Last GenerationTheology the historical Adventist view.

Last GenerationTheology the historical Adventist view. By Ron Corson

Mark Finley recently gave a sermon that deals with Last Generation Theology (LGT). He begins with this paragraph:

The Bible makes a stunning prediction. At the end of time, God will have a group of people that are totally completely loyal to him. A people whose hearts are undivided. A people whose lives reflect the character of Christ fully. When that happens, the earth will be lightened with the glory of God. This will be a loyal people, an obedient people right here on this sinful planet. Now, some people call this concept last generation theology. But is it biblical? And what do we mean by that? Can grace so transform us that we live loyal lives? When we use the term perfection, what does that mean? We're going to probe that in this presentation. Let's be honest, it almost sounds like it's impossible to live obedient, godly lives in this sinful world. We look around, we see compromise in the world. We see weakness in the church. We see inconsistency in ourselves. We believe in grace but complete obedience. And then we wonder, can Jesus only pardon our sin? Or can Jesus deliver us from sin? And if he can, can he only deliver us from grosser, larger sins? Or can he deliver us from sins of of attitude and disposition? In Revelation 14:12, we find these words, Revelation the 14th chapter and the 12th verse. And the Bible says, "Here is the patience of the saints. Here are those that keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus." So the question isn't will God have such a people? The question really is how will that people be revealed and how will they be enabled to keep the commandments of God? How actually is this going to happen? How can broken people like us reflect the character of Christ? How can a generation raised in weakness become a 2:38 generation that walks in victory? 

This sermon has created a lot of controversy in the SDA church. Is LGT true or not, is it from Ellen White or the Bible. Is it perhaps just the misinterpretation of based upon M.L. Andreason [Milian Lauritz Andreasen (1876-1962) ].

There is however only one answer to the question and that is that it is the historical position of the Adventist denomination. It was set forth by the Adventist pioneers, the followers of William Miller who expected the second coming to occur in 1843 and then 1844. After the great disappointment, the Adventist pioneers followed Ellen White in her belief that the door of salvation had been closed. The key text that Mark Finley used was Revelation 14:12 was one of the key texts that those Adventist pioneers used in their writing after 1844. They thought they were the final generation.

Ellen White writes in her first book Early Writings:

“Servants of God, endowed with power from on high with their faces lighted up, and shining with holy consecration, went forth to proclaim the message from heaven. Souls that were scattered all through the religious bodies answered to the call, and the precious were hurried out of the doomed churches, as Lot was hurried out of Sodom before her destruction. God’s people were strengthened by the excellent glory which rested upon them in rich abundance and prepared them to endure the hour of temptation. I heard everywhere a multitude of voices saying, “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” EW 278.2

["This volume is a comprehensive selection of Ellen G. White’s published writings from the 1850s, along with a prologue explaining the historical background of the text. The autobiographical section of the book describes the author’s conversion experience, the Millerite movement of 1840-1844, and the early visions that formed the foundation of her theology and ministry." from the publisher]

What is important to remember is that this was at a time before the Adventist pioneers came to the conclusion that Saturday was the seventh-day sabbath. From the very beginning, many of the Adventist pioneers read their current generation in the book of Revelation. Mark Finley has taken the Adventist history of reading themselves into Revelation, but in this case, he puts a future final generation reading into it. He and Adventists also see themselves as the three angels' messages of the book of Revelation

Adventists have also used the verse above to show that they are the true church because they keep the true sabbath. Finley has simply taken the position that the first use by the Adventists was true for the early pioneers who thought that they were on the narrow path that took them to heaven. Continued to use the same verse to show that the Adventists are the true commandment keepers, and finally used the verse to show that there is a last generation of people who have been perfected by God to lead lives which are pure enough to be called perfect in a final generation.

Again from the book Early Writings: 

“While I was praying at the family altar, the Holy Ghost fell upon me, and I seemed to be rising higher and higher, far above the dark world. I turned to look for the Advent people in the world, but could not find them, when a voice said to me, “Look again, and look a little higher.” At this I raised my eyes, and saw a straight and narrow path, cast up high above the world. On this path the Advent people were traveling to the city, which was at the farther end of the path. They had a bright light set up behind them at the beginning of the path, which an angel told me was the midnight cry. This light shone all along the path and gave light for their feet so that they might not stumble. If they kept their eyes fixed on Jesus, who was just before them, leading them to the city, they were safe. But soon some grew weary, and said the city was a great way off, and they expected to have entered it before. Then Jesus would encourage them by raising His glorious right arm, and from His arm came a light which waved over the Advent band, and they shouted, “Alleluia!” Others rashly denied the light behind them and said that it was not God that had led them out so far. The light behind them went out, leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and lost sight of the mark and of Jesus, and fell off the path down into the dark and wicked world below. Soon we [See Appendix.] heard the voice of God like many waters, which gave us the day and hour of Jesus’ coming. The living saints, 144,000 in number, knew and understood the voice, while the wicked thought it was thunder and an earthquake. When God spoke the time, He poured upon us the Holy Ghost, and our faces began to light up and shine with the glory of God, as Moses’ did when he came down from Mount Sinai."

"The 144,000 were all sealed and perfectly united. On their foreheads was written, God, New Jerusalem, and a glorious star containing Jesus’ new name. At our happy, holy state the wicked were enraged, and would rush violently up to lay hands on us to thrust us into prison, when we would stretch forth the hand in the name of the Lord, and they would fall helpless to the ground. Then it was that the synagogue of Satan knew that God had loved us who could wash one another’s feet and salute the brethren with a holy kiss, and they worshiped at our feet." (EW 14-15)

The historical Prologue of Early Writings states: 

“James and Ellen White took their stand purely from the scriptural evidence to which their minds had been directed in the Bates tract. Then on the first Sabbath in April, 1847, seven months after they began to keep and teach the Seventh-day Sabbath, the Lord gave a vision to Mrs. White at Topsham, Maine, in which the importance of the Sabbath was stressed. She saw the tables of the law in the ark in the heavenly sanctuary, and a halo of light about the fourth commandment. See pages 32-35 for the account of this vision. The position previously taken from the study of the word of God was confirmed. The vision also helped to broaden the believer’s concept of Sabbath observance. In this revelation, Mrs. White was carried down to the close of time and saw the Sabbath as the great testing truth on which men decide whether to serve God or to serve an apostate power. Looking back in 1874 to this experience, she wrote:

“I believed the truth upon the Sabbath question before I had seen anything in vision in reference to the Sabbath. It was months after I had commenced keeping the Sabbath before I was shown its importance and its place in the third angel’s message.”—E. G. White Letter 2, 1874. (EW xxi.1-xxii.1

This Historical Prologue of the book Early Writings also presents this about the Shut door: 

“Certain references occur in this work, on pages 42-45, to the “open door” and the “shut door.” This is correctly understood only in the light of the background of the experience of our early believers.

Not too long after the Disappointment the pioneers saw that while there were those who through the definite rejection of light had closed the door to their salvation, there were many who had not heard the message and had not rejected it, and these might benefit from the provisions made for man’s salvation. By the early 1850’s these points stood out clearly. Then too, avenues for the presentation of the three angels’ messages were beginning to open up. Prejudice was dying away. Ellen White, looking back to their experience following the Disappointment wrote:

“‘It was then next to impossible to obtain access to unbelievers. The disappointment in 1844 had confused the minds of many, and they would not listen to any explanation of the matter.’”—The Review and Herald, November 20, 1883.

