Eric W. King responds to what he believes to be "wafflers" of SDA theology. The following is a response to the offshoot Adventist group known as, "Creation Seventh Day Adventists".
Note: Since this article was written Eric has been contacted on the phone by official members of the "Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church". Eric believes that these people are sincere but are sincerly wrong. He respects their sincerity and their love for Jesus Christ.
__________________________________________________
There was a group of defectors from the true Seventh Day Adventist Church which arose in the 80's. What was going on in the 1980's? Well, we won't go there. Anyways, this group claims that the Seventh Day Adventist Church is "babylon".
These "used to be" members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church have not only gone against the Spirit of Prophecy but have boldly spoken against the Word of God on their website! They call God's church "babylon" [term for the satanic "harlot church"].
Here is where we need to understand a simple yet important doctrine of Scripture. The Bible never call's the Church of God "babylon" [symbol of the false church]. The Bible does point out that the "wheat" and the "tares", true "born again" believers will be mixed with "false believers" in God's church up until the second coming of Christ our Lord. But never did Jesus call the church He founded "babylon".
Ellen G. White proclaimed that the Seventh Day Adventist Church was the true Church of Christ. Ellen White has said, "The Seventh-day Adventist Church is NOT Babylon." Many misunderstood Bible teachings were restored beginning with the Protestant movement by Martin Luther [who exposed the "seat" and "authority" of the Anti-christ..the "Roman Beast"].
She agrees with the Bible and further states that the entire world and Satan will have his final conflict with "Seventh Day Adventists", not "creation" or "davidian" Seventh Day Adventist Christians. [see TM, p.37]
Though local churches have their problems because of "Babylonian" influences this does not make Christ's church "babylon". All local Christian churches have their problems...but they are not the "harlot" church. As I said before, I will state again, God's church will have true believers and false believers in it up until the Second Coming of Christ. [Laodicean church: Rev. 3:14-22] But no Christian has the authority or the right or the power to judge in the sense of separating the "wheat" from the "tares". This is the work of Jesus Christ and His angels! [Matthew 24:31]
Jesus informs us that when the "purification" of the Church of God begins, He will send His angels to separate the "wheat" from the "chaff". So those who start "new movements", and claim that there is a "remnant" within the Remnant are liars! Plain and simple!
The true Seventh Day Adventist Church has missionaries all over the world and hospitals healing the sick and hurting. None of these "off-shoot" groups have any Biblical authority or "good fruit doctrine" for their claims or existance. We pray for them.
May God continue to have compassion on the lost and hurting. May those truly seeking God use their Bible only to find the Word of Truth. Amen.
Written by Eric W. King [December 11,2007]
Visit the most comprehensive Christian Seventh Day Adventist website online!
The Adventist Way of Life
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Hello,
As a Creation Seventh Day Adventist myself, I would like to offer a response to your response.
I am disappointed that you decided you "would not go there" regarding what happened to cause our separation, seeing as it was the very thing the Bible and Ellen White declare causes a church to constitute Babylon fallen - uniting with the state to persecute dissenters.
If you would like to know our understanding on the Ellen White quotes you brought up, well, you could either ask one of us or find it on several places on our websites. But suffice to say, Ellen White wrote in 1896 that the SDA church was not Babylon. If she had wrote that in 1996, we would have something to consider. :)
Mrs. White never said the SDA church could not become Babylon, although God did say in the Old Testament that Judah and Israel would not pass from before him as long as the sun moon and stars stayed in their courses.
As Adventist Christians, we understand that to apply this to the bloodline while neglecting the character is a misapplication - this is not different for Adventists applying it to an organization while neglecting the character.
We, of course, agree that the problems of local congregations do not make a Church as a whole Babylon; Galatia is sufficient to prove that, and Ellen White reinforced it in her day. The problem, as those who are familiar with our teachings are aware, is that the "chief priests and rulers cried out 'Crucify him!'. As Mrs. White spoke of the Jews, "When they said this, they unchurched themselves."
You said that the Bible never calls the Church of God Babylon. Well.. Was not the apostolic church the true Church of God? What did they become?
We know the answer to be the Roman Catholic Church. Are they "Babylon"?
You yourself know that the Seventh-day Adventist organization is not the Church Christ founded while on earth - they may have been their successors, but they were not called "SDAs" in His day.
The true church may indeed become Babylon - In fact, Mrs. White said explicitly that "We are in danger of becoming a sister to fallen Babylon, a cage of every unclean and hateful bird". To say "We cannot fall" is to make the error of Romanists and Judaizers before.
The citing of your churches worldly success versus the relative poverty of the saints has no more telling an effect on the truth than it did in the days of Luther.
I am here to inform you that the image of the beast has been formed as Scripture and Mrs. White indicated: church + state = image, enforcing a mark of their authority.
