SDA Scholars REFUTE Answering Adventism?! | Part 1: The Great Controversy

Well, hello there. Welcome wherever and whenever you might be watching, especially if this is your first time with us, Adventist or otherwise. My name is Miles. Glad that you could join us. I got an extra big tea tonight. You’ll notice a lot bigger than uh usual because it is going to be a long night, folks. I know that Ellen White would be disappointed, but I’m drinking tea regardless. Now, a couple weeks ago, Dr. Christopher Sernaki hosted Dr. Jud Lake, one of my former professors over on the uh Christ Jesus Ministries YouTube channel to respond to yours

Truly. I was intrigued when I saw this, not because it was in response to me particularly, but because I know Dr. Lake personally and I reached out to him some months back regarding having him come on to answering Adventism, not to debate but to answer some questions regarding his book Ellen White under fire. This is what I sent him folks. So this was on October 6, 2023. I said, “Hi, Dr. Lake. Hope all is well. I was wondering if you would be open to having a discussion on your book, Ellen White Under Fire. I’m currently reading it. I’d love to

Record it and upload on our answering Adventism platform. As you recall, I’m not an Adventist and and am completely transparent about my views like I was when I was your student. However, I do find great uh great benefit in seeking to have dialogue with SDA uh pastors, theologians, scholars to showcase a balanced view and let Adventists share their perspective. I am not seeking a confrontational style discussion or debate, but again would love to ask you some questions about your book to let others hear your perspective. Is this something that you would consider?

You would have complete access to the recording and nothing would be chopped up, spliced or twisted. Again, strictly would be about giving you as an SDA thought leader and a a former professor of mine an opportunity to share where you are coming from. I’ll be honest, it’s pretty difficult to get Adventists that are willing to do so. Yet, we receive constant complaints from Adventists that we never seek out discussions to let Adventists share their perspective. Now, to no surprise, he declined. Notice why he says in part, and I’ve redacted some of the information obviously because

Well, it’s not pertinent and people don’t need to see it. But this is his response as to the interview. I have historically avoided going on these types of venues because they always want to fight with me and I’ve already said what I wanted to say in my writings, particularly in my book that you’re reading. I prefer to address challenges in writing or podcast where I can be as precise as I need to be. At least that’s been my policy so far. Having said that, I’d be glad to meet with you when you’re here on October 24 and field your questions without

The recording. End of email. So, like I said, some of the information is redacted because it’s not relevant and I just needed to show his response. But, Dr. Lake, I said this wasn’t going to be a debate. I actually stated it twice. I would simply ask questions, let you answer, move to the next question, repeat. I said all footage would be available to you unedited. No funny business at my own expense even wouldn’t even be digitally at my own expense. I would come to where you are your office and the discussion could take place there in person like we’ve done I don’t know how

Many times. So you can see there’s no strings attached to me. I’ve got no crew of people hiding you know doing some nefarious behavior. And the whole purpose of having it recorded was stated two times. To meet the requests of SDAs who feel as though this platform misrepresents them. Doing it unrecorded doesn’t allow for that. There’s no need for me and you to just have a dialogue behind the scenes. We’ve done that I don’t know how many times. Yet you turned it down and instead he went on to a different platform to do a response video to the platform he was invited to

Be on a few months prior. So apparently you didn’t feel like you said all that you needed to say, did you, Dr. Lake? Because the largest portion of your guys’s response was on the subject that I inquired about. But I think you and I both know the real reason you don’t want the interaction on record. Because despite the claim to saying what you needed in your book already, you’d still have the discussion you said, but off record. So I commented on their response video after watching it and this is what I said. Fascinating. So Dr. Lake turned down the opportunity

To come on to answering Adventism and discuss and instead remains in the echo chamber. Let’s have a public-f facing discussion gents. It’s on the 12th of this month. to which Christopher Sernaki responded with this. Thank you very much for writing out your comment. Other comments on this video have been less than civil and so as per Christ Jesus Ministries LLC policy, we’ve not published them, including comments favorable to the broadcast. However, your comment had a bid for connection at the end, and that is something that I appreciate. Miles, I’ve

Had the great honor and privilege of learning from non-sethday Adventist Christian scholars. The Christ Jesus Ministries LLC channel has even featured scholars who are critical of of the Seventh Day Adventist Christian faith in their publications. We do not have a problem with open and honest critiques of the Seventh Adventist Christian Church. Thus, to be objective, one cannot call Christ Jesus Ministries LLC an echo chamber. I have no interest in defaming your character or attacking your person. Rather, it’s my hope that Christians of different denominations

And religious persuasions can have good faith dialogues. In fact, in all phases of production, the fil uh uh to film this video, Professor Lake did did speak well of you and inform me that he had sent you an email. Yes. And we just looked at that email, Christopher, and I made it clear it would be a good faith dialogue, not a debate, to ask questions on record for SDAs to not make the charge that answering Adventism is an echo chamber. And when I said that Dr. like remained in the echo chamber. I meant that he turned down a discussion with somebody

Who knows the right questions to ask and is going to press him on those and instead remained where he could be comfortable with another Adventist scholar and know that that’s not going to happen. I’m aware that Christ Jesus Ministries has had people like Jason Lyall on etc who are not SDA. But as to character attacks, I never attacked either of your characters or claimed that he did so to me. nor is that the agenda for tonight. Nor has that been the root of my arguments. What’s funny about this though is that the SDA church is on record doing character assassination.

That’s their standard MO. People like Ford, Ratslife, Canrite daily. That’s not my MO as people are going to see tonight. But I actually had a decent amount of respect for Dr. Lake prior to this, which is why I was seeking to have a good faith discussion with him. But that is starting to change because he knows me personally. We’ve had plenty of cordial discussions before, not debates. So why the cold feet all of a sudden if it’s recorded but then he continued, it should be noted that this presentation’s only an introductory overview of the issues. Ah, it’s not an

Attempt to re to refute specific arguments in answering Adventism. Dr. Dr. Lake will be providing more specific responses to the issues Miles and others have raised about Ellen White and Adventism here and on other venues in the days to come, such as his podcast, the Ellen White podcast. This is not only an engagement with Answering Adventism, but with the issues themselves. While faceoff debates may be popular, Dr. Lake prefers to engage the issues openly in non-confrontational venues so listeners can hear the arguments presented without interruption. While others may be able

To devote full-time to this activity, Dr. Lake is a full-time professor with writing projects on top of responding to the issues. Yeah, I’m aware I’m a former student of his, Christopher. So, responses will come to specific issues, but according to Dr. Lake’s schedule, not that of anyone else. Finally, I do hope that you view the broadcast. Yeah, I did. Professor Lake commended you for many things and took a fair and objective approach to your content. With that, I wish you a good day. Again, it’s you guys that are mentioning debate. Christopher, I never mentioned

That. Oh, sorry. I did to say not a debate. Where did I say in the in my comment or the email that I wanted to have a debate? You guys saw it. I said a public-f facing discussion in the comment, not a debate. And I made it very apparent in my email by restating the same thing. I said again, it won’t be this. I said I was only going to ask questions. Let him respond. Ask a question, let him respond, etc. He would have full unedited access to both video and audio. But he said no because he didn’t want to debate, which I never solicited. And then he said that the reason why was

Because he already said all that he needed to on the subject in his book yet here you are telling us that you’ve got lots of responses in Q. Ah further evidencing that no he was bluffing. He didn’t say all that he needed to on the subject and he was willing to have a discussion but not on record but he’ll do it on record with you. Ah which is exactly my point. Echo chamber. We all know the real reason, folks. And I want you guys, Christopher, Dr. Dr. Lake, any other Adventist scholar. I want you to call my bluff. See if I’ve done my homework, which is

The standard SDA objection. Oh, they don’t. It’s exactly what’s going on in here, folks. Look at the tagline. Identifying the mistakes of her critics. No, Dr. Lake, you don’t identify any mistakes. You attack a bunch of straw man. You just regurgitate and rehash a bunch of FD nickel. Call my bluff. Hopefully, we’ll get that in these future responses. But no, as we’re going to see tonight, Christopher, he does not take an objective approach to our content because I don’t think he’s even consumed much of it based on what he presents, which again, people are going to see.

But Christopher, if this video I’m about to respond to wasn’t a response, which is the other thing he said in that comment, it’s only an introduction. Why’d you title it SDA scholars respond to answering Adventism? Because the title of your guys’s response is, “Is the SDA church in trouble? Adventist scholars respond to critics answering Adventism.” Oh, no. It’s not a response. Dr. Lake already said all he needed to. You can consider this my formal response, part one, laying out the objections that I look forward to you guys addressing. Okay? Because to answer

The question in the title of your video, yes, the SDA church is in a lot of trouble. Big trouble. Straight to the principal’s office. We’re calling Mama Ellen who’s at work and we’re letting her know that her kids are out of line, which is what we’re going to do tonight. We’re not just going to smack the hands. We’re going to send you home with a demerit because it’s not 1950 anymore. It’s a different era in the information age. And on top of this, time is the biggest enemy of the SDA movement. The longer it goes on, the worse it becomes for the SDA church. All Christ has to do

To put this enemy under his feet, this false gospel in God, is let the clock keep running. But folks, if answering Adventism wasn’t having an impact, these people would be ignoring us. But since the impact is getting bigger and bigger and bigger such that it’s sending ripples through the movement, you guys can’t ignore us anymore. So instead, they’re going to ignore me personally and resort to responding from a distance. In other words, we’re right over the target. They know it, I know it, and they know that I know it. They know that outside of the insulated

Airconditioned halls of Adventist academia, the system can’t handle the tough questions. Questions that those of us who know the right ones to ask. Questions from those of us that can see through the word games and play them right back. So since the Scholastics want to stay in their ivory tower, we have to resort to having distant conversations via response videos instead of a face tof face interaction. And it’s because of your own representatives, Adventists, not me. Understand this very clearly. I went to bat for you guys. And your teammate tagged me out. Now, like usual,

I want to start by laying some groundwork before listening to their response. First, I want us to look at the answering adventism mission statement. Okay? It says, “Started by a third generation former Seventh Day Adventist, we’ve grown into a vibrant gospel-oriented educational platform, clarifying the divide between Adventism and historic biblical Christianity. Our mission is to demystify Adventism, unpacking its doctrines, unraveling its history, and underscoring its leadership through the prism of biblical Christianity. We equip Christians with knowledge and reach

Adventists with the true Christ in his gospel, elevating his sovereign grace and freedom to say, “For his own eternal glory. To God alone be the glory.” Very straightforward. We are an educational and apologetics platform for Christians, not Seventh Day Adventists. We do not consider 7th Day Adventists that affirm official SDA teaching to be Christians. But despite Christians being the bullseye, there are a lot of Adventists that learn from the content as well. Praise God. We get lots of Adventists who check out the material. We pres they then look into the the sources for

Themselves. They get redpilled and then begin navigating through the deception. But our bullseye to use marketing jargon. Adventists are a concentric circle around the bullseye. Both on target, one bullseye. Our goal is to clarify the divide between where Adventism deviates from Christian orthodoxy, how the movement uses Christian language, but means entirely different things, etc. Which is why I’m often focused not on every single doctrinal difference possible. You can scour our archives and find there’s certain topics I’ve never even not even

Addressed. I’ve never even taken umbrage with things that I don’t even fault SDAs for that I disagree with them on because we have a mission with a focus. We’re typically focused here on doctrinal universals that transcend just my own Christian tradition. And we do this by examining the SDA church’s doctrines, history, and leadership by way of examining sermons, official organizational publications, the SDA pioneers, etc. Primary sources, not individual SDAs or or Joe Schmo SDA armchair theologian. No, qualified organizational approved sources.

Because ultimately our goal is to raise the general consciousness of the Christian church with regards to Adventism, its theological dangers, and showcase why we must be reaching them with the truth. Equipping as many Christians as possible to reach as many Seventh Adventist possible with the true Christ and his gospel, exalting God’s freedom to save for his own glory, which is happening by the way. So the two rings are connected but distant or distinct rather. That’s our mission. not to preach. We’re not a church. I’m not a pastor. We’re engaging in pmics and apologetics

Here. Yes, it’s confrontational and assertive. That’s how pmics are by nature. And Adventist PMIC organizations are the exact same way. But on this platform, we believe that God saves people. And to be totally transparent, there’s not a single thing the SDA church could do about it. So Christopher, he erroneously claimed at the beginning of their video that this platform’s goal is to get Adventists to reconsider. And don’t get me wrong, that happens and praise God for it. But our mission is to equip Christians and defend the body of Christ from this

Organization that slanders and labors against the body of Christ and tries to take the the the fake piety position like Christopher did in that comment. I knew full well before starting this folks that nine out of 10 Adventists will not change their mind. Christopher, that is not my duty. That’s God’s department. He works in the minds and hearts of people to accomplish his purposes. I don’t know what God’s purposes are. That’s parts of part of God’s secret will the the the secret things of God that he hasn’t chosen to reveal. We simply want to be used by God

In the process because we care enough about you all to state the truth boldly and unashamedly, letting the chips fall wherever they may. Okay. Point being, the approach is tailored to Christians unfamiliar with Adventism, not to SDAs. And it seems like this misunderstanding on his part informed the planning of their video here. Makes me wonder if either of them have actually read the mission statement. Nevertheless, as it pertains to their response, there are three doctrinal aspects that they chose to focus on. great controversy, the salvation experience, the gospel, and the gift of

Prophecy. Three of their fundamental beliefs. These are the three areas they believe that I’ve hammered the hardest and chose to focus on. However, there is an interconnectedness to all three, which uh is also why I think they chose these. But to adequately respond, I will do so in three parts, one for each section. And it sounds like we’ll end up doing multiple multiple multiple parts because they want to keep putting stuff out and they have stuff in Q. Fine. We’ll play that game too. But tonight’s focus is going to be on Jed Lake’s presentation

Of the great controversy. We will start each part by steelmanning the SDA position and the aspects that this platform has objected to. That way it is crystal clear. I will be reiterating things that we’ve discussed many times before to refresh your memory. Maybe this is your first time with us. Either way, let’s set the stage. Okay. When it comes to the great controversy, I’ve regularly regularly noted that there is a difference between the book, the worldview, and the fundamental belief. Though all three are fundamentally connected, it all comes downstream from Ellen White

Forming the basis of the worldview, the content of the book, and the summation statement that is fundamental belief number eight. as it pertains to the great controversy worldview or the theme. I’ve argued it isn’t biblical. It can’t be because it’s not derived from scripture. It comes from outside of scripture and is the lens through which the scriptures are then read, supposedly giving an infallible interpretation. Notice Herbert Douglas Ministry Magazine December 2000. The link is in the description for those that want to follow along for themselves. This is a

Forthright, honest, simple, and clear presentation by arguably the SDA church’s foremost theologian to date. Again, not Joe Schmo SDA, not conspiracy church member off at the corner of the potluck somewhere. Quote, “For Seventh Day Adventists, the great controversy theme is the core concept that brings coherence to all biblical subjects.” Every philosophical or theological system builds on a central governing theme or paradigm. Its central theme becomes that system’s core truth and determines all of that systems principles and policies. Stephven Hawking, the remarkable

Cambridge physicist, wrote in his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, that should scientists discover the long sought theory of everything to explain the varying mechanisms of the universe, we should know the mind of God. Seventh Day Adventists have been given that a perspective which provides a theory of everything. It introduces us to the mind of God. We didn’t discover it. It was given to us. We call it the great controversy theme. Did he say that? Yes, Dr. O. He just said that. Thank you for asking. When they aren’t playing word games online and shoot you straight, they

Admit that the great controversy worldview was not derived from the Bible. It was given to them. Given. Folks, this movement has an issue with this word give and given, as we’re going to see later regarding this pre-earth origin story that SDA’s try to defend by saying, “Well, no, that’s that’s not what she meant by give.” So maybe that’s the struggle here. But no, it’s right there. It was given to them. Supposedly God God himself gave to the SDA church by way of their prophetus who was a conduit messenger that God would speak through. It gives them access to the

Mind of God. Talk about a grand statement. You make this claim, you bet you were going to be skeptical and hyperritical. Who else is making this claim? What an insane statement. That’s Herbert Douglas, Dr. lake, not answering Adventism, not some fringe fanatic off in the corner somewhere in his ascension gown because he heard the pope exhale, so he knows when the second coming is going to be all of a sudden. No, arguably the foremost theologian your organization has ever produced, a brilliant and lauded light of the SDA movement. He said, “The great controversy theme is

The core concept that brings coherence to all biblical subjects. All of Adventism is informed by this paradigm. He continues, “How we understand this core theme directly affects how we grasp the intent of the biblical writers when they used words such as righteousness, salvation, gospel, etc.” Remember, it doesn’t come from scripture, folks. It defines gospel, righteousness, etc. The great controversy theme helps us to work our way through centuries of theological confusion over the meaning of such realities as justification, sanctification, atonement, obedience,

And works. Without the great controversy theme, all would remain divided over such subjects as the importance of the Old Testament sanctuary service and the New Testament view of Christ as our high priest mediator, the meaning of faith and grace, the place of obedience in relation to legalism, why Jesus came the first time and why he came the way he did and when he will return. Without the great controversy theme, all would remain divided. It is the theological antidote to any sort of theological division. You’ve heard me say that on this platform I don’t know

How many times. There’s not supposed to be any division in this movement. You have the God particle. It’s supposed to be what keeps there from being any division from all those Babylonian Protestants out there. Every single doctrine is filtered through this extra biblical paradigm. It’s what defines terms like gospel, salvation, etc. And it supposedly helps the SDA church work through all the theological confusion that exists outside their movement and allows Adventism to be immune from that. But notice the tail end. It informs why Jesus came. Why Jesus came the first time, which is

One of the central objections that I have raised. what the SDA church claims regarding why Jesus incarnated. The claim that Jesus came to silence the pre-earth accusations of Satan against the character of God as a result of be of Jesus being exalted to be made equal with the father. I have made this clear on I don’t know how many times my challenge has then been that this does not come from the Bible because it doesn’t. Not a single Adventist in all of the world will get on a stage with me before a public audience and prove it because it isn’t there and they know it.

But Douglas continues, “The Adventist esqueological framework sets us apart from every other denomination that speaks of the end of the world because it is governed by the great controversy theme. The distinctly Adventist view is formed by a mutually supportive cluster of ideas.” Ah, it’s a system that you can’t cherrypick from because they’re mutually supportive clusters. They’re in a grouping together and they help help bind one another together. You have to have all of them. What are they? Including conditional immortality, seventh day sabotarianism, a

Pre-millennial historicist esquetology. Yeah, because you had their whole understanding of Babylon is informed. Go to our website, folks, and just type in Charles Fitch in the search bar up top. That’s who that’s why that’s so central to all this. This guy was a Millerite preaching damnation on anyone who didn’t affirm premillennial historicism. Conditional mortality, seventh day sabotarianism, premillennial historicist esquetology, acceptance of the gift of prophecy in the ministry of Ellen White, teachings about the priestly work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, aka

Investigative judgment in the sevenstep sanctuary system, and a prepared people by his grace, aka sinless perfectionism. This mutually supportive cluster of ideas that marks Adventist esquetology exists today because the great controversy theme informs all areas of Adventist thought. That’s the second time he’s told us this, folks. When the great controversy is over, the purpose of the gospel will be seen as the vindication of the wisdom, power, and love of God. Close quote. Adventism is set apart from every other denomination because it’s governed by

The great controversy theme, not scripture. It’s right there. Okay? This worldview was given to them and it governs everything in Adventism. It does not get much clearer than that. Yet, Adventists will still tell you, “I’m the one twisting things. I’m the one that doesn’t know what I’m talking about, apparently.” No, you guys need to stop saying you only believe the Bible. You need to stop it. you’re lying. And I get so sick of them making these false accusations and false claims when they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Get out of the way and sit down.

That’s the trajectory we’re on tonight, folks. I’m so sick of their lies. I’m so sick of them demeaning people. I’m so sick of them slandering people’s character. And I’m not talking about Jud Lake and Christopher Saki, by the way. I’m talking about the entity, the SDA entity, the the the trade at 7th Adventism trademark that wants to lie about people and slander people and tarnish people’s names. They’ve been doing this for 170 years. Not going to work anymore. Get out of the way. Sit down if you don’t know what you’re talking about. The great controversy theme informs all

Areas of Adventist theology. All Adventists class is in session and the teacher is not in the greatest mood in in in terms of the the the presentation here because it needs to drive it home for you. All all of Adventist theology, okay? So, don’t say answering Adventism is lying when I say this. I’m so sick of SDA saying that. No, I’m not lying. We just read almost all of Herb Douglas’s article. Go look at it yourself. And when the great controversy between Christ and Satan is over, the purpose of the gospel will be seen, which is what? The vindication of God.

So the other central thing that I’ve taken umbrage with that God is on trial. His character needs vindicated from Satan, a creature. The Bible knows nothing of this. This is exceeding what is written. 1 Corinthians 4:6. Period. Now, to put some skin on these bones, let’s look at a number of quotes from Ellen White that fill in the details that Herb Douglas’s article, you know, didn’t get into. So, the very beginning of this supposed pre-earth controversy. Notice Spirit of Prophecy, volume one, the very beginning, very first paragraph of this. Okay? And

We’re going to walk through this. Sorry folks, it’s going to be a long night and I’m I’m about uh my give a damn broke a long time ago with the SDA church. Quote, “Satan in heaven before his rebellion was a high and exalted angel next in honor to God’s dear son. His countenance, like those of the other angels, was mild and expressive of happiness. His forehead was high and broad, showing a powerful intellect. His form was perfect, his bearing noble and majestic. A special light beamed in his countenance and shone around him brighter and more beautiful than around

The other angels. Yet Jesus, God’s dear son, had the preeminence over all the angelic host. He was one with the father before the angels were created. Satan was envious of Christ and gradually assumed command which devolved on Christ alone. close quote. So Lucifer was supposedly next in honor to Jesus Christ who is Yahweh according to the Bible. The Almighty Ellen has Jesus eternally subordinate which poses serious problems in and of itself. Satan also doesn’t have a brow ridge. Angels are not human beings with wings. None of that is in scripture. Satan does

Not have a brow. Nevertheless, she said that Satan was envious of Jesus Christ and did what? That last sentence that’s highlighted, started to assume command which devolved onto Christ. What does the word devolved mean, folks? It is where a higher authority transfers power to a lower authority, which is precisely what she goes on to explain. So to this woman of our friend Steve Dailyaly now adventists are going to try and tell you no no no look she’s she says Jesus was one with the father. Yeah we’ve looked at what that means and what she meant by that. It doesn’t mean that

Jesus was eternally co-equal. It means they were eternally united in a mission. They’ve never been at any sort of cross purposes because notice quote the great creator assembled the heavenly host that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his son. The son was seated on the throne with the father and the heavenly thr of holy angels was gathered around them. The father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ his son should be equal with himself. So that wherever was the presence of his son, it was as his own presence.

The word of the son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the father. Remember command devolved onto Christ. And now that this announcement is being made, it’s as if whenever Jesus gives a command, it’s now supposed to be like the father’s giving the command. His son he had invested with authority to command the heavenly host especially was his son to work in union with himself in the anticipation or anticipated creation of the earth and every living thing that should exist upon the earth. His son would carry out his will and his purposes but would do nothing of himself

Alone. The father’s will would be fulfilled in him. Close quote. So the father devolved authority to the son that he didn’t previously possess and made known that he was to be obeyed as if it were the father himself giving the commands. The son now shared in the same authority. The son was invested with authority. Does invest mean always possessed? No. It means put into or given. Don’t try and tell us she wasn’t saying that Jesus wasn’t a lesser divine being than the father. And I get so tired of Adventists trying to insult our intelligence by saying we

Can’t read and compreh comprehend a third grade educated woman from the 19th century. No, my IQ is above room temperature. So stop trying to tell us that we don’t have basic reading comprehension. I I mean folks, it’s very obvious. And she says it and I don’t how many ways. Jesus was given authority he didn’t possess. He isn’t Yahweh, the eternal God. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8. This is speaking specifically about his immutability of nature being in character. Jesus has always been and always will be the almighty God, one with the father

And the spirit. Not just in omission, but in attribution and substance. They can cling to saying they believe Jesus is eternal, but that doesn’t mean he’s the almighty God. That’s their big thing. Like Ted Wilson’s been doing this recently. We believe the Son is eternal with the father. That doesn’t mean anything. So do tritheus. Tritheus believe that doesn’t mean you’re a trinitarian. He’s been saying all this in response to these old school SDAs that are in line with the pioneers that that say, “Well, no, Jesus had a beginning at some point in the past.”

And they think, “Oh, if we deny that, that means that we’re trinit.” No, you guys don’t believe in the true biblical Christ. But no, the Jesus in this system is not Yahweh. only the father is. The pioneers taught that and the official SDA source materials still teach that to this day. They have to because this is the foundation for their entire worldview that Herb Douglas just got done telling us is the theological God particle and allows them to be immune from theological confusion and division and really know what’s going on behind the scenes in heaven.

So no, Jesus wasn’t eternally equal with the father. Jesus is a lesser distinct being from the father. And this action was what? It was done in the anticipation of the creation of the earth. We had an Adventist this past week tell us that I’m lying when I say that the SDA church teaches there was a massive expanse of time between the creation of the of heaven and the angels and the earth. He claimed he’d never heard anywhere in Adventism where this is taught. And if I could prove this, he would agree the SDA church is wrong and leave. I mean, are

You kidding me? Is that a joke? This is literally central to the entire framework of SDA theology, my guy. Have you cracked open these books? You even read this the very beginning. We’re two paragraphs in. It’s literally in the second paragraph in the soon anticipation of the creation of the earth. That’s not Genesis 1:1. And it should concern you that this is central to SDA theology and you’re not even keyed in on it. Yet you’re a part of a movement that’s catechizing you in this worldview. You’re being spiritually poisoned and can’t even see it. It’s time to leave

Adventism, my friend. But then she explains what this led to in heaven. Supposedly, Satan was envious and jealous of Jesus Christ. Yet when all the angels bowed to Jesus to acknowledge his supremacy and high authority and rightful rule, Satan bowed with them, but his heart was filled with envy and hatred. Christ had been taken into the special counsel of God in regarding to in regard to his plans while Satan was unacquainted with them. He did not understand, neither was he permitted to know the purposes of God. But Christ was acknowledged sovereign of heaven, his

Power and authority to be the same as that of God himself. Satan thought that he was himself a favorite in heaven among the angels. Close quote. So Satan was or Lucifer at this time was jealous of this exaltation and authority that was given to Jesus and started to think why wasn’t I the one that was exalted. Why wasn’t I given the power? And again like I said earlier just as an aside the word the pre-incarnate Christ did not assume the name Jesus until the incarnation. What Ellen puts forth in this narrative is what’s called eternal subordination

Of the son or ESS that there is a hierarchy within the godhead and the father’s at the top with the word being eternally subordinate in role obeying the father in eternity. It is a heresy and I’d be glad to debate that with any SDA theologian or scholar on this. But all that to say uh uh add eternal functional subordination to the SDA heresy bucket. She continues, “He had been highly exalted,” talking about Satan, Lucifer, but this did not call forth from him gratitude and praise to his creator. He aspired to the height of God himself. He gloried in his

Loftiness. He knew that he was honored by the angels. He had a special mission to execute. He had been near the great creator and the ceaseless beams of glorious light in shrouding the eternal God had shown especially around him. Satan thought how angels had obeyed his command with pleasurable elacrity. Were not his garments light and beautiful? Why should Christ thus be honored before himself? Close quote. So Lucifer was also highly exalted just not like Jesus who was made equal with the father. This exaltation of Jesus made Lucifer jealous. And this is the trigger of the

Great controversy. Jesus being exalted to be made equal with the father leads to Lucifer welling up with pride. They will point to scriptures that say Satan was filled with pride and wanted to be like God and think and think that somehow supports this narrative. No, it doesn’t. Because scripture doesn’t say Lucifer became jealous because Jesus was exalted and Lucifer wanted to be like Jesus who was made equal with God. That is whole cloth coming from Ellen White. She goes on to say the loyal angels in heaven sought to counsel Lucifer to repent and give Jesus the honor that he

Was due, but he just wouldn’t listen. But then this leads to Satan making accusations. Notice quote, “The loyal angels hasten speedily to the son of God and acquaint with him uh with what is taking place among the angels. They find the father in conference with his beloved son to determine the means by which for the best good of the loyal angels, the assumed authority of Satan could be forever put down. The great God could at once have hurled this arch deceiver from heaven, but this was not his purpose. He would give the rebellious an equal chance to measure strength and might

With his own son and his loyal angels. In this battle, every angel would choose his own side and be manifested to all. Holy Toledo, this woman. So angels went to relay to Jesus what was going on with Satan. That they tried talking him down off the edge, but he was too far gone. And when the angels went to do this, they found that Jesus was in a council meeting with the father to determine the solution to this rebellion. The father could have just hurled Lucifer down, but instead chose to allow it to play out and give every angel a chance to make their decision.

Remain loyal to his government or side with Satan in his plan of self-governance. God the Father gave the rebellious an equal chance to measure strength and might with Jesus the son. Such a joke. There’s there’s no cosmic arm wrestling going on between Christ and Satan. This is how the narrative props up Satan, by the way, to be the tragic hero of this whole fantasy. Now, if you’re a Christian, you’re more than likely thinking, “Where did I miss this in in the Bible?” Uh, it’s more than likely because your Bible doesn’t contain first and second fiction like the SDA Bible

Does. But she continues,

“Whoops, I forgot a quote here. She says, “It would not have been safe to suffer any who united with Satan in his rebellion to continue to occupy heaven. They had learned the lesson of genuine rebellion against the unchangeable law of God. And this is incurable.” If God had exercised his power to punish this chief rebel, disaffected angels would not have been manifested. Hence, God took another course, for he would manifest distinctly to all the heavenly host his justice and his judgment. So, the father didn’t blot Satan out of existence because it would have

Demonstrated Satan’s accusations were true. God’s a tyrant. And then they’ll say, “And this would have communicated to the disloyal angels that Satan was correct, leading to the angels serving God out of fear instead of love.” So instead, Jesus and the father decided to let this great controversy play out to vindicate the justice and government of God. This is science fiction, folks. None of this is in the Bible. I understand Adventists think it gives them some special insight into heaven that no one else has. But no, this is a ripoff of the Mormon plan of salvation,

Which is clearly a ripoff of John Milton’s Paradise Lost. But there you have the heart of this. So, Satan’s rebellion led to a council meeting between Jesus and the Father to figure out a plan for all this. But the SDA church is trinitarian, they’ll tell you. Yeah. Think again. Now, notice what she says. The accusation was Christ left his position in the heavenly courts and came to this earth to live the life of human beings. This sacrifice, the incarnation, he made in order to show that Satan’s charge against God is false. That it’s possible for man to obey the laws of God’s

Kingdom. Close quote. So there you have it, plainly stated. Satan began attacking the Ten Commandments, saying they can’t be kept. And as Herb Douglas admitted, the great controversy theme informs all areas of SDA thought and theology, including why Jesus came. So why did he incarnate according to Adventism? To silence these accusations from Satan? No. You will not find this anywhere in the Bible. Nowhere. which is the central objection that I have made and ask their scholars and theologians to show me for years. Still waiting. But she says, “If God the Father would

Have banished Satan after this rebellion, it would have reinforced Satan’s accusations that God’s a tyrant and it would have proved Satan’s point.” So Jesus and the Father came up with a plan that would allow each angel to pick their side. This is the start of the great controversy that then leads to war in heaven, which they’re then going to cite Revelation 12, which all it says is war broke out in heaven, even though it literally says none of this other stuff. They’ll just hitch their wagon to that. But this war then led to the banishment and Satan was cast

Down to the earth after the father and the son created it. He then tempts man. Man falls. And after that happens, she then says this, “Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and the world that God created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon his countenance.” Soon I saw him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the father, said my

Accompanying angel. He’s in close converse with his father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with his father. Three times he was shut in by the glorious light about the father. And the third time he came from the father, his person could be seen. So the father was too glorious to behold but not Christ. Again the demoting of the word the second person of the godhead. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shown with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. He then made known

To the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that he’d been pleading with his father and had offered to give his life a ransom and take the sentence of death upon himself that through him man might find pardon that through the merits of his blood and obedience to the law of God they could have the favor of God and be brought into the beautiful garden to eat of the fruit of the tree of life. Close quote. So the great controversy then supposedly spread to the earth and man is now involved. You pick your side in this controversy by siding with

Either Jesus and his angels or Satan and his angels. Notice in heavenly places page 38. So deep was the Lord’s interest in the beings that he create uh beings he had created. So great his love for the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Christ came to bring moral power to man to elevate and noble and and strengthen him enabling him to be a partaker of the divine nature. Having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust, he proved to the inhabitants of

The unfallen worlds and to human beings the law can be kept. While possessing the nature of man, he obeyed the law of God, vindicating God’s justice in demanding that it be obeyed. In the judgment, his life will be an unanswerable argument in favor of God’s law. Close quote. You make your pick in the great controversy by coming to Jesus who will forgive you of your violations of the law up to that point. Then it will enable you to now keep the law by gradually imparting his righteous merits to you. And eventually you too can keep the law as perfectly as Jesus when the

Character of of Christ is perfectly mirrored in you. what they believe is returning to being made in the image of God, which then silences Satan in the great controversy and vindicates God because Jesus took on an identical fallen nature like all of humanity and he kept the law perfectly. So you too can do that and vindicate God in the great controversy. Because another aspect of all of this is all these other beings on other worlds that supposedly all watching on the earth like a TV screen, like a stage. They’re also keeping the Ten Commandments and have questions

Regarding God’s character, Ellen said. So God’s vindicating himself to them as well. And you too can by linking up with Jesus who will empower you to keep the law so these other beings can see, okay, we can trust God. We can believe God even though they’re supposedly keeping the law. They haven’t fallen. They’re keeping the law perfectly, but still apparently have doubts about God and his character and are watching in this great controversy as God vindicates himself. But ultimately, all of this goes back to the top of the stream. Jesus was exalted

To be made equal with the father. Lucifer became jealous. And now there’s a great controversy over this and God has to vindicate his character. None of this is in the Bible, nor does it come from the Bible. It comes from Ellen White, who the SDA church thinks is no different than scripture when it comes to God’s revelation. Now, since Adventists will claim things like, “I don’t read Ellen White. My pastor never mentions Ellen White in these sorts of excuses,” the same thing is reiterated in their Adventist belief, fundamental beliefs book. Okay,

Notice first paragraph of the chapter on the fundamental belief number eight, the great controversy, page 113. Scripture portrays a cosmic battle between good and evil, God and Satan. Understanding this controversy which has involved the entire universe helps answer the question, why did Jesus come to this planet?

