The 1896 Sabbath School Lesson -- What changed?

[ClubV12]

That was a powerful analysis of how Jesus did not outright reject the established church of His time. Even AFTER the crucifixation, but continued to call them, to plead with them, to show them love. The church, on earth, something the Lord is not going to give up on regardless of how dark it looks, how evil they may appear to be. Thats a sobering thought.

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

Wow!, You and yours are amazing! You have attained "perfection", and have "reproduced the character of Christ in you lives".

Does this mean you are ready for translation?

[Pastor_Chick]

That was a powerful analysis of how Jesus did not outright reject the established church of His time. Even AFTER the crucifixation, but continued to call them, to plead with them, to show them love. The church, on earth, something the Lord is not going to give up on regardless of how dark it looks, how evil they may appear to be. Thats a sobering thought.

[ClubV12]

"We have no king but Caesar." When they said this, they unchurched themselves.

Powerful counter point. I can't think of a similiar event today that would begin to equal a move by the church that would apply, as yet. But I have little doubt such a time as that will come. Catastrophic in nature, perhaps related to the very last of the end time events, even as the plagues are falling.

It is evident that in Ellen Whites time and it continues today, the "work along the irregular lines" needs and will be done. Those who set out to do the Lords work, without the blessing or direction of the General Conference. Such as Edson White working in the South and the self supporting work through the world. But in the cases I cite as examples, these folks also remain loyal to the primary body of believers and the General Conference over them.

It is on this point that your group, Chick, seems to depart. Not casting any stones here, just making an observation.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I'm only going to say this once regarding this topic of " The 1896 Sabbath School Lesson -- What changed?"...

Every time I see the topic, I want to say, "We're in a different century."

**Back to topic**

(had to get this out of my system)

[ClubV12]

"We're in a different century."

I'd have to apply THAT very carefully when it comes to doctrinal or fundamental beliefs, which should be timeless.

As it regards civil law, it is a valid point however. Again, the example I'm most familiar with is Carrol Shelby neglecting the trade dress mark on the shape and design of the early 1960's Shelby Cobra. By ignoring the trade dress issue, allowing others to copy it and not actively seeking to stop them, he essentially abandoned it. ONLY because the copies were made by SO many different companies did that trade dress pass into public domain. However, if ONE company had consistently used the shape/design for many years, with no protest, THAT company could have claimed the exclusive use and stopped the original creator, Carrol Shelby, from ever again using the very thing he originally designed!

Hence, it is conceivable that if the General Conference failed to take action to protect it's name, someone else could file for the trademark and stop the Seventh Day Adventist church under the General Conference to STOP using that name all together!

Perhaps this reaches a certain level of "paranoia" and it might be said we are not "relying on God" for protection. At the same time, I could not rule out the sin of "presumption" that "all you have to do" is trust in the Lord. WE have certain responsibilities in that regard that God does not remove.

[Pastor_Chick]

"We have no king but Caesar." When they said this, they unchurched themselves.

Powerful counter point. I can't think of a similiar event today that would begin to equal a move by the church that would apply, as yet. But I have little doubt such a time as that will come. Catastrophic in nature, perhaps related to the very last of the end time events, even as the plagues are falling.

It is evident that in Ellen Whites time and it continues today, the "work along the irregular lines" needs and will be done. Those who set out to do the Lords work, without the blessing or direction of the General Conference. Such as Edson White working in the South and the self supporting work through the world. But in the cases I cite as examples, these folks also remain loyal to the primary body of believers and the General Conference over them.

It is on this point that your group, Chick, seems to depart. Not casting any stones here, just making an observation.

[skyblue888]

sky,

A question came to my mind while reading your answer to "Q".

Do you maintain a membership in good standing with the General Conference Church and attend your local GC church regularly?

Thank you in advance.