Angels have begun the work of separation - this is the end of the world. The image has been formed, the mark is currently enforced on the commandment-keeping people of God.
This is the harvest.
If you have any question on any of this from the Bible, I will be very happy to discuss it with you, be it public or private. We have a forum you are welcome to join, or you may email me.
In Christ,
Lucan Chartier
Dear Lucan Chartier,
Thank you for your response. Here are the plain and simple facts, their is only one church that Christ is coming back for...which church is it?
You claim that the "Creation" SDA church is it. Could you become babylon? Are you ever safe in Christ's church? Must we jump here and their?
You are not a Seventh Day Adventist because you misunderstand the "image of the beast". Only the Anti-christ can set up the image of the beast.
Here is what saddens me, you and your members have blamed God's Church as the making the image to the Beast. Wow! What a claim and what a very unbiblical claim.
E.W.King
Dear Lucan Chartier
Thank you for your other personal email to me. Instead of posted the whole email you sent here I felt that I could take one paragraph from your message that sums up your message. I asked if the CSDA could become "babylon" and you stated:
"The answer is an emphatic "Yes." God is no respecter of persons; He is no respecter of organizations. NO ONE may violate the law of God and be free of the consequence; NO CHURCH may join to the world and remain pure, no matter how high and exalted their claims may be. If anything, their claims to such a high level of truth make their rejection thereof all the greater in the judgment."
Here is were "The Adventist Way of Life" exposses your false teaching! You say that, "No Church" may join the world and remain pure. My biblical response is, Jesus said; "I will build MY CHURCH and the gates of hell shall NOT PREVAIL against it." [Matt. 16:18]
But according to the CSDA man is able to decide what the "church" is and can "jump" from one to the other as he sees fit. Yikes!
The Bible says that Christ has one church. It has problems, yes. But it is not the "harlot" as your group proclaims.
The Seventh Day Adventist Church is the church of Christ according to the "Spirit of Prophecy", not the "Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church".
Man does not decide what the church is. Jesus built His church, it is the true Seventh Day Adventist Church..including the "wheat" and the "tares".
E.W.King
Dear "Creation Seventh Day Adventists",
I apologize that you are angered by my responses. I do not mean to mis-represent you in any way. People can view your website and send you emails if thay want further information. I have nothing to hide.
I believe that your position that the Seventh Day Adventist church was founded by the Devil is false!
Here is how I responded to one of your current members emails:
"Dear Sir,
The Spirit of Prophecy never mentions the "Creation" SDA church. Perhaps you have a prophet that could inform all of us of your position. Ellen White never saw your existence. Thus, true Christians will not either.
I am not a hater of you or your people. I am simply concerned.
E.W.King
www.adventist.7p.com"
And to this I still hold. Your movement is an "offshoot" of God's true church. I only hope that some of your members realize that before it is too late.
E.W.King
Dear readers of this BLOG,
The offshoot group known as the "Creation Seventh Day Adventists" have stated that their "new" movement is of God and that the true Seventh Day Adventist Church is "babylon".
As you read the responses of the CSDA group please keep the following statement of Ellen G. White in mind;
"Those who have published the Loud Cry tract have not consulted me upon the subject. They have quoted largely from my writings and put their own construction upon them. They claim to have a special message from God to pronounce the Seventh-day Adventist Church Babylon, proclaim her fall, and call the people of God to come out of her, and try to make the Testimonies substantiate their theory. These publications are misleading minds, and increasing the prejudice already existing, and tend to make it more difficult to get access to them to present the message God has given in warnings to the world of altogether a different character from the ideas presented in these pamphlets." RH November 8, 1956
Thanks,
E.W.King
The following letter is from David, a member of the "Creation Seventh Day Adventist" offshoot group written to E.W.King and "The Adventist Way of Life" ministry. It is here posted to be fair to the CSDA and that they might better present their case.
___________________________
Hello Eric,
Thank you for the opportunity to post this message to your blog. As per our phone conversation, which actually ended rather pleasantly, I am providing you with a basic view of some of the main tenets of Creation Seventh Day Adventism. I understand that you have had some negative experiences with offshoot groups in the past, and I would just like to let you know that we ourselves have often found them to often be stubborn, corrupt, and self-seeking, just looking to lead men off as disciples after themselves. I am sorry for your experiences. In our own Church there are some who have come out of offshoot groups such as the "Eternal Gospel" Church and the Lord our Righteousness movement... and you can tell by speaking with them that some of them have had a rough time of it. I was much encouraged when you said you could hear that I was truly sincere in the beliefs of my Church, and that you could consider me a Christian, and not merely some fanatic.
