Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

tall73 said:

a. Where does the Bible use the term moral law? If you had such a verse you wouldn't be quoting the confessions of faith.

Click to expand...

The Confessions of Faith simply use it as short hand for "that law which defines what sin is" and "that law which is written on the heart under the New Covenant" of Jer 31:31-34

tall73 said:

3. Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

This section has a contradiction. It indicates that these "ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties". But they don't classify it in the moral law. And they include these laws with moral duties in the cancelled laws.

How can you have a moral law category that does not include some of the moral laws? This would include the two great commandments as well, and you already stipulated they are not removed.

Click to expand...

I don't limit it to the TEN - I simply point out that the concept of divisions into different types of Law is a concept shared across denominations.

The term is just used as short hand for "that law which defines what sin is" (As we see in Rom 3:19-20) so it is "that law which is written on the heart under the New Covenant" of Jer 31:31-34

tall73 said:

This would include Paul referencing muzzling an ox while treading out the grain, etc. which he then applies to pastoral support. This would eliminate a number of things that should not be eliminated.

Click to expand...

I am fine with applying the "no cruelty to animals" teachings and that being cruel to animals does not honor God.

But in that case - Paul is not commanding people to keep those muzzles off - rather he is applying this to paying pastors and evangelists and the principle of giving someone their due support - which is a moral obligation. But I would also agree that cruelty to animals is a moral issue.

As I said before - I never say the moral law of God is "only the TEN". My claim is that there are "divisions" in Law so that as Paul says in 1 Cor 7:19 "circumcision and uncircumcision is nothing -- what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" -- he shows a contrast in different kinds of law.

tall73 said:

I agree many are brothers and sisters in Christ.

I don't think the thread is doing harm if we are trying to wrestle with the meaning of things.

You have been out of the Adventist church for a long time. But do you still have things to work through in that regard, whether doctrinally, relationally with friends and family, etc.? Do you reconsider your decision? Have you come to terms with how people responded?

It is not bad to discuss things with Bob and the other Adventists. But we must be sure to do it in sincerity, and remembering that they are also wanting to do God's will. And if we find we were wrong either before or now, we should still choose to follow God.

Click to expand...

I really like this post and I think it shows the real benefit of having people that do not always agree on every doctrinal topic - have the freedom to discuss difference without losing the Christian spirit of brothers and sisters in Christ.

tall73 said:

That says who sowed, not the scope. She already indicated the scope.



No, she already limited the scope of what she thinks the field is throughout the chapter. Why would you change the definition in the last paragraph?

"The field," Christ said, "is the world." But we must understand this as signifying the church of Christ in the world. The parable is a description of that which pertains to the kingdom of God, His work of salvation of men; and this work is accomplished through the church.

So it is from enmity to Christ that Satan scatters his evil seed among the good grain of the kingdom. The fruit of his sowing he attributes to the Son of God. By bringing into the church those who bear Christ's name while they deny His character, the wicked one causes that God shall be dishonored, the work of salvation misrepresented, and souls imperiled.

Christ's servants are grieved as they see true and false believers mingled in the church. They long to do something to cleanse the church. Like the servants of the householder, they are ready to uproot the tares. But Christ says to them, "Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest."

Christ has plainly taught that those who persist in open sin must be separated from the church, but He has not committed to us the work of judging character and motive.

As the tares have their roots closely intertwined with those of the good grain, so false brethren in the church may be closely linked with true disciples. The real character of these pretended believers is not fully manifested. Were they to be separated from the church, others might be caused to stumble, who but for this would have remained steadfast.

The world has no right to doubt the truth of Christianity because there are unworthy members in the church, nor should Christians become disheartened because of these false brethren. How was it with the early church? Ananias and Sapphira joined themselves to the disciples. Simon Magus was baptized. Demas, who forsook Paul, had been counted a believer. Judas Iscariot was numbered with the apostles. The Redeemer does not want to lose one soul; His experience with Judas is recorded to show His long patience with perverse human nature; and He bids us bear with it as He has borne. He has said that false brethren will be found in the church till the close of time.

Notwithstanding Christ's warning, men have sought to uproot the tares. To punish those who were supposed to be evildoers, the church has had recourse to the civil power.

Not all that is sown in the field is good grain. The fact that men are in the church does not prove them Christians.

The tares closely resembled the wheat while the blades were green; but when the field was white for the harvest, the worthless weeds bore no likeness to the wheat that bowed under the weight of its full, ripe heads. Sinners who make a pretension of piety mingle for a time with the true followers of Christ, and the semblance of Christianity is calculated to deceive many; but in the harvest of the world there will be no likeness between good and evil. Then those who have joined the church, but who have not joined Christ, will be manifest.

