No Allah is not the same God as the Judeo-Christian God

 Back in 2011 I wrote a blog post because of a sermon Dwight Nelson gave where he claimed that Allah is the same God that Christians worship. I recently updated the article when I found a Progressive internet pastor making the same claim. As if Allah just means God, and it could be any god, apparently. That is, of course, untrue, so my older article goes over that idea. So I wanted to deal with this a little more in depth. As the progressive pastor takes the path of denigrating anyone, like me, who tells him he is wrong.

First, here is his video. Shawn “Riff-Raff” Broadnax (Riff-Raff appears on his YouTube channel). His Facebook Reel is titled: “They need you ignorant”

Here is some of his transcript:

they kept you ignorant on purpose, see...

This is why I have a problem with fundamentalism because that's not just wrong, that's the...kind of ignorance that creates enemies out of neighbors. Allah isn't God. Sir, Allah. Literally means God. There are millions of Arab Christians who call God. Allah, open the Arabic Bible. So screaming, we don't worship Allah. We worship.God is like screaming, I don't believe in Amarillo, I believe in yellow. Why congratulations You just successfully rebuked Spanish, but here's where this stops being.Funny, some of us grew up hearing this nonsense. We were taught that Muslims worshiped...some evil foreign deity. We were taught other religions, weren't things to be understood. But they were threats to defeat, and that's not fundamentalism keeps people trapped. Fear first, facts later, preferably never. Because education is dangerous to fundamentalism. Education makes you ask questions, questions make you investigate, investigation, introduces nuance. And nuance is kryptonite to anybody whose entire theology depends on us good and them evil. 

Christianity and Islam are not the same religion. And they make profoundly different claims about God. Islam rejects The divinity of Jesus, Christianity does not. That is a theological disagreement. But Muslims Identified the God they worship as the God of Abraham, the God who...called Moses, the God known within the biblical tradition. You don't have to agree with what Islam says about God to understand which God they're actually talking about. That is religious studies 101 and some of these preachers skip the class.”

The above is the part I will deal with; he continues his straw-man rant, but you can listen to that for yourself.

First, we should note that Allah is not simply a name for any generic god. In Mecca, where Muhammad lived before going to Medina, to become a warlord. He lived in a polytheistic city. In pre-Islamic Arabian polytheism, Allah was not an invention of Muhammad, but an established, supreme high god within the pagan pantheon.

Linguistically, the word Allah is a contraction of al-ilāh, meaning simply "the god". It is structurally and etymologically related to the older Semitic words for God, such as El and Elohim in Hebrew.

Recent breakthroughs in epigraphy and archaeology, spearheaded by scholars like Ahmad Al-Jallad, paint a highly specific picture of how pre-Islamic pagans understood Allah long before the 7th century.

In Meccan and broader Arabian paganism, Allah occupied the top tier of a hierarchical polytheistic system.

• The Cosmic Architect: He was recognized as the supreme master of the universe, the creator of the heavens and the earth, and the source of rain and life.

• The Quran's Confirmation: This is one of the few historical claims where the Quran and modern archaeology entirely agree. The Quran itself explicitly states that if you asked the Meccan polytheists (mushrikin) who created the cosmos, they would readily answer, "Allah". They did not deny Him; they simply did not worship Him exclusively.

Muhammad did not introduce a new god to the Meccans; he commanded them to radically alter their relationship with a god they already knew. The theological revolution of Islam was not preaching the existence of Allah, but demanding that the Meccans destroy the 360 lesser idols, eliminate the concept of his "daughters," and afford the supreme high god exclusive, uncompromised worship (Tawhid)

Another crucial difference is where Broadnax says that Islam has the God of Abraham. Not quite; in the Bible, God is often referred to as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Seven times in the Old Testament and five times in the New Testament. Islam bypasses much of the history of the Old Testament.

Structural supersessionism (often referred to as replacement theology) operates precisely on the framework of bypassing the patriarchs. By jumping directly from the Fall of Man in Genesis to the cross of Christ, it effectively renders the specific history, lineages, and divine covenants established with Israel obsolete.

Islam bypasses most of the story of Israel.

Theologians argue that structural supersessionism treats the literal history of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob not as an unbroken, ongoing national covenant, but merely as a historical backdrop or a collection of temporary allegories. By treating the physical line of Jacob as historically vacated, the theological necessity of the Jewish people is systematically erased from the future redemptive plan. This also removes the Christian Messiah'

The Irrevocable Covenant

Scholars use Romans 11 to demonstrate the structural flaws of bypassing Jacob. Paul explicitly states that "the deliverer will come from Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob," and underscores that "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." From this theological perspective, attempting to erase or bypass the line of Jacob invalidates the structural integrity and trustworthiness of God's promises altogether and destroys the entire meaning of Jesus Christ as the Messiah and a fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies.

From a historical-critical perspective, as well as from the viewpoint of Jewish tradition, the Islamic narrative is often seen as a retroactive reinterpretation of history. The Hebrew scriptures, detailing the specific covenant passing through Isaac and Jacob, were compiled and preserved millennia before the emergence of Islam. By changing the son of sacrifice from Isaac to Ishmael and shifting the center of Abraham's spiritual geography from Canaan (Jerusalem/Moriah) to Arabia (Mecca), Islam effectively bypassed the foundational history of the Jewish people.

