make some sort of attempt to show that it does, or will?
Someone whose idol is food will be tested by a Sunday law because they will be threatened with starvation if they don’t comply. Someone whose idol is popularity will be tested because they will be considered the scum of the earth if they don’t comply. Can you think of anyone who won’t be tested by a Sunday law?
All this talk about force and intimidation, I think it’s just self-justification. But the scary thing is that in justifying yourself, you venture to make of none effect the testimonies, which is the last deception of Satan, claiming, without any proof, that the prophecies about the mark of the beast are conditional upon the obedience of an entity that isn’t even mentioned in Rev. 14:9-11.
You said, “… a Sunday Law that identifies a weekly day of worship does nothing to separate the saints from the sinners ….” Why did you not make some sort of attempt to show that it does, or will?
Hmm… there might be some comprehension issues going on here, sorry to say. This is not the first time you have misunderstood, and outright misquoted, my earlier posts.
My position is that it does NOT, and you are asking me to validate the position that it does, or will. If this is the level of scrutiny you are applying to my words, it is really no wonder we can’t connect.
And noting your previous posts, you will no doubt try to cast this as a rejection of Mrs. White’s inspiration, despite previous protests of this characterization. All I can do is assure you that I am very familiar with all that Ellen White wrote, and BECAUSE of that familiarity, I and others are able to understand the “mind of Christ” through her body of work. IF the SDA Church has remained faithful, then you are right; and the Sunday Law is an imminent possibility. However, IF the SDA Church has fallen short of its prophecied purpose, then it would be unreasonable to assume that God’s promises and predictions regarding it will continue unabated. All we have to do is read Zechariah 11, starting at verse 17, to realize how the Almighty regards broken covenants.
I wonder if you are able to even conceive of this possibility. If you cannot, then we have no common ground on which to even discuss this matter. We simply have a zealot vs. an open-minded thinker, and your attempts to convince those who have already considered your argument and rejected it based on their understanding of prophecy simply, well, won’t “cut it.”
“… IF the SDA Church has fallen short of its prophecied purpose ….”
Its prophesied purpose is to want the world against the enforcement of Sunday observance. You’re arguing that its prophesied purpose is conditional, and that its purpose is now something else.
Let’s put it plainly: The CSDA is in apostasy because it has rejected the third angel’s message, and persistently makes of none effect the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
I have corrected you on this point before. The purpose of the Church is to teach the Gospel. It is not to warn the world about any particular fulfillment of a prophecy. If someone becomes a Sabbathkeeper, and rejects Sunday enforcement (should it arise) that person is no more saved that someone who does not.
It is the acceptance of Jesus that makes one a Christian, and it is the acceptance of the sacredness of the “Seventh Day” and the “Advent” that makes one a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, but you seem to have a VERY hard time acknowledging that Biblical fact.
One last thing… since we are on the subject, what do you think of this quote? “All who claim to be Sabbath-keeping Adventists, and yet continue in sin, are liars in God’s sight.” [19MR, p. 177]
Clearly, being a true Sabbath-keeper has to do with more than just the physical day. This is a passage it would be a blessing for all who consider themselves SDAs to contemplate prayerfully, lest, thinking they are doing God favors, they become enemies of His work.
I already quoted from 1MR something that relates to that quote. Ellen White stated that many of those who bring in heresies, who are thought to be men of God who are trying to “deliver the church from wrong practices,” are really “the servants of sin.” It wouldn’t surprise me if that part of the quote fits Chick, but I don’t know for sure.
But what I do know is that I gave Chick 9 points supporting the idea that Revelation is warning against Sunday enforcement, and you haven’t given me one single biblical point to show that Revelation is warning against trademark legislation.
Hi Bob,
You DID give nine points in support of the Mark of The Beast being a National Sunday Law. I did not dispute that, I merely pointed out that all nine of those points hinge on TWO key factors:
1) The assumption that Ellen White’s prophecies about the fate of the SDA Church are not conditional, and
2) The assumption that the mainstream, GC-controlled SDA Church is still faithful to Christ, which would make the Sunday Law (and by extension, a law that tests the adherence of professed Christians to the letter of the 4th commandment) a valid test of the Churches as is its stated intention in The Great Controversy and elsewhere.