I have been asked this question many times. I still have membership just as John the Baptist and Jesus and His disciples still had membership in spite of the fact that even at the time of Jesus' birth those who had been called to be the ground and pillar of the truth had become the representatives of Satan. (D.A.36) This membership they maintained until they could no longer freely work within the confines of the church, until they were cast out. So it was with the Reformers.

As far as having membership in "good standing" with the General Conference, I am not sure what is in that question since I have never had anything to do with the General Conference itself.

Jesus had membership within the Jewish church. He was presented at the temple at the time of His birth and His name was entered upon the register. As far as having membership in good standing with the Sanhedrin, the General Conference of His day, composed of 70 men, He certainly acted independently of them as did John the Baptist and when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the disciples at Pentecost, they too acted independently of the Sanhedrin. So that in itself would place them in antagonism with the religious authorities and by the same token their membership could hardly be in "good standing" with them.

In this time of uncertainty, before the proclamation of the last message of mercy to the church, the Lord is taking a few men and women of His own choosing away from the religious assemblies of men into the "wilderness," if you will, that they may learn of nature and nature's God, that the Lord may teach them His message. God is putting them away from the religious leaders that they might not be influenced by their spirit and teaching. See 1 S.M.410.

"The principles of His dealing with men are ever the same." G.C.343.

The work of these chosen ones is not to call anyone out of the church but "to seek for the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (1 S.M.411)

At the school of Christ they are learning that "If divine power does not combine with human effort, I would not give a straw for what the greatest man could do." Ibid,411.

But "When divine power is combined with human effort, the work will spread like fire in the stubble. God will employ agencies whose origin man will be unable to discern; angels will do a work which men might have had the blessing of accomplishing, had they not neglected to answer the claims of God." Ibid,118.

"With humanity and divinity combined you can accomplish a work as enduring as eternity." Faith and Works, p.27.

I encourage you to study the parable of Matt.22 like you have never before. This parable is a prophecy which Jesus spoke more for our time than for His time. This parable/prophecy delineates the events to take place within the Advent movement from the day Jesus entered the Most Holy Place until He comes again.

sky

[Pastor_Chick]

Originally Posted By: Pastor_Chick

sky,

A question came to my mind while reading your answer to "Q".

Do you maintain a membership in good standing with the General Conference Church and attend your local GC church regularly?

Thank you in advance.

I have been asked this question many times. I still have membership just as John the Baptist and Jesus and His disciples still had membership in spite of the fact that even at the time of Jesus' birth those who had been called to be the ground and pillar of the truth had become the representatives of Satan. (D.A.36) This membership they maintained until they could no longer freely work within the confines of the church, until they were cast out. So it was with the Reformers.

As far as having membership in "good standing" with the General Conference, I am not sure what is in that question since I have never had anything to do with the General Conference itself. But that may change some day.

Jesus had membership within the Jewish church. He was presented at the temple at the time of His birth and His name was entered upon the register. As far as having membership in good standing with the Sanhedrin, the General Conference of His day, composed of 70 men, He certainly acted independently of them as did John the Baptist and when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the disciples at Pentecost, they too acted independently of the Sanhedrin. So that in itself would place them in antagonism with the religious authorities and by the same token their membership could hardly be in "good standing" with them.

In this time of uncertainty, before the proclamation of the last message of mercy to the church, the Lord is taking a few men and women of His own choosing away from the religious assemblies of men into the "wilderness," if you will, that they may learn of nature and nature's God, that the Lord may teach them His message. God is putting them away from the religious leaders that they might not be influenced by their spirit and teaching. See 1 S.M.410.

"The principles of His dealing with men are ever the same." G.C.343.

The work of these chosen ones is not to call anyone out of the church but "to seek for the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (1 S.M.411)

At the school of Christ they are learning that "If divine power does not combine with human effort, I would not give a straw for what the greatest man could do." Ibid,411.

