Should These Men Go To Jail Because of a Church Name?
by Andrew Hanson
Should the Seventh-day Adventist Church seek to put people in jail because of their non-violent religious beliefs? That is the bottom line to the long story of a little, independent congregation and the General Conference attorneys.
The Creation Seventh Day Adventists broke away from the Seventh-day Adventist denomination in 1988, but they believe that their group must continue to identify with the seventh-day Sabbath and the second coming of Christ. The General Conference has registered the name Seventh-day Adventist with the Federal trademark authorities to try to protect the good name of the denomination.
The leaders of the Creation SDAs, Walter “Chick” McGill and Lucan Chartier, have been ordered by Federal Judge J. Daniel Breen to stop using the name, fined $500 each and required to pay attorney costs to the GC. (GC Corporation of Seventh Day Adventists v. McGill, case number 06-1207, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee)
Adventist Today interviewed Chartier in the last few days via the Internet. He stated that the men expect to be jailed and will go to jail because of their religious beliefs. You can see videotaped versions of their story at the links at the end of this news item.
The effort by the denomination’s attorneys to use trademark enforcement to keep independent congregations from using the Seventh-day Adventist name has a long history. One element that Adventist Today is seeking to clarify is how much money has been spent on this project.
There is a basis in the law for this approach. The Adventist denomination has the right to protect its name from misuse by groups that are not part of the organization. At times, independent ministries have done things that are embarrassing to the entire denomination.
On the other hand, most Adventists think of their faith in terms of the larger movement, not legal definitions and bureaucratic lines. We have about 14 million members, but we have twice that many adherents who identify with the movement. Do we want a narrow definition of our identity that trims and throws away the margins? Or, is it better to take a broad view and welcome all who are interested despite the wide range of views and sometimes weird causes and personalities?
Do church members and pastors think that this is an appropriate way for the Church to deal with splinter groups? Do they believe that this is a good use of denominational resources? Is there a Bible basis for enforcement efforts that go so far as to put people in jail? Protecting the denomination’s name is a good idea, but how far is too far in accomplishing this goal?
Andrew Hanson, a senior news writer with Adventist Today is working on a major article that will lay out the long history of this issue in a print edition soon to come. In the meantime, readers may want to register their opinions on possible jail time for McGill and Chartier.
Hanson says, “I hope the response to this report is a barrage of letters to the North American Division demanding answers to these questions and any others that occur to you when you view the videos made by McGill and Chartier. (See links below.) Is it really necessary for our Church to put these two men in jail?
The videos by McGill and Chartier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3BD754HF1Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1COdFbyl9fg
Andrew Hanson is a senior news writer for Adventist Today.
Yes.
If it was not a Church we would not question it. There are laws of the land and that is simple.
There is another deeper issue critical to both parties here:
If the defendants (breakaway) gave more than lip service to the message of Christ to do the right thing by others they would offer their apologies and change the name.
If the claimants (mainline SDA) gave more than lip service to the message of Christ to do the right thing by others they would not care about the name. Surely Christ is preached in either place. (then again, maybe not)
Unfortunately the "breakaway" group already see this "persecution" as confirmation of their "rightness". (make that righteousness). In the video the guy is aready claiming a "miracle" that he could go up such a tall ladder with ease to repaint their signs. I wonder if he has ever heard of adrenalin?
At the end of the day, it is a shame on both parties and only contributes to bringing the name SDA's, and perhaps even Christians into disrepute.
Here's are a few ideas….
SDC "Seven Days of Creation Church"
CAC "Creation Advent Church"
ABC "Advent Beliving Creationist" (simple catchy and no need to keep replacing your name on tall ladders)
If I am not wrong, it is only the phrase 'Seventh-day Adventist" that is trademarked. The words "Seventh-day" and "Adventist" cannot be, as they are used by a variety of groups. I am not sure that "Seventh-day Creation Adventists" would run into the same problem – or even "Sabbath-keeping Creation Adventists". I suspect a little bit of creativity could have solved this issue long before it went to court. Perhaps there was a little too much stobbornness and listening to lawyers on both sides.
Kevin,
You are mistaken. "Seventh-day Adventist"and/or "Seventh Day Adventist", "Adventist", and "SDA" are now copyrighted. The print edition will make interesting reading. Andy
So how did we get that past the other Adventist groups. I thought there was still at least one other Adventist church still existing. If 'Adventist' can be trademarked, what about 'Baptist' or 'Lutheran'?
Greetings,
Thank you for picking up this story. I see that some comments and, to my dismay, several criticisms have already begun to trickle in. Allow me to clarify those that potentially warrant clarification.
– cb25
The idea essential to religious liberty – which Adventists claim to herald – is that "law of the land" is not the question; the first question is whether the "law of the land" is just. If the mere existance of a law demands its observance regardless of conscience and conviction to the contrary, then Protestantism itself must be thrown out as heresy, and Daniel, Peter, and Luther (to name a few) labelled as rebels. Understand that I am a Creation Seventh Day Adventist, and this by the word of my Father. You may, of course, disagree with me freely. But to require me to deny my heartfelt belief via civil power, simply because you disagree with it, is antichrist.
I would hope to find some true Protestants, willing to stand up for my right to practice my beliefs. At the very least, some who recognize that a Church very well should be subject to higher scrutiny than the world in matters like this. The "law of the land" allows for divorce for any cause; it does not mean for the Christian it is so. Similarly with weilding the sword of caesar to "protect" that which is God's own against imaginary threats; and at the cost of other's lives, no less.
– Kevin & All4
Much like the early Adventist church, we took our name based upon Divine revelation. Its use is a matter of obedience to our Father's instructions, for "no other name we can take can be appropriate," save for "the name the Lord has given us." We are to render unto caesar the things that are caesar's; many are fond of quoting that portion of the teaching. Yet we are to also render unto God the things which are God's; and the name of His bride, which He Himself gave them, is distinctly in the latter category. We do not dare give unto caesar the things which are God's.
Lucan,
Correct. I am free to disagree with you – and I most certainly do.
The issue is totally and without a doubt an issue of the "law of the land". There is absolutely no justifiable excuse for you to pull the issue into the arena of "worship", conscience, or Protestantism etc.
There is nowhere in the Bible (even if I did take as an authority in such matters as a name of a Church) where it tells you what name you must have. The name does not dictate how you worship or what you believe.
On a similar note, there is equally no justifiable reason to take, EGW (I assume you are implying that) as an authority on what name you must have.
The name of your Church is not an issue of worship. You and yours make it so. At the end of the day it is a legal issue and you and yours should have the respect for such because it will not violate your consience to change a name. Yes, it probably will violate your pride, and that I suspect is the real problem.
Time the group had the humility and attitude of Christ.
Cheers
A very difficult question with good arguments on both sides.
Initially, I was thinking that that the SDA Church should not sue fellow brothers, but then I it occurred to me that the whole point of the Creation SDA Church is they do not see us as brothers anymore (I believe Abraham Lincoln made a similar argument once). On that basis, I know it sounds harsh, but I do find it a little bit rich of the Creation SDA Church to complain. How can you call the official SDA Church apostate, and then complain about its actions against you?
As to the issue of religious liberty, my understanding is that the SDA Church does not believe, nor has it ever taught, that religious liberty is an absolute right – it is only a qualified principle. For example, I would assume the SDA Church would not sanction or defend on grounds of religious liberty: female circumcision, Sati (the Hindu practice of widows throwing themselves on funeral pyres, outlawed by Britain in colonial times), blood atonement (the Mormon fundamentalist doctrine of extra-judicial killings), or pretty much anything the Church of Scientology likes to do.
Furthermore, part of religious liberty includes fairness in opportunities for proselytism, as outlined in the official SDA statement, ‘A Seventh-day Adventist Statement on Religious Liberty, Evangelism, and Proselytism’. The big problem with the Creation SDA group, is that they are in effect:
Thus, the official SDA Church has a legitimate right, equally on the grounds of religious liberty, to protect its own good will. It is part of the role of the shepherd to chase away wolves, false Christs and false Prophets in sheep’s clothing.
And as far as going to jail, as the title of the article implies, that would only occur if Walter “Chick” McGill and Lucan Chartier were being completely foolish and didn't pay the $500 fine, which is hardly excessive. Of course, that may fit in with their own persecution complexes.
This whole business (and others like it) leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I would prefer that they use the Gamaliel approach. If we are truly God's remant church, then what do we have to fear from small groups that use the name, "Seventh-day Adventist?" Anyone visting them would soon see them for what they are, whether they seek to build up the body of Christ or to tear it down. Don't we have bigger fish to fry? I can think of many better ways to use all the money that is wasted on litigation.
Even David refused to let his men eliminate the guy who was throwing stones at him as he fled from Absalom.
Horace,
Fearing them is not the issue. Many will be driven away from God’s church because of the errors and actions of offshoots (Shepherds Rod comes to mind). These seekers will think because of the same church name, that the SDA church is just like the offshoot that turns them off. The potential for loss of souls is very real
Offshoots and splinter groups should change their name and not encroach upon the good name of the SDA Church. However, are they actually brethren and entitled to the commands of God here?
1Co 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
I say no, because they either left us, or were never a part of us.
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us (1 John 2:19).
Steve, you cited I Cor. 6:1. The church appears to be ignoring this counsel by going to law before the secular courts to fight agains fellow believers. These groups may be confused and they may be preaching error, but I'm not convinced that taking them to court is the best way to deal with it. I've known some of these people over the years. Most of them have not rejected the truth. They see that the church has problems (as was predicted); they see that heresies have come in (as predicted); but they sometimes seem confused about what their proper relation to the church should be.
Jesus never told us to abandon ship, and I wish there was a way to help these people realize that the best way to help the church is to stay on board.
Are they fellow believers? When Abraham Lincoln frees all slaves captured from Confederates as 'contraband of war with a foreign nation', representatives of southern states cried foul. Abraham Lincoln replied:
"I mean to take Virginia at her word, as declared in the ordinance of secession passed yesterday. I am under no constitutional obligations to a foreign country, which Virginia now claims to be."
Creation SDA cannot claim the official SDA Church as apostates, and then complain that it has gone to civil courts rather than deal with the matter internally as brothers.
Of what I have seen so far, the following have sprung to my attention:
– "persecution complex"
– "pride"
– "self-martyrdom"
I am sorry that many have taken it upon themselves to judge the matter without any effort to seek an audience or understanding beforehand. "He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him." (Proverbs 18:13)
I will continue to answer those complaints and questions which are factual – not personal – in nature below. I am not interested in debating or defending my reputation; that is my Savior's to do, and those attacks which are aimed at me fall squarely on Him.
— The jail sentence is not tied to a $500.00 fine. The jail sentence is in addition to the fine, and can only be avoided by compliance with the injunction; namely, we must take down all signs and websites, and destroy or submit for destruction all printed religious materials mentioning the name of our Faith. We are further forever barred from using "Seventh-day" OR "Adventist" in any combination whatsoever in our religious observances.
— The question of religious liberty being applied de facto is a good one. As a Chief Justice once hypothesized, the First Amendment would not protect a cannibal from murder charges were he to practice ritual human sacrifice. If any are interested in seeing a reasoned explanation and examination of this question, and why it is absolutely irrelevant to the current case, you may view my objection to the Court at the following url: http://www.csda-adventistchurch.to/USTradeLawsuit/PDF/RRObjection.pdf
— The facts are these: There is not one example of "confusion," "mistaken identity," or "harm to the good will" of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination in this case. The CSDA Church has been in operation for over two decades at this time, and not one example has ever come forth supporting these claims. The Court, in which so many place their trust, has found the following:
The fact that, in the midst of these findings, the ruling was still against us goes to show just how much America has “repudiated every principle of the Constitution.”
— I am sorry that the prevailing attitude with some seems to be "These aren't our brethren – they left our most holy church!" I am reminded of the lawyer who asked Christ "who is my neighbor?" SDAs of all people have no excuse for this, as Mrs. White explicitly linked 1 Cor. 6 to "Christians" going to law, not "Seventh-day Adventist church members in good standing" going to law.
— It is false that we do not consider those in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination our brethren. We consider them just as much "brethren" as they consider the Catholics, and as Paul considered the Jews. I am truly sorry that having separated from your organization while clinging to the faith – and God-given name for that faith – is deemed sufficient grounds for our incarceration for some. Truly, the love of many has waxed cold.
Thank you, Horace, for some kind and well-reasoned words. What you express is our understanding of the proper Biblical attitude, and had the denomination taken such a stand consistently, the Creation 7th Day Adventist Church would never have had reason to exist in the first place.
Thank you, Steve, for bringing some Scriptures to light. Allow me to provide three more:
"And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me." (Mark 9:38-39)
"Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of [one] Sceva, a Jew, [and] chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified." (Acts 19:13-17)
"And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." (Acts 5:38-39)
At first, I also was inclined to think the CG has better fish to fry than the CSDA group, and I was inclined to take Horace’s approach in citing Gamaliel in Acts 5:38-39. I did also contemplate Jesus’ words to leave the ‘independent ministries’ person alone in Mark 9:38-39. Finally, I also thought about those texts commanding not to take a brother to a 1 Cor. 6:1.
However, upon further reflection:
This is not a personal judgment on individuals; it is one on the basis of their doctrine. I am happy for Lucan to correct me, as I certainly don’t claim to be an expert on their beliefs. However, it appears the CSDA is quite a different group from say 3ABN and the other independent ministries.
Thank you for the invitation to clarify. Regarding the points on which I have been invited to offer correction:
– We do reject the trinity doctrine, yes. It may come as a surprise to some, but we are not alone in this. The overwhelming majority of Seventh-day Adventist pioneers did the same; so many, in fact, that it lead George R. Knight to comment that the majority of the church's founders would be denied membership in the denomination today.
– We do not teach anything akin to the "holy flesh movement." We do teach that when the Scripture says "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin," it means precisely what it says. The details of this may be easily understood by reading the teachings of Jones and Waggoner in the years surrounding 1888 under the name "righteousness by faith," or the "most precious message" as Mrs. White called it.
– It is true that we hold our camp meetings during the feasts of unleavened bread and tabernacles (in fact the very thing Paul was doing with both Gentiles and Jews alike in the course of his ministry). (Acts 20:6, Acts 18:21)
Thank you allowing correction on these doctrinal points. I do wonder what your understanding of "religious liberty" is, under the circumstances. If I'm understanding your conclusion correctly, it seems to me that you are saying it is okay to use force on other people's consciences, but only if they are wrong. Considering no one has ever persecuted people they believe are right, I fail to see how that view differs from the Catholic viewpoint, or any other persecuting power who has thought they "doeth God service" by eliminating dissenters through the civil power.
Thanks Lucan, my view of religious liberty is pretty much this: people should be free to believe and practice what they want, how they want, as long as it does not adversely affect others. My main concern is that by adopting the term ‘Seventh-day Adventist’ in your own name, it does potentially hurt the Remnant mission of the official Seventh-day Adventist Church to preach the 3 Angel’s Message. I am not at all convinced that being forced to refrain from taking our name that you are unreasonably constrained from freely worshipping or believing what you do.
It is hard to call people out of Babylon, when there is so much babbling internally as to which group represents what. The SDA Church itself has rights to its own religious liberty to have its own name protected from Babel-like confusion. By way of a parable, it is really no different in principle than if I tried to start my own MacDonald’s restaurant, which would probably mislead people to thinking it was part of the billion-dollar McDonald’s restaurant franchise.
