Why do Seventh-day Adventists believe they are the remnant?

In the last two weeks, we examined the pattern of the remnant in the Bible and the meaning of the word remnant based on the Hebrew and Greek terms used in Scripture. We learned that the remnant exists because God preserves a people by grace. The remnant is preserved because God remains faithful to His promise.

This week, we are asking a simple question: Why do Seventh-day Adventists believe they are the remnant?

Whenever Adventists make this claim, it sounds as if they are saying that they are the only sincere, true church that has a unique mission, and they are the only denomination that will be saved. In fact, many members of the SDA church do believe that to be true. However, officially, the Adventist Church teaches that sincere Christians exist in all denominations, that other churches also have a role in God’s work, and that God has faithful people in every denomination and even among other religions.

If that is the case, what does it mean when the Adventists say they are the remnant church? 

This claim is more prophetic in nature and originates from the description of a war between the woman, her male child, the rest of her seed, and the dragon found in Revelation 12-14. Adventists understand this to describe an end-time community that arises after certain prophetic time periods and carries a distinct message to the world.

The goal of today’s class is to understand two things. 

1. How did Adventists arrive at this conclusion?
2. Is this the only way to explain the remnant, or can it be understood differently? 

Disclaimer: Many thoughtful Adventist scholars explored this topic for years. It would take a lifetime for me to understand the depth of it. I am not doing an exhaustive analysis of this topic, nor am I defending or dismissing the claim. I simply want to understand, as honestly and carefully as I can, why they say what they say. 

History

To understand why Seventh-day Adventists believe they are the remnant, we must begin with history. The remnant idea in Adventism did not begin as a claim of superiority. It was born out of crisis. In the early 1800s, William Miller began studying the prophecies of Daniel, especially Daniel 8:14, which speaks of “2300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.” By starting 2300 years from the decree to restore Jerusalem in 457 B.C., he calculated that the prophecy would end around 1843 or 1844. Through a series of further calculations and adjustments, the Millerites eventually fixed on October 22, 1844, as the date of Christ’s return.

His message spread rapidly across denominations. Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and others joined the movement. It was not originally a separate church. It was an interdenominational revival centered on the soon return of Christ. 

That day passed, and Christ did not return. This event became known as the Great Disappointment. Many believers left the movement. Some abandoned faith entirely. Others returned to their previous churches. 

But a small group remained. They believed the date was correct, but the event was misunderstood. Instead of Christ returning to earth, they concluded that Christ entered the Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary to begin a final phase of ministry. This reinterpretation of Daniel 8:14 became the foundation of what would later become the Seventh-day Adventist Church. 

In this setting, the language of “the remnant” began to take shape. Those who remained after the disappointment saw themselves as similar to biblical patterns found in Revelation 12 – 14. 

In Scripture, crisis often produces remnant language. So, it felt natural for them to interpret their story through that biblical lens. Their identity did not begin as triumphalism. It began as survival after disappointment. Only later did it develop into a formal theological statement, now expressed in Fundamental Belief 13, which identifies the remnant as a visible end-time movement with a global mission.

Theology

Let’s turn to the theological foundation. Why do Adventists believe Revelation identifies them as the remnant?

The argument rests primarily on two chapters: Revelation 12 and Revelation 14.

Revelation 12: ¹Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. ² Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. ³ And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. ⁴ His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. ⁵ She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. ⁶ Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days. ⁷ And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, ⁸ but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. ⁹ So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. ¹⁰ Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. ¹¹ And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death. ¹² Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.” ¹³ Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. ¹⁴ But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. ¹⁵ So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. ¹⁶ But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. ¹⁷ And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Let’s look at the characters in this chapter. 

• Women represent the Church, or more accurately, God’s covenant people across the ages. (Ephesians 5: 25)
• The Male child represents Jesus, and He was caught up to God.
• The woman flees into the wilderness for 1260 days. Wilderness is a place of refuge during intense persecution. 
• After this period, the dragon wages war against “the rest of her offspring,” described as those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus.

The two things we need to understand here are what these 1260 days are and who these offspring are. 

Clarifying the 1260 Days

Let’s look at the 1260 days. 

Adventists interpret these days using two related interpretive commitments. The first one is the day-to-year principle, which understands symbolic prophetic “days” as representing literal years. Second is the historicist perspective, an approach that interprets apocalyptic prophecy as unfolding progressively across real historical time. 

What is the day-to-year principle? 

Many people think that Adventists invented this day-to-year principle, but it predates them by several centuries. It was widely used by Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther, John Knox, Sir Issac Newton, etc. 

This comes from two key bible texts

Numbers 14:34For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.’

Here, Israel’s forty days of reconnaissance correspond to forty years of wilderness wandering.

Ezekiel 4:6 “After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the people of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year.

The prophet symbolically bears Israel’s guilt for a number of days that correspond to years. 

Based on these two passages, supporters argue that these texts establish a biblical pattern in which symbolic days can represent literal years in prophetic settings.

This principle has been applied to Daniel 7:25, Daniel 12:7, Revelation 12, and Revelation 13. When applied here, the 1260 days become 1260 years.

Historicist explanation of 1260 years 

Adventists traditionally identify this period as running from 538 to 1798 AD.

What happened in 538? 

After the Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476 AD, Italy came under the Ostrogoths or Germanic rulers who were Arian Christians. They controlled Rome politically while refusing to submit to papal authority. The Byzantine Empire, led by Emperor Justinian I, from Constantinople, still claimed Rome as part of the Roman world and sought to reunite the empire. Justinian issued a decree in 533 calling the bishop of Rome the head of all the holy churches, but this had little practical effect as the Ostrogoths ruled Italy. During Justinian’s campaign to reclaim the West, his general Belisarius arrived in Italy and captured Rome for the Byzantine Empire in 536. To counter that, the Ostrogoths besieged Rome in 537 and 538, but in 538, his general Belisarius broke the siege and forced their retreat, briefly restoring the city to Byzantine control. 

Adventists argue that the breaking of the Ostrogothic siege in 538 marked a turning point that enabled the papacy to exercise greater authority, and they count 1260 years from that point.

But here is the problem. Historians note that the wider war did not end in 538. It continued for many years and concluded only in 552 and 553 with the final defeat of the Ostrogoths. Even after this, the popes did not gain political supremacy because the Byzantines governed Rome and expected obedience, the Lombards who followed did not accept papal rule, and the later Frankish kings acted as protectors rather than subjects. Clear signs of real papal political power appear much later, especially with Charlemagne’s coronation in 800 and the Gregorian reforms of the 11^th century, which marked a major consolidation of papal authority.

Critics argue that they selected this year because they back‑calculated it from 1798. 

What happened in 1798 AD?

In 1798, during the French Revolutionary Wars, a French army under General Louis‑Alexandre Berthier entered Rome, declared the Papal States abolished, and took Pope Pius VI into custody. The French viewed the papacy as an ally of the old monarchies they were fighting against, so they removed the pope’s temporal authority and forced him into exile. Pius VI was taken from Rome to Siena, then Florence, and finally to Valence in France, where he died in captivity in 1799. Adventist interpreters identify this event as the “deadly wound” of Revelation because it marked the collapse of the pope’s political power in Europe, ending the long era in which the papacy held territorial rule and exercised secular authority.

When counting backward from the well-defined event of 1798, the breaking of seize in 538 makes sense. But without this reverse calculation, no historian would naturally identify 538 as the decisive end of Ostrogothic power.

There are also alternative explanations of the 1260 days.

For example, in the preterist interpretation, the 1260 days are understood as a literal 3½-year period corresponding to the Roman siege of Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the temple in AD 70. During that time, early Christians fled the city and survived Roman hostility.

Desmond Ford, a former Seventh-day Adventist theologian, proposed a different interpretation. He suggested that the 1260 days represent the 42 months, or approximately 3½ years, of Jesus’ earthly ministry.

For each of these alternative interpretations, Seventh-day Adventist scholars have offered detailed rebuttals based on historical chronology, literary context, and the broader apocalyptic structure of Daniel and Revelation.

Offspring

The Greek word used in Revelation 12:17 is loipoi, meaning “the rest” or “those remaining.” As we read in Revelation 12, this group comes after 1260 days and has two key identifying marks. They keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

So there are four legs to this Remnant theory. We have already looked at how debated the first leg is, the 1260-year calculation starting in 538. The second leg is the claim that the remnant “keep the commandments of God.”