In Islam, the purpose of rewriting the lineage is to undermine the concept of Jews as the exclusive "chosen people" and to legitimize a new religious community by attaching it directly to the firstborn son of Abraham, Ishmael. Islam's counterpoint is that Islam does not view itself as an attempt to "bypass" history, but rather as a restoration of the original, uncorrupted history of Abraham. Islamic theology asserts that the original revelations given to Moses and Jesus were altered or corrupted over time by human hands. Therefore, Islam claims the Quran came to correct these errors rather than invent a new story. The Concept of Tahrif: The corruption of the Old Testament text and meaning corrected by the Quran that was revealed to Muhammad as the final, uncorrupted, and perfectly preserved criterion to correct and supersede them.

From the perspective of Islamic theology, Islam does not view itself as an attempt to "bypass" history, but rather as a restoration of the original, uncorrupted history of Abraham.

Islam claims the Quran came to correct these errors rather than invent a new story. Islam does not completely erase Jacob or the Israelite prophets. The Quran repeatedly honors Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and David as true Muslim prophets who submitted to the one God. However, it argues that the physical descendants of Jacob broke their covenant, leading God to transition the final prophet (Muhammad) through the parallel branch of the family—Ishmael.

In Islam, the focus shifts away from an ethnically bound covenant (the lineage of Jacob) to a universal, spiritual covenant based entirely on submission (Islam) to God, which they believe Abraham modeled perfectly before the designations of "Jew" or "Christian" ever existed.

Without third-party archaeological or textual evidence from antiquity to support the claim that Abraham built the Kaaba or that Ishmael was the son on the altar, the Islamic narrative requires a complete bypass of the existing historical-textual record, replacing it entirely with an appeal to divine authority. So is that divine authority the same God as the Judeo-Christian God, or is it another god? They cannot both be the same God!

Fire baptism over the change of spelling

 

I came across this the other day when I was researching what someone had claimed. The claim was that thousands...or millions, I think, the claim was, had died over a differing interpretation of a Bible verse. In the main, it is not a true claim, but there is a remarkable historical instance where a small revision of a religious text was used as a reason for a lot of deaths. Certainly, other theological issues became pretexts for wars and deaths, but not really claims over the interpretation of a single text. Not even during the Arian crisis was the theology based upon one differing textual interpretation of a single Bible text.

It happened in 17th-century Russia, during the Great Schism of the Russian Orthodox Church. The conflict was not a pretext for a war, but it was a tiny textual dispute that caused tens of thousands of people to voluntarily burn themselves to death.

The text in question was the Eastern Orthodox Liturgical Service Books. 

The Textual Discrepancy

In the 1650s, the head of the Russian Church, Patriarch Nikon, noticed that over centuries of handwritten copying, typographical and translation errors had crept into the Russian service books. He ordered a mandatory correction of the texts to match the original Greek.

The changes were incredibly minor text edits, such as:

1. The Spelling of Jesus: Changing the spelling from Isus (Исус) to Iisus (Иисус).
2. The Creed: Removing a single word from the Nicene Creed. The old text read that the Holy Spirit was "the true Lord and life-giver"; the new text removed the word "true" to match the Greek syntax perfectly. 
3. The Sign of the Cross: Changing the text instructions on how to cross oneself—using two fingers (representing Christ's dual nature) versus three fingers (representing the Trinity).

The entire conflict was how to interpret the sanctity of the text. Unlike so many religious wars, there was not a land to conquer, no money to be made, and no political ambition- the things that were behind much of the anti-Christian claims that so many people make, as Crosby, Stills, Nash sang:

Too many people have lied in the name of Christ
For anyone to heed the call
Too many people have died in the name of Christ
That I can't believe it all
   ---From the song Cathedral "Written by Graham Nash and originally appearing on CSN in 1977. This song is about a trip Nash took to Stonehenge and Winchester cathedral in a Rolls Royce while high on LSD."

 The Two Genuine Interpretations

• The Reformer Interpretation: Patriarch Nikon and the state argued that the text was just a vehicle for meaning. Correcting the grammar and spelling to match the original Greek was a logical, bureaucratic cleanup. 
• The "Old Believer" Interpretation: A massive portion of the population (the Old Believers) interpreted the literal, traditional Russian text as unalterable and divine. To them, changing even a single letter of the name of Jesus or removing a word from the Creed was an act of ultimate apostasy. They genuinely believed that using the new texts would damn their souls to hell and usher in the Antichrist

At a time when the church and state were intrinsically connected, so connected that Russian was actually in the name of the church, this was seen as an actual theological crisis. The state began to brutally persecute the Old Believers for refusing to use the new texts.

As The Encylopedia Britannica says: "The dissenters, sometimes called Raskolniki, were most numerous in the inaccessible regions of northern and eastern Russia (but later also in Moscow itself) and were important in the colonization of these remote areas. Opposed to all change, they strongly resisted the Western innovations introduced by Peter I, whom they regarded as Antichrist. Having no episcopal hierarchy, they split into two groups. One group, the Popovtsy (priestly sects), sought to attract ordained priests and were able to set up an episcopate in the 19th century. The other, the Bezpopovtsy (priestless sects), renounced priests and all sacraments except Baptism. Many other sects developed out of these groups, some with practices considered extravagant."

