To the law and the testimony Adventist pretension

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

My comment under the YouTube podcast was as follows: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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.

Revisionist history of Ellen White Reclaiming the Prophet

 I just watched the Adventist Today Donald McAdams, “A Review of the Ellen White Revisionist History Since 1970” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr10b-_UycA

This presentation had in attendance 3 of the authors of the new book Reclaiming the Prophet. The book was planned and written for the purpose as described by an AI app: “The book "Reclaiming the Prophet: An Honest Defense of Ellen White’s Gift" is a collection of essays by 11 scholars, edited by Eric Anderson, that aims to provide a balanced and historical perspective on Ellen White's role and influence within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The book seeks to address the increasing polarization within the church regarding Ellen White by offering a "new consensus" and "reconstruction" of her role and influence.

This presentation was given when the book was just about to be published by Pacific Press. The book was since withdrawn. You can read about the withdrawal of the book at the Atoday site. However, the presentation on May 25, 2025, was before that announcement, and those present expected the book to be available in June.

Donald McAdam's presentation was interesting, as he was present during the period when major changes occurred in Adventism. He then presents us with the premise of the book which seems to be based upon what he calls Revisionist Historians' work. I am quoting from the transcripts, and I have edited them for clarity. The time codes are provided at the start of each quote.

53:38

“So we don't need to throw out Ellen White We just need to understand her better And I think I can get to that point The revisionist historians of the last 50 years have have gradually fleshed out this picture”

First, a note about Revisionist history. I don't like the term, and even looking it up, we can see it is used positively and negatively. Among the few references I looked at I tend to agree with the statement that all history is actually revisionist. That is, any historian who finds something true that others may have missed is actually revising the story of history. See The Ever-Changing Past: Why All History is Revisionist History. So avoiding that distraction here is what McAdam's tells us about the Revisionist historians:

57:27

“Okay So let's talk about the revisionist historians first of all I need to define what I mean by a revisionist historian I mean one that will look at the primary sources and try to look at all of the primary sources not someone else's account but primary sources and to look at all of them and and then try to face the facts as they are there in these sources and then finally make judgments that are consistent with the weight of the evidence So let me say two things about the historical craft. Historians make statements of fact and those need to be based on a on a primary source and they should be able to footnote it if necessary. They also make judgments that is they look at a whole lot of facts that some disagree with Some some are this way some are this way some are this way And they try to draw together a conclusion and make a judgment about what really happened or what the real issues were. And those judgments are important and that that's why people read history And I can give you a lot of examples You know why did Wellington win the battle of Waterloo they're all different kinds of opinions Historians weigh all this evidence and they try to come up with some conclusion and that's a judgment And revisionist historians should come up with honest judgments based on the weight of the evidence Okay so that's what I mean by a revisionist historian Uh now I also want...” 58:57

Here is his statement about Ellen White and Revisionist historians:

1:00:02
Right so let's just take Ellen White for a minute and then I'll get into these revisionist historians If Ellen White says "I had a vision and I'm writing it out." There is no way to know whether she had a vision or not. And there's no way to know for sure if the vision was inspired or whether it was just a dream or a hallucination or a seizure or ecstatic experience, there's no there's no way a historian can do that right what the historian can do is show if what was written is true or not true or original or not original,Right so you can by faith believe that Ellen White had visions and that she had visions from God but you can't believe by faith that she didn't borrow because you can prove she did .And you can't believe by faith that she didn't make any mistakes because you can prove she did. So that's how faith and reason work. There has to be a reason for your faith Otherwise you can have faith in anything You can have faith in witches you can have faith in Joseph Smith you can have faith in Muhammad you can have faith in anything. The way you choose to have faith in something because overall it makes sense to you And then you feel it And you might be wrong but nevertheless you believe it by faith. Now the revisionist historians have not abandoned faith in Ellen White's inspiration. They can't there's no way to say "No she didn't see that in a vision," or "No God didn't reveal that to her." That's that's something historians can't do So the revision historians don't do that What they do, do is describe what happened And sometimes they leave it to the reader to make sense of it but they nevertheless stick with the facts and where the facts lead them they follow, now there's been a lot of revisionist work but it mostly didn't start until the 21st century And I have a whole list of the scholars who have done this And I want to critique each one briefly and then I want to go to where I think the church is today 1:02:09

So for McAdams the Revisionist historians must start and end with a belief in the inspiration of Ellen White. That seems a fatal flaw in his definition of Revisionist historians. They are all looking at the same facts, but their judgment of those facts is restricted to one outcome. 

Here he discusses the new book Reclaiming the Prophet.

