Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

[LoveGodsWord]

Well we tried. It was your suggestion we trade comments. However you stopped answering, and are just repeating.So that's it. It was still an interesting discussion.

The rest of my post you left out here says; "We should seek as much as possible to follow all of God's laws because there are many laws outside of the 10 commandments that are still applicable today (e.g clean and unclean food laws). As to woman's childbirth I am not a woman. So what is it you need to discuss? None of these arguments your trying to put up of course are an excuse to break any one of God's 10 commandments according to James in James 2:10-11 or Paul in Hebrews 10:26-31 do you think?"

 

[tall73]

The rest of my post you left out here said;

I quoted the part where you refused to answer on the points I asked about. Since you wanted to exchange answers, that was the arrangement.

If you choose to answer those questions with an actual answer, and not just stating it doesn't apply to you, I will answer you on the Israel question. If not, I will just discuss with others.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I quoted the part where you refused to answer on the points I asked about. Since you wanted to exchange answers, that was the arrangement.

If you choose to answer those questions with an actual answer, and not just stating it doesn't apply to you, I will answer you on the Israel question. If not, I will just discuss with others.

No. I did not refuse to discuss anything I asked you specifically what you wanted to discuss in the rest of the context of my post you did not quote and that is why I added it back in. For me you seem to have a habit of taking what people say from context by micro-quoting selective sections of what they say and come to a different interpretation of what they are sayings once context is added back in. I think that has been the same problem in previous discussions we have had in the past when you quote EGW statements.

 

[tall73]

No. I did not refuse to discuss anything I asked you specifically what you wanted to discuss in the rest of the context of my post you did not quote and that is why I added it back in. For me you seem to have a habit of taking what people say from context by micro-quoting selective sections of what they say and come to a different interpretation of what they are sayings once context is added back in.

That is because you turn every post into a long statement of overall theology and want people to respond and acknowledge all your points, and often agree with all of your presuppositions and conclusions. But you did not address what I actually asked.

I think that has been the same problem in previous discussions we have had in the past when you quote EGW statements.

Yes, you also turned those in to long statements of overall theology and didn't pay much attention to what I was asking. Since you initiated this whole thing to get at why I don't keep the Sabbath, it will involve my perspective. If you don't want to respond to questions about my perspective, and how it compares to your perspective, it is fine, we don't have to talk.

But you suggested an exchange model. I answered your last question, and I am waiting for you to answer mine. If it doesn't answer mine, I won't move on. If it does, I will move on and address the issue of Israel, the Gentiles, etc.

 

[tall73]

For me you seem to have a habit of taking what people say from context

As an example of the sort of problems we are having communicating: I described my answer to your earlier question and referenced my position on Ephesians 6. You then said:

Not really.

Followed by a long and convoluted explanation. Then when I further clarified, "not really" became:

So we are clear I do not disagree with your post.

It is safe to say that I would not take "not really" to mean "do not disagree". But then you also couched "do not disagree" in the middle of another massive treatise on all the other things you would like to say on the topic.

So you make it difficult to discuss the point of the actual exchange. You say "not really" when you really mean "sure, however,". And you continue to make the conversation into a continual altar call based on pre-suppositions we have not agreed to yet. If I don't agree with your view, the altar call is meaningless.

So answer the question on the beard text and the livestock.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

That is because you turn every post into a long statement of overall theology and want people to respond and acknowledge all your points, and often agree with all of your presuppositions and conclusions. But you did not address what I actually asked.

Perhaps I do not see this the same way you do. I share what I believe showing why from the scriptures or what I know from the scriptures so everyone can understand why I say certain things. It would be good if you can respond to everything I have shared with you. I am one for the detail because I believe it is important. I also do not understand what you are asking I provided what I thought were answers to your questions but did not see your questions as an excuse to break anyone of Gods' 10 commandments in the new covenant. Then I asked you for further clarification as to what are you are specifically trying to discuss as I did not understand your point keeping in mind here I have already stated that God has other laws outside of the 10 commandments that are also requirements for Christian living where I quoted the examples of clean and unclean food laws etc. Of course I do not see any of this discussion as an excuse for breaking anyone of God's 10 commandments (including Gods' 4th commandment Sabbath) which are all repeated in the new covenant as a requirement for Christian living.

But you suggested an exchange model. I answered your last question, and I am waiting for you to answer mine. If it doesn't answer mine, I won't move on. If it does, I will move on and address the issue of Israel, the Gentiles, etc.

