Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

[BobRyan]

It is not the same pattern.

In the weeds they do not claim such. But more importantly the same tares that were there in the beginning were burned at the end.

Why did you not address that? The tares in the field at the beginning were the same in the end. But now it was the harvest.

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 and Matt 18.

 

[tall73]

Yes.

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.”

I think you forgot part of what He said. He said that His kingdom was not like an earthly one, because Pilate was charged with detecting a threat to Rome. But He also said that Pilate would have no power over Him unless it was given him. Who gave it? It certainly was not the evil one.

Are you saying this is not true?

The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness,
The world and those who dwell therein.
2 For He has founded it upon the seas,
And established it upon the waters.

When did that change?

Are you saying this is not about Christ?

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

How is He planting in a field that is not His?

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.”

2 Cor 4:4 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.

The god of this world is the one that the sons of the evil one follow. You think that means Satan has authority over the earth and Christ does not? Really?

Bob, do you think Jesus agreed that there were parts of the world Jesus did not reign?

I John 4: 4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

If God was not over the world, how did He limit the reach of Satan in Job?

If God were not over the world how did He limit the reach of Satan in regards to Peter?

Satan was only in the world because He was thrown out of heaven by God in the first place.

 

[tall73]

His parable informs them to expect the problem and as you pointed out - in Matt 18.. so also does Matt 18 tell them to expect that problem in the church

But then they can't be the ones who asked.

 

[tall73]

The tares in the church appear as Christians by definition

The question was how they can be the same in the beginning and end. They are the same from the beginning to the end, and you have not addressed that.

And God recognizes them as wheat, and as tares. He says not to uproot the tares yet. Do you think God is confused on who are His? He knows His own.

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 and Matt 18.

All of the wheat and all of the tares are at issue. You are claiming the church when it doesn't say the church.

You are claiming church leaders when it doesn't say church leaders.

Those who ask about it know who the tares are but you say the church does not.

Those in the parable are told not to remove the tares. But the church is told to remove the tares.

Moreover, the sons of the kingdom are already identified in the parable, as plants in the field, the wheat. They are not outside of the world deciding whether to uproot themselves.

You are using elements not stated to justify other elements not stated. And you have not explained how the same wheat in the field winds up in the barn if in one view you see it as only in the church, and the other you see it as in the whole world.

There is no change of picture. The field is the world. Christ reigns over the world. It is His, and the fullness there of. He is above every power and authority. He is greater than the one in the world.

 

[tall73]

Yes.

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.”
.

Did you notice is said not "of" this world. Where was it "of"?

John 8:23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

Jesus' kingdom is of heaven, hence the kingdom of heaven. And it extends to all things.

John 19:11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

Psalm 50:12 “If I were hungry, I would not tell you;
For the world is Mine, and all its fullness.

Psalm 89:11 The heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours;
The world and all its fullness, You have founded them.
12 The north and the south, You have created them;
Tabor and Hermon rejoice in Your name.
13 You have a mighty arm;
Strong is Your hand, and high is Your right hand.
14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne;
Mercy and truth go before Your face.


Acts 17: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.

 

[BobRyan]

Are you saying there are parts of the world--the field--that Christ does not reign in, that is not His kingdom? .

Yes.

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.

Bob, do you think Jesus agreed that there were parts of the world Jesus did not reign?

I think it is scripture that calls Satan the "god of this world" not me. And it is Christ saying "36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would be fighting..."

So then that context where there should have been no tares (since "He sows only wheat" and so HIS servants are surprised to find even one tare) - is not - "the world" where His own scripture calls Satan "the god of this world" but it is the church of Christ in the world.

 

[BobRyan]

The question was how they can be the same in the beginning and end. They are the same from the beginning to the end, and you have not addressed that.

I did address that - I pointed out that it is just like Matt 7 before it - where the wide and narrow road comparison covers all of planet Earth - all the world -- all mankind "and yet" those being rejected are complaining "Lord Lord did we not prophesy in your name" which can only be church members.

 

[BobRyan]

And God recognizes them as wheat, and as tares. He says not to uproot the tares yet. Do you think God is confused on who are His? He knows His own.

I don't think the parable points to the landowner as the one that could be confused on that point.

And I don't see any proposal at all for how the servants (- the disciples or anyone in the entire universe) could have been thought to presume not one single tare could exist in this world (of which God says "satan is the god of this world" 2 Cor 4:4 --). It only fits the church context that the disciples would be the first leaders of where even they did not expect a tare to the point that they did not even suspect Judas of being a tare.

No wonder all those Bible commentaries go this direction of "church context" for the parable. Now included as part of the "definitions" clarification post #612

 

[BobRyan]

2 Cor 4:4 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.[/QUOTE]

The god of this world is the one that the sons of the evil one follow. You think that means Satan has authority over the earth and Christ does not? Really?