1:26:50

“The premise of this book is something new and fresh and I'm going to conclude on this and I recommend you should buy this book It's not expensive It's online and it's short You can read it you know in an afternoon. the premise of this book is that the scholarship of the revisionist historians is settled We we don't want to dispute it We don't want to argue about it We don't want to deny it We accept it We accept it. But what do we do with it, what is the value of Ellen White to us today how is she relevant for the church and the answer is the Lord used her in ways that we may not be able to explain but he did use her. We believe that because of the power of the books themselves not only was she a historical force of great significance we wouldn't have a church without her. Her writings point us to the Bible They point us to the cross they uplift our spirits they bring comfort to us in times of sorrow and there the value for Ellen White to the church is not [does not finish the thought but goes to the quotation] here's a quotation that comes from one of the 1919 Bible conference leaders and I want to find this and read it to you this is H Camden Lacy who was one of the participants in the 1919 Bible conference and he says quote, in our estimate of the spirit of prophecy isn't its value to us, more in the spiritual light it throws into our own hearts and lives than in the intellectual accuracy, in historical and theological matters and I think we know what the answer to that is Yes.”

I find this fascinating that the value of the belief in the inspiration of Ellen White is found in the spiritual light that it throws into our hearts. If a person finds some value then they believe she is a prophet. I guess that would make a whole lot of people who believe Max Lucado is a prophet. But I don't think that is actually how the Bible teaches us to recognize a prophet. It seems that the Revisionist historians have, if McAdams is to be believed, so limited themselves as to be useless with their judgments.

McAdams believes Adventism is at a turning point.

55:40

But in 1919 and in the 1970s church leaders were afraid I think that's the right word They were afraid that the unity of the church would fracture if they opened this up. And in the 1919 they were able to keep it in [hidden in archives of the 1919 Bible Conference]. In the 1970s they couldn't [Spectrum's publication of the Ellen White section of the 1919 Bible Conference full version now available at the archives]and and so they recognizing that they couldn't you would think they would have made some attempts to try to cope with it because the revisionist historians have not gone away and what they've produced since is now an overwhelming body of knowledge. And I do believe that right now we are in another turning point. Right now we are in another turning point, And if the church leaders don't recognize this I think Ellen White is going to be lost entirely to the Adventist church not she just forgotten as irrelevant to keep her relevant in the church which I think is important and good for the church we need to understand her differently And this book is an attempt to do so which I will get to at the end and I think might be encouraging to some but I do think the church leaders in the 70s and the to be specific 1980 I think they failed I think they I think they made the wrong decision I think they should have tried to open it up 56:49

Here I am in some agreement, Adventism is at a turning point, it moves away from Ellen White as a prophet, or it moves into a cult that follows Ellen White for it doctrines. Maintaining her as a prophetic authority will lead to being identified as a non-Christian cult. Meaning the doctrines of the Church are based upon Ellen White rather than the Bible. The alternative is this middle path of the so-called Revisionist historians, which is that she is inspired in a relatively vague way that if you get a spiritual boost in some way from her writings, she is important to you and important to the church because the church has her in its tradition. This leaves the other option that I think is the best option; that she did not have any prophetic authority and her work was mostly borrowed from others, and that, contrary to the claims she makes, she is not a messenger of God. At least not any more than any other Christian who points to Jesus as our Savior and the Bible as inspired information about God and his dealings with people. Which I will say is a good thing about Christians, we don't have to be always right and loving and accurate, but we always should point to Jesus Christ, and we learned about Him in the Bible and develop our doctrines from the Bible.

There is one more interesting point that I will add as I am a follower on FaceBook of Steve Daily and there was this question asked in the above presentation. The question was asked:

2:08:53  

just do you have any thoughts or comments on Steve Daily's book i've heard a lot of negative about it I've not read it but I just wondered if you have and I hear it's pretty negative about Ellen White Just that's my question Thank you.

 Donald McAdams answer was:

 “I read the first chapter and I quit because I considered it a polemic not a work of history”

So a book titled Ellen G. White A Psycobiography was not history so McAdams put it down. It is a polemic that is true, It is an argument against the traditional SDA beliefs about Ellen White using psychology, reason, and history. But he has better companions now he has Revisionist Historians who will only rock the boat and not follow the history and reason to its logical conclusions. Again, if it does not make judgments acceptable, it cannot be history, even though most all history makes judgments about the facts of history. It is, to my view, a sad commentary on the scholarship of these authors of Reclaiming the Prophet.