Some were executed, and in defiance, the Old Believers performed Mass Self-Immolation ("Fire Baptisms"): When government soldiers approached their villages to enforce the new textbooks, entire communities of Old Believers would lock themselves inside their wooden churches and set them on fire. Between 1675 and 1695, historians document that over 20,000 Old Believers burned themselves to death in these mass suicides. They died shouting the old spelling of Jesus's name, completely convinced that their literal interpretation of the old text was the only path to salvation.

This is perhaps the purest example in human history where a difference in text interpretation was not a cynical excuse for a war, but the absolute, direct cause of thousands of deaths.

This is not the end of the story. In Part 2, I will go over a bit more history and the influence of Alexander Dugin's efforts to restore the Russian Othordox church back to power.

Progressive Christian and Christian Nationalist same tactics

 A friend posted a video clip on Facebook that seemed to be entitled The Great Commission in Matthew is political and offensive.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWJoxg0wxFM

He says the commission does not say what you think it does; it is shockingly political and deeply offensive to church leaders. He then introduces himself as Jeremy, a deep skeptic and also a pastor. A quick search of the internet will show his name is Jeremy Steele, a former youth pastor, an activist for progressive causes, and a queer pastor of the United Methodist church. He founded a radically inclusive online Discord community for agnostics, mystics, and spiritual seekers who do not fit into traditional churches called: Not Church. He wrote a book on “How to not suckas a Christian”. He even has a video on how his book was banned on TikTok, though of course he does not give the reason why it was banned from promotion. Just ask an AI why it was supposedly banned, not so terrible as he makes it sound.

He begins his deep skeptical teaching by joining the story of Christ after His resurrection:

Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

“Right out of the gate he gets shockingly political when he says, All authority on heaven and earth gas been given to me. This is a political statement, Roman emperors were often spoken of with this idea of universal authority. And a bunch of scholars make the argument that this is modeled on, and really a parody of the Roman imperial proclamation. So if you’ve ever heard somebody say that they wish that their pastor wouldn’t be so political and that they would just support the administration that is in power and because god put them there, you don’t have a problem with that pastor you have a problem with Jesus…”

The first thing you notice should be that this verse is after the resurrection; it is in the 40-day period following the resurrection up to the ascension. It is, in fact, at a time when Jesus had no interactions with Romans or the Jewish leadership. It is a statement that most Christians take to mean that the Messiah has come and, by His life, death, and resurrection, proved that He is God. That all authority is held by God; it is not a political statement at all; it is theological; none of the disciples applied it as a political statement. It may be that a bunch of unnamed progressive scholars hold it that way, but that is not the historically accurate way of looking at the Great Commission. Unless someone assigns it as political, because in the Roman world, religion and government are both controlled by the government, which would make it much different from your pastor getting political.

The next thing you notice is that this progressive skeptic pastor seems to be in agreement now with the Christian Reconstructionism and the Dominion theology movement, which are the real Christian Nationalists, as opposed to Christians who are also nationalists. Though the progressives conflate them, and if you are a conservative or evangelical or fundamentalist, you are a Christian Nationalist in the mind of most progressives today. That is very curious when you think about what the progressives say about Christian nationalists. Get your hands off of politics is their usual message. They despise the evangelicals and fundamentalists because of how they vote for more politically conservative things. But hypocrisy, thy name is Progressives.

Steele actively utilizes his social media platform to oppose Christian nationalism, vocalizing sharp critiques against the weaponization of Christianity to strip away women's rights, voting access, and immigrant safety. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt3ZAPONR1w

But this led me down the path of why both the Reconstructionist type of Christian Nationalist and the Progressive Christian types now both look for a political solution. Which is much different than the historical Christian thinking in the United States of America.

Jesus’ primary conflict was an internal, religious debate with Jewish authorities, not a political rebellion against Rome. The average Christian views Jesus not as a political reformer, but as a spiritual savior. This perspective relies on several distinct historical and biblical points that directly challenge the progressive narrative. Mainstream Christians point out that whenever people tried to turn Jesus into a political or military leader, he actively ran away from it.

• The Temptation in the Desert: When Satan offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world" (political dominance), Jesus refused. Matthew 4:1-11

• Fleeing the Crowds: In John 6:15, after feeding the 5,000, the crowd tried to take Jesus by force to make him a king. Jesus responded by escaping alone to a mountain.

• "My Kingdom is Not of This World": During his trial before Pontius Pilate (the Roman governor), Jesus explicitly stated, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight... But now my kingdom is from another place" (John 18:36). Mainstream Christians argue this is the ultimate proof that Jesus was not trying to reform human governments

Jesus' conflicts were with the Jewish Religious leaders. As seen in his “Woe To” speeches in Matthew 23. Jesus was correcting theology and heart attitudes, not municipal codes and Roman tax abuse. Such as when Jesus said Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's Mark 12:17.

The Romans did not think of Jesus as a political problem as Pilate said “I find no basis for a charge against this man Luke 23:4. As it turned out, Rome only executed Jesus because the Jewish religious leader demanded the execution and even then they offered a real choice of a political agitator or Jesus Christ to be set free and the crowd demanded the zealot to be freed. Zealots advocated for violent military overthrow of the empire.

