14. We Knew it Was Wrong—But… An Ethical Evaluation

Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventism, Dale Ratzlaff, Feature, Investigative Judgment

Within traditional Adventism there has developed what could be called “vindication theology.” It finds its roots in the writings of Ellen White and is intimately tied to the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment theology. It goes something like this. Satan has maligned God’s character before the universe. There are several “issues” in the great controversy between Christ and Satan that have not yet been fully resolved. Satan has claimed that man cannot keep God’s law. His evidence for this charge is the record of sins he has caused God’s people to commit. While it is true that Christ kept the law perfectly, Satan has claimed that no one else has been able to do this, therefore, his claim still stands. Vindication theology is about this issue, this charge of Satan, and holds that the last generation will prove before the universe that man can, with God’s empowering grace, perfectly obey God’s holy law.1,2 This is the underlying reason why we find Ellen White teaching that God’s people will live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. This is why SDAs teach there will be no change in character when Christ comes. This is why there must be perfect obedience demonstrated by the last generation. This is why EGW says:

Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own.3

In other words, one thing that is delaying the second coming of Christ is that God is waiting for a group of people to prove to the universe that His law can be perfectly keptby man. When this is demonstrated before the universe, then Christ will come. Historic Adventists see themselves as this remnant group. This is one of the fundamental dynamics of SDA eschatology. It is against this backdrop that we now evaluate the investigative judgment from the perspective of ethics.

The final judgment is a most solemn event, which must take place before the assembled universe. When God honors His commandment-keeping people, not one of the enemies of truth and righteousness will be absent. And when transgressors receive their condemnation, all the righteous will see the result of sin. God will be honored, and His government vindicated; and that in the presence of the inhabitants of the universe. Oh, what a change will then take place in the minds of men! All will then see the value of eternal life.4

My personal experience with the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment

When I was in the 12th grade in an SDA academy Bible Doctrines class, I rote-learned the Bible references which supposedly taught the investigative judgment, and I thought I understood this doctrine. When I took theology at Pacific Union College,5 I tried to go through the references in a logical way, and I had numerous problems trying to understand the reason for linking the various Bible references together to come to the right conclusion. At the time, I thought the problem was my lack of understanding. I tried to be honest with Scripture and the Adventist interpretation of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment. It was obvious to me that the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 referred to the time “while the transgression causes horror…”  I knew that the Adventists said this period of time started in 457 B.C. and ended on October 22, 1844. I vividly recall the day I asked one of my professors,6 in whom I had placed a great deal of confidence, some very pointed questions about some of the problems I was facing in trying to make sense of the investigative judgment. I asked him, “What was trampled7 in 457 B.C. that ceased to be trampled in 1844?” I recall his cold stare and answer. “Dale,” he said, “Aren’t you studying for the ministry? You should not be asking questions like that.” I never asked him any more questions—at least not about the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment.

That same year another professor8, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude for his honesty, integrity, and mentoring said, “The investigative judgment is not a biblical doctrine and can only be supported by the writings of Ellen White.” This got back to the other professors of the religion department, and they had a small meeting with the theology students to “prove” it could be supported from Scripture. I attended the meeting and could see that the arguments supporting the investigative judgment were full of unwarranted assumptions which required taking texts out of their context and/or reading into the texts things which were not there.

Later, when I was attending seminary at Andrews University,9 I was pleased to see that the outline for the Atonement Class included a section on 1844. However, the professor10 fell behind in the outline, and we never got to the section on 1844. Now I think I know why.

My next big encounter with the investigative judgment problem came when Dr. Desmond Ford, who was then teaching in the religion department at Pacific Union College, gave his famous (some would say infamous) talk at the Pacific Union College Adventist Forum.11 He, too, said that the investigative judgment could not be supported from Scripture and listed some of the problems. Tapes of his talk were sent around the world, and he immediately became the focal point of controversy. The denomination leadership immediately removed him from his teaching position, and he was given six months to prepare  documentation to prove that his views were in harmony with SDA official teachings.12 During this six-month period, Dr. Ford wrote and/or gathered together some 992 pages of material to buttress his case. This became known as “Dr. Ford’s Glacier View Manuscript.”13 It was not to be duplicated and was intended to be used only for those people who were to determine Dr. Ford’s future within the SDA church. However, as providence would have it, one person (not Dr. Ford) made a copy. It was copied again and I received that copy. I was a personal friend of Dr. Ford. I respected his integrity and I had also had problems with the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment. Therefore, I determined that it was time for me to get to the bottom of the doctrine. I studied this large document and realized that the problems of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment were much greater than I had realized and there were no logical, biblical answers.14

About this same time, I was also sent a set of tapes15 which were made of a secret meeting between Walter Rea16 and denominational leaders where he documented the extensive plagiarism he had found in the writings of Ellen White. His evidence was monumental and devastating to my belief in EGW as an inspired writer. 

