Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

[tall73]

The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment John 16. So that is all convicted, and not just saints. So yes I agree that infinite power and knowledge touches all of mankind and they have a tinge of conscience having "at least some" understanding of what is right vs wrong.

Agreed. And that conviction, and the evidence available to all is why the wicked have no excuse.

So now let's look at what the Bible says is the reason that all humans don't agree on that standard of right vs wrong.

================================
Christ said that some people do not have enough access to truth (are blind) to be convicted on every point of truth, and they have no sin in that regard.

John 9
40 Those who were with Him from the Pharisees heard these things and said to Him, “We are not blind too, are we?” 41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now that you maintain, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.

James 4:17 "to him who KNOWs to do right..."

Agreed.

=================================
Paul says some are "seared in the conscience" so while at one time they knew enough to fully distinguish between truth and error they no longer have that ability.

1 Tim 4:1-2 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron

He says they "perish" in the end "because they did not receive a love of the Truth so as to be saved"

2 Thess 2: whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved.

Agreed.

Convicting by the Holy Spirit "convicting the world of sin" is not the same as the New Covenant benefit of a new heart.

That conviction is not the Law of God written on the heart. So while Hitler would have been convicted of sin at some level - he did not have the law of God written on the heart since that only happens for a born-again saint under the New Covenant.

It is only the born-again that can be "obedient from the heart" Rom 7

================ New Covenant: Law written on the heart

In Rom 2 "they show" the law of God written on the heart as they walk in obedience which Romans 8:4-11 says is only the case with saints.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though 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 testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them

So also with those who do have a Bible and are born again - the Law of God written on the heart under the New Covenant - and their conscience does help to guide them to feel convicted when they do wrong.

OK, we agree on all that. Thank you.

I wanted to make sure you did not see any arguments from Romans 2 about the specific content of the law for gentiles.

Now, we are back then to the point of how you determine what is required of gentiles under the new covenant.

How do you know what divisions to make?

We have clear texts on circumcision. So we agree there.

We have the Acts council which does not require circumcision or the whole law of Moses. Yet we have a great deal of the law of Moses for which moral principles do apply, and you have postulated a moral law.

So how do you go about deciding?

 

[tall73]

Yes that much is agreed - all tares no matter where they are - are accounted for and all the wheat is accounted for - no matter where it is found.

So then why all the discussion about the visible church of God, false believers in the church, etc. when that is not in view here?

The wheat are wheat all the way through, from good seed, to the barn.

The tares are tares all the way through, from planting to burning.

There is no discussion of having to weed through who is who. The servants can tell who is who. The owner can tell who is who. They wait until the harvest soas to not uproot the wheat.

As you noted before there is also no changing of sides pictures. It is an overview of the two camps, one who are God's, and one who are of the evil one.

This is why when Jesus said the field is the world, it makes no sense to say "but we must understand it to signify the church of God in the world.

The field is the whole world, with true sinners, and true saints."

 

[tall73]

Wheat are born again saints. No matter where you find them
Tares are those not born again - they are the lost. No matter where you find them.

So based on this you could essentially agree to both the pre and post harvest views here?

In other words, your only difference seems to be who the servants are. Although that is a huge difference. Because it shifts the whole focus on God's not destroying the wicked immediately, to what the church does with the wicked.

 

[BobRyan]

The visible church of Christ on Earth - is the one that has wheat and tares where the person is clearly a Christian in terms of their faith and they belong to some congregation of at least some sort.

And is this the only group you see referenced in the parable? No invisible church, no wicked outside the church, etc.?

As the end - you have all wheat and all tares. But the parable only deals with people trying to decide what to do about the tares they see growing with the wheat, and whether or not to remove the tares.

that only fits the visible church scenario - since no one seriously considers removing all the lost (tares) from the world - in fact that lost in the world are the very ones being evangelized.

The other detail that points to this - is that they only "expected" wheat ... but in the lost world one would assume people would "expect" a few lost people and would not be surprised that some lost people are there.

 

[BobRyan]

And the idea of a kingdom on earth is part of what is making this so complicated to discuss. It is not stated in the parable. In the parable the field is the world. The world is obviously part of the kingdom of God, as is heaven, as is all creation.

In every case (that I can think of ) where we have parables of the form - "the Kingdom of heaven is like" -- it is strictly about events on Earth, and only at the end deals with the 2nd coming.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Yes that much is agreed - all tares no matter where they are - are accounted for and all the wheat is accounted for - no matter where it is found.

So then why all the discussion about the visible church of God, false believers in the church, etc. when that is not in view here?

