What is the Creation 7th Day Adventist Church ?

Ben Mondrone · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 24 Jan 2003 Posts: 4

Hello All,

Can someone shed some light on the differences between the SDA church and that of the Creation 7th Day Adventist church. Are the differences warranted and is one more correct than the other?

Ben
_________________
BAM

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2003 6:02 am Post subject:

Ben,

I’ve talked on the phone with the leader of the Creation 7th Day Adventist church about 5 years ago. They’re a small group, about a dozen people, I estimate. They have a terrific web presence but nothing else. They believe that the SDA church is giving out the mark of the beast and believe in keeping the Jewish Feast Days.

The leader of that group says that the mark of the beast is the trademarked name “Seventh-day Adventist.”

Ben Mondrone · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 24 Jan 2003 Posts: 4

Eugene,

How do they come to the rational that the mark of the beast is the trademark of the SDA church ? How can a trademark fit the characteristic signs of the beast that scripture gives us ?
Eugene thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions I really appreciate it, some other forums are not so understanding of questions being asked, you have to believe as they do or else.
I have been reading alot of books by Samuele Bacchiocchi, and I find his material very insightful, do you know of him ? and what if you do think about his work.

Ben
_________________
BAM

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2003 12:33 pm Post subject:

Ben,

I’m not sure we should say “they.” There’s the leader Walter McGill and his wife. If they have kids (I recall that they do) then I’m sure Walter counts them as believers. I recall the mention of two other persons and their children. It’s definitely not a real church.

I can’t speak definitively about Walter McGill’s theology. I’ve read a few of his booklets but that was about 5 years ago. If you’re interested in what he believes, try sending him an email with direct questions or read his material online at www dot creation-7th-day-adventist-church.org/pastor_chick.html

I’ve experienced censorship on all the other Adventist forums so I know what you’re talking about. I love the philosophy of this place and I’m glad you appreciate the freedom to speak what mainstream Seventh-day Adventists can’t tolerate.

I’ve spoken to Samuele Bacchiocchi before and know of him by his theology. Bacchiocchi is a scholar and some of his books present a respectable view of the issues they address. Overall I think of Dr. Bacchiocchi as a conservative scholar who is slightly more retro than progressive and a person more interested in selling books on topics like Wine and Jewelry than speaking out on issues like pseudo Adventism’s pantheism. I am waiting for him to prove me wrong. I disagree with Bacchiocchi on his poor Biblical exegesis of a few texts in Galatians and Colossians and am certain he is too ultra-traditional in his view of prophetic interpretation.

Light Fox · Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 5:41 pm Post subject:

Greetings!

Well, it was certainly a surprise to see a thread asking about us on here <chuckles.>

To correct one or two of the mistatements, Pastor "Chick" (Walter, 'Chick' is his nickname) is not the "leader" of the Church, nor is his wife... Christ is the head, and Him alone. We do not quite have a dozen members, in the Tennessee congregation.

We have total, at the moment, 4 baptized members in the U.S, among others who profess but have not yet been / been able to be baptized.

And, yes, we are a "real" church.

In response to the mark of the beast being the trademark, it is not quite the trademark itself, but what is done therewith; To clarify, there is nothing wrong with an image per se (There were images of Cherubim on the ark) but with bowing to, worshipping the image.

Adventism has always taught that the image to the first beast (Rome) would be a church using civil power to enforce its ends, as that is what Rome was and is; A church directing the state.

The Conference Adventist church has filed for a trademark on "their" name (Actually the name God has given for His people, thus His name) and begun bringing people before the courts of the world, and into the prisons thereof, for "trademark infringement;" For not bowing to the decree of the church + state image (Formed with the application for and receiving of a trademark from the second beast, the U.S. federal government.)

Without the legal "mark" of membership, you cannot "trade," or 'buy or sell' the gospel with the name God has given to His people.

This is the reason we are the Creation Seventh Day Adventist church, and not the Seventh Day Adventist church. To be sure, we do maintain that we are in fact the true Adventist church due to the Conference's unchurching, but this is why we are separate: Because whenever Babylon (A church in apostasy) joins to a worldly government, and persecutes with civil power, they become "Babylon fallen." This has happened every time in history.

Israel + Rome = Unchurching, Apostolic church is called out.

Apostolic church + Rome = Unchurching, Protestantism is called out.

