Fundamental belief as system of interpretation

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

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

a fundamental truth/belief/concept

b : serving as an original or generating source

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

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

3: of central importance : principal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Belief 13 (1931)

Components:

1. No prophetic period reaches the Second Advent

2. 2300 days is the longest prophetic period

3. 2300 days ended in 1844

4. Event = cleansing of the sanctuary

5. Day year method (implied)

6. Historicist interpretation (implied)

Modern Statement:

• 2300 days ended in 1844 → explicit

• Cleansing of sanctuary → explicit

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

• Day year method → implicit

• Historicist method → implicit

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

Belief 14 (1931)

Components:

1. True sanctuary is in heaven

2. Earthly tabernacle was a type

3. Christ ministers there as High Priest

4. His ministry is antitype of Jewish priests

5. Heavenly sanctuary is cleansed at end of 2300 days

6. Cleansing = work of judgment

7. Christ entered judgment phase in 1844

8. Day of Atonement typology

9. Judgment began in 1844

10. Completion closes probation

Modern Statement:

• Heavenly sanctuary → explicit

• Earthly type / heavenly antitype → explicit

• Christ as High Priest → explicit

• Two phase ministry → explicit

• 1844 transition → explicit

• Investigative judgment → explicit

• Day of Atonement typology → explicit

• Completion closes probation → explicit

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

Belief 15 (1931)

Components:

1. God sends a warning proclamation before the Advent

2. This follows His pattern of warning humanity

3. Symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14

4. Message brings reform

5. Reform prepares a people for Christ’s coming

Modern Statement:

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

They appear in:

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

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

Belief 16 (1931)

Components:

1. Cleansing of sanctuary coincides with Rev 14 proclamation

2. Time = investigative judgment

3. Judgment of dead

4. Judgment of living

5. Determines who is worthy of first resurrection

6. Determines who is worthy of translation

Modern Statement:

• Investigative judgment → explicit

• Judgment of dead → explicit

• Judgment of living → explicit

• First resurrection worthiness → explicit

• Translation worthiness → explicit

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

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

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

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

1. Historicist method

2. Day year principle

3. 2300 days ending in 1844

4. Heavenly sanctuary typology

5. Investigative judgment

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

• judgment of dead → living sequence

• close of probation

• vindication of God’s justice

• heavenly intelligences observing

• three angels’ messages (now placed elsewhere)

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

The core is made of interpretive mechanisms:

• historicism

• day year principle

• 2300 years

• 457 BC → 1844

• heavenly sanctuary typology

• two-phase priesthood

• investigative judgment beginning in 1844

These are technical claims. They require:

• specific hermeneutics

• specific historical assumptions

• specific typological mappings

• specific chronological calculations

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

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

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

These include:

• judgment of the dead

• judgment of the living

• vindication of God

• heavenly intelligences observing

• readiness for translation

• moral reform

• close of probation

• three angels’ messages

• loyalty to God

• justice of God

• preparation for Christ’s return

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

They make the doctrine feel:

• purposeful

• ethical

• relational

• cosmic

• pastoral

• relevant

They give the core existential weight.

3. The Supportive Components Make the Core Feel Reasonable

Without supportive components

The core looks like:

• a long prophetic math equation

• a typological chain

• a hermeneutical method

• a date (1844)

• a heavenly event no one can see

• a judgment no one can verify

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

With supportive components

Suddenly the core feels:

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

• moral (“God vindicates justice”)

• relational (“Christ ministers for us”)

• eschatological (“probation will close”)

• urgent (“prepare for translation”)

• communal (“three angels’ messages”)

The supportive components wrap the core in meaning.

They make the core feel:

• necessary

• purposeful

• spiritually compelling

• emotionally resonant

• morally serious

• cosmically significant

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

4. This Is Why the System Persists

Even if someone struggles with:

• the date

• the hermeneutics

• the typology

• the prophetic math

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

The supportive components:

• make the doctrine feel like it explains the universe

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

• make the doctrine feel like it explains salvation

• make the doctrine feel like it explains the end times

• make the doctrine feel like it explains human destiny

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

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

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

• God judges the dead → Rev 20, Heb 9

• God judges the living → 1 Pet 4:17

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

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

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

• Moral reform and obedience → entire NT

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

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

• Translation of the living → 1 Thess 4:17

• First resurrection → Rev 20:4–6

• “God is love” — 1 John 4:8

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

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

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

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

None of these require:

• 1844

• the day year principle

• historicism

• the 2300 day calculation

• a two phase heavenly ministry

• the investigative judgment

• the cleansing of a heavenly sanctuary

They stand on their own in Scripture.

They are not dependent on the Adventist sanctuary doctrine.

