Not long after camp meeting, I was told by Charles Cook that I would have to agree to teach all 27 doctrines 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.
One of the elders, Dr. Terry Haskin, a dentist in the Watsonville church where I was pastoring at the time, said he knew Dr. Graham Maxwell could answer my questions. Dr. Maxwell was a professor in the religion department at Loma Linda University. He had served on the top-secret committee, “Problems in the Book of Daniel,” and, according to Dr. Haskin, “had all the answers.” Dr. Haskin, knowing that my job was on the line, offered to fly me to meet with this SDA scholar. I assured him that 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 Dr. Graham Maxwell. At this meeting, I explained my problem and asked that if he had the answers to the problems surrounding the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment, to please give them to me as my job was on the line. Over the next five hours, I outlined what I considered to be the main problems with the 1844 investigative judgment doctrine.
- Daniel 8:13 is a summary of Daniel 8:9–12, plus a question. That question is answered in Daniel 8:14. Therefore, Daniel 8:14 does have a context—con- trary to traditional SDA interpretation.
- It is the wicked little horn that pollutes or desecrates the sanctuary, not the sins of the saints—contrary to the Adventist interpretation.
- The descriptions of the wicked little horn in Daniel 9–12 match the timing, the directions of conquest, and the desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes IV—contrary to Adventist interpretation.
- The 2300 “days” are actually 2300 evening morning (singular in the original), and most likely refer to the daily sacrifice, but it is unclear. To say that these “days” refer to whole “days” is an unprovable assumption needed for the Adventist interpretation.
- The year-day principle, needed for Adventist interpretation, is without foundation, or at best, it is a weak assumption.
- The link between Daniel 8 and Daniel 9 is weak. The word “decreed” or “cut off” (KJV) is a word used only once in Scripture, the meaning of which is unclear—another assumption.
- If it is assumed “decreed” means “cut off” and if it is also assumed the 70 week65 period is cut off from the 2300 “days,” it is not clear if the seventy week period is cut off from the beginning or the end of this 2300 days—another uncertainty.
- Using the date of 457 for the decree in Ezra 7, supported by Adventist scholar Dr. Siegfried Horn, even though non-Adventist scholars put the date at 456, this cannot be the decree “to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” mentioned in Daniel 9, as Adventists teach. If “restore and rebuild Jerusalem” refers to the Jerusalem temple, then that took place approximately in 516 BC and is the event recorded in Ezra 6:15. If “restore and rebuild Jerusalem” refers to the city, then that event is recorded in Nehemiah 2:5 and took place in approximately 444 or 445 BC.
- There is no link between Daniel 8:14 and the Leviticus 16 Day of Atonement, as Adventists teach. The word “cleansed” used in Daniel 8:14 (KJV) is a mistranslation of the original. Modern literal Bibles use the word “restored.”
- Even if one assumes that “cleansed” is the correct word, the “cleansing” of the sanctuary mentioned in Daniel 8 would be the cleansing or restoration of the sanctuary ordered by Judas Maccabeus mentioned in 1 Maccabees 4:38. This was the removal of “the stones of the abomination to an unclean place” and has nothing to do with the Leviticus 16 Day of Atonement—contrary to Adventist interpretation.
- The dates used in the Adventist interpretation of the 70 weeks are poorly established or are at best assumptions. Most non-Adventist scholars date the crucifixion either in AD 30 or AD 33, not AD 31, as Adventists teach. The date for the stoning of Steven at AD 34 is without foundation and is admitted to be merely a guess.
- Using the event of the stoning of Stephen for the gospel going to the Gentiles to fit the Adventist interpretation of the 70 weeks is probably in error. The event recorded in Acts 13:46 where “Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, ‘It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles,’” would be the event that has biblical support and this took place somewhere around AD 45.
- Reading through Leviticus 16, there is no focus on the individual sins of the people. Even if we assume that type explains the antitype, it does not yield an investigative judgment.
- There is no record in Leviticus that the individual sins of the people were transferred to the sanctuary.
- Hebrews 6:19 states that Christ had already entered “within the veil” when Hebrews was written. When “within the veil” or “before the veil” are used in the Old Testament, they always refer to the veil between the holy and the most holy place. Therefore, to say that Christ entered into the most holy place for the first time in 1844, as Ellen White taught, is in error.
