Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord wrote: We need to keep in mind the context of what Paul is saying here in Romans 2. Paul is not stating that Gentiles are righteous because they do by nature some things in the law. He is simply stating that by doing what is in the law from the heart even if we do not know what is in the law gentiles are doing the right thing. The context here of course is that it is not the hearers of the law that are just before God but the doers of the law that shall be justified. Of course we are talking about God's 10 commandments here as it is through the law that Paul states we have a knowledge of what sin is in Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7. So the point of these scripture in Romans 2 and Romans 3 is to show that none are righteous before God no not one therefore we can only be justified through God's forgiveness and faith *Romans 3:9-23

Your response here...

You might want to discuss with Bob on the point as he sees those who have the law written on the heart in Romans 2 to be saved under the new covenant (see the discussion earlier). However, we agree that the overall point of 1:18-3:20 is that all alike are under sin and in need of righteousness that comes apart from law as outlined beginning in 3:21. But you didn't address Romans 5. Some didn't have the law or commands to transgress, but still sinned. Yet it was possible to understand God's attributes through what He made, and some by nature recognized the law.

Of course gentile believers who have Gods' law written on the heart are saved because they are doing what the law requires them to do from the heart. The point of Romans 2 is that we are not saved by what we do because we are all under sin (sinners that have sinned) and that we can only be saved by God's grace through faith as we receive Gods' forgiveness for the sins we have already committed (Romans 2:9-23). Judgement according to the scriptures is rendered to every man according to his deeds that is by what we do according to Romans 2:6. This is the point here and that is we do not demonstrate faith in God's Word by not doing what God says. We are not saved by what we do we are saved by God's grace through faith *Romans 3:23 but faith does not abolish God's requirement for us to be obedient to God's law, obedience is the fruit of what true faith is and establishes Gods' law not because we are saved by what we do but because we love God and do what he wants us to do from the heart *Romans 3:31; Romans 8:1-4; Romans 6:1-33.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord wrote:So to claim we are following God according to the scriptures while breaking anyone of God's 10 commandments that give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken is not saving faith but the faith of devils who believe but do not follow *James 2:17-20; 26.

Your response here...

That is the issue under consideration, whether the Sabbath is required. And the problem you state cuts both ways, as I well know, having been on both sides of the question. If it is required then to refuse it is to refuse God's command. But if it is not required then asking people to do so is also against God's will.

I believe it is very clear from the scriptures provided already that God's 4th commandment is one of God's 10 commandments and that everyone of Gods' 10 commandments are a requirement and standard for Christian living which according to the scriptures give us the knowledge of good (moral right doing) and evil (moral wrong doing); sin (moral wrong doing) and righteousness (moral wrong doing) *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; Psalms 119:172 and if we knowingly break anyone of them according to James we stand guilty before God of sin according to *James 2:10-11.

There is not one scripture in all of God's Word that says God's 4th commandment has been abolished and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a Holy day of rest, just the same as there is no scripture that calls this so called Sunday rest "the Lords day" which is taken from Revelation 1:10. This of course we know however is a man-made tradition and teaching according to Jesus that has led many either knowingly or unknowingly to break Gods' 4th commandment of the 10 commandments. Yet according to the scriptures and very Words of Jesus in Matthew 15:3-9 we are warned that if we follow the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God we are not worshiping God.

So who should we believe and follow God or man? According to the scriptures God holds us accountable for what we know not what we do not know in James 4:17 and Acts of the Apostles 17:30-31. Gods people I have stated many times here and elsewhere are in every Church *John 10:16. The hour is coming and now is says Jesus that Gods' true worshipers wherever they may be will hear His voice (the Word) and follow him (John 4:23; John 10:26-27).

God is a Spirit and those who worship Him according to the scriptures must worship Him in Spirit and in truth *John 4:24. All this of course is the first angels message and is in regards to worship which is the issue we are discussing here. "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. All these scriptures are linked together pointing back to what we have forgotten, God is calling us back to REMEMBER the Sabbath day and the God of creation and to worship Him that made the heavens and the earth and the sea and the fountains.

Gods 4th commandment is the only one of Gods' 10 commandments that acknowledges God as the God of creation and God as our creator and only one entitled to our worship. BABYLON has fallen God is calling His people where ever they may be our from following man-made teachings and traditions back to the pure Word of God *Revelation 14:9-12; Revelation 18:1-5; John 10:26-27.

Hope this is helpful

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Physical circumcision is an example of something clearly commanded by God. It was required of Abraham's offspring, and you say we are all that. But in the new covenant physical circumcision was not required. As I mentioned I am reviewing the question.

As posted earlier and shown from the scriptures, circumcision is not one of God's 10 commandments and was a "shadow law" of a new heart to love by faith in Gods' Word (scripture support here linked) leading into God's new covenant promise from Paul in Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:24-27. Paul stating elsewhere under the new covenant that neither circumcision matters or uncircumcision matters but keeping of the commandments of God in 1 Corinthians 7:19 which is what he was referring to when talking about Gentiles doing by nature those things that are written in the law from the heart. Gods' new covenant promise of writing his law in our heart is what circumcision points to and is continued in Gods' new covenant promise. So to break God's law or anyone of God's 10 commandments according to the scriptures does not demonstrate a circumcised heart through faith as the result of faith is to establish God's law not break it according to Hebrews 8:10-12; Romans 3:31; Romans 8:1-4; Romans 6:1-23; 1 John 2:3-4 in those who have been born again to love as shown in Matthew 22:36-40; John 3:3-7; 1 John 3:4-9; 1 John 5:2-4.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

If you wish to consider me as similar to a demon, I can just discuss with BobRyan. Either way we will all stand before the judgment seat.

I have only provided scripture here in our discussion and I do not consider you or anyone anywhere a demon and have never said as such so to claim that by me providing scripture for what I believe by quoting scripture is claiming you are a demon is not true. I do not judge you or anyone here or anywhere as God's Word according to the scriptures for what we accept or knowingly reject according to John 12:47-48 will be our judge come judgement day. Hope this has cleared up any misunderstandings.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑I do not need to. The tables were in reference to Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 of the two great commandments of love to God and man. The first four commandments are our duty of Love to God and the second six are our duty of love to our fellow man. On these two commandments of love hang all the law and the prophets (Matthew 22:36-40)

Your response here...

You don't need to, but then why claim what is on each table when it is not stated? Of course, it is stated, just by Ellen White: A Vision On one table was four, and on the other six. The four on the first table shone brighter than the other six. But the fourth (the Sabbath commandment,) shone above them all

I stated what was in the scriptures. Are you claiming that the first four commandments are not our duty of love to God and the second six commandments are not our duty of Love to our fellow man? I can see if you cannot that there are two great commandments of Love to God and love to man as stated in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 that Jesus quotes from in Matthew 22:36-40 and there are two tables of stone that God wrote on for a reason can't you? That said I was not aware of the quote you provided from the SOP, so thanks for sharing this. My understanding of God's two great commandments of love to God and man was taken from the scriptures where Jesus says on these two great commandments hang all the law and the prophets and see God wrote these on two tables of stone for a reason linking love to law (John 15:15; 1 John 5:2-4; Romans 13:8-10; James 2:8-12).

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
God created fish "before any king reigned over the Israelites" does not mean that Israelites were in Caanan before God created fish.

It does mean that kings over the Israelites happened prior to the writing of Genesis.

Only if we can safely assume that God would not show a prophet the future, even though Moses clearly says that God did that very thing in his case.

Deut 30 comes to mind.

“So it will be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have placed before you, and you call them to mind in all the nations where the Lord your God has scattered you, 2 and you return to the Lord your God and obey Him with all your heart and soul in accordance with everything that I am commanding you today, you and your sons, 3 then the Lord your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. "

The scope of that statement includes the time of the Kings of Israel -- future.

It occurs to me that a number of your arguments rely heavily on extreme inference - reading things into the text that are later shown to be unsustainable when compared to details in other texts.

