Posted by: adventlife | July 12, 2012

Pastor Chick Defends his Creation 7th Day Adventist Church

Legal documents have been filed with the USPTO stating that the General Conference Corporation makes “no exclusive claims” to the term “Adventist.” The recent attempts by the GC legal department cannot hold up in court. They merely threaten people who are using “Adventist” because most will not bother to hire legal counsel to defend their case — money is a factor, of course.

You will notice that OUR display of the name of our faith is significantly different from “Seventh-day Adventist.”

I consulted with a District Court Judge for the Eastern Division of Tennessee (who was not to be involved in the lawsuit), and he told me that NO jury would return a finding of guilty regarding our case. This rings a bit similar to the opinion of Alan J. Reinach, Attorney and President of NARLA – West.

ALSO, our case was scheduled for jury trial, but because the GC feared a loss, they pressed for Summary Judgment without trial, and managed to win on that basis. In the Marik case, that ploy did not work.

You see, when going to court, you do not always find justice served. There are many variables; for example, expertise of lawyers, etc. As I have said in a previous post, exaggerations, misrepresentations, and every sort of sin is commented by attorneys in order to win their arguments. It is not unlike some of what we see being perpetrated on this forum from time to time.

In our case, the GC has “gone for the throat” for lack of better words. They have wanted to make an example of CSDA so that none ever think to cross them. They have spent a huge amount of SDA constituency contributions in order to kill a “straw man.” Read More:

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/558469/4.html

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Dear Mr. Samojluk,

    I wish to point out two things for your information:

    1) Pr. McGill and all other members and supporters of the CSDA Church have been banned from ClubAdventist for quite some time now. As such, please be advised that any attempts at contact at the above link cannot be met.

    2) A further and much more urgent development to the case in question has occurred. A warrant has been issued for Pastor McGill’s arrest by the U.S. Marshal’s Service. He will be turning himself in on the Loma Linda University Church grounds this Sunday (July 15th).

    Regards,
    – Lucan Chartier

  2. Barbara McGillAdvent Life Center

    2 hours ago · ..

    PRESS CONFERENCE JULY 15 2:00 PM PASTOR TO BE JAILED OVER RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ISSUE

    Who: Pastor Walter “Chick” McGill, missionary to Africa and pastor of the Tennessee
    congregation of the Creation 7th Day Adventist Church.

    What: At the behest of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, a Federal warrant has been
    issued for Pastor McGill’s arrest due to contempt of court for “trademark infringement.”
    He is turning himself in to the authorities and will be fasting from solid food
    during his incarceration.

    When: Sunday, July 15th @ 2:00pm Pacific

    Where: Loma Linda University Church of Seventh-day Adventists (Campus Street)

    Why: The Seventh-day Adventist Church, a world-wide religious body known for its strong
    religious liberty stance, has petitioned Federal courts to issue a warrant for Pastor
    McGill’s arrest after his refusal to comply with court orders requiring him to cease
    using the name of his religion—a name that, according to the denomination, is
    “confusingly similar” to their trademark church name.
    The case has gone to the Supreme Court, with McGill arguing that the term describes
    his religion, and his use is required in order to practice his faith. The Courts agreed,
    acknowledging that requiring him to stop employing the name would “substantially
    burden” his religious practice, further noting that McGill had “no intent to confuse or
    deceive the public,” as he embraced the name “based on divine revelation.”
    Regardless, the Seventh-day Adventist church successfully argued a technicality that
    the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)—a law they lobbied for originally—
    should not be applied to private party cases, thus forbidding the court from considering
    McGill’s First Amendment defense. Interestingly, the Seventh-day Adventist
    church reversed its position at the Supreme Court level, instead arguing that the
    RFRA should be applied in private party cases—just not in this one.
    Seventh-day Adventist spokesmen have denied that there is any religious liberty issue
    attached to the case, calling it “purely legal” despite the court’s acknowledging
    Pr. McGill’s religious convictions as being sincere. Ellen G. White, considered a
    prophetess by both the Seventh-day Adventist denomination and Creation Seventh
    Day Adventists, stated in the mid-1800s that the name was God-given, and its use is a
    requirement for all of the faithful.

    More information may be found at:

    Summary of the Conflict: http://www.PastorWalterChickMcGillLawsuit.net
    Chronological Lawsuit History: http://www.csda-adventistchurch.to

    Why Pastor Walter “Chick” McGill is not affiliated with General Conference Seventh-day Adventist Chu
    http://www.PastorWalterChickMcGillLawsuit.net
    Pastor Walter

  3. It looks like Pastor Chick believes that, since Ellen White did state that the Seventh-day Adventist name was given by God to his people, then it follows that no one has the right to deprive and Adventist from using this name.

    This seems logical, nevertheless, in the
    Bible we find the example of Isaac who, when the Philistines argued with him over the right ownership of two wells he had dug, he went ahead and dug a third one for himself and his people.

  4. Adventists are being jailed, and you speak of wells…

    I suppose that seems logical, nevertheless, Jacob was not told that the wells were to be used “in the name of the Lord,” “til the close of probation,” that “no other well we can drink from can be appropriate,” etc. by an Inspired Messenger.

    The name Seventh-day Adventist, on the other hand, did have those instructions tied to it. I trust you will take a moment to consider this, if it is necessary for you to do so before sounding an alarm about Adventists being jailed for their faith – whether or not you agree with a certain aspect of it.

  5. Did you assume that I am against your church? Actually I do like the name you have chosen for your church because it places a strong emphasis on creation. In fact, I do not see why the Adventist leadership has chosen to give you a hard time.

    Ted Wilson is determined to move the church away from the Darwinian theory of evolution which has been embraced by a significant percentage of Adventists. Given this fact, The General Conference should be impressed with the name you have chosen for your denomination. Said name better describes what the majority of Adventist believe!

    What happened? How come there is such animosity between you and the General Conference? Can you help me understand this? The way I see this, we should be fighting to adopt your name instead of suing you in court. What led to the present unfortunate situation?

    In spite of this, I still believe that there is no reason for your pastor to sit in jail. You could make a slight change in your name and avoid all this waste of sacred funds. You could choose a name like “Creation 7th Day Advent Church” for example.

    I will be praying for your pastor and for Pastor Wilson.

  6. I received the following query from an Adventist pro-lifer. What should I tell him?

    “Nic, what is the real scoop on the Creation Seventh-day Adventist Church? The General Conference claims that no congregation actually exists except perhaps Pastor Chick and his family. The GC calls it “a church of mirrors” – in other words, a mirage. What do you know about this? I’m curious.””

  7. Hello,

    I appreciate that you like the name, but I do not think you are fully understanding the principles involved. For us, it is not a matter of “our taking a name;” we believe the name “Creation Seventh Day Adventist” was given by God directly to our movement in much the same way “Seventh-day Adventist” was given to Mrs. White. We cannot alter the thing that has gone out of his lips, or make a new one to replace it.

    That being said, we have attempted to cooperate with the “leading men” inasmuch as our consciences would allow. For a time we sported the name “A Creation 7th Day & Adventist Church,” clearly designating the “Creation” as part of the name, not a modifier. This was not considered acceptable.

    At the present time, we have been enjoined from using “Seventh day,” or “Adventist,” or “Advent,” or anything remotely similar. There is no “slight change” we could make that would placate our persecutors; they demand the entire name be surrendered. We could not even call ourselves “7th Day Christians” or “Advent Church” to avoid the lawsuit, were we of a mind to do so.

    As far as animosity, I tell you the truth; none of our membership hold animosity towards the Conference’s membership. We pray for them daily to see what it is they are doing, and to be found clean before God in the day of judgment. The men who are putting us in jail for our faith deserve our sorrow and love, because unless they repent, this will be the only life they have. I pray that, at the least, they will have the best they can of it while it lasts.

    As far as their animosity towards us, I truly cannot tell you anything except that Cain slew Abel “because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.” They have claimed that we have “defrauded” them, but have never shown how. Given we do not pass an offering plate, I cannot see how we could have. They have accused us of impersonating them, yet even the courts ruled that this was absurd – no one has ever been confused by our name into thinking we were of the Conference.

    Because the Conference has never made an attempt to reason with us – or even asked us politely to change our name before starting litigation – we have no way of knowing what their reasoning was. They have ignored our attempts to “reason together” with them for two decades. Certainly they have spent far more money on putting us in jail than they ever were in danger of losing by our influence.

    As far as your pro-life questioner, I am sorry to say that the words he is reporting do not come from the General Conference, but from a very bitter individual named Eugene Shubert. Mr. Shubert is an independent minister who has for some years now dedicated a website to attacking Pr. McGill and the CSDA Church with various outright falsehoods and misrepresented statements. If you will do a Google search for “Walter McGill Hoax” you will find a webpage answering his allegations written by Pr. McGill. You will also find repeated forum posts by Mr. Shubert, which easily reveal his spirit and that of his accusations.

    For now, suffice to say that we have more than one congregation (one in Africa has several pictures available online, for example) and that the Church consists of far more than Pastor McGill and his wife. I suppose that much is obvious, since I am a member, and my last name is not McGill.

    If you have more questions, please do not hesitate to contact me personally. You may email me at claimvictory @ hotmail . com if you would like any information, references, resources, explanations, etc.

    Regards,

    – Lucan Chartier

    • Lucan,

      Thank you for answering my question. This controversy is still a mystery to me. I can’t see why would the General Conference [GC] prohibit anyone from using the following phrases in their church name: “Seventh Day,” “Adventist,” and even “Advent.” The word “Advent” is not even part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s name. For me these are generic terms and everybody should be free to use them provided the name is not exactly the same.

      I do not see how “Creation Seventh Day Adventist” should be confused with “Seventh-day Adventist”. The term “Creation” indicates to me that your church is different from the Seventh-day Adventist Church, since you place the emphasis on Creation, and I like this because creation defines my beliefs as one who rejects evolution.

      I believe that instead of fighting you in court, the General Conference would be wiser in asking you permission to include the word “Creation” in the Seventh-day Adventist name. Wouldn’t this please Ted Wilson who is diametrically opposed to the inroads of Darwinian evolution into our Adventist schools?

      My suspicion is that the real reason for this controversy is not the name, but rather finances. Tell me if I am wrong. Is it possible that what the GC is afraid of is that other Adventists groups and churches might stop sending their tithes and offering to the GC coffers? Can this be the real reason for this lawsuit? My understanding is that this is already taking place in other countries like Brazil where there are many Adventist groups who have started doing this.

      My understanding is that you do accept the writings of Ellen White as inspired by God. Is this the case? Do you also share with the GC the 28 Fundamental beliefs or do you have a different set of beliefs?

      Do you agree with the GC on abortion? My personal disagreement with the GC centers on this issue. I do not see how my church did allow some Adventist hospitals to offer elective abortions to their patients with impunity and still claim to be God’s Remnant who keep God’s Commandments.

      The Adventist pioneers were pro-life and considered that abortion was a direct violation of the Sixth Commandment. Do you agree with me on this?

      I will continue to pray for your pastor and for Ted Wilson as swell. We need God’s blessing and guidance!

      Nic Samojluk

      • Hello Nic,

        Now that a small break has occurred in the media storm surrounding Pr. McGill’s arrest, I can take a moment to respond to your questions in more detail.

        – “My understanding is that you do accept the writings of Ellen White as inspired by God. Is this the case?”

        Yes, this is correct.

        – “Do you also share with the GC the 28 Fundamental beliefs or do you have a different set of beliefs?”

        While we can state our agreement with the original 1872 list of Adventist beliefs without modification or qualification, there are parts of the “28 Fundamentals” with which many of our members do not agree. For example, we do not generally hold the view that the Holy Spirit is a personal and sentient being in the same sense that the Father and the Son are.