But in 1851 Elder White was able to report: “‘Now the door is open almost everywhere to present the truth, and many are prepared to read the publications who have formerly had no interest to investigate.’”—The Review and Herald, August 19, 1851. (EW xxix.4-xxx.3) See also https://whiteestate.org/about/issues1/unusual/shut-door/

Here is a common example of how Adventism has used Revelation 14:12:

The second angel warns us to watch out for the wine of Babylon, and the third angel warns us that false worship will be introduced by Babylon, and that it will be associated with a specific “mark.” The third message ends with a people who believe God. They are loyal to Him, and they worship Him. Revelation 14:12 says, “Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” These saints endure and keep the commandments of God and keep the faith of Jesus. Both characteristics have meaning. We will look at them separately.

The first defining characteristic is, “those who keep the commandments of God”. At the center of the commandments is the fourth commandment, which is the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy as the ultimate seal of God. We will look at 7 aspects that differentiate the seal of God from the mark of the beast.” The Seal of God and Mark of the Beast: Part 1 

There are other factors to the LGT one of which is the idea that the perfected last generation somehow vindicates God. As this paper states:

“Andreasen’s Great Controversy theme does not differ much from Ellen White’s. In fact, his beliefs were based on White’s concept. The slight difference is in the purpose of the saints and their righteous lives. According to the Spirit of Prophecy, the saints, through their lives, will help vindicate the character of God, while Andreasen went further by teaching that the vindication of God’s character depends on the saints. If they fail, God fails. Satan can still claim victory over God if the saints fail. However, the Spirit of Prophecy teaches that victory over Satan had already been accomplished on Calvary when Jesus cried, “It is finished.” (A Critical Evaluation of The LastGeneration Theology (LGT) of (L) ML Andreasen Through the Lens of TheScriptures and The Writings of Ellen G. White Dr. Koberson Langhu, Assistant Professor, Division of Religious Studies, Spicer Adventist University” 

Earlier in the paper Dr. Koberson Langhu wrote: "

According to Ellen White, Satan has accused God, saying that He cannot forgive the saints because they have committed many sins. And if He forgives them and yet destroys him and his angels, it would be an injustice on His part. To prove Satan wrong and to show that the saints have confessed their sins and have been forgiven, God “permits him to try them to the uttermost” (White 1939, 618). She also points out that God has His people who are “to be the depositories of His holy law and to vindicate His character before the world,” a “distinct people, a church on earth, second to none, but superior to all in their facilities to teach the truth, to vindicate the law of God” (White 1962, 58). They are to manifest His glory through their lives and character. She teaches that the saints will play a part in vindicating God’s character. However, we do not find any statement where she claims that the vindication of God’s character depends on the faithfulness of the saints.

It should be noted here that if someone has to vindicate someone else, the vindication must be essential to the process or it would not be a vindication. That is the key problem for both Ellen White and Andreasen. We note that Ellen White uses the term "vindicate" or "vindication" but we also note that she says the following and here is the full quote rather than the snippet that is most often used in certain highly edited books put out by the White Estate:

“Christ on the cross not only draws men to repentance toward God for the transgression of His law—for whom God pardons He first makes penitent—but Christ has satisfied Justice; He has proffered Himself as an atonement. His gushing blood, His broken body, satisfy the claims of the broken law, and thus He bridges the gulf which sin has made. He suffered in the flesh, that with His bruised and broken body He might cover the defenseless sinner. The victory gained at His death on Calvary broke forever the accusing power of Satan over the universe and silenced his charges that self-denial was impossible with God and therefore not essential in the human family.

Satan’s position in heaven had been next to the Son of God. He was first among the angels. His power had been debasing, but God could not reveal it in its true light and carry all heaven in harmony with him in removing him with his evil influences. His power was increasing, but [the] evil [was] yet unrecognized. It was a deadly power to the universe, but for the security of the worlds and the government of heaven, it was necessary that it should develop and be revealed in its true light.

In carrying out his enmity to Christ until He hung upon the cross of Calvary, with wounded, bruised body and broken heart, Satan completely uprooted himself from the affections of the universe. It was then seen that God had in His Son denied Himself, giving Himself for the sins of the world, because He loved mankind. The Creator was revealed in the Son of the infinite God. Here the question, “Can there be self-denial with God?” was forever answered. Christ was God, and condescending to be made flesh, He assumed humanity and became obedient unto death, that He might undergo infinite sacrifice.

Whatever sacrifice a human being could undergo Christ endured, notwithstanding Satan put forth every effort to seduce Him with temptations; but the greater the temptation, the more perfect was the sacrifice. All that was possible for man to endure in the conflict with Satan, Christ endured in His human and divine nature combined. Obedient, sinless to the last, He died for man, his substitute and surety, enduring all that men ever endure from the deceiving tempter, that man may overcome by being a partaker of the divine nature.” Letters and Manuscripts Volume 15 1900 March 28 {15LtMs. Ms 50 1900}

This leaves the question of what could possibly be needed to vindicate God.

From Ellen White we have a couple of statements.

1. Let all be careful not to make an outcry against the only people who are fulfilling the description given of the remnant people, who keep the commandments of God and have faith in Jesus.... God has a distinct people, a church on earth, second to none, but superior to all in their facilities to teach the truth, to vindicate the law of God.... My brother, if you are teaching that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is Babylon, you are wrong.—Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, 50, 58, 59 (1893). [The book of Revelation focuses on two sets of God’s people—the visible remnant (12:17) and “My people” in Babylon (18:4). This chapter deals with the former, and chapter 14, “The Loud Cry,” deals with the latter.] (Lde 43.1-3)

2. Of the Spirit Jesus said, “He shall glorify Me.” The Saviour came to glorify the Father by the demonstration of His love; so the Spirit was to glorify Christ by revealing His grace to the world. The very image of God is to be reproduced in humanity. The honor of God, the honor of Christ, is involved in the perfection of the character of His people. (DA 671.3)
   I have to note here that she had a second paragraph which kind of changes things in the 1904 Review and Herald:
   “At the cost of infinite sacrifice and suffering, Christ has provided for us every essential to success in the Christian warfare. The Holy Spirit brings power that enables man to overcome. It is through the agency of the Spirit that the government of Satan is to be subdued. It is the Spirit that convinces of sin, and, with the consent of the human being, expels sin from the heart. The mind is then brought under a new law,—the royal law of liberty.” (RH May 19. 1904 par 5)

   {{Perfection of character vs. royal law of liberty.]

