The Teachings of Jack Sequeira
He ridicules Ellen White's
writings, and says we should not use them. He rejects essential parts of our
historic Sanctuary Message. He teaches errors which Ballenger
taught. He refuses to use the Spirit of
Prophecy in his sermons, papers, books, or replies to critics. He labels those areas, in which he
disagrees with the Spirit of Prophecy writings, as ''non-essential'' and
“non-fundamental.” He declares that Christ's
atonement was totally finished on the cross, and our salvation was assured
and fully completed at that time. He teaches that we now have
unconditional salvation which, received by us just once, guarantees our
being taken to heaven. He says that cooperation with God
in working out our salvation is “Galatian legalism.” He insists that the Final Crisis
will be fought over acceptance of the finished atonement, instead of over
obedience to the law of God. There is a very real danger in attending meetings or reading books by one of our people who refuses to use the Spirit of Prophecy or accept its counsels. To do so is to lay oneself open to hypnotic influences. Beware of men who come to you with complicated theological reasoning and strange, new words and concepts. But especially so when they refuse to be corrected by the Spirit of Prophecy. Having voluntarily laid down the Spirit of Prophecy in order to hear them out, their deep, complex reasoning can weary the mind, and lead to an attitude of mental surrender to the man’s views. This is dangerous. The mind becomes locked into error. From
January 1988 until a few months ago, E.H. (Jack) Sequeira was the senior
pastor of the Walla Walla City Seventh-day Adventist Church. In earlier
publications, we have noted the dancing and similar activities which occur
there. As the leading pastor of the Walla Walla Church, Elder Sequeira had
an important responsibility to guide the feet of young and old in the
right paths. After reading his writings, we can understand why so much
worldliness has crept into that college within the last few years. For some
reason, senior pastors of Adventist college churches in North America are
generally quite liberal. We have seen
this in Louis Venden (Loma Linda University Church), Morris Venden
(Pacific Union College Church, Union College Church, and Southwestern
Adventist College Church), and Gordon Bietz (Southern College Church). The
new theology religion courses in our colleges have become so liberal that
the administration and faculty of those schools seem to be concerned that,
when they select a new pastor, they must be sure they get a liberal.
Otherwise, squabbling and theological infighting could occur. The students
must be presented with a united front. Jack
Sequeira has had an influence in our church far beyond his pastoral duties
to the students, faculty, and village folk in College Place and Walla
Walla, Washington. (More recently, Sequeira was transferred to the Potomic
Conference.) In his sermons, he openly boasts that he is in so demand by
conference presidents. He explains that he frequently receives calls from
them to hold ministerial
retreats in order to teach the ministers the importance of not using the
Spirit of Prophecy in their work. He has, in
addition, the unusual distinction of being the only Adventist college
pastor who regularly teaches groups of historic Adventists
throughout the continent. This is due to the fact that he is frequently a
speaker at 1888 Message Study Committee seminars. After
reading his book, several of his earlier papers, and listening to some of
his sermon tapes, we can now understand why Sequeira has been so well
accepted by the administration at Walla Walla College and at conference
ministerial retreats. First, let
us consider Jack's attitude toward the Spirit of Prophecy: 1 - THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY The Spirit
of Prophecy contains so much doctrinal detail, that it is difficult
to teach false doctrine as long as those books are freely used by
the audience, and, along with the Bible, frequently quoted by the speaker.
The currently in-print Spirit of Prophecy books contain nine times as much
information as is given in the Bible. The out-of-print and hard-to-get
materials (such as the Review Articles) probably double that ratio.
On any given concept, the Spirit of Prophecy will generally be far more
detailed and explicit than the Bible. That is why we so much value both of
them, rather than the Bible only. There are
two primary ways to set the Spirit of Prophecy aside: A favorite
method is to announce that there is “new light” for the people, and
the one speaking has it. Anything new must be accepted, simply because it
is declared to be “new light.” All kinds of strange teachings can then
be presented. Yet the Spirit of Prophecy declares that all new light will
fully (fully) agree with the light already given in God's Word. The truth
is that, in almost every case, genuine ''new light'' is only found as we
discover new insights directly from God's Word itself. To the degree that
you and I value and cling to Scripture, to that degree will we be guarded
by the angels in the days ahead. Another
method, found to be very effective, is to downgrade the Spirit of Prophecy
as of little importance. This can be done in a variety of ways. A person
can declare that someone else wrote part or all of the Spirit of Prophecy
books. Or it can be said that the Spirit of Prophecy should not be used
for doctrinal purposes. That is
the method used by Desmond Ford and the new theology. That is the method
used by Jack Sequeira also. In a
sermon delivered at the Walla Walla Church, entitled “Issues: The
Spirit of Prophecy,” Jack used 1 Corinthians 14:1-5 as his
expository text, and explained to students and faculty why it was
important to set the Spirit of Prophecy back in the shade, so it would not
interfere with effective doctrinal analysis. Here is a sample statement
from that sermon: Jack: “How should we use the writings of Ellen G. White on [sic. in] the pulpit? Well, I have some statements from her. Okay, let me read it to you. I have all these [sic.] quotations. I normally don't take along all this stuff, but I want you to get it from the horse's mouth.’’ Sequeira
appears to have a somewhat uncouth manner of presentation. We had hoped
for better things from him. In addition, we note that he appears almost
offended at having to bring a Spirit of Prophecy quotation into the
pulpit. But that was the point of that entire ''doctrinal sermon on the
Spirit of Prophecy: to explain to the students why they must not use the
Spirit of Prophecy whenever they speak to another. So, then should our
ministers use the Spirit of Prophecy? A very important question. Let us
see how Jack answers it: Jack: “We have misused her until the young people of this country are sick and tired of Ellen G. White. We have used her as a hammer.’’ That
introduction to the subject is not likely to encourage the young people in
attendance at the college to read very much in the precious Spirit of
Prophecy writings. One
individual who lives in the Walla Walla area and has heard many of
Sequeira's sermons, made this comment: “Jack
takes statements from Mrs. E.G. White's writings to prove that you are not
to use the Testimonies as a reason or authority or explanation of your
beliefs. He says, Do not quote Ellen G. White; the Bible and the Bible
only; or read the greater light, not the lesser light. He says, How do we
interpret her visions? [and then replies] In the majority of cases, God
revealed truth by symbolic languages. So what she says is not what you
read—it is just symbolic of what I [Jack] believe she means.” In that
particular sermon, Sequeira went on to explain that Ellen White
categorically taught that no one is ever to use or refer to her writings;
they are only to use the Bible. That makes
it easier for Sequeira to carry on his work. Here are two Spirit of
Prophecy sentences he quoted to support that: “Do not
