Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. Jeremiah 6:16

The secret of the LORD is with them that fear Him; and He will show them His covenant. Psalm 25:14

Vol. 14, No. 5 Straight and Narrow May 2005

In a Shadow of Darkness

This month I received the April 2005 special edition of the 1888 Glad Tidings published by the 1888 Study Committee. Gerald Finneman wrote the lead article entitled, “In the Shadow of Calvary.” According to Finneman there were two aspects of the cross of Christ he wished to examine:

“(1) its shadow of sufferings and humiliation; and (2) its light of glory (or glorious light).”

Finneman makes some excellent points in his article concerning the manner that many protestant churches (especially noting the Lutheran), have lost sight of the cross. He writes:

“Today, many Lutherans see no difference between their understanding of justification by faith and the papal position.”

“It must be noted that Catholics, Lutherans, and Evangelicals all believe that the cross is central to their unifying message, particularly as it relates to their understanding of justification by faith and good works of mercy. They united in their agreements to give the appearance of a unified front to the onlookers of the world. Neither the Lutherans nor the Evangelicals are in harmony with the known facts of the teaching on salvation as advocated by their theological forefathers. Their agreements with the Vatican represent a significant shift and compromise on the part of Protestants. But now, at last, they find themselves at home alone with Rome.”

Finneman near the end of his article gives a warning, “If we get our doctrine of the cross from today’s Evangelical sources without discernment and filtration, we will present the cross in a false light that will lead us into sympathy and finally union with apostasy.”

While we can totally agree with Finneman on these points, he failed to note the root cause of the Lutherans’ and Evangelicals’ slide from their spiritual forefathers.  While Luther and other great reformers did a wonderful work in breaking away from Rome, they did not fully grasp the need to reject Rome’s god, the Trinity. Without a change here, the Reformation was bound to come to a stop and a slide backward was inevitable. As James White noted, “Martin Luther, and other reformers, arose in the strength of God, and with the Word and Spirit, made mighty strides in the Reformation.  The greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped reforming.  Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and Sunday-keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural errors.” (Review and Herald, February 7, 1856) Over time, worshipping the same god as the papacy has brought the former Protestants to a non-protesting position and into the arms of Rome.

Are Seventh-day Adventists in danger of this happening? History clearly reveals that all the early Adventists rejected the god of the papacy. They wrote and spoke adamantly against the Trinity because it was subversive to the atonement and the real cross of Calvary. They believed that the Father is the “only true God” and that Jesus Christ is His literal begotten Son. The early Adventists understood that the Trinity made no provision for Jesus to fully die upon the cross. With this understanding as a basic platform, Jones and Waggoner presented the righteousness of Christ to the people. This fact is something that the 1888 Message Study  Committee has turned a blind eye to since its inception.

The “sympathy and finally union with apostasy” that Finneman warns about is upon mainline Seventh-day Adventism. Just as the Lutherans and Evangelicals do not realize what has happened to them, Adventism, by accepting the papal god, the Trinity, has moved within arms reach of Rome. Notice the irony in this excellent point that Finneman makes:

“… we must remember this: anyone believing the false doctrine of the immortality of the soul cannot truly understand or preach Christ and Him crucified. It’s an impossibility. That doctrine denies the cross of Christ, because if the human soul is naturally immortal it would have been impossible for Christ to die. The Spirit of God testified, through Isaiah, that Christ died not only physically, but that His ‘soul’ was made ‘an offering for sin’ (Isa. 51:11).”

Finneman makes an excellent point. He stresses that the “soul,” the total being of Christ, had to die and the doctrine of the immortal soul makes no provision for this necessity of the gospel. However the Trinity doctrine makes no allowance for Jesus to truly die since He is immortal, in the same sense, as the Father is. Of course, Adventists Trinitarians say that Jesus died, just as Lutherans and Evangelicals say he died, but when you carefully study and understand the theology, you realize that each leaves you with a hollow shell without the meat of the nut.*

Perhaps you have heard the expression, “the chickens have come home to roost.” It simply means that “the consequences of earlier actions are making themselves felt.” (The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition) Adventist chickens have come home to roost. Many have been upset with the “new theology” and the teachings of Desmond Ford, but this is actually a fruitage of the Trinity doctrine. When the Evangelical, Walter Martin, first approached Seventh-day Adventist Ministerial Secretary Roy Allan Anderson concerning dialog with Adventists, the first thing he asked Anderson was, “What do you folks believe about the Trinity?” (Adventist Review, September 8, 1983, p. 4) Anderson noted, “Our answer concerning the Godhead and the Trinity was crucial.” (Ibid.) Anderson knew that Martin and the other Evangelicals would not even begin talks with the Adventists if they were not trinitarian. The ensuing talks that led to the book, Questions on Doctrine, and a half-century of apostasy, could never have occurred if Adventism had not given up the truth about God for a mess of trinitarian pottage.

 While Finneman’s article has many good points, it simply falls short of presenting the real message of the cross. There is a deafening silence concerning a real Father who gave His true Son to really die on the cross for man.  Neither John 3:16 nor Romans 8:32, nor any similar texts, are quoted in the article.  How sad that those who claim to be children of the light have accepted the gross darkness of the foundational teaching of the Harlot.  “The mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of Catholic faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the Church” (Handbook for Today’s Catholic, p. 16) The immortal soul, purgatory, Mary worship, Sunday sacredness, and all the other foul teachings of the papacy all come from the Trinity doctrine. The  cross to Trinitarians is in a shadow of darkness. Allen Stump 

* For an in-depth study into the issues of the triniatrian doctrine and how it impacts the gospel, see the book, The Foundation of Our Faith, available from Smyrna Gospel Ministries. This book is also available to read or download free from the book section of our website: http://www.smyrna.org.