3. “When the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.” Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own.” (COL 69.1)

Can these quotes be harmonized to be a vindication of God or of God's law? We will assume, since Ellen White thought that the law of God was a transcript of God's character, that they are one and the same. Is there a reason to vindicate God's law? Biblically, there is nothing that accuses God's law of having any sort of problem. The only problem likely is that people don't like to keep God's law. So if the law is not the problem, then that leaves God Himself as the one who needs to be vindicated. That moves us to number 2 above, the honor of God and Christ is involved in the perfection of Character. This idea is less about vindicating God but about the healing and restoration that God gives to us. It even seems more useful in the context of the Royal law mentioned in the book of James, as you shall love your neighbor as yourself, it is not a burden as God has written on the heart in the new covenant, it is not rule keeping but love and justice where mercy triumphs over judgment, as those who receive mercy show mercy. But the law of liberty is fulfilled in Christ, which is why He says my yoke is easy my burden light (Matt 11:30), and who the Lord has set free is free indeed (John 8:36). As the Holy Spirit convicts of sin and evicts the attraction of sin from the heart of people, the U-turn of the road of life as Hank Hanegraaff would often describe repentance. It is not a vindication that God can do something, the creator of the Universe can, as Paul says, change in an instant death to life and transform those still alive (1 Corinthians 15:52). There is no need for last generation theology; it is very much the conclusion of the plan of salvation. One could argue that the plan of salvation includes this as its last generation theology, but the point here is that it is not needed, and the plan succeeds without any LGT.

Number 3 gives us the idea that Christ has not been manifested in the Christian church and will someday perfectly reproduce His character in both the church and his people. When this character perfection is attained by the remnant people/church, then the harvest occurs. That is perhaps the best statement that comes close to being a vindication. When it occurs, then the harvest at the end of the world can happen. Yet it comes back to this is not even close to being a vindication of God as much as a completion of God's plan of redemption/salvation. In which case, it is only a vindication in that God has finished what He started. To vindicate according to Merriam Webster's dictionary, the first two definitions are: 

a. to free from allegation or blame

b.: confirm, substantiate

The problem is that there are two different presuppositions for Adventists: For many, maybe even most Adventists today, they begin with what is termed the Great Controversy Theme/view, and it is extra-biblical. When you look at Ellen White's quotes with her Great Controversy view, you have to say that there was,  before the earth was created. a claim made by Satan, known to Adventists as Lucifer, that God's government was unfair. That the Law is unjust and cannot be kept. If one uses the extra-biblical worldview of Ellen White than it can become human vindication. By keeping the commandments, humans prove the law is holy, just, and good, and this vindicates the Heavenly Government

So under Ellen Whites view humans can vindicate God by proving to the Universe that God's law can be kept by humans and that by perfecting a final generation, God proves his reputation by getting humans to the spiritually healthy, sinless state proving God power to heal and restore. Adventists who take this route often say something about our mission is vindicate the character of God. So Adventists are at an impasse they want to be Biblical yet want to follow their prophet whom they often refer to as the spirit of prophecy, pen of inspiration, the Lord's Messenger, the Testimonies. But there are two different starting points which necessitates two different ending points.

Ellen White predicted England to war against the Union

How to summarize this? I asked Copilot AI a question about Ellen White and her prediction that England would enter the Civil War and it answered that question incorrectly. That is the first half, getting the AI to revise its position. Then AI noted the Adventist tendency to claim prophecies are conditional and how they link that to Jonah. So I post this for the useful information it contains.

I asked Copilot AI this question and here is our conversation:
 

The SDA prophet Ellen White thought that England would join the south in the civil war correct?

Direct answer: Ellen White did not predict that England would join the Confederacy. What she wrote was that England was considering whether to take advantage of the United States’ weakened condition during the Civil War, possibly by declaring war. She never claimed England would side with the South, and in fact she emphasized that God was not with the Confederacy.

🔎 What Ellen White Actually Said

• In 1861–62, Ellen White reported visions about the Civil War.

• She wrote that England was weighing whether to make war on the United States, fearing that if it did so, other nations might exploit England’s weakness.

• She described England as “studying whether it is best to take advantage of the present weak condition of our nation” but did not say it would definitely act.

• She also stated: “God is not with the South, and He will punish them dreadfully in the end” (Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 359, 1863).

📌 Clarifying the Misconception

• Not a prophecy of alliance: Ellen White never said England would join the Confederacy.

• Context: At the time, there was widespread speculation in both North and South that Britain or France might intervene, since they relied on Southern cotton. Ellen White echoed those fears but framed them as possibilities, not certainties.

• Outcome: England ultimately stayed neutral, though it flirted with recognition of the Confederacy early in the war.

⚖️ Comparison: Ellen White vs. Historical Reality

🧠 Why This Matters

• Ellen White’s Civil War comments are often cited by Adventists as evidence of prophetic insight.

• Critics point out that she reflected common fears of the time rather than unique predictions.

• The idea that she thought England would join the South is a misunderstanding—her concern was about England possibly declaring war on the Union, not siding with the Confederacy.

In sum: Ellen White speculated that England might attack the Union during the Civil War, but she did not predict England would ally with the South. Her writings emphasized that the Confederacy was under divine judgment, not divine favor.

I then wrote:

It seems in her quote when she says "when England" that is a prediction after she said England was considering it. The quote: "Said the angel: “Hear, O heavens, the cry of the oppressed, and reward the oppressors double according to their deeds.” This nation will yet be humbled into the dust. England is studying whether it is best to take advantage of the present weak condition of our nation, and venture to make war upon her. She is weighing the matter, and trying to sound other nations. She fears, if she should commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home, and that other nations would take advantage of her weakness. Other nations are making quiet yet active preparations for war, and are hoping that England will make war with our nation, for then they would improve the opportunity to be revenged on her for the advantage she has taken of them in the past and the injustice done them. A portion of the queen’s subjects are waiting a favorable opportunity to break their yoke; but if England thinks it will pay, she will not hesitate a moment to improve her opportunities to exercise her power and humble our nation. When England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war, general confusion. England is acquainted with the diversity of feeling among those who are seeking to quell the rebellion. She well knows the perplexed condition of our Government; she has looked with astonishment at the prosecution of this war—the slow, inefficient moves, the inactivity of our armies, and the ruinous expenses of our nation. The weakness of our Government is fully open before other nations, and they now conclude that it is because it was not a monarchial government, and they admire their own government, and look down, some with pity, others with contempt, upon our nation, which they have regarded as the most powerful upon the globe. Had our nation remained united it would have had strength, but divided it must fall. "

That’s a sharp observation. The phrasing “When England does declare war…” certainly reads like a prediction, especially coming after the conditional language about England considering war. Adventist historians and critics have debated this very point: was Ellen White reporting a possibility, or did she cross into forecasting an event that never happened?

📖 How to Read the Passage

• Conditional vs. declarative:

• Earlier in the passage she says England is studying and weighing the matter. That’s conditional language.

• Then she shifts to “When England does declare war…” which sounds declarative, as if anticipating inevitability.

• Prophetic tone:

• Ellen White often used visionary language that blurred the line between describing possibilities and declaring outcomes.

• In this case, the angelic voice and the “when” phrasing give it a prophetic flavor, even though historically England never declared war.

🧠 Interpretive Options

1. Literal prediction (failed):

• Some critics argue this was a straightforward prophecy that England would declare war, which did not occur.

• They see this as evidence of fallibility in her Civil War visions.

2. Conditional warning (not fulfilled):

• Adventist apologists often frame it as conditional: “If England did declare war, then…”

• They argue the “when” was rhetorical, describing what would happen in that scenario, not guaranteeing it.