But "When divine power is combined with human effort, the work will spread like fire in the stubble. God will employ agencies whose origin man will be unable to discern; angels wil do a work which men might have had the blessing of accomplishing, had they not neglected to answer the claims of God." Ibid,118.

"With humanity and divinity combined you can accomplish a work as enduring as eternity." Faith and Works, p.27.

I encourage you to study the parable of Matt.22 like you have never before. This parable is a prophecy which Jesus spoke more for our time than for His time. This parable/prophecy delineates the events to take place within the Advent movement from the day Jesus entered the Most Holy Place until He comes again.

sky

sky,

In my humble opinion, it is not necessary to preach a sermon to answer simple and direct questions.

When people avoid answering directly, there is usually something beneath that is covered. I am reminded of a sermon given by Pastor A. T. Jones wherein he analyzes the answers given by Adam and Eve to God in the Garden.

Now, you could have just said, "I believe I am a special messenger doing the work of a 'modern John, the Baptist.'" (or something of that nature) I do not have to agree with you or accept your profession, but, at least, I would know your claim.

If I missed it, please correct me.

[skyblue888]

I am only a mere student of the Word.

I have never made any claim to be "a special messenger".

You asked me a couple of questions and I replied. I knew what was implied in those questions and I replied accordingly so that there would be no misunderstanding.

sky :)

[miz3]

In the minds of many of our "former brethren," use of the power of Caesar is merely to "protect property rights." But, they fail to observe (and admit) that Christ has been left out of the equation. When a church resorts to the protection of Caesar (over the power of Christ) in purely civil (not criminal) matters, that church is saying, "We have no king but Caesar." This is particularly true when the issue is pertaining to some element of a religious nature that deals with identity.

I do not take back any of the things I have said about you in my previous posts. You are still all that!

However, In my personal opinion the GC was stupid in bringing this against you. They should have ignored you.

Now as to your words above. You are totally correct that the GC has not relied on nor has sought the counsel of God in regard to this matter among many other matters.

There is a good question as to whether a religious entity should or should not have "copyright rights" in regard to oganizational names. I know, I know you will say to avoid confusion. I agree in regard to the "secular" world such confusion is not acceptable, so we allow "pepsi" or "microsoft" to be copyrighted entities.

However, does "Caesar" have the "right" under God to regulate and protect religious entities. When the GC steps in against you as it has (as I understand the facts) does it not now invite or even beg the same Caesar to tax, and regulate in any other way the SDA Church?

I think the SDA/GC have in this regard indeed made a fatal error.

Like I said, despite my post here, I change nothing I have said about you and your movement. I may or may not have more to say concerning this in the future.

[Light Fox]

"We're in a different century."

I'd have to apply THAT very carefully when it comes to doctrinal or fundamental beliefs, which should be timeless.

As it regards civil law, it is a valid point however. Again, the example I'm most familiar with is Carrol Shelby neglecting the trade dress mark on the shape and design of the early 1960's Shelby Cobra. By ignoring the trade dress issue, allowing others to copy it and not actively seeking to stop them, he essentially abandoned it. ONLY because the copies were made by SO many different companies did that trade dress pass into public domain. However, if ONE company had consistently used the shape/design for many years, with no protest, THAT company could have claimed the exclusive use and stopped the original creator, Carrol Shelby, from ever again using the very thing he originally designed!

Hence, it is conceivable that if the General Conference failed to take action to protect it's name, someone else could file for the trademark and stop the Seventh Day Adventist church under the General Conference to STOP using that name all together!

Perhaps this reaches a certain level of "paranoia" and it might be said we are not "relying on God" for protection. At the same time, I could not rule out the sin of "presumption" that "all you have to do" is trust in the Lord. WE have certain responsibilities in that regard that God does not remove.

Hi Club,

I saw this last page and wanted to comment. There are a few things by Sky I want to tackle as well about leaving vs. staying in the Church, but in the interest of space, I'm going to come back to that a little later.

