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!