Religious liberty does not extend to stealing someone’s name. I understand your own views that you must use the name ‘Seventh-day Adventist’ because it is a divine command. However, from my perspective, that is no different from if you thought you had a divine command to come and rob the General Conference headquarters of its office furniture, its fleet of cars, its office stationary or bank account.
Unfortunately, regardless of your subjective belief that such action would be a divine command, the SDA Churches’ position on religious liberty should not and would not prevent it from calling the police and have you arrested for burglary. And whilst stealing the General Conferences furniture, cars or stationary would be terrible, they are just things, whilst what you are attempting to steal is far worst, because it is our very name by which we preach the Gospel to all the world (not just in Guy Tennessee).
Finally, I do understand your point that there is no evidence that you have used the SDA name for successful proselytism – I really don’t know. However, that is besides the point. Whilst you may have had limited impact personally as a group, there are far bigger groups out there (such as the True Jesus Church with 2 million members) that could seriously contribute to the Babel-like effect if groups like CSDA are able to get away with stealing our name.
Hello Stephen,
I must confess that I always find it very distasteful when the God's church is compared to McDonalds or some other worldly franchise in these discussions. If the process for protecting God's people is "no different" than a fast food chain, it seems like any soul with spiritual sensibilities would sense that something is indeed very, very wrong.
The difficulty I have with your comparison of using a similar (not the same) name to stealing chairs and other tangible property is simply this – "theft" implies taking something and causing harm, because in the very act of taking it another is deprived of it. If I take your car, you no longer have your car. If you take my chair, I no longer have my chair. A tangible item can be stolen in such a way to deprive someone, and thus cause harm.
That is obviously not the case here.
Our use of the name "Creation 7th Day Adventist" (and please do note the different spelling and punctuation) in no way deprives your denomination of their ability to freely use the name "Seventh-day Adventist" as they always have. Further, our use of the name has never caused any harm, confusion, or detriment – and I emphasize the fact that we have been using it for twenty years. I find it hard to conceive that you have said this "doesn't matter," when your entire reason for saying religious liberty doesn't apply was that very issue of "theft" and "hurt."
Ultimately, your position seems to be something like "Well, okay, religious liberty applies unless they infringe on others liberties. But these people aren't actually infringing our liberties. We better put them in jail anyway though, just incase someone ELSE tries to do so later."
That sounds very suspiciously like the words of a certain high priest, that "one man ought to die for the people, that the whole nation perish not." It seems that "human sacrifice" for protection wasn't something limited to the old pagan religions.
My current understanding of your view of the case is this:
I implore you to reconsider your positions before the Judgment ends, my friend. As it stands, we cannot be on the same side of it unless one of us alters our position dramatically.
"At times, independent ministries have done things that are embarrassing to the entire denomination."
Much more embarrassing have been the things that the SDA church has done to its own reputation. It should not be necessary to list them, as anyone with a knowledge of the church's history is keenly aware of the many incidences which have brought disrepute on the SDA church.
Why is the church so obssed with pursuing this? It is often better to simply ignore such a situation that 99.9% of the world church would otherwise have no knowledge whatsoever of this small organization. Let them go about their business and stop harassing them and follow Gamaliel's advice.
Pastor McGill notified Adventist Today via email that his flight back to Uganda was scheduled for May 13th, further testifying that God told him to stay and “face the court” (as one magistrate had requested) instead of fleeing to safety outside of United States jurisdiction. He mentioned a home, church building, and several properties in Uganda where the CSDA work is going forward without interference; thus, both men could have boarded flights leaving the country to avoid incarceration but refused to do so.
Since the writing of this story, three more news clips have come to our knowledge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EuAv2P1WAs (Church Signs Come Down – News segment 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW4iycAO8BE (Church Sign Consequences – News segment 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-RxSqU5DaQ (Church Faces New Court Order – News segment 5)
May 17, 2012
Andrew,
Thank you for taking time and investing energy into covering this conflict. Decided positions shall be taken. Every word is being chronicled faithfully by the recording angel. Every idle word is being considered in the investigative judgment now passing in review. All souls who have named the name of Christ are being brought to accountability. Soon, none know how soon, the curtains shall close on the final act in the Theater of the Universe.
You posed the following questions for contemplation:
–Should the Seventh-day Adventist Church seek to put people in jail because of their non-violent religious beliefs?
I would suggest a parallel question: Should the Jewish Church have sought to have the Christ arrested because of His religious beliefs that led to His authoritative claims?
–Is it really necessary for our Church to put these two men in jail?
My parallel question: Was it really necessary for the Jewish Church leaders to influence Pilate in arresting the Prince of Glory and putting Him to death?
–Do church members and pastors think that this is an appropriate way for the Church to deal with splinter groups?
My parallel question: Did the constituency of the Jewish Church think the treatment of Christ by their leaders was appropriate for His dissident doctrine, divisive activities, and authoritative claims?
–Is there a Bible basis for enforcement efforts that go so far as to put people in jail?
My parallel question: Was there an Old Testament basis for the efforts put forth by the “leading men” to have Christ arrested, scourged, and eventually killed?
Thought-provoking questions indeed.
Sorry Pastor Chick, I know what you are getting at but it could be a flawed analogy, comparing ‘oranges to apples’.
If the accusations against Christ were true, that He was a false prophet and false Messiah with false doctrine, then yes, Jesus’ arrest would not only have been justified but in fact mandated by the Law of Moses: ‘But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ (Deut. 18:20-22). Josiah, Elijah and many other prophets had false prophets arrested and executed – and not just the people – their alters and places of worship were smashed to pieces as well.
The problem with the point you’re trying to make, though, is that Jesus was the Messiah (the Christ) as the fulfilment of the Law, and so the religious leaders should have accepted Him, not arrest Him. Their treatment of Him would be wholly reasonable if indeed he was false, but He wasn’t. I reject the implied suggestion that the CSDA are ‘Christ’ in this scenario – they well could be the false prophet speaking in the name of another god, given they do teach a Binitarian godhead.
The other problem is trying to draw direct comparisons between the current CSDA-SDA litigation and the semi-theocracy legal framework of the NT world (where Jewish leaders did still hold official executive and judicial power, albeit, at the pleasure of the Romans). The point is the Apostle Paul did rely on State Roman authorities at times, and appealed to their intervention in his own disputes with Jewish religious leaders (Acts 25:11).
In other words, it was not the arrest and trial of Jesus per se that was unconscionable, because if He was a false prophet or false Messiah he deserved arrest and execution. Rather, it was the fact that the Jewish authorities did not follow due process as prescribed in the Torah (e.g. night trial, false witnesses, High Priest tearing his garments) then rendered it all a farce.
It appears that the CSDA’s have the true problem in this legal issue. Why is it when we SDA’s are on the winning side of a legal dispute we opt to feel guilty? Is it the Uncle Arthur Syndrome of picking the biggest piece of cake? Or is it a fear of spiking the proverbial football in the end zone? Maybe it’s just that we SDA’s are supposed to lose, and be persecuted, not really win at anything?
Would Apple Computer sit by if a former employer started his own computer company called “GreenApple”? How about “MacroSoft”? Or a shoe company called “SuperNike?” No, no and no!
Obviously, it’s the CSDA’s that have the current problem. Besides, we SDA’s have plenty of other issues to solve.
It really comes down to whether you think: i) a name is 'property' (and I think as a matter of law and theology it is); and ii) whether religious liberty extends to excuse someone from stealing (and I don't think that it does extend that far, as religious liberty is only a qualified right, not an absolute licence to do anything). The fact that CSDA thinks they have a divine command to use our name is irrelevant. If they similarly thought they had a divine right to steal the General Conference's furniture and stationary, would that make it morally, theologically or legally right? No, the General Conference would call the cops and have such persons arrested for stealing.
If you knew my Father, you would know me. If you loved my Father, you would love me. If you did the will of my Father, you would appreciate the works that I do, for they are the works of Him who lives in me.
There is no confusion in the Church of the Living God. His people are perfectly untied as one with the Father and His Son. They do always those things that please Him. What they hear from the Father, they do. Amen.
The Church of the Living God – is that a new denomination? A church that is perfectly united and always does those things that please God – now that is something I think we would all like to see. Unfortunately, up close, they all turn out to be mirages. You come so close to identifying yourself as Christ in the first paragraph that I feel really uneasy.
It is precisely the confusion (babble) arising out of CSDA’s use of the name ‘Seventh-day Adventist’ that worries me. The SDA Church was established by divine fiat to call people out of Babylon, not add to it.
I do not really understand what Pastor Chick is trying to say – is he suggesting that the CSDA Church is the true Church of the Living God, because I would have to seriously disagree with him there? Or is he suggesting that the CSDA Church is already in perfect unity with the SDA Church, because I thought they were calling the SDA apostate?
Which ‘people’ is he referring to exactly when he says they are perfectly united with the Father and His Son? And why no Holy Spirit? When he says when ‘they’ hear from the Father and ‘do’, which ‘they’ is he referring to and what ‘doing’ does he mean?
Pastor Chick, could you please clarify what you were talking about exactly? I apologize that I will have to be like some of the dumb disciples, who asked Jesus to please explain what His parable meant.
Hello,
Allow me to speak plainly:
The Creation 7th Day Adventist Church is the one and true church of God. It is where He is gathering His faithful children and preparing them for translation. The Seventh-day Adventist denomination that once held that position forsook it by unholy union with the kings of the earth, and the forbidden merger of civil power with ecclesiastical authority.
We are perfectly united, as per the prayer of Christ in John 17. We "wash eachothers feet and share the holy kiss." We are a separate church in entirety – not an independent ministry, which is something forbidden by the word of God. We claim, as the Adventist church once had divine right to, to be the gathering place for those called out of Babylon.
I trust this dispels any questions.
And merely calling oneself the 'Church of the Living God' does not make it so:
‘For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.’ (2 Cor. 11:13-15)
‘Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.’ (1 John 4:1)
‘But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.’ (2 Pet. 2:1-3)
‘For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.’ (2 Tim. 4:3-4)
Protection of our church name is vital just as any other church, organization or business as it affects the reputation of the organization and how it is perceived. The lines must be drawn somewhere for distinction. If these 'men' choose to be jailed rather than pay a flimsy little fine it is their choice. That is barely a slap on the wrist. They may have had good intensions and if so they could have persued them through the right channels. Attitude and self are often the the reasons behind separation. Many organization have splintered before and more will probably try before the Lord comes. The times in which we live are scary and full of controversy. We now have 'gay' organizations attempting to steel forms of our name and produce mainline movies. Should these be allowed? The lines are drawn and any one who wishes to splinter should change their name and association. If a woman divorces her husband, doesn't she usually take back her maiden name or she moves on to accept the name of her new love rather than continue to be identified with the name of a man she no longer loves and cherishes? The devil loves diversity and will do anything to stir the pot and create discontent.
I have just watched the most recent news article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-RxSqU5DaQ
I note Pastor Chick said in the interview 'I prophesied it to the Church then'.
Did Pastor Chick use the word ‘prophesied’ as a figure of speech, or was he claiming to be exercising the gift of prophesy? If it is the latter, that is a much more serious situation, especially in light of the clear injunctions requiring the testing against false prophets (Deut. 18:20-22, 2 Cor. 11:13-15, 1 John 4:1, 2 Pet. 2:1-3, 2 Tim. 4:3-4)
If Pastor Chick is claiming to have the gift of prophesy, I am now even more worried than before, and no wonder the official SDA Church is likewise worried about the CSDA using the name Seventh-day Adventist. I don’t want to tarnish all groups with the same brush, but I am worried (and no doubt the GC is as well) that this group is another Shepard’s Rod/Branch Dividians that might one day lead to another Waco-type scenario in some decade in the future.
I am especially concerned for the members, and the children, in this group. My prayers are with them.
I do wonder how many said the exact same of Adventism for claiming to have had the gift of prophecy – and from a woman, no less. "Those poor Adventist members. Surely we should pray for their children, since after all, there's the worry they could be another Joseph Smith or Eddie Marie Baker situation."
I seem to recall "innocent until proven guilty" was somewhere in the law. Given that Christ was not afforded such respect when He claimed to be the Son of God, it would only be appropriate that His people suffer the same; especially when they have the audacity to claim they actually have the gifts He promised His church would have. It is a sad day when a church that boasts itself on its prophet acts as the world does when someone even mentions prophecy.
Unfortunately, public insinuation and condescension often take the place of genuine research and honesty in this generation.
I believe that the two should not be going to jail for using the SDA name on their church. As long as they are sticking with the Biblical truth what does it hurt?
But are they teaching biblical truth? In effect, they appear preach another god and another salvation.
Actually, both of the doctrines you mentioned are ones in which we teach identically to the pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist church.
In fact, the current denomination has outright said that the founders would be denied membership today. It seems that, by the standard you've advocated, you would be in favor of suing the founders of Seventh-day Adventism for misrepresenting the church they founded.
Ironically, it would seem that you are the one teaching a "different god and another salvation" from Adventism, if the people who first were given the name "Seventh-day Adventist" are any indication of what the religion actually is. Regardless, I would rather give my life than force your conscience in an effort to stop your misrepresentation of my faith.
Hi Timo, do you know if the 'divine revelation' to use the name Seventh-day Adventist is a reference to Mrs White, or is it their own 'divine revelation'? It does matter insofar as they claim it is this divine revelation that they cannot use any other name.
We are not putting these men in jail; this is a result of their refusal to obey the law and that in and of itself is not Christian. We are told in the New Testament to respect the laws of the land so this is not our doing but theirs. Further, we have to ensure that these off shoots do not misrepresent the real SDA Church or deceive real Adventist into believing that they are a SDA church. Try this with the Catholic Church, or Presbyterian see what will happen, that’s right you would be in court, so let us not over play this folly.
When I was the worshipper of Baal, I walked in the lust of my flesh, serving Baal with all of my stony heart. When I was born from above, I became the son of YAHWEH, empowered by the Spirit of the Father and His Son. I was created anew; old things were passed away and all things became new. With a new Spirit and heart of flesh, I serve my Father implicitly. If I tell you the truth, why do you not believe me?
My Kingdom is not of this world, for YAHWEH has translated [me] into the kingdom of his dear Son, as first revealed by the Apostle Paul. All who love the world continue in the intellect of this world, and the love of the world is hostility against my Father. They do not hear me because of their hostility, though some may be blind and ready to receive their sight.
Sorry, what do you mean by 'My Kingdom'? Is 'My' to mean 'Pastor Chick's Kingdom'? When you say people 'do not hear me' do you mean 'do not hear Pastor Chick'? I am a little confused with all the riddles, and not a straight answer of letting one's yes be yes and one's no be no.
To reiiterate Kevin Riley's comment, 'You come so close to identifying yourself as Christ in the first paragraph that I feel really uneasy.'
I am not trying to be personal in any way, just trying to understand what your position and that of CSDA's is exactly? For example, do you claim to have the gift of prophesy and was it your divine revelation that is the basis behind this whole story of needing to adopt the name CSDA?
Hello to all,
I have just finished reading the thread up to this point in time. I am a member of the CSDA Church along with Lucan Chartier and Pastor McGill.