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.”

Bob, do you think Jesus agreed that there were parts of the world Jesus did not reign?

I think these texts that God authored -- not me -- are telling the truth about how things on Earth are not as God would have it in heaven such that "an enemy sneaks in and plants tares" and to the point that Christ can say truthfully " If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews". So given that context of sin and rebellion and Satans authority on Earth (such that he comes to God in Job 1 representing Earth) - it was "no surprise" to anyone in the entire universe at the time of Christ speaking in Matt 13 - that there was a "tare" in the lost world of planet Earth.

I think all three temptations of Satan were "real" and that Christ was "tempted in all points as we are yet without sin" - the issue was real - the temptation had punch to it. Satan's offer to walk away from planet Earth and cut the whole thing short - was the temptation.

 

[BobRyan]

@tall73 - let's step back for a second and look at the big picture for Matt 13 before we get too far afield from its introduction in this thread.

You introduced the Matt 13 parable of the wheat and tares under the topic of testing all things by the Bible and whether the statements you find in the book Christ's Object Lessons on that parable - had to be used to show a basis for another view of it than the one you have where it is not talking about the church of Christ in the world.

But I have shown that without the church of Christ in the world as a focus for the chapter there is no rationale at all for anyone in the entire universe to be at all surprised that "there is a tare" in the field/world. That "surprise" concept can only exist in the context of the disciples and the start of the church age where (as in Matt 18 and 1 Cor 5) they would be dealing with church discipline issues and where even they were not expecting Judas to be a "tare".

I have also shown that Christians have access to Bible commentaries that are not even remotely connected to readers of the book "Christ's Object Lessons" - and from the Bible alone they too draw the conclusion for the context of that "surprise" element where one might have expected "only wheat" in Christ's Kingdom.

At this point I don't see even a remote possibility that "Christ's Object Lessons" would be needed to see the points I have raised so far.

 

[tall73]

Yes.


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.”

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.

Acts 17: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.

Only one of these statements is true. Which one do you think is true?

 

[tall73]

I don't think the parable points to the landowner as the one that could be confused on that point.

He knew which the tares were. And He stated not to remove them to the servants who recognized them.

And neither does it point to the wheat as being confused.

And I don't see any proposal at all for how the servants (- the disciples or anyone in the entire universe) could have been thought to presume not one single tare could exist in this world.

If you think the end includes everyone, then that means the beginning is not the time of the telling of the parable.

Do you include Adam and Eve in the wheat or tares at the end?

 

[tall73]

@tall73 - let's step back for a second and look at the big picture for Matt 13 before we get too far afield from its introduction in this thread.

You introduced the Matt 13 parable of the wheat and tares under the topic of testing all things by the Bible and whether the statements you find in the book Christ's Object Lessons on that parable - had to be used to show a basis for another view of it than the one you have where it is not talking about the church of Christ in the world.

If you want to step back and look at what I proposed then post my words.

 

[BobRyan]

If you want to step back and look at what I proposed then post my words.

My intent was open a door to that idea of stating the big picture. You are free to provide your intent statement and then compare that to the current details we are addressing, I am trying to understand if we have past the point of your intended point since no one is quoting Ellen White in Christ's Object Lessons or much of any place else - and we have issues on the table that are difference which do no restrict themselves to "Just Ellen White noticed that", or "Just SDAs see the church of Christ in the Matt 13 scenarios".

Once the differences in POV reach the more general case then fine - large groups of Christians do hold to a certain POV.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you include Adam and Eve in the wheat or tares at the end?

I include everyone at the end - but I view Christ's parable as specific to the church He is starting and the church discipline issues He discusses in places like Matt 18 and 1 Cor 5.

Notice that in Matt 18 there are two scenarios - one is the case of a church member that will not repent, but the other one is the case of the unforgiving servant where his punishment is not at the hands of the church - but rather is in the final judgment of God.

So in Christ's work of launching the Christian church He is giving his church-leader-trainees important lessons that they will need when they start overseeing the church. This particular parable in Matt 13 deals with the kinds of "Tare" issues in the church (kingdom of Christ) that do not get resolved until the second coming.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Acts 17: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.

Only one of these statements is true. Which one do you think is true?

Both are true.

Adam forfeited the dominion given to him... but his dominion was already subordinate to God.

Still - satan's offer to abandon earth and leave it to Christ and the good angels was real. Christ's work on behalf of the Jewish nation - without any demon to rush them on into rebellion - would have been "different". The Bible makes the case that Satan and his fallen angels are very efficacious to the point of causing the fall of 1/3 of the sinless angels in heaven , the fall of all mankind, the Jewish nation rejecting its own Messiah then trying to exterminate Christians etc.

