Here is an interview I did with one who was there at the beginning of the Sanctuary Hollywood church, and knew Roger when he was a "pastor" at Sanctuary. I had a nice talk with him on my last visit to LA, and he had a lot of good information. Dante brings up issues concerning doctrine in this interview, which always leads to controversy. However, we present this material in its entirety, unchanged for your information. We would love to hear your feedback on the subjects presented. Dante seems to the first to care enough to address the issues in a logical, mature manner, so we give him the floor.

Dante grew up in a non-Christian home in Burbank, California. Although having a strong repulsion for church and "religious people", he always believed in God as the Creator and Judge and that the Bible was His authoritative and infallible Word. From the first time Dante heard Van Halen in 1981, he was hooked. By 1983, Motley Crue was on the rise and he sought to mimic their L.A. bad boy attitude.

In 1984 he heard of a local L.A. band called Stryper. Having seen their ad in BAM, a magazine featuring bands playing the club scene, his eye was caught by the "777" and "Isaiah 53:5". "I realized Isaiah 53 was from the Bible so I looked it up. I understood that this was about Christ's crucifixion and immediately had a desire to know more about God." Despite his distaste for religion, he thought Stryper was pretty cool and a needed relief from the likes of Dio, Iron Maiden, Ozzy, and AC/DC with their evil images. "I admired Stryper's boldness to sing about what they believed and never doubted their sincerity" Dante says. Having picked up Stryper's debut release, "The Yellow and Black Attack," he listened closely to their lyrics. "The song "From Wrong to Right" really struck a chord with me. I could never forget the line, 'Jesus is the Way.'" On August 23, 1985, he went to see Stryper at which time he was not only deeply convicted by God's holiness and justice, but struck with a remorse for having rebelled against this all-powerful God as well. With a desire for forgiveness and a turning from sin to follow Christ, he came to faith in the Gospel during the concert. "I think it was actually during the second or third song of the set" Dante recalls.

Dante now resides in Southern California with his wife, Jennifer, and their two little boys, Timothy and Joshua.

On Roger's site, there are seven questions he poses to Christians (beware, this site is full of profanity and blasphemous language). In May of this year (1999), Dante decided to answer some of them but never got a response. Dante says these questions simply "twist the biblical author's meaning and rip it out of context in order to make the Bible look ludicrous." If anyone would like to read his responses, e-mail me and I'll pass your request on to Dante. In this interview, Dante speaks candidly about Sanctuary, Roger Martinez, and more.

The Interview

How did you hear of Sanctuary?

Living in the L.A. area, there was a good deal of activity in the Christian rock scene and Sanctuary South Bay, where Bob Beeman served, was well known. I don't even remember how I heard about a Sanctuary being planted in Hollywood, I just remember going there during it's first month of existence. I'm pretty sure that was in 1987. I remember that at its beginning, there was only a handful of people there. A dance studio on Hollywood Blvd. was the first location for Sanctuary. They later moved to a little theatre called Hollywood, Hollywood at the corner of Hollywood and Vine, across from Gorky's Cafe. It was great to see Sanctuary grow from less than ten people to about 80 or so at its largest point.

What attracted you to Sanctuary?

Obviously the rock 'n roll context was a factor. But to be honest, it was much more than that. The reason I enjoyed it was because of the teaching. The Sunday afternoon service (at 2:15) was very simple - just singing and preaching. No nonsense if you know what I mean. I had a "home church" in Burbank where I was a member but to be honest, there was no teaching there. The people didn't hunger for the Word of God and the pulpit was filled with stories and "principles" instead of sound biblical study and theology like we see in the epistles. The sermons were preoccupied with man's feelings and "needs", leaving no room for deep and weighty thoughts about God and an accurate handling of His Word. Unfortunately, this has become a common failure of churches (see 2 Tim. 4:1-2 & 1 Pt. 5:1-2). It had dawned on me that cults knew their doctrine but as a Christian, I didn't know what we believed. This is how Roger fit in.

Was Roger influential in your life?

Yeah, he really was. I would have to say God used a few key stepping stones in my growth as a younger believer. The first was John MacArthur who is a Bible teacher on the radio and a pastor here in Southern California. The second major influence was the Christian Research Institute (CRI), a radio ministry dealing with cults and heretical movements within the Church. R.C. Sproul was also helpful in showing me the value of theologians in church history. Roger was an encouragement by his strong preaching. If you've read the lyrics to the first two Vengeance CDs containing multiple Bible verses, you know what I mean. The song "TION" on "Released Upon the Earth" is basically a condensed sermon of his. I thought very highly of Roger and appreciated his commitment to the Scriptures.