3. Reflection of contemporary fears:

• In 1861–62, many Americans feared Britain or France might intervene because of their reliance on Southern cotton.

• Ellen White’s language mirrors those anxieties, giving them a prophetic cast.

⚖️ Historical Reality

• Britain debated recognition of the Confederacy but never declared war.

• The Union’s naval blockade and Britain’s alternative cotton sources (Egypt, India) reduced the incentive.

• So the “when England does declare war” line was never realized.

✨ Why It Matters

This passage is a good example of how Ellen White’s Civil War writings are interpreted differently depending on one’s stance:

• Believers: see it as conditional prophecy or a warning that reflected real geopolitical risks.

• Critics: see it as a failed prediction, showing she echoed popular fears rather than divine foresight.

So yes—you’re right to notice that the “when England” phrase shifts from possibility to apparent prediction. The tension lies in whether that should be read as a literal forecast (which history disproved) or as a conditional scenario framed in prophetic rhetoric.

I wrote:

You say "The tension lies in whether that should be read as a literal forecast" At the time it had to be a literal forecast, if it were conditional what would the conditions be? If they are not stated they can not be conditional or you could say every prediction was conditional on some unstated conditions.

That’s a very sharp point, Ron. You’re cutting right into the heart of the apologetic debate.

If we take the text at face value, the phrase “When England does declare war…” is indeed a forecast. There are no explicit conditions stated—she doesn’t say “if England declares war” or “should England declare war.” She moves from describing England’s deliberations to asserting what will happen when they act. By the rules of plain language, that’s predictive.

Why Adventist apologists call it “conditional”

They argue that:

• Prophecies can be inherently conditional even if the conditions aren’t spelled out.

• Example: Jonah’s prophecy of Nineveh’s destruction (“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown”) had no stated conditions, but was reversed when Nineveh repented.

• The defense is that divine warnings often imply “unless circumstances change.”

• Ellen White’s Civil War visions were framed as warnings of what could happen if nations acted, not guarantees.

• Thus, “when England does declare war” is read as shorthand for “if England does declare war, then…”

The problem with that defense

• As you point out, if unstated conditions can always be assumed, then any failed prediction can be retroactively explained away. That undermines the very idea of prophecy having falsifiability.

• In the Civil War passage, Ellen White explicitly describes England’s deliberations and then pivots to inevitability. Without conditions, the natural reading is that she foresaw England’s declaration as certain.

• Historically, England never did declare war, so the statement looks like a failed forecast unless one accepts the apologetic move of “implicit conditionality.”

Scholarly framing

• Critics: call this a failed prophecy, evidence she echoed contemporary fears rather than divine foresight.

• Defenders: insist it was conditional, pointing to biblical precedent for unstated conditions in prophetic warnings.

• Middle ground: she used prophetic rhetoric to dramatize real geopolitical risks, but her language blurred the line between possibility and prediction.

So your critique is exactly right: unless we allow “unstated conditions” to float in the background of every prophecy, this passage reads as a literal forecast that history disproved. The conditional defense is really a theological strategy to preserve her authority, not something inherent in the text itself.

Would you like me to show you how Adventist scholars specifically use Jonah’s Nineveh prophecy as their model for defending Ellen White’s Civil War statements? That’s the most common parallel they draw.

I wrote: 

I point this out to you because you began with: "Direct answer: Ellen White did not predict that England would join the Confederacy. What she wrote was that England was considering whether to take advantage of the United States’ weakened condition during the Civil War, possibly by declaring war"

You’re right to call me out on that, Ron. My opening phrasing was too categorical—it glossed over the very tension you’ve been highlighting.

The passage itself clearly contains two layers:

1. Possibility language: “England is studying whether it is best… She is weighing the matter…”
   – This reflects deliberation, not certainty.
2. Forecast language: “When England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve…”
   – This moves into declarative prediction.

So while it’s accurate to say Ellen White never explicitly claimed England would ally with the South, it’s also true that she did forecast England would declare war on the Union. My earlier “direct answer” oversimplified by focusing only on the first part (the deliberation) and not acknowledging the second (the forecast).

Why this matters

• Critics: point to the “when England” phrase as a failed prophecy, since England never declared war.
• Defenders: argue it was conditional, even without stated conditions, drawing parallels to biblical prophecies like Jonah’s.
• Natural reading: as you’ve emphasized, without explicit conditions, the text reads as a literal forecast.

So I’ll refine my stance: Ellen White did not predict England would join the Confederacy, but she did predict England would declare war on the Union. That distinction is crucial. My initial summary blurred it, and you’re right to press for precision. [my emphasis here]

I wrote:

Going back to the Jonah's prophecy. As I recall the Hebrew word for overthrown has a pretty wide meaning. As the King repented and at least in the story changed his ways, would not that make the prophecy true without the need of conditions? I would also assume that Jonah  preached more than those 8 words, so it is likely that that line is more a summation of what he preached rather than all he preached.

You’re remembering something very important about Jonah’s prophecy. The Hebrew verb used in Jonah 3:4 is הָפַךְ (hāphak), usually translated “overthrown” or “turned.” And yes—it has a broad semantic range. It can mean:

• Destroyed/overthrown (as in Sodom, Genesis 19:25).

• Turned/changed/transformed (as in a reversal of fortune or a change of heart).

So when Jonah proclaimed, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” the wording itself carries a kind of double edge. The city could be “overthrown” in judgment, or “turned” in repentance.

📖 Implications for Jonah’s prophecy

• Fulfillment without conditions: If Nineveh repented and was “turned,” then the prophecy was fulfilled in the broader sense of hāphak. The city was indeed “overturned”—not by destruction, but by transformation.

• No need for explicit conditions: That linguistic flexibility means the prophecy doesn’t have to be read as failed or conditional. It was fulfilled, just in a different mode than Jonah expected.

• Jonah’s frustration: This explains Jonah’s anger in chapter 4. He wanted “overthrown” to mean destruction, but God allowed it to mean transformation. Jonah knew God’s character was merciful, which is why he resisted preaching in the first place.

🗣️ On Jonah’s actual preaching

You’re right: the eight words in English (“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown”) are almost certainly a summary of his message, not the entirety of what he said. Ancient prophetic accounts often condense the core oracle into a memorable line. Jonah probably preached more detail about Nineveh’s sins and the urgency of repentance, but the text preserves the essence.

⚖️ Why this matters for Ellen White

Adventist apologists use Jonah as a model: they argue that just as Jonah’s prophecy was “fulfilled” in repentance rather than destruction, Ellen White’s Civil War statements could be read as conditional warnings rather than failed forecasts.

But your point cuts deep: Jonah’s prophecy had a built-in semantic flexibility in the Hebrew word hāphak, whereas Ellen White’s “When England does declare war” lacks that kind of linguistic openness. Jonah’s oracle could be fulfilled either way; Ellen White’s forecast was falsified unless one imports the idea of unstated conditions.

So yes—your instinct is right. Jonah’s prophecy can be seen as fulfilled without needing conditions, because the Hebrew verb itself allows for transformation. Ellen White’s Civil War passage doesn’t have that linguistic elasticity, which is why the apologetic move feels much thinner.