Tares: In the visible church of Christ and in the world. (the wicked lost)
Wheat: In the visible church of Christ and in the world. (the saved, born again saints)

As the end of the parable it is just those two groups - (no matter where you find them).

But all during the parable the focus appears to be in the visible church of Christ.

The wheat are wheat all the way through, from good seed, to the barn.

The tares are tares all the way through, from planting to burning.

Every parable or illustration will break down at some fine level of detail. In Matt 13 the first parable (sower and the seed) has an example of the various kinds of soil - the rocky ground "springs to life" and accepts the gospel with joy - only to fall back and be lost again.

 

[tall73]

The visible church of Christ on Earth - is the one that has wheat and tares where the person is clearly a Christian in terms of their faith and they belong to some congregation of at least some sort.

You can't keep changing definitions. You said before all the righteous and all the sinners were in view at the end, unless I misunderstand.

Well the same wheat are wheat in the beginning and end.

The same tares are tares at the beginning and the end.

So is it only dealing with the visible church (I don't see how). Or is it only dealing with all the righteous?

As the end - you have all wheat and all tares. But the parable only deals with people trying to decide what to do about the tares they see growing with the wheat, and whether or not to remove the tares.

You can't say at the end you have them but not the beginning. They are the same all the way through.

Nor is it obvious they are people for the many reasons I listed before.

that only fits the visible church scenario - since no one seriously considers removing all the lost (tares) from the world - in fact that lost in the world are the very ones being evangelized.

It would seem that the person who has to explain why not to remove all sinners immediately instead of at the harvest is the One who did--the land owner.

Now if the parable only applies to the visible church, why are you saying the wheat at the end are all true believers? Or are you?

If it is only viewing the visible church then the wheat and tares are only a subset of all sinners and all saints.

The other detail that points to this - is that they only "expected" wheat ... but in the lost world one would assume people would "expect" a few lost people and would not be surprised that some lost people are there.

Not if the one who planted the world was God. They would not expect sin because everything He made is good.

The enemy introduced sin.

 

[BobRyan]

There is no discussion of having to weed through who is who. The servants can tell who is who. The owner can tell who is who. They wait until the harvest so as to not uproot the wheat.

The parable does not explain why removing the tares before the 2nd coming would be a problem for the wheat. And while it says the servants can see tares - I don't think we can extend that to 100% accuracy all tares known. I think the servants are humans here - just as they are humans in Luke 12.

As you noted before there is also no changing of sides pictures. It is an overview of the two camps, one who are God's, and one who are of the evil one.

The discussion about fearing the loss of wheat is presumably about wheat becoming tares not simply vaporizing.

This is why when Jesus said the field is the world, it makes no sense to say "but we must understand it to signify the church of God in the world.

The field is the whole world, with true sinners, and true saints."

I don't think there is any discussion in the parable about removing tares from the world or thinking that that only saints are in the world and no one was expecting a lost person to be in the world. That would only be plausible inside the church.

 

[tall73]

In every case (that I can think of ) where we have parables of the form - "the Kingdom of heaven is like" -- it is strictly about events on Earth, and only at the end deals with the 2nd coming.

It is called the kingdom of Heaven (not earth) for a reason.

It's King is in heaven.

And the King, harvesters, etc. are not in the world. They are not plants. They are interacting with the world.

Clearly the world is involved in all of them, because the world is part of His kingdom, and the Sons of the kingdom, destined to be part of it, are in the world.

But when you say the kingdom of Christ on earth, either all of the earth is part of God's kingdom, or you are talking only about a sub-set of the earth. You have to choose or else we can't compare views.

Is the kingdom of Christ on earth (not mentioned as such in the parable) in view? Or is the whole earth in view?

To me it is clearly the whole earth. That is the field. That is where the wicked and righteous are at--all of them.

 

[tall73]

The parable does not explain why removing the tares before the 2nd coming would be a problem for the wheat.

This is completely untrue. It says you could uproot them.

If two plants are growing, and you uproot one, the roots of that one might pull up the other. That is the reason stated. Agree?

 

[BobRyan]

So based on this you could essentially agree to both the pre and post harvest views here?

In other words, your only difference seems to be who the servants are. Although that is a huge difference. Because it shifts the whole focus on God's not destroying the wicked immediately, to what the church does with the wicked.

I agree with the post-harvest diagram.

I also agree that at the second coming both wheat and tares are in the world and the harvest takes all the wheat and burns all the tares.

But the condition "of not expecting any tares and surprised to find even one" is not true of the world in general - there we would expect to have lost people present. It is only in the context of the visible church of Christ on Earth where one might have supposed everyone was planted there by God and all are saints only to be surprised to find some lost people in that group.

 

[tall73]

The discussion about fearing the loss of wheat is presumably about wheat becoming tares not simply vaporizing.

Nothing is mentioned once in the parable about wheat becoming tares. The danger is referenced--uprooting.

I don't think there is any discussion in the parable about removing tares from the world or thinking that that only saints are in the world and no one was expecting a lost person to be in the world. That would only be plausible inside the church.

This is becoming rather strange. There is no mention about removing tares from the world?

Jesus says the field is the world. The servants ask if they should pull them up, remove them from the world.

How can you say that?

 

[BobRyan]

This is completely untrue. It says you could uproot them.

I refer to that as losing the wheat "but why is the wheat lost in that case"? Is it because you were not accurate or is it because there is some relationship "undefined" between wheat and tares?

If two plants are growing, and you uproot one, the roots of that one might pull up the other.

And that means what in terms of saint vs sinner? That they are in some relationship together? the text does not say. In church they would be in some form of relationship to each other.

 

[BobRyan]

Nothing is mentioned once in the parable about wheat becoming tares. The danger is referenced--uprooting.

So if wheat is - saints
and Tares are - the wicked lost.

What is "uprooting" in your view?

 

[tall73]

I refer to that as losing the wheat "but why is the wheat lost in that case"? Is it because you were not accurate or is it because there is some relationship "undefined" between wheat and tares?

Bob, you don't get to make up your own parable. The relationship is they are growing in the same field, and to uproot one is to possibly uproot the other.

It describes the danger. The danger is uprooting.

Now that you cannot understand what that could be talking about is strange, because Ellen White spends quite a bit of time talking about that. God does not immediately remove sinners. He did not immediately destroy the evil one. At the harvest--the end, that is done.

The relationship is they are in the same field.

And that means what in terms of saint vs sinner? That they are in some relationship together? the text does not say. In church they would be in some form of relationship to each other.

They live on the same world. They are in the same field.

Notice nothing in the parable was defined as the "church". You have added that completely.

 

[tall73]

So if wheat is - saints
and Tares are - the wicked lost.

What is "uprooting" in your view?

Uprooting is removing from the field. Which is the world.

But God told His servants (also not part of the world, the field, but outside of it, discussing it, and asking whether they should remove from it) not to uproot, but to wait.

Don't you remember not only angels, but other intelligent beings created by God having an interest in God's justice, and the problem of sin?

 

[BobRyan]

This is becoming rather strange. There is no mention about removing tares from the world?

Jesus says the field is the world. The servants ask if they should pull them up, remove them from the world.

How can you say that?

The parable says the wheat are

24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like ...
30 Allow both to grow together until the harvest
36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the weeds are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40 So just as the weeds are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 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, 42 and they will throw them into the furnace of fire

In Christ's kingdom there are tares according to that parable.
In Christ's kingdom - nobody was expecting tares
In that example the both wheat and tares are specifically being allowed to "grow together"

That is only true of the church.

 

[tall73]

The parable says the wheat are

24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like ...
30 Allow both to grow together until the harvest
36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the weeds are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40 So just as the weeds are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 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, 42 and they will throw them into the furnace of fire

In Christ's kingdom there are tares according to that parable.
In Christ's kingdom - nobody was expecting tares
In that example the both wheat and tares are specifically being allowed to "grow together"

Christ's kingdom is the whole kingdom. Sin was not a result of God who planted the good seed. It was the result of the enemy who brought about sin.

It was not expected by the servants....didn't you make things good?

What does He say the field is? The world.

That is only true of the church.

Of course not. It is true of the world--which happens to be what He actually identified as the field.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, you don't get to make up your own parable. The relationship is they are growing in the same field, and to uproot one is to possibly uproot the other.

If a lost person totally not connected to the church is "not allowed in church" in some remote country it does not cause people in my local congregation to be lost. The relationship does not exist between them. Same is true for many of the lost people even in my own city - if they have no relationship with a church member that church member is not in danger of being lost simply because that lost person died of the flu etc.

The action of the servants is an action of one who has oversight and so the servants have to be humans in the church that have some sort of authority to make a decision or to recognize a lost person

 

[BobRyan]

In Christ's kingdom there are tares according to that parable.
In Christ's kingdom (the church of Christ) - nobody was expecting tares
In that example the both wheat and tares are specifically being allowed to "grow together"

That is only true of the church.

Of course not. It is true of the world--which happens to be what He actually identified as the field.

I don't understand how you get to the idea that nobody expected tares to be in the world.

I fail to see how the disciples would have shared that view -- or could relate to the idea that they might not expect tares to be in the world.

in the parable they think that the only thing planted - is wheat.

I doubt that there was any such expectation about the world held by the disciples then or now - or by non-humans then or now