Prayer Requests

This summer (June 30-July 9) the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists will be meeting in St. Louis, Missouri for possibly the last time ever. There will be brethren from all over the world attending. I can’t help but think of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the day of Pentecost when Jews from all over Asia were at Jerusalem. God loved those Jewish people and He greatly loves the Adventist people too. Perhaps God is going to pour out His Spirit again, soon, in a similar manner.

 We are currently working to prepare thousands of booklets, tracts, and audio-video materials to share at the session. Pray that we may be able to get the materials ready and that God will give the people a willing heart to receive the materials and the message. God has already provided a place for many to stay during the conference, so if you are interested in joining us in this great opportunity, let us know and then stay in prayer. Editor

Youth’s Corner - Punctuality

It is a sad failing with many that they are always behind time on Sabbath morning. They are very particular about their own time, they cannot afford to lose an hour of that; but the Lord’s time, the only day out of the seven that the Lord claims as his, and requires us to devote to him, quite a portion of this is squandered away by sleeping late in the morning. In this they are robbing God. It causes them to be behind in everything; it makes confusion in the family; and finally results in the tardiness of the entire family at Sabbath-school, and perhaps at meeting. Now why can we not rise early with the birds, and offer praise and thanksgiving to God? Try it, brethren and sisters. Have your preparations all made the day before, and come promptly to the Sabbath-school and meeting, and you will thereby not only benefit others, but you will reap rich blessings for yourselves.  (Ellen G. White, Youth’s Instructor, March 19, 1879)

The Ten Commandments
and the U. S. Supreme Court

More than a year after Alabama Justice Roy Moore lost his job over a Ten Commandments display, the U.S. Supreme Court is revisiting the politically divisive issue for the first time in more than twenty years. The High Court ruled in 1980 that religious displays did not belong in public schools. Now they must decide if religious displays can be displayed on government property without violating the first amendment.

On March 2, 2005, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two cases concerning the public display of the Ten Commandments. The first case was Thomas Van Orden versus Rick Perry, in his official capacity as Governor of Texas and Chairman, State Preservation Board, et al (Van Orden v Perry). This case sought the removal of a granite monument of the Ten Commandments which is currently on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol.

This six-foot tall monument was donated in 1961 by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles. Besides an abbreviated version of the Ten Commandments, it also contains two small tablets with ancient Hebrew script, an American eagle with an American flag, an eye inside a pyramid, two small Stars of David, and a symbol of Christ—the Greek letters chi and rho, intertwined together.

The Texas State Capitol is located on a parcel of more than twenty-two acres. The Capitol grounds include many historical references. Some of them include: the Alamo, Pearl Harbor, the Confederacy, and different religious references.

Texas won the initial trial and also when it was brought before the Court of Appeals by arguing that the monument’s placement did not violate the Establishment Clause when viewed in context of historical references.

The second case is McCreary County, Kentucky, et al, versus American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, et al (McCreary v ACLU). In this case the ACLU is suing McCreary County, Kentucky, over the public display of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky county courthouses (McCreary and Pulaski), and in the public schools.

The Kentucky case is very different from Van Orden in that the displays were not part of a larger historical or educational display, but rather were situated by themselves. However, they did not stay alone. After the lawsuit was filed, portions of the Declaration of Independence, the Kentucky Constitution’s preamble, the Mayflower Compact, and other religious/historical documents were included.

The lower courts found these displays to be a violation of the Establishment Clause because they contained only the religious elements of various public documents and ruled that they had to be removed.

Van Orden v Perry

In Van Orden v Perry, Counsel for the Petitioner, Erwin Chemerinsky sought to present to the court that the public display on the Texas Capitol grounds violated the first amendment by conveying “… a powerful religious message that there is a theistic God and that God has dictated rules for behavior.” (Van Orden v Perry, oral argument transcript, p. 3) Chemerinsky stated that the monument “proclaims not only there is a God, but God has dictated rules of behavior for those who follow him or her.” (Ibid., p. 4) “The Ten Commandments come from sacred texts.” (Ibid., p. 5)

For over a quarter of a century, the jurisprudence of the court on first amendment cases has been based on the Lemon test.

Lemon v Kurtzman (1971), dealt with the states of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania having programs that supplemented the salaries of teachers in faith-based, private schools for their teaching of secular subjects. The Court ruled against both programs as violating the establishment clause. Then Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote the majority opinion. His opinion formulated a three-prong test which became known as the Lemon test.

The Lemon test looks at three elements: the purpose, the effect, and the government entanglement that the statute involves. As Chief Justice Burger noted,

“First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’” (Lemon v Kurtzman)

Without Chief Justice Rehnquist on the bench, due to cancer, Justice Stevens began the proceedings. Justice Antonin Scalia was the most vocal of the justices, with questions and comments. Some of his most important comments were:

“And when somebody goes by that monument, I don’t think they’re studying each one of the commandments. It’s a symbol of the fact that government comes — derives its authority from God. And that is, it seems to me, an appropriate symbol to be on State grounds.” (Van Orden v Perry, oral argument transcript, p. 16)

“They’re [the posters of the Ten Commandments] saying these basic principles of human behavior that we’re governed by come from God.” (Ibid., p. 24)

“As I say, I don’t think most people know what the text of the Ten Commandments are, but they do know that it stands for the fact that our laws are derived from God. That’s what it stands for.” (Ibid., p. 27)

“I think the message it sends is that law is — and our institutions come from God. And if you don’t think it conveys that message, I just think you’re kidding yourself.” (Ibid., p. 29)

“It is a profound religious message, but it’s a profound religious message believed in by the vast majority of the American people, just as belief in monotheism is shared by a vast majority of the American people. And our traditions show that there is nothing wrong with the government reflecting that. I mean, we’re a tolerant society religiously, but just as the majority has to be tolerant of minority views in matters of religion, it seems to me the minority has to be tolerant of the majority’s ability to express its belief that government comes from God, which is what this is about.” (Ibid., pp. 16, 17)

From these statements of Scalia, it is easy to see the argument coming in the future that since our laws come from God, and Sunday is part of God’s law, so they say, then the government has the right to uphold Sunday laws or any laws that they claim come from God.