Since you have not addressed these two underlying assumptions, it could be 9 or 90 points that you list off… but if they are based on faulty premises, they are all equally invalid, and incapable of being a convincing argument.
For those who believe that the SDA Church has rejected Christ’s Headship and explicit instructions regarding lawsuits and other matters AS given through the prophet Ellen White, and that the accuracy of its predicted destiny is based on its fidelity, the points you raise are not going to amount to anything. That is all I am pointing out.
David,
I did address your points, and you haven’t responded.
I stated that there is nothing in Rev. 13 and 14 which would make the mark of the beast issue conditional upon the Adventist Church’s faithfulness, and invited you or Chick to show otherwise. I stated that if it is conditional, it’s conditioned upon the unrepentance and apostasy of Rome and American Protestantism, not the faithfulness of the remnant.
I showed how a Sunday law will test everyone, regardless of what their weakness happens to be.
But read your reply again. It doesn’t really make sense:
“… all nine of those points hinge on TWO key factors ….”
“Since you have not addressed these two underlying assumptions, it could be 9 or 90 points that you list off… but if they are based on faulty premises ….”
Since when is the fact that Dan. 3 concerns a legal enforcement of a particular time of worship based on a faulty premise? I was simply stating biblical facts in my points.
What would make more logical sense is if you argued that Revelation itself is conditional, rather than Ellen White. Why? Because the weight of the biblical evidence shows that Rev. 13-14 is talking about Sunday enforcement. Thus far the only “evidence” you and Chick have is that the mark is the “mark of his name.”
And as for McGill, I haven’t addressed your statements about him, because I don’t want to engage in that level of back-and-forthing, but I will say this: statements that follow a suspicion with “it wouldn’t surprise me,” and “I don’t know for sure” with regard to the accusations you have made about his doctrine (if not his motives and character) leaves me helpless but to consider your statements as “evil surmising” (1Tim 6:4) against a fellow Sabbath-keeping Christian.
Come on, David. Ellen White is the one who made the statement, “But they are the servants of sin,” not me.
“Fellow Sabbath-keeping Christian”? He’s intentionally, knowingly teaching that the mark of the beast is something other than Sunday enforcement.
You probably already know that 1MR has other non-complimentary things to say about this situation:
“Those who will diligently study this book [Uriah Smith’s D&R] will have no relish for the cheap sentiments presented by those who have a burning desire to get out something new and strange to present to the flock of God. The rebuke of God is upon all such teachers. They need that one teach them what is meant by godliness and truth” (1MR 61).
“It is painful to think of the many cheap theories picked up and presented to the people by ignorant, unprepared teachers. Those who present their human tests and the nonsensical ideas they have concocted in their own minds, show the character of the goods in their treasure house. They have laid in store shoddy material. Their great desire is to make a sensation.
“Let those who have been dealing in cheap sentiments and foolish tests, cease this work and study Daniel and the Revelation. They will then have something to talk about that will help the mind. As they receive the knowledge contained” (1MR 62).
Think she’s “evil surmising”? Or just stating the truth?
Ellen White did make the statement, but YOU are the one trying to apply it to a particular individual, and that – by your own admission – without even being sure! Yes, that is “evil surmising” by definition.
You write, “He’s intentionally, knowingly teaching that the mark of the beast is something other than Sunday enforcement.” That does not make him a non-fellow-Sabbathkeeing Christian. Most Christians do not believe that the Mark of The Beast is a Sunday law. Many Sabbath-keeping Christians do not, so my statement stands.
You have quotes about false teachers, with which I fully agree, but if you want to vindicate your accusations against any individual, you need to first establish that what they are teaching IS false and contrary to Biblical doctrine. Since you haven’t even begun to address the two underlying assumptions of your Sunday Law statements, yeah… I have to re-iterate, you are just engaging in sniping at another individual who seems to have convictions as strong as your own.
That’s indefensible.
With regard to your statement that you have addressed my points, you really haven’t begun to.