Then, not only had I come to believe the investigative judgment was not a biblical doctrine, but I also realized that I could not trust EGW as an inspired writer for the basis of doctrinal belief. Had not these two events come together at the same time, I doubt if I would have left the SDA church, at least not at that time.

Then I was faced with a real problem. Here I was, an SDA pastor who did not believe in the heart of Adventism. I asked two of my most trusted, ordained pastor friends for three hours of time to present the findings from my Bible study on the topic. At the conclusion they said that it appeared that my findings were correct and the investigative judgment was in error. They counseled me not to make an issue of it. I tried (at first) to follow this counsel. 

In addition to Dr. Ford’s manuscript and the tapes by Walter Rea, I also received a tape of Dr. Cottrell’s presentation where he made public the secret meetings of the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel referenced in Chapter 11. I then realized that the denominational scholars and leaders knew of the problems with the investigative judgment and had tried to hide them. 

I made the “mistake” of sharing Dr. Cottrell’s tape with some of my church elders.17 It was not long until I had the attention of the conference president, and I was called in to account for my disruptive and divisive activities. I asked him for three hours of time so that I could present the results of my Bible study on the subject of the investigative judgment. He promised me that he would give me that time. However, when the time came near, he backed out and had me meet with another conference officer and an ordained pastor who had been at Dr. Ford’s Glacier View hearing. The three of us met for about four hours and the conversation was taped. I was never given a set of the tapes, and I am sure that they will never be released. In those four hours in private conversation, both of these men admitted that Daniel 8 referred to Antiochus Epiphanies, the investigative judgment was in error, and they downplayed the authority of EGW. However, not long after that I heard both men strongly support the traditional denomination position in a large public meeting and quote EGW in their talks. I began to question the integrity of denominational leaders.

One day Harold West, the conference ministerial secretary, whom I had studied with previously, asked to speak with me. In the course of our conversation he said, “Dale, we both know the doctrine (investigative judgment was implied) is wrong. It is not our fault, and we can’t do anything about it. We are too old to go out and find employment outside of the church.  Consider the church to be your employer. Do what you can with a clear conscience and don’t make any waves.”

Another one of my pastor friends, Barry Crabtree, was being interviewed to become a conference president. In the interview the union conference president asked him, “Do you believe in 1844?” His answer was, “Sure, don’t you?” As he was telling me of this interview, he said in a lowered voice, “Dale, I not only believe in 1844, I also believe in 1981.”

Another pastor in the same conference told me that he would tell the conference president whatever he wanted to hear just to keep his job.

I was told by Charles Cook, the conference president that I would have to agree to teach all 27 doctrines18 as listed in the Fundamental Beliefs of SDAs or resign. I told him that I could not teach the investigative judgment unless someone, using sound principles of interpretation, could show me from Scripture how to do it.

Dr. Terry Haskin, one of the elders in the church, where I was pastoring at the time, said that Dr. Graham Maxwell, them chairman of the religion department at Loma Linda University, had all the answers. Dr. Maxwell had served on the Biblical Research Committee for may years and was well are of the problems of the investigative judgment and supposed answers. Dr Haskin, knowing that my job was on the line, offered to fly me to meet with this SDA scholar. I assured this elder it would be a waste of time because there were no answers. He insisted I go, however, and arranged a lengthy appointment for himself, Dr. Lon Wilson and me to meet with this professor. At this meeting I explained my problem to him and asked that if he had the answers to the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment problems, to please give them to me as my job was on the line. At that point a five-hour discussion started, and Dr. Maxwell continually tried to get us off the subject onto what he called “the larger view,” which was, according to him, that one must simply know and trust the character of God.

