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

[ClubV12]

"IF God was in this, shouldn't they have won?"

Hmmmm, thats a bit of a weak argument. The same could be said for that 5 year waiting period you mentioned. Plenty of time for God to have brought it to the attention of someone. I won't speculate on what God should or shouldn't have done. He respects man's decisions as well, good or bad, so it's not always straight forward what He should or should not have done.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

The name "Seventh Day Adventist" was given, by God to a people who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus.

Sooooo, that is what the argument is all about!

The question is where do you find that statement of it being true?

According to the Bible I read, God never named a church! We do read a lot about "Christs Church".

[Stan]

The name "Seventh Day Adventist" was given, by God to a people who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus. All people who do, or any people who do. Actually, the GC SDA church took possession of something that was NOT theirs to begin with, kind of like the name Christian. And they did so under a cloak of secrecy. There was a 5 year waiting period, in which anyone IF they had KNOWN about it could have contested it, and would have won. But for 5 years the GC SDA kept a lid on it so that it went uncontested. Then when they got the trademark, to set precedent, they filed lawsuits on 100+ small congregations of fellow believers, so that they could go against the homosexual support group of Kinship international. Taking brethren to court to set precedent. Well they won against the small groups, but not against the homosexual group. IF God was in this, shouldn't they have won? So the reason God told Pastor to take this name was for this very reason, to bring this matter to honest hearts that are following the Saviours' voice. Decisions are being made, and marks or seals are being applied. Solemn times indeed.

Jody I do agree with you God gave it to those people, and he entrusted them to look after that. He set up the whole structure to becoming one of the best growing Churches and we have the highest retention rate, according to an article put out by the Mormans.

I can tell you this, it is almost impossible to do anything in secret with the Church. Everything takes too many committees and votes to get through, that is one of my frustrations with the Church. I love the Church, joining it was the best single thing I have done, the writings of EGW revealed to me Christ that I want to serve. All of us could gain in our life if we read the inspiration books that is printed.

I do not agree with the 100+ Churches, if I call you to task on that could you proof that? Seriously, I am only aware of 5 - 8 at the most, and things were resolved for the most part.

I do support the Judge in the SDAKINSHIP, they were not trying to impersonate the Church, but rather a group of like minded adventist who got to gather, if you think about it, this is very similar to this forum isn't it? This forum is NOT trying to be a spokesperson for the Church nor is it having worship services and the other things that a church does.

I still believe, and you should to, that the Church has a responsibility to protect the name that God assigned to it.

[Brother Peter]

[Brother Peter]

The scripture tell us not to steal.

How easily you state "the scripture tell us not to steal" but yet someone stole my Thread and put what they think should be the title and nothing is done about it? Is it a good example Christlike-ness that is being shown? This is telling a lie that I am the one that post this title of this thread, How interesting Stan.

I am sure you are aware of it, very slick, but as I have said before it is a blessing. God always turn the hands of the evil one on their own head. It is there in the bible.

[Brother Peter]

Would not you be able to spread the message without having to impersonate the Church to do so? The message should be able to stand on its merits.

I do wonder if you are so close to the situation that you are not able to see the error in this.

Stan how many side does a coin have? Think long and hard and I think you will see the picture that you are ignoring.

[miz3]

Brother Peter,

It seems to me for a church (CSDA) that claims to have a "last day message" you are a bit off track, are you not?

Maybe I have it wrong but is your 144,000 last day message merely a fight over the name of a church?

If that is your message, then I think it is abundantly clear that you are NOT the "last day" church you claim to be.

If it is NOT your last day message you spending an inordinate amount of time and energy with this "name" thing and no time on "your supposed real message"!

I think you have a real problem.

[ClubV12]

I like one of the things Ellen White said about the 144,000.

Words to the effect of:

"..silence on the subject is eloguent." It's easy to get muddy if you dig to deep on this issue. I won't bother reading a book on the subject, or doing a massive study on it. I know enough about the concept, there are other more important issues that deserve my time.