The battle between Ted Wilson and Jonathan Leonardo part 1

 At the 2023 Fall Council Ted Wilson said the following at 2:48.30

“There are misconceptions and false doctrines circulating about the salvation process these false doctrines diminish sanctification one false movement you may not have heard about it and that's fine but it is circulating among some of our university and college campuses it's called love reality and it's been teaching this false understanding about Christ's full justifying and sanctifying righteousness now these are derivatives of the false doctrine of once saved always say which Seventh-Day Advent unfortunate it is promoted that behavior is not important since God loves you and just don't worry about what you're doing as long as you feel embraced by God's love god's love is powerful important but these folks doctrines are very dangerous and should not be accepted since they destroy the entire understanding of Christ justifying and sanctifying righteousness we are facing ion we are facing the shaking and sifting. Now, there are those who are drifting out of a clear understanding of who we are and what we believe do not be tempted with false doctrines that take you away from God's Remnant church we have been chosen for mission…”

Yesterday 1/12/2024 Ted Wilson put out a video entitled A Message from Pastor Ted Wilson: The Foundation of Salvation The beginning of this video shows that it is intended to be his response though somewhat cloaked to Jonathan Leonardo and his Love Reality tour. My original intention was to deal with Ted Wilson's inaccurate assertion that Jonathan Leonardo was teaching a once saved always saved doctrine which very clearly he is not doing and in general the Adventist conception of once saved always saved is a fiction and not what those who believe in eternal security believe at all. The Adventist mythology is that once saved always saved is just say you are saved and do whatever you want. They forget the whole thing about repentance, regeneration a new life, etc.  But as of a day or two ago, it appears that Ted Wilson has refined his thinking a bit. What he has literally done however is to assert against Jonathan Leonardo’s free from sin presentation with Wilson's preferred Last Generation Theology which asserts that at some time there will be a final generation who perfectly reproduce the character of Christ and through Christ’s power, they live a sinless life. Notice in the closing section Wilson says:

  “May each of us be so filled with the power of the Holy Spirit that people will say those seventh day Adventists they know Jesus he lives in their hearts and they are the greatest Proclaimers of Christ's righteousness. I hope that will be your experience and mine.” 

In the Last Generation Theology link above Wilson says in the interview:

“As we consecrate ourselves to Christ and allow Him to work in us to stay close to Him and His Word, we can then realize that beautiful quotation from “Christ’s Object Lessons”: “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” (p. 69).”

 

If there were Adventists that were already living the perfect righteousness of Christ this would not be something he would have to point to it as a hope for our and his experience. So it only works as a last-generation thing. For everyone else they simply must endure until the end always at risk of losing one’s salvation. But that is another subject.

 

 

Ted Wilson begins:

“Greetings friends today we are considering a very important question what is reality especially the reality when it comes to our Salvation some say there is something called love reality and while there is a love that is real it is important that we understand that true love the true reality of love only comes from God and it is defined in his word now in 1 John chapter 4 veres 7 to8 we read beloved let us love one another for love is of God and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God he who does not love does not know God for God is love you see God is indeed love and nowhere is his love revealed more clearly than in the Plan of Salvation The Book of Matthew records a fascinating parable of Jesus it's about a wedding and a proper wedding attire in…”

Like most parables, the intent is not to symbolize a bunch of different aspects of the story. You can do that and make it fit with things that have happened easily enough but those hearing the story could not do that because those things that people use to symbolize in the story had not happened yet. For instance, someone could say that the destruction of those who rejected the first invitation is symbolic of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It fits well but could not be what Jesus intended to mean to those who heard the story. In short, the message of the parable is summed up in the final line, “For many are invited, but few are chosen.” All have been invited, but not all have accepted the invitation. Likely the person without the wedding garment is a reference to the Pharisees who Matthew 22 refers to after the parable in verse 15 : “Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.”

People who were there with Jesus, hearing his words of the Kingdom but actively trying to work against Jesus, which I would speculate that those hearing Jesus did have some understanding of the Pharisees' animus toward Jesus.

Wilson then follows with some of the language he used in his Oct. 2023 sermon in reference to the Love Reality Tour and others confusing the brethren.