The issue of whose God was portrayed in the Ten Commandments was hardly an issue. At one point Mr. Chemerinsky noted a point of concern in the Ten Commandment text, “It is the words, I am the Lord, thy God.” (Ibid., p. 24)

Interestingly, as one reads the text on the monument, the giver of the Law is not at first revealed. The Sabbath Commandment, which gives both the personal name of the Father and His title and territory, is simply noted as, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” The commandments on the monument actually begin, “I AM the LORD thy God.” This is notable for the intentional capitalization of the terms, “I AM” and “LORD,” the first being a clear reference to the God of the Israelites that led them in the wilderness. (See Exodus 3:14.) This title is believed by most Christians to also be a title that Jesus claimed for Himself. (See John 8:58) Also, the term “LORD,” as found in the King James Version of the Bible, when capitalized, is really the Tetragrammaton, which is usually translated as Jehovah or Yahweh. There can be no question that these commandments are not just simply a demonstration of law. They are meant to be the Judeo-Christian standard of law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy proposed the idea that those not in agreement could simply close their eyes.

“This is a classic avert your eyes. If an atheist walked by, he can avert his eyes, he can think about something else.” (Ibid., p. 12) This was seconded by Scalia, “As Justice Kennedy said, turn your eyes away if it’s such a big deal to you.” (Ibid., p. 17) However, in cases of school prayer the courts did not propose such a solution.

Counsel Greg Abbott spoke on behalf of the state of Texas. He summarized the state’s position for maintaining the Ten Commandments by stating:

“First, the Ten Commandments is [sic] an historically recognized symbol of law. Second, this monument is one of the smallest of the 17 monuments on the Capitol grounds, and like most of the other monuments, was a gift to the State of Texas and is clearly recognized as such on the monument itself.

“And third, this monument has stood for more than 40 years without controversy on a national historic landmark.” (Ibid., p. 28)

Abbott sought to defend the monument on a purely secular basis. This raised the ire of Justice Scalia who responded:

“It’s not a secular message. I mean, if you’re watering it down to say that the only reason it’s okay is it sends nothing but a secular message, I can’t agree with you. I think the message it sends is that law is — and our institutions come from God. And if you don’t think it conveys that message, I just think you’re kidding yourself.” (Ibid., p. 29)

He later noted, “I really would consider it something of a Pyrrhic victory [a victory won with staggering losses] if you win on the ground that you’re arguing.” (Ibid., p. 41)

In fairness to Justice Scalia and the other Justices, it must be kept in mind that sometimes their questions and comments reflect the “devil’s advocate” position to try to further explore the issues at hand. However, in this case, Justice Scalia seemed to be very favorable towards the state of Texas.

McCreary v ACLU

In his opening remarks for McCreary County, Counsel Matthew Staver stated:

“Before this Court is a setting of law in a courthouse and a display on law that contains the universally recognized symbol of law. Despite the fact that the deck law occupies only one tenth of this otherwise secular display, the Sixth Circuit struck it down. The Court focused solely on the religious aspect of the Ten Commandments and that’s aired by ignoring the overall context.

“The Ten Commandments is unlike most any other acknowledgment. It is in a category essentially all by itself. It is thematic in common places in courthouses while Nativity scenes and menorahs occur occasionally and often gratuitously on public property. The Ten Commandments occurs quite frequently and has for more than a century in courthouses all over this nation. It is associated with courthouses for a clear historic reason, because the Ten Commandments has played an influential role in American law and government and our system of law in this country.” (McCreary v ACLU, oral argument transcript, pp. 3, 4)

The main point of Staver’s argument was that the Ten Commandments, especially with the other documents placed with them, were of historical value.

Three times, Justice Stevens raised the issue concerning the intent or purpose (the first prong of the Lemon test) of the display and Justice Breyer raised the issue at least once. If the original intent was to promote religion, then the Court would be hard pressed to allow the display to continue. Justice Stephen Breyer asked and then answered himself:

“… is the government involved in religion when it posts the Ten Commandments alone? Yes, of course it is.

“Now, there could be a purpose to it, that they want to just show the history of law but it’s all by itself and there is a lot more history than that and context may matter a lot.” (Ibid., p. 13)

“Now, if it was wrong to begin with, is it wrong to end with?” (Ibid., p. 14)

Staver replied: “No, Justice Breyer, it is not wrong to end with any more than it would be wrong to begin with the Sunday laws based upon the Sabbath commandment which was a commandment about worship and the end with the secular reason for keeping those particular laws as this Court has recognized in McGowan.” (Ibid.) This reinforced an earlier statement of Staver when he had noted that even though Sunday laws “may have started off for a religious purpose, the Sunday laws were continued to be retained for secular reasons.” (Ibid., p. 6)

Justice Souter noted a few minutes later, “What this Court basically has said is you can engage in secular objectives that incidentally involve religious figures or references, e.g., Moses up there.”

David Friedman gave the opening statement for the ACLU where he noted:

“Justice Stevens and may it please the Court, three times in the course of a year, McCreary and Pulaski county posted Ten Commandments displays. They variously describe the Ten Commandments as the precedent legal code of Kentucky, the central historic legal document of the State and, finally, as the moral background of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of our legal system.

