Doubtful Disputations

[Link]

February 25, 2004

Dear Pastor Arnold,

In December of 2002 I was visiting Collegedale with a group of my student colporteurs. I

had been asked by the conference to run a program in Knoxville in anticipation of
evangelistic work to be done in the area. For Sabbath a few of us visited friends at SAU.

The friend I was visiting was attending your church. She probably would still be
attending, but has since graduated and moved to Michigan.

You preached a sermon that day that I found very disturbing. But I did not take down
your name. Neither did I take note of the church. I did, however, do my best to correct the
influence of those parts of the sermon that I view as erring. I mean, I worked to correct
the influence with the two or three persons that I knew personally that were at the church
for the service.

Since that time I have several times made negative references to that sermon. But not
until yesterday did I learn that the church I attended was the Collegedale Community
Church. And only yesterday did I learn that it has a web-page. And when I visited the
page I found that there was an actual voice recording of the sermon. I have listened to it
again to refresh my memory and to take notes (something I did not do the first time).

You will find, for your information, the notes I took of the sermon appended to this letter.
They are not word-for-word, or even thought-for-thought (I do not type that fast). But I
think you will judge them to be a rather accurate representation of the sermon as you
preached it.

You are asking “So what bothered you about the sermon?” Briefly, there were three
points:

1. I believe it was a faulty exposition of Romans 14. By missing the connection of

the passage with the controversial issue (first century) of the keeping of the
Passover you set students up to conclude that not only vegetarians, but even
Sabbatarians, are the weaker in the faith.
2. The sermon virtually taught that the Adventist positions on lifestyle (broadly, you
touched dress, diet, adornment, entertainment, sports, use of wine and tobacco,
amusements) were a product of 19th century mores rather than a product of
Biblical exposition.
3. The sermon quoted EGW as an authority (your source for the two questions)
while at the same time teaching that her counsels on numerous life-style issues
were evidence of a weak faith. What kind of sermon could better fulfill the
 prophecy that the last deception among Seventh-day Adventists will be to make of
none-effect the Testimonies of the Spirit?

Was there anything in the sermon I appreciated? You shared several important and
absolutely true points. The two questions are certainly the two questions we should be
asking. Satan certainly works to stir up unimportant issues to distract God’s people. Weak
brothers should receive more understanding. Doubtful issues should not be argued. What
God has said is not a doubtful issue. Saving sinners is top priority for the church.
Arguments destroy souls.

These ideas were so central to the sermon that they are almost a summary. And they are
beautiful truth.

There was a brother near a school of ours in the 19th century. He felt, perhaps from his
reading of Romans 14??, that though Ellen White was a good lady, some of the things she
was teaching were not really so very important. His name was brother Aldridge. A portion
of the letter he received is below. If it can’t be accepted for its source, it is at least sound
in its reasoning.

Had you possessed that conscientious, fine sensibility which ought to be found in you, you would not have
ventured upon the course you pursued. It would have been enough for such a mind to know that God had
deigned to notice the diet and dress of his people; and how careful and circumspect would have been your
words, lest you should be found fighting against God. Any thing that is of sufficient importance for God to
notice, however small it may appear to those whose hearts are lifted up in pride, should at least call for
respectful silence. Your regarding these things as insignificant did not make them so. God noticed them. This
should have been enough for poor, proud mortals. Their will and wisdom should not be maintained against
the will and wisdom of Him who is too wise to err, and too good to do us wrong.—EGW, Pamphlet 97.

The rest of the letter can be found at [Link]/docs

One contrasting point between this letter to Bro Aldridge and your sermon (and between
the Bible and your sermon) was the value placed on strict conscientiousness. You nearly
equated it with legalism. How has God regarded those that trembled at His Word and that
walked humbly before Him?

In conclusion, if it is possible to accuse a man of teaching error without accusing him of

being a sinner, that is what I am doing. I certainly think it is possible. And I do not
suppose that I can read your heart or impute to you wicked intentions. I simply believe
you were, in December of 2002, terribly deceived and, as a consequence, you became a
significant agent of deception.

This letter is not a Bible study. If you believe the evidence for connecting Romans 14 to
the Passover is poor or that the evidence for connecting it to vegetarianism and
abstemiousness from alcoholic consumption is greater, please invite me to present Bible
evidence to the contrary.
God bless your ministry. May you find at one time the peace and joy of a Christ-
enthralled religion and the harmony of a life patterned after the whispers of Divine
councils.

Eugene Prewitt
Academic Affairs
Ouachita Hills College