In the USA, for most of its history, Christians saw Jesus as someone who came to solve the problem of human sin and the redemption from sin through salvation. The idea was that society changes from the inside out by changing individual people's attitudes, which would lead to good things in the world. Thus, the Christians thought of the church as a city on the hill. An example that would draw people to a new method of creating a society.

Let us now assume that Steele is right and that Jesus was shockingly political in the Great Commission. Is there any way the political relationship at the time of Christ is similar to that in today's America?

First-century Judea was an occupied territory governed by an absolute, authoritarian empire. Conversely, the United States is a constitutional republic driven by a representative democracy. These core distinctions manifest across several fundamental categories

• Roman Empire. Ultimate authority rested with Caesar, an unelected emperor whose word was absolute law. You see this in the titles of the emperor, which ran from Imperator, meaning commander or general, Augustus, meaning majestic or venerable, Princeps, meaning First Citizen, and Dominus, meaning Lord or Master.

• Religious and civic titles: Pontifex Maximus, meaning Chief Priest, as the emperor was the head of the Roman state religion and supervisor of all public rituals. Pater Patriae, meaning Father of the country, and Tribunicia Potestas, meaning Tribunican Power, the traditional powers of a plebeian tribune making his person legally sacred and giving him the power to veto any law or magistrate.

• Honorific and Military victory titles such as Pius and Felix , meaning blessed by the gods..

• Divine titles used while living: Divi Filius, meaning Son of God, first used heavily by Augustus because the Roman Senate deified his adopted father, Julius Caesar. Augustus styled himself as “Son of the Divine” to claim sacred legitimacy without claiming to be a god himself. Dominus et Deus, meaning Master and God, was introduced by Emperor Domitian in the late 1st century, as the title was dropped after his assassination.

This all takes us back to Steele's suggestion that the Great Commission was Jesus' parody of the Roman rulers. Which, if anything, was a parody, it would be the Roman rulers and Jesus asserting that Christ is the one who forgave sin and conquered death. But very clearly, a political activity in the 1st century is nothing like a political activity in the United States, which is a constitutional republic driven by a representative democracy. In America, citizens hold constitutional rights to freely vote, protest, voice grievances, run for political office, and legally replace their leadership through elections. In the days of Christ, those living in Judea were subjects of an empire, not citizens with rights, zero legislative representation, no power to vote on laws, and no ability to elect or replace their leaders.

In the Days of Christ: Complete integration of civic duty and religious devotion. Roman emperors claimed divine titles like "Son of God" and required subjects to declare loyalty to Caesar as Lord. Locally, Jewish life was governed simultaneously by Roman law and the Sanhedrin (a religious council of Pharisees and Sadducees). In the United States, with constitutionally protected Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. The United States explicitly forbids a state-mandated religion, separating religious governance from civic and secular administration.

So it is pretty clear that if one takes Jesus as being shockingly political, it is entirely from a religious and theological perspective. Jesus was definitely bringing a new view of God and religion into the world, which is one of the main reasons that Christians talk of the New Testament, or New Covenant. It is in no way the same as the politics of the United States. It was political in its claim of ultimate sovereignty. By placing supreme authority over all earthly nations in Jesus rather than the imperial throne, it stripped Caesar of his divinity and absolute power, establishing an allegiance that superseded any earthly government.

Steele and his progressive fellows and the Reconstructionists insert their desire for changes as the political basis for their activities. This puts the progressives and the Reconstructionists, Christian Nationalists, on the same side. Thinking that their Christianity calls them to shape the nation based on their particular Christian beliefs. This is not, however, what the majority of Christians desired in the United States. Almost everyone across the theological and political spectrum wants the church to engage with real-world, structural issues. Very few active groups believe Christianity should only be about private, internal spirituality.

Though these two groups seem to think that their religion calls them to take over the nation, their views and goals seem to be very different. The fundamental, irreconcilable difference is not that they want to change society, but how they diagnose the problem and what kind of structural change they are aiming for, two completely opposite visions for the world.

1. The Christian Nationalist Vision of Structural Change

• Christian Nationalists view the primary "structural issue" as a moral and spiritual decay caused by a nation turning its back on God.

• The Goal: To align the laws, culture, and institutions of the nation with historic, conservative Christian principles.

• The Structural Target: They focus on structures of law, governance, and education. For them, structural engagement means passing laws that restrict abortion, protecting traditional definitions of marriage, keeping Christian values in public schools, and ensuring Christians hold positions of high cultural and political power.

• The Justification: They believe that a nation is only blessed and successful when its official legal structures honor God.

2. The Progressive Christian Vision of Structural Change

• Progressive Christians view the primary "structural issue" as systemic oppression, inequality, and suffering inflicted on marginalized people.

• The Goal: To dismantle hierarchies and redistribute power and resources to ensure human flourishing for everyone, regardless of belief, except conservative Christians, who are very frequently disparaged. Steele holds to the deconstruction of most traditional Christianity.

• The Structural Target: They focus on economic, racial, and social structures. For them, structural engagement means reforming the prison system, fighting wealth inequality, expanding healthcare access with universal Medicare, creating illegal immigrant rights, and ensuring full equality for the LGBTQ+ community. These are synonymous with the Democratic Socialists of America positions.