Spectrum's progressive ploy to Traditional Adventists

 Spectrum Magazine online produced a article entitled “A Counterfeit Kingdom”: Adventists Confront Christian Nationalism at Religious Liberty Summit.

The article said: ."..that the current administration poses real dangers to the separation of church and state. The Religious Liberty Summit—hosted by the Church State Council—was less a political conference and more a return to basic Adventism, a reminder that our roots and prophetic identity were always meant to prepare us for precisely this moment."

The article says: 

Allred described contemporary Christian nationalism not as new, but as a modern expression of an old temptation: to secure by force the moral purity we despair of achieving by persuasion. He noted that some of the loudest voices on the Christian right—Charlie Kirk and Allie Beth Stuckey came to mind for me—frame political engagement as a battle against the people they disagree with. “But we’re not conquering nations,” Allred reminded attendees. “We’re not fighting people. We are fighting darkness.”

The problem here is that none of the specific people mentioned are Christian Nationalists. Most people have never even met a Christian nationalist I know I haven't. If we go by the term and its history here is the definition: 

" *an ideology calling for a government that incorporates or endorses aspects of Christian religion (as by making decisions, laws, policies, etc., in accordance with Christian beliefs, by engaging in government promotion of Christianity, or by legally enforcing Christian doctrine)" Christian nationalism

Not that this is a good definition for most countries in the world that endorse aspects of the Christian religion, such as don't murder, steal, etc. So that leaves only a government promotion of Christianity or legally enforcing Christian doctrine. Those do exist, and they are pretty small, and they have no problem in saying that they are dominionist. The two main groups we see are the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, and the Seven Mountain mandate/prophecy. Say you wanted to join either of those movements. you would find that they don't even have websites. 

Here are a couple of descriptions of those things: 

**New Apostolic Reformation (** **NAR****):** A movement originally identified and named in the 1990s by evangelical theologian C. Peter Wagner of Fuller Theological Seminary. He subsequently helped to organize apostolic leadership groups to give some coherence to the global movement. The NAR has since become the leading political and cultural vision of the Pentecostal and Charismatic wing of evangelical Christianity. The NAR is Dominionist, and it seeks to influence and ultimately control seven spheres or “mountains” of society: government, business, education, religion, arts & entertainment, family, and media. The movement comprises both churches and loosely organized “prayer networks” which exist outside of traditional denominations, although they are arguably a form of denomination themselves. For several decades the NAR has led the abandonment of traditional evangelical and mainline Protestant denominations in favor of prayer networks." https://politicalresearch.org/everything-you-want-know-about-new-apostolic-reformation

"The seven mountain mandate* , or s*even mountain prophecy* , is a strategy for cultural engagement popularized by Lance Wallnau and Bill Johnson in their 2013 book [*Invading Babylon*](https://www.amazon.com/Invading-Babylon-7-Mountain-Mandate/dp/0768403359/). Since its advent, the perspective has gained popularity, especially among charismatic and Pentecostal Christians. Proponents of the 7M mandate call on Christians to retake seven spheres (or mountains) of cultural influence: religion, family, government, education, media, arts/entertainment, and business." https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/seven-mountain-mandate/

Not that there is anything wrong with wanting a Christian influence on all of those things, the question is always how it is done. But what we did not see in the article about the meeting was any mention of the groups that are actually Christian nationalists. What we read is about what someone seems to want to imply about people who have nothing in common with the aims of the above two groups or dominion theology.

That is the problem. Since Evangelicals have always had more in common with political conservativism, the new Christian nationalism is meant to imply that Christian believers are Christian nationalists. The political left, having less in common with political conservatism, finds the combining and denigrating of both the political left and Christians to be a good place to condemn both. 

"Democrats are less likely than Republicans to believe in God, to pray, to attend religious services, and to say religion is very important to them, according to Pew Research Center surveys.

At the same time, among Democrats, religiousness differs widely by race and ethnicity. On a host of measures, White Democrats – and sometimes Asian Democrats *–* are *a lot less religious* than Black and Hispanic Democrats. Among Republicans, there is less variation." [Religiousness varies a lot by race among Democrats, relatively little among Republicans | Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/11/20/religiousness-varies-a-lot-by-race-among-democrats-relatively-little-among-republicans/)

So when you do research on the question of Christian nationalism you will often find simply conservative groups as being Christian nationalist if you are reading a source on the left. For example there are a number of places that site Project 2025 as being Christian nationalists even though it is a project of the Heritage Foundation a Conservative political group. Even though The Heritage Foundation has been releasing Mandate Projects since 1980. 

"The Mandate project dates to 1980, when Heritage published its first detailed guide to reforming the federal government on a department-by-department basis. Many of its conservative policy solutions were adopted by the Reagan administration, with the president referring to it as his governing “bible.” [Heritage Releases Final Volume in 2016 "Mandate for Leadership" Series | The Heritage Foundation](https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/heritage-releases-final-volume-2016-mandate-leadership-series)

The article continues:

From Ten Commandments mandates in schools, to renewed interest in blasphemy laws and Sunday legislation, Allred warned that political Christianity is once again gaining legitimacy in American public life—echoing early Adventist fears. “The question is not whether there are real problems in society,” he said. “The question is: What is the solution? Is the solution we’re seeking the real Christ, or a counterfeit?”

The article does not even mention Dominionism:

*Dominionism* , or *Christian Dominionism* is a term coined by social scientists and popularized by journalists to refer to a subset of American Christianity that is conservative, politically active, and believes that Christians should, and eventually will, take control of the government. The term is sometimes used as a “catch-all” by bloggers to describe any politically active Christian, but not every conservative, politically minded Christian is a Dominionist. [What is Christian dominionism? | GotQuestions.org](https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-dominionism.html)

Those at the conference are like the above bloggers using a "catch-all", that so many on the left us if a Christian is politically active, they will assert that they are Dominionist and hence Christian nationalist. But are there any Ten Commandment mandates in schools?

The AP reports:

Large numbers of Americans believe the founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation. A smaller group, part of a movement widely called Christian nationalism, champions a fusion of American and Christian identity and believes the U.S. has a mandate to build an explicitly Christian society. https://apnews.com/article/trump-religion-school-ten-commandments-9159f412c4f47ad421551885093a4a22

 That is how to accurately state the case. There are large numbers of Christians who want things done the way they used to be done and a small number who are Christian nationalists or more accurately Dominionists. There is also no mandate of the Ten Commandments in schools. But it sounds scary. In Texas here is what is involved:

Attorney General Ken Paxton issued the following statement directing all Texas Independent School Districts (ISDs) not enjoined by ongoing litigation to display copies of the Ten Commandments once Senate Bill 10 takes effect on September 1, 2025. 

“From the beginning, the Ten Commandments have been irrevocably intertwined with America’s legal, moral, and historical heritage,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Schools not enjoined by ongoing litigation must abide by S.B. 10 and display the Ten Commandments. The woke radicals seeking to erase our nation’s history will be defeated. I will not back down from defending the virtues and values that built this country.” 