quote my words again as long as you live . . Do not repeat what I have
said.”—3 Selected Messages, 33. “Little
heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead
men and women to the greater light.”—Colporteur Evangelist, 37. Repeatedly,
the above two sentences have been used by false teachers to support their
insistence that the Spirit of Prophecy not be used to check the
correctness of their assertions. The 3
Selected Messages statement (Manuscript 43, 1901) was made by
Ellen White in a board meeting with certain church leaders. She was
indignant at their intransigent refusal to obey basic principles, but
instead try to weasel nefarious policies into action. She never made that
statement for print to our people. She said it to a hypocritical gathering
of men. It should never have been published. Read the footnote on that
page. Our church leaders were deeply upset that she had returned from
Australia, and did not want to hear anything she had to say. What does
God do when men no longer want to hear His word? He takes an understanding
of it from them! We are discussing steps on the way to the final sin
against the Holy Spirit! God takes the Word from them. Yet Sequeira wants
the students to take it from themselves. Beware
lest you send you children to such a school! That same
evening just after her return from Australia, as taken down in shorthand (Manuscript
43, 1901), Ellen White also told them this: “God has told me that my testimony must be borne to this conference, and that I must not try to make men believe it. My work is to leave the truth with the people, and those who appreciate the light from Heaven will accept the truth.’’—Manuscript 43, 1901 (see 3SM 33, footnote). Although
those men that night did not want to give proper regard to the Spirit of
Prophecy, yet the God of heaven commissioned her to continue speaking to
others. In her words and writings, God has constantly tested His people.
Those who do not accept these vital counsels, or ignore them, are but
pounding another nail in their own coffins. Till the
day of her death, Ellen White continued counseling and warning our people
and our leaders. They could take it or leave it; that was their choice.
Their destiny would hinge on their ongoing decision. Men near the brink of
the cliff when the Lord has to speak to them in such words. “The church has turned back from following Christ her Leader and is steadily retreating toward Egypt. Yet few are alarmed or astonished at their want of spiritual power. Doubt, and even disbelief of the testimonies of the Spirit of God, is leavening our churches everywhere. Satan would have it thus. The testimonies are unread and unappreciated. God has spoken to you. Light has been shining from His word and from the testimonies, and both have been slighted and disregarded.”—5 Testimonies, 217. “We have learned by painful experience, also, that when these testimonies are silent, or their warning lightly regarded, coldness, backsliding, worldly-mindedness, and spiritual darkness take possession of the church.”—1 Testimonies, 610. “Why will not men see and live the truth? Many study the Scriptures for the purpose of proving their own ideas to be correct. They change the meaning of God's Word to suit their own opinions. And thus they do also with the Testimonies that He sends. They quote half a sentence, leaving out the other half . . God has a controversy with those who wrest the Scriptures, making them conform to their preconceived ideas.”—3 Selected Messages, 82. “Sister White is not the orginator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her lifework God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously given His servant to be given to the world.”—Colporteur Ministry, 125. That is
the kind of ''new light'' which we need! the wonderful truths in the Bible
and Spirit of Prophecy. We receive that light as we study God's Word,
instead of listening to the error around us. In
concluding this section, it should be noted Jack Sequeira condemns both
types of communications regarding the Spirit of Prophecy writings: (1) We
are not to quote or refer to them in lectures and sermons. (2) We are not
to quote or refer to their principles in private conversations with
others. For much more on this, see the tape transcript (elsewhere in this
present study) of his “Issues: The Spirit of Prophecy” sermon,
given at the Walla Walla Church. 2 - THE SANCTUARY MESSAGE Next, we
come to Jack Sequeira’s position on the heavenly Sanctuary where Jesus
is ministering on our behalf. An individual's view on this is always
indicative of his relationship to the new theology. Historic Adventists
believe there is a Sanctuary in heaven where Jesus is ministering in our
behalf, that it has two rooms, and that Jesus did not enter the second one
(the most holy place) until 1844. Liberals are firm in their position that
there is no Sanctuary in heaven, it is “all heaven,” or, if one exists
there at all, it only has one room which Jesus entered in A.D. 31. Ask any
denominational worker, pastor, or other official whether there are two
rooms in the Sanctuary in heaven—and see what kind of reply you receive.
If he says, “Two,” then ask when Jesus entered the second. Firm new
theology advocates have a very definite position in regard to a
“heavenly sanctuary.” In his
sermon tape, “Issues: The Heavenly Sanctuary,” delivered at the
Walla Walla College Church to the students, administration, faculty, and
village folk, Jack Sequeira said a lot. In his sermons, he had frequently
mentioned certain doctrinal errors: (1) The “sanctuary” in heaven has
only one room. (2) Jesus entered the most holy place in A.D. 31. (3) He
has a “two-phase” ministry in that one room. (4) Actually, all heaven
where Jesus is—is in the sanctuary. So, in this sermon, Jack came out
boldly and reiterated these four errors and feebly tried to defend them
with new theology logic. After
mentioning that “God did not send Jesus to help us to be good” (more
on that later), Jack launched into his topic. First, he implied that the
study of the rooms of the sanctuary in heaven was “non-essential and
non-fundamental.” Then he added, “The rooms have nothing to do with
our salvation,” “It does not matter,” and “Don't nitpick.” Yet God's
Word tells us something quite different: “The Sanctuary in heaven is the very center of Christ's work in behalf of man. It concerns every soul living upon the earth. It opens to view the plan of redemption, bringing us down to the very close of time and revealing the triumphant issue of the contest between righteousness and sin. It is of the utmost importance that all should thoroughly investigate these subjects and be able to give an answer to everyone that asketh them a reason of the hope that is in them.”—Great Controversy, 488. “The correct understanding of the ministration in the heavenly Sanctuary is the foundation of our faith.”—Evangelism, 221. Many more
passages could be cited. Regarding
the Sanctuary, whether it exists, and has rooms, Jack asks, “Literal
or symbolic?'' Then he says, ''I have no problem. You can believe
in two rooms if you want.” How would
you like to be a student in one of his classes (our college pastors often
teach Bible classes on campus), and have to face this kind of pressure to
accept new theology positions? Continuing
on with his novel theories about the heavenly Sanctuary, Sequeira says: Jack: “The veil of the [earthly] temple was torn from top to bottom; [therefore] the heavenly veil was also ripped apart to be consistent with our [historic Adventist] theology.” How can
that be called consistent? He is trying to reason us into a consistency in
agreement with the new theology. But Early
Writings, 253 and Desire of Ages, 165 and 756-757 gives
the correct meaning: The rending of the veil of the Jerusalem temple was a
sign that it had been rejected by God and its ministry ended. In sharp
contrast, Jack maintains that the heavenly curtain was also torn in A.D.