What was Roger like?

I always enjoyed Roger a lot. He was a nice guy whom I looked up to. He has a very intense personality; an enthusiastic guy who can make things happen. He always gave everything 110%. This could be demonstrated in the way he preached. He spoke so fast I couldn't keep up with him at first! But over time I grew accustomed to it and didn't even notice his rapid-fire speed. You would have to hear it to know what I'm talking about.

Here are a couple stories about Roger's zeal. One time I was talking to Roger and he told me a guy at church had written a tract containing the Gospel. He wanted to get these printed but didn't have the means to do so. Although Roger didn't know it, I was in printing at the time and told him I could get it done for him. Before I know it, we're in the car driving to my friend's print shop. And as soon as we were done laying down the specifications for the job, he was out the door on his way to another appointment. It all happened so fast. I've never seen anyone else operate like this.

One time Roger invited a bunch of people to a bookstore that was having their yearly sale. When we got to the bookstore, a friend of his who worked there took Roger around showing him various titles. He pointed out Charles Hodge's classic 3 volume theology that had been edited down to a one volume format. Despite his friend's attempt to help Roger save money, Roger said, "No, I want the whole thing!" He was just throwing books into a giant box left and right.

Roger had a love for books and commonly used large words. At the time this impressed me because I thought he understood what he was talking about. In his sermons he would often refer to "that cat" Louis Berkhof or B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge. (These men are Presbyterian (Reformed) theologians. Warfield and Hodge taught at Princeton Theological Seminary in the 1800's. Go here to read some of their works. I think he always wanted to be smart. He really liked Josh McDowell's two books entitled "Evidence That Demands a Verdict." He approached his teaching on a very informational-oriented level. I mean, theology seemed like a mathematical equation: 1 and 1 is 2. By the way, even now on his site he has a passing reference to B.B. Warfield that makes no sense at all. I would love to know what in the world he is talking about.

How was Roger as a pastor?

Well, as I mentioned, since I attended another church in the mornings before Sanctuary, I was never really tied in there so my experience may not be as in-depth as others. I can tell you about one of his pastoral practices though. Roger use to "disciple" people by having them write theology papers which he would then critique for them. Since I had become interested in theology and begun attempting to study and write, I approached Roger one Sunday after the service (we use to wait in line next to his pulpit) and asked him if I could do this with him. I told him I had just written a paper on the doctrine of sanctification and could give him a copy. He said, "Well, that's an odd place to start but ok, give me a copy." (He was right, that is an odd place to start!) The next week I brought him a copy so we set up a time when I would come over to his apartment to talk about the paper. When I arrived, he had my paper and glowingly said it was great. He seemed shocked that I was able to write something so good (although looking back it really wasn't that good). That was really all he said about it and the conversation turned toward other matters. Now that I think about it, I never did write another paper for Roger. He never mentioned it again.

The question everyone seems to have is how could such a man become a pastor at Sanctuary?

Like Bob Beeman said on the Sanctuary International web site, he mistook zeal for maturity. I did too. But that's only a small part of the problem.

Those who were elders at Sanctuary were actually relatively young in the faith themselves and didn't have the wisdom to discern things biblically. In other words, the biblical instructions concerning ministry and the pastorate, as in Timothy and Titus, for instance, were overlooked. As a matter of fact, 1 Timothy 3:6 says an elder (pastor) must not be a "recent convert." This alone disqualified most Sanctuary elders. Paul wrote of preparation for the ministry (2 Tim. 2:2) and ordination but all of this was neglected in the name of laboring for the Lord. There is often a rush to serve in the church before there is adequate training (meditate on Pr. 13:16).

But you're glad that you went to Sanctuary, aren't you?

Definitely! That's where I was introduced to Calvinism. Although Sanctuary wasn't a Calvinistic church, there were a few guys there who were Calvinists. David Maines and Dion Sanchez turned me on to a book entitled "The Five Points of Calvinism" and the rest is history.

For the benefit of our readers, what is Calvinism?

In short, Calvinism affirms Scripture as our sole authority, the sovereignty of God, the depravity of man, and the centrality of Christ. When I came to understand these biblical doctrines, it was literally life changing! I guess you could say the book of Romans is the heartbeat of Calvinism. Paul's logic and arguments in Romans 9-11 only makes sense in Calvinistic theology. Only the Calvinist can exclaim with Paul, "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rom. 11:36). Calvinism is marked by a reverence for God and a high view of His Word. I highly recommend visiting these sites to learn more about Calvinism (also known as the Reformed faith or Reformed theology).