We have had quite a number of discussions with people both face-to-face and online regarding the legal developments that surround our congregation, and I always see exactly TWO sides developing:
1) There are those who say that this is a purely legal matter; that it is about the "laws of the land," and therefore religious conviction and the freedom of expressing one's faith according to good old-fashioned Protestant principles ought not to be applied here. In fact, I might quote from eariler posters to that effect:
"Protection of our church name is vital just as any other church, organization or business as it affects the reputation of the organization and how it is perceived."
The problem with that reasoning is that the SDA Church is NOT just "any other church, organization or business." It is Christ's own Bride. It is the Father's own adopted Daughter. It is NOT to be defiled by the touch of human hands in the manner being suggested above, but rather respected according to the dignity placed upon Her by the Godhead. Let the world take care of worldly organizations; Christ has promised to take care of His Beloved. And so He is doing even to this day, but it is not the Church of Christ that seeks refuge in the arms of another man.
2) Then, there are those who realize that God's law must take precedent over human requirements that conflict with any instructions accepted from Him and obeyed in good conscience. Indeed, even if one does not agree with us on every point of doctrine, there are some who understand and respect that we are willing to be subjected to punishment because we are convicted by a higher power than man's court: the Divine Court above, that we ought to obey God rather than men.
It is true that we teach a "different Gospel" than the mainstream SDA Church; HOWEVER, the Gospel that we teach is that held by the original Adventist pioneers as they came forth from the hand of the Creator after rejecting the pagan errors of Sundaykeeping Churches. It is the Gospel that can be shown line-by-line and point-by-point in every principle from the Bible itself. We need rely on no traditions of men, such as the establishment of a Trinity doctrine via Roman political power, to demonstrate the foundation of our faith. Modern Adventism has literally "back-slidden" into re-absorbing some of those flawed aspects of theology that our forefathers in the faith had abandoned.
It is therefore the modern organization that teaches a Gospel different from that found in the Word of God, for this Word speaks of salvation FROM sin, not salvation IN sin. It speaks of a Father and Son, and their Holy Spirit, not a separate, third sentient Power to which men address prayers or petitions as they do the Father and Son. It speaks of loving one's neighbor as one's self, and considering ALL men one's neighbor, regardless of differences in faith. Indeed, even if we were to be considered "Samaritans" for our differences in faith, the courts of the land (the Second Beast of Revelation!) could never be a suitable guardian of Christ's true Church.
As Ellen White wrote, "Force is the last resort of every false religion." There are some who will understand what that means, there are some who will ignore it, and there are some who will reject it. Those are still only two categories of responses, although they appear to be three.
As for what Stephen has said and asked in his last few posts, we believe that the Spirit of Prophecy did not die with Ellen White, but is being poured out on all the servants of the Almighty in fulfillment of Joel 2 and the Book of Acts. It is clear from Biblicalthat prophetic messages are NEVER accepted by the majority of claimed-believers, nevertheless we believe that God has instructed us regarding our name, regarding our departure from a corrupted and fallen Body, and regarding our ministry to bring as many people as will listen and come into the renewed Covenant.
To the eyes of the mainstream Church, of course this makes us "heretics" and "dangerous;" and we have seen that they have reacted no better than the Roman Catholic Church (which they deplore) when faced with the same manner of Spirit-led dissent. It is from the heart that a man (or organizatinon) speaks. Those with the same heart will utter the same words.
The other quote was: "We are not putting these men in jail; this is a result of their refusal to obey the law and that in and of itself is not Christian. We are told in the New Testament to respect the laws of the land so this is not our doing but theirs. "
That almost gave me chills. As I read through the New Testament, I find the irate Hebrews saying precisely the same thing. "It's not us, it's Pilate and the Romans." There is TRULY nothing new under the Sun.
Respectfully,
David.
David, isn't your own ‘CREATION SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST RELIEF PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LTD’, which is certified by the Government of Rwanda, just an example of religious-state union, 'being defiled by the touch of human hands'? Isn't your position hypocritical – just a tiny bit? See my following post with the links from your own website.
Thanks David, I also really appreciate that you have been honest in coming clean that your group claims to have a continuing gift of prophesy:
'As for what Stephen has said and asked in his last few posts, we believe that the Spirit of Prophecy did not die with Ellen White, but is being poured out on all the servants of the Almighty in fulfillment of Joel 2 and the Book of Acts.'
Sorry, and I know I am asking a lot of questions and will stop for a while. However, could either Pastors Chick or Lucan explain to me the following – and without riddles that avoid the question.
According to your website, you say you left the SDA Church when members discovered the GC had in effect joined with the state in violation of Rev 18:1-4 in relying on trademark law:
http://home.netcom.com/~crmin/csdachurch/origin.html
But if you think the use of registered trademarks is an example of evil church-state union, why then do you have your own registered limited liability company, ‘CREATION SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST RELIEF PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LTD’
http://thetrueadventistchurch.to/adventistry/CSDARAR/images/CSDARAR.pdf
or click through its main page: http://thetrueadventistchurch.to/adventistry/CSDARAR/about.html
The ‘LTD’ denotes a registered ‘Limited’ corporation. On that basis, I am struggling to see how your own position is any different from the General Conferences? You are also availing yourself of the state’s protection, because if you get sued, the ‘Limited’ aspect of the corporate veil limits the liability to the company’s assets, not the individual shareholders and members.
And haven’t you entered into a church-state union in terms of acquiring the requisite certification papers for the CSDA Relief Association of Rwanda, which will avail you of certain rights and privileges of that state:
http://thetrueadventistchurch.to/adventistry/CSDARAR/certification.html
Isn’t that a little hypocritical?
David Aguilar has done a fine job of answers these points in a post near the bottom of the thread. I simply wish to make an observation.
"For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." (Matthew 7:8)
My experience is that this principle is true. Men find what they wish to find. Men who wish to find the truth will find it. Men who wish to find hooks to hang their doubts upon will, likewise, find them.
In the many (many) posts I have seen thusfar from you, there have been repeated misconceptions and factual errors that might have been easily dispelled were you really "struggling to understand," or really even taking a few cursory moments to bother with being accurate. The facts and our views of them are not hard to find on our websites.
But you did not find them. Instead, you have found an obscure web page mentioning a work in Uganda, Africa that had "Ltd." after it. You then proceeded to profess to be "struggling to understand," while at the same time proclaiming it to be hypocrisy in the thinly veiled form of a question.
Ironically, even that would not have been very hard to find the answer to if one were truly seeking for understanding and not a "means by which they might catch him in his words." I don't wish to to reinvent the wheel when Bro. David has crafted it quite well; suffice to say that a corporation for holding property (which early Adventists did) and a church-state union allowing force to be used on "false believers" (which they outright called the image of the beast) are not the same thing in any way, shape, or form.
I would, however, like to point out what I sincerely hope is the obvious. I am not particularly interested in debating with scoffers and faultfinders. Christ's method for dealing with such was to say things that would outright offend them, such as "eat my flesh and drink my blood, or you have no life in you." Allow me to give you what you are looking for:
Whoever is born of God does not commit sin. They do not willfully transgress the law of God in word, thought, or deed. Those who claim to be sabbath-keeping Adventists, and yet continue in sin, are liars in God's sight. To keep the Sabbath holy, you must yourself be holy, and those who make up the kingdom of God will be saints – not sinners.
I tell you the truth; this is the true gospel, and any who wish to experience it may come freely.
Does Pastor Chick accept the general principle that a religious corporation has property rights, which include trademark and intellectual property? Take for example the Three Angels logo, which I have seen on the masthead of many official church publications. Could the Church enjoin his appropriation of that logo? Would he feel it reasonable to enlist law enforcement to investigate and prosecute a burglary of his church?
If Pastor Chick accepts in principle the legitimacy of government defining property rights and applying those to church organizations, then he has to read into the Consitution a conscience exemption to some property rights. That is to say, if someone has a religious conviction that compels them to disregard property rights defined by the state, the state cannot enforce that property right. This is a truly preposterous assertion. And I would challenge Pastor Chick to offer a viable limiting principle on which to predicate such an exemption.
We can argue about whether a particular name should be trademarkable. But simply invoking conscience as a justification to appropriate what has been trademarked cannot be used as Kryptonite to keep the government at bay. Should the many Christians, who believe in wealth distribution as a religious duty, be able to exercise self-help to advance their religious convictions?
The Church could not effectively protect its property right if it decided to ignore some violations and enforce others. If you knowingly let someone else claim your property as their own, you may lose your claim to title through what is known as adverse possession. Acquiescing in the CSDA appropriation of the trademark would make it extremely difficult for the Church to protect the trademark in other situtations.
The Orwellian use of "religious liberty" to eviscerate private property rights of religious organizations is a dangerous road to travel for those who truly believe in separation of church and state. All fundamental liberty is grounded in private property rights that are respected and protected by the state.Weakening the property rights of religious organizations in the name of conscience will have the unintended effect of leaving religious liberty itself more vulnerable.
Out of lack of desire to repeat myself, I will simply point out that all of what has been said above has been addressed already. You may find the relevent posts by doing a word search for "tangible" from the top re: property rights, and for "objection" re: religious liberty allowing a carte blanche for every man becoming a law to himself.
NOTE: The beast “which had the wound by a sword, and did live,” is the Papacy. That was a church dominating the civil power, a union of church and state, enforcing its religious dogmas by the civil power, by confiscation, and imprisonment, and death. An image to this beast would be another ecclesiastical organization clothed with civil power—another union of church and state –to enforce religion by law. (Bible Reading for the Home Circle, p. 236; 1951; emphasis supplied)
It is true that a corporation is a “fictitious person,” and it was at the behest of the Papacy that religious corporations came into existence—thus, children of the Papacy. Certain uses of a corporation will fulfill the definition of the “Image to the beast,” and the General Conference Corporation has over-stepped its function as a holding company by employing the civil power to regulate “religious observances and missionary services.”
NOTE:
Every secular government that attempts to regulate or enforce religious observances by civil authority is sacrificing the very principle for which the evangelical Christian so nobly struggled. {GC 201.1}
Let the principle once be established in the United States that the church may employ or control the power of the state; that religious observances may be enforced by secular laws; in short, that the authority of church and state is to dominate the conscience, and the triumph of Rome in this country is assured. {GC 581.1}
The commandment requires:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, (Exo. 20:4, 5)
The Father has not told us that it is sin to use a corporation as a holding company. Some forms of corporate structure may violate the principles of God’s law; and therefore would be forbidden to establish. If the state does not hold a silent partnership with the corporation to the degree that it can dictate its operation or limit its scope of activity, then it is permissible.
In America, the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church has existed since 1991 without any use of corporate structure. In foreign lands, the Church remains autonomous from self-supporting humanitarian endeavors and charitable projects operated by members. The Church does not protect her divinely mandated name from use by a member or non-member. The Father oversees all our activities, and orchestrates our every movement. He is the Great Protector of His work.
The Church is not a “legal entity” or a “state-approved organization.” The Church is the body of like-believers who are called out from the world and committed to a “sure covenant” with the Father, His Son and each other. It is as YAHshua prayed, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.”
The 144,000 were all sealed and perfectly united. On their foreheads was written, God, New Jerusalem, and a glorious star containing Jesus’ new name. At our happy, holy state the wicked were enraged, and would rush violently up to lay hands on us to thrust us into prison, when we would stretch forth the hand in the name of the Lord, and they would fall helpless to the ground. Then it was that the synagogue of Satan knew that God had loved us who could wash one another’s feet and salute the brethren with a holy kiss, and they worshiped at our feet. {EW 15.1; emphases supplied}
You say The Church is not a “legal entity” or a “state-approved organization.” But what about the ‘CREATION SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST RELIEF PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LTD’
http://thetrueadventistchurch.to/adventistry/CSDARAR/images/CSDARAR.pdf
or click through its main page: http://thetrueadventistchurch.to/adventistry/CSDARAR/about.html
The ‘LTD’ denotes a registered ‘Limited’ corporation.
And haven’t you entered into a church-state union in terms of acquiring the requisite certification papers for the CSDA Relief Association of Rwanda, which will avail you of certain rights and privileges of that state:
http://thetrueadventistchurch.to/adventistry/CSDARAR/certification.html
There is NO CIRCUMSTANCE under which any group (splinter or otherwise) should use the official {trademarked & copywrited} name of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The CSDA is in error to avail itself of the official name (or any slightly varied form thereof) as they have departed from entire parallell beliefs with the "official" Seventh-day Adventist Church. Albeit, the CSDA does adhere to "many" of the same beliefs, but they are a separate (separated) and distinct group as they do indeed teach for doctrine a few things that do not represent what the church teaches.
So far as whether or not the Adventist church should "…send someone to jail…" for infringing on the church name and trademark; it IS NOT the church that would be sending them to jail. In a broad sense, it is the Court that sends someone to jail. In a more specific (narrower) sense; it is those individuals that send themsleves to jail, by violating public law. And, I acknowledge that someone insists that God's Law is above the public law, and on that point they are correct. But there is NOTHING in God's Law that specifically permits any Christian to utilized the "official" name of a group that they are not a part of.
On another note, NONE OF US should ever leave the church (Seventh-day Adventist) but there are issues arising within the church (some beginning to be recognized and sanctioned "officially") that could cause one to feel that the church (corporation) has left "the church" (the individual members of the body) and is embracing ideas, teachings, non-doctrinal issues and possibly even some things that could be determined as doctrinal. What are we to do when the "church" (corporation) leaves the church (Body of Christ) and incorporates divisive issues that can only cause confusion and dissention???
And, I know someone is going to ask that I be specific as to what/how/when the church left the church. I have deliberately constrained myself from enumerating any issues as I have no desire to engender debate, only to provoke thought.
The "martyr syndrome" is very useful in certain instances. Jailing anyone over a name would gather lots of publicity, and whether good or bad, all publicity is considered better than no publicity. Why pander to those who wish to become martyrs?
A few things to point out here:
>>>"David, isn't your own ‘CREATION SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST RELIEF PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LTD’, which is certified by the Government of Rwanda, just an example of religious-state union, 'being defiled by the touch of human hands'? "
I think Pastor McGill cleared that up already, but as briefly as I can – no, those are not the same thing. Registering a missionary assignment with a government that requires it is not the same thing as seeing to defend it against "attackers," and is certainly a far cry from seeking to "punish" those who will not submit to it. There is no hypocrisy here, as even Paul would "appeal to Caesar" under non-agressive circumstances. One is a matter of doing what the law requires when it does not violate the Law of God, and the other is the application of force to seek the submission of others to one's will. The spirits involved are night and day.
>>"There is NO CIRCUMSTANCE under which any group (splinter or otherwise) should use the official {trademarked & copywrited} name of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The CSDA is in error to avail itself of the official name (or any slightly varied form thereof) as they have departed from entire parallell beliefs with the "official" Seventh-day Adventist Church."
Let me be straight; this quote above is humanism masquerading as spirituality. It indicates that the human "officials" of the Church own the name that God gave to all Christians as a gift; furthermore, it indicates ignorance of what the trademarking and copyrighting of a product imply. In order for one to obtain legal protection for something, it is necessary to claim that this product ORIGINATED with the claiming body. In other words, for the GC to even form the trademark it must claim that the name "Seventh-day Adventist" is ITS intellectual property, originating in the mind of that organization. This is a denial of the faith, which states that the name was given to us by God.
Regarding the several posts about the "marytr syndrome," let me make this point: foreknowledge of something is not the same as fore-ordination. It is written that any who will follow Christ will suffer persecution. Christ Himself knew His actions would result in His death. Was He a victim of the martyr complex? Were the Romans and corrupt Hebrews pandering to His will when they nailed Him to the cross?