Had they only succeeded in causing the fall of good angels in heaven with no success at all after that - then no death of God the Son would have been needed. Their opposition to God is considerable and has lasting impact.

 

[tall73]

Both are true.

Adam forfeited the dominion given to him... but his dominion was already subordinate to God.

Even if we take Satan's claim at face value that gives him what? Adam's level of authority, which you just acknowledged certainly did not Trump God's. And of course, Satan knows his claim is just that. He may have some who follow him. That does not make it his kingdom, it does not make him sovereign, and God continually limits his reach, and power.

So how does the claim of Satan, based on Adam's dominion as a steward of the earth under God, mean that the earth is not part of Christ's kingdom?

The Father and the Son rule over all and always have.

Still - satan's offer to abandon earth and leave it to Christ and the good angels was real.

Oh really? Where would Satan go when he abandoned earth? He was already kicked out of heaven. He wanted Jesus to take the easy way out, granted, but he was asking God to worship him. I hardly think the claims he makes while trying to pull that kind of big ask are accurate. And you already noted above they are not. Satan cannot give God what He already reigns over.

Christ's work on behalf of the Jewish nation - without any demon to rush them on into rebellion - would have been "different". The Bible makes the case that Satan and his fallen angels are very efficacious to the point of causing the fall of 1/3 of the sinless angels in heaven , the fall of all mankind, the Jewish nation rejecting its own Messiah then trying to exterminate Christians etc.

I did not dispute the evil one is leading a rebellion. Did that at any point unseat the King? Of course not. The king unseated Satan once, and just detailed how He will again. Satan knows he cannot unseat the King, and this is truly God's realm. That is why he is going after the children of the King to deceive them so they do not realize that they have access to the one who is over all things.

Had they only succeeded in causing the fall of good angels in heaven with no success at all after that - then no death of God the Son would have been needed. Their opposition to God is considerable and has lasting impact.

And what happened after the angels? The earth was created--the field. And what was planted in it? Only good seed.

You cannot have all of the saved and lost of all time without acknowledging that.

 

[tall73]

I include everyone at the end

Then that means you must include them at the beginning. Because it didn't say otherwise. The field is the world. The world was founded all good. It was only the evil one who planted evil in it.

You insert the church when it was not stated. And then you limit the groups discussed though not stated. But then you include them again after limiting the scope without warrant.

Whereas if you just took all the saved and all the lost as what they are, the parable makes sense without changing it from what it actually says.

but I view Christ's parable as specific to the church He is starting and the church discipline issues He discusses in places like Matt 18 and 1 Cor 5.

It is saying the opposite of those! It is saying don't pull up tares, and those say to do so.

Notice that in Matt 18 there are two scenarios - one is the case of a church member that will not repent, but the other one is the case of the unforgiving servant where his punishment is not at the hands of the church - but rather is in the final judgment of God.

And notice that the one with the unrepentant sinner the sinner is removed, which if you take this parable your way would not make sense.

So in Christ's work of launching the Christian church He is giving his church-leader-trainees important lessons that they will need when they start overseeing the church. This particular parable in Matt 13 deals with the kinds of "Tare" issues in the church (kingdom of Christ) that do not get resolved until the second coming.

I am pretty sure they got the memo that everything is Christ's kingdom, not just the world, and certainly not just a part of the world. I am pretty sure they knew that the evil one was not sovereign in the world, based on all of his children being destroyed by the true King.

 

[tall73]

My intent was open a door to that idea of stating the big picture. You are free to provide your intent statement and then compare that to the current details we are addressing, I am trying to understand if we have past the point of your intended point since no one is quoting Ellen White in Christ's Object Lessons or much of any place else - and we have issues on the table that are difference which do no restrict themselves to "Just Ellen White noticed that", or "Just SDAs see the church of Christ in the Matt 13 scenarios".

Once the differences in POV reach the more general case then fine - large groups of Christians do hold to a certain POV.

Let's review both of our words. I asked you what the parable meant. You responded:

Ok - that part of Matt 23 is pointing out that there is a very tight connection between saints and sinners in this life and simply uprooting the lost from the saved would risk losing the saved. So for example Christ could not simply ban Judas because the disciples would not understand - and God did not simply kill Lucifer because good angels would not understand.

So in many cases the saints and the sinners are fish in the same pond and one cannot simply "delete the sinners" without causing harm to the saints. So for example if your sister is a saint but one of your brothers is the known-to-God-sinner - God would do damage to your family by simply deleting that brother and even the church would have to be very careful about taking any action against that brother. So then often times it is the situation of all living together and letting things sort out, let both manifest their fruit. (By their fruit you shall know them Matt 7, is a rule that Christ said would be accurate)

Now that is not to say there are not 1 Cor 5 cases where church discipline has to happen in extreme cases. But "in general" the Matt 13 example serves as a good warning to the group about how far you can go.