S.B. 10 requires any public or secondary school to display the Ten Commandments in each classroom. While no school is compelled to purchase Ten Commandments displays, schools may choose to do so. However, schools must accept and display any privately donated posters or copies that meet the requirements of S.B. 10. Prior to the implementation of the law, activists sued several ISDs to stop the law. On August 20, a federal district court judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing the ISDs that are party to the litigation from displaying any copies of the Ten Commandments. Attorney General Paxton immediately appealed that flawed ruling. 

The only school districts affected by the injunction are Alamo Heights, North East, Austin, Cypress Fairbanks, Lackland, Lake Travis, Fort Bend, Houston, Dripping Springs, Plano, and Northside. All other ISDs must abide by the law once it takes effect on September 1, 2025.  https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-instructs-texas-schools-display-ten-commandments-accordance-texas-law

Is there also a renewed interest in blasphemy laws and Sunday legislation? Again, the answer is no, but Adventist tradition has a lot to say about Sunday legislation but that is not something we see often on Spectrum online!

 I am not criticizing the writing of the article as much as the information in the article. It was to be sure an article for itching ears. those on the left that want to denigrate Christians on the right for political involvement. What is funny about the article was how it assumes that the readers of the article will say yes this is our Adventist history and prophecy which speaks of this coming persecution from fellow Christians while those who will read the article on Spectrum have a near unanimous disapproval for Ellen White's Great Controversy and it supposed Sunday law and persecution if you go to church on a day other than Sunday. So the article had progressive Christians who are also progressive politically, or I would assert first and foremost progressive politically, calling on Adventist traditions to further their Progressive political agenda of defeating political conservatism. I am sure these speakers know they are being disingenuous about the Adventist history and prophecy but they want to cobble together anything they can to build up the political progressivism, their true religion.

Another Adventist Today Lie Baptismal vows

 Occasionally, I wander back on Adventist Today to see what the current Progressive propaganda is and imagine my surprise to see this article. 

You Don’t Have to Believe Ellen White Is a Prophet to Be an Adventist

Commentary Ellen White, spirit of prophecy, test of fellowship  By Ron Hessel  14 November 2025 

Here we read:

 And you don’t have to

There is some confusion on this, so let’s just set the record straight: you do not need to believe in Ellen White as a prophet in order to be a Seventh-day Adventist in good standing. Here is what it says in the Baptismal Vows I copied from the official church website.

“8. Do you accept the biblical teaching of spiritual gifts and believe that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church?”

Notice that it does not say anything about Ellen White. Also notice that gift of prophecy is all in lower case—it is not capitalized. When, within our tribe, Ellen White and her work is referred to, “the Gift of Prophecy” is capitalized like a title. Otherwise, the gift of prophecy, all lower case, refers to one of the gifts of the Spirit as outlined in scripture.

The Baptismal Vows do not make us pledge allegiance to Ellen White, contrary to what some assert.

That is great, right? He has told us that the gift of prophecy is one of the marks of the remnant church and that it does not refer to Ellen White; it is just one of the many spiritual gifts! 

But what if he read further in the baptismal vows:

11. I know and understand the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I purpose, by the grace of God, to fulfill His will by ordering my life in harmony with these principles. 

What do you think those "fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church" may be? If only there were a list or a book of the Adventist Fundamental Beliefs. Maybe they are even enumerated for convenience.

Let's see what one of the Fundamental SDA beliefs is:

The Gift of Prophecy  Z18 The Scriptures testify that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and we believe it was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Num. 12:6; 2 Chron. 20:20; Amos 3:7; Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10; 22:8, 9.)

There seems to be one more baptismal vow that seems to be related to this gift of prophecy to the remnant church, and that is the final vow:

13. I accept and believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the remnant church of Bible prophecy and that people of every nation, race, and language are invited and accepted into its fellowship. I desire to be a member of this local congregation of the world church. 

I wonder where they get the idea that the SDA church is the remnant church of Bible prophecy. Does it perhaps come from the gift of prophecy, which they believe is manifested in the ministry of Ellen White? Pretty sure that is the case.

But anyway, according to this article on Adventist Today, if we don't look too hard, we can say that Adventists don't have to believe in Ellen White as a prophet. 

Good to know. But you say, the first instance said fundamental principles, not fundamental beliefs. Okay, but are you sure you want to go there you can read the following articles and include the 1872 Fundamental Principles and of course the articles that oppose the transition from principles to beliefs such as: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES vs BELIEFS - also referred to as THE TRANS-FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL ENGINEERING OF ADVENTISM Go ahead at your own risk:)

A DECLARATION OF THE Fundamental Principles TAUGHT AND PRACTICED -BY-THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS. STEAM PRESS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION, BATTLE CREEK, MICH.: 1872.

Fundamental Principles

In presenting to the public this synopsis of our faith, we wish to have it distinctly understood that we have no articles of faith, creed, or discipline, aside from the Bible. We do not put forth this as having any authority with our people, nor is it designed to secure uniformity among them, as a system of faith, but is a brief statement of what is, and has been, with great unanimity, held by them. We often find it necessary to meet inquiries on this subject, and sometimes to correct false statements circulated against us, and to remove erroneous impressions which have obtained with those who have not had an opportunity to become acquainted with our faith and practice. Our only object is to meet this necessity. 

As Seventh-day Adventists we desire simply that our position shall be understood; and we are the more solicitous for this because there are many who call themselves Adventists who hold views with which we can have no sympathy, some of which, we think, are subversive of the plainest and most important principles set forth in the word of God. 

As compared with other Adventists, Seventh-day Adventists differ from one class in believing in the unconscious state of the dead, and the final destruction of the unrepentant wicked; from another, in believing in the perpetuity of the law of God as summarily contained in the ten commandments, in the operation of the Holy Spirit in the church, and in setting no times for the advent to occur; from all, in the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord, and in many applications of the prophetic scriptures. 

With these remarks, we ask the attention of the reader to the following propositions, which aim to be a concise statement of the more prominent features of our faith. 

—I—

That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Psalm 139:7. 

—II—

That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that he dwelt among men full of grace and truth, lived our example, died our sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in Heaven, where, with his own blood he makes atonement for our sins; which atonement so far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of his work as priest, according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in Heaven. See Leviticus 16; Hebrews 8:4, 5; 9:6, 7; etc. 

—III—

That the Holy Scriptures, of the Old and New Testaments, were given by inspiration of God, contain a full revelation of his will to man, and are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. 

—IV—

That Baptism is an ordinance of the Christian church, to follow faith and repentance, an ordinance by which we commemorate the resurrection of Christ, as by this act we show our faith in his burial and resurrection, and through that, of the resurrection of all the saints at the last day; and that no other mode fitly represents these facts than that which the Scriptures prescribe, namely, immersion. Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12. 

-V-

That the new birth comprises the entire change necessary to fit us for the kingdom of God, and consists of two parts: first, a moral change, wrought by conversion and a Christian life; second, a physical change at the second coming of Christ, whereby, if dead, we are raised incorruptible, and if living, are changed to immortality in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. John 3:3, 5; Luke 20:36. 