I tell you the truth, if the Sunday Law were passed tomorrow, and SDAs came under fire, the Sunday-keepers will be saying the same things about the mainstream body as the body is now saying about us. The only difference is that the Sabbath is written on stone, and the name of Christ's bride is written on our hearts.
Nevertheless, both have been written by the finger of God, and are worth suffering loss, imprisonment, and unjust accusations. We did know that taking this name would cause suffering, but we also knew that by doing so the true spirits of all who call themselves Seventh-day Adventists would be revealed. Some are soft-hearted, and sympathetic, and respect the voice of conscience above the laws of men. Others think differently. Let us be called by whatsoever names men will choose… it is Christ who bears the Cross, and we merely follow.
Respectfully,
David.
Okay, Pastor Chick "has been told" that the Church is not a legal entity. That makes it pretty simple. Whatever legal entity he is fighting with over the trademarked name is an imposter – not the Church at all. The "Father" has told him to enter the earthly kingdom, via the civil courts, to rescue and free the name "Seventh Day Adventist" from the clutches of the powers of darkness. So why would he expect either the court or the non-Church entity he is fighting with over the name to be swayed by his theological argument?
Pastor Chick and his defenders doggedly refuse to address the property issue upon which trademark protection is predicated. I do not think that either he or his congregation have a good faith belief that God has called upon them to publicly identify themselves as Seventh Day Adventists. It borders on blasphemy to invoke God's name to wage war over a name.
I have a michievous question for Pastor Chick. In how many languages has the name Seventh Day Adventist been trademarked in the U.S.? Has God told you to use English words? Maybe you could find a foreign language equivalent. I am also curious about what examples you find in Jesus life where He sought the assistance of Caesar or appealed to the laws of Rome for vindication of the mission from His Father. Even when many laws were violated in conjunction with Jesus' arrest, trial, sentencing, and crucifixion, I am aware of no evidence that he appealed to those laws. If Pastor Chick and his congregation were sincere in their beliefs, it seems to me that they would carry on without a fight, and then silently suffer the consequences of their civil disobedience.
"For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar." (Acts 25:1)
This thread is quite a revelation – and that in the absence of any prophets! It has been of great profit to me in that it has, imho, revealed the true spirit behind such breakaway groups (make that antiChrist perhaps)
My first opinion was that these offenders should certainly go to jail if that was the outcome of the law/s that had been broken. I am now even more convinced of that.
I was also of the view that perhaps, just perhaps, the gospel was being preached in both places. That doubt has been absolutely removed. I am stunned by the attitude, arrogance and theology of Chick and his other commenters.
It is good to be reminded of where religion and spirituality coupled with intense human pride can take people.
Cb25,
I am genuinely sorry to see that you have judged a firm and decided testimony as "arrogance." What we have done is simply this:
1) We believe we have received a revelation from Christ. It involves, not only a teaching of the Gospel without any dilution or impurity, but also a stand for conscience above the laws of men. This is called "Protestantism."
2) We believe that He has given us a name that reflects this faith, and although it was always clear it would cause controversy, we did not shrink from this duty because of the fear of man's judgment. The idea that Christ still speaks to His people seems to immediately trigger the adrenaline glands of some.
3) We have resisted the proud and often cruel accusations leveled against us by individuals who seem to lack even basic empathy, much less spiritual discernment.
The interesting thing is, Seventh-day Adventists have often been the MOST harsh, the most suspicious, in their accusations of our motives. Atheists and worldlings are able to understand that if we truly believe these things, we are unable to sway from our convictions. Members of other churches can ready acknowledge the obvious error in seeking to defend a Church with civil power. The only ones who cannot do so are those who have something, like institutional loyalty, invested in this particular Goliath. Where is the Spirit of Christ? Where is the Spirit of gentleness? Here is the spirit of force.
It seems that following these steps is certain to result in accusations of arrogance and pride, but of these things we cannot be ashamed, for our Master was told the same. I wonder what would happen if you were given a choice between the things you were truly convinced were God's instructions, or a "property law." We have been faced with that choice, and it is BECAUSE of the Gospel, because we believe that Christ defends and will deliver His people, that we can endure both the verbal and legal sticks and stones.
I do not wish to cause any offense to you, or to anyone else, but the words that Christ has given us to speak, we will speak. What He has told us to testify, we will testify. What He has told us to call ourselves, that is our name. We can do nothing but this. Will the Son of Man find faith in the earth when He returns?
Respectfully,
David
Let's please understand one thing. The Seventh-day Adventist denomination has not tried to put men in prison to protect it's name or trademark. The denomination has simply made just complaint to the federal court that a group is using the denomination's identity without authority to do so.
The federal court may possibly order some people to be jailed – not for infringing on a trademark, but rather for contempt of court for refusing the orders of a federal judge. Romans 13:1-4 is applicable here.
Romans 13:1-4 (King James Version)
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
In this case, the court serves as the "minister of God fto thee for good" in rightly protecting the trademark of a denomination – in this case the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. The denomination has not taken a brother to court any more than if the denomination took a Baptist or Catholic to court. The group in question has chosen to remain separate from the Seventh-day Adventist denomination and therefore is not a brother. The Biblical injunction relating to not taking a brother to court relates to the church conducting its own church discipline process instead of going to court. How can the Seventh-day Adventist church conduct its own church discipline against the members of this group? It cannot – therefore the court is the appropriate place for this situation
I would like to correct a point regarding the facts of the case in addition to what Bro. David has said below regarding its principles. It was said earlier:
"The Seventh-day Adventist denomination has not tried to put men in prison to protect it's name or trademark. The denomination has simply made just complaint to the federal court that a group is using the denomination's identity without authority to do so."
Actually, this is not the case. The Seventh-day Adventist denomination's lawyers made the motion for incarceration over two years ago, and have peristently repeated the request. The Court has been merciful compared to what the Conference's attorneys have sought. It was the Conference who made repeated requests for contempt rulings, who authored proposed arrest orders for the judge to sign, and who have persisted in bringing the issue before the courts in an attempt to bring that end about. Had the motions not been made by the plaintiff specifically requesting the sanctions, the imprisonment would not have come about.
Ultimately, the image of Pilate being reluctant to condemn a man he knew was innocent while the religious leaders clamored for his crucifixion finds a much more apt parallel than many are willing to consider.
Hi Wes,
You wrote, "Let's please understand one thing. The Seventh-day Adventist denomination has not tried to put men in prison to protect it's name or trademark. The denomination has simply made just complaint to the federal court that a group is using the denomination's identity without authority to do so."
And therefore, like Pilate it can wash its hands? No, no… it is a Church organization appealing to the civil power to accomplish its desire, just as the Hebrews did with the Romans. If you read Acts 2, you know exactly how God feels about attempting to avoid culpability by making such a claim as that.
It is rare indeed that I see an Adventist defending Revelation's 2nd Beast when it only moves at the request of the ecclesiastical authority, but such are the darkened minds of this generation.
There is a good question asked, though: "How can the Seventh-day Adventist church conduct its own church discipline against the members of this group? It cannot – therefore the court is the appropriate place for this situation."
Perhaps you are not aware of "Gospel Order?" Church discipline ENDS when an individual is no longer a member (Matthew 18). It has NO authoirty to impose "its own church discipline" on others outside of its covenant. You may as well be asking, "How can the SDA Church punish the Baptists?" It cannot, for they are separate covenants. The fact that we believe God has given us a name that is similar but different to the mainstream SDA body does not make us subject to the judgment of men that we consider to be fallen from grace.
I also notice a dichotomy in your argument. You will claim that it is not the Church that is seeking to put CSDA members in jail, BUTyou then acknowledge that it is the "Church's own discipline" being enforced by the courts! Consider this carefully. THIS, my friends, is the very use of force that Ellen White warned against as the "last resort of every false religion."
Again, people are missing that one cannot "trademark" God's property. The name "Seventh-day Adventist" was never to be owned or arbitrated by frail human minds. Men may as well claim to own the sun or one of the stars. That is the real arrogance here.
Respectfully,
David.
I also wish to point out something else:
I believe it was one of our own Adventist pioneers who wrote that a Church, by itself, will not persecute anyone. A state, by itself, will punish crimes, but will not persecute anyone.
It is ONLY when you have religious matters arbitrated by a civil court that persecution results. And we are not exaggerating this situation by calling it "persecution." We are being told that our beliefs are illegal to practice in the United States, because we believe that God has chosen our identifying name.
If the church that feels it is "wronged" finds that it cannot do anything beyond disfellowshipping us and decides that IT will initiate a trademark, and that IT will appeal to the courts to enforce ITS trademark, how can they then turn around and say, "It's not us, it's the government doing it"? God knows the hearts of men, and will brook no such carnal justification.
Respectfully,
David.
David,
The "stealing" of someone else's name is not a religious matter. It is a legal issue. Just because it happens to be a Church name does not make it a religious issue. If you think it does, I would like to see your explanation for it?
Where have you been told it is illegal to practice your beliefs? Are you suggesting that your name is "practicing your beliefs"? That's a whole new twist on logic.
It is not persecution any more than if I chose to speed could I call any resulting infringment "persecution". I may not like it, but the cop who catches me is just doing his job. Persecution? Another whole new twist on logic as I see it.
You may not know much about my background from what I have posted elsewhere, but I grew up on industrial strength Adventism. I have been through some rough and tough times with conservatives and fundamentalist and fundamentalism here in OZ. I can pretty much understand your mindset and way of seeing the world. They are not shoes I have not tried. The result?
I can tell you beyond a shadow of doubt that where you are at is little different to brainwashed. It is such a deceptive mindset that it is almost (if not) beyond cure. It will be a long journey if ever you do see beyond the horizon of your false reality. Sorry to say it bluntly, but I believe that is how it is for Chick n co.
If I receive a 'divine revelation' that says I should go next door and steal my neighbour's credit card, bills and identity generally (where identity fraud is now a common crime in the 21st Century), can I rely on an argument of 'religious liberty'. No, religious liberty is only a qualified right, not an absolute right. A person is entitled to protection of their religious convinctions as long as it doesn't hurt others.
Stealing the SDA name is stealing, and it does hurt the SDA Church in its own evangelism and reputation.
Hello,
As I've pointed out in reply to other posts saying the same thing, this idea has been responded to. Any interested may do a word search for "tangible" on this page to find the relevant post.
Thank you.
Hello Timo,
I am currently unpersuaded that you speak on behalf of "my readers," as you call them. If you are interested in knowing more about our beliefs, you may find them adequately documented in shortened form on Wikipedia, and in more comprehensive form on our website, which is currently http://www.csda-adventistchurch.to/
As it stands, I do not believe the purpose of this article's comments section is to delve extensively into CSDA history and doctrine. Our teachings (and our reasons for separation) are public, and you are welcome to review them.
Regarding your "questions," no, I have not taken another church's name or contemptuously regarded the legal system. I have honored my Father, and you dishonor me.
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”. (Acts 2:36-38)
The above passage illustrates “corporate accountability” which is applicable in our day. Every member of the SDA Church is, in likeness to the Jewish constituency above, accountable before God for crucifying afresh the Son of God in the person of His saints. The General Conference has kept the instant trademark lawsuit quiet, along with your part as co-Plaintiffs. Why?
If they were acting under principles of Scripture and Spirit of Prophecy which Adventism was founded upon, they would be shouting the success throughout their international kingdom and glorifying God for their signal victory (as they have generally done in the past re these lawsuits). To the contrary, the General Conference has remained mysteriously silent regarding this whole debacle. Would it be that they fear a schism within the denomination? It might just be a “critical mass” of “faithful Adventists” remains not having bowed to Baal. Surely they would decry any use of the sword of Caesar to restrict liberty of conscience with respect to religious conviction, not to mention spending hundreds of thousands in sacred contributions for secular lawyers.
Through His servants, God gave the Jewish people a last opportunity to repent. He manifested Himself through His witnesses in their arrest, in their trial, and in their imprisonment. Yet their judges pronounced on them the death sentence. They were men of whom the world was not worthy, and by killing them the Jews crucified afresh the Son of God. So it will be again. The authorities will make laws to restrict religious liberty. They will assume the right that is God's alone. They will think they can force the conscience, which God alone should control. {DA 630.1}
The “loud cry” we herald is intended to wake up the sleeping virgins and save those who wish to be saved prior to “the great and terrible day of the LORD.” “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.” (Isa. 58:1) “For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.” (Rev. 18:5)
I tell you the truth; YAHWEH has remembered her iniquities, and only those who “Repent, and be baptized […] in the name of [YAHshua, the Messiah] for the remission of sins […] shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” and be translated to His Heavenly Kingdom.
Hi Pastor Chick, Lucan and David, I am not entirely sure what you hoped to accomplish by your contributions here. As you can see by the myriad of responses, it appears the vast majority of people support the General Conference’s actions. Even I was surprised by the near unanimity amongst Adventists!
I carried out my own very unscientific poll this morning at Sabbath School, reading out the Adventist Today article. With a vote of 22-2, my fellow Seventh-day Adventists all agreed with the General Conference’s decision to commence legal proceedings against the CSDA.
Stephen,
Good point! After all, God's armies have always been the large ones, right?
Let's consider the days of Noah, for example. The Messiah said it will be same when He comes back; so, you DO have a good 92% on your side. But, I will rely on the prophecy of One who said, "Few there be that find it." I hope you understand — this is no "riddle." It is life and death — eternal.
Pastor Chick, your comment explains why you say you are right, not why you are making comments on this blog. If I was a person who had left your church, rather than the other way around, you would shun me and refuse to even listen to my comments.
Stephen,
I am sorry that you think as man and not as God. You have no idea of my heart, for you do not know my Father who gave it to me. I am judging by your words only as Christ always did.
I wonder… Is your participation on this blog an example of your method of shunning? I assume from what you are saying that you are shunning me. Please forgive me if I am missing something.
Timo,
In a civil case, it is the plaintiff's province to make a motion for a "show cause hearing" in which they submit evidence as to why the defendent should be held in contempt. It is then their province to motion the court for specific sanctions and a ruling of contempt, as well as provide an accompanying "proposed order" for the Judge to sign. This is for "civil contempt," not "criminal contempt."
You are entirely welcome to review the relevent court documents online. For example, the following link is for the first "Proposed Order of Contempt and Sanctions" submitted to the Court in 2009. The judge declined, at that time, to sign it.
http://www.csda-adventistchurch.to/USTradeLawsuit/docs/ProposedContempt.doc
For conveniences sake, here is the relevent portion from the paper, authored by the Conference's representatives, which they wished the judge to sign:
"Accordingly, the Court hereby Orders the arrest of Defendant, wherever he may be found within the jurisdiction of theUnited States United States
Because, you know. The Church writing a paper for the civil authorities to sign that orders the arrest and indefinite imprisonment of a Christian until he recants the name of his religion doesn't have any significant parallels at all.
As odd as I find it that you would be willing to offer public judgment on legal motions as "irrelevant, costly, and obfuscating" within an hour of stating that you "are not a lawyer and do not play one on tv," I (and certainly others) would be appreciative if you are willing to provide links to any websites that further document the legal history.
