Is The General Conference Afraid Of Blacksda? Options

[Whitey]

Personally, I am of the opinion that many in the black sda community who wish fellowship online and haven't found this site yet, would do real well linking up with Calvins's place. Many probably don't know about this domain.

IMO, having the tag-word Adventist in the url would be a whole lot more helpful for a google search request by those wanting to join up with a black adventist community.

[judibug60]

Personally, I am of the opinion that many in the black sda community who wish fellowship online and haven't found this site yet, would do real well linking up with Calvins's place. Many probably don't know about this domain.

IMO, having the tag-word Adventist in the url would be a whole lot more helpful for a google search request by those wanting to join up with a black adventist community.

It is my experience with fellow members of Our Church Group, that it is the word Adventist they will not let you use.....you can use Seventh Day but not Adventist....I remember the case of Rhaphel Perez....They took him to court over the use of the name Adventist......He is an Adventist Minister who started an independent Historical Adventist Church in Florida a couple of years ago......

[SoulEspresso]

It is my experience with fellow members of Our Church Group, that it is the word Adventist they will not let you use.....you can use Seventh Day but not Adventist....I remember the case of Rhaphel Perez....They took him to court over the use of the name Adventist......He is an Adventist Minister who started an independent Historical Adventist Church in Florida a couple of years ago......

I'm a GC supporter as well, but are they going to sue the Advent Christians, the Christadelphians, Church of God Seventh-day ...? These people are technically all part of "Adventist" churches and they all go back to the Millerites ...

The GC's impulse is to protect the denomination from destructive theology, which I agree with. I wish there was another way to do it ...

[awesumtenor]

It is my experience with fellow members of Our Church Group, that it is the word Adventist they will not let you use.....you can use Seventh Day but not Adventist....I remember the case of Rhaphel Perez....They took him to court over the use of the name Adventist......He is an Adventist Minister who started an independent Historical Adventist Church in Florida a couple of years ago......

According to court documents, The Eternal Gospel Church was formed in 1991 by Perez and 40 to 50 supporters. In 1991 and 1992, Perez attempted to gain admission to the Southeastern Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and later the Florida Conference. Each time the conferences denied Perez membership.

In 1994, Perez began placing newspaper advertisements around the United States using the Seventh-day Adventist name, or SDA. The church's name had also been used widely in his group's fliers, billboards, audio tape recordings, and on radio broadcasts.

Part of the issue with Perez' church was his representing himself as affiliated with the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists... that is not an issue here...

In His service,
Mr. J

[watchbird]

According to court documents, The Eternal Gospel Church was formed in 1991 by Perez and 40 to 50 supporters. In 1991 and 1992, Perez attempted to gain admission to the Southeastern Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and later the Florida Conference. Each time the conferences denied Perez membership.

In 1994, Perez began placing newspaper advertisements around the United States using the Seventh-day Adventist name, or SDA. The church's name had also been used widely in his group's fliers, billboards, audio tape recordings, and on radio broadcasts.

Part of the issue with Perez' church was his representing himself as affiliated with the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists... that is not an issue here...

In His service,
Mr. J

Thanks, Kevin. We need to keep in mind that the issue was over the name Seventh-day Adventist.... not merely Adventist. And also that he was a CHURCH that was representing itself as a church .... and claimed to be one of the Seventh-day Adventist "sisterhood of churches".

[Artiste]

Have to say I enjoyed Denny's post in Calvin's Corner under "Ideas For A New Name For Blacksda".

She suggested, "How about BlackSDAwearenotchangingournamesogetoverit.com".





***********************************************

[PeacefulBe]

According to court documents, The Eternal Gospel Church was formed in 1991 by Perez and 40 to 50 supporters. In 1991 and 1992, Perez attempted to gain admission to the Southeastern Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and later the Florida Conference. Each time the conferences denied Perez membership.

In 1994, Perez began placing newspaper advertisements around the United States using the Seventh-day Adventist name, or SDA. The church's name had also been used widely in his group's fliers, billboards, audio tape recordings, and on radio broadcasts.

Part of the issue with Perez' church was his representing himself as affiliated with the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists... that is not an issue here...

In His service,
Mr. J

Was this the Historic pastor and group presenting themselves as Seventh-day Adventist's that, took out billboards in the St. Louis area using hateful words to warn the readers about the Pope's visit? If so, they blighted the name of the Seventh-day Adventist church for many in that state, including my daughter-in-law and her family who had been interested in our denomination before that day. I believe there will be a reckoning over this one day.