Protestants + U.S. = Unchurching, Adventism is called out.

Adventism + U.S. = Unchurching, True Adventism is called out.

If you can find one part it does *not* fulfill, please let me know.

Although, this is not quite the only difference... It is the second and third angel's message clearly and faithfully taught, but there are more. We believe in keeping Yah's feast days (Not the "Jewish" feast days, they did not invent them

), at least, those feasts that have not met their anti-type yet.

We are not Trinitarian, much like the Adventist pioneers before Mrs. White's death, and we believe in the life of Christ lived by believers, the life lived free from all known transgression by His power (As gone over in a thread that has previously been moved to the "Jail" board.)

We use the actual names of the Father and Son (Yahweh and Yahshua), although to state clearly now, we do not believe their names are any "requisite" for salvation... Simply their real names.

In any case the questions were appreciated; If you (Or anyone) has any more, please feel more than free to ask me, or read a booklet, send an email, view a website... But whatever you do, do not idle. Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.

Yours in Yahshua
_________________
- Lucan "Luke" Chartier

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 12:22 pm Post subject:

There’s one thing I remember about my conversation with Walter McGill that I should have mentioned. Why did he feel it necessary to leave the Adventist church? The Manifesto of Reform-Minded Seventh-Day Adventists clearly teaches that the church is in apostasy and needs to repent, but it also says that we are not to draw apart from the church. It specifies the only allowable circumstance for separation that is morally justifiable:

Light Fox · Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 12:42 pm Post subject:

Hello!

To take the last question first so to speak, I do not know if you remember the conversation correctly - You stated your opinions but that you cannot remember the details; therefore I do not know if you remember the details correctly and formed your opinions, or misunderstood and formed your opinions. All I can tell you is that your opinions and mine are obviously not the same.

We (Creation 7th Day Adventists) are not "opposed" per se to reforming the Conference church... The problem as it were, is that by both the bible and SoP they are beyond reformation. I had probably best expand on that.

According to the bible and its examples, yes, apostasy is a call for reform. Many people leave the Conference SDA church because of apostasy, or petty differences, drums in church or some such thing, and we will be the first to say this is the wrong reason to leave a church when it is the true church. Apostasy is call for reform, not separation.

The time when apostasy goes too far however, and has gone too far in every case, is when the church joins to a worldly government and persecutes others. At this point it "Seals" its apostasy, and the true Church is invariably called out of the now-fallen body.

This is the difference between Babylon and Babylon Fallen, and early Sabbath School lessons support this; when the church imbibed Pagan errors they become Babylon. When they join to the state, they fall, and are the body of Christ no longer.

For the Sabbath School quarterly I quoted, please visit here: 1896 Sabbath School Quarterly.

I believe that the lesson above more or less sums up our stance on why we are separate, why we believe we are the true Adventist church*, and why we no longer attempt to reform the fallen body, but warn them of Babylon's fall.

It may help, if you were not previously aware, that in 1980 the Conference filed for, and in 1981 received a trademark on their name. They sued one group purely over doctrinal differences while they were still members of the Conference organization, and another man was prosecuted to the point of imprisonment. Scripture classifies imprisonment over faith as persecution.

For photocopies etc. of letters, trademark papers, phone conversations and such in regard to the said trademarking, please visit here: Trademark Resources

*Note: I may as well take this time to explain why quotes from Ellen White regarding the church and leaving the church do not apply to the Conference; By her own words they have passed the point of unchurching (crying "We have no king but caesar") and thus they are not a church at all, let alone the true Church, but simply an image to the beast. (Rome being the first beast; A church using civil power to persecute.)

I hope this clarifies a bit, though as you can probably tell I'm trying very hard not to blast out every detail at once. If there are any questions left, please do not hesitate to ask.

Yahweh bless

Edit: P.S., I forgot to reply to your quote in the first post... We have followed that criteria as well; should you wish to browse the CSDA site, we have an extensive list of correspondences with the Conference and Conference officials regarding their actions. They refuse to admit their error by scripture, let alone repent of their course.
_________________
- Lucan "Luke" Chartier

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:43 pm Post subject:

Seventh-day Adventists are certainly without excuse in crucifying the Son of God afresh and putting Him to open shame. I don’t want to minimize that. I just don’t know what justifies your confidence in your measure of their culpability. Do you know how to estimate the curse they bring to themselves and to the world? Don’t you think it’s a little presumptuous of you to believe that God chose you and a few others to be the ones to succeed the Advent movement?

