Larson had been told that he would be given thirty minutes and had
prepared his paper accordingly, he was cut off when fifteen minutes
had passed and was told that the administrators could read the rest
of the paper later. Yet the council made their decision to affirm
their denial of his honorary ministerial credentials after Dr. and
Mrs. Larson left the room, apparently without waiting to read the
paper, a tragic lack of due process.
is being shared, not for purposes of malice or revenge, but so that
others may understand what actually was said and what they may possibly
encounter when placed in similar circumstances. Our trust must be
wholly in the Lord and in His truth, and we must firmly resolve
to stand for the right though the heavens fall.
Part two by
We come before
you today because we understand from the Lord's counsels that this
is our Christian duty. We are sure all would recognize that a hearing
conducted after judgment regarding my credentials has already been
made, would not be described as justice in any judicial system in
the world. We find this principle expressed in the question put
to the Pharisees by Nicodemus: “Doth our law judge any man, before
it hear him, and know what he doeth?” John7: 51.
In our situation,
the answer would appear to be, yes, it does. More troubling still,
to those who are concerned about the principles of fairness, is
the fact that this group is not the proper body to either conduct
a hearing or make judgment regarding my case. Proper procedures
would have required a hearing
| We would do well to remember that
in every' judicial proceeding, not only is the accused
on trial, but the court is also on trial.
Union Conference Committee, which has been empowered to issue credentials,
and that such a hearing have been conducted before judgment was
And there is
yet another cloud over these proceedings. Elder Castillo wrote to
“At our past
Union Executive Committee, it was voted to deny your honorary ministerial
Yet, four members
of the committee have stated that my name was not mentioned in their
meeting, and so was neither discussed nor voted upon. Elder Mostert,
while conceding that the minutes contain no record of an action
denying my credentials, told me over the phone that my name was
placed before the executive committee and the reasons for denying
my credentials were fully explained. He suggested that the four
committee members might have all happened to be out of the room
at that particular time.
In any case,
it would seem that basic principles of fairness would require that
if a minister who has given his life to the service of the church,
whose life and character have never been questioned, whose theology
and preaching is the same as that presented in Seventh- day Adventists
Believe, and whose ministry has resulted in more than five thousand
persons being added to the church by baptism, is to be denied honorary
ministerial credentials, this should be properly done by a duly
authorized body, and the action and reasons for it should be fully
and specifically stated in the committee records and announced to
the church. This would, of course, require that a hearing be conducted
before a decision is made, and that the accused be provided an opportunity
to face his accusers and respond to their accusations.
procedure has not been followed. Yet the editors of Ministry magazine
have quickly seized upon the action that was taken, and in spite
of the grievous irregularities, announced to its world- wide constituency
that my credentials had been denied. Since no reason has been given,
speculation is now arising as to whether I have been found guilty
of financial fraud or gross immorality. Questions of this nature
are reaching us and are very troubling, not only to us but also
to our two children who are workers in God's cause. We do not believe
the Lord appreciates this manner of dealing with one who has rendered
Him a lifetime of service and whose present problem is simply that
he has been found defending the principles of our faith as set forth
in the book Seventh- day Adventists Believe.
We would do
well to remember that in every judicial proceeding, not only is
the accused on trial, but the court is also on trial. We do not
believe that you ~‘ gentlemen have served yourselves well by the
manner in which you have dealt with this case. Neither have you
served well the church or the Lord. We believe this group has a
moral responsibility to set this matter right, and it should be
done now, not after my death, as in the case of Elder M. L. Andreason.
We believe I am entitled to a fair trial regarding my theology and
ministry before the Union Executive Committee. If that committee,
after a fair trial has been conducted, votes to deny my credentials,
we believe a full statement of the specific reasons for that action
should be made, and the statement published in Ministry magazine.
