Should GC Legal Stop those who impersonate the Church? Yes or No?

[ClubV12]

Sheila7, the biggest error I have found with the CSDA doctrine is their denial of the GC as the highest authority on earth. I understand the argument for that, many folks in various groups feel the same way, make the same arguments. The GC has "apostized".

I've seen the quotes, heard the arguments, I don't buy it. Not at this time, I'll leave that possibility open for future events, but that is not the case now, in my opinion. Are my eyes blinded? Do I need the eye salve? I would ask the same questions of you. You believe sincerely, as I do I. And yet, one of us, is as Ellen White put it, is "sincerely mistaken". I'd rather err on the side of the church than against it, like the story of the "widows mite" shows. THAT church was obviously corrupt, but it was still the single object of God's love at that time, it's cup of iniquity not yet full.

At this point I can't determine that your group (sorry, I'm ASSUMING "your group" is CSDA, perhaps not) is any different from any other group that has become an "off shoot". There are TONS of them, all claiming virtually the same argument as to why.

[Pastor_Chick]

Sheila7, the biggest error I have found with the CSDA doctrine is their denial of the GC as the highest authority on earth. I understand the argument for that, many folks in various groups feel the same way, make the same arguments. The GC has "apostized".

I've seen the quotes, heard the arguments, I don't buy it. Not at this time, I'll leave that possibility open for future events, but that is not the case now, in my opinion. Are my eyes blinded? Do I need the eye salve? I would ask the same questions of you. You believe sincerely, as I do I. And yet, one of us, is as Ellen White put it, is "sincerely mistaken". I'd rather err on the side of the church than against it, like the story of the "widows mite" shows. THAT church was obviously corrupt, but it was still the single object of God's love at that time, it's cup of iniquity not yet full.

At this point I can't determine that your group (sorry, I'm ASSUMING "your group" is CSDA, perhaps not) is any different from any other group that has become an "off shoot". There are TONS of them, all claiming virtually the same argument as to why.

Club,

Your assessments of CSDA doctrine are just as flawed as your trademark law conclusions. I am not trying to be difficult with you, but if you could see yourself from another perspective, you might slow down and not say things like our reason for separating was "The GC has 'apostized'." You do not know the first bit about our doctrine.

When you say "There are TONS of them, all claiming virtually the same argument as to why," you show your ignorance on the subject. I respect you for what you KNOW. I have serious problems with you speaking authoritatively about that which you do NOT know.

I will ask the same of you that I requested from miz3. Give me the list of those "TONS of them." Miz came up with three (one of which sky had mentioned already). Then, if a thread is worth it, we can roast each one separately.

I once read an active forum member post something like "ante-up or shut up." Do you recall reading that? Somewhere it is written, "That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

[Stan]

I need to create a special forum for the c sda issue, it is not really theology..

any thought of a name?

[Pastor_Chick]

I need to create a special forum for the c sda issue, it is not really theology..

any thought of a name?

According to the dictionary, "theology" means "the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity."

Technically, a great deal of what has been initiated on this forum is not related to "theology."

I think much of the "off-theology" debate could be handled in "Hot-potatoes in Adventism" or something similar.

You have members of the SDA Church arguing about whether EG White was a true prophet. Others, professing to be members of the SDA community speak against the writings of Paul. And, I could add to the list of non-theological topics and rabbit trails.

Can these "carnal debates" be any more "theology" than "the c sda issue?" I do not see it.

[miz3]

These are the words of an Inquisitor.

WRONG!

These are the words of someone who wishes to expose the Truth!

What are you afraid of? These are easy questions to answer if a person and/or an organization is true and truthful.

SDA have been clear and open about the visions and testimony of Ellen G. White.

Why shouldn't the CSDA be at least just as open?

[miz3]

Well the scales of justice & judgment are certainly left in the hands of our almighty God. Christians (SDA GC) who are pursuing their own justice and persecuting fellow Christian are not relying on God's judgement and answers. They have taken "the name" into their own hands, joining hands with the civil powers.

It is so utterly plain and simple your eyes are being blinded.

Apparently you have not read Deuteronomy chapter 30 where God sets up a Justice system. Yes a civil justice system made up of humans.

Did you miss this?

God set up a judicial system so that humans could sue other humans in order to get justice. Apparently, you and yours missed this.

[miz3]

You are continually using the word "impersonate." Every time I read it, my mind and heart rings a bell. I believe, having sincere faith in my heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ that the name Creation 7th Day Adventist is not impersonating, it is NOT even the SAME name.