31—in order to make only one room in that building. Jack: “The renting of the veil represents the direct access to the most holy place [in heaven] where God is.” We have
here the same errors which Ballenger taught. (More on this in a separate
packet of materials you can obtain from us, mentioned later in this
study.) Sequeira
applies Desire of Ages, 757:2 to Christ's having entered the most
holy place in A.D. 31. But that passage is referring to the earthly temple
at the time of Christ's death, and the fact that, henceforth, we can come
in faith and prayer directly to Jesus in the Sanctuary above where He
ministers on our behalf. We are to compare scripture with scripture.
Carefully read Great Controversy, chapters 23, 24, and 28 (note
pp. 414-421). Jesus went into the first apartment in A.D. 31 (GC
420:3), and not until eighteen centuries later did He and the Father
pass into the second apartment (GC 421:3). Then
Jack twists Christ’s Object Lessons, 386:1 into teaching the same
error. But that passage is referring to breaking down the wall of
partition between different cultures and races; it is not referring to the
heavenly Sanctuary. He does not quote the first part of the paragraph. Recognizing
that he is teaching a new gospel, Sequeira defends his position with these
words: Jack: “5BC, page 1109: ‘A new and living way, before which there hangs no veil, is offered to all.’ Check you own records to see whether I am producing some cunning device or fables.” Checking
the record, we find that 5BC, 1109/2:2 is referring, not to the
nonexistence of a veil within the heavenly Sanctuary, but to rending of
the earthly temple veil. (Also read the following paragraph, from a
different manuscript: “Henceforth people might come to God without
priest or ruler.”) Sequeira
is quite proud of the fact that he, and the other liberals in our
denomination, got their ideas from outside universities: Jack: “Our church had been teaching the two rooms in the heavenly sanctuary and had been quite comfortable with that theology. But in [since] the 50's we have been sending our scholars to outside universities . . Please, mix with other Christians!” The appeal
to our young people is to please wake up, mingle with those out in the
world, and imbibe their teachings. “We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again.”—1 Selected Messages, 161. “I was shown the necessity of those who believe that we are having the last message of mercy, being separate from those who are daily imbibing new errors. I saw that neither young nor old should attend their meetings; for it is wrong to thus encourage them while they teach error that is a deadly poison to the soul and teach for doctrines the commandments of men.”—Early Writings, 124. And she
adds that, at such meetings, “error is forced home to the people by the
power of the will” (EW, 125). In these
men who try to infiltrate false teachings among us, we are confronting
fallen angels, who are working through human agents. “The enemy of truth, through the ministry of fallen angels, would be pleased to introduce uncertainty in the minds of many in regard to the doctrines that have been established by the sanction of the Holy Spirit. Disguised as one who has a deep understanding of truth, Satan will seek to point out supposed errors in that which needs no revision.”—10 Manuscript Releases, 337. Then
Sequeira says it as plainly as he can: He does not believe there have been
two apartments in the heavenly Sanctuary since A.D. 31: Jack: “The argument of non-Adventist scholars: If there are two rooms in the heavenly sanctuary, and if Christ began His intercession ministry, which we call the daily, in 31 A.D. until 1844,—then we are teaching that the Father is in the most holy place according to the earthly type and the Son represents our priest in the holy place, and the Father and the Son have been separated by a curtain for 1,800 years. When Christ ascended into heaven, He sat at the right hand of the Father. Show me in the type where the priest ever sat in the sanctuary? Show us in the type where God ever dwelt in the holy place.” His point
here is that the reasoning of the non-Adventists is correct. Sequeira is
willing to accept their ideas on any subject, but he refuses to read or
hear what the Spirit of Prophecy has to say on any subject. One Advent
believer, who heard that sermon, later wrote this in reply: “In the
model, God met Aaron at the throne of intercession at the altar of incense
in the holy place. Christ (PP 353) set on the altar of incense.
God's glory, extending over the inner veil, met with the smoke and incense
ascending. Both the Father and Jesus met in [the] type.” Then he quotes Ex
30:1, 6; Heb 9:24; and PP 353. In regard to two thrones, we find them (plural) mentioned in Daniel 7:9, and we are told of the Father and Son sitting beside each other in Early Writings, 54. Then, at
the time when the investigative judgment began, the thrones were newly
placed (Dan 7:10) and the Son of man draws near to it (7:13).
