The Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Ben W, Apr 20, 2006.

  1. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    This group describe themselves as the "Fourth Angel's Movement" of Revelation 18:1-4

    I think that this is a play on the SDA teaching of the Three Angels, although I am not sure.

    Anyway, here is some basic information that I got from their page.

    CHURCH HISTORY:

    The church was organized in the Fall of 1991 as a result of efforts by several dedicated Christians who had a vision for glorifying their Creator in word and deed. They had come out of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists denomination in response to the call of the mighty angel of Revelation 18:1-4. It was their belief that the General Conference Corporation, by unifying with the United States Federal Government in their trademarked church name of 1981, had formed an "image to the beast" as described in Revelation chapter 13. It was further believed that through the prosecutions of various trademark violations (1986-1991) that the General Conference had met the criteria necessary to become"Babylon Fallen" which necessitated a "coming out". A position paper was published in the Fall of 1991 entitled Crucified Afresh! which set forth the basic principles motivating this new movement.

    http://csda.us/index2.html
     
  2. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    Oh brother! :rolleyes:
     
  3. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the SDA and Mormons have done excellent jobs fooling many other Christians and the lost that they are just as Christian as Baptist quite sad.
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The "whole point" of the group described above is NOT to associate themselves with the Adventist church - (unless I misread your quote)

    The quote provided is an excellent example of what Adventists DO NOT believe!

    I am glad these guys had the honesty and integrity to remove themselves from the Adventist church if instead of Adventist beliefs they are going to turn instead to such malarky.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    No what is sad is that instead of addressing the true beliefs of the Seventh Day Aventist Church, threads are started like this one... making people assume that these people represent the SDA Church.

    It would be like me going to a Seventh Day Adventist Chat Board and starting up a thread on the Westboro Baptist Church with their "God Hates Faggots" message and then letting everyone assume that this is representative of the Baptist Church as a whole.

    Now THAT would be sad... and so is this.

    It wouldve been nice if people wouldve asked what we REALLY believe as a church and then address THOSE issues, instead of going off on all these tangents this way. Then if you wanted to criticize us at least it would be based on what we atually teach

    Neither the Branch Davidians NOR this Creation Church have anything to do with the real actual Seventh Day Adventist Church and their beliefs.

    Claudia
     
  6. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find it funny that SDA's cry foul and claim no one here has any 'idea' of their true doctrines. But these same folks get on RCC boards and blast with all guns. Is this not Hypocrisy? BTW the local SDA church had a seminar or somthing and they sent out information by mail. Guess what it didn't say where it was being held just an address
    I think this is very important when Baptist, AoG churches have a seminar they give the Church sponsoring it. The SDA's try to use deciet to get folks to come to their church.
    In Christ,
    Nate

    (Or maybe they just think that wrong to give the name of the sponsoring church :D maybe Bob can shed some light on this issue)
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    A "little attention to detail" if you please.

    Ben W - is the one that started this thread and I don't think he is unninformed about Seventh-day Adventists. He is simply pointing to this offshoot (probably because there are some other SDA offshoot topics also current on this area of the board).

    I don't see Ben as trying to position this "fourth Angel" group as though they "Are" actual SDAs proclaiming the SDA teaching on "the image of the beast power of Rev 13". I have no expectation that he would take up their argument in the OP -- and if I did I would engage in a detail by detail review of Rev 13. I would not simply complain that someone is saying something unflattering.

    Just because someone complains about your church does not mean that they have no point at all - they "could" have one. Might as well "look at the details".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said Bob!

    I am certainley not trying to defame the SDA church in any way. What I hoped to point out is that what people do in the name of a group is not what the group teaches. Specifically in relation to my point that the SDA do not teach that Michael and Jesus are one. Yes that has gone on in the past, yet it is not their official doctrine which they ought to be judged by.

    Yet with these and others, and we have'nt got to the "reform" movement yet, there are teachings that regular SDA folks are being blamed for, that are not there in their own Denomination.