• The Justification: They believe that God's kingdom is realized when the poorest and most vulnerable members of society are liberated from systemic harm, mimicking Jesus' critiques of the Roman and Temple elites.

Progressives look at Christian Nationalists and say: "You are just using political power to coerce people, control their personal lives, and maintain dominance.

Christian Nationalists look at Progressive Christians and say: “You have abandoned the true Gospel and just turned the church into a secular social justice club for left-wing politics."

Both sides believe they are doing exactly what Jesus would do with structural, real-world issues. One side is trying to build a society structured around moral purity and divine alignment, while the other is trying to build a society structured around systemic equity and pseudo-inclusion.

Yet as we see with Steele's book How Not to suck as a Christian. Inclusion of the conservative or traditional Christian is something that they do not seek. The progressives seek to change society using the leftist Critical Theory, which is an intellectual tradition that originated as a direct outgrowth of Marxism, but it evolved to critique, modify, and expand traditional Marxist ideas to fit the 20th and 21st centuries.

While orthodox Marxism focuses heavily on economics, Critical Theory shifts the focus to culture, psychology, and social institutions. Oftentimes shortened into the oppressor vs oppressed view of society.

Fundamental belief as system of interpretation

 The Adventist church has a peculiar definition of fundamental. First, let's think about what Fundamental means: Merriam-Webster defines it as follows: 

1a: serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function : basic

a fundamental truth/belief/concept

b : serving as an original or generating source

2a: of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts

Adventism however does not use the word in either of the first two definitions. In Adventism when they say fundamental beliefs they use the third definition, which Merriam-Webster defines as:

3: of central importance : principal

This is important to realize as it is far different from most other denominations. Most denominations' church creeds are concise summaries of faith used for centuries to articulate essential Christian beliefs. The most common are the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, which serve as universal foundations across many denominations. Adventism on the other hand, has an extended list of beliefs. 1-10 are similar to the Creeds; then, to a large extent, the rest of the 28 Fundamental beliefs are systems of interpretation. This is where the Adventist church moves from Fundamental, meaning the basic essential structure, and into generating systems of interpretation and calling the entire interconnected system a primary or fundamental belief.

We see this most clearly when we compare the 1931 Fundamental Beliefs to the current Fundamental Beliefs.

13. That no prophetic period is given in the Bible to reach to the second advent, but that the longest one, the 2300 days of Dan. 8:14,terminated in 1844, and brought us to an event called the cleansing of the sanctuary.

14. That the true sanctuary, of which the tabernacle on earth was a type, is the temple of God in Heaven, of which Paul speaks in Hebrews 8 and onward, and of which the Lord Jesus, as our great high priest, is minister; and that the priestly work of our Lord is the antitype of the work of the Jewish priests of the former dispensation; that this heavenly sanctuary is the one to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days of Dan. 8:14; its cleansing being, as in the type, a work of, judgment, beginning with the entrance of Christ as the high priest upon the judgment phase of His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary foreshadowed in the earthly service of cleansing the sanctuary on the day of atonement. This work of judgment in the heavenly sanctuary began in 1844. Its completion will close human probation.

15. That God, in the time of the judgment and in accordance with His uniform dealing with the human family in warning them of coming events vitally affecting their destiny (Amos 3:6, 7), sends forth a proclamation of the approach of the second advent of Christ;* that this work is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14; and that their threefold message brings to view a work of reform to prepare a people to meet Him at His coming.

16. That the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary, synchronizing with the period of the proclamation of the message of Revelation 14, is a time of investigative judgment, first with reference to the dead, and secondly, with reference to the living. This investigative judgment determines who of the myriads sleeping in the dust of the earth are worthy of a part in the first resurrection, and who of its living multitudes are worthy of translation. 1 Peter 4:17, 18; Dan. 7:9, 10; Rev. 14:6, 7; Luke 20:35.

These four 1931 Fundamental Beliefs (though each is clearly a system of interpretations, I will just use Fundamental Beliefs for our comparisons.) Were merged by the church from 4 statements into 2 statements in 1980.

There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension.

In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus.

The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent.

For clarity in explaining the systems of beliefs/interpretations, I asked Copilot to compare the components of the 1931 statement and the current statement. When we look at the components, it is easy to see why this so-called Fundamental Belief is so poorly understood, as it covers a tremendous amount of ideas, assumptions, and methods of interpretation. Even so, while I can use the term components, most of the components are built upon a lot of information and assumptions. For instance, why is cleansing of the sanctuary a term used when the verse in Daniel is actually “restored,” and what makes someone apply the Leviticus sanctuary atonement ceremony to the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, or even why was the heavenly sanctuary even connected to the restored sanctuary in Danial and how was the supposed heavenly sanctuary desecrated to need restored. But for the ease of understanding, here are the components:

Belief 13 (1931)

Components:

1. No prophetic period reaches the Second Advent

2. 2300 days is the longest prophetic period

3. 2300 days ended in 1844

4. Event = cleansing of the sanctuary

5. Day year method (implied)

6. Historicist interpretation (implied)

Modern Statement:

• 2300 days ended in 1844 → explicit

• Cleansing of sanctuary → explicit

• Prophetic period does not reach Second Advent → implicit (not stated)

• Day year method → implicit

• Historicist method → implicit

Verdict: All doctrinal components remain, but interpretive methods are no longer spelled out.