So for all the Adventists that want to act like what Herb Douglas said is some obscure private opinion of his, no, this is the same thing that’s reiterated in the exposition of the beliefs because they continue and will reiterate what Ellen White is saying. Notice what is the pivotal issue in this life and death struggle? God’s government and law, which is the heading for what for the section that it then goes into. God’s moral law is just as essential to the existence of his universe as are the physical laws that hold it together and keep it functioning. Sin is

Transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4. It is lawlessness as the Greek word anomia indicates. Lawlessness in issues from a rejection of God and his government. Rather than admitting responsibility for the lawlessness of the world, Satan lays the blame on God. He says God’s law, which he alleges is arbitrary, infringes on individual freedom. Furthermore, he charges since it’s impossible to obey it, the law works against the best interest of created beings. Through this constant and insidious undermining of the law, Satan attempts to overthrow God’s government and even

God himself. Close quote. Folks, the Bible nowhere says this, and they didn’t even bother to try and provide even an outof context proof text to try and support it. This is whole cloth Ellen White. They continue by saying, “Today, the great controversy raging furiously around Christ’s authority involves not only his law, but his word, the scriptures.” What did we read from Ellen White regarding this authority? It devolved onto Jesus from the father. He was made equal with the father. We’ve looked at testimonies for the church volume 8. I don’t know how many times. Christ it uh

God is the father of Christ. Christ is the son of God. To Christ has been given. He has been made equal with the father. She’s saying this over and over and over again. Devolved means a greater authority bestows authority onto a lower individual, Jesus, which triggered Lucifer’s rebellion. So even the fundamental beliefs book tries to ignore this glaring detail, yet still works it in there. But it also shows the doctrinal development that’s happened regarding the SDA church despite having the great controversy theme. Because if you recall from the burial service of

The SDA pioneers, James White said that the law was exclusively the father’s law which God gave the stamp of approval on supposedly through Ellen White volume two of the same book that we were just in. quote, “The son of God was next in authority, next in authority to the great lawgiver.” The lawgiver is the father. He knew that his life alone could be sufficient to ransom fallen man. He was of as much more value than man as his noble, spotless character, and exalted office as commander of all the heavenly host were above the work of man. He was

In the express image of his father, not in features alone, but in perfection of character. Close quote. If Jesus is next in authority to the great lawgiver, it means he isn’t the great lawgiver and doesn’t have as much authority as the great lawgiver, aka God the Father, which further demonstrates that Jesus, according to the SDA church’s inspired prophetus, is a lesser divine being than God the Father, who is the eternal God. But then later, it evolves. And no, no, no, it’s just as much Jesus’s law, too. Hence why the beliefs book says what it

Does. But I digress. They continue in the beliefs book under the heading, it reveals the cosmic significance on the cross, speaking about the great controversy. Quote, “The salvation of humanity was at stake in Christ’s ministry and death. For he came to give his life a ransom for the remission of sins. In doing so, he vindicated his father’s character, law, and government against which Satan had cast false aspersions. Yeah. Book, chapter, verse. SDA church. All right. You didn’t include any again. More science fiction. Because this isn’t what the Bible

Teaches. The Bible nowhere teaches that Jesus came to silence a creature who made accusations against the Ten Commandments and God’s character prior to the earth being created because he was jealous that Jesus was exalted instead of himself. and that Jesus vindicated God the Father’s character against Satan by incarnating and demonstrating that the law can be kept perfectly which is actually another contradiction by the way because it wouldn’t be the father’s character. It would be both Jesus and the father because Ellen claimed Jesus is an identical reflection

Of the father’s character. But this is why the law is so central in Adventism, folks. And it can’t possibly be that but that they don’t actually understand the subject as well as they think they do. It’s why anyone that disagrees with them is said to be a tool of Satan that’s an Antonyomian and is lawless and is just and that they’re siding with Satan in this imaginary, you know, fictional galactic battle. All of this extra biblical confusion is brought to the text and it’s assumed to be what the Bible’s talking about, but isn’t exhaustive because the Bible supposedly doesn’t

Have all these other details. But we’ll see over here it says war broke out in heaven. Oh, so you can just hit your wagon of all these extra details now and that just makes it relevant because there was war in heaven. No, that’s why they they they think you need the writings of Ellen where Jesus is supposedly speaking to connect the dots and give you the infallible interpretation and understanding of the Bible. Now, I could keep going, but this has laid out using my own using their own sources what my objections have been. To summarize, these are my formal objections on this

Subject. There are more, but these are the four primary objectives or are objections. One, Jesus was not exalted to be made equal with the father. This is damnable heresy. Two, Lucifer was never next to Christ, who is Yahweh the Almighty. Three, God is not and does not need to vindicate his character. And four, Jesus did not incarnate to silence pre-earth accusations from Satan, which was then done to exalt the law and silence Satan and demonstrate that fallen man can also do the same, yada yada. None of this is biblical. None of this can be supported from the Bible, which

Is why they don’t even try in their fundamental beliefs book. And yet, it’s all foundational to Adventist theology. You eliminate this stuff, the whole SDA framework collapses. The great controversy theme is not biblical. It didn’t come from reading scripture. It was it was supposedly uniquely given to the SDA church. It’s the antidote to theological division and brings total cohesion to all of the Bible. Those have been my central objections on this subject, whether it be the book, the fundamental belief, the worldview, which are all connected.

So, Dr. Lake, was Herb Douglas lying in Ministry magazine? Is he unqualified? Am I just picking on Joe Schmo? No. Do we need someone to handhold us to understand the very plain, straightforward admission that fits like a glove with Ellen White’s own claims? thesis for tonight. With all that said, do these SDA scholars address Answering Adventism’s objections regarding the great controversy? Do Dr. Lake and Christopher Sernaki address Answering Adventism’s objections regarding the great controversy? As you saw from his comment earlier, oh, this wasn’t a response. Well, you titled

It a response, buddy. But that’s what we’re going to be looking for. All right. Are these objections addressed and demonstrated from scripture? If they aren’t addressed and demonstrated, our objections remain valid and the issues still stand. And yes, the SDA church is in big trouble because we’re not slowing down. We’re not stopping. We are storming the gates of hell, smashing them down with the truth, and more and more Adventists will be reached. God will save his people. Adventism will be made a foottool underneath the feet of Christ and there’s nothing the SDA church can do

About it. So with that said, let’s listen to the first section or rather the first section was was Judg basically giving his testimony. Then they transfer to the objections. So that’s where we’re going to start again. Great controversy objections. Here we go. I’m going to begin this second section by directly reading the eighth fundamental belief which reads as follows. All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, his law, and his sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when

A created being endowed with freedom of choice in self-exaltation became Satan, God’s adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity. The disordering of the created world and its eventual devastation at the time of the global flood as presented in the historical account of Genesis 1-11. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict out of which the God of love

Will ultimately be vindicated. to assist his people in this controversy. Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. So, Dr. Lake, we just finished reading the eighth fundamental belief. Does the Bible teach this concept of a great controversy or cosmic conflict? Or is this a teaching exclusive to the writings of Ellen White? That is the key question. And I think just a surface level reading of the Bible, one can discern there is an epic battle between good and evil. I mean that’s just basic Bible 101.

You read about this adversary in the scriptures and that adversary is against Christ. that adversary deceived God’s people in the Old Testament and he attempts to destroy Christ and his people in the New Testament. At the very outset of the Bible, this controversy, this what I like to call this cosmic conflict is set forth. God creates everything perfect and then in Genesis 3, you have suddenly this serpent come on the scene, this crafty serpent. And that serpent has evil intentions. And as you read the narrative, the serpent causes Adam and Eve to disobey God and

Plunge the human race into sin. It’s as if Moses presupposes that his readers understand that there’s more to the story than this. There’s a story behind that serpent. And when you read the rest of scripture, the pieces of the puzzle come together. So, is the great controversy in the Bible or exclusive to Ellen White? Yes, that is the key question indeed. But Dr. Lake, all you did was caricature the belief by trying to make it seem like it’s almost unbelievable to even reject such a concept because it’s just so plainly in scripture. These gentlemen bring their great

Controversy worldview to the Bible, which clouds their thinking and reading of the Bible, causing them to think this is all over the Bible. But no, it isn’t. Which is why Christians don’t have a great controversy worldview. It’s the root of what puts Adventism outside of Christianity in its own category. The scriptures have a worldview and it’s not the great controversy. He made it seem like all the great controversy is is simply the belief that there’s a Satan who’s an adversary, that there’s good and evil. They always do this. But he didn’t demonstrate all the

Actual details that are necessary in the system for it to work. Namely, the objections that I raised. So with a surface level reading of the Bible, we should see that prior to the creation of the earth, Jesus was exalted to be made equal with the father. This made Lucifer jealous and he started a great controversy over Jesus’s authority in the Ten Commandments. Why didn’t you share any plain scriptures, Dr. Lake? Those have been my objections, not this generalized, watered down idea that there’s a Satan. If this were plainly in the Bible, you guys would have demonstrated such and

Silenced my accusations like you guys think you’re doing to Satan. Instead, he just regurgitated claims made in the eth chapter of the Adventist belief fundamental belie that we just looked at. But even that provided zero evidence for the objections this platform has raised. And they love to appeal to the barebones language of the fundamental belief to act like it doesn’t go any further than that. That’s as far as it goes. Except no, it goes much farther than that. which is why they have the exposition of the beliefs like we looked at and even that leaves out certain details from

Ellen that they know are problematic. The book just asserts these extra biblical details as facts and moves along sprinkling in a number of out of context proof texts such as Jesus being tempted in the wilderness. Something that Dr. Lakes is going to appeal to here in a moment. But what did page 116 of the police book talk about? Satan’s pre-earth accusations, which is what I’ve actually objected to. He’s ignored that so far. Tried watering it down with the sort of, “Oh, the great controversy is just there’s a Satan that’s an enemy of God. It’s just

Obvious.” As we plainly saw, Herb Douglas said, “This worldview, which includes this entire belief system, was given to the SDA church.” No, it doesn’t come from the Bible, Christopher. It was uniquely given to the SDA church and it’s supposedly what allows you all to make sense of the Bible as a whole and avoid doctrinal confusion like us confused Protestants. And I think Herb Douglas is more qualified than you, sir. No offense. I think Ministry Magazine has more authority than you, sir. It can’t come from scripture if it’s necessary to have in order to understand

Scripture. I keep hammering on this. I can’t tell you how many SDAs say they’ve been redpilled on this and realize, “Oh, wow. Yeah, it’s not. It’s not just the Bible, folks. None of this is in the Bible. You’re just bringing this to the text and it’s just, oh, it’s so obvious. Look over here. There’s this.” And you’re going to see him do that. You’re going to see him do that. You guys can point to general statements in scripture like Dr. Lake tries to do, but none of that validates the belief. That’s just playing the doctrine in search of a text game. It’s called

Isoges Jesus. You’re just bringing something to the text and then looking for somewhere that you can go, “Aha,” and then plug it in. Find a verse that speaks of a thematic aspect of the belief such as there being war in heaven, which then supposedly validates reading into all these statements of extra biblical details that are not found in the Bible. It’s not adding to the Bible, they’ll say, because Ellen jives with the general statement, which proves that despite the SDA church being against competitive sport, if mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport,

