The question is really quite simple, as expressed in the title of this article: Does Biblical justification mean to declare righteous?  To make righteous?  Or does it mean both?

The reader should understand from the outset that the sole authority in matters spiritual so far as the teachings of this website are concerned, is the written counsel of God (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11), both Scripture and the writings of Ellen G. White, the latter often called the Spirit of Prophecy.  Neither the opinions of scholars nor comparisons with the teachings of others—whether positive or negative—can establish credibility so far as doctrinal conclusions are concerned.

The Meaning of Justification

Recent critics of what has come to be known as Last Generation Theology—really the remnant church theology under a different name—insist that what the Bible calls justification “does not include the process of ethical transformation. Justification is accounting or reckoning a person righteous (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3-6), not making a person righteous” [##1|Jiri Moskala and John C. Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 2018), p. 83 (italics original).##].  In another statement the same author writes: “Justification is a judicial declaration of acquittal, the opposite of condemnation (Genesis 3:15; Romans 5:16), and not an ethical condition” [##2|Moskala and Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation, p. 69.##]. 

A more recent author, citing some Old Testament verses that utilize the word “justify” in the context of judicial proceedings (Ex. 23:7; Prov. 17:15; Isa. 5:23), claims that “the meaning (of justification) in these examples is strictly legal or forensic” [##3|Leonard Philps Tolhurst, The Gospel in the Setting of End-Time Events (Madrid, Spain: Safeliz, 2022), p. 23.##].  He goes on to cite New Testament references where sinners are told to justify God (Luke 7:29; Rom. 3:4), then states: “They can declare that God is just, but they cannot make God just” [##4|Tolhurst, The Gospel in the Setting of End-Time Events, p. 23.##].

But the above verses are describing human prnouncements, not divine ones. The Bible is clear that when God declares something to be so, it in fact becomes so. When God said, “Let there be light” at the creation, the Bible says, “And there was light” (Gen. 1:3). When Jesus said to a leper who came to Him for healing, “Be thou clean,” the Bible says, “And immediately his leprosy was cleansed” (Matt. 8:3). Ellen White reflects this Biblical reality when commenting on Paul’s justification theology in the book of Romans:

In the creation, “He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” He “calleth those things which be not as though they were” (Psalm 33:9; Rom. 4:17); for when He calls them, they are [##5|Ellen G. White, Education, p. 254.##].

According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness—which Ellen White identifies with justification when she writes that “pardon and justification are one and the same thing” [##6|——SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1070.##]—is by no means unconditional.  The following verses are clear beyond misunderstanding on this point:

If My people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land (II Chron. 7:14).

He that covereth his sins shall not prosper, but whoso confesseth, and forsaketh them shall have mercy (Prov. 28:13).

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon (Isa. 55:7).

Jesus also made it clear there were conditions for receiving His Father’s forgiveness:

            For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses (Matt. 6:14-15).

In Romans chapter 4 Paul makes the following reference to one of David’s psalms, which especially enables us to understand a key point in the current Adventist salvation controversy—what in fact Paul means when he says human beings are not saved by works (Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9):

Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

            Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin (Rom. 4:6-8).

This passage, of course, is taken from Psalm 32:1-2:

            Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.

Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

This last portion of Psalm 32:2 is especially significant, as it calls our minds to those Old and New Testament passages noted in the present context, which speak of the conditions which require fulfilling in order for one to receive divine forgiveness. Putting the above two passages together, it becomes clear that not only does God impute righteousness “without works” on the part of the believer; He does this only for those “in whose spirit there is no guile” (Psalm 32:2).

And then we have the following statements from the apostle Paul:

For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified (Rom. 2:13).

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid (Gal. 2:17).

Likewise, from the apostle John:

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (I John 1:9).

Putting all these verses together, it becomes clear that humility, confessing and forsaking sin, a guileless spirit, a willingness to forgive others, and harmony with divine truth thus far revealed in one’s life, are necessary in order to receive forgiveness, or justification, from God. When, by contrast, the Bible says we are not saved by works (Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9), it is speaking of self-produced, surface piety unrelated to conversion and God’s transforming grace (Rom. 2:17-23).  Thus the phrase “not of yourselves” in Ephesians 2:8 is parallel to the phrase “not of works” in the verse that follows (verse 9).

Such conditions as humility, the forsaking of sin, and a willingness to forgive others require a guileless, transformed heart. The above author who refers to Romans 4:3-6 [##7|Moskala and Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation, p. 83.##] should read the next two verses and go back to their source in Psalm 32, in which the one to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity is the one “in whose spirit there is no guile” (verse 2).

In other words, both the prerequisites and the process of Biblical justification involve divinely-empowered inward change. Thus Paul, contrasting self-generated works with the regenerating work of the Spirit, writes:

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

Which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour,

That being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:5-7).

Ellen White, commenting on the meaning of divine forgiveness, makes the following observations regarding the experience of justification:

To be pardoned in the way that Christ pardons, is not only to be forgiven, but to be renewed in the spirit of our mind. The Lord says, “A new heart will I give unto thee.” The image of Christ is to be stamped upon the very mind, heart, and soul [##8|White, Review and Herald, Aug. 19, 1890.##].

Justification means pardon. It means that the heart, purged from dead works, is prepared to receive the blessing of sanctification [##9|——Ye Shall Receive Power, p. 96.##].

God’s forgiveness is not merely a judicial act by which He sets us free from condemnation. It is not only forgiveness for sin, but reclaiming from sin. It is the outflow of redeeming love that transforms the heart. David had the true conception of forgiveness when he prayed, “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.” Psalm 51:10 [##10|——Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, p. 114 (italics original).##].

By receiving [Christ’s] imputed righteousness, through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, we become like Him [##11|——SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1098.##].

The resolutions you may make in your own finite strength, will be only as ropes of sand; but if you pray in sincerity, surrendering yourself, soul, body, and spirit, unto God, you put on the whole armor of God, and open the soul to the righteousness of Christ; and this alone—Christ’s imputed righteousness—makes you able to stand against the wiles of the devil [##12|——Sons and Daughters of God, p. 346.##].

Through His imputed righteousness, they are accepted of God as those who are manifesting to the world that they acknowledge allegiance to God, keeping all His commandments [##13|——Testimonies to Ministers, p. 37.##].

Through the imputed righteousness of Christ, all who receive Him by faith can show their loyalty by keeping the law. As the repenting sinner lays hold of Christ as his personal Saviour, he is made a partaker of the divine nature [##14|——Signs of the Times, April 7, 1898.##].

            The grace of Christ purifies while it pardons, and fits men for a holy heaven [##15|——That I May Know Him, p. 336.##].

Notice how each of the above statements identifies the Spirit’s inward transformation of the believer as part of the pardoning (justifying) process, not merely the result thereof. And let us keep in mind that for Ellen White, imputed righteousness—defined in the above statements as practical rather than merely forensic, or legal—is in fact the righteousness of justification.  Ellen White defines both imputed and imparted righteousness in the following statement:

The righteousness by which we are justified is imputed; the righteousness by which we are sanctified is imparted.  The first is our title to heaven, the second is our fitness for heaven [##16|——Messages to Young People, p. 35.##].

One must defy the simplest rules of grammar and syntax to read the above statements as teaching anything other than a definition of justifying righteousness as both declarative and transformative.

In another statement, Ellen White draws a clear distinction between man-made requirements for receiving God’s forgiveness (which can fairly be called legalism), and the divine requirement of confessing and forsaking sin:

The Lord does not require us to do some grievous thing in order to gain forgiveness. We need not make long and wearisome pilgrimages, or perform painful penances, to commend our souls to the God of heaven or to expiate our transgression. He that “confesseth and forsaketh” his sin “shall have mercy.” Proverbs 28:13 [##17|——Acts of the Apostles, p. 552.##].

The transformative nature of justification helps us understand why such verses as the above from Proverbs speak of both confession and the forsaking of sin as conditions for being justified (II Chron. 7:14; Prov. 28:13; Isa. 55:7; Rom. 2:13; Gal. 2:17). Because God’s forgiveness changes us while it forgives us, we must be willing to change, because—in the words of Ellen White—God “can save no one against his will” [##18|——Sons and Daughters of God, p. 182.##].  God won’t take from us what we choose to keep, because He honors our liberty (Rev. 22:17).

Getting Married and Staying Married

It is not correct to say, as one contemporary Adventist author does, that according to Last Generation Theology “justification includes sanctification” [19].  But it is correct to say that the transformative phase of justification begins the sanctifying process. When all of the inspired evidence is taken into account, the best description of the difference between justification and sanctification is the difference between getting married and staying married—between the commencement of a relationship and the deepening and strengthening thereof. The wedding and subsequent honeymoon are not synonymous with the married life to follow, but the former are very much the beginning of the latter.

The same critics of Last Generation Theology who deny the transformative aspect of justification insist that justifying righteousness doesn’t cover past sins only. One such critic speaks disapprovingly of the fact that “some Adventists understand justification to mean ‘only the forgiveness of past sins when one first comes to Christ’ and that ‘after one’s initial justification, acceptance by God is based on Christ’s infused righteousness which makes one righteous and thereby acceptable in God’s sight’” [20].  Another author writes as follows of his past, now-repudiated experience:

I viewed justification as forgiving my past sins, but after conversion, I felt I needed to depend upon my sanctification as the basis of my continued acceptance by God [##21|Moskala and Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation, p. 86.##].

Another contemporary Adventist author writes as follows, without citing supportive evidence, regarding alleged harmony between the Protestant Reformers, Ellen White, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church on the meaning of justification:

[The Protestant] Reformers separated justification and sanctification and stressed the legal aspects of justification, claiming that it was an act of God’s free grace, in which He pardons our sins and accepts us as righteous, before any inward changes (or sanctification) has taken place…. They denied the concept of progressive justification. They taught that [justification] was instantaneous and complete, not depending on any sanctification for its completion. With this position, the Reformers, Ellen G. White, and the Seventh-day Adventist church unequivocally stand together [##22|Tolhurst, The Gospel in the Setting of End-Time Events, pp. 24-25.##].

But according to Ellen White, “in order for man to retain justification, there must be continual obedience, through active, living faith that works by love and purifies the soul” [##23|White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 366.##].  Just prior to the above statement she writes, “God requires the entire surrender of the heart, before justification can take place” [##24|——Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 366.##].  (How can we be accepted as righteous “before any inward changes” [##25|Tolhurst, The Gospel in the Setting of End-Time Events, pp. 24-25.##] if this Ellen White statement—not to mention the many Bible verses we have considered [II Chron. 7:14; Prov. 28:13; Isa. 55:7; Matt. 6:14-15; Rom. 2:13]—are correct?)  In the same book Ellen White states elsewhere: “It is by continual surrender of the will, by continual obedience, that the blessing of justification is retained” [##26|White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 397.##].

The “Umbrella” Theory

Recent decades in Adventism have witnessed the popularity in certain circles of a definition of justification as “a continuing umbrella” [##27|J. Robert Spangler, “As the Editor,” Ministry, October 1978, p. 11.##], “overarching forgiveness” [##28|Colin Cook, “Which Door to Heaven?” These Times, September 1979, p. 14.##], or the “umbrella of eternal grace” [##29|Keavin Hayden, Lifestyles of the Remnant (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 2001), p. 24; see also J. David Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, Aug. 24, 2006, p. 26. On the cover of his book What’s the Difference? (Arroyo Grande, CA: Concerned Communications, 1979), on the relation of justification to sanctification, author Steve Marshall is pictured wearing a black suit with a white umbrella over his head.##].  But neither Scripture nor the writings of Ellen White teach such a concept. No inspired statement assures the Christian that tomorrow’s sins are forgiven today.  Since the Bible stipulates that sins must be both confessed and forsaken in order to be forgiven (II Chron. 7:14; Prov. 28:13; Isa. 55:7; Rom. 2:13; Gal. 2:17), how can future sins be forgiven before they have yet been committed, much less forsaken?

Despite protests to the contrary, the writings of Ellen White are clear that the forensic (legal) covering offered by Biblical justification applies only to past sins and sins of ignorance. Consider the following statement:

If you give yourself to [Christ], and accept Him as your Saviour, then, sinful as your life may have been, for His sake you are accounted righteous. Christ’s character stands in place of your character, and you are accepted before God just as if you had not sinned [##30|White, Steps to Christ, p. 62 (italics supplied).##].

Notice the supplied italics above: “sinful as your life may have been” and “had not sinned.” This is obviously referring to the past. The statement doesn’t say, “sinful as your life is and will always be on earth.” Nor does it say that “you are accepted before God just as if you won’t ever sin again.” Past sins alone are the statement’s focus. The same holds true in the following Ellen White statements:

Christ bears the penalty of man’s past transgressions; and by imparting to man his righteousness, makes it possible for man to keep God’s holy law [##31|——SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1092 (italics supplied).##].

The law requires righteousness—a righteous life, a perfect character; and this man has not to give. He cannot meet the claims of God’s holy law. But Christ, coming to the earth as man, lived a holy life, and developed a perfect character. These He offers as a free gift to all who will receive them. His life stands for the life of men. Thus they have remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. More than this, Christ imbues men with the attributes of God. He builds up the human character after the similitude of the divine character, a goodly fabric of spiritual strength and beauty. Thus the very righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the believer in Christ [##32|——The Desire of Ages, p. 762 (italics supplied).##].

There is no way back to innocence and life except through repentance for having transgressed God’s law, and faith in the merits of the divine sacrifice, who has suffered for your transgressions of the past; and you are accepted in the Beloved on condition of obedience to the commandments of your Creator [##33|——Signs of the Times, Dec. 15, 1887.##].

By faith he (the sinner) can bring to God the merits of Christ, and the Lord places the obedience of His Son to the sinner’s account. Christ’s righteousness is accepted in place of man’s failure [##34|——Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 367.##].

We must remember, of course, that the Bible says God winks at the times of our ignorance (Acts 17:30), and states elsewhere that “to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). Thus Ellen White states the following regarding the intercession of Christ in heaven relative to sins of ignorance:

The minds of all who embrace this message are directed to the most holy place, where Jesus stands before the ark, making His final intercession for all those for whom mercy still lingers and for those who have ignorantly broken the law of God. This atonement is made for the righteous dead as well as for the righteous living. It includes all who died trusting in Christ, but who, not having received the light upon God’s commandments, had sinned ignorantly in transgressing its precepts [##35|——Early Writings, p. 254.##].

It can’t be said often enough. The righteousness which transforms and empowers the Christian is as much the spotless righteousness of Christ as that which covers past and ignorant sins.   Whether forensic or transformative, it is all Jesus’ righteousness, never ours.

Some will remind us of the apostle Paul’s statement that God “justifieth the ungodly” (Rom. 4:5).  Indeed He does—in the same way Jesus healed the sick. Once He healed them, they weren’t sick anymore!  In the same manner, those who experience Biblical justification exchange their ungodliness for Jesus’ righteousness—not only as a cover for their past sins and sins of ignorance, but as an internal power to transform their lives into the image of their Savior.

Roman Catholic Theology?

Those who have lately insisted that justification is solely declarative and not at all transformative [##36|Moskala and Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation, pp. 59-61,66-69,80-83.##] believe their position to be that of the Protestant Reformers [##37|——God’s Character and the Last Generation, pp. 59-62.##], and hold that those Adventists who differ with them on this point are taking the position of the Roman Catholic Church against the Reformation [##38|——God’s Character and the Last Generation, pp. 64-65.##].  The distinction drawn by recent critics of Last Generation Theology between Catholic and Protestant salvation theology is described, in the words of one quoted scholar, as “a focus on ‘the distinction between infused (transformative) righteousness and imputed righteousness’” [##39|——God’s Character and the Last Generation, p. 61.##].

Though this allegation regarding the transformative view of justification has been heard a number of times in certain segments of modern Adventism [##40|See Raoul Dederen, “Sanctification and the Final Judgment,” Ministry, May 1978, p. 11; Martin Weber, “More Adventist Hot Potatoes (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 1992), pp. 39-52; Woodrow W. Whidden II, “The Antichrist: Is the Adventist Interpretation Still Viable?” Adventist Review, May 25, 2000, p. 11.##], it is both theologically and historically unsound.  Only one inspired commentator on the issues of the Reformation exists, and her name is Ellen G. White.  Here is her description of the issue between Martin Luther and the papacy:

Many of his (Luther’s) own congregation had purchased certificates of pardon, and they soon began to come to their pastor, confessing their various sins, and expecting absolution, not because they were penitent and wished to reform, but on the ground of the indulgence. Luther refused them absolution, and warned them that unless they should repent and reform their lives, they must perish in their sins….

Luther now entered boldly upon his work as a champion of the truth. His voice was heard from the pulpit in earnest, solemn warning. He set before the people the offensive character of sin, and taught them that it is impossible for man, by his own works, to lessen its guilt or evade its punishment. Nothing but repentance toward God and faith in Christ can save the sinner [##41|White, The Great Controversy, pp. 128-129.##].

Let us remember that elsewhere in the writings of Ellen White, “Repentance includes sorrow for sin, and a turning away from it” [##42|——Steps to Christ, p. 23.##].  Notice how, according to the inspired pen, the problem with Catholic teachings on salvation is not that repentance and reformation of life are considered necessary in order to receive God’s forgiveness, but rather, that compliance with human rituals and stipulations (e.g., confession to priests, the purchase of indulgences, penances, pilgrimages) make one eligible for God’s forgiveness.  Ellen White draws this contrast even more sharply in the context of her statement regarding Luther and his congregation:

A salvation that could be bought with money was more easily obtained than that which requires repentance, faith, and diligent effort to resist and overcome sin [##43|——The Great Controversy, p. 128.##].

Ellen White draws a similar contrast when recounting a sermon of Ulrich Zwingli to Catholic pilgrims visiting a shrine to the Virgin Mary, who thought such a pilgrimage could bring them acceptance with God:

To many listeners these (Zwingli’s) teachings were unwelcome. It was a bitter disappointment to them to be told that their toilsome journey had been made in vain. The pardon freely offered to them through Christ they could not comprehend. They were satisfied with the old way to heaven which Rome had marked out for them. They shrank from the perplexity of searching for anything better. It was easier to trust their salvation to the priests and the pope than to seek for purity of heart [##44|——The Great Controversy, p. 175.##].

According to Ellen White’s inspired commentary, this was the issue that split Christendom in the sixteenth century.  No tug-of-war between forensic righteousness and the work of the Holy Spirit, no struggle between a believe-only gospel and the necessity of obedience as a condition of salvation, is cited by the inspired pen as the cause of this pivotal event in Christian history. Rather, divine versus human mediation—the requirements of the written Word and the change of heart and striving for holiness thereby demanded, versus a mere outward compliance with stipulations devised by human clerics and institutions—this was the great issue that birthed the Protestant Reformation.

The church’s control over the saving process in Catholic theology was demonstrated a few years ago when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, publicly declared Roman Catholicism to be the “sole path to salvation” [##45|”Vatican Declares Catholicism Sole Path to Salvation,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 6, 2000, p. A1 (cover headline).##].

Conclusion

The witness of the inspired text is clear beyond misunderstanding: the righteousness which the Bible calls justification both declares and makes the believer righteous.  As at the creation, when God declares something to be so, it in fact becomes so (Gen. 1:3).  The problem with Roman Catholic salvation theology is not its focus on inward transformation as a feature of saving righteousness, but rather, on its insistence that the man-made sacraments of the papal church are essential for the transmission of this righteousness to the believer.

REFERENCES

1.  Jiri Moskala and John C. Peckham (eds), God’s Character and the Last Generation (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 2018), p. 83 (italics original).

2.  Ibid, p. 69.

3.  Leonard Philps Tolhurst, The Gospel in the Setting of End-Time Events (Madrid, Spain: Safeliz, 2022), p. 23.

4.  Ibid.

5.  Ellen G. White, Education, p. 254.

6.  ----SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1070.

7.  Moskala and Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation, p. 83.

8.  White, Review and Herald, Aug. 19, 1890.

9.  ----Ye Shall Receive Power, p. 96.

10.  ----Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, p. 114 (italics original).

11.  ----SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1098.

12.  ----Sons and Daughters of God, p. 346.

13.  ----Testimonies to Ministers, p. 37.

14.  ----Signs of the Times, April 7, 1898.

15.  ----That I May Know Him, p. 336.

16.  ----Messages to Young People, p. 35.

17.  ----Acts of the Apostles, p. 552.

18.  ----Sons and Daughters of God, p. 182.

19.  Adelina Alexe, “Last Generation Theology, Part 13: Biblical Perspectives: Final Thoughts,” July 19, 2019 https://web.archive.org/web/20220521211517/https://thecompassmagazine.com/blog/last-generation-theology-part-13-final-thoughts

20.  “Last Generation Theology, Part 7: Biblical Perspectives: Justification,” June 7, 2019 https://web.archive.org/web/20220517233109/https://thecompassmagazine.com/blog/last-generation-theology-part-7-biblical-perspectives-justification

21.  Moskala and Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation, p. 86.

22.  Tolhurst, The Gospel in the Setting of End-Time Events, pp. 24-25.

23.  White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 366.

24.  Ibid.

25.  Tolhurst, The Gospel in the Setting of End-Time Events, pp. 24-25.

26.  White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 397.

27.  J. Robert Spangler, “Ask the Editor,” Ministry, October 1978, p. 11.

28.  Colin Cook, “Which Door to Heaven?” These Times, September 1979, p. 14.

29.  Keavin Hayden, Lifestyles of the Remnant (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 2001), p. 24; see also J. David Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, Aug. 24, 2006, p. 26. On the cover of his book, What’s the Difference? (Arroyo Grande, CA: Concerned Communications, 1979), on the relation of justification to sanctification, author Steve Marshall is pictured wearing a black suit with a white umbrella over his head.

30.  White, Steps to Christ, p. 62 (italics supplied).

31.  ----SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1092 (italics supplied).

32.  ----The Desire of Ages, p. 762 (italics supplied).

33.  ----Signs of the Times, Dec. 15, 1887 (italics supplied).

34.  ----Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 367 (italics supplied).

35.  ----Early Writings, p. 254.

36.  Moskala and Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation, pp. 59-61,66-69,80-83.

37.  Ibid, pp. 59-62.

38.  Ibid, pp. 64-65.

39.  Ibid, p. 61.

40.  See Raoul Dederen, “Sanctification and the Final Judgment,” Ministry, May 1978, p. 11; Martin Weber, More Adventist Hot Potatoes (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 1992), pp. 39-52; Woodrow W. Whidden II, “The Antichrist: Is the Adventist Interpretation Still Viable?” Adventist Review, May 25, 2000, p. 11.

41.  White, The Great Controversy, pp. 128-129.

42.  ----Steps to Christ, p. 23.

43.  ----The Great Controversy, p. 128.

44.  Ibid, p. 175.

45.  “Vatican Declares Catholicism Sole Path to Salvation,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 6, 2000, p. A1 (cover headline).

I well remember when I first encountered persons drawn to this siren call.  During my graduate school years, a physician from northern California wrote a book that made the rounds among certain of the striving faithful, recalculating certain of the time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation and placing them in the future.  Soon thereafter another popular revivalist began teaching similar concepts, and others followed in quick succession.  Some employed one or another version of the so-called “Jubilee cycle,” concluding that Jesus had to come in 1987—and when that date came and went, it was postponed to 1994. 

During the first decade of the present century, another high-profile lecturer came forward with a similar theory.  He insisted—on what grounds, he wasn’t very clear—that Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden thirty-one years before they sinned and were expelled, and that therefore, using the six thousand year chronology found in the writings of Ellen White, Jesus couldn’t possibly return any later than 2031.  The one promoting this theory quickly lost traction among thoughtful conservative Adventists, and his speaking invitations quickly dried up. 

“Jesus must come in the next few years.”

And now, this heresy is back.

Again, using Ellen White’s six thousand year chronology of the earth’s existence—one beyond dispute so far as Ellen White’s writings are concerned—at least two individuals are now claiming that the coming of Christ is likely to occur at some point between 2027 and 2031, give or take a few years.  (Most of these folks are careful not to be too exact, for obvious reasons.) 

One of them states in a recent online video, “I’ve not made a time, brothers and sisters, I’ve just looked at what the Spirit of Prophecy says.” 

But actually, he hasn’t. 

The writings of Ellen White are in no way exact so far as the age of the earth is concerned, though they repeatedly approximate the earth’s age at six thousand years.  In several statements where Ellen White speaks of the age of the earth, this use of approximate language is clear.  In one statement, refuting the theories of infidel geologists regarding long ages of time, she declares:

Many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old [##1|Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 92.##].

Amid the general gloom and moral wretchedness, man has wandered from the gates of Paradise for nearly six thousand years, subject to sickness, pain, sorrow, tears, and death [##2|——Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, p. 7.##].

The great controversy between Christ and Satan, that has been carried forward for nearly six thousand years, is soon to close; and the wicked one redoubles his efforts to defeat the work of Christ in man’s behalf and to fasten souls in his snares [##3|——The Great Controversy, p. 514.##].

Nowhere does Ellen White give an exact date for the beginning of earth’s history, and the above statements do not permit us to establish an exact length of time for how long that history will continue.  The approximate length of six thousand years is unassailable, but on the basis of the above statements, one cannot claim exactitude for this time frame.  So any claim, based on this chronology, that “Jesus must come in the next few years” (the exact words of one of these presenters) cannot rightly base itself on the witness of the inspired pen.

“No Time Proclamation”

Ellen White’s writings are unmistakable in their warnings against making time predictions a component of the Seventh-day Adventist message.  In one of her clearest warnings against such diversions, she writes:

The times and the seasons God has put in His own power.  And why has not God given us this knowledge?—Because we would not make a right use of it if He did.  A condition of things would result from this knowledge among our people that would greatly retard the work of God in preparing a people to stand in the great day that is to come.  We are not to live upon time excitement.  We are not to be engrossed with speculation in regard to the times and the seasons which God has not revealed.  Jesus has told His disciples to “watch,” but not for a definite time.  His followers are to be in the position of those who are listening for the orders of their Captain; they are to watch, wait, pray, and work, as they approach the time for the coming of the Lord; but no one will be able to predict just when that time will come; for “of that day and hour knoweth no man.”  You will not be able to say that He will come in one, two, or five years, neither are you to put off His coming by stating that it may not be for ten or twenty years [##4|——Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 189.##].

This new focus of certain ones on 2027 and 2031 clearly militates against the above counsel from God’s prophet.  And the following warning is clearer still as to how no time proclamation is to be heard from God’s people since the close of the final time prophecy in 1844:

Our position has been one of waiting and watching, with no time proclamation to intervene between the close of the prophetic periods in 1844 and the time of our Lord’s coming [##5|——Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 270.##].

This command disallows any placing or reapplication of Biblical time prophecies, whether in literal or prophetic time, between 1844 and the second coming of Christ.  A certain allurement persists in certain minds for this kind of speculation, but the inspired text forbids it without qualification. 

Conclusion: Watching the Wrong Calendar

The biggest problem for this fascination with eschatological time-setting is its distraction from the calendar that really matters—the character calendar.  Both Scripture and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy are clear that God isn’t waiting on some arbitrary celestial clock for the return of Jesus.  Rather, God is waiting for the perfecting of character that will reproduce the purity of Christ in the lives of His saints and bring the great controversy to a close (Zeph. 3:13; I Thess. 5:23; I Tim. 6:13-14; II Peter 3:10-14; I John 3:2-3; Rev. 3:21; 14:5). 

Even if one were to understand the six thousand year chronology as exact, it could not be used as a precise determination of when Jesus will come. Jonah’s prophecy of Nineveh’s overthrow in forty days (Jonah 3:4) bears this out. The forty-day deadline was certainly exact, but it was still dependent on the spiritual response of those receiving God’s message. The same holds true today.

Watching the signs noted by Jesus as indicating the near approach of the second advent is something we are commanded to do.  In fact, Jesus says the viewing of these signs will bring rejoicing to our hearts (Luke 21:28).  But the world has always been more ready for the advent than the church.  God isn’t waiting on the world to get worse; He’s waiting on His people to claim His grace and power to get better. 

REFERENCES

1.  Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 92.

2.  ----Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, p. 7.

3.  ----The Great Controversy, p. 518.

4.  ----Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 189.

5.  ----Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 270.

Readers of this website know how often we have published articles in defense of the Bible-based sanctuary theology of classic Seventh-day Adventism.  One of these, not so long ago, included responses to a cluster of challenges to this theology [1].  More recently, our site published a critique of the oft-repeated “Antiochus Epiphanes” explanation of Daniel’s little horn prophecy [2]. 

One advantage of these repetitive challenges is the opportunity to hone and simplify the Biblical and historical defense of this core doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  Long ago, Ellen White predicted the intrusion within our ranks of false theories, “such as the doctrine that there is no sanctuary,” declaring that “this is one of the points on which there will be a departing from the faith” [##3|Ellen G. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 53.##].  This prophecy has certainly been fulfilled in the years since it was made, and that fulfillment continues.

A new article appeared this week on a liberal Adventist website, written by a retired professor from Avondale College who was once a colleague of Desmond Ford [4].  Like Ford and others of like mind, this professor insists that the book of Hebrews “applies the text of the day of atonement to Jesus right after His ascension in the first century,” and not to 1844 [5]. 

But like his fellow critics, this professor considers the Biblical evidence selectively, leaving out those passages that disprove his case. 

Daniel 8:14

The professor writes as follows:

Daniel 8 provides no data at all indicating that it is drawing on the day of atonement—certainly not prophetically, nor for the 19th century [6].

But when Daniel 8 is placed alongside Daniel 7 and Daniel 9, it becomes clear that the sweep of centuries is in focus, with the rise and fall of ancient and medieval powers culminating in a judgment scene in chapter 7 (verses 9-14) and the cleansing of a sanctuary in chapter 8 (verse 14).  Because of the centuries of time involved here, with empires rising and falling (Dan. 7:2-8; 8:2-12) and the time extending from the decree to restore Jerusalem to the Messiah’s first advent (Dan. 9:24-27), the year-day principle (Num. 14:34; Eze. 4:6) is the only credible explanation for the time periods here depicted (Dan. 7:25; 8:14; 9:24-27).  The only part of the vision left unexplained to Daniel at the close of chapter 8 was the 2,300 days (verses 26-27), which is why this is the only part of the previous chapter’s vision Gabriel came to share with Daniel in chapter 9 (verses 23-27). 

The conclusion of the 2,300-day prophecy in A.D. 1844—in the 19th century, no less—is thus fully consistent with the theme of these chapters and the time frame they establish.

How does the Day of Atonement enter this picture?  Daniel 7:9-14 describes a judgment scene in which books of record are opened.  The fact that God’s people are being judged at the tribunal here portrayed becomes clear in chapter 12, when Gabriel introduces the close of human probation with the standing up of Michael and the subsequent, unprecedented time of trouble (verse 1), following which the prophet is assured that “thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book” (verse 1). 

At no other time in Daniel’s prophecy are heavenly books mentioned except in chapters 7 (verses 9-14) and 12 (verse 1).  Those delivered in chapter 12 are thus the ones vindicated in the judgment of chapter 7.  Other Bible passages also speak of heavenly books in the context of judgment and the vindication of the righteous (e.g. Ex. 32:32-33; Mal. 3:16-18; Luke 10:20; Rev. 3:5).  Like the succeeding empires foretold in Daniel 7 and 8 through parallel symbols (Dan. 7:2-8; 8:3-12), the judgment of Daniel 7:9-14 parallels the cleansing of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14.  The only sanctuary in existence at the close of the time periods depicted in these chapters is the one in heaven, whose cleansing with “better sacrifices” than those of the Old Testament is anticipated in Hebrews 9:23. 

The case for Daniel 7-9 foretelling the investigative judgment affirmed in classic Adventist sanctuary theology is thus a decisive one. 

The Book of Hebrews and the Day of Atonement

The professor in question misses the point in those chapters he cites from the book of Hebrews.  The point in these chapters is not that Jesus is involved in a Day of Atonement ministry, but rather, that believers since His ascension need no human priest or man-made temple to bring them into the presence of God.  The point in the book of Hebrews is that in the Old Testament there were many sacrifices, many priests, and an earthly sanctuary made with human hands.  But in the New Testament there is but one Sacrifice, one Priest, and a heavenly sanctuary not made with hands. 

The professor writes as follows:

Hebrews ignores the relatively minor burnt offering sacrifice of the two rams, one for the priests and the other for the people; his focus is on the sin offerings of the day of atonement, that is, the young bull and the goat (Heb. 9:12–13, 19; 10:4) [7].

But his passing reference to Hebrews 9:19 is profoundly misleading, as the passage from whence this verse is taken is not discussing the Day of Atonement ritual at all, but rather, the dedication of the wilderness tabernacle by Moses and Aaron (compare Numbers 7):

            Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people.

Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry (Heb. 9:18-21).

When we drop back to verse 12, it becomes clear that the dedicatory service described above is being paralleled with Christ’s entrance into the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension:

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Jesus, in other words, didn’t dedicate the heavenly sanctuary with the blood of calves and goats, like Moses and Aaron did with the earthly sanctuary.  Rather, He dedicated the heavenly sanctuary with His own blood, thus opening the way to His Father for all seeking access to His throne of grace (Heb. 4:16).  The book of Hebrews is clear that the sum total of blood sacrifices in the Old Testament were fulfilled by Jesus on the cross, and that the work of the Old Testament high priest has now been replaced by the high priestly ministry of Jesus in heaven.  But the primary parallel being drawn in Hebrews 9 is between the dedication of the original Israelite sanctuary in the wilderness with the blood of calves and goats (verses 18-21) and the dedication of the heavenly sanctuary with the blood of Jesus (verse 12).

Conclusion

Once the above point is understood, the insistence of the professor in question—along with other critics of the Adventist sanctuary doctrine—that the phrase “within the veil” in Hebrews 6:19 must refer to the ancient high priest’s entrance into the most holy place on the typical Day of Atonement [8], is unsustainable.  The principal argument in this epistle is not the distinction between the first and second apartments of the sanctuary, though this distinction is certainly affirmed (Heb. 9:6-7).  Rather, the principal argument is that Jesus now stands for His people in His Father’s presence, to which all are now promised access (Heb. 9:24).  Whether He ministers in the holy place prior to 1844, or in the most holy place thereafter, this access is assured.

REFERENCES

1.  Kevin Paulson, “Other Challenges to the Sanctuary Doctrine—And the Bible’s Response,” ADvindicate, April 7, 2023 https://advindicate.com/articles/2021/9/2/justification-and-perfection-aembc-l9bng-h3pls-8wb32-te4k3-6epdj-ms96e-kzs7l-w2tdn-tz53d-yklz7

2.  ----“A Petty, Pathetic Tyrant Fails Again to Disrupt the Adventist Prophetic Narrative,” ADvindicate, Feb. 26, 2026 https://advindicate.com/articles/2025/6/26/the-unerring-lodestar-xrycl-k57yw-4ekg8-pyls4-2x2w6-xx7nm-bknde-gygjs-harg3-gt9r7-p75a9-37srg-2zc2g

3.  Ellen G. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 53.

4.  Norm Young, “Hebrews Proves That Daniel 8:14 Really Isn’t About the Day of Atonement,” Adventist Today, May 12, 2026 https://atoday.org/hebrews-proves-that-daniel-814-really-isnt-about-the-day-of-atonement/

5.  Ibid.

6.  Ibid.

7.  Ibid.

8.  Ibid.

Let us again clarify, of course, that the terms conservative and liberal as used in this context are strictly theological in nature, and do not reflect biases as witnessed in the realms of culture and politics.  The labels may be the same, but the fact still holds that many who wear either of these labels in the respective realms of religion and morality do not wear the same labels in other societal settings.

Still Chasing Illusory Relevance

The most recent of these letters focuses early and conspicuously on the church’s alleged need to give identical and interchangeable roles to men and women in the gospel ministry [3].  Though objectionable from a strictly Biblical standpoint, this is perhaps the least extreme of the suggestions made in these letters, and the one with likely the most sympathy in the larger Adventist public, though judging from the last several General Conference decisions on this topic, an opinion still decidedly in the minority. 

The author of this appeal didn’t help his cause by citing as an alleged “embarrassment” to Adventists the recent elevation of a female bishop to the post of Archbishop of Canterbury in the global Anglican communion [4].  The author’s claim of an Anglican community as 85-million strong [5], makes one wonder exactly where, and on what basis, he is getting his figures.  Some of our readers may remember an article several years ago on this site [6], which referenced the following observation regarding Anglicanism in a prominent Australian newspaper:

The wider U.S. Episcopal Church is facing extinction; just 500,000 attend its services on a Sunday, which an internal report calls a “profound and shocking decline.”  Its sister church in England isn't doing much better.

The latest figures suggest that Church of England affiliation has halved since 2002 and that only 2 per cent of young people call themselves Anglican. This is despite the Church of England spending decades chasing cultural relevance. At the weekend, there was a discussion in this newspaper about whether or not God has a gender. "I don't want young girls or young boys to hear us constantly refer to God as he," said Rt Rev Rachel Treweek, the Bishop of Gloucester, because that might alienate people.

                        The Rev doesn't need to worry because no one is listening [7].

The first of these letters urged the denomination’s new chief executive to “make room” for same-sex couples in church fellowship, implying strongly that the unqualified condemnation of this practice in Scripture is “controversial” and that those Bible verses addressing this issue could mean something different in our day [8].  But the author of this appeal neither cited hard evidence of a growing sentiment in the church in favor of a “posture shift” on this issue, nor—if one wishes to speak of relevance—did he cite evidence that those segments of the Christian world that have made room in their ranks for these behaviors have grown either in numerical membership or societal influence. 

The Role of Ellen White

The writings of the little lady who died in 1915 continue to be a running sore with liberal Adventists, and for reasons easily understood by anyone who remembers how prophetic messages were received by the faith community in Bible times.  Prophets, whether later canonized by the church or not, were almost never popular in their day, simply because they denounced fashionable sins and urged strict compliance with both current and previous inspired revelation. 

The most recent of the open letters in question gives credibility to such iconoclastic critics of Ellen White as Dudley Canright, Ronald Numbers, and Walter Rea, implying that their attacks on the modern prophet’s work are as factual as Newtonian physics [9].  The level of exaggeration in these claims, particularly the so-called plagiarism charge, is truly breathtaking when objectively considered.  After all, Ellen White wrote a total of 25 million words of instruction for the church, and the volume of material alleged to have been borrowed from other authors is minuscule when compared to the overall quantity of what has been published under her name.  What is more, these critics offer no explanation as to why Ellen White’s authority merits reduction on this basis when any number of the Bible writers also used uninspired sources without giving credit. 

These Ellen White revisionists seem to have no end of trouble grasping how the Biblically saturated, Christ-focused content of books like The Desire of Ages and Steps to Christ is far more attractive to the average church member than the bitter invective of books like Walter Rea’s The White Lie [##10|Walter T. Rea, The White Lie (Turlock, CA: M&R Publications, 1982).##].  When Rea’s book was published back in 1982, one traveling revivalist observed that when all was said and done, it came down to whether one found Ellen White or Walter Rea more credible.  For most Seventh-day Adventists familiar with both authors’ writings, that hasn’t been a hard decision.

The author in question asks the GC president to convene a body similar to the Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC) to consider issues relative to Ellen White’s authority and role in the church [11].  Speaking as one who served on TOSC, I am quite confident that were such a committee to be constituted, and if the relevant evidence were truly laid before them, the claims of Ellen White’s critics would be unable to stand objective scrutiny.

The Second Coming of Christ

Here is where the author of this appeal veers radically off the charts.  Such liberal extremism has not been absent from the minds of so-called intellectuals among us, but rarely has it reared its head in open conversation. 

The author in question laments that the doctrine of Jesus’ soon second coming “is rarely critiqued in any meaningful way within the church,” and that in his view, “this type of negligence is shortsighted because failure to meaningfully reevaluate our Second Coming posture is self-defeating” {12].

Exactly why this is so, he doesn’t say, except to allege that “the global north no longer believes in or is impressed by what the Second Coming promises” [13], that “Europe and North America were once what Africa is today” [14], and proceeds to ask that “as hard times recede in the future, will the Second Coming charm fade in Africa as it has in the West?” [15].

Thoughtful readers may be led to inquire as to exactly how hard times are presently receding in Europe and North America, where social disruption, political polarization, and economic adversity continue to bedevil so many.  A number of months ago on this site, the following statement from The New Republic magazine was referenced, indicating yet again which religious groups are thriving even in the developed world (the “global north”), and why:

In the decades since the Vietnam War, Americans’ faith in all kinds of big institutions has collapsed.  But recent data has brought a twist: Churches are enjoying a small but significant rebound, especially among young people.  Maybe these millennials and Zooners have hit peak exhaustion with the meaninglessness of TikTok scrolling.  Maybe the young men among them are seeking an alternative to the secular media’s message that they are guilty of “toxic masculinity” until proven innocent. . .

Southern Baptist membership is still down from its 2006 peak of 16.3 million, but the denomination’s church attendance and baptisms have grown over the last two years. The number of Americans who reject religious affiliation no longer seems to be rising. One survey showed that 69 percent of college-educated men age 40 and under claim a religious affiliation—up 10 points since 2022, and 7 points higher than women in the same demographic. . . .

It’s too early to speak of full-fledged revival, but this upswing in religious engagement offers lessons for universities. The churches that seem to be rebounding are the ones that embrace countercultural aspects of Christianity. These Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Holy Spirit-minded Protestants are not the Christians who spent the last century trying to update “premodern” beliefs to fit the demands of Western progressivism and scientism. They don’t shy away from outrageous supernatural claims, or rituals that puzzle outsiders, or traditional teachings on sexuality and gender [16].

The good news is that in our present global context, very few Adventists in any part of the world are likely to find meaning in a faith that spiritualizes away the Second Coming of Christ.  (One doubts seriously that the new General Conference president will find this appeal attractive, for which we can praise the Lord.)  If theological liberals in the church cultivate this mindset, if their writings, public pronouncements, and classroom instruction begin to assume this flavor, their influence in the denomination will be quickly marginalized if not deliberately removed. 

A far stronger case can be made that the lack of evangelistic growth in many Global North countries within the Seventh-day Adventist world is due less to a hostile outside culture than to doctrinal and moral vacillation in our own ranks caused by the errors of both mainstream evangelical and liberal theology.  The record of the past century is clear: remove a faith community’s distinctives, and decline in membership as well as influence becomes inevitable.  For Seventh-day Adventists, few teachings are more distinctive than the hope of Christ’s literal, visible, imminent return.  In our present context, neither science, technology, nor intellectual thought are demonstrating any notable capacity to tame human savagery and make gentle the life of this world.  No wonder theological conservatism remains considerably more attractive to contemporary minds than the liberal alternative.

Conclusion

I found myself betwixt mirth and outrage when reading in the most recent of these appeals that “we should shift our emphasis from attaining an afterlife with streets of gold, to one that focuses on this life as reflected in our experiences” [17].  Without question our focus belongs on the counsel of Matthew 25 in addressing the needs of the downtrodden, but neither this nor any other Biblical injunction can be followed without the imparted grace of a supernatural God and the hope of a future world free of sin and pain (Rev. 21:4).                                                                                                     

The Bible is clear, as is Ellen White [##18|Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 69.##], that the character of Christ must be perfectly reproduced in His people before Jesus can come (e.g. Zeph. 3:13; I Thess. 5:23; I Tim. 6:13-14; II Peter 3:10-14; I John 3:2-3; Rev. 3:21; 12:17; 14:5,12).  There need be no tension between practical service for others and the church’s classic eschatological hope.  Such philosophical musings as found in these recent appeals must be rejected by the church and its leaders at every level, without ambiguity or qualification.  Wherever such thinking has surfaced in the Christian world, the consequences have been ruinous to spirituality and to the faith community’s impact on its surroundings. 

The Seventh-day Adventist Church cannot for a moment contemplate going in that direction.

