Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ 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?

Your response...

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.

So what is it that you believe your view in the same as Bob's that is different to how Adventists view 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.

Well is this not the same argument that we could make with having no other God's but the creator of Heaven and Earth? What about making idols and bowing down and worshiping them? Using God's name in vain? The Sabbath of God's 4th commandment are in the same category as these first four commandments which are our duty of love to Gods (Exodus 20:3-11)

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

For me the Sabbath of God's 4th commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) is very much a part of God's moral laws as it is a law that shows our duty of love to God and is a part of God's greatest commandments of loving God with all of our heart and soul of which Jesus says hangs all the law and the prophets (Matthew 22:36-40).

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.

Agreed. The 10 commandments are all moral laws of right doing to God and our fellow man.

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.

Well even the Jews know that there are ceremonial and moral laws in the Torah. I have provided a good article here from the Jewish Encyclopedia linked that might be helpful. I have a detailed scripture study on this and happy to post it if your interested just let me know?

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.

I can post more detail on my thoughts in this regards latter but for now so you know what I am coming from we need to keep in mind once again that after the death, and resurrection of Jesus the early disciples did not have all the answered in regards to the old and new covenant and what the changes were in this regards. These were progressive changes that happened over time. Also, Paul in his endeavors to reach both Jews and Gentiles became all things to all people so that he could win people to Christ. So even though he may have been of the view for example that circumcision was no longer a requirement for salvation for new Gentile believers he was very quick to point out to the Corinthians believers that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the Commandments of God in 1 Corinthians 7:19. Yet Paul had Timothy who was a Greek circumcised and agreed to make a vow that needed to have animal sacrifices yet we know He taught these laws for remission of sins and sin offerings were no longer requirements in Hebrews.

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.

This is something I believe we can never do and need to playfully seek God claiming his promises in John 16:13; John 14:26; John 8:31-36; 1 John 2:27. We all need to go to Jesus for this one and seek him through his Word.

 

[tall73]

Your response...

So what is it that you believe your view in the same as Bob's that is different to how Adventists view the law?

You could read the conversation with Bob.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

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.

We are told in the scriptures not to judge according to outward appearance but to judge righteous judgement. There is none righteous but God so it is through the Word of God we can know if something is true or not true according to the scriptures. We are told to try the Spirits to see if they are from God or not from God and we shall know them by their fruits all of which is shown through the scriptures. We should therefore not be afraid to come to the truth of Gods' Word because it is a light unto our path and a lamp unto our feet when the road we travel is dark and narrow. Jesus says many will not come to the truth of Gods Word because the love the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil and every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. We must seek to be therefore of those who do the truth and comes to the light, that our deeds may be made manifest, that they are worked in God.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

1. Who would be doing the "uprooting" before the second coming? Angels? or Church leaders? It looks like the servants prior to the second coming have to include church leaders. And they are fallible. It cannot be assumed that they have infinite wisdom to know wheat from tares. So they may see some unmistakable example of tares - but cannot be confident to get it right 100% of the time. A reason then for "waiting". To uproot the tares and be "guessing" a lot of the time "is to uproot good crops".

2. The tares are mingled with the wheat - they are in church with them, they are family and friends with them. They are in a place where no tares were sown by Christ and none are expected to appear. That's another firm way way this must be the "organized physical congregation" level. To uproot tares that really are tares - but are tied to the wheat - is also to uproot the wheat.

3. This local-church scenario does not deal with any of the tares in the world but not in the church.

4. It also does not deal with any of the wheat in the world - not knowing the name of Christ - and not in the church.

So the Church of Christ is "in the world" - it (the church) has its own set of wheat and tares where the tares look like the wheat in the early stages of coming up - and are mingled with the wheat so to remove one is to risk the other.

So also are the other set of wheat and tares "in the world" - the ones with no connection at all to a local congregation.

 

[tall73]

This is something I believe we can never do and need to playfully seek God claiming his promises in John 16:13; John 14:26; John 8:31-36; 1 John 2:27. We all need to go to Jesus for this one and seek him through his Word.

I didn't argue both sides at the same time. I was convinced on one side and then on the other, though I still cannot reconcile everything.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

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.

