10. Deceptive Practices Still Used

Dale Ratzlaff, Feature, Truth About Adventist "Truth"

If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

Often evangelicals base their inclusion of the Adventist Church within mainstream Christianity upon Walter Martin’s evaluation in Kingdom of the Cults.1 What many do not know is that the book, Questions on Doctrine,2 which was written to persuade Walter Martin and Donald Grey Barnhouse of the evangelical nature of Adventism, was soon rejected by many Adventist leaders and laity alike and was allowed to go out of print. At the time Questions on Doctrine was written, Andrews University Seminary was controlled by evangelical leaning Adventists. However, shortly thereafter a big shake up occurred and the Seminary was then controlled by historic Adventists who moved Adventism back toward its cultic past.

Shortly before his death, Walter Martin was a guest on the John Ankerberg show along with William Johnson, the editor of the Adventist Review. It is clear by this interview that Walter Martin saw the Adventist church slipping back into its cultic past.

It is evident that SDAs hold some unique, unbiblical teachings that are quite divergent from mainstream Christianity. However, Adventists do not want to appear to be that divergent! Rather, they want to be seen by Christendom as within the mainstream. In order to do this, they have become very subtle in their evangelism. Seldom are their Revelation Seminars and Bible lectures advertised as Adventist evangelistic meetings. The Voice of Prophecy, Faith for Today, It Is Written, The Quiet Hour, Amazing Facts, 3ABN and other SDA media programs are often not advertised as Adventist programs. These programs often leave out of their messages some of the erroneous doctrines outlined in this booklet. First, they want to “set the hook” and then after they have the “fish in the boat,” they tell them “the rest of the story.” The author has spoken with many Seventh-day Adventists or former Seventh-day Adventists who were never told about all the unbiblical doctrines, including the acceptance of Ellen White as a continuing and authoritative source of truth, until after they were baptized into the church.3 Most know nothing of the massive plagiarism of Ellen White or the suppression of her early writings.

Not only are Adventists somewhat misleading in their evangelistic approach, their history is literally riddled with deceptive practices which continue to this day. When honest Adventist leaders learned of some of these errors and left the church, they were usually castigated and given over to Satan.4 In fact, Ellen White went so far as to state,

When the power of God testifies [has told Ellen White] as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after suppositions contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained.5

In other words, once Ellen White has clearly supported a given Adventist teaching, based upon a “vision” or “instruction” from “God”, that teaching is to stand forever. One now understands how difficult it will be for Adventists to admit error, especially the foundational, fundamental doctrines upon which this church was founded and which received the prophetic stamp of Ellen White’s approval.

Adventists know the problems associated with their doctrines, especially their investigative judgment doctrine. When working on their Bible commentary, Adventist scholars became acutely aware that this doctrine had no biblical basis. In fact, a super-secret committee of Adventism’s top scholars was appointed by General Conference President, R. R. Figuhr, to solve their Daniel 8:14/1844 problem. This committee of Adventist scholars worked on this problem for five years, could not solve it, disbanded, left no minutes and were instructed to continue to teach the investigative judgment based upon their “traditional assumptions.”6,7 The church has tried to make it appear this problem has been solved by publishing a huge, multi-volume “scholarly work.” However, it is riddled with assumptions. The late Dr. Raymond Cottrell was Adventism’s best Hebrew scholar; he sat on the secret committee and wrote the SDA commentary on Daniel. He concluded that this series was little more than “obscurantism”, designed to make things appear different from what they really are—a good definition of deception.

According to one member of SDAs Biblical Research Committee, it either tended to ignore serious questions about Adventist doctrine, or it would turn the problem over to a naive scholar who would defend without question the traditional teaching.

If someone presented a paper pointing toward a conclusion at variance with the church’s teaching it was just as quickly relegated to the denomination’s archival collection, never to surface again.8

Cultic Doctrine lists and illustrates seventeen ways Adventists have dealt with known error. Yet the church has never, to this author’s knowledge, publicly admitted doctrinal error. The reason being it would create a crisis of faith among its members who believe the historic teachings of Adventism.9

Before I reprinted Cultic Doctrine I wrote a certified letter to the general conference president asking him if Adventists still supported some of the early erroneous Adventist teachings. True to the template motioned before, he never responded.