Early Writings, 55 carefully explains the details of this
transitional event (compare p. 32). “It was then I had a view of Jesus rising from His mediatorial throne and going to the holiest as Bridegroom to receive His kingdom.”—Letter 3, 1847. Jack: “The presence of God makes any room or place 'most holy.’ ” The
presence of God makes any place holy (cf. Ex 3:1-5), but it does
not make it the Most Holy Place of the heavenly Sanctuary. Jack is
quibbling in order to place error in the minds of the students at Walla
Walla College. Should you let that continue, or should you write
leadership at Walla Walla and the North Pacific Union about the matter? Sequeira
cannot help returning to the fact that he is close friends with Protestant
teachers and theologians. He seems to gloat over the fact: Jack: “I mix with all these other people.” “Now, I want to say right here, you may go to these infidel authors to get bright thoughts, but I don't want to go there . . Why? Because mingled with all their writings is a serious malady. The cunning of Satan is there . . Cannot he mingle some of his sophistry with truth so as to fascinate and captivate the human mind?”—9 Manuscript Releases, 66. He may be
well-meaning, but Sequeira's teachings about the Sanctuary probably have
already destroyed confidence in both vital Scriptural truth and the
writings of Ellen White—in the minds of hundreds, if not thousands, of
our young people. “It is a fact widely ignored, though never without danger, that error rarely appears for what it really is. It is by mingling with or attaching itself to truth that it gains acceptance.”—Education, 230-231. “The mind in which error has once taken possession can never expand freely to truth, even after investigtation. The old theories will claim recognition. The understanding of things that are true and elevated and sanctifying will be confused. Superstitious ideas will enter the mind, to mingle with the true, and these ideas are always debasing in their influence.”—Medical Ministry, 89. This is
why it is so dangerous to send our men to outside universities for years
of advanced training. Those unacquainted with graduate studies should be
made aware of the fact that university doctoral professors refuse to
graduate doctoral students until they have been MOLDED into the
views and theories espoused by that department. Doctoral graduation only
follows years of intense coercive pressure. New
theology teachers will argue that there is only one room in the heavenly
Sanctuary, but later will tell their real belief: There is no sanctuary
there at all. Sequeira runs true to form: Jack: “If we can't prove it from the Scriptures, don't teach it . . The sanctuary means dwelling place. God dwells in heaven. Heaven itself is the sanctuary . . To us, heaven itself is the sanctuary.” “A minister of the Sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.”—Hebrews 8:2. “The temple of God was opened in heaven.”—Revelation 11:19. One who
heard Sequeira's sermon that day, said, in response, that there was a
reason. Early Writings, 32, places the temple in the city at the
present time, and outside the city later: “The
temple is now located in the holy city in heaven because it is integrally
involved in the work of our salvation. When the sin problem is taken care
of and we are in the new earth, the Sanctuary won’t be needed anymore.
It will not be in the city, but will be located on Mount Zion.” Seeking to
again undermine confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy, Sequeira explains to
the students that much of what she has to say is only symbolic, and it
takes theologians like Jack to explain it to them. Jack: “How do we interpret her visions? In the majority of cases, God revealed truth by symbolic languages . . When she saw two rooms, it was only symbolic.” “Many interpret the visions to suit their own peculiar ideas, and God is grieved, His church weakened, and the cause dishonored.”—5 Manuscript Releases, 378. “My mind and perceptions are still clear. That which the Lord presents to me in figure, He enables me to understand.”—3 Selected Messages, 42 (1907). At this
point, Sequeira uses John 14:1-3, in an attempt to negate the existence of
a two-apartment Sanctuary in heaven! Jack: “Whether the sanctuary has one room or two rooms? I don't know because Jesus said, 'In My Father's house are many mansions—rooms. So is Jesus wrong too? Hey, Jesus! You made a mistake; there are supposed to be two rooms. No!” This
brazenness borders on sacrilege. Yet he is permitted to continue on as a
teacher to the young and a minister to our people. Thank God
for the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy! Here is a statement from both: We have
His promise. We hold the title deeds to real estate in the kingdom of
glory. Never were title deeds drawn up more strictly according to law, or
signed more legibly, than those that give God's people a right to the
heavenly mansions. “ ‘Let not your heart be troubled,’ Christ says: ‘Ye believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.’ ”—This Day with God, 202, and quoting John 14:1-3. Albion
Ballenger taught deadly heresy back at the turn of the century (see our
tract set, Alpha of Apostasy now in our Doctrinal History
Tractbook, for a biography of him). It is crucial that we here note
that Jack Sequeira teaches the same essential error which Ballenger
taught! Our
denomination was brought into a crisis in 1905 over Ballenger. Most
powerful Spirit of Prophecy warnings were given regarding Ballenger's
teachings. Why then are we permitting men bearing similar falsehoods to
remain as teachers and pastors in the work today? Ballenger
taught that the rending of the earthly veil at Christ's death also tore
open the heavenly veil, and that Christ then entered a one-room sanctuary.
An eyewitness at the time of the 1905 Ballenger crisis, wrote this: “There
was another feature of the meeting [with Ballenger] which was really sad
to me. Brother Ballenger has got into a condition of mind which would seem
to me to unfit him entirely to preach the message . . He comes to the
conclusion that the atonement was made when Christ was crucified and that
when He ascended He went immediately into the most holy place and that His
ministry has been carried on there ever since.”—E.W. Farnsworth,
“Report on the Ballenger Position,” to A.G. Daniells, quoted in A.G.
Daniells’ letter to W.C. White, March 16, 1905. Is
Sequeira a Jesuit plant? What is this? Why are such men elevated to these
high positions in our denomination? We know that the Jesuits initially
penetrate organizations at lower employment levels, and then gradually
work their way up into the ranks. But, in later years and holding key
posts in administration, they are able to use their influence to hire
agents directly into higher-level administrative and educational
positions. 3 - CORPORATE GUILT It is of
interest that, after listening to the above sermon, and others by Jack
Sequeira, one church member sent a Bible/Spirit of Prophecy reply to him.
In the cover letter, the church member wrote this regarding Sequeira's
teaching about “corporate sin” in sermons: “It is
quite evident that you have not entirely separated yourself from Catholic
theology . . “
‘Guilt' is defined as the act or state of one who has sinned, or who is
liable to penalty for a crime. We did not sin corporately in Adam. Each
person is accountable for his own sin, not Adam's (Ezek 18:20). The
“guilt” we get from Adam is the depraved nature we inherited from
Adam, which was the result of his disobedience (PP 61). This
depraved nature made us prone to sin, but not sinners. We are not sinners
until we choose to sin (Deut 30:19). The corporate death sentence
was passed on all (1 Cor 15:22) as the result of Adam's
disobedience, not for his disobedience. The first death, which is the
curse of sin, should not be confused with the second death, which is the
wages of sin (GC 544). “If we
sinned corporately in Adam, how do you account for the statement that
little infants are taken to heaven, some without mothers to meet them (2SM
260). Surely, they could not enter heaven if they were sinners! The
doctrine of corporate sin has led some churches to baptize infants, to
insure their entrance to heaven. “This
doctrine of corporate sin, logically leads to Christ being included in it.