Click to expand...

In Matt 7 Christ said the people one the "wide road" are saying "Lord Lord did we not cast out demons in your name". And other similar statements. So clearly Christ was not excluding those people in his own audience who knew who Christ was and yet were on the wide road. The same is true of Matt 13 - his parable does not exclude those who have a lot of knowledge about Christ and yet still fail.

But both also deal with the final result at the end of time - the absolute scope of all those lost and all those saved.

Just as we also see in that section of - Christ's Object Lessons, by Ellen G. White. Chapter 4: Tares

where at the end it also deals with all the lost and all the saved.

Even Peter himself as late as Acts 10 and 11 did not get that entire scope firmly in view.

However you already agreed that Ellen White stated in her view the scope of "all those saved" includes those that "never knew the name of Christ".

It could be that you may be thinking that she taught that some of the saved are in the Church of Christ and some are not.. I really don't know what the point is you are going for there.

-- I am kinda of guessing and may be making incorrect guesses or inferences.

=================================================

But let's back up for a minute. Earlier you said you left the Adventist church over doctrinal issues which means it does not matter what we conclude here on the definition of "what is Church of Christ" because presumably those doctrinal issues "still remain".

And "that" is why I never debate Ellen White topics with someone that is not SDA - because at the end of the day no matter if we came to full agreement on every Ellen White subject we care to discuss at the moment - we would still be left with "the doctrinal differences". And we could always have the following exchange -

A. "Ok Bob I agree with you on this one specif question about Ellen White - now do you recommend/suggest that I accept Ellen White as a true prophet of God even though I have doctrinal differences with other things she claimed God is approving of or endorsing?"

B. And I would always respond "no - the Bible says you should test prophets by what the Bible says - if you don't think that her claims about what God is stating/endorsing has lined up with your understanding of the Bible - then you should not accept her as an inspired prophet".

And that means there is no point in going back-and-forth about Ellen White on edge-points like "what is her thoughts on the scope of term "Church of Christ" in this part of C.O.L. given that she thought some people who did not even know the name of Christ would still be saved/born-again/people-of-God"

BobRyan said:

The Confessions of Faith simply use it as short hand for "that law which defines what sin is" and "that law which is written on the heart under the New Covenant" of Jer 31:31-34

Click to expand...

a. So violating the Passover was not sin? One could be cut off from the community for it.

b. Jeremiah uses the term "torah" when discussing what is written on the heart.
The better covenant is based on better promises, in regards to the people, because they did not keep it. The promise of the people was to do all that the Lord commanded. The promise in the new covenant is on God's part to write it in their hearts, rather than it depending on their failed promise.

So what was the law in the first covenant? It was the whole thing. All the Lord commanded.

I don't limit it to the TEN - I simply point out that the concept of divisions into different types of Law is a concept shared across denominations.

Click to expand...

The content of the concept needs to be shown biblically.

The term is just used as short hand for "that law which defines what sin is" (As we see in Rom 3:19-20) so it is "that law which is written on the heart under the New Covenant" of Jer 31:31-34

Click to expand...

Romans 3 certainly has potential, and I have also noted the use of the phrase law on the heart, which is parallel to Jeremiah. But let's first note that the first covenant had obligations to all that the Lord commanded, including the "ceremonial." Then we can see how that plays out in Romans 3.

Also, I think we share the notion that Romans 8 indicates we are to fulfill the "righteous requirements" of the law through the Spirit, and that without the Spirit the flesh cannot please God:

3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be b]">[b]carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the c]">[c]carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

I am fine with applying the "no cruelty to animals" teachings and that being cruel to animals does not honor God.

But in that case - Paul is not commanding people to keep those muzzles off - rather he is applying this to paying pastors and evangelists and the principle of giving someone their due support - which is a moral obligation

Click to expand...

Which I noted in my initial comment. And it notes his application of the principle of a law outside of the ten.

BobRyan said:

So you did not "downsize them to nine"?



The old covenant is "obey and live" according to Gal3 and Romans 3. under that covenant all mankind is lost. It includes the command to no take God's name in vain Ex 20:7

The new covenant Jer 31:31-34 includes the new birth and is the "one" Gospel covenant Gal 1:6-9 under which all mankind is saved that accept the Gospel, that also includes "do not take God's name in vain" and that was "preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8



Rom 2:4-16 shows them going to either heaven or hell based on that review of works
Matt 7 - Christ said they go to heaven or hell based on what they did, because what they do "is the FRUIT" that shows if they are born again or not.