As I said before - everyone has free will and if you want that to be where you make your case then so be it. But I would think it would help your own argument more to make the point from what it is in the text - not just from largely inferring details that in other texts do not appear to hold up that well.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

@LoveGodsWord
@Freth
@Albion
@imge
@RBPerry
@bbbbbbb
@Danthemailman





Indeed, and the unclean animals distinction existed before animals were yet food. There were already animals for sacrifice.

Since folks keep wanting to discuss Genesis 2 we can now turn to that, and a couple other related texts.

We see this often with Genesis, addressing things not yet happened in the narrative of the book, or even things beyond the narrative of the book. So Eve is mentioned as the mother of the living before having children.

Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
Gen 3:20 The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
Gen 3:21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

And the kings of Israel, not covered in Genesis or Exodus, are referred to in Genesis.

Gen 36:31 These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites.

Now that last one does need to be addressed. If there were kings (plural) in Israel at the time of the writing of Genesis, then it was not written by Moses.

And this is the difficulty with Genesis 2. You noted that Exodus quoted Genesis 2.But if Genesis was not written until there were kings of Israel then it was not quoting Genesis 2. Rather Genesis 2 was quoting the words of God from the mountain.

Exodus' statement is cemented at the specific time that God Himself spoke the ten commandments at Sinai. Genesis, written after kings were in Israel then came after this statement.

And the blessing and making holy then was is also in question.
God gave Israel the sign:

Exo 31:12 And the LORD said to Moses,
Exo 31:13 “You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you.
Exo 31:14 You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Exo 31:15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.
Exo 31:16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.
Exo 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

That is why many note it does not make any reference to people keeping the Sabbath, or any details. Because what is shown in Genesis 2 is God resting from His work of creation.

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.

And then the next statement relates hallowing of the day with an explanatory statement:

Gen 2:3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.

But because of the habit of Genesis to put in explanatory statements for Israel, the timing of that hallowing is in question. Exodus 20 is then recalling God's rest, and now calling Israel to rest as a sign that God makes them holy. And because Genesis was written after the kings of Israel, it was not a quote.

And this is also why in Deuteronomy 5 we see an alternate rationale for the same command when Moses reiterates the ten commandments.

Deu 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

He didn't forget what God said. But he pointed out that the Sabbath was a sign with Israel. It pointed to their creator, and it pointed towards their redeemer.

It was a sign in the midst of their covenant document that reminded them of the nature of their Suzerain and His claims over them, and His choosing of them.

Will address this one in detail latter as I need to go out for now thanks for sharing

 

[tall73]

the Ten already in the ark for 40 years - were not being changed at all.

Agreed totally. As I said, he didn't forget. Nor did he change the tablets.

What is happening in Deut 5 is Moses is showing that though all mankind is obligated by the creation fact of Gen 2:1-3
as Ex 20:8-11 points - yet for Israel (a subset of that very same mankind) an additional incentive to "not profane God's Sabbath" is that they of all other nations - were delivered by God from slavery.

Except he doesn't say "all mankind due to the Genesis fact". He says it is a sign with Israel in Ex. 31. And he notes the Exodus as part of the "therefore" in Deuteronomy 5.

And you have not demonstrated that Genesis was written yet. Though we do agree the earth was already created.

 

[BobRyan]

And note:

Gen 12:6 Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land.

At the time of the writing Canaanites were not in the land.

How did you come to that conclusion? inference?

If Moses is writing for future generations that he sees as stated in Deut 30 - so that he knows that the Caananite nations will not be in the land for a large part of the time that his readers will be looking at his writing - what prevents him from writing in that fashion... extreme inference?

 

[BobRyan]

...What is happening in Deut 5 is Moses is showing that though all mankind is obligated by the creation fact of Gen 2:1-3 as Ex 20:8-11 points - yet for Israel (a subset of that very same mankind) an additional incentive to "not profane God's Sabbath" is that they of all other nations - were delivered by God from slavery.

Except he doesn't say "all mankind due to the Genesis fact".

Exodus is written before Deut 5 - this is beyond dispute.
Genesis is written before Exodus - (it is actually written while Moses is in Midian.)

But in this case Exodus 20:8-11 does make the case that all mankind is obligated by the Gen 2:1-3 fact "alone".

This fact -
Gen 2:
And so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

Is the only fact that is appealed to in Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Same reference - and nothing else in that unit of TEN for making it a holy day. I think your argument has the problem that this fact would apply to all mankind.

And of course that is why Is 56:6 gentiles are specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping.

It is why in Is 66:23 it is "ALL MANKIND" that is gathering for worship "from Sabbath to Sabbath" for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth.

And this "all mankind" scope for the Sabbath commandment is one of those details where the SDA position is held in common with Bible scholarship in almost all Christian denominations.

 

[tall73]

Only if we can safely assume that God would not show a prophet the future, even though Moses clearly says that God did that very thing in his case.

I have no problem with God telling Moses the future. He does many times. Including even establishing laws that prohibit activity by Saul later in regards to kings buying too many horses, etc. Certainly the prophecy of the prophet like unto me is a prophesy, etc.


But here it does not state it as in the future.

Gen 36:31 These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites.

These kings reigned before any king reigned over the Israelites. It is looking back.

And here again it is looking back:

Gen 12:6 Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land.

At the time describes the Canaanites were in the land.

Deut 30 comes to mind.

“So it will be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have placed before you, and you call them to mind in all the nations where the Lord your God has scattered you, 2 and you return to the Lord your God and obey Him with all your heart and soul in accordance with everything that I am commanding you today, you and your sons, 3 then the Lord your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. "

Yes, that is stated to come about in the future. So that would be foretelling the future.

 

[BobRyan]

Nor did Moses likely write this material at the end of Deuteronomy:

Deu 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD,
Deu 34:6 and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day.


Though he may well have written much of the book, and certainly much of it records his words.

No question that there are inserts by editors/authors other than Moses particularly at the end. I agree.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, that is stated to come about in the future. So that would be foretelling the future.

two options

1. It proves that Moses saw a time when there would be kings in the land of Canaan - a period of time much longer than the future time of the judges where there would still be no Kings of Israel - so he knew his readers would be aware of those kings either as contemporaries or in history.

2. It may be a small added insert by a copyist at a later date. As you appear to suggest in the following example...

Nor did Moses likely write this material at the end of Deuteronomy:

Deu 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD,
Deu 34:6 and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day.


Though he may well have written much of the book, and certainly much of it records his words.

He is already writing history - even for is contemporary readers when speaking of Abraham.

But other than writing this text in Midian before any other books written by Moses existed -- just what is "proposed" as the contemporary reader of that note that could remotely have been benefited by it??

 

[tall73]

Genesis is written before Exodus - (it is actually written while Moses is in Midian.)

Please show the text that says so and that will solve the problem. Because then all of the texts would make sense for me.

However, it must be a Bible text. So please don't post this one:

The Story of Patriarchs and Prophets, by Ellen G. White. Chapter 22: Moses

Heavenly angels shed their light around him. Here, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he wrote the book of Genesis. The long years spent amid the desert solitudes were rich in blessing, not alone to Moses and his people, but to the world in all succeeding ages.

 

[tall73]

It proves that Moses saw a time when there would be kings in the land of Canaan - a period of time much longer than the future time of the judges where there would still be no Kings of Israel - so he knew his readers would be aware of those kings either as contemporaries or in history.

He is already writing history - even for is contemporary readers when speaking of Abraham.

The author is already writing history from the perspective of "even to this day" which is mentioned a number of times in the book. And he is looking back on kings in Israel, and the time before that.

Why would he write that way but in the other write Moses making a statement that clearly deals with future events from Moses' time?

It shows he could have written it that way if that was the point.

 

[BobRyan]

But here it does not state it as in the future.

Gen 36:31 These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites.

These kings reigned before any king reigned over the Israelites. It is looking back.