But now may
we suggest that we lift our eyes from the individual tree we have
been examining and spend a few moments considering the forest as
a whole. it is apparent that there is division in the church. We
would like to offer a few thoughts regarding:
Its Nature, Its Causes, and Its Cure.
most easily defined as the opposite of unity. We all believe that
unity in the church is precious. It is priceless. Unity was the
great burden of the last recorded prayer of Jesus for His disciples
(John 17). Unity was what made possible the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit at Pentecost. Unity was one of the major factors that gave
power to the Seventh- day Adventist Church as it emerged from the
What is the
basis of this precious unity? Paul calls it “the unity of the
faith” Ephesians 4: 13. He further describes it as “speaking the
truth in love,” verse 15, and indicates that those who have this
unity of the faith will not be “carried about with every wind of
doctrine” verse 14.
describes the search for unity in 1844:
“We would come
together burdened in soul, praying that we might be one in faith
and doctrine; for we knew that Christ is not divided” TM 24. [All
were answered. They did become one in faith and doctrine, and they
bestowed that legacy of unity upon us. Our church has enjoyed a
phenomenal degree of unity throughout most of its history. We who
have spent years in soul- winning work have found it an enormous
advantage to be able
| “No one has any Independent authority
apart from Christ and His word” SDA‘s Believe
to tell our
converts they were uniting with a worldwide church that had a oneness
in faith and doctrine over all the earth.
But notice how
God has warned us through His messenger that unity must be based
upon faith and doctrine:
for unity. But He does not call for us to unify on wrong practices.
The God of heaven draws a sharp contrast between pure, elevating,
ennobling truth and fulse, misleading . . . . I urge our brethren
to unify upon a true, scriptural basis” 1 SM 175.
“We are to unify,
but not on a platform of error” Series B, “Freedom in Christ” 47.
Our church has not unified upon a platform of error, but upon a
platform of truth. Our doctrines have been the foundation of our
unity, but if wrong doctrines are introduced, causing the foundation
of truth to crumble, we will struggle in vain to preserve our unity.
The wise man does not build his house upon the sand.
At various times
in the history of Christianity, there have arisen tensions between
Christians who had differing views of what constitutes sound declines.
Instead of meeting this problem on the theological level, church
officials have sometimes tried to resolve it on the basis of church
authority. This has never been and never will be successful. Ecclesiology
must be derived from theology. Theology cannot be derived from ecclesiology,
lest it degenerate into ecclesiolatry.
book states: “Christ exercises His authority through His church
and its specially appointed servants, but He never transfers His
power. No one has any independent authority apart from Christ and
His word' SDA ‘s Believe 146.
church does that is in accordance with the directions given in God's
Word will be ratified in heaven” 7T 263.
. . . . must say about sin what God says about it. She must deal
with it as God directs, and her action is ratified in heaven” DA
us immediately and specifically to the heart of our present problem.
There is a wide- spread and rapidly growing conviction among many
church members, especially in the North American Division, Australia
and Europe, that some of our church leaders are emphatically not
saying about sin what God says about It, but rather are saying that
we will all keep on sinning until Jesus comes, at which time He
will miraculously fix us so we will never sin again. This makes
our sanctuary doctrine nonsensical and invalidates the Spirit of
Prophecy, which repeatedly endorses the sanctuary doctrine.
church members recognize that this strange new doctrine is out of
harmony with our historic faith, out of harmony with the Scriptures,
and out of harmony with the Spirit of Prophecy in which there are
literally thousands of statements affirming the reality of victorious
Christian living, and at least forty- eight warnings against the
idea that Christ will change our characters when He comes. (See
our Tell of His Power.)
