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.

Why Did Jesus Die, Atonement without Penalty

Remember when you were a child, how the good news of the Bible was so simple. You can probably still remember the first real complete Bible verse you learned. It went like this For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 (NIV). We grew up knowing that the gospel was simple; even a child could understand it. But as a child, did we really understand it, and now as adults, can we really say we understand it. That is, how could Jesus come and give His life and, through that process, somehow save us?

How many explanations of this process have you heard, doubtless at least two or three? Some think Christ was a sacrifice to appease God, who says that somebody has to die since the law was broken. That God mystically placed all the sins of the entire world on Christ, who then paid the death penalty for sin. The idea being that someone has to be punished and die because sin was committed. If these reasons were correct, then God’s justice should certainly be questioned. Is this how justice works? Is this what a God of justice would do? Is this what is required for sin to be forgiven?

Remember those who told us that the gospel was so simple; well, they were completely right. Somehow we have strayed from the truth's simplicity. It only takes one sentence to explain why Jesus Christ came to earth to live and die and live again. He came to show us what God is like, to demonstrate the lengths to which rebelling against God goes, and to prove that He has the power of life even over death. Okay, so there are several different items in the one sentence, and yes, more could be added, but that is the gist of it.

Let’s take a more in-depth look at why Jesus came to earth. Hebrews 2:17 explains: Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (KJV) Jesus came to reconcile us to God. "That God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation." 2 Corinthians 5:19 (NIV) Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines reconcile as: to restore to friendship or harmony. Now that’s an important mission for we were once God’s enemies. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation-- Colossians 1:22(NIV)

Now that we understand that Christ came to reconcile us to God, we must determine how this is done. The story of the Garden of Eden is used to demonstrate that we have doubts and questions about God. In the story, man is freshly created and placed in a beautiful garden,  yet the man and woman questioned whether God really had man's best interests at heart. The voice of questioning is presented in the guise of a talking serpent; man disregards God's warnings after the serpent insinuates half-truths about God since a half-truth is far more effective than a clear untruth. Being newly created in the story, they have nothing to base their knowledge of God on, so the following ideas appear to have merit to the couple in the story and to all subsequent people.

1. God is not a God of love, and he does not have man's best interest in mind.

2. God is vindictive, and to disagree with Him will bring His wrath upon oneself.

3. God is not the only source of life. Every being has the potential to become a god and to be as God is. God is selfishly withholding knowledge from us.

Using the above assumptions about God, man can hardly trust, and it is impossible to have a close relationship with anyone you don’t trust; it becomes a barrier that separates.

The best way for God to reconcile us to Himself was for Him to answer our questions and misunderstandings about Him without overwhelming us. This is the work of reconciliation that Jesus came to earth to perform.

1. God proved His love by sending His son John 3:16. Jesus is not simply a son but He is God Himself. John 1, Col 1:19, Col 2:9. Even knowing how He would be treated, His love was shown by revealing the character of God. (John 14:9 NIV) Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? (John 15:13 NIV) Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

2. God proved he is not vindictive by providing a way of escape from our sinful condition Romans 6:23 . (Rom 3:25) (Romans 5:10) For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! (NIV)

3. God proves that He freely forgives sin. (Luke 23:34 NIV) Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. Matt. 9:6

4. God shows that he is the source of life by the resurrection of Christ. Romans 1:4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. (NIV) (1 Cor 15:20 NIV) But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

You may be saying to yourself, did not Jesus die a Substitutionary death for us? Did not he have to die because God’s law says the wage of sin is death. Think about what this is saying...it says that one innocent man’s death can substitute for billions of sinners' deaths. This could in no way be considered justice. Justice would have the one innocent man freed from any penalties while the guilty pay for their crimes. Perhaps we are missing something; maybe there is an exception in this law on the wages of sin. Let us take another look at Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (NIV) All who sin should die, but this is a very large exception; God is willing to give us a gift, the gift of eternal life. So we see that God is willing to save us for no other reason than that he loves us (love is another word for grace). Remember John 3:16, that favorite from long ago. There is a gift that can be given to those who desire to receive it. The result of remaining in sin is that you will die, but if you want the gift of God, he will freely give it to you. Christ’s life, death, and resurrection are the method God used to bring us to the point where we would desire to receive God’s free gift of grace. Romans 3:23-25: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- (NIV) Remember it is not forgiveness if someone is punished.

Did not Jesus taste death for everyone, therefore isn’t he our substitute according to Hebrews 2:9? But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (NIV) Here we see that Christ did die for everyone; however, it is not a Substitutionary death. Christ’s death was a means of drawing us back to God. Remember what Ephesians 2:16 says: and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. (NIV) It is not God’s hostility that is the problem, for it is “God with us,” Immanuel, the Logos that became flesh and dwelt among us, God was reaching out to man.

Finally, does not Hebrews 9:28 tell us that Christ bore our sins on the cross? So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. Hebrews 9:28 (NIV). To understand this text, we must understand what sin is. How could all the murders, violence, and pain of sins be placed on Christ? In fact, they cannot, but the attitude that is where all sin begins could be placed on Christ at the cross. Our desire to do our own thing is the entire reason why Christ had to come and die. To show us that our desires bring us only disaster, but submitting to God brings us life. Sin is often correctly defined as being separation from God; it is the attitude that cannot trust God because the person is too selfish to look outside of their own limited view and desires. Christ demonstrated just how tragic selfish actions are by submitting to people in rebellion against God. Separation from God leads to the cruelty that was poured out upon the one who never sinned. So much hate and cruelty that people were willing to kill their own creator. Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. (NIV) This is the result of sin, and this is the sin that Christ bore on the cross. This is Christ’s sacrifice; he gave up the comforts of heaven to come to earth and share in man's suffering, and then upon the cross he died, yet even as he died he offered the forgiveness that love offers all. Reminiscent of the way sin is removed by being forgiven as love keeps no record of wrongs 1 Cor. 13. Then on the third day he arose, proving what he had told us was true and commissioning us to help Him in spreading the message of reconciliation.

