Archive through February 27, 2004 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 3 » Goldstein's "Graffiti" Book » Archive through February 27, 2004 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 13
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 4:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I thought I'd post a brief reaction here to Clifford Goldstein's new book, "Graffiti in the Holy of Holies". I actually had trouble sitting with the book because it was confusing in the old academy-Bible-Doctrines-class style and because his scornful tone really put me off. He was condescending to the point of sarcasm, and I got extremely tired of reading every reference to Ratzlaff as "Brother Dale" or "Brother Ratzlaff". I also wearied of his dismissing various Biblical points as "Brother Dale" reworking or borrowing old ideas from Desmond Ford which have long since been disproven in the seven-volume series published by the Daniel and Revelation Committee in response to Ford's Glacier View document.

Further, he frequently commented that certain arguments have been used by Adventism's detractors for years. That comment causes me to observe that Adventism has always had the same problems with deception and twisted doctrines based on a mishandling of scripture, and of course Adventism's detractors will have had the same criticisms for years. Truth is truth, Adventism is Adventism, and those facts have remained constant.

Another frequent complaint of Goldstein's is that Dale (and indeed no one else) has addressed the "scholarly" rebuttal to Ford's arguments against the IJ published in said 7-volume Daniel & Revelation Committee series. My reaction to that mantra is that when one reads and studies the Bible and learns what it teaches, compares one's analyses with those of other true Bible scholars, and finds them all consistent, there is no need to address every argument used to support a deception. Presenting an inductive Bible study that shows what the Bible really is and is not saying is the best way to argue against what one considers deception. The readers can determine for themselves which argument is internally consistent with Scripture and which is teaching truth.

I do have some significant disagreements with Goldstein's scholarship and theology. First, I'm actually offended by his detailed and repetitive argument that the visions in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 are necessarily presenting the same subjects as the vision in Daniel 8. He goes to great lengths to explain that the kingdom set up without hands in Daniel 2 and the great white throne judgment preceeding the kingdom of God in Daniel 7 are identical with each other and also with the little horn power being destroyed in Daniel 8.

When I read those chapters, they do not remotely seem the same. Daniel 8 explains quite clearly that the little horn power grows out of one of the kingdoms of Greece, and history really does support the idea that Antiochus Epiphanes fulfills it. I think it's quite possible that there may ultimately be another great power that also fits the description of Daniel 8 in some ways, but that chapter just does not lead one to see papal and pagan Rome as the fulfillment of that prophecy. His arguments reminded me of something I say to my students, "You cannot read more into the text than the text will support." Goldstein goes to great lengths to convince the reader that those visions are representing the same things, and I cannot see that conclusion being a valid understanding of the actual Bible text.

I suspect that even he sees the fallacy of his argument (which reminds me a lot of the traditional rabbinic way of playing with words and texts to extract possible meanings), because he repeatedly writes that people need to memorize the parallels between those three chapters because they are crucial to their understanding of the Investigative Judgment.

I really became uncomfortable when I read his "proof" that the IJ supports the gospel, contrary to what "Brother Dale" claims. As part of his proof that the IJ is gospel-centered, he quotes extensive passages from the Bible and from Ellen, punctuating them with his own commentary.

On page 130 at the bottom, he clearly calls the Day of Atonement the day of judgment. He derives this concept from the fact that the Levitical high priests took blood into the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement, and that marked God's judgment of Israel for that year, declaring them atoned for their sins.

Goldstein also ignores the Biblical fact of rewards. He insists that because all will appear before the judgment seat of Christ, everyone--wicked and believers alike--will receive their final judgment when Jesus comes back. He doesn't deal with the fact that judgment has already been passed on believers' statuses when they accept the blood of Jesus as their atonement. He uses the old Adventist understanding of rewards for one's works equalling either salvation or damnation. He does not deal with the fact that salvation is not a reward; it is a gift.

He uses the vision of Joshua the high priest found in Zechariah 3:1-5 to "prove" that believers need a covering of righteousness to protect them in the judgment--which, he argues, is going on now and will be completed at Jesus' second coming. In other words, he simply assumes without argument that believers do not ultimately receive God's "sentence" until the second coming, and they need to cling to Jesus in order to cover them then.

It's disquieting to read Goldstein's quotations from Hebrews to support his view that the atonement and the pre-advent judgment began centuries after the cross.

He quotes the following passages from Ellen to show that she clearly taught the gospel: "The tempter stands by to accuse [the saints], as he stood by to resist Joshua. He points to their filthy garments, their defective characters. He presents their weakness and folly, their sins of ingratitutde, their unlikeness to Christ, which has dishonored their Redeemer. He endeavors to affright the soul with the thought that their case is hopless, that the stain of their defilement will never be washed awa. He hops to so destroy their faith that they will yield to his temptations, turn from their alliegiance to God, and receive the mark of the beast." (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, pp. 458, 469)

Further, Goldstein quotes this: "Those who are indeed purifyng their souls by obeying the truth will have a most humble opinion of themselves. The more closely they view the spotless character of Christ, the stronger will be their desire to be conformed to His image, and the less will they see of purity or holiness in themselves. But while we should realize our sinful condition, we are to rely upon Christ as our righteousness, our sanctification, and our redemption. We cannot answer the charges of Satan against us. Christ alone can make an effectual plea in our behalf. He is able to silence the accuser with arguments founded not upon our merits, but on His own." (Ibid., pp. 471, 472)

Clearly Goldstein does not understand what the gospel really is, ir he could not use these passages to illustrate Ellen's gospel-centered teaching. First, we are not being judged on the basis of Satan's claims against us. We are born doomed because of God's holiness. It is God's declaration of our unworthiness, not Satan's, that condemns us. Jesus did not shed his blood to outbid Satan in a barter for our souls. He died to satisfy God, not Satan.

Second, the Bible teaches that Jesus, not the Father, is given the right and the power to judge. Jesus is not arguing with Satan before God the Judge in an attempt to present the most convincing argument. Jesus himself, the One who died, bled, and rose again, is our judge. All authority on heaven and on earth has been given to Him. He is the righteous judge. Satan is NOT locked into an ongoing struggle with Jesus for our souls. We are condemned by God himself until we accept Jesus. After that, we belong to him, and nothing can shake us from his or from the Father's hands. We do not stand in uncertainty, fearing we are lost, until the second coming. We KNOW we are saved; we KNOW we are secure. The Holy Spirit witnesses to us that we are saved.

Goldstein does not understand the reality of the new birth. He does not understand that when we accept Jesus we are literally connected to God and are new creations in whom sin no longer reigns. I never realized until I saw the Ellen quotes Goldstein compiled in this book how thoroughly she teaches--subtley but surely--that Jesus and Satan are struggling for our souls, and our salvation is about Jesus winning over Satan.

" 'The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan.' I gave My life for these souls. They are graven upon the palms of My hands," she wrote in Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 474 (quoted in Goldstein on page 138).

Jesus himslef has already rebuked Satan. He is not still trying to win a Great Controversy with the devil, hoping to convince God that he has the better claim. Jesus has always been sovereign over Satan. They have never been locked in a battle.

In spite of Goldstein's clever (but dubious) literary analysis and (unorthodox) use of scripture, he has not succeeded in discrediting (a word he likes to use!) Ratzlaff's book, Cultic Doctirne of Seventh-day Adventists. In fact, he has succeeded in clearly showing how completely Adventist theology depends upon Ellen White instead of the Bible. Goldstein does not understand the new covenant, and he does not understand the atonement, the security of salvation, or even the true nature of sin as taught in the Bible.

While his book is glib and clever, it is thoroughly Adventist. He does not even see the Biblical arguments against his theses. The veil Paul spoke of in 2 Corinthians 3 is over his eyes, and he fails even to see that he has confirmed his critics' claims against Adventism: it is unbiblical, and its theology depends upon Ellen White in order to exist. Goldstein does not see that the very EGW quotes he used to defend her teaching of the gospel instead expose her as heretical.