This five-hour conversation was recorded and I have the tapes. I reviewed them recently. This professor on several occasions suggested to me that really all the conference brethren wanted was my loyalty. He suggested that if I would just get my ingathering goal,19 keep my baptism count high and let the leaders know I supported the SDA church, all would be well. Then he asked me if there was some way I could carefully select my words so that I could tell the president what he wanted to hear, but at the same time put my own, private interpretation on my statements. In other words, he suggested that I communicate to my conference president in such a way that he would think I agreed with the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment, and at the same time, I would put a different interpretation on what I said. That would allow me to be “honest” with my disagreement with the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment doctrine and yet convey to the conference president my loyalty to the church. For all practical purposes, he asked me to communicate something akin to a falsehood, but he did not say it in those words.

As we were concluding our meeting, he had still not given me any answers. Finally, I broke into the conversation and told him that we had come down to get the answers to the problems of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment. I wanted to know the reasoning and scriptural support needed to start with Daniel 8:14 and end up at 1844. His only answer was that Ellen White did it and she “thought” she got it from Scripture.20

Shortly after this, I was suspended from the ministry. At my hearing before the conference committee, I was expressly told that I could not ask any questions about the biblical interpretation of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment. During the discussion, however, one of the lay members of the committee asked a profound question. She said, “I don’t comprehend what is going one here. I understand that all Pastor Ratzlaff wants is for someone to show him how to prove the investigative judgment from the Bible. Here we are in a room full of pastors; why doesn’t someone do it now?” There was a long moment of tense silence, the question was ignored and the subject was changed. 

Finally, the day came when I had to make the decision to either resign or promise to teach all 27 SDA doctrines. I resigned. Immediately upon my resignation, a conference officer said to me, “Dale, your main problem is you are too honest.” When I got back to my church, I shared this conversation with my church elders. In a subsequent meeting with these elders, this conference official denied having told me that my main problem was I was too honest. 

The ethics of the investigative judgment

Doubtless, some will conclude that I am relating these things just to justify my actions. This is not my intent. I am not bitter over leaving the SDA church. In fact, my wife and I frequently remark to each other how thankful we are to be out of the SDA church. To have the freedom to study Scripture and take it for what it says, without trying to make it say something else, is refreshing. Carolyn and I felt that belonging to and supporting the SDA church would be to participate in its doctrinal errors and unethical practices.

Many others have left the SDA church over the same issues. Dr. Ford’s list of Seventh-day Adventists who have had problems with the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment takes up seventy-five pages.21 Several hundred SDA workers have left denominational employment since Dr. Ford wrote his book. Rather than castigate all those who leave, which has been the church’s historical way of dealing with investigative judgment problems,21 the SDA church needs to squarely face the fact that the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment is wrong. 

Rather than castigate all those who leave, which has been the church’s historical way of dealing with investigative judgment problems,22 the SDA church needs to squarely fact the fact that the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment is wrong. Rather than being the means to vindicate the justice of God through the character development of His remnant people, as they claim it to be, it has proven to be nothing more than a breeding ground for all sorts of questionable maneuvering—some would say dishonesty. It has been thoroughly documented that denominational leaders have known about the problems associated with the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment.23 But they have done nothing to remove this “sliver.” Is it too much to hope that someday the SDA church will officially face the facts and cut itself free from this encumbering “sliver?”

This chapter will be concluded with a summary of the evidence brought out thus far in our study—evidence that relates to ethics.

Summary of SDA Sanctuary Ethics

  1. It is clear that the early visions of EGW presented gross, doctrinal error.
  2. The early visions of EGW are filled with authoritative statements claiming divine origin. Her published writings contain over 970 “I was shown” statements and over 260 “said the angel” statements. Many, certainly not all, of these are associated with the gross doctrinal error as mentioned above.
  3. It is clear that Adventists knew of these problems, and at least some of the errors in the writings of EGW.
  4. It is clear that EGW knew of the doctrinal problems in her own writings but never admitted her error. 
  5. EGW acknowledged some of the errors of “early Adventists,” but never admitted that many of these early errors were founded or supported by her “visions from God.”
  6. The change of EGW’s first vision24 was a purposeful doctrinal, major change. It is denied, and yetwas “made under the author’s own eye and with her full approval.”25 
  7. The SDA church has reinterpreted “truth” on numerous occasions, even if the reinterpretation was contrary to the first interpretation. Seldom, if ever, has the first interpretation been renounced as error.
  8. The SDA church has redefined the terms of their erroneous doctrines, such as the shut door, to avoid admitting previous doctrinal error.
  9. Ellen White, using her “divine authority,” through her “testimonies,” undermined and ostracized those who disagreed with her point of view. Often the issue appeared to be some stance on truth or error, when in reality the issue was over who had the power.26 Those who did not accept her testimonies were told they would end up in destruction.27
  10. SDA denominational leaders formed the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel, which was composed of the best minds within Adventism, and gave this committee the assignment to find contextual support for the investigative judgment. This committee met for five full years and then left no minutes. Some—certainly not all—of these people continued to promote the traditional investigative judgment to the laity of the SDA church as if there were no problems. 
  11. My own experience with SDA denominational leaders has shown me that many—certainly not all—of them seem to be more concerned with keeping the status quo than with truth. While I have not mentioned the experience of other pastors who left the SDA church about the same time I did,28 those whom I know had similar experiences.
  12. Could it be that something is ethically wrong at the heart of Adventism? Could it be that the tactics necessary to continually deal with the false doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment and the theological baggage that comes with this doctrine, are bearing fruit? Could it be that this doctrine, which claims to develop a special, holy remnant that will reflect the image of Jesus fully, has actually contributed to some questionable ethical practices? †