[You can remove this part from the official post, but I think it's important for me to re-iterate what I said on the phone... I can understand why your initial response was to see us as a cult, and I'm sorry about that. In SDA thought, a cult is (rightly defined as) a group that follows the leadership of a man, to the exclusion of the Bible and (to a more limited extent) a latter-day prophet like Ellen White. Being hyper-sensitized by the Davidians can make it real hard to see past our own experiences, I understand.]
Of course, you do see some of our beliefs as "extreme," and on these matters we have, perhaps regretfully, had to leave it as a disagreement for the moment. Even so, there is no reason that we cannot have a meaningful dialogue. Since we both have had prior experience with offshoots that we would probably both consider dangerous, it is perhaps our special responsibility to take care to read through one-another's work and then quote the beliefs accurately when attempting to refute them (as I expect we'll both do from time to time). This is, of course, your blog, and I understand that anyone else who posts here is a "guest," therefore I will not seek to abuse this privilege. Some of our members, simply for stating our beliefs and giving Bible verses, have been entirely banned from other online forums, and we have attempted to be as gentle as Christ would be when dealing with matters that are clearly dear to the hearts of many.
As I said, this is only a "basic" overview of our beliefs, and so I hope you don't expect a comprehensive, detailed look at each. This patchwork will be long enough, I am certain. To be sure, such views and Bible exist, as we daily defend our faith against those who call us... well, all kinds of things:) But as you have graciously agreed to allow us to reply to questions here on your blog, I will be patient and allow refutations to come and just reply to them when they come up.
1) Victory over sin - Creation Seventh Day Adventists believe, and this is perhaps our "core" teaching, because we see it as THE Gospel, that "whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin," (1John 3:9) where that word "commit" means to deliberately, presumptuously perform. One who is born again does not deliberately do an act he knows, and is convicted, is sinful. The Bible says this, (1John 5:18, 1 Peter 4, Isa 1:15-16) and Ellen White does also, for we read,
"The principles of righteousness must be implanted in the soul. The faith must grasp the power of Jesus Christ, else there is no safety. Licentious practices are getting to be as common as in the days before the flood. Not one should be buried with Christ by baptism unless they are critically examined whether they have ceased to sin, whether they have fixed moral principles, whether they know what sin is, whether they have moral defilement which God abhors. Find out by close questioning if these persons are really ceasing to sin, if with David they can say, I hate sin with a perfect hatred.
"My burden is that ministers of the gospel shall preach the truth as to what constitutes true conversion. They are not to lead down into the water souls who are not converted. The church is becoming composed of men and women who have never realized how sinful sin is." [Manuscript Releases Volume Six, page 165]
She says in another place, "Talk and act as if your faith was invincible. The Lord is rich in resources; He owns the world. Look heavenward in faith." [Christ's Object Lessons, page 146, paragraph 5] What a promise!
As such, we do precisely that... we do not baptize a new Creation Seventh Day Adventist until they can say, as David did, "I hate sin with a perfect hatred," and do as David also said, "Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still." (Psa 4:4) I want it to be known that this, more than the Mark of the Beast teaching, more than the "Babylon fallen" teaching, is what the CSDA Message is about. These other things, from our experience with new converts, have come automatically, when the simple commitment is made, "By the power of Christ, by the three great worthies of Heaven, I will not commit known sin." That is when true education in Christianity can begin, and I can tell you from my own personal testimony, this is when life itself truly begins for a human being. Before that there can really only be a fumbling around in the darkness of the spiritual womb. But victory over sin - this is the new birth: "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things [the flesh, the failures, the excuses, the wavering, the ignorance, the superstition, the fear, the prejudice, the addictions, etc., etc., etc.] are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2Cor 5:17) Of course, this is nothing NEW; it's what Adventism has taught for over a century, we're just picking up where the more modern incarnation of mainstream Adventism seems to have let off.
2) A non-Trinitarian view of the Godhead. This is a BIG issue in Adventism these days. A lot of Adventists are going back over the older writings of Adventism, even Mrs. White's writings, and discovering that not only were Seventh-day Adventists non-Trinitarian, they were decidedly ANTI-Trinitarian. This is one of those subjects that tends to raise a lot of emotion, so let me leave this one short, and just say that we disagree with those who say Ellen White "became" a Trinitarian late in life (when she had conveniently ceased to write about the subject). It is true, she spoke of "three" in the Godhead - so do we. It is true, she spoke of the "three great worthies," as even I have quoted above, and the three "persons" of the Godhead. What we disagree with is the position, which was heartily opposed by Mr. and Mrs. White, as well as every other Adventist pioneer of note, that the Holy Spirit is a co-equal, co-eternal Person of the Godhead in the same way the Father and Son are. We find in the Scripture God the Father, and God the Son; we find them speaking to each other, and to men.. but whenever we read of the Spirit, it is being sent, called, poured out, withheld, withdrawn, etc. by the will of the Father and Son, and through the agency of a prophet or other inspired messenger.
The Spirit speaks through the church, through the prophets, through the conscience, and it appears as symbols: a flame, a dove, etc. We can go through a lot of Scriptures about this if any of your readers have questions, but we've covered all the verses about it in a link (I believe you said you'd allow a link) here: http://csda.us/binary/essays/etrinity.html In that page you'll also find a link to a page exclusively dedicated to the writings of early Adventists, and Mrs. White, in which the Trinity was considered. In the words of one author, "Thus, the Spirit is personified in Christ and God, but never revealed as a separate person. Never are we told to pray to the Spirit; but to God for the Spirit. Never do we find in the Scriptures prayers to the Spirit, but for the Spirit.” (M. C. Wilcox, Questions and Answers Gathered From the Question Corner Department of the Signs of the Times, pp 181, 182) That was in 1911 - so much for the idea that Ellen White and Adventism wholesale converted to Trinitarianism in the early 1900s...
3) The Mark of The Beast - this is the topic around which most of our phone conversation centered. We believe, as informed Adventists always have, that while it may be acceptable to employ the use of the civil government in one's defense after another has initiated the procedure, it is never acceptable for a Seventh-day Adventist to BEGIN a procedure in conjunction with civil government. You said that you believed we "misunderstood" the Adventist position on this. Here it is:
"I need not undertake to give a definition in detail of what the image of the beast is; we all know well that it is the church power using the government, the civil power, for church purposes [...] Now I want to state a little further upon the principle that no Christian, being a citizen of the kingdom of God, can of right start any procedure in connection with civil government. After it is started by the government itself, that is another question . . . I repeat therefore, that upon the principles which govern kingdoms and governments, the very principle of the law in heaven, or law in earth, a Christian cannot start any procedure in connection with civil government. And of all Christians, Seventy-day Adventists cannot do it. The very keeping of the Sabbath forbids it." [A. T. Jones, 1895 General Conference Bulletin, page 28] I hope you can appreciate this, but I find it very hard to believe that we have somehow misunderstood what Br. Jones was trying to say there. It is clear that he did not limit the potential for "the image of the beast" to only the Sunday-keeping church members, because it is specifically mentioned in regard to Sabbath-keeping (though obviously nominal) Christians. We believe what this teaching points out, and I do not feel it is proper that we be ridiculed or persecuted for holding to it (and we have experienced both) by those who do not anymore.
Ellen White has much to say on the same matter. But one statement of a great many: "When troubles arise in the church we should not go for help to lawyers not of our faith. God does not desire us to open church difficulties before those who do not fear Him. He would not have us depend for help on those who do not obey His requirements. Those who trust in such counselors show that they have not faith in God. By their lack of faith the Lord is greatly dishonored, and their course works great injury to themselves. In appealing to unbelievers to settle difficulties in the church they are biting and devouring one another, to be "consumed one of another" (Gal. 5:15).
These men cast aside the counsel God has given, and do the very things He has bidden them not to do. They show that they have chosen the world as their judge, and in heaven their names are registered as one with unbelievers. Christ is crucified afresh, and put to open shame. Let these men know that God does not hear their prayers. They insult His holy name, and He will leave them to the buffetings of Satan until they shall see their folly and seek the Lord by confession of their sin. Matters connected with the church are to be kept within its own borders. If a Christian is abused, he is to take it patiently; if defrauded, he is not to appeal to courts of justice. Rather let him suffer loss and wrong." [Selected Messages Book 3, page 299, paragraphs 1-3]
You asked me, somewhat incredulously, "So you're saying you would allow yourself, your family, or your movement, to be wronged by someone stealing your name?" My answer is that which Ellen White gave, and I can't imagine a more broad application of the above principle than she herself makes: our faith forbids us to use civil government for our own ends, but specifically and especially for "Church purposes" - ANY Church purposes. A murder, a rape, etc. are punished by the criminal courts, these are not civil matters (one man bringing suit against another) but the state of its own accord punishing evil. This is the "right use" of the governmental powers as you alluded to in Romans: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." (Rom 13:3-5) This is the right use of it, the government polices its citizens, and punishes crime. CIVIL cases have one citizen bringing suit against another individual, there are very different principles governing these two ideas.