Will I "strive to be among that group?" Oh most certainly! Will I wrack my brain to figure out who they are? No. I don't belive they exist right now, it's a group destined to form in the very last days, in my opinion, at the tail end of the final conflict. Those who comprise it will likely not even be aware they are in it or that it's forming.

I utterly reject the various false claims of who, what, when and where, that many put forth. We simply don't have enough information and you quickly descend into speculation on it. Speculation is NOT an attribute of the group!

[Pastor_Chick]

Let us look at the Spirit's counsel when a NAME or reputation becomes an issue. The following illustrations should suffice:

Here is an example of how God would have you overcome a TARNISHED name.

I do not consider your case hopeless; if I did, my pen would not be tracing these lines. In the strength of God you can redeem the past. Your name is already a byword in ___; but you can change this by using the powers which God has given you. You may even now gain a moral excellence so that your name may be associated with things pure and holy. You can be elevated. God has provided for you the necessary helps. He has invited you to come to Him, and has promised to bear your burdens and give you rest of soul. "Learn of Me," says the divine Teacher, "for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." (2T 562)

Consider an example of how to PRESERVE a holy name.

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)

Here, the holy name of Jesus was being misused by "vagabond Jews." The apostles did not do anything but leave them to their own destruction. "The law of the Lord is perfect." "Whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap." "Do not hinder them."

[miz3]

Let us look at the Spirit's counsel when a NAME or reputation becomes an issue. The following illustrations should suffice:

Here is an example of how God would have you overcome a TARNISHED name.

Originally Posted By: EGW

I do not consider your case hopeless; if I did, my pen would not be tracing these lines. In the strength of God you can redeem the past. Your name is already a byword in ___; but you can change this by using the powers which God has given you. You may even now gain a moral excellence so that your name may be associated with things pure and holy. You can be elevated. God has provided for you the necessary helps. He has invited you to come to Him, and has promised to bear your burdens and give you rest of soul. "Learn of Me," says the divine Teacher, "for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." (2T 562)

Consider an example of how to PRESERVE a holy name.

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)

Here, the holy name of Jesus was being misused by "vagabond Jews." The apostles did not do anything but leave them to their own destruction. "The law of the Lord is perfect." "Whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap." "Do not hinder them."

It appears to me pastorchick that in your excellent illustration from Acts chapter 19 that you are the "vagabond jews" who are trying to "steal" SDA good name.

I believe once again you have found yourself!

[Sheila7]

Some of you may have become angry because you may realize, "in the spirit at least", that you are wrong and are being unChristlike at times. Unfortunately, the doctrine of the mainstream SDA church teaches that this is OK, and still be converted to the Gospel. I now, just wonder, if you may have a gospel of your own.

[miz3]

Of course it has never ever crossed your mind that you could be wrong?

That maybe it is you at CSDA that are being unChristlike?

[Jody]

I can tell you this, it is almost impossible to do anything in secret with the Church. Everything takes too many committees and votes to get through, that is one of my frustrations with the Church. I love the Church, joining it was the best single thing I have done, the writings of EGW revealed to me Christ that I want to serve. All of us could gain in our life if we read the inspiration books that is printed.

I do not agree with the 100+ Churches, if I call you to task on that could you proof that? Seriously, I am only aware of 5 - 8 at the most, and things were resolved for the most part.

...

Stan, The information on the "legal action" was taken from an article that was quoted in 3 articles I read. It came from the "Church and State Observer, Special Edition, Summer, 1990"

The following is a chronology published by Church and State Observer, Special Edition,

Summer, 1990:

1980...General Conference hires Catholic attorney to

trademark the name "Seventh-day Adventist."

1981...SDA name trademarked. General Conference

remains silent during a "five-year" waiting

period: a time when the trademark could

have been contested had it been known.

1986...General Conference took legal action against one hundred thirty-five different cases charged

with violating trademark laws.

1987...John Marik, pastor of the 12 member Seventh-

day Adventist Congregational Church, Kona,

Hawaii loses court case in trademark lawsuit

brought by the General Conference.