I'd certainly be educated to know of where you've found "over 20 years of recorded statements" indicating what you've claimed, incidentally. You know, "for anyone following this." 🙂
Timo,
Please provide the references of which you speak for any like myself who might be interested. I am especially curious about the one you cited that I "reported under oath." I tell you the truth. What I testified under oath was not presented exactly as I said it, but I expect, from the spirit I have discerned, you are pleased enough with the mistake (which some of my "friends" have taken great advange of).
As I have stated numberous times, if you loved my Father, you would love me. Since you manifest that you do not love me, the conclusion is evident. I have not been called to condemn you or anyone, but it is true that my doctrine will judge many in that last day.
Christ once said to those who looked at Him as you look at me. If you were blind, you would be innocent, but since you claim to have clear vision, … well we all know what He said.
…So no references, then?
Hello,
Actually, what I said was that our doctrines are easily found, and gave you two specific locations to find them. Making pointed and damning statements as though they are fact and then saying "do a search" when asked where you are getting your information is not especially convincing.
If you are going to defame, ridicule, and slander someone's character in a public forum, providing references for your "facts" when asked is the least – literally, the least – you can do.
Acts 4:12 mentions only one name…Jesus.
I could try to hang a shingle on a store front that reads, Walmart, Safeway, RiteAide, or Auto Zone but it would come under some scrutiny. I asure you Pastor Chick, Lucan and David that the blood on the doorpost means much more than the name above it.
Hello,
To CB25, you wrote:
>>""The "stealing" of someone else's name is not a religious matter. It is a legal issue. Just because it happens to be a Church name does not make it a religious issue. If you think it does, I would like to see your explanation for it?"
I have an explanation. I have offered it, but you have not been willing to hear. I do agree that "stealing" anything is an offense to God; however, as I have said more than once in just my few posts here, the name "Seventh-day Adventist" is NOT any human being's, or organization's, PROPERTY. The name Seventh-day Adventist is, according to the Spirit of Prophecy and our own earnestly-held beliefs, a gift from God to all who will claim it, and use it to glorify His name by a keeping of the Sabbath day, and an expecation of His Son's soon return. Just because a group of men claims that it is theirs, this does not make it so. Just because a couple of judges who are not of the faith have declared it is theirs does not make it so. Our only interest on this matter is what our Father has told us, thererfore your question is actually invalid. Stealing is not the issue here, it is who "owns" the name that we bear. We say it is God's name to His people. You say it is man's property for their organization. That is the true difference between us on that point, not whether or not it is right to "steal."
You then wrote, "Where have you been told it is illegal to practice your beliefs? Are you suggesting that your name is "practicing your beliefs"? That's a whole new twist on logic.""
It is not a twist on "logic," it is merely a different doctrine than you currently hold. We believe that God's instructions are to be followed as a matter of faith; and that makes it a religious belief. We believe that God has told us to identify ourselves as Creation Seventh Day Adventists. The obedience to this command from our Heavenly Father cannot be described as anything BUT a practice of our beliefs. What is at the heart of this matter is that we believe this practice trumps and completely eclipses any ruling of limited, human judges, or the reasoning of those who have tried to claim God's gift as an exclusive right, and deceptively so, for the name was never conceived in the human heart or mind.
From your last statement, you state your belief that we are "brainwashed." I am trying to decide if that is more or less kind than the earliest statements that we are merely arrogant or prideful. Ultimately, I suppose it does not matter. What matters is that we have two lines of thought here: One involves obedience to sincerely-held beliefs, and the other involves the application of force in an attempt to get men, women and youths to violate their consciences. The Spirit of God can exist in exactly one of those atmospheres.
Would that the minds of all would be "washed" in the Blood of the Lamb.
For Stephen: If our Father in Heaven held the "majority rules" system, I suppose we would have to conclude that our doctrine is incorrect on the basis of your poll. Fortunately, we are comfortable being in our Creator's little company, obscure and little known to any outside the faith – as was prophesied of the last little Remnant in the Spirit of Prophecy.
I wonder what would happen if we conducted a poll among Christendom to find out what the majority thought was the "Lord's Day?" But I don't think either of us would be surprised at the oucome of that experiment, just as I am sure you had to know what our response to that report you have given us would be.
But now, although you may see, with the polls of flesh, a great company arrayed against one small city, we must rely on the Word of God:
"And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, 'Alas, my master! how shall we do?'
There are factors here, Stephen, Cb, etc., that you do not see. They have not been hidden from you by us, for we have testified openly of these things in your sight. And yet, a veil is over your eyes, and over your hearts, so that, rather than seeing the beastly heart at the core of your leaders, and thus your mindset, you will turn that outward against us, who merely say, "Here is what we believe, and this is what we must do. This is the truth as it is in Jesus."
Respectfully,
David.
Hello Stephen,
I re-read your post and something new caught my eye. You said that in your poll, the "vote" in favor of the General Conference was 22-2. That is about 18% who agree that the Conference is in error. Now, since I have read in the Spirit of Prophecy that not one in twenty Adventists are ready for the coming of the Lord, which is only 5%, I would say that your congregation is doing pretty well… relatively speaking, of course.
Respectfully,
David.
Oops; my mistake, and I caught it immediately. 2/22 is 9%, not 18. Nevertheless, it's still almost double that 5.
David.
Stephen,
I, for one, believe and cast my vote that the General Conference's actions are Biblically and morally wrong! I fully support the position of the Creation 7th Day Adventist Church and am interceding for all those who are in the 8%.
Pastor Chick, Lucan, and David,
Thank you for taking your stand with the Messiah and and speaking out boldly so that the 8% seeking Truth have an opportunity to hear. As Pastor Chick quoted our Savior above, truly, "Few there be that find it."
I would like to add the following quote from Signs of the Times, 22, April 1889:
"Remember, 'it is not the true church of God that makes war with those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. It is the people who make void the law, who place themselves on the side of the dragon, and persecute those who vindicate God's precepts.'"
Barbara I initially thought the same, as did the majority of people in our sabbath school. However, once we all really thought about it, there is great danger to our evangelism if people get confused between the CSDA and SDA. Moreover, people were really worried if the CSDA became another Waco (and you can't say that won't happen, especially as the CSDA leaders claim to be prophets), how that will impact us. It will have a tangible impact, and CSDA will bare the responsiblity, as will the GC if it does anything, if someone doesn't make the Kingdom because of the bad association.
To break this down:
The words "unbelief and sinful mistrust" come to the forefront in my mind. The sole motive of your arguments are fear, and fear is the antithesis of faith. I tremble for what men like you would advocate – and have done in the past – when given power over the name "Christian," feeling the need to protect people's soul from deception and bad association. I tell you the truth; you are advocating the very heart and spirit of Papal power.
I find it literally chilling to know how little the lives of others can mean to some who claim to be Christians. I thank God for those who act by faith and not by fear.
I'm still not convinced that the strong arm tactics by the GC are in the best interests of the church or those they've taken to court. I've advocated the Gamaliel approach, and it is becoming clearer that this would have worked. By stating that they are "the one and true church of God" the CSDA Church is clearly out of harmony with SOP, and SDA beliefs. Any thinking Adventist would not be taken in by their false teachings.
We are not called to abandon the church because there are problems with the leadership. Jesus did not leave us with that kind of example. During His time on earth the church leadership was corrupt, but it was still God's church–until it divorced itself from Him by murdering His Son. The SDA church, in spite of the many heresies that have crept in here and there, has not repudiated the truth. I still believe it is the remnant church described in Revelation, even though very few who are on the church books are true members of that remnant.
Hello Horace,
While I am sorry that you and I are not in perfect unity regarding our beliefs, I appreciate that you are advocating in favor of my freedom to practice mine. Regarding your position on leaving vs. reforming the church, this is something we have studied, spoken, and written extensively on. It is our position that the SDA church "divorced itself from Him by murdering His Son afresh," as this is precisely how Mrs. White described using civil courts to force the conscience. Adventist doctrine has always taught this to be the signal sign of a fallen body, and the time for the faithful to be called out.
I agree entirely with you that apostasy is no call to leave the church. In Elijah's day, insofar as he knew not one other person stood faithful to God, yet no calling out ensued. No, the clear dividing line is whether the church has "unchurched itself" through unholy union with the kings of the earth. I believe, if I understand you correctly, that we agree on this concept. The difference lies in the fact that we point to the trademark law and say "This has happened."
Incidentally, the issue over which we formed as a separate church in 1991 was not doctrinal or theological in nature, although we do (and did) have disagreements in those areas. It was solely over trademark persecution, which at that time was targeted at Pr. John Marik of Hawaii. We saw the sure sign of a fallen church in the act of requesting and receiving the imprisonment that man, and we then – and no sooner – departed the SDA denomination.
Thank you for the opportunity to shed light on the matter further.
Well, Lucan,
It is too bad that we are in disagreement, but I still defend your right to worship according to the dictates of you conscience, and to use the name you've chosen to represent your church; although in doing so I part company with many for whom I have utmost respect and with whom I am in agreement on most other issues. Such is life.
In the end truth will prevail, and I hope that at that point we are both on the side of truth.
Hi Horace,
I would like to also thank you for standing against the majority. Like you and Luke, I wish that we agreed on so much more. I am not sure if this is the right place to discuss the specifics of what you said, but I would like to just touch on something you wrote.
That is, "By stating that they are "the one and true church of God" the CSDA Church is clearly out of harmony with SOP, and SDA beliefs. Any thinking Adventist would not be taken in by their false teachings."
Many of our current members, including myself, were and ARE "thinking Adventists." I do not take the statement personally, but I do believe that very intelligent, very bright, people can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions.
As Luke pointed out in his previous post, it is because we thought, carefully, about the Spirit of Prophecy's outline for what it takes for a church to "fall" that we have concluded that there MUST be a calling-out in order for God, who never changes, to be consistent in the way that He deals with His people.
The Jews, of course, would never accept that the "chosen people" could have their house left unto them "deslote." The Roman Catholics continue to point out that Christ promised the "gates of hell" would never triumph over them. And yet, in every case, whenever a union of the church with the state occurs (even if the Church claims that the "state is the one doing the punishing") God has invariably, in every single case we have in sacred history, called people out to a new organization.
Thinking, educated, Adventists know this to be true. The only question is, how will they DEAL with such knowledge?
I like what I have seen of your spirit, and you are in my prayers, sir.
Respectfully,
David.
I understand your point, David, but my understanding of the various statements made by Ellen White, is that there will not be a future exit from the SDA Church, to a new organization. Rather, there will be a shaking (even now in process) which will blow away the chaff, and leave only the wheat.
So we will have to agree to disagree, but you folks will also be in my prayers.
I agree.
Consdier The 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?
David Aguilar,
From up higher re stealing a name you note:
"The name ..(SDA).. is, according to the Spirit of Prophecy and our own earnestly-held beliefs, a gift from God … Just because a group of men claims that it is theirs, this does not make it so."
So…your whole foundation re the name is based on a circular argument/case. You grant EGW the authority, who then stands behind your position as the PROOF that you are correct! If you have read anything else I've written elsewhere you could guess the next question:
Show me a posteriori, logical, defendable reason why she should be THAT authority? I submit to you there is none. If you find some, then please show me at the same time how that evidence differs from what a Muslim would use to assert that the Koran is an authority.
You also noted: "Just because a couple of judges who are not of the faith have declared it is theirs, does not make it so." Really? They have the weight of democratically formulated laws; you have the weight of one woman over one hundred years ago who shut doors when they were open, called some people the result of amalgamation of man and beast, ate squirrels until way into the Kellog years, changed her mind on a bunch of things, and cannot ultimately be demonstrated as a prophet. And you turf out the laws of the land based on her authority?
Chick: I don't understand your riddle. Perhaps you could explain the expected answer for which you have set it up.
cb25
"But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented . For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children." (Matt. 11:16-19)
The "parable" is not a complicated one. I am confident that any one familiar with Adventist eschatology would get it. If you are non-Adventist, forgive me, and perhaps the simplicity of the Gospel would be a better place to begin. And again, I am not yet convinced of your devoted interest in learning anything from me.
Chick,
I am an SDA, know our doctrines backwards, but do not see your point clearly. Please explain it
“And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” (Matt. 13:10-15)
As the Savior spoke to one other friendly fellow, “Ye must be born again,” and then, ye shall be healed. Does that begin to explain the parable?
NO
I am not biblically illiterate. I just asked you to " explain the expected answer for which you have set it up." because it does not make sense to me what you are getting at.
Hi cb,
Ultimately, YOU are responsible for what you choose to believe. I am not here to defend Ellen White or the Bible. I am here to testify that I believe in them; and because I do, there are certain things that I belive I ought to do. I have taken these writings, on faith, as the foundation for my religious experience, just as you have taken, on faith, whatever it is you happen to believe without any empirical evidence… even scientists (and I happen to be one of them) must start with a set presuppositions and continue from there.
Now as I said, it is according to the Spirit of Prophecy writings, and the principles found in the Bible, that my beliefs are derived. I accept those as being true and therefore I have arrived at my current conclusions. This is not a "circular" argument, because I am not claiming them to be correct because I believe them to be correct. I can give you examples of circular arguments if you would like a refresher, for I teach them in my Statistics classes, but these are not among them. I accept these texts as correct, and use that foundation to derive other things.
You then add:
"You also noted: "Just because a couple of judges who are not of the faith have declared it is theirs, does not make it so." Really? They have the weight of democratically formulated laws."
Be that as it may, my Home is not a democracy, it is a Kingdom. It is a Theocratic Monarchy. We have a VERY different world view, and I acknowledge that. I realize this answer will not satisfy you, because I do not believe that you are not honestly seeking to learn anything from this discussion, but God is the judge to whom I submit my cases. I am just traveling through this land. That is enough for me, and ought to be for any Christian, regardless of denomination or creed.
Respectfully,
David.
Hello Horace,
I tried posting as a "reply," but it did not seem to work, so I am re-typing it here.
I have read that statement from Ellen White that you reference; but I have also read other things she has said, such as having hoped that "there would not be the necessity of another calling-out." I believe that her understanding developed over time (for who would put their efforts into a work that they knew would fall away some day? Such knowledge was often kept from the seers, such as Daniel). But I would say that of all the prophets for which we have a written record, Ellen White was the least firm about the permanence of the organization of which she was a part.
What do I mean by that? Well, if you look at the OT prophets, they would say things like, "The sun and moon will fall from the sky before the Lord lets go of Israel." They could have said, with ultimate confidence, "We KNOW that there will never be any call to exit the nation of Israel." The Apostles, who did so, were seen as outcasts and heretics.
The Apostolic Chruch, which became the Roman Catholic Church, makes the valid claim that Christ (in the flesh) founded no other organization but theirs, and told their pioneer members, "The gates of Hell will never prevail against you." The Protestants, who departed, were seen as outcasts and heretics, who did not endure the "sifting" of the Reformation era.
You see where I am going with this, I trust. I accept the teaching that there will be, and is now, a "shaking." However, I believe it will take place within the Church, and not an organization that can, and we believe has, un-Churched itself through a union with a second "Husband," the Two-horned beast of Revelation. There was a time, we accept, when the Organization and the Church were one and the same. But we also accept that there was a time when this was true of the Sons of God, of Israel, of the Apostolic Church, of the Reformation Churches, and now of mainstream Adventism.
I have to say, though, it is refreshing to be able to speak of such delicate and personal topics with cool heads.
Respectfully,
David.
David,
You note: 'I am here to testify that I believe in them (things you are defending) ; and because I do, there are certain things that I believe I ought to do. I have taken these writings, on faith, as the foundation for my religious experience,.."