Larry Geraty on Seeking What They Sought Podcast

 I watched the recent Seeking what they Sought podcast today. It was mostly about Larry Geraty's involvement with the writing of the Fundamental belief on the Sanctuary in the 1980 Fundamental beliefs. Not too important until they asked Geraty about what he believes about the Sanctuary doctrine which to him is that there is someday a future Judgment and Christ is the Judge and 1844 is nothing at all. In other words, he is in line with most all the rest of Christianity. Then he is asked the following:

From the Transcript (edited for clarity):

1:11:40 (Sean speaking) "you know when we talk about it Ellen white, can she be a prophet, Larry and  have gotten things objectively wrong? [skip crosstalk some other interjections of little value] (Larry Geraty) no I think that your question is uh can a 1:12:42 prophet make a mistake and still be led by God and be valuable and I think that we look back in history you know the New Testament and the Old Testament were all those prophets perfect no many of them 1:12:54 made mistakes uh but that didn't mean that they weren't an important part of the building blocks that we build on as we move forward so uh I think it's it's better to admit a mistake than to spend endless hours trying to justify and look for reasons why you were right you know but um um"

So, to Larry Geraty a supposed prophet can make a huge mistake of saying that the Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, which was supposedly begun with the judgment of the dead saints in 1844, since the anticipated second coming of 1844 did not occur and something big must have happened because they could not have been wrong on their date setting. It was simply not true and just a mistake that the same prophet in the next 70 or so years never corrected. Or if you really believe that the confirmation of that doctrine came from God to Ellen White, that God never corrected it! That doctrine and all the sundry attached doctrines that caused so much distress in Adventism and so much dissension, and still causes dissension today as well as another strange teaching called Last Generation theology, which asserts a generation of sinless people to usher in the second coming was somehow valuable. 

No wonder they pulled the book "Reclaiming the Prophet". If he is an example of one of the authors'  writers' logic, that book would have been a laughing stock inside and outside of Adventism.

A Response to Alden Thompson on Conditional Prophecy

In the most recent issue of Adventist Today (Fall 2011) Alden Thompson has an article entitled Conditional Prophecy and Last-Day Events. I had mentioned to a friend that he seemed to waste a lot of the article on talking about the Sabbath. My friend who knows Alden and thus I suspect has a bit more insight into his thinking, but is also a bit less critical of what he actually said, suggested that the underlying reason for the Sabbath inclusion in the article was to develop subtly the idea that the Sabbath is not an end time Seal of God and the conditional prophecy was a method of planting those ideas into the reader.

Thus I had to re-read the article to see if I could see those subtle connections as my friend explained it. If there I thought I would be in substantial agreement though likely not with his conditional prophecy position.


Alden Thompson introduces us to his subject after explaining through the process of some rather gratuitous assertions the solid foundation of the Sabbath and that “the New Testament is equally clear pressing the question of how to keep the Sabbath but never quarreling over the fact of the Sabbath.” True enough but what does the “fact” of the sabbath really mean. That the New Testament acknowledges the Sabbath is true but does not in any way seek to endorse it as a continuing obligation, leaving it up to the conscience of people (Rom. 14:5). But when someone says the fact of the sabbath to an Adventist I think they often have a different understanding, the fact to them being the continuing obligation of Seventh day Sabbath keeping as their proof of true commandment keeping. I will come back to that after I cover the next area of Thompson's article where he recounts the conflict of 1888 through Ellen Whites perspective.
The article covers an area of all or nothing thinking which he seems to want to use to develop his concept of conditional prophecy. He recounts this incident from the 1888 Ellen White Materials page 220 I will give the full two paragraphs:

I told them I had been shown that some of our brethren had educated themselves as debaters. The process of this education and the mold received by such an education were not after God's order, neither did they meet the approval of God. In many respects men trained in this kind of school unfitted themselves to become pastors of the sheep and lambs; and in combating an opponent, as in the way of discussions, usually harm is done with but little good results. The combative spirit is raised in both parties, and a defiant, hard spirit becomes habitual when their track is crossed. They become criticizers and do not always handle the Scriptures fairly, but wrest the Scriptures to make their point.

The remark was made, "If our views of Galatians are not correct, then we have not the third angel's message, and our position goes by the board; there is nothing to our faith." I said, "Brethren, here is the very thing I have been telling you. This statement is not true. It is an extravagant, exaggerated statement. If it is made in the discussion of this question I shall feel it my duty to set this matter before all that are assembled, and whether they hear or forbear, tell them the statement is incorrect. The question at issue is not a vital question and should not be treated as such. The wonderful importance and magnitude of this subject has been exaggerated. For this reason--through misconception and perverted ideas-- we see the spirit that prevails at this meeting, which is unchristlike, and which we should never see exhibited among brethren. There has been a spirit of Pharisaism coming in among us which I shall lift my voice against wherever it may be revealed." Full 1888 materials in PDF

The brother who says we don't have the third angel's message is on the side that says the law in Galatians is the Ceremonial law (which by the way is an entirely artificial designation the Jews did not separate the law as moral or ceremonial). The brother was working against the position of Jones and Waggoner that the law in Galatians was the moral law (by which Adventists mean the 10 commandments, again a fictional law division).