This is manifestly
a theological problem, and it needs to be dealt with on a theological
level. Church members do not see this as a minor issue. They see
it as one which vitally concerns their eternal salvation. But when
they question or challenge this strange new doctrine and ask, “Why
is the church not saying about sin what God says about it as stated
in Seventh- day Adventists Believe?” they often find, to their bewilderment,
that they are accused of being divisive trouble- makers who are
attacking the church.
still, the response of church officialdom to questions, appeals,
and protests, consistently reflects a desire to ignore the theological
dimensions of the problem and to issue appeals for unity, supported
by stem admonitions about the authority of the church. Within the
last thirty days I received a letter from a conference president
which said frankly, “Most of my response will be from a practical
point of view, rather than a theological approach,” yet the matter
at hand was theological in nature.
Thus we see
a tension between a concept of truth and a concept of church authority.
When the disciples of Jesus were summoned to appear before the Sanhedrin,
they went gladly, anticipating an opportunity to express their convictions
of truth about Jesus. They found, however, that the Sanhedrin proposed
one question only, Do you submit to our authority?
church was split.
Luther and his companions were summoned to appear before the emperor,
they also went gladly, hoping for a discussion of the principles
of scriptural truth. But they were confronted with the same question,
Do you submit to our authority? Result— the church was split.
Today we find
ourselves caught up in a similar situation, and we may well reflect
about the past. It has been said that those who cannot learn from
history are condemned to repeat history. Surely the lesson of history
is clear that theological questions must be
| There is a wide- spread and rapidly
growing conviction. . . that some of our church leaders
are emphatically not saying about sin what God says
answers, and that unity will result if the theological answers are
sound and persuasive because they bear up well under scriptural
investigation. The introduction of false doctrines into our platform
of truth cannot but bring division. Fair- minded people everywhere
will judge that the division is caused by those who introduce changes
in our theology, not by those who prefer to maintain our historic
It cannot be
denied that, in a certain sense, truth is divisive. Note the words
of Jesus on this point:
“Think not that
I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but
a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father,
and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter- in- law against
her mother- in- law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household”
Matthew 10: 34- 36.
When truth and
error meet, division may be the result, but should we blame the
division on those who teach the truth?
This leads us
to the questions of responsibility and guilt Jesus unquestionably
created division when He came to this earth. But was this wrong?
Should He have stayed in heaven in order to avoid creating division?
Would the unity that might have resulted been desirable? Clearly
the apostles created division wherever they went. But again we ask,
Was this wrong? Would it have been better for them to have hushed
their voices for the sake of unity?
One of the most
bitter accusations hurled at us as a people has been that by preaching
the Sabbath we created division among Christians. But has this been
wrong and has not the accusation of divisiveness been hurled at
all reformers? We read in Signs of the Times, January 28, 1886:
the present day will meet with the same discouragements as did their
Neither is there
anything new about the same, strange misjudgment we meet today:
“When controversy is awakened, the advocates of truth are accredited
with causing disturbance” ST, 10- 17- 95.
counsel is timely: “Now as in former ages, the presentation of a
truth that reproves the sins and errors of the times will excite
opposition.... Elijah was declared to be a troubler in Israel, Jeremiah
a traitor, Paul a polluter of the temple. From that day to this,
those who would be loyal to truth have been denounced as seditious,
heretical, or schismatic.... This spirit will increase more and
more. . . .
“In view of
this, what is the duty of the messenger of truth? Shall he conclude
that the truth ought not to be presented, since often its only effect
is to arouse men to evade or resist its claims? No; he has no more
reason for withholding the testimony of God's word, because it excites
opposition, than had earlier Reformers” GC 458- 459.
| When truth and error meet, division
may be the result, but should we blame the division
on those who teach the truth?
ago we received an urgent request to conduct a seminar in a church
in this Union. The people there had many questions, which we answered
from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. As we were leaving, they
gave us a tape and suggested we listen to it on the way home.
The tape turned
out to be a message that had been presented to them by their conference
president a few weeks before our visit. On several points, he had
told them the exact opposite of what we had shown them. Here is
a sampling of the president's opinion regarding perfection of character.