1989...May 5, the U.S . Court of Appeals refers

Marik case back to Hawaii to be tried in

lower court. Marik remains in hiding since

February, 1988.

1989...Pastor John Marik jailed for contempt of court

and was released after five days on $25,000 bail.

Trademark case in lower court pending.

1990...April 11, the charges of contempt of court

were lifted against John Marik; the fines

have been eliminated and the bail money

returned. General Conference continues

pressing Trademark case in lower court as of

July, 1990.

[Stan]

>>>General Conference took legal action against one hundred thirty-five different cases charged

I seriously doubt if they could back this up.

The lawsuit in Hawaii was not brought upon by the General Conference, it was brought upon by the so called Pastor Marik, who once again, was impersonating the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

[Light Fox]

My recollection of that case was that Marik was a Conference, not "so-called" pastor, who was disfellowshipped after sharing a dream with his congregation and then sued for "impersonating the Seventh-day Adventist Church" when he and some others began meeting in a "Congregational SDA Church" in a rented building. You then used that case for precedent against the more well-funded homosexual support group.

It would seem that *anyone* you initiate lawsuits against "was not brought upon" by the ones suing, but by the people you hunt down and throw in jail.

Incidentally, there's an interesting audio interview of Pastor Marik available online that was taken after he was sued but before he was chased down in California and thrown in jail. The L.A. Times also did some coverage of the story, as I recall. If you'd be interested in listening to that interview and adding any conflicting recollections from your side, feel free. The URL is (currently) http://www.csda-adventistchurch.to/realaudio/Pastor_Marik.ram (RealMedia format)

[Stan]

who chased him down and put in him jail? I can't see the GC folks doing that, but rather law enforcement if he had no respect for that.

SO why not get his own name? Pastors come and go, some do start their own system.

If Pastor Chick would move forward, get his own name, that would have saved a lot of issues.

Personally, I would like to learn more of what he is doing in Uganda, am sure there are some who would like to financially support that.

Having made two trips there my self, am rather interested in that.

As I said before, if there was a new name picked, I would purchase the domain name, and host it on my server provided it didn't over work the server.

Even thou Pastor Chick has some different teachings than the generally accepted believes of Adventists, I have no problem with him discussing them here. I know there are some folks that are against discussion but I personally think it is very important to do such.

[Light Fox]

Now, here is an interesting thing.

It appears that you do not believe that God is the one who names His people. If you did, you surely would not be so brash as to make suggestions about what else we could "name ourselves", as if you could take the place of God in substituting His word for yours. Such would put you precisely in the seat of the Papacy, substituting one day for another - one name for another.

Yet you do so, as if one name is just as good as any other.

That being the case - that you believe one name is as good as another - why do you sue us? What have we "stole" from you that you must call down the fire of the second beast on us in response?

The options are:

1. You are suing us for using something man-made (Matthew 5:39-42), and in violation of the spirit of Christianity. If one name is as good as another, why do you yet sue us?

2. You are suing us for something God-ordained, and going as far as to set your own human inventions as substitute for the word of the Lord - again, in violation of the spirit of Christianity. If one name is NOT as good as another, why do you sue us for what conscience compels us to do - and put your own inventions as an alternative?

Do you claim to be inspired of God? If not, how can you expect me to believe any of your "suggestions" as anything but the musings of a finite human in the face of God Almighty who has already named us?

[Stan]

OK, let me ask this are you a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church?

Do you have respect for Church authority?

All they wanted done, was to quite impersonating and using the Good Name of the Church.

The only name I can find in the NT for church was The Church of God, and even that is subject to interpretation.

I see them as trying to take a reputation and organization that is not their to take.

[ClubV12]

"It appears that you do not believe that God is the one who names His people."

I believe He did give the Seventh-day Adventist's their name. Like Stan asked, are you a member of that named group, or an off-shoot of that group?