If you lived at the time Paul supposedly wrote his epistle to the Romans, I assume you would have opposed Paul and would have taught that Judaism was “beyond reformation.” You would call this a fundamental doctrine. You would separate from other Christians who disagreed. I view Paul’s judgment as being wiser and more loving than yours. I, therefore, side with him.

I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? “Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE.” But what is the divine response to him? “I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL.” In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. Romans 11:1-5. NASB.

Light Fox · Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:17 pm Post subject:

Greetings

I am most certain we would appear presumptuous, as did Christ, as did the reformers, and as did the early Adventists themselves. Who ever stands up with truth against a multitude of lies and does not appear prideful, or presumptuous?

I would say the best "evidence" as it were is our fruits. Do we not teach from scripture every bit as the early Adventists did? Do we not hold up the "pins" and pillars of foundation they erected? Do we not teach according to the bible in every point? Do we not teach the 3 angel's messages, the gospel of Christ in their fullness? If there is any point of scripture we err on then bring it forward; If it is truly error, it will be corrected according to the Word. This is how I can tell you that we are the true Church. His word is our "Creed," and His word alone.

As for myself and a "few others" being chosen to succeed the Advent movement, that is not quite an accurate assessment. None of us were "chosen" above our fellows; We were called into His body, and we merely answered the call. All are "chosen," called to come out and carry on His work, however sadly few are willing to make the sacrifice to follow Him, even when the Word is plain regarding the matter.

For your following statements, I would be led to say that your assumptions are incorrect. The topic Paul was addressing, as can be shown in context as well as fairly well from just the verses you posted, was the concept that somehow the Jews individually were beyond redemption. This was clearly not the case, for God had truly not cast off His children. He had, however, called them out of their old, fallen religious body to come into His pure one.

If we are to agree with Paul we must of course agree with Peter, who told the entire house of Israel they had crucified Christ (even though only their leaders committed the action) and had to repent and be baptized in the name of Christ. (Acts 2:36-38)

Indivudals within Adventism of course are not "Cast off," for, I was raised an Adventist, of the stock of the North Pacific Conference.

However that body has fallen by way of crucifying Christ (In His saints), as had earthly Israel as a body when that letter of Romans was written. All while this was happening, was the message one of staying within Judaism?

Did Paul or Peter tell the people to reform the Jewish leaders?

Did they try to convince the high priest into accepting Christ?

No. They called them out, because the nation had gone beyond repentance, they had crucified Christ, and the Apostolic church had been called out.

I submit that the *exact* same course of actions has come about here. Has Yah cast off the people within the Conference? Not by any means. Do the people within the Conference need to repent of their leader's sins, and join to the called out remnant? Without a doubt, and scripture bears plain witness of this.

Please continue with any more questions, and Yahweh bless!

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot one of your questions.

You asked if we can measure their curse, in short. I suppose I had best ask you to expand on that, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Assuming you are asking, in essence, "How can you judge wether or not you have to come out?" I will answer.

We do not judge when they have fallen; the Father does, and He has said "come out of her my people." As I pointed out in the post before this, every single time the church has used civil power to persecute, they have unchurched themselves. Without exception, the true Church has *always* been called out to continue the work. The Conference has done this, and they have fulfilled every prophecy regarding Babylon fallen from both Mrs. White and scripture, and regarding the mark and the image.

Therefore, do we measure the effect of their curse? No. Our Father foresaw it, and He provided instruction for us almost 2000 years ahead of time for what to do when the curse comes. His instruction was "Come out." We obeyed.

_________________
- Lucan "Luke" Chartier

Eugene Shubert

So the bottom line to what you are saying is that if the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists decided to give you their trademarked name, you'd accept it. And you'll accept any and all properties, stocks, bonds, etc now held by them. And if any of the current leaders or members decided to repent, they'd be welcome in your church, if they humbly submit to your authority. Naturally, none of the old leaders would be qualified to run anything. Everyone would be required to embrace the beliefs of 19th century Seventh-day Adventism. Also, it's expected that everyone in your church recognize that God has appointed you and Walter McGill, and men of your choosing to head this new movement. Have I presented a fair and accurate judgment?

Light Fox · Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:00 pm Post subject:

Hello!

No.