3:54 "Today as God's message is proclaimed there will be people who aren't aligned with God's holy word but will be part of those who come to the very end of time there will be the good and the bad the wheat and the tears but there will be a shaking and in fact I believe the shaking has begun there's only one way you and I can prevent ourselves from being swept up with erroneous ideas and cultural implications that push against God's word there's only one way from being shaken out and that is complete Reliance upon the righteousness of Jesus Christ we must receive Christ's justifying power his sanctifying power his justifying righteousness and sanctifying righteousness is Reviving and reforming power and righteousness you see the Bible is filled with beautiful  promises showing what Jesus can and will do for us when we accept his robe of righteousness as many as received him to them he gave the right to become children of God to those who believe on his name Philippians 2:5…”

 

I will note here that as many Adventists do Wilson misuses the wheat and tares parable but he also introduces another non-Biblical idea referred to in Adventism as “the shaking”. As  Ministry Magazine writes about the shaking way back in 1931 the only verse they can find is this:

“In that day the glory of Jacob will fade;  the fat of his body will waste away. ⁵ It will be as when reapers harvest the standing rain, gathering the grain in their arms— as when someone gleans heads of grain in the Valley of Rephaim. ⁶ Yet some gleanings will remain, when an olive tree is beaten, leaving two or three olives on the topmost branches,  four or five on the fruitful boughs,” declares the Lord, the God of Israel.”

The King James Bible uses the word shaking of course, but the harvest is those that are shaken from the trees not the few that remain on the tree. They had to work to keep this idea of the shaking in Adventism!

 

But to get on with his method of interpretation he inserts some more Ellen White’s perspective into the story as follows:

 6:13 Asked how did you come in here without a wedding garment the man was speechless this poor fellow even though he'd been given a perfect suit didn't accept and wear it the king not only invites us to the wedding of his son he also provides the right clothing as a gift when Christ provides his robe of righteousness it's a perfect fit and it fits everyone we just need to accept it and put it on that magnificent book Christ's Object lessons I hope you've read it I hope you will read it it delves deeply Into The Parables of Jesus Christ there we read in that book that the wedding garment represents the pure spotless character which Christ's true followers will possess please notice it's not our character it's Christ's character it is the righteousness of Christ his own unblemished character that through faith is imparted to all who receive him as their personal savior.

  Do we really believe this now on the following page we read this wonderful promise only the covering which Christ himself has provided can make us meet or prepared to appear in God's presence this covering the robe of his own righteousness Christ will put upon every repenting believing Soul this robe woven in the loom of Heaven has in it not one thread of human devising Christ in his Humanity wrought out a perfect character and this character he offers to impart to us all our righteousness are as filthy rags by his perfect obedience he has made it possible for every human being to obey God's commandments

 So dear friends don't fall for the Trap that people set up when they say it's not possible to keep the Commandments it's not possible to live a perfect life it's true that you can't live a perfect life on your own there's no possible way but with the robe of Christ's righteousness covering us and his power his sanctifying power living within us we are able to follow wherever he leads and then something else happens sanctification starts to move in and that is Christ's righteousness when we submit ourselves to Christ the heart is united with his heart the will is merged in his will the Mind becomes one with his mind the thoughts are brought into captivity to him we live his life this is what it means to be clothed with the Garment of his righteousness.

 Righteousness is right-doing and it is by their deeds that all will be judged our characters are revealed by what we do the works show whether the faith is genuine.

 Now we read further that it is in this life that we are to put on the robe of Christ's righteousness this is our only opportunity to form characters for the home which Christ has made for those who obey his Commandments take  heed lest you be found at the king's Feast without a wedding in garment are you willing my friend to receive from the hand of Christ his covering garment that will enable you to be a co-laborer with Heaven accepting the beautiful gift of Christ's robe that covers and transforms us into His Image is foundational to becoming a follower of Christ.

  May each of us be so filled with the power of the Holy Spirit that people will say those seventh day Adventists they know Jesus he lives in their hearts and they are the greatest Proclaimers of Christ's righteousness I hope that will be your experience and mine.

  I invite you to pray with me just now Father in Heaven thank you for the righteousness of Christ for his grace and his provision for eternal life as we lean completely on the righteousness of Christ his justifying righteousness his sanctifying

Part 2 on Jonathan Leonardo coming soon.

Protecting Progressive Adventists from truth

 

 

Adventist Today Sabbath School Class has taken its attack on truth to a new level this week. ATSS: “A New Reformation”: Adventist Fundamentalism and the Ku Klux Klan presented by Michael W. Campbell. I zoom attended this program which was going along normally, Campbell had begun with a review of Fundamentalism and had moved on to the KKK. He had actually just commented on the movie “Birth of a Nation” and he had still not acknowledged the fact that the KKK was acting in conjunction with the Democrat party. So I thought that would be a very good time to mention that I thought it should be acknowledged that the KKK was the militant arm of the Democrat Party. I thought this was a point that it should really be noted since the movie Birth of a Nation was: “It was the first motion picture to be screened in the White House, viewed there by President Woodrow Wilson, his family, and members of his cabinet.”

That movie was a technical breakthrough for movies but it was also a major turning point for the reinvigoration of the KKK.

