Graffiti in the Holy of Holies: An Impassioned Response to Recent Attacks on the Sanctuary and Ellen White

Love anything Cliff Goldstein writes. This book is exceptionally relevant. Couldn't put it down!

With "Graffiti In The Holy of Holies" written as a rebuttal to former Adventist Dale Ratzlaff's "The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists", Clifford Goldstein has produced another apologetic follow-up to his "1844 Made Simple" that powerfully exposes the continually rehashed arguments, recycled year after year by critics of Adventist doctrine. Critics that give little or no consideration of Adventisms indepth and scholarly response to such authors and former members like Desmond Ford, Walter Rea, Ronald Numbers and others. During the 1980s and 90s, the Seventh-day Adventist church published seven volumes of works entitled "Daniel and Revelation Committee Series", prepared by the best of its theologians. Mr. Goldstein comments on how modern critics don't even bother to refute these rebuttals, even ignoring them for the most part. What are critics of Adventism so afraid of? Could it be that their arguments don't stand up under real contextual scrutiny? That according to numerous biblical translations, non-Adventist scholars, both Christian and Jewish, came to many of the same Adventist conclusions about interpreting a day for a year in prophecy? The 70 weeks of Daniel 9 being really 490 years "cut off" from the 2300 days/years of Daniel 8:14? The many Bible translations that, along with Adventists, interpret the heavenly sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 as being "cleansed?" Or maybe it's the historically proven fact that Daniel's vision of the "little horn", in no way could be refering to Antiochus Epiphanes, who never proved to be "exceeding great" by any stretch of the imagination.Of course there is the whole Ellen G. White being a "plagiarist" and "false prophet" thing continually being rehashed as well. Over 100 years of rehashing since the days of D.M. Canright for that matter. Let's just quote one of this so called "false prophet's" many sayings as an example:"Grace is unmerited favor, and the believer is justified without any merit of his own, without any claim to offer to God. He is justified through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, who stands in the courts of heaven as the sinner's substitute and surety." Selected Messages Book 1, p. 398.Sounds like a pretty "false" representation of God's saving Grace if there ever was one don't you think? Is that what those Adventists are teaching the Bible really says? And that's just one of many E.G. White sayings you never hear quoted by her critics as Mr Goldstein so ably points out.But then again, her critics sometimes seemingly contradict themselves as Brother Goldstein points out, like Mr. Ratzlaff's own reflection of Ellen White's influence in the Adventist church. In his above mentioned 380 page book, he states on page 351, "To her credit, unlike many 'prophets' of her day, her change in doctrine was usually toward mainstream Christianity." And the scholar that penned the forward to Mr. Ratzlaff's book, Kenneth Richard Samples is even quoted as saying, "In fact, Ellen G. White seemed to play a significant role in helping the Adventist church move toward theological orthodoxy." Foreward [7]. Well isn't that what true prophets are supposed to do? Shouldn't we know them by their fruits?This brings us to one of Mr. Goldstein's final remarks quoted from p. 172 of "Graffiti In The Holy of Holies": "These are fascinating admissions, fraught with conclusions that Brother Dale doesn't work through. In his sentence he places quote marks around the word "prophets," the implication being that he questions her prophetic ministry. Fair enough. But how many other modern day "prophets" have moved their churches toward "mainstream Christianity," as Brother Dale says Ellen White did? Has Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church? Or Joseph Smith of the Mormons? Or Mary Baker Eddy of Christian Science? Please! All of these prophets, without equivocation or exception, have led their people away from mainstream Christianity, because they are all false prophets. And yet Brother Dale admits that Ellen White, one of these "prophets," moved the church toward the mainstream, or as Kenneth Samples says, toward "theological orthodoxy." That's kind of a strange thing for someone to do, who (according to Brother Dale) practiced deception, taught false doctrine, and wrote against the gospel."If one truly believe's in hearing the argument from both sides, something even the secular courts of the world practice, then why not read this book from the pen of Clifford Goldstein? Why not read the many rebuttals that Adventists have published for decades for that matter? Many of which you'll find in my list of reviews or the Adventist Book Center website. Most are even right here at Amazon.com. Then one can truly consider themselves well read and informed. It might even change some of those negative opinions of Seventh-day Adventist beliefs many of you, even former members have been duped into believing. We're not afraid of something we really can't denounce are we?

A great book , discussing the reality and wonderfulness of The Sanctuary .

One of the most interesting points brought out in this book is the fact that Ratzlaff and others are all basically just asserting the same arguments made by Canright and Ford, etc. There's nothing new about their arguments. Most of the anti-Adventist critics are essentially neo-Canrights; there is truly nothing new under the sun. The problem is that Canright's arguments and the anti-Sanctuary doctrine arguments have been extensively addressed in Adventist literature. But yet the critics never interact with these extensive responses. They pretend as if their charges are unanswered. Ironically, Ratzlaff takes this "no-law" theory espoused by Canright as a basis to reject the 4th Commandment. Yet when one analyzes the founding Protestant creeds, virtually all of them acknowledged the continued existence and binding nature of the moral law. So, when Ratzlaff and these others adopt their no-law theory, they are in essence rejecting the foundational predicates of all of Protestantism. Ratzlaff and others all reject the year-day principle in prophetic interpretation, failing to acknowledge that this has been a tried-and-true method for a 1,000 years being held as axiomatic by the founding fathers of Protestantism. The only way you get around the termination of the 2,300 day prophecy being in the mid 19th Century is to reject the year-day principle. For a putative Protestant to jettison the year-day principle is tantamount to chopping down the pillars of the foundation of Protestantism. Almost all Protestant reformers identified the little horn of Daniel as the Papacy. So the Adventists, as much as they may be reviled, are simply sticking to the original Protestant beliefs. Their 1844 doctrine is simply the logical continuation of the prophetic interpretative principles that pinpoint Christ's ministry (69 weeks = 27 A.D.) and being cut off in the middle of the week (Spring 31 A.D.). The year-day principle is as sure as the blood of the Cross.

Really good book and for a great price!! Thank you!!

Goldstein has delivered a stunning quality work in this power packed book. It is a "must-have" for bible students as they confront the objections from several fronts. He confronts most of these "latest objections" and make several powerful rebuttals for the 2300 day prophecy and the Pre-advent judgment.

Well written and easy enough to read and understand. Clifford Goldstein, though a well-educated man doesn't across as needing to demonstrate his educational status. He made this book clear and logical, step by step approach to lead to his conclusions in each of the chapters.While he is defending his understanding of Biblical doctrines and prophecies, he remains polite throughout to those who condemned his work in the first place.Kudos to him

The information in this book is really interesting, Cliff seems to have done a good job explaining his position right down to the minutest detail.