“In the course of the litigation, they announced that under current law, they announced to the court that under current law, America is a Christian nation and they acknowledge that the purpose of their second display was to demonstrate America’s Christian heritage. In this context, it is our position that the current courthouse display reveals both a purpose and an effect to endorse religion.” (Ibid., pp. 26, 27)

Friedman appealed to the first two prongs of the Lemon test. He proceeded to mention the Kentucky legislature’s reference to “Jesus Christ as the prince of ethics.” (Ibid., p. 28)

As in Van Orden v Perry, the issue of whether or not the concept of law, and specifically the principles of law such as in the United States were derived from the Ten Commandments, was discussed. If the laws of the United States are derived from the Ten Commandments, then there is a historical reason for their public display. Friedman, arguing for the ACLU, noted the position of McCreary County:

“What they have said in this display itself, in the explanation of the display, that they are the moral background of the Declaration of Independence, to the exclusion of all others, in effect. When you say the, it doesn’t say one of. It says it is the foundation of our legal system. It doesn’t say it had an influence on some of our laws. It asserts the primacy, the actual text of this display asserts the primacy of the Ten Commandments.” (Ibid., pp. 34, 35 – emphasis supplied)

To this Justice Scalia responded, “If that’s what it means, it’s idiotic. I don’t think anybody is going to interpret it that way. You can’t get the Declaration of Independence out of the Ten Commandments.

“And I don’t think that’s how somebody would normally read it. I think what they’re saying is the principle of laws being ordained by God is the foundation of the laws of this state and the foundation of our legal system.” (Ibid., p. 35)

Will the Court use the Lemon test in Van Orden v Perry or in McCreary v ACLU? The last ten plus years has seen the court trying at times to distance itself from Lemon. One observer noted that this Court does not want to be seen as the Court that bars the Ten Commandments.

Possible Outcomes

Let us look briefly at a few of the possible outcomes when the Justices give their ruling this summer. Some court watchers have suggested that the Court will uphold the lower courts in McCreary. (Deny the Ten Commandments to be posted.) The intent and purpose seems very clear that the Ten Commandments were posted for their religious content. This will give the Court an excuse to uphold the separation of church and state. Interestingly, the Court could, at the same time, uphold the lower court rulings on Van Orden allowing the Ten Commandments monument to remain on the Capitol grounds in Texas on the justification that while Texas is acknowledging the religious nature of the Ten Commandments, it is not endorsing them, but rather it is primarily acknowledging their historical nature.

Two other scenarios are possible. The Court could uphold Van Orden and overturn McCreary. This would have the effect of allowing the Ten Commandments to be posted in both places and open the door for the posting of the Ten Commandments everywhere. This would greatly please the evangelical community and advance their desire to see honor given to their false Sabbath (Sunday). If the inverse occurs, with the Court ruling to deny both displays, the stage would be set for some type of counter-action movement. Currently there is a growing movement to impeach judges and an attempt to restrain the judiciary. The Republican congress, led by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist, is ripe for action. Many recent rulings have displeased the conservatives. The courts, including the Supreme Court, failed to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. This has brought the evangelical right to start demanding action. Ruling by the Supreme Court in these cases against the public display of the Ten Commandments would certainly give Satan and his agents an excuse to condemn a Court that would appear “Godless” and against that which they claim America was founded upon. This could bring a reaction from Congress to attempt to “clip the wings” of the judicial system.

Only the God of heaven knows what rulings the Court will hand down and what the public reaction will be. But no matter what happens, the stage is being set, the lines are being drawn. We are at the end.

“For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.” (Hebrews 10:37)

“And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.” (Romans 13:11)

The “evil servant” says “in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming.” (Matthew 24:48)  Allen Stump

2005 Jamaica Camp Meeting Report

The 2005 Jamaican camp meeting was held March 24 – March 28 at the Youth with a Mission Campground in Manchester, the site of last year’s camp meeting. The camp meeting was scheduled to be located at Ocean View Campground due to damage that Hurricane Ivan caused to the Youth with a Mission Campground, but the management backed out of the arrangement only weeks before the start of the meetings.

Many of the camp’s buildings were greatly damaged including the chapel whose roof was totally removed by Ivan. This called for some makeshift arrangements which all bore up under well. The main meetings were in a large room that became very small as the people came to the meetings, but all exhibited a thankful spirit that the Lord had provided a place for the meetings.

While not having the lovely view of the ocean as the Ocean View Campground, the spacious lawn areas of the Youth with a Mission Campground, coupled with clear weather and the very pleasant fellowship of the brethren, made for a wonderful time.

The theme of the camp meeting was, “Time to Awake.” Several speakers spoke to the need of not just getting ready for the Lord’s return, but being ready. The challenge was consistently put forward to so live in the coming year that the theme would have to be different next year for all would already be “awake!”

There was a good variety of congregational and special singing at the camp meeting. One of my personal highlights was to listen to the “little people,” as the youth were known, recite poems and sing praises to the Master. Howard and Karleen Williams helped the “little people” with their programs and it was certainly a heart-thrilling blessing to young and old alike.

(Click on pictures for larger image.)

There was a wide variety of speakers at the camp meeting. Calvin and Paula Bickle from Pennsylvania gave a series of health talks that were easy to understand and had counsel that was practical to follow. Some of the other speakers included Neville Morris, Leford Russel, Donald Clayton, P. D. Clayton, David Clayton, Daniel Clayton, Howard Williams, Marlon Cole, Franklin Coach, Hopeton Deerr, and Peter Barnz of Jamaica; Jason Palmer of Georgia, Ann Ford, Onycha Holt, and Allen Stump of West Virginia also participated in the program.

On Sabbath morning, Sister Ford gave an encouraging missions presentation sharing reports from Europe, Africa, and other parts of the world. Saturday evening, Sister Holt gave an excellent presentation on family life issues from the Bible. She clearly presented that if Satan can gain the victory at home, he wins everything. However, Sister Holt then proceeded to show the Bible plan for spoiling Satan’s attack and establishing Christ as head in the home.