        This is not a “test of fellowship” for us any more than it was in the early Adventist church; our members do generally share the same views on the topic, however. We have taken the early Adventist (and correct) position that the Bible alone is to be the creed and rule of faith. While we do have agreement via a common spirit on a variety of topics, we reject the idea of a set of “fundamental beliefs” as a test of one’s orthodoxy. As a separate church entirely, our relationship to the GC and its 28 Fundamentals is roughly the same as that between the Apostles and the creeds of the Sanhedrin – non-existent.

        – “Do you agree with the GC on abortion?”

        I am not aware of an official position being taken by the GC on abortion, but as we know from their official position on religious liberty, the actions rarely match the words regardless. Our clinics do not endorse, much less offer, abortion. We would consider elective abortion to be equivalent to a violation of the Sixth Commandment.

        – “The Adventist pioneers were pro-life and considered that abortion was a direct violation of the Sixth Commandment. Do you agree with me on this?”

        I have not read anything that would indicate that abortion was a current issue in the days of the pioneers. As such, I am unaware of their having taken a stated position one way or the other.

        If you are saying that the Adventist pioneers would have reasoned thus were the issue presented in their day, I can agree with that, yes. I would classify this as similar to whether the authors of Scripture were anti-smoking; while the specific was not mentioned (due to not existing yet), the principles are clear enough. Of course, if you have some research showing that the pioneers did consider and take a stance on abortion, I am willing to be educated.

        I think this addressed all of your questions; if I’ve missed any, please let me know.

        Sincerely,

        – Lucan Chartier

      • Dear brother in Christ,

        Thanks for answering my questions. I asked them out of curiosity and not to determine your orthodoxy. I am of the opinion that orthopraxy is a better method of determining the Christianity of a person than orthodoxy.

        The Holy Spirit. It seems like you share my views about the identity of the Holy Spirit. I believe that our Adventist pioneers were closer to the truth on this issue than the current views of most Adventists. The Trinity seems to have been a Catholic dogma which the church borrowed from paganism.

        Eusebius, who had access to the original manuscripts, did write that he had researched the topic and concluded that the text found in Matthew 28:19 did not include the Trinitarian formula. He cited said text on numerous occasions and said citations read “baptizing them in my name.”

        In Acts 2:38, Peter invites his hearers to baptize in the name of Jesus. You can look for all the texts found in the New Testament, and you will not find a single example of someone being baptized in the name of “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

        This seems to explain why Trinitarians were so determined to destroy older manuscripts. Entire libraries were burned to the ground as a result of this ill devised zeal. It is regrettable that Ellen White did not investigate this issue thoroughly.

        The Abortion Issue. Now, regarding the abortion issue, let me tell you that I spent many years and thousands of hour researching this subject, and my doctoral dissertation dealt precisely with this topic and I recently published my book about this issue. You can purchase the book at following site: http://lulu.com. You will need to type my name, Nic Samojluk, in the blank search space to access the book’s page.

        Let me cite the following from an article I posted on my web page which shows the views of the Adventist pioneers regarding this. I copied this from the article entitled “What Did Our Adventist Pioneers Say About Abortion?” You can find it at the top of this web site under the “Abortion History” category.

        “At that time, one of the most prolific spokesmen for the nascent Adventist movement was James White, the founder of the SDA publishing work and also president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Here is what he included in a book he published dealing with sexuality. One of the chapters written by E.P. Miller, M.D., has a section entitled “Abortion” where the practice of killing the unborn is condemned in the strongest possible terms:

        The Opinion Apparently Supported by James White:

        “Few are aware of the fearful extent to which this nefarious business, this worse than devilish practice, is carried on in all classes of society! Many a woman determines that she will not become a mother, and subjects herself to the vilest treatment, committing the basest crime to carry out her purpose. And many a man, who has as many children as he can support, instead of restraining his passions, aids in the destruction of the babes he has begotten. The sin lies at the door of both parents in equal measure; for the father, although he may not always aid in the murder, is always accessory to it, in that he induces, and sometimes even forces upon the mother the condition which he knows will lead to the commission of the crime.”[1]”

        You will also find there the opinion of Ellen White in black and white. The church has compromised with evil on this issue for the sake of profit. I teaches that elective abortions are wrong, yet it allowed many of its hospitals to offer abortions on demand with impunity. This is like Pilate who declared Jesus innocent of any crime, yet condemned him to death.

        If you are interested in this topic, I suggest that you take the time to read the article I recently published regarding this. Here is the link for it: “CAN WE RELY ON THE ELECTIVE ABORTION INFORMATION COMING FROM THE GENERAL CONFERENCE?”

        https://adventlife.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/can-we-rely-on-the-elective-abortion-information-coming-from-the-general-conference-by-nic-samojluk/
        The General Conference. My attitude towards the General Conference and the Adventist leaders is slightly different from your probably. I pray for Ted Wilson twice a day, and now I am also praying for Pastor McGill. I still hope that the Lord will lead his people to repentance and forgiveness.

        May the Lord bless all of us!

      • Hi Nic,

        I seem to be having some problems with posting at the moment; as such, this may appear as a new comment as opposed to replying in-line to your last.

        Thank you for the references; I was entirely unaware that any of the early Adventists had taken a position on abortion, or that it was even practiced commonly in their day. That was certainly educational.

        As far as the Spirit and Mrs. White, it is actually our understanding that she shared the view of other early pioneers. While some of her wording can be puzzling at first (i.e. “the Holy Spirit is a person”), there is question about what that term meant in her day. On the other hand, the Spirit is explicitly left out of certain descriptions of Heavenly counsels; such as Lucifer being “next to Christ” in position, and Christ being “the only being in all existence” that could enter into the counsels of the Father. It can be a lengthy study to be sure, but suffice to say that I think, from what you have said, that we have agreement on the matter.

        I am certain you are correct that our attitudes towards the General Conference and its leaders differ. As you have taken some time to share with me your area of expertise (i.e. abortion), this issue of the trademark and its implications for the church as a whole may be considered our “area of expertise;” we have been studying and publishing on it for over two decades. As such, I would ask you to consider our reasoning on the matter from the writings and see if you understand how we have come to our conclusions.

        The pioneer doctrine was that apostasy is not a call to leave the Church; with this, I think that we both can agree. While the Adventist church has done many and deplorable things over the years – much like Israel of old – this was a condition from which it could have repented. As such, praying for the leaders and working from within – as I understand you to be doing – would be the appropriate response were that the extent of the matter.

        What they also taught, however, was that there is a very specific time when a church in error seals its fate – “falls,” in other words. It was at this point and this point alone that the church cannot recover, and the faithful are, “invariably” as they put it, called out into a new body.

        That point is and was when the church not only fails to follow new light, but joins itself to the State and uses civil power to persecute. In this, they taught, the church “forms an image to the beast.” It is the same as happened to Judaism, to Catholicism, to Protestantism; when they went to the state for protection, they fell, and God called His people out into a new body.

        While we also pray for the leading men of the Conference, we do so knowing that they must repent individually, because corporately they have “unchurched themselves.” It is our belief that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is the remnant that was called out in response to the fall of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, and that we are now what the Seventh-day Adventist church was called to be.

        Of course, we have had to examine this position very carefully before taking it. Quotes from Mrs. White denouncing those who called the church “Babylon” in her day are easily found and often applied. Likewise her expectation of a Sunday law, and her prolific writing to that effect. These are all things we have given careful study to, and our conclusion is that the Seventh-day Adventist denomination has become “a sister to fallen Babylon,” an image to the beast, and is currently enforcing “the mark of his name” upon the small, but faithful, remnant.

        This comes as a “loud cry” to Adventists in particular, who expect a Sunday law in the far distance future to be the sign of the end. Our position is that prophecy is much further along than that, and we sorrow to see that many will be taken by that day unawares. I would expect you to have some questions about the validity of our position, and I would be happy to reason together with you regarding them.

        I pray you will give this matter due consideration; if we are correct, then to stay within the denomination is to take the mark in the hand. If we are incorrect, then we and our brethren are in opposition to God’s organized Church and on the road to perdition.

        Solemn prospects indeed.

    • Lucan,

      I want to clarify that the issue raised by my questioner has nothing to do with Shubert. My last contact with Mr. Shubert took place many years ago.

      Nic

      • Hi Nic,

        Re: Mr. Shubert, my point was that the wording – “church of mirrors,” “no church exists except Pastor McGill and his family” – was taken almost verbatim from Mr. Shubert’s website. Those accusations have appeared nowhere else to my knowledge. So, your questioner likely stumbled across his website and mistook it for the GC’s position.

        I apologize for not answering your other questions satisfactorily in this reply, but I have a rather urgent bit of news to inform you of. It appears that the denomination caught wind of the press release plans, and in an effort to prevent the arrest from gaining any publicity a watch was set for Pr. McGill’s arrival in the Loma Linda area. We do not yet know the details, only that Pastor McGill was arrested last evening around the onset of Sabbath and is currently being held in the San Bernardino County Detention Facility. This marks a dark and historic day in Seventh-day Adventism and our “free” country.

      • I’m sorry to hear that! Does this mean that the 2:00 PM Sunday meeting at the Loma Linda University Church will be cancelled? Was Pastor McGill expected to be the main speaker at said meeting?

      • Yes, unfortunately that is correct. Were we to continue with the press conference, any other members who surfaced would be risking arrest as well. Several media outlets have altered their plans and will be interviewing Pr. McGill in custody instead. I am rather disappointed that the plan at Loma Linda Church has been quashed, but all is safely within the Father’s hands. Pastor McGill has been fasting since Friday, and will continue to do so until his release.

  8. Lucan,

    Thanks for your response. We seem to agree that the Adventist Church has departed from the straight path and needs to repent and ask for forgiveness. You believe that the greatest sin of the church has been using the power of the government to persecute fellow believers and place your pastor in jail. My view is slightly different.

    Your pastor has been the object of persecution and is suffering; nevertheless, he is still alive. The thousands of innocent unborn babies who were killed inside our Adventist hospitals as a result of our church toleration of elective abortions with impunity are dead.

    Pastor McGill will be released from jail in 30 days; those aborted babies have no such hope. In my view, the slaughter of thousands of innocent human beings in our own Adventist hospitals for the sake of profit is much worse than persecution.

    Some Adventists like to quote Ellen White where she states that the church will not fail, forgetting other statements made by her like the following:

    “We must as a people arouse and cleanse the camp of Israel. Licentiousness, unlawful intimacy, and unholy practices are coming in among us in a large degree; and ministers who are handling sacred things are guilty of sin in this respect. They are coveting their neighbors’ wives, and the seventh commandment is broken. We are in danger of becoming a sister to fallen Babylon, of allowing our churches to become corrupted, and filled with every foul spirit, a cage for every unclean and hateful bird; and will we be clear unless we make decided movements to cure the existing evil?” {TSB 188.3}

    And we need to bear in mind that she wrote this at a time when abortion was condemned by the Adventist pioneers. Can you imagine what she would say today upon discovering that we Adventists have been profiting from the killing of innocent unborn babies?

    What option do Adventist pro-lifers have given this situation? First, we need to consider the fact that our compromise on abortion is rather a North American phenomenon. I am in close contact with Adventist leaders in Argentina, where I grew up and was baptized.

    Adventists there have not accepted abortions on demand, since abortion there is still illegal. Most of my tithes go there. I have also been sending some of my tithes and offerings to the Quiet Hour, which is an independent ministry.

    A friend of mine who lives in Germany has assured me that all the years he was in charge of the Adventist medical work in Europe, Africa, and South America, abortion was forbidden in our Adventist hospitals.

    My hope and my prayer is that when the abortion issue is brought up at a future General Conference session, the representatives from the rest of the world will vote to do away with abortion in our medical institutions.