    As was pointed out above, it is probably very likely that some people in the Christian community see Westboro Baptist as representative of Baptists because of their name!
     
  9. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.bible.ca/7-plagiarism.htm

    One might want to consider Ellen G. White, the mistress who founded the SDA, and remains an authority to this day for many within.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  10. Kamoroso

    Kamoroso
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why don't you tell us Jim, which SDA doctrine originated with EGW?

    It wasn't the Sabbath, that was introduced by A Seventh Day Baptist. A Seventh Day Baptist women introduced us to the truth of the seventh day Sabbath. The visions EGW had concerning the Sabbath, were after she, and others had already accepted the day as the truth of scripture. A man by the name of Joseph Bates was a prominent figure in promoting this biblical truth to the early Adventist’s.


    It wans,t the 2300 day prophecy terminating in 1844, that was promulgated by a Baptist minister named William Miller.

    It wasn't that the sacntuary of the above 2300 day prophecy was the sanctuary in heaven, that was introduced by a man named Hiram Edson. He had a revelation concerning the sanctuary in heaven. He is the one who introduced this to early Adventists. Again, EGW had visions concerning these things, however she was not the one who introduced them.

    The state of the dead being that of a state similar to sleep, was belived by countless Christians before there ever was an SDA.

    The same goes for the immortality of the soul, and eternal torment.

    Perhaps you could share with us, which doctrines originated with EGW.

    Regarding the internet sight which you provided, there sure is a lot of stuff on their. If you would care to post any one of those points on this board, one at a time to be more closely examined, I would cetainly take the time to do so. Other wise, it would be an overwhelming task to try to address them all. Of course you know that their are two sides to every story.

    I will address the foemaost accussation of the web page that you posted, I leave it to you, to bring up other points.

    The following was taken from www.egwestate.andrews.edu/. I just tried the link, and it didn't work. I'll have to find the info again. Here is what I obtained from there a while back though.


    The Plagiarism Charge
    Was Ellen White a plagiarist?

    Ellen White often made use of literary sources in communicating her messages. In the Introduction to one of her most popular books she wrote:

    "In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events as to afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted; but in some instances no specific credit has been given, since the quotations are not given for the purpose of citing that writer as authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject. In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use has been made of their published works" (The Great Controversy, p. xii).

    Ellen White's use of other authors was not limited to historical or geographical material, but included other subject areas as well. Research has found that she enriched her writings with choice expressions from her reading more extensively than had been known, although the amount that has been documented thus far is a small percentage (less than 2 percent) when measured against her total literary output.

    Because she included such selections from other authors in her writings, critics have charged Ellen White with plagiarism. But the mere use of another's language does not constitute literary theft, as noted by Attorney Vincent L. Ramik, a specialist in patent, trademark, and copyright cases. After researching about 1,000 copyright cases in American legal history, Ramik issued a 27-page legal opinion in which he concluded "Ellen White was not a plagiarist, and her works did not constitute copyright infringement/piracy." Ramik points out several factors that critics of Ellen White's writings have failed to take into account when accusing her of literary theft or deceit. 1) Her selections "stayed well within the legal boundaries of 'fair use.'" 2) "Ellen White used the writings of others; but in the way she used them, she made them uniquely her own"--adapting the selections into her own literary framework. 3) Ellen White urged her readers to get copies of some of the very books she made use of--demonstrating that she did not attempt to conceal the fact of her use of literary sources, and that she had no intention to defraud or supersede the works of any other author.

    Ellen White "did not copy wholesale or without discrimination. What she selected or did not select, and how she altered what she selected" reveals that she used literary sources "to amplify or to state more forcefully her own transcending themes; she was the master, not the slave, of her sources" (Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, p. 461).