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 (NIV)

From Enemies to Friends Gallagher sermons

Jonathan Gallagher has posted a series of sermons he gave at Quesnel, British Columbia, on August 8, 2009. There are a couple of noteworthy things about these sermons. First, it shows how nice it is to have a copy of a sermon which was the subject of last month's post entitled Why not publish sermons, and second, it covers much of the ground on the problem of substitutionary atonement theory and the better view of the moral influence view of the atonement, also a recent blog post here. Gallagher does not use the term moral influence, but it is substantially what he is talking about. You can read the sermons, and I recommend you do, in the following 3 parts:
From Enemies to Friends 1
From Enemies to Friends 2
From Enemies to Friends 3

The largest difference I have with Gallagher and Graham Maxwell is developed by their use of Ellen White. We can sum it up by a couple of quotes from Gallagher's sermon 2.

Universe-wide reconciliation

Here we see the bigger picture. For up to now we have been primarily concerned about ourselves, and our salvation—God changing us from enemies to friends. But there is much more than just our salvation at stake. The conflict between God and Satan has a cosmic aspect to it—for the war began in heaven (Rev. 12:7). Even those angels that remained loyal to God surely had many questions, and in God’s wisdom he chooses to work not from claims but through demonstration. So the Cross answers far more than just issues about our situation—it impacts the whole universe-wide controversy over God and his actions raised by Satan the Accuser. So God chooses to make his nature clear, and explain himself and his character through the gift of himself. In this way he reconciles the whole universe:

Through the Son, then, God decided to bring the whole universe back to himself. God made peace through his Son’s blood on the cross and so brought back to himself all things, both on earth and in heaven. Colossians 1:20 TEV.

In fact, this might read better “both those on earth and those in heaven.” At which point some may object that those in heaven do not need the atonement—understood as paying some penalty or making amends. But that is not the original meaning—for the word was first used to describe true at-one-ment, and you cannot be truly at one until the controversy is settled and the questions answered. (The NIV uses the term “reconcile”—and in fact the word is actually “completely reconcile,” showing the total extent of the reconciliation needed).

This is why they often call their view the "Larger View" or the "Great Controversy view". It is based upon the assumption that loyal angels have questions about God. He phrases it as surely they had questions, but of course we have no indication that they had or have questions; they may well have answers. The Bible, of course, is not written from the perspective of angels of which we know hardly anything. It is written about man and God; angels are the messengers of God. So when the verse talks about reconciling the things of earth with the things of heaven, that is what it means: the things of man's domain with the things of God's domain. That is the common interpretation, assuming that it is meant to answer angels' questions about God, is to use eisegesis, placing that idea into the text rather than reading what the text is really trying to say. Clearly the holy angels...the messengers of God are not in need of reconciliation with God. From what the Bible says, they live with God, they serve God, and they are not in rebellion against God; those who did rebel got kicked out. You don't need to be reconciled if you are never separated.

I do have a theory as to why they feel the need to include these extra-biblical ideas into their atonement theory. My theory is that they feel they have to include Ellen White into the mix to make it appear that they are good little Adventists. Good Adventists quote Ellen White, so they seek areas that they can quote her because they know that they are also going against what Ellen White says in favor of the Penal Atonement and substitutionary atonement. So they reference the angels' questions, or as Graham Maxwell does, he references the bloodthirsty characteristics of the angels in his article addressed here: Response to Graham Maxwell's Great Controversy View. The quote from Maxwell's interview article is:

Soon you come to the Flood, where God drowned all but eight. That would seem to be a pretty clear demonstration, and to loyal angels that was the thing to do. Amens (though surely, solemn ones) rang through heaven when he drowned that bunch. "That's the way to do it!" Except afterwards they found it hadn't won a soul. Instead, necessary as it was, it turned the human race against God more than ever, and they built a tower to escape him. "Not by might, nor by power" the angels learned as one thing from the Flood. Though they were at the moment rather satisfied, it appears, and waited for God to do it again.


At least I assume he arrives at this from Ellen White; I will not take the time to find her quote on the subject. But it demonstrates the difference between the moral influence view and the extra-biblical view that is attached to the moral influence view to create the "larger view". It may be that many or most Adventists are not capable of advancing past their dependence upon Ellen White. Graham Maxwell and Gallagher are attempting to wean Adventists away from the more harmful elements of their traditional religious views. So I don't want to be too strenuous in my complaints. Because really, what does it matter what they think that angels are saying in heaven through history or if they think that the atonement is directed at angels also? It does not really change anything in regard to the atonement for human beings. Maybe it will have the benefit of helping people to see that you can't take everything Ellen White says as true also. My personal preference is to simply leave her out of the whole atonement theory argument. Because, frankly, it makes no sense that God wanted us to wait 1800 years for someone to really explain the atonement to us.

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.