“Is it not extremely
discouraging to us to discover, as we look back through the annals
of history, to discover [sic] that no one except Jesus has ever
reached that perfect standard, at least so far as we know? If Jesus
is the only one so far who has reached that perfect standard, it
doesn't give us a great deal of encouragement, does it, to be able
to accomplish what the great spiritual giants of the past were not
able to accomplish.”
We, of course,
had known nothing about this, so we had walked right into trouble.
We had shown them our research report entitled Tell of His Power,
which contains 2,500 statements from Ellen White's writings, all
of which strongly affirm the possibility of character perfection
through the power of Christ. Worse yet, we had shown them a chapter
in our book which records 48 warnings from Ellen White that there
will be no change of character when Christ comes. We had also shown
them a chapter which contains 37 statements from Ellen White regarding
persons who have achieved character perfection. Jesus was not the
only one, according to the Lord's messenger. Her list of champions
includes the patriarchs, the apostles, Enoch, Elijah, Joseph, Daniel
and John. She writes:
have borne the likeness of Satan have become transformed into the
image of God” AA 476.
set the Lord before them, and by beholding have been changed into
the same image” COL 133- 134.
“Some few in
every generation from Adam resisted his (Satan's) every artifice
and stood forth as noble representations of what it was in the power
of man to do and to be— Christ working with human efforts, helping
man in overcoming the power of Satan” RH 3- 3- 74.
“In every phase
of your character building you are to please God. This you may do;
for Enoch pleased Him though living in a degenerate age. And there
are Enochs in this our day” COL 332.
This is only
a sampling. We had shown them many other Spirit of Prophecy passages
that could not be harmonized with the opinions of the president.
As we were driving along and listening to the tape, Jeanne turned
to me and said, “This is it, Ralph. This is going to cost you your
So— on that
day we began to prepare our minds for the experience through which
we are now passing. Yet, what else could we have done? Should we
| Elder Mostert wrote me a letter
which began with these words:
“I despair with you over the fact that so many of our
church members are finding It necessary to turn to independent
ministries in order to hear basic Adventist teaching.
truth from the people in order to protect our position? No doubt
the president's visit, followed by ours, created some division of
thought in that district Who is responsible for that division? What
would be a fair judgment? And what would be God's judgment?
We are not suggesting
that this is the only dynamic working in the situation. We had earlier
incurred the displeasure of the officers of the Division. Elders
Bradford, Crumley and Dale had asked Dr. Frank Holbrook of the Biblical
Research Institute to prepare a theological rationale to be used
against independent ministry leaders. This paper was then sent to
Ron Spear, along with warnings that he must submit to the authority
of the church.
Dr. Holbrook had spread his net in such a manner that the first
victim would have been Elder Bradford himself. After comparing independent
ministry leaders with the rebel Satan and the rebels Korah, Dathan,
and Abiram, Dr. Holbrook had set forth two theological aberrations
that called for disfellowshipping members from the church, views
we historic Adventists hold regarding 1) the human nature of Christ,
and 2) righteousness by faith.
When this paper
came into my hands, I wrote to the Division leadership, pointing
out that on November16, 1988, Elder Bradford had written a letter
to me containing the following lines:
. . . . my views
on the human nature of Christ are almost identical with some that
you and others have expressed. I have preached them at large gatherings
and camp meetings around the world.”
This is precisely
the fault for which Dr. Holbrook had recommended disfellowshipping—
holding a “wrong” view about the human nature of Christ and disturbing
church members in other countries about it. He had also argued that
our view regarding righteousness by faith is not in the book Seventh-
day Adventists Believe. It is actually stated in that book l40 times!
I pointed these
things out in a letter to the officers of the Division, and they
were most displeased. Therefore, when Elder Mostert told me that
the Division officers were in favor of denying my credentials, I
was not surprised.