Jeff Campbell from Georgia and Georgiana (Georgie) Richard from Ohio also came from the United States to the camp meeting, each contributing in their own unique ways. Jeff contributed in many ways, but his manner of helping to keep all the speakers alert and on their toes was most interesting. Georgie was always the first person to be looking for something to do to help with the camp duties. Whether it was chopping up greens in the kitchen or sweeping and mopping the meeting room, if work was going on, Georgie was there.

One thing all the American visitors could agree on was the sweet, warm, and genuine welcome and fellowship we received from all the brothers and sisters in Jamaica. Even though we eight “whities” were the minority, we never felt any different from the nationals in any respect.

As has been the custom in Jamaica, the meetings started off with great delay. For an American who greatly values punctuality, this literally caused me some gray hair by the end of the camp meeting. My last sermon was on the spiritual value of punctuality. While some may not have seen it as an important issue before, I know that some saw the light and repented with a repentance that needed not to be repented of.

      All too soon the meetings were over and we had to return home. With a bit of sadness in our hearts we left Jamaica for the happiness of returning to our families and homes in America. However, as anyone who has ever been a guest of the brethren in Jamaica knows, you become a part of their family very fast. Allen Stump

WV Camp Meeting Announcement

After attending the Jamaican camp meeting, I am looking forward to the West Virginia camp meeting more than ever before.

The West Virginia camp meeting will be June 21-25. We have chosen this date, in part, to help accommodate those traveling from overseas who would like to attend the General Conference Session to be held June 30–July 9 in St. Louis, Missouri.

The theme “Sharing our Experience” is very appropriate considering the nearness of the Lord’s returning. Some highlights we are looking forward to are:

Lynnford Beachy will give a series of gospel  presentations. Randy and Dee Dee Herman will be sharing health messages each night.

Vlad Ardeias will be coming from Romania to share his testimony and witnessing experiences. Although not confirmed due to visa requirements, we are in prayer that Pastor Maurice from the Hope for Children’s Center in Kenya, Africa will be at the camp meeting to bring us an up-to-date report of the progress of the orphanage there and the work of spreading the gospel there. We are also in hope that Pastor Paul Agyeman from Ghana will be here.

Pastor David Clayton from Restoration Ministries will be the special late morning speaker. We are also planning on having a communion service so please do not leave any spiritual preparations undone. Brother Howard Williams of Restoration Ministries will lead out in the communion service.

Sister Onycha Holt from Smyrna, a social worker employed in counseling and a serious Bible student, will be speaking each day on family life issues. Her plan is to emphasize the roles God has given to the husband/father, wife/mother, and children of the home as outlined in the Bible. Sister Holt will, as time allows, offer counseling to those who are interested.

A new feature this year will be a seminar on the Godhead that will include a presentation followed by questions and a group discussion on the topic of the day. David Clayton, Howard Williams, and Lynnford Beachy will be working together as a panel to answer questions and to moderate the discussion.

As always, we eagerly look forward to this special time of study, prayer, and fellowship. As in the past, the meetings will be held at Smyrna and camping is free to all. Each camper will be responsible for his or her own meals, except on Sabbath when a haystack lunch will be served. Kitchen facilities will not be available, but camp stoves are welcome in the camping area.

This is a camp meeting. You need to bring a tent or make other arrangements. We do not have cabins or rooms available. Smyrna has a few tents and other camping supplies for those who do not have their own and cannot afford to purchase them. The supply is limited, so if you need to use a tent, camp stove, sleeping bag, or other items, please request early. We have four showers with hot and cold water available and a new walkway around them that has greatly improved their entrance. Don’t forget items such as tents, bedding, flashlights, food, toiletries, and insect repellent. Let our dress and deportment be such as becomes Christians.

We plan to have some meetings for all age groups except children under age four. To help the mothers with children who need a place to go when their children are fussing or when they just need a relaxing place, we will be sending a live video stream into the fellowship hall, dedicating it as a mother’s-room area. Weather permitting, nightly bonfires with singing and fellowship will be open to the young and young at heart.

For those who wish, there are motels in the area. The nearest motels are: The Pocahontas Motel (304) 436-2250, Woody’s Motel (304) 732-6540, The Cow Shed (304) 732-7000, Twin Falls State Park Resort (304) 294-4000. If you need a room, please call early as the better motels fill up fast at that time due to a large influx of tourists at that time.

After reading this announcement, don’t you think this will be the best West Virginia Camp Meeting ever?  Brothers and Sisters, don’t let man, beast, or any other creature keep you from being there! We will share more details next month.  Allen Stump

   New Pope—Same Rules

by Lynnford Beachy

After 26 years in the papal seat, Pope John Paul II died on April 2, 2005 leaving a vacancy in the Vatican that has been filled by seventy-eight-year-old Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who chose to be called, Pope Benedict XVI. Ratzinger is the oldest pope chosen in 275 years and is viewed as a transitional Pope. Cardinal Ratzinger has been head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - formerly known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition for the last 24 years. For anyone who knows even a little bit about Christian history, this should raise a red flag. The Inquisition has a very bad reputation for arresting, torturing and killing millions of innocent Christians during the Dark Ages. This office still exists, but now with the politically correct name, “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

Commenting on the beginning of the Inquisition, the church historian Philip Schaff says, “The civil codes adopted and pronounced death as the heretic’s ‘merited reward,’… To extirpate religious dissent, the fierce tribunal of the Inquisition was established. The last measure to be resorted to was an organized crusade, waged under the banner of the pope, which shed the blood of the mediaeval dissenters without pity…” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 6, Chapter 10, Section 79)

Commenting on the renamed office of the Inquisition the BBC states,

Cardinal Ratzinger ran the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This Vatican department, a descendant of the Holy Inquisition, protects Church orthodoxy. The job earned him unflattering nicknames such as “The Pope’s Enforcer” and “God’s Rottweiler”. He has a reputation for stifling dissent,… As a key aide to John Paul II he had a fearsome reputation, but those who know him say he is gentle and somewhat shy. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/:  “A Pope with uncompromising views,” April 20, 2005)

Ratzinger was a right-hand man to Pope John Paul II, having considerable influence upon the pope and the church. Pope John Paul II chose Ratzinger to be President of the Commission for the Preparation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Ratzinger worked on this project from 1986 to 1992 before presenting the New Catechism to John Paul II

There is some surprise that a key member of the Vatican bureaucracy has been elected pope. Many cardinals would like to see a less centralised Church, and a less powerful pope who guides rather than governs. They may have to wait a little longer. Pope Benedict XVI looks like a man who will not be afraid to exercise his powers. (Ibid.)