The SDA church would take home the gold. He mentioned Genesis 3 that Moses presupposes that the readers understand there’s more to the story than this. There’s a story behind the serpent. But then he said the rest of the story is laid out in scripture. No, Dr. Lake, that’s where you’re wrong. No, it isn’t. No, it isn’t. It’s in Ellen White’s writings. It comes from the great controversy paradigm that Dr. Douglas admitted was given to you all to then interpret the scriptures through, you have it backwards, sir. If this backstory to the serpent that you you

Say Moses assumes his readers will know, then why did it take nearly 5,000 years from Moses for humanity to receive all this extra biblical information through your prophetus? If this backstory is laid out all throughout the rest of scripture after Genesis, then why didn’t we hear any support for this backstory? The pieces of the puzzle that you guys need are not found in the Bible. You guys are going to get tired of hearing me say that tonight. I’m going to keep saying it in hopes that there’s some poor SDA soul out there that maybe the thousand1th time thousand thousand and

Burst, you get my point. It’ll click and they’ll go, “Oh, right. It’s not in the Bible. Get the hell out of here. Get leave Adventism. Get out of here. Go where the Bible leads. And it doesn’t lead there. You need all these details, Dr. Lake, for this whole thing to function. You know, the actual things I’ve objected to as being not just unbiblical, but anti-biblical. They create contradictions with scripture and result in damnable heresy in the form of a false god and a false gospel. So far, this addresses none of the objections we’ve raised. I know it’s

Been short, but nowhere have I ever stated that the idea of there being a Satan is unique to the writings of Ellen White. So, when you do your real responses or whatever you have planned, Christopher, you guys are going to need to bring a lot more than this. But the key verse, I think, foundational to scripture is Genesis 3:15. After Adam and Eve have fallen into sin, you have God comes and it’s like a a investigative type of judgment scene. God calls for Adam and Eve, where are you? And then they acknowledge the sin, their sin, and then you have God pronouncing the sentence.

And if you study Genesis 3 carefully, it’s it’s written in what is called a kayastic structure that builds to a literary center, an apex. And the center of that chapter, the literary center which is the most important part is Genesis 3:14 and 15 where God speaks directly to the serpent. Verse 14, he curses the serpent. Later in scripture, we know that the force behind that serpent. The person behind that serpent is Satan, the great adversary. He is cursed. But Genesis 3:15, right at the heart of the chapter, is the promise of a savior. A savior.

It’s called a first gospel, pro-evangelium, a first gospel in the scripture because it promises the coming of a redeemer. It is a messianic promise. The he at the deepest level of the verse, the he is against the serpent. In fact, the text reads, “He shall bruise your head.” Speaking to the serpent, “and you shall bruise his heel.” That he is a personal masculine pronoun. That is the promise of a redeemer. And you read the rest of Genesis. It flows out of this verse. But what is important is the word that begins the whole verse which actually the sentence

Begins with the Hebrew word for enmity which means intense hostility. Now we won’t be able to unpack this whole verse completely but that intense hostility reaches its deepest level between the he and the serpent. Moses traces those two seeds the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. the Messiah would come through the seed of the woman. Those two are at odds against one another throughout the rest of the book of Genesis. You see that follow throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament when the seed of the woman finds its fullest expression at

The birth of Jesus Christ, beginning with the Gospel of Matthew. But as we look over the Old Testament, you have numerous places that refer to this conflict. Job 1:es 6-12 when Satan comes before this celestial meeting of beings before God. Uh you see the the cosmic conflict work itself out in the experience of Job and suffering and where the curtain is pulled back and we can see what is taking place. You’ve got Isaiah 14:12 and 14, Ezekiel 28:12-18. We won’t be able to unpack those in detail right now, but while they’re talking about earthly kings, the

Language in the Hebrew shifts in a very careful way to something beyond a human power, which indicates a a supernatural power of evil. And so those two passages in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 uh there have been doctrinal dissertations written about those those verses and indicating that this is clearly a reference to Lucifer’s self-exaltation in heaven. But the real apex of the conflict in scripture occurs in the four gospels with namely the synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke with the temptations where Jesus and Satan face one another one another eye

To eye toeto toe locked in conflict. You clearly see the cosmic conflict taking place right there. It’s clear that the battlefield of this conflict is planet earth. That’s quite clear from scripture. This is something that several evangelical scholars have acknowledged and recognized. Now, Dr. Lake, Dr. Lake, come on. You’re caricaturing the belief and you know this. That’s why it’s hard to take you guys seriously sometimes on this subject, man. Like, it it like it takes me back to to being your student, man. I feel like the same thing would always happen.

It’s like Dr. Lake, you’re dancing around. You’re dancing around. I like you, sir. You know this, you’re a nice guy. He’s a nice guy, folks. He’s a really nice guy, actually. But doctor, like, you’re you’re caricaturing the belief and you’re stretching here. You’re stretching here. But it’s hard to take you guys seriously when you do this. It’s like playing the there he is game with my 2-year-old. He pulls the shirt over his head and he thinks we can’t see him, but then he quickly lowers it down and says, “There he is.” And we play along with him. You

Guys are like the toddler that’s pulling the shirt over your eyes, thinking we can’t very clearly see the elephant in the room because you guys have pulled the theological shirt over your eyes. Notice he said Genesis 3:15 is like an investigative judgment type scene. They love working in SDA vernacular anywhere they can. But he says Genesis 3:15 the uh the protoangelion. Dr. Like that has nothing to do with the great controversy. Nothing. Because the great controversy isn’t this boiled down belief that there’s simply a devil and then a Jesus that crushes him,

Which is what you’re trying to position it as. And in my opinion is dishonest because Dr. Lake, why didn’t you address why Jesus came? Why did Jesus come? Does it say that in in in Genesis 3:15 or anywhere in the Bible for that? You said it lays this whole thing out all the way through scripture. Again, avoiding the actual objections that I’ve raised, where is this platform claim that Genesis 3:15 isn’t the first proclamation of the gospel? I’ve pointed this out numerous times. What I’ve taken umbrage with regarding Genesis 3:15 and Adventism is why Jesus came, which Herb

Douglas told us is defined in light of the great controversy theme, not scripture. The claim being like even the fundamental beliefs book says and even the belief itself that Christopher read was that he came to silence accusations from Satan. You ignored this pointing to places like Job 1, Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28. That doesn’t prove these extra details that form the entire structure of the great controversy paradigm. Those are simply places that show Satan as an adversary. And even if you did have time to unpack them, it wouldn’t matter because they

Don’t teach and say what you need them to in order to actually silence my accusations against SDA theology proper. We got a lot of rabbit trailing there on things I’ve never objected to. Folks, this is supposed to be a response to answering Adventism. And Christopher, I know that you said in your comment back to me, well, this wasn’t really a response. Well, then why’d you title the video that it’s a response? And for those who have been writing with us for quite some time, I know you all can see this. Jud is just preaching here. He’s not responding.

Bringing things up like the literary structure of Genesis, its kayastic structure, etc. These are all red herrings. No, Dr. Lake. Proving that the king of Ty is a picture of Lucifer doesn’t prove that prior to the creation of earth, Lucifer was jealous that Jesus was exalted to be made equal with the father, which led to him accusing the god in the ten commandments. So Jesus came to silence those accusations and thus Genesis 3:15 proves the great controversy. Lucifer wanting to exalt himself in heaven doesn’t prove this fictional storyline that you guys bring to the

Narrative that then drives things such as why Jesus incarnated. Sir, this was a lot of scholastic bloation for people who aren’t aware of the actual objections who will see this and think, “Wow, Dr. Lake really showed answering Adventism. he used fancy words like kayastic structure and protoangelion. They’ll then start going around and telling Adventists that scholars have already dealt with this platform so don’t even listen to them. And Dr. Lake, I think you know this. And that’s ultimately, in my opinion, what this whole charade is about because you

Clearly aren’t familiar with my objections. If you were, you should be addressing those, not giving a community college lecture. Again, I’ll be looking forward to those responses, Christopher. But then he mentioned, like I said earlier, the temptations of Jesus. That proves the great controversy because Satan and Jesus were battling. They were locked in conflict. No. Now you’re regurgitating the claims made in the Adventist fundamental beliefs book again as well as SDA pioneers like James and Ellen White. The temptation of Jesus does not demonstrate

That prior to the creation of the earth, Jesus was exalted to be made equal with the father, which Lucifer was jealous of, rebelss, starts accusing the ten commandments and God’s governance in heaven. is booted to the earth to tempt the man, succeeds in doing so, and then Jesus proposes a plan to redeem fallen man by coming to the earth to silence Satan’s accusations, vindicate the character of God, showing that you can too by laying hold of the power Jesus will give you to do so and siding with him in a great controversy. None of that is in the temptations of

Jesus. These are all details coming from your prophetus. You bring your extra biblical paradigm to the text of scripture, Dr. like and then you read into these accounts a bunch of things that are not there. Yes, Satan tempts Jesus in the wilderness. That doesn’t prove this whole theory. So, because Jesus was tempted, that proves the entire extra biblical pre-earth origin story that Adventist theology proper depends on for its survival. Give me a break. It’s a nonsequittor. That doesn’t logically follow. Like, not at all. You would never get this from the

Biblical text, folks, without bringing this concept to the text itself. But Dr. Lake, since you mentioned the temptation of Christ, how’s about demonstrating this for us from scripture as well? Selected messages, book one, page 273. Quote, “As soon as the long fast of Christ commenced in the wilderness, Satan was at hand with his temptations. He came to Christ enshrouded in light, claiming to be one of the angels from the throne of God, sent upon an errand of mercy to sympathize with him and to relieve him from his suffering condition. He tried to make Christ believe that God

Did not require him to pass through self-denial and the sufferings he anticipated. That he’d been sent from heaven to bear to him the message that God only designed to prove his willingness to endure. Holy Toledo, this woman. So, in the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, Satan supposedly came to Jesus and told him, “I’m an angel sent from heaven on an errand of mercy to let you know that God the Father doesn’t actually require perfect obedience from you.” Remember, the SDA church teaches that Jesus was only a man while on earth. Folks, the Kosis heresy of Philippians

2, they openly state this on their website. that Jesus set his divine nature aside by incarnating. Notice this is on a page titled life, death. Uh yeah, that the sinless life, death, and resurrection of Jesus under the heading Jesus, the son of God is born a human on earth. Philippians 2 6 through8 says that even though Jesus is God, he set his divine nature aside and took on human nature. He came to serve us, to show us God’s love for us and live as our example. He came to minister to people through his perfectly obedient life. He obeyed the father in every way, even when it led to

His humiliating death on a cross. Close quote. No, he didn’t. That’s not what Philippians 2 is saying. It says that Jesus humbled himself by adding unto himself a human nature which veiled his glory such that when he’s walking down the street, people weren’t falling over dead doing to be due to being in the presence of incredible holiness like at the transfiguration where his glory was not veiled. Now notice what St. Augustine says on this paricopy. And if you’re an Adventist and you’re new here, yes, we love the church fathers. And yes, we cite them regularly because we don’t

Denude scripture from the church in history and act as though we’re smarter than everyone else that God has gifted to the church to help us wrestle through the text, learn, and grow. I’m not saying Augustine was inspired, but his handling of the text nicely explains what is being said from his commentary on Philippians 2. Notice he is said to have emptied himself in no other way than by taking the form of a servant, not by losing the form of God. For that nature by which he is equal to the father in the form of God remained immutable, while he took our mutable

Nature through which he was born of the virgin. He did not take on his humanity in the simple way that a person puts on clothes as something exterior to him, like a costume. Rather, he took on human form in a manner inexpressibly more excellent and more intimate than that. The apostle made it sufficiently clear what he meant. He was made to appear in human likeness. He was not exhaustively reduced to being a man. He rather assumed the true na uh the true human estate when he put on the man. It is not saying that Jesus set his divine nature aside. This is heresy.

Paul is simply saying that Jesus added unto himself true human nature. The incarnate Christ, folks, had divine attributes ascribed to him. He forgives sins while incarnate. For example, scriptures are clear. That’s divine. and only God can do that. So, he wasn’t only a man while on earth. There’s a ton of those. He does all sorts of things that only God can do, yet they’re ascribed to the single person of Christ. But that’s on their website, that quote that we saw, because that’s what Ellen White claimed, which gives us insight into why in her mind, this interaction between Jesus and

Satan that she is fabricating makes sense. Satan comes to Jesus claiming he was sent from heaven on an errand of mercy. Uh Jesus is all knowing while incarnate. Again, that’s divine attribution ascribed to the son while incarnate. John 16:29-31 uh John 21:17 and many other places demonstrate this. But in Ellen’s mind, Satan knew that by incarnating, Jesus set aside what was given to him in the pre-earth exaltation that made him jealous and start the great controversy. She says, “Satan exalted or he he rejoiced when man fell because he felt as though he was now

Able to pull Christ down from his exalted status.” And while he incarnated, he was only a man on earth and set his divine nature aside. So, Satan thought he could fool Jesus apparently by claiming to be an angel sent from heaven to help him. Further evidencing why, yes, all of these added details create problems. They’re not tertiary. Nevertheless, Ellen continues, “Satan told Christ that he was only to set his feet in the bloodstained path, but not to travel it.” Like Abraham, he was tested to show his perfect obedience. He also stated that he was

The angel that stayed the hand of Abraham as the knife was raised to slay Isaac, and he had now come to save his life. That it was not necessary for him to endure the painful hunger and death from starvation. He would help him bear a part of the work in the plan of salvation. Close quote. Again, to this woman, I mean, wow. So, Satan supposedly claimed he was the angel that stayed the hand of Abraham who was about to sacrifice Isaac on the altar. and he had come now to save Jesus’s life in a similar fashion and that he Satan would help Jesus by bearing a part of the work

In the plan of salvation which is actually a great irony considering the SDA church does teach that Satan plays a a role in the plan of redemption by being the scapegoat that expedates sins away. But Dr. Lake, let’s see this from scripture, sir, cuz that’s an actual objection I’ve raised from this platform regarding the temptation of Christ in the wilderness. This is total fiction, folks. SDA Church has zero biblical basis for this, and not a single Seventh Day Adventist can demonstrate it from scripture. I challenge any Adventist in the world.

Get on a stage with me and let’s let’s let let’s see who is and isn’t twisting things, who’s done their homework, who’s lying, who’s this. It’s easy to make make comments like that online as a keyboard warrior without your face being out there, without your name being out there, etc. The reason I stress the specific details of the great controversy narrative is because they’re foundational to the framework. If Jesus wasn’t exalted to be made equal with the father, this whole thing falls over. We have zero reason from scripture to think that Satan began attacking the Ten

Commandments before the earth existed, leading to God having to vindicate his character. But in his attempt to try and only appeal to the Bible here, we see how Dr. Dr. Le gives very little of this narrative. He he he demonstrates very little of this narrative has biblical support. He’s pretty much already used every proof text they can. He hasn’t mentioned there was maybe he already he already mentioned that. I know he mentions it at some point. There was war in heaven. Lucifer wanted to exalt himself and the serpent in the garden. You’re going to run out of proof text,

Sir. So, Christopher, in your guys’s response, if you’re going to respond to the the Great Controversy objections, man, you guys are going to be in trouble. Dr. Lake could have very easily cited The Great Controversy, the book, or Spirit of Prophecy Volume 1, which is what that essentially became, Conflict of the Ages series, and provide the details. He believes those books are just as inspired as scripture, just as authoritative. I know he does because I’ve talked with him and I’ve read his book. He’ll say they’re not an addition to the Bible, but like Uriah Smith said,

They function like a map to navigate the Bible and and they come from Jesus, who’s the one giving the guidance through the map. He said it’s clear that the battlefield of this conflict is planet Earth. And several evangelical scholars have also recognized this. So now we’re going to get the standard appeal to evangelical scholarship to try and add some sort of, you know, theological street cred to the SDA church’s novel doctrine. He boils the great controversy down to this barebones idea that it’s just, oh, a Satan exists who wars against God. And

Lots of evangelicals believe that. It’s just obvious. Can’t you see it? Who could possibly disagree with this? Just obvious, you know, just just read the Bible. That’s the mentality. Oh, because it gives the impression to seas that are going to watch this and think, “Oh, yeah, it is.” Because you all share the same worldview, so it’s obvious to you, but not in reality. When you take off that lens, Adventist, and you come out of it, it’s so very easy to see. No, none of this is in the Bible. This whole thing is predicated upon a pre-earth origin story that came from a

Woman in the 19th century who couldn’t exedute her way out of a wet paper bag. Oh, it’s just obvious. Can’t you see it? Yeah, sure. When you caricature the belief and make it look like those of us who have criticized valid issues are just making things up or don’t know what we’re talking about, then sure. But for anyone that knows this teaching systematically and has studied it as in-depth as I have, this isn’t going to work, fellas. It’s not going to work because the teaching isn’t just the idea that there’s a Satan who’s an adversary or that there’s good and evil in the

World. If this is what SDA scholarship has to offer, I’m underwhelmed to put it lightly. We are still waiting for even a single objection that I’ve raised to be addressed. Not the Adventist belief fundamental beliefs book paraphrased back to us. He had the opportunity to show what I highlighted from the fund fundamental beliefs book and that it can be supported from the Bible and he didn’t. Yet, he’s literally just pariting that chapter of the book, folks. That’s all that’s happening here. Get the book like I have on my shelf back here. Read the

Chapter. All he’s doing is walking through the biblical citations provided and paraphrasing it. He avoided all the extra biblical stuff they’ve worked in, the things that I’ve actually objected to and is trying to exclusively use the proof text that that book uses to make it seem like it’s strictly biblical. But as we saw, they are grasping at straws and general biblical details to then Trojan horse in a truckload of extra biblical stuff. When you come to the New Testament epistles, Paul references Satan several times in 1 and 2 Corinthians and Ephesians 2:2, he

Calls the devil the prince of the power of the air. And it climaxes in Ephesians 6:11 and 12. Let me read that verse to you. for the famous armor of God. Put on the whole armor of God that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places. The key word there is wrestle. The term meant handtohand combat. Christ and Satan are locked in combat. That’s clear through scripture.

But human beings are also in this combat whether we yield to Christ or yield to Satan. The two forces back and forth. The beauty of the Bible is that it’s clear at the very outset. Back to Genesis 3:15. He will bruise your head. You shall bruise his hell. The crushing of the serpent’s head is a theme that runs throughout the entire Old Testament and into the New Testament, climaxing in the book of Revelation. And that head of that serpent is progressively crushed throughout scripture. The death blow to Satan was Christ death on the cross. And then his

Victorious resurrection. This was a a major crushing of the serpent’s head. Particularly his death on the cross. He defeated Satan. Satan is a defeated foe. Yet since the cross and resurrection, Satan knows he is doomed. And that’s where Revelation 12:12 comes into play and reads, “Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them. But woe to you in the earth and the sea, the habits of the earth, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short.” Ever since the first advent of Christ, Satan knows his doom is near. So he is doing

Everything he can. And then you come to the culmination in Revelation 10:20 where the devil is thrown into the lake of fire. That’s the ultimate crushing of the serpent’s head. And I certainly should add chapter 12 of Revelation speaks of the war in heaven. So we go back and forth in scripture. This was a a cosmic conflict that began in heaven. Lucifer brought his rebellion down to this earth. You see that in Genesis 3 and the rest of scripture flows out of that. But thank goodness you have the redeemer because the central focus of the cosmic conflict, it’s really the

Storyline of scripture, if you follow the storyline of scripture, I believe, flowing out of Genesis 3:15, you have the promise of the Messiah who will defeat Satan. And the heart of the Bible, the climax, culmination of the storyline of scripture is the redemptive work of Christ at Calvary and in and in his his resurrection, his ascension, um his high priestly ministry and his coming back again, his redemptive work has and will defeat the devil. That’s quite obvious from a reading of scripture. Seventh day Adventist theology simply follows that meta

Narrative, that story in scripture of the conflict between Christ and Satan. But we must remember that there was a time before when heaven was all in bliss before the rebellion in heaven. again, more filibustering and watering down the belief to make it seem like objecting to it is just objecting to the Bible when no. All he does is cite verses that the fundamental beliefs book uses in that chapter on the great controversy and that’s supposed to justify the whole kitchen sink. So, because Satan’s referred to in the epistles that proves the great

Controversy, Dr. Lake, you sound like a tauist. You sound like an Eastern religious figure that there’s like the yin and the yang and the the good and the evil and there’s like this equal duality that’s going on between No. Ephesians does not say that Jesus is locked into armed hand-to-hand combat with the devil as though they’re on some sort of even well, like Ellen said, the the fallen angels would be given an equal chance to to measure their might up against the father’s son. Dr. Lake, show us in the epistles where we’re told that prior to the creation of

The earth, Jesus was exalted to be made equal with the father. This made Lucifer jealous and that started the great controversy. Show us in the epistles where we’re told that Satan began attacking the ten commandments in heaven and sought to set up his own government of self-governance with the angels in heaven trying to stop him, but he refused and that’s what led to war in heaven. Those are the objections that I’ve made from this platform, folks. Show us that in the Bible. Is it Is that clear? Show us that in the Bible. You didn’t show us that, sir. You just regurgitated

All the same talking points you guys have been saying for 180 years. This is why I constantly say these are good exercises in in lessons of how to miss the point and just ramble on. Can you tell that Dr. Lake is a professor of preaching of homalytics? You can tell it in his his cadence, his talking cadence, but show us this from the Bible. Not that there’s a Satan, not that Jesus was tempted by Satan as an adversary. Not that the Bible describes Satan as a figure at work on the earth. Dr. Lake, explain for the audience what started the great controversy. Don’t you

Think that’s important regarding the belief? I mean, that’s like the fountain head claim. You’ve alluded to it, but you haven’t been forthright about it. Your prophetist tells us what supposedly triggered this. She didn’t beat around the bush. So, let’s see it from scripture since you guys assure us you only believe the Bible. No, you don’t. Stop saying that. The SDA church needs to stop lying. You don’t only believe the Bible. You can huff and puff all you want and get pissed off and comment down below in the video in the comments, which I’m sure SDS are going to do. It doesn’t

Change the facts. Stop lying. Stop telling people Adventism is just a movement of we only believe the Bible. I used to tell people this when I was a kid. You know, my neighbor friends like, “Oh, what’s a Seventh Adventist? Why do you go to church on Saturday?” You know, these sorts of things I’ then ask, “Oh, you know, tell them that we we we just Bible Christians. We believe the whole Bible. They’ve been doing this for decades, folks. They need to stop. They’re lying.” No, they No, they don’t. They don’t just believe the Bible. Give me a break. He said, “The climax of scripture

Is the redemptive work of Christ at Calvary, his resurrection, his ascension, his high priestly ministry, and his coming back again.” Yes. And Dr. Like Herbert Douglas already told us that the great controversy theme is the governing principle over all of those terms and does the defining for you guys. This is a major case of what’s called begging the question. You’re assuming what needs demonstrated. You can use as much Christian lingo as you want, but until you get specific in your definitions of those terms and what’s actually meant by them, you’re

Not going to be addressing this platform. This is why I’m constantly telling people you have to scale the language barrier with them, folks. Because he is veiling all of the issues under standard Christian lang, you know, lingo and and phrases to make it seem like, oh, who could possibly take issue with this? To make it seem like our platform is in error when we obviously don’t disagree with Calvary, redemption, the high priestly role of Christ, or any of the doctrines that he listed. This was just a euphemistic catch-all way of saying that the climax of the Bible is

The system of SDA theology. It was also an unsuspecting way to weasle in the investigative judgment in the sanctuary under the phrase Christ’s work of redemption and that there’s a second phase of the atonement, etc. All of that is nestled up underneath the phrase, you know, high priestly role of Christ. Adventists know this, but Christians won’t. So, Christians that watch this platform are going to hear Dr. like say these things and they’re going to be like, “Yeah, I I agree with the high priestly role.” No, they’re defined the definitions are the problem,

Not just the words. I’ve objected to what they think the high priestly role of Christ looks like, not that Jesus isn’t a high priest. I’ve disagreed with what they think the redemptive work of Christ looks like, who they claim Jesus is, and so on. Yet, he isn’t addressing any of those specifics that I’ve raised, which is why this response is a non-response. Dr. Lake, maybe you aren’t aware of these objections. So, let me point out some more of them for you since you listed off all these doctrines. Show us from scripture that Jesus was inaugurated to be a priest at his

Ascension. That’s what fundamental belief number 24 says in part because he wasn’t. as the great high priest of his people and the antityypical blemishfree Passover lamb. He functioned as both the priest and the sacrifice in the giving up of himself at Calvary which is prior to the ascension. Hebrews 21:17 and 18 tells us this as well as elsewhere. The priest offered up the sacrifice to God and Jesus was functioning as the priest at Calvary. His inauguration as a priest was at his baptism when the blessing was spoken over him by the father and the true

Anointing not with oil but with the Holy Spirit was poured out onto him at his baptism and the father speaking the blessing over him just like the Levites had a an oath spoken over them. In fact, I’d argue Jesus was sprinkled. And I can make a biblical case for such. They want to rail against sprinkling. That’s one of the things James White, for example, absolutely hated. Same with Joseph Bates. Yeah. Well, I I can prove from scripture that Jesus was sprinkled because considering the law required the sprinkling of the priest in Numbers 8:7 as a part of their sanctifying work,

Meaning the priest being set apart, the consecration. This happened to Jesus at his baptism to fulfill all righteousness. And he too was sanctified, which Jesus himself says in what? 19. His high priestly prayer. Again, high priestly prayer. He’s functioning as a high priest in the high priestly prayer. That’s before the ascension. Sir, he states that he was sanctified for his people, meaning set aside just like the old covenant priests were sanctified and set aside for the law work. The pattern of the Levitical priest pointed to Jesus who was the

Great high priest and his baptism was to fulfill all righteousness obviously not for the forgiveness of sins. Matthew 3. The point being his baptism was his inauguration as a priest, not the ascension. Yet, fundamental belief number 24 regarding the investigative judgment is clearly in line with Ellen White who claimed that Jesus was inaugurated at the ascension. Yet, no anointing took place at his ascension. No cleansing by sprinkling, no consecration like that. You guys don’t understand the high priestly and kingly role of Christ, a simultaneous work.

Because MelkiseDC, Hebrews 7:1, was a priest king, not just a high priest. Yet your fundamental belief says nothing about Jesus being a priest king right now. Only a priest. Because Ellen claimed at a point in the future in early writings, Christ is going to take his priestly garments off and put on kingly garments. and assume the role of a king at that point after he ceases functioning as a priest in contradistinction to Hebrews 7 which clearly says he’s a priest forever because this has to do it’s tied to his incarnation and he’ll always bear his

Body and the marks these are the sorts of specific details and objections that I’ve raised sir not general waxed over claims of just Christianes terms show us from scripture that the day of atonement antipypically began October 22nd 184 44 and is this long drawn out process of investigation exclusively for believers over and against the plain biblical teaching that the cleansing of heaven and earth took place at Calvary where Christ made peace by the blood of his cross reconciling himself uh uh reconciling to himself all things in heaven and on earth. Colossians 1 uh

19-23. Show us from scripture that the sins of penitent believers in the Old Testament were transferred in type daily into the holy place to rest until the day of atonement. You can’t because that isn’t what happened. The sins of penitent Israelites were never Adventists. Catch this. The sins of penitent Israelites were never transferred into the holy place to rest until a once until the the once a year day of atonement. Leviticus 4 makes this clear. Aside from the day of atonement ritual, which was once a year, blood was only ever brought into

The holy place and sprinkled before the veil on two occasions. The priest sinned and when the whole Israelite community sinned unintentionally. Those were the two times outside of the day of atonement. Not on a daily basis when individual Israelites sinned and brought their sacrifice for the priest. Yet you guys by way of Ellen White and Patriarchs and Prophets page 357 well uh 354 claims that the most important work of the daily ministration of the priest was when individuals would come and bring their sacrifice. The priest the person would lay their hands on the sacrifice

In type transferring their sin to the sacrifice who then would pay the penalty. And she says that the priest would then take the blood and bring it inside the holy place, sprinkling it before the veil to there sit on record and stand until the cleansing day of atonement ceremony. No, that’s not what happened. Yet, you guys have to have that to make your type antitype work. While we’re at it, show us from scripture that the millennial reign will be in heaven for a thousand years, and those present will be fact-checking God’s work in the investigative judgment

To put people’s minds at ease before he pours out the executive judgment. That’s to say, there’s a three-fold phase of judgment on those raised during the second resurrection because you guys include that in redemption as one of the steps that God is acting out to vindicate himself. And God vindicating himself is central to the whole narrative. While you’re at it, since you included the second coming in your list, show us this from scripture, too. The heading of this in heaven, I know it’s a compilation book. Redeem takes seven days traveling to heaven. We all

Entered the cloud together and were seven days ascending to the sea of glass when Jesus brought the crowns and with his own right hand placed them on our heads. Show us from the Bible that the trip to heaven is going to take seven days. And don’t use the pathetic attempt that Uriah Smith did in his Daniel and Revelation commentary where he claimed that Revelation 8:1 says that after the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour. And half an hour means seven days in prophetic time. Therefore, since it was silent in heaven, that means it’s

Talking about Jesus coming with the angels because well, it’s quiet there. So they must be coming with him for the second coming, which therefore means it will take seven days to go back. Yes, folks, that’s the sort of mental gymnastics that they employ to support this stuff. But those are some of the actual specifics I’ve objected to under the theological categories that he named. And I haven’t heard biblical support for them, which would silence my objections. Don’t just use Christian words and phrases. You need to get into these specifics and

Demonstrate them from the Bible. Especially considering you tried making the absurd statement that SDA theology simply follows the meta narrative of the Bible. I mean, seriously, did he say that? Yeah, Dr. O, he did say that. And saying such a thing is almost hard to even take seriously. You guys bring to the meta narrative of the Bible an outside worldview that is then read into the things said in the Bible, which you yourself have done in this presentation. It’s like f there were so many things that I wanted to stop and be like, well, hold up. No, because what he means by

This is this and what he means by this is this. There was so much Christianes there making it seem like, oh, who could possibly object to, you know, these. No, it’s the way you define those things, sir. Herb Douglas already showed the hand in the December 2000 issue of Ministry magazine. It’s up. The jig is up. You guys were supposedly given this paradigm by way of God through your prophetus. It defines everything. Righteousness, salvation, gospel, why Jesus came. And Dr. Douglas specifically said that the great controversy worldview, not just the fundamental belief, sir.

The great controversy theme informs why Jesus came, what he came to do, etc. Which is what you’ve been trying to harp on this whole time. Well, Genesis 3, it goes back to Genesis 3:15. You guys bring this paradigm to the Bible and then when when the Bible talks of Jesus coming via the incarnation, you read into that to silence the accusations made by Satan from this pre-ear controversy. When that’s nowhere found in the Bible, that’s not what the Bible teaches about why Jesus came. Has nothing to do with Satan. You read into Genesis 15, the unspoken

Idea that the Messiah was coming to silence accusations from the serpent and crushing his head is silencing those accusations. That fallen man can’t keep the law perfectly. So Jesus incarnated to demonstrate that that isn’t true and went to the cross to vindicate the law that Satan’s rebelling against to show the justice of God is true and God is who he says he is and on and on and on. That’s not following the biblical meta narrative, sir. It’s borrowing the meta narrative to then Trojan horse in your guys’s foreign worldview that’s completely outside of

The Bible. Why don’t you guys just own that, sir? It drives me crazy with Adventists. They want to deny, deny, deny, deny. Everything is a deny. It is crazy. I’ll get SDAs that tell me I know nothing about SDA theology. Like, you’re not a serious person. Like I would never say for example Herb Douglas knows not a single thing about Christian theology even though I disagree with Herb Douglas like I know he’s passed now but like on fundamentally probably 95% of things because again everything’s going to be defined through the great controversy but I would never make the silly

Assertion because the track record is there. Yeah. If you think that silly claim is true go and look at our website. I know nothing about SDA theology. Okay. They need to give up the mental gymnastics and just own it and defend it like Mormons try and do. Stop trying to act like, “Oh, we just believe the Bible. We’re just Bible Christians.” No, you’re not. But you’re not. You’re kidding yourself. I only ever read my Bible. Yeah. Okay. You might. You as an individual might, but this platform is not about you. This platform is about addressing the

Organization like the mission statement says. Instead though, instead of just owning this, like we’ve only seen about 5,000 times, we have another Adventist scholar doing the it’s just obviously there in the Bible, but then doesn’t address any of the actual objections, which are the finer details that is the engine under the car. Think of it like a car inspection, folks. Dr. Lake is trying to is trying to sell a car. He’s pointing to it from a distance to say, “This car is great. It’s just like any other car out there that’s reliable, strong, durable. But it has its own

Unique features like every other car does. But when you get close and you pop the hood, you realize, “Oh no, this thing’s a lemon.” This platform has popped the hood and we’re pointing out the gutted insides, saying, “Hey, this doesn’t align with the owner’s manual, the manual being the Bible.” And people like Dr. Lake are just ignoring that and saying, “But look how pristine the paint job is.” Even though the paint job is a trick, it’s it fools the eye. It’s a cover up for the core issue. And that without question is what’s going on here. It’s not about responding

To answering Adventism. It’s about making it appear that some of the approved voices of the movement have addressed our platform, giving the signal to SDAs that we’ve been dealt with so they can all rally amongst themselves and pat each other on the back and tell others not to listen to us. It’s not going to work. It’s not going to work anymore. Just like they do with Dr. Lake’s book, they do the exact same thing. He does the same thing in his book in his own book. He dodges the actual criticisms, denounces all critics as can write parrots, and then preaches on things

That miss the point and don’t even address the real issue. Then Adventists cheer and celebrate amongst themselves and tell anyone with valid criticisms, “Oh, the SDA church has already buried those arguments.” When in fact, no, they haven’t. They’ve quenched the inquisitive minds amongst the movement to make sure to keep them docile and unquestioning. That’s what this is about. And I hope Dr. Lake you don’t because we’re going to be responding to his book. I was planning on actually doing that and then this came out. So now we’re responding in this format. So we

Are going to eventually get to responding to his book which again is just I mean chalk full of I’ve just got sticky notes full I mean there’s some pages in here folks where it’s just like ab just full of sticky notes. Some page I can’t even read the page anymore. It’s got so many sticky notes on it. That’s the level of effort I’m putting in, Dr. Lake, to respond to you. I’m actually going through I assume an Adventist worldview when I do critiques. This is the thing. Adventists don’t understand the difference between a internal and external critique.

They always think you’re doing an external critique. that I’m taking a a belief that they hold, plugging it into my own held beliefs, and then showing why it’s wrong based on things that I already assume and believe that don’t jive with Adventism when no, that’s not what happens. I do internal critiques on this platform. There’s certain times where I do an external critique, but it’s only in certain context. An internal critique is where you assume the worldview of what you’re critiquing and then point out inconsistencies and flaws within the system. When I read books like this, I

Put my great controversy worldview lens back on and do my criticisms from there. Not externally, but I’m putting in the work to try and actually respond to them and actually consume the materials and engage with what’s actually being said. And yet the response you get is, “Oh, you’re just a Canrite parrot.” Yeah, news flash, no I’m not. I’m not a Dale Ratzlaugh parrot. I’m not a Dez Ford parrot. I’m not a Walter Ray parrot. I’m not a parrot of any other person who’s been prominent that’s come out of Adventism that’s then criticized them. At least

Not that I’m aware of. They may be out there somewhere, but I’m not aware of them. And the people that have been, I know their theologies, and I don’t align with them on everything. I don’t know any Adventist, former Adventist that’s a prominent critic of Adventism that agrees with my view on the Sabbath, for example. And yet, I get all these same people that comment on the platform, all these same Antonyomian arguments and all these sorts of things they’ve used on people from 170 years that aren’t relevant to me. They don’t even know you borrowed all your arguments for the

Sabbath from my tradition. You’re just claiming we were wrong about the day. All the arguments you use, you took from first day sabotarians is what I’m saying. So, Christopher Jud, you guys better have a better response put together than what we’ve heard thus far because if this is it, yes, you guys are in a lot of trouble because SDAs who are actually inquisitive, who come over and check what’s going on over here and check the sources for themselves, they’re going to get redpilled. They’re going to get redpilled and they’re going to be like, “Holy smokes, dude. They’re

Not responding like at all.” any objective person is going to see that thus far. Maybe you will at some point. I I’d love to see it. I’ve been waiting for over a decade for you guys to respond to some of these things. We’re still waiting. He ended by saying, “We have to remember there was a time before when heaven was all in bliss before the rebellion of heaven.” Okay, Dr. Le, you just said you guys only follow the biblical meta narrative. Can you show us from scripture that this was triggered by Jesus being exalted to be made equal with the father leading to

A great controversy? That’s what we’re waiting for, sir. Any day now. Your fundamental beliefs book says it. Your prophetus says it. I’ve got review and herald articles that say it. I’ve got ministry magazine that says it. None of them have been able to provide any biblical support for this. only general statements in scripture just like you did war in heaven then all these extra details are supposedly validated because of that. Nope, not going to cut it. These extra details create contradictions. They twist what the Bible teaches about why Jesus actually

Came, who the true Christ even is, etc. So far, this has been rather disappointing because when I first saw this, I was hoping we would see some actual engagement and exogetical work. You teach homalytics, so biblical exesus should be right in your wheelhouse. You’re a scholar. You should be steelmaning something that I’ve said, presenting to the audience what my arguments are to make sure people get it, like I did at the beginning, and then giving an exogetical argument as to why I’m wrong using the historical grammatical method of interpretation.

The only approved hermeneutic in the SDA church according to Ted Wilson. That’s not what’s happening cuz I don’t think you’ve done your homework. I have and I stand by mine. I know the SDA arguments and I can articulate them back. It’s like it’s why last week, for example, I steelanded the SDA position on sinless perfectionism. I know they don’t like that term, but I’m going to keep using it because that’s what it is. I steelmanded the position on that by laying out the primary source documentation, explaining how it functions in the greater system as a

Whole, the role that it plays, and then utilize scholarship that understands the Greek language. John Owen, who Dr. Lake, ironically enough, in that email, you told me how much you love the Puritans. What about the prince of Puritans, John Owen? Is he a qualified source when it comes to the Greek language? Yeah, you I know you you I know that you would agree with that because I know that you like Jon Oowan. So I steel the position, explained how it functioned within the greater system as a whole, the role that it plays. I then utilize scholarship that

Understands the Greek language to assist in then using the historical grammatical method to show why scripture refutes the SDA position. That’s the regular occurrence on this platform. Yet I’m not the one with post-graduate accolades and fancy letters next to my name. Take note of that important fact, folks. I’m an armchair theologian with a degree in graphic design. The guys with Mdives and demons that teach theology should be waxing the floor with me. Satan and his angels were cast out. But then there’s that future hope of a time when the earth is made

New and there will be no more tears, no more crying, no more evil. There’ll be happiness throughout eternity with God’s throne, his sanctuary established on this earth, the earth made new. It’s the ultimate underdog story. This earth where sin abounded will one day be the very presence of God throughout the universe, all time, and eternity. That’s what the cosmic conflict is about. And for the Christian who is in Christ, it means victory. It means victory. His victory is your victory, my victory. That’s the hope that the Christian has. And that is the story

Seabbath Adventists seek to tell. Ellen White in her cosmic conflict series is simply following the biblical storyline, not the other way around. This is more platon platitudinist like Christian word salad. The sanctuary will be established on this earth. Once again, Dr. Like, thank you for demonstrating that you guys don’t just follow the biblical meta narrative. Your great controversy worldview is what tells you this, not the Bible. The temple in the new heaven and the new earth is Jesus, where the fullness of God dwells bodily, the incarnate Christ. Revelation 21:22

Tells you this. Jesus tells us this in John 2 when he tells the Jews that the temple he referred to was the temple of his body, not the physical building made with hands. Jesus was the antityypical temple where God’s presence presence dwells. The temple and all of its imagery pointed to Christ, not things that you go through seven steps of the labor and the camp and the holy place and the labor and the temple and all of its imagery pointed to Christ. He’s the bread of life. That’s what the showbread pointed to. He’s the light of the world. What

The manora pointed to. He’s the true temple. His flesh is the true curtain. Hebrews 10:20. It all pointed to him. Not a building in heaven, nor a tabernacle building on the new earth. But then when he first said this, when he first said it’s the ultimate underdog story, I had to like stop I like stop I rewind. I’m like hold up hold up hold up hold up. It’s truly the the it’s insight into the weak diminished Jesus figure of Adventism. Just like he postulated earlier that Jesus and Satan are in armed combat. This all is insight folks into how many

SDAs, not all, not all, but many SDAs, Satan is seen as a formidable foe to Jesus. Dr. Lake, this further emphasizes how you guys do not follow the biblical meta narrative. Jesus was never an underdog to the devil. I I mean, it’s just like shortcircuited when I heard this. I was like cooking in my kitchen. I almost burned myself. I’m like, holy, stop what we’re doing. What? No. Was not an underdog story. What are you talking about? The creator of Lucifer, who became Satan, is the underdog in the story of redemption. Thank you for demonstrating that the

Great controversy worldview informs all of SDA thought and theology. But like I said, this was primarily just platitudinous Christian word salad. Dr. Lake, if you’re going to respond to this platform, you need to know the objections we’ve raised. Throwing out a Christian word salad doesn’t do anything. For example, his victory is your victory. For the Christian in Christ, this means victory. Do you really think I disagree with this, dude? On the surface, like, no, I disagree with what you mean by that, which is that Jesus came as the model man to show you that Satan’s accusations

About the law are false, and you can keep the Ten Commandments perfectly with God’s help, and through Christ’s overcoming, you can be an overcomer like he was, and also silence Satan’s accusations, vindicating the character of God in the great controversy. Again, taking us right back to the pre-Earth origin story. Everything that you say, sir, is informed by that. That’s the problem. That’s why SDAs when they comment our videos and stuff, they’re like, “Why are you picking on one denomination?” No, you don’t get it. This isn’t a Christian denomination. The fact that you can’t

See it is the point. That’s why it exists. We’re here to tell you and warn you. It’s not Christian. And the fact that you can’t see it is the problem. That’s why in in part, lost my mouse here. That’s why in part this platform exists to help wake people up. Theological alarm clock going on over here. But it would have been nice to actually hear some engagement at this level. But we’re still left wanting because you tried to make it seem like the great controversy isn’t also a world view. And again, he made the the claim at the end. He tags on at the end all Ellen

White’s great conf, you know, conflict of the edges series. It just follows the biblical meta narrative. And then they just move on to the next section. Dr. Like, you’re kidding yourself. Come on, man. You’re kidding yourself. You’re kidding yourself. You know that’s not true. Come on, man. It does not follow the biblical meta narrative. We just saw Herb Douglas’s Ministry Magazine 2000 at the beginning, December 2000, where he shows the hand. Stop bluffing. Stop saying these things to make other Christians think, “See, Adventism is just like everyone else. We

Just believe the gift of prophecy is, you know, it’s it’s a New Testament gift of prophecy.” And no, dude, you guys have a completely unique view, and it’s all informed by this extra biblical paradigm that you claim was given by God through Ellen White. So, Dr. Lake, you ended up demonstrating that the claims made on this platform are valid, and not a single claim that I’ve made was successfully challenged. Adventist might think so. Uh but present truth does not hold weight under objective truth. And objective truth is on our side. You guys can’t demonstrate that the

Central component to your entire system comes from scripture. You can’t demonstrate that because it doesn’t. You know it. I know it. And now everyone else knows it. Because if the deck were stacked in the SDA church’s favor, you would have silenced my accusations like Adventists think they are silencing Satan’s. So part one, our objections regarding the great controversy still stands. So Dr. Lake Christopher, my mind has not been changed. My objections have uh not been extinguished, which means yes, the SDA church is not just in trouble. It’s in big trouble. We’re not going

Anywhere. People can examine the sources for themselves over and against what you’ve put forth and come to their own conclusions. The standard game plan the SDA church has utilized in the past is not going to work anymore, fellas. It is a different era. Information has never been more easily accessible. Our website is the most sourced platform that I’m aware of. If something else exists, God bless them, but I’m not aware of it. Thousands of primary sources, folks. Couple clicks and you can be there at the source yourself. digging through review and herald archives, youth

Instructor archives, ministry magazine archives, sermon, listening to sermons, talks, books, reading George Knight’s search for identity, FD nickel. I mean, you name it. Are these all fringe people? Dr. Lake, we’re going to see in part two, folks. He tries to make this seem like, you know, these critics, they they they point to these real uh uh you know, fringe, you know, no, we’re not doing that here, sir. We don’t point to Joemo. The shooting spitballs from a distance approach is not going to work. It might keep Adventists from inquiring and listening, which is what I personally

Think the goal is here, but it won’t stop the truth from pre prevailing over present truth, aka lies. to the Adventist Church, her scholars, all the guys at the BARRI, everyone up in the SDA Ivory Tower up in, you know, Tacoma Park. Get your best scholars the movement has to offer. Let’s set up a publicly moderated discussion, debate, whatever you want to call it, on this subject and see who does and doesn’t know what they’re talking about. How’s that sound? The formal topic can be, is the great controversy narrative derived from scripture? Should be simple, right? You guys are no

Creed with the Bible movement. Let’s see it. Okay. Let’s see it. Send whoever you want. 10on-one. Send as many people as you want. Bring your best. Bring everyone you got. Not a single one of you will get on a stage with me and debate that. And you know why. And I know why. In part two, we’re going to hear the response to the claims regarding the SDA church having a false gospel. And we will do the same thing. lay out the points of contention and then listen for the objections that I’ve raised and if they’re addressed and supported from scripture. As always, until next time,

God bless.