    In the mean time, I am doing what I can to persuade as many Adventists as I can that we need to get our of the abortion business. Ted Wilson told me in person that elective abortions in our Adventist hospitals are down to almost zero. After watching the Patricia Moleski video, the Adventist whistleblower, I wonder whether Wilson is well informed about what really is taking place in our medical institutions.

    If you have not watched said video, I would encourage you to do that. Here is the link: CAN WE RELY ON THE ELECTIVE ABORTION INFORMATION COMING FROM THE GENERAL CONFERENCE?

    https://adventlife.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/can-we-rely-on-the-elective-abortion-information-coming-from-the-general-conference-by-nic-samojluk/

    • Hi Nic,

      I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. Things have been very busy on my end, especially as I’ve recently been notified of a warrant for my arrest. I am planning to turn myself in next week at Loma Linda as a result, following (or perhaps during, at the GC’s behest) a short press conference.

      I think that we are encountering a misunderstanding here regarding the discussion. I am not implying anything about “greatest sins,” nor that the arrest of Pr. McGill or myself are the focal point. Obviously if we are a separate church, something must have happened before our arrests to initiate that separation.

      What I am saying is that there is a specific sin – not a “greater magnitude” of sin – that causes a church in error to fall beyond repentance, and the faithful to be told to “come out of her, my people.” This happened to Judaism, and it happened to Romanism. It was not because Judaism had not done “worse sins” beforehand; would you say a single crucifixion is worse than, for example, so many of the nation in abject idolatry that Elijah thought he was the only one faithful? The Jewish church murdered thousands and yet it was still the people of God, called to repentance. We are not calling the SDA organization to repentance, because we believe that – like the Roman church – it is no longer capable of repentance on a corporate scale. In essence, her probation is closed.

      This is what our pioneers taught on the matter:

      “. . 3. Why did Babylon fall? Ans. Because of rejecting Christ and committing fornication with the kings of the earth.
      . . 14. What was the next inevitable step for Babylon to take? Ans. The church turned from the Lord and sought power of the state. She left her lawful spouse and committed fornication with the kings of the earth. Compare 2 Cor. 11:2 with Rev. 14:8; 17:2. This was the last step in her separation from Christ. Out of this came persecution of those who did not subscribe to her creed.” [First Quarter Sabbath School, Lesson VI, February 8, 1896]

      “When the early church departed from God and imbibed pagan errors, she became Babylon. When she united with the state, she fell, and, as an organization, was the body of Christ no longer. While the Reformation churches held fast to the word, Christ was with them. Then they crystallized their various errors into creeds and endeavored thus to confine God’s word, they made themselves daughters of Babylon. When some of them united with the state, they fell, and God had to use other people, called out of Babylon to carry forward His work. Now among these very churches which came out of the second Babylon, confusion reigns; and now great Babylon, including later daughters, is in adulterous union with the kings of earth , and is endeavoring to make that union stronger. God calls no church Babylon which holds to His word, and follows the light that shines from it, even though there are in its membership many who do not know Christ When the controlling influence of a church is downward, it erects some other standard besides God’s word.” [First Quarter Sabbath School, Lesson IX, February 29, 1896]

      “It has ever been true that a backslidden body, one that has turned from God’s word to men, from God’s power to the state, was never reformed in itself. Invariably God’s message has called out those from the fallen church who would do His will and preach His gospel. Israel went down to Egypt for help, and their captivity and loss of power followed. Out of the captives God gathered a faithful band to do His work. The Jewish church failed, and God called out the apostolic church to do His bidding. The Roman Church failed, and out of it God called the churches of the Reformation. Some of these churches failed to advance, and God called out others to bear His gospel to the world such as the Baptist, Methodist, Congregationalist, Disciple, Adventists. His last ‘called-out’ people will know no standard but His word, no power but His Spirit.” [First Quarter Sabbath School, Lesson X, March 7, 1896]

      You see, it is not about “which sin is worse.” It is not a competition between persecution and abortion. It is simply this: There is a condition called “Babylon,” and there is a condition called “Babylon Fallen.” The church may recover from Babylon, and abortion is a sure sign of the church’s descent into that dread condition. Yet, as you imply, a church can repent of Babylon and be saved.

      The church cannot be saved from Babylon fallen. And what is the sign of this? “Fornication with the kings of the earth.” Reading further:

      “When the State shall enforce the decrees and sustain the institutions of the church, then will Protestant America have formed an image of the Papacy” [ST Nov. 8, 1899]

      “The “image to the beast” represents that form of apostate Protestantism which will be developed when the Protestant churches shall seek the aid of the civil power for the enforcement of their dogmas.” [GC 445]

      “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 dogmas by the civil power, by confiscation, 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 Readings for the Home, 1951, p. 236]

      “Virtually Caiaphas was no high priest. He wore the priestly robes, but he had no vital connection with God. He was uncircumcised in heart. With the other priests he instructed the people to choose Barabbas instead of Christ. They cried out for the crucifixion of Christ and, as representatives of the Jewish nation, placed themselves under the Roman jurisdiction, which they despised, by saying, “We have no king but Caesar.” When they said this, they unchurched themselves.” [12MR 388]

      I hope that you are beginning to understand our position. The issue is not one of “magnitude,” for there is no sin that cannot be forgiven, no matter how terrible. But there is a point from which an organization cannot repent; where they have gone beyond the point that they can be reformed, and the people of God must come out of her and into the place where God is calling his elect. Murder, however terrible, is not the point from which an organization canot return – you yourself must believe this, because you are trying to initiate repentance. What is the point, then? What makes Adventism worthy of reformation from within, but other Protestant church worthy of a call out and into the true church?

      The point “of no return” is when they reject Christ so thoroughly, so completely, that they take another husband – the civil government. This was “Adventism 101” for our pioneers, and the only reason it is not still taught is because of what it necessarily means for the Adventist church today. I trust that you are understanding me clearly; I am not diminishing the issue of abortion, but pointing out that there is another sin which causes a church to fall, and the faithful to be reorganized. It is our position that this has taken place, and therefore any efforts to reform it from within are as futile as an attempt to reform Judaism from within. They have “unchurched themselves,” and God has called His Bride “by another name.”

      • Lucan,

        This news makes me very sad. The lack of mercy evidenced by the actions of our Adventist leaders is very painful to watch. My view is that the parable of the two debtors applies here. The man who put in jail his fellow man because he owed him a small sum of money had all the legal right to do what he did, but Jesus condemned his action because he failed to show mercy. The Lord may be silent for a while, but sooner or later he will Act.

        I understand why you feel that the Adventist Church is beyond redemption. I happen to differ for the following reason: The wrong policies of the church behind this persecution of your organization and the killing of unborn children in Adventist hospitals have never been voted by the church in a general conference session where the entire world is duly represented.

        The Adventist “Guidelines on Abortion” which opened the door for elective abortions In our Adventist hospitals, for example, have never been submitted to the vote of the church representatives of all the world in a general session of the church. I know for a fact that Adventists outside of the U.S. tend to be pro-life as a rule. My contacts with Adventist leaders outside the U.S. show evidence of this.

        This is why I hesitate to identify the Adventist with Babylon. The day the representatives from all the world in a general session give their stamp of approval to said wrong policies, then I will have a good reason to call Adventists out of Babylon. In the meantime, I will continue to pray more earnestly for both Ted Wilson, Walter McGill, and for Lucan Chartier.

        I understand the reasons you feel that you do have a moral right to the “Adventist” name. Nevertheless, do you think that it would be a great sin for you to adopt an alternative name like “Creation & Sabbath Christian Church” or “Creation & Sabbath Remnant Church”? Jesus had an absolute right to be crowned as the King of the Jews and thus sit on the throne of his father David as predicted, but he chose not to contest said right.

        If Jesus did not insist on his rights to what belonged to him, why would it be sinful for you to follow his example? Do you believe that it would be a sign of rebellion against heaven to do this? I am just wondering!

        Originally, the name of my web site was “sdaforum.com,” When I learned that the Adventist Church was fighting in court over the SDA and the Adventist name, I switched to “letsfocusonlife.com,” and more recently to “adventlife.com.” Do you believe that I sinned in doing so?

        In a divorce case, is it wrong to yield some of your rights? Are you planning to appeal to the Supreme Court? Suppose you win on appeal, will it be worth the hassle?

        May the good Lord guide you in your decision!

      • Hi Nic,

        Thank you for your quick reply. Regarding the “official endorsement” you mentioned by the GC, I would point to what Mrs. White wrote in the above quote; the Jewish leaders, on behalf of the nation, said “We have no king but caesar.” It did not require a world council of Jewish authorities, nor a consultation and official document for them to “unchurch themselves.” Despite this, every last individual Jew (note Acts 2) was considered to have personally betrayed and crucified Christ. Note what Mrs. White says elsewere:

        “Thus by choosing a heathen ruler, the Jewish nation had withdrawn from the theocracy. They had rejected God as their king. Henceforth they had no deliverer. They had no king but Caesar. To this the priests and teachers had led the people. For this, with the fearful results that followed, they were responsible. A nation’s sin and a nation’s ruin were due to the religious leaders.” [DA 737]

        Now, who had done this? Every member of the nation? No, certainly not; we know specifically that Christ’s trial was at night, for fear of the overall church’s opinion. Even some of the Jewish leaders, like Nicodemus and Gamaliel, would have been opposed to Christ’s crucifixion and the use of Roman power. Nonetheless, the union of church and state was formed and God’s people were called out because of the actions of “the religious leaders.” It is precisely the same today; there is no difference. This is why we have taken the position that we have.

        Regarding the name and lawsuit, the case has already been appealed to the Supreme Court. A law firm in Washington DC offered to take the case pro bono on the merits that it was the kind of case the court would have an interest in. The Rutherford Institute filed an Amicus brief on our behalf. Unfortunately, the Court denied to hear the case without comment, effectively ending all appeals in the U.S.

        The issue of the name is rather different from Christ’s kingship; you have stated that Christ “had a right” to it. We are not contending for our rights, we are contending for our obedience. Had the God of Heaven said to Christ, “Go to earth and take the throne of the Jews,” it would have been disobedience and rebellion for Christ to not have done so.

        That is the situation we find ourselves in. God has given us a name; He has directly commanded us to use it. If we were to take another name, we would reject the instruction He has given and set up our own authority in place of His. We would be found violators of both the first and fourth commandments. Because we are not contending for our rights, but rather for God’s right to our service, yes – to replace God’s institution with one of our own devising would indeed be a sign of rebellion. It is the very spirit of the Papacy that seeks to replace God’s works with men’s (be it a day or a name), and we would be taking the mark of the beast in more ways than one.

        As far as your domain name, I am not aware of any requirement in Inspiration that every domain name must have the name of the Church. Since you are still a member of the denomination, I do find it odd they would require you to stop using it. Of course, given that every member of the denomination has been included as a plaintiff in the current lawsuit, I would consider that there are larger and more immediate questions of sin to worry about than your blog’s domain name. As far as the legal documents and books of Heaven are concerned, you are corporately guilty of our “crucifixion,” as it were.

  9. Lucan,

    Thanks for explaining your position. You believe that the peoples’ choice of Caesar over Jesus was the final straw that broke the camel’s back. We need to bear in mind that the decision to crucify Jesus was made by the Sanhedrin, and that the members of the Sanhedrin asked Pilate to sanction their decision to kill him. The Sanhedrin was the maximum authority of the Jewish nation.

    In our case, the maximum authority of the Adventist Church is not the General Conference but rather the General Conference in session composed of duly appointed representatives from the world. Said maximum authority was not involved in your case nor in the case of the abortion issue.