Belief 14 (1931)

Components:

1. True sanctuary is in heaven

2. Earthly tabernacle was a type

3. Christ ministers there as High Priest

4. His ministry is antitype of Jewish priests

5. Heavenly sanctuary is cleansed at end of 2300 days

6. Cleansing = work of judgment

7. Christ entered judgment phase in 1844

8. Day of Atonement typology

9. Judgment began in 1844

10. Completion closes probation

Modern Statement:

• Heavenly sanctuary → explicit

• Earthly type / heavenly antitype → explicit

• Christ as High Priest → explicit

• Two phase ministry → explicit

• 1844 transition → explicit

• Investigative judgment → explicit

• Day of Atonement typology → explicit

• Completion closes probation → explicit

Verdict: Every component is present, and some are expanded (e.g., “ultimate disposition of sin,” “heavenly intelligences”).

Belief 15 (1931)

Components:

1. God sends a warning proclamation before the Advent

2. This follows His pattern of warning humanity

3. Symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14

4. Message brings reform

5. Reform prepares a people for Christ’s coming

Modern Statement:

These components are still SDA doctrine, but they are not in the sanctuary belief anymore.

They appear in:

• Fundamental Belief #13 – The Remnant and Its Mission (Three Angels’ Messages, reform, preparation, proclamation)

Verdict: All components remain in the SDA system, but they were moved out of the sanctuary doctrine.

Belief 16 (1931)

Components:

1. Cleansing of sanctuary coincides with Rev 14 proclamation

2. Time = investigative judgment

3. Judgment of dead

4. Judgment of living

5. Determines who is worthy of first resurrection

6. Determines who is worthy of translation

Modern Statement:

• Investigative judgment → explicit

• Judgment of dead → explicit

• Judgment of living → explicit

• First resurrection worthiness → explicit

• Translation worthiness → explicit

• Connection to Rev 14 → implicit (now placed in Belief #13)

1931 Component Category		Notes
Heavenly sanctuary		Fully preserved
Earthly type / heavenly antitype		Fully preserved
Christ’s high priestly ministry		Expanded
Two phase ministry		Explicit
1844 transition		Explicit
Investigative judgment		Expanded
Judgment of dead		Explicit
Judgment of living		Explicit
Day of Atonement typology		Explicit
Closing of probation		Explicit
Three Angels’ Messages		Moved to Belief #13
Reform / preparation		Moved
Warning proclamation		Moved
Day year principle		Implied, not stated
Historicist method		Implied, not stated
Prophetic periods not reaching Second Advent		Implied

All of these components are needed for the interpretation found in the Fundamental Belief 24. The interpretation does not survive intact if any one of its core components is removed. Some components are load-bearing, others are supportive—but the system is tightly interlocked.

The following are the “load-bearing " components the system cannot survive without:

1. Historicist method

2. Day year principle

3. 2300 days ending in 1844

4. Heavenly sanctuary typology

5. Investigative judgment

The “supportive but not load-bearing components that can be reinterpreted without destroying the system:

• judgment of dead → living sequence

• close of probation

• vindication of God’s justice

• heavenly intelligences observing

• three angels’ messages (now placed elsewhere)

These can be adjusted, nuanced, or reframed without breaking the core, but they are not needed for the core either; they seem to be used to make the load-bearing core seem more reasonable

The core is made of interpretive mechanisms:

• historicism

• day year principle

• 2300 years

• 457 BC → 1844

• heavenly sanctuary typology

• two-phase priesthood

• investigative judgment beginning in 1844

These are technical claims. They require:

• specific hermeneutics

• specific historical assumptions

• specific typological mappings

• specific chronological calculations

They are not emotionally compelling. They are not pastorally comforting. They are not intuitive. They are not simple.

They are complex, fragile, and highly dependent on each other.

2. The Supportive Components Are Pastoral, Ethical, and Devotional

These include:

• judgment of the dead

• judgment of the living

• vindication of God

• heavenly intelligences observing

• readiness for translation

• moral reform

• close of probation

• three angels’ messages

• loyalty to God

• justice of God

• preparation for Christ’s return

These are emotionally compelling. They feel spiritually meaningful. They feel morally serious. They feel devotional. They feel eschatologically urgent.

They make the doctrine feel:

• purposeful

• ethical

• relational

• cosmic

• pastoral

• relevant

They give the core existential weight.

3. The Supportive Components Make the Core Feel Reasonable

Without supportive components

The core looks like:

• a long prophetic math equation

• a typological chain

• a hermeneutical method

• a date (1844)

• a heavenly event no one can see

• a judgment no one can verify

It feels abstract, technical, and disconnected from lived faith.

With supportive components

Suddenly the core feels:

• pastoral (“God is judging to save, not condemn”)

• moral (“God vindicates justice”)

• relational (“Christ ministers for us”)

• eschatological (“probation will close”)

• urgent (“prepare for translation”)

• communal (“three angels’ messages”)

The supportive components wrap the core in meaning.