"Do His commandments" does not mean that we earn eternal life based on the merits of works - as you point out. The sinner cannot "earn heaven" by not taking God's name in vain.

Really easy concepts but often times bias can keep a person from seeing it.



As I said.



No one - that is why all are lost under the old covenant rules according to Rom 3:19-23.

only the saved are under the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 as already stated

Click to expand...

Hello Bob, maybe the commandments has been downsize to just two... (love God & others) which is the law and Prophets...thanks

BobRyan said:

In Matt 7 Christ said the people one the "wide road" are saying "Lord Lord did we not cast out demons in your name". And other similar statements. So clearly Christ was not excluding those people in his own audience who knew who Christ was and yet were on the wide road. The same is true of Matt 13 - his parable does not exclude those who have a lot of knowledge about Christ and yet still fail.

Click to expand...

Of course Jesus' parable does not exclude them. Nor do I have any issue with Jesus' parable. And neither did you in your explanation of it.

Just as we also see in that section of - Christ's Object Lessons, by Ellen G. White. Chapter 4: Tares

where at the end it also deals with all the lost and all the saved.

Click to expand...

Except it does not. She limits the scope of the whole parable.

And she literally states that Christ said the field is the world, but we have to understand it as the church.

That is the issue. And she treated the whole subject regarding those in the church. How can she change the words of Christ?

Even Peter himself as late as Acts 10 and 11 did not get that entire scope firmly in view.

Click to expand...

We agree, and God set him straight. Though really God set him straight ahead of time, in Acts 1 where the gospel was to go to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the world, as well as other instances. However, he did so again in the incident with Cornelius as you note.

But we are not dealing with a confusion on Ellen White's part here about the righteous in the church or out of the church being saved, or the wicked inside the church, or outside of the church being saved. I already stipulated that her other comments indicate that she is aware that the wicked are lost and the righteous are saved by God.

The issue here is that she changed the scope of Jesus' parable of the tares and corrected his own words. Instead of it being a straight-forward description of the separation of the righteous and the wicked at the end of time throughout the whole world, she changes it to be about the righteous and wicked in the church. I highlighted all the phrases where she makes this clear throughout, after she started by redefining the field.

I really don't know what the point is you are going for there.

-- I am kinda of guessing and may be making incorrect guesses or inferences.

Click to expand...

It is very straight-forward. Jesus said the field is the world. She changed it to the church.

Those are not the same.

She then goes on to talk about all the elements of the parable in relation to the church.

tall73 said:

I think we largely agree then.

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?

Click to expand...

I agree with what BobRyan said, it applies to all Ten Commandments, in the least, but I do consider the law of God to be all the law and the prophets, which would include the Bible as a whole. And before you ask, yes, minus the law pointing to Jesus (sacrificial, etc.)

On the subject of the parable...

Read the whole parable closely; Matthew 13:24-30:
Verse 24, Jesus is likening the kingdom of heaven to a man [Jesus] sowing good seed in his field. Ellen's adaptation isn't about the world, it's about the church; Jesus sowing seeds to His flock.
The sleeping church. The enemy would be Satan. Lukewarmness, division, false doctrine, etc.
This is a parable about the falling away of the church in the end time, as Paul prophesied in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.

The reason Jesus wants to wait until the last possible moment is because the tribulation is going to test the faith of the church. Many will right themselves during this time and many will fall away during this time. In other words, the harvest isn't ripe, as per verse 30.

I believe this is why Ellen put emphasis on it being about the church. I don't think it takes away from the world aspect, I think she was applying it to the church to wake people up to the fact that the church has tares in it as well. It is clear that all will be tested by the tribulation, but by that time, the world may be too far gone (as in the days of Noah), for this particular parable to be applicable to Joe Secular.

BobRyan said:

But let's back up for a minute. Earlier you said you left the Adventist church over doctrinal issues which means it does not matter what we conclude here on the definition of "what is Church of Christ" because presumably those doctrinal issues "still remain".

Click to expand...

It matters because the subject of the thread is the orthodoxy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. How you approach Scripture, and particularly, how you relate that to Ellen White's writings is important. This exercise was to give an example of that process that is outside the usual scope of Adventist hot-button issues.

And "that" is why I never debate Ellen White topics with someone that is not SDA - because at the end of the day no matter if we came to full agreement on every Ellen White subject we care to discuss at the moment - we would still be left with "the doctrinal differences". And we could always have the following exchange -

Click to expand...

Whether Adventists debate it with non-sda's or not they still are left with the problem of relating Ellen White's writings to the Scriptures. And that is partly what this thread is about.