    In addition, you need to remember that the Lord did not reject his chosen nation following the first murder of God’s prophet. Many prophets were rejected and killed, but God patiently kept sending messengers to his rebellious people. The rejection of Jesus Christ was the last straw that broke the camel’s back and this was done under the decision of the highest Jewish authority: the Sanhedrin.

    I am praying for you and for Walter. By the way, is Pastor McGill still in the San Bernardino Jail? Do you know the visiting hours? Do you have the street address of the prison?

    God bless!

    • Hi Nic,

      Yes, Pr. McGill is still in the San Bernardino Co. Jail. He is in the central detention facility, and you may find the relevant address and booking information on this screenshot: http://www.pastorwalterchickmcgilllawsuit.net/PastorMcGillBooking.png

      Visiting hours are subject to scheduling, but visiting days are Wednesdays and Sundays. In order to book a visit you must call one day in advance (either Tuesday or Sabbath), and there are a limited number of visitation slots. What times are available is generally dependent on how early you call.

      On our current discussion, I don’t think we are saying entirely different things. For example, taking your first paragraph with the entities changed, they fit precisely:

      “We need to bear in mind that the decision to [jail Christians] was made by the [General Conference], and that the members of the [General Conference] asked [the government] to sanction their decision to [imprison them]. The [General Conference] was the maximum authority of the [SDA Church].”

      Now, you said in your next paragraph that this last part isn’t the case, saying that the G.C. “in session” is the maximum authority, as distinguished from the G.C. “not in session.” I don’t think there’s as much of a distinction here you’ve implied. The Sanhedrin in session was the highest authority in the Jewish church; random members of the Sanhedrin (which consisted of both Pharisees and Sadduccees) could not dictate new rulings for the church at their individual discretion. Again, this is precisely the same as the current situation as the current General Conference.

      Despite the fact that the Sanhedrin did not have an official meeting, drawing up a policy to ask Pilate to crucify Christ and say “we have no king but caesar,” their church was counted as guilty of the sin and they fell. Members of the Sanhedrin did this, as you have stated. Members of the General Conference have done what they have done.

      I really don’t see any basis in either Inspired text or the history to draw a distinction between the two, except, perhaps, that the Sanhedrin’s sin was one-time and happened under cover of nightfall. The trademark has happened several times over the course of 25 years and has been widely published and discussed. The Adventist church has an “official position” on the matter, linked on their very homepage. If a difference was to be made between the Jewish church joining to the state and the Adventist church joining to the state, it would simply be that the Adventist church is far more guilty, and far more willful as a whole in their rejection of God than the Sanhedrin were.

      If you really require “G.C. session documentation”, however, you will find via a search of the General Conference Committee minutes in 1983 the appointment of the “SDA Trademark Committee” in February. In the October minutes the official adoption of the guidelines took place, which included “Trademark committee and officers reconsider the situation for possible litigation.”

      So, yes – the General Conference “in session” has endorsed and laid out the policy for suing Adventists in the courts of the Second Beast if they do not comply with their demands. Further, adopted in the 1988 GCC Spring Meeting:

      “Approval from General Conference Officers shall be obtained prior to the implementation of any legal action.”

      Not only has the G.C. “officially” adopted a heaven-rejecting stance, duly appointed officers gave their approval for every litigation that has stemmed from it, including the sanctions and incarceration that has come from it, in both our own case and that of John Marik in 1989. It would be dishonest to react to this with the idea that the General Conference must meet in session to stipulate the details of every single lawsuit; they have agreed on the policies and appointed men, as representatives of the church, to take these actions. It is far more official than anything the Jewish leaders did, not less so.

      • Lucan,

        Thanks for your prompt response. I noticed, though that you did not include in your answer your reaction to my last comment.

        “In addition, you need to remember that the Lord did not reject his chosen nation following the first murder of a prophet. Many prophets were rejected and killed, but God patiently kept sending messengers to his rebellious people. The rejection of Jesus Christ was the last straw that broke the camel’s back and this was done under the decision of the highest Jewish authority: the Sanhedrin.”

        If God is consistent in his actions, and if God in fact chose the members of the Adventist Church as his representatives on earth, then why would he reject his people after only a couple of decades of persecution when he tolerated the rebellion of his chosen nation for centuries and the deaths of many of his prophets?

        Your case would have much more credibility and your argument would be much stronger if you were to use the killing of thousands of innocent unborn children in our Adventist hospitals, which represents a direct violation of one of God’s Commandments, as the main reason for God’s rejection of the Adventist Church!

        What do you think? As you can see, I am trying to help!

        God bless!

      • Hi Nic,

        I apologize for the oversight; I thought I had addressed that. Perhaps I am thinking of another post. In any event, I’ve said something like this before – it is entirely correct that God did not reject the Jewish church on the first persecution of a prophet, the first murder, the first hundred killings or thousand killings. What He did do – and this is why it is exactly an issue of consistency – is reject them when they rejected Him in favor of a heathen “husband,” fornicating with the civil power.

        This is not just an issue of “persecution;” it is an issue of “persecution with civil power.” This is not just “a corrupt woman;” it is “a corrupt woman riding on a beast.” It is not an issue of a “critical mass” of killings, or sins, or rejections. If it were, it would be up to our limited human judgment to decide when a church has gone too far and when it hasn’t. That is confusion, and God has not given us any such flimsy, undiscernable standard as that.

        What He has given us is what I’ve shared quotes demonstrating – that it is when the church unites to the state, when it uses civil power (not its own power) to persecute, it falls. This is the only time the church falls, and it happens invariably. If the church has not joined to the state, they are to repent. If the church has joined to the state, they have fallen, and the faithful are called out into a new body. This has happened today as it has happened every single time in religious history; there are no exceptions.

        This is not about “a couple decades of persecution;” it is about “a couple decades of having fallen through fornication with the kings of the earth.” You are looking at time elements; Inspiration says nothing of the sort. When a church joins to the state, it falls. This is the criteria, and it is an extremely simple one. The fact that the Jewish church lasted for centuries before joining to the state only increases the guilt of Adventism for doing the same. It does not in any way diminish it.

        While I think I may be able to appreciate your motive in “trying to help,” I do not think you are understanding what I am saying. We did not up and decide that the Adventist Church must be fallen, and then begin trying to find arguments to support that preconceived notion. That would be a dishonest and entirely antiChristian approach to the Scriptures, and anyone doing that is guilty of exactly what Mrs. White rebuked people in her day for; “weighing the church in their own human scales.” We let the Scriptures tell us what is truth; we do not try to make the Scriptures fit our view of truth.

        In this case, we researched extensively what the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy say about what does and does not cause a church to “fall,” what the term “fall” means, and how God directs His people in that event. We saw that this had plainly happened. God called us out as a church in response.

        We are not concerned with our argument having “credibility” or “our argument seeming stronger” – we are concerned with doing what God actually says. In truth, I do not know how adopting your idea of abortion as the sign of God’s rejection would be a “credible or strong argument,” since you’ve already pointed out that the Jewish church killed thousands and was not rejected. Obviously, then, murder – on whatever scale – is not the sign of rejection. Inspiration tells us exactly what the sign of rejection is, always has been, and always will be. We are content to let God’s Word supply our “argument,” and those who are willing to hear it will hear it.

      • Lucan,

        After reading your response, I realize that you did address this on a previous posting. Thanks for taking the time to go over the details of your reasoning one more time. I do understand your position now with more clarity; nevertheless, I still believe that your argument needs some strengthening to be accepted by those Adventists who sympathize with your predicament.

        You believe that the number of victims is rather irrelevant, and that the unpardonable sin resides in the decision to seek the power of the government to enforce the law against the persecuted. I understand your reasoning, but I am having a hard time accepting it at face value. How can the jailing of one man be more offensive to God than the deaths of thousands of innocent unborn babies in Adventist hospitals?

        The unjust death of Jesus Christ was the culmination of similar treatment of God’s prophets throughout centuries of rebellion by God’s chosen people. How can the jailing of one man be equivalent to the unpardonable sin? The punishment of the German nation during the World War II was commensurate to the atrocities Hitler committed against six million innocent human beings. Had he simply unjustly incarcerated a single man, the punishment would not have approached such gigantic proportions. God is fair and reasonable and we must be likewise be reasonable.

        In the Old Testament we had the power of the king and the power of the priests. When prophets were persecuted and killed, it was often because the priests sided with the king and wanted him to enforce their wishes against those they considered to be enemies of the church and the state. I do not think that there was a fundamental difference between the treatment of Jesus Christ and the way the prophets were treated in Old Testament times.

        I have been praying for you and for Pastor McGill, and I am convinced that if you were to use the church’s compromise with evil regarding the abortion issue, this would greatly strengthen your moral case against the church. Using the power of the government to enforce the dogmas of the church is wrong, but killing innocent babies for the sake of profit is morally ten thousand times more abhorrent in the sight of God, I believe.

        We need to pray more earnestly for the Lord’s guidance on this!

      • Hi Nic,

        I understand that to the eyes of flesh, it is hard to see the gravity of the issue. This has always been the case; the things that are important to God are not often the things that the world views as being the most morally outrageous. When Christ was crucified, it was but one man on a cross with a few dozen witnesses. It was a relatively minor event, yet it was the most significant one in spiritual history.

        The problem is that you are looking for what offends your sensibilities most, and then concluding that God’s sensibilities must be the same. It is not a matter of what God finds “most offensive,” it is a matter of the plainly written and oft-demonstrated principle. It goes back to the very first laws God gave to mankind:

        “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house.

        And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s [wife].And [if] the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth [it] in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her [to be] his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that [is] abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.” (Deut. 24:1-4)

        I hope that you are beginning to see the issue. It is not a matter of what God finds “more offensive;” Inspiration, in fact, tells us that the “very worst type of hostility against God” is doing nothing in a religious crisis. It is the issue of what we have been plainly told over and over again in Inspired history – when a church joins to the state, it falls.

        The reason for this is according to the verses above. God will bear long with a wayward and adulterous bride, calling her to come back to Him. You will note that wickedness and even fornication is only grounds for divorce; it does not require it.

        Yet when an adulterous bride leaves her husband and joins to another man, she can never return to her first husband. The matter is sealed; it is finished. It is “the final step in her rejection of Christ,” as the pioneers put it. By joining to the state, the church rejects Christ and takes another husband. From this point, she can never as an organization recover. She can never return to her first husband.

        This is what has happened every time the church has joined to the state, and while I understand it is not as “morally repulsive at face value” as other sins, I trust you are willing to consider the various and explicitly plain writings to this effect. This is not “our reasoning;” it is the plain testimony, and we have simply followed it.

        Regarding the Old Testament, I do not know of an example of what you are proposing offhand. In any event, even had it occurred that way, the fact that Israel was a theocracy made it a very different matter than it otherwise would have been. It was not a divorcing of Christ and marriage to a secular government, because the king of Israel was himself intended to be a representative of God’s throne. When the Jews *did* finally join to a secular state, the Sabbath School study I quoted earlier described exactly what happened – Northern Israel was carried away, never to be seen again, and God called out a faithful remnant to carry the work forward.

        Regarding abortion, which I understand to be your “majoring point,” I will certainly and gladly concur that abortion is a sign of the church having departed into the condition of “Babylon,” or apostasy. Yet the church could repent of this sin; it is adultery, but it is not marrying another man. While in that condition, however – while in apostasy, while murdering en masse, etc. – when they seal their apostasy by taking another husband, the matter is over. The church has fallen, and the faithful are then called out.

        We are not attempting to “appeal to a wider audience” of Adventists. We are not men-pleasers. We are following the instructions of God as He has given them, and He has plainly stated the conditions upon which a church irrevocably falls. Now, if you wished to join with us and add abortion to the large list of abominations that lead to their fall, I would not object. Elective abortion is certainly a terrible sin to promote and advocate. Nonetheless, it is not the sign of a fallen church. That sign has been described over and over again in Inspiration, and it would be arrogance of the highest order if we were to take it upon ourselves to redefine that which God has seen fit to plainly declare.