On Ratzinger’s election, CBS News reported,

No one was more feared as a chief enforcer of Vatican orthodoxy. “He has the most appalling reputation around the world as someone who has squashed theology, persecuted theologians - the chief of the thought police, the master of the inquisition,” says Catholic journalist and feminist writer Margaret Hebblethwaite. It was Ratzinger’s job as head of the Vatican’s Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith - the old Office of the Inquisition - that led to him being labeled by some as “God’s Rottweiler.” He attacked dissent, banishing it from the Church’s mainstream, sometimes banishing it from the Church altogether.… During the U.S. presidential election [Ratzinger] said any pro-choice candidates on abortion should be denied communion—and so denied any chance at salvation. As a cardinal he took no prisoners. As pope, his unbending promotion of strict, orthodox doctrine now has the stamp of infallibility.  (http://cbsnews.com, “Concerns New Pope Is Hardliner,” April 19, 2005)

Christian Wiesner, spokesman for the pro-reform Wir Sind Kirche, or We Are Church movement, said Ratzinger “has hurt many people and far overstepped his boundaries in Germany.” (http://usatoday.com: “New pope was Vatican’s cardinal in charge of doctrinal crackdowns,” April 19, 2005)

Opus Dei Backed Ratzinger

With Ratzinger’s reputation, how did he get elected pope?  His election may have had something to do with the controversial and secretive papal organization called Opus Dei.

For the first time, two of the 115 voting cardinals—Julian Herranz of Spain and Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne of Peru—are members of Opus Dei, giving the group the ability to work inside the conclave. …recently, several Italian newspapers breathlessly reported that the two Opus Dei cardinals were throwing their support behind the candidacy of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a German-born traditionalist who has served as chief enforcer of church doctrine for two decades. Opus Dei flourished during John Paul’s pontificate. In 1982, he took the unprecedented step of making Opus Dei a personal prelature of the church, answerable not to local bishops in the dioceses where it operated, but to the pope alone.… Father James Martin, a Jesuit priest and associate editor of his religious order’s magazine, America, says it is undeniable that Opus Dei has a stake in the election of the new pope. (http”//latimes.com: “Controversial Opus Dei Has Stake in Papal Vote,” April 19, 2005)

Now that Ratzinger has been elected pope, he said “his ‘primary task’ would be to work to reunify all Christians and that sentiment alone was not enough. ‘Concrete acts that enter souls and move consciences are needed,’ he said. The new pope said he wanted to continue “an open and sincere dialogue” with other religions and would do everything in his power to improve the ecumenical cause.” (http://cbsnews.com: “Pope Benedict: A New Era Begins,” April 20, 2005) I do not know what Ratzinger means by “Concrete acts that enter souls and move consciences,” but it certainly sounds like he is committed to exercising all his power to fulfil his “primary task” to “reunify all Christians.” This is certainly a big task to accomplish, considering that there are well over 2,000 different Christian denominations and sects today. Just prior to entering the conclave to elect a new pope, Ratzinger warned everyone of the dangers to the faith. The first on his list was sects, so his mission to reunify all Christians must include eliminating sects, bringing them all under one banner with the pope as the head.

 After reading about Ratzinger’s strict defense of Catholic doctrine, I was somewhat surprised to read his following statement:

Are Believers of Other Religions Saved?

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Responds

VATICAN CITY, SEP 5 (ZENIT.org).- “How is it possible to explain the unique character of Christ and of the Catholic Church to a Jew or a Lutheran,” a reporter asked Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, during a press conference to present the “Dominus Iesus” declaration, which is concerned, precisely, with the unique and universal salvation of Christ and the Church.

Referring to a believing Jew, Cardinal Ratzinger clarified that “we are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it. However, the fact that the Son of God entered history, made himself part of history, and is present as a reality in history, affects everyone.” (Zenit online news story, “Are Believers of Other Religions Saved?” Sept. 5, 2000)

This reply by Ratzinger stands in stark contrast to the historic Catholic position on those outside the Roman Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV, 1441 (speaking ex cathedra)

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives.” (Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714)

Pope Pius XI, 1928:

“The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship.  This is the fount of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.” (Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928, The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 318)

Pope Eugene IV (speaking ex cathedra)

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.—But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity… Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.” (Council of Florence, Sess. 8, November 22, 1439)

As noted earlier, Ratzinger was selected by Pope John Paul II to be the “President of the Commission for the Preparation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” I went to the Vatican website and read portions of the Catechism. Notice what it says under the following heading:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? (Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21:PL 3,1169; De unit.:PL 4,509-536) Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Note: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5)

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Note: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. (LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872) (Catechism of the Catholic Church, formulated under Ratzinger’s supervision as President, paragraphs 846, 847, online at www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm.)