Now, when it comes to liberty of conscience, of following the instructions of God, the civil magistrate simply has no power there; this is something we have learned from Martin Luther on down... there are two principles upon which Protestantism is founded: a) No arbitrary authority of the Church over the consciences of its individual members, and b) No intrusion of the civil magistrate into matters of religious duty. The term "religious duty" does NOT only apply to the Decalogue. With no interpretation needed, this is what Mrs. White tells us regarding the work of the Image of the Beast: "Let the principle once be established in the United States, that the church may employ or control the power of the State; that religious observances may be enforced by secular laws; in short, that the authority of church and State is to dominate the conscience, and the triumph of Rome in this country is assured." [The Great Controversy, page 580]
Now, some might say - for some have said - "But you're applying this principle too far!" This is, I think the "extreme" view you have said we hold. It is true that we apply it broadly, because we believe that a National Sunday Law is but one way in which a Mark of the Beast can be enforced on the people of God. This, as you know from our conversation, is a matter of much controversy! Yet we do not reject Ellen White's writings in concluding this, for we read, "But in the very act of enforcing a religious duty by secular power, the churches would themselves form an image to the beast; hence the enforcement of Sundaykeeping in the United States would be an enforcement of the worship of the beast and his image." [Great Controversy p. 449] We read, right in the trademark document that resulted from the union of the Conference organization with the U.S. Civil government, that the SDA Church is now authorized by the modern "Caesar" to regulate "religious observances."
What we find is just that; the General Conference SDA organization has sought to enforce religious duties - an according to Mrs. White's writings, the bearing of the name "Seventh-day Adventist" is a direct religious duty of every Christian until the close of probation [Selected Messages 2, p. 385] - by using the secular power. Some Adventists to whom we have spoken are shocked saying, "But that's a violation of the Spirit of the Sabbath, just like the Sunday Law would be!" And they see the point. Others, far too many, we fear, say, "Well, as long as it's not the Sunday Law, it's acceptable... problematic, maybe mean, but acceptable." This, we protest.
We read, as I mentioned on the phone, that there is a distinct pattern followed by the Church. The Remnant is, occasionally, required by God to withdraw from a fallen body and reorganize. You've said, "Ellen White never foresaw the CSDA movement." That's true. Daniel didn't foresee Christianity, and Peter didn't foresee Adventism. That is also true. There are principles a prophet lays down that are for eternity, and sometimes there are specifics that he or she lays down for a generation. I invite you to attend our New Moon online meetings, perhaps we can talk about them there... the topic of next month's meeting is (not by coincidence, I am sure) regarding the time-based prophecies made by inspired writers such as Ellen White.
Of the parable in Matthew 20, which speaks of the early morning, third hour, sixth hour, ninth hour and eleventh your workers, Ellen White says that this has prophetic significance, and makes the statement that the Jewish Church was the eleventh-hour workers. Following the only progression given, the set of antitypes in The Great Controversy, we find that the Apostolic Church DID come out of Judaism, the Reformation Churches DID come out of the apostate Apostolic (i.e., Roman Catholic) system, the SDA Church DID come out of Sundaykeeping Protestantism. This brings us down to the 9th hour, with one more calling-out to go. You said, basically, "How can you know that this progression is right, unless another prophet interprets it." Well, Biblically, the prophets prophecy, and another may explain it: "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge." (1Cor 14:29) It is certainly, therefore, well within the understanding and rights of ANY reader of Christ's Object Lessons and The Great Controversy to understand the pattern, and this pattern was revealed to us for a reason, because, "When the Jewish people rejected Christ, the Prince of life, He took from them the kingdom of God and gave it unto the Gentiles. God will continue to work on this principle with every branch of His work." [Last Day Events, page 59]
We cannot honestly, with true Christian integrity say, "It was true for Judaism, Apostolicism, Sundaykeeping Protestantism, but surely not US!" Every group has stood on the same sandy soil when making such a statement... but be assured, it is not men, but God, who has established this pattern, and that has called men out who were willing to carry forth the Gospel work.
I do not want to make this intro. unreadably long, and I fear I am in danger of doing so already. Let me just lay down the basics here:
a) A prophet makes a prediction that is expected to come to pass.
b) If the spiritual condition of those to whom the predication is made changes (and I used the example of Jonah and the Ezek 38, 39 prophecies) then the fulfillment of the prophecy also changes.
c) Ellen White made a prediction about a Sunday Law. Now, and here is another controversial statement, she never saw this in vision! If you read the first edition of The Great Controversy, which I believe was called "Spiritual Gifts Vol., 4" the word "Sunday" does not even appear! She did see an issue regarding paganism, and a false Sabbath, on this we fully agree... but as we read above, this matter of civil courts being used by Adventists is indeed a Sabbath issue. This might seem like a stretch, until one understand the depth of conviction Adventists held against this idea. We have seen reports of Seventh-day Adventists undergoing the most cruel of tests, and their tormentors felt free to so abuse them (I remember what you said on the phone about your coworker) because, some felt, they were bound by their religion to avoid bringing cases against others in civil court. Extreme? We only see it as what Christ taught. "Sick," as some would judge it? Perhaps by the world's standards, but we would rather, as Christ said, suffer ourselves to be wronged than violate the spirit of Sabbath-rest and rely upon the arm of flesh rather than the almighty Arm of God.