The CSDA church/movement is using a NEW name. It's doctrine is purely Biblical.

The SDA church fears the purity of its doctrine so it has resorted to man made means (lawsuit) in attempt to "put a lid" on newly found scriptural truths. It's not all just about "the name." There is a much bigger picture that it is my personal faith to believe God has a hand in the making.

Investigate the CSDA websites for yourself. You will find only truth. I invite you to find any error therein.

You keep saying that it is not about a name but it is about your "truth".

Yet what do we hear as a constant drum beat:

the name! the name! the name!

We do not hear anything about your "new pure truth"!

[ClubV12]

Pastor Chick, my assessment of the trademark issue is accurate, as is my assessment of your "doctrine".

I don't need to "slow down", I have weighed the evidence for and against and the facts speak for themselves. For me, the matter is settled.

1. Your name is in violation of a trademark issue with the owner, the GC. You can argue the details about which part of that name is the problem. You can post legal opinions till the cows come home. That won't change the basic fact, you lost. The court has issued a ruling, I'm sorry, but it is what it is. I wish you the best for the future.

2. You have separated yourself from the organized Seventh-day Adventist church. Like most other groups who have done the same, you claim it's because the GC is in apostasy. There have been lots ("tons") of "off shoots" from the church since the mid 1800's, nothing new here. Doctrinal points differ in some respects, but it doesn't matter, your still an "off shoot".

Having weighed the evidence that the GC is in apostasy, I conclude they are not. This was not a "fast" decision, it is in fact something I've been studying and considering well BEFORE you ever posted this issue here.

For the time being I have the same message for all who claim the Seventh-day Adventist church is no longer in God's favor:

I believe you are mistaken and running ahead of the Lord. It is not yet time to draw that conclusion. You are on dangerous ground if you do so. The church may appear about to fall, but it does not fall. Not yet, not now.

"Rabbit trails", hmmmm.... if the shoe fits...

[Sheila7]

Originally Posted By: Sheila7

You are continually using the word "impersonate." Every time I read it, my mind and heart rings a bell. I believe, having sincere faith in my heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ that the name Creation 7th Day Adventist is not impersonating, it is NOT even the SAME name.

The CSDA church/movement is using a NEW name. It's doctrine is purely Biblical.

The SDA church fears the purity of its doctrine so it has resorted to man made means (lawsuit) in attempt to "put a lid" on newly found scriptural truths. It's not all just about "the name." There is a much bigger picture that it is my personal faith to believe God has a hand in the making.

Investigate the CSDA websites for yourself. You will find only truth. I invite you to find any error therein.

You keep saying that it is not about a name but it is about your "truth".

Yet what do we hear as a constant drum beat:

the name! the name! the name!

We do not hear anything about your "new pure truth"!

Again, I invite you to investigate for yourselves, first hand, the CSDA websites, New pure truths are really there awaiting your willingness to find.

God's grace and love to all.

Sheila7

[miz3]

Sheila7,

Were you there in the Presence of God when God told you to take the name:

Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church?

If you were not:

then how did you find out that God gave you the name CSDA?

[Pastor_Chick]

Pastor Chick, my assessment of the trademark issue is accurate, as is my assessment of your "doctrine".

I don't need to "slow down", I have weighed the evidence for and against and the facts speak for themselves. For me, the matter is settled.

1. Your name is in violation of a trademark issue with the owner, the GC. You can argue the details about which part of that name is the problem. You can post legal opinions till the cows come home. That won't change the basic fact, you lost. The court has issued a ruling, I'm sorry, but it is what it is. I wish you the best for the future.

2. You have separated yourself from the organized Seventh-day Adventist church. Like most other groups who have done the same, you claim it's because the GC is in apostasy. There have been lots ("tons") of "off shoots" from the church since the mid 1800's, nothing new here. Doctrinal points differ in some respects, but it doesn't matter, your still an "off shoot".

Having weighed the evidence that the GC is in apostasy, I conclude they are not. This was not a "fast" decision, it is in fact something I've been studying and considering well BEFORE you ever posted this issue here.

For the time being I have the same message for all who claim the Seventh-day Adventist church is no longer in God's favor:

I believe you are mistaken and running ahead of the Lord. It is not yet time to draw that conclusion. You are on dangerous ground if you do so. The church may appear about to fall, but it does not fall. Not yet, not now.

"Rabbit trails", hmmmm.... if the shoe fits...

[Israfel]

Bravo Pastor Chick, Sheila, Skyblue888, ...but shame on you Stan.