This paper by
a member of the Biblical Research Institute may be taken as a sampling
of the incredible theological confusion that exists in the church
today. It is beyond question a theological problem which urgently
needs to be dealt with on a theological level. The longer this is
delayed, the greater will be the damage to the church. Our people
have historically had an orientation toward truth. Many have left
other churches and united with our church for the sake of truth.
They have recognized that placing confidence in church leaders above
devotion to the truth is a danger to be avoided. They have accepted
the principle of individual responsibility for studying and knowing
the truth and have turned away from the concept that the church
is the interpreter of Scriptures. They have accepted Ellen White's
“The Bible with
its precious gems of truth was not written for the scholar alone”
is a serious mistake to meet their urgent questions and concerns
about our “truths that have been held sacred” with evasions and
dissimulations. Suggestions by leadership that historic Seventh-
day Adventists think they are the only ones in the church who know
the truth, or that they are setting themselves up to be the judges
of the church, or that they consider themselves to be the only holy
ones, are recognized by many church members as simply throwing dust
into the air. These tactics have a disastrous effect upon their
confidence in leadership.
Adventists, numbering in the thousands, are most emphatically not
a group of crackpots and weirdos. They are not a group of malcontents
and fanatics who turn to independent ministries simply as an expression
of their rebellious spirit They are, for the most part, loyal, steadfast
church members who have faced Sabbath tests, endured opposition
from families and friends and have persevered in their devotion
to the Lord and His sacred truth in the face of formidable odds.
They turn to the independent ministries for a reason that has been
well stated by our own Union president, Elder Mostert. On May 1,
1990, Elder Mostert wrote me a letter which began with these words:
“I despair with
you over the fact that so many of our church members are finding
it necessary to turn to independent ministries in order to hear
basic Adventist teaching.”
Where will they
go to hear basic Adventist teaching when the independent ministries
have been destroyed, as seems to be the intention of the present
church leadership? No doubt you have heard of the addresses given
by our General Conference president at such places as the camp meeting
in Hope, British Columbia, in 1991, which seemed to be a declaration
of open season on the independent ministries and those who support
them. I have tapes of those messages, and some of the statements
are as awesome as they are inaccurate, intemperate and inflammatory.
But these messages
have apparently set the pace, and in response, equally inaccurate
and intemperate tirades have already been published by two Union
presidents in their Union papers. I am finding it increasingly difficult
to persuade the church members to whom I minister that these false
accusations are made in ignorance and not in malice.
If the independent
ministries are successfully destroyed, what can we expect to happen
then? Can anyone seriously suppose that those church members who,
as stated by our Union president, have had to turn to independent
ministries in order to hear basic Adventist teaching will then meekly
submit to authority and give their support to those who have destroyed
the independent ministries? Can we expect them to just forget that
their theological questions have not been answered? And, are we
remembering a fact that was expressed to me recently by a retired
Union Conference president:
“I hope that
our brethren will remember that our conservative members are the
financial backbone of our church.”
us inexorably to the question of tithe. As I have testified that
the historic Adventists are not weirdos and crack- pots who support
independent ministries simply as an expression of their rebellious
spirit, I also wish to testify that neither do they send tithe to
independent ministries because they prefer to do so. They would
much rather send their tithe through church channels but feel they
cannot conscientiously support the preaching of false theology.
I wish to address
myself to an enormous misunderstanding that I regard as one of the
major factors in our present problem. We hear much talk and many
accusations about the independent ministries soliciting tithe. No
independent ministry of my acquaintance has ever solicited tithe.
Brethren, I plead with you to believe me when I say that the independent
ministries do not solicit tithe, because they do not need to solicit
tithe. It comes to them unsolicited, unbidden, unrequested. It is
freely and voluntarily contributed by church members who are trying
to relieve their consciences of a heavy burden.