If this were so, He could not be our Saviour. Then it is logical to
believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Being born to a specially
prepared mother, His flesh could not be the same as ours. This is the
doctrine of antichrist (1 Jn 4:2) and contradicts Hebrews 2:14,
which says He took part of the same (DA 117).” Eventually,
a number of the church members in and in the College Place and Walla Walla
area became aroused by the errors being taught by Jack Sequeira at the
Walla Walla Church. The situation became so tense that, on December 15,
1989, Sequeira issued an open letter challenging anyone who wished to
participate to an open debate on the subject. (It is reprinted elsewhere
in this study.) But
Sequeira reserved the right to set the ground rules, and his critics did
not come forward to debate him, seeing that the ground rules were stacked
against them. You will find those rules very interesting, especially
these: (1) The Spirit of Prophecy cannot be used in any manner as a basis
for arriving at truth. (2) The new doctrinal book must be used as the
basis for determining who is teaching error. (This indicts the new
doctrinal book [Seventh-day Adventists Believe] as having been
written purposely to accommodate the new theology.) In the first quoted
paragraph, below, Jack himself tells which of his teachings seem to be the
most unorthodox: Jack: “The special areas of concern as I understand are: 1. Original sin; 2. Righteousness by Faith; 3. Sanctification; and 4. The Sanctuary. “. . But in order to resolve theological differences in a way that will bring harmony and unity in the church, it is of utmost importance that we comply with certain ground rules. I suggest the following: 1. That the moderator of this discussion meeting will be chosen by the church board, the governing body of this church. “While E.G. White may certainly be used, the Bible and Bible alone will be the ultimate measuring stick of all truth . . “3. All points of discussion must be first categorized as either fundamental or non-fundamental. By fundamental is meant the 27 beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as outlined in the Church Manual and which is spelled out in the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe. All other matters will be considered as non-fundamental. Any disagreement in this area must be resolved by the higher authorities of this denomination. “4. While unity must exist in our understanding of the 27 fundamental beliefs of the church, it may not be possible for us to agree fully in non-fundamental matters. Therefore, in these areas of disagreement there must be unity in diversity; and all who are involved in the discussion must be willing to respect each other's views, in Christian love, regarding these non-fundamental matters. “5. To avoid confusion and misunderstanding, all theological terms used, such as “Original Sin,” “Once Saved Always Saved,” “Perfection,” “Propensity,” etc., must first be defined clearly before entering into a discussion so that the issues presented are clear and not foggy . . “We may not see eye to eye in every non-fundamental issue, but it is hoped at the end of the meeting a spirit of understanding and respect will be generated.”—E.H. (Jack) Sequeira, Pastor, Walla Walla SDA Church, letter dated December 15, 1989, to “Certain Brethren.” Several
points in the above letter stand out: (1) The Spirit of Prophecy must have
no weight in deciding doctrinal matters. (2) Instead, statements in the
doctrinal book will be the pivotal factor. (3) Fundamental beliefs are
only those mentioned in the Dallas Statement of Beliefs. (4) Disagreements
regarding orthodoxy of fundamental beliefs are to be decided by church
leaders, rather than a gathering of leaders and members (and, obviously,
not by the Bible/Spirit of Prophecy). (5) Non-fundamental beliefs do not
matter. (6) Terms will be defined by the liberals in their favor before
being discussed. (6) Church boards are the arbitors, and church leaders
are the final authority—when it should be the Bible and Spirit of
Prophecy. As noted
in our earlier studies, the Dallas Statement of 27 Beliefs is a
fuzzy collection of points, which does not, for example, even mention the
two-apartment ministry of Christ in the heavenly Sanctuary. When he
encounters opposition, Sequeira is quick to fall back on this matter of “fundamental
beliefs.” He declares that all the controverted points are
''non-fundamental.” Last, but
not least, Jack is concerned about defining terminology in advance. In
this way, topics such as original sin and righteousness by faith can be
defined so as to favor his view of them. It is of
interest to note that, in his concluding paragraph (quoted above),
Sequeira makes a revealing statement: With the rules stacked in his favor,
he could confidently predict that, when the discussion ended, every
contested point would be shown to have been a “non-fundamental issue.” 4 - RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH Jack
Sequeira published a chart in the Walla Walla Church bulletin for March 5,
1988. He intended it to succinctly summarize his position on the means of
salvation (reprinted on this page). Looking at
it, you will note that he lists three methods of receiving salvation. Only
three. On the left, man attempts to be saved solely by his own works. Jack
calls that “Legalism” and,
for some reason, “Eros,” which, in Greek, means “sensual
love.” In the
center, man cooperates with God's efforts to save him (which the Bible and
Spirit of Prophecy repeatedly tell us is the correct way), and Sequeira
calls that “Galatianism” and “Caritas” (which
Jack says means “charity” in Latin). In the
right column is Sequeira's choice. According to the arrows, man literally
does nothing and is saved in total passivity. That is termed by Jack,
a featured speaker at Righteousness by Faith seminars, as standing for “Righteousness
by faith” and “Agape,” which, in the Greek, means
“deep, principled love.” Frankly,
the chart is astounding. You cannot open to a page in the Bible or Spirit
of Prophecy, where man is not called upon to cooperate with God by seeking
Him, accepting His forgiveness and other provisions, worshiping Him,
praising Him, and obeying His precepts. That 1988
church bulletin chart is not out-of-date, as far as Jack is concerned, for
most of it is reprinted on page 33 of his new book, Beyond Belief. Jack: “Both the eros gospel and the caritas gospel can be described as only conditional good news [which Jack rejects as false]. Each depends on our fulfilling certain conditions before God extends His grace to us. Only the agape gospel is unconditional good news . . This is the same gospel that the world so desperately needs to hear today. This is the gospel that will lighten the earth with God's glory before the end comes.”—Beyond Belief, 25-26 [italics his]. Sequeira
says, “Each depends on our fulfilling certain conditions before.” That
little word, “before” makes a lot of difference. Sequeira
incorrectly classifies all religious faith and practice into just two
categories: (1) unconditional: “faith alone” and (2) conditional:
doing certain works before God will accept us. He totally omits (3) faith
that works, which is work by faith—cooperatively doing it all with
Christ and in His strength. That third category is true religion. 5 - THE SABBATH AND FINAL CRISIS A series
of meetings were held at the Walla Walla SDA Church in April 1991 by
Roland J. Hegstad. In preparation for it, Jack Sequeira wrote a two-page
handout, which was distributed to all the Bible study interests, and
everyone else, who attended (available separately from us; see
announcement on nearby page). Later, it was handed out in his classrooms. On that
two-page outline, Sequeira provided a brief overview of his position on
the Sabbath, the finished atonement, righteousness by faith, and the final
crisis. He tells us a lot in two pages. His key
point in this two-page handout is that the atonement was finished at the
cross. (Nearly the same coverage is provided in his book, Beyond
Belief.) But that is exactly the error found in Questions on
Doctrine, the book which Donald Grey Barnhouse and Walter R. Martin
got our leaders to put into print, under threat of denouncing us to the
Protestant churches as “non-Christian” if our denomination refused to
do so. Obviously,
this error is closely linked to a non-belief in the heavenly Sanctuary and
the ministry of Christ within it. If the
atonement is FINISHED at Calvary, then there is no need for a heavenly
Sanctuary, no need for Christ's ministry within it, no need for man to
accept Christ, no need to resist temptation or obey God, and no need for a
final judgment of any kind. Everything has been settled at the cross. Jack: “Both creation as well as redemption were accomplished through Christ. Further, both were finished on the sixth day . . Adam and Eve . . [began by] . . resting in God's perfect and finished work . . When Christ . . [died] mankind's redemption was fully realized.” Then, in
the third section, Sequeira explains his theory of the final crisis. It is
quite novel, to say the least: He says that, in our day, Sundaykeepers are
resting in the finished atonement, and are therefore in the Sabbath rest.