If I am understanding correctly, your reasoning here is based on an experience with a secular company losing trademark rights, and then extended that experience into speculation on what might have happened if someone else had registered it.

I'm going to put a fine point on this:

You are putting people in jail with this trademark. I really do not know how to put that any more frankly, to where it begins to be taken seriously. You have put men in jail as long ago as the 1980s, and you are still doing it.

Your justification for this is a fear that you even consider "perhaps reaches a level of paranoia." To put this in perspective:

You are putting Christians in jail out of fear of someone doing the same to you. Not only that, you are doing it when there is absolutely no threat or reasonable consideration of anyone trying to do it to you. How many lives are you willing to sacrifice to save yourself from this imagined threat? How many times will the Satanic reasoning of Caiaphas be seen as Godly - "It is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Correct me where I'm wrong, but your entire Shelby Cobra scenario seems to amount to "Someone might try to use the civil power to make us deny our faith, so let's do it to other people first."

I want to ask you a question. While I do not think the scenario would have reasonably occurred, it does raise a very reasonable question. Of course, this question is open to all who wish to answer it.

Let's assume that the General Conference never acquired their trademark. Further, let's assume that someone else did, and brought litigation against the Adventist church for it, and then won. Not only did they win, but they won every appeal up to the Supreme Court level, effectively laying down a national ban on referring to yourselves or your institutions as Seventh-day Adventist.

What would you do? Would you obey the law, and deny you are a Seventh-day Adventist?

[ClubV12]

Several references have been made to large sums of money paid out as a result of a trademark violation case. As well as references to someone going to jail for trademark violations. I assume this is the end result of ignoring a "cease and desist" order in the use of a trademark legally owned by another party?

While it is tragic this takes place between two religious groups vs two secular groups, I am not so quick to make a distinction between the two. Does "religion" get a "free pass" from the laws of the land while secular business has to follow the law to the letter? If Carrol Shelby had set up a "church" would he then have a special right to prosecute his case (and "persecute" thousands of Cobra owners)? It is NOT a far fetched idea. Many business' operate under the protection of religion. There are a number of legal benefits to be had by operating under "church protection". So, where does the "law" draw the line?

Some time ago Oregon "drew the line" at parents who for religious views, denied their children basic medical care to the point of death. It is now a law you cannot do that, hard to imagine we would actually NEED a law like that. But, such is the nature of religious beliefs, even to the point of death for the innocent. If your child dies as a result of your "reglious" beliefs (denying medical care for instance), you can and will be charged with murder.

In my opinion, and I'm no expert, the argument that "God told us we had to use this name" is not a reasonable excuse for violation of trademark laws. Secular or religious. It would be chaos if religion were given a "free pass" in this regard. Like the "Church of Coca Cola". Why not? If churches get a free pass, WHY NOT? The "Church of the Cobra", Pastor Carrol Shelby, why not? No medical care for children in the "Church of No Medicine". Why not?

I'm sorry you guys are in this predicament, while you have my sympathy, in this case, I'll have to go with the laws of the land. I understand your argument that it violates certain religious principles and you feel compelled to take action. Even to the point of jail, but I don't agree with the logic or the interpretation of the bible verses and Ellen White quotes that seemingly support that argument. I just don't see it.

I to am in the midst of serious legal issues with a local Conference, so I do not offer my opinion on this matter without due consideration to your plight.

As to; Would I obey the law and stop calling myself a Seventh Day Adventist? Yes, I would obey the law in regards to any published items, brochuers, web sites, magazine, newsprint, mailings, church signs, etc. To my friends, face to face? I would tell them I'm a Seventh Day Adventist.

As far as that goes, I'm a little disturbed that some folks who post regular on here call themselves, "Seventh Day Adventists" when it is clear their beliefs have almost NOTHING in common with that church. Sometimes, I think there oughta be a law... It's embarrasing to be associated with such folks and how they can sleep at night and still use that name leaves me baffled!