[Johann]

Was this the Historic pastor and group presenting themselves as Seventh-day Adventist's that, took out billboards in the St. Louis area using hateful words to warn the readers about the Pope's visit? If so, they blighted the name of the Seventh-day Adventist church for many in that state, including my daughter-in-law and her family who had been interested in our denomination before that day. I believe there will be a reckoning over this one day.

We often forget this background that shows why the church has to protect its name. It is also becoming evident in the discussion on BSDA. When we are told there is an evangelist announcing a series of meetings, and we are thinking about inviting some non-SDA friends, how can we be sure he is preaching the same doctrines. Or is it a charlatan who calls himself a Seventh-day Adventist just to lure church members to hear his message to lead us away from the church?

Fortunately this does not apply to BlackSDA. . .

[SoulEspresso]

We often forget this background that shows why the church has to protect its name. It is also becoming evident in the discussion on BSDA. When we are told there is an evangelist announcing a series of meetings, and we are thinking about inviting some non-SDA friends, how can we be sure he is preaching the same doctrines. Or is it a charlatan who calls himself a Seventh-day Adventist just to lure church members to hear his message to lead us away from the church?

Fortunately this does not apply to BlackSDA. . .

This is the dilemma! The Seventh-day Adventist church is the only Protestant church (to my knowledge) that has a worldwide presence. When you walk into a building with that name on it, you ought to be able to expect to hear the Bible in the teaching and sermon, rather than twisted interpretations thereof, which are the hallmark of Adventist offshoots. How do we keep out the ravenous wolves while protecting honest independent ministries?

I wonder if perhaps the church could take an official stand against end-time perfectionism, we might be able to stamp out the problem by saying, "Hey, you teach something we don't believe, so change your name" a la Matthew 18 ... but some of the teachings of Historic Adventists are embraced by people who are never inclined to take it as far as they are ...

[mystery- man]

Was this the Historic pastor and group presenting themselves as Seventh-day Adventist's that, took out billboards in the St. Louis area using hateful words to warn the readers about the Pope's visit? If so, they blighted the name of the Seventh-day Adventist church for many in that state, including my daughter-in-law and her family who had been interested in our denomination before that day. I believe there will be a reckoning over this one day.

I am interested to hear what hateful words they used can you let me know? So I can see what they are going to be reckoning over.
I love the forums because anyone can be challenged---- Please provide some information.

[Aletheia]

It is my experience with fellow members of Our Church Group, that it is the word Adventist they will not let you use.....you can use Seventh Day but not Adventist....I remember the case of Rhaphel Perez....They took him to court over the use of the name Adventist......He is an Adventist Minister who started an independent Historical Adventist Church in Florida a couple of years ago......

It is the name "Seventh-Day Adventist" also. They have it trademarked also. Rafael Perez lost the lawsuit, and his Church formerly named "Eternal Gospel Seventh-Day Adventist Church"

Has this on their sign and letterheads now, because of the judgment against them" Eternal Gospel Church-- founded in 1992 by Seventh-Day Adventist believers"

That is legal.

That is why you will find many of the independant Churches including things such as "of historic adventists" or whatever.

The poiint I tried to make earlier was that with the GC telling Calvin he had to remove all trademarked logo's and names, and people trying to figure out what to call this forum if you can't use the names they say you are forbidden to.

What does that have to do with who you all are???

Are you Seventh-Day Adventists still? You and God decide that, right? You can look around you and know if those you love and know and associate with are Adventists, right?


Is this a SDA forum?
Well you all know that, regardless of what you are called, but will others know that if you have to remove the name Adventist, Sevenht-day Adventist and (or) SDA?


It is the same with Churches.

I personally think there are Churches within the denomination which shouldn't be. I think their are independant ones which should be.

There can be problems within the conference or without, and truth being taught within and without.

I don't think it wise to believe the GC is infallible and get's to decide who is and who is not and we just go along with it and say everything they do is right and justified, and claim anyone denied the name doesn't deserve the name because they have the right to protect their name.

Each case is different.

Do they really own ithe name, or do you(we) the members who are the Church?


I take each Church and ministry and decide on a individual basis for myself.

Do they teach and uphold the SDA faith and doctrines according to the law and testimony, or not?

Are their fruits those of obedience or not?


It is like this forum. Is it SDA? who knows better, all the members here, or the committee who said you can't call yourselves that?

Be careful here, and think what you are saying about others who have been denied the name and logo's also, you might just be condemning yourselves here in making such blanket judgments against them.

Johann:
We often forget this background that shows why the church has to protect its name. It is also becoming evident in the discussion on BSDA...

I find it ironic, that with all the arguments on legalism etc.. And the beliefs we have about the Church of Rome and it's controlling hierarchy... That only the SDA Church has sued others for using the name Seventh-day Adventist. Look at all the different baptist Churches, or the different Church of God's, they don't sue other churches for calling themselves Baptist or Church of God. neither are they apparently threatened by those who do so.

Things that make you go hmmm....

~ Aletheia

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Aug 23 2007, 07:26 AM

[Artiste]

We often forget this background that shows why the church has to protect its name. It is also becoming evident in the discussion on BSDA. When we are told there is an evangelist announcing a series of meetings, and we are thinking about inviting some non-SDA friends, how can we be sure he is preaching the same doctrines. Or is it a charlatan who calls himself a Seventh-day Adventist just to lure church members to hear his message to lead us away from the church?

Fortunately this does not apply to BlackSDA. . .

Inviting non-SDA friends can be an unsettling situation ... sometimes one doesn't know how they will be received ...


*********************************************************

[SoulEspresso]

I am interested to hear what hateful words they used can you let me know? So I can see what they are going to be reckoning over.
I love the forums because anyone can be challenged---- Please provide some information.

I was flipping through a Marvin Moore book today and he was saying that it's best not to throw out the most controversial of our prophetic interpretations to the public, "first thing." Whether or not you agree with it, Adventists have made a case that the medieval church and its leadership structure constituted the biblical "man of sin" or antichrist, and that according to prophecy those same structures, which exist today, will again take on that role before the end of the world.

I know that some of the posters here disagree with that interpretation of the prophecies in question, but that's beside the point. The point is, you have to have a lot of knowledge of the Bible and Adventist teachings to understand that interpretation. You can't just put up signs saying, "The pope is the antichrist" without coming across as an anti-Catholic bigot. That statement has to have a lot of Bible-interpretive context to make sense, and you have to walk people through it. If that's what you believe ...

Now, for the record, what Soul believes--any theology that includes the equation, "God's grace + man's works = salvation" is by definition antichrist--whether that comes out of a Catholic's mouth, or an Adventist's. That is part of official Catholic dogma, though many Catholics believe more like Protestants in this regard (Brennan Manning for one); what's interesting is that many Adventists--particularly those who wave the banner of "Adventist history"--believe that at the end time, we're saved by our works. Put another way--the gospel is the gospel now, but right before Jesus comes, the antichrist happens to be right.

I'm throwing a bomb here but I'll wait for a response ...

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Aug 23 2007, 10:48 PM

[Johann]

I'm throwing a bomb here but I'll wait for a response ...

you will not be alone. . .

I will add to the fire by telling something of what transpired at the time Danny first threw Linda into the Lion's den.

At that time there was still some honesty left witch some 3ABN leaders, and they felt free to discuss some of the issues and consequences of what was happening. This, unfortunately, did not last.

What I say here is, therefore, my own conclusion of what these people were saying, and I have to take full responsibility for my words, since none of those people no longer will vouch for ideas they voiced at that time.

January to May of 2004, people knew that Danny, and possibly some of his henchmen, had decided that Linda had to disappear from 3ABN. Why? Because Linda was gaining a greater and greater audience with her devotionals and her songs where her message of salvation by grace alone was coming out clearer and clearer. To some this was not "historic adventism" and there was a growing fear that the support of wealthy "historic adventists" would dwindle. They felt certain the financial support of 3ABN would increase if Linda disappeared. Unfortunately the vision of the prophet did not come from the right source, so the support decreased in stead.

At that time some of these people were still honest enough to state that it came in handy that Dr. Arild Abrahamsen could be used as a tool to get rid of Linda, so they tried to give him the blame for the divorce which would have taken place anyway, sooner or later. Linda was not aware of this, so she did not take any precautions. At that time the spiritual adultery idea, apparently originating with New Age, was thought to be a useful doctrine.

The honest will know this to be right.

[daylily]

I'm a bit confused here. I don't believe that the teaching is grace + works = salvation. Isn't it that we are saved by grace but that God requires obedience? And what is wrong with that???