- The hermeneutic used by Ellen White for interpreting the events of the heavenly sanctuary is faulty. She says, “To obtain a further knowledge of the cleansing to which the prophecy points, it was necessary to understand the ministration of the heavenly sanctuary. This could be learned only from the ministration of the earthly sanctuary.”66 “As the sins of the people were anciently transferred in figure in the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin offering [which Adventist scholars know to be untrue] so our sins are in fact transferred into the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ.”67 Ellen White says, as in the earthly type, so in the heavenly reality—a one to one comparison. She uses the earthly typical sanctuary services to explain the reality of the heavenly sanctuary services. Hebrews, however, explains the futility of the Atonement made in the earthly service by contrasting it to the once and for all atonement made by Christ’s death.
- Hebrews 9:7 specifically contrasts the work of Christ with the Old Testament Day of Atonement.
- Hebrews does not teach a two-phase ministry in the heavenly sanctuary—contrary to Adventist teaching.
- The judgment, as recorded in the New Testament, has nothing to do with an 1844 investigative judgment. Christ was judged as a sinner in our stead at the cross.68 We are judged when we hear and understand the gospel.69 The results of our accepting and/or rejecting Christ are revealed at the judgment at the second coming of Christ.70
- If one uses the statements of Ellen White to support the 1844 investigative judgment, then to be consistent, one must also take seriously her other statements made at that time including the following:
- The date of 1843 set for the coming of Christ, was a God-given date designed to test His people regarding the truth.71
- Ministers who did not accept the 1843 date for the coming of Christ had the blood of souls on them.72
- Miller’s 1843 chart, which detailed his 15 “proofs” was just as God wanted it, and it should never be changed.73
- Unless one understood that Christ moved from the holy place to the most holy place in 1844, he could not be benefitted by Christ’s intercession.74
- Jesus turned his face from the churches which rejected the 1843 date for the second coming.75
- God designed that His people meet with disappointment.76
- God rejected all the wicked world in 1844.77
- God was responsible for the misunderstanding of the early Millerite dating error.78
We found Dr. Maxwell to be a very gracious, kind, and sincere person. He was well-versed in the whole of Scripture and also well-informed about the problems with SDA sanctuary theology.
We found Dr. Maxwell to be a very gracious, kind, and sincere person. He was well-versed in the whole of Scripture and also well-informed about the problems with SDA sanctuary theology. However, it seemed he continually tried and often succeeded, to get us off the subject at hand onto what he called “the larger view.” This was, according to him, that one must simply know and trust the character of God. Dr. Maxwell never answered any of the specific problems. Rather, his method of dealing with them consisted in the following points. (These are my summaries and wording, but I have just reviewed this five-hour tape).
- Immediately move from a specific problem statement in EGW to some problem in Scripture and say, “if I can accept this problem in the Bible, then I can accept it in Ellen White.”
- Immediately move to “the larger view,” which is that Satan has accused God of saying, “Love me or I will torture you.” Spend much time dealing with the issues in “the great controversy,” showing that God is not going to punish the wicked—ever—and that any punishment is only the result of natural consequences and is not the act of God.
- The forensic, or substitutionary view of the Atonement gives the wrong picture of God, and the investigative judgment only makes sense when seen through the “great controversy” motif.
- God is not at all concerned with the forgiveness of sins, but only wants to know if we are willing to trust Him so we can be “safe to save.”
- The requirement for salvation is not forgiveness of sin, but a willingness to listen to God and take what He says seriously.
- The investigative judgment serves a vital part in the closing up of the great controversy where God calls the heavenly family together and presents evidence that settles all the remaining issues dealing with who is “safe to save.” The angels need to be convinced that if they live next door to us in heaven, we are not going to start another rebellion.
- God must prove to the heavenly family that we have a changed character, a new heart, and a right spirit.
- Refer often to the writings of Ellen White as a source of theology.
- We may not see how to logically get from Daniel 8:14 to 1844 using the Bible, but because we accept Ellen White, who gives an inspired interpretation of the Bible, we take her statements very seriously.
- The New Testament writers saw things in the Old Testament text, which we do not clearly see. Likewise, Ellen White, as a true prophet and inspired by God, gives interpretations of the Bible that we may not clearly see. If we accept the New Testament prophets’ interpretation of the Old Testament, then we should also accept Ellen White’s interpretation of the Bible.
- We are not to be worried about the writings of Ellen White becoming a second canon. Rather our concern is with truth.
- When we present our truth to non-Adventists, we start with the Bible, and then as Ellen White is found to be in harmony with Bible truth, we show how the investigative judgment within the setting of the great controversy makes sense.
