Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

[LoveGodsWord]

I addressed one part, because you refused to accept what she stated in plain English. The rest is just how you make it work once you did that.

Sorry dear friend but I respectfully disagree with your claims here. I addressed everything you posted with scripture showing that the SOP from COL is in completed agreement with the scriptures contexts of Matthew 13:24-30; 37-43 in both post # 550 linked and post #579 linked. Your responses have only been to simply repeat yourself without addressing the scriptures contexts in the two linked posts that disagree with you. I take it from your response here you are no longer a Sabbath keeper?

 

[tall73]

Sorry dear friend but I respectfully disagree with your claims here. I addressed everything you posted with scripture showing that the SOP from COL is in completed agreement with the scriptures contexts of Matthew 13:24-30; 37-43 in both post # 550 linked and post #579 linked. Your responses have only been to simply repeat yourself without addressing the scriptures contexts in the two linked posts that disagree with you. I take it from your response here you are no longer a Sabbath keeper?

I am waiting for Bob's answer. I think it will help.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I addressed one part, because you refused to accept what she stated in plain English. The rest is just how you make it work once you did that.

I did read the rest. And we may have time to go over it. But I am waiting for Bob's response as I think that will help.

I guess we will agree to disagree. Your repeating yourself again without addressing the scriptures context shared with you in both post # 550 linked and post #579 linked.

 

[tall73]

Sorry dear friend we will agree to disagree. Your repeating yourself again without addressing the scriptures share with you that show why your claims are in error

I am still waiting for Bob's response, and I still think it will help.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I am still waiting for Bob's response, and I still think it will help.

Of course you are free to believe as you wish. I was just showing from the scriptures (post # 550 linked and post #579 linked) why I disagreed with the claims you were making in regards to Matthew 13:24-30; 37-43 and COL are in disagreement in your posts. We can of course agree to disagree. From what I can see @BobRyan is not in agreement so not sure why you would think waiting for Bob will help.

 

[tall73]

Of course you are free to believe as you wish. I was just showing from the scriptures why I disagreed with the claims you were making in your posts. We can agree to disagree. From what I can see @BobRyan is not in agreement so not sure why you would think waiting for Bob will help.

Because Bob raised some points I think are good to discuss. And if he is willing I want to discuss them. Because the answer may make addressing yours pointless if I wind up agreeing with Bob.

And we may have more to talk about, including with you, if I don't wind up agreeing with Bob. I think Bob has gotten to a key point.

 

[tall73]

Even a non response or refusal to answer is an answer in it self. I asked you a question in regards to the "seventh day Sabbath" if you still keep it or not. I gather you no longer do so.

You didn't even understand my statements as to the answer of that question the last time we talked. But if you like you can read the posts in this thread. We are part way through a discussion on the law.

I think the Sabbath is still the Sabbath. I think Sunday was never called a Sabbath.

However, I also think you don't listen much to what I say, or address my points, so I don't care to spend hours on it with you.

 

[tall73]

Or is it that I do listen to what you say and address your posts section by section and scripture by scripture and you do not like the answers I provide to your points?

No. I have had extremely lengthy discussions with many Adventists, some of whom I agreed with, and some of whom I did not. To their credit nearly every one of them does that, responding point by point with Scripture. That is one thing I love about discussing with them.

Many of them raised the same points you did theologically. However, they were more willing to listen to what I was saying, and address what I am saying.

You are free to post whatever you like in this conversation. But I am not engaging with you for now.

 

[BobRyan]

But there are not tares in the universal church.

There would never be "wheat with tares" using that idea - the entire parable would not work at all. However the reason "universal church" even comes up - is the fact that in the parable at the end of time - there is only "wheat and tares" - there is only "saved vs lost" - and the scope is still 'the world". That is the only detail in the parable that argues for universal church.

The part of the Church of Christ that has the problem of tares looking like wheat and fallible humans in leadership that might remove one by accident - is the formal organized local congregations. The part of the Church of Christ that does not have that problem - is the one where someone who does not even know the name of Christ has responded to the Holy Spirit and is saved (wheat), having no church leadership thinking they are members at all.

===

1. If there is a mechanism where people in the universal church "are automatically deleted" when they "fall from grace" Gal 5:4, and "added back in" when they repent and turn from rebellion - then it could never include a single lost person, and such a mechanism is not mentioned in the parable.

Instead of wheat joining and leaving when someone falls away, then repents - they are all together. Yet at the end of the parable only two groups exist in "The world" and that is the saved and the lost. And "all the lost" are not members of local churches at the end of time nor are "all the saved" members of local churches at the end of time.

2. At the second coming - you cannot argue that every single saved person is part of a formal outwardly organized and visible "local church" -- I suspect you will agree with this.

3. And the parable says that in the early stages the wheat and the tares are so close - that to uproot the tares is to risk losing wheat. Presumably this is "instruction" to members of the church - and not a chapter for Angels to read and get their marching orders. So then the initial situation does deal with real visible local churches - but the end point has "The world" divided up into saved vs lost - in the parable.

COL states:

Christ's servants are grieved as they see true and false believers mingled in the church. They long to do something to cleanse the church.

Indeed the chapter is instruction and insight for the church... it is not informing/instructing angels about what they are supposed to do at the 2nd coming or between now and the second coming.

The point is that "what makes this all inclusive" in both Matt 7 and Matt 13 is that at the end - there are only two groups... and "the world" is the scope for it according to the text. If we must take in to account "the world" then it is all the saved vs all the lost -- at the end of the parable.

======================

But in both Matt 7 and Matt 13 - the church is the focus - because in Matt 7 "Lord Lord did we not prophesy in your names" is what they say to Christ - so then "Christians".

And in Matt 13 - the challenge is that the tares look just like the wheat - can't tell them apart - which is not the case with the lost in the world that have no part in Christianity at all - no matter that they are most certainly included in the "two groups" at the end of time "saved" vs "lost"

 

[tall73]

There would never be "wheat with tares" using that idea - the entire parable would not work at all. However the reason "universal church" even comes up - is the fact that in the parable at the end of time - there is only "wheat and tares" - there is only "saved vs lost" - and the scope is still 'the world". That is the only detail in the parable that argues for universal church.

Ok, we agree that there would be no tares in the universal church. And we agree at the end there are wheat and tares, only saved vs lost.

And we agree the scope is the world. But I would suggest that the scope throughout is just that--universal in both cases--The lost and the saved seen as a totality.

And as you allude to in your response it is not in this case going into the nuance of individual decisions getting to that point, or of conversion from one to the other, but the idea of ripening and then the totality is revealed.

The part of the Church of Christ that has the problem of tares looking like wheat and fallible humans in leadership that might remove one by accident - is the formal organized local congregations.

Agreed.

The part of the Church of Christ that does not have that problem - is the one where someone who does not even know the name of Christ has responded to the Holy Spirit and is saved (wheat), having no church leadership thinking they are members at all.

Agreed.

1. If there is a mechanism where people in the universal church "are automatically deleted" when they "fall from grace" Gal 5:4, and "added back in" when they repent and turn from rebellion - then it could never include a single lost person, and such a mechanism is not mentioned in the parable.

Agreed. It all builds to that point, as you noted earlier the point which many of the parables build to, of the full realization of the kingdom.

Instead of wheat joining and leaving when someone falls away, then repents - they are all together. Yet at the end of the parable only two groups exist in "The world" and that is the saved and the lost. And "all the lost" are not members of local churches at the end of time nor are "all the saved" members of local churches at the end of time.

Very much agreed. Which is why I think it is hard to equate the kingdom of heaven and the church.

Jesus told many parables that described aspects of the kingdom. And they seem to include elements which cannot be just the universal church (existence of tares). Nor can it really be describing just the local churches. It is not just from the local churches that the wicked are removed and the saved are gathered. Moreover, the gospel of the kingdom went to many hearts (soils), not just those in the churches. And it will go to all nations before the end:

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

The field is the world, which is part of Christ's kingdom. It is the kingdom of heaven. And heaven rules over all, even over those who don't recognize it, but will soon when every knee bows. So after the second coming at the harvest the sons of the kingdom enter the kingdom. They are not the kingdom, but they enter it. They inherit it. The wicked will not inherit it.

But until that time sin contaminates the kingdom, and is destined for judgment. Even the title Son of Man evokes Daniel 7, where the dominion of the nations is given to the Son. He ascended to the Father and reigns at His right hand, waiting for all of His enemies to be made His footstool.

That is why I mentioned the Lord's prayer--Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven. The kingdom is already here. But on earth some resist until the harvest, and the judgment.