        Incidentally, I may not be able to reply for some time to your responses from this point on; I am turning myself in tomorrow evening, and will obviously not have internet access until I am released. If you need anything before that time, either answers or information, I am directing you to Bro. David Aguilar. He may be reached via email at flyingcreature(at)hotmail(dot)com.

      • Lucan,

        Thanks again for explaining your position on this matter. Your explanation is crystal clear, and well organized. Nevertheless, I must say that I detect a couple of weak point in your reasoning. I do realize that you probably will not read my response until the day you regain your freedom.

        You cited a text found in Deut. 24:1-4. I believe that said text is no longer applicable because when this was written polygamy was practiced by God’s people with impunity. It’s like God’s order to stone adulterers and Sabbath breakers. Jesus refused to honor such Old Testament laws when the Pharisees brought to him a woman guilty of adultery.

        Second, when Ellen White wrote the warning that the Adventist Church was in danger of becoming a “sister to Babylon,” the reason she listed was adultery which was being infiltrated into the church. The connection between adultery and abortion is well recognized by everybody. The sexual revolution of the Sixties was followed by the legalization of abortion in the Seventies.

        My suspicion is that, if Ellen were alive today, she would probably warn that the Adventist Church has already become a sister to Babylon based on the fact that our church did compromise with evil by profiting from the killing of the unborn. If you think this through, you will probably realize that when the Adventist Church decided to profit from abortion, she was using government power to do so with impunity.

        The only difference between using the support of the government to persecute and imprison a doctrinal dissenter and using the legal support of the state for the killing of innocent human beings lies in the gravity of the evil deed. In one case a man or two are deprived of their freedom, in the other case thousands of innocent individuals are deprived of their life. In both cases, this evil is accomplished with the support of the civil power. The only difference is the magnitude of the evil in the case of abortion.

        As you can see, I am trying to strengthen your case against the Adventist Church. Both the persecution of doctrinal dissenters and the killing of innocent human beings are wrong, and in both cases the church is using the power of the state to accomplish their objective.

        I do not believe that the Adventist Church is beyond redemption. King Ahab had sold himself to do evil, yet when he repented and covered himself with ashes, the Lord had compassion on him. The same can be said about King Nebuchadnezzar. Paul stated that even Israel could be eventually grafted back in by God following repentance. This is why I pray daily for Ted Wilson and the Adventist Church.

        May the good Lord bless you and guide you in your desire to serve him!

        Nic Samojluk

      • vision leading to the fall of Babylon and the call to “come out of Her, My people,” was not limited to individuals IN the church committing adultery, but rather a wholesale demonstration of unfaithfulness to the Son, the Bridegroom.

        “My suspicion is that, if Ellen were alive today, she would probably warn that the Adventist Church has already become a sister to Babylon based on the fact that our church did compromise with evil by profiting from the killing of the unborn. If you think this through, you will probably realize that when the Adventist Church decided to profit from abortion, she was using government power to do so with impunity.”

        As Bro. Luke said in a previous post, abortion is a terrible evil, and would never have appeared in the SDA Church if it had not fallen short of God’s commands. It is, indeed, the sign of a Babylonian and wicked system. But what does the Bible say happens to a fallen Body? Does it say – in any one place – that we are to continue to work it from the inside in the hope of revival? I do not find any such place. Rather, I find that when a church, in unity with the state, begins o persecute Christians, the Voice of the Spirit always leads reformation. This is different, and much more drastic, than revival. It is not re-introducing life to a dead body, it is re-forming the faith in a new Body. That is the only consistent pattern found in the Word relating to this present emergency.

        “ In one case a man or two are deprived of their freedom, in the other case thousands of innocent individuals are deprived of their life. In both cases, this evil is accomplished with the support of the civil power. The only difference is the magnitude of the evil in the case of abortion.”

        In the days of Christ, the Romans were committing great political and spiritual evil. Some of the Jews, outraged at their behavior, became what the Scriptures call “Zealots,” such as the individual called “Simon” in Luke 6:15. They lashed out against the evils of the corrupt empire, the freedom taken away from the innocent, the lives lost, the sacred things of the Hebrews desecrated.

        Meanwhile, right under their noses, a single man was crucified. Now, to the carnal judgment of the zealots, it seemed that this was just “one more execution,” and even if it was evil, it was orders of “magnitude” less than what THEY were called to protest, ostensively by God Himself. The problem is, they failed to recognize the Messsiah, and likewise I say to you… you are failing to recognize the Messiah being “crucified afresh” in His people. You believe that the thousands being slain due to abortion is the greater crime, but it is not.

        Had there been no abortion, those individuals would have survived, grown up, and have been condemned to the lake of fire, because the CSDA Church, which teaches the Gospel, has had its “man or two” teaching the truth in the United States silenced by the second beast of Revelation in conjunction with the fallen Adventist Church. Which is the greater sorrow? The entire WORLD will be lost if it does not heed the Gospel message, just as have all who have failed to recognize, and accept, the testimony of that one man who hung on the cross for a couple of days.

        Here is the problem: Until you accept the testimony of the CSDA Church’s messengers, you will never be able to agree with us. You will see us as a mere “offshoot” of the mainstream Church, rather than THE voice of Christ through His people on the earth. Murder (of which abortion is an insidious species) is a terrible wrong, we agree with you there… but Yahweh the Almighty has called us to protest the work of the Enemy in seeking to silence the Gospel, which involves not the first death, but the second.

        In Ellen White’s day, there were many well-intentioned Christians protesting racism. Racism is a terrible evil, but due to their focus on that issue, many souls were lost. In Christ’s day, there were many well-intentioned Jews protesting the corruption of Rome. Corruption in the empire was a terrible evil, but due to their focus on that issue, many souls were lost. In our day, you and other well-intentioned Christians are protesting abortion. Abortion is a terrible evil, but due to your focus on that issue, swatting at the “leaves” of the problem rather than laying the axe to the ROOT of the sinful tree, souls will be lost. I urge you to reconsider your priorities, and to have your eyes opened to the real importance of what it means that “a man or two” has lost his freedom in the United States for being a faithful Adventist. If you do not, you will discover – too late – that you will have saved not one life from abortion, and neither one soul from hell.

        “I do not believe that the Adventist Church is beyond redemption. King Ahab had sold himself to do evil, yet when he repented and covered himself with ashes, the Lord had compassion on him. The same can be said about King Nebuchadnezzar. Paul stated that even Israel could be eventually grafted back in by God following repentance. This is why I pray daily for Ted Wilson and the Adventist Church.”

        Ahab and Nebuchadnezzar were both redeemed as individuals. Their kingdoms, which they led into sin, were lost. Consider this carefully, I pray. Take wisdom from your own words. Ted Wilson himself may, through the miracle of grace, repent and be saved… but just as in the examples you yourself have cited, their kingdoms will be lost, as will any who remain in Jerusalem as it burns to the ground. Babylon is fallen, and she, her daughters, and her SISTERS will all share the same fate. (Ezekiel 23) Yahweh has told us to “come out of her,” and I sincerely hope you will be obedient to the voice of His Spirit.

        Your servant in Christ,
        David.

      • David,

        Thanks for taking the time to respond to the email I sent to Lucan. From my exchange of views with Lucan, I get the impression that we probably agree on many doctrinal issues. Of course, my knowledge of your doctrinal positions is rather limited. We seem to have similar views about the pagan origin of the Trinity dogma, and our views about Ellen White’s warning that the Adventist Church was in danger of becoming a “sister to Babylon” do not differ significantly.

        You believe that this represents an accomplished fact already, while I am not so sure about this. We also agree on the emphasis you place on the doctrine of creation as evidenced by the name you have chosen for your church. I am not familiar with your position on other Christian beliefs.

        I joined the SDA Church nearly seven decades ago in the country of Argentina at a time when the entire Adventist Church was still pro-life. I am faithful to said pro-life church, and I have evidence that most of Adventism in the world outside North America is still pro-life.

        I am in touch with Adventist leaders outside the U.S. and they tell me that this seems to be case. Besides, our current Adventist “Guidelines on Abortion” have never been voted by the church in a General Conference session where delegates from the world church are present. And we need to consider the fact that out of 17 million Adventists, only one million live in the U.S.

        You believe that I need to leave the SDA Church? Why should I? The church in Argentina where I joined the Adventist community of faith is still pro-life, and I am sending most of my tithes there and my offering to pro-life independent ministries. Besides, most of Adventists outside the U.S. are still pro-life and they have no knowledge of the fact that your church is being persecuted.

        Some years ago, when I didn’t know all these facts, I went in search of the Remnant Church which kept all of God’s Commandments, but I didn’t find it. For three months I worshipped with the Seventh Day Baptist Church in Riverside, California, until I discovered that said organization was not pro-life. Then I discovered that most of God’s Remnant were outside the U.S. and I came back to the SDA Church.

        You asked the following question:

        “WHICH Church that has ever rejected Christ, and gone to the power of the world, has ever returned to Him?”

        My answer is: If your assumption is correct, then why did Jesus take the trouble of asking most of the seven churches alluded to in the book of Revelation to repent. If repentance is not available to organizations, but only to individual members, then Jesus’ invitation to those seven churches to repent was wasted. Israel of old did rebel and apostatized more than once, and the Lord accepted them back when they repented and asked for forgiveness. Read the story of Moses, Samuel, and Daniel’s prayer for God’s forgiveness on behalf of a rebellious nation.

        You wrote:

        “But what does the Bible say happens to a fallen Body? Does it say – in any one place – that we are to continue to work it.

        Read the story of Prophet Jeremiah. His people had rebelled against the Lord. Did he leave them? Did not God ask Moses to stop aside so that the Lord could destroy the rebellious children of Israel in the desert, but Moses interceded for them and God relented of his wrath? Read the story of the Judges, Samuel, and Daniel.

        You said:

        “This is different, and much more drastic, than revival. It is not re-introducing life to a dead body, it is re-forming the faith in a new Body. That is the only consistent pattern found in the Word relating to this present emergency.”

        Here is the answer from the Bible: Read the miraculous resurrection of the dead people in the valley of the dry bones in Ezekiel 37. You can’t set aside all this illustrations of God’s mercy toward an idolatrous and rebellious nation which God tolerated for many centuries.

        You also wrote:

        “Until you accept the testimony of the CSDA Church’s messengers, you will never be able to agree with us.”

        I do agree with you on many things which I have alluded to above. You claim to be the Remnant. I do not have enough knowledge of your doctrinal views to make a judgment. You might be the Remnant, but you are most likely a part of the Remnant. I no longer believe that any human organization is the Remnant. I believe that the Remnant is composed of all those who are living according to all the light they have received.

        You stated:

        “Abortion is a terrible evil, but due to your focus on that issue, swatting at the “leaves” of the problem rather than laying the axe to the ROOT of the sinful tree, souls will be lost.”

        The root of the problem is sin and rebellion against the will of God, and God’s will is revealed in his Law, and one of the precepts we find at the heart of said Law is the value of human life which is being disregarded by the U.S. and by the Adventist Church. No amount of human reasoning will convince me that the persecution of a small group of believers will offend the Lord more than the persecution and death decree against 55 million innocent human beings.

        Jesus made it very clear that our eternal destiny will be contingent on how we treat “the least of these.” No group of human beings deserve the “least of these” label more than the unborn. The Lord has given me this mission and I have no plans to abandon this sacred work the Lord has given me. Yesterday I read what Billy Graham wrote about this issue:

        “CHARLOTTE, North Carolina, July 27, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a public letter, famed evangelist Billy Graham wonders whether America could be facing a punishment comparable to Sodom and Gomorrah if the nation fails to repent of its moral degradation, including the 50 million legal abortions committed since Roe v. Wade.”

        “Billy Graham: If God smote Sodom, what does that mean for an America that aborts millions?”

        http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/billy-graham-if-god-smote-sodom-what-does-that-mean-for-an-america-that-abo?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter

        You said:

        “I urge you to reconsider your priorities”

        Many people have been trying to convince me that I should abandon the mission the Lord has placed on my shoulders without success. If the Lord wants me to do this, he will speak to me through the evidence found in Scripture. As I read the Bible, I find that what the Lord abhors the most is violence against the weak, the innocent, and the unprotected. This applies with force to the unborn. We Adventist have been worried about the death decree against the innocents, but we fail to see that the death decree was issued against the innocents back in 1973 when abortion was legalized.

        You argued as follows:

        “Ahab and Nebuchadnezzar were both redeemed as individuals. Their kingdoms, which they led into sin, were lost.”

        When King Nebuchadnezzar repented, he issued an order requiring that everybody worship the God of Daniel and his companions. His kingdom was saved for many years. It was later lost, but this took place after his death.

        May the good Lord bless you and me in our desire to serve him!

        Nic Samojluk

  10. My apologies. It seems my comment was too long to be posted in full. I will post the first part below:

    Hello Nic,

    Since Lucan is currently making plans to turn himself in, and will be “out of commission” for at least 10 days, he has asked me to post a reply to this latest addition of yours instead.

    I’ve gone back and read some of the postings in preparation for that, but if I do go over something that you and Luke have already covered, I ask for your patience.

    I think the best plan would be for me to simply go over your post and submit responses, thus:

    You wrote: “You cited a text found in Deut. 24:1-4. I believe that said text is no longer applicable because when this was written polygamy was practiced by God’s people with impunity. It’s like God’s order to stone adulterers and Sabbath breakers. Jesus refused to honor such Old Testament laws when the Pharisees brought to him a woman guilty of adultery.”

    Actually, while the specifics of Biblical laws are subject to the effects of time and dispensation, the principles are nevertheless eternal. We, as Adventists, accept that the Laws of God are everlasting, even though they may not apply (in the letter) to everyone who follows it. For example, the commandment against “adultery” is in the 10 Commandments, but while the law was and IS eternal and valid, it would not apply to Adam – or the angels for that matter – in the letter.

    Now, having said that, we do not agree – at all – that “Jesus refused to honor […] Old Testament Laws.” Christ’s ministry demonstrated a revision of the PENALTY for breaking those laws, the sentence now being deferred until the Day of All Judgment; but Adultery still results in “death,” which is the wages of any sin. The fact that the witnesses against the woman were at least as unjust as she, and therefore improper executors of the penalty, is another matter entirely. I would urge you not to assume that the GUILT for violating any of God’s least requirements is any less dire under the New Covenant.

    The idea that certain laws “no longer apply” is exactly the justification that the General Conference gives in pursuing lawsuits, and I am certain you do not want to be found under their banner on this matter.

    Essentially, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is – like every other law every written – is applicable at least in the spirit, if not in the letter, and as such is perfectly suited to the matter of Churches. If you do not accept this immediately, let me ask you: WHICH Church that has ever rejected Christ, and gone to the power of the world, has ever returned to Him? If you can cite a single example of this, we may have something to discuss on this matter… otherwise I trust you will concede that our application of that passage, spiritually, to the “Bride of Christ” is supported by both doctrinal and historical evidence. Not to mention Ellen White’s clear statements about the effects of a church uniting with the state. There’s no way around that.

    You wrote: “Second, when Ellen White wrote the warning that the Adventist Church was in danger of becoming a “sister to Babylon,” the reason she listed was adultery which was being infiltrated into the church. The connection between adultery and abortion is well recognized by everybody. The sexual revolution of the Sixties was followed by the legalization of abortion in the Seventies.”

    Again, you NEED to start thinking spiritually, my new friend. Literal adultery and spiritual adultery bear the same penalty. The SDA Church committed adultery with the “kings of the earth,” exactly as it is described in Revelation. Obviously, John’s vision leading to the fall of Babylon and the call to “come out of Her, My people,” was not limited to individuals IN the church committing adultery, but rather a wholesale demonstration of unfaithfulness to the Son, the Bridegroom.

    [it continues from this paragraph forward]

  11. Hello Nic,

    Since there is apparently a limit on post sizes, I will try to make this as brief as possible.

    Thank you for sharing information with me about yourself. We do seem to agree on some significant issues, but unfortunately not on some KEY ones that are relevant to both of our everlasting destinies. In accordance with the instructions of Scripture, I am happy to see that you are willing to “reason together” with us to see if we can come to agreement. Let me take some of our points of difference toward this goal:

    You wrote: “You believe that [the Adventist Church becoming “a sister to fallen Babylon”] represents an accomplished fact already, while I am not so sure about this.”

    We must be sure about this. Ellen White’s statement, written over a hundred years ago, was that if the camp was not cleansed, this would indeed happen. The camp was not cleansed, and the church has since followed the exact pattern the Scriptures lay out for becoming a fallen church, these being a) An incorporation of worldliness rendering them “Babylon,” b) a union with the state in this confused state, making their rejection of Christ permanent (this is very significant), c) the persecution of saints to openly reveal their dragon-like heart. From the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, there is nothing left that can possibly be stated to cement their position as an utterly fallen Church.

    You wrote: “You believe that I need to leave the SDA Church? Why should I? The church in Argentina where I joined the Adventist community of faith is still pro-life, and I am sending most of my tithes there and my offering to pro-life independent ministries. Besides, most of Adventists outside the U.S. are still pro-life and they have no knowledge of the fact that your church is being persecuted.”

    Why should you? A) Because individual congregations are just as responsible for the acts of the ruling body (see ALL of Acts chapter 2). B) Because you seem to think of the Church as something of a pro-life vehicle, when it is not. The heart of the Church is not now, nor was it ever, anything but the channel of the Gospel from God to the earth. If that channel is closed then it does not matter how much they agree with you on peripheral (important, but peripheral) issues, it is not the place where God has called His people to be. In other words, a Church that does not teach the Gospel with purity of doctrine IS no longer “the Church.” You would not be leaving the SDA Church, you would be leaving behind the fallen husk of what it was supposed to be. Being pro-life is not the question that Christ will ask of you when you stand before Him in judgment, nor was it the issue in question when Ellen White warned that the SDA Church would be “weighed in the balance, and found wanting.”

    You wrote: “Some years ago, when I didn’t know all these facts, I went in search of the Remnant Church which kept all of God’s Commandments, but I didn’t find it.”

    Now that you know more of the facts, the Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” I make a bold, but truthful statement here: We are that Church you have sought.

    You wrote, in regard to my question of WHICH Church, in the SDA’s current position, ever returned to God: “My answer is: If your assumption is correct, then why did Jesus take the trouble of asking most of the seven churches alluded to in the book of Revelation to repent. If repentance is not available to organizations, but only to individual members, then Jesus’ invitation to those seven churches to repent was wasted.”

    First of all, I hope you realize you did not answer the question, the correct answer for which would be, “None.” 🙂 Second, Christ’s appeals in Revelation were to Christian Churches, which were the active dispensation of grace at that time. During the writing of Revelation, several of those Churches were in a sinful condition, but they were not “fallen.” I think that if you read the Spirit of Prophecy with the intent of finding the difference between “Babylon” and “Babylon Fallen,” you will be able to verify that my “assumption” is indeed justified by the facts of this case and the revelation of the Spirit. But to return to my question, the answer was indeed, “None,” and I hope you will honestly contemplate what that means.

    You wrote: “Israel of old did rebel and apostatized more than once, and the Lord accepted them back when they repented and asked for forgiveness. Read the story of Moses, Samuel, and Daniel’s prayer for God’s forgiveness on behalf of a rebellious nation.”

    None of those returned to Him after they had passed the bounds of grace. What marks those bounds? Union with the world and persecution of the saints, as we have been saying, consistently, all along. It is not a matter of merely being rebellious, it is being rebellious and, in that state, being joined to the world. The Bible is 100% consistent on this – again, there are NO exceptions. A Church/state union has NEVER returned to faith.

    You wrote: “You can’t set aside all this illustrations of God’s mercy toward an idolatrous and rebellious nation which God tolerated for many centuries.”

    Nobody is setting those things aside; however, there IS a point at which mercy ceased to plead for a nation – you know this to be true. We are simply seeking to educate you as to what that point is, and there really isn’t any controversy about it. Adventists, who are explicitly TOLD what that point is, have no excuse for ignorance on this matter.

    You wrote: “I no longer believe that any human organization is the Remnant.”

    That is correct. The CSDA Church is not a human organization. This is the very reason WHY we are facing this controversy over the name of the Church; it is not ours to name or re-name. If you believe there is a possibility that we are indeed the remnant, do not let the opportunity to verify this pass you by!

    You wrote: “The root of the problem is sin and rebellion against the will of God, and God’s will is revealed in his Law, and one of the precepts we find at the heart of said Law is the value of human life…”

    It is certainly ONE of the precepts, but it is not the primary one.

    You wrote: “No amount of human reasoning will convince me that the persecution of a small group of believers will offend the Lord more than the persecution and death decree against 55 million innocent human beings.”

    This is because you are expecting “human reasoning.” All I can do is appeal to you to look at this situation spiritually rather than carnally, considering the second death rather than the first. The end of religious freedom on earth will condemn all human beings (both the born and unborn) to everlasting silence, and YOU have an opportunity to help us to stand against that. The question is, will you take it, or will you remain a self-sent messenger for the rest of your life? I ask that question to you in sincerity.

    You wrote: “Many people have been trying to convince me that I should abandon the mission the Lord has placed on my shoulders without success. If the Lord wants me to do this, he will speak to me through the evidence found in Scripture. As I read the Bible, I find that what the Lord abhors the most is violence against the weak, the innocent, and the unprotected. This applies with force to the unborn.”

    The Lord is speaking to you through the Scriptures, and through the testimony of His ministers. If you will not see it, that is not the same thing as having received no instructions to do so. What I have done is given you the Scriptures that speak about the actions of humans leading to the second death, and the suppression of the Gospel. If your focus will continue to be on this particular issue, you will (as I have said already) neither prevent the first nor the second death for anyone, and all your talents and time will have been terribly wasted.

    You wrote: “When King Nebuchadnezzar repented, he issued an order requiring that everybody worship the God of Daniel and his companions. His kingdom was saved for many years. It was later lost, but this took place after his death.”

    The reason why that does not apply to the SDA Church is because judgment has begun at the house of the Lord. Your argument is that God will give as much probationary time to the SDA Church as it did to a pagan kingdom from thousands of years ago. This is extremely contrary to what we know of God’s judgment, the narrowing-road, the increase of light shed upon believers, and the clear testimony of the Spirit of Prophecy regarding what makes a Church (not merely a human kingdom) a “fallen” institution. Furthermore, you chose only one of the several examples I gave in order to attempt to invalidate my point. I would suggest you take a second look at the principle revealed by all those examples, Babylon included.

    Yours in Christ,
    David.

    • David,

      Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments. It is evident that we do agree on certain important doctrinal issues, and I am glad that we do. You and I believe that the doctrine of creation is fundamental to the true Christian faith; we agree that the Sabbath is the sign of our allegiance to the Creator; we agree that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is at the center of our faith; we agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is of pagan origin and has no basis in Scripture.

      What else do we agree on? I don’t know! Do you have a list of your fundamental beliefs? Do you accept the rest of the FB’s of the Adventist Church? Which FB’s do you accept and which ones do you reject? My knowledge of your doctrinal beliefs is rather limited.

      Of course, we seem to disagree on some issues. You believe that the killing of innocent unborn children is a peripheral issue, while the persecution of doctrinal dissenters is destructive to the Gospel because the latter case involves a union of church and state, forgetting that the same is true in the case of abortion.

      In one case the church takes advantage of the ruling of a single judge to persecute a couple of dissenters, in the other one the church takes advantage of the ruling of nine Justices of the Supreme Court to profit from the killing of the unborn. In both cases there is a union of church and state to harm innocent people.

      You believe that each Adventist congregation in the entire world is responsible for the actions of the North American Division. This I cannot accept. The leaders in the rest of the world are not even aware of what is taking place in North America; how can they be morally responsible for what happens here? The Bible teaches that the children are not responsible for the sins of parents, yet you believe that 16 million Adventists who don’t know what is taking place in our Division are responsible for the sins of the leaders of one million.

      Even in the U.S. most Adventists believe that the Adventist Church is pro-life, and the former president of the General Conference publicly stated that this was the case with minor exceptions. This is why I spent many years researching this issue and sacrificed precious time and personal finances to produce a book which reveals this terrible deception. Without a proper warning, it would be unfair for the Lord to punish the worldwide Adventist Church.

      You claim to be the “Remnant” church with the last message to a perishing world. I am not denying this. I am suggesting, though, that most likely you are simply part of the Remnant. I do not believe that any earthly organization has the right to claim to be “the Remnant.” The most anybody can claim is to be part of the Remnant. God’s Remnant is made up of all those doing God’s will according the light they have received.

      You believe that the Adventist Church is beyond repentance and redemption. What the Bible tells me is that we are part of the last church of the book of Revelation: Laodicea. My question to you is: If the church is beyond repentance, then how come God is asking the church of Laodicea to repent?

      You think that when there is a union of church and state, there is no repentance possible. Paul used the power of the state and he was a persecutor yet he repented. Pagan Rome was a persecutor and repented. The Ninivites were the most fierce persecutors of God’s people, and they repented. Catholics persecuted the dissenters, but the Inquisition is no longer taking place. Protestants did engage in persecuting dissenters as well for a time. How can you claim that the union between church and state is permanent?

      You say that the Sixth Commandment is not the “primary” precept. You seem to be forgetting that said commandment prohibits the persecution of doctrinal dissenters as well. Jailing innocent people is merely one step short of taking their life as well. The main difference is that in one case a person is deprived of his freedom and in the other of life.

      You believe that I am a lone ranger. You are forgetting that there is a number of Adventists who are with me on this, that some have left the church but are still on the Lord’s side on this, and that thousands of evangelicals are also pro-life who are doing much more that what I have done, including a large number of Congressman determined to put an end to this modern genocide.

      Let me end with the following comments made by Billy Graham:

      Billy Graham: “If God Punished Sodom, What Will he do to America that Aborts Millions?”

      “CHARLOTTE, North Carolina, July 27, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a public letter, famed evangelist Billy Graham wonders whether America could be facing a punishment comparable to Sodom and Gomorrah if the nation fails to repent of its moral degradation, including the 50 million legal abortions committed since Roe v. Wade. …”

      Let’s do the Lord’s work the best way we can!

  12. Hi Nic,

    As much as I can appreciate our agreement on certain doctrinal issues, it is apparent (unfortunately) that you did not take the time to read, carefully, all I suggested you read.

    First, let us deal with where we have (or may have) agreement. While the CSDA Church does not have a “creed,” or set of fundamental beliefs, our baptismal certificate outlines our core beliefs in detail, pointing out the need for true conversion, which is an entire and total cessation from sin in the life of the believer in accordance with 1John 3:9 and other places. You can read our certificate’s text here:

    http://csda-adventistchurch.to/baptism.html

    There is also an old FAQ page on the website that outlines the specifics of our faith:

    http://www.csda-adventistchurch.to/Binary/studies/Questions.html

    You wrote: “Of course, we seem to disagree on some issues. You believe that the killing of innocent unborn children is a peripheral issue, while the persecution of doctrinal dissenters is destructive to the Gospel because the latter case involves a union of church and state, forgetting that the same is true in the case of abortion.”

    It is interesting to me how often, in your replies, that you accuse me of “forgetting” things. I assure you, there is nothing wrong with my memory. What I disregard and rebut, I do so deliberately, and keeping all you have said in mind.

    For example…

    I have not forgotten that it takes a union of Church and state to implement an abortion scheme. I, further, do not believe that the death of any human is a minor issue. I use the term “peripheral” in the sense that it is not the issue that we Christians – Biblically – have been specifically called to defend. Just because something is peripheral does not mean it is unimportant; for example, in a computer system, the monitor and keyboard are both considered “perhiperals” because they are not the core of the computer, these being the processors and memory. What this means is, we are certainly called to speak out on any issues of injustice and transgression, but we cannot be faithful to God if we neglect the “core” work: preaching the Gospel, resisting the image of the beast, etc., in the course of doing that. Hopefully this gives you a clearer view of my approach to your stand.

    You wrote, and this is the biggest issue at the moment in my mind: “You believe that each Adventist congregation in the entire world is responsible for the actions of the North American Division. This I cannot accept. The leaders in the rest of the world are not even aware of what is taking place in North America; how can they be morally responsible for what happens here? The Bible teaches that the children are not responsible for the sins of parents, yet you believe that 16 million Adventists who don’t know what is taking place in our Division are responsible for the sins of the leaders of one million.”

    Did you read Acts 2, as I suggested last time? It does not matter what you (or I) can accept. What matters is the direct declaration of Biblical principle. It is true that the children are not responsible, directly, for the “sins” of the parents, but a) they are almost always subject to the consequences of those sins, and b) the parent-child relationship does not apply to this situation as clearly as you think it does. Since you have not internalized what Peter the Apostle taught in Acts 2, let me outline it for you:

    1) The Sanhedrin turned over the Messiah for execution to the Romans, thus uniting with the state and, in the words of Ellen G. White, “unchurching” themselves.

    2) After Pentecost, Peter told the “devout Jews” who had come to Jerusalem for the feast that THEY, individually and collectively “crucified” the Lord of Life. I pray, fervently, that you do not ignore the parallels to the very factors you cite. Only one small, ruling, segment of the church accomplished the action. The “millions” outside of that little group “are not even aware” of that action. Nevertheless, because of the principles of spiritual headship and corporate responsibility – both supported in the Bible by a multitude of examples – yes, each individual, and each sub-group, WAS morally responsible for their actions.

    Why do you and I need a Savior? It is because ONE man, Adam, sinned, and passed down this legacy to everyone under his spiritual headship. Why has the SDA Church fallen, and I mean in terms of EVERY individual and congregation in the world? It is because ONE group, the General Conference, which is at the head of the work, has united with the state and is NO longer a Church. You are no longer a member of the SDA Church, for the organization to which you belong has “unchurched” itself, whether you knew about it or not.

    If you think, “That’s not really fair,” then what do you think the Jews who heard Peter’s speech in Acts 2 might have been tempted to feel? They had nothing to do with Christ’s death, and yet… yes, they were responsible. I believe it, because that is what the Bible teaches. I urge you to do the same.

    You wrote: “You claim to be the “Remnant” church with the last message to a perishing world. I am not denying this. I am suggesting, though, that most likely you are simply part of the Remnant. I do not believe that any earthly organization has the right to claim to be “the Remnant.” The most anybody can claim is to be part of the Remnant. God’s Remnant is made up of all those doing God’s will according the light they have received.”

    I can answer this very simply: That is not what the Bible teaches. You seem to have accepted (and I hope you accept this in the spirit with which it is offered) several corrupted doctrines and principles from the ecumenical and evangelistic movements within Sunday-keeping Christianity. The Church of Christ is ONE Church, with no divisions, schisms or differences of doctrine. The Bible says that the believers are one, to the degree that the Father and Son are one (John 17). Do you see that your view of what the “Remnant” is could not be more different from this picture of unity? Are you willing to re-examine your beliefs in light of what the Scriptures teach about the Remnant?

    You wrote, “You believe that the Adventist Church is beyond repentance and redemption. What the Bible tells me is that we are part of the last church of the book of Revelation: Laodicea. My question to you is: If the church is beyond repentance, then how come God is asking the church of Laodicea to repent?”

    God asked Laodicea to repent 2000 years ago. The last Church in the Book of Revelation is not the same thing as the last Church AGE in Revelation. Laodicea is the age, but the last Church, which arises FROM that age, is the Church of the 144,000, which all follow the Lamb perfectly. Are you willing to be a member of that number, who ALL follow the Lamb perfectly?
    You wrote, “You think that when there is a union of church and state, there is no repentance possible. Paul used the power of the state and he was a persecutor yet he repented. Pagan Rome was a persecutor and repented.”

    Neither of these are true. Saul used the power of the state, and he had to be re-born as Paul. He was an entirely new person, and when he did so, he had to leave his current organization and unite with the Church. This is precisely what I am asking you to do. Pagan Rome never repented of anything. It came under the leadership of a supposedly Christian emperor and became the Papacy. That’s hardly an improvement!

    “You say that the Sixth Commandment is not the “primary” precept. You seem to be forgetting that said commandment prohibits the persecution of doctrinal dissenters as well. Jailing innocent people is merely one step short of taking their life as well. The main difference is that in one case a person is deprived of his freedom and in the other of life.”

    Again, I have not forgotten anything here. What I am saying is that the jailing of those who teach the Gospel will cost more lives than killing the unborn. This is not something that the natural man can accept, because it is focused on the first death. The people of Yahweh are focused on the second.

    You wrote, “You believe that I am a lone ranger. You are forgetting that there is a number of Adventists who are with me on this, that some have left the church but are still on the Lord’s side on this, and that thousands of evangelicals are also pro-life who are doing much more that what I have done, including a large number of Congressman determined to put an end to this modern genocide.”

    I wouldn’t use the term “lone ranger.” I consider you an agent of a form of independent ministry that is expressely forbidden in both the Scriptures and Spirit of Prophecy. But that is not all that relevant to what we are talking about. Numbers do not prove anything. The CSDA Church is a very little flock, and yet we testify that we are the Remnant. It is not that I have “forgotten,” it is just that it doesn’t matter at all to what we are actually discussing.

    You wrote, “Let me end with the following comments made by Billy Graham:”

    Let me end with a comment from Jesus Christ, the Messiah: “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” (the end of the Gospel of Mark)

    David.

    • David,

      Thank you for your comments, but especially for the link to the Questions and Answers, which has given me a much clearer picture of the beliefs and teachings of your church. This has been a great help, for which reason I will limit my comments to a few details which are still not clear to me.

      A. Feast Keeping. I do understand why you have elected to keep some of the Jewish ceremonial feasts. Nevertheless, I believe that these are not mandatory, but rather optional. My evidence is based on the explanation Paul gave us when he said:

      “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.” [1 Cor. 9:20]

      In other words, he kept the Jewish festivals in order to gain Jewish converts. If the Jewish festivals were a requirement for Gentile converts, this would have been included in Acts 15.

      B. Corporate Accountability. Your argument about corporate accountability is biblical, but the way you apply to the entire worldwide Adventist Church seems to contradict a principle you cite from the writings of Ellen White:

      “The most important thing to remember when reading Mrs. White’s writings on the victory over sin is that she, like the Bible, places a line of distinction between deliberate (willful) sin and sins committed in ignorance or innocence.”

      http://www.csda-adventistchurch.to/Binary/studies/Questions.html

      We have 16 million Adventists outside the U.S. who know nothing about the persecution nor the existence of your church nor the compromise the church has made with evil regarding the killing of the unborn in Adventist hospitals.