None of this is anything new. We believe that when the Seventh-day Adventist Church united with the U.S. Civil government and began to persecute commandment-keeping Christians, who were convicted that they should not surrender the name that they believe God gave to us as a testimony to the world, they erred. And not only did they err, but they followed the path that Ellen White said leads to the "downfall" of a Church. She wrote that no matter what promise were given to a Church, no matter what predictions of security, no matter what condition was expected of them (whether it be Laodicea, a time after a tribulation, a sifting rather than a splitting) uniting with the state INVALIDATES any such covenants, and invariably leads to a calling-out. We agree on all the prophecies from Ellen White that you quoted to me on the phone, absolutely... but we also agree with her other statements, that a Church that unites with the state sunders any covenants made between itself and God.
Ellen White wrote that there would be a Sunday Law to test the people of God. We understand that Like Jonah's prophecy, this (we sincerely believe) was altered with the Seventh-day Adventist Church united with the world to become - itself - a persecuting power. Is it possible? Can what we are saying be right? You said that Ellen White said the SDA Church was in "danger" of becoming a sister to fallen Babylon, but you wanted an explicit statement that she COULD fall. Here is just one: "In the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed. She will be judged by the privileges and advantages that she has had. If her spiritual experience does not correspond to the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost, has bestowed on her, if the blessings conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her, on her WILL be pronounced the sentence: "Found wanting." By the light bestowed, the opportunities given, will she be judged." [Last Day Events, page 59] I understand you don't think that this has happened yet, or perhaps ever can.... but we do. That's the key difference about which we strove in our phone conversation. We believe this prophecy has been fulfilled, and I don't think either of us can honestly say, "The Seventh-day Adventist Church has lived up to all the light she has received."
And what of the specific prophecy of the Sunday Law? Surely, such a thing as often stated as that cannot be considered as conditional?
We believe it can: "Regarding the testimonies, nothing is ignored; nothing is cast aside; but time and place must be considered." [1 Selected Messages, p. 57] Again, "It should be remembered that the promises and the threatenings of God are alike conditional." [Evangelism, page 695] Yet again, "Faith claims God's promises, and brings forth fruit in obedience. Presumption also claims the promises, but uses them as Satan did, to excuse transgression. Faith would have led our first parents to trust the love of God and to obey His commands. Presumption led them to transgress His law, believing that His great love would save them from the consequences of their sin. It is not faith that claims the favor of Heaven without complying with the conditions on which mercy is to be granted. Genuine faith has its foundation in the promises and provisions of the Scriptures." [The Faith I Live By, page 122] Once more, for good measure: "Christ promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to His church and the promise belongs as much to us as to the first disciples. But like every other promise, it is given on conditions." [Gospel Workers, page 284] You may not agree with your conclusions here, perhaps most of your blog's readers will not either, but I trust you can understand how we were able to derive them, and understand that our sincerity in believing these things is founded not on the opinions of men, but on a reading - our members' individual readings, for each of us likes very much to think for ourselves - of inspired writings.
Now Seventh-day Adventists justify their leaders' actions, as many have done, by saying, "We are only protecting ourselves." Are they? From what? From men with the power to destroy the Church of God? I tell you the truth, even worldlings we have spoken with about this matter have said, "They are doing WHAT? That's not Christian!" Children, the babes out of whose mouths comes perfected praise, have said, "A true church would never do that." We agree. That's all... we agree. We (sincerely) see this as a rejection of "the faith of Jesus," the very criteria that once made them, as a group, the people of God. There are many examples when the people of God were tempted to rely on human power to stave off the attacks of heathen armies (Hezekiah in Isaiah's account, Jehoshaphat in the 2Chron 20). But they made the right choice... they refused to rely on the arm of flesh, and prayed instead. They were established, and preserved, not because of the armies of horses, but because of their genuine faith. There is real power in prayer, and a real God in Heaven. He asks those who have decided to justify the Conference's decision, "Forasmuch as thou hast sent messengers to enquire of Baalzebub the god of Ekron, is it not because there is no God in Israel to enquire of his word?" (1Kings 1:16) It is the same God willing to protect His own people, His own name, and His own Church today as then. We, the CSDA Church, testify that this is so, for He has preserved us through opposers, deceivers, and impostors, and we have never (and WOULD never) bring suit against an evil-doing, to repay evil with evil. We do not believe this is at all what Jesus taught.
