On March 11, 2023, William G. Johnsson, retired editor of the Adventist Review, passed to his rest at the age of 88. An interview he gave prior to his death, regarding the pivotal events of Glacier View 1980, has now been published online [1]. What follows is a response by the present writer to both the doctrinal and procedural issues raised in this interview.
Along with the Minneapolis General Conference of 1888 and the Adventist-evangelical dialogue of 1956-1957—the latter culminating in the publication of the book Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine [2]—the meeting of the Sanctuary Review Committee at the Glacier View Ranch near Ward, Colorado, in August of 1980, ranks among the most decisive gatherings in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. As one privileged both to observe and participate in the momentous events preceding, during, and subsequent to this gathering, the present writer wishes to offer his own witness, to the extent that he is able, for the sake of the historical record and the continuing confidence of the Advent people in those doctrines which suffered attack during that era and continue to do so today.
Background
Though I was not present at Glacier View, and thus cannot give the eyewitness perspective available to such as the late William Johnsson, I was actively involved in the doctrinal and other controversies of that period. As a theology major at Pacific Union College at the time, I knew Desmond Ford personally along with many of his teaching colleagues, and served as a reader in the religion department for Erwin R. Gane, principal advocate on campus for the doctrinal positions opposite those of Ford’s. Dr. Ford and I often spoke together—amicably though vigorously—regarding the sanctuary issues he had raised, together with the related controversies over righteousness by faith and various related topics.
In early 1979, the more than two decades of controversy birthed by the release of Questions on Doctrine began to rise to a new level. For some time it had been evident to certain ones that the popular evangelical gospel, often labeled the New Theology—with its belief in original sin, the pre-Fall humanity of Christ, salvation by justification alone, a finished atonement on Calvary, and the imperfectability of Christian character—produced inevitable tensions with the sanctuary doctrine as historically taught by Seventh-day Adventists [3]. In the spring of 1979 these tensions came at last into the open, with the publication of Robert Brinsmead’s 1844 Re-Examined [4].
The theological alignment (if not collusion) of Desmond Ford and Robert Brinsmead throughout the 1970s has been documented by sympathizers to their cause [5]. Both Ford in his previous position as chairman of the Avondale College Theology Department, and Brinsmead as editor of Present Truth (later Verdict) magazine, exerted their influence during this time in the promotion of the aforementioned evangelical doctrines—original sin, the unfallen nature of Christ, righteousness by faith as justification alone, justification as declarative only, and character perfection as an impossibility this side of heaven [6].
But the doubts of both men regarding the church’s sanctuary theology were expressed but quietly, if at all. (Brinsmead would later acknowledge that earlier in the decade, he had urged both Ford and Edward Heppenstall to come out publicly against the 1844/investigative judgment teachings of classic Adventism [7]). Careful observers recognized, however, that the tension between the New Theology on salvation and the Adventist sanctuary message would eventually reach a breaking point. Following Ford’s open attack on the sanctuary doctrine, Adventist Review editor Kenneth Wood stated in a letter to the present writer, “It has appeared to me for a long time that Dr. Ford’s approach to the Bible and the writings of Ellen White would eventually lead him to this point” [8].
In 1844 Re-Examined, Brinsmead disputed the Biblical foundation of the Adventist sanctuary message in Daniel 8 [9], insisted that the book of Hebrews taught the immediate entrance of Christ into the heavenly Most Holy Place at His ascension [10], and sought to dissuade Adventists from resorting to Ellen White for a defense of the church’s historic stand, on the grounds that—in his view—one such as Ellen White can possess a genuine spiritual gift while at the same time misusing it [11]. In other words, Brinsmead claimed Ellen White could still be seen as a genuine prophet, while presumably being wrong at times in both teaching and lifestyle.
Brinsmead’s challenge was clearly on many minds, especially at Pacific Union College, when I and others arrived for the start of the 1979-80 school year. On the Fall Quarter Events Calendar, we soon noted a scheduled meeting of the Association of Adventist Forums, with Desmond Ford as the featured speaker. His title: “The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?” [12] (The very words rang uneasy bells in many minds.) The meeting was scheduled for October 27, 1979.
A Fateful Sabbath
I remember it well.
It was a lovely autumn Sabbath. Word seemed to have gotten around that Ford was about to make a major statement. Devotees of his theology gathered to the PUC campus from far and near. One reported to me much later that the evening before, Ford had stated to her, “What I say tomorrow will be heard around the world.” More than a few seemed to sense this.
That same evening I spoke on the telephone with Dr. Herbert Douglass, then serving as senior book editor at the Pacific Press. He was certain Ford would be extremely subtle in his assertions, and would need—in Douglass’ words—to be “smoked out of his lair.” He believed it utterly out of the question that Ford would join Brinsmead in directly attacking the historic SDA sanctuary doctrine. I then told Douglass I would call him the following evening, after Ford’s presentation, but only if something dramatic occurred. He seemed quite sure I would not be calling him.
He was in for a surprise.
At 3:30 the following afternoon, two friends and I knelt for prayer in my dormitory room, prior to leaving for the meeting site. Somehow we too sensed something serious was about to happen. As we approached Paulin Hall, where the meeting was to occur, we saw the doors open and a crowd start pouring out. Running ahead, I learned that due to overflow numbers, the meeting was being relocated to Irwin Hall, PUC’s historic building which then overlooked the lower expanse of classrooms, walkways, and the college church complex. My friends and I turned around and hurried up the long stone staircase, anxious to find good seats. At one point I asked, with a hint of sarcasm, “What are we running for? So we can hear the investigative judgment thrown away?” My negative premonitions were getting stronger than ever.
Ford began his discourse with his own testimony, describing doubts he had held for decades about the harmony of the Adventist sanctuary doctrine with the book of Hebrews. He went on to discount the validity of the year-day principle, denied any linguistic connection between Daniel 8:14 and the depiction in Leviticus 16 of the ancient cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement, and declared that the book of Hebrews places Christ in the Most Holy Place, not in 1844, but immediately at His ascension.
My hand shook as I took notes—from chagrin, disbelief, and the unmistakable awareness that I was witnessing a pivotal moment in Adventist history.
Nearly the whole crowd loved every word, greeting Ford’s message with enthusiastic applause. At least one retired North American Division president was there, rising to his feet during the question period with a choked voice and a breaking heart. A group of us gathered in the back after the meeting, hardly believing what we had just heard. Upon returning to my dorm room, I called Dr. Douglass again, as I had promised to do in the event Ford’s message was newsworthy. I read him my notes over the telephone. By the time I finished, the veteran theologian was in tears.
The Road to Glacier View—And Beyond
Tapes of the meeting belted the world in days. Soon the General Conference intervened, arranging with Pacific Union College that Ford be given a six-month leave of absence, during which time he would prepare a defense of his views, which would then be examined by a committee of persons from varied backgrounds. Ford’s manuscript, titled, “Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment,” totaled 991 pages, and was eventually published in book form [13]. An abbreviated version of the manuscript was also published in Spectrum magazine [14].
A group of 114 scholars, pastors, and church administrators, soon to be called the Sanctuary Review Committee, met to consider Ford’s case at the Glacier View Ranch near Ward, Colorado, during the week of August 10-15, 1980 [15]. Less than a month later, following unsuccessful efforts by church leaders to urge Ford’s reconsideration of his stand [16], the General Conference recommended to the Australasian Division (now the South Pacific Division) that Ford’s ministerial credentials be removed. This was done.
The years that followed would see scores of pastors and a number of congregations exit the ministry as well as the denomination. And the controversy thus ignited continues to this day.
The Johnsson Interview—Theological Issues
The recent online interview of William Johnsson cited a number of theological issues which Johnsson held to be central to the debate at Glacier View over Ford’s critique of the classic Adventist investigative judgment doctrine [17]. We will consider these issues first, and then move to the procedural issues raised by Johnsson in the same interview.
1. The sanctuary, sacrificial blood, and defilement. Early in the interview, Johnsson makes the following observation:
You may be interested in an incident that I remember vividly. One morning, we addressed the question of whether sacrificial blood defiled the sanctuary. I stated that in the New Testament, and notably in the book of Hebrews, blood is always an agent of cleansing, never of defilement. Wilson happened to visit our group that day and took me up on my comments. He noted that what I said ran contrary to what Adventists, including Ellen White, usually taught, and asked me what I intended to do with these ideas. I replied that I spoke only in terms of the NT, which is unequivocal on the matter. I further stated that I would continue to study the question without making it an issue. My answer seemed to satisfy him. The Consensus Statement, significantly, makes no mention of this issue in view of its not gaining consensus. In fact, the view that sacrificial blood defiled the Sanctuary played an important part in the original 19th-century formulation of the Sanctuary doctrine [18].
For starters, no one who wasn’t present in that particular discussion group can either verify or dispute Johnsson’s representation of Elder Neal Wilson’s comments as reported here. Like Johnsson, Wilson is no longer with us, and whether anyone is still alive who was present in the aforesaid group that morning remains an open question. But the above claim that “the view that sacrificial blood defiled the Sanctuary played an important part in the original 19-century formulation of the Sanctuary doctrine” [19], is simply not true.
Seventh-day Adventists have never taught that sacrificial blood defiled, or defiles, either the earthly or the heavenly sanctuary. Rather, it is the sin transferred by the blood to the sanctuary that does the defiling. Ellen White makes this clear in the following statement:
As the sins of the people were anciently transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin offering, so are sins are, in fact, transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ. And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded [20].
This is easy to illustrate. When I take a shower each morning, the water from the faucet transfers the filth from my body to the shower. It isn’t the water that makes the shower dirty; rather, it is the filth washed from my body that does this. Which is why, every few weeks, the shower must be cleaned. Not because of the water used in cleaning, but because of the filth transferred to the shower by the water.
The same is true of sacrificial blood, human sin, and the respective sanctuaries on earth and in heaven..
2. The meaning of “within the veil” (Heb. 6:19). Johnsson states at one point in the interview:
The [Glacier View] Consensus Statement's handling of the phrase “within the veil” marks a large shift from the pioneers’ understanding. The shift in understanding at Glacier View is indeed striking. My explanation would be that over the years many Adventists had gradually moved from a literalistic view of the heavenly sanctuary with two compartments—which seemed absurd to confine God to one space—to a broader view that understood Christ’s heavenly ministry in terms of phases rather than places [21].
We will address in a moment the question of the figurative-versus-literal nature of the heavenly sanctuary. But regarding the phrase “within the veil,” the word for veil in the New Testament is the Greek word katapetasma, which is used in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) to refer to all three veils in the earthly sanctuary—the veil at the courtyard entrance, the veil at the entrance to the Holy Place, and the veil before the Most Holy Place (Ex. 38:18; 39:40; Lev. 16:2,12,15; 21:23; Num. 3:26; 4:26; 18:7). No Biblical evidence demands that when this word is attached to such prepositions as “within” or “without” or “before,” that it must automatically refer to the veil between the first and second apartments of the sanctuary.
One of the above passages, Numbers 18:7, clearly refers to the veil before the Holy Place:
Therefore thou (Aaron) and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest’s office for every thing of the altar, and within the veil, and ye shall serve.
In context, the altar here described (see verse 3) clearly refers to the altar of burnt offering in the courtyard. “Within the veil” in the above verse thus refers to all those items in the sanctuary not in the courtyard, which would mean everything behind the veil to the Holy Place, obviously including the Most Holy Place as well.
Ellen White is thus not at all in conflict with Scripture when she writes that “within the veil” in Hebrews 6:19 refers to the entrance to the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary [22]. However, what is most important to underscore at this point is that while the book of Hebrews does in fact note the reality of a future cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 9:23)—and thus, by implication, the reality of a first apartment ministry as well—the principal theme of Hebrews relative to the sanctuary is immediate access to God, without mortal mediators (Heb. 4:16; 7:25). Paul’s message in these chapters is that while in the Old Testament there were many sacrifices (Heb. 9:25), many priests (Heb. 7:23), and an earthly sanctuary (Heb. 9:1), in the New Testament there is but one Sacrifice (Heb. 9:26,28), one Priest (Heb. 7:25), and a heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:2,5; 9:11).
In other words, whether Jesus is presently ministering in one or the other apartment in the heavenly sanctuary, our access to God in the Christian age is immediate.
3. Phases, places, or both? Again, in Johnsson’s words:
My explanation would be that over the years many Adventists had gradually moved from a literalistic view of the heavenly sanctuary with two compartments—which seemed absurd to confine God to one space—to a broader view that understood Christ’s heavenly ministry in terms of phases rather than places [23].
It is truly sad to see a scholar of stature and significant responsibility give credence to one of the most frivolous arguments employed by critics of the classic Adventist sanctuary doctrine. A literal heavenly sanctuary no more confines God to a single space than the mansions Jesus is preparing for His children (John 14:2)—not to mention the walls and gates of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:12)—confine the redeemed in heaven to a single space.
In the instructions God gave for building the original earthly sanctuary, Moses was told to make its features “after their pattern, which was showed thee in the mount” (Ex. 25:40; see also Ex. 26:30; Num. 8:4). Paul refers to these passages in the book of Hebrews, when he describes how the Old Testament priests “serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith He, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount” (Heb. 8:5).
In Hebrews chapter 9, the distinction between the earthly symbol and the heavenly reality is made even clearer:
It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these (the blood of animal sacrifices): but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these (verse 23).
In other words, just as the earthly representation of the heavenly sanctuary required cleansing with the blood of animal sacrifices, so the heavenly sanctuary also requires cleansing, albeit with the better sacrifice offered by Jesus. If the “patterns of things in the heavens” were a literal reality, requiring cleansing from the record of sin, it makes sense to understand the heavenly things themselves—which the above verse says also require cleansing—as something literal also.
When we consider the Biblical evidence, not to mention the relevant Ellen White statements [24], we understand how both literal places in heaven and phases of ministry form integral features of the classic Adventist sanctuary doctrine. The choice between “phases rather than places,” in Johnsson’s words [25], is a false dilemma. The inspired evidence affirms both.
Ironically, in the wake of Glacier View, William Johnsson wrote a powerful defense of the literal nature of the heavenly sanctuary for the book The Sanctuary and the Atonement, published by the Biblical Research Institute [26]. In the chapter devoted to this subject, Johnsson offers a convincing, detailed, Bible-based critique of the notion that the heavenly sanctuary described in the book of Hebrews is merely metaphorical [27]. The stark contrast between the chapter in the aforesaid book and the recent Spectrum interview leaves many questions unanswered. Certainly Johnsson gives no Biblical rationale, in the Spectrum interview or elsewhere, as to why he might have changed his mind on this point. When he declares in this interview that the church had allegedly experienced a “gradual change in understanding from a literalistic approach to a more mature one” [28], he gives no Biblical reasons for this evolved “maturity.”
Most Adventists I know believe heaven to be a physical, tangible place, not some spiritual symbol. Never have I heard an Adventist scoff at the idea of Jesus preparing literal mansions for His children in heaven, or make fun of the New Jerusalem having literal walls and gates. It is therefore most telling that ridicule has been directed by certain ones at the concept of a literal heavenly temple. Could it be that literal heavenly mansions don’t challenge our carnal security the way a literal sanctuary does, with its judgment proceedings and meticulous records of thoughts, words, and actions?
4. The presence of God and the Most Holy Place. The one interviewing Johnsson for Spectrum asks at one point:
Considering three of the prominent dissenters, Albion [Fox] Ballenger (1861–1921), William Warde Fletcher (1879–1947), and Desmond Ford (1929–2019), would you summarize for us the main dissenting positions they had in common? [29].
Johnsson replied:
All three argued, on the basis of the book of Hebrews, that at Jesus's ascension, he went immediately into the presence of God—he didn’t have to wait for almost 2,000 years before entering the Most Holy Place. After Ballenger’s firing from the Adventist ministry, he wrote out his views in Cast Out for the Cross of Christ (1909). In it, he made clear that for him Hebrews 6:19 was decisive [30].
The interviewer then asked:
To what extent do you consider the dissenting positions of these men to have been exonerated by the Glacier View findings as found in the Consensus Statement? [31].
Johnsson answered:
On this point, the Consensus Statement, especially its treatment of Hebrews 6:19, exonerates them [32].
The following section of the present article will address the significance of the Glacier View Consensus Statement. But for the moment, let’s be clear that the immediate presence of God in heaven is not confined to the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary, nor have Seventh-day Adventists ever taught this. It is Jesus who, according to Ellen White, relinquished His omnipresence by taking human nature [33], but the Father has never ceased to be omnipresent. The immediate presence of God was confined to the Most Holy Place in the earthly sanctuary because of the problem of human sin. That problem doesn’t exist in heaven. Jesus was just as surely in the immediate presence of God while ministering in the Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary as when He moved His ministry to the Most Holy Place in 1844.
5. The little horn and the defilement of the sanctuary. Johnsson’s interviewer asks the following question:
Considering the unequivocal entry in the Consensus Statement, "In Daniel 8:14 it is evident that the word [nisdaq] denotes the reversal of the evil caused by the power symbolized by the 'little horn,' " can we rightly assume that this is the first occasion in an official Adventist publication (first in the Adventist Review and then in Ministry, both in 1980) that the defiling of the sanctuary was to be attributed not to the accumulated sins of God's people (as in Leviticus 16 and in the historic position) but to the workings of an evil secular power? [34].
Johnsson then answered:
Almost certainly. I’m not aware of any previous official publication of this view [35].
First of all, the Glacier View Consensus Statement was not an “official publication” of any view; only the General Conference at a duly called session has the authority to officially define Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. But the notion that the little horn power, in contrast with the accumulated sins of God’s people, is what defiles the sanctuary described in the book of Daniel, is yet another objection by critics of classic Adventist sanctuary theology that ignores the full weight of Biblical evidence.
Divine judgment in Scripture, whether in the Old or the New Testament, is consistently for the purpose of determining who is on the Lord’s side, and who is not. The judgment of Daniel 7 and 8 is no different. Daniel 12:1 is clear that the final deliverance of God’s people is dependent on whether they are found written in God’s book:
And at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
Daniel 7:9-10 is the only other reference in Daniel to heavenly books. The book described in Daniel 12:1 gives every evidence of being the same to which Moses referred, when he prayed, in an effort to exchange his own soul for his wayward people, “Blot me, I pray Thee, out of Thy book which Thou hast written.” (Ex. 32:32). God then answered Moses, “Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book” (verse 33). Elsewhere the Bible calls this book the book of life (Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 20:12,15; 21:27; 22:19).
If the only ones finally delivered among God’s people are those found “written in the book” (Dan. 12:1), and if the vindication of God’s people in Daniel 7—subsequent to the opening of the books (verse 10)—is followed by their possession of “an everlasting kingdom” (verse 27), it is obvious the triumph of the saints both in chapter 7 and chapter 12 refer to the same end-time event. Which means the end-time judgment here described most assuredly involves a determination as to who among God’s professed people is fit for eternal life.
The book of Revelation is clear as to the conditions for being retained in God’s book of life:
He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment, and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess His name before My Father, and before His angels (Rev. 3:5).
Let us remember also that the little-horn power, whose identity as the Roman papacy clearly comports with the Biblical and corresponding historical evidence, professes faithfulness to God. Like those it persecutes, it is professedly Christian. The statement of Johnsson’s interviewer that the activities of Daniel’s little horn constitute “the workings of an evil secular power” [36], is simply unfounded. The little horn of Daniel’s prophecy is evil, most assuredly, but it is definitely not secular.
Like the ancient Day of Atonement, the final end-time judgment determines who, among those claiming loyalty to God, are truly His. And just as those found disloyal in the ancient ritual were cut off from God’s people (Lev. 23:27-29), so the little horn power will see its claims to faithfulness demolished and be utterly destroyed (Dan. 7:11,26).
6. SDA Fundamental Beliefs, eschatology, and contemporary relevance. Johnsson declares at another point in his interview:
I’d like to point out something that’s usually overlooked: many of the end-time scenarios that play a critical role in the thinking of a lot of Adventists aren’t part of our Fundamental Beliefs. Not the mark of the beast, 666, Sunday laws, fleeing to the mountains, etc.—you won’t find a word about these ideas in the Fundamental Beliefs. Yet they have come to play a critical role in public evangelism and daily living [37].
But one key point is omitted in the above observation. With the exception of the number 666 and its significance, all the above features of Adventist eschatology are affirmed emphatically in the writings of Ellen G. White, which are declared by our SDA Fundamental Beliefs to “speak with prophetic authority” [38]. Moreover, the Church Manual gives as its first criterion for church discipline: “Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the fundamental beliefs of the church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same” [39].
To dispute a teaching repetitively and plainly upheld in a prophet’s inspired writings would most assuredly qualify as “teaching doctrines contrary” to that same prophet’s prophetic authority, and is therefore disallowed by the Fundamental Beliefs of the church. The fact that the aforementioned aspects of Adventist eschatology are not mentioned in our Fundamental Beliefs does not, therefore, give church employees or members a license to deny or argue against them while remaining in good and regular standing.
Johnsson rightly rebukes those Adventists who presently find themselves “preoccupied with conspiracy theories” [40] and “wild speculations that bring our name into disrepute” [41]. But such diversions hardly imply, as Johnsson claims, that our classic eschatology “need[s] adjustment” [42]. For indeed, neither the writings of Ellen White nor our classic eschatology in general provide any foundation or validation for the popular genre of conspiracy theories embraced in certain circles of contemporary Adventism. Ellen White’s writings say nothing, for example, about the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the United Nations, godless global elites taking over the world and enforcing an atheistic ideology, or similar notions which flourish among today’s notable conspiracists.
By contrast, Ellen White’s eschatology focuses on multiplying natural and humanly-caused disasters, the working of miracles, and a resulting grassroots movement which will demand religious legislation and ultimately a Sunday law [43]. Speculation regarding mysterious combinations of unnamed persons working in the shadows and manipulating events throughout the world is not at all necessary if one simply adheres to the Bible/Spirit of Prophecy scenario of last-day events. Enough of what Scripture and Ellen White foretell under divine inspiration can be validated simply by following mainstream news outlets, without straying into bizarre, unverifiable theories from the John Birch Society or the nether regions of the Internet.
I encourage all readers of this article to consult a series of articles published on this site several years ago on the subject of conspiracy theories [44]. No marginalizing of Ellen White’s authority nor modification of our classic end-time expectations is needed in order to avoid these embarrassing distortions of—and diversions from—the great Advent hope. Indeed, it is stricter adherence to Ellen White’s prophetic authority, not a relaxation of her role, that will safeguard Adventists from these unhinged theories.
Johnsson continues with the following, very strange observation:
So here we are, living in a fast-changing world where space vehicles are exploring the surface of Mars—and what are a number focused on? Wild, crazy stuff. We should be grappling with the implications of the space age for theology—like the new understandings of time and space, and Einsteinian relativity [45].
But how, may we ask, does space-age technology, exploring Mars, and Einsteinian relativity challenge the relevance of Adventist end-time theology and its attendant moral imperatives? How has scientific and technological advancement succeeded in taming human savagery and making gentle the life of this world? Einstein himself observed: “The release of atomic power has changed everything except our way of thinking . . . the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind” [46]. Why should Adventists change their focus on a soon-coming Savior, the events foretold as preceding His return, and the character preparation needed to meet Him in peace, on account of science, technology, or a successful trip to Mars? Johnsson doesn’t say.
One need only turn on television news or check one’s smartphone apps to witness daily mounting evidence of a world coming unglued—earthquakes, climate change, floods, tornadoes, mass shootings, wars, knee-jerk polarization—just as the Bible and Ellen White predicted long ago. No need whatsoever can be demonstrated as a compelling reason for altering our classic eschatological teachings. Certain ones among us may grow weary of such emphasis, but the outside world could hardly be blamed for wondering at such weariness on our part.
Even the leading historical vignettes of our classic prophetic scenario have of late drawn the focus of journalists and historians beyond the church’s borders. In 2008 a journalist named Nicholas Shrady wrote a powerful reflection on the impact of the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 on the culture and religious faith of the time [47], unwittingly highlighting the significance of this calamity for Adventist prophetic understanding. Johnsson claims that “a big problem” with our classic sanctuary doctrine is “the relentless passage of the years: we have come nearly 200 years since 1844” [48]. But when compared with the sweep of centuries since Jesus walked among us, that isn’t very long. And like the Lisbon earthquake, the significance of 1844 has not escaped the notice of recent non-Adventist scholars. Perhaps some of my readers aren’t aware of the 2015 book America 1844, written by a correspondent for Roll Call and The Congressional Quarterly [49]. Complete with a month-by-month chronology of this fateful year [50], the book shows just how much was transpiring at the time Adventist forefathers were expecting the coming of Jesus.
7. The gospel and “fear of the judgment.” Johnsson’s interviewer asks the following question:
I find considerable encouragement in the position taken by the Sanctuary Review Committee on Righteousness by Faith. The Consensus Statement left no doubt where it stood on this matter. On the basis of Romans 8:1 ("There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus"), it laid down: "In the righteousness of Christ the Christian is secure in the judgment." Can you envision the enshrining of this certitude at the heart of our last-day mission? [51].
Johnsson replies:
I long to see the day when Seventh-day Adventists everywhere no longer fear the judgment, when they have come to know in their experience that “perfect love casts out fear” and so they can have confidence before God (1 John 4:17, 18). The Lord calls us to better things, to fullness of joy in the assurance that Jesus is all we need, now and eternally. We are complete in him [52].
But misguidance is inevitable when the Bible, on any subject, is quoted in part rather than in full. Romans 8:1 doesn’t stop with the statement, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.” It goes on to say, “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” The same author states elsewhere: “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (II Cor. 5:17). The apostle John writes: “And he that keepeth His commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him” (I John 3:24).
To be “in Christ,” in other words, and thus free from condemnation (Rom. 8:1), means to be transformed by God’s grace and obedient to His commandments, not simply covered by a canopy of legal righteousness while occasional sin persists.
The Glacier View Consensus Statement is most assuredly correct in saying: “In the righteousness of Christ the Christian is secure in the judgment” [53]. But this righteousness includes sanctification as well as justification, the work of Christ in us as well as His work for us. This is what the book of Revelation means when it describes the “fine linen” in which the saved are arrayed as “the righteous acts of the saints” (Rev. 19:8, NIV). The apostle James affirms this when he declares God’s Ten Commandment law as the standard of final judgment, stating, “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty” (James 2:10).
Johnsson is correct that “Jesus is all we need, now and eternally,” that “we are complete in Him” [54]. But Paul explains what it means to be complete in Christ in the following verses:
And ye are complete in Him, which is the Head of all principality and power.
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ (Col. 2:10-11).
Putting off sins through God’s empowering grace, in other words, is how we become “complete in Him.” Ellen White echoes the words of Paul in such statements as the following:
We are not to educate ourselves to worry. Keep the eye upward, fixed upon the mark of our high calling in Christ Jesus. We have a work to do; let us do it as in the sight of the whole universe of heaven. We are not to faint, to stumble on in unbelief. God desires us to look to Him as our sufficiency and strive to be complete in Him [55].
It is our lifework to be reaching forward to the perfection of Christian character, striving constantly for conformity to God’s will. Day by day we are to press upward, ever upward, until of us it can be said, “Ye are complete in Him” (Col. 2:10) [56].
God is waiting for us to give ourselves to Him. Then He will mold and fashion the perverse human mind into His own likeness, taking the things of Christ and showing them to us. And as we behold the beauty of the Saviour’s character, we shall grow more and more like Him, until at last God can speak to us the words, “Ye are complete in Him” [57].
For those who try clinging to Jesus while simultaneously clinging to their favorite sins, the judgment will always instill terror. As well it should. We can praise God that He is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (II Peter 3:9). But a theology of pseudo-assurance which saves people in their sins, making the focus of salvation the sinner’s comfort and peace of mind rather than the imperative of securing God’s universe against another rebellion, is foreign to the spirit of Biblical Adventism. Ellen White describes the security of the universe as driving the imperative of character perfection in the lives of the saved:
God, in His wisdom and mercy, tests men and women here, to see if they will obey His voice and respect His law, or rebel as Satan did. If they choose the side of Satan, putting his way above God’s, it would not be safe to admit them into heaven; for they would cause another revolt against the government of God in the heavenly courts. He who fulfills the law in every respect, demonstrates that perfect obedience is possible [58].
God will accept nothing less than unreserved surrender. Halfhearted, sinful, professing Christians would spoil heaven, were they permitted to enter. They would stir up a second rebellion there [59].
Without perfection of character no one can enter the pearly gates of the city of God, for if, with all our imperfections, we were permitted to enter that city, there would soon be in heaven a second rebellion. We must first be tried and chosen, and found faithful and true. Upon the purification of our character rests our only hope of eternal life [60].
Unless we understand the terms of our salvation, and are willing to be wholly obedient to the word of God, we can never be admitted to the city of God. Could this be possible, and those who refuse to comply with the conditions of salvation be admitted to the home of the redeemed, they would introduce their own unsanctified ideas into the heavenly family, and a second rebellion would be created [61].
Without Christ, it is impossible for [man] to render perfect obedience to the law of God; and heaven can never be gained by an imperfect obedience, for this would place all heaven in jeopardy and make possible a second rebellion [62].
Those who accept Christ as their Saviour, becoming partakers of His divine nature, are enabled to follow His example, living in obedience to every precept of the law. Through the merits of Christ, man is to show by his obedience that he could be trusted in heaven, that he would not rebel [63].
None of us would want a heaven marred by racial animus, where children are slaughtered going to school, where nature is exploited by material greed, where lives and land are sacrificed in the name of military conquest. (As I write this, the memorial service is about to begin in Nashville, Tennessee, for the teachers and children murdered in the latest school shooting in the United States.) The judgment in progress since 1844 is for the purpose of ensuring that such horrors never occur again. Perfect love only casts out fear (I John 4:18) when it also casts out sin.
8. “Tweaking” the sanctuary doctrine. At another point Johnsson declares:
The saints have no reason to be alarmed if the Sanctuary doctrine is tweaked a bit. Its central, foundational truth remains unchanged: we have a great high priest in heaven who himself has suffered and been tempted like us. He understands what it means to be human, and he is there for us. This doctrine brings heaven close to us. I find it greatly comforting and encouraging.
Yes, I’ve heard it argued that our church will collapse if the Sanctuary doctrine is modified in any way. But that’s faulty reasoning. Adventism is much more than a matter of being right in details of doctrine. We are a movement, a way of life in the world, with a message of hope and healing, and a wonderful global fellowship. In spite of our failures and foolishness, the Lord has been, and is, marvelously gracious to His Adventist people. [64].
Tragically, doctrinal carelessness and indifference have become common in too many contemporary Adventist minds. But this spirit is quite at odds with the Bible, and with the original spirit of Seventh-day Adventism. Many Scriptures demonstrate that doctrinal faithfulness cannot be regarded as non-salvational (e.g. Hosea 4:6; Matt. 4:4; John 8:31; Gal. 1:8; II Thess. 2:13). In one passage Paul is especially clear as to the connection between doctrinal truth and salvation:
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine: continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee (I Tim. 4:16).
Regarding the sanctuary doctrine, Ellen White warns strongly against what Johnsson might have been pleased to call “tweaking” of this fundamental teaching of our faith. In one statement, remarkable in its predictive clarity relative to recent attacks on the sanctuary message, Ellen White declares:
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 [65].
In another statement, even stronger, she writes:
I saw a company who stood well guarded and firm, giving no countenance to those who would unsettle the established faith of the body. God looked upon them with approbation. I was shown three steps—the first, the second, and the third angel’s messages. Said my accompanying angel, “Woe to him who shall move a block or stir a pin of these messages. The true understanding of these messages is of vital importance. The destiny of souls hangs upon the manner in which they are received” [66].
Such statements as “not one pin is to be removed” [67], “woe to him who shall move a block or stir a pin” [68], and “the destiny of souls hangs upon the manner in which [these messages] are received” [69], demonstrate just how seriously God takes the judgment hour/1844 message and its integrity in Adventist faith, proclamation, and practice. Nothing peripheral or non-salvational is in focus here. The uncompromising spirit of church leaders in the aftermath of Glacier View, which we will address below, was in full accord with these inspired admonitions. The church needs more, much more, of that spirit today.
The Johnsson Interview—Procedural Issues
While Johnsson may never have voiced in public the reflections on Glacier View contained in this interview, it is hardly accurate to describe his insights as part of an “untold story.” In fact, Johnsson’s observations repeat, almost exactly, the four-decades-old grievance narrative among Desmond Ford’s apologists which began almost immediately after the conference closed on Friday, August 15, 1980.
This grievance narrative can best be summarized, perhaps, in three parts:
1. That the Consensus Statement voted by those in attendance at Glacier View, titled “Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary” [70], had in fact moved closer to Ford’s position relative to the various objections he had raised to our classic sanctuary doctrine [71], which made his subsequent removal from the ministry hard to understand.
2. That the Ten Point Critique of Ford’s position and attitude, prepared by some in leadership at the close of the conference [72], had never been voted on by the larger group of scholars, pastors, and administrators in attendance at Glacier View [73].
3. That the impression was wrongly conveyed, when Ford’s ministerial credentials were subsequently withdrawn [74], that the full committee in attendance at Glacier View had either recommended this action, or at the very least had established theological and/or administrative grounds which justified this action [75].
Johnsson’s reflections in the recent interview support each of the above observations by Ford’s supporters following the termination of his employment by the church [76]. At one point in the interview it is claimed that Johnsson and another scholar “played the central role” in writing the sanctuary Consensus Statement [77], thus exacerbating Johnsson’s resentment at the subsequent withdrawal of Ford’s credentials.
Much could be written, and has been written, regarding the above reactions to the events of Glacier View. But I believe the following two assessments by the present writer offer perhaps the best reply to these concerns:
1. Confusion over authority. Like the Theology of Ordination Study Committee of the General Conference (2013-2014), on which the present writer was privileged to serve, the Sanctuary Review Committee assembled at Glacier View had advisory power only. Whatever theological perspectives were aired by this committee, however some of these perspectives may have reflected Ford’s position on a number of the issues discussed, it was never within the purview of this committee either to effect changes to Seventh-day Adventist beliefs or to render administrative decisions regarding Ford’s or anyone else’s future in the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Only the General Conference in session has the right to make decisions regarding official Adventist statements of faith, and only the governing body which hires a church employee has the right to make decisions regarding such a one’s fitness to either be chosen or retained for any position of responsibility.
Johnsson quotes Neal Wilson’s statement at the start of the Glacier View proceedings that “Ford was not on trial but only his views” [78]. Following the announcement of the Ten Point Critique of Ford’s positions and attitude, Johnsson says he “began to wonder: Is this really the case?” [79]. The fact that Ford’s views were being held up to the scrutiny of scholars and administrators certainly justified the assumption that his views were on trial, especially in light of the leave of absence he had been granted for the purpose of preparing his defense of these views [80]. But any judgment as to Ford’s fitness to remain in ministry did not lie with the Sanctuary Review Committee, only with his employing organization (the Australasian Division) in consultation with the General Conference, of which all world Divisions form a part.
The Glacier View discussions were designed to bring the issues Ford had raised to the attention of what was hoped would be a representative group of his peers in the denomination. These discussions, irrespective of their conclusions, served to inform the General Conference and Australasian leaders as they proceeded to decide on Ford’s future in ministry. As noted above, no “trial” of Dr. Ford in terms of his employment was possible at the hands of the committee gathered at Glacier View. As with any church employee whose ideas or conduct come into question, only Ford’s employers within the denomination were empowered to determine his fitness for employment.
In short, the Sanctuary Review Committee at Glacier View possessed only the authority to inform and advise church leadership. What the leaders proceeded to do with that information was up to them. Decisions regarding Ford’s future in ministry did not lie within the purview of the Sanctuary Review Committee.
2. Consensus statements and “lowest common denominator” unity. Consensus statements may be helpful in affirming general areas of agreement as a starting point for addressing areas of possible variance, but ultimately such statements have very limited utility when the witness of the inspired text relative to truth and error is under consideration. The only question that ultimately matters when any issue arises in the church is, “What saith the Lord?” The written counsel of God, rooted in Scripture and amplified in the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy, represents the only objective measure whereby truth and error, righteousness and sin, can be understood and applied to issues of faith and practice.
The Consensus Statements at Glacier View not only lacked the authority to determine a worker’s fitness to carry denominational credentials; they likely—at least in the case of the statement on the sanctuary—raised a flurry of red flags in the minds of church leaders as well as pastoral and lay observers. Johnsson’s own claim that the sanctuary statement acknowledged a number of Ford’s contentions [81], together with Ford’s own acknowledgement that he could “live” with the statement [82], demonstrated just how far from Bible/Spirit of Prophecy teachings many scholars and professors especially had allowed themselves to drift. Far from being a path to broad-based unity in the church, the sanctuary Consensus Statement at Glacier View—had it been permitted to decide the course of church administrators relative to Ford’s future and that of his sympathizers—would have birthed widespread doctrinal chaos and the ultimate destruction of the unique contribution of Seventh-day Adventist theology to the corpus of Christian belief.
One finds it intriguing that very little attention has been paid by those aggrieved at the aftermath of Glacier View to the Consensus Statement on Ellen White, titled, “The role of the Ellen G. White writings in doctrinal matters” [83]. Perhaps this is because of this statement’s very strong affirmation of Ellen White’s authority in both theological and exegetical questions, as seen in its declaration: “We believe that her authority transcends that of all noninspired interpreters” [84].
At the bottom line, the only consensus that ultimately matters for Seventh-day Adventists is the consensus of the inspired writings, both Scripture and the writings of Ellen White. The inspired pen declares this consensus to be self-explanatory: “The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given, as scripture is explained by scripture” [85]. This consensus must stand supreme when any controversy arises. Lowest common denominator unity will in the end only bring division. Where the inspired consensus leads is where the church must follow, however painful the consequences.
Conclusion: Gettysburg and Glacier View
Johnsson’s fondness for consensus statements was voiced early in his interview, regarding the subject which lies most firmly at the basis of Ford’s attack on the classic Adventist sanctuary doctrine:
I recalled the way Wilson had managed an earlier consultation on Righteousness by Faith (October 3–4, 1979). At that earlier time, he had successfully brought together 145 scholars and administrators, given them all opportunity to speak their minds on what was at the time a sensitive and controversial subject, and ended up with an acceptable consensus statement. Then his Glacier View plan made sense. The success of the Righteousness by Faith consultation, I expect, prompted him to try a similar approach for the even more difficult issues of the Sanctuary doctrine [86].
This consultation had resulted from an open letter Wilson had written to the church and published in the Review and Herald (now the Adventist Review) [87]. In this letter Wilson expressed concern over the continuing and divisive controversy in the church over righteousness by faith and related topics, thus constraining him to convene a representative group “to survey and study difficult theological issues” relative to this subject [88]. The result was the consultation noted by Johnsson in the above statement, which produced a consensus statement titled “The Dynamics of Salvation,” published in the Review on the eve of Glacier View [89].
Because of its overshadowing by the Glacier View meetings and their aftermath, it’s probably fair to say most church members ignored this attempt at consensus on the righteousness by faith issues. But the biggest problem with the “Dynamics of Salvation” statement was the fact that, like the Palmdale statement four years earlier [90], it settled nothing. The one then serving as director of the Biblical Research Institute telegraphed in advance the statement’s inadequacy when he wrote, introducing the statement:
Certain aspects of this inexhaustible theme, such as the nature of Christ, perfection, and original sin, are not dealt with in detail in this paper. They may be taken up later as subjects of the church’s ongoing discussions [91].
But any careful student of the righteousness by faith controversy understands that without clarity relative to the above topics, no resolution of the debate is possible. Thus Elder Wilson’s expressed hope for “preparing a plan designed to minimize or end such controversy” [92] held little if any likelihood of success.
Had greater Bible-and-Spirit-of-Prophecy clarity been publicly achieved on the righteousness by faith issues prior to Glacier View, the centrality of these issues relative to Ford’s attack on the sanctuary doctrine and Ellen White’s authority would more likely have been recognized, and the full picture relative to all of the above issues could have been comprehensively laid before our people. The former president of the General Conference, Elder Robert H. Pierson, understood the relationship of the issues of sin, salvation, and perfection to the sanctuary debate, and spelled it out in a letter to the Sanctuary Review Committee at Glacier View. (Though a member of the committee, Pierson was not able to attend the Glacier View meetings for health reasons [93].) Pierson’s letter warned against Ford’s embrace of the original sin doctrine and “a life of spiritual defeat” on account of Ford’s denial of character perfection in this life [94].
Pierson’s warning merited closer attention than perhaps it received. Following Ford’s removal from the ministry, greater clarity emerged from the writings of his acolytes (and others) on this subject. One professor who was likewise removed from the teaching ministry gave an interview to a magazine supportive of Ford’s theology, and was asked, “What do you see as being wrong with the Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment?” [95]. He replied:
Let me answer that by reading a statement from Ellen White. She wrote this in the book The Great Controversy: “Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above, are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the investigative judgment is going forward in heaven . . . there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God’s people upon the earth.”
What the investigative judgment boils down to in practice is this: When John Doe confesses the sin of impatience, that sin is not cancelled, but recorded. The blood of Jesus has simply transferred the sin from John to the sanctuary. In the judgment John must face that sin again. If by that time he has not overcome the sin, it remains against him. This then makes it imperative that John overcome every sin he has ever confessed. He must, in fact, reach perfection before his name comes up in the judgment or John Doe is a lost man. Now perfectionism is a terrible thing and it leads to devastating insecurity in one’s Christian experience, but perfectionism is an integral part of Mrs. White’s investigative judgment doctrine [96].
Several years thereafter, another fellow traveler of Ford’s made the following observation:
This is the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment as it was originally taught by Ellen White and the early pioneers. It is still taught extensively today by those who take Ellen White literally. It holds up an impossible demand, and breeds an unbearable insecurity. It is not surprising, then, that SDA scholars have sought to reinterpret it to bring relief to the oppressed. One cannot blame them for that. It is time for Adventism to face up to the true doctrine of the Investigative Judgment again and to admit that it is the mainspring of its perfectionism and the gushing fountain of its despair [97].
A few years later, a prominent, now-deceased Adventist pastor wrote as follows:
The dialogue concerning the investigative judgment and related topics within our church today seems primarily an attempt to settle on our beliefs concerning sin and righteousness and salvation. The investigative judgment, as a historical and eschatological event, is not really threatening. . . .
It’s not our lack of understanding of how Daniel 8 relates to Leviticus 16 that causes the sleepless nights. It’s our lack of understanding of how the apparent bad news of the judgment relates to the good news of the gospel [98].
Ford’s wife Gillian, in the 2008 book For the Sake of the Gospel, co-authored with her husband, is perhaps the clearest of all on the connection between the Fordian righteousness by faith doctrine and his attack on our classic sanctuary message:
It was Ford’s emphasis on righteousness by faith that led him to see the necessity for reinterpretation of the SDA scheme of prophecy [99].
Had the leaders of the church in 1980 and thereafter recognized the compelling logic between Ford’s justification-focused, perfection-denying gospel and his assault on classic Adventism’s 1844 theology, a level of clarity would have emerged that would have facilitated a much clearer articulation of Adventist faith and practice both inside and outside the denomination. The investigative judgment doctrine and its Siamese twin, Last Generation Theology, would have taken their rightful place at the heart of the church’s Biblical witness, the core of its prophetic identity, the rationale behind its moral imperatives, and the secret of its future glory. Agitation for aberrant causes like women’s ordination, LGBT practice within the church, and the freedom to teach evolution in our schools would have been extinguished in their earliest stages. The revival now seen among many youth and young adults in the church, evident in such movements as Generation of Youth for Christ (GYC), would likely have broken out in the waning years of the last century.
And very possibly, long before now, our Lord would have broken through the blue to take His children home.
I share William Johnsson’s “brooding sense of what might have been” in the aftermath of Glacier View [100], though for very different reasons. In many ways I am reminded of the Battle of Gettysburg, believed by many to have been the turning point of the American Civil War. Though a decisive victory for the Union, the battle ended with General George Meade’s failure to prevent the Army of Northern Virginia from escaping across the Potomac [101]. Despite repeated pleas from President Lincoln, Meade left off pursuing the Confederates [102]. In Lincoln’s words:
If General Meade can complete his work so gloriously prosecuted thus far, by the literal or substantial destruction of Lee’s army, the rebellion will be over [103].
But it wasn’t. The war lasted another two years. Had a more aggressive general commanded the Union army at the time, untold bloodshed and recrimination might have been avoided.
Like Gettysburg, Glacier View was a turning point. But like Gettysburg, it left business unfinished. The unscriptural evangelical gospel taught by Desmond Ford and his followers continues to wreak havoc in the church, producing doctrinal indifference, moral vacillation, and apostasy in countless forms. The task of recovering the full Bible message of salvation and total victory over sin, with the resulting revival and thorough reformation such recovery would bring, remains before the Advent people.
It’s easy for observers on both sides of the controversy to lament the shortcomings of Glacier View. But the triumph then won over timeworn objections to the sanctuary doctrine still forms a hallowed chapter in Seventh-day Adventist history. Despite ill-conceived pleas for “academic freedom” and the unfettered tolerance of doctrinal and moral diversity in the church—pleas hearkening back to the days of Israel’s judges, when “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25)—the withdrawal of Ford’s ministerial credentials and those of many others in the years that followed took place in adherence to a very clear command from the modern prophet:
Any man who seeks to present theories which would lead us from the light that has come to us on the ministration in the heavenly sanctuary, should not be accepted as a teacher [104].
And finally, in the context of an earlier challenge to the sanctuary doctrine by one A.F. Ballenger—key features of whose dissent from this doctrine are said by Johnsson to have been vindicated by the Glacier View Consensus Statement [105]—Ellen White declared as follows:
When the power of God testifies 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. Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another, with new light, which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit. . . .
We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith [106].
REFERENCES
1. Trevor Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
2. Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1957).
3. See Colin D. Standish and Russell R. Standish, Adventism Challenged: The Gathering Storm and Adventism Challenged: The Storm Bursts (Rapidan, VA: Hartland Publications, 2000).
4. Robert D. Brinsmead, 1844 Re-Examined—Syllabus (Fallbrook, CA: IHI, 1979).
5. Geoffrey J. Paxton, The Shaking of Adventism (Wilmington, DE: Zenith Publishers, Inc, 1977), pp. 121-124,128-133
6. Desmond and Gillian Ford, The Human Nature of Christ in Salvation (Cooranbong, N.S.W: Avondale College Theology Department, 1975); Brinsmead, “A Summary of Basic Catholic/Protestant Differences on Justification by Faith,” Present Truth, October 1975, p. 40.
7. Larry Pahl, “Where is Robert Brinsmead?” Adventist Today, May-June 1999, p. 13.
8. Letter of Kenneth H. Wood to Kevin Paulson, December 6, 1979.
9. Brinsmead, 1844 Re-Examined, p. 79.
10. Ibid, pp. 82-84.
11. Ibid, p. 162.
12. Desmond Ford, “The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?” Pacific Union College, Association of Adventist Forum, October 27, 1979 https://adventistdigitallibrary.org/adl-2451/investigative-judgment-theological-milestone-or-historical-necessity
13. ----Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment (Castleberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980).
14. ----“Daniel 8:14 and the Day of Atonement,” Spectrum, November 1980, pp. 30-36.
15. William G. Johnsson, “Overview of a historic meeting,” Adventist Review, Sept. 4, 1980, pp. 2-7.
16. “Events Since Glacier View,” Ministry, October 1980, pp. 14-15.
17. Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Ellen G. White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, p. 266.
21. Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
22. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 420-421.
23. Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
24. White, Early Writings, pp. 252-253; Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, pp. 260-261; Manuscript Releases, vol. 2, p. 186; vol. 14, p. 217.
25. Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
26. Johnsson, “The Heavenly Cultus in the Book of Hebrews—Figurative or Real?” The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies (Washington, D.C: Biblical Research Institute, 1981), pp. 362-377.
27. Ibid, pp. 368-373.
28. Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 669; Manuscript Releases, vol. 14, p. 23.
34. Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 2015 edition, p. 168.
39. Ibid, p. 62 (italics supplied).
40. Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid.
43. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 581,588-590,592,612; Prophets and Kings, p. 606; Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 451.
44. Kevin D. Paulson, “Seventh-day Adventists and Conspiracy Theories,” Part 1 http://advindicate.com/articles/2019/9/20/paulson-draft-1-s88fl-6mlnf-tyf95; “Seventh-day Adventists and Conspiracy Theories,” Part 2 http://advindicate.com/articles/2019/9/20/paulson-draft-1-s88fl-6mlnf-49y4n-dkr69-dcwee-sxa65-rr6n4; “Seventh-day Adventists and Conspiracy Theories,” Part 3 http://advindicate.com/articles/2019/9/20/paulson-draft-1-s88fl-6mlnf-49y4n-dkr69-dcwee; “Why Most Conspiracy Theories Lack Credibility,” http://advindicate.com/articles/2021/9/2/justification-and-perfection-aembc-l9bng
45. Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
47. Nicholas Shrady, The Last Day: Wrath, Ruin, and Reason in the Great Lisbon Earthquake of 1755 (New York: Penguin Group, 2008).
48. Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
49. John Bicknell, America 1844: Religious Fervor, Westward Expansion, and the Presidential Election That Transformed the Nation (Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2015).
50. Ibid, pp. ix-xii.
51. Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid.
55. White, That I May Know Him, p. 89.
56. Ibid, p. 131.
57. ----Manuscript Releases, vol. 7, p. 151.
58. —--Review and Herald, July 21, 1891.
59. ----The Upward Look, p. 197.
60. ----Sermons and Talks, vol. 2, p. 294.
61. ----Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 147.
62. ----Signs of the Times, Dec. 30, 1889.
63. ----That I May Know Him, p. 292.
64. Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
65. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 53.
66. ----Early Writings, pp. 258-259.
67. ----Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 53.
68. ----Early Writing, p. 258.
69. Ibid, p. 259.
70. “Christ in the heavenly sanctuary,” Adventist Review, Sept. 4, 1980, pp. 12-15.
71. Raymond F. Cottrell, “The Sanctuary Review Committee and Its New Consensus,” Spectrum, November 1980, p. 21; Milton Hook, Desmond Ford: Reformist Theologian, Gospel Revivalist (Riverside, CA: Adventist Today Foundation, 2008), pp. 253-254,256; Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
72. “Statement on Desmond Ford Document,” Adventist Review, Sept. 4, 1980, pp. 8-11.
73. Cottrell, “The Sanctuary Review Committee and Its New Consensus,” Spectrum, November 1980, p. 21; Walter C. Utt, “Journalistic Fairness?” Spectrum, November 1980, p. 64; Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
74. “Events since Glacier View,” Ministry, October 1980, p. 15.
75. Cottrell, “The Sanctuary Review Committee and Its New Consensus,” Spectrum, November 1980, p. 21; Hook, Desmond Ford, pp. 254-255; Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
76. Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
77. Ibid.
78. Ibid.
79. Ibid.
80. Johnsson, “Overview of a historic meeting,” Adventist Review, Sept. 4, 1980, p. 5.
81. Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
82. Hook, Desmond Ford, p. 256.
83. “The role of the Ellen G. White writings in doctrinal matters,” Adventist Review, Sept. 4, 1980, p. 15.
84. Ibid.
85. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 42.
86. Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
87. Neal C. Wilson, “An open letter to the church,” Review and Herald, May 24, 1979, pp. 4-6.
88. W.R. Lesher, “Background on the statement ‘The dynamics of salvation,’” Adventist Review, July 31, 1980, p. 3.
89. “The dynamics of salvation,” Adventist Review, July 31, 1980, pp. 3-8.
90. “Christ Our Righteousness,” Review and Herald, May 27, 1976, pp. 4-7.
91. Lesher, “Background on the statement ‘The dynamics of salvation,’” Adventist Review, July 31, 1980, p. 3.
92. Wilson, “An open letter to the church,” Review and Herald, May 24, 1979, p. 4.
93. Cottrell, “The Sanctuary Review Committee and Its New Consensus,” Spectrum, November 1980, p. 25.
94. Hook, Desmond Ford, p. 250.
95. “Interview With Smuts van Rooyen,” Evangelica, May 1982, p. 14.
96. Ibid (italics Van Rooyen’s).
97. Brad McIntyre, “Investigating the Investigative Judgment,” Good News for Adventists (Auburn, CA: Good News Unlimited, 1985), p. 24.
98. Morris L. Venden, Never Without An Intercessor: The Good News About the Judgment (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 1996), pp. 7-8.
99. Desmond and Gillian Ford, For the Sake of the Gospel: Throw out the bathwater, but keep the Baby (Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, Inc, 2008), p. 153.
100. Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
101. “Battle of Gettysburg” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg
102. Ibid.
103. Ibid.
104. White, The Upward Look, p. 199.
105. Lloyd, “The Untold Story of Glacier View,” Spectrum, March 24, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2023/untold-story-glacier-view
106. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 161.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan