Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

[tall73]

She never referred to herself as a prophetess but didn't reject other referring to her in that light.

Many state that she didn't refer to herself as a prophet. But note the last line where she explains why:

Some have stumbled over the fact that I said I did not claim to be a prophet and they have asked, Why is this?

I have had no claims to make, only that I am instructed that I am the Lord's messenger; that he called me in my youth to be his messenger, to receive his word, and to give a clear and decided message in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Early in my youth I was asked several times, Are you a prophet? I have ever responded, I am the Lord's messenger. I know that many have called me a prophet, but I have made no claim to this title. My Saviour declared me to be his messenger. "Your work," he instructed me, "is to bear my word. Strange things will arise, and in your youth I set you apart to bear the message to the erring ones, to carry the word before unbelievers, and with pen and voice to reprove from the Word actions that are not right. Exhort from the Word. I will make my Word open to you. It shall not be as a strange language. In the true eloquence of simplicity, with voice and pen, the messages that I give shall be heard from one who has never learned in the schools. My Spirit and my power shall be with you.

"Be not afraid of man, for my shield shall protect you. It is not you that speaketh: it is the Lord that giveth the messages of warning and reproof. Never deviate from the truth under any circumstances. Give the light I shall give you. The messages for these last days shall be written in books, and shall stand immortalized, to testify against those who have once rejoiced in the light, but who have been led to give it up because of the seductive influences of evil."

Why have I not claimed to be a prophet?--Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because my work includes much more than the word "prophet" signifies. {RH, July 26, 1906 par. 7}

 

[tall73]

So according to you, EG White purpose was to bring God to the world and to raise up a church to do the same...

Isn't that is Jesus Christ purpose to the world...(Emmanuel "God is with us") also that He will raise up His church on this earth..

I don't think his intent was to equate the two, clearly, especially since he clarified that in his comments.


But speaking of coincidences:

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days He speaks to them by the testimonies of His Spirit.{4T 147.4}

 

[pasifika]

A lot of OT prophets spoke of the coming Messiah - God still sent John to give last minute details right down to the point of letting everyone know that it was the carpenter from Nazareth standing near the Jordan that was the Messiah. And the sign of the dove was the Holy Spirit - the sign that God was pointing to Jesus as the Messiah.

Thanks Bob, but John was also prophesy as the one prepared the way for the Messiah in OT before he appeared.
So do you think there are any OT or NT prophecies or mentioned of a woman to continues the work of John the Baptist in our time?

 

[pasifika]

I don't think his intent was to equate the two, clearly, especially since he clarified that in his comments.


But speaking of coincidences:

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days He speaks to them by the testimonies of His Spirit.{4T 147.4}

Thanks..and we were also told to test all spirits since there are many false prophets and teachers will come and deceived many...1John4

 

[tall73]

Ellen White is one of the (if not the) most published women in the world. According to wikipedia, she wrote more than 80 books, 200 fliers, and 5000 periodical articles. There are over 60,000 manuscript pages of her writings. Her books are published in 133 languages. All of her work is available free online, for anyone to read. I don't think you can say she meant it just for the SDA church.

One criticism I have never seen leveled at Ellen White was lack of dedication. The amount of material, even with editors in the later days, was tremendous.

 

[tall73]

Maybe not - but it shows parts of it cease and while other parts continue on - and explains why both the Baptist Confession of Faith sectn 19 and the Westminster Confession of Faith Sectn 19 -- notice that detail , which of course Adventists also note.


True - all animal sacrifices were mere shadows of the future sacrifice of Christ.
So Moses and Elijah standing in glory with Christ in Matt 17 fully forgiven - was only and always due to the blood of Christ alone.

Correct.

Yes that is true.

Also true and as Acts 21 notes - they even have Paul "prove" to all observers that he is not telling Jews to abandon that.

Exactly. That is an issue that some Adventists do not agree on, so that speeds things up in the rest of the conversation.

Agreed. A Christian Jewish "tradition"/"teaching" arose which was not in the OT - namely that gentiles could not be saved unless they became Jews as in circumcised and keep all the festivals etc since as such they could have full participation in Passover etc.

Yes, I would agree the Bible did not state so directly. Instead it indicated if they wanted to they could be circumcised and keep the Passover, join the covenant, etc.

Agreed -- there were lots of things left out of Acts 15 - like "do not take God's name in vain"

agreed which may be why the Christian Jews were inventing that Acts 15:1 rule.

Well at least we agree on a fair amount before getting to the other aspects.

I don't know that that is the case because

1. in Acts 13, and 17 and 18 you see those gentiles in the synagogues "every Sabbath"
2. So also Cornelius in Acts 10 - yet Peter reacts to Cornelius as if he was not circumcised and the Christian Jews reacted to the gentiles Paul was converting in the synagogues as if they were not circumcised.
3. Timothy was clearly raised in the Jewish faith although a gentile 2 Tim 3:14-15 , 2 Tim 1:5 – and Acts 16:1-3 – and it is fact that he had not been circumcised
4. Gal 2:12 – contrasting gentile Christians with Jewish Christians. Only the Jews were “the party of the circumcision”
5. Acts 13:26 contrasts the “sons of Abraham’s family” vs “you who fear God” in the Synagogue.

A full convert/proselyte in non-Christian Judaism - is identified in Jewish documents as "the son of Abraham" or "the daughter of Sarah."


“if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover” to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. Gentiles are welcome at the Passover table – Ex 12:48-49

So I don't think it is at all certain that they were all being circumcised to become "God fearers". Rather the "God fearers" were gentiles that were not circumcised yet keeping the Sabbath and in the Synagogues.

(getting late will have to continue this later)

Yes, that is actually a good distinction. I would agree the God Fearers in Acts do not appear to be circumcised, or to be fully joined to the covenant. Yet as you mention, they are in the synagogue. And the case of Cornelius he was also observing the regular times of prayer, so likely integrating other aspects beyond those of synagogue attendance on Sabbath.

And I agree that the pharisees wanted to have them go to the next step.

Lots of agreement on this exchange! And good documentation on your part.

 

[tall73]

The Confessions of Faith simply use it as short hand for "that law which defines what sin is" and "that law which is written on the heart under the New Covenant" of Jer 31:31-34

I think we can now start discussing in more detail the law in the heart in the new covenant, and what that entails for gentiles.

To get us started, we referenced Romans 1:18-3:20 as indicating all alike are under sin. Within one part of that we see reference to the law written on the heart, in this case which mostly served to condemn because they did not do it (which sets up the need for the gospel in 3:21 onward).

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Here he speaks of how gentiles who do not have the written law nonetheless have an ability to comprehend the law by nature. Some carry it out, having the law written on their heart.

Do you see this as in some ways parallel to the law written on the heart of gentiles in the new covenant? Or do you see this as something else entirely?

In regards to Jewish believers we noted they continued with the whole law.

However, in regards to content of the law written on the heart for the gentiles spoken of here, and gentiles under the new covenant, is there similarity?

 

[RBPerry]

Understood.

Just so you know, you can make your profile private to limit searching your posts. But it would still show new threads on the front page.

Since they are here now, if you wish you can end the thread. You would contact a moderator. As the initiator of a thread you may ask that it be closed. However, these conversations happen all day-every-day in the law and Sabbath section anyway, so I don't think in the grand scheme you are starting conversations that wouldn't happen naturally. You just are in this one.

Personally I hope you don't close it, as there are some strands of conversation I am finding helpful, but it is your call.

No, I won't close it. I have great respect for you and Bob and your opinions. Although I may disagree, you are both well versed. I just will attempt to not add fuel to the fire.
God Bless you all.

 

[tall73]

No, I won't close it. I have great respect for you and Bob and your opinions. Although I may disagree, you are both well versed. I just will attempt to not add fuel to the fire.
God Bless you all.

Understood!

I have talked to Bob on a number of issues, particularly the investigative judgment, I think even on other Adventist forums some time back. But I don't know if we ever had a complete discussion on the law topic, so that has been enjoyable.

God bless!

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Rom 3:19-20 says it defines what sin is. So also does 1 John 3:4 and Paul makes the case in Eph 6:1-2 that the law we are talking about "includes" the one where in that unit "the first commandment with a promise" is the 5th commandment.

Just a note that I am working through these in order. I know you are already replying to my last reply, which I will try to address in order to avoid cross talk.

Yes, by the law comes knowledge of sin. And did you notice that similar to Paul's use of the muzzling an ox comment, he applies the commandment regarding honoring father and mother, but subtly re-casts the promise to apply to gentile believers in their context?