Therefore it is not the church that is the kingdom. Rather the saints ENTER the kingdom that was prepared for them:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

I Thessalonians 2:12 that you would walk worthy of God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory.

Hebrews 12: Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.

Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

2 Peter 1:11 for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”

2. At the second coming - you cannot argue that every single saved person is part of a formal outwardly organized and visible "local church" -- I suspect you will agree with this.

Of course, it is part of why I do not identify the kingdom with the local churches, or the universal church, but the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of Christ, where He reigns, and which will soon be cleansed of all sin and sinners. The people of that time knew what a kingdom was--A kingdom is a realm, with a King.

3. And the parable says that in the early stages the wheat and the tares are so close - that to uproot the tares is to risk losing wheat. Presumably this is "instruction" to members of the church - and not a chapter for Angels to read and get their marching orders. So then the initial situation does deal with real visible local churches - but the end point has "The world" divided up into saved vs lost - in the parable.

I think none of it is phrased as to the church. Rather it explains what you alluded to in one of your first posts (and which ironically Ellen White alluded to as well, and would have been better to focus on the whole time), which is why God allows evil to exist, and what the plan is to eradicate it. It explains why Satan was not immediately destroyed. It explains why evil is still here if God is loving. God planted good seed. The evil one planted bad. And at the harvest all will be made right.

That is why the ending says:

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!

They are IN the kingdom of their Father. By your definition they would BE the kingdom, but this is not the case.

It also makes sense of a group that He never explained:

27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”

It is not the people of the church He tells not to uproot them. It is the servants of the owner, of the kingdom. it is addressing the Great Controversy theme, which really should have been a home run for Ellen White.

The point is that "what makes this all inclusive" in both Matt 7 and Matt 13 is that at the end - there are only two groups... and "the world" is the scope for it according to the text. If we must take in to account "the world" then it is all the saved vs all the lost -- at the end of the parable.

That is precisely why the field is the world, not the church of Christ in the world. Jesus said the world, and He meant the world. And the world is part of the kingdom of heaven.

 

[tall73]

And in Matt 13 - the challenge is that the tares look just like the wheat - can't tell them apart - which is not the case with the lost in the world that have no part in Christianity at all - no matter that they are most certainly included in the "two groups" at the end of time "saved" vs "lost"

Sometimes we speak that way. But no. They saw the tares, which is what prompted the conversation. But to uproot them meant to uproot the good crops.

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? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”

 

[tall73]

Despite me having no credibility with you, yet I did tell you if I did not wind up agreeing with Bob I would respond to you on the rest. So I will.

Something Bob said made me think I may have misunderstood. However, as of yet I don't think I can agree with Bob.

Are you still keeping the Sabbath or has that stopped for now? Just wondering as last time I think we had a chat you were a Sabbath keeper right?

I was not keeping the Sabbath the last time we talked either. However, you seemed to not follow what i was saying regarding why, or how that fits with me still thinking the Sabbath is the same as it was and Sunday is not a Sabbath.

In contrast, most Adventists are able to listen enough to disagree, but still understand what I am saying. But we could hardly get to that point because you posted many scriptures about what you thought I was saying. Some times if you think i am off topic, it may be that I don't comprehend the topic the same way as you.

In the conversation with Bob so far I think we are making headway (though for now i am not sure if he saw my last post on that part). And he has comprehended what I said so far. And we have had areas of mostly agreement, though I know he will not agree with my total take on the Sabbath. But I want to see how he gets to his view. Because I have still not stopped studying on it, and if I am wrong i want to know. And it is possible I will agree with him. But I know all the texts for the Sabbath. I argued them here for years. What I am trying to get at is how it fits into the law for the gentiles, etc. I am already convinced that the Jewish believers kept the whole law, and that the law of the new covenant was the same as in the old. It was written on the heart. However, there are aspects of that law (circumcision, etc.) that the gentiles were not required to keep.

Bob also answers with Scripture, however, he tends to follow along better with what I am asking. I am not saying you intentionally do this, just that it is the result.

I just wanted to make a few comments on the above from the scriptures so I hope you do not mind me passing a comment or two, as I honestly do not see any difference in the scriptures to what Jesus said and the SOP comments from COL to be honest but let me show why.