Don't be so slow to catch the fire of truth, soon it will burn those who have not caught it!

[skyblue888]

Club, I really admire your zeal. Honestly I do. You just joined the church and you are on fire. I can identify with that. I was exactly like you when I joined in 1976. Lots of water under the bridge since and lots of years of study and research. When the Testimonies speak of the church that appears to fall but does not fall, they are not referring to the "established church" but to the "little church" within the "established church".

Jesus and His disciples constituted the "little church" within the "established church" of their day. Tell me Club, was it the "established church" of their day or the "little church" within the "established church" which appeared to fall? When Jesus hung upon the cross, was not the "established church" sitting as a queen? Was it not the "little church" composed of the few disciples of Christ that appeared to fall then and yet did not fall? Again in A.D.34 at the time of the great persecution, was not the "established church" still sitting as a queen and did not the "little church" composed of the disciples and their converts appear to fall but did not fall? At no time the "established church," ruled by the men of the Sanhedrin, appeared to fall.

Today the "established church" does not appear to fall at all. On the contrary. But the "little church," within her borders, made of the faithful few will appear to fall as she will be persecuted by the "established church" but she will not fall. In fact God will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness through this "little church" hated and despised as she will be by the "established church". The "established church" will go on until it is swept away by storm and tempest just as the Jewish church was in A.D.70 thirty-six years after she had sealed her rejection of God's mercy.

You say you have studied this issue. I think that in the coming months you will need to sink the shaft deeper into the mine of truth in order to realize that the G.C. today is no longer the voice of God or the highest authority in spiritual matters. This was stated in the Testimonies more than a century ago. How could a church that has put God aside and accepted the devisings of men be the voice of God or the highest authority on earth?

sky

[skyblue888]

According to the dictionary, "theology" means "the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity."

P Chick

________

Here is a better definition:

"To a great degree, theology, as studied and taught, is but a record of human speculation seving only to darken counsel by words without knowledge." Ministry of Healing, p.442.

How is that?

sky

[miz3]

Skyblue888,

You need to get in the Bible more. You hardly if ever quote the Scripture. However, I see page after page of only Ellen White quotes. I see you twist such quotes into the most contorted shapes imaginable.

I am not saying I agree with the GC but I am sure pastorchick and his group are not correct either legally or spiritually.

Fortunately we have more options than just those two!

[skyblue888]

If I spoken wrongly, please show where. Though I have not quoted any Scripture in my last post, I have stated the facts.

sky

[miz3]

I thought I spoke plainly enough.

[ClubV12]

"I find it disheartening that you and "sky" arrive at opposite conclusions..."

Me too! But then Peter and Paul didn't always agree on things either. SDA history is filled with examples of men who didn't agree on every point. Thats not Babylon, it's human nature and I believe it's part of God's will. We are not robots, belief, doctrine, light, can undergo a thourough examination.

My study of the GC, the church, the little church, God's people, what makes up the church, whew, is far from finished. As some have I said I don't agree with all the GC does. But I will respect and honor them until I come to a place, hopefully never, where I have to violate conscience to do so. If thats where some of you guys are coming from, I understand how difficult that situation can be. I've been there, I know what it means to give up something you have believed in with all your heart. I just don't see at this point that the "cup of iniquity", if you would, of the GC is full, not yet, not now. So I will stay put and I will pray for them!

Even if I DID come to that conclusion I would not necessarily accept the C SDA group as being a viable alternative! I have looked at the doctrinal points, I'm not convicted they are in line with what I believe. But they have raised some interesting questions.

miz3, you need to post more Ellen White quotes so you have a better balance on how to interpret those bible verses.

[skyblue888]

I find it disheartening that you and "sky" arrive at opposite conclusions about critical issues while both of you esteem the SOP so highly.

Club, why do you compare Paul and Peter. It is not so much about Paul and Peter but about Jesus, Paul and Peter not being in harmony with the religious authorities of their day.

sky

[miz3]

miz3, you need to post more Ellen White quotes so you have a better balance on how to interpret those bible verses.

I would if the setting was right. Let me explain. I do indeed quote Ellen White in other settings where I am clearly understood.

For now I feel it vital to use the Bible and the Bible only to make my points of where I stand. I do this so that I can never be accused of getting the Truth from Ellen White only!

I can stand on the Bible and the Bible only. The Truth also stands on the Bible and the Bible only!

Ellen White was far more important to SDA than just a theological quote machine.