They make the core feel:

• necessary

• purposeful

• spiritually compelling

• emotionally resonant

• morally serious

• cosmically significant

They do not support the core structurally, but they support the core psychologically, rhetorically, and devotionally.

4. This Is Why the System Persists

Even if someone struggles with:

• the date

• the hermeneutics

• the typology

• the prophetic math

the supportive components give them reasons to stay connected to the doctrine.

The supportive components:

• make the doctrine feel like it explains the universe

• make the doctrine feel like it explains God’s justice

• make the doctrine feel like it explains salvation

• make the doctrine feel like it explains the end times

• make the doctrine feel like it explains human destiny

They give the core existential gravity. This is predominantly the method that most of those interviewed on Seeking what they Sought Sanctuary series spent most of their time on. In the summary video at 34:43 Sean says: “like just seeing the sanctuary become a heart matter more than just a theological thing to defend so that the Adventist church comes across as coherent, because it emphasized and it magnifies the goodness of God and because it magnifies the purpose of Jesus and the nature of sin and also forgiveness ...”

A person could get to the heart matter, the idea of God's goodness and forgiveness and righteousness, using many other Bible texts that don't require the manipulation and interconnected components that are the load-bearing components of the so-called Sanctuary Doctrine.

Every supportive component appears in Scripture independently of the Adventist sanctuary system:

• God judges the dead → Rev 20, Heb 9

• God judges the living → 1 Pet 4:17

• Close of probation → Matt 25, Rev 22:11

• Vindication of God’s justice → Rom 3:26

• Heavenly beings observing → 1 Cor 4:9, Job 1–2

• Moral reform and obedience → entire NT

• Preparation for Christ’s return → Matt 24–25

• Three Angels’ Messages → Rev 14 (interpreted differently by others)

• Translation of the living → 1 Thess 4:17

• First resurrection → Rev 20:4–6

• “God is love” — 1 John 4:8

• “His righteousness endures forever” — Ps. 111:3

• “The Lord is righteous in all His ways” — Ps. 145:17

• “The just shall live by faith” — Hab. 2:4

• “God so loved the world…” — John 3:16

None of these require:

• 1844

• the day year principle

• historicism

• the 2300 day calculation

• a two phase heavenly ministry

• the investigative judgment

• the cleansing of a heavenly sanctuary

They stand on their own in Scripture.

They are not dependent on the Adventist sanctuary doctrine.

God ripped from God and other nonsense

 As I referenced earlier in the Seeking What They Sought podcast of the Sanctuary Doctrine interview with Richard Davidson Part 2 there is a particularly strange part where Dr. Davidson says God made a covenant with God. I have snipped the section of the podcast below, which starts at around 38 minutes and runs for about 4 minutes. You can see that here

Transcripted edited for clarity starting at 37:50:

But the fact that Abraham is never mentioned here.

Yeah. He's put to sleep. And then there are two parties that walk between the a torch and a bowl of flame. Yes. And those two are mentioned, those same two words are mentioned later in Exodus 19, the Godhead who's on Mount Sinai. And so they act, and Ellen White is clear. The father and the son were both on the mountain there. And the we have throughout Genesis we have Yahweh, and then we have the angel of the Lord who comes, and when he comes as a messenger, he says I am Yahweh. So you have two Yahweh's throughout Genesis. And so and so the two Yahweh are walking the two light sources the two divine light sources are walking together through the pieces. And so the real covenant which we fail to look at too often it's not between God and us which we break so often. It's between God and God. Saying if we break I'm going to be faithful. May we be torn with God from God. If we break it. Wow. And so God is offering to have the self-destruction of the Godhead. . And that's exactly what happens because in Isaiah 53, it takes them it takes the same word here as the pieces and says that refers to Jesus. And then Psalm 22.

Wait, sorry. You're referencing the metaphor of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. Yeah.

Isaiah 53, the suffering servant. And it talks about in his death and it says he will be cut off and uses the language of the pieces of Genesis 15. that he is the one that is he is the one that is u experiencing this covenant being broken. Wow. What happens then? Yeah, I'm trying to figure out where that is. Is this verse 8? Let's see. Oh, that he was cut off out of the land of the living. That part. Um just a minute here.

Let's go. while you're looking for that, I think just to describe to people that if they haven't already caught it, the crazy part about this is when God makes that covenant with Abram, I'm going to make you a great nation. It's wild because he's saying this is not dependent on like, I am going to be faithful. This is not dependent on you. which is a wild thing to so then when you carry this into the other sacrificial systems even though humans have a part to play there is a covenant that God makes with them later which is keep my law keep my covenant keep the things that I'm asking you to it always ends up getting applied back to God is God is the one who is faithful consistently that's right which is really and the word is yes in verse eight it's the word gezer which is the same word in [clears throat] Genesis 15 verse 17 to describe the pieces Wow. And so then you go to the cross and you get the capstone on this when Jesus on the cross, the sins of the world have just separated him from God. And he cries out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" It happens. God has cut from God. He's ripped from God. And they feel that he feels the eternal separation that the that those who aren't saved are going to keep are going to experience for eternity. So, so for me when I talk about covenants, I always go to this text first because it shows that the covenant is ultimately between the father and the son, not between him and him and his people. And so that will never fail.