REFERENCES

1.  Matthew Quartey, “Dear Erton Kohler: An Open Letter to the General Conference President,” Spectrum, May 5, 2026 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/opinion/dear-erton-kohler-an-open-letter-to-the-general-conference-president/

2.  Reinder Bruinsma, “Dear Elder Kohler: Will you make room for people like me in the church?” Adventist Today, July 18, 2025 https://atoday.org/dear-elder-kohler/

3.  Quartey, “Dear Erton Kohler: An Open Letter to the General Conference President,” Spectrum, May 5, 2026 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/opinion/dear-erton-kohler-an-open-letter-to-the-general-conference-president/

4.  Ibid.

5.  Ibid.

6.  Kevin Paulson, “The Trend Continues,” ADvindicate, July 26, 2019 https://advindicate.com/articles/2019/7/17/paulson-draft-1-atack-kn4n4-n82ly

7.  Tim Stanley, “Why Western Christianity has a death wish,” Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 18, 2018 https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/why-western-christianity-has-a-death-wish-20180918-p504df.html

8.  Bruinsma, “Dear Elder Kohler: Will you make room for people like me in the church?” Adventist Today, July 18, 2025 https://atoday.org/dear-elder-kohler/

9.  Quartey, “Dear Erton Kohler: An Open Letter to the General Conference President,” Spectrum, May 5, 2026 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/opinion/dear-erton-kohler-an-open-letter-to-the-general-conference-president/

10.  Walter T. Rea, The White Lie (Turlock, CA: M&R Publications, 1982).

11.  Quartey, “Dear Erton Kohler: An Open Letter to the General Conference President,” Spectrum, May 5, 2026 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/opinion/dear-erton-kohler-an-open-letter-to-the-general-conference-president/

12.  Ibid.

13.  Ibid.

14.  Ibid.

15.  Ibid.

16.  Molly Worthen, “What Besieged Universities Can Learn from the Christian Resurgence,” The New Republic, Aug. 11, 2025 https://newrepublic.com/article/198386/besieged-universities-can-learn-christian-resurgence

17.  Quartey, “Dear Erton Kohler: An Open Letter to the General Conference President,” Spectrum, May 5, 2026 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/opinion/dear-erton-kohler-an-open-letter-to-the-general-conference-president/

18.  Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 69.

Ellen White, under divine inspiration, elaborates on the Biblical narrative by explaining Mrs. Lot’s motive for the action that resulted in her death:

She rebelled against God because His judgments involved her possessions and her children in the ruin.  Although so greatly favored in being called out from the wicked city, she felt that she was severely dealt with, because the wealth that it had taken years to accumulate must be left to destruction.  Instead of thankfully accepting deliverance, she presumptuously looked back to desire the life of those who had rejected the divine warning [##1|Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 161.##].

From a strictly human perspective, Mrs. Lot’s feelings are understandable.  But it should have been clear to her, from the intervention of the angels in miraculously protecting the residents of her home from the Sodomite mob (Gen. 19:10-11), that a power beyond humanity was passing judgment on the wicked city where she lived.  For myself, I’ve always wondered why Lot didn’t simply announce to the family his intention to return to Abraham after fleeing Sodom; one has difficulty believing Lot’s beneficent uncle wouldn’t have given him a second chance to restore his wealth.  But the following statement from Patriarchs and Prophets explains a bit further some of the spiritual dynamics in Lot’s family regarding the original separation from Abraham and Lot’s choice to remain so long in the sin-ridden cities of the plain:

The wife of Lot was a selfish, irreligious woman, and her influence was exerted to separate her husband from Abraham.  But for her, Lot would not have remained in Sodom, deprived of the counsel of the wise, God-fearing patriarch.  The influence of his wife and the associations of that wicked city would have led him to apostatize from God had it not been for the faithful instruction he had early received from Abraham.  The marriage of Lot and his choice of Sodom for a home were the first links in a chain of events fraught with evil to the world for many generations [##2|——Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 174.##].

Considering what we learn later in Lot’s story as to the character of his two surviving daughters (Gen. 19:31-38), it isn’t difficult to understand why they too would have likely had little interest in returning to the godly influence and leadership of their great-uncle, whatever material or social advantages might have been available to them through such a move.

The Lot’s Wife Syndrome

But while material goods might at times be recoverable, lives are not.  The bitterness of Lot’s wife regarding the loss of her other daughters, their husbands, and possibly her grandchildren isn’t at all difficult to perceive.  But again, it should have been clear to Mrs. Lot that the hand of the Lord had been involved in saving her husband, herself, and her unmarried daughters from the violence of the mob, and from the city’s supernatural destruction.  Painful as the loss of her other children most assuredly was, it was God who was responsible, and however heart-wrenching the experience, she should have recognized divine intervention and submitted herself thereto.

Ellen White makes the following insightful observation regarding this story:

There are Christians who say, “I do not care to be saved unless my companion and children are saved with me.”  They feel that heaven would not be heaven to them without the presence of those who are so dear.  But have those who cherish this feeling a right conception of their own relation to God, in view of His great goodness and mercy toward them?  Have they forgotten that they are bound by the strongest ties of love and honor and loyalty to the service of their Creator and Redeemer?  The invitations of mercy are addressed to all; and because our friends reject the Saviour’s pleading love, shall we also turn away?  The redemption of the soul is precious.  Christ has paid an infinite price for our salvation, and no one who appreciates the value of this great sacrifice or the worth of the soul will despise God’s offered mercy because others choose to do so.  The very fact that others are ignoring His just claims should arouse us to greater diligence, that we may honor God ourselves, and lead all whom we can influence, to accept His love [##3|——Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 162.##].

Sacrificing eternity for the sake of family and friendship ties didn’t end, of course, with the Sodom story.  The Lot’s wife syndrome is alive and well in our present day.  We see it active in the lives of those Christians, including some Adventists, who set aside Biblical prohibitions against same-gender sexual intimacy because a family member (usually a son or daughter) or close friend chooses to make peace with these desires.  The assumption behind this surrender of Biblical teachings is not only the belief that these desires are often involuntary, but also that they don’t appear to hurt anyone if expressed.  Never mind the unequivocal, unqualified condemnation of these choices in the Sacred Writings (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; I Cor. 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:10); human reason and human emotions are given veto power over the inspired text. 

Conclusion

Only this past Christmas I was informed by a longtime friend of two of her family members who have become bitter at the Seventh-day Adventist Church because of its Bible-based rejection of homosexual practice.  Why have they made this compromise?  Because a son of theirs has come out as gay. 

The story of Lot and his family teaches any number of timeless lessons, but perhaps the most notable of these is the imperative of obedience to God’s commands at the cost of all else, even the closest and dearest of human relationships.  God’s claim on us transcends all other obligations, all other commitments, all other connections.  When those near and dear choose self over the divine will, we must pray and entreat God on their behalf, and pray that if nothing else, our own example might serve to woo them back to the narrow way (Matt. 7:14).  But in the end, obedience to God through the power of His grace must supersede all other options, whatever the cost to ourselves and those we love might be.

REFERENCES

1.  Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 161.

2.  Ibid, p. 174.

3.  Ibid, p. 162.

The Historical Record

Even during the centuries of papal supremacy, certain rulers occasionally dared to challenge papal authority.  Who can forget the quarrel between the German emperor Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII, which led to the former seeking reconciliation with the latter by standing barefoot in the snow for three days before the pope agreed to see him [1]?  Not to mention the various conflicts between Pope Innocent III, the most powerful of the medieval popes, and certain European monarchs, some of whom were actually deposed from power because of their clashes with the pontiff [2].  Many other examples could be cited from the historical record.

Even in the United States, politicians have often learned the folly of publicly differing from papal hierarchs.  Many will recall the public disagreements between such political figures as the late New York Governor Mario Cuomo and 1984 Democratic vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro with leaders of the Catholic Church in America.  It was during this time that the late columnist Mary McGrory wrote that “it is the conventional wisdom that no politician wins in a fight with the Catholic Church” [##3|Stephen D. Mumford, American Democracy and the Vatican: Population Growth and National Security (Amherst, NY: The Humanist Press, 1984), p. 170.##].

Those in high places who lack a careful knowledge of history can’t perhaps be expected to remember these examples.

The Great Powers of Revelation 13

The thirteenth chapter of Revelation speaks of two beasts—the first representing the medieval papacy, the second representing the United States of America [##4|Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 433-447.##].  The latter beast appears like a docile lamb, but in reality it speaks like a dragon (Rev. 13:11).  In the end these two powers unite against God’s people, and compel the entire world—except for a faithful remnant—to follow them in their resistance to the divine law (verses 12-17).  This will be accomplished both through legislative decrees and the working of miracles, the latter playing the most decisive role in bringing the world into harmony with this church-state conglomerate (verses 13-14).

Political and other leaders for whom power rather than conviction is their principal agenda will lash out at anyone or anything perceived to be standing in their way, regardless of the wisdom or lack thereof in the course they take.  At times such leaders might even forge alliances with powers whose vilification lies at the heart of their ideological propaganda (the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 comes to mind in this regard). 

The current pope doesn’t likely take seriously the raging flourishes of the current U.S. president, understanding as he does the papacy’s historical and institutional strength.  After all, the Roman Church has outlasted countless political leaders and ideologies.  But at the bottom line, students of Bible prophecy understand that papal Rome and republican America will join forces in the final drama of the last days, a narrative the inspired text says will be driven by natural and human disasters, economic chaos, and above all the working of miracles.  We haven’t yet seen the latter phenomenon, but when it occurs, it will be at the height of national and international crisis such as neither America nor the world has yet witnessed. 

And when these forces coalesce, the end-time narrative will approach its ultimate climax.  The current clash of Revelation 13’s two beasts is but a temporary episode in this narrative.  When we keep our eyes on the sweep of prophetic history, we can be confident as to what will come next.

REFERENCES

1.  “Road to Canossa” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Canossa

2.  “Pope Innocent III” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_III

3.  Stephen D. Mumford, American Democracy and the Vatican: Population Growth and National Security (Amherst, NY: The Humanist Press, 1984), p. 170.

4.  Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 433-447.

Watching the launch of Artemis II yesterday, I couldn’t help reflecting on how millions who witnessed the history-making event weren’t even alive when the last lunar expedition—the flight of Apollo 17—took place in December 1972.  Already there is talk of the “Artemis generation”—presumably those for whom this moment will be life-transforming.  None at this point, of course, can be certain of this.  But talk of a new perception of societal, even global unity as a result of the current space expedition abounded from commentators as the capsule soared beyond the launching pad.

Optimism

Boundless, even mindless optimism has been endemic to the American spirit almost since the founding of the Republic.  Americans, so the thought goes, can do anything to which they set their minds, their energy, their creative genius.  Many of these illusions, of course, collapsed under the dissolution that followed the First World War.  Historian Barbara Tuchman writes: “For the price it had paid, humanity’s major gain was a painful view of its own limitations” [##1|Barbara W. Tuchman, The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914 (New York: Ballantine Books, 1994), p. 463.##].

The space program has seen enough mishaps of its own, from the pre-flight test for the first Apollo mission in 1967 to the loss of two Space Shuttles in subsequent decades.  Greater care in every technical detail has become a staple to these adventures, and rightly so.  The momentary pauses in the Artemis II countdown bear witness to this fact.  Human self-confidence can be a glorious feeling, but when it results in death, destruction, and embarrassment it becomes yet another reminder of human frailty.

If nothing else, the warning should be clear that to trust in material things can be perilous, even fatal.

Science, Technology, and Character

But the biggest problem with the optimism and self-assurance that so often attends scientific and technological advancement is the simple fact that while science and technology can accomplish much, they don’t make better people.  William Jennings Bryan, in his argument against the theory of evolution at the famous Scopes Trial of 1925, perhaps said it best:

Science is a magnificent material force, but it is not a teacher of morals.  It can perfect machinery, but it adds no moral restraints to protect society from the machine [##2|Michael Kazin, A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), p. 295.##].

The spirit of the Renaissance inspired men to sail beyond the horizon and explore unknown lands, but it didn’t prevent either the exploitation of those lands nor the enslavement and slaughter of indigenous peoples that attended these discoveries.  The acquisition of wealth and power by a growing number of persons may temporarily alleviate material conditions, but it doesn’t build character.  The Western Gilded Age and the Nazi experience aptly demonstrate this point. 