- Ignore the statements of Ellen White that go against the great controversy theme and the larger view of the investigative judgment. If you must deal with specific problems that have no logical answer, conclude they were necessary for the people at that time.
- One way to avoid taking a stand on the problem issues of the day is to say you are still studying them and have not yet reached a conclusion.79
In our discussion, it was mentioned by the elders80 that there were people on the conference committee who considered the Dallas Statement to be inspired. They said that because it was formulated and approved at a world gathering of the General Conference, and Ellen White said the judgment of the General Conference is God’s highest authority on earth, then the Dallas Statement is essentially God’s Word.81
As I pointed out the many problems associated with the 1844 investigative judgment, Dr. Maxwell, on several occasions, brought out the real, underlying reason why Adventists cannot reject the 1844 investigative judgment doctrine. “If she misled us here,” he said, “then she probably misled us elsewhere.”
To accept the obvious conclusion that the 1844 doctrine is without any biblical foundation would completely under- mine the authority of Ellen White, causing the unique teachings of Adventism to fall like dominoes. For that reason, Dr. Maxwell and many other leaders in the SDA church were not about to admit Adventist’s 1844 sanctuary theology was error.
Dr. Maxwell, 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,82 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 were some way I could carefully select my words so I could be “honest” with my disagreement with the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment doctrine, and yet at the same time, convey to the conference president my loyalty to the church. I don’t know if my face showed it or not, but I was internally shocked. I recalled the many charges Adventists had directed toward the Catholic Jesuits for using these practices.
This five-hour discussion with a leading Adventist theologian who was on the Daniel committee, and served on the biblical research committee for many years, but was unable to bring any real answers to the many specific problems associated with Adventism’s 1844 doctrine, only confirmed my conclusion—there are no answers.
In the following days, as I contemplated this discussion and the other meetings mentioned earlier, I was deeply troubled. What was going on? Was I wrong? I had always been taught to submit to the counsel of “the brethren.” But how could I promise to teach something that none of the brethren could honestly show me from Scripture? Why was it that the Adventist leadership, whom I had always held in high esteem, seemed now to be so full of duplicity?
Soon I would have to meet with Charles Cook again and tell him whether or not I would teach all 27 of the Fundamental Beliefs. How easy it would be just to tell him that I could, and keep my ministry in Adventism. Yet, somehow, I knew I could not. I did not look forward to that day, but we mortals cannot stop the clock, and it was ticking steadily.
When I met with Charles Cook, I again told him I would be happy to teach the investigative judgment if someone could show me how to do it from scripture using sound principles of interpretation. However, all he wanted from me was either a “Yes” or “No” in regard to the 27. I told him I could not teach this doctrine, and I was suspended from the ministry. Immediately upon my suspension, Elder Cook said to me, “Dale, your main fault is you are too honest.”83 This was not a final act, but one that removed me from pastoral leadership.
“Dale, your main fault is you are too honest.”
Charles Cook, President, Central California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
The conference appointed a peer review committee to meet with me and make a recommendation as to my future. Chairing the committee was Barry L. Crabtree, and the secretary was Robert M. Zamora. From previous conversations, I knew both these men did not believe in the traditional Adventist sanctuary message either. The report of this committee reads:
…After extensive examinations of Elder Ratzlaff’s theological stance, his professional competence, and the positive manner in which he responded to the committee, and its concerns for the well-being of the church and its fundamental beliefs, it is our unanimous opinion that Elder Ratzlaff can function as a loyal minister of the Seventh-day Adventist church within the framework of the fundamental statement of beliefs as articulated in the Dallas Statement.
Therefore, we recommend that the Conference Executive Committee take a redemptive action in reinstating Elder Dale Ratzlaff to the gospel ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.84
However, at my hearing before the conference committee, the report of the peer review committee was never read or even referred to. It was obvious that the decision had already been made, why bother with the details. 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, one of the lay members of the committee asked a profound question. She said, “I don’t comprehend what is going on 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, nervous silence; the question was ignored, and the subject was changed.
In retrospect, I have often wished I had not been so submissive. I wish I had stood up, handed my Bible to the conference president and said, “Here, you give us a Bible study on the investigative judgment, if you can get from Daniel 8:14 to 1844 using sound principles of interpretation, I want to see you do it!”