I'd love to know if anyone else has read his book. What did you think?

I ams so thankful for Jesus and for the inerrancy of his word!

Colleen
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris

Post Number: 186
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 5:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Very professional review and commentary Colleen! Perhaps the most powerful passage was:

"Jesus did not shed his blood to outbid Satan in a barter for our souls. He died to satisfy God, not Satan....Jesus is not arguing with Satan before God the Judge in an attempt to present the most convincing argument. Jesus himself, the One who died, bled, and rose again, is our judge. All authority on heaven and on earth has been given to Him. He is the righteous judge. Satan is NOT locked into an ongoing struggle with Jesus for our souls. We are condemned by God himself until we accept Jesus. After that, we belong to him, and nothing can shake us from his or from the Father's hands."

I like that! There really is no "great contorversy" in the Adventist sense. Satan is only a defeated foe who's doom has always been sure. Christ is not only the lamb slain before the world, but the King, judge, and Lord of all past, present, and future. We are God's elect from all eternity. There is great peace and assurance in knowing all this was ordained long ago.
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 5
Registered: 4-2000
Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 1:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen,

Although I have not read Clifford Goldstein's latest book, except Chapter Six which he recently published online, I have casually asked him on a liberal SDA forum whether I could get some kind of refund for the money I spent on his previous books while I was still an Adventist. In other words, I was wondering if he provided some sort of "satisfaction guarantee" for his readers after they discovered that he did not have any definitive answers on this hot Adventist topic after all (smile). His repeatedly addressing Dale Ratzlaff as "Brother Dale" is certainly condescending and insincere in light of the general tone of his book.

Your critique is powerful and biblical, Colleen. It is also well written--a hallmark of your literary skills. I wholeheartedly agree with your observations. Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing this book. Those truly committed in finding biblical truth will treasure your insights.

In awe of Calvary,

Dennis J. Fischer
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2

Post Number: 466
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 3:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen and others, Is this Mr. Goldstein a SDA? I kind-of assume he is because after reading Colleen's comments on the book I can't make heads nor tails out of what is being presented. Having grown up SDA I can honestly say the SDA religion never did make sense to me and that is how come by mid-way through 5th grade I'd decided when I grew up I was not going to have my parents religion. At age 11 I started reading the Bible on my own and came to totally different conclusions than I was being taught in school, the church and at home. And, it still does not make two bits worth of sense to me.
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2000
Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 1:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Susan,

Clifford Goldstein is currently the Adult Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly Editor. Prior to this, he was the Editor of their Liberty Magazine (a magazine that has declined in circulation by more than 50 percent in recent years). Liberty magazine used to have the largest circulation of all SDA periodicals. I guess many Adventists aren't as intent and gullible to see a Jesuit behind every bush as they used to be.

Cliff, a trained journalist, has written several books in support of the investigative judgment alibi in recent years. I find it most interesting that Cliff has become the leading apologist for the investigative judgment heresy. Although an ordained SDA minister now, he is not trained in theology. SDA theologians generally prefer to address other topics(I wonder why?-- smile).

Another current sore spot for the SDA hierarchy is the fact that tithe receipts have declined by 75 percent (in today's money) during the last 25 years. Currently, only 30 percent of SDAs tithe worldwide. In the Latin American and South American Divisions, which are strongholds of Adventism, only ten percent are tithing. In this information age, Adventists are becoming better stewards of what God has entrusted to them. Increasingly, they are reluctant to contribute to a system that spends millions of dollars in legal fees to avoid fiscal examination. In addition, many are learning that there never was a monetary tithe mandated in Scripture in the first place.

Dennis J. Fischer
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 7
Registered: 4-2000
Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 5:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

NEWSFLASH!

The SDA power-spinners at TAGnet website are at their best again! Now when you check their link for the exposure of reduced tithing among Adventists, as my last post reported, you'll find that they've actually BLOCKED this news story. They request that you send them an email [to get your email addresses for corrupt and unauthorized usage, I would assume]and they will then explain why they have blocked this unprecedented news story.

The following link http://disabled.tagnet.org/disabled_ministry?Ministryld=3157&stuff+ark/an1111.htm has this unusual message: "The account for the ministry: adventist.fm has been disabled. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may be. If you are connected to this ministry and are wondering why it has been disabled, please send an email to help@TAGnet.org. Thank You."

My advice is not to give them your email addresses in order to get an explanation. Beware of the Adventist technologist! Remember what the SDA theologians, pastors, and academicians have been up to since the beginnings of Adventism.

Dennis J. Fischer
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 8
Registered: 4-2000
Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 6:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

PS: The link to the 75 percent tithing reduction article now tells you that you have arrived at the right place with the wrong address. The site automatically redirects you to their main page MINUS the tithing article. --DJF
Jerry
Registered user
Username: Jerry

Post Number: 393
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 7:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hoo boy!!

I'm just surprised they let it get onto their website for more than two seconds.

What a faux pas!!
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2

Post Number: 473
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 11:33 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A comment about tithing-I recently spent over a month visiting one of the poorest communities in the United States. By poor I am referring to the amount of money the people have. Many of the people, in fact entire families live in tents and under tarps in this region. I attended the local SDA church one Saturday and I was told that the majority of the adults of that congreation are illiterate. Yet, in the pews were tithing envelopes encouraging 25% of the persons money be given to the SDA church. I mailed Colleen one of the envelopes. I was totally appalled!
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 18
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 3:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dennis, thanks for keeping us updated! How interesting! I totally agree with your advice not to divulge email addresses. It's true; one cannot depend upon the Adventist technologist to handle it as you might wish.

I saw some interesting membership statistics in the recent issue of the PUC Recorder. I'll post them when I'm home!

I am so thankful God called me out!

Colleen
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa

Post Number: 151
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 9:08 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I did find an article that sound like the one Dennis mentions. It was copied from www.Adventist.fm The address is: http://ellenwhite.org/news/n20031212.htm

Hope that's the same one....
Mrkarl
Registered user
Username: Mrkarl

Post Number: 13
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 7:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleentinker wrote,"When I read those chapters, they do not remotely seem the same. Daniel 8 explains quite clearly that the little horn power grows out of one of the kingdoms of Greece, and history really does support the idea that Antiochus Epiphanes fulfills it. I think it's quite possible that there may ultimately be another great power that also fits the description of Daniel 8 in some ways, but that chapter just does not lead one to see papal and pagan Rome as the fulfillment of that prophecy...."
I thought you might be interested in this in relation to the four winds ect.

Daniel 8:8 " Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven." [KJV]

The horn of Alexander was quickly broken when he died suddenly leaving the empire to his generals who within a few years carved it up into four divisions. It was not as strong in its early days and some land was lost, not all the geography was able to be maintained by his former generals. Notice, that he "waxed very great" in that he "magnified himself exceedingly" (see on vs. 4, and 9). The horn was broken after the Ram was defeated in what appeared to be a time of relative peace.

The words "four", "winds" and "heaven" are respectively masculine, feminine and masculine. This begs the question, "From which did the little horn come forth?Öfrom one of the winds or one of the four horns?"
"Recently a suggestion has been made that explains completely the sequence of feminine and masculine genders in the opening phrase, "and from the one (feminine) from them (masculine)," making it clear that there is no confusion of gender here at all. The last line in Dan 8:8 has a feminine-masculine sequence of gender which perfectly corresponds ot the sequence of gender in the first line of v. 9, which is again a feminine-masculine. Thus there is a syntactical parallelism of gender which follows the A + B/A + B pattern. This perfect concord of gender can easily be recognized in the following presentation:

A B
Dan. 8:8 to the four winds of the heavens
fem. masc.
A B
Dan. 8:9 and from the one from them






ÖThe syntactical construction is perfectly sound on the basis of Hebrew grammar."
9 "And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant [land]."