<chuckles.> Seems abrupt but it about sums up my answer to your question in every category you presented.

If they "decided to give us their trademarked name" we would forfeit the trademark, and obviously not prosecute anyone with it. In essence nothing would change except their ability to persecute by giving it up.

I don't believe I understand what you meant by giving us their bonds, properties etc. If they felt like suddenly just giving us property and money, well, sure; the ministry always can use more support.

If any or all of the members repented, of course they would be welcome; It is Christ's body, and He is calling them to it. As for "our authority," your probably going to have to expand on that; In the same basic category was your statement about "God has appointed you and Walter McGill, and men of your choosing to head this new movement" I stated very clearly earlier that Walter, nor myself, nor any other human in the church is the "leader" or "head" of the movement.

There are, yes, some appointed apostles, some prophets, some teachers etc. within the Church, however they are not positions to "lead" but to guide. Perhaps it seems like a subtle difference if any, but it has to do with the mindset of the person in question. To repeat myself from earlier, Christ is the head of the Church, and Him alone. Walter is no more the "head" of the church than Paul or Peter were.

You asked about embracing the beliefs of "19th century Adventism" as well. No, we do not have a "Creed" or "dogma" of beliefs that one must adhere to before being considered able to become part of Christ's body; We are not a "denomination." The only thing "required" to be baptized into the body of Christ is to be born of Him; you most likely know what I am talking about from reading the gospel article I posted in another thread. If one has died to self and ceased to sin (Ellen White, should it matter, also stated the same criteria for baptism; ceasing to sin) then scripture and the teachings thereof will fall into place as the Word is made clear, and questions are answered.

We do, however, find that the things they taught in "19th century Adventism," that is to say the pillars they put in place, were scripturally correct. We do then expect someone, when shown from the bible what the clear and irrefutable truth is, to either accept it or provide scriptural basis for why they cannot, so it can be considered and the truth of the Word can be found on the matter conclusively. We will not disallow someone to be baptized because of doctrine alone; but if someone is showing blatant irregard for the Scriptures they have been made aware of, in favor of a personal notion (Judged as such when they cannot give a solid answer from scripture for why they do not accept it), then they do not have yet the mind of Christ. And that *is* grounds for denying baptism.

I believe those were all of your assessments; I am unsure why you seem to want to cast Walter as being some form of "leader" (He is a pastor / evangelist, and does take care of much of the church "business," but is not the 'leader') to clarify once more then, Christ is the head, Him alone. Walter, David, myself, and in short everyone within the Church are simply parts of the body.

If there is any more, or any more questions, as usual do not hesitate to ask.

Yah bless!

_________________
- Lucan "Luke" Chartier

Dzien Dobry · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 26 May 2002 Posts: 8

Light Fox,

Please pardon my ignorance. If you will, please list a few of your best New Testament texts that prove that Jews were being called out of the synagogues. Why is there the exact opposite of a calling out message in Peter’s positive, hope-filled sermon of Acts 3:11—4:4? How do you explain the love in that sermon being so directly opposite to the unmerciful, hard-line condemnation you are preaching now?

Light Fox · Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:51 pm Post subject:

Greetings

If you would be so kind, please explain your description of "un-merciful, hard-line condemnation." Thank you.

In answer to your request, I will state clearly that scripture does not record the words "Come out of the synagogue," primarily because they often did visit synagouges to preach to the people in them. I can, however, show you 2 verses and a Greek word that show the clear difference between the Church (Apostolic) and Judaism.

"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)

"Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:" (1 Corinthians 10:32)

History also shows the differentiation between the Jews and the Apostolic Christians; then of course there is the letter to the Corinthians, which speaks of them coming together in the Church for the communion feast. (Something you wouldn't have found happening in a Jewish synagouge.)

As for the Greek word I said to make mention of; "Church" in Greek is the word "Ekklesia." It comes from two words, "Ek" meaning 'come out / coming out' and a derivitave of "Kaleo," meaning "Call / bid forth."

When even the very word they used means the gathering of the called out, I believe it is not hard to deduce there was a separation taking place.

Especially if you read through Acts with a knowledge of what that word meant when it was used.

You also asked about Peter's sermon in Acts 3-4. What exactly was the contrast?

Peter told them to repent of their leader's sins, and to be baptized in the name of Christ. This is the same message he gave two chapters before in Acts 2:36-38. In fact, your passage may even make the point better, as Peter tells them to repent and be converted.