A couple of things.

a. You seem to acknowledge that if God deleted people that would raise questions.

b. You state EVEN the church would have to be careful about it.

c. You reference the sinners and saints being close in this life.

You mention examples both in and out of the church, it would appear. And you mention the example of the evil one.

I asked some clarifying questions and you again noted that it included all saved, whether in the church or not. And tares are all those who reject the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

According to Rom 2:13-16 there are gentiles with no access at all to scripture that "do instinctively the things of the law showing the works of the law written on the heart" and at the end of Romans 2 "he is a Jew who is one inwardly and circumcision is of the heart by the Holy Spirit"

John 12:32 "I will draw all mankind unto Me" which is God as "Evangelist" and the supernatural drawing of all mankind by the Spirit of Truth - that enables all the choice to "Accept" the Gospel that depravity disables.

Tares are those who reject the influence/prompting of the Holy Spirit - no matter where they are and the wheat represents those who accept His work no matter where they are or what sort of group they are in.

A few videos of personal testimonies illustrating this - come to mind - will add here

Super Amazing: two Muslims Convert to Christianity -- must read thread

Atheist has a direct encounter with Christ

Saved from Spiritism - agnostic/atheist converts to Christianity. Great Testimony

These are very gripping - and are all threads on CF

Then I responded:

Now the reason I had us go through that is to see a few things.

a. what method you use to interpret
b. whether you would integrate what Ellen White says

Now as to what Ellen White says, she mentions the tares in a great number of places in her books, manuscripts, testimonies, periodical articles, etc. However, Christ's Object Lessons is perhaps the most prominent explanation, being one of her major works, with a chapter dedicated to this parable.

Christ's Object Lessons, by Ellen G. White. Chapter 4: Tares

"Another parable put He forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also."

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

Why did Christ not say "the church of Christ in the world" if that was what He meant?

Why would He say the field is the world, if He did not mean it was the world?

I did not say no one else agreed with Ellen White. I said she added an element not warranted. It does not at all surprise me that many agree with Ellen White on this point. It is not an Adventist hot button issue, and I imagine there are a range of views on the topic. Moreover, in the Desire of Ages and the later works in Australia it is well documented that Ellen White was using sources. She actually states that in the preface to the Great Controversy, so I am not introducing that to argue one way or the other about inspiration. Luke also used sources. My point is that she reviewed many books on the life of Christ and his teaching, and often incorporated some of their language. So holding a view similar to some other teachers is not at all unusual, and not a reason to reject the doctrine or accept it. As with all doctrines we examine them on the basis of Scripture, which I think you agree with.

My point was that some Adventists, once they see what Ellen White says on a topic may often move to be closer in line with that. And the conversation is still examining that.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Let's review both of our words. I asked you what the parable meant. You responded:

A couple of things.

a. You seem to acknowledge that if God deleted people that would raise questions.

b. You state EVEN the church would have to be careful about it.

c. You reference the sinners and saints being close in this life.

You mention examples both in and out of the church, it would appear. And you mention the example of the evil one.

I asked some clarifying questions and you again noted that it included all saved, whether in the church or not. And tares are all those who reject the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

Then I responded:

I did not say no one else agreed with Ellen White. I said she added an element not warranted. It does not at all surprise me that many agree with Ellen White on this point. It is not an Adventist hot button issue, and I imagine there are a range of views on the topic. Moreover, in the Desire of Ages and the later works in Australia it is well documented that Ellen White was using sources. She actually states that in the preface to the Great Controversy, so I am not introducing that to argue one way or the other about inspiration. Luke also used sources. My point is that she reviewed many books on the life of Christ and his teaching, and often incorporated some of their language. So holding a view similar to some other teachers is not at all unusual, and not a reason to reject the doctrine or accept it. As with all doctrines we examine them on the basis of Scripture, which I think you agree with.

My point was that some Adventists, once they see what Ellen White says on a topic may often move to be closer in line with that. And the conversation is still examining that.

This is true of virtually all denominations. Where a denomination takes a particular doctrinal stand its members tend to either embrace that doctrine or to ignore it as being relatively insignificant in the grander scheme of the denomination. An example would be the strict doctrine in the RCC against the use of birth control except in a "natural" way. A tiny number of Catholics actually believe it, but most Catholics ignore it despite the Church's stance that practicing birth control is a mortal sin.

Rarely do members of a denomination leave the denomination because they disagree with a doctrine or doctrines and even rarer does a denomination excommunicate a member for not assenting to all of its doctrines.