Fine within your heart and personal experience, but don't complain if a radical Muslim blows you up on the basis of their conviction of faith. My freind, there are some things that are defensible from reason and logic, and there are some things that are not. As for assumptions, we all have them, but some of us have a vastly greater number of evidences and reality to substantiate the conclusions we have reached at a given point.
How would you feel if someone co-oped your name; say, by starting several internet sites called 'Creation Seventh-day Adventist Church', but they turned out to be a site by another group?
Hello Stephen,
Funny you should ask, actually. We just recently encountered a Conference official from Canada in an online forum (of which he was the administrator) who asked the same question. We explained that this had already happened to us and that we reacted according to Biblical principles – taking it to our Father in prayer and allowing Him to defend His name and His church.
Disbelieving us, or simply wishing to entrap us, the individual signed in under a false name and purported to be separating from the Conference over doctrinal disputes and making a new website using the name "creation seventh day adventist" for the purpose of collecting tithes and offerings from disaffected Adventists. They even registered a domain name for the purpose.
We did as we always have – took it to our Father in prayer. We informed the individual that while we could not agree with their actions, we prayed for their souls and could exercise no force. As could be expected, the ploy failed, was later uncovered publicly, and the man in question deleted the thread and all evidence of the attempt. The domain was still pointing to adventist.org last I checked; I believe it was http://www.creationseventhdayadventist.com
In any event, my point is that I need not answer your question with theory. From people seizing control of Church phone numbers, to people committing crimes while falsely associated with our name, to a man attempting to outright impersonate us for gain or humiliation, people have co-opted and misused the name our Father gave us, and in every instance our Heavenly Father has protected it without help; least of all from the second beast of Revelation.
"Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the Lord!" (Isaiah 31:1)
"But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen." (Hosea 1:7)
Further re the example of Gamaliel in Acts 5, a few observations should be noted:
Gamaliel ordered the Apostles to be put outside for a little while (v34).
Application: By analogy, whilst adherents to the Seventh-day Adventist Church discuss the issue of whether ‘Should These Men Go to Jail Because of a Church Name?’, the adherents to the CSDA should arguably ‘be put outside’, rather than be given a full platform.
Gamaliel was concerned with leniency towards followers of false prophets, who had been innocently duped; he was not advocating inaction towards false prophets themselves
Application: There is nothing in Gamaliel’s speech that suggests the GC should be inactive towards Pastor Chick personally, which some are suggesting. I am not intending to say this as a personal attack but as a statement of fact. Pastor Chick and his followers have confirmed as fact his own alleged gift of prophesy, which I would presume all members of the SDA Church would wholly reject.
We should be very concerned for the CSDA members, especially the children, and prayer for them. What is and will happen to them – where are their rights?
Gamaliel was trying to prevent the criminal execution of the Apostles ; he was not giving an opinion on a civil matter as to property.
Application: The GC is not seeking the criminal execution of Pastor Chick or anyone else in the CSDA. It is addressing a civil action involving stealing. The contempt of court is not a criminal penalty, it is an order imposed by the judge for disrespecting his court.
Whilst CSDA say the SDA shouldn’t sue a brother, they don’t consider us brothers. Furthermore, whilst the CSDA says Mrs White’s guidance relates to any Christian, with respect, it is questionable as a matter of theology whether someone who denies the unity of the godhead, but instead preaches Bi-theism, is in fact a Christian or in fact a pagan.
The whole comparison is difficult because the Sanhedrin were operating within a semi-theocratic system, not within a secular church-state separated system.
Application: There are dangers in hanging one’s entire theology on a proof text, and even more so where it relates to the theocratic system of Israel (which you recall continued to operate in some part in Jerusalem until the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.)
The current action against the CSDA is nothing more than an issue of common stealing – not religious liberty.
Application: Having exhausted the procedure laid down by Jesus Himself (Matt. 18), the GC is entitled to treat the CSDA as ‘a pagan or tax collector’. We should respect Caesar (Rom. 13), who is established to bring terror on those who do wrong.
On a trip a few months ago I past by two churches that caught my eye, one was the Seventh-Day Baptist, and the other Seventh-Day Church of God. So you think your salvation would be at stake if you chose the name Seventh-Day Creation Church of the Advent…..
Again, the Blood on the door post is more important than the name above it…..
All4Him,
I would be pleased if you are willing to understand what the issue here really is. We did not and will not just flip a coin and choose a "name for ourselves." We have not co-opted a corporate name for our own benefit. Those who make such accusations are deluded liars. (It actually hurts me to speak with such force of words.)
Two believers in Jesus and the Adventist message saw visions from God that commanded us to take the name "Creation Seventh Day Adventist" as the name of our faith and practice of religion. "Let every fact be established by two or more…"
Many believe Moses received tablets of stone on which the commandments of God were engraved with His own finger. "Creation Seventh Day Adventist" is engraved in every heart of our brethren by the Spirit of YAHWEH. If this were the case for you, would you give credibility to the advice of other "helpful souls?"
I need to add one more piece of information…
While I do not have a certified auditor's report, I tell you the truth. Since I began Adventist ministry over 20 years ago, and while serving the Master as a Creation 7th Day Adventist, more souls have joined the SDA Church than those joining our Church (as the result of our labors). I am not particularly pleased with those "fruits," but I perceive no conceivable way anyone in the SDA camp could register a viable complaint at the bar of Heaven.
Timo,
No, I do not "know it was intentional, with design and desire to force the SDA church." That is a falsehood, as I have testified to you repeatedly. Yet, you will not hear.
I am finding your posts increasingly difficult to follow. I have invited you to post references to establish any of your myriad accusations, which you claim both exist and are easily found. Yet you consistently declined, instead asking me to "do a search" for that which quite obviously does not exist. Perhaps the idea is that if you just keep saying it does, someone will accept your various personal attacks prima facie.
I am seeing that, rather than contributing anything factual or beneficial to the conversation, your philosophy seems to be in line with the following quote: "People will believe a large lie sooner than a small one, and if you repeat it enough, people will believe it." Since you are so keen on sending others to search engines, I will invite you to learn the source of that quote yourself if you are so inclined.
When and if you decide to delve into the realms of providing fact and evidence as opposed to vitriol and scoffing, I will respond – primarily for the sake of any honest souls who may see the record. I see no value in dignifying your various character assaults with further response, however.
Although EGW is talking about the medical work here it is clear she is concerned with harmony in the use of the name Seventh-Day Adventist…..
"We have come to a time when God has been greatly dishonored. Those who have long known our belief, and what we teach, have been surprised by the statement that the Battle Creek Sanitarium is not denominational. No one has a right to make this statement. It does not bear the witness that God wishes His people to bear before men, and angels. In the name of the Lord we are to identify ourselves as Seventh-day Adventists. If any one among us is ashamed of our colors, and wishes to stand under another banner, let him do so as a private individual, not as a representative of Seventh-day Adventist medical missionary work.
"Let us take our position as Seventh-day Adventists. The name is a true expression of our faith. I am instructed to call upon God’s people to bring their actions into harmony with their name, of which they have no need to be ashamed. The Seventh-day Adventist faith will bless whenever it is brought into the character-building." Kress Collection Page 74
Thank you, All4Him, for posting the Kress Collection passage. It begins to illustrate the sacred meaning of the religion's name. Then comes the prophecy…
“You will leave your name to my chosen ones as a curse; the Sovereign LORD will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name.” (Isa. 65:15)
But are you not choosing to stand under another banner when you leave the SDA church and refer to it as 'apostate'? I doubt Ellen White would approve of your course of action, or teh use you make of her words.
Thanks All4Him – it seems pretty clear to me – 'No further questions Your Honour'.
The only question I have to ask is this: how are we as SDA's to understand your assertion as CSDA's on your website showing in clear graphic terms that you, CSDA's are represented by Christ in judgment before Pilot, and the SDA leadership is represented by Pilot? Who's judging who?
The intention of the graphic is to indicate the SDA leadership represented by the Sanhedrin official standing before and appealing to Pilate in order to condemn and execute Christ. Or, in the current situation, appealing to the government to condemn and imprison Him "in the person of His saints."
Thank you for your question.
This is a weird discussion…. Just yesterday we studied the following text from Phil 1 in our Sabbath school:
Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.
Thus I would tell my brethren with Paul: relax!
Having said that – it seems to me, whether intentional or by some unconscious motivation, this whole argument is about PR. The amount of attention this C group is seeking ("martyrdom" as means to reach that goal) and receiving, has a highly pathological flavour to me (probably on both sides of the line).
Yes, the C group is not Seventh-day Adventist, yes, it is painful that our church constantly has to defend itself against being identified with rather odd splinter groups (especially those who hate the SDA church, but feel, they need that name). And yes, rather than spending resources on defending ourselves, we might spend those resources on being known by the public in such a way that they will not confuse us with the splinter groups. In regards to my church the real issue is: could it be that we are too cozy with and too close to the weird theology most splinter groups preach that we only can argue from a copyright perspective?
Andreas, it is the GC you should be addressing your comments to – regardless of which side of the debate people are on. As to your question, I don't think we are too cozy to these groups. Theologically, I question whether a group that denies the unity of God is in fact 'Christian' per se, or rather pagans who worship two different gods.
The problem for the SDA Church (the official one) is that despite having the world's second largest health care system, second largest education system, one of the world's best disaster relief agencies etc, people don't know who we are? People still confuse us with Jehovah's Witnesses and think we refuse blood transfusions, or with Mormons and think we read the Book of Mormon. That has nothing to do with our theology, it is to do with our ability to shine our light on the hill, to be salt for the world, to put our 'brand' out there.
That is why the GC (and I can't speak for them) probably does feel strongly about protecting our trademark, because what we believe and all the good fruits we produce are unduly hindered in actually reaching lives – lives that won't make it to heaven.
A serious question for Andrew Hanson and Administrators of Adventist Today for a moment, especially as some comments are getting a little hot (and before things get too personal).
What is the purpose of Adventist Today and this article in particular. Is it:
a. To inform and encourage debate within and between members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church? In this case, so Adventists can debate the actions of their own General Conference against the CSDA.
-or-
b. To provide a platform for non-Adventists to bash the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and to preach its own theological agenda? In this case, so the leaders of the CSDA can tell us how we all share ‘corporate responsibility’, that they should be entitled to a platform so they can warn us like Noah, and make statements suggesting Pastor Chick is a modern-day prophet and successor to Ellen White?
I note in its mission, Adventist Today says:
Mission: Adventist Today reports on contemporary issues of importance to Adventist church members. (emphasis added)
Of course some airtime to CSDA leaders is appropriate, so we can assess their point of view in our discussions. However, I feel this is all fast becoming a public pulpit for CSDA to dominate, especially as it has deliberately separated from the SDA Church, its mission and people, and calls us apostate.
Virtually every question posed for discussion is answered back by them. Thus, this is no longer a discussion between members of the SDA Church over CSDA, it is a discussion between members of the SDA Church and the CSDA.
With all respect to the CSDA leaders, I think we have all heard their point of view well and truly now. I am really am more interested in discussing this matter with others such as Horace and Barbara, who I disagree with but strongly respect as fellow Seventh-day Adventists.
Given everyone wants to cite the example of Gamiliel in Acts 5, I note he asked the Apostles to leave the room whilst the Sanhedrin discussed the matter. Obviously I don’t want to be overly harsh in excluding CSDA, but a bit less dominance by them could take the discussion in another direction.
Happy if Andrew and the administrators disagree with me – just a thought.
Stephen – I don't think you're likely to get an official statement that answers your question. I happen to agree with you that the CSDA folks haven't exactly done themselves proud. They have exposed themselves as an irrelevant fringe that does not care to engage in rational discussion. Maybe that in and of itself is helpful. Perhaps one of their fundamental religious beliefs is that bad publicity is better than no publicity.
The issue of trademark rights – whether they should exist, and when they should be invoked – is an interesting one, and this blog brings that to the surface. If those of us who think Pastor Chick and his flock are kooky on this issue hadn't responded or continued the debate, it wouldn't have received much attention. It is really the readers and commenters who determine whether something is newsworthy. The best way to relegate this offshoot movement to the obscurity it deserves is to quite trying to reason with them.
I wonder about the amount of money spent fighting against these groups. There seems to be little evidence that they do our cause any harm, just as there is little evidence that all the hard work put into 'branding' the SDA church and promoting that brand has had any effect. It was remarked long ago that the harshest critics of the SDA church are not those who don't know or have misunderstood us, but those who do know and understand us. Most people don't know of us, and show little interest when they do hear of us. When you add to that the theological murkiness of our decison to trademark our name, I wonder if it was/is worth it. But, having done so, we are virtually obliged to defend our decision and bring the full weight of the law against those who 'offend'. I think we have learnt the hard way that if we are not ready to enforce our 'rules', that the courts will likewise refuse to do so. It has proven somewhat inconvenient for us, as we have a long tradition of enforcing rules when we see it as being in our best interest, and choosing to ignore infractions when it isn't.
That does not mean I am in any way in favour of the actions of this group, or any other offshoot/refugees/outcasts. Quite often they have been given viable ways to avoid court action and choose not to do so. It also doesn't mean I am in favour of the SDA church acting like it is just another bureaucratic organisation – although that it chooses to do so no longer surprises me.
Hello,
Above I am seeing that one has posted something of a "defense" against the Gamaliel mindset because the exact circumstances of the matter are somewhat different. However, the point that Gamaliel was making was not whether or not the men were followers of a "false" prophet or false prophets themselves. Indeed, that never came up in the discussion at all – only that they were teaching, from whatever impetus, a faith that was contrary to the accepted Jewish teachings, and revealed the leaders to be men more concerned with worldly policy and kingdom-building than seeking first the Kingdom of Heaven.
To wit, the principles involved here are precisely the same. Furthermore, it is sufficient merely to cite Gamaliel's conclusion to see the point he was making: "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." (Acts 5:38, 39)
Note, Gamaliel does not, at all, address the origin of the teaching. Note that he does not, at all, address the nature of the teaching. Note that he does not, in the slightest, discuss what the proposed punishments were to be. His statement was simply this: If it is an offense to God, God will take care of it without your human methods. If it is not an offense to God, beware what you do, for you fight against the Almighty Himself.
There is nothing in that statement that does NOT apply to this situation, but I also want to add something else.
I, as a CSDA, am not pleading with anyone to "leave me alone." The apostles did not ask for Gamaliel's help. The fact that he had a more Christian (to use the term spiritually) mindset than those who wished to punish the little break-away group was good for Gamaliel's soul, but whether or not he gave that advice; indeed, whether or not that advice was followed, did not in the least affect the fact that the apostles were commanded to preach the message they were given at any cost.
So, we can analyze Gamaliel's statements in detail if we wish, but ultimately the choice is clear, and it is between love and force. Again, and I said this before, Ellen White (whom I beleive to be an inspired prophet of God) has told us that there is NO name but "Seventh-day Adventist" that can propely identify our faith, and that any religion that attempts to compel the conscience of another is NOT Christ's true Church. We have this as accepted Adventist doctrine, and trying to dress up the compulsion as a "legal" matter, or one about "property rights" or to say, "It's not a religious obligation for you because it involves human laws…"
We accept these as matters of religious observance. We practice them as vital aspects of our sincerely held faith. For others to claim otherwise is simply an attempt to justify their own unrighteous conclusions, for the Father in Heaven has clearly not revealed to them the contents of our hearts. The Law of God is written thereupon.