This is the
effect. What is the cause? The cause is the lack of preaching basic
Seventh- day Adventist truths in their home churches and often supplanting
them with either empty pablum or errors borrowed from Babylon. The
cause is emphatically not the eloquence and trickery of a group
of skillful con men who are leading independent ministries, as some
seem to believe. To suppose that crushing the independent ministries
and leaving the problem in the churches unresolved is a fearful
It was in response
to the many urgent questions of such church members that I researched
the matter and published my findings in the September, 1991 edition
of Our Firm Foundation, in an article entitled, “The Tithe Problem,
Who Is Responsible?” This article was a straight- forward and factual
report of my findings on that subject. I stand ready to modify or
correct my conclusions at any time evidence is presented to me that
would justify such a modification or correction.
some of the responses to that article have been something less than
straightforward and factual, so much so that the office of the White
Estate has made clear that the article on tithe published in the
Review was a private project of Roger Coon, done entirely independent
of either the White Estate Board or the White Estate staff. Of the
many problems in the Roger Coon article, I would mention two. Coon
argued that when Ellen White used the word “means,” this generally
referred only to offerings and not to tithe. We are presently aware
of 168 occasions when Ellen White went into print using the word
“means” in a way that included tithe. Why did an officer of the
White Estate not know this?
faults those who make reference to the “Watson letter,” since Ellen
White had stated she did not desire her diversions of tithe to be
| “God has a church. It Is not the
great cathedral, neither Is it the national establishment
. . . It Is the people who bye God and keep His commandments
” UL 315.
This overlooks the fact that the entire relevant portions of the
Watson letter were published by the White Estate itself in 1981
(see Ellen G. White, The Early Elmshaven Years, 395- 396), and again
in 1987 (see 2MR 99- 100). Why did an officer of the White Estate
not know this?
may I quote the second sentence of the letter written to me by Elder
Mostert on May 1, 1990:
one of the most unmet needs in the church at the present time is
the lack of opportunity for leaders to dialogue with members in
a meaningful way that does not create further frustration.”
I agree with
and heartily applaud this statement It echoes the cries we hear
from hurting and bewildered historic Adventists all across the continent:
Why will not our leaders talk to us? Why will they not listen to
us? Why will they not investigate our condition to determine whether
our appeals are valid? Why are we considered trouble- makers because
we are holding to the doctrines that are set forth in the book Seventhday
Adventists Believe? Can our leaders not recognize that antagonistic
doctrines are being preached in many of our pulpits, taught in many
of our schools, printed in our publishing houses and circulated
in the Review? Is it their intention to support these false doctrines?
ask, Why do our leaders identify us as evildoers and enemies of
the church when we finally give up appealing to them and turn in
despair to places where our historic faith is being defended? Why
do they use their power and authority against a minister who is
widely known as a defender of our historic faith, while the facilities
of some of our largest churches remain open to one who is equally
well- known as an enemy of our historic faith?
Jeanne and I
are presently ministering, by their invitation, to thousands of
historic Adventists in this country and in other countries. In the
year 1991 we spent forty of the fiftytwo weekends conducting seminars
in defense of our historic faith. (We pause to mention that we receive
no remuneration whatever for conducting these seminars. The people
pay only our expenses. We are sure you can understand how perplexed
the historic Seventh- day Adventists are when they read in a Union
paper that we are doing this for our own financial benefit.) We
are presently fully booked for 1992 and into 1993.
We are able
to report to you that the conviction is spreading among these historic
Adventists that they are going to be hounded out of the church.
They feel this is the only possible understanding of the inflammatory
tirades that are being published against them. They are observing
closely those situations in which illegal church discipline is being
applied and disfellowshipping has already begun in flagrant disregard
of the provisions in the church manual. One of the most evident
characteristics of these actions has been and is continuing to be
a lack of “due process.”
Adventists remember that when Dr. Desmond Ford launched a vigorous
assault against our sanctuary doctrine, the principles of “due process”
were carefully followed. Every effort was made to ensure his case
was dealt with in a fair and prudent manner, and rightly so. The
historic Adventists are also noting that even though Dr. Ford is
now attacking much more than our sanctuary doctrine and contributing
very largely to the present apostasy in the church, the facilities
of some of our largest churches remain open to him.