The five points of Calvinism were first set out in the Canons of Dort in 1618. Here and here are the historic, comprehensive articulation of the Reformed faith. Here are some other resources:

Notes from the Geneva Bible of 1559.
John Calvin's classic "Institutes of the Christian Religion" and commentaries on Scripture.
L. Boettner's work explaining Calvinism.
A.W. Pink's book on the sovereignty of God.

There is also some helpful material at the following links:
http://www.reformed.org
http://www.efn.org/~davidc/index.html
http://www.dallas.net/sovgrace/
http://members.tripod.com/~Michael_Bremmer/sola.htm
http://www.redeemerOPC.org/sermons.html
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~bsrich/preachers.htm
http://www.gty.org/~phil/puritans.htm

Here are some books I would recommend from Amazon.com:

Attributes of God by A.W. Pink

Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murray

Summary of Christian Doctrine by Louis Berkhof

Grace Unknown : The Heart of Reformed Theology by R. C. Sproul

Faith Alone; The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification by R. C. Sproul

The Holiness of God by R. C. Sproul

God Transcendent by J. Gresham Machen

Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by J. I. Packer

Concise Theology : A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs by J. I. Packer

To my surprise, one day I discovered that Roger wasn't a Calvinist. Since he often referred to B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge, I assumed he was. Why else would he esteem them so if he rejected their theology? I now realize Roger never really read these theologians, much less understood their theology.

How did you come to find this out about Roger?

It was when I was at his place talking about my paper on sanctification in 1989. Somehow I mentioned unconditional election (predestination) being taught in Acts 13:48. He responded by saying, "That doesn't teach that." I was surprised to say the least. I suppose he picked this up from his background at Angeles Temple or Calvary Chapel who oppose Calvinism.

Since we're talking about Calvinism, let me just say that lest anyone think I'm the only one in music-circles who holds to this, Gary Lenaire from Echo Hollow (formerly of Tourniquet) is also a Calvinist. The CCM artist Steve Camp is also Calvinistic.

I have been getting more and more reports that there were signs of trouble as far back as the end of the first tour Vengeance did.

I wasn't aware of anything like that. All I remember is that at Christmas time, shortly before "Once Dead" was released, he and his (former) wife Ruby invited people over for a little party at their place. Roger was showing us the negatives from the photo shoot that would appear on the CD cover. He was pretty excited.

Were there signs of trouble in the last year or so of his ministry?

Not that I saw. I never heard about any reports except that people complained to Bob Beeman about Roger being too doctrinal and not practical enough. I was shocked when my friend called me and told me that Roger left for good. People also complained about Roger never being around. I think he probably devoted a lot of time to the band and didn't understand what it meant to actually be a pastor.

There is actually only one incidence that I observed which I thought was odd. The last time I ever heard Roger preach he was in John 8. He read the passage and then went on to talk about modern day Israel, war, and politics. I sat there wondering, "Why in the world is he rambling on about this? This has absolutely nothing to do with the passage." It sounded like the news/issue-oriented stuff on his site now. That was the first time I ever doubted Roger's knowledge and skills. Looking back, I can see that Roger's zeal and quest for knowledge was only his own personality, not the work of God in his life.

Speaking of Roger leaving Sanctuary, how did you feel about it?

I wasn't there the day he announced his resignation. I had stopped attending Sanctuary regularly by 1990 when Roger left because, to tell you the truth, I had outgrown it. A friend of mine who was there that day called me afterwards and said, "Roger went up to the pulpit and said he is stepping down from his position at Sanctuary. He was pretty broken up about it and said something like, 'If that's the way you people want it, fine.'" I couldn't believe it. Talk about a good way to destroy a worship service!

As you have heard elsewhere, Roger's series on healing is what precipitated his doubt and rejection of Christianity. I was actually there when he did that series. I myself had already looked into the matter of healing and came to the position that the extraordinary sign gifts ceased with the apostles since they served the purpose of being a God-given validation of their ministry (see 2 Cor. 12:12 and here). I remember Roger showing us a video of Benny Hinn blowing on people and waving his jacket around with the people falling down. We all laughed pretty hard. At the time I didn't realize Roger failed to distinguish that nonsense from authentic Christianity. Roger made the fatal mistake of assuming if one man professing Christ is a liar, then there must be something wrong with Christianity at its very core.