After I made my comment in the zoom comment section I received a private message from Loren Seibold with the comment. “Quit making it political, or leave”. Of course, mine was not the first political comment in the chat section. At one point I read one comment that said something to the effect that Trump and the Republicans were doing the same things as the KKK. Someone then directed a question at me, but since I had been messaged by Seibold I told the person No I can’t answer and quoted what Seibold had said to me. I also said I honestly did not know how anyone can talk about the KKK without dealing with the politics of it. Then someone commented that it was a fair point but there had been a flip at some time between the Democrat and Republican positions. I put in my last comment which was that the flip was a myth.

Then I was dumped from the zoom meeting! Not because I continued to talk about the political realities of the KKK era because I did not say anything else about it. I am guessing I was kicked out because I quoted what Seibold had said to me. It is interesting that he did not just say something in the comments to everyone if he was afraid of political comments. If anyone has attended this zoom programs the comments can be pretty wide-ranging and they occur simultaneously with the speaker's presentation, They in no way interfere with the presentation.

I suspect that he did not address his comment to the total group in the chat room because the major emphasis at Adventist Today is Progressive politics. To carry that idea forward he has to attempt to cover up the history of Progressivism. That period of time that Woodrow Wilson and the Birth of a nation was also the time of the beginning of Progressivism (The Progressive Era). As Hillary Clinton once said in 2007: “... I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century…”

I have no idea where the connection of Adventism to the KKK was, one could go look up the presentation on the Atoday YouTube account though. I likely will not as if the presenter is not able to acknowledge the actual history of the KKK and the Democrat party how well is anything going to be.

But if you ever wonder why there is so much wrong information on the Adventist Today articles. I think it is all related to the idea that their new Woke Theology is actual Woke Democrat politics. When politics define your religion then your religion is politics. That is why the website no longer has conservative political or religiously conservative authors anymore and since the tendency is to restrict people’s comments even conservative comments in the Facebook section are few and far between. There is actually a fairly humorous article on Fulcrum7.com How Your Church Can Be More Woke

 

The Problem of Progressive Adventists .

Originally from my Adventist Today Column

What does one think of when they hear or read the term Progressive Adventist? Do they think Progressive politics; gay marriage, pro choice (abortion), opens borders, socialism and social justice? Those are all political progressive ideas, however they are not part of what define Progressive Adventism. Progressive Adventism is defined by its beliefs related to the doctrinal beliefs inside the Seventh-day Adventist denomination.

Ten years ago I wrote an article for Adventist Today on the differences between progressive Adventists and traditional Adventists entitled Progressive and Traditional Adventists Examined. (Nov.–Dec. 2002 Adventist Today PDF archive for those with subscriptions) The article on Wikipedia quotes the following on Progressive Adventism (quoted without their footnotes):

            “Ron Corson identifies four common areas of progressive belief:

• Investigative judgment. A different view of the investigative judgment, or a denial of its biblical basis.
• Remnant. An inclusion of other Christians in the term remnant.
• Ellen White. A less rigid view of the Inspiration of Ellen White, from recognizing her fallibility to perhaps even denying her prophetic gift.
• Sabbath. An emphasis on the benefits of the Sabbath, but a denial that it is the ‘seal of God’ or that Sunday keeping will ever become the mark of the beast.

Inclusive

Progressives are inclusive of other types of Adventists, and believe different beliefs and types should be welcomed as part of the community. An example is Alden Thompson's 2009 book, Beyond Common Ground: Why Liberals and Conservatives Need Each Other.

Besides the definitions of Progressive Adventism in the article I have long used the quote from C.S. Lewis I felt expressed the reason behind progressive Adventism. The quote is as follows:

“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man…There is nothing progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake." C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), Book I, Chap. 5, p. 22.

While I still hold to the definitions, in the Adventist Today article times have changed and the term ‘Progressive’ has gained resurgence in use during the last ten years. Those on the political left have begun referring to themselves as Progressive once again. As they attempt to move away from the term liberal, sort of the reverse of the early years of the 20^th century when the Progressives changed their name to liberals after the excesses of Progressive Era.

We still however have the problem of what is a Progressive? If you are a political Progressive your definition will sound quite enticing and benign. Such as this quote from John Halpin in his article Progressivism in 2004: Transcending the Liberal-Conservative Divide
  "At its core, progressivism is a non-ideological, pragmatic system of thought grounded in solving problems and maintaining strong values within society. The original progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century sought to improve American life by encouraging personal and moral responsibility among citizens; by providing the carrots and sticks to promote efficient and ethical business behavior; and by reforming government to provide a level playing field for all citizens and groups."

If you are a conservative you will define Progressive more like this from The Heritage Foundation, The First Conservatives: The Constitutional Challenge to Progressivism:
"Progressivism was an intellectual and political reform movement that aimed to alter the American constitutional system. At the deepest level, as expressed especially in the thought of Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Croly, Progressives aimed to refound America based on the managerial – administrative political philosophy of the European state. Consequently, Progressives typically rejected the foundational American principles of natural rights and limited government for their own understanding of ‘progress,’ defined as governmental experts management of social change toward an ever more just and essentially socialist future."

What is in a name is not so much found in the word but the action of those who hold to particular ideas. A proponent of something can usually make their position seem righteous; a critic can make the other seem bad. Perhaps simplistically, a progressive is for change and a conservative is for keeping everything as it has always been. But not every change is good and not all things that have been should be changed. It is the details that matter not the grand rhetoric. In politics I am a conservative, I want to maintain the founding principles and the American Constitution. But in Adventism I am Progressive and want to change some of the traditions of Adventism and some of the traditions of Christianity as well. But it is the details that matter, the rhetoric of change merely serves to label me as one thing or the other, a shortcut when communicating with people but what the label means is subjective, colored by the expectations and prejudices of the reader/listener.

Progressive Adventism has meaning in the details. There may be some Progressive Adventists who are politically progressive and there may be some who are politically conservative or libertarian. The mistaken linkage of Progressive Adventism as political progressive must be rejected or there will cease to be a Progressive Adventist movement as the group becomes divided along political lines instead of united on theology and ecclesiology.

As often happens, once politics is mentioned it will consume all other things; even when the equally controversial subjects of religion and politics meet. If Progressive Adventism ever seeks to reform the Adventist church it must stand united on the details that define it inside the denomination. One of those details is that of inclusiveness, which includes the often derided term pluralism. If it were true that we as a denomination had all the truth then pluralism could be justifiably considered a dirty word as some on the traditional Adventist side appear to believe. But as long as we don't have all the truth we need the consideration of a multiple ideas, letting the marketplace of ideas winnow out what can and cannot stand the test of truth.

Progressive Adventism stands for the freedom to think outside of a prescribed frame of reference.

• To be open to a wide variety of interpretative techniques and acknowledge the breadth of Biblical literature forms.
• To accept the natural world does not say what our religion may have previously claimed.
• To express the idea that science and religion can work together; that one does not have to be right and the other wrong, but to seek a unified theory.
• To recognize inspiration is not as simple as, “God said it and I believe it”.
• That salvation is in the hands of God and not found in what we think we know.

What do those who hear the term Progressive Adventists think when they hear the label? It most certainly stands in contradistinction from traditional Adventism. It points out the fictional standard of traditional Adventism since the history of the Adventist church has always been about moving forward and being willing to change their views, whether it was about Sabbath worship or their understanding of the Godhead or emphasis on health reform or the benefits of advanced education. The definition however, should be considered in the context of Adventist doctrines rather than political progressive themes.

Tear Down to Create

Originally from my Adventist Today Column

"Small minds have always lashed out at what they don't understand. There are those who create . . . and those who tear down. That dynamic has existed for all time. But eventually the creators find believers, and the number of believers reaches a critical mass, and suddenly the world becomes round, or the solar system becomes heliocentric. Perception is transformed, and a new reality is born." (The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown chapter 133)

When I first read those words I thought at least here is something of value from this book, aside from the interesting art mentioned like the horned Moses. What if we could create a new church, what if we could be positive and affirmative? Would we not create the very kind of church most progressive Adventists want? Here I thought is the basis for an excellent article. That lasted for about five minutes.

Like much of the material in a Dan Brown novel there is a thimble full of truth and a generous pile of garbage to make a good story. Many Adventists when they stop and think about it will recall that there are those in the church who feel that Progressive Adventists are out to destroy the Adventist church. Especially if they have read the various Adventist discussion sites on the Internet (here at Atoday, Spectrum Online and  ClubAdventist, most recently at the site called Educatetruth, as well as in numerous Sabbath School class discussion throughout the world) or read the various traditionalist Adventist writers such as Pastors Larry Kirkpatrick and Kevin Paulson who often refers to Progressive Adventists as Pseudo Adventists. Perhaps they are following the lead of Robert Folkenberg who in an excerpt from an address in February 1994 at La Sierra University said:

“In a desire to fit in, there also has developed, I believe, a pseudo-Adventist form of political correctness that ceases to talk about the truth, the remnant, the Spirit of Prophecy, the law, the sanctuary, and other distinctive Adventist contributions to Christianity.”