Whereas, Seventh-day Adventists are keeping the Sabbath day, and are out
of the Sabbath rest—because they are trying to obey God, instead of
resting in His finished work. But, he
reasons, in the future the situation will be reversed. He teaches that men
will receive the mark or seal—not because of anyone's effort to keep or
not keep the Sabbath day (!)—but solely because they did or did not
believe that the atonement was finished on the cross, and are
“resting” in that fact. Jack: “The issue then, in the final conflict, will not be between two groups of Christians, but two opposing methods of salvation represented by two rest days. The Sabbath signifying salvation by faith alone versus Sunday signifying salvation by works or human effort.” Amid the
confusion of his logic, keep in mind that the key points in this two-page
study are (1) that the atonement was finished at the cross; (2) those who
accept that fact will be sealed—while everyone else will be marked; and
(3) the Final Crisis will not be over obedience to the law of God—but,
instead, salvation by effortless faith alone vs. either legalistic works
programs or cooperatively obeying God's law by His enabling grace. What is
the pattern which we have encountered so far? (1)
By Jack’s own repeated statements, no Advent believer is to quote,
mention, or comment on any Spirit of Prophecy passage in either a sermon
or in private conversation with another. We know that, in our day,
tolerance of sin and animosity toward obedience to the law of God is
widespread. It is the Spirit of Prophecy that enables the people of God to
withstand the flood of error, and strengthens them to reply to it with
clear Bible insights. (2)
Sequeira places Calvary as the finish line in the Christian race.
According to him, we came on the scene of action too late. It is all over
with; the victory is won, and we are already saved. (3) Jack
downgrades the ministry of Christ in the heavenly Sanctuary. Like the
Protestants, he provides our Saviour with little to do in heaven. Why need
He do anything, if we are already saved? In strong contrast, the
Bible-Spirit of Prophecy view is that Christ is mediating on our behalf,
pleading His blood to strengthen us individually, and apply the atonement
to us daily. Carefully
consider the above three points. They all lead to the same thing:
downgrading the importance of our individual obedience to the law of God,
and putting away sin from our lives. What
doctrinal point remains? A philosophy of Christian experience which will
belittle the importance of obeying that law. Now we
come to Jack Sequeira’s new book, Beyond Belief, published by
Pacific Press. So far, we have found a consistent pattern in his lectures
and papers. Will it continue on into this new book of his? 6 - HOW ARE WE SAVED? How are we
saved? What is righteousness by faith? These are vital questions. We
should consider them before turning to Sequeira’s new volume. How are we
saved? In reality, we are totally saved by Jesus Christ. He does it
all—but with one exception: our willing cooperation. First, He will not
save us unless we let Him begin the process; Second, He will not do it
without our cooperation at every step. Christ died to save His people from
their sins, not in their sins. And they must cooperate in order to get the
job done. Yet all
the power, all the provision, comes from Him. In one Spirit of Prophecy
passage, we are told, “Christ’s part is infinitely great, and our part
is infinitely small; yet without our part, Christ will not do His.” That
is a magnificent, clarifying concept. Our individual part is so very
small, yet without it we will individually be lost. Yet, there
are also two other methods which mankind tries to use in order to achieve
salvation: The first
method is used by all those who want to be saved in their sins, while
doing nothing to eliminate those sins. This is a very large number in our
world, and includes most of the religious groups—Christian and
non-Christian—throughout the world. Mankind wants a way to be saved,
without giving up sin. Every
pagan religion in the world provides a way to do that. Judaism,
Catholicism, and most Protestant churches are also on this pathway. In
addition, the new theology in our own ranks also opens a way for this to
be done. The second
method is used by those who want to save themselves by their rituals and
activities, while they continue sinning. They want to reach heaven by
their own works. There are many such people. They are trusting to
themselves, and not trusting in Christ to enable them to do it. But
neither method solves the sin problem. The sinning continues. Indeed, most
of the religions figure out a way to excuse the commission of sin. Most
people actually combine a little of both methods: They observe certain
rituals, while hoping that divine grace will cause their sins to be
overlooked. Modern
Protestant theology (its offshoot into Adventism is termed the “new
theology”) is somewhat unique, in that it so vigorously condemns
attempts to obey the laws of God. Not even Hindus so fear obedience to the
laws of divinity as much as Protestant theologians do. They tell us that
all such concerns or efforts on our part—make those who do them
“legalists” and result in perdition. Yet, all
through the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, we find that it is not wrong to
obey God. It is not wrong to want to do it, to try to do it, or to
actually do it. Turn to any page in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, and
see for yourself. However, Scripture is very clear on the point that such
obedience can only be rendered in Christ’s strength, not in our own. 7 - OUR COOPERATION VITAL TO SALVATION Remember
again the key point: God’s part in our salvation is infinitely large,
and our part is infinitely small; yet He will not do His part without our
cooperation. Jack
approaches the matter by assuming that, in regard to salvation, God does
it all, and we do nothing. As he views it, we are totally saved by
Christ’s finished work of atonement on the cross, 2,000 years ago. Now, there
is a partial truth here, but there is also serious error. (1) It is
true that Christ provided the sacrifice on Calvary, and the saving grace
to us individually by His ministry in the Sanctuary above. He also prompts
us to repent and come to Him so we can receive that empowering grace to
resist temptation and overcome sin. (2) It is
also true that, when we are having a deep experience in Christ and
everything is sailing smoothly, it is heaven on earth right now.