Dr. Gerhard Pfandl wrote the Sabbath School lessons for the fourth quarter of 2004, which were a study of the book of Daniel. He followed the traditional Adventist interpretation. Eduardo Martínez-Rancaño, another Adventist scholar, recognized the numerous assumptions, blatant errors and misuse of Scripture in these lessons. Eduardo wrote a detailed letter to Dr. Pfandl in November, 2004, asking questions, giving insight to the biblical text and pointing out his misuse of Scripture. The letter was not answered, so on March 12, 2005, Eduardo spoke personally to General Conference President, Jan Paulsen, about this letter. Elder Paulsen expressed his surprise that Dr. Pfandl hadn’t answered. Following the same template, no answer was ever forthcoming.

Some Adventists claim that the church has changed and it no longer believes its old historical errors. However, all such talk is untrue. President Jan Paulson, stated:

Take specifically our understanding of judgment and Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary and the prophetic messages in which these teachings are contained. Some are suggesting that since the 1980 (Glacier View) meetings, the very teachings that the church affirmed that year at those meetings have been abandoned, and that the church has essentially moved to accept the very positions it rejected then. Such a claim is a distortion of reality, and nothing could be further from the truth. The historic sanctuary message, based on Scripture and supported by the writings of Ellen White, continues to be held to unequivocally. And the inspired authorities on which these and other doctrines are based, namely the Bible supported by the writings of Ellen White, continue to be the hermeneutical foundation on which we as a church place all matters of faith and conduct. Let no one think that there has been a change of position in regard to this.10

A careful reading of the above statement confirms that the SDA church has not changed its historic doctrines. Neither does if offer much hope for future change. Note that these doctrines are based on “the inspired authorities” (plural)—the Bible as interpreted by Ellen White. It may be true that some Adventists no longer believe SDA’s historical doctrines; nevertheless these doctrines remain the official teachings of the church.

Most Adventists who tell evangelicals they no longer believe in the investigative judgment, or other errors of Adventism, will not publicly renounce these errors.

Endnotes

  1. Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults, (Bethany House, 1965).
  2. Questions on Doctrine, Prepared by a Representative Group of Seventh-day Adventist Leaders, Bible Teachers and Editors, (Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1956).
  3. At the SDA General Conference held in Toronto, Canada in June/July, 2000, a revised Baptismal Certificate and accompanying vow was adopted. If this new procedure is followed, everyone joining the SDA church should be aware of Adventist doctrine. The new instructions read: “Candidates for baptism or those being received into fellowship by profession of faith shall affirm their acceptance of the doctrinal beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the presence of the church or other properly appointed body. The Minister or elder should address the following questions to the candidate(s) whose reply may be by verbal assent or by raising the hand.” Following this is a thirteen-point vow which includes these points: “(6) Do you accept the Ten Commandments as the transcript of the character of God and a revelation of His will? Is it your purpose by the power of the indwelling Christ to keep this law, including the fourth commandment, which requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord and the memorial of Creation? (8) Do you accept the biblical teaching of spiritual gifts and believe that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church? (11) Do you know and understand the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Do you purpose, by the grace of God to fulfill His will by ordering your life in harmony with these principles? (13) Do you accept and believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the remnant church of Bible prophecy and that people of every nation, race and language are invited and accepted into its fellowship? Do you desire to be a member of this local congregation of the world church?”
  4. Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 135, 136, 139, 140, 144, 152, 152; Cultic Doctrine, p. 187, 188.
  5. Ellen G. White, Loma Linda Manuscript No. 150.
  6. Cultic Doctrine, Chapter, “Lumps Under the Rug.”
  7. Remember there are 22 assumptions needed to support this doctrine as taught by Ellen White. Most of these are contrary to the evidence.
  8. In personal conversations with Jerry Gladson, Ph. D. a former member of the committee.
  9. See Cultic Doctrine, Chapter 11, for a complete list and explanation.
  10. http://www.adventistreview.org/2002-1524/story3.html

 CONTENTS

Dale Ratzlaff
Latest posts by Dale Ratzlaff (see all)

Leave a Reply