To be honest I do not believe you answered my questions at all. Yes you provided a response but you did not address the content and contexts of the scriptures shared with you. The identity of God's ISRAEL is very clear in the new covenant (detailed scripture view starting here) so there is no need to guess who Gods' ISRAEL is under the new covenant. This topic is an important one as it has implications for the whole bible in both old and new covenants. What is it that you believe that I have not answered in the questions your asking? Perhaps you can try rephrasing your questions a little differently as I honestly do not understand what your trying to ask or your questions relevance to the discussion on Gods' requirements for obedience through faith and the role of His 10 commandments in the new covenant for Christian living.

 

[tall73]

Perhaps I do not see this the same way you do. I share what I believe showing why from the scriptures or what I know from the scriptures so everyone can understand why I say certain things. It would be good if you can respond to everything I have shared with you.

No. I do not intend to respond to your altar calls based on conclusions I do not agree with. That is not the point of discussion.

I am one for the detail because I believe it is important. I also do not understand what you are asking I provided what I thought were answers to your questions but did not see your questions as an excuse to break Gods' commandments.

And this is the sort of thing that is quite unhelpful. We are talking about what God requires. You continue to tell me I am sinning, erring, all the rest, but until I see the same viewpoint, none of that will matter. So skip all of that and let's talk about the details that are actually part of my thinking so we can then see if we can agree.

And if we agree, you won't need to make an appeal. We would already agree. If you want to be a Bible worker I am sure there are many churches that could put you to use. This is a discussion.

Then I asked you for further clarification as to what are you are specification trying to discuss as you do not understand your point keeping in mind here I have already stated that God has other laws outside of the 10 commandments that are also requirements for Christian living where I quoted the examples of clean and unclean food laws etc. Of course I do not see any of this discussion as an excuse for breaking anyone of God's 10 commandments (including Gods' 4th commandment Sabbath) which are all repeated in the new covenant as a requirement for Christian living.

Again, the reason your posts are so long, and not well received. I am trying to interact with you to help you understand my thinking. I assume you already know your own thinking. So repeating it to me, when I don't agree, is not actually helping us move along the conversation you said you wanted to have--why I don't keep the Sabbath.

To be honest I do not believe you answered my questions at all. Yes you provided a response but you did not address the content and contexts of the scriptures shared with you.

Of course you don't. Because you want to make this about your presentation of your own understanding.

Who God's ISRAEL is very clear in the new covenant (detailed scripture view starting here) so there is no need to guess who Gods' ISRAEL in under the new covenant. What is it that you believe that I have not answered in the questions your asking? Perhaps you can try rephrasing your questions if you do not understand what your trying to ask.

The Israel point was made after I had already answered that round. I have told you repeatedly I will address it as soon as you answer the question about what you do with the laws regarding beards and livestock.

Now you say you don't understand why I ask. I have said it a number of times. I am trying to understand what you think is moral law. And I am trying to understand what you think is NOT moral law. And I am trying to understand how you propose we know the difference.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

No. I do not intend to respond to your altar calls based on conclusions I do not agree with. That is not the point of discussion.



And this is the sort of thing that is quite unhelpful. We are talking about what God requires. You continue to tell me I am sinning, erring, all the rest, but until I see the same viewpoint, none of that will matter. So skip all of that and let's talk about the details that are actually part of my thinking so we can then see if we can agree.

And if we agree, you won't need to make an appeal. We would already agree. If you want to be a Bible worker I am sure there are many churches that could put you to use. This is a discussion.



Again, the reason your posts are so long, and not well received. I am trying to interact with you to help you understand my thinking. I assume you already know your own thinking. So repeating it to me, when I don't agree, is not actually helping us move along the conversation you said you wanted to have--why I don't keep the Sabbath.



Of course you don't. Because you want to make this about your presentation of your own understanding.



The Israel point was made after I had already answered that round. I have told you repeatedly I will address it as soon as you answer the question about what you do with the laws regarding beards and livestock.

Now you say you don't understand why I ask. I have said it a number of times. I am trying to understand what you think is moral law. And I am trying to understand what you think is NOT moral law. And I am trying to understand how you propose we know the difference.

Well to be honest I don't think you can expect anyone to address your questions if you do not take the time to address the posts of others that may not agree with you. I think I have stated from the beginning that moral laws are laws of right doing to God or man. They are simply laws of right doing which are covenant dependent. This is a very simple explanation that I have already dealt with earlier in the conversation. I do not think I have accused you of anything here in this thread as I have only shared the scriptures which are God's Word not my words and neither do I judge you according to the scriptures in John 12:47-48. What is it that you do not agree with in my past answered to you in regards to moral laws?