They are contrasting
this with the fact that in a Pacific Union Recorder of 1991 an announcement
stated Ralph Larson would conduct a seminar in the Beaumont Church
on July 26 and 27 entitled “In Defense of the Sanctuary.” Before
six weeks had passed, he had lost his ministerial credentials, without
due process. This speaks volumes to the historic Seventh- day Adventists.
Why, they are asking, is there so much patient tolerance toward
those who attack our faith and so little toward those who defend
are causing historic Adventists to consider carefully the proper
relationship between the truth, the church and church authority.
They are asking, Is it a valid theology of church authority that
requires us to surrender the truth and accept false doctrines or
is this a misuse and abuse of church authority? Is it a valid theology
of stewardship that requires us to give financial support to the
preaching of false doctrines? Is it a valid theology of church order
that brands the preaching of truth as
| The present division in the church
Is a tension between our true historic faith, as described
In Seventh- day Adventists Believe, and the Incompatible
doctrines of modern Calvinism.
while tolerating the preaching of untruth? And, in the ultimate
sense, what is the church? Let the Lord through His chosen messenger
provide us with the answer:
“God has a church.
It is not the great cathedral, neither is it the national establishment
. . . it is the people who love God and keep His commandments.”
We are directing
your attention to the reality that the present division in the church
is a tension between our true historic faith, as described in Seventh-
day Adventists Believe, and the incompatible doctrines of modern
Calvinism. We hold that it is unreasonable and unfair to charge
this division upon those ministers and church members who wish to
cling to our historic faith. The responsibility for division should
be laid at the door of those who are promoting the false doctrines
of Calvinism among us.
We believe that
every administrator has a sacred obligation to encourage and support
those who are defending our historic faith and not let himself be
manipulated or maneuvered into an attitude of opposition toward
them by camouflaged accusations of divisiveness, etc.
We are presently
hearing that Dr. Desmond Ford is broadcasting that many of our scholars
and administrators are now accepting his theology. This charge cannot
be well met by silence and inaction, which will cause people to
conclude that the allegation must be true.
successor to Walter Martin, reports that when he took a survey of
fifty- six ministers in a single conference in this Union, fourteen
admitted to disbelief in the biblical basis of our sanctuary doctrine
and thirteen more passed by that question while answering the other
questions in the survey. Thus, about half of those surveyed could
not bear a positive testimony in regard to the doctrine of which
Ellen White wrote:
understanding of the ministration in the heavenly sanctuary is the
foundation of our faith” Letter 208, 1906; EV 221.
Surely it is
time for the officers of this Union to resolutely lead the way in
ascertaining what persons, in the classrooms of our schools and
the pulpits of our churches, are teaching the doctrines described
in Seventh- day Adventists Believe, and what persons are substituting
for those doctrines antagonistic and incompatible doctrines.
And it is time
for a thorough investigation of my particular case, and a full and
fair trial to be conducted by the Union Conference Committee. At
that trial I will submit evidence that
1. I have appealed
to our church leaders and scholars to recognize our theological
problem by an investment of much time, many written appeals, and
several thousand dollars worth of our two major research reports,
The Word Made Flesh and Tell of His Power, that have been distributed
2. I have sought
no speaking appointments anywhere, but have simply responded to
urgent requests for help from the suffering historic Seventh- day
3. The evidence
presented in our research reports has not been challenged by biblical
or Spirit of Prophecy evidence from anyone. It has been met by sneers,
jeers, and arguments against the man.
4. My theology
is precisely the theology that is set forth in Seventh- day Adventists
who oppose my ministry and our doctrinal book are the ones who are
We are to unite,
but not upon a platform of error.
CALL IT APOSTASY
Dr. John J. Grosboll