These were difficult days for Carolyn and me. I vividly recall walking alone down the quiet country road in front of our home one evening as the chilling fog from the ocean a few miles away came rolling in on the westward wind. Why Lord? Why me? Why can’t I just go along as many of the other pastors are doing? Am I wrong? Should I just submit to the judgment of the experienced conference officers? Are my motives pure? How far should I go in compromising my conscience and teaching things I know aren’t true?
My mind raced back to the “tapes”—and there were many good quotations I had memorized.
The greatest want of the world is the want of men—men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.85
Even though I knew some of Ellen White’s statements were patently wrong, I also had great admiration for many of the quotations I had memorized.
How could I turn back now? I realized that even if I did, I was now a “marked man” and my future with the denomination was tentative at best. Carolyn and I spent many hours talking over these things, reading our Bibles, and crying out to God in prayer for guidance.
We had recently purchased five acres, and our sons had built us a nice home on it. We had scraped together everything we had and more besides to complete the project. Our payments were large as those were the days of 12–18% interest. Both Carolyn and I were employed by the church. We considered that if we resigned from the church, we could lose our new home, which we had worked so hard to obtain.
Then there were those other pesky EGW “tapes” that plagued our steps and haunted our thoughts.
It is Satan’s plan to weaken the faith of God’s people in the Testimonies. Next follows skepticism in regard to the vital points of our faith, the pillars of our position, then doubt as to the Holy Scriptures, and then the downward march to perdition. When the Testimonies, which were once believed are doubted and given up, Satan knows the deceived ones will not stop at this; and he redoubles his efforts till he launches them into open rebellion, which becomes incurable and ends in destruction.86
Would we be lost if we left the SDA church, as Ellen White said? Had Satan somehow blinded our hearts and minds? Having started on the journey away from Adventism, would we end up rejecting every point of truth and become infidels? When these plaguing thoughts bubbled up from our memories, which had been saturated with the writings of Ellen White, we would be driven back to Scripture, where we found solace. The simple gospel of belief in Christ in the book of John and the clear teaching of righteousness by faith in the book of Romans and Galatians became our solid foundation and assurance. I had memorized a number of chapters from Romans, and when the condemning “tapes” from Ellen White would run, I would change channels and flee back to the good news in Christ, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God.” “He who believes has eternal life.”
The day came when I had to make the final decision to either resign or promise to teach all 27 SDA doctrines. At first, I told Elder Cook that I was not going to resign. I felt that the church was leaving me rather than me leaving the church. By this, I meant I had always thought the church stood for truth, and that was all I was seeking. Now the church, it seemed to me, was not concerned with seeking and following truth; rather, its main interest was in its own preservation, even if that meant using deceptive practices of covering up known error. He told me, however, that if I were fired, which he was prepared to do if I did not resign, I would not receive any severance pay. He assured me that if I resigned, I would receive severance pay.
I resigned. I knew I could never go back. That door was closed. Now, what would Carolyn and I do?
NEXT WEEK: “FREE—TO DISCOVER”
ENDNOTES
65. Literally, “seventy unites of seven.”
66. Ellen G. White, Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, p. 263. (emphasis added)
67. See Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 421. (emphasis added)
68. 2 Cor. 5:21.
69. “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” Jn. 3:18.
70. Mt. 25:31–46.
71. Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 232.
72. Early Writings, p. 233.
73. Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, 1850-11-1.
74. Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 172.
75. Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 136.
76. Early Writings, p. 137.
77. Ellen G. White, To The Remnant Scattered Abroad.
78. Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 139.
79. It appears to me that the church, in harmony with some of the points Dr. Maxwell mentioned in our discussion in 1981, has chosen to solve the ongoing, continually reoccurring crises of Adventist sanctuary theology by continuing to study it into infinitude and thereby putting off the obvious conclusion.
80. The church elders had gone to the conference committee to support my ministry on one occasion when I was not present.
81. “But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered.” Ellen G. White, Testimonies for The Church, Vol. 3, p. 492.
82. “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.
83. This is quoted from “Crisis in Freedom” which I wrote only a few hours after my meeting with Charles Cook when my memory was fresh. I was told that he later denied saying this. Find “Crisis in Freedom” on my website at: www.lifeassuranceministries.com/art.html.
84. Quoted from my copy.
85. Ellen. G. White, Education, p. 57. I later learned this statement was plagiarized from others.
86. Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 4, p. 211.
- The Sabbath: From Ritual to Reality - December 19, 2024
- Wise Men Still Seek Him - December 12, 2024
- The Gospel is Good News! - December 5, 2024