 

[tall73]

I think I have stated from the beginning what moral laws are. They are simply moral laws or right doing which are covenant dependent. This is a very simple explanation that I have already dealt with earlier in the conversation. What is it that you do not agree with?

It is a very simple explanation that you don't seem to want to apply in specific cases.

I would like you to apply it to the law about beards and about livestock, and let me know if they are moral laws.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

It is a very simple explanation that you don't seem to want to apply in specific cases. I would like you to apply it to the law about beards and about livestock, and let me know if they are moral laws.

That is not true. You can take this same explanation I provided earlier that moral laws are God's laws of right doing to God or man that are covenant dependent and apply this to any law in the old and new covenants. Gods' 10 commandments are great examples of moral law for both covenants. They are our duty of love to God and love you our fellow man so are all moral laws that are repeated in the new covenant as a requirement for Christian living (scripture support here). I think I have used the 10 commandments as examples of moral laws from both the old and new covenants from the start of our conversation. So what is it your trying to discuss that I have not already answered and how is it relevant to God's requirements of obedience to his 10 commandments in the new covenant?

 

[tall73]

So what is it your trying to discuss that I have not already answered

I would like you to apply it to the law about beards and about livestock, and let me know if they are moral laws.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

@tall73 I have already answered these questions but happy to discuss them further with you. Do these laws of beards and livestock have new covenant application and are they laws of right doing or behavior?

 

[tall73]

@tall73 I have already answered these questions but happy to discuss them further with you. Do these laws of beards and livestock have new covenant application and are they laws of right doing or behavior?

That is my question to you. So that I can see how you apply your simple statement.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

That is my question to you. So that I can see how you apply your simple statement.

Leviticus 19:27 (rounding the corners of the beards and shaving the temples of the head)

In the old covenant times as well as the new covenant times God's people are called to come out of the world to be a peculiar people that are separate from the world while still being in the world. In the old covenant times the rounding of the beard and shaving of the temples of the head was a common practice done by those gentile nations that worshiped other God's (Jeremiah 9:26; Jeremiah 25:23; Jeremiah 49:32). God calls us to be separate from those of the world and to avoid the appearance of evil so as not to become a stumbling block to others. Therefore in the old covenant this would be a moral law of right doing to both God and our fellow man.

Leviticus 19:19 (not mixing the animal species)

The meaning here is not to copulate the livestock with different species of animals. One principle stands out, and that is, things which God has separated should not be joined together (different species of animals should not be mated together), just as the counterpart of it is also true that, "What God hath joined, let no man put asunder." The other overall lessen of course being that God did not want his people intermixing and joining together with the people of the land and wanted them to be a separate people joined to God. These are God's instructions for His people therefore are moral laws of right doing where God knows what is best for us as our creator of all things in heaven and earth.

Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries w/TVM, Strong - H3610
כִּלְאַיִם (kilʼayim | kil-ah'-yim) Derivation: dual of כֶּלֶא in the original sense of separation;
Strong's: two heterogeneities KJV: divers seeds (-e kinds), mingled (seed).

Hope this is helpful.

 

[tall73]

Leviticus 19:27 (rounding the corners of the beards and shaving the temples of the head)

In the old covenant times as well as the new covenant times God's people are called to come out of the world to be a peculiar people that are separate from the world while still being in the world. In the old covenant times the rounding of the beard and shaving of the temples of the head was a common practice done by those gentile nations that worshiped other God's (Jeremiah 9:26; Jeremiah 25:23; Jeremiah 49:32). God calls us to be separate from those of the world and to avoid the appearance of evil so as not to become a stumbling block to others. Therefore in the old covenant this would be a moral law of right doing to both God and our fellow man.

Leviticus 19:19 (not mixing the animal species)

The meaning here is not to copulate the livestock with different species of animals. One principle stands out, and that is, things which God has separated should not be joined together (different species of animals should not be mated together), just as the counterpart of it is also true that, "What God hath joined, let no man put asunder." The other overall lessen of course being that God did not want his people intermixing and joining together with the people of the land and wanted them to be a separate people joined to God. These are God's instructions for His people therefore are moral laws of right doing where God knows what is best for us as our creator of all things in heaven and earth.

Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries w/TVM, Strong - H3610
כִּלְאַיִם (kilʼayim | kil-ah'-yim) Derivation: dual of כֶּלֶא in the original sense of separation;
Strong's: two heterogeneities KJV: divers seeds (-e kinds), mingled (seed).

Hope this is helpful.

Thank you, though I think we both know it was moral in that day. The question is whether it is moral under the new covenant. Would you see these as still something to avoid?