-VI-

We believe that prophecy is a part of God’s revelation to man; that it is included in that scripture which is profitable for instruction, 2 Timothy 3:16; that it is designed for us and our children. Deuteronomy 29:29; that so far from being enshrouded in impenetrable mystery, it is that which especially constitutes the word of God a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, Psalm 119:105, 2 Peter 2:19; that a blessing is pronounced upon those who study it, Revelation 1:1-3; and that, consequently, it is to be understood by the people of God sufficiently to show them their position in the world’s history, and the special duties required at their hands. 

-VII-

That the world’s history from specified dates in the past, the rise and fall of empires, and chronological succession of events down to the setting up of God’s everlasting kingdom, are outlined in numerous great chains of prophecy; and that these prophecies are now all fulfilled except the closing scenes. 

-VIII-

That the doctrine of the world’s conversion and temporal millennium is a fable of these last days, calculated to lull men into a state of carnal security, and cause them to be overtaken by the great day of the Lord as by a thief in the night; that the second coming of Christ is to precede, not follow, the millennium; for until the Lord appears the papal power, with all its abominations, is to continue, the wheat and tares grow together, and evil men and seducers wax worse and worse, as the word of God declares. 

-IX-

That the mistake of Adventists in 1844 pertained to the nature of the event then to transpire, not to the time; that no prophetic period is given to reach to the second advent, but that the longest one, the two thousand and three hundred days of Daniel 8:14, terminated in that year, and brought us to an event called the cleansing of the sanctuary. 

-X-

That the sanctuary of the new covenant is the tabernacle of God in Heaven, of which Paul speaks in Hebrews 8, and onward, of which our Lord, as great High Priest, is minister; that this sanctuary is the antitype of the Mosaic tabernacle, and that the priestly work of our Lord, connected therewith, is the antitype of the work of the Jewish priests of the former dispensation. Hebrews 8:1-5, etc.; that this is the sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, what is termed its cleansing being in this case, as in the type, simply the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place, to finish the round of service connected therewith, by blotting out and removing from the sanctuary the sins which had been transferred to it by means of the ministration in the first apartment, Hebrews 9:22, 23; and that this work, in the antitype, commencing in 1844, occupies a brief but indefinite space, at the conclusion of which the work of mercy for the world is finished. 

-XI-

That God’s moral requirements are the same upon all men in all dispensations; that these are summarily contained in the commandments spoken by Jehovah from Sinai, engraven on the tables of stone, and deposited in the ark, which was in consequence called the “ark of the covenant,” or testament. Numbers 10:33, Hebrews 9:4, etc.; that this law is immutable and perpetual, being a transcript of the tables deposited in the ark in the true sanctuary on high, which is also, for the same reason, called the ark of God’s testament; for under the sounding of the seventh trumpet we are told that “the temple of God was opened in Heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament.” Revelation 11:19. 

-XII-

That the fourth commandment of this law requires that we devote the seventh day of each week, commonly called Saturday, to abstinence from our own labor, and to the performance of sacred and religious duties; that this is the only weekly Sabbath known to the Bible, being the day that was set apart before paradise was lost, Genesis 2:2, 3, and which will be observed in paradise restored, Isaiah 66:22, 23; that the facts upon which the Sabbath institution is based confine it to the seventh day, as they are not true of any other day; and that the terms, Jewish Sabbath and Christian Sabbath, as applied to the weekly rest-day, are names of human invention, unscriptural in fact, and false in meaning. 

-XIII-

That as the man of sin, the papacy, has thought to change times and laws (the laws of God), Daniel 7:25, and has misled almost all Christendom in regard to the fourth commandment, we find a prophecy of a reform in this respect to be wrought among believers just before the coming of Christ. Isaiah 56:1, 2; 1 Peter 1:5, Revelation 14:12, etc. 

-XIV-

That as the natural or carnal heart is at enmity with God and his law, this enmity can be subdued only by a radical transformation of the affections, the exchange of unholy for holy principles; that this transformation follows repentance and faith, is the special work of the Holy Spirit, and constitutes regeneration or conversion. 

-XV-

That as all have violated the law of God, and cannot of themselves render obedience to his just requirements, we are dependent on Christ, first, for justification from our past offences, and, secondly, for grace whereby to render acceptable obedience to his holy law in time to come. 

-XVI-

That the Spirit of God was promised to manifest itself in the church through certain gifts, enumerated especially in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4; that these gifts are not designed to supersede, or take the place of, the Bible, which is sufficient to make us wise unto salvation, any more than the Bible can take the place of the Holy Spirit; that in specifying the various channels of its operation, that Spirit has simply made provision for its own existence and presence with the people of God to the end of time, to lead to an understanding of that word which it had inspired, to convince of sin, and work a transformation in the heart and life; and that those who deny to the Spirit its place and operation, do plainly deny that part of the Bible which assigns to it this work and position. 

-XVII-

That God, in accordance with his uniform dealings with the race, sends forth a proclamation of the approach of the second advent of Christ; that this work is symbolized by the three messages of Revelation 14, the last one bringing to view the work of reform on the law of God, that his people may acquire a complete readiness for that event. 

-XVIII-

That the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary (see proposition X), synchronizing with the time of the proclamation of the third message, is a time of investigative judgment, first with reference to the dead, and at the close of probation with reference to the living, to determine who of the myriads now 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-points which must be determined before the Lord appears. 

-XIX-

That the grave, whither we all tend, expressed by the Hebrew sheol, and the Greek hades, is a place of darkness in which there is no work, device, wisdom, or knowledge. Ecclesiastes 9:10. 

-XX-

That the state to which we are reduced by death is one of silence, inactivity, and entire unconsciousness. Psalm 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6; Daniel 12:2, etc. 

-XXI-

That out of this prison house of the grave mankind are to be brought by a bodily resurrection; the righteous having part in the first resurrection, which takes place at the second advent of Christ, the wicked in the second resurrection, which takes place a thousand years thereafter. Revelation 20:4-6. 

-XXII-

That at the last trump, the living righteous are to be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, and with the resurrected righteous are to be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, so forever to be with the Lord. 

-XXIII-

That these immortalized ones are then taken to Heaven, to the New Jerusalem, the Father’s house in which there are many mansions, John 14:1-3, where they reign with Christ a thousand years, judging the world and fallen angels, that is, apportioning the punishment to be executed upon them at the close of the one thousand years; Revelation 20:4; 1 Corinthians 6:2, 3; that during this time the earth lies in a desolate and chaotic condition, Jeremiah 4:20-27, described, as in the beginning by the Greek term abussos (õóó ïò) bottomless pit (Septuagint of Genesis 1:2); and that here Satan is confined during the thousand years, Revelation 20:1, 2, and here finally destroyed, Revelation 20:10; Malachi 4:1; the theater of the ruin he has wrought in the universe, being appropriately made for a time his gloomy prison house, and then the place of his final execution. 

-XXIV-

That at the end of the thousand years, the Lord descends with his people and the New Jerusalem, Revelation 21:2, the wicked dead are raised and come up upon the surface of the yet unrenewed earth, and gather about the city, the camp of the saints, Revelation 20:9, and fire comes down from God out of heaven and devours them. They are then consumed root and branch, Malachi 4:1, becoming as though they had not been. Obadiah 15, 16. In this everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, the wicked meet the everlasting punishment threatened against them, Matthew 25:46. This is the perdition of ungodly men, the fire which consumes them being the fire for which “the heavens and the earth which are now” are kept in store, which shall melt even the elements with its intensity, and purge the earth from the deepest stains of the curse of sin. 2 Peter 3:7-12. 