Everything is working out just fine, and our walk with Jesus is calm and
untroubled. At such times, the beautiful pictures drawn for us of
Christian experience by Jack Sequeira so nicely correspond to reality. But there
is more to life than that. Everyday
life is full of turmoil and problems of every kind. Weariness, subtle
temptations, perplexities, crises, opposition, persecution, and
more—confront us constantly. Sickness, infirmities, mind-shaking sorrows
come suddenly. Accidents and senseless tragedies. Our minds reel with it
all. And what are we to do? No smooth
sailing here. Real life instead. The roaring lion is about, trying to
distract, tempt, separate us from Christ, and work our destruction. At such
times a vital fact comes into play: Trusting
God in the darkness, we must move steadily forward by faith—and press
closer to Christ, resist temptation to doubt, push back discouragement,
strive to cling to Jesus, push back temptations to self-satisfaction and
pride. WE have a part to play! Oh, yes, every good thing is all done in
His strength. But it is crisis living, nonetheless. We are on enemy
ground. Ellen White repeatedly calls it “enchanted ground.” Satan
wants to hypnotize and destroy us, as the snake hypnotizes and swallows
the hapless mouse. That is
what real life is like: a constant crying to Jesus and resisting the
continual efforts of Satan to drag us down through self-satisfaction,
self-pleasing, fear, doubt, or anxiety. We are repeatedly told that every
fiber of our being must be exercised in the fight of faith to cling to
Christ and, in His strength, war against sin. But, in
strong contrast, Jack Sequeira teaches
the new theology view that “there are no conditions.” This is a
key aspect in his teaching; he calls it “righteousness by faith.” But,
unmasked, we find it to be ‘unconditional salvation.’ ” But that
is not the message given all through the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. The
truth is that man must bend every spiritual muscle to cooperate with God
in His effort to save him. Yes, God provides all the guidance, strength,
and help—but man must cooperate to the fullest. It is not
wrong to cry to Jesus, to run to His side, to seek to be more like Him, to
love praise and adore Him. My friend, it is not wrong, it is not bad—in
spite of what these intellectuals tell you! It is not
wrong to pray for souls, and cooperate with God for their rescue. Right
doing is not wrong doing, as the new theology contends. 8 - CORPORATE SALVATION According
to Jack Sequeira, we are corporately lost in Adam, we are corporately
saved by Christ, we were corporately saved at the cross, and we are
corporately saved because we are in the church. As Jack
explains it, we are not saved as individuals, but in groups. If you are
not in the group, you will not be saved. His
teaching about “corporate salvation” leads directly into his teaching
on “salvation only within the church.” He teaches
that, just as mankind has corporate sin in Adam and corporate forgiveness
and salvation at the cross, so we only have corporate oneness in Christ.
It is a corporate relationship, not an individual one. Later, at
Christ’s return, we will receive corporate removal of our sinful living
patterns. Corporate justification is termed the “in-Christ motif.” 9 - SAVED IN THE CHURCH Sequeira
speaks of “subjective” and “objective” gospels (pp. 31-33, 36, 64,
89, 99, 101, 137, 175). The gospel is “good news, not good advice”
(104). He
strongly emphasizes the corporate nature of salvation—it is made
available to a large group and that which the individual does bears little
relationship to whether or not he will be taken to heaven. But where
in the Bible do you find that your connection with the church is vital,
but your connection with Christ is merely automatic? Outside
the church there is no salvation, is the teaching of Rome. It is also
taught by some today who want to curry favor with leadership, while they
carry forward their work of infiltrating modernist teachings among God’s
people. The truth
is that one’s moment-by-moment connection with Christ is the crucial
issue of vital consequence. One’s connection with an organized church
body (“visible church”) is simply not on the same plane. A
person may not live near a church, or even know of a church that believes
as he does. He may have been disfellowshipped from his church for reasons
he is not responsible for. But there
is also the “invisible church.” Every true believer,
regardless of his nominal organizational connections, is a member of that
one church. There is a branch on earth, and the inhabitants of heaven are
also in it. Thank the Lord for that church! Jack: “In order to save us, the cross must deliver us from the world and place us in the church, the body of Christ. Every other aspect of salvation is based upon this fact . . Christ will never take us to heaven as individuals, but only as members of His church.”—Beyond Belief, 115. That last
sentence is one of the few in the entire book which he places entirely in
italics. Thumb through the book and see if you can find many others. According
to Sequeira, every aspect of salvation is based on church membership.
Without membership in the church we cannot be saved. This is Jack’s
teaching. Just which of the two “churches” is Jack Sequeira talking
about, when he says “without membership in the church, it is impossible
for us to be saved”? According to his thinking, every other aspect of
daily living is covered by the cross, except our initial acceptance of
Christ as our Saviour. So, according to him, the only present,
twentieth-century factors, determining whether or not you will be saved,
is (1) whether you ever accepted Christ one time, and (2) whether you hold
membership in the church. Everything else was finished two millenniums
earlier at the cross. That is Sequeiran theology. What
church is this? He cannot be referring to the invisible church of all
believers, because we are automatically in that church. Jack gives several
pages of his book to a discussion of the necessity of being sure we are in
the church. It is quite clear, as we read those pages, that he is talking
about the visible church, i.e., the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. We
can know this for a certainty because the invisible church only contains
faithful souls, and no worldlings. The following lines, for example,
clearly reveal that, when Jack says we must belong to the church in order
to be saved, he is referring to the Seventh-day Adventist denomination: Jack: “Tragically, we see much of the world creeping into the church today. In contradiction to the gospel of Christ, the church is copying the world’s fashions, accepting its philosophy, and depending on its resources. All this is happening because the church has lost sight of the true meaning of the doctrine of salvation. No wonder the church is so weak and so indistinguishable from the world!”—Beyond Belief, 116. (For Sequeira’s complete study on the church, see pp. 112-120, 137.) Jack: “The world has not had an opportunity to see, in the church, what God is like.”—Beyond Belief, 152. Jack: “The Church has neither grown into the fullness of Christ.”—Beyond Belief, 153. Jack: “The church is spiritually bankrupt.”—Beyond Belief, 91. It is
clear from the above statements that, by “church,” Sequeira
means the literal organization; in our time, the Seventh-day Adventist
denomination--and not the invisible church of all true believers.