Of course, to be clear, we are saying the system fell... the people are God's people, and we're trying to warn them that they have become guilty, in a corporate sense, of the actions of their leaders (Acts 2, Isa 9:16) They must repent, be re-baptized, and be united with the Remnant, the same Remnant that existed from the time of Adam, Seth and Enoch, and that has come down, unchanged in character, through the ages and through a number of different organizations, each bearing a timely name: Children of God, Israel, Christian, Protestant, Seventh-day Adventist, Creation Seventh-day Adventist and, soon (as you pointed out) "Hephzibah." (Isa 62:4) But before that, she must be called "Forsaken," and "Desolate," as that same verse says... she must bear a "new" name, but also a name that is despised. "And ye [the unfaithful people] shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name." (Isa 65:15)
You asked me on the phone, "Why don't you tell people there are similarities in your teachings with the Davidians?" Not a problem. There are "similarities" in our teachings with the Davidians, with the Mormons, with the Moonies, with the Jehovah's Witnesses, with the People's Temple, with the Gnostics, Anglicans, Baptists, Nazarines, with the Lord our Righteousness movement... That latter group, in fact, was a "precursor" of sorts to our current movement, much as the Millerites, with all their shortcomings, were a precursor to Adventism. Of course, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. Satan has his greatest success, not in eliminating truth, but in taking a LOT of truth and blending in a LITTLE error. Davidian theology, to use an example with which we are both familiar, is "mostly" right! They teach about Jesus, and Ellen White's prophecies, and the coming judgment... but there's a little poison mixed in that derails unwary travelers on the path to holiness. They have our heartfelt sympathies, and in no way deserve our reproach or condemnation. They should have our prayers. Why, even the leaders of these groups are probably honest-hearted men, mostly... but they are deceived by the poison mixed in with their mostly-good theology. It may well be that the Davidians also teach this matter of the 11th hour workers I mentioned to you on the phone. Catholics teach that "faith without works is dead." Both teachings are TRUE, so far as they do not deviate from the Bible, but both are mixed with poison. We must learn, as the Scripture says, to accept the good and refuse the evil... but we've got to learn to think for ourselves. It's like what I said on the phone, we have to be more concerned with educating people than indoctrinating them. If we educate them properly, the doctrines will come naturally. We seek only an opportunity to have men hear what we say (as would any sincere Christian evangelist - and all of our members are evangelists, as one might expect) and if they judge us to be darkness, and erring, let it be even so, and amen.
There are a few other differences we have to the mainstream Adventist Church, but we consider them relatively minor. We keep the New Moons and Feast days, the latter not as a dogma, but as a time of blessing. We tend to use the original names of the Father and Son (Yahweh and Yahshua) in our meetings and personal devotions. Of course, as you can verify from this letter and our conversation on the phone, we are not dogmatic about that either; we do not believe it is "evil" (as some extreme groups do) to use the terms "God" and "Jesus." We have sought very hard to avoid ANY extremism, and to find balance in all things, even if this balance makes us look strange in the eyes of the world, which is itself very unbalanced. Our position on lawsuits, as you pointed out, may seem extreme to some, but we stand on principle regarding that matter, and cannot be persuaded to unite in spirit with any group that believes this is an acceptable course of action for a Christian, particularly a Sabbathkeeping Christian. There are too many Scriptures (e.g., 1Cor 6) to oppose that idea; and we know from Gospel Order (Mat 18) that to disfellowship an erring or rebellious member is the last and most severe form of Church discipline sanctioned by Jesus. To say, "Well, if we disfellowship them, THEN we can sue them" is to lose the meaning of the "Good Samaritan" parable, and to manifest a Satanic desire to use force, "the last resort of every false religion." [EGW, S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7 (1957), page 976] It ultimately betrays the non-Christians masquerading as those who have genuine love for all men. We are to treat them as publicans and tax collectors, yes.
Does this mean, as some have concluded, "We sue them"? No! We treat publicans and tax collectors as we would wish to be treated in the place... we do not unite with them in fellowship, but we pray for them, and seek to lead them to the truth. That is what Christ and His disciples did with these individuals (e.g., Levi, who became Matthew the Evangelist). Can we be persuaded to do otherwise than this? Not CSDAS... no, not Christians.
You will note, further, that our arguments are never appeals to emotion, and rarely to tradition. We are very wary of making hard doctrine out of anything but the BIBLE, and I do hope you and your readers can appreciate this. You may disagree with some of our conclusions, but I got the impression that our disagreements centered on our readings of Ellen White's writings. Surely, if we can agree on the Bible, and what It says, and see it with clear, objective eyes, we will have a foundation for continuing dialogue. I hope that this will prove to be the case, and we welcome any questions of this relatively sparse explanation of the CSDA faith I have provided. I am quite willing to go into greater detail on any single point on which I have touched tonight.