[Windsor]

The name of a church really isn't that important. It's just a set of words. What's important is the fruit of a church. The creation group's fruit is showing no respect for a government's authority and bringing nothing but contempt upon themselves.

[Light Fox]

You can see whatever you choose to see; that doesn't really change the facts of the matter. Your answer seems to imply that you don't think the name is important or God-given, despite Mrs. White's testimonies. I refer you to question #1 and the associated passage.

I believe we've tread that ground at least once, Club, but alright. The name was given before there was an organization. As the relevant quotes say, it describes a faith, not an organization that no longer adheres to that faith, nor would - by its own admission - allow as members those who did. I do not agree with, nor does the evidence support, the idea that the name is given to an organization no matter what that organization does to abandon what it means.

Regardless, here's the simplicity of it: I'm using Ellen White quotes because you claim to accept her as a prophet. She told us the Lord gave the name Seventh-day Adventist to a people to describe their faith - a faith that we also hold. You tell us not to and offer man-made inventions to replace it.

Now, if you wish to say it was exclusive to you, we could debate that. But it can be even easier.

The Lord gave us the name Creation Seventh Day Adventist. You don't believe that testimony; you don't have to. You don't believe God would give us a name similar to the one you use; you don't have to. I believe it, and for you to offer suggestions that not only do not meet what God told us, but even violate what you believe God told you and those who believe like you, is simply rebellion. Whether you hold us to Ellen White alone or accept our convictions on continuing Inspiration, what you advise us to do in "making a name for ourselves" is an abject rejection of God's testimonies and way of dealing with His people.

And that is not the voice of God.

Neither is the voice of God the one that calls down civil lawsuits on people who have never been confused with them, talking about "stealing" and "impersonating" when they use a different name.

Neither is it the voice of God that cries "Incarcerate him! Incarcerate him!" when the civil authorities would rather not be involved.

God has given us a name. Much like the name "Seventh-day Adventist" once did, it seems that it is accomplishing that purpose we were told it would - acting as "a rebuke to the Protestant world."

It simply comes down to this matter; God gave us a name, you tell us to change it.

Who ought we to obey? God or man?

[miz3]

Such would put you precisely in the seat of the Papacy, substituting one day for another - one name for another.

You are trying to make a parallel that does not exist anywhere in Scripture.

Changing one day of Holiness for another day that is NOT HOLY is altering God's Holy Perfect Law.

The name of a Church has nothing to do with God's Holy Perfect Law. So changing a church name is NOT in any way shape or form anything like changing the Law of God.

No where in Scripture is your attempt at such a wrong parallelism supported.

See here is another example of how you are trying to ADD SOMETHING to the Word of God which is clearly NOT there.

God takes an extremely dim view of those who twist and add to His Holy Perfect Word.

This also demonstrates that you cannot be from God and that you can add this SIN to the others I have pointed out to you which breaks your "overcome all known sin". You again just committed a KNOWN SIN!

[miz3]

Qinael,

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?

[ClubV12]

Q, in many respects your group has a lot in common with many other groups that split off the SDA organized church. You believe the GC is no longer led of God, is no longer the highest authority on earth, that they are in apostasy. No need to go into the differences in doctrinal points, we both understand the basic argument here.

GC, not led of God anymore. Variations on that theme is the the GC (SDA's) are Babylon and "we" need to come out of her my people. Different groups leave for different reasons, but they all have one thing in common, they no longer recognize the authority of the GC.

Whether I like what the GC is doing or not is immaterial, I won't abandon the organized church, until it becomes perfectly clear I have no choice and it is CLEARLY of God. I have yet to see a single "off shoot" of the church where that is perfectly clear. I see a lot of confusion in what these various off shoots believe! How do I know YOUR group is any more sincere or right than the next group who qoutes Ellen White and makes similiar claims? It's no different than somebody asking are the Baptists or the Mormons the best group? It's Babylon, simply put.

I'll side with Caleb, I'll continue wandering in the wilderness with Gods chosen people, good, bad, ugly but loved until we cross over.

[miz3]

Qinael,

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?