Unfortunately, today and from decades and decades past Ellen White has been used as if she were a "quote machine" which we pull out when we are stuck with getting it right from the Bible and the Bible only or we are too lazy to study the Bible, or we were raised hearing quote after quote or the leadership wants to keep its pew sitters in line or any other like reason. Also numerous SDA off-shoots feed off of Ellen White for their petty off-shootness and whacky ideas.

Thus, I believe her true effectiveness has been eroded by so much mishandling. I want no part of such mishandling that either is knowingly used or unknowingly used when quoting Ellen White. She has been so often and so pervasively mishandled and misused that it is almost impossible to tell the truth from the error. Some on this website have already proved the truth of what I say.

I think it is a shame that God's instrument has received such shabby treatment by those she was sent by God to help!

[ClubV12]

Well yes that is more to the point as it concerns this issue Sky. Jesus supported and loved the "church" of His time, while He walked the earth. In spite of their serious flaws. But there was a "line in the sand" for the Jewish faith. A line the GC has not yet crossed, I will wait.

By the way, one of the best books I've read yet on the subject of 1888 is by George Knight, "Angry Saints". An excellent look at the National political scene of the time, the historic setting, the struggles, the men and their views, that set the stage for the 1888 message. That was a battle that began well in advance of 1888 and didn't end there.

[miz3]

ClubV12,

Maybe sky believes the SDA Church has crossed that line and indeed has fallen as the Second Angel predicts in Revelation.

Has the SDA Church "fallen" as the Second Angel of Revelation states, sky?

[Pastor_Chick]

According to the dictionary, "theology" means "the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity."

P Chick

________

Here is a better definition:

"To a great degree, theology, as studied and taught, is but a record of human speculation seving only to darken counsel by words without knowledge." Ministry of Healing, p.442.

How is that?

sky

sky,

I like that. However, when you are talking to someone who does not speak YOUR language (or seem to have a desire to learn it), it is necessary to communicate in theirs to make your point. Can you understand that?

[Brother Peter]

For those that asked. It is not uncommon for an admin to change the topic name. This originally said something about should a Church sue a member yes or no. I have not had answer it the person who started this is even a member of the Church.

Brother Peter, are you a member? Is that your real name?

When the real issue "Should GC Legal Stop those who impersonate the Church? Yes or No?"

Stan I am taking it that you are a Christian.But as far as I can see the spirit that you have manifested is not of Christ base on your action.

Christ require us to be perfect all our dealings Correct?

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

Heb 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through

Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

You did not even notify me that you were changing the thread title. And if the Spirit of God is in you you will walk as Christ walk and not as man see's fit in his own eyes. Now doing Gods will is very dear to my heart and I must use his words to judge my action likewise yours.

2.You have stated that "I have not had answer it the person who started this is even a member of the Church". Now how can you assume that I am a member of the SDAC member and change the title of the tread,You are telling me how I must think, how I must write, what I must say as a child of God? WHO WOULD DO SUCH THINGS? WHO WOULD TAKE AWAY ONES ABILITY TO EXPRESS HIS OR HER THOUGHS FREELY? I believe you know the answer.

You are placing your self as God. Why? I would ask that you replace what I have place as the title of this thread.With all due respect. Are you a Dictator? If NOT then do NOT tell me what to place as a title for the tread. It was "IS IT OK FOR A CHURCH TO SUE.YES OR NO"? I sense fear in you Stan.

1Jn 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

1Jn 4:18 There is NO fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is NOT made perfect in love.

3 You have stated that am a member then shortly you ask "Brother Peter, are you a member? Is that your real name"?

It seems like you are confused as to where I stand because of the word "BROTHER" because among SDAC members they would say 'brother A or brother B. I am NOT a brother of the SDAC. I was born and raised as an SDA. I AM a CSDACM. Peter IS my real name So why ask me if that is my real name? That is interesting.

I will share this passage with you.Mat 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

Mat 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

Mat 12:50 For ]whosoever shall DO the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same IS my brother, and sister, and mother.

[miz3]

Brother Peter,

I believe (I could be wrong about this) Stan OWNS this website. As the owner he can do as he likes. We are his guests. We may not like his judgment but he can do as he pleases.

If you want to start your own website you are free to do so and then you can run it as you like.

Calling Stan a "dictator" is meant to put him in a bad light. Such a judgment is NOT your call. Stan can do what he wants with what is his.

I believe the Bible states that what someone owns they can do what they want with it. You cannot cry foul. Hint: see the parable of the workers who were hired at different hours of the day.

Hmmm!