[Dr. Waite]

Elder McGill:

I have one question?

Did the persons (lawyers of the SDA General Conference) who took you to court first follow 1 Corinthians 6:1-7?

If YES. what was the outcome?

If NO. they are professed believing Bible Christians, why would they not follow the Bible? Is 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 not part of their 28 fundamental beliefs?

[Light Fox]

Hi Club,

Actually, any given one of the names you presented would be entirely legal. Trademarks operate in certain fields - food and beverage, apparel, etc. This is why you can have a McDonald's Shoe Store but not a McDonald's Restaurant.

I think that, judging from your post, you aren't fully aware of how this particular law operates. It is NOT a criminal law, and it is obvious that there are circumstances in which a claim to freedom of religion does not immunize you from a law's enforcement. For example, a man claiming a religious conviction of human sacrifice is not given carte blanche for murder.

This is not such a law. The government of itself has no interest in enforcing it. The General Conference must first claim to be the originators of the name (despite Mrs. White's comments otherwise) and apply. Then the Government must accept that application. Then the Conference must initiate a lawsuit. Then they must, if they win, press for contempt. Then they must choose to press that contempt to the point of jail time.

Every move of the Court is at the behest of the church leadership. At any point, they could stop the proceedings. At any point they could end it. Every move the Court makes is the result of a motion filed by the Plaintiff requesting it.

So no, this is not a case of the Government enforcing it's own laws for the good of its people - it is a law formed by a church applying to the state, enforced by the church directing the state as to who is and is not a Seventh-day Adventist, and further punishing them according to the directions of the church. It is, to be blunt, an image of the Papacy.

As far as your willingness to stop using the name Seventh-day Adventist publicly, I am sorry to hear that. I cannot conceive of how you could harmonize that with the reasoning Mrs. White gave us for our being given the name - a public testimony of our faith and a rebuke to the world.

[ClubV12]

Of course I realize trademarks are a civil matter.

It becomes a criminal matter when a cease and desist order is ignored. That appears to be the case here, thus, the General Conference continued to push the case in order to enforce it's legal right of "cease and desist".

The State does not choose to enforce many laws, there is simply not enough time, money, man power to pursue prosecution. It is entirely appropriate for one to pursue criminal law in enforcement of a judgement (collecting money, trademark violation, etc.). I won't make a call on the ethics of that, in this or any other case, but it is appropriate, it is legal, it is a recourse allowed by law.

I don't own the name "Seventh Day Adventist", but I am a member in good standing with that group. As such I don't have a problem using it (the name) where ever and when ever it is appropriate. But that does NOT give ME carte blanche to use in any manner I see fit. It is, after all, a trade mark name. So the General Conference retains the right to force ME, any given church, business or anyone else, to "cease and desist" it's use. If, in their opinion (legally sustained if need be), use of that name is impacting the trademark owner in a negative way.

"So no, this is not a case of the Government enforcing it's own laws for the good of its people - it is a law formed by a church applying to the state, enforced by the church directing the state as to who is and is not a Seventh-day Adventist, and further punishing them according to the directions of the church."

I don't see it that way. I see a group with a legal right to a trademark using the laws of the land to sustain their legal right to that trademark. In this case it's a "church", but it could just as easily be "Carrol Shelby". I see no difference, legally, the ethics could be debated. Is it "right" for the church to do this, ethically? I do not have enough information to offer an opinion either way. I'm not on the jury, or a part of the court, I have not heard all the particulars so I cannot make a decision. On it's "face", the General Conference appears to have a very strong case for enforcing, by any and all legal means necessary, the protection of their trademark.

[miz3]

ClubV12 is correct.

Pastor chick and his group are legally in the wrong.

The consequences of whatever happens to them rests on their shoulders and not on the SDA Church.

[ClubV12]

Being legally right doesn't mean your ethically or morally right. I'd rather be legally wrong and morally right, myself.