The Vatican II council, (1962-1965), opened the way for the Catholic Church to have a broader picture of Christianity, admitting that salvation can be found by those who are not members of the Catholic Church, including Jews. Ratzinger seems to have adopted these views as his own. Notice what Ratzinger’s Catholic Catechism says about the Church:

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” (LG 15) Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” (UR 3) With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” (Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18)

839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.” (LG 16)

Note: The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, (Cf. NA 4) “the first to hear the Word of God.” (Roman Missal, Good Friday 13:General Intercessions,VI) The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”, (Rom 9:4-5) “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” (Rom 11:29)

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (LG 16; cf. NA 3)

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race: (Ibid., paragraphs 838-842)

The wording in the current Catechism is much more tolerant of other Christian and non-Christian religions than the official Catholic position 100 years ago. Are her principles changing or is it a ploy to gain power over other religions and unify them under one head, the pope? There is no doubt that Ratzinger wishes to unify all of Christianity. This is his “primary task,” as proclaimed by himself.

In Ratzinger’s first sermon as Pope Benedict XVI, he spoke of himself, saying that he “is disposed to do all in his power to promote the fundamental cause of ecumenism. In the wake of his predecessors, he is fully determined to cultivate any initiative that may seem appropriate to promote contact and agreement with representatives from the various Churches and ecclesial communities. Indeed, on this occasion too, he sends them his most cordial greetings in Christ, the one Lord of all.” (http://bbcnews.com, “Pope’s first sermon in full,” March 4, 2005)

In the new pope’s acceptance homily he said,

“With great affection I also greet all those who have been reborn in the sacrament of Baptism but are not yet in full communion with us; and you, my brothers and sisters of the Jewish people, to whom we are joined by a great shared spiritual heritage, one rooted in God’s irrevocable promises.

Finally, like a wave gathering force, my thoughts go out to all men and women of today, to believers and non-believers alike.

… both the image of the shepherd and that of the fisherman issue an explicit call to unity. “I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must lead them too, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (Jn 10:16); these are the words of Jesus at the end of his discourse on the Good Shepherd.

And the account of the 153 large fish ends with the joyful statement: “although there were so many, the net was not torn” (Jn 21:11). Alas, beloved Lord, with sorrow we must now acknowledge that it has been torn! But no—we must not be sad! Let us rejoice because of your promise, which does not disappoint, and let us do all we can to pursue the path towards the unity you have promised. Let us remember it in our prayer to the Lord, as we plead with him: yes, Lord, remember your promise. Grant that we may be one flock and one shepherd! Do not allow your net to be torn, help us to be servants of unity! (http://cnn.com: “Text of Pope Benedict XVI’s homily,” April 24, 2005)

After Ratzinger’s acceptance speech, he made it his first priority to meet with leaders from other denominations. “After calling for unity in his inauguration address, the pope made meeting leaders of other faiths who attended his installation his first public duty Monday.” (http://cnn.com: “Pope ‘prayed not to be elected,’” April 25, 2005)

For the first time “at least since the Reformation,” Britain’s Archbishop of Canterbury was to attend such an event, the Church of England’s Web site said. Rowan Williams will also lead “representatives from the Anglican delegation in Rome” in a brief audience with the pope Monday.

Benedict invited Rome’s chief rabbi, Riccardo Segni, but he could not attend because Sunday is the first day of Passover.

Since Tuesday, when he was elected pope, Benedict has made clear he would continue to reach out to leaders of other faiths, building on the inter-faith work of his predecessor. (http://cnn.com: “Benedict XVI installed as pope,” April 24, 2005)

According to Bible prophecy, we will see some dramatic changes in the way Protestant churches cooperate with the Catholic Church and the United States to bring about the Mark of the Beast crisis. (For further information on this subject, please read the article, “National ID and the Mark of Beast,” in the March 2005 issue of Present Truth.) The events that take place in the next few years are going to be very interesting. Beware of the papal push for ecumenical cooperation. You can be sure that this alliance will be based on false doctrines, such as the Trinity and Sunday observance, which is celebrated in honor of the Trinity.

The Role of the Papacy in the World

The pope’s position in the papal seat gives him one of the most influential and powerful positions in the world. His influence stretches beyond for the 1.1 billion Catholics. His amazingly large following in almost every country of the world, earns him a powerful voice among world leaders in every nation and religion, especially since he is the head of the Vatican state. For many years Protestants have closely monitored the events surrounding the papacy, because its influence has far-reaching effects, and for its prominent role in Bible prophecy. Historically, Protestants have labeled the Roman Catholic Church as the “little horn” power of Daniel 7, the “first beast” of Revelation 13 and the “great whore” of Revelation 17.

The name Protestant originated because those who were given that name protested the false doctrines and persecutions of the Catholic Church. Today, the Catholic Church has taken a more tolerant appearance, and many Protestants have stopped protesting. Catholic doctrines have not changed much, but their power has been limited since Napoleon’s general, Berthier, invaded the Vatican and took the pope hostage in 1798, who later died in captivity. Many have seen this as the “deadly wound” the “first beast” received in Revelation 13:3. This “deadly wound was healed” (Revelation 13:3) on February 11, 1929 when Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty with the Vatican, granting her 110 acres to be know as Vatican City State. Once again, the Roman Catholic Church had civil power, but it was limited in comparison to what she had exercised during the Dark Ages. Her change of circumstances has forced the Vatican to refrain from openly using force to persecute Christians as she had done for so many years. This gives the Roman Catholic Church a more gentle appearance, even though inwardly she has not changed.

Let’s notice some principles of the Inquisition, an office that had been run by Ratzinger for the last 24 years.

The following four quotes are cited from The American Textbook of Popery which, in turn, quotes from the Directory for the Inquisitors. (Page numbers listed are for the Directory.)