A. "Ok Bob I agree with you on this one specif question about Ellen White - now do you recommend/suggest that I accept Ellen White as a true prophet of God even though I have doctrinal differences with other things she claimed God is approving of or endorsing?"

Click to expand...

I would have to reconcile all the doctrinal differences. However, the subject of the thread touches on how Adventists handle Scripture. And that doesn't depend on my conclusions from this conversation today. Nor does your role represent all Adventists in that endeavor. But going through the exercise does raise issues of how it all relates.

And that means there is no point in going back-and-forth about Ellen White on edge-points like "what is her thoughts on the scope of term "Church of Christ" in this part of C.O.L. given that she thought some people who did not even know the name of Christ would still be saved/born-again/people-of-God"

Click to expand...

No Bob, the point is that she changed the words of Christ, and changed the whole point of His parable.

And I am interested to see how that works out for you.

tall73 said:

a. So violating the Passover was not sin? One could be cut off from the community for it.

Click to expand...

1. Hebrews 10:4-11 points out that all law founded in animal sacrifice and offerings end at the cross.

2. Only 3 of the Lev 23 annual Sabbaths were mandatory for all Jews even in the OT - so some were clearly optional back then.

3. There was never an OT command for gentiles to observe the Lev 23 ceremonial laws in the OT - by contrast in Isaiah 56:6-8 gentiles are specifically singled out for weekly Sabbath keeping.

4. If we were all living before the time of the cross and a Jew asked me if it would be a sin for them to ignore the Passover I would say "yes".

tall73 said:

b. Jeremiah uses the term "torah" when discussing what is written on the heart.
The better covenant is based on better promises, in regards to the people, because they did not keep it. The promise of the people was to do all that the Lord commanded. The promise in the new covenant is on God's part to write it in their hearts, rather than it depending on their failed promise.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Gal 1:6-9 only ONE gospel - whether NT or OT - there is only that one.
Gal 3:8 that one Gospel was "preached to Abraham"
John 8 "Abraham saw My day and was glad".

So the LAW of God known to Jeremiah and his readers (exegesis again) is the context for the New Covenant Law written on the heart. And that most certainly includes the TEN - as you have already agreed -- but it is not limited to the TEN.

So what was the law in the first covenant? It was the whole thing. All the Lord commanded.

tall73 said:

Romans 3 certainly has potential, and I have also noted the use of the phrase law on the heart, which is parallel to Jeremiah. But let's first note that the first covenant had obligations to all that the Lord commanded, including the "ceremonial." Then we can see how that plays out in Romans 3.

Click to expand...

Rom 3:19-20 says it defines what sin is. So also does 1 John 3:4 and Paul makes the case in Eph 6:1-2 that the law we are talking about "includes" the one where in that unit "the first commandment with a promise" is the 5th commandment.

But you are bringing up the distinction between New Covenant (as opposed to New testament) and Old Covenant (as opposed to Old Testament) -- so a later post for that.

tall73 said:

Also, I think we share the notion that Romans 8 indicates we are to fulfill the "righteous requirements" of the law through the Spirit, and that without the Spirit the flesh cannot please God:

Click to expand...

agreed.

tall73 said:

Which I noted in my initial comment. And it notes his application of the principle of a law outside of the ten.

Click to expand...

agreed.

Freth said:

I agree with what BobRyan said, it applies to all Ten Commandments, in the least, but I do consider the law of God to be all the law and the prophets, which would include the Bible as a whole. And before you ask, yes, minus the law pointing to Jesus (sacrificial, etc.)

Click to expand...

Yes, the law and prophets refers to none of the Scriptures being done away with. And then He goes on to talk about commandments.

Now of course I don't think you mean that the Scriptures vanish regarding the sacrificial, but only that they are fulfilled, correct?

And you also see additional commands still valid beyond the 10? For instance, regarding vows, regarding loving God and neighbor, regarding prohibitions on sex with your close relative, regarding the example Paul gave of the oxen not being muzzled while it treads out the grain, etc. ?

Freth said:

I agree with what BobRyan said, it applies to all Ten Commandments, in the least, but I do consider the law of God to be all the law and the prophets, which would include the Bible as a whole. And before you ask, yes, minus the law pointing to Jesus (sacrificial, etc.)

On the subject of the parable...

Read the whole parable closely; Matthew 13:24-30:

​

Verse 24, Jesus is likening the kingdom of heaven to a man [Jesus] sowing good seed in his field. This isn't about the world, it's about Jesus sowing seeds to His flock, of heaven, not the world.

24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
​

The sleeping church. The enemy would be Satan. Lukewarmness, division, false doctrine, etc.