This is a religious matter. This is a situation where a Church is using the state government to enforce its will upon others, claims to the contrary – however loud, however commonly accepted – notwithstanding.
As I heard someone say once, "A monkey in silk is still a monkey."
Respectfully,
David.
I think Nathan Schilt's advice is the best response and I will be taking it.
Hello,
I also want to add something else. Upon re-reading the last few posts of this thread, I have seen our faith being described as "kooky," as borderline "pagan" (although that one is particularly strange, since our early Adventist pioneers were actively anti-Trinitarian) and a number of other uncharitable titles. On this matter I draw warmth from the coldness of others; but moreoever, while I have seen our posts here described as illogical, untheological, and ultimately incorrect, I have actually seen little to no Biblical reasoning brought to bear against anything we have said.
The foundation for the majority of the arguments against the CSDA position are purely matters of opinion, such as:
1) This is not a religious matter, but one of stealing property. We cannot possibly accept that, because we do NOT see the name "Seventh-day Adventist" as any human's property, and would be ashamed to take up that position.
2) We are doing this in order to "attack" or tear down the mainstream SDA Church. We believe that Seventh day Adventists who support, or go along with, this lawsuit, are imperiling their souls, because they are doing precisely what God has instructed them NOT to do through His modern messengers. Ellen White had very much to say about lawsuits between believers; and if anyone thinks that her words are intended to apply ONLY to baptized members of the SDA Church as "brothers," they would do well to read the parable of the Good Samaritan with open eyes.
Those are only two examples, but what I am pointing out is that those who are the most vocal against the CSDA position are not addressing their own presuppositions, and going off on what are essentially tangents that appeared to be connected to the real issue here.
Protestants believe that the things they accept as religious obligations are between their souls and God. The magistrates, and the views of those who stand outside that covenant, are not to infringe (and I use that word purposely) on that sacred relationship. CSDAs are, whatever else we may be called, Protestant Christians in every sense of that word.
The sad truth is that the actual factors here are being obscured by the volume of back-and-forth arguments. I even saw one poster above implying that CSDAs should be banned from this forum because we dare to answer all the questions being asked. Clearly, many would be pleased if we would simply remain silent and have every accusation that the carnal spirit could conjure up thrown at us, but every idle word a man shall speak, that he shall account for before the Lord and Savior in a very short time.
Respectfully,
David.
It would appear from the plethora of responses here that I have misestimated the purpose of this discussion thread. When I was notified that an article had been posted on a story in which I was intimately involved, it seemed self-evident to me that there would be individuals wishing to ask questions or have clarification on the facts of the situation, legal history, our rationale, etc.
That does not seem to be the case, however. What is the case is, frankly, rather confusing. When I have offered clarification on the legal aspects, it has been met with hostility or outright and deliberately ignored. I see some saying they wish I would stop addressing their arguments, and yet I see others saying I've declined rational discussion. Regardless, the common thread seems to be "We don't want your input on our public discussion of you."
If I have misunderstood anyone's intentions, including the purpose of the thread itself, please forgive me. I had entered discussion here under the notion that correction on the legal facts surrounding this article was something desired, and that receiving answers to questions about it was the reason for asking them. Perhaps answers about us were desired, just not actually from us? Or, perhaps some simply wish to publicly defame us without interruption by the people being defamed. Regardless, I am very truly sorry that my input here is unwanted or unwelcome.
In any event, one individual spoke truly – all should have a clear opportunity to see our spirit and teachings from what has already been said. If anyone wishes to have a clearer understanding of something, please feel free to ask and I will oblige to the best of my ability. Beyond that, you are welcome to engage in.. whatever exactly it is you are wating to engage in, without my unfortunately unwelcome understandings.
Whilst I think CSDA should be given an opportunity to present its views, and I think that certainly has been done in spades. Moreover, I don’t think that equates to allowing CSDA to dominate this site as a free and unfettered platform. The purpose of this site, as I understand it, is to allow debate between members of the SDA Church about whether the GC’s actions were biblically and morally correct, not to allow an unfettered platform for CSDA to espouse its views.
I note in its mission, Adventist Today says:
"Mission: Adventist Today reports on contemporary issues of importance to Adventist church members." (emphasis added)
On the front page of the website it also says:
"Note to Commentators: We provide a "free space" for people in the [SDA] church who have a wide range of opinions… not attack people we disagree with and tell them to get out of the [SDA] church.” (emphasis added)
By your own admission you and your fellows, as members of the CSDA, are not members of the SDA church. Moreover, it would appear that many of your posts do amount to telling people to ‘get out of the SDA church’.
Moreover, by biblical principles, members of the SDA Church should not try to reason with you, but treat you as if you were tax collectors or pagans (Mat. 18:17). We should shun your vain babblings (2 Tim. 2:16), and refuse to accept us in our house (2 John 1:9-11). We should be careful of following the example of Eve, who tried to reason with the serpent.
Such an approach may appear uncharitable, yet Ellen White makes clear that it is necessary and justifiable:
“We are authorized to hold in the same estimation as did the beloved disciple those who claim to abide in Christ while living in transgression of God’ law. There exist in these last days evils similar to those that threatened the prosperity of the early church; and the teachings of the apostle John on these points should be carefully heeded. ‘You must have charity’ is the cry heard everywhere, especially from those who profess sanctification. But true charity is too pure to cover an unconfessed sin. While we are to love the souls for whom Christ died, we are to make no compromise with evil. We are not to unite with the rebellious, and call this charity. God requires His people in this age of the world to stand for the right as unflinchingly as did John in opposition to soul-destroying errors.” AA 554-555 (emphasis added)
Your own website extols all these things, and I am only recounting what you say the standard should be (Mar. 7:2). Your own Church teaches:
“…we are not called upon to parlay with those who hate the truth. We are not counseled to reason with those who have taken their stand against righteousness. Those who are not willing to receive correction and counsel are best avoided” (emphasis added)
I refer others to read your 'Principles of Shunning':
http://thetrueadventistchurch.to/Shunning_principles.html
My concern is that whilst I would like to discuss the GC’s actions with my fellow SDA members, say with Horace and Barbara, that doesn’t seem possible with the continual posts from CSDA members.
One night a scene was clearly presented before me. A vessel was upon the waters, in a heavy fog. Suddenly the lookout cried, "Iceberg just ahead!" There, towering high above the ship, was a gigantic iceberg. An authoritative voice cried out, "Meet it!" There was not a moment's hesitation. It was a time for instant action. The engineer put on full steam, and the man at the wheel steered the ship straight into the iceberg. With a crash she struck the ice. There was a fearful shock, and the iceberg broke into many pieces, falling with a noise like thunder to the deck. The passengers were violently shaken by the force of the collisions, but no lives were lost. The vessel was injured, but not beyond repair. She rebounded from the contact, trembling from stem to stern, like a living creature. Then she moved forward on her way. Well I knew the meaning of this representation. I had my orders. I had heard the words, like a voice from our Captain, "Meet it!" I knew what my duty was, and that there was not a moment to lose. The time for decided action had come. I must without delay obey the command, "Meet it!”. {1SM 205.3-206.1}
I have obeyed the command “from our Captain.” In doing so, I have felt the ire of our opposers, via pseudo-dissertations of logic, reason, traditions of men, corporate policy, and many other intellectual tantrums. Light has been viewed as darkness and darkness as light. Decided positions have been taken passionately. And, all things work together for good as we are called of the Almighty and in a loving relationship with Father and Son.
As I weep for Israel, I recall the words of my Elder Brother, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” (Matt. 23:37, 38)
“O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.” Amen.
Timo, I think Nathan's advice is best. There is no point trying to reason with the CSDA fellows. This forum is no longer a place of discussion between members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church about the CSDA, as was intended. Rather, it has become a plattform for the CSDA. There really isn't much point engaging with them any further – it just gives them oxygen they don't deserve. I know it has taken me a long time to realise the fact myself.
Hi Timo,
You wrote, "David, you CHOSE to leave this faith."
Again, we have two minds here. One says that the organization is equivalent to the faith, and another is the Biblical view that God raises up organizations to demonstrate His faith; BUT, that when that organization turns from Him, His faith is taken and given to "other vinedressers" that will bring forth the fruits from it. We all believe this on paper, unless one of us is an Israelite, but all WE are doing differently is applying it consistently to every generation of believers. Others are stopping short at the Sunday-keeping protestants, and for no reason other than personal ones.
As I said, I have seen opinions, accusations and attacks, but no Biblical refutation of anything that I, and others, have said on this matter. The options being considered by those who oppose us are quickly coming down to:
1) Suggest that we be banned so we cannot speak, or,
2) Ignore us and hope that we will "go away."
There is a third option: Look at what we are saying with open minds and hearts, and come to understand the truth here. Carnal warfare says, "Our enemies are less than human, so it is okay to kill them." Carnal spiritual warfare will say, "I am not sure these people are even Christians! (or some other, similar excuse) Of course it's okay to take them to court, despite what they claim to believe."
Some here have learned well from the master of war, but the battle here is not carnal, and the weapons of our warfare are unlike that of the world.
Respectfully,
David.
Is the abbreviation SDA also protected? I once attempted to find out with no success. If it is why is SDANET tolerated?
No, there is no registered trademark for the acronym "SDA" on its own, although trademarks exist for "SDA" in conjunction with other terms, such as "SDA Good News Network." Occasionally (such as in our case) they will attempt to tie "SDA" in with "Seventh-day Adventist" when initiating a lawsuit in the hopes that the judge will award it as associated with the longer name.
You can find a list of the trademarks owned by the Conference by visiting http://www.uspto.gov and selecting "trademark search" in the top right. A search for "General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists" will turn up a list of owned marks; currently I find 132, or three pages worth.
Some time ago we received an official communication from the GC that instructed us to quit using the abbreviation, "SDA." Instead, we should use the term, "Adventist." But I still write my checks to the ________ SDA Church, not the _________ Adventist Church, and the treasurer doesn't seem to have a problem with it.
While common usage, abbreviating Seventh-day Adventist to 'Adventist' overlooks the fact that we are not the only Adventists around. Historians and social scientists see the problem, the church administrators in general do not. But then, I guess we should expect that. Church administrators always seem to be very surprised when their decisions cause unexpected problems.
David seems to think that CSDA should be given a free platform on a website whose mission is to facilitate discussion between members of the SDA Church. Before I quit this blog, and not give CSDA any further oxygen it doesn't deserve, I would like people to consider whether a member of the SDA Church would be given the same opportunity if the situation was on the other foot? Perhaps we should apply the same standards suggested by CSDA itself, given 'for in the same way you judge others, you will be judged' (Mat. 7:2).
What does the CSDA website itself say under the heading 'Principles of Shunning':
http://thetrueadventistchurch.to/Shunning_principles.html
"1) Many, if not most in this generation, say that the act of shunning is impolite and out of character for a Christian. So, is a Christian required to give audience to any and all discussion aimed his way?
ANS: “But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” 2 Tim 2:16
2) What principle of action did the Savior give to His disciples for the work of spreading the gospel?
ANS: “And when ye come into a house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: But if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.” Matt. 10:12-14
3) What did John say about someone who comes around to unsettle your faith?
ANS: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” 2 John 1:9-11
4) What did the SDA prophetess Ellen G. White write about a proper manner of dealing with sin by Christians?
ANS: “We are authorized to hold in the same estimation as did the beloved disciple those who claim to abide in Christ while living in transgression of God’ law. There exist in these last days evils similar to those that threatened the prosperity of the early church; and the teachings of the apostle John on these points should be carefully heeded. ‘You must have charity’ is the cry heard everywhere, especially from those who profess sanctification. But true charity is too pure to cover an unconfessed sin. While we are to love the souls for whom Christ died, we are to make no compromise with evil. We are not to unite with the rebellious, and call this charity. God requires His people in this age of the world to stand for the right as unflinchingly as did John in opposition to soul-destroying errors.” AA 554-555
5) According to the counsel of Ellen G. White, why should a Christian remove himself from unprofitable reasoning with unbelievers?
ANS: “Satan tempted the first Adam in Eden, and Adam reasoned with the enemy, thus giving him the advantage. Satan exercised his power of hypnotism over Adam and Eve, and this power he strove to exercise over Christ. But after the word of Scripture was quoted, Satan knew that he had no chance of triumphing.” Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p. 201
Conclusion: While it is certainly understood that Christians are never to be rude to others, and Christians are always ready to bring truth and hope to the erring and sinners, we are not called upon to parlay with those who hate the truth. We are not counseled to reason with those who have taken their stand against righteousness. Those who are not willing to receive correction and counsel are best avoided." (emphasis added)
Thankyou CSDA, you said it better than I ever could. No doubt you will find a way to argue that these standards should apply to you – do as you say and not as we do.
Hello Stephen,
I am not sure if you will reply to this, since you have decided that this discussion is no longer worth your time, but I would like to answer your questions and statements.
You wrote:
"I would like people to consider whether a member of the SDA Church would be given the same opportunity if the situation was on the other foot? Perhaps we should apply the same standards suggested by CSDA itself, given 'for in the same way you judge others, you will be judged' (Mat. 7:2). "
Yes, of course. We have given members of the General Conference Corporation Church every opportunity to dialogue with us on ANY point of doctrine for as long as they wished. Often – but not always – they are the ones who will speak with us for a time, become rather abrasive upon finding out what we teach, and then leave (as you are doing now). My heart is warmed when I see people, even those who disagree with us, remain level-headed and Biblically-grounded in their statements and questions.
It is obvious from your statements about us, and the implied answer to your question that you know nothing about the Spirit that motivates us. In case you have not noticed, we do not hesitate to speak about the spiritual matters that pertain to this generation, and while we are not people who enjoy arguments and debate, we will give our testimony (and allow others to give theirs) as long as they wish.
We have had camp meetings where truly offensive characters have shown up, and we have given them space and time – even in our very sanctuary, to teach whatever they wish. We would ask questions, and we would discuss what they taught afterwards, but there is no uncertainty or cowardice in us that we should hide from anyone's words. We are settled into the truth, both intellectually and spiritually, and perfect love has cast out all fear.
The issue of shunning is, of course, and as you quoted, about "profane and vain babblings." If someone were to come at us with pesonal attacks, foul language, or an obviously demonic spirit, who would listen to that? But to hear someone's sincerely held beliefs? Of course we would, and have, heard them out.
I find it interesting that, while you say you do not want to give us any more "oxygen," you've probably been the foremost in posting things from our site, and linking to our pages. While I understand you did not do so in order to render us a kindness, I am reminded that the truth will be expressed, even in the midst of controversy.
To answer your final statement, those points and principles DO apply to us as well as to anyone else. If our words have been profane, we ought not to be heard. But all we have done is spoken the truth as we are convicted it is, and invited discussion on these matters. We are simply of different minds, and different spirits, about Biblical discussions, you and I.
Respectfully,
David.
Dont send these men to jail . Throw them to the Lions , if they are true Prophets like Daniel , the Lions wont hurt them . I talked to these men one of these days they were here in Berrien Springs and , You can not help but feel sorry for these individuals . They really believe they are right . I say dont send them to jail but to a mental hospital where they can be treated . I am not saying this in a mean way , but I talked to them today .
Hello,
Timo: Actually, I've probably had far less influence on the creation of web pages than the other two members who have posted here. It seems that you just like to take suppositions and run with them, repeating your accusations long after they have been denied. You truly wish to learn nothing at all from this discussion.