He is a heretic who does not believe what the Roman Hierarchy teaches… A heretic merits the pains of fire… By the Gospel, the canons, civil law, and custom, heretics must be burned.—page 164

All defense is denied to heretics.—page 153

For the suspicion alone of heresy, purgation is demanded.—page 156

He who is without the church can neither be reconciled nor saved.—page 144

Notice the unified position of other Catholic writers regarding the persecution of heretics:

Experience teaches that there is no other remedy for the evil, but to put heretics [Protestants] to death; for the [Romish] church proceeded gradually and tried every remedy: at first she merely excommunicated them; afterwards she added a fine; then she banished them; and finally she was constrained to put them to death. (Cardinal Bellarmine, famous champion of Romanism, cited by Schumucker, page 76)

By the famous bull ad exstirpanda, of 1252, [Pope] Innocent IV. authorized torture as a measure for extorting confessions. The merciless use of this weapon was one of the most atrocious features of the whole procedure. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 6, Chapter 10, Section 86)

Down to the very close of the Middle Ages, the pages of history were disfigured by the decrees of popes and synods, confirming death as the penalty for heresy, and for persons supposed to be possessed with witchcraft. The great council of Constance, 1415, did not get away from this atmosphere, and ordered heretics punished even by the flames,—puniantur ad ignem. And the bull of Leo X., 1520, condemning Luther, cursed as heresy the Reformer’s liberal statement that the burning of heretics is contrary to the will of the Spirit. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 6, Chapter 10, Section 86)

The stated position of the Catholic Church, as decreed by her popes, is that anyone who does not believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches is a heretic and should be put to death. Whenever the Roman Catholic Church has had the power to carry out this policy, she has done so unmercifully. Commenting on the prophecy that the little horn should “wear out the saints of the Most High,” Albert Barnes says:

Can any one doubt that this is true of the papacy? The Inquisition, the persecutions of the Waldenses, the ravages of the Duke of Alva, the fires of Smithfield, the tortures of Goa,—indeed, the whole history of the papacy, may be appealed to in proof that this is applicable to that power. If anything could have worn out the saints of the Most High,— could have cut them off from the earth so that evangelical religion would have become extinct,—it would have been the persecutions of the papal power. In year 1208 a crusade was proclaimed by Pope Innocent III against the Waldenses and Albigenses, in which a million men perished. From the beginning of the order of Jesuits in the year 1540 to 1580, nine hundred thousand were destroyed. One hundred and fifty thousand perished by the Inquisition in thirty years. In the Low Countries fifty thousand persons were hanged, beheaded, burned, or buried alive, for the crime of heresy, within the space of thirty-eight years from the edict of Charles V against the Protestants to the peace of Chateau Cambresis in 1559. Eighteen thousand suffered by the hand of the executioner in the space of five years and a half, during the administration of the Duke of Alva. Indeed, the slightest acquaintance with the history of the papacy will convince any one that what is here said of making “war with the saints” (verse 21), and “wearing out the saints of the Most High” (verse 25), is strictly applicable to that power, and will accurately describe its history. (Albert Barnes, Notes on Daniel, page 328, comment on Daniel 7:25)

The papacy has not changed her attitude regarding heretics. All that has changed is that she no longer has the civil power to enforce her policies. If she is given power again, you can be sure she will exercise that power to its fullest extent.

The Roman church has never repented of her complicity with these unchristian acts. On the contrary, she still holds the principle of persecution in connection with her doctrine that there is no salvation outside of her bosom. The papal Syllabus of 1864 expressly condemns, among the errors of modern times, the doctrine of religious toleration. Leo XIII., a great admirer of the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Encyclical of Nov. 1, 1885, “concerning the Christian constitution of states,” wisely moderates, but reaffirms, in substance, the political principles of his predecessor. A revocation would be fatal to the Vatican dogma of papal infallibility. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 8, Chapter 1, Section 11)

So far as we know, the Roman Catholic Church has never officially revoked the theory and practice of the mediaeval popes and councils, but on the contrary the utterances of Pius IX. [pope from 1846-1878] and Leo XIII. [pope from 1878-1903] show the same spirit of vicious reprobation for Protestants and their agencies. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 6, Chapter 10, Section 86)

The Bible predicts that the papacy will again persecute God’s people, with the United States taking the lead in using the power of the state to “cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.” (Revelation 13:15)

Keep your eyes open, and hold fast to the truth!

New Software on the 2300 Days

Brother Sonny Phillips of Florida, a web designer and computer specialist, has asked us to announce a new witness and study tool to be used with computers call the, “Inter-Active 2300 Days Prophecy Chart.” Sonny says that with this chart you can:

Immediately share knowledge with family and friends. Lead students step by step through this amazing prophecy. This CD ROM contains all of the material that you will need to clearly present this important topic: Help Menus, Teacher’s  Study Guide, Colorful Graphic Overlays, ‘Pop-Up’ Scriptural Texts, Inter-Active Bible Study with Student Quiz, are all at your fingertips in the latest in “FLASH” technology to power this program’s presentation.

This inexpensive software can be acquired directly from Brother Phillips. You may contact Sonny in a variety of ways. You many write to him at: Sonny Phillips, 106 Wavecrest Place, Palm Coast, FL  32164. His phone number is 386-447-2748. His email address is: info@the 3angels.com.

If you go to Sonny’s website, http://www.the3angels.com you can see more on the prophecy chart under the link for “evangelistic materials.” Allen Stump

 Old Paths is a free monthly newsletter/study-paper published monthly by Smyrna Gospel Ministries, HC 64 Box 128-B, Welch WV 24801-9606. U.S.A. It is sent free upon request. The paper is dedicated to the propagation and restoration of the principles of truth that God gave to the early Seventh-day Adventist pioneers. Duplication is not only permitted, but strongly encouraged. This issue, with other gospel literature we publish, can be found at our web sites. The urls are: http://www.smyrna.org and http://www.presenttruth.info. Phone: (304) 732-9204. Fax: (304) 732-7322.

Editor: Allen Stump - E-mail: editor@smyrna.org.
Associate Editor: Lynnford Beachy - E-mail berean@smyrna.org

Please also visit our Present Truth Website!

This page was last updated: Monday, March 30, 2009