This statement describes one of the greatest inconsistencies that I have ever read.

In the Gospel Advocate, April 2, 1964, p. 223, this article appeared by brother A. G. Hobbs, and I quote:

"Roy B. Thurman, a Seventh-day Adventist, has written a small book as an attempted reply to my tract: 'Is the Sabbath Day Binding Today?' . . . If any Adventist hands you Thurman's book, ask him why if Thurman is certain of his position, he refuses to defend it in public debate?"

Brother Hobbs had challenged Mr. Thurman to a public debate, and draws the conclusion that the reason for Mr. Thurman's refusal is because Thurman is not certain of his position. In other words, brother Hobbs charges Thurman with not being able to defend what he has said by the Scriptures.

I wonder if the same line of reasoning could be applied to brother Hobbs, and many of our "institutional" brethren? I know of at least dozen preachers that will be happy to meet A. G. Hobbs, and others, in a public debate on the "institutional" question. Could it be that they are not certain of their position? Could it be that they do not have any more authority for their "money raising schemes" than Mr. Thurman does for keeping the Sabbath? I would like to suggest that not only do they not have as much authority as Mr. Thurman - they don't have ANY! Mr. Thurman can produce Bible authority for keeping the Sabbath under the Law of Moses, but the "institutional crowd" can't find Scriptural authority for building a "human institution" through which to do the work that God gave man to do in ANY age, Patriarchal, Mosaic, or New Testament.

Yes, Hobbs "WILL" debate the Sabbath question for he has the TRUTH, but he "WON'T" debate the "institutional" question for he DOES NOT have the truth.

Truth Magazine VIII: 12, p. 20 September 1964