If I can hope for something from your invitation to add this to our discussion, it will be that any examination of CSDA theology take this idea into account, for it is the happy testimony of our each and every member: "When the doctrine we accept kills sin in the heart, purifies the soul from defilement, bears fruit unto holiness, we may know that it is the truth of God. When benevolence, kindness, tenderheartedness, sympathy, are manifest in our lives; when the joy of right doing is in our hearts; when we exalt Christ, and not self, we may know that our faith is of the right order." [Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, page 146]
May Yahweh bless the readers of your web page,
David.
[http://csda.us/binary/]
"Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." E. Wiesel
Response to David's lenghty letter:
Dear David and the "Creation Seventh Day Adventists":
It saddens me that you even use the title, "Seventh Day Adventist" in the discription of your Church.
After reading your statement I can tell you that you are your movement does not represent the true Christian Seventh Day Adventist Church.
Here are some reasons why you are not Seventh Day Adventists:
1.) You deny many of the official 28 fundamental of the official SDA Church including the "Doctrine of the Trinity". Ellen G. White and early Adventist Christians believed in and accepted the Trinity.
2.) You are modern Judaizers. You express the view that converts must convert according to Jewish biblical standards Judaizers and keep "new moons" and "feast days". Special feast days are not a test for true SDA Christians.
3.) You seem to not only twist the Bible around but to also hold Ellen G. White's writtings in a strange manner. You believe some things she said and not others.
4.) You take Matthew ch.20 and apply typology there that is just not there. This type of Scriptural twisting is dangers and you even admit that your Matt. ch.20 translation is simular to that of the Branch Davidians.
5.) You claim that the Chirstian church has set the "mark of the Beast". The Bible says that the Anti-christ and False Prophet will set up the "image".
I could go on but you stated something that put's the icing on the cake when you admitted;
"Not a problem. There are "similarities" in our teachings with the Davidians, with the Mormons, with the Moonies, with the Jehovah's Witnesses, with the People's Temple, with the Gnostics, Anglicans, Baptists, Nazarines, with the Lord our Righteousness movement.."
Need I say more? I am reminded of EGW quotes about separation. She said that in the end times, "the church would appear that it is about to fall, but it will not fall." She also said there will be no further "coming out" of God's people from the Adventist Church. The Church is not Babylon.
In conclusion I hold you, the CSDA's as a misfortunate group, a cult of sorts, that is misrepresenting the true Seventh Day Adventist Church.
I will pray for all caught in your views. I do not hate any of you but feel that you are being deceived.
Sincerly,
E.W.King
www.adventist.7p.com
To dear Mr. Chartier
Thank you for laying down your beliefs so that others can see clearly what you teach, in your own words.
Your point about victory over sin is well taken and you should keep in mind that, despite popular perceptions, this teaching has not completely left the Adventist church. Victory over sin is clearly biblical and taught faithfully in the Spirit of Prophecy. Many in our beloved church have become discouraged by the lack of emphasis on preparation for the Second Coming, which would of course include victory over sin through Christ. We should not, however, allow our discouragement to cause us to jump ship and start another denomination. Just as Elijah was reminded by God when he felt he was the only faithful one left, there are still others in the Remnant that have remained faithful.
However, as I read through the rest of your posts, I see that you also are anti-Trinity (not just opposing the word, but the concept of Three Persons in the Godhead, which is clearly taught by both the Bible and EGW). I would say lovingly to be careful and you continue down this slippery slope. I have known several sincere Adventist folks who have started down this path and ended up believing all sorts of strange doctrines. It seems that once one deliberately throws out a clear teaching, they set themselves up for the acceptance of other teachings, like the "sacred name" theory and the celebration of feast days.
One prominent female doctor (former Adventist who had breast cancer and has made the rounds in American Media) fell into such concepts and now she teaches universalism and that freedom of choice is a satanic delusion. She also claims that Satan was doing the will of God by rebelling against Him so that God could demonstrate His love toward us. Her followers have continued down her path and now send out emails promoting Universalist views. God, they believe, does not destroy the wicked at all, but in fact everyone eventually makes it to heaven.
The Lord is coming soon. Every wind of doctrine is blowing. The shaking will come to the Remnant and shake out those who are not rooted and grounded in Christ. I prayerfully ask you to reconsider your position as did M.L. Andreason, who once taught the semi-arian view that you hold. He swore that he would not recant unless he saw the pro-Trinity words of Desire of Ages in Ellen White's own handwriting. She showed them to him and he became a Trinitarian, which he remained until his death.
Please come back while there is still time and attack not the Remnant of God, which is proclaiming the Three Angels' Messages.
May God bless you as you continue your research.
W. Carlton Martin
Ellen-White.com volunteer
Post a Comment