Exodus 20:12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

Exo 20:12 τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα, ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται, καὶ ἵνα μακροχρόνιος γένῃ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τῆς ἀγαθῆς, ἧς κύριος ὁ θεός σου δίδωσίν σοι.

Ephesians 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: 3 “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”

The commandment focuses on their dwelling long in the land the Lord gave them, the promised land.

He applies it to gentiles living long on the earth in their respective situation.

I was just making the case that the "unit of ten" is the only unit of Law where it can be said that "the first commandment with a promise" is the one to honor parents (the 5th commandment as we count them) - to show that the TEN "are included" in that Law written on the heart under the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-34.

I think we already agreed that the Ten are in included in that so here again it appears to me that "Agreed" is the response for it.

And this another case where the argument made in the two Confessions of faith I listed appears to be agreed on in this regard. (Unless I am missing something here).

 

[BobRyan]

But the case makes itself!

"The field," Christ said, "is the world." But we must understand this as signifying the church of Christ in the world.

She quotes Christ saying the field is the world. She then says it means something else.

so looking at your selected example --
Christ's Object Lessons, by Ellen G. White. Chapter 4: Tares

And comparing it to Matt 13

Matt 13 actually says this - NKJV

24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field?

And ends like this

38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom ...
41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

Ellen white said "But we must understand this as signifying the church of Christ in the world." After drawing the reader's attention to the fact that in the text Chris said "the field is the world"

We have many references in Matt 13 that it is Christ's field , His Kingdom and she says we should "understand" it as "the church of Christ IN the WORLD", not "we should change the text to say..."

So in Matt 13 the text has

“He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom " -- . That Matt 13 verbatim quote of Christ puts the good seeds as the sons of the kingdom IN the World.

Yet Ellen White says to 'understand' this term “field” as the -- "the church of Christ IN the WORLD"

So in Matt 13 the text has
“He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom " -- . That Matt 13 verbatim quote of Christ puts the good seeds as the sons of the kingdom IN the World. Ellen White says to 'understand' this as the -- "the church of Christ IN the WORLD"

You say "the case makes itself". ??

I will grant you this - the significance of the fine point you highlight appears to be somewhat difficult to detect given "all the details" in Matt 13 for that parable. And arguably "That" case makes itself.

By way of context and reference - let's try a synoptic Gospel comparison of Matt 5 with Luke 7 in the case of the sermon on the mount where the synoptic gospels are reporting on the exact same talk by Christ - there we have a lot of variance in how they describe even the same sentence as compared to the variance so difficult appreciate in the example you are giving. I am puzzled as to how this rises to the surface as being ahead of what I presume would be a list of much more glaring/obvious examples.

Another good reason why I prefer to stick with doctrine and match it to the Bible. In the example above we are not talking about doctrine at all. There is no "doctrine" about "good seeds as the sons of the kingdom IN the World" vs "the church of Christ IN the WORLD". I have to assume your issues with the SDA set of doctrines went far beyond this kind of thing.

 

[BobRyan]

I think we can now start discussing in more detail the law in the heart in the new covenant, and what that entails for gentiles.

To get us started, we referenced Romans 1:18-3:20 as indicating all alike are under sin. Within one part of that we see reference to the law written on the heart, in this case which mostly served to condemn because they did not do it (which sets up the need for the gospel in 3:21 onward).

1. I don't see any place where "law written on the heart" has any pathway other than the New Birth, New Covenant of Jer 31:31-4. There is no "other way" that happens that I find in scripture.

2. I don't see any place where the "Law written on the heart" in the case of the born again New Covenant Christian "serves only to condemn".

You stopped at Rom 3:20 ... but Rom 3:31 shows the "law written on the heart" application for the born-again person under the Jer 31:31-34 New Covenant - and that is "what then do we abolish the Law by faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law"

By contrast - the Law "external" and merely on tables of stone- not written on the heart (which is the condition of the lost person) -- only serves to condemn as we see in Rom 3:19-20 and in Gal 3.

Rom 2:13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Here we see the case of born-again saved gentiles having the New Covenant benefit of the "Law written on the heart" having success in the Rom 2:4-16 future Gospel Judgment.

And Rom 2 explains how that gets written there under that New Covenant - which is this way -

Rom 2:25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Rom 8:4
He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.

 

[tall73]

I will get to the content of the post shortly, but wanted to address this first.

By way of context and reference - let's try a synoptic Gospel comparison of Matt 5 with Luke 7 in the case of the sermon on the mount where the synoptic gospels are reporting on the exact same talk by Christ - there we have a lot of variance in how they describe even the same sentence as compared to the variance so difficult appreciate in the example you are giving

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. Are you indicating that Ellen White, being inspired, had a different account of the events described in Matthew?

I agree there is often variance in phrasing of gospel accounts. I am not sure that really is parallel to what is happening here. But feel free to lead out in that if you want us to try it.

I am puzzled as to how this rises to the surface as being ahead of what I presume would be a list of much more glaring/obvious examples.

Did you forget why I proposed it? It is not at the top of my list. I proposed it to see how you interpret Scripture and how that relates to how you interpret Ellen White. And some folks in the thread have apparently commented on that point.

Another good reason why I prefer to stick with doctrine and match it to the Bible. In the example above we are not talking about doctrine at all. There is no "doctrine" about "good seeds as the sons of the kingdom IN the World" vs "the church of Christ IN the WORLD". I have to assume your issues with the SDA set of doctrines went far beyond this kind of thing.

You don't have to guess. I already told you I left over the IJ, which is doctrinal. In fact, it is the only completely distinctive teaching of Seventh-day Adventists.

However, when proposing this exercise I also expressly said I was not looking for something that dealt with hot-button doctrinal topics for Seventh-day Adventists. I want to see how you relate to a text that is not about Adventist doctrine, and how that view responds to that of Ellen White.

 

[tall73]

so looking at your selected example --
Christ's Object Lessons, by Ellen G. White. Chapter 4: Tares

And comparing it to Matt 13

Matt 13 actually says this - NKJV

24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field?

And ends like this

38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom ...
41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

Ellen white said "But we must understand this as signifying the church of Christ in the world." After drawing the reader's attention to the fact that in the text Chris said "the field is the world"

We have many references in Matt 13 that it is Christ's field , His Kingdom and she says we should "understand" it as "the church of Christ IN the WORLD", not "we should change the text to say..."

Well we are glad she didn't propose penciling in a few words in Scripture! But she does take Jesus' explanation, intentionally made simple for His disciples, and says we should not take what Jesus said with the face value meaning in mind. She says we must understand it not as the world, but as the church of Christ in the world.

Are those the same?

world

church of Christ in the world

That Matt 13 verbatim quote of Christ puts the good seeds as the sons of the kingdom IN the World. Ellen White says to 'understand' this as the -- "the church of Christ IN the WORLD"

No, she says the field is the church in the world. Then she goes on to talk about the righteous and wicked who are in the church.

Jesus defined the field as the world. She took a subset of the world and said it was to be understood as the field.

 

[BobRyan]

No, she says the field is the church in the world.

the text itself refers to it as "Kingdom of heaven", and Christ's field as "your field", Christ's kingdom"

- and that C.O.L chapter uses the term "Church of Christ".

the text says " and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend"

So the tares were in "His kingdom" at the end are removed from it.

Whether one "understands" this as meaning that the tares were "in the Church of Christ" and then are removed or not - the meaning is there where some will not see a hair's breadth difference "in understanding" at that point.

Matt 13 actually says this - NKJV

24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field?

38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom ...
41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

Ellen white said "But we must understand this as signifying the church of Christ in the world."

Tares are taking out of "His Kingdom" according to vs 41 Matt 13

The parable has "sons of the Kingdom" in the world
And the C.O.L chapter has "Church of Christ in the world"

 

[tall73]

15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Here we see the case of born-again saved gentiles having the New Covenant benefit of the "Law written on the heart" having success in the Rom 2:4-16 future Gospel Judgment.

Ok, I think this will be a good conversation, with a lot to look at. I am going to take some time to make sure I understand all that you said in the larger post. But I wanted to clarify one point for now. You mention that this is a case of the born-again, saved, gentile having the New Covenant Benefit of the law written on the heart. And you mention success in the judgment.

they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them

You mentioned success. What do you make of the part that says accusing them? And are some who have the law written on the heart accused?

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus defined the field as the world. She took a subset of the world and said it was to be understood as the field.

Both Matthew 7 (wide road vs narrow road)
and Matt 13 (wheat and tares)

Both illustrations by Christ - have an end point at the end of the world - with the wicked in one group and all the saints in another. "Christ's kingdom" has to be a reference to the church of Christ but according to Matt 13 there are tares in "Christ's kingdom" that need to be removed.

And in Matt 7 "did we not prophesy in our name" is said of those on the wide road. That term could only apply to someone in church -- yet at the end we have only the saved vs the lost - wide road vs narrow road for all mankind, the entire world as the full scope.

Jesus defined the field as the world. She took a subset of the world and said it was to be understood as the field.

In both Matt 7 and Matt 13 the end point has just two groups for the entire world - the saved and the lost.

 

[tall73]

the text says " and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend"

Yes, out of His kingdom.

So the tares were in "His kingdom" at the end are removed from it.

Agreed!

Whether one "understands" this as meaning that the tares were "in the Church of Christ" and then are removed or not

Why would we "understand" this as meaning the tares were only in the church?

They were in His kingdom, which we agree upon. They were in His field. The field is the world.

This would include the church and beyond the church.

Tares are taking out of "His Kingdom" according to vs 41 Matt 13

Agreed!

The parable has "sons of the Kingdom" in the world
And the C.O.L chapter has "Church of Christ in the world"

The sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one are all in the world. People are in the world. And when the parable is ended His kingdom is cleansed of weeds. The sons of the wicked ones are not longer in the world. They are burned.

But she limits it only to discussing the church in the world. And that is different.

 

[RBPerry]

Understood!

I have talked to Bob on a number of issues, particularly the investigative judgment, I think even on other Adventist forums some time back. But I don't know if we ever had a complete discussion on the law topic, so that has been enjoyable.

God bless!

That was just one of the few things that drove me away, in reality it makes no sense. Miller had to come up with something to cover his 1844 false prediction so he came up with investigative judgement and Mrs. White jumped on the band wagon. Here again to me it isn't a great big issue for the simple reason I do believe our lives will be evaluated after death. The idea that no one was actually judged based on the hall of records information prior to 1844 makes absolutely no sense.

They should read some of Edward Casey's readings, falls along somewhat the same line. He claimed to have access to the hall of records, one difference is all of Casey's predictions, and especially medical advice was accurate, pretty good for a man with only a grammar school education.

What about near death experiences where people have a face to face encounter with Jesus. I have read a couple hundred testimonies from both Christians and atheist, funny thing was the atheist didn't remain atheist. Almost all of them had a life review, most did not want to return. Some were given a choice others weren't. Some experienced hell and the reality of it.

None of them came back and jumped on the Saturday sabbath, dietary issues, and yes most had a life review.

Want another eye opener, read the apocrypha of Paul, that will get you thinking.

Reality is there is so much we just don't fully understand. We know who put the original canon together and we know there were a lot of fingers in the pot. What happened to all the other letters and writing about Christ, they don't want to talk about that.

Shoot, I already stirred the pot, no need to stop now.

Here again, passages are taken out of context.

 

[BobRyan]

I will get to the content of the post shortly, but wanted to address this first.

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. Are you indicating that Ellen White, being inspired, had a different account of the events described in Matthew?

No I am saying "we must understand that..." and then we get "Church of Christ in the world" is the same as "sons of the kingdom in the world" it is not "different" from what I can see. And you have not posted something showing how "sons of the kingdom in the world" would differ substantively from "Church of Christ in the world" so far anyway.

Did you forget why I proposed it? It is not at the top of my list. I proposed it to see how you interpret Scripture and how that relates to how you interpret Ellen White.

Ok fair enough - in that case it appears to me that "Church of Christ in the world" is the same as "sons of the kingdom in the world"


And some folks in the thread have apparently commented on that point.

You don't have to guess. I already told you I left over the IJ, which is doctrinal. In fact, it is the only completely distinctive teaching of Seventh-day Adventists.

ok agreed on both counts it is doctrinal and distinctive for the Adventist church.

However, when proposing this exercise I also expressly said I was not looking for something that dealt with hot-button doctrinal topics for Seventh-day Adventists. I want to see how you relate to a text that is not about Adventist doctrine, and how that view responds to that of Ellen White.

Well I prefer the doctrinal discussion over the non-doctrinal issue of whether "Church of Christ in the world" is the same as "sons of the kingdom in the world" in terms of "how we understand it". That gets down to a level of parsing at a hair's breadth that I am not able to see as substantive because the statement was "we are to understand" that this is about "Church of Christ in the world" - and the text clearly points to ""sons of the kingdom in the world".