No matter how you look at it (no matter which view we take) - talking about Abraham's day is "looking back" from Moses' day.

Your entire case is on the inference that either Moses was not aware of a future time where kings would be in Israel or that he could not have known that his readers would know that at some point in time. It does not make sense to write that Abraham dealt with kings in Canaan and Edom "before a future time for us when there would be kings". No matter whose view you take of this.

So he is either writing this for the readers both contemporary and future or as you infer - he is excluding all future readers in which case the kings of Israel must already be known to his contemporaries.

I just don't find that sort of inference compelling.

 

[BobRyan]

The author is already writing history from the perspective of "even to this day" which is mentioned a number of times in the book. And he is looking back on kings in Israel, and the time before that.

Why would he write that way but in the other write Moses making a statement that clearly deals with future events from Moses' time?

It shows he could have written it that way if that was the point.

You have shown a preference for large amounts of inference - that I don't share.

I think we can agree that this is one of our differences.

Even you would agree that if I were given these three choices -
1. take my own inference
2. Take whatever I think God told Ellen White about this detail
3. Take your inference

That it would make more sense for someone that is "not you" to take 2 or 1.

 

[tall73]

No matter how you look at it (no matter which view we take) - talking about Abraham's day is "looking back" from Moses' day.

Of course it is.

Your entire case is on the inference that either Moses was not aware of a future time where kings would be in Israel or that he could not have known that his readers would know that at some point in time.

No, I stated plainly Moses was told the future on multiple occasions. My point is that here it is stating something looking back. And it states so.

It does not make sense to write that Abraham dealt with kings in Canaan and Edom "before a future time for us when there would be kings". No matter whose view you take of this.

Sure it does. It is speaking of Edom, the descendants of Esau, and makes a point that Edom was settled before Israel was in the promised land (they had to pass around it), and before there were any kings in Israel. It is looking back.

So he is either writing this for the readers both contemporary and future or as you infer - he is excluding all future readers in which case the kings of Israel must already be known to his contemporaries.

The kings of Israel were known to the contemporaries of the author. That is straight-forward.

 

[tall73]

@bbbbbbb
@Danthemailman

You have shown a preference for large amounts of inference - that I don't share.

I think we can agree that this is one of our differences.

Bob, you are the one trying to make it sound like Moses was writing in the past tense about things that hadn't happened yet. I would say that is the inference, rather than reading the text.

But we can solve this once you provide the Scripture evidence for your claim that Moses wrote the book of Genesis in Midian.

Genesis is written before Exodus - (it is actually written while Moses is in Midian.)

But don't give me this one, because it is not in the Bible.


The Story of Patriarchs and Prophets, by Ellen G. White. Chapter 22: Moses

Heavenly angels shed their light around him. Here, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he wrote the book of Genesis. The long years spent amid the desert solitudes were rich in blessing, not alone to Moses and his people, but to the world in all succeeding ages.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, you are the one trying to make it sound like Moses was writing in the past tense about things that hadn't happened yet.

On the contrary I make it sound like Abraham was in the past - as Moses states and that the fact that the kings of Edom and Canaan existed before kings of Israel would exist is also a historic fact.

But we can solve this once you provide the Scripture evidence for your claim that Moses wrote the book of Genesis in Midian.

Your inference is that he did not ... mine is this --

Even you would agree that if I were given these three choices -
1. take my own inference
2. Take whatever I think God told Ellen White about this detail
3. Take your inference

That it would make more sense for someone that is "not you" to take 2 or 1.

But don't give me this one, because it is not in the Bible.

The solution you infer is also not in the Bible.

I suggest that the only way this works as a useful insert/comment for a reader is if Genesis is written before all other books of the bible.

The kings of Israel were known to the contemporaries of the author. That is straight-forward.

That's one of the options for the editor inserting this comment. The question is "who would be helped by it" that already had all the other books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Samuel (as you appear to suggest). How would it help them to be reminded that the grandfather of Jacob lived before the kings of Israel in your POV?

It appears to me that - that detail only works in the scenario I propose for Genesis before all other books of the Bible.