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.

When your theology professors are not very good

 Before I go on to recount how Richard Davidson thinks that the Gen. 15 account of God walking between the sacrificed animals is somehow actually a covenant between the Godhead, e.g. God the Father and Jesus Christ pre-incarnation. I thought it would be good to point out his technique of interpretation of the Bible.

  In The Sanctuary Doctrine | Richard Davidson (Part 3) podcast with an interview of Richard Davidson an Andrews University professor. We have these interesting quotes.

Quote: 40:09 Here's Lucifer and he's not allowed to enter into the councils of divinity. And so this jealousy arises. He considers that God is not fair. And so then comes the other Hebrew word in Ezekiel 28 where it says that he was filled with recula which means um (interviewers: is that the violence) no he it it means to let me look let's go to Ezekiel 28. I don't want to speak out of turn here. I get the wrong term. I'll look it up here. Okay. So yes, oh yeah, recula. It is right. If the other word was avala, that means injustice. And then he's filled with reculah, which is slander. And he begins to slander God. Going around from one angel to another saying God can't really be trusted. And so the whole great controversy starts over who can you trust? Can you trust God or not?

Now to clarify he is using Ezk. 28 which says nothing of Lucifer, which is the mistranslation from Is. 14

Ezk. 28:15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you. 16 In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned; So he is giving the Hebrew for Violence ESV

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments
H7404 רְכֻלָּה rkullah (rek-ool-law') n-f. trade (as peddled). [feminine passive participle of H7402] KJV: merchandise, traffic.

Root(s): H7402 The word used according to lexicon is: H2555 חָמָס chamac (chaw-mawce') n-m. 1. violence. 2. (by implication) wrong. 3. (by meton.) unjust gain. [from H2554]

KJV: cruel(-ty), damage, false, injustice, X oppressor, unrighteous, violence (against, done), violent (dealing), wrong.

Root(s): H2554

So here he completely takes the verse out of the context of Ezek 28:12 “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: “You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. And asserts it to Satan aka Lucifer, and the"trade" becomes slander going to angel to angel with the slander.

Then he later ends with:

I can put this whole thing that I just told you without mentioning Ellen White once. It's not all in Ezekiel 28. You got to go to also to to uh Proverbs chapter 8 where I can show you from scripture that that the son of God who was divine, who was called wisdom existed from the beginning and he was he was given a new office of a mediator mediating between divinity and human between infinity and finitude. And it's all there in the text. And so one of my favorite things to do is to show from the biblical text. Here is the narrative. And then I say, have you ever heard that somewhere else?

If you're an Adventist, that's what Ellen White says. But I didn't get anything from Ellen White. I'm getting it all from here. And so I don't deny that Ellen White is a prophet. And I don't deny that she had visions and filled in gaps that we may not find explicit in scripture. But I haven't been let down yet that the major contours of what we say about the great controversy and other topics are there in scripture. We've been the lazy ones not to dig them out. And Ellen White herself said, "If you had only studied the scripture like you should have, you wouldn't have needed me." Right? 44:53

He can only make it fit by inserting extra biblical authority into the Bible, in this case a heavy dose of Tradition and John Milton popularization, and this is an Andrews University Theology professor! I get the impression that some do not think the Lucifer Myth is a big deal, but it is; it is the foundation of Ellen Whites Great Controversy theme. And here is an Andrews University professor who seems to think that inserting Satan into Is 14 and Ezk 28 is consistent, yet there is absolutely no hermeneutic method that allows for this. Maybe if somewhere else in Scripture it said those things, you could say they were a foreshadowing in those chapters in Isaiah and Ezekiel. But since the Bible does not give us that, it is just a ploy to support an extra-biblical presumed prophet. Which is one of the reasons that a vast amount of Biblical scholarship rejects what I call the Lucifer Myth.

But that is not all he said. Consider the usage of Proverbs 8 here:

 You got to go to also to to uh Proverbs chapter 8 where I can show you from scripture that that the son of God who was divine, who was called wisdom existed from the beginning and he was he was given a new office of a mediator mediating between divinity and human between infinity and finitude. 