All though in this case, I don't have enough facts, from BOTH sides, to make a determination either way. Legally or morally. I'm just mulling over the evidence that's been presented.

[Gustave]

The whole issue could have been avoided simply by calling themselves "sabbath Adventists" or simply "Adventist Church"....

...There is no claim on "Adventists" because the Jehovah's Witnesses are just as much Adventists as SDA's.

...The Christadelphians, WWCOG, Armstronism, etc are ALL Adventists - they just are not "Seventh day" Adventists.

The SDA Church has done a great deal of hard work in attempting to distance itself...

...From the other Adventist denominations

...Until they dump certain teachings of Ellen White this isn't going to happen.

With Ellen running around in print claiming Christ could have lost His Salvation....

...Will forever brand Ellen's head with Arianism that would make any JW or Christadelphian proud.

[Pastor_Chick]

Elder McGill:

I have one question?

Did the persons (lawyers of the SDA General Conference) who took you to court first follow 1 Corinthians 6:1-7?

If YES. what was the outcome?

If NO. they are professed believing Bible Christians, why would they not follow the Bible? Is 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 not part of their 28 fundamental beliefs?

Dr. Waite,

There has been no Bible principle followed in these trademark disputes. The General Conference men "work around" the Scripture by saying anyone who is NOT a baptized member of the denomination is NOT a "brother." They can even kill those who are not "brethren." This happens in Africa here from time to time. In my humble opinion, Satan has taken advantage of certain minds in leadership and deceived them. They truly think they are doing God a service by eliminating us who "keep the commandments and have the faith of YAHSHUA" but do not pay our tithes to them. Our Savior and the faithful Stephen set a good example for us to pray for them as ignorant souls, hoping they will be saved at last.

You may not know about the trademark case filed against the SDA Kinship (SDA homosexual support group). The main reason the General Conference applied for trademark protection was to stop the homosexuals from expanding and using the church's name. God showed the GC how futile their trademark was when the SDA Kinship defeated them in court. You can find the "Seventh-day Adventist KINSHIP" online with their homosexual agenda. You would think that defeat would put this matter to rest once and for all, but No! Evidently, they want to take out their frustrations on others who "love God and keep His commandments." This has been happening since the mid-1980s, and it is escalating especially on the Internet.

Thank you for your questions. If you are a member of the SDA, I pray that you will protest this non-sense.

[Pastor_Chick]

The whole issue could have been avoided simply by calling themselves "sabbath Adventists" or simply "Adventist Church"....

...There is no claim on "Adventists" because the Jehovah's Witnesses are just as much Adventists as SDA's.

...The Christadelphians, WWCOG, Armstronism, etc are ALL Adventists - they just are not "Seventh day" Adventists.

The SDA Church has done a great deal of hard work in attempting to distance itself...

...From the other Adventist denominations

...Until they dump certain teachings of Ellen White this isn't going to happen.

With Ellen running around in print claiming Christ could have lost His Salvation....

...Will forever brand Ellen's head with Arianism that would make any JW or Christadelphian proud.

Gustave,

Maybe you have not read the RFRA thread? The reason we took the name "Creation Seventh Day Adventist" was because of a divine mandate from God. Even the civil court has recognized this. They just don't care about what God says.

You do not have to believe that God told us to use the name. Fine; for you should live out your own beliefs. You must come before "the judgment seat of Christ" one day, just as I will.

I ALWAYS obey the voice of God to ME. I do not allow others to dissuade me from perfect obedience.

When Abraham was taking his son for human sacrifice, you would have (no doubt) condemned him. How can I expect you to do any less to me?

[skyblue888]

We have absolutely no ground for condoning what the church does with those whom they deem unworthy of the Seventh-day Adventist name and looking to the civil authorities in order to do away with them. Whether we like it or not, in doing this the leaders are making an image to the papacy. At the same time those of us who are separating from the professed church and calling others to do the same because of her apostasies, when the last call of mercy to the church has not yet sounded in latter rain power, are going ahead of the Lord and will come to naught unless we see our mistake and danger.

sky

[Pastor_Chick]

[...] Whether we like it or not, in doing this the leaders are making an image to the papacy. [...]

sky

sky,

Sometimes I really appreciate what you have to say.