 

[tall73]

There is no such thing as Jew or Greek anymore. All who believe and follow God's Word are one in Christ.

We agree we are one in Christ. An I would agree we are heirs of the promises to Abraham.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

People of course continued to be male and female, Jew or Greek, etc. But they were still one in Christ.

And if you want to claim that Jewish believers no longer needed to keep the whole law, you can make that argument. But we know they did continue to keep the whole law. And we know gentiles were not required to do so. The issue of whether the Jewish believers would stop keeping the whole law was not addressed, because they intended to do so.

And this makes sense, because as we see in Acts 15 and 21 they had a different context to work in. Jews would get no traction at all preaching to other Jews that Jesus was the messiah, and the fulfillment of all the prophecies if they were not themselves keeping the law. They kept the law with Jesus as the fulfillment. This is still an approach messianic Jews use today to reach fellow Jews.

But they still were one body with the Gentiles who were not required to be circumcised and keep the whole law of Moses.

Gentiles are under moral law. They are not under every provision of the mosaic law. The Acts council clearly rejected that the gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the wholelaw of Moses.

But that is why I have asked what is "moral" law.

Circumcsion was required under the old covenant for descendants of Abraham, including Israel.

Physical circumcision was not required for Gentiles under the new covenant.

Spiritual circumcision, putting off the sinful nature, is required for both.

So here we have an example of a prior requirement of the covenant with Israel (and not directly related to sacrifices), that is no longer required for gentiles. So to say that everything required for Israel under the old covenant is now required for gentiles doesn't make sense.

The debate over the Sabbath is whether it is moral or ceremonial law. We can get to that shortly.

 

[Albion]

No. I did not refuse to discuss anything I asked you specifically what you wanted to discuss in the rest of the context of my post you did not quote and that is why I added it back in.

So why won't you give an answer to the question of whether certain beards and mixing of livestock are violations of God's laws? Having tried to follow the discussion, I'm wondering. But I don't really care what the answer is, just why you refuse to answer it.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

So why won't you give an answer to the question of whether certain beards and mixing of livestock are violations of God's laws? Having tried to follow the discussion, I'm wondering. But I don't really care what the answer is, just why you refuse to answer it.

Your response here shows you have not been following the discussion. Moral laws are all laws of right doing which is covenant dependent. We also looked at the specific examples before you posted.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Thank you, though I think we both know it was moral in that day. The question is whether it is moral under the new covenant. Would you see these as still something to avoid?

Yes of course they are applicable in the new covenant if application is under the same conditions for the reasons given in the old covenants application to the beard and hair cutting in regards to idolatry. Of course God does not want us to copulate animals of different species together. Just the same as he does not want his people to mix with and have intermarriages with the people of the world.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

We agree we are one in Christ. An I would agree we are heirs of the promises to Abraham.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

People of course continued to be male and female, Jew or Greek, etc. But they were still one in Christ.

And if you want to claim that Jewish believers no longer needed to keep the whole law, you can make that argument. But we know they did continue to keep the whole law. And we know gentiles were not required to do so. The issue of whether the Jewish believers would stop keeping the whole law was not addressed, because they intended to do so.

So we can cut to the chase a little more here and speed up the conversation. I think we both know that there are many laws in the old covenant and new covenant that are still a requirement under the new covenant so there is no argument here in this regard. The question and discussions focus is therefore that we seem to be skirting around is, are God's 10 commandments a requirement for Christian living in the new covenant unless your trying to make an argument that we are to continue making animal sacrifices which I do not believe you are.

Therefore I think our earlier conversation therefore has been an important foundation for which I will be referring back to on a regular basis as much of what you are seeking to lead into now has also already been discussed already throughout this thread. So in order to avoid repetition. I believe we should focus on your main question here which is are God's 10 commandments a requirement for gentile believers in the new covenant.

I think we have laid a good foundation for this discussion already in showing that Gods' new covenant promises as shown in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:24-27 that Paul discusses in Hebrews 8:10-12 and Hebrews 10:1-22 are Gods' promise to His people (ISRAEL) in the new covenant of God giving His people a new heart to love and to walk in His Spirit and that love is not separated from God's law it is expressed in obedience to Gods' law as we have faith in God's Word. Of course Gods 4th commandment "seventh day Sabbath" is one of God's 10 commandments and our duty of love to God so should also be considered an important part of this discussion.

So without beating about the bush too much the real question should be, is God's 10 commandments a requirement for Christian living in the new covenant? We have already discussed the rest of your content in your post here through out this thread already.

Hope this is helpful