Agreed

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

Are the so called early Church fathers outside of the bible. Something I do not really seek to believe or follow. These have no credibility for me on a lot of topics when they disagree with scripture.

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.

Agreed and already mentioned in my previous post did you read my response to this?

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.

Agreed. Nothing is passed from the law of course but many of the prophetic shadow laws outlined in Hebrews have been fulfilled in the body of Christ to who they pointed to. These are not abolished but fulfilled in Christ and continued in him based on better promises (Hebrews 8:1-6) according to the scriptures.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑This is something I believe we can never do and need to playfully seek God claiming his promises in John 16:13; John 14:26; John 8:31-36; 1 John 2:27. We all need to go to Jesus for this one and seek him through his Word.

Your response

I didn't argue both sides at the same time. I was convinced on one side and then on the other, though I still cannot reconcile everything.

I truly believe what was posted to you above. We cannot know God's Word unless God is our guide and teacher. The good news is that he promises to be our guide and teachers if we from the heart sincerely want to know what His truth is according to John 16:13; John 7:17.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

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.

As posted earlier this is indeed true yet what we might need to consider is what has changed now from the old covenant to the new covenant. I think Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-28 and Hebrews 10:1-21 give the detail here for me.

 

[tall73]

1. Who would be doing the "uprooting" before the second coming? Angels? or Church leaders? It looks like the servants prior to the second coming have to include church leaders. And they are fallible.

You indicated they looked the same. I posted that to note that the parable does not state that, but states the opposite.

Now in the explanation the "church leaders" would be part of the sons of the kingdom. In other words, they are part of the good crops. The servants on the other hand are not identified, but are servants of the master. It certainly says nothing about the good crops uprooting the bad crops.

It cannot be assumed that they have infinite wisdom to know wheat from tares. So they may see some unmistakable example of tares - but cannot be confident to get it right 100% of the time. A reason then for "waiting". To uproot the tares and be "guessing" a lot of the time "is to uproot good crops".

They identified the tares. It didn't say they didn't know the tares. It said the good might be uprooted with them, before the ripening was complete, and before the harvest.

2. The tares are mingled with the wheat - they are in church with them, they are family and friends with them. They are in a place where no tares were sown by Christ and none are expected to appear.

They are in the world. Just as Christ says. God did not plant evil. The enemy did.

That's another firm way way this must be the "organized physical congregation" level. To uproot tares that really are tares - but are tied to the wheat - is also to uproot the wheat.

You haven't demonstrated it is the church at all. And if it is the congregational level then it cannot be all the wheat either. You have added something the text never said. You have added "the church."

The kingdom is the kingdom of heaven. It includes all the realms of the King, including earth. How could that fit into the earth?

3. This local-church scenario does not deal with any of the tares in the world but not in the church.

4. It also does not deal with any of the wheat in the world - not knowing the name of Christ - and not in the church.

It also was not ever mentioned, but you are reading it in because of Ellen White. The field is the world. Jesus said it. How is that hard?

So the Church of Christ is "in the world"

The church of Christ might be in the world, but is not mentioned in the parable or the explanation.

- it (the church) has its own set of wheat and tares where the tares look like the wheat in the early stages of coming up - and are mingled with the wheat so to remove one is to risk the other.

It does not say they look alike. Where did you get that ? If they looked alike then no one would know there were tares.

So also are the other set of wheat and tares "in the world" - the ones with no connection at all to a local congregation.

in the world was the only tares or wheat talked about. That is because all people are in the world.

And Ellen White added the "understanding" that it was about the church. Why can't you show me the word church in that parable?

 

[tall73]

So the Church of Christ is "in the world"

Did you read post 598?

 

[tall73]

Your response

I truly believe what was posted to you above. We cannot know God's Word unless God is our guide and teacher. The good news is that he promises to be our guide and teachers if we from the heart sincerely want to know what His truth is according to John 16:13; John 7:17.

So I am to understand you know everything about the Bible and can answer all questions?

 

[BobRyan]

You indicated they looked the same. I posted that to note that the parable does not state that, but states the opposite.