Does Roger's falling away make any sense to you? How do you see it?

That's a great question. I was shocked and deeply saddened when I heard reports about Roger becoming an atheist and then a satanist. I thought they were exaggerated stories and didn't really believe much of it until I saw Doug Van Pelt's interview for myself in the summer of 1997. Not in my wildest dreams could I have imagined such a thing. I never suspected him to be one to fall away.

Understanding Roger's ultimate rejection of Christ and the Word of God is not based upon exploring his experiences nor do we need to reply on some psychological interpretation. A proper explanation is a theological one. This is a theological matter and it requires a biblical evaluation.

There are three views as to how to explain this. One would be that Roger lost his salvation. For starters, John 5:24, 6:39,47, 10:28-29, Romans 8:29-39, and 1 Peter 1:3-5 rule out the possibility of that. Another position is that Roger is still a Christian. Imagine that, a Christian satanist? That's not just heretical, that blasphemous! I find this radical notion to be absurd, as there are a number of problems with it. Would Matthew 12:33,35 support that claim? "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him" (cf Matt. 6:22-24, 15:18-20). This is easily refuted by 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:19-21.

Both of these views fail to understand what Scripture says about apostasy and the nature of saving faith. I think the biblical view is that Roger never actually was a Christian to begin with. Without going into the whole scope of the theological points involved here, I'll just offer a few passages to support this contention. First John 2:19 says, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." The context here speaks of one leaving the Church for false doctrine (cf 1 Tim. 4:1-2). Notice that John states the same thing three times in the negative and positive.

Negative: "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us"
Positive: "For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us"
Negative: "But their going showed that none of them belonged to us"

John is certain that those who forsake the truth reveal that they "did not really belong to us" otherwise they would have continued in sound doctrine. Also see John 8:31 and Colossians 1:22-23.

In Matthew 13 Jesus told a parable about a sower scattering seeds that fell upon four kinds of soil. Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop - a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. He who has ears, let him hear." (vv.3-9)

A few verses later, Jesus explained the parable.

"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown." (vv.18-23)

Jesus tells us that the seed is the word of the kingdom, the Gospel of Christ (v.19). Later in v.37, He says that He Himself is the Sower. The first soil here is obviously one who rejects the Gospel flat out. The last soil illustrates the Christian who bears fruit. Although there are four soils, there are only two standings before God - guilty or justified.

But which soil is Roger? How does this apply to him?

Sad to say, Roger has proved to be the second soil that appeared promising but turned out to only be temporary. The soil describes a person who receives the Gospel on impulse. Roger did in fact exhibit a receiving of the Word "with joy" (v.20) but ultimately ended up, as Paul says, shipwrecking his faith (1 Tim. 1:19). The point of this parable is that some accept the kingdom and some reject it. It is therefore inevitable that the kingdom of God causes division (see Matt. 10:34-37). Roger has rejected the kingdom so he will not inherit it (Eph. 5:5-6; Rev. 21:8, 22:15).

James 2 shows that there is such a thing as a dead faith and a saving faith. A dead faith can produce emotion (v.19), giving the impression of being saving faith. To them Christ will speak the terrifying words, "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers" (Matt. 7:23). Roger seemed diligent and strong in the faith but it all sprang from emotions, not from a work of God in him. Even in John 8 we see a distinction between two kinds of faith. In v.31 it says the people believed in Jesus yet in v.44 Jesus calls these very people children of the devil. Roger had an intellectual and even emotional assent to the Gospel but apparently never believed it with his heart (Rom. 10:10).

As the Puritan William Gurnall wrote, "None sink so far into hell as those that come nearest heaven, because they fall from the greatest height. None will have such a sad parting from Christ, as those who went halfway with Him and then left Him." (For a helpful exposition of this doctrine known as perseverance of the saints, see here and here.

Just to clarify, while we're on this, you're not saying a Christian can't sin, right?

We certainly do sin daily in thought, word, and deed. That's very clear, especially in 1 John 1. As long as we're in this body we will mournfully battle and confess sin as Paul did in Romans 7 and we continually rely on Christ as our Mediator (1 John 2:2; Heb. 4:14-16). I am not saying Christians cannot stumble. The Westminster Confession explains this well.

"Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalence of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves." (17:3)

What I am saying is simply that there cannot be a complete and final rebellion or denial of the faith; a Christian does not apostatize. To put it simply, saving faith overcomes (1 John 5:4 and see Rev. 2 & 3). As John 6:64-66 indicates, to renounce Christ is to never have truly believed. A true faith follows Christ as Lord and Savior (John 6:67-69). Ya see, saving faith, when tested, stands firm and grows (Rom. 5:3-5; James 1:2-4, 12; 1 Peter 1:6-7). But in a very difficult time, Roger's faith failed indicating his faith was false. Sadly enough, 2 Peter 2:20-22 speaks of Roger:

"If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: 'A dog returns to its vomit,' and, 'A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.'"

Do you know of anyone else who has walked away from the Gospel?

I've seen dozens of people abandon their profession of Christ but I'd have to say that Roger is certainly the most extreme case. One guy I use to go to church with has recently rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, the future return of Christ, the immortality of the soul, eternal, conscious punishment in hell, and more. Based upon 2 John 9-11, this shows that he is not a Christian. But most people whom I've seen fall away are like the third soil in the parable. They simply love the world and want to live their life according to their own will (Jas. 4:4; 1 John 2:15-16). To these Jesus asks, "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (Luke 6:46) And of them Paul writes, "They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good" (Titus 1:16). Jesus exposes them in John 14:24 when He said, "He who does not love me will not obey my teaching." Unlike the second soil, this sort of person will sometimes remain in the church but never come under conviction.

The reason why they "accept Christ" in the first place is usually because of a natural fear of hell or because the Gospel is presented to them in a psychological manner. They think Jesus will make them feel better and give them a better future. Their main issue is themselves, sin is never a concern. Like Roger, they too were self-deceived by their claim to be a Christian. Both of these serve as a warning of Matthew 7:13-14.

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

How did Sanctuary deal with Roger's turning away from Christ?

I really don't know what they did. Obviously, though, church discipline should have been carried out (Matt. 18:15-20). Jesus said that when someone is put out of the church, we are to consider him an unbeliever (v.17). That means we are to bring the Gospel to him, not condemn him as an enemy. If he continues to be unrepentant, he is condemning himself (John 3:18, 20:23) and in grave danger (Matt. 11:20-24; Heb. 10:29-31). The goal of this discipline is restoration so anger is never to be involved. Although church discipline is not popular today, to claim it is unloving is to say God doesn't know what He's talking about. Paul called for it in 1 Corinthians 5 when there was sexual immorality in the church.

What happened to Sanctuary Hollywood after Roger left?

A man who had been an elder there, David Kinard, became the teaching pastor. He is a good man who loves the Word and had a great heart for the people. I've run into him at a couple R.C. Sproul theology conferences. The congregation finally ceased when there was only a handful of people left and there wasn't enough money to pay the rent.

What do you think our response to someone like Roger should be?

I feel very sorry for him. His seemingly unquenchable anger displayed on his web site astounds me. I'd think he must be miserable. While he may claim that his worldview and philosophical system is better now, we know that the sin only leads to destruction (Ez. 20:43; Rom. 6:23). As Proverbs 4:19 says, "But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know what makes them stumble." No matter how much Roger may hate us and our God and Savior, a Christian ought not to revile him (see Luke 6:27-29). For someone to be angry and fight back at him would be entirely wrong (see Rom. 12:19-21). Like the Psalmist we trust in our God and wait for Him to judge in righteousness (Rom. 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 21:11-15).

Titus 3:1-7 says we too were once foolish and lost but have now been redeemed because of the grace of God. The point is that if it were not for God's mercy, we would still be in that condition - alienated from God, without hope, and dead in sin. If we understand what this means, we will then be led to humility, not a proud, bitter attitude of disgust toward unbelievers. Paul said it was only by grace that he was a servant of God (1 Cor. 15:10). Therefore, there is no place for boasting or arrogance. We're not superior to an unbeliever because if left to ourselves we would perish as well (Pr. 16:25).

As for atheism which is only a hatred of God and His law (see Rom. 1:18-20), there is nothing to fear. Psalm 2 pictures man's anger at God in vv.1-3.

"Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against His Christ. 'Let us break their chains,' they say, and throw off their fetters.'"

The rest of the Psalm reveals God's response to them. Our responsibility is to simply hold out the Word of Life that proclaims, "Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon." (Isaiah 55:7)

May we be like the Psalmist who longs for the Word of God (Psalm 1:1-3) and the apostle Paul who wrote, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.'" (Romans 1:16-17)