These writers have put forth the view that Progressive Adventism or Pseudo-Adventism as some may call it, is a movement out to destroy the Adventist church. That the Progressive movement can only destroy. The traditional distinctives are what Adventism is all about.

On my way to work there is an old house that was abandoned for years it looked like it was being torn down. They removed most of the outside of house but the frame remained and with time I see that it is being rebuilt. Creation from destruction. If only we could build over the decay, the building would look so much better, ever changing looking better all the time. But in most things especially dealing with ideas and beliefs there is no creation without destruction.

The supposed wisdom of the Dan Brown quote is that if you build an idea you may attract believers who accept and advance some idea, and at a certain critical mass the idea becomes widely tolerated by yet more converts. In the examples used (round, heliocentric earth solar system) the proponents not only presented their views but had to refute the previous views. I tried to think of some examples where you could simply positively build and affirm your ideas without refuting someone else's ideas. I could not think of anything.

Jesus came to earth and was extremely positive at times and at other times very critical of the views of his day. Martin Luther attacked the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church and his actions were a major catalyst to build the reformation. There are many examples of tearing down something to build something. I tear up the ground of my garden to plant, to build most anything components are derived from something else; to manufacture is to tear down or restructure something else. The wood to build that frame on the old house was once a growing a healthy tree.

Progressive Adventism cannot help but to destroy to rebuild. If someone thinks that man never landed on the moon I can't tell them that man did land on the moon without tearing down their belief. Even if I never mention their errant belief and only assert the facts, they are confronted with the need to re-examine their previous understanding. This is why some of us refer to the “marketplace of ideas”. People have a choice in what they are going to believe, we can't simply positively state our ideas without infringing upon some other ideas out there. The other ideas will infringe on our ideas as well. Challenge to ideas encourages critical though, which cannot exist, absent a conflict of ideas.

Progressive Adventism with its hoped intent to build does tear down and destroy...
it is not an exception to the rule.

Ted Wilson on the 3 Angels Messages

Normally I like to reference as close to possible the actual words of someone but since I can't find a copy of Ted Wilson's NAD Year-End Meeting sermon I will reference the report from Spectrum. For quite a while I have told people that when Adventists use the term Three angels messages or thrid angel's message they are using the phrases as code words for the primary beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church (SDA). It is hard to find any Adventist leaders who will come right out and say that, but it does appear that Ted Wilson came pretty close in his sermon recently.

"Wilson argued that a correct theological understanding would drive a correct approach to mission. "Seventh-day Adventist theology and mission are inseparable," he said. He added his contention that the three angels' messages are the most important messages Adventists have to share. "They are our theology and our mission," he said, "and the reason for God's wonderful Remnant Church."

Most of us know that the three angels messages are found in the book of Revelation and have been messages given since the second century. So we now have a pretty good reference that Adventists see themselves as the embodiment of the three angels messages. 

"Wilson sprinkled the message with what have become familiar talking points during his tenure as president. The first came around seven minutes into his sermon when Wilson asserted that the first angel's message that the hour of God's judgment has come includes a call to recognize God as creator: "The one who created this earth recently, in six literal days," capped off by the seventh day Sabbath, Wilson intoned. "That literal seven-day cycle has never been broken since the creation of this world," he said."

Revelation does not say anything about 6 literal days, or the Sabbath, those are read into the text so that Adventist theology can be shown to be the three angels messages.

Revelation 14:6

And I saw another angel flying through the sky, carrying the eternal Good News to proclaim to the people who belong to this world—to every nation, tribe, language, and people. ⁷ “Fear God,” he shouted. “Give glory to him. For the time has come when he will sit as judge. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all the springs of water.” NIV

There was once a time in the Adventist church where the judgment was the big issue with this text. Now it appears to be a pretext for a recent literal 6 day creation. I still prefer the good news about God as our judge, that we are not simply left here on our own, but that is just me.

"Next, Wilson focused on the Sabbath-Sunday divide that Wilson argued would separate God's people from the others. "During the time of trouble that is coming, and immediately preceding the Second Coming, the seventh-day Sabbath will be the central issue of the Great Controversy," Wilson said. He went on to add that in addition to keeping the Sabbath, worshiping God as creator also requires "willingness to reject false theories about the origin of life, such as evolution or theistic evolution." Here, Wilson pivoted to focus on another recurring theme that has marked his presidential agenda. "It is impossible to believe in evolution or theistic evolution and say that God is creator of heaven and earth and all the life they contain," he announced. "The two concepts simply do not mix." Wilson then stated his view that evolution is not a science, but "a false form of religion - not only a religion, but also a part of spiritualism, which will play a major, negative role in the final events."