Thompson then begins on the Conditional prophecy portion by saying that the Adventists had two pillars which can be found in the simple covenant that Adventists first signed when they formed as a church in 1861. “covenanting to keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus Christ [Rev. 14:12] Central to the commandments is the Sabbath;”

So even though Ellen White thought the brother was exaggerating his thinking, that if the law in Galatians was our school master to lead us to Christ and then fade we can't be correct in our statement of the third angel's message which is that last part of the verse in Rev 14:12. Thus the brother's offering is not really all or nothing but the recognition that if our faith is in our understanding of the Seventh day Sabbath observance as our special mission (to preach the third or three angel's message) the position would be in error and faith based on error is not terribly useful. Ellen White is not even able to refute the brother but threatens to, as we continue to read that letter we see she never deals with the issue only criticizes the spirit of those involved. Which by the way is usually a truism when any two or more people get together and argue strongly held views religious or otherwise.

Alden Thompson's conclusion to the illustration of history is:

“Let's be clear: whatever we do with conditional prophecy or end-time events does not move a pin from those landmarks, the ones reflected in our name Seventh-day Adventists.”

That would not be the conclusion I would draw from the illustration from Adventist history of this event. But then I don't see the brother as giving an all or nothing position either. He seems quite rational and deserved a bit more rational response then he received. I might accept the conclusion that from our history we accept certain pillars as unmovable because we ignore any reasons to move them. Which strangely enough seems to be Thompson's case, as he continues:

“I hope the long preamble makes it clear that there is no point in going further unless the Adventist landmarks are in place. When they are secure, however, we can begin to nibble on “conditional prophecy” in bite-size chunks.”

He then covers some of the ideas of the “last days” as being a nebulous term that does not fit all that well with the New Testament and contemporary interpretations of Christians. That some see conditional prophecy as things that must be fulfilled in the last days such as the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem etc.

Next he points to the article The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy (I did an Internet search to give you a link to this article but being an important article it appears to not be anywhere on the Internet). Alden writes:

“All Adventists know about the Sunday law. But very few know how the Bible, the Great Disappointment, and Ellen White come together in this remarkable article that takes “conditional prophecy” seriously in exploring God's original plan for Israel.”

His next point is to direct our attention to Ellen White's own all or nothing statement:

The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. Thus it has always been presented to me. It is true that time has continued longer than we expected in the early days of this message. Our Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional. Selected Messages Page 67 from MN 4 1883

Notice her position is either the Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped or God failed. No possibility for the messenger being presumptuous or making something up quite apart from anything God ever said or simply wrong interpretations. After all it had been nearly 2000 years since those New Testament last day prophecies. It does seem a little presumptuous in the 19th century to assume they are all talking about her century. This would be a good example of all or nothing thinking. But if one did believe that the promises and threatenings of God are conditional and you have to admit there is an implied “all” in that statement. In fact the implied “all” would make the statement fall in the category of a logical fallacy known as the false generalization (sweeping or hasty generalization). 
 
The whole possibility of the second coming becomes conditional and may never happen. What are the conditions, who knows? A conditional prophecy without the conditions stated somewhere is worthless. Now ancient Israel had loads of prophecies and from the start of the nation state there were conditions set for all the prophecies. (Read Deut. 28) Is it really logical to assume the same conditions for a ancient nation to modern people in so many different nations? If one accepts that all promises and threatenings of God are conditional and the conditions are not stated then whenever anyone makes a prediction that fails to come to pass they can say the conditions of God were not met and most likely after the fact they will name some conditions. In this way people like Harold Camping could continue setting dates for Christ's return and continue to create excuses for the prophetic failures. The so called prophet could never be shown to be wrong, if something comes true it will show them as a prophet if it does not it shows nothing except conditions were not met.


Alden Thompson continues by saying:
“It was the 1844 Disappointment that forced Adventists to come to grips with conditional prophecy—reluctantly.” Going on to say that Ellen White never published her statement about conditional prophecy while she lived, it was in the form of a letter defending herself from certain charges.  I would ask should the letter be taken as inspired or the statement as inspired? Did Adventists come to grips with 1844 as a conditional prophecy? Well no it was assumed that the date was correct but the event was wrong and 1844 became integral to the novel SDA only doctrine known as the Investigative Judgment. He then moves on to Jonah, a favorite of Adventists who want to assert all prophecies are conditional. You can read a response to that position in my article Ellen White's Food for worms, Is it Conditional.


He finishes back with the Sabbath:


“Anywhere and everywhere Adventists can preach that the beast of Revelation 13 is coercive and deceptive. Anyone who coerces and deceives is in league with the beast. Today, however the great threat to our Sabbath is not coercive Sunday legislation, but secularization. Almost no one takes sacred time seriously anymore.”

So here at the end I grant my friends observation is probably correct. But all along the way I see numerous problems with the article's positions. But if this is the only way we can get Adventists to leave behind the 19^th century theology of Ellen White and realize that so far she has been wrong on most every prediction she made, I guess I will have to say Amen. Though I wish we could be more honest with ourselves. But I am not an all or nothing person so it is not either lie to ourselves about conditional prophecy and Ellen White or continue to accept Ellen White and teach the outdated prophecy scenarios, I think honesty demands more. There is a place for subtleness but even being subtle with incorrect facts is not really a winning formula.