You are basically saying, “Because the Sunday Law statements don’t explicitly say they are conditional, that means they aren’t.” But, I have shown you quotes that show that EVERY prophecy concerning a people is inherently conditional (in Jeremiah). Ellen White says that ANY Church, regardless of its calling, is subject to judgement based on its behavior, and you haven’t even begun to give a Biblical justification for betraying Christ and the Pioneer writings by going to court. I have NEVER seen a single Bible verse used to justify that travesty of Christian conduct, so I have to say, you’re not going to convince anyone who is aware of the facts of this matter unless they are already firmly in the “stay with the sinking ship” camp.
A re-affirmation of your beliefs is not the same thing as the response to a challenge. The Bible and Spirit of Prophecy writings outright condemn the current actions of the SDA Church, and lay out in detail the consequences of their rejection of the Holy Spirit’s leadings.
Also, Bob, you seem to keep missing my points for some reason. For example, you ask, “Since when is the fact that Dan. 3 concerns a legal enforcement of a particular time of worship based on a faulty premise? I was simply stating biblical facts in my points.”
Nobody has said that Daniel 3 didn’t say that. When Satan attempted to destroy the SDA message in the 1800s, He did so by means of an attempted National Sunday Law. As I have persisted in TRYING to explain to you, I have not rejected any SDA beliefs except for those that are (based on the Bible itself) conditional.
The original fulfilment of the Mark of The Beast was certainly going to be a Sunday Law. We have NO dispute about that, as much as you keep trying to make one.
What I am saying is that SINCE that time, the SDA Church has fallen into apostasy, and because of that (after Daniel 3 is correctly applied just as you believe) the ultimate fulfilment of how that Mark will come to pass… now how the Enemy “thinks” to change it, but how it actually changes, is a Mark that prevents trade (buying and selling) without the Beast’s explicit permission.
Now, I am NOT expecting you to just say, “Ok, I get that.” I realize the traditional interpretation is very strong in you. What I am saying is, others see another way to understand last day events, in sincerity, and this does not make them rejecters of Adventism, or even worse, non-Christians.
Ellen White said this:
“To the heart that has become purified, all is changed. Transformation of character is the testimony to the world of an indwelling Christ. The Spirit of God produces a new life in the soul, bringing the thoughts and desires into obedience to the will of Christ; and the inward man is renewed in the image of God. Weak and erring men and women show to the world that the redeeming power of grace can cause the faulty character to develop into symmetry and abundant fruitfulness.” [Prophets and Kings, p. 233]
“When the doctrine we accept kills sin in the heart, purifies the soul from defilement, bears fruit unto holiness, we may know that it is the truth of God. When benevolence, kindness, tenderheartedness, sympathy, are manifest in our lives; when the joy of right doing is in our hearts; when we exalt Christ, and not self, we may know that our faith is of the right order.” [Thoughts from the Mount of Blessings, p146]
“Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them. It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement. THEN the latter rain will fall upon us as the early rain fell upon the disciples on the Day of Pentecost. No one need say that his case is hopeless, that he cannot live the life of a Christian. Ample provision is made by the death of Christ for every soul.” [Counsels for the Church, p. 334]
Continuation…
“Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them. It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement. Then the latter rain will fall upon us as the early rain fell upon the disciples on the Day of Pentecost. No one need say that his case is hopeless, that he cannot live the life of a Christian. Ample provision is made by the death of Christ for every soul.” [Counsels for the Church, p. 334]
“Today you are to have your vessel purified that it may be ready for the heavenly dew, ready for the showers of the latter rain; for the latter rain will come, and the blessing of God will fill every soul that is purified from every defilement.” [God’s Amazing Grace, p. 205]
“Not one should be buried with Christ by baptism unless they are critically examined whether they have ceased to sin, whether they have fixed moral principles, whether they know what sin is, whether they have moral defilement which God abhors. Find out by close questioning if these persons are really ceasing to sin, if with David they can say, I hate sin with a perfect hatred.” [Manuscript Releases 6, p. 165]
The Latter Rain is also conditional. It will fall upon only those who are living by true Righteousness by Faith, love their foes and brothers as themselves. And they will be equipped to identify Present Truth. Divine principles and reject Worldly Policies and methods.
“When the early church became corrupted by departing from the simplicity of the gospel and accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of God; and in order to control the consciences of the people, she sought the support of the secular power. The result was the papacy, a church that controlled the power of the state, and employed it to further her own ends, especially for the punishment of “heresy.” In order for the United States to form an image of the beast, the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends. [Last Day Events, p. 228]
Here again, Ellen White is revealing the formula or principle that formed the Beast (The Office of the Papacy) and help us identify the Image of the Beast under any disguise. Persecution is what reveals a Wolf nature/spirit from a Lamb.
“The Lord has shown me clearly that the image of the beast will be formed before probation closes, for it is to be THE GREAT TEST for the people of God, by which their eternal destiny will be decided.” [Selected Messages 2, p. 81, emphasis added]
The Image of the Beast is the Great Test for the Adventist people, and whatever U.S Law a church is using to protect herself and punish others, becomes her mark of authority and submission.
With the U.S Federal Trademark Law, the SDA Church has been looking forward to force and control people’s consciences and require blind obedience to her authority, with threat of punishment, confiscation, and incarcerations, thanks to the strong arm of her new husband/State.
The Remnant Church of Christ of Revelation is not a persecuting Woman like the Woman of Rev 17.
Giselle,
David above admitted that he rejects certain Adventist beliefs. The Adventist Church is not taking these folks to court to force them to believe those beliefs, or even to teach them. Where exactly is an attempt to control the conscience?
If the use of the Adventist name is really a matter of conscience, because Chick is a modern-day prophet and had a vision that told him he had to use the Adventist name, as he seems to have implied, then he would readily describe the supernatural visitation he claims to have had. But thus far he refuses to say anything about it. Therefore, I don’t think he really had a supernatural visitation, and thus, I don’t know where the conscience in involved as far as Chick is concerned.
It is possible that David’s conscience tells him he must blindly follow Chick’s teachings, and thus must use the Adventist name because Chick claims to have been told by God to do so. But is David involved in the lawsuit? If not, how is his conscience being forced?
Dear Bob,
A Christian lives by the Word of God, either by a prophet’s counsel, Biblical teachings, or direct revelations. The love described in 1 Corinthians 14 is the love that truly identifies a Christ’s follower.
Just because you don’t know Walter’s personal experiences and relationship with God, his personal dreams, etc, you don’t have the right to determine what beliefs should be more important to him and which ones must be abandoned. You can’t take the role of God, as a judge of conscience, and say what beliefs deserve oppression. That is just arrogance and selfishness, “for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.”
Just because you don’t understand now the reasons why some people is faithful to their conscience, in regard to some inspired instruction, like the use of the name of their faith until the close of human probation, we must stop being what we are.
If I put my self in Walter’s shoes and the G.C demands from me to stop using the name “Seventh day Adventist”, and my mind knows about God’s word, teachings, and Ellen White’s writings about the importance of bearing that name as a public testimony until the close of human probation. I can’t obey either in good conscience and reject the instructions I believe I have received from God.
You seem to discriminate Ellen’s Writings, for you only accept what you choose to read and believe from her, meanwhile rejecting other statements she also mentioned about the “Seventh day…
about the “Seventh day Adventist” name.
All of us, as individuals, have the freedom to believe the testimony of others or not, but that does not mean they don’t deserve our respect, and understanding if we really put ourselves in their place and situation.
Bob, if you don’t know each person here personally, it’s forbidden and dangerous for you to give false testimony, based on wrong assumptions and things you don’t know for sure. We must allow others to be faithful to their beliefs (conscience)and think the best of them, and allow the to respond to God, not us.
Daniel knew about Dario’s decree, and continue praying and doing those things the decree was prohibiting him to do, in regard to His faith and worship, but he chose not to sin before His God, and go against his faith and beliefs.
Who is my neighbor, only those who belong to my group of worship, and belief exactly what I belief?
If the SDA Church has rejected God’s counsel and warnings, God will and can speak to others. This has been shown repeatedly in His Word.
Many SDAs get angry and feel like Zedekiah, but this anger does not undo what God decides to do and the reality of it.
“But Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah went near, and smote Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee?”
God can speaks to others, including Pastor Walter, if He wants to. I can’t be arrogant enough to say is truth or not. Don’t you think God is able to…
David,
“… you need to first establish that what they are teaching IS false and contrary to Biblical doctrine.”
I already did. And remember, you thus far have chosen not to respond to my points, or present any contrary points to support a contrary view.
“Since you haven’t even begun to address the two underlying assumptions of your Sunday Law statements, ….”
But I already did. And you have yet to respond to the point I made. There is nothing in Rev. 13 and 14 that makes those prophecies conditional upon anything having to do with the remnant. Any conditions expressed or implied would instead be the apostasy and unrepentance of the the beast and the false prophet. I made this point, and you have yet to respond to it.
As an extreme example to illustrate my point, it would be absurd to say that the downfall of Babylon in Dan. 5 was conditional upon the continued obedience of the American Indians. The latter weren’t involved. The predicted judgment against Babylon was conditioned on Babylon’s conduct, not anyone else’s. Similarly, a prophecy about the United States’ future would be conditioned upon the United States’ conduct, not someone else’s.
“… I have not rejected any SDA beliefs except for those that are (based on the Bible itself) conditional.”
And this is why the Adventist Church has a problem with your use of its name. You here admit that you reject certain Adventist beliefs, and yet you insist on calling yourself a Seventh-day…
… Adventist.
Bob,
I am not sure what thread you are reading. I have given you verses that show that all prophetic statements made to a people are conditional. That IS a reply to your points. Your response is, “You haven’t established that the Sunday Law prophecies are conditional.”
That is false, and you have to know it.
You cite Revelation 13 and 14, and ask me, “Show me that THESE statements are conditional.” Clearly, that is covered by the statement in Jeremiah that ALL are 🙂
You see, you can continue to cite individual passages, but once we establish a principle that applies across the board (and that with support from the Spirit of Prophecy) then I am really not sure who you are trying to convince by merely denying that I have said what I have said.
You write, “And this is why the Adventist Church has a problem with your use of its name. You here admit that you reject certain Adventist beliefs, and yet you insist on calling yourself a Seventh-day Adventist.”
If that is the case, then James White (who was a staunch anti-Trinitarian) would also be “in trouble” in your view. He rejected what is now a fundamental belief of the SDA Church. Fortunately, your judgment of who is or isn’t an SDA is not important to me. Only God’s judgment matters in this case.
Further, you write this, “As an extreme example to illustrate my point, it would be absurd to say that the downfall of Babylon in Dan. 5 was conditional upon the continued obedience of the American Indians. The latter weren’t involved. The predicted judgment against Babylon was conditioned on Babylon’s conduct, not anyone else’s. Similarly, a prophecy about the United States’ future would be conditioned upon the United States’ conduct, not someone else’s.”
That’s all quite true, but the Sunday Law prophecies DO “involve” the Seventh Day Adventists, as they would be directly affected! You see, God did not give those prophecies to the world, He gave them to Adventists, so it is their behaviour (obviously) that would make a difference, just as Jonah’s prophecy to Nineveh depended on the actions of those who lived IN Nineveh.
I mean, come on… you can’t really be misunderstanding this so completely. I am having an increasingly hard time believing you are trying to have an earnest discussion of this, rather than just saying, “The SDA Church is correct, and you’re a heretic.”
If that’s your position, you are free to hold it. We will see what God has to say soon enough.
In your reply to an earlier thread, Bob, you write, “I don’t know where the conscience in involved as far as Chick is concerned.”
If you don’t know, then why are you so adamant in this matter? Wouldn’t the charitable thing to do be to accept that it is his own conscience and beliefs that are at stake, and acknowledge that the General Conference may, well, be attempting to force the conscience of an individual?
I appeal to your Christian sensibilities on this point. The Lord has not made us the judge of another person’s conscience, but if we force someone’s behavior we are already resorting to Satan’s ground. If we force someone’s behavior AND they ARE following the dictates of their conscience, then we are in violation of God’s Command. I don’t see how any one can feel safe pursuing such a course of action. Clearly, the Conference does, but I want no part of it.
According to your ridiculous logic, all things are in fact a matter of conscience, so we can’t say anything about anything. Why don’t you follow YOUR OWN logic and stop judging the conscience(s) of the people from the General Conference?
Using something that is not yours IS a matter of conscience and it’s called “theft” and “coveting what’s not yours”. Which means trespassing two of the 10 Commandments. It’s very simple. It cannot be 2 difference churches with the same name. If the conscience of Walter McGill has a mind attached to it, he can find an original name for his church and stop stealing.