Conclusion: Artemis II and the Last Generation

It does us well to remember once again the warning in Allen Drury’s Cold War narrative A Shade of Difference, in which a United States Senator—then doubling as America’s ambassador to the United Nations—admonished the globe as follows:

Though we fly to the moon and far beyond, we shall carry with us what is in our hearts, and if it be not pure, we shall slaughter one another where’er we meet, as surely on some outward star as here on earth [##3|Allen Drury, A Shade of Difference (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co, 1962), p. 584.##].

Neither science nor technology can create purity of heart.  Only the grace of God can do this.  Which is why Scripture speaks so decidedly of the spiritual purity expected of God’s end-time faith community when Jesus returns (Zeph. 3:13; I Thess. 5:23; II Peter 3:10-14; I John 3:2-3; Rev. 3:21; 14:5), and why Ellen White echoes these Biblical words in such powerful statements as the following:

When He comes, He is not to cleanse us of our sins, to remove from us the defects in our characters, or to cure us of the infirmities of our tempers and dispositions.  If wrought for us at all, this work will be accomplished before that time.  When the Lord comes, those who are holy will be holy still. . . . The Refiner does not then sit to pursue His refining process and remove their sins and their corruption.  This is all to be done in these hours of probation [##4|Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 355.##].

Rather than inspiring the “Artemis generation”—with a new and ill-founded confidence in human achievement—let us pray that new efforts to explore the universe will remind us that only God can make good people, and that like the Senator before the UN said, if our hearts remain impure, it won’t matter how far into space we travel.  Human evil will invariably attend our steps.  May the final, victorious generation promised in the inspired writings be gathered soon, out of “every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” (Rev. 14:6).

REFERENCES

1.   Barbara W. Tuchman, The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914 (New York: Ballantine Books, 1994), p. 463.

2.  Michael Kazin, A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), p. 295.

3.  Allen Drury, A Shade of Difference (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co, 1962), p. 584.

4.  Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 355.

Born again by water at eleven years of age, Kody seeks and longs for a daily new birth in the Holy Spirit. Since finishing their degrees, he and his soulmate Lyli have served as missionaries wherever the Lord has called, from Bolivia to India, and most recently in Mexico and Belize: but their citizenship is in heaven. In his spare time, Kody enjoys studying and writing about Bible truth and the Everlasting Gospel. 

When I preached at a church in Maryland a number of years ago, not far from the General Conference offices, some of the members referred to the position opposing Last Generation Theology as the “GC position.”  I asked one such person why he characterized the theology of which he spoke as the stance of the General Conference.  As it turned out, it was because he had heard more individuals who worked at church headquarters who appeared to hold the position opposite that of what most call Last Generation Theology.  Why or how that qualified such a theological position as “General Conference” was not explained.

Since the publication of the controversial book Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine in 1957 [##1|Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1957).##], it has often been stated—on both sides of the disputed issues in the book, such as the atonement, the nature of sin, and the humanity of Christ—that this book represented (and allegedly still represents) the official mind of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  Those disagreeing with certain doctrinal positions taken in the book have been described by certain ones as “dissidents,” “fringe dwellers,” even the “lunatic fringe.”

But on what basis, may we ask, can any theological position in the church be identified as “mainstream,” “extreme,” “dissident,” or whatever?  Who in the denomination has the authority, or the right, to make such characterizations?

Labels: Appropriate and Otherwise

Labels are unavoidable in human discourse, inadequate though most inevitably are.  Whether for good or ill, such markers are nearly always used for convenience only.  But in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, only those doctrinal positions which have been voted by a duly called global session of the General Conference can rightly qualify as official, and presumably as “mainstream.”  Whatever opinion one holds regarding the controversial positions taken in the book Questions on Doctrine, the fact remains that neither this book nor the controversial stances it took regarding such issues as the nature of the atonement, the nature of sin, and the human nature of Christ, were ever debated or voted upon at a duly called General Conference session.

Sometime ago, an author in a leading denominational magazine insisted that the position taken by the late Desmond Ford regarding the scope of Biblical righteousness by faith—namely, that righteousness by faith as described in the Bible includes justification only—is now supposedly held by a majority of Seventh-day Adventist pastors and scholars.  Yet this author gave no hard evidence (e.g. official church pronouncements, survey data) in support of this statement.  More recently, in a public discussion of Last Generation Theology, it was claimed that this particular theological construct is held only by a minority within the church, and that the “mainstream” of the denomination supposedly stands on the other side. 

Again, no tangible evidence was cited in support of this claim. 

The Voice of the World Church

If one wishes to speak of the official stance of the General Conference regarding the issues connected with Last Generation Theology, a compelling case can be made that the General Conference stands on record in support of at least certain key features of this construct.  For example, in contrast with those in contemporary Adventism who insist that the Biblical atonement process was finished at the cross, Number 24 of our SDA Fundamental Beliefs declares as follows:

In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, [Christ] entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry, which was typified by the work of the high priest in the most holy place of the earthly sanctuary [2]. 

In other words, atonement (according to official Adventism) is a work in progress, continuing even now in the heavenly sanctuary in what Seventh-day Adventists have often described as the antitypical Day of Atonement. 

Fundamental Belief No. 22, titled “Christian Behavior,” states as follows:

We are called to be a godly people who think, feel, and act in harmony with biblical principles in all aspects of personal and social life. For the Spirit to recreate in us the character of our Lord we involve ourselves only in those things that will produce Christlike purity, health, and joy in our lives [3].

How, may we ask, is “Christlike purity” something other than sinlessness?  If Biblical principles are to be reflected “in all aspects of personal and social life,” if we are to “involve ourselves only in those things that will produce Christlike purity, health, and joy in our lives,” where is there room for occasional or impulsive sin, however infrequent?  Nothing in the above statement says anything about believers simply “doing their frail best” to achieve these goals.

Fundamental Belief, No. 13, titled “The Remnant and Its Mission,” lies at the heart of what has lately come to be known as Last Generation Theology:

The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ, but in the last days, a time of widespread apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This remnant announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of His second advent. This proclamation is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14; it coincides with the work of judgment in heaven and results in a work of repentance and reform on earth. Every believer is called to have a personal part in this worldwide witness (Dan. 7:9-14; Isa. 1:9; 11:11; Jer. 23:3; Micah 2:12; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Peter 1:16-19; 4:17; 2 Peter 3:10-14; Jude 3,14; Rev. 12:17; 14:6-12; 18:1-4) [4].

And it helps to remember that according to the Bible, keeping the commandments of God is non-existent unless it is perfect.  The apostle James writes, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10).

Simply stated, Last Generation Theology is really just the remnant church theology under a different name.  It is no surprise that many opponents of Last Generation Theology in contemporary Adventism find themselves notably uncomfortable with identifying the Seventh-day Adventist Church as the remnant church of Bible prophecy (Zeph. 3:13; Rev. 12:17; 14:12).

At the Annual Councils of 1973 and 1974, prominent features of Last Generation Theology were endorsed by the world leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church [5].  (While this is not the same as a vote taken by a worldwide GC session, it goes far toward debunking the notion that Last Generation Theology is somehow outside the church’s mainstream.)  Among other things, these Annual Council statements affirmed such tenets of Last Generation Theology as the belief that the return of Jesus has been delayed [6], that this delay is the result of God’s people failing to perfect Christian character in harmony with the commands of inspired counsel [7], that the perfection thus required refers to sinless obedience [8], and that this perfection in the lives of God’s saints will result in the vindication of God’s character “and the final work of settling the great controversy [9].

In perhaps its best summation of what many today call Last Generation Theology, the 1973 statement declared:

God is waiting for a generation of Adventists who will demonstrate that His way of life can truly be lived on earth, that Jesus did not set an example beyond the reach of His followers, that His grace “is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish” (Jude 24, RSV) [10]. 

Some may protest that this statement is more than five decades old.  Indeed.  But no official denominational statement in the decades since, either at the Annual Council or the General Conference session level, has cast any doubt whatsoever on the above affirmations, nor indicated any official movement by the world body of Seventh-day Adventists away from these sentiments. 

Were these statements to be circulated among our people presently, they would likely elicit overwhelming approval from the worldwide church membership, in particular those in non-Western countries where the vast majority of our membership is found.

Conclusion

Why, in the absence of hard evidence, certain ones prefer to describe themselves or their views as “mainstream,” may possibly reflect personal insecurities or the desire to marginalize opposing views as opposed to actual reality.  At the bottom line, beliefs which represent the consensus of both the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White, whether endorsed by a General Conference vote or not, constitute the best description of “mainstream” Adventist thought, even if the general membership of the church doesn’t always affirm or adhere to the counsels there contained.         

But when claims as to what is “mainstream” or “extreme” are identified without any objective supporting data—without any backing from official church action or public opinion surveys—such claims can rightly be discounted.  When such claims are made in public, they should be challenged in public, and supporting evidence should be demanded.  Loud and ubiquitous voices, books from our publishing houses, or the opinions of leading scholars in one setting or another, do not necessarily represent the official voice of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

REFERENCES

1.  Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1957).

2.  https://adventist.org/beliefs

3.  Ibid.

4.  Ibid.

5.  https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56a433da0e4c11b9a8d2cca3/t/5c869376ee6eb059ac52bb45/1552323448156/GC+1973-74+AC+Appeals.pdf

6.  Ibid.

7.  Ibid.

8.  Ibid.

9.  Ibid.

10.  Ibid.

Recently an online article by one of these critics insists that if only Ellen White and the early Adventist pioneers had paid more attention to the views of Hippolytus, a Christian bishop of the early third century after Christ (c. 170-c. 235 A.D.) [1], they would have given more credibility to the identification of Daniel’s little horn power with Antiochus Epiphanes, rather than with pagan and papal Rome [2].  The article in question claims that the teachings of Hippolytus go far toward demolishing the classic Adventist belief that the Antiochus interpretation of the little horn was invented by a blend of pagan skeptics and Catholic opponents of Protestantism [3]. 

Of course, Hippolytus wasn’t the only ancient writer who offered this particular interpretation of Daniel’s little horn prophecy.  Flavius Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, also proffered this understanding [4], though not many cite him as a credible authority because most scholars regard his opinions—in the words of one historian—as “tendentious, contradictory and thoroughly unreliable” [##5|Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), p. 137.##].  The issue before us is neither the source nor the antiquity of the Antiochus interpretation of this important Bible prediction, but rather, its Biblical and historical credibility.

Why Antiochus Epiphanes Can’t Possibly Be Daniel’s Little Horn

A recent article on this site briefly addresses the Antiochus interpretation of Daniel’s little horn power [6], as some of our readers may recall.  But for four (4) decisive reasons, totally aside from the arguments raised by the article in question, Antiochus Epiphanes can’t possibly qualify as the little horn in Daniel’s prophetic writings:

1.  Antiochus didn’t “wax exceeding great” (Dan. 8:9) in any direction.  The little horn is described in Daniel 8, verse 9 as a power that “waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land (Palestine).”  (We will omit reference here to the brief occupation of Judea by Antiochus, as the dialogue and circumstances cited in Daniel 8:10-14 take place in the context of the crisis allegedly caused by the Seleucid invasion of Palestine, which was soon thereafter repulsed.  Antiochus’ previous adventures are thus our primary focus as to whether they qualify as “exceeding great”).

Following a temporary success in an earlier campaign against Egypt [7], Antiochus led his army to Egypt a second time, only to be ordered to leave by the Roman general Gaius Popilius Laenus, who drew a line in the sand with his sword around Antiochus’ feet, declaring that if Antiochus didn’t leave both Egypt and Cyprus at once, he would be considered in a state of war with the Roman Republic [8].  Antiochus, humiliated by the confrontation, retreated with his army [9], and soon thereafter withdrew from Cyprus as well [10]. 

While Antiochus was embroiled in his Judean campaign, King Mithridates I of Parthia took advantage of Antiochus’ troubles by attacking from the east, seizing the city of Herat in 167 B.C. and disrupting the direct trade route to India, effectively splitting the Greek world in two [11].  Antiochus died soon thereafter, the exact cause of which remains uncertain [12].

In other words, far from “[waxing] exceeding great toward the south, and toward the east” (Dan. 8:9), Antiochus experienced humiliation and defeat from both directions, as well as from the west in his eviction from Cyprus.  Rome, by contrast, exercised domination and won victories in these and in other directions as well, dominating the Western world for centuries as both republic and empire. 

2.  The account of the Jewish revolt against Antiochus as recorded in First Maccabees completely disallows a fulfillment of Daniel’s 2,300-day prophecy during this event in Israel’s history.  Critics of the classic Adventist sanctuary doctrine, such as the late Desmond Ford, have insisted—in Ford’s words—that “the 2,300 evenings-mornings met their original fulfillment when Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem” [13].  But there is no way this time period can fit that in which the Jerusalem temple experienced defilement at the hands of Antiochus. 

Whether one understands the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14 as referring to 2,300 literal days, or to 2,300 individual morning and evening sacrifices and thus 1,150 literal days—the latter being alleged by such as Robert Brinsmead [##14|Robert D. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism (Fallbrook, CA: Verdict Publications, 1980), p. 78.##]—neither is able to fit the period during which the Jewish temple was polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes.  The book of First Maccabees specifies exactly how long this time period lasted, in the following passage regarding the temple’s rededication subsequent to the Seleucid expulsion:

Then, early on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month, the month Kislev, in the year 148 (164 B.C.), sacrifice was offered as the law commands on the newly made altar of burnt-offering.  On the anniversary of the day when the Gentiles had profaned it, on that very day, it was rededicated, with hymns of thanksgiving, to the music of harps and lutes and cymbals (I Macc. 4:52-54, NEB).

In other words, the temple was defiled for exactly three years, to the day.  The article in question makes a vague reference to Hippolytus’ quoting of First Maccabees 2-11, but seems oblivious to the above passage, which makes impossible any application of the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 to the Maccabean experience.  Jewish reckoning was known for its exactitude; there is no way those recounting the restoration of the temple services would have missed two whole months in recording this event.  The time frame of 1,150 days couldn’t possibly fit this period, to say nothing of 2,300 days. 

3.  Jesus’ reference to “the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet” (Matt. 24:15), places this prophecy in the future from His day, with no reference anywhere in Scripture to any past or alternative fulfillment.  One would think the words of Jesus would carry at least some weight with Christian Bible students, even theological liberals.  The Savior was absolutely clear, in His survey of end-time events with His disciples just before His death, as to the application of the prophecy of Daniel 8 to the future:

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand) (Matt. 24:15).

Antiochus Epiphanes had been dead for nearly two centuries when Jesus uttered this prophecy.  The notion that this prophecy could have been fulfilled at any other time is entirely without support in the Biblical record.  The classic Adventist identification of the power here described with Rome (first pagan, then papal) is thus congruent both with the overall sweep of prophetic history as outlined in Daniel and Revelation, as well as this pivotal prediction of our Lord.

The article in question makes no reference whatsoever to the above statement by Jesus.

4.  The overthrow of the little horn power is foretold by Daniel as being followed by the total conquest of and expulsion of evil from this world, with all nations serving and obeying the Lord thereafter (Dan. 7:25-27).  Daniel’s little horn power first appears in chapter 7 of the book that bears his name.  And its activity, overthrow, and aftermath are described in the following verses:

And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hand for a time and times and the dividing of time.

But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him (Dan. 7:25-27).

The dominion of Antiochus Epiphanes (which wasn’t much) ended more than 2,100 years ago, and without the saints possessing an everlasting kingdom or the whole world—or even the world then known to Israel—acknowledging God’s rulership.  The article in question quotes Hippolytus as seeking to connect Daniel’s antichrist prophecy not only with Antiochus Epiphanes, but with a number of related events during the same period:

Hippolytus then recounted another disastrous dynastic marriage arrangement concerning a Cleopatra, which took place in 150 BCE, intertwining references from Daniel 11 and 1 Maccabees 10-11. A certain Alexander, “the son of Philip arose” against Antiochus and killed him. He proposed to Ptolemy, king of Egypt, to let him marry Cleopatra. But Ptolemy and Alexander plotted against each other. Alexander lost and fled to the king of the Arabs who cut off his head and sent it to Ptolemy. But Ptolemy died shortly thereafter and did not enjoy his ill-gotten gains. Shortly after this event Hippolytus introduced the Antichrist into the narrative, believing that the previous events marked “the end of times.”  He quoted a long passage from Daniel 11:36-45, and asserted that the antichrist would fulfill these verses. This was the “abomination of desolation” which the antichrist would inflict in distinction to the “abomination of destruction” for which Antiochus was responsible [15].

How the events here described could possibly relate to “the end of times,” the author of the above piece does not explain.  Nor does he explain how the “abomination of desolation,” clearly depicted by our Lord as future from His day (Matt. 24:15), could have had anything to do with the events or persons here recounted.  We saw earlier how Daniel’s prophecy of the little horn’s demise speaks of the ultimate, eternal triumph of God’s people to follow the horn’s destruction, that the divine kingdom to then rule the nations will be an “everlasting” one, under whom “all dominions shall serve and obey” the Lord” (Dan. 7:27).

None of this, quite obviously, happened during the second century B.C.

Conclusion

Antiochus Epiphanes was a petty, pathetic tyrant in his day, a passing nuisance who didn’t merit mention in the prophetic writings of Holy Scripture.  Theologically liberal Adventists seem less interested in the hard facts of history than in their persistent crusade to discredit classic Adventism in general and Ellen White in particular.  The moral summons of Adventism’s distinctive message and prophetic narrative disturbs their spiritual comfort zone, and that they simply cannot abide, regardless of what Scripture or the historical record says.

The article in question asks, “What if Ellen White had followed Hippolytus, not William Miller?” [16].  Answer: she would have been wrong, instead of Biblically and historically right as her perspective has proved to be.  The inspiring Holy Spirit didn’t allow this to happen.  No matter how many others, past or present, have equated the little horn of Daniel with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the evidence for this claim simply doesn’t hold up. 

REFERENCES

1.  “Hippolytus of Rome” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippolytus_of_Rome

2.  Donald E. Casebolt, “What If Ellen White Had Followed Hippolytus, Not William Miller?” Spectrum, Feb. 6, 2026 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/analysis/what-if-ellen-white-had-followed-hippolytus-not-william-miller/

3.  Ibid.

4.  https://www.google.com/search?q=Did+Josephus+identify+Daniel%27s+little+horn+with+Antiochus+Epiphanes%3F&oq=Did+Josephus+identify+Daniel%27s+little+horn+with+Antiochus+Epiphanes%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAtIBCTE2Mjg3ajBqN6gCCLACAfEF3OT8ME6c2CE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

5.  Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), p. 137.

6.  Kevin Paulson, “Other Challenges to the Sanctuary Doctrine—And the Bible’s Response,” ADvindicate, April 7, 2023 https://advindicate.com/articles/2021/9/2/justification-and-perfection-aembc-l9bng-h3pls-8wb32-te4k3-6epdj-ms96e-kzs7l-w2tdn-tz53d-yklz7

7.  “Antiochus IV Epiphanes” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes

8.  Ibid. 

9.  Ibid.

10.  https://www.google.com/search?q=did+antiochus+epiphanes+withdraw+from+cyprus+at+rome%27s+command%3F&oq=Did+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggBECMYJzIICAAQRRgnGDsyBggBECMYJzIGCAIQRRg5Mg0IAxAAGJECGIAEGIoFMgwIBBAAGEMYgAQYigUyDAgFEAAYQxiABBiKBTINCAYQABiRAhiABBiKBTIMCAcQABhDGIAEGIoFMgcICBAAGIAEMgcICRAAGI8C0gEINTQ3MWowajeoAgiwAgHxBb2ik85D5qbt8QW9opPOQ-am7Q&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

11.  “Antiochus IV Epiphanes” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes

12.  Ibid.

13.  Desmond Ford, “Daniel 8:14 and the Day of Atonement,” Spectrum, November 1980, p. 32.  https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/Spectrum/1980-1981_Vol_11/22253171.READER_036.pdf

14.  Robert D. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism (Fallbrook, CA: Verdict Publications, 1980), p. 78.

15.  Casebolt, “What If Ellen White Had Followed Hippolytus, Not William Miller?” Spectrum, Feb. 6, 2026 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/analysis/what-if-ellen-white-had-followed-hippolytus-not-william-miller/

16.  Ibid.

Like other Christian apologists for the theory of evolution, the author purports to find no conflict between the role of God as Creator and popular scientific explanations for the origin of the universe.  At one point the author writes: “To say that God used natural processes to bring about His purposes is not to limit Him but to admire His wisdom” [2].  He goes on to say that “the story of creation in Genesis is not a science textbook—it is a theological declaration” [3].  Science and religion, in his view, are simply “two lenses through which we behold truth” [4], not necessarily in conflict one with the other.  From his perspective, “evolution is a scientific explanation of how life has developed, not why it exists” [5].

Unbelievably, the author of this piece tries to establish the Christian credibility of evolution by citing the late Pope John Paul II, calling him a “devout Christian” who insisted that “acknowledging biological processes doesn’t negate God’s creative hand” [6].  Let’s remember, of course, that the one here cited served as leader of the religious system identified by Scripture and the inspired writings of Ellen White as the Antichrist of Bible prophecy, who publicly disputed—in defiance of Scripture—the “widespread idea that one can obtain forgiveness directly from God” [##7|Don Schanche, “No Forgiveness ‘Directly from God,’ Pope Says,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 1894, p. A12.##], and who openly presumed to differ with the words of Christ in claiming certain titles for himself.  In the late pope’s own words:

Have no fear when people call me the Vicar of Christ, when they say to me “Holy Father” or "Your Holiness,' or use terms similar to these, which seem even inimical to the gospel.  Christ Himself declared, “Call no one on earth your father; you have but one father in heaven.  Do not be called Master; you have but one Master the Messiah” (Matt. 23:9-10).  These expressions, nevertheless, have evolved out of a long tradition, becoming part of common usage.  One must not be afraid of these words either [##8|Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), p. 6.##].

For any Seventh-day Adventist—let alone the editor of a church publication—to cite as an authority in any theological setting one making such blasphemous claims as the above, is nothing short of theological treason.  One obviously incapable of seeing conflict between his own sacrilegious claims and the teachings of Scripture can hardly be trusted when perceiving so-called harmony between evolutionary science and those same Scriptures.

Irreconcilable Differences Between Evolution and the Bible

I am not myself a scientist, only a student of the inspired writings.  But for the following four (4) reasons, no reconciliation is possible between the Biblical worldview and Darwinian macroevolution:

1.  The Bible presumes the Genesis creation narrative to be historical fact.  The problem between evolution and the Bible is not merely found in Genesis.  Those who think a symbolic reading of the Genesis creation story is the only thing needed to effect reconciliation between the Bible and the Darwinian model of origins, seem not to understand that elsewhere the Bible takes for granted the historicity of the Genesis creation account. 

Jesus, for example.  In discussing marriage and divorce, the Master hearkened back to the Genesis creation narrative:

Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.  What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Matt. 19:4-6).

 These statements of our Lord are, of course, a reference to the Genesis account of the marriage of Adam and Eve, the first human wedding ever: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).  Jesus is using this original marriage story in the human experience as the basis for His stance on marriage, divorce, and the permissibility in certain cases of remarriage (Matt. 19:7-12). 

Jesus is treating this passage from Genesis not as a metaphor or symbol, but as historical fact, as the basis of a major moral command.  If this were merely a myth, sacred or otherwise, would the Savior have cited it as a moral cornerstone for His followers? 

We are reminded of God’s promise through Isaiah regarding the non-recurrence of Noah’s Flood, and how that promise was the basis for God’s assurance of His love and mercy for Israel:

For this is as the waters of Noah unto Me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I will not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but My kindness shall not depart from thee; neither shall the covenant of My peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee (Isa. 54:9-10).

Would God base the assurance of His love and mercy on something that never happened?  Would our Lord base a moral injunction on a historical non-event?  The very suggestion is ludicrous.

What is more, the Adam and Eve of the Genesis narrative are affirmed as historical realities even more strongly by the apostle Paul.  The language of Romans chapter 5 regarding Adam and Christ simply does not allow the reference to Adam to be merely symbolic of humanity in the broadest sense.  This is because six times in Romans 5:12-19, the phrase “one man” is used with reference to the one who brought sin and death to the world, thus necessitating the coming of a Savior to bring salvation and life to the same.  In verse 14 Paul is even more explicit, speaking of how “death reigned from Adam to Moses,” again making it clear that to the apostle, the Adam of Genesis is not a metaphor for the whole human race, but rather, an authentic historical personage, just like Moses.  In First Corinthians the same reality is affirmed by the same author:

            For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (I Cor. 15:22).

In First Timothy, where Paul describes the relationship of men and women in the leadership of the church (I Tim. 2:12-14), the historicity of Adam and Eve in Genesis is reaffirmed once more:

            For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression (verses 13-14).

Again, it makes no sense to believe an inspired apostle of the Lord—any more than the Lord Himself—would base a moral command or an injunction relative to church order on something that never happened.  The spiritualizing or symbolizing of the early figures and stories in Genesis, whether our first parents or the later Flood narrative, simply won’t harmonize with the clear teachings of the New Testament.

2.  With evolution, no perfect world ever existed, and consequently no Fall is possible.  If God employed the processes of evolution to bring into being the world of nature, including humanity, at what point did a perfect world exist, and at what point did it cease existing?  If Adam is merely symbolic of the human family, at what point did humanity possess the perfection depicted by the Bible in the beginning (Gen. 1:31), and at what point in the evolutionary trajectory was this perfection lost?

Put simply, there is no room in the evolutionary paradigm for a perfect world free of death, disease, or predation, and thus no room for a Fall or a Savior to redeem that Fall.  The article in question claims that the Genesis creation story “tells us that the world is good, and that rest, work, and relationship all matter. Nothing in the theory of evolution can negate that. Science does not explain away the soul. It does not tell us about sin, salvation, or grace. Only Scripture does that. Science and religion answer different questions, and we need both” [9].

But if evolution is true, the world has never been good—at least not as the Bible defines goodness—and rest and relationship don’t matter if they get in the way of nature’s and humanity’s progress.  Sin, salvation, and grace lose all meaning if evolution is the way the world came into existence, and how we can expect it to advance in the future.  More on this in a moment.

3.  If evolution is true, the Sabbath is gone.  According to the Bible, the seventh-day Sabbath is the eternal memorial of God’s creation of this earth, following six literal, consecutive, contiguous twenty-four-hour periods (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:11; 31:16-17).  How does the Bible Sabbath fit into a paradigm in which the natural world evolved into its present state over hundreds of millions of years?  No one has yet offered an explanation as to how this is possible. 

4.  The Darwinian paradigm of origins is one in which cruelty, the suppression of the weak by the strong, and all in human history that flows from these practices become not only justifiable, but necessary in order for progress to occur.  Many forget that this was a key reason why William Jennings Bryan—Biblical fundamentalist, political progressive, and thrice-nominated U.S. presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket (1896,1900,1908)—opposed the teaching of evolution in the famous Scopes Trial of 1925.  A longtime defender of the poor and downtrodden, Bryan rightly denounced evolution as “a bloody, brutal doctrine” which, like the mob in Pilate’s judgment hall, demanded the death of Jesus and thus the rejection of His message of love and justice [##10|Michael Kazin, A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), p. 295.##].

The wisdom or lack thereof shown by Bryan in his defense of creationism at the trial in question are not in focus here.  But the logic behind his argument is difficult to dispute.  The application of the Darwinian theory of origins to human affairs has justified economic oppression, racism, and wars of conquest.  The poor and the weak become obstacles to the advancement of civilization, and are thus meant to be marginalized, even eliminated.  Far from lying on a different plane from Biblical grace and mercy, evolution obliterates such virtues as impediments to progress, landing us squarely in the pages of Mein Kampf.

Conclusion: No Peace With Evolution

The article in question addresses the issue of the origins debate in the context of public education [11]—for the purposes of the present article, a separate issue.  But for the above reasons, and likely others, no peace is possible between the Biblical worldview and Darwinian macroevolution.  The Bible doctrines of sin, grace, mercy, salvation, and justice to the downtrodden have no place in the evolutionary paradigm—indeed, they clash directly with it.  According to evolution, there never was a perfect world, and if one is ever to be, it will be accomplished—not through Biblical grace, compassion, and peace among God’s creatures—but through the brutal, merciless process of natural selection. 

Those seeking harmony between evolution and the Bible must necessarily reject SDA Fundamental Belief No. 6, which affirms God’s supernatural creation of this world in six literal, consecutive, contiguous twenty-four hour days, followed by a literal seventh-day Sabbath [12].  Those occupying the positions of leaders, pastors, and church members in the territory served by the publication in which the article in question appeared, must demand strict accountability from the author of this article, which will invariably lead to the application of church discipline to his case.  No one holding the views expressed in his article has any right either to employment or to membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

REFERENCES

1.  Alberto Valenzuela, “Honoring God Through Science and Scripture,” Pacific Union Recorder, February 2026 https://www.adventistfaith.com/media/recorder/honoring-god-through-science-and-scripture?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

2.  Ibid.

3.  Ibid.

4.  Ibid.

5.  Ibid.

6.  Ibid. 

7.  Don Schanche, “No Forgiveness ‘Directly from God,’ Pope Says,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 1984, p. A12.

8.  Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), p. 6.

9.  Valenzuela, “Honoring God Through Science and Scripture,” Pacific Union Recorder, February 2026 https://www.adventistfaith.com/media/recorder/honoring-god-through-science-and-scripture?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

10.  Michael Kazin, A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), p. 295.

11.  Valenzuela, “Honoring God Through Science and Scripture,” Pacific Union Recorder, February 2026 https://www.adventistfaith.com/media/recorder/honoring-god-through-science-and-scripture?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

12.  https://adventist.org/beliefs#belief-6

If nothing else, something is terribly wrong when the Savior whose ministry was so focused on helping the weak has His name hijacked by masculinity-obsessed “alpha males” who enjoy a game of gratuitous violence.  And while the Jesus of Scripture most assuredly loves the people of the United States, it can hardly be assumed that He favors any one country over the rest.  To the Roman governor who tried Him He declared, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).  And the final gospel message proclaimed to humanity according to the Bible is addressed to “every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” (Rev. 14:6). 

The Christian gospel found in Holy Scripture is not bound up with the policies or destiny of any nation, human culture, or political ideology.  When professed followers of the Lord Jesus Christ permit themselves to identify with such a construct, they pervert the message and the mission of the Savior they claim to adore.  The Jesus of the Bible is not an American mascot.  Nor is His kingdom dependent on the civil enactments or military adventures of the United States, or any other country. 

The Modern Prophet Speaks

Those professing respect for the voice of God’s end-time prophet might be interesting in her pointedly negative witness relative to the game of football:

Some of the most popular amusements, such as football and boxing, have become schools of brutality.  They are developing the same characteristics as did the games of ancient Rome.  The love of domination, the pride in mere brute force, the reckless disregard of life, are exerting upon the youth a power to demoralize that is appalling [##2|Ellen G. White, Education, p. 210.##].

Can one honestly say this is any less true now than when it was first written?

The popular evangelical world doesn’t have access to the above inspired warning, to be sure, but such admonitions as the above should certainly dissuade devout Seventh-day Adventists from endorsing, or sympathizing with, the “football, America, and Jesus” mantra. 

Far more seriously, the words of Ellen White predict the catastrophic consequences of America facilitating and harnessing the use of force in the name of Christianity.  Despite the pronounced fears of so many conservative Christians, the inspired pen never forecasts a time when a secular state will restrict religious rights in the name of overt godlessness or some notion of the “common good.”  Rather, it is religion (i.e. professed Christianity)—not secularism—that will curtail the rights of those whose choices run counter to those of the religious majority. 

In the prophet’s words:

The founders of [America] wisely sought to guard against the employment of civil power on the part of the church, with its inevitable result—intolerance and persecution.  The Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States.”  Only in flagrant violation of these safeguards to the nation’s liberty, can any religious observance be enforced by civil authority [##3|——The Great Controversy, p. 442.##].

Let the principle once be established in the United States that the church may employ or control the power of the state, that religious observances may be enforced by secular laws; in short, that the authority of church and state is to dominate the conscience, and the triumph of Rome in this country is assured [##4|——The Great Controversy, p. 581.##].

Conclusion

For more than one reason, hyper-macho Americanism has no place in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  To equate, or even associate, alpha-male amusements like football with Christianity, or even with the essential purpose of America, is a tendency at odds both with the Bible and the U.S. Constitution.  The words of the poet Emma Lazarus, though not found in any of America’s governing documents, more accurately summarize the American purpose and dream than the dubious cocktail of “football, America, and Jesus.”  Many will recall these stirring lyrics:

            Give me your tired, your poor,

            Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

            The wretched refuse of your teeming shores.

            Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me.

            I lift my lamp beside the golden door [5].

The God of Scripture does not glorify boastful, self-imagined strength.  Rather, He embraces and exalts the weak, making them strong in the truest sense.

REFERENCES

1.  https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/kid-rock-says-the-tpusa-halftime-show-is-for-people-who-love-america-benny-johnson-super-bowl-seattle-new-england

2.  Ellen G. White, Education, p. 210.

3.  ----The Great Controversy, p. 442.

4.  Ibid, p. 581.

5.  “The New Colossus” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus

The new issue, “Reflections on the Godhead,” addresses the Trinity controversy from the standpoint of Scripture and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. Future issues of the magazine will address other contemporary controversies in the denomination, also from the perspective found in the inspired writings.

Subscriptions and other information can be obtained by visiting the magazine’s website, <www.AdventistsAffirm.com>