      If there is a distinction between deliberate, or willful, sin and those sins resulting from ignorance, how can you blame those 16 million Adventists who are not persecuting your church nor are participating in the slaughter of the innocents.

      C. The Core of the Gospel. The heart of the Gospel for you seems to be “resisting the image of the beast.” My view is that the core of the Gospel is found in John 3:16: God’s love for human beings, and said love includes all human beings without excluding the unborn.

      Jesus stated that he came that we might have abundant life. How can the unborn—millions of them—have access to this abundant life if we cut their life before they have had a chance to take their first breath.

      The Gospel of Jesus Christ is good news for all human beings—including the unborn. The union of church and state is bad news for the faithful and the innocent.

      Resisting the image of the beast in your case has deprived two innocent man of their freedom; resisting the image of the beast in the case of abortion has deprived 55 million of life.

      D. The Remnant. You believe that the remnant is an organized church. When God told Elijah that there were seven thousand who had not bent their knees in front of Baal. These members of the remnant were not organized in a church or congregation; if they had been organized, Elijah would have known of their existence.

      E. Some Enigmatic Statements: I would like to finish with two enigmatic statements you made:

      A. “What I am saying is that the jailing of those who teach the Gospel will cost more lives than killing the unborn.”

      You want to explain this enigmatic statement you made? As I pointed above, the Gospel includes the right to life of those who are—not simply incarcerated—but rather killed. How many lives have been lost so far as a result of such incarceration?

      B. “I consider you an agent of a form of independent ministry that is expressly forbidden in both the Scriptures and Spirit of Prophecy.”

      Really? Do you mean that the Quiet Hour ministries have been sinning against heaven for the millions of lives which were blest thanks to their independent preaching of the Gospel?

      My sister started an independent ministry several decades ago in Argentina; today there is a lively church which resulted from such independent ministry.

      My cousin started an independent ministry in the Soviet Union during the Communist reign, and today there is a very active congregation in her town.

      In China there are thousands of independent ministries. Are all of them condemned in Scripture?

      Wishing you the best from a loving God!

  13. Hello Nic,

    I will be happy to answer your questions, and I will attempt to be as brief as possible.

    You wrote: “A. Feast Keeping. I do understand why you have elected to keep some of the Jewish ceremonial feasts. Nevertheless, I believe that these are not mandatory, but rather optional.”

    First of all, the phrase “Jewish ceremonial feasts” is incorrect. The feasts (mistranslated as “seasons” in Genesis 4) was instituted in Eden along with the Sabbath. The Creator gave all of mankind the “sun, and moon and stars” to mark out the feast-days, and did not limit the use of eyes and telescopes only to Jews. You are correct that they are not “mandatory” in the same way that the Sabbath is, nevertheless, they are vital to community, to growth, and sanctification. The Bible and Spirit of Prophecy are uniform in that teaching (and neither of us should be surprised about that).

    You wrote, “If the Jewish festivals were a requirement for Gentile converts, this would have been included in Acts 15.”

    Actually, after ironing out some specific points of contention, Acts 15 encourages the new converts to attend the Synagogues to learn of Moses’ teachings. Perhaps we may benefit from re-reading the entire passage you mention?

    You wrote, “B. Corporate Accountability. Your argument about corporate accountability is biblical, but the way you apply to the entire worldwide Adventist Church seems to contradict a principle you cite from the writings of Ellen White: ‘The most important thing to remember when reading Mrs. White’s writings on the victory over sin is that she, like the Bible, places a line of distinction between deliberate (willful) sin and sins committed in ignorance or innocence.’

    There is a line of distinction in terms of how and if those sins are atoned, but “the wages of sin is death.” There is no excuse for sin. The penalty for BOTH is the same, and one cannot claim ignorance – of course – after one has been TOLD about the sin. You cannot claim ignorance for the crime of the General Conference against the Throne of Heaven. Nor can you be held guiltless if you fail to warn others. (Eze 3, Ezek 18) There is absolutely no contradiction here and thus, if you can see that the doctrine IS Biblical, you will note that the Jews, who heard Peter’s speech, were “ignorant” of the Sanhedrin’s national transgression (leading to national ruin)… until Peter told them! Then they did not “become” guilty, but they “realized” that they had been guilty all along. In response, then they had to a) repent, b) come out of the fallen system, and c) be baptized into the Ecclesia. I am praying you will follow this Scriptural pattern.

    You wrote, “C. The Core of the Gospel. The heart of the Gospel for you seems to be “resisting the image of the beast.” My view is that the core of the Gospel is found in John 3:16: God’s love for human beings, and said love includes all human beings without excluding the unborn.”

    Adventists have been accused of making the Gospel into the Sabbath. Why? Because they have been called to point out where others are falling short. If the 7h commandment had been the one Satan caused people to ignore, we may well have been given the title, “Non-adulterous Adventists.” All of the Gospel is based upon love, but how that love is expressed must be in accordance with God’s definition, not ours. No one is “excluding the unborn.” Your view seems to be, “If I am not primarily focused on abortion, I am ignoring the problem.” I am not. What I am saying is, trying to “convince” an already-fallen Body not to support abortion is like trying to bail water out of a ship with holes. The ship is going to sink, no matter how fast you bail. What I am saying is that if we, together, teach people the Gospel (which is described for this last generation in Revelation 14 in the voice of ALL three angels’ messages, which certainly includes the issue of the mark of the beast), THEN we can make the difference our Father is requiring us to make. But we must teach “the everlasting Gospel” in its completeness: parts 1, 2 and 3.

    You wrote, “D. The Remnant. You believe that the remnant is an organized church. When God told Elijah that there were seven thousand who had not bent their knees in front of Baal. These members of the remnant were not organized in a church or congregation; if they had been organized, Elijah would have known of their existence.”

    Elijah proceeded to “gather” the stones to repair the altar of the Lord. His ministry was first to find out that there WERE a remnant, and then to restore the mode of worship that the Lord required. You are looking at the pre-Elijah situation in Israel and saying, “That’s how it is supposed to be.” No, no… Elisha’s ministry that followed, and the schools of the prophets, reveal that our Father, who is a God of order, has not suddenly changed His principles regarding ALL the guidelines given in the Old and New Testaments regarding how Churches and congregations ought to be run. We need to be familiar with these principles.

    You wrote, “Quoting me: A. “What I am saying is that the jailing of those who teach the Gospel will cost more lives than killing the unborn.” You want to explain this enigmatic statement you made? As I pointed above, the Gospel includes the right to life of those who are—not simply incarcerated—but rather killed. How many lives have been lost so far as a result of such incarceration?”

    How many so far, we cannot tell. How many WILL be lost? ALL, except for the harvested remnant, including all the “unborn” and all the “born” that do not perfect the character of Christ through the ministry of His servants. As I mentioned several times, WE are focused on the second death. YOU are focused on the first.

    You wrote, “Really? Do you mean that the Quiet Hour ministries have been sinning against heaven for the millions of lives which were blest thanks to their independent preaching of the Gospel? My sister started an independent ministry several decades ago in Argentina; today there is a lively church which resulted from such independent ministry. My cousin started an independent ministry in the Soviet Union during the Communist reign, and today there is a very active congregation in her town. In China there are thousands of independent ministries. Are all of them condemned in Scripture?”

    The numbers you cite pale in comparison to most organized Churches. The Roman Catholic Church has multitudes and multitudes, all claiming to teach the Gospel and to do good works. What will Christ say of them upon His return?

    The Bible says that all Christ’s followers are to be ONE. Those ministries you mention are not even one with each other, much less with the Remnant. Again, God has not changed His principles. There is “one Lord,” and therefore “one faith, one baptism.” That, like all I have said to you, is perfectly consistent with both the Biblical doctrines, AND the character of Christ that inspired them.

    David.

    • David,

      Thanks for your response. I will limit my comments to a few details contained in your posting.

      You wrote: “The penalty for BOTH is the same, and one cannot claim ignorance – of course – after one has been TOLD about the sin. You cannot claim ignorance for the crime of the General Conference against the Throne of Heaven. Nor can you be held guiltless if you fail to warn others.”

      Do you have any evidence that the 16 million Adventists who live outside the U.S. have been warned about the persecution of your church and the elective abortions performed in Adventist hospitals?

      Have you warned those 16 million Adventists about this? If you have not, how are you planning to accomplish this? Most Adventists who live in the U.S. have never heard of your church. What can I cay about those outside our country?

      I have been able to inform some Adventists about the abortion issue, but I haven’t reached even one tenth of one million of the total number of those who need to be reached, and I have been doing this for nearly two decades.

      You also wrote: “There is absolutely no contradiction here and thus, if you can see that the doctrine IS Biblical, you will note that the Jews, who heard Peter’s speech, were “ignorant” of the Sanhedrin’s national transgression (leading to national ruin)… until Peter told them!”

      I find the opposite evidence in the Bible. The two disciples who met Jesus on their way to Emmaus said to Jesus: “Are you the only one who is ignorant of what happened in Jerusalem?” [my paraphrase] This indicates that those listening to Peter were not ignorant of the death of Jesus. Many of them might have been among those claiming for the crucifixion of the Lord.

      Then you stated: “There is absolutely no contradiction here and thus, if you can see that the doctrine IS Biblical, you will note that the Jews, who heard Peter’s speech, were “ignorant” of the Sanhedrin’s national transgression (leading to national ruin)… until Peter told them!”

      This is where our views differ. You believe that there is no longer hope for the Adventist Church. My view is that this point has not been reached yet because the 16 million Adventists who reside outside the U.S. have not been warned about what had been taking place.

      Then you added: “What I am saying is, trying to “convince” an already-fallen Body not to support abortion is like trying to bail water out of a ship with holes. The ship is going to sink, no matter how fast you bail.”

      The Lord gave a stern message to Noah to be delivered to the pre-flood generation, and he gave him ample time to fulfill his mission. Likewise, the Lord will find a way to warn all Adventists about these issues. He may use you, me, and thousands of others to carry this out.

      God gave Jonah the prophet a similar mission. It would have been unfair for him to punish the people of Nineveh without such a warning. Jonah believed that his was an impossible mission, but God felt that it was his moral duty to give those people a chance to repent, and they did, contrary to the prophet’s human wisdom.

      You also argued: “WE are focused on the second death. YOU are focused on the first.”

      I am focused on both the first and the second one. Jesus was not focused entirely on the second death. He stated that he had come that we might have abundant life. This abundant life begins here and now. The same is true about the eternal life: It begins here and now.

      You wrote: “The numbers you cite pale in comparison to most organized Churches.”

      I cited a couple of examples. You can multiply those by all the independent ministries in China, the Soviet Union, and the rest fof the world.

      Then you stated: “The Bible says that all Christ’s followers are to be ONE. Those ministries you mention are not even one with each other, much less with the Remnant.”

      All those who love God and Jesus Christ with all their heart and have accepted Jesus as their Savior and are living according to the light they have received from heaven are an integral part of God’s Remnant. Their union is evidenced by their love for the Lord.

      Do you believe that all those who fail to join your church will be eternally lost? I find that the eternal destiny of human beings will be decided on the way we treat the “least of these” and not whether they join your church. I will rather rely on what Jesus said in Matthew 25 than what you say.

      May the Lord bless you and me and his Remnant Church spread out in the entire world!

  14. If you support liberty of conscience and would like to see the persecution stopped, please sign the Liberty Petition. http://libertypetition.com/


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Advent Life Books

The best books should be free--like air and water!

KEEPLIFELEGAL

EXPOSING THE ABORTION AGENDA FROM THE PULPIT, ON THE SIDEWALK, IN THE MEDIA & AT THE STATEHOUSE.

kelzbelzphotography

My journey - The good, bad and the ugly

Confessions of a Teenage Runaway

My Voice... My Story...

Advent Life

Focusing on Life

%d bloggers like this: