IN general I agree with what Cedric is saying. To include the documentation he wishes would have rendered the article a book and is pretty much available for anyone who looks for it. This is the "information age".

The one point I am saddened by is his first. Cedric is reading a LOT more into my comments on Rev. 19:10 that I had ever intended. I know that the SDA church does not "take Jesus out of that text and insert EGW". My point was simply that the SDA church intentionally misinterprets the text to support a non Biblical teaching. That was all my point was intended to make.

As to my statement that "no Biblical prophet had more than 7 visions" I could have better stated that "7 recorded visions" which does not in any way change the point of comparison between the sda prophet and any and every Biblical prophet.

What he says about Adra is true and well known by myself having worked with an NGO for two years.

I'm not so sure that Cedric is trying to do much beyond defend the SDA church. His comments are more nitpicking on details rather than dealing directly with the points I made. If I were to write that article today I would likely write parts of it differently to make them clearer.

There are many instances where Cedric accuses me of saying things that I did not say and reads meaning into what I said that I did not mean.

Cedric can find the Veltman report in Ministry Magazine on the GC web site under periodicals, possibly because of it's age in the "archives".

Cedric: I am NOT hiding my identity "(P.S.: "Cedric Brannough", like "Patricio Menéndez", is a nom de guerre.)" Patricio Menéndez is my real and legal name on my driver's license, my passport, my credit cards, my lease, etc. I am completely open, honest and unashamed to proclaim Biblical truth as I see it. If Cedric does not want to be seen as "off-shoots and argumentative fanatics" he had better pay attention and be accurate about his criticisms himself.

There is no such thing as an "acceptable manner" for demonstrating the misuse of scripture and the falseness of their prophet and traditions to the SDA church, or the same idea for any other denomination. That is what keeps denominational spin doctors alive, deflecting and diffusing the accusations of falseness. No one wants to learn that they are wrong, why should SDAs be any different. It is never easy to admit that you have been misled. I am one of those who puts ALL the cards on the table, up front, let the chips fall as they may. I am one of those who believes that if there is a problem let's get it out in the open and deal with it openly and objectively right now. I don't believe in double talk, sweeping things under the rug, being politically correct sugar coating error to make it less offensive, more acceptable.

"if we are going to evoke any changes in the church we love" we must individually start accepting the possibility that we are wrong and start studying the Bible to learn what it actually says and not just for proof texts to support denominational tradition. Truth comes from the Word of God, not from denominational or private (mis)interpretation of it. In the end, it is more probable "for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle" than the GC of the SDA church to ever admit the error of EGW and her doctrines and correct it's teachings to reflect Biblical truth. It would split the SDA church in two unless the rank and file members were first educated and accepted that they have been misled and pushed hard for change. Convincing millions of people from multi generation SDAs to SDAs baptized last week that they have been intentionally lied to would utterly destroy the SDA church. In it's present form I do not believe it would survive. The question becomes, do we love truth, or church? Do we love truth or tradition? There is no way to do this without causing a lot of pain and anguish. The only way is to just do it and get it over with. It would be a glorious day for God and truth if the SDA church were to do the right thing and admit the falseness of EGW and her doctrines. The missed opportunities could not be recovered but the church could finally get about doing what God started the reformation of the early 1800s to accomplish. "Better late than never." We've been wandering in the wilderness long enough!

Return to New Perspectives Home Page