But the issue here is, indeed, what to do regarding the influence of legal authorities into matters of conviction and faith. If you believe us to be deluded, that is your view – for our part, we can show every single particular of our faith from the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, a claim that SDA members could once make themselves, but can now easily be shown to violate their own original teachings on a number of points of doctrine as we have discussed here.
As far as the seminary student goes, I am absolutely ashamed that one who is studying in the Adventist faith would advocate throwing anyone to the lions. You are literally speaking like a Babylonian, for that is exactly what Nebuchadnezzar, not Christ or any of His genuine followers, would say – and DID say. False expressions of pity aside, if you had heard what the messengers had been saying to you, perhaps your soul could have been cleansed of the sin that now prompts your wicked suggestion (however it may be dressed up in false sympathy).
Again, I am ashamed of what mainstream Adventism has become, and I bear this name – as a matter of my religious convicton – both as a curse and a blessing, as it is written in Isaiah 65:15. I do so because my Father in Heaven has told me to… not because we are seeking any temporal advantage – CERTAINLY not to try and be confused with a people who can speak as the above have done in the "name of Jesus." Who would ever want to? Who cannot but sigh and cry for the abominations being done in spiritual Jerusalem?
Respectfully, but sorrowfully,
David.
My apologies, the corrupt advisors of Darius, not Nebuchadnezzar. The spirits motivating them were one and the same.
David.
……fined $500 each and required to pay attorney costs to the GC. (GC Corporation of Seventh Day Adventists v. McGill, case number 06-1207, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee)
Adventist Today interviewed Chartier in the last few days via the Internet. He stated that the men expect to be jailed and will go to jail because of their religious beliefs……
I am reminded of the story in Matthew 17-24-27 , Jesus instructed that "so we may not cause an offense" and the first fish Peter was to catch and look in the mouth. And the money was paid…..
That Spirit of Jesus should be followed by these men and there would be no need for anyone to go to jail….
But what if the fish has no coin?
Hi All4Him,
In the situation you cite, Peter had already pledged to pay the temple tax, and it was an unrighteous pledge. The Messiah was doing "damage control" for a promise one of His disciples made in haste. In this case, the CSDA Church is being INSTRUCTED to pay a fine for conscientiously following our religious convictions. It would be just as if – for you – you were being taxed for keeping the Sabbath or having a healthy diet. We cannot pay any such fine without acknowledging that the civil courts have the authority to arbitrate religion. As Protestants, such a thought is inconceivable, and the two situations are unlike one another.
Timo,
You continue to reveal who your god is, and I pray you will come to realize, in time, whom you worship. I know that you will hardly accept any testimony from me, but here it is anyway:
You wrote, "Original question whether this is matter of conscience of religious belief, conviction and faith, seemingly has been answered by learned SDA attorneys, by GC and the church proper, by the judges and courts, and by consensus here."
I understand, acknowledge,and admit… that this settles things for YOU, but for the Christian mind, none of these are the ones who settle questions of conscience and religious belief. We've come a long way down, it seems… We have forgotten, to an alarming degree,the sacrifices made by Martin Luther and his contemporaries, and there will be a reckoning for this gross denial of the leading of the Almighty. WE have been accused of practically being "pagans" for rejecting the human-originated paradigm of the Trinity, and yet others are saying, "We will let the courts and the people decide this matter." That is, as I have said before on this thread, Humanism, which is even worse than anything the CSDA Church has been (falsely) accused of being. It is a precise parallel to the Jewish leaders 2000 years ago saying, "This is a civil matter; take Him to Pilate, and let the government punish Him. We aren't the ones doing anything."
The Scriptures say this: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, 'If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets." (Matthew 23:29-31)
Some of us, having read and understood the Bible, ascribe such judgments as pertain to this case to the Son of Man. I do not like pointing out the flaws in other people's beliefs, and I will let people claim and hold such convictions as they wish, but if someone CLAIMS to be a Christian, and CLAIMS to be a Bible-believer, but makes statements so very disturbing, unenlightened and secular as the above, I cannot refrain from a textual gag-reflex.
Nobody is "intent on destroying [your] Church." It has villified itself. If it had not joined to the world, and begun to persecute Christians, we would never have separated from it. But we hear the voice of our Father, speaking just as He has spoken in every generation, and we are not ashamed to be called His children. As a consequence of this, we are speaking the truth as it is found in the Bible. You, of all the posters on this thread, probably most reveal the mindset that we have rejected as Protestant Christians. Our faith is not determined by the various factors you have sited in your posts here: majority opinion, the judgment of civil courts, and what people on a thread may think. My astonishment and perplexity that anyone who has accepted the Adventist faith could arrive at these kinds of conclusions almost leads me to despair for the fate of those whom I continue to consider my brethren.
I just don't know what to say when I see so much veneration for human institutions over the Word of God and the testimony of His messengers, including those writings that most, if not all of us, accept as inspired. I'm just astonished.
Respectfully,
David.
Why was this post edited?
friends , I am very concern about the mission of Christiany . What happened to the good news ? my six year old would laugh at the arguments these people ( CSDA ) use to defend their " beliefs ". The sad part is that there are some who would follow these people ! where are we going ? Please someone explain to me this , why someone would follow these individuals ? I am honesly asking this question , maybe I can put some of their methodology into practice to help my church grow .
Seminary student, if we take Jesus message to heart that 'by their fruits you will recognize them' (Matt. 7:15-20), there really isn't much on our part to learn from them or worry about really.
Pastor Chick himself admitted:
While I do not have a certified auditor's report, I tell you the truth. Since I began Adventist ministry over 20 years ago, and while serving the Master as a Creation 7th Day Adventist, more souls have joined the SDA Church than those joining our Church (as the result of our labors). I am not particularly pleased with those "fruits," but I perceive no conceivable way anyone in the SDA camp could register a viable complaint at the bar of Heaven.
In fact, that they have done such a poor job is part of the argument why the General Conference should leave them alone, because they say there is no evidence that using the name 'Seventh-day Adventist' has helped to convert anyone. The other sad point to realise is that if a comparison with any other offshoots is to go by, the only way they could grow is to steal SDA members – i.e. I seriously doubt they are reaching the unChristian world.
That all said, I am still generally supportive of the General Conference's actions (as it appears most fellow SDA members who have commented here, from both 'libral' and 'conservative' sides). If and when the CSDA goes out in a blaze of glory like David Koresh in WACO (and it could take another 50 years like the Shephard's Rod did), our Church will be having problem limiting the damage – a task that will be all the much harder if this group is allowed to keep calling themselves 'Seventh-day Adventists'.
A more interesting question (for my fellow SDA members), is what is it about the Seventh-day Adventist Church that it attracts kooky nutters who then leave to form doomsday groups? No doubt such extreme groups are found in every religion, but do we have a greater proportion per capita than most?
No, we don't, from what I have read. They are fairly evenly spread among conservative denominations. We do have a larger number of the millennialists, but that is to be expected. There have been a number of studies on fringe groups – "Being the Chosen" is one that comes to mind – and in most cases if you have been close to understanding SDA fundamentalism, there will be few surprises. For sheer tenacity, commitment and 'creative' theology, these groups make us look like amateurs. IMO we do, however, score better on the 'sanity' and 'reality' tests 🙂
That is good to know at least.
I see that I have missed a good deal.
Timo: I am not sure what part of my post you are saying is "very nice," but you seem to really have a resistance to being reasoned-with. EVERY belief we have is found written, literally, in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, including the claims we make about the Godhead, and yet you somehow – bizzarely – claim that we have taken an anti-Adventist position? That statement is entirely false.
You are now falling back on simply making baseless accusations, for which testimony you will need to give account. Persistently, you make the absurd suggstion that we are "forcing" the GC into court. What nonsense! We are simply conducting our religion according to the dictates of our conscience. The Conference is the organization that ACTIVELY came after us, refusing any attempts at mediation, with demands that would violate our conscience to accept. The world has become truly heartless if it will point fingers at those who have done nothing worthy of imprisonment, save holding a particular belief and daring to practice it, and saying, "It's all your fault."
You wrote:
"Jesus did not call one single press release, writhe in agony that He's -wrongly- going to the gallows and even below hell. He declared forgiveness, even to the persecutors-."
I would very much like to see how Jesus would call a press release. I would be interested in knowing how He would have put up a website or made a Youtube video (as you mention in the next paragraph). Perhaps if you had been one of his advisors 2000 years ago you could have mentioned it to Him.
But actually, He did do the equivalent in His day. After His crucifixion, He had His Holy Spirit inspire a Book, the New Testament, that has borne witness to the evil of the Church/State union that took His life for the past 2000 years. You know find yourself on the same end of that testimony. And for the record: I forgive you, for you clearly know not what it is you are doing or saying. Some of your statements have begun to slip into the surreal.
You wrote:
"..I have a strong feeling Silver Spring tried to reason with them, over 20 years…"
My friend, again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
To Seminary Student:
You wrote, "friends , I am very concern about the mission of Christiany . What happened to the good news ? my six year old would laugh at the arguments these people ( CSDA ) use to defend their " beliefs ""
If you are the same student who advised throwing us to the lions earlier, I would have appreciated that question before your previous suggestion. The good news has been corrupted by vile spirits and darkened understanding. This is why there are precious few who have the heart and mind of Christ, to recognize His Spirit in a little company who are simply seeking to do all they know of righteousness. If this is "funny" to your children, or yourself, that is a cause for weeping.
For Stephen:
Good to have you back in the discussion.
But you quoted Pastor Chick's statement about having few members, and use that as evidence that you can feel secure in your viewpoint? I have already answered your dependence upon "numbers" before, so I don't think I need to repeat it here, save to say that your comfort in the majority is going to be sadly dashed. One needs only read the Book of Revelation with an Adventist understanding to realize the error of finding security in such a thing.
I choose to simply bear the other statements in silence. I have already been accused of answering too much, so to those who have used insults and jeering statements about us, I will simply say this: You have spoken according to your father, and I have spoken according to my Father. So be it.
Respectfully,
David.
Timo,
Thank you… for posting my testimony. It is not something I would have included here because of its length, and frankly I am not sure anyone will read all of it. Nevertheless, if even one more does, and is blessed by it, even in the midst of controversy, then that is a blessing indeed.
I seem to have offended you by pointing out the bizarre nature of your last few posts, but your response here truly surprises me (and sort of confirms my earlier statements). Even so, it is certainly a fact that nobody can do anything against the truth as it is in Jesus.
The words you have highlighted are hardly surreal (Do you know the definition of the word? I am not trying to be insulting here, but English does not seem to be your first language?) but rather serve to underscore what I have been saying all along. They demonstrate clearly that my faith means, as you have quoted, "more to me than life," and my freedom. they point out that I believe setting a good, Christian example is of primary importance. They include my prayer that even those who oppose us will come to understand and appreciate our convictions. AMEN!
That is hardly something to fault about any sincere believer 🙂
I certainly and whole-heartedly stand by what you have posted, including all the highlighted portions, and note that all things work together for good for those who love the Lord, and are the called according to His purpose. Anything that thinks to oppose Christ and His people end up only serving as tools in the Creator's hands, and I rejoice to see this promise fulfilled, even here.
Respectfully,
David.
Hello Timo,
I am sorry that you have taken such a course of action as to set you on your current path. I am sorry that you believe that violence and force are the proper Christian course for resolving the matter that has arisen between us, and that you believe the conference should have "acted sooner" in bringing us before a human court to answer for our convictions, as has ever been Satan's way.
You have been the primary one in calling our claims delusional and unScriptural, and yet my frequent requests that we appeal to the Bible for resolution of our doctrinal differences have been met by nothing but feverish and repeated accusations that we are forcing your leaders to take us to court, and that we are seeking to destroy Adventism. It is true that most members of the modern, mainstream SDA church find our doctrines to be false, and even blasphemous. It is true that the courts, and the majority of Adventists are in agreement with your position. I do not dispute that, as I have said before, although I am saddened by it.
You have said that my statements are ad hominem, and yet all I have done are responded in a reasonable manner to the things that YOU have said about me personally, and my beliefs. I make no attack, I merely point out that some of the things you have said have been very strange – such as asking why Christ didn't put up a website when He was persecuted. If you fault me for finding that really unusual, and then following up by posting MY testimony here, I'm not sure what to say to you. I don't believe you can be reasoned with, even while you say the same thing about me, but as I pointed out, you seem to be very offended by my words, and are retaliating with less and less discussion and more and more emotion.
It is clear that the foundations of our faith are VERY different. I rely upon God's protection, and His promises. You, and others who have stood with you, find solace in the voice of the majority, and the ruling of secular courts. I do not see how my labeling of this viewpoint as practically atheistic in its approach is an error. There are some who genuinely believe they are Christians, when their confidence is in the world. You have actually said, more than once, and in numerous ways, that your confidence is in the powers of this world – I do not need to twist anything, or misrepresent you, or attack you; I am merely pointing it out, in the hopes that you and others will UNDERSTAND that relying upon the world and its policies is hostility toward God. So says the Bible, and so says the CSDA Church, though it may be called a delusion. Respectfully, I have to disagree.
You claim that you are "thoroughly understanding" of my position and convictions, and yet you say – in the very next sentence – that you are sorry I fled the country "for fear of legal consequences." It is as if you cannot simply read my words and comprehend them, for I said exactly the opposite in the testimony that you, yourself, posted here with bolded and highlighted sections. And again, without becoming ad hominem in my approach, it is statements like that, just like that, which reveal how little you truly understand about our position.
You write, "A Christian group should not be doing this to its mother church." What about you, sir? Didn't you join your efforts and voice with a group that left its "mother church" by becoming Protestant? I am the pot to your kettle, and we stand in exactly the same position on that matter. Yes, a Christian group will flee a corrupted system that depends upon Caesar's sword and intimidation for its strength. This is no lie. This is no exaggeration, and it is not a false testimony. I speak from personal experience, and stand firm on the Bible's principles when I say this: I left a "sister to fallen Babylon" to use Ellen White's own words for what the Adventist Church WOULD become if it did not clear itself of sins. It did not so clear itself, and her prophecy is fulfilled. Of course, those who cling to its wreckage (however large) will despise us for saying so. Your words, and the words of others, come as no surprise to me. But I do wish things could be different, and that emotionality and passion could be set aside in favor of simply LOOKING at what you have done to yourselves, and to others.
My loss, though you claim to be sorry for it, is minuscule compared to yours. I am not to be mourned, but those who believe they are doing God a service by supporting the imprisonment of Bible-believing Christians, they are the ones to be mourned without end.
To answer your question, I do not know who Lynn Springs is.
To speak to your prayer, this matter is almost over. It will soon be settled eternally by the true Judge, and none shall appeal His decision.
Respectfully,
David.
Oh, kingly philosopher/writer:
We are children, for our Master said, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
We do not understand your unknown tongue, for our Apostle said, “I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.”
Heaven does not hear your prayers, for our prophetess said, “I have written largely in regard to Christians who believe the truth placing their cases in courts of law to obtain redress. In doing this, they are biting and devouring one another in every sense of the word ‘to consume one another.’ They cast aside the inspired counsel of God and in the face of the message He gives they do the very thing He has told them not to do. Such men may as well stop praying to God, for He will not hear their prayers.”
Oh, honorable moderator, will you delete the words of another little child?