Endnotes

  1. “With sobering timeliness we study the subject of God’s investigative judgment on the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary…of its commencement in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary on October 22, 1844. Through this judgment work God has committed Himself to explain completely to the universe of unfallen beings His work of redemption, and His perfectly fair and loving way of dealing with sin and sinners. The judgment settles all accusations, doubts, and concerns about the justice and goodness of God.” Commentary, Adult Sabbath School Lessons, Three Angel’s Messages, p. 47.
  2. “The essence of the truth they [SDA pioneers including EGW] were expressing…was that at the end of the prophetic period of Daniel 8:14, Christ commenced a phase of ministry that was new in kind—and one that had as its goal the final vindication of God’s name and honor, the vindication of God’s sanctuary and people, and the eternal security of the universe.” Adams, The Sanctuary, pp. 112, 113.
  3. Ellen G. White, Christ Object Lessons, p. 69.
  4. Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, 1901-06-18.
  5. 1965 to 1967.
  6. Dr. Leslie Harding, teacher of the Spirit of Prophecy class.
  7. The little horn “…grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to earth, and it trampled them down.” (Dan 8:10).
  8. Dr. Fred Veltman, Greek teacher.
  9. Berrien Springs, Michigan, 1967 to 1969.
  10. Dr. Wilber Alexander.
  11. The Adventist Forum was originally designed to be a safe place where educated SDAs who had a masters degree could discuss relevant issues facing the SDA church. Membership is now open to anyone.
  12. It is my understanding that the General Conference of SDAs did revoke Dr. Ford’s ministerial credentials; however, as church membership is determined by a vote of the local church, Dr. Ford continues to be a member of the Pacific Union College SDA church.
  13. Now this is sold as Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment.
  14. The only answer to the investigative judgment problem is to face the facts and admit that it is a false   doctrine without biblical support.
  15. Sent to me by the late Dr. Zane Kane.
  16. I had known Walter Rea when I was a SDA pastor in southern California, as he pastored a neighboring church. I knew Walter Rea to be an honest scholar and, therefore, I gave considerable weight to his evidence.
  17. Dr. Lon Wilson, Dr. Terry Haskin, Dr. Carl Henning and Phil Day.
  18. There are now 28. 
  19. “Ingathering” was a yearly fund-raising activity where each church was given a goal. Money was to be raised through donations, usually solicited from the community.
  20. For a more complete summary of what was said at this five-hour meeting see Ratzlaff, Truth Led Me Out, p. 389–98.
  21. See Ford, Daniel 8:14, pp. 25-100.
  22. Ibid.
  23. See Ford, Daniel 8:14, the chapter, “History of Sanctuary Problems in Seventh-day Adventist Church and Recognition of these Problems by Adventist Writers.” pp. 11-100.
  24. See Chapter 8, “Change the Vision.”
  25. See Preface to Early Writings.
  26. For example, EGW’s attack against Kellogg, an early SDA physician who was head of the Battle Creek Sanitarium, was based upon his supposed pantheism, when in reality, the real issue was that Kellog was gaining more power than she or her husband had. 
  27. Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 4, p. 221; Vol. 5, pp. 19, 682.
  28. It is my understanding that several hundred pastors left the SDA church in the nineteen eighties. I was told by one reliable source that there were over 180 “workers” who left in the Pacific Union Conference alone. I know several SDA pastors who are in the process of leaving at the time of this writing. 
Dale Ratzlaff
Latest posts by Dale Ratzlaff (see all)

Leave a Reply