"In short, the syntax is gender-matched and indentifies the origin of the "little horn" as moving forth from one of the directions of the compass (from one of the four winds of heaven). This means that "from this understanding of the syntax of Daniel 8:8-9 it is evident that the little horn came on the scene of action in the vision of Dan 8 from one of the four winds of the heavens" and not from the Seleucid horn or any of the other three horns. Thus on the basis of syntax the "little horn" of Dan 8 does not grow out from on e of the four horns."
"The verb in the opening phrase of v. 9 is yasa, [long "a's" with accent on last "a"] the basic meaning of which is "to go out" or "to come forth." It is not the typical word for the growth of a horn in Dan 8. Two times in Dan. 8 the idea of the growth of a horn or horns is emphasized. The growth idea is used in v. 3 where a participle of the verb calah, "to come up," appears. This word states that the higher horn "came up last," i.e., it grew up last. In v. 8 the verb calah appears with the meaning of the four horns coming or growing up in place of the great horn that was broken. In contrast to the growth idea expressed in vs 3 and 8, the idea expressed with regard to the "little horn" is that it is a yasa movement or simply a going, moving , or coming forth in the sense of a movement from one compass-direction to another such direction. What is in view is a horizontal expansion and not a vertical growth. This is consistent with the usage of the verb yasa in the OT and in the book of Daniel."

Gerhard F. Hasel, "The "Little Horn," the Saints, and the Sanctuary in Daniel 8"; Arnold V. Wallenkampf, parts I & II, W. Richard Lesher, Parts III & IV; The Sanctuary and the Atonement, (Washington D. C.: Review and Herald) 1981, page 183.
Hasel also refers to the work of W. G. E. Watson, "Gender-Matched Synonymous Parallelism in the OT," JBL 99 (1980):321-41, especially p. 339 where the examples cited are referred to.
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa

Post Number: 158
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 8:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

MrKarl, thatís all fine and good if the Bible itself doesnít provide an explanation. If you read on down, Daniel clearly states that Gabriel has brought an interpretation of the vision. In verse 22, it says the large broken horn brings about 4 kingdoms. And somewhere before the end of THEIR kingdoms (collectively the 4 kingdoms just mentioned, so that one could fall and the others remain or all fall and only one remain??) a king arises. No where does it say the four winds represent other kingdoms. I can only presume Gabriel would have mentioned it in the explanation if it were true.

Secondly, I know enough about foreign languages (took several years in school) to know that some words are just assigned masculine or feminine. I do not know anything about the Hebrew language, so I do not know if every word has a masculine and feminine form, but I know that in other languages they donít. You conjugate the verbs according to the noun. To use our language, we call the earth ìmother earthî, I donít really think earth is a female, but we always refer to it as ëherí as we do with our country and our flag, etc. So, the gender thing doesnít prove much to me given my lack of knowledge about the languageís practice universally and Iím a little foggy about what that is supposed to prove. Iíve read your statement several times and read Daniel 8 completely since it is a story only in its entirety. Since it seems you copied the information from another source, Iím not sure you would know the answer to that either.

Finally, I think if one read the book of the Macabees, even though it is not ìinspiredî, it is considered to be historically accurate. Reading what the Jews went through during that time matches exactly the description given towards the end of Daniel 8. Verse 24 says ìhe shall destroy the mighty and also the holy people.î If we think from Danielís perspective, Godís holy people were the Jews. Iíve always been taught that one of the first things about Bible study is to understand it from the perspective of the writer FIRST. As I am sure Daniel believed the holy people were Jews, I also have to believe Daniel believed this a prophecy for the Jewish people. Their morning and evening sacrifices were taken away (as the passage is CLEARLY talking about...and another support for the Jewish people being the holy people...Christians donít have morning and evening sacrifices...Christ took care of all of that for us) among another host of attrocities. What I have heard is that the Jews believe this passage was about the Macabees and that situation. They created a festival to celebrate it called festival of lights, commonly known as hanukkah.

As Colleen mentioned, if this is merely a foretaste that happened once in ìminiatureî form and will happen again as some people speculate on a grander scale, I doní t know. I donít think anyone knows, but fanciful imaginations can sure come up with some potentially plausible scenarios...or not. But what I do know is that when the Bible provides its own explanation, I need go no further to understand it. In my opinion, the explanation is in the last half of the chapter of Daniel 8. And no where does the explanation provided in Daniel 8 say the four winds represents nations or that something grows out of it. The 4 winds arenít even mentioned in the explanation. History more than accurately proves the Media/Persia empires and the impact of Greece. This passage is one of the reasons so many people try to discredit when Daniel was written. They just canít accept that God can write history in advance. To me, it is one of the most powerful signs God has given us about the accuracy of his word and itís durability through time.

To put it succintly: there is no question but that the little horn came from the broken horns. Horns begets horns... That's what the Bible says when the whole passage is considered at face value.

Disclaimer: I am not Hebrew scholar, fortunately I know my salvation is not based upon my ability to perfectly comprehend ever nuance of this or any other passage. But I do trust God to explain his own visions. Thank you, Jesus!

P.S. my only source was my Bible.
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 24
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 9:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Melissa, I love your statements, "I do trust God to explain his own visions. Thank you, Jesus!"

Those two sentences sum up my feelings about being ablt to read the Bible and to trust that the Holy Spirit, the same one who inspired the book, will also teach me as I read. The confusion of having to play with genders (which are often abitrary, as you said, although I do not know Hebrew either) and possible interpretations to wrest a meaning from the passage to fit a prior understanding confounded me for years. I am just so thankful that I can now read the Bible, read its own interpretations, and understand what it means.

Further, I am so thankful that I'm finding confirmation of my understanding from other Bible scholars. Further, the Bible seems to say basically the same general things to Bible scholars over a period of two millennia. It's just such a relief not to have to try to understand the textual juggling I was taught which supported Adventist doctrines. They always left me confused and questioning. One of the wonderful things about the Holy Spirit's teaching is that he clearly confirms Jesus and the word of God when we are praying for truth.

Colleen
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa

Post Number: 159
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 11:59 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen, I am continually reminded of Paul's warning to Timothy against doctrines that were new. If there weren't any new doctrines coming along in Timothy's day, and the Holy Spirit commited that to be put in God's word, I can only presume there will continue to be no new doctrines but those that have been clearly taught in scripture. It's not Bible codes, where we have to apply the correct key combination and can get the decoder ring message. I've been told I'm narrow-minded for that view, but until scripture guides me differently, I can only rest on the historic Christian doctrines taught from the Bible alone. It is such a comfort to have the Bible and know the Holy Spirit can and will lead us if we will truly give him control of our studies. And what a wonderful exploration those studies are...

Our "theme" this year at church is from a MWSmith song: "ancient words, ever true. Changing me, changing you" ...so true, if we allow them to.
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 28
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 12:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I totally agree with you. That song, "Ancient Words", made me cry when I first heard it. Richard and I sat in the living room and just listened to it several times. I feel as if God has reached down and given me a treasure: he has given me the Bible after years of depending on late-coming volumes of words that obscured those "ancient words, ever true."

It has been such an amazing discovery to find that those ancient words really do change me. They are alive with the Holy Spirit who wrote them and who also brings me to life. What an awesome reality!

Colleen
Rey_cantu
Registered user
Username: Rey_cantu

Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 7:53 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Collen, I offer my service free of charge, to help translate some of the testimonies that I read in spanish. They need complete translation, because in some parts of the world, they don't speak spanglish or like we say here in Texas, Texmex.
I am here to support 100%
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa

Post Number: 208
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 12:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rey, can you tell us about your journey out of Adventism? Do you have a testimony posted somewhere?
Rey_cantu
Registered user
Username: Rey_cantu

Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 11:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I became an SDA when i was 16 years old. I believe that was 1976. aprox. I felt the call to go to theology school. I decided to go to Montemorelos Univ. I was there for two years. I was kicked out for being different. they told me i had excess of happiness. that i din't have the face of a pastor.
than I wento in 81-82 to southern missionary college in Tenn.
I also was to happy. at that time I heard something about Desmond Ford, but they told us he was Crazy (Loco) (SDA have a problem, they don't study, reaserch, they just take every thing for granted. )
82-85 came to texas. my home state.
came to college in southwestern adventist univ.
finish theology, and secondary education.

went as a missionary to Puerto Rico. I saw alot of things that I didn't like.
came back to texas in 91.
my father died in an accident. From that experience I wrote a book on how to overcome depression.
write a second book on leadership. Here is when I started traveling around the spanish countries. giving seminars.
one time i was at La Sierra Spanish church doing a motivational seminar. when I finish a young man, ask me about EGW. I didn't know what to say.

aug. 03 I went to give a seminar in Los Angeles.
Pulino Marquez is the pastor there. he is also an former SDA. he worked for 22 years.
we wento out to eat after the service and they started talking about EGW to the people who were with me. there were going back and forth. I was just sitting back. daniel my friend looks at me and ask me "Rey , what do you think? i didnt know what to answer. Here is when I told myself, I am going back to Texas and study this subject.
Came back home and bought and got every thing on the subject on EGW.
I told my partner, I will become an expert in this topic EGW.
my wife who was born and rise in the SDA church,didnt know what to say. I got her the white lie, by walter rea. when she finished the book, she cried, dind't know who to blame. she was angry at the system , because all along they knew the truth, but kept it to themselves.

in september 2003 and knew the truth about EGW. I was sure , 200% of what I read. she was a false prophet.
now i had to face the church and my family.
that same summer of 003 i had quit my position as an associate pastor, because I didnt had time with my sons. to busy with the church meeting, specially on sabbath.
I invited Pulino Marquez to texas to give us a seminar. there is a former sda church in cleaburne, next to keene, texas.
when the conf. found out, they made a meeting , rey cantu was put on trial , sentence and ejecuted.
rey cantu is consider as number one enemy of the SDA church.
some pastors have talk to me, to stop. that they are nervous. sorry I cant stop telling the truth, that I am saved!!!!!!!
I went to mexico , talked to some of my friends who are Dr. in theology, and they told me:"'Rey , you are right, but you know, I need this job to pay my bills."

I answered back, :"where is the honesty?"

I called several friends of mine, Dr. in the law, and they told me I was right, but that they didnt have an other place to go, so they would stay an keep covering up.
I told them, I quit. I am not comming back.

All my leadership and motivational seminars were canceled in the SDA church. yes i lost dinero, but is okay, money is not every thing in life.

i need lemons to make lemonade.
we are like eagles, the more the winds blows, the higher they fly.
I see life like a journey, and I enjoy this journey of life.
and now, you are invited, everybody is invited to come to our rally, reunion in july 30,31 2004 in dallas, texas. the evangelical radio station are giving us support.
dale is confirm.
dirk anderson

pulino marquez
and waiting for walter rea, jerry gledson conf. and mark martin, syney clevland. and more.

our slogan is '"we are not alone"

we have several objetives in mind. goals to set for our brothers and sister.
we need to get together. I know I need to see my people. that i am not alone. you know sometimes I feel by myself. like the loneranger.

tommorrow I send you the goals for the program.

in his joy,

rey cantu
Terryk
Registered user
Username: Terryk

Post Number: 16
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 4:21 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wow what a story. Praise God Rey you have seen the light and are sharing it. I would love something like you are planning to happen here on the East coast. That would be so wonderful to see outhers who have found this truth. Terry

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration