Discussion on the 28 fundamental beliefs....

[Byfaithalone1]

And there a many more texts that address the financial side of life.

Does SDAism support your division of the law into 3 categories, or is this simply your own private interpretation?

It was given to all those who believe that the following text applies to them as well as to Israel

It's interesting to note that this is not what the passage actually says. You've merely offered your own extra-Biblical interpretation. No problem with that, I suppose. However, it is helpful to note that this is merely your opinion.

"All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16

If Paul intended this passage to confirm the ongoing application of the tithe, then it would follow that he must have also intended this passage to confirm the ongoing application of animal sacrifices or circumcision. However, Paul's letter to the Galatians does not seem to support this idea.

it given to all those who believe that "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:29

Yes, when we read the entire context, we learn that the promise is given according to the promises made to Abraham and not according to the laws that were added 430 years after Abraham. By the way, we have no Biblical reference to tithing (and other old covenant laws) until approximately 430 years after Abraham.

But, hey, I have nothing against freewill offerings. So tithe away if you find it to be a useful concept. But think twice before supporting the SDA denomination's practice of basing nominating committee decisions and/or ongoing denominational employment on tithing.

BFA

 

[AzA]

It's worth pointing out, as my last comment on Abram's gift to Melchizedek, that it was not actually Abram's property to give, and it was also part of war spoils.

I don't regard that gift as analogous in any fashion to a percentage of legitimately derived gains, work-wages, or profits -- in plant form or coinage.

 

[StormyOne]

next one, Stormy? That should generate some interesting discussion, I think.

here is is....

22. Christian Behavior:
We are called to be a godly people who think, feel, and act in harmony with the principles of heaven. For the Spirit to recreate in us the character of our Lord we involve ourselves only in those things which will produce Christlike purity, health, and joy in our lives. This means that our amusement and entertainment should meet the highest standards of Christian taste and beauty. While recognizing cultural differences, our dress is to be simple, modest, and neat, befitting those whose true beauty does not consist of outward adornment but in the imperishable ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit. It also means that because our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, we are to care for them intelligently. Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures. Since alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and the irresponsible use of drugs and narcotics are harmful to our bodies, we are to abstain from them as well. Instead, we are to engage in whatever brings our thoughts and bodies into the discipline of Christ, who desires our wholesomeness, joy, and goodness. (Rom. 12:1, 2; 1 John 2:6; Eph. 5:1-21; Phil. 4:8; 2 Cor. 10:5; 6:14-7:1; 1 Peter 3:1-4; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; 10:31; Lev. 11:1-47; 3 John 2.)

 

[Avonia]

Stormy, I can't respond to this at the moment - I'm drinking a glass of the most fantastic wine.

I'll get back to it when I switch to herbal tea. To avoid lightening strikes and all.

 

[AzA]

here is is....

FB 22 is a well-written and sensible affirmation of wholesomeness for the most part.

I do not agree with its dietary "should abstains," however -- because in practice these "shoulds" become mandatory and assert the kind of force that "touch not/taste not" rules do not biblically have.

I don't eat so-called "unclean" foods, but not because I think I'm meeting a levitical requirement by avoiding them.

One of the reasons I can still eat meat at all is because I am in a city and dissociated from the meat source. When I cook it, I do not see Sarah the Hen. I see a drumstick. A hen doesn't look like food to me. And a lobster REALLY doesn't look like food to me whether it's breaded and deep fried or not. But vegetables look like food. So do beans and potatoes. Fish look pretty. I tend not to eat them. Morningstar and Boca Burger products are not food. They are food substitutes.

 

[AzA]

That said, I do not believe that God's activity in creation depends on creation's "cleansing" itself first.
I do understand that for the first few generations of Adventism, stripping the life of anything perceived to be suspect was a way to ready the last living generation for the coming of Christ.

 

[M-Class]

I notice that the belief says "abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures." This is another case where the wording almost sounds like a lawyer was involved... actually breaking the sentence apart:

1. There are indeed unclean foods identified in the Scriptures (whether or not they are valid today is another story)

2. The person is indeed agreeing to abstain from them.

The belief technically never actually says why the person is abstaining from the unclean foods! The belief never outright says that the unclean foods identified in scripture apply today or that them being in scripture is why they are abstained from.

Of course, in practice it is commonly taught that the Levitical food laws are binding today... and any Adventist reading the fundamentals knows that this is the intent and purpose for inserting that requirement in there. Some people aren't baptized until they give up pork... sigh.

My take:

The clean/unclean food laws are not binding today. Leviticus 20:22-26 says why the laws were established (to distinguish Jew from Gentile). In Acts 10 the purpose for the laws (Jew/Gentile separation) is clearly removed in a vision involving the very foods food in question. So, if the purpose for the laws has been removed, exactly why is it taught that the laws themselves are still in effect? What is their current purpose? In my opinion, Acts 10 is to be taken both literally and metaphorically.

Then there are all of the other verses for which so much time is spent explaining away... 1 Cor 10:23-27 (we are to eat what is put before us when witnessing), Rom 14:14, 1 Tim 4:4, Rom 14:20 (might as well just go ahead and read all of Romans 14).

It is true that "not all things are beneficial" and we should try to be healthy. [Insert you favorite facts about meat analogues and Little Debbies here]. At the same time that in no way means there is a law against certain foods that is still in effect. Scripture says quite the opposite!

 

[Avonia]

FB 22 is a well-written and sensible affirmation of wholesomeness for the most part.

I think that's well said. The unfortunate disconnect for me is that a majority of my exposure to unhealthful eating came from SDAs - boarding academy, colleges, potlucks, and the sort. Overall, those in my SDA circle live more poorly than those outside - but my frame of reference is a little skewed because I'm in a lot of "health nut" circles.

As I've said before, the Bible is a poor source of information on eating. We can know all we need to know from science, experience, and listening to our bodies.

How I eat well varies from how others eat well.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

We are called to be a godly people who think, feel, and act in harmony with the principles of heaven.

And yet our righteousness deeds have the value of filthy rags and there is only One who is good. All of these concepts simultaneously exist. Wisdom is found in the tension.

For the Spirit to recreate in us the character of our Lord we involve ourselves only in those things which will produce Christlike purity, health, and joy in our lives.

If this is true, then we probably aren't pursuing the great commission. Being in the world is messy business, even if we are not of it.

This means that our amusement and entertainment should meet the highest standards of Christian taste and beauty.

If this is true, at what point will we go where people are. Is Christianity about anything less than building relationships with a variety of people? How do we do this if we isolate ourselves by sharing in the most tasteful entertainment? Will we follow Mrs. White's advise on playing cards, tennis, going to theaters, etc., etc., etc. (and the list could really be quite long)? If so, how will we ever get to know people outside of our normal circle?

While recognizing cultural differences, our dress is to be simple, modest, and neat, befitting those whose true beauty does not consist of outward adornment but in the imperishable ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit.

How is this defined? Who defines it? Will we rely on man-made standards to determine what is "simple," "modest" and "neat?"

It also means that because our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, we are to care for them intelligently. Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible

I agree with this statement.

and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures.

OK. So Lao has shared with us that she divides the old covenant law into 3 categories: ceremonial, moral and financial. It appears that we have yet another division of old covenant law. Who decides this? Is the old covenant law binding or not? We keep getting so many different answers to this question and the answers keep changing to meet the circumstances.

Since alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and the irresponsible use of drugs and narcotics are harmful to our bodies, we are to abstain from them as well.

This is certainly a standard that some persons have placed on themselves. And in many circumstances it may be wise advise. However, it's not a biblical standard.

Instead, we are to engage in whatever brings our thoughts and bodies into the discipline of Christ, who desires our wholesomeness, joy, and goodness.

Is this a human-led exercise or a Spirit-led exercise?

BFA

 

[Laodicean]

​

Does SDAism support your division of the law into 3 categories, or is this simply your own private interpretation?

I don't know if SDAism supports my division of the law into more categories than ceremonial and moral. But I hardly think that my interpretation is private or unique. A law on health looks like a totally different animal than a ceremonial law. And a law on finances looks totally different than a law on health. So why the desire to lump all types of laws into a generic "law"?

Laodicean: It was given to all those who believe that the following text applies to them as well as to Israel
​

It's interesting to note that this is not what the passage actually says. You've merely offered your own extra-Biblical interpretation. No problem with that, I suppose. However, it is helpful to note that this is merely your opinion.

Of course it is merely my opinion. I'm not here to evangelize or to announce that I have the truth. I'm here on this forum to test my views and to see how they hold up against opposing SDA beliefs. This is an opportunity for me to either solidify or else rethink my ideas before heading back out into nonSDA territory.

Laodicean: "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16
​

If Paul intended this passage to confirm the ongoing application of the tithe, then it would follow that he must have also intended this passage to confirm the ongoing application of animal sacrifices or circumcision. However, Paul's letter to the Galatians does not seem to support this idea.

I don't think Paul declared his intentions when writing this passage. But if we accept his principle that all scripture is given for...instruction, among other tools, then, tithing is an instruction. And I think Paul would expect his readers to be able to discriminate between which instructions were for a time and a season, and which were for longer duration.

Laodicean: it's given to all those who believe that "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:29
​

Yes, when we read the entire context, we learn that the promise is given according to the promises made to Abraham and not according to the laws that were added 430 years after Abraham. By the way, we have no Biblical reference to tithing (and other old covenant laws) until approximately 430 years after Abraham.

BFA, are you Christ's? Yes or no?

If yes, then, according to this text, you are considered to be Abraham's seed and an heir to the promises, as much as any Jew is an heir. So what was written for the Jews is also written for you....unless you don't agree with the statement that if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed?

 

[Laodicean]

here is is....

22. Christian Behavior:

Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures. [/quote]

​

I come at this from a somewhat different angle. If we go by the letter of the 28 Fundamentals, instead of the spirit, then we will chow down with unthinking gusto on the scriptural "clean meats" as if there is no tomorrow. For me, the principle about clean and unclean meats is not just referring to the type of animals, but it is a principle with an emphasis on "clean." So if what used to be clean in Bible times is no longer clean today, or the healthiest way to eat now, then don't eat it, if it can be helped. For instance, red meat is no longer considered by many nonSDAS as a healthy article of food, and many choose not to eat it because of health reasons, not because of a Biblical injunction, or because there is compassion for the animals. Cancer has changed all that.

Since alcoholic beverages...

​

I think SDAs need to put forward a deeper reason for abstaining from alcoholic beverages, simply because texts can be found in the Bible that do support the drinking of alcoholic beverages.

I think the main reason why SDAs have taken the path of total abstinence instead of the judicious use of "a little wine for the stomach's sake" is because of the entire SDA philosophy that we are living in the end times, in the antitypical Day of Atonement. And during this time, we need to keep our minds clear and our judgment unimpaired.

What's more, Revelation describes the followers of Jesus as priests. Revelation 1:6 and Revelation 5:10.

Priests were to abstain from strong drink, to keep their minds unclouded and able to discern between good and evil. "Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: [it shall be] a statute for ever throughout your generations: And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean." Leviticus 10:9, 10.

Of course, if we don't believe that we are living in the last days just before Jesus' return (that's what "Adventist" stands for, after all) and if we don't believe that the Day of Atonement was the type of the time before the end, then none of this would make sense.

So, moving on.....

​

 

[Adventtruth]

BFA, are you Christ's? Yes or no?

If yes, then, according to this text, you are considered to be Abraham's seed and an heir to the promises, as much as any Jew is an heir. So what was written for the Jews is also written for you....unless you don't agree with the statement that if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed?

lol...boy oh boy!....

Gen 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


Do you understand those text? Or am I not reading you correctly?

AT

 

[Avonia]

And during this time, we need to keep our minds clear and our judgment unimpaired.

Fear impairs our judgment more than wine in the belly. By a lot.

 

[Laodicean]

lol...boy oh boy!....

Adventtruth, can you stop laughing long enough to share the understanding you have of these texts? If they throw new light on the text, "If you are Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed," such that it takes my understanding in a different direction, I want to hear of it.

Gen 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


Do you understand those text? Or am I not reading you correctly?

AT

Well, I thought I understood those texts. Maybe I don't. Care to elaborate on them for me?

And I don't know if you are reading me correctly or not because you have not said in what way you are reading me. Please clarify?

 

[Laodicean]

Fear impairs our judgment more than wine in the belly. By a lot.

Possibly so. I'd need to research what happens to the mind when adrenalin flows and the fight or flight response is triggered. Or what happens when a mind lives in a constant state of fear. You probably know more about that than I do since it seems that you have studied into the area of emotions quite a bit.

 

[Joe67]

This is an important witness.

Phil 3:17-19
17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

18(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:

19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) KJV

A three-fold revelation is not soon broken. First knowledge, then wisdom and finally understanding.

Joe

 

[Byfaithalone1]

BFA, are you Christ's? Yes or no?

Yes.

If yes, then, according to this text, you are considered to be Abraham's seed and an heir to the promises

Yes, an heir according to the promises made to Abraham and not according to the laws that were added 430 years after Abraham. In my mind, the context of the verse you cited makes this point quite clear.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Does a church have the authority to impose its will on another person on matters not described in the Bible? If so, how did it obtain that authority?

BFA

 

[StormyOne]

Does a church have the authority to impose its will on another person on matters not described in the Bible? If so, how did it obtain that authority?

BFA

People give the church too much control over their lives... The church has no authority UNLESS you choose to be a part of that church....

 

[Laodicean]

Laodicean: If yes, then, according to this text, you are considered to be Abraham's seed and an heir to the promises
​

Yes, an heir according to the promises made to Abraham and not according to the laws that were added 430 years after Abraham. In my mind, the context of the verse you cited makes this point quite clear.

BFA

emphasis here is on "seed" and "heirs." "Promise" is only incidental to the point I was trying to make.

If you are considered to be the seed of Abraham, then you are also considered a Jew, in Christ. And if a Jew, then instructions given to the Jews are also given to you who have been adopted into Christ's family.