As always I encourage more questions; and I still do have one of my own, regarding the statement "un-mericiful, hard-line condemnation." Once more, please do expand on that.

Yahweh bless!
_________________
- Lucan "Luke" Chartier

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:43 pm Post subject: Re: A church within a church

Light Fox · Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 6:05 pm Post subject:

Hello

<chuckles.> "Circuitness obfuscation?" Please read my last post and tell me just what parts can be classified as either of those, or really anything less then plain, straight language.

Also, I do not mean to call attention to your presentation instead of scripture, and I will get into scripture in just a moment, but I do beleive it needs be pointed out that you basically just jumped on the first bandwagon to try and accuse me, without any evidence of any of your own claims. That does not give the impression of earnest truth-seeking.

Now, on to scripture. Please explain, in explicit detail, your statement of the following being illigetimately conceived.

I am not aware of "Force" or "Driven" being the same as "Call." To forewarn, if you wish to discredit something you really do need to address it in order to do so, otherwise it may tend to look dishonest.

The very word for "Church" means "Gathering of the called out." I would very much like to know, sir, how you can reconcile this with your wording in the last post; specifically, that they were driven out, and more specifically, your slash at my methods of deduction for "assuming," if such a word can be used, that "Gathering of the called out" means the people were, well, called out.

You then stated what I referred to partially above, and what does need to be reconciled with the very word for 'Church,' that "The called out ones were driven out by persection."

A reference, please?

Acts 2 has the believers of one accord, in the Apostle's doctrine (Not Judaism, who rejected Christ), breaking bread *together*, and "of one mind." If there is any way to *possibly* say that they were in Judaism, please make it known for our edification.

You then proceeded to accuse that we do not speak for the Spirit. I believe one verse answers this well enough.

"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." (Rev. 22:17)

The Spirit and the Bride do not say "wait," sir. Yes, we do speak for the Spirit, and if you can show otherwise, please do.

You then said that we were unjustified to say that a call out of Israel without a specific verse is unjustifiable. Are you a Jew?

A Catholic then, perhaps. A Bapist, or other denomination?

I am sorry but there are so many areas that I need to reply to, on viritually every one of your statements, possibly excluding "Dear Dzien."

To continue on your claim of being unjustified, I would like your explanation of, really, every verse I have listed up until now.

Explain Acts 3:36-38 to begin with, I suppose. Then the verses in Acts that Dzien used, and that I replied to with simply quoting them above. Then please explain 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

Jews did not believe in Christ, and 2 Corinthians should very clearly give the "call out" message you find lacking in scripture; along with all of the other verses, the Greek word "Ekklesia," and the fact that you are not a Jew... In short, if you wish to discredit what I am saying, please do that, and not simply attempt to accuse me of something with no evidence nor reply to anything I set forth. Anyone can call anyone wrong, what matters is who can prove it. You are yet to even make a "stab" at doing so.

You then told me that I should admit the message is not biblical. Show me it isn't and I will.

You told me that I was like Joseph Smith for one day deciding all other churches were wrong, and making his own.

Excuse my bluntness, but are you an Adventist saying that?

If so, can you please, then, justify the early Adventists "up and deciding one day" that all other churches were wrong for breaking the commandments, and making their own?

Please explain to me, as you are not a Jew, what exactly you are doing outside of Judaism. Also please explain to me, why you are not a Catholic, why you are not a Lutheran, and, in short, why you believe those organizations were unchurched. Then please, proceed to explain why the founders of the Seventh-Day Adventist church which you say is the true church still, were either 100% off base or outright lying when all of them from Ellen White to the Sabbath School quarterlies taught the exact same thing you are accusing me of error on currently; that being the unchurching and calling out of Israel.

There is just so much left undone on your part, sir, and I do not mean to appear angry, but if you are going to offer questions, and much more so give such bold statements as you have done, please, for the sake of progress and common honesty, back them up with an explanation, a scripture, anything, really. At the very least you owe an explanation of why you felt my statements were what you said they were, instead of saying "What further need have we of witnesses? We have heard His blasphemy for ourselves." with no explanation of why I was wrong, in your eyes.

Hoping to hear from you soon, and as always, awaiting more (valid) questions and comments.

Yahweh bless
_________________
- Lucan "Luke" Chartier