Jesus says from Matthew 13:24-30; 37-43

Matthew 13:24-30 [24], Another parable put he forth to them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man which 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 blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.[27], So the servants of the householder came and said to him, Sir, did not you sow good seed in your field? from where then has it tares? [28], He said to them, An enemy has done this. The servants said to him, Will you then that we go and gather them up? [29], But he said, No; lest while you gather up the tares, you root up also the wheat with them.[30], Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather you

The interpretation is given here...

Matthew 13:37-43 [37], He answered and said to them, He that sows the good seed is the Son of man; [38], The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; [39], The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.[40], As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. [41], The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; [42], And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. [43], Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who has ears to hear, let him hear.

So let's do a recap here before going any further. What I think you have not picked up on here are these points from the scriptures...

1. Jesus is the one that sows the good seed (Word of God) - Matthew 13:37
2. He says that he sows the good seed in the field which represents the world - Matthew 13:38
3. The good seed (wheat) are the children of the kingdom - Matthew 13:38
4. The bad seed (tares or weeds) represent the children of the wicked one - Matthew 13:37
5. The enemy represents the devil who sowed the bad seed (tares or weeds) among the good seed (children of the kingdom) - Matthew 13:39
6. The harvest is the end of the world - Matthew 13:40

Unless I missed something I think we agree entirely up to this point.

7. The separation of the wheat and the tares that are growing together side by side in the field of the world are separated from out of His Kingdom that is in the world - Matthew 13:41

The kingdom is the kingdom of heaven. It is not limited to just in the world. The field is a part of His kingdom. And the children of the kingdom are not the kingdom, but they inherit the kingdom. See my response to Bob for more texts on that point if you wish.

So the scriptures can read like this...

Matthew 13:24-30 [24], Another parable put he forth to them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man which sowed good seed in his field {Jesus plants the Word of God in the world}:[25], But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way . [26], But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also {the children of God and the children from the devil are growing together side by side in his kingdom which is in the world}.[27], So the servants {Angels who do the reaping of the Harvest at the second coming} of the householder came and said to him, Sir, did not you sow good seed in your field? from where then has it tares? [28], He said to them, An enemy has done this. The servants said to him, Will you then that we go and gather them up? [29], But he said, No; lest while you gather up the tares, you root up also the wheat with them.[30], Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather you {The separation of the wheat and the tares that are growing together side by side in the field of the world are separated from out of His Kingdom that is in the world}

The kingdom is the kingdom of the Father. It is greater than the earth, not contained in the earth. The saints enter that kingdom.

So if we read the scriptures here we can see from their context agrees with the SOP from COL that we are discussing the "Kingdom of God" that is in the world. The wheat and the tares here are the children of God growing together with the children of the devil that are separated at the second coming (Matthew 13:41).

COL.
"The field," Christ said, "is the world." But we must understand this as signifying the church of Christ in the world. The parable is a description of that which pertains to the kingdom of God, His work of salvation of men; and this work is accomplished through the church. True, the Holy Spirit has gone out into all the world; everywhere it is moving upon the hearts of men; but it is in the church that we are to grow and ripen for the garner of God.

She is definitely talking about the church of Christ in the world. But that is not what Jesus said. He said the world. And the kingdom is not limited to the world.

Note: COL does not say that the field is not the world. It says that we must understand these scriptures as signifying the Church of Christ that is in the world.

She did not say "these Scriptures". You quoted what she said.

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

What is the antecedent of this? It is not "scriptures"

This agrees to the context of the scriptures as shown above where the scripture context state that the wheat (children of God) and the tares (children of the devil) grow together side by side and at the second coming that Children of the devil are separated out of Gods kingdom that is in the world.

It agrees wonderfully with the field being the world, and the world being part of God's kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of the Father. The kingdom the Son of Man inherits, which is everything. The King reigns over the whole kingdom.

I may not stay for much for this discussion as I see it as a lot of SOP taken from context to try and make it say things it is not saying and I think we have had these discussions before in the past. I am always as you know happy to discuss scripture and may share a few scriptures with some others here. I have also not followed the whole thread so please forgive me if some of these things I have listed here have already been discussed elsewhere.

Hope this is helpful.

I addressed it earlier, but the point was to see how Bob looked at the Scriptures from a sola scriptura point of view.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Despite me having no credibility with you, yet I did tell you if I did not wind up agreeing with Bob I would respond to you on the rest. So I will.

It's not that you have no credibility with me it is that I have learned from past experience and discussions with you that we have had elsewhere when I was especially careful to see if what you were claiming earlier in regards to the SOP was true or not was found when the contexts were added back in were all not true.

As posted earlier where you only part quoted what I was trying to share with you, when we first started having our discussions some time ago in the Sabbath and law forum in my judgement thread. We were discussing the scriptures in relation to this topic which I was enjoying. At that time I always listened very carefully to everything you posted and provided a response section by section with what I believed from the scriptures. It seemed at the time you did not like my responses there and you wanted to change the subject matter to SOP comments.

I continued listening to what you were saying even though some things were slightly off topic there and even spent some time looking up each statement you provided to see if what you were saying was correct or not only to find once the contexts were added there was no truth to the statements and claims you were making there. There you continued to provide more statements on different subject matters so I looked up each statement in context only to find the same pattern of pulling SOP comments out from context as some do the scriptures to try and make them say things they were not saying once context was added in.

At this point after spending so much time carefully reading everything you provided your statements and claims lost credibility for me personally as every time I investigated your claims in regards to the SOP I found them not to be true.

So please do not say to me I do not listen to you when I have. If I had not listened to you I would not have replied to everything you had said showing why I disagree with what you have posted from the scriptures.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I was not keeping the Sabbath the last time we talked either. However, you seemed to not follow what i was saying regarding why, or how that fits with me still thinking the Sabbath is the same as it was and Sunday is not a Sabbath.

This one is news to me as in our last discussions you lead me to believe you were still a Sabbath keeper. Happy to re-post the whole conversation here if it would be helpful. I appreciate you finally answering this question though. Thank you for being honest. May I ask now why you no longer keep the Sabbath?

 

[tall73]

This one is news to me as in our last discussions you lead me to believe you were still a Sabbath keeper. Happy to re-post the whole conversation here if it would be helpful. I appreciate you finally answering this question though. Thank you for being honest. May I ask now why you no longer keep the Sabbath?

I alluded to it a moment ago, and it is the reason I wanted to talk to Bob, because he has some views that are similar to mine on some points that is usually not the case with Adventists in regard to the law.

I do not see the Sabbath as law that by nature people know to do, or that it was required of gentiles. Nor do I see that all those who are sincerely follow God are convicted on the manner of the Sabbath.

Nor do I see how it is a part of the "moral law" though even that designation is something that has to be demonstrated.

When speaking with you before it became clear that we could not agree on some baselines that would further the discussion on that point. You tend to at times, though other times I am not sure, equate the moral law with the ten commandments.

I need to see that the law was ever divided into moral or ceremonial to start with, but we are talking law all of it was a sin to break for Israel.

It is plain that in Acts 21 the Jewish believers were zealous for the whole law. James was as well. Paul also, and Bob and I had already talked through all those points. We were starting to examine Romans 1-3 and what I am hoping to establish is how Bob comes to the conclusion that there is a moral law as distinguished from others. And how he sees the Sabbath as part of the moral law.

If the argument shows something that would convince me, then great.

I have argued both sides, and kept it and not kept it, and I still have not been able to reconcile every Scripture on both sides.

 

[tall73]

It's not that you have no credibility with me it is that I have learned from past experience and discussions with you that we have had elsewhere when I was especially careful to see if what you were claiming earlier in regards to the SOP was true or not was found when the contexts were added back in were all not true.

In other words, we did not agree. I realize you say it means I was lying. I see it as though I was not lying, obviously. I have seen your kind methods, and would suggest you change them.

If you grant we are both looking for truth, why do you then frame it that way?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

And it is possible I will agree with him. But I know all the texts for the Sabbath. I argued them here for years. What I am trying to get at is how it fits into the law for the gentiles, etc.

Well something we might want to consider is lying, stealing, committing adultery or using God's name in vain a law for gentiles? What is sin and what does the gospel save us from? What is your view on these questions?

I am already convinced that the Jewish believers kept the whole law, and that the law of the new covenant was the same as in the old. It was written on the heart. However, there are aspects of that law (circumcision, etc.) that the gentiles were not required to keep.

True, but keep in mind there was a transitional time after the death and resurrection of Jesus where the Jewish believers were still trying to learn from the scriptures what the true role of the Messiah was. Remember according to the scriptures they all thought Jesus was coming in fulfillment as a conquering king not Gods' lamb of sacrifice for the sins of the world. The two covenants are clearly outlined as you would not from Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-28 and Hebrews 10:1-21.

The kingdom is the kingdom of heaven. It is not limited to just in the world. The field is a part of His kingdom. And the children of the kingdom are not the kingdom, but they inherit the kingdom. See my response to Bob for more texts on that point if you wish. The kingdom is the kingdom of the Father. It is greater than the earth, not contained in the earth. The saints enter that kingdom. She is definitely talking about the church of Christ in the world. But that is not what Jesus said. He said the world. And the kingdom is not limited to the world.

Well for me this does not really address anything in my earlier posts and the scriptures provided there. I think the scriptures posted already in post # 550 linked and post #579 linked clearly show that the wheat (God's people) and tares (children of the devil) are growing together side by side in God's kingdom that is in the world (the Church) until the harvest which is the end of the world or the second coming. The separation takes place at the end of the world according to the scriptures showing we are talking here about professed believers which agrees with other scriptures posted earlier.

TARES GROWING TOGETHER WITH THE WHEAT IN THE CHURCH (from Matthew 13:24-30; 37-43)

Matthew 7:21-23 [21], Not every one that said to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven. [22], Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works? [23], And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

(Note here the second coming is the context of Matthew 7:21-23 the harvest is the end of the world - Matthew 13:30)

2 Peter 2:1-3 [1], But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privately shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. [2], And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. [3], And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingers not, and their damnation slumbers not.

Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30 [29], For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. [30], Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

None of the above are "unbelievers" outside of God's Church (God's Kingdom in the World) but those who are represented in the parable of Matthew 13:24-30; 37-43 as tares in God's kingdom in the world growing side by side with the wheat in the Church. What the tares have in common though with "unbelievers" in the world that they are indeed children of the devil and they sin (practice iniquity) or break God's commandments.

Therefore I believe the scripture application to God's kingdom is where ever Gods' people are (heaven or earth) which also gives meaning to God's Church on earth.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

In other words, we did not agree. I realize you say it means I was lying. I see it as though I was not lying, obviously. I have seen your kind methods, and would suggest you change them. If you grant we are both looking for truth, why do you then frame it that way?

Of course I do not believe you are lying and have never accused you of such things. Lying is intent to deceive according to the scriptures. I do not believe you are lying with intent to deceive and in fact you believe what you were saying so please do not get any misunderstandings as to what I have been sharing with you. I already posted in an earlier post to you that I do not judge you or anyone else here. Perhaps you have a misunderstanding here.

 

[tall73]

Of course I do not believe you are lying and have never accused you of such things. Lying is intent to deceive according to the scriptures. I do not believe you are lying with intent to deceive and in fact you believe what you were saying so please do not get any misunderstandings as to what I have been sharing with you. I already posted in an earlier post to you that I do not judge you or anyone else here. Perhaps you have a misunderstanding here.

If you state that you lose credibility because everything the person points out is not true, that is a judgment. You made that the first time we talked.

It is quite possible we are both misunderstanding. But if you wish people to examine, then you may have to accept there can be a lot of differences within that.

 

[tall73]

Well something we might want to consider is lying, stealing, committing adultery or using God's name in vain a law for gentiles? What is sin and what does the gospel save us from? What is your view on these questions?

Please review the thread posts you did not read yet. We are already considerably into the process. And we are to the point I think will be helpful. If you disagree with points in the meantime that either I or Bob made, feel free to state so.

True, but keep in mind there was a transitional time after the death and resurrection of Jesus where the Jewish believers were still trying to learn from the scriptures what the true role of the Messiah was. Remember according to the scriptures they all thought Jesus was coming in fulfillment as a conquering king not Gods' lamb of sacrifice for the sins of the world. The two covenants are clearly outlined as you would not from Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-28 and Hebrews 10:1-21.

Both covenants have the law written on the heart. The New Testament mentions more than the ten. It mentions laws from the other parts of the law.

Moreover, there continued to be Jewish believers keeping the entire law for centuries, as noted by Epiphanius, Jerome, as referenced by Justin Martyr, etc.

By Acts 21 we are quite a ways into things, and they still are drawing a distinction between the Jewish believers who are zealous for the law, and even those in the diaspora, and the gentiles.

Paul also participated in the sacrifices for those taking a vow, all of which is part of the whole law.

Jesus stated in Matthew 5 that nothing would pass from the law. And He quoted from more than the ten . All of this has been discussed already.