DRAFT

 DOCUMENT  /  PLS  EXCUSE  THE  TYPOS    

 

Seventh  Day  Adventist  Theological  War  Sermon  

PART  1  

Today  we  see  a  lot  of  confusion  and  separation  in  our  church  today…among  many  
who  call  themselves  “Seventh  Day  Adventists”.  For  example  Doug  bachelor  was  
banned  last  year  (2015)  from  speaking  in  the  Florida  Conference  leadership  for  his  
role  in  the  whole  women  ordination  crisis  as  it  was  reported  on  their  website.  I’m  
sure  many  of  you  remember  the  agitation  between  the  various  ministries  that  lead  
up  to  the  whole  General  Conference  session  that  took  place  in  2015.  Many  were  at  
the  edge  of  their  seats  in  regards  to  the  whole  ‘women’s  ordination’  crisis  that  took  
place  that  year  and  what  the  outcome  would  be…    there  we  saw  the  marked  
separation  between  what’s  known  as  the  ‘liberal’  Seventh  Day  Adventists  and  the  
‘Conservative’  Seventh  Day  Adventists.  (I  will  explain  who  these  are  later  on  the  in  
presentation.)    Recently  the  SDA  conference  in  Kenya  banned  Jeremiah  Davis  from  
speaking  in  conference  churches  in  Kenya…  and  it  doesn’t  end  there…  I  have  a  
friend,  many  of  you  are  familiar  with  the  story  as  I  recorded  the  subject  on  utube  a  
few  months  ago,  about  how  a  teacher,  an  Adventist  teacher  in  an  Adventist  school  
was  basically  sacked  for  believing  …  not  preaching  it…  just  believing  in  the  2520…  I  
also  was  asked  to  do  a  campaign  at  a  church  here  in  the  England,  they  had  the  flyer  
ready  and  everything…  only  for  it  to  be    cancelled.  And  then  there  was  Danny  Vierra  
who  was  also  dis-­‐fellowshipped  from  the  SDA  church  for  reportedly  putting  up  signs  
announcing  the  Roman  Catholic  church  as  Babylon  many  years  ago.  And  then  of  
course  there’s  Mr  Jeff  Pippenger…  probably  the  most  hated  out  of  all  in  Adventism  
and  deemed  a  complete  apostate  by  many…  the  majority  in  Adventism  and  he  has  
also  been  dis-­‐fellowshipped  from  the  Adventist  Church.  Now  the  interesting  thing  
about  this…  is  that  all...  we  all  claim  to  be  Seventh  Day  Adventists,  yet    if  that’s  the  
case,  why  is  there  is  such  a  marked  difference  in  the  beliefs  and  doctrines  we  
advocate?  Why  is  this  so?  Well  a  big  part  of  the  reason  for  this  is  because  of  the  
chosen  methodology  one  chooses  to  use  to  study  the  bible.  This  is  the  key  to  
understanding  why  there  is  such  a  difference  and  many  different  conclusions  are  
drawn  by  men  who  supposedly  study  the  bible.  I  mean  you  can  read  one  passage  in  
scripture  and  another  person  can  read  the  same…  and  yet  they  can  come  to  two  
completely  different  conclusions…  why  is  this  so?  Well  you’ll  find  it  is  because  of  the  
chosen  methodology  one  chooses  to  use  when  studying  the  bible  and  in  Adventism  
you  will  find  that  there  are  three  key  methodologies  that  are  used  in  the  Adventist  
Church  and  depending  on  the  methodology  you  choose  to  use  will  often  draw  you  to  
a  different  conclusion  from  another  ‘Adventists’  who  uses  the  other.  The  three  
methodologies  are:  

1. ‘Proof  text  Method’,  which  William  Miller  and  Pioneers  used  which  led  to  the  
introduction  of  the  Advent  Faith  /  1844  
2. Historical  Critical  Method.  –  1930’S  (Advocated  by  Raymond  Cottrell,  
Desmond  Ford,)  –  (Liberals)  –  make  the  bible  to  fit  modern  times…  need  to  
understand  Hebrew  and  Greek    
DRAFT  DOCUMENT  /  PLS  EXCUSE  THE  TYPOS    
 

3. Historical  Grammatical  Approach  1960’s  (Samuel  pippin,  Ted  Wilson,  Stephen  

Bohr)  Mixture  of  both  –  (Conservatives)  

The  best  way  for  me  to  introduce  how  these  theologies  entered  the  church  is  to  
begin  in  the  beginning  where  it  all  started…  and  that’s  with  the  methodology  the  
pioneers  used  to  establish  the  SDA  church.  No  doubt,  the  central  pillar  to  the  
Adventist  faith  is  the  sanctuary  message.  1844.  And  many  of  us  well  know  that  if  you  
destroy  the  validity  of  this  date,  the  whole  structure  of  the  Seventh  Day  Adventist  
church  falls  apart.  The  methodology  that  Miller  used  to  help  lead  us  to  this  date  is  
commonly  known  as  the  ‘proof  text  method’  It  was  by  using  this  method,  William  
Miller  was  able  to  lead  us  to  this  date…  by  comparing  scripture  with  scripture.  By  
allowing  Scripture  to  be  its  own  expositor.  He  tells  us:  

Prof  Text  Message  

"I  determined  to  lay  aside  all  my  prepossessions,  to  thoroughly  compare  Scripture  
with  Scripture,  and  to  pursue  its  study  in  a  regular  and  methodical  manner.  I  
commenced  with  Genesis,  and  read  verse  by  verse,  proceeding  no  faster  than  the  
meaning  of  the  several  passages  should  be  so  unfolded  as  to  leave  me  free  from  
embarrassment  respecting  any  mysticisms  or  contradictions.  Whenever  I  found  
anything  obscure,  my  practice  was  to  compare  it  with  all  collateral  passages;  and,  
by  the  help  of  Cruden,  I  examined  all  the  texts  of  Scripture  in  which  were  found  any  
of  the  prominent  words  contained  in  any  obscure  portion.  Then,  by  letting  every  
word  have  its  proper  bearing  on  the  subject  of  the  text,  if  my  view  of  it  harmonized  
with  every  collateral  passage  in  the  Bible,  it  ceased  to  be  a  difficulty.  In  this  way  I  
pursued  the  study  of  the  Bible,  in  my  first  perusal  of  it,  for  about  two  years,  and  was  
fully  satisfied  that  it  is  its  own  interpreter.  {1853  SB,  MWM  69.3}    

This  methodology  used  by  William  Miller  was  in  his  own  words,  to  compare  scripture  
with  scripture.  Which  is  recognized  as  the  proof  text  message.  How  he  came  to  1844  
what  not  just  through  Daniel  8:14,  it  included  the  ‘7  times’,  Daniel  9  helped…  it  was  
these  prophecies  that  led  him  to  the  understanding  of  1844…  though  they  
misunderstood  the  event…  they  knew  at  that  time  something  important  was  to  
happen.  

He  also  tells  us:  

Whenever  I  found  anything  obscure,  my  practice  was  to  compare  it  with  all  collateral  
passages;  and,  by  the  help  of  Cruden,  I  examined  all  the  texts  of  Scripture  in  which  
were  found  any  of  the  prominent  words  contained  in  any  obscure  portion.  {1853  SB,  
MWM  69.2}.  

Cruden  concordance  is  a  Word  reference  only.  Miller  did  not  understand  Hebrew  or  
Greek.  We  can  say  according  to  that  day  and  age  he  was  an  ‘unlearned  man’  like  the  
disciples…  even  like  John  the  Baptist  as  he  was  not  schooled  in  the  schools  of  
theology  in  that  day  and  age.  This  is  clearly  noted  in  the  passage  below  taken  from  
the  book  entitled  ‘Memoirs  of  William  Miller’  written  by  Sylvester  Bliss:  

“Mr.  Miller  again  repeated  the  call  for  'Anonymous'  to  stand  up,  if  he  was  present.  
No  one  arose.  Mr.  Miller  then  read  the  question  which  closed  the  letter,  namely  -­‐  'Mr.  
DRAFT  DOCUMENT  /  PLS  EXCUSE  THE  TYPOS    
 

Miller,  how  dare  you  assert  your  theory  with  so  much  confidence  without  a  
knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  languages?'  To  this  Mr.  Miller  promptly  
replied,  'If  I  am  not  acquainted  with  the  HEBREW  and  GREEK,  I  know  enough  to  
quote  the  English  texts  of  the  Scriptures  rightly.'  -­‐  'Anonymous'  never  made  himself  
known,  and  it  was  the  impression  of  many  of  the  audience  that  the  author  of  the  
letter,  if  he  was  skilled  in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek,  was  exceedingly  deficient  in  his  
knowledge  of  the  English  Scriptures.”    {1853  SB,  MWM  155.1}  

Now  what  caused  Miller  to  follower  the  ‘proof  text’  methodology?  Note  what  the  
pen  of  inspiration  tells  us:  

“God  sent  His  angel  to  move  upon  the  heart  of  a  farmer  who  had  not  believed  the  
Bible,  to  lead  him  to  search  the  prophecies.  Angels  of  God  repeatedly  visited  that  
chosen  one,  to  guide  his  mind  and  open  to  his  understanding  prophecies  which  had  
ever  been  dark  to  God's  people.  The  commencement  of  the  chain  of  truth  was  given  
to  him,  and  he  was  led  on  to  search  for  link  after  link,  until  he  looked  with  wonder  
and  admiration  upon  the  Word  of  God.  He  saw  there  a  perfect  chain  of  truth.  That  
Word  which  he  had  regarded  as  uninspired  now  opened  before  his  vision  in  its  beauty  
and  glory.  He  saw  that  one  portion  of  Scripture  explains  another,  and  when  one  
passage  was  closed  to  his  understanding,  he  found  in  another  part  of  the  Word  
that  which  explained  it.  He  regarded  the  sacred  Word  of  God  with  joy  and  with  the  
deepest  respect  and  awe”.    {EW  229.1}  

Miller  had  no  formal  training,  no  college  degree,  He  as  the  prophet  Ellen  White  
describes  was  taught  by  God  himself  and  angels…  and  that  is  the  greatest  and  best  
teacher  ever.  And  the  method  that  God  gave  to  Miller  was  not  just  for  his  time  span  
but  was  to  last  forever  as  we  are  told:  

“Those  who  are  engaged  in  proclaiming  the  third  angel's  message  are  searching  the  
Scriptures  upon  the  same  plan  that  Father  Miller  adopted.  In  the  little  book  entitled  
"Views  of  the  Prophecies  and  Prophetic  Chronology,"  Father  Miller  gives  the  
following  simple  but  intelligent  and  important  rules  for  Bible  study  and  
interpretation:-­‐-­‐  “  [Ellen  White  then  quotes  the  first  five  rules”  {RH,  November  25,  
1884  par.  23}  

The  third  angels  message  leads  us  to  the  end  of  the  world…  therefore  this  method  is  
to  be  adopted  by  those  living  in  the  final  generation.  

Now  with  all  that  being  said,  you’d  think  it  would  be  enough  for  God’s  people.  God  
has  spoken  through  the  prophet  to  the  end  time  church  whom  we  believe  to  be  Ellen  
White…  and  has  said  that  those  living  in  these  last  days  will  be  using  Miller’s  rules.  
We  note  a  historical  pattern  in  the  times  of  Ancient  Israel  when  God  called  them  out  
of  Egypt.  He  gave  them  the  10  commandments…  and  the  book  of  the  law  and  he  told  
them  that  ‘this  was  their  wisdom  in  the  sight  of  the  other  nations’.  They  were  to  be  a  
separate  and  peculiar  people  from  the  world  but  what  happened?  After  Moses  died,  
and  then  Joshua  another  generation  arose  who  knew  not  the  Lord  and  that’s  when  
the  apostasy  came  in…  they  began  to  mingle  with  the  apostate  nations…  the  
Babylonians  and  that  is  what  paved  way  for  the  great  apostasy.  
DRAFT  DOCUMENT  /  PLS  EXCUSE  THE  TYPOS    
 

And  it  was  the  same  thing  with  the  Advent  Church,  after  the  pioneers  died  one  by  
one,  and  then  Ellen  White  it  paved  way  for  apostasy  to  now  enter  in  the  church.  No  
doubt  we  see  evidences  of  the  apostasy  entering  in  whilst  she  was  alive…  i.e.  the  
rejection  of  the  1888  message  among  other  things  but  Ellen  White…  the  inspired  one  
was  always  there  to  clearly  address  it  and  put  a  check  on  things…  but  two  years  
before  she  died.  A  generation  arose  who  knew  not  their  history  and  that  paved  way  
for  Satan  to  come  in  and  enter  the  church.  I’d  like  to  quote  from  the  following  book  ‘  
solving  our  church  crisis’  by  Vance  Ferrell  as  he  gives  us  some  insight  in  regards  to  
how  it  all  began.  We  are  told  

“A  number  of  crises  occurred  during  the  years  when  Ellen  White  was  active,  but  her  
prompt  warnings  eliminated  many  of  them.  (We  will  mention  some  of  them  later  in  
this  book.)  But  the  situation  changed  by  1913,  when,  in  feeble  health,  she  focused  her  
remaining  years  on  completing  her  final  books.  (These  were  two  important  earlier  
crises:  the  one  in  1888,  which  began  a  rejection  of  the  Spirit  of  Prophecy  by  some  
influential  men,  and  the  one  in  1903,  when  one  person  gained  excessive  control  of  
the  General  Conference  and  also  significantly  affected  later  events.  Both  will  be  
discussed  later  in  this  book.)  

1913:  The  accreditation  crisis—This  was  the  first  of  an  increasing  number  of  major  
crises  which  had  a  profound  effect  on  our  denomination  in  later  years.  As  a  result,  
secular  organizations,  outside  of  our  denomination,  were  to  gain  control  of  our  
schools  by  the  late  1930s.  

The  lengthy  story  of  how  this  began,  and  continues  on  down  to  the  present  time,  is  
told  in  the  historical  book,  Broken  Blueprint*.  Unfortunately,  President  A.G.  Daniells  
(1902-­‐1922),  firmly  in  power  at  the  time,  brushed  aside  all  interference  and  pushed  
through  accreditation  of  our  new  medical  school  at  Loma  Linda.  

This  set  in  motion  a  chain  of  circumstances,  by  which  the  AMA  gained  control  of  what  
was  taught  at  Loma  Linda,  demanded  extremely  expensive  changes,  and  changed  the  
entire  type  of  treatments  taught  there—from  natural  remedies  to  drugs.  This  
ultimately  brought  on  a  chain  reaction  of  accreditation  at  all  our  other  colleges,  since  
they  were  required  to  obtain  accreditation  in  order  to  send  young  men  to  Loma  Linda  
for  medical  training.  Accreditation  requirements  at  all  these  schools  (1)  affected  the  
selection  of  books  in  the  library,  (2)  the  curriculum  that  was  taught,  and  (3)  which  
teachers  could  be  hired.  A  majority  of  instructors  in  our  colleges  were  required  to  
have  Ph.D.s  which,  even  down  to  the  present  time,  could  only  be  obtained  from  
outside  secular,  Protestant,  and  Catholic  universities.  

It  is  well-­‐known  in  the  universities  that  doctoral  professors  mold—actually  change—
the  beliefs  of  their  students—or  they  refuse  to  graduate  them!  This  requirement,  that  
a  majority  of  our  college  teachers  had  to  have  doctorates,  meant  that,  instead  of  
qualified,  godly  men  and  women  with  a  deep  commitment  to  our  historic  beliefs  and  
years  of  faithful  service  in  the  church,—preference  must  always  be  given  to  untried  
Ph.D.  graduates  who  applied  for  work.  This  had  the  effect  of  inducing  our  young  
people  to  attend  outside  universities  to  study  under  worldlings  in  order  to  obtain  
Ph.D.s.  
DRAFT  DOCUMENT  /  PLS  EXCUSE  THE  TYPOS    
 

The  decision  to  seek  accreditation  for  our  Loma  Linda  medical  school  was  made  
shortly  before  Ellen  White’s  death  in  1915;  and,  by  the  early  1920s,  that  institution  
became  fully  locked  into  AMA  standards  and  practices.  The  changes  in  our  other  
colleges  began  in  the  mid-­‐1930s.  But  it  was  not  until  about  1940  that  all  of  them  
gained  full  accreditation.  The  effects  of  this  gradually  began  producing  changes  in  
the  church  by  the  late  1940s  and  thereafter.  Fortunately,  we  did  not  have  many  
doctoral  religion  teachers  until  the  early  1960s.  But  when  that  happened,  things  
really  began  to  change!  The  result  was  the  crisis  in  beliefs  which  was  ready  to  erupt  
by  the  late  1970s.  

More  on  that  later.  Because  a  few  of  our  leaders  pushed  through  the  accreditation  of  
our  Loma  Linda  medical  school  (which  for  reasons  explained  in  the  book,  Broken  
Blueprint,*  was  not  necessary),—this  made  it  necessary  for  all  our  colleges  to  
abandon  the  original  blueprint  for  our  schools  and  accept  the  requirements  of  the  
accreditation  agencies—or  not  be  able  to  send  graduates  to  Loma  Linda  to  obtain  
the  medical  degree.  

As  a  result,  today,  our  teachers,  pastors,  and  administrators  are  either  educated  in  
outside  universities  or  trained  by  men  who  have  completed  lengthy  doctoral  training  
in  those  universities.  

In  1935,  W.H.  Branson  delivered  the  Branson  Report  on  Accreditation  to  the  Annual  
Council;  and,  amid  many  discussions  of  fearfulness  and  deepest  regret  (discussed  in  
detail  in  the  Broken  Blueprint*  with  many  quotations),  it  was  voted  to  let  a  few  
colleges  apply  for  accreditation.  But  immediately,  all  of  our  colleges  in  North  America  
rushed  to  obtain  accreditation—and  their  capture  by  worldly  accreditation  agencies  
was  made  certain.  (Solving  our  Church  Crisis  p13-­‐16)  

Now  its  important  to  understand  here…  that  from  1935,  as  documented  in  the  
Branson  report  which  you  can  download  online,  they  realised  that  this  was  a  
mistake…  they  saw  that  by  sending  these  students  to  these  worldly  schools  it  was  
causing  many  to  loose  their  faith  and  they  knew  this,  they  tell  you  this  themselves  in  
that  document,  they  knew  Ellen  White  spoke  strongly  against  this…  nevertheless  
they  thought  they  would  do  it  anyway  in  order  to  stay  in  good  and  regular  standing  
with  the  world.  

 (More  about  this  you  will  find  in  the  1935-­‐Branson  report  which  you  can  download  
online)  

Now  around  the  same  era  when  Adventists  were  sending  their  schools  for  
accreditation,  Raymond  Cottrell  came  on  the  scene,  His  genealogy  can  be  traced  to  
the  beginnings  of  Adventism.  I  believe  Ellen  White  even  mentions  his  father  in  some  
of  her  writings.  Raymond  Cottrell  was  reported  to  become  one  of  the  first  Adventist  
to  become  a  member  of  a  scholarly  theological  society  and  he  also  taught  at  PCU  
(Pacific  Conference  Union)  which  according  to  the  Branson  report  published  in  1935  
was  one  of  the  schools  to  get  fully  accredited.  Raymond  taught  biblical  exegesis  at  
the  school.  The  method  he  adopted  to  teach  was  not  the  standard  proof  text  
DRAFT  DOCUMENT  /  PLS  EXCUSE  THE  TYPOS    
 

method  as  our  pioneers  taught  but  rather  the  ‘historical  critical  method.’  It  was  
around  the  1930’s  this  new  method  of  teaching  the  scriptures  entered  the  SDA  
church.  I  hope  you  see  the  connection  here…  as  soon  as  the  schools  get  
accreditation…  learning  from  the  Babylonians…  the  Worldlings  and  adopting  their  
methodology…  a  new  way  of  studying  the  bible  is  brought  into  the  school  which  goes  
completely  against  the  pioneers  and  how  Ellen  White  tells  us  we  should  study  the  
bible.  Cottrell  tells  us:  

“Like  most  if  not  all  of  his  predecessors  and  contemporaries,  William  Miller  followed  
the  prooftext  method  of  prophetic  interpretation…  As  pioneers  of  the  Seventh-­‐day  
Adventist  faith  struggled  to  understand  the  Bible  in  the  turbulent  wake  of  the  great  
disappointment  of  October  22,  1844,  they  too  followed  the  prooftext  method…  Prior  
to  about  the  mid-­‐1930's  Adventist  exposition  of  the  Bible  was  basically  
by  the  prooftext  method,”  {RBHPUC,  PT3  pg5-­‐6}  
 

Also  

There  are  two  basic  ways,  or  methods,  by  which  people  read  the  Bible  and  try  to  
understand  it.  These  two  methods  look  at  the  Bible  from  opposite  directions  and  
often  come  to  opposite  conclusions  as  to  what  it  means.  One  reads  it  from  the  
viewpoint  of  what  its  words  (in  translation)  mean  to  us  today,  from  our  modern  
perspective  of  life,  society,  culture,  salvation  history,  and  the  world  about  us-­‐-­‐as  if  the  
writers  had  us  in  mind  as  they  wrote.  The  other  method  reads  the  Bible  looking  for  
the  meaning  they  intended  their  words  to  convey,  from  their  perspective  of  life,  
society,  culture,  salvation  history,  and  the  world,  and  as  their  contemporaries  would  
understand  what  they  wrote).  Then,  having  found  the  meaning  they  intended  to  
convey,  this  method  looks  for  the  divine  principles  and  instruction  reflected  in  a  Bible  
passage  and  how  they  applied  to  that  particular  situation,  in  order  to  know  how  
those  principles  and  instruction  apply  to  us  today.    

The  first  of  these  two  methods  of  reading  and  understanding  the  Bible  usually  goes  
by  the  name  prooftext  method,  which  often  takes  Bible  statements  and  passages  out  
of  their  original  historical  and  literary  context  and  applies  them  directly  to  our  time-­‐-­‐
often  under  very  different  circumstances  to  which  they  do  not  apply.  The  second  
usually  goes  by  the  name  historical  method  because  it  first  reads  the  Bible  in  its  own  
literary  and  historical  context,  with  the  ultimate  objective  of  understanding  how  to  
apply  its  principles  and  instruction  to  our  time  and  circumstances.  The  big  advantage  
of  the  prooftext  method,  if  there  be  any  advantage,  is  that  it  requires  no  special  
training  or  experience.  In  fact~  a  person  need  not  even  be  aware  of  following  any  
method.  For  most  people  the  big  disadvantage  of  the  historical  method  is  that  it  
does  require  training  and  experience.  Fortunately,  however,  those  who  have  not  
had  the  privilege  of  that  training  and  experience  can  still  follow  the  historical  
method  by  making  use  of  information  those  who  do  have  that  training  have  
provided.  {RBHPUC,  PT  1  pg  5}  

Now  Cottrell  was  dead  against  the  proof  text  message,  note  what  he  states:  
DRAFT  DOCUMENT  /  PLS  EXCUSE  THE  TYPOS    
 

“Like  most  if  not  all  of  his  predecessors  and  contemporaries,  William  Miller  followed  
the  proof  text  method  of  prophetic  interpretation.  An  informed  person  today  
reading  what  he  wrote  is  aghast  at  his  misuse  of  Scripture.  {RBHPUC  PT3  pg3}  
 
Prior  to  about  the  mid-­‐1930's  Adventist  exposition  of  the  Bible  was  basically  by  the  
prooftext  method,  which  may  often  be  in  context  and  correct,  but  often  is  not.  The  
problem  with  it  is  two-­‐fold:  (1)  It  is  highly  subjective  and  relies  on  presuppositions,  
principles,  and  procedures  which  may—or  may  not-­‐-­‐be  valid,  and  which  vary  from  
one  person  to  another,  and  (2)  it  has  no  built-­‐in  safeguards  such  as  those  inherent  in  
the  historical  method.  {RBHPUC  PT3  pg4}  
 
So  its  pretty  clear  that  Cottrell  rejects  the  proof  text  message  even  though  the  SOP  
endorses  it  as  we  saw  earlier.  She  tells  us  that  those  who  are  engaged  in  proclaiming  
the  third  angels  message  will  be  following  Millers  rules.  

Now  lets  look  at  the  ‘historical  critical  method’  as  an  example.  These  are  some  
examples  taken  directly  from  the  historical  critical  source  for  this  study  "THE  ROLE  
OF  BIBLICAL  HERMENEUTICS  IN  PRESERVING  UNITY  IN  THE  CHURCH"  (RBHPUC)  by  
Raymond  Cottrell:    

Genesis  8:9:  "The  waters  [of  the  Flood]  were  still  on  the  face  of  the  whole  earth."  

MODERN  READER:  The  planet  Earth.  

BIBLE  WRITER:  The  visible  or  known  surface  of  the  earth.  In  its  2,407  
occurrences  in  the  Old  Testament  the  Hebrew  word  'erets’,  earth,  never  refers  
to  the  earth  as  a  planet,  but  to  its  visible  or  known  surface.  According  to  Genesis  
41:7,  “All  the  world  ['  erets]  came  to  Joseph  in  Egypt  to  buy  grain."  Here  “  all  the  
world"  denotes  lands  of  the  Middle  East  in  the  vicinity  of  Egypt.  Evidence  for  what  
we  refer  to  as  a  world-­‐wide  Flood  must  come  
from  the  rocks.  {RBHPUC  PT2  pg1-­‐2}

This interpretation implies that the flood from the story of Noah was not worldwide.

John  5:4:  “An  angel  of  the  lord  went  down  at  certain  seasons  into  the  
pool,  and  stirred  up  the  water;  whoever  stepped  in  first  after  the  stirring  
of  the  water  was  made  well  from  whatever  disease  that  person  had.”  
MODERN  READER:  Does  God,  indeed,  reward  those  least  in  need  of  healing  
who  can  out  maneuver  those  in  greater  need?  How  different  from  Jesus  healing  
all  who  needed  it  (Mark  1:32).  
BIBLE  WRITER:  Manuscript  evidence  is  conclusive  that  John  did  not  write  
these  words.  It  does  not  occur  in  the  earliest  and  most  reliable  manuscripts,  
including  the  oldest  complete  manuscript  of  the  Gospel  of  John  known  
as  Bodmer  II  (about  200  A.D.).  

Matthew  5:22:  “whoever  is  angry  with  his  brother  without  a  cause  shall  be  in  danger  
of  the  judgment…”  
MODERN  READER:  Does  this  imply  that  Jesus  approved  of  anger  a  person  thinks  
justified?  
DRAFT  DOCUMENT  /  PLS  EXCUSE  THE  TYPOS    
 

BIBLE  WRITER:  The  phrase  “without  a  cause"  is  lacking  in  the  earliest  and  most  
reliable  manuscripts,  including  Bodmer  II.  

The  interpretation  of  these  two  texts  implies  that  the  Gospel  of  John  has  uninspired  
writings  in  it.  

Galatians  3:16:  (Now  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  promises  made.  He  saith  
not,  And  to                                              
seeds,  as  of  many;  but  as  of  one,  And  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ.)    
Here  the  Apostle  Paul  identifies  Christ  as  the  son  God  promised  to  Abraham.  
MODERN  READER:  God's  promise  to  Abraham  specifically  referred  to  Christ.  
BIBLE  WRITER:  Here  Paul  uses  the  Old  Testament  typologically,  not  as  
the  fulfillment  of  a  prediction.  Nothing  in  the  Old  Testament  implies  that  
the  promise,  as  given,  was  intended  to  apply  to  Christ.  

This  interpretation  pretty  much  personifies  the  historical  critical  methodology.  In  
defining  this  method  Cottrell  states;  “it  first  reads  the  Bible  in  its  own  literary  and  
historical  context,  with  the  ultimate  objective  of  understanding  how  to  apply  its  
principles  and  instruction  to  our  time  and  circumstances.”    {RBHPUC  PT1  pg5}  
 
 On  the  surface  it  seems  to  make  sense,  but  in  practice  we  find  that  this  hermeneutic  
will  not  allow  for  the  promises  of  the  Old  Testament  to  apply  to  Christ.  
So  as  you  can  see,  the  proof  text  message  and  the  historical  critical  method  
comes  to  completely  different  conclusions  in  the  reading  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  
because  those  were  adopting  this  way  of  studying  the  bible,  it  led  to  Cottrell’s  
rejection  of  the  date  1844.    
Note  the  conclusions  Cottrell  came  to  when  he  was  editing  the  book  of  Daniel  
and  by  adopting  this  method  he  began  to  destroy  the  fundamental  pillars  of  our  
faith:  He  tells  us:  
“With  our  recent  experience  in  editing  the  Book  of  Daniel  vividly  in  mind  
I  set  out  resolutely  to  find  a  way  to  reconcile  our  sanctuary  doctrine  with  sound  
biblical  hermeneutics-­‐-­‐and  failed  miserably.  Upon  the  recommendation  of  senior  
editor  Nichol,  I  sent  a  brief  questionnaire  to  the  head  of  each  college  Bible  
department  in  North  America  and  to  every  teacher  versed  in  Hebrew.  All  27  of  
them  were  personal  friends  of  mine.  All  replied,  and  without  exception  they  took  the  
position  that  there  is  no  linguistic  or  contextual  basis  for  our  sanctuary-­‐in-­‐heaven-­‐
investigative-­‐judgment  interpretation  of  Daniel  8:14.”  {RBHPUC  PT3  pg11}  
When  the  General  Conference  got  wind  of  this  poll  that  had  been  done  on  Daniel  
8:14  they  reacted  and  started    covertly  dealing  with  the  issue  that  the  SDA  
theologians  were  highlighting,  this  time  period  is  known  to  SDA  theologians  as  the  
‘decade  of  obscurantism’    Cottrell  continues:  
“When  the  results  of  this  poll  (sans  names)  came  to  the  attention  of  GC  president  R.  
R.  Figuhr,  he  and  his  officers  appointed  a  committee  they  named  Committee  on  
Problems  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  which  deliberated  inconclusively  for  five  years  and  
issued  no  formal  report.  The  committee  finally  voted  an  informal  report  that  
DRAFT  DOCUMENT  /  PLS  EXCUSE  THE  TYPOS    
 

reaffirmed  the  traditional  interpretation  but  was  silent  as  to  any  "problems."  Again  
the  problem  was  one  of  biblical  hermeneutics.  It  was  impossible  to  reconcile  the  
traditional  interpretation  with  sound  principles  of  biblical  interpretation.  Few,  even  in  
the  General  Conference,  ever  heard  about  this  committee,  and  at  the  Glacier  View  
conference  of  the  Sanctuary  Review  Committee  in  August  1980  Neal  Wilson  
commented  that  he  knew  nothing  about  it  prior  to  that  time.  “{RBHPUC  PT3  pg11}  

This  conflict  gained  momentum  when  Robert  H.  Pierson  was  elect  to  conference  
president  and  thrusted  an  effort  to  deal  with  the  erosion  of  the  traditional  SDA  
doctrinal  pillars.  Cottrell    

Elder  Pierson  graduated  from  Southern  Junior  College  in  1933  and  entered  the  
ministry  in  the  Georgia-­‐Cumberland  Conference.  In  1936  he  responded  to  a  call  to  
service  overseas  and  served  with  distinction  in  India,  the  Caribbean,  and  South  Africa.  
At  the  time  of  his  election  to  the  presidency  of  the  General  
Conference  thirty  years  later,  in  1966,  he  had  more  than  fulfilled  the  unwritten  
requirement  of  significant  overseas  service.  But  his  lifetime  of  service  overseas  
proved  to  be  a  severe  handicap  when  he  returned  to  General  Conference  
headquarters.  For  most  of  his  life  out  of  touch  with  the  church  in  North  America,  he  
experienced  considerable  difficulty  in  understanding  and  relating  to,  changes  that  
had  taken  place  during  his  absence,  in  several  important  areas  of  the  life  and  work  of  
the  church.  This  was  especially  true  with  respect  to  the  corporate  biblical-­‐theological-­‐
doctrinal  processes  of  the  church  at  the  General  Conference  level,  which  he  
considered  it  his  duty  to  restore  to  the  way  they  were  when  he  went  overseas  in  
1936.  What  changes?  Prior  to  1936  the  church  was  following  the  prooftext  method  of  
Bible  study,  and  administrators  were  the  "brethren  of  experience"  in  those  processes.  
But  during  Elder  Pierson's  absence  church  administrators  (Pastors,  Elders,  Deacons  
etc)  had  come  to  rely  on  a  new  generation  of  trained  and  experienced  Bible  scholars  
as  their  brethren  of  experience  in  such  matters,  and  he  very  sincerely  believed  that  
the  Bible  scholars,  with  their  historical  method  of  Bible  study,  were  leading  the  
church  astray!  Repeatedly  he  expressed  it  to  be  his  conviction  and  policy  that  
administrators,  and  not  Bible  scholars,  should  conduct  the  corporate  biblical-­‐
theological  process  at  the  General  Conference  level.  It  was  his  implementation  of  
that  policy  that,  to  this  day,  has  made  it  difficult  for  church  administrators  and  Bible  
scholars  to  work  together  in  a  spirit  of  mutual  understanding  and  confidence,  as  they  
had  been  doing  prior  to  his  administration…  
 
Implementing  his  policy,  Elder  Pierson  appointed  two  administrators  without  training  
or  experience  in  Bible  study  on  the  research  level  to  be  in  charge  of  the  GC  office  of  
biblical  research  and  the  Biblical  Research  Committee-­‐-­‐GC  vice  president  Willis  J.  
Hackett,  and  Gordon  Hyde.  Both  shared  his  convictions  in  such  matters  and  
conscientiously  proceeded  to  implement  them.  On  April  3,  1969  the  Spring  Meeting  
of  the  General  Conference  removed  the  Bible  scholars  en  masse  from  the  Biblical  
Research  Committee  (currently  called  the  biblical  research  institute)  and  staffed  it  
with  administrators.  A  vigorous  protest  by  the  Seminary  faculty  forestalled  
implementation  of  the  plan,  but  a  similar  effect  was  achieved  a  few  months  later  by  
DRAFT  DOCUMENT  /  PLS  EXCUSE  THE  TYPOS    
 

adding  a  large  number  of  administrators  and  other  non-­‐scholars  to  the  existing  
committee.  {RBHPUC  PT3  pg13-­‐14}  

All  the  while  that  Elder  Pierson  is  campaigning  to  rid  the  SDA  organization  of  the  
historical  critical  ideology  in  our  doctrines,  the  theologians  that  ascribed  to  the  
historical  critical  method  were  vying  for  open  and  transparent  dialogue  to  deal  with  
the  issues.  Before  this  time,  these  new  interpretations  of  the  doctrinal  pillars  were  
by  at  large  concealed  from  the  laity.  However  because  the  men  in  the  conference  
were  hiding  this  issue,  Desmond  Ford,  another  theologian…  with  numerous  degrees  
when  public  with  the  issue.  Cottrell  writes:  

It  was  this  climate  of  obscurantism,  and  their  persistent  unwillingness  to  resolve  
issues  by  consensus  in  open  dialogue,  that  resulted  in  Desmond  Ford  going  public  on  
the  investigative  judgment  at  Pacific  Union  College  before  an  audience  not  prepared  
to  understand  or  relate  to  what  he  said,  on  October  27,  1979  {RBHPUC  PT3  pg16}  

I’d  like  to  play  a  video  where  Desmond  Ford  himself  speaks  about  this….  In  an  
Adventist  Church  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_pR_d3TkWs      

 So  many  were  hiding  this….  Note  he  said  all  our  scholars  believe  this  and  rather  for  
them  to  come  forward,  they  let  him  take  the  slack…  because  they  know  if  the  
conference,,,  the  scholars  truly  came  forward  about  1844  not  being  true,  there  
would  have  been  an  uproar  because  the  laity  many  hold  on  to  these  foundational  
pillars  dearly.  The  best  way  I  can  explain  this  is  though  an  example  of  in  the  times  of  
Christ  when  speaking  to  the  leaders  he  asked  if  the  baptism  of  John  

“And  when  he  was  come  into  the  temple,  the  chief  priests  and  the  elders  of  the  
people  came  unto  him  as  he  was  teaching,  and  said,  By  what  authority  doest  thou  
these  things?  and  who  gave  thee  this  authority?  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  
them,  I  also  will  ask  you  one  thing,  which  if  ye  tell  me,  I  in  like  wise  will  tell  you  by  
what  authority  I  do  these  things.  The  baptism  of  John,  whence  was  it?  from  heaven,  
or  of  men?  And  they  reasoned  with  themselves,  saying,  If  we  shall  say,  From  heaven;  
he  will  say  unto  us,  Why  did  ye  not  then  believe  him?  But  if  we  shall  say,  Of  men;  we  
fear  the  people;  for  all  hold  John  as  a  prophet.  27And  they  answered  Jesus,  and  said,  
We  cannot  tell.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Neither  tell  I  you  by  what  authority  I  do  
these  things”  (Matthew  21:23-­‐37)    

Same  thing  going  on,  that’s  why  the  scholars  kept  quiet…  and  who  did  John  the  
Baptist  come  in  the  Spirit  off?  Elijah.  And  who  does  Ellen  White  tell  us  William  Miller  
comes  in  the  Spirit  of?  Elijah.  And  the  people  believe  Ellen  White  to  be  prophet  It’s  
the  same  history  being  repeated  today.  

Now  because  of  what  happened  New  set  of  leaders  in  the  conference  rose  up  and  
established  the  ‘historical  grammatical  method’…  often  known  as  the  ‘conservatives’  
in  Adventism…  and  it  was  set  up  to  counteract  the  liberalism  entering  in  the  church.    
Now  there  are  many  who  say,  these  who  follow  the  grammatical  method….  Are  
actually  teaching  the  proof  text  message  by  Miller,  they  say  it’s  the  same  method,  
DRAFT  DOCUMENT  /  PLS  EXCUSE  THE  TYPOS    
 

but  actually  when  you  study  it…  its  really  not.  It’s  a  mixture  of  both  the  historical  
Critical  method  and  the  proof  text  message  and  in  the  next  video  we  will  go  into  this  
in  great  detail.  But  I  want  to  close  this  statement.  

“quote  on  sanctuary  point  of  attack  by  EW”  

“In  the  future,  deception  of  every  kind  is  to  arise,  and  we  want  solid  ground  for  our  
feet.  We  want  solid  pillars  for  the  building.  Not  one  pin  is  to  be  removed  from  that  
which  the  Lord  has  established.  The  enemy  will  bring  in  false  theories,  such  as  the  
doctrine  that  there  is  no  sanctuary.  This  is  one  of  the  points  on  which  there  will  be  a  
departing  from  the  faith.  Where  shall  we  find  safety  unless  it  be  in  the  truths  that  
the  Lord  has  been  giving  for  the  last  fifty  years?-­‐-­‐  Review  and  Herald,  May  25,  1905.    
{CW  53.2}      

“I  know  that  the  sanctuary  question  stands  in  righteousness  and  truth,  just  as  we  
have  held  it  for  so  many  years.  It  is  the  enemy  that  leads  minds  off  on  sidetracks.  He  
is  pleased  when  those  who  know  the  truth  become  engrossed  in  collecting  scriptures  
to  pile  around  erroneous  theories,  which  have  no  foundation  in  truth.  The  scriptures  
thus  used  are  misapplied;  they  were  not  given  to  substantiate  error,  but  to  
strengthen  truth.”-­‐-­‐Gospel  Workers,  p.  303.  (1915.)    {CW  54.1}