Let me try to make this even clearer for you. You admit: “The predicted judgment against Babylon was conditioned on Babylon’s conduct, not anyone else’s. Similarly, a prophecy about the United States’ future would be conditioned upon the United States’ conduct, not someone else’s.”
Ok, so what about a prophecy about the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s future? Do you hold the position that the Sunday Law would NOT be a prophecy about the future of the SDA Church? Do you hold the position that the Mark of the Beast is not intended to test the Churches (not the world, but the CHURCHES)?
If you hold these positions then it is you who have rejected Adventist beliefs. Please, think carefully before replying.
I think you will admit that I am correct. Jeremiah says “at what time” God makes a statement about a people. That is, not in the Old Testament, not in the 1800s, but literally, “Whatever time” He makes the statement. That is, always.
God is able to defend Himself and act as He desires.
Yes,…even to the death on a cross. Let us take up our cross and follow Him.
To Pastor Walter and everyone: I am a SDA and am thankful to be one. I do believe that we are the remnant church. At the same time, Ellen White says that SDAs aren’t necessarily going to be the only group to spread the message. I think that the GC of the main SDA church shouldn’t worry about using law to stop the CDSA group. We need to be using that money for spreading the gospel. I don’t agree with some of the things the CDSA group is teaching, but what can we do to stop them? Our job is to continue spreading the gospel and waiting for Jesus to return. We all must remember that the SDA church isn’t perfect. The people who are at the GC are humans. But this is still God’s church. Moving to make your own denomination isn’t really the way to go. But is it worth the SDAs time and money to sue the CSDAs because of a technicality? If the Adventist church is a movement like it was when Ellen White and the others were around, we shouldn’t be worried about copyrighting our name. God will help people who are searching find the truth. While the CSDA name could create some confusion, I think eventually someone searching with God’s help would be able to figure it out. Let’s spend time getting to know God better and getting ready for the Sunday law and the time of trouble so that very soon we can go to heaven and see our Savior. While I do wish the CSDA group wouldn’t use our name, it’s not worth getting the law enforcement involved. Yes it would eliminate confusion,
(continuation of my comment)
but at the same time, this isn’t the SDA church’s real mission. Our mission is to spread the gospel. That’s it!!! And while the CSDA name is similar, they have a different logo, so I think we will be able to tell the difference. I really wish the SDA church would focus its energies doing something important. It makes me sad that we are using all this money to sue. I think we should politely ask the CSDA church or Pastor Walter if they can change their name for confusion sake. But if they say as they have said that they feel God wants them to use the name, just let it go! It’s not worth the money, time and energy. It also makes SDAs look bad. Please let me know if you agree with me and what you all think. I understand that the church is copyright and the logo and name needs to be protected, but really? really? Is the church a business or a corporation? If the GC thinks so, they have forgotten the whole purpose of the SDA church.
Agree with you Noble on most of what you have said. However let every SDA church member know that it is a great offense to move away from the counsel of the Spirit of God. God has not changed He says so and if He has not changed He expects the same obedience from us today as in the garden of Eden as with Israel of old. If God could alter his law to accommodate any of us, He would not have sent his Son to die. So the GC SDA Church is treading on forbidden ground and you are now a sister of fallen Babylon, Ellen White says. And “Now I want to state a little further upon the principle that no Christian, being a citizen of the kingdom of God, can of right start any procedure in connection with civil government. After it is started by the government itself, that is another question, and we have studied that. I repeat therefore, that upon the principles which govern kingdoms and governments, the very principle of the law that underlies the whole subject of government, whether it be law in heaven or law in earth, a Christian cannot start any procedure in connection with civil government. A. T. Jones GCB/GCDB 1895, p. 99.3
And of all Christians, Seventh-day Adventists cannot do it. The very keeping of the Sabbath forbids it.”(A. T. Jones GC Bulletin/GCDB 1895, p. 99. 4)
It appears that various officers of the General Conference can ignore the opinions of Ellen White when it suits a “larger purpose” i.e. controlling who can and who can not use the name “Seventh-day Adventist.” Now, of course, it can be argued that the situation has changed. However, just try using that argument concerning points of conventional Adventist core theology, e.g., the Great Controversy myth. Oh, well, I guess many of those running religious organizations don’t see the need to be consistent.