I encourage you to look at the original podcast or my snipped portion because there are interjections that make the transcript somewhat difficult to follow. But as Davidson ends the covenant is ultimately between the Father and the Son. What covenant you ask? Well the real and most important covenant that we fail to see is between God and God! You likely then again ask, what is that covenant that is so important and is not stated at all?

Let us refresh our memories about Genesis chapter 15. It is summed up here.

“The covenant with Abram in Genesis 15 employs גֶּזֶר to establish an immutable promise grounded in divine initiative. God alone walks between the severed pieces, demonstrating unilateral commitment. The severing underscores the certainty that God will fulfill land, seed, and blessing promises (Genesis 15:18–21). Later prophetic literature echoes this ritual language when indicting covenant breakers (Jeremiah 34:18–20), showing that the meaning attached to גֶּזֶר became a juridical touchstone for covenant faithfulness. “ https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1506.htm

,

My previous blog showed that in EllenWhites version of Genesis 15 Abram was part of the covenant ceremony, though it was not mentioned in the actual Gen. 15 story from the Bible. Davidson probably realizes he is disagreeing with the Adventist prophet, so earlier at the beginning of minute 37 he says:

“...He cuts them in two, places them beside each other and then there's no mention of his walking in between. Interestingly, I mean, he may have done that, but that's not the point of the story.”

The only reason to say that Abram might have walked between the cut animal parts is that Ellen White says Abram did walk between and made a covenant with God. Of course, since the whole point of the story was for God to confirm to Abram his promise, Davidson is correct that the point of the story is not about Abram doing something that he did not do in the Bible story.

Now, the idea that God, who according to the Bible is ONE, made a covenant with another God is certainly problematic.

"Hear, O Israel: the LORD is our God, the LORD is One."

Listening to Davidson is quite torturous as he tries to equate the use of the same Hebrew words as his connecting points. Yes, smoke and fire are seen moving through the severed animals of the covenant, and smoke and fire are present upon Mt. Sinai because they are very often used as symbols for the presence of God

There are roughly 7,000 to 8,400 unique words (or roots) in ancient Biblical Hebrew, so it is very common to see them used in all types of stories, situations, and contexts. It is not an impressive connection; it is a necessity of a limited language. The total English vocabulary is more than 1 million words, and a common daily English usage is 170,000 words

Davidson presents his key Hebrew word connections between Gen 15 and Isa 53

H1506 גֶּזֶר gezer (gheh'-zer) n-m.

1. something cut off.

2. a portion.

[from H1504]

KJV: part, piece.

Root(s): H1504

So the two halves of an animal cut apart do not mean that in Isa 53 it has the same meaning.

H1504 גָּזַר gazar (gaw-zar') v.

1. to cut down or off.

2. (figuratively) to destroy, divide, exclude, or decide.

[a primitive root]

KJV: cut down (off), decree, divide, snatch.

Isa 53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away;

and as for his generation, who considered

that he was cut off out of the land of the living,

stricken for the transgression of my people?

Here, Davidson thinks that being cut off from the land of the living is to be cut off from God, but Jesus is God, so how does God rip Himself apart? Well, that is because Davidson takes Psalm 22 out of its context of a Psalm that speaks of tribulation to triumph and assumes that the first line of the psalm My God My God why have you forsaken me, to not be how the psalm was identified to people before there ever were chapter and verses, but that it must mean God and the Godhead were broken apart. Why would God be separated from God? The only reason Davidson gives is that Jesus would know what it was like to be eternally separated from God for all eternity. Which was only a couple of days, and Jesus raised Himself from the grave as He said He would do. So Jesus still had the power of God to raise Himself from the dead, but He was ripped apart from God, who Jesus is, in fact God. Do people like Davidson even contemplate that the dead know nothing, they don't feel anything, no shame, no remorse, no worms eating their flesh? Being dead is the same as being eternally separated from God. The reason Christians don't fear death is that they know the author of Life (see Acts 3:15, Jesus as the author of life) can raise them from the dead, so death is not their end. But Jesus knew He would rise again, He told others He would rise again, and He even promised another being crucified with Him that they would be together in Paradise.

There was no reason for the Crucifixion to separate the Godhead. Jesus was guilty of no sin. He did not die the second death because He had not even died the first death, and the very definition of second death is no resurrection from that death (Revelation 20:14-15). Jesus did not suffer the wrath of God because Jesus is God and God had no wrath for Jesus. There is not even one New Testament verse that tells us Jesus paid a penalty. Jesus life, death, and resurrection were God's plan for reconciliation with mankind. That is what atonement is all about: the mercy of God that forgives and reconciles man back to God.

So Dr. Davidson has given us a view of God that is not sustainable. It denies who God is and, with his strange interpretation, claims that the Godhead was ripped apart even after God confirms a covenant between the Godhead that he never tells us what that covenant is, only that if they break it the Godhead will be ripped apart, and then Dr. Davidson tells us that the Godhead in fact was ripped apart. So, God did not even keep his covenant with Himself; it is too confusing and completely unnecessary unless one is trying to form a theology based upon some extra-biblical authority.

That Dr. Davidson is an SDA professor and the 2 people interviewing him are SDA pastors should serve as a warning to every Adventist member. Your  University schools are corrupt, and your theology is incredibly faulty.