Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

[BobRyan]

Ellen has some great commentaries that I could quote alongside scripture, which would be beneficial to the discussion. Her work exceeds many scholarly commentaries.

But that has a limited scope since you can only use it if everyone in the discussion places some sort of value on what her views are or demonstrate an inclination to consider a view they do not already hold to help them reach a conclusion about some idea they want to study.

But in a "debate" context a lot of people already have a specific view in mind, they have selected a given solution already so they would need true common ground sources -- like the Bible or a commentary they already favor

 

[Freth]

But that has a limited scope since you can only use it if everyone in the discussion places some sort of value on what her views are or demonstrate an inclination to consider a view they do not already hold to help them reach a conclusion about some idea they want to study.

Exactly my point. The irrational view of Ellen White makes quoting her writings a moot point to most, despite the fact she holds her own against scholarly commentary. And even if she were accepted, it could be abused. I'm actually surprised other commentary isn't abused as much as it could be.

There is a possibility that opinions might change, if Ellen were quoted more, but again, it would open her writings up to the abuse she warned about.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Exactly my point. The irrational view of Ellen White makes quoting her writings a moot point to most, despite the fact she holds her own against scholarly commentary. And even if she were accepted, it could be abused. I'm actually surprised other commentary isn't abused as much as it could be.

There is a possibility that opinions might change, if Ellen were quoted more, but again, it would open her writings up to the abuse she warned about.

Her problem seems to lie in the fact that she left such an enormous body of written material. The same can be said for other profuse theological writers, such as Martin Luther, whose anti-semitic writings provided fodder for the Nazi regime to legitimate themselves in their purge of Jews.

 

[Freth]

Her problem seems to lie in the fact that she left such an enormous body of written material. The same can be said for other profuse theological writers, such as Martin Luther, whose anti-semitic writings provided fodder for the Nazi regime to legitimate themselves in their purge of Jews.

I have no response to this statement, I'm just quoting it for posterity, in case it somehow gets changed or deleted.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I read every bit of your posts. This conversation started when you asked why I don't currently keep the Sabbath. I asked you to read all the posts in Bob and I's exchange to give us background, so we could discuss the differences.

As a starting point, having a detailed outline of your view is helpful. I read all that you posted. I accepted that as a good summary of your view so we could begin addressing key differences, so you could understand my view.

Now if you are not going to read the posts with Bob where we covered a lot of ground, agreeing and disagreeing, and seeing what we shared in common, OK, I cannot make you do it.

However, when I noted my largest difference--a major part of why I do not keep the Sabbath, the question you asked--and we began to discuss, you then insisted I go back and respond to your entire summary of your view.

I did that. Now you seem upset that I will not parrot back every presupposition and every conclusion you reached. That is not discussion. The whole point of discussion is that we lay out our view, and then discuss where we differ.

I pointed out immediately my largest, key difference with your view. There are other differences, but addressing details before we agree on the basics won't get us anywhere.

I read your conversation with @BobRyan and all your posts including your key points which have all been addressed in detail through the scriptures for which I am still waiting reply. As posted earlier you did respond though I do not agree you have addressed the contents of the posts and scriptures shared with you that we are in disagreement for which I pointed out why from the scriptures in the posts shared with you so I guess we have nothing more to discuss. Thank you for the conversation and I pray the posts and scriptures shared with you may give you food for thought and something to pray about. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[tall73]

@tall73

Saints pray daily that God's kingdom would come to Earth because that means that God's WILL would be done on Earth -- AS IT IS - in heaven.

We already looked at Jesus' removal of the delegated authority to the kings of the earth where He bginse direct reign rather than through servants in Revelation. And in the parable we see the culmination in all evil and rebellion being removed from His kingdom so that all do His will.

If you take your Scripture above to mean His kingdom is not on the earth at all, rather than the culmination of it, then it actually undercuts your point. Then Jesus would have no kingdom on earth to remove things from. But even you have stated that at the end it involves all the wheat and all the tares throughout the earth. So to be removed from His kingdom they must be in it. For the culmination of the kingdom to come there must be a kingdom. At the end all recognize what was already true, that Jesus has all authority in heaven and earth. But this is not new to that time. It is when they are forced to acknowledge it. And I already pointed out the numerous times the evil one and his minions are forced to acknowledge it by not being able to resist His authority.

However, here is another plain statement of Jesus' authority, and it is in the past tense already at the time He said it.

In Matthew 28: 18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”Amen.