    Bye for now. Y.b. in C. Keith
     
  11. Living_stone

    Living_stone
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought this was funny:

    Ellen = L+L=100,
    Gould=U+L+D=555,
    White=a double 'U' = 2 'V's +1 =11.
    Total these three numbers, and we have, 100 + 555 + 11 = 666.

    SDA's are often very strong into finding some link between 666 and the pope.
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Keith - I think Jim perfers the "snipe and run" method as opposed to "details" that can be supported.

    The group of 50 millerites that went on to form the SDA church - are "edited" down to "1" in Jim's revisionism. While he can't seem to bring himself to "say" that SDA doctrine uses EGW "for proof" - he kinda hints around at it vaguely.
     
  13. Kamoroso

    Kamoroso
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ellen = L+L=100,
    Gould=U+L+D=555,
    White=a double 'U' = 2 'V's +1 =11.
    Total these three numbers, and we have, 100 + 555 + 11 = 666.


    Thats interesting. Of course there is one major problem with the scenario-


    Rev 13:18 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

    Interesting, but apparently way off base.

    Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith
     
  14. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Seventh Day Adventist cult don't like it when they are classed as a cult, but love to call everyone else names. Just admit your ignoble beginnings and cultist lineage.

    Have you had any disciples pack up all their belongings and go wait for the forecast return of Christ by your founders? Oh right,,when the date didn't pan out they imagined that Christ actually did return, but in the air.........oh well...most cults claim scriptural support, don't they.

    Not hit and run, just realize a useless situation.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  15. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.bible.ca/7-plagiarism.htm

    Read a little more about the cult of Seventh Day Adventism and see the role of Ellen White, the extra bible by gift of prophecy.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  16. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jim,

    You are giving a lot of misinformation. Thats typical though and not surprising.

    Claudia
     
  17. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    I used to get all upset about it when people would publish misinformation about the Seventh Day Adventist Church till I realized, Well what else CAN they do anyway?
    They cant address the real issues because there isnt any BIBLICAL defense for their positions and they have nothing to disprove ours BIBLICALLY
     
  18. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    I used to get all upset about it when people would publish misinformation about the Seventh Day Adventist Church till I realized, Well what else CAN they do anyway?
    They cant address the real issues because there isnt any BIBLICAL defense for their positions and they have nothing to disprove ours BIBLICALLY and so what else can they do except go around picking out these falsehoods about what we supposedly teach or what supposedly happened in our church?

    Its kinda like Lawyers say, "If you cant disprove the witness then you have to try to discredit the witness'.

    and unfortunately some couldnt care less if the information they are spouting is accurate or even close to the truth or not.

    And I figure, well anyone who would believe that garbage without asking SDAs themselves what they actually believe or what actually took place,,, they deserve to be decieved.

    People are willing to go to great lengths to protect their cherished traditions even if there is no grounds for them in the Bible.

    Such as the false state of the dead doctrine, and the sunday sabbath and the eternal torment doctrine.
     
  19. Kamoroso

    Kamoroso
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry Jim, that you are so grossly misinformed. I have read about some people who did out of the ordinary things, because they truly believed Christ was returning, and fully expected to go home with Him. It would never occur to me though, to make fun of such people whose great expectations concerning the blessed hope, were so severely crushed. It must have been devastating.

    As a matter of fact though, there was not even one SDA in existence at the time which you are speaking of. The SDA church simply did not yet exist at that time. All those who were involved in the act which you are ridiculing, were lead to their conclusion by William Miller, a Baptist preacher. The SDA church has never believed that Christ appeared in 1844 somewhere in the air. If you wish to ridicule a denomination for what William Miller preached, I’m afraid that would have to be the Baptist denomination. Personally, I am thankful for the Baptist men and women who introduced certain biblical truths to the SDA church. Truly, we would not exist apart from these truths. I thank all the men and women from various denominations that contributed to the ongoing reformation with the truths that they learned from their respective churches.

    By for now. Y. b. in C. Keith
     

Share This Page

Loading...