That sounds simple at first. Revelation 12:17 and 14:12 describe a faithful group marked by obedience. But the key step comes when that phrase is taken to mean specific observance of the Ten Commandments, especially the seventh-day Sabbath, and then applied directly to one nineteenth-century movement.

Historically, early Adventism did place strong emphasis on obedience and distinctive doctrines. Grace and justification by faith were present in belief, but preaching often focused more heavily on law and responsibility. The 1888 Minneapolis session exposed that imbalance and called the church back to a clearer emphasis on Christ and righteousness by faith. That correction was not rejected outright, but it was not fully embraced right away either.

Here is the central issue. Paul writes in Ephesians 2:8–9 that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works, so that no one can boast. Obedience matters, but it follows salvation. So the question becomes: Is Revelation 12:17 describing people who are saved because they keep the commandments, or people who keep the commandments because they have already been saved by grace? If obedience becomes the defining badge of identity, it can drift toward a works-centered mindset. If obedience flows from grace, it harmonizes with Paul’s teaching. That distinction is crucial.

If obedience flows naturally from grace, then it is not a distinctive badge that belongs to one denomination. It is simply the fruit of a life transformed by God. In that case, keeping the commandments is not an Adventist trademark, but the normal result of grace at work in any believer. As Paul says in Ephesians 2:10, we are created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand. Obedience, then, is not proof of belonging to a particular movement. It is evidence that God’s grace is active in the heart.

The testimony of Jesus

Now we come to the third leg: “the testimony of Jesus.”

Revelation 12:17 says the remnant “keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” 

Most Christians would understand “the testimony of Jesus” as loyalty to Christ or faithful witness about Him. Paul writes in Romans 10:9 that salvation comes through confessing Jesus as Lord and believing in His resurrection. In that sense, the phrase could refer simply to allegiance to Christ.

Adventists connect this phrase to Revelation 19:10, which links the testimony of Jesus with the spirit of prophecy. 

Revelation 19:10 At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus.”

From this, Adventists conclude that the remnant will possess the prophetic gift, and they identify Ellen G. White’s ministry as a manifestation of that gift within their movement.

Within Adventism, her prophetic role is officially affirmed. Adventist historians and theologians such as George R. Knight, Richard W. Schwarz, and Denis Fortin argue that her writings show theological depth, pastoral fruit, and long-term influence consistent with the New Testament gift of prophecy. The church maintains that her ministry was a genuine manifestation of the prophetic gift, while also stating that Scripture remains the final authority.

However, there is no broad consensus outside Adventism that she possessed the prophetic gift. Historians such as Ronald L. Numbers have argued that her health visions reflect 19^th-century reform movements rather than supernatural revelation. Walter T. Rea raised concerns about literary borrowing in works like The Great Controversy, questioning traditional understandings of inspiration. Evangelical critics such as Anthony Hoekema challenged the theological authority attributed to her within the denomination.

In addition, some former or dissenting Adventist theologians have expressed serious reservations. Desmond Ford, while affirming Ellen White’s devotional value, questioned the way her writings were used to support specific prophetic interpretations, particularly in Daniel and Revelation. Others, such as Raymond Cottrell, raised methodological concerns about how prophetic authority functioned in doctrinal development. These critiques do not always deny her spiritual influence, but they challenge how her authority has been applied.

Even within mainstream Adventism, the nature of her inspiration has been discussed in nuanced ways. Many Adventist scholars do not accept verbal‑dictation theories, which teach that God dictated the exact words to the prophet, and instead understand her inspiration as thought inspiration, where God guided the ideas rather than the precise wording. So a careful and accurate conclusion would be this: Ellen White’s prophetic status is firmly affirmed within official Adventism and defended by many of its scholars, but it is debated both outside the denomination and among some former or critical Adventist theologians.

Personally, I have benefited from Ellen White’s prophetic ministry, and I believe her writings have been a blessing in my own spiritual journey. I see depth, encouragement, and a strong call to Christ in what she wrote, and I do not dismiss the positive influence her ministry has had on many lives, including mine.

But I struggle with moving from acknowledging her prophetic gift to concluding that it proves the Seventh-day Adventist Church alone is the remnant. I can affirm the blessing of her ministry while still questioning whether it establishes one denomination as the exclusive fulfillment of Revelation’s remnant.

3 Angels Messages 

Now we move to the fourth leg, the three angels’ messages.

Revelation 14 repeats similar language from Revelation 12. In verse 12, it describes a people who “keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Immediately before that are the messages of the three angels (Rev 14:6–11). Adventists connect these two sections and conclude that the remnant of verse 12 are the ones who proclaim the three angels’ messages.

The connection between Revelation 12 and 14 is logical within Adventist theology, but it is not explicitly stated in the text. The angels are described as proclaiming messages from heaven. Adventist interpretation understands these angels symbolically as representing human messengers empowered by God.

Other interpreters view the angels as symbolic of divine proclamation rather than institutional identity. They see Revelation 14 as describing the global mission of the gospel rather than assigning that mission to a specific nineteenth-century movement.

The central question remains whether the symbolic imagery of Revelation requires identification with one historical organization, or whether it describes a broader Spirit-led witness carried out by faithful believers across traditions.

Conclusion

The remnant theme begins with God preserving life and develops into God preserving witness. From Genesis to Revelation, the emphasis is on God’s faithfulness. Seventh-day Adventists see themselves within this prophetic story, connecting Revelation 12–14, the 1260 days, the commandments of God, the testimony of Jesus, and the three angels’ messages into a unified identity.

These interpretations, however, are debated. Some see them fulfilled uniquely in Adventism. Others see them as describing faithful believers more broadly.

If the remnant exists because God preserves a people by grace, then the central question is faithfulness to Christ. The remnant is a people shaped by grace whose lives reflect obedience, humility, endurance, and loving witness. The real issue is whether our identity directs attention to Christ or to ourselves.

Discussion Questions: 

1. Does Revelation describe a single visible organization, or a Spirit-shaped community marked by faithfulness wherever it is found?
2. In what ways can we hold our prophetic convictions with humility while still honoring sincere believers in other Christian traditions?

C-J: I’m not an Adventist, although I see a lot of merit in it. I also see it as evolutionary. Numerology has often been used in religion to facilitate a belief system. At first it helps shape belief, and then it becomes etched in stone—metaphorically speaking—something we will not question. We adhere to it for certain reasons, because it benefits society and supports a moral code.

But if you look back to when the Hebrew people came out of Egypt and entered the land of Canaan and Syria, they interfaced with cultures that practiced different faiths, including Zoroastrianism. In that culture we begin to see imagery like dragons and angels—angels as we picture them today—sculpted, devouring, influencing what later appears in Revelation. They also developed ideas of heaven and hell. If you ask many Jews whether they believe in a literal afterlife of heaven or hell, many would say not really.

All traditions have used tools of prophecy—whether throwing bones, examining entrails, or interpreting signs found on a given day. But intuitively, what God has placed within us is what Jesus was always leading us toward: relationship with the divine. You don’t need temples for that. The Ten Commandments are common sense when understood in the spirit in which God created humanity and all of creation—to be beautiful and good. “Good” isn’t hard to understand. You don’t murder. You don’t harm the people you love. You don’t take more than you need.

But when we begin justifying what we believe through language about who holds the keys to the kingdom, that becomes dangerous—especially when religion and politics are intertwined, as they have been throughout most of history. When we use words like divine, prophetic, or mandate of heaven for political justification, it can legitimize genocide, starvation, exclusion—deciding who gets to go and who does not because of how they look or where they live.

There are many merits within Adventism—eat right, do good, be disciplined. It arose during a period of austerity and reform. The history you shared, Kiran, is important—not only for Adventism but for reminding humanity how quickly things can go wrong and how easily events are interpreted politically.

It becomes dangerous when we try to justify ourselves through text instead of relationship. The Holy Spirit works spiritually. It benefited you and many others. That goes back to what Christ was saying—it’s relationship with the divine, not ritual. Don’t get caught up in hierarchies of who has power, who has access, who holds authority over life and death.

I can’t imagine how people felt when the one they believed to be the Messiah was crucified and things did not unfold according to their narrative. Yet Christ kept saying, “Don’t cling to me. I go to be with the Father.” Don’t focus on the man; focus on the restoration of relationship between humanity, this planet, and its Creator.

We get into trouble when we label, categorize, blame, and justify ourselves for harmful choices. It becomes more than a stumbling block. It leads us to ask, “God, why wasn’t I in that line? Do You love them more than me?” What kind of God would justify murder, the Inquisition, book burnings, persecution?

We also must forgive ourselves for not always having the discernment to protect ourselves. For generations, narratives were passed down to people who were not literate—stories explaining slavery by skin color, or exclusion by birthplace or language. These narratives lasted thousands of years.

We cannot reduce history to simple beginning and end dates. We cannot isolate one moment and ignore how narratives evolve through tradition and politics. We cannot look at a single face or place in time and avoid holding ourselves accountable for making informed, inclusive decisions that benefit more than just ourselves.

Don: I’m one who had the flashback to Bible doctrines class. The history Kiran recounted—the controversy over the interpretation of scriptural prophecy and the role of Ellen White and her authority within the church—is part of my personal history in the church. So I appreciate the review.

I’ve always been concerned when our prophetic understanding becomes too limited and too personal. It may be that both things can be true: that we can look at the prophetic record and see ourselves in it, and even make a claim that it represents us. But if we’re willing to do that, we must also allow others to do the same.

It seems short-sighted to think that tribal Africans cannot find themselves in the book of Revelation, or that the Chinese or the Indus Valley civilizations cannot see themselves in the historical and prophetic record. To assume it applies only to European or North American society seems very narrow.

One of the genius elements of Revelation as a genre is that people throughout history have been able to look at the story and find themselves in it. So while we may stake a claim that it represents us in the historical record, doing so does not exclude others from finding themselves there as well.

And as Kiran concluded, what matters most is that the prophetic record points to Jesus and to what God does for us—not to what we do for ourselves. That is the very definition of the remnant restored by grace, as Paul describes in the New Testament. I’m arguing for both: that we can see ourselves there, but we must leave room for others to see themselves there too.

David: Kiran’s talk illustrates the beauty of the Bible as a source that generates more questions than answers. My question concerns prophecy itself. To me, prophecy simply means the ability to foretell—to predict. That’s my understanding of what prophecy means. But I’m wondering: What is prophecy? What has it ever actually achieved?

We’ve had the biblical prophets. We’ve had Ellen White. What exactly did Ellen White prophesy that made a difference in the important matters of life or spirit? I ask that partly because I’m not Adventist and haven’t read much of Ellen White beyond a few passages here and there. So I’m genuinely curious.

Kiran: Ellen White had an accident as a child—someone threw a stone and injured her. She had very limited formal education, maybe third or fifth grade. At sixteen she received her first vision.

The story goes that before she received the vision, others had been approached to share similar messages but were afraid to do so. She, though physically frail, stood up and described what she had seen. When she received visions, witnesses said she would stop breathing. They would place a candle under her nose to test whether she was breathing. They would place heavy Bibles—five pounds each—in her hands, and she would hold them without apparent strain. These episodes occurred publicly.

After a vision, which could last half an hour or longer, she would collapse from weakness. Others would pray for her. Then she would write down what she had seen, sometimes with help.

Her visions did not introduce new material beyond the Bible. Rather, she described the biblical story from beginning to end—an interpretive overview. At the time, the pressing question was, “Why didn’t Jesus come?” Her visions, combined with careful Bible study by others, helped them understand the sanctuary imagery that had been overlooked in theology.

For centuries Catholicism largely defined Christianity. During the Reformation, Calvinism emphasized God’s sovereignty—God chooses who is saved and who is not. The Adventist “genius,” if I can call it that, was to bring doctrines together under the central theme that God is love. There is a great controversy between God and Satan; humanity is caught in between; and God loves us so much that He gave His life and reveals future events so we won’t lose hope in times of trial.

That message is beautiful. I appreciate it deeply. What I don’t appreciate is the idea that we Adventists alone will go to heaven and that everyone else is a hypocrite or Pharisee. If we remove that exclusivity and hold on to the central message that God is love, then we have a distinctive theological explanation of Christianity that differs from both Catholicism and Calvinism.

David: What you’re describing sounds more like teaching than prophesying. If the Bible already contains everything we need to know, then it becomes a matter of explaining it. That’s why I’m still concerned about the question of prophecy. What have the prophets actually told us that we didn’t already know?

I’m not singling out Ellen White. I mean the biblical prophets as well. The Jews had long spoken of a Messiah. Perhaps there was no explicit sign until a prophet declared that one would come—and then Jesus came. That would certainly qualify as prophecy. But beyond that, what did they reveal that people didn’t already expect or hope for?

Kiran: During her time, people didn’t understand Daniel and Revelation. Those two books were enigmas. No one could make sense of the numbers or the time periods. Miller explained some of it, but it was incomplete. Through continued study—White’s and others’—they developed a more comprehensive interpretation of Daniel and Revelation. That was her primary contribution.

C-J: Was Daniel’s vision essential to receiving a relationship with God? Was it necessary for understanding the future Messiah, His sacrifice, and restoration?

Human beings love puzzles. We are creators. We want coherence. From the beginning of tribal and nomadic societies, stories were shaped from observations in nature about who God was. Songs and rhythms were passed down through instruments that mimicked nature. Life was fragile. If you reached thirty years old, you were old. Survival depended on childbirth, war, and accident. Blessing was often associated with moral behavior toward others.

People asked: Am I my brother’s keeper? What is my obligation to my clan? How do we form peaceful relationships with neighboring tribes? As societies grew more sophisticated—even those not considered literate—only the priesthood often held literacy. They tracked seasons, equinoxes, celestial cycles. Megalithic structures marked time and seasons. These were political and cultural achievements as much as spiritual ones.

When it comes to personal relationship with deity or deities, what we see consistently is obedience, responsibility to clan, faithfulness to tradition and ritual. As for prophecy and visions, we still do not fully understand how the brain works. Trauma can produce visions. I’ve seen people “slain in the Spirit” in Pentecostal churches. I’ve seen people healed. Is it faith? Is it grace? Does it matter if the result is restoration and surrender?

Some people report near-death experiences filled with light and love. Others report nothing at all. High fevers, trauma, even psychedelics can produce extraordinary experiences that are interpreted spiritually. The amygdala—the primitive part of the brain—plays a role in survival, fight-or-flight, intuition. It can signal danger without formal instruction.

Perhaps what prophets truly do is connect the dots. They use language skillfully to draw communities into coherence. It’s not about the ritual itself. It’s about relationship—something greater than ourselves that produces peace regardless of circumstances. Life is fragile: floods, volcanoes, earthquakes. But the Creator is predictable in His desire to restore relationship. That sense of peace—the “mountaintop” experience—cannot easily be purchased or described. It is intuitive. You just know something has been revealed to you.

Kiran: If we set Ellen White aside and think about the Bible itself, there are two types of prophecy, and both center on foretelling Jesus. There are Messianic prophecies—hundreds of them—given centuries before Christ. They describe where He would be born, that He would be born of a virgin, that He would suffer and die. Despite that, many Jews did not accept Him.

Then there are the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation. Their primary purpose is to affirm that Jesus will return. Even when it seems delayed, God has not forgotten. That hope mattered especially to first-century Christians who were persecuted and hunted. Prophecy gave them assurance that events were unfolding within God’s knowledge and control.

It shouldn’t overshadow the central truth that we are saved by grace and called into relationship with God. If that relationship is missing, what is the point of prophecy? But prophecy, in its biblical sense, was meant to sustain hope and faithfulness in difficult times.

C-J: And the core of prophecy is always repentance—change your behavior. To give it political leverage, you have to add another layer. There are deeply spiritual people who aren’t trained in a formal belief system, yet they have the ability to do remarkable things—the quiet prophet.

If a prophet carried a political agenda and it didn’t come true in their lifetime, they could be destroyed. The word had to remain pure. The message had to remain pure. You couldn’t have a false prophet. And Jesus warned us about false prophecy.

All religions carry this overlay of political danger. When you look at how the Christian faith was established in certain sectors, and how it was practiced within the Roman Catholic Church, we have to be very careful. Without discernment—discernment given by God through the Holy Spirit—we won’t make it. Discernment is not about one person winning and another losing.

Cain and Abel knew murder was wrong. Jealousy was wrong. Idolatry—wanting it my way—is wrong. I don’t want to justify myself; I want to be in relationship. It’s very easy to get caught up in traditions, rituals, and narratives. And you’re right—it’s dangerous because it can exclude others. Or take Calvin’s message: God already knows who will and won’t be saved, so do what you want. That becomes dangerous if it isn’t rooted in love, restoration, and relationship.

Sometimes I don’t even understand. I ask, “God, are You asking me to do this? I want confirmation.” But even that can become idolatry—I want to be right. If I surrender it to God, He will open and close the doors. It will become evident, and there will be no striving, because God will bless that hand. All I have to do is say, “Thy will be done.” That isn’t easy. We want to be likened unto God—not equal to God—but likened unto Him, with capacity and a great heart.

Reinhard: Every church proclaims the Second Coming. As an Adventist, I’m comfortable with our doctrine. Mrs. White wrote extensively about the history of God’s people and about the End Times—the interpretation of the three and a half years, the 1260 days.

There are many interpretations of the three and a half years and the 1260 days. The historicist interpretation identifies 1260 years—from 538 to 1798. In history, that interpretation has been presented as accurate, and to me it makes sense.

What distinguishes Seventh-day Adventists most clearly is the Sabbath. But Sabbath observance is also practiced by Seventh Day Baptists and a few other groups. The emphasis on the seventh day is important to us. I believe Mrs. White’s writings were meant to guide us toward faithful obedience to the commandments as she understood them.

Personally, I feel comfortable with the argument that the Sabbath is the seventh day. At the same time, others worship on Sunday. Some argue that Jesus rose on Sunday. Others point out that offerings were collected on Sunday in Paul’s time. Paul himself said that some esteem one day above another. Although the Sabbath commandment says “remember,” many churches consider Sunday their Sabbath.

Historically, for nearly 1900 years, most of the Christian world worshiped on Sunday. For me, I want to be as close as possible to what God commanded. I observe the Sabbath, and I feel that is right for me. But if others are convinced that Sunday worship honors God, I believe God accepts them as well. Grace applies to all believers.

Regarding the Second Coming, the disciples expected Jesus to return in their lifetime. Paul seemed to expect it too. It has now been 2000 years. God’s time is not our time. The key is to be prepared. The Second Coming will happen—either collectively or individually. That is what matters.

Mrs. White brought many helpful teachings that strengthened believers. Much of her counsel is valuable for living as good Christians. I also believe in a form of pluralism—each church has its own understanding and validity in seeking God. As long as they follow the Bible’s teaching, faith in Jesus is central. Jesus said that whoever believes in Him and follows His commandments will be saved.

Grace is for everyone. Many people in history were martyred for their beliefs. I believe God accepts them. I am comfortable remaining Adventist, but I also believe that other Christian brothers and sisters who sincerely believe in Jesus will be part of the New Heaven.

When we look at the New Jerusalem—described as 1400 miles in length, width, and height—some commentators estimate it could accommodate 80 to 120 billion people. Some estimate that nearly 100 billion people have lived on earth since creation. We don’t know how long the world will continue, and not all will be saved. But the image suggests that heaven is prepared for billions, not just millions.

If the New Jerusalem is that vast, it shows that God has prepared for many people. It is God’s prerogative to decide who truly believes and desires to do His will. By the grace of God, those who believe will receive eternal life. That is how I understand it.

Carolyn: Kiran’s talk brought back quite a lot to my mind. One quotation comes to me: Which comes first in our daily life—the commandments or Jesus? I choose Jesus. That doesn’t mean I reject the commandments.

Kiran: Next week I’ll explore the question about the difference between chosen and remnant, along with some of the questions raised today. There are many opposing and supporting views on these issues. People are seriously debating them. At the same time, there are strengths in these interpretations, which is why they continue to endure. It requires thoughtful reflection on our part.

* * *