You seem to major in SOP writings. Do you recall what EGW said about belonging to secret societies or even voting for politicians? I am sure you do.

Now, because your time-chart does not fit what has happened ("an overwhelming surprise"), you are bound by your preconceived ideas to stay in union with an "image to the papacy." That position defies "Historic Adventism 101."

BTW: This "image to the Papacy" is not "new" (transpiring since the 1980s). Pastor John Marik (from Hawaii) was jailed for refusing to "cease and desist."

In Switzerland, a brother who manufactured hand-made organs for a living was put on the street (lost all his property) for using the name "Seventh-day Adventists, the Remnants" when printing (on his own press) three angels' message tracts.

Hundreds of thousands of tithe dollars have been spent on "protecting the name of the church." And that abominable spending has not nearly come to a halt. On the bright side (for the GC), their lawyers are trying to get some of the sacred money back by sanctioning me to pay it.

As I have said more than once, the General Conference always published their victories in their periodicals up to our case. I have a loose-leaf notebook full of the copies of their bragging in print. For some reason, they do NOT want this one to get out.

Do you know how much money the General Conference spent on subduing the media during the WACO fiasco? It was over $250,000 that they paid to media consultants to help distance the SDA Church from David Koresh and his cult.

Is that the way YAHSHUA treated "wine-bibbers and gluttons"-- "base sinners." Did he distance Himself? Dark days -- these.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

So....are you advocating that every Tom, Chick, and Harry be allowed to use the name, "Seventh day Adventist," whenever and however they please? Think of the confusion that would cause.

Furthermore, "A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold." Proverbs 22:1 NIV

[skyblue888]

Rudy: It really doesn't matter who is using the name. The name will not save anyone. To "trademark" the name is of the world and of the world only for Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

P Chick, have you not read these words, "The important movements of the present have their parallel in those of the past, and the experience of the church in former ages has lessons of great value for our own time." G.C.343.

The call to separate will not be present truth until the church has sealed her rejection of God's mercy. The last opportunity for the church to come into working order is the next event in the unrolling of the prophetic scroll. This call will be given in latter rain power, in demonstration of the Spirit and power of God. Within this call is the offer of pardon for having betrayed sacred trusts. It is the last message of mercy to those who have been called to be the pillar and ground of the truth, but instead have become the representatives of Satan by following in the track of Romanism. See T.M.361-366.

All will be invited, for the last time, to receive pardon and peace and joy and light in the Holy Spirit by appropriating to themselves the merits of a crucified and risen Saviour. This is the only faith that will be of any benefit. It is the true religion, the only religion of the Bible.

"The only faith that will benefit us is that which embraces Him as a personal Saviour: which appropriates His merits to ourselves." D.A.347.

The Lord will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness in and through those who shall hang their helpless souls upon the all-sufficient merits of the world's Redeemer.

"As we acknowledge before God our appreciation of Christ's merits, fragrance is given to our intercessions. As we approach God through the virtue of the Redeemer's merits Christ places us close by His side, encircling us with His human arm, while with His divine arm He grasps the throne of the Infinite. He puts His merits as sweet incense in the censor in our hands, in order to encourage our petitions." Our Father Cares, p.120.

"You want to be like little children, hanging upon the merits of a crucified and risen Saviour, and then you will be fortified. How? The angels of God will be around you as a wall of fire; the righteousness of Christ, which you claim, goes before you, and the glory of God is your rearward. God sanctify our tongues, our thoughts, our minds, that we may dwell upon heavenly themes, and that we may impart that knowledge and light to others." Ms 9, 1891.

sky