1.I said that the servants could see tares but that the servants before the 2nd coming had to be fallible human leaders in the church - unless this chapter is about instructing angels (which I think we both agree - it is not). So they have no 100% detector of tares at their disposal. I don't see any way around that.

2. As with a lot of discussions - 90% depends on agreeing on a set of terms and what they mean at the outset. I did not think to do that earlier so am taking a stab at it here.

The World: All the tares, all the wheat no matter if they are in or outside of a visible church.

Wheat are born again saints. No matter where you find them
Tares: are those not born again (though they may have been at one time) - they are the lost. No matter where you find them.

No tares are taken to heaven.

The Field: - as being the World, has the church of Christ in it because it has all the tares and all the wheat.

His (Christ's) Kingdom: has tares in it not just wheat - - according to vs 41 of Matt 13 - so it is the visible form of Christ's Church since:

• that is the only way that Christ's kingdom vs 41 has tares in it.
• The church leaders are instructed in some extreme cases to remove tares from it - as in Matt 18:15-18 and 1 Cor 5:3-13
• It is the only context where the disciples might be presumed to be "surprised" to find even one single tare - as the new Church is being launched and they as the leaders think it has only "good guys in it".
  • • The disciples did not even think Judas was a “tare” so as church leaders they are the ones that would have been surprised that even one tare got in.

Matt 13:41 The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,

1 Cor 5:12 For what business of mine is it to judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the evil person from among yourselves.

The tares in the church appear as Christians by definition. They are in the Christian church and even in the model you are using they have to be included as being among the tares that are in the world. However the ones in the church are the only ones at issue with the church leaders where they might have to deal with it as in 1 Cor 5:12-13 and Matt 18.

Bible commentary agreement with this view

Matthew Henry -
Verses 24-30
(also Matthew 13:36-43) . This parable represents the present and future state of the gospel church; Christ's care of it, the devil's enmity against it, the mixture there is in it of good and bad in this world, and the separation between them in the other world. So prone is fallen man to sin, that if the enemy sow the tares, he may go his way, they will spring up, and do hurt; whereas, when good seed is sown, it must be tended, watered, and fenced. The servants complained to their master; Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? No doubt he did; whatever is amiss in the church, we are sure it is not from Christ. Though gross transgressors, and such as openly oppose the gospel, ought to be separated from the society of the faithful, yet no human skill can make an exact separation. Those who oppose must not be cut off, but instructed, and that with meekness.

Adam Clarke's commentary on Matt 13
Verse 25
But while men slept - When the professors were lukewarm, and the pastors indolent, his enemy came and sowed tares, ζιζανια degenerate, or bastard wheat. The righteous and the wicked are often mingled in the visible Church. Every Christian society, how pure soever its principles may be, has its bastard wheat - those who bear a resemblance to the good, but whose hearts are not right with God. He who sows this bastard wheat among God's people is here styled God's enemy; and he may be considered also as a sower of them who permits them to be sown and to spring up through his negligence. Wo to the indolent pastors, who permit the souls under their care to be corrupted by error and sin! This word does not, I believe, occur in any of the Greek classics, nor in Dioscorides; but it may be seen in the Geoponica, or Greek writers De Re Rustica: see the edition by Niclas, vol. i. lib. ii. c. 43, where το ζιζανιον is said to be the same which the Greeks call αιρα ; and Florentinus, the author, says, Το ζιζανιον, το λεγομενον Αιρα, φθειρει νον σιτον, αρτοις δε μιγνυμενη, σκοτοι τους εσθιοντας . "Zizanion, which is called αιρα, darnel, injures the wheat; and, mixed in the bread, causes dimness of the eyes to those who eat of it." And the author might have added vertigo also. But this does not seem to be the grain to which our Lord alludes.

The word ζιζανια, zizania, which is here translated tares, and which should rather be translated bastard or degenerate wheat, is a Chaldee word; and its meaning must be sought in the rabbinical writers. In a treatise in the Mishna called Kelayim, which treats expressly on different kinds of seeds, the word זונים zunim, or זונין zunin, is used for bastard or degenerated wheat; that which was wholly a right seed in the beginning, but afterwards became degenerate - the ear not being so large, nor the grains in such quantity, as formerly, nor the corn so good in quality. In Psalm 144:13, the words זן אל מזן mizzan al zen, are translated all manner of store; but they properly signify, from species to species: might not the Chaldee word זונין zunin, and the Greek word ζιζανια, zizania, come from the psalmist's זנזן zanzan, which might have signified a mixture of grain of any kind, and be here used to point out the mixing bastard or degenerate wheat among good seed wheat? The Persic translator renders it telkh daneh, bitter grain; but it seems to signify merely degenerate wheat. This interpretation throws much light on the scope and design of the whole passage. Christ seems to refer, first, to the origin of evil. God sowed good seed in his field; made man in his own image and likeness: but the enemy, the devil, ( Matthew 13:39, corrupted this good seed, and caused it to degenerate. Secondly, he seems to refer to the state of the Jewish people: God had sowed them, at first, wholly a right seed, but now they were become utterly degenerate, and about to be plucked up and destroyed by the Roman armies, which were the angels or messengers of God's justice, whom he had commissioned to sweep these rebellious people from the face of the land. Thirdly, he seems to refer also to the state in which the world shall be found, when he comes to judge it. The righteous and the wicked shall be permitted to grow together, till God comes to make a full and final separation.

The Kingdom of Heaven: and "His" Christ's Kingdom are the same thing in my POV - but this may be where we differ.

The sons of the kingdom: In the parable they are "in the world" and they are just the good seed that God sowed - not the tares.

The Visible Church of Christ: What you are calling a local congregation. Having both wheat and tares

The invisible church of Christ: That part of the Church of Christ that has no connection with any visible church. (hence - invisible) Having only wheat.

The Universal Church: Two ways to define it.

A. Both the Visible church of Christ and the Invisible Church of Christ - So then it has both wheat and tares due to the Visible church of Christ - and has the wheat of the invisible church of Christ
B. Only the wheat in the visible church of Christ and in the world.​

Satan is the "god of this world" according to NT writers

John 18:36
36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

Luke 4
5 Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.”

Matt 4
8 Again, the devil *took Him along to a very high mountain and *showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; 9 and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” 10 Then Jesus *said to him, “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’”

2 Cor 4:4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they will not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.​

Servants of the owner: are those leaders in the church that have the ability to observe wheat and tares (even if not a 100% accurate view of wheat and tares) and could try to remove tares if they so choose.

By contrast - "Angels" at the end of the world - remove tares with 100% accuracy and no loss of wheat.

Given the definitions above.

It is not too difficult to see that the Visible church of Christ is in the world - because by definition the world includes ALL the wheat and ALL the tares. The visible church of Christ is by definition a subset of it.

 

[tall73]

Agreed

Are the so called early Church fathers outside of the bible. Something I do not really seek to believe or follow. These have no credibility for me on a lot of topics when they disagree with scripture.

How do they disagree with Scripture? I already showed you how they agree with Acts 21 on this point.

I did not cite them so you can consider the church fathers as inspired. I do not either. I cited them because they reference history that matches what we saw in the Scriptures.

Agreed and already mentioned in my previous post did you read my response to this?

Agreed. Nothing is passed from the law of course but many of the prophetic shadow laws outlined in Hebrews have been fulfilled in the body of Christ to who they pointed to. These are not abolished but fulfilled in Christ and continued in him based on better promises (Hebrews 8:1-6) according to the scriptures.[/QUOTE]

I did indeed read that. They were not unaware that Christ was the fulfillment. Yet they still kept them, even recognizing Him as the fulfillment. Now you say there was a transition period. But that was my point. Acts 21 is years after the Acts 15 council. They still hadn't changed it. And they didn't plan to. Because the question in Acts 15 was not whether they would stop keeping all the law.

 

[BobRyan]

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.



Agreed.



Agreed.



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.



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!”



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.



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.



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.

I will need a bit more time to look at this and see how it is impacted by the "defining terms" post #623 I just made --

 

[tall73]

1.I said that the servants could see tares but that the servants before the 2nd coming had to be fallible human leaders in the church - unless this chapter is about instructing angels (which I think we both agree - it is not). So they have no 100% detector of tares at their disposal. I don't see any way around that.

The purpose was to instruct His apostles, and the text says they understood it. If they understood what the Son of Man related to His servants who asked the question, who are not the same in the parable as the good crops, then they would understand that as well.

Now, you say I am to understand it as they can't tell them apart, but give no evidence.

You say I am supposed to accept the servants as church leaders. but the church leaders would already be part of the good crops.

How many things am I to "understand" with no warrant other than COL statement?

2. As with a lot of discussions the 90% depends on agreeing on a set of terms and what they mean at the outset. I did not think to do that earlier so am taking a stab at it here.

That would be helpful.

The World: All the tares, all the wheat no matter if they are in or outside of a visible church.

The field is the world. And yes all the wheat and tares were there.

The Visible Church of Christ: What you are calling a local congregation. Having both wheat and tares

Not mentioned in the parable, but part of the good crop, and part of the tares.

The invisible church of Christ: That part of the Church of Christ that has no connection with any visible church. (hence - invisible) Having only wheat.

Not mentioned in the parable, but part of the good crop.

The Universal Church: Two ways to define it.
A. Both the Visible church of Christ and the Invisible Church of Christ - So then it has both wheat and tares due to the Visible church of Christ - and has the wheat of the invisible church of Christ
B. Only the wheat in the visible church of Christ and in the world.

I prefer B, all the wheat, which is what is left. They then inherit the kingdom.

Given the definitions above.

It is not too difficult to see that the Visible church of Christ is in the world - because by definition the world includes ALL the wheat and ALL the tares. The visible church of Christ is by definition a subset of it.

I did not deny the visible church of Christ is in the world. But it is not mentioned in the parable.

 

[tall73]

I will need a bit more time to look at this and see how it is impacted by the "defining terms" post #623 I just made --

I think the larger issue is you equate the church in the world with the kingdom, and they are not the same in my view.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

So I am to understand you know everything about the Bible and can answer all questions?

No I never said that at all. What do you think the post you are quoting from was saying?

 

[tall73]

No I never said that at all. What do you think the post you are quoting from was saying?

I think we are seeking after the Lord, and He teaches us. However, I also think that He does not reveal everything at once. He did not even with His own disciples.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

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

This statement is a problem for me. Are you trying to argue that the wheat (Gods people or the children of the kingdom) are not God's Church in the world and are not a part of God's Kingdom? God's Kingdom according to the scriptures are everywhere Gods' people are and this of course includes the wheat (God's people) who are the Church on earth. According to Matthew 13 the wheat are Gods' people they are grown from the good seed (the Word - Luke 8:11) in the field which is the world. It is among these good seed and wheat (God's people) that the tares are sown not outside of the field where the wheat is growing. There are all professed believers that have received the Word of God. Those who did not receive the good seed (the Word) are not growing side by side with those of the wheat. Matthew 13 is quite specific to the wheat and tares growing together *Matthew 13:30 side by side until the harvest (second coming) at which time we see the tare uprooted in the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23. For me your argument does not make much sense here as the reason the wheat and tares grow together until the harvest is given in Matthew 13:29 where the servants (the angels) ask Jesus should they gather up the tares growing together along side the wheat (God's people) which Jesus responds, "Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather you together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. If the tares were people outside of the Church they are not growing together side by side with the wheat (God's people) and there is uprooting the tares would not uproot the wheat. Keep in mind also that Matthew 13 is not the kingdom of heaven it is a parable as to what the kingdom of heaven is likened unto.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I think we are seeking after the Lord, and He teaches us. However, I also think that He does not reveal everything at once. He did not even with His own disciples.

Agreed, like Jesus did not reveal everything to His disciples at once in the new covenant right? Which was what I was arguing earlier. Although, what I was trying to show in the post of mine is that we need to seek God to be our guide and teacher and we cannot know the truth of God's Word if we do not seek Jesus for His Spirit to be our guide and teacher which he promises to do for those who believe and obey His Word *Acts of the Apostles 5:29. We cannot expect God to guide us and teach us through His Spirit according to the scriptures however if we turn our backs on His Word and continue in known unrepentant sin *Proverbs 28:9; 13