Jesus has all authority in heaven and earth.

 

[tall73]

When Ellen White applies the Matt 13 scenario to church leaders having to deal with tares in the church - just as the Bible commentaries I cited also do - you respond as if this is a view that Adventists would not know about from the Bible if Ellen White had not said it.

But the fact that these Bible commentaries were not at all relying on Ellen White's writings - disproves that claim.

That is why the first time you made that claim I asked you to cite my words. You did not. You said I could cite my words. So I cited mine and yours. I did not say you need Ellen White to take that view. I did not say others don't take that view. I said it is an experiment to see how you view things and how that changes when Ellen White is then referenced.

In fact, I elaborated when you first raised this issue that it is not at all surprising to me that Ellen White agrees with a great many commentaries, etc. Because she admits using sources in the preface to Great Controversy, and the church has recognized her using a variety of contemporary sources in her writings, especially in the Desire of Ages and onward.

And as I said before, this does not in itself call into question her inspiration, nor was that my point. Luke also used sources, and was inspired. The goal was to see how you interpret, and how Ellen White plays into that.

1. Your argument that commentaries exist that make some statement on some other doctrine that does not agree with Adventist doctrine does not address the point above. And could never be used as a claim that denominations should not quote from commentaries to show that a certain Bible POV is accepted by Bible scholarship even outside the scope of a given denomination.

It is not my point to refute, because I didn't make the point above that you are stating. That is why I asked you to quote my words.

2. I don't point to the commentaries as dictating what your doctrine must be - only that they refute the claim that noting this Bible detail about Matt 13 somehow is specific to Ellen White's writing.

That was not made by me. I posted when you stated this before what my words were, and what yours were.

3. IF I had made a statement about Methodists that they believe the Bible says "Y" only because Wesley said it - and they could point to non-Methodist commentaries proving otherwise - their point would be sustained.

I don't think this can be refuted.

Nearly as unrelated as the claim you made above.

And your words did change when you saw Ellen White's statements. In your first posts you talked about God "deleting" someone from a family and how it would impact the rest of the family. You talked about how the righteous and wicked are connected in this life. But then later you characterized as absurd the notion of God deleting people.

Now I note you steadfastly refused to accept Ellen White's statement that Jesus is the true King. But I wish you wouldn't. Because watching you undercut Jesus who has all authority in heaven and earth is painful.

 

[tall73]

And in His kingdom are tares - Matt 13:41 - which is why those commentaries point out that this is the church in the world where church leadership does have a role of removing tares as in Matt 18, and 1 Cor 5, but Christ's teaching is that the normal action is to let both grow together so as not to put the wheat at risk, even though some extreme cases would exist as scriptures points out in Matt 18 and 1 Cor 5 where they would have to remove tares from the church.

Bob, you even admit at the end it is all the world, and all the righteous and unrighteous. So how are there not tares in the world? He said the field is the world.

Also, Jesus has all authority in heaven and earth:

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

There is nowhere His reign does not extend. Rebellion against authority is not removing His authority. If your child is upset with you and doesn't want to listen, that doesn't mean he now owns the house. It means He will be disciplined.

 

[tall73]

The reason I brought this up. There is this irrational dismissal and outright fear of Ellen White's writings, simply because she had visions. People make her out to be the devil himself. It's insanity.

Personally I do not think that if someone has visions it means they are of the devil. It does mean that once someone makes that claim you have to apply tests. The Spirit is given to all who are far off per Peter, so there is no reason to think there will not be prophets in the church.

You do have to evaluate whether her writings are of God, or of the evil one, and she stated so herself.

Ellen has some great commentaries that I could quote alongside scripture, which would be beneficial to the discussion. Her work exceeds many scholarly commentaries. However, she cautioned that her writings could be misused (which I think could apply to this thread).

"Those who are not walking in the light of the message may gather up statements from my writings that happen to please them, and that agree with their human judgment, and by separating these statements from their connection and placing them beside human reasonings, make it appear that my writings uphold that which they condemn. I charge you not to do this work. To use my writings thus, and at the same time reject the message which I bear to correct errors, is misleading and inconsistent. { Manuscript Releases 760 28.4 }"

​

She is talking about people in the church of course. And none of the Adventists in the church are likely to quote Ellen White here unless they have to, so I think you are safe. But perhaps you should not quote her unless you fall into that problem.

I agree she has commentaries, especially her later major works. And since she drew on the sources of others, it is not surprising when they sound similar to other commentaries.