When someone such as Wilson tells people it is impossible to believe in evolution or theistic evolution and yet believe in God as creator, it does not so much prove his contention as prove he knows little about other peoples beliefs. Which is not really something that you want in a religious leader in my opinion. If the two concepts do not mix then we have to pretend that there is no such thing as evolution. But scientifically we know that all kinds of organisms change and that evolution is an integral part of science. Things that have had huge successes in increased knowledge such as genetics use evolution as one of their key components.

As the TTC Guidebook on Understanding Genetics says:
 Three major ideas tie biological science together.

a. Mechanism. Many societies have believed, and many people continue to believe, that the rules thatgovern life are different from the inanimate universe. They propose a“vital force”to explain this.Examples of this are the chi of Chinese philosophy and traditional medicine. Biological science rejects this idea, proposing instead that the same rules of physics and chemistry that govern the lifeless world (e.g., rocks, the air) govern life. 

 

b.Cell theory. Since the microscope was first used to visualize living things, biologists have agreedthat cells are the building blocks of life (just as atoms are the building blocks of chemistry). All living things are made up of cells, and all cells come from other cells. 

 

c. Evolution. Organisms are related by common ancestry, and there has been and continues to be change through time, or descent with modification. In 1859, Charles Darwin proposed natural selection as a way to explain how organisms with different characteristics change through many generations

When a religious leader simply denies evolution he is denying the science of most of the biological sciences. History has shown us pretty well that when religion butts head with science the science will win. Usually by religion realizing that it's presuppositions were not based upon reality but upon tradition. Tradition though it may last for quite a while seems to also lose in areas of the world with significant educational systems.

"Discussing the second of the three angels' messages, Wilson stated that Babylon as described in Revelation refers to all those churches that did not heed the warning message first given in 1844, and that teach the theological errors passed down through the church of the Middle Ages. Intense anger and fierce opposition will result from exposing Babylon, Wilson predicted."

 Babylon in the book of Revelation had nothing to say about the churches after 1844. The idea that Babylon had no meaning until church rejected the incorrect end of the world prediction of William Miller is quite a leap in logic and interpretation. You can see why in his sermon he had to rely heavily on Ellen White to make it even seem like he had a case to make.

As Wilson continues to the third angel we see that again it is just to produce Adventist theology into the messages:

"The message of the third angel, Wilson said, is based on the prophecy of the preceding chapter, Revelation 13. The beast, Wilson said, represents the Apostate Church, which will negatively affect Adventists' religious liberty. He was referring to Adventists' ability to worship freely on Saturday, and predicted that, in accordance with Bible prophecy, that ability will be diminished. This will happen because religious entities will take control of governmental powers, and the Apostate Church will have free reign, he said. Wilson referenced several statements in The Great Controversy to bolster his assertions.

"The Mark of the Beast, which is the observance of any day other than the seventh-day Sabbath is an institution that clearly sets forth the authority of the Beast because the Sabbath is God's mark of his authority," Wilson said.

"One church boldly boasts that she has changed the seventh-day Sabbath, instituted at creation, from Saturday to Sunday," Wilson said, making a reference to the Catholic Church."

Does the Roman Catholic Church boldly declare they changed the Sabbath. There are some rare printed statements to that effect but that is not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. So it can't really be boldly if they don't even do it. See the National Catholic Register:

You sometimes encounter the charge that the Catholic Church wrongly "changed the sabbath" from Saturday to Sunday. This claim is often made by Seventh-Day Adventists, for example. But even if one isn't accusing the Church of wrongdoing, the question can still arise: Why do Catholics worship on Sunday rather than Saturday? Here's the story . . .

 What Day the Sabbath Is
First, let's clear away a potential source of confusion. While it's true that people sometimes speak of Sunday as "the Christian sabbath," this is a loose way of speaking. Strictly speaking, the sabbath is the day it always was--Saturday--though it should be noted that traditionally Jewish people have celebrated the sabbath from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. Sunday is a distinct day, which follows the sabbath. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ.

In any case when one looks at the Early Church Fathers it becomes clear that their desire to celebrate the day of Jesus resurrection well predated the actual Roman Catholic church. The whole concept of the Sabbath representing God's authority could also be used for Sunday observance. Since that was the day that Jesus showed His power over death. It is a pity that people like Ted Wilson cannot let everyman be convinced in his own mind, but again the purpose in Ted Wilson's sermon is not to spend time on interpreting and reasoning from scriptures but to assert that Adventist theology is the fulfillment of the three angels messages.

 

If you want a sermon that puts Adventism into the Bible rather then reading what the Bible is trying to say to you, then this is the kind of sermon you will like.