That sounds pretty bold, but there are at least 6 views on Proverbs 8, and the idea that Christ is given a new office is not one of them; it is also very difficult to get that from Proverbs 8. It would be far easier to assert the Arian view than the new office view. Here is a summary of the main views:

While Proverbs 8 is most universally read as a poem celebrating and personifying wisdom, there are several distinct and rich interpretations regarding who or what Wisdom actually represents. Because biblical poetry is highly artistic, "Lady Wisdom" is not a technical definition but a multifaceted symbol that has been interpreted in different ways throughout history. [1, 2, 3]

The main interpretations of this chapter include:

1. The Theological Interpretation: God’s Wisdom in Creation

In this view, Wisdom is a literary personification of God’s own attribute of order, intelligence, and skill. The passage describes how God used divine wisdom to design the cosmos—making it the "master workman" (or architect) alongside God at the beginning of time. Under this interpretation, Proverbs 8 teaches that the universe is not random; it was created with a logical, moral, and functional design. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

2. The Christological Interpretation: Jesus Christ

This is a prominent view within Christian theology, particularly in the early church. Because the New Testament (such as in 1 Corinthians 1:24) directly identifies Jesus as the "wisdom of God," early church fathers and theologians interpreted Lady Wisdom as a figurative and prophetic depiction of God the Son. In this view, Christ existed in eternity past and was the active agent alongside the Father in the creation of the world. [1, 2]

3. The Controversial Arian View: Wisdom as a "Created" Being

This specific interpretation stems from Proverbs 8:22, which reads in some translations (like the Greek Septuagint): “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work.” In the third century, a theologian named Arius used this verse to argue that if Jesus is the wisdom of God, and wisdom was created, then Jesus cannot be eternal and is not fully God. This view was later formally declared a heresy by the Council of Nicaea, which established that the verse refers to the "begetting" or "possessing" of an eternal attribute, not a literal creation event in time. [1, 2, 3]

4. The Pneumatological Interpretation: The Holy Spirit

Some Jewish and Christian scholars have interpreted Lady Wisdom as a figurative expression of the Holy Spirit. Similar to the Holy Spirit, Wisdom is described as being poured out on humanity. She breathes life, truth, and conviction into people, guiding them away from folly and into alignment with God's will. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

5. The Anthropological / Practical Interpretation: The "Art of Living"

Many secular and modern theological commentators treat the personification of Wisdom purely as a highly effective pedagogical tool. In this view, Solomon is writing to "his son" to instill practical, ethical, and social "know-how". Personifying Wisdom as an attractive, noble woman calling out in the city gates contrasts with the seductive "Adulterous Woman" of Proverbs 7. Here, the chapter is a practical call to choose the path of life, justice, and prudence over the destructive path of foolishness. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

6. The Comparative Near Eastern Interpretation: Ma'at

From a historical and academic perspective, some biblical historians note that Proverbs 8 shares striking parallels with ancient Egyptian literature. In Egypt, there was a goddess named Ma'at, who represented the cosmic order, truth, and right judgment. These scholars suggest the authors of Proverbs may have used the well-known ancient literary motif of a divine, feminine figure of order to explain God's wisdom to an audience familiar with surrounding Near Eastern cultures. [1, 2, 3, 4]

---

To the law and the testimony Adventist pretension

 One thing I have to say is that the podcast Seeking What They Sought reveals far more about Adventism than most anyone would have expected. It is not good for Adventism but good for our understanding of the culture and absurdities that fill the area of Adventist Theology. In their latest series, they have had numerous multipart podcasts of people trying to explain the Adventist "Sanctuary Doctrine." This has pretty much proved that the doctrine is an entirely eisegetical fantasy. In the Sanctuary Doctrine Interview with Richard Davidson, we see a most peculiar interpretation. In the Genesis 15 account, God makes a covenant with Abram. Reading the comments there, I saw someone who pointed out that the account that Davidson was referring to in Genesis 15 was not at all what the account said, and in fact it was not what the account given by Ellen White, the supposed Adventist prophetic messenger, gave either. Davidson asserted that the covenant there was between the Godhead, specifically between Jesus Christ and God the Father. That I will deal with in the next post.

My comment under the YouTube podcast was as follows: 

" That Davidson compares the lamp and smoke to somehow be a covenant between Christ and God is equally wrong. Because there was "And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly Ex 19:18 certainly does not indicate anything other than the presence of God, not a division of God. But back to what EGW said that is not what the Bible says, she writes: Still the patriarch begged for some visible token as a confirmation of his faith and as an evidence to after-generations that God’s gracious purposes toward them would be accomplished. The Lord condescended to enter into a covenant with His servant, employing such forms as were customary among men for the ratification of a solemn engagement. By divine direction, Abraham sacrificed a heifer, a she-goat, and a ram, each three years old, dividing the bodies and laying the pieces a little distance apart. To these he added a turtledove and a young pigeon, which, however, were not divided. >>>>This being done, he reverently passed between the parts of the sacrifice, making a solemn vow to God of perpetual obedience.<<<< Watchful and steadfast, he remained beside the carcasses till the going down of the sun, to guard them from being defiled or devoured by birds of prey. About sunset he sank into a deep sleep; and, “lo, a horror of great darkness fell upon him.” And the voice of God was heard, bidding him not to expect immediate possession of the Promised Land, and pointing forward to the sufferings of his posterity before their establishment in Canaan. The plan of redemption was here opened to him, in the death of Christ, the great sacrifice, and His coming in glory. Abraham saw also the earth restored to its Eden beauty, to be given him for an everlasting possession, as the final and complete fulfillment of the promise. PP 137.1 [That last sentence is also certainly not Biblical either]

So what do Adventists do when the supposed "pen of inspiration" writes something that is not at all in agreement with the Biblical story? I did a little checking, and it seems that they do not count Ellen White's account as a contradiction of the Bible story but as an expansion of the story. Apparently, expanding the story does not count as adding to the Bible; it is just explaining it better. Ignore the idea that expanding is a synonym for adding; what kind of English teacher am I supposed to be to write about synonyms anyway? 

But this raises an equally serious question. Let us quote from the Ellen G. White Estate, an official Adventist body.

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:20.

Our watchword is to be “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” We have a Bible full of the most precious truth. It contains the alpha and the omega of knowledge. The Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17). Take the Bible as your study book. All can understand its instruction.

Remember the Law refers to the Torah and the Testimony to the prophetic Old Testament writings.

So our next question is: how do you test the truth of something by the Law and the Testimony if you expand the story in one of the first books of the Torah? You cannot test it if you have redefined it by adding material to the story. You can speculate about a story or say this might have happened, but you can't test it with something a later person says should have been there but wasn't. If you do that, as Isaiah says, there is no light in them.

I think, as the podcast Seeking What They Sought has been proving, there is, in fact, no light in what Adventism teaches on several subjects. Of course, that does not mean everything they teach is wrong. Just the special parts that don't fit at all with the Bible. Because it is, in fact, extremely difficult to be wrong all the time. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day!

 

Advent Media Connect photo manipulation.

 I watched the Advent Media Connect podcast entitled Responding to Tucker Carlson on American Apostate Protestantism. 

It was a pretty bad show based more upon the preconceived Adventist view that all Protestants are Apostate except Adventists. So when Tucker Carlson says that Protestantism is apostate they become very excited. So excited they don't even hear the lies that Tucker Carlson makes. As I commented on the Advent Media Connect comment section: 

"This is very sad. Do you not see how you are being manipulated? Tucker lied to you and you accept it, even when you played the Franklin Graham Prayer you could have seen Tucker's lie. Tucker said: "4:57 But if you're a Christian clergyman or call yourself one, and you're giving spiritual counsel to a head of state, it really matters. And there's no reference whatsoever to Jesus. You're not preaching the gospel. You're not speaking actual truth to actual power. You're doing something else. Now, why is there no mention of Jesus?" You mean that Jesus that Graham used in his Prayer "22:13 Father, we thank you for your son Jesus Christ who came to this earth to take our sins. That he died and shed his blood on a cross for our sins. That he was buried. He took our sins to the grave, but you raised him to life."

Tucker Carlson has lost the plot and much of his speech is not very accurate anymore. But since Advent Media Connect actually used the Franklin Graham video in his show it is remarkable that he did not even see that Tucker Carlson was lying.

But this photo was used and it really bothered me, Because as you can see from the picture the person on the far right (the picture the podcast used was cropped the two outside people are seen in the picture below but not in the picture that Advent Media Connect used) is Michael Tait, the former singer for the Newsboys after Peter Furler left, leaving the Newsboys a poor imitation of the original Newsboys. Michael Tait left the Newsboys after his admission to several forms of sexual abuse. So it was peculiar that he would be at the 2026 National Prayer Breakfast with President Trump. 

This is What he says during the above picture:

"Now let's talk about these claims. These are some very serious and solid claim.11:48 American Protestants Christianity has become spiritually corrupt. I will have to agree this is corruption. Now there's nothing wrong with praying for the president. No. As a matter of fact, we should do that. The Bible says we are to do that. But there's something wrong with uniting with the president for the purpose of using political expediency to enforce religious dogmas. That's not Bible. There's also something wrong with this. comparing President Trump to Jesus Christ and his assassination attempt to  the very resurrection of Jesus Christ during Easter's week. There's something wrong with that." 

Then he plays the Paula White  prayer video clip at the recent National Prayer Breakfast. He is trying to make us think that the picture from the King Jesus International Ministry on January 03, 2020 in Miami, Florida. happened at the National Prayer Breakfast. I don't find too much fault with her prayer except to say comparing anyone to Jesus Christ will usually get somebody upset. But remember he is trying to show us how corrupt Evangelicals are, Apostate Protestantism, Tucker Carlson said so and after all who cannot believe what a tepid lapsed Episcopalian says. 

But the picture manipulation did not end there. I first thought the above picture was AI created because there is no way that Michael Tait would have been at the 2026 National Prayer Breakfast, of course the press would have had a field day if a sexual abuser was praying over Donald Trump. So I had to find the picture that Advent Media Connect was using. And then I noticed the rather incredible AI image he used

This is pretty funny. Notice there is a fire already burning on the altar, One guy is holding a bowl of what appears to be blood and apparently the priest in the center is holding Harry Potters magic wand. It is like Advent Media Connect has not the vaguest idea of what an Ancient Israel sacrifice was like.

 If you want to see the original image click here. This is what that image says: "Photorealistic scene of ancient Israelites gathered at the Tabernacle entrance in Sinai wilderness, priests offering a spotless lamb, its blood poured onto the altar, people of various backgrounds (including sojourners) waiting reverently, with dust-covered earth, strong sunlight, and mountains in the distance. No anachronisms; focus on ritual purity, communal unity, and awe before God.

I experimented with Chatgpt and it did not want to show anything violent so that may be why it is the way it is. But after a little instructions from Chatgpt I got it to produce a more accurate set of images of the  generalized ritual.

notice I got rid of the crowd because it was also not accurate. I must admit it really helped, such as I asked it did lots of people watch or just the family group. Chatgpt said: 

"In the sacrificial system described in the Torah (especially in Leviticus):

• The person offering the animal (or a small family/group) would bring it to the Tabernacle.
• Priests (kohanim) handled the actual ritual actions at the altar.
• Most Israelites were not gathered as spectators around the entrance during routine offerings.
• The Tabernacle courtyard had controlled access, and ritual activity was orderly and structured, not a large public spectacle.
• Larger gatherings did happen during major events or festivals (like Passover later at the Temple), but even then, participation was more organized than “everyone watching one sacrifice.”

So for accuracy, your scene should feel:

• Focused and intentional, not crowded
• Quiet, reverent, and structured
• Centered on priests and the individual offerer, with others at a respectful distance

Thanks for joining me on this rabbit hole!

BarelyAdventists illogical hypocrites

 One of the pretty correctly titled groups on Facebook is called BarelyAdventist. It is, I think, from the same people who give us Adventist Today and Spectrum online. Lately, they have taken to preaching on their Facebook page, and here is one of their latest declarations.

For decades, the Adventist Church has had people who feel it’s their personal duty to correct everyone else. Emails packed with Ellen White quotes. Whispered critiques in the church lobby about someone’s outfit. Cornering the pastor over sermon points. The assumption is always the same: I am right, and I must set you straight.

“Telling the truth in love” has been distorted. In practice, it often becomes a license to judge, critique, or lecture people you barely know. Love gets a bad reputation. Relationships are damaged. Church becomes a place of fear, not grace.

Here’s the truth: Jesus didn’t go around policing or judging people. Even He, with perfect authority, did not insist on correcting everyone else. You are not Jesus. You are not an Old Testament prophet. Trying to “set someone straight” before even having a relationship with them is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

Start with relationship. Listen. Engage. Care. Only then might someone actually invite your guidance—if it’s truly needed. Correction without trust and connection is not faithfulness; it’s pride in disguise.

Love in Adventism should not be about pointing out every misstep. It should be about showing up, respecting others, and offering help when it’s asked for. That alone could heal far more hearts than a thousand unsolicited “corrections.”

Let's look at some of the logic that this post makes:

For decades, the Adventist Church has had people who feel it’s their personal duty to correct everyone else.

We will see this “everyone” several times in this post. So far, I have never met a person who feels it is their duty to correct everyone else. So this first logical fallacy is the introduction to their post. It is not simply that I have not met anyone who felt it was their duty to correct everyone; it is impossible to correct everyone. So this horrible person in the introduction is not only set with an impossible “duty”; if that was what they actually thought was their duty, they would have to be mentally deranged.

Emails packed with Ellen White quotes

Is that supposed to be a sentence? Let us assume that it is a continuation of the logical fallacy of the first sentence. The person with a duty has packed up what they want to say, hidden behind an email with only Ellen White quotes. If that is their duty to email Ellen White quotes to people, we can assume that indeed it is from a mentally deranged person. But that mentally deranged person who cannot even tell the recipient the reason for the quotes could hardly be said to feel it was their duty to correct everyone with a bunch of quotes from a dead assumed prophet.

Whispered critiques in the church lobby about someone’s outfit. Cornering the pastor over sermon points. The assumption is always the same: I am right, and I must set you straight.

We will move past the other two points because, as we can tell, this is all built from a false view of, at best, a deranged person. It is possible for a deranged person to always feel they are right. Of course it is still not at all likely that even the deranged person is “always” acting with the assumption that that they are always right and that they must set you straight, apparently to the above author it is by packing an email with Ellen White quotes, or whispering a critique of an outfit or simply cornering a pastor to talk about sermon points.

 
Now we are getting to the point of this author's point. Some people do things the author does not like, it is hard for the author to recover from the initial logical fallacy, so for the sake of continuing the analysis, we can assume that that is their concern.

“Telling the truth in love” has been distorted. In practice, it often becomes a license to judge, critique, or lecture people you barely know. Love gets a bad reputation. Relationships are damaged. Church becomes a place of fear, not grace.

Telling the truth in love is not a thing, “speaking the truth in love” Ephesians 4:15. We have Biblical direction to speak the truth in love, but the key is the truth. So to know something is the truth takes a lot more than to regurgitate Ellen White quotes; critiquing an outfit could in no way be considered in the truth category, it is the opinion category. Love, on the other hand, can be classed as permissive to tough love to discipline. That means that something can be done in love in different ways. Certainly, talking to the pastor about a sermon is not necessarily about truth or love. Why is it even included here? Could it be that what this author wants is for people to simply accept what they are told?

Here’s the truth: Jesus didn’t go around policing or judging people.

Are you sure? He cleared out the temple of money changers (John 2:13–17, Matthew 21:12–13) He called the Pharisees a brood of vipers ( Matthew 12:34, 23:33), and He specifically judged those who were of their father the devil. (John 8:44) Of course, Jesus also called Judas a son of perdition (John 17:12). So, Jesus did do it; what the author means by “go around” is kind of meaningless. We also have a lot of sermons on how people should behave, which could certainly be termed policing, as that is a very broad term, especially if you use the idea of community policing or self policing, which deals with relationship building, problem solving, decision making, and trust building.

Even He, with perfect authority, did not insist on correcting everyone else.

Jesus, in his incarnation, would be in the same situation as the first logical fallacy in that Jesus could not correct “everyone”; instead, he taught, but He did not spend his time personally correcting “everyone”.

You are not Jesus. You are not an Old Testament prophet. Trying to “set someone straight” before even having a relationship with them is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

It has taken a while, but we have finally gotten to some truth in the above post. You are not Jesus or an Old Testament prophet. Then it wanders off into nonsense again. Can you set someone straight, for instance, point out their extreme use of logical fallacies without having a relationship with them, of course it is pretty common on the internet, though it may not set them straight, that depends on the person. But it is certainly not the pinnacle of hypocrisy. That pinnacle might be more like teaching others not to sin while publicly practicing the same sins.

I am going to end this here because I think the post is pretty much summed up with hypocrisy. It is worse yet because it is fueled by logical fallacies. It ends by trying to sound caring, but it is really uncaring because if one cares, they actually try to be truthful, even when saying difficult things. That was the focus of Ephesians 4 and a pretty fitting way to cleanse our minds from the BarelyAdventist sophistry.

14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

17So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.... 25Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body.