And even that is not saying she would not be inspired because of sources. Luke used sources as well.

Just in case it's asked—I trust Ellen White's writings, because I have yet to find anything that goes against scripture.

It is good that you apply that test.

What I was raising earlier is that Adventists indicate that she is not on par with Scripture. However, if she is inspired, and she comments on Scripture, would that not be an inspired commentary on Scripture?


​

 

[tall73]

But that has a limited scope since you can only use it if everyone in the discussion places some sort of value on what her views are or demonstrate an inclination to consider a view they do not already hold to help them reach a conclusion about some idea they want to study.

You know that non-Adventists do in fact see a value to her writings. They are a readily accessible statement of Adventist beliefs that most Adventists will agree with. And beyond that Ellen White is part of the fundamental beliefs. You may as well quote her. Because she is part of the debate whether you want her to be or not.

 

[tall73]

Exactly my point. The irrational view of Ellen White makes quoting her writings a moot point to most, despite the fact she holds her own against scholarly commentary. And even if she were accepted, it could be abused. I'm actually surprised other commentary isn't abused as much as it could be.

There is a possibility that opinions might change, if Ellen were quoted more, but again, it would open her writings up to the abuse she warned about.

We may have to start such a conversation at some point regarding Ellen White's commentary once we wrap up here. It even relates to the law.

 

[tall73]

I have no response to this statement, I'm just quoting it for posterity, in case it somehow gets changed or deleted.

Why do you think it would be changed?

Though I don't see the connection other than lots of writings. And there is no biblical test of a prophet involving volume of literary output.

Perhaps he thinks if someone writes that much they have to make a mistake somewhere? I guess he will have to clarify.

 

[tall73]

I have never said that there are not other laws that are not applicable today from the old testament that are repeated in the new covenant. So this is a strawman argument no one is talking about.

Great, so the law is more than the ten. It took pages to get there, but we did it!

More on this to come.

 

[tall73]

That is true. In fact it could be argued that Jewish Christians tended to go even farther than non-Christian Jews in that the Jewish ones "Came up with" the idea that Gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved. For non-Christian Jews there was no requirement that Gentiles be circumcised to qualify for attendance "every Sabbath" in the synagogues (Acts 13, Acts 17, Acts 18:4).

True, though there is a difference between being saved and synagogue attendance I suppose.

As for ceremonial laws regarding annual feast days in Lev 23 - the Christian church adoption of Hebrews 10 doctrine would eventually eliminate "Animal sacrifice and offering" liturgy and given the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. even the non-Christian Jews would dispense with it to a great extent.

My understanding is some continued until 130 or so on the ruins, with Hadrian's decree putting an end to sacrifice.

Of course, there were still groups of Jewish Christians who continued to keep the law to the degree they could. Jerome and Epiphanias write about them, and Justin Martry alluded to them. The description is very similar to the community with James.

And we certainly agree they already saw the sacrifices pointing to Jesus.

He mentions adultery and murder in Matt 5 - which are in the TEN. And in Matt 5 Jesus does not say "delete your Bibles this is all that remains" -- in fact Jesus would have had a lot trouble with a "delete your Bibles" kind of message - so he argues against it in Matt 5.

Jesus' preaching before the cross could not have been a "delete your Bible" or "what God said before no longer matters since I am here now" kind of message.

In Mark 7:6-13 Jesus flat out condemns anything in tradition that would lessen the force and obligation to what He called "Word of God", "Commandment of God", "Moses said'.

Agreed.

True but that distinction does exist as we see in 1Cor 7:19 and as Confessions of Faith such as the "Baptist Confession of Faith" Sectn 19, and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" section 19 and the CCC and many other denominational texts freely admit.

The distinction in regards to circumcision in I Corinthians 7, though it doesn't specify beyond that.

I probably care about the Westminster Confessions as much as you do some of the various creeds you mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

[tall73]

Agreed. The moral law of God included more than the TEN. But it did include the TEN as Eph 6:1-2 points out , so also James 2 and so also Romans 13 list.

I would argue that Ephesians 6 is a good example of how it did not include the ten in their original context. Paul re-frames the promise to apply to gentiles outside the promised land. Whereas in its original context it applied to Israel in the promised land. Which is a good example of "moral" principle in the law applying, but not the aspects relating the the context of Israel.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Great, so the law is more than the ten. It took pages to get there, but we did it!

More on this to come.