Therefore, since he says that a person can only be saved if he
holds membership in the church, if your church board kicks you out for
holding to Bible-Spirit of Prophecy principles, you will be lost. You will
not be able to go to heaven. We are
dealing here with a complete package. Jack Sequeira rejects—and openly
condemns—truths presented privately or publicly from the Spirit of
Prophecy. That is clear. He teaches definite error about the
Sanctuary Message. Thus, anyone who sits at the feet of Jack
Sequeira, to listen to his theories, is on dangerous ground. And now we
find that he emphasizes as strongly as possible that, outside the
church, there is no salvation. Yet you and I know that many faithful
souls are being disfellowshipped because they cannot accept modernist
errors in our church, and therefore openly resist them with Bible-Spirit
of Prophecy truths. But none of this bothers Jack Sequeira. He himself is
a modernist, teaching modernist theories which he learned from his
“mix” friends in the universities, and he himself condemns the sharing
of Spirit of Prophecy truths with others. 10 - UNCONDITIONAL SALVATION Jack also
places great emphasis on “unconditional” (BB, 8, 25, 29, etc.).
Accept Christ and be yourself, and you are bound for heaven. Jack: “God actually and unconditionally saved all humanity at the cross.’’—Beyond Belief, 8. Jack: “All that is necessary for our salvation from sin is already an accomplished fact in Christ.”—Beyond Belief, 118. Where in
the Inspired Word do you find that the event of our salvation is past?
Where are we told that salvation is unconditional? 11 - JUSTIFICATION Sequeira
teaches that salvation is by justification alone, and sanctification is
meaningless in relation to whether or not we will be taken to heaven. I
wonder if they will have disputes over gun control in heaven? Jack’s
reply would be that our indulged sins will be removed in a twinkling of an
eye when Jesus returns. According
to Sequeira, there may be some sanctification after justification, but it
is merely incidental. As he puts it, the objective gospel is justification
and it has nothing to do with our behavior. The subjective gospel is
righteousness by faith. Jack: “We describe the second aspect of salvation—the subjective gospel—as the imparted righteousness of Christ. This is what gives evidence of the reality of the imputed righteousness of Christ in the life. It does not contribute in the slightest way to our qualification for heaven; it witnesses, or demonstrates, what is already true of us in Christ. Imparted righteousness does not qualify us for heaven.’’—Beyond Belief, 32. Both
justification and sanctification are needed for salvation; that is clear
in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. But Jacks says that all that is
needed is justification, and that was finished for everyone 2,000 years
ago: Jack: “Justification means all of Christ’s righteousness that He provided for us so that nothing more is required of us to qualify for heaven.’’—Beyond Belief, 103. Evil
activity in the Christian life cannot bar you from heaven, according to
Sequeira. But the evil activity of rejecting Christ’s offer of
unconditional salvation can. Jack: “Righteousness ‘in Christ’ [justification] is the only means of our salvation, and unless we resist and reject it, it fully qualifies us for heaven both now and in the judgment.’’—Beyond Belief, 33. So now we
know Jack’s view of “righteousness by faith.’’ It is
unrighteousness in sin, covered by the merits of Christ. Jack: “The righteousness God, obtained for all humanity in Christ, is full of merit. It is this alone that qualifies us for heaven, now and in the judgment. The righteousness God produced in us, on the other hand, has no saving value.’’—Beyond Belief, 170. But,
identical with the new theology in several other ways, Sequeira mirrors it
in this claim also: Jack: “The gospel of faith plus works, or justification plus sanctification, is at the heart of Roman Catholic theology. It is a subtle form of ‘legalism.’ ”--Beyond Belief, 25. 12 - THE FIGHT AGAINST SIN So Jack
makes a frontal attack against genuine Christian living in two ways:
First, he discounts as of no value any good thing you might be prompted to
do by the Holy Spirit. Second, he declares that, in doing it, you are
returning to the slavery of papal rule. He has you
coming and going. As far as he is concerned, you might as well indulge sin
and be on the safe side. You are going to heaven anyway. We surely do not
want to engage in a “subtle form of legalism.” Tetzel
claimed that indulgences, once paid, covered all future sins, without a
man having to stop sinning. Jack thinks that the grace of Christ, paid at
Calvary, covers all future sins, regardless of whether anyone changes his
ways. Sequeira may, and does, encourage us to give sin some attention, but
the fact our salvation was completed at the cross undermines the best
intentions of new theology advocates to put away sin. We have witnessed
this repeatedly in the lives of individuals who accept that philosophy of
Christian experience. According
to Sequeira, the law of God has nothing to do with our salvation (BB,
16, 156, 157, 173). We can despise and spit on it. But we must beware
of valuing it, lest we be accused of legalism. Does the
“fight of faith” have little to do with resisting temptation and sin? “The fact that Christ has conquered should inspire His followers with courage to fight manfully the battle against sin and Satan.”—Great Controversy, 510. “The Lord does not propose to perform for us either the willing or the doing. This is our proper work. As soon as we earnestly enter upon the work, God’s grace is given to work in us to will and to do, but never as a substitute for our effort.”—Testimonies to Ministers, 240. “Each day he must renew his consecration, each day do battle with evil. Old habits, hereditary tendencies to wrong, will strive for the mastery, and against these he must be ever on guard, striving in Christ’s strength for victory.”—Acts of the Apostles, 477. “There must be a constant, earnest struggling of the soul against the evil imaginings of the mind. There must be a steadfast resistance of temptation to sin in thought or act.”—Sons and Daughters of God, 109. “The Christian life is a warfare. The apostle Paul speaks of wrestling against principalities and powers as he fought the good fight of faith.”—5 Testimonies, 222. |