-XXV-

That a new heavens and earth shall spring by the power of God from the ashes of the old, to be, with the New Jerusalem for its metropolis and capital, the eternal inheritance of the saints, the place where the righteous shall evermore dwell. 2 Peter 3:13; Psalm 37:11, 29; Matthew 5:5. 

PreviousNext

Interface Language 

English

Copyright © 2025 by Ellen G. White. All Rights Reserved.

Progressive Christians lying about Jesus for politics

 Someone posted this short Reel on Facebook. It is a good example of the problem of Progressive Christians who so often seem to view truth as a terribly flexible thing that can be bent to whatever purpose they choose. By leaving behind objective truth they feel they can lie about whatever they want.

This Reel has someone by the name of Rev. Dr. Caleb J Lines. Extolling the reason he is against MAGA
The Transcription from his Reel:

“You know I am anti-maga because I'm anti-Christian Nationalist, Christian Nationalism isn't Christian and It's not patriotic. Instead it is idol worship, blind loyalty to a nation or to a leader like Donald Trump as if he were God. Maga Christian nationalists stand against everything that Jesus was for because maga is for illegal detainment and deportation. When Jesus said to welcome the stranger, maga is for dismantling health care in this country. When Jesus distributed health care for free, maga is for demonizing people of color. Whenever Jesus said that we are all children of God with inherent worth and dignity, maga is for peeling away the reproductive health that we have in this country. When the Bible defines life as beginning at first breath in Genesis 2:7 Maga is for the unfettered proliferation of guns. When Jesus said that those who live by the sword will die by the sword, maga is for the criminalization of the existence of queer people which When Jesus affirmed that community in the Gospel of Matthew. So yeah, I'm anti Maga, but only because I'm pro humanity, I'm pro democracy, and most importantly, I'm pro Jesus. If you're a Christian, I hope that you're pro Jesus too. “

Lets first look at his claims for MAGA and see if any of them are true:

You know I am anti-MAGA because I'm anti Christian Nationalist. Christian Nationalism isn't Christian and It's not patriotic. Instead it is idol worship, blind loyalty to a nation or to a leader like Donald Trump as if he were God.

Maga Christian nationalists stand against everything that Jesus was for.

Because MAGA is for illegal detainment and deportation.

maga is for dismantling health care in this country.

maga is for demonizing people of color.

maga is for peeling away the reproductive health that we have in this country.

Maga is for the unfettered proliferation of guns.

maga is for the criminalization of the existence of queer people

Of course, the meaning of Christian nationalism can vary from I am a Christian and I am a nationalist as opposed to being a globalist. We don't know his definition, but if we take his list for what he says, it is a list that we don't find either Christian nationalists or MAGA people believe in.

Do either Christian Nationalists or MAGA have blind loyalty to a nation or a leader like Donald Trump? Of course not, we all just went through 4 years of the Biden Administration and covid mandates, only  Democrats were blindly loyal to their country through that. I know of no one with blind loyalty to Donald Trump. Point me out that person if you think there is even one. I know someone will point to someone in his administration and pretend that supporting the administration is somehow blind loyalty rather than doing the job they were hired to do.

Is MAGA for illegal detainment and deportation? No, they are following the immigration laws, which do include deportation and detainment before deportation.

Is MAGA for dismantling health care in this country? No, government subsidized health care may need some reforms, even Democrats believe that. But even if the country removed government-paid health subsidies, that would not dismantle health care.

Does MAGA demonize people of color? Of course not. In fact, MAGA has very high respect for people like Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell. The vice president is married to an Asian Indian the head of the FBI is a person of color. Where is the demonizing of people of color? Being against DEI is not a demonization of anyone; it is meant to bring back equality by not selecting for a skin color or against a skin color.

Is MAGA for peeling away the reproductive health in this country? Of course not, there has been no change to reproductive health, what this Progressive means, of course, is abortion. Maga might like to end the killing of millions of unborn babies, but all that has happened is the Federal government sent the issue to the individual states rather than as the Supreme Court years ago said it was a right in the US Constitution, which it was never found there.

Is MAGA for the unfettered proliferation of guns? That is pretty absurd, no part of MAGA says we must get Federal criminals guns as soon as they exit prison. Maga is quite happy with criminals not having guns and has been encouraging places like Chicago to reduce their gun violence.

Is MAGA for the criminalization of the existence of queer people? Like all the other lies about MAGA this is a complete fabrication. There have been no laws proposed against queer people (though Ultra Violet Queers may get some legislative actions in the future). I doubt this Rev even knows the meaning of the term queer, though I am sure he would agree with queer theology.

So we see there is a whole lot of lying going on just in his accusations against MAGA and Christian Nationalism. What about his answers to his own false statements? Was Jesus really in opposition to Make America Great Again?

Jesus said to welcome the stranger: No, in fact, Jesus does not say that; the closest Jesus gets to that is: In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus teaches His disciples that whatever they do for “the least of these,” they have done for Him. When we love and serve the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, and the stranger, we are loving and serving Jesus.” But does that mean that no country should have immigration laws or borders? If Jesus simply said, welcome the strangers, should not every Christian open their homes to every vagrant they see? If they did, Christians would not have homes very long, and they themselves would be vagrants. If the Rev disagrees, I hope he just opens his church to any stranger at any time and sees how well that goes. But countries have political systems, and our democratic Republic votes on the representatives who create the laws, and that has happened with our immigration laws. They are not always enforced such as happened in the Biden Administration.

Jesus distributed health care for free: Not really, Jesus healed some people, not all people. The woman with a bleeding disorder that was healed by touching Jesus's garment was trying to get near enough to be healed but was not able to get Jesus's attention. See also 

Mark 6:5 Even the healing from Jesus could not heal everyone during his earthly ministry. But if our lesson from Jesus is health care should be free, Doctors and nurses and caregivers should be offering their services for free. Hospitals and drug companies should offer treatments for free. The result would be the entire collapse or our health care in America.

Jesus said that we are all children of God with inherent worth and dignity. I think this is the first true thing that Rev Lines has said so far!

The Bible defines life as beginning at first breath in Genesis 2:7. Well, that didn't last long, the truth-telling. The Bible in Gen 2:7 is referring to God giving the breath of life to Adam, the first of mankind, breathed into the man by God; it is not a reference to a baby's first breath. If it were as some abortionists use this, it would be completely OK to abort a child at 9 months. Pretty much something that only a small number of Americans would agree is OK. That makes this Progressive Christian belief even at odds with the majority of American culture at large.

Jesus said that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Another rare bit of truth, but it has nothing at all to do with the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. If you have a gun, that in no way means you will die by a gun or any other kind of violence. The Rev has again distorted the Bible text.

When Jesus affirmed that community in the Gospel of Matthew: So he has just given up now, there is no affirmation of queer people in the book of Matthew; he knows it, we all know it.

Do not be led astray by the preaching of “another gospel” in the guise of Progressive Christianity. Progressive Christianity is downstream of Progressive Politics. This is a very good example of putting politics before any kind of Biblical hermeneutics.