Please stop micro-quoting me and pulling my statements from overall context to which I have provided my posts to the contexts of God's 10 commandments and love and how they are not separate from each other to those who are made free to be born again to walk in God's Spirit in Gods new covenant promise. Your post here is simply a distraction to the content and contexts of my posts and the scriptures shared in them that disagree with you. No one has ever argued here that there are not other laws in the old covenant that are applicable under the new covenant (e.g clean and unclean food laws etc). As posted earlier if you do not want to discuss the content of my posts and the scriptures I have provided you do not have to. You of course are free to believe as you wish. I am happy to talk more with you once you are able to discuss with me the content and contexts of my posts in full. Until then our conversation I think is best off ending for now. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[tall73]

Please stop micro-quoting me and pulling my statements from overall context to which I have provided my posts to the contexts of God's 10 commandments and love and how they are not separate from each other to those who are born again to walk in God's Spirit in Gods new covenant promise. Your post here is simply a distraction to the content and contexts of my posts and the scriptures shared in them that disagree with you.

I quoted the part I am interested in, as part of a conversation you said you were interested in.

So are you now saying you do or do not think other laws from the Old Testament are included in the new covenant, apart from the 10 and the 2?

I have never said that there are not other laws that are not applicable today from the old testament that are repeated in the new covenant. So this is a strawman argument no one is talking about.

 

[tall73]

You edited to add material, so I will reply to that:

No one has ever argued here that there are not other laws in the old covenant that are applicable under the new covenant (e.g clean and unclean food laws etc).

Great!

As posted earlier if you do not want to discuss the content of my posts and the scriptures I have provided you do not have to.

Then why even mention it?

You of course are free to believe as you wish. I am happy to talk more with you once you are able to discuss with me the content and contexts of my posts in full. Until then our conversation I think is best off ending for now. Thanks for the discussion.

Because talking about the content of your posts in full is definitely the best way to figure out why I don't keep the Sabbath?

Somehow I doubt that will work. So I will just quote the part I am interested in, and you can participate to the degree you want.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Why do you think it would be changed?

Though I don't see the connection other than lots of writings. And there is no biblical test of a prophet involving volume of literary output.

Perhaps he thinks if someone writes that much they have to make a mistake somewhere? I guess he will have to clarify.

I will clarify using Mohommad as an example as we all agree, I believe, on the absence of inspiration in his writings. He lived a relatively lengthy life and, although he himself, was illiterate, his sayings were written down on palm leaves. After his death these were gathered together and his followers sorted through them. Any of them which they found to be offensive or heretical they burned. They are known within the Islamic world as being the Satanic verses (which became the name of the (in)famous book by Salmon Rushdie which caused the various imams to pronounce a fatweh against him). Those that survived were gathered into the Qu'ran. If you examine the Qu'ran you will find great contradictions such as those regarding the Jews. In the earlier sutras the Jews are depicted positively as "people of the Book" as are Christians. By the end of the Qu'ran you have the rocks and trees verbally calling out to the Islamic warriors that there are Jews hiding behind them and they should be killed.

Does that mean that Mohammed held these beliefs simultaneously? Not at all. It simply means that his beliefs evolved over time such that his earlier attempts to flatter the Jews into joining in his cause turned into bitterness against them which matured into hatred.

Thus, it is not at all unusual to see a development in theology of a long-lived theologian who produced a large output over the span of a lifetime.

 

[tall73]

I will clarify using Mohommad as an example as we all agree, I believe, on the absence of inspiration in his writings. He lived a relatively lengthy life and, although he himself, was illiterate, his sayings were written down on palm leaves. After his death these were gathered together and his followers sorted through them. Any of them which they found to be offensive or heretical they burned. They are known within the Islamic world as being the Satanic verses (which became the name of the (in)famous book by Salmon Rushdie which caused the various imams to pronounce a fatweh against him). Those that survived were gathered into the Qu'ran. If you examine the Qu'ran you will find great contradictions such as those regarding the Jews. In the earlier sutras the Jews are depicted positively as "people of the Book" as are Christians. By the end of the Qu'ran you have the rocks and trees verbally calling out to the Islamic warriors that there are Jews hiding behind them and they should be killed.

Does that mean that Mohammed held these beliefs simultaneously? Not at all. It simply means that his beliefs evolved over time such that his earlier attempts to flatter the Jews into joining in his cause turned into bitterness against them which matured into hatred.

Thus, it is not at all unusual to see a development in theology of a long-lived theologian who produced a large output over the span of a lifetime.

Thanks for the clarification.