25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him [Jesus], Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest [second coming]: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
​

This is a parable about the falling away of the church in the end time, as Paul prophesied in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
​

The reason Jesus wants to wait until the last possible moment is because the tribulation is going to test the faith of the church. Many will right themselves during this time and many will fall away during this time. In other words, the harvest isn't ripe, as per verse 30.

Click to expand...

Hello Freth, so according to your interpretation of this parable (Matthew 13:24-30) as the "field" to be about the church Not the World (as Jesus interpret it) Matt 13:38..so in verse 30 are those who are in the church saved and those who are in the church that aren't saved....so the question is; how about those in the "World"?

tall73 said:

b. Jeremiah uses the term "torah" when discussing what is written on the heart.
The better covenant is based on better promises, in regards to the people, because they did not keep it. The promise of the people was to do all that the Lord commanded. The promise in the new covenant is on God's part to write it in their hearts, rather than it depending on their failed promise.

So what was the law in the first covenant? It was the whole thing. All the Lord commanded.

Click to expand...

First: New Covenant vs Old Covenant


Gal 3 makes the case for the Old Covenant being defined as "Obey and Live" - it is the Gen 2 and 3 condition for Adam and Eve and they ultimately chose to fail at it after having lived by it for a short while.

Gal 3 says this -

11 Now, that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “the righteous one will live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “The person who performs them will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”—

So both Adam and Eve and Christ were under the "obey and live" condition - but Adam and Eve though sinless chose sin and failed. Christ did not.

Each lost member of mankind "all the world" -- "every mouth" is condemned to hell - condemned to the lake of fire second-death Rev 20 under that old covenant to this very day, according to Rom 3.

Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes knowledge of sin.

That law defines what sin is - and condemns every single human "ALL have sinned" Rom 3:23.

That IS the Old Covenant in its purest - spiritual form.

All the lost are lost still to this very day under that same legal "agreement" legal set of terms. Obey and live. So then all "need the Gospel".

There are outward symbols of it - such as Sinai and the giving of the Law - but that does not mean that Moses was not under the New Covenant.

In Matt 17 we see Moses and Elijah stand WITH Christ in GLORY - before the cross even happens. That is only possible via the "one Gospel" Gal 1:6-9 - that is the only one we have ever had. The one preached to Abraham Gal 3:8. Moses was a New Covenant Christian.

====================

The Moral Law of God - (that which defines sin ) is the same under both covenants.

So it is a sin to take God's name in vain under the Old Covenant
And it is a sin to take God's name in vain under the New Covenant.

tall73 said:

It matters because the subject of the thread is the orthodoxy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. How you approach Scripture, and particularly, how you relate that to Ellen White's writings is important. This exercise was to give an example of that process that is outside the usual scope of Adventist hot-button issues.

Click to expand...

In the broader issue of "orthodoxy" we have to first define the term.

Orthodoxy with respect to the doctrine and teaching of the "church fathers" that were writing the NT in the first century - means conforming to the doctrine of those Apostles - those Church Fathers. And when you bring Ellen White into it - then the first question is - what did THOSE Church Fathers say about the gifts of the Spirit and specifically the gift of prophecy - how are Christians to relate to it - to a prophet , and how to test them.

But the "other" notion for Orthodoxy is to ignore the first century Christian church and just talk about creeds and church councils and the demand to conform doctrine to post NT - post-Apostolic popular thinking. I start on page one pointing out that we are using the "sola scriptura test" and not the non-Apostolic age ever changing set of ideas -- "test".

tall73 said:

Whether Adventists debate it with non-sda's or not they still are left with the problem of relating Ellen White's writings to the Scriptures. And that is partly what this thread is about.
.

Click to expand...

It is true that we have to do that internally within the group of Adventists because we have a common understanding of what scriptures teach and so a basis on which to discuss how we test what Ellen White said against scripture.

But as my prior post stated - that agreement does not exist across denominations so there is absolutely no claim by Adventists that a non-SDA should accept Ellen White as a prophet.

I don't see any way to start at that end and work backwards. The only way is to start at the doctrine end and work forwards. The same way the evangelist program bible studies do. IT is the only way to logically work through the details.

Freth said:

On the subject of the parable...

Read the whole parable closely; Matthew 13:24-30:

​

Verse 24, Jesus is likening the kingdom of heaven to a man [Jesus] sowing good seed in his field. This isn't about the world, it's about Jesus sowing seeds to His flock, of heaven, not the world.

Click to expand...

I did read it. But you will need to explain vs. 38 a bit more in light of what you just said:

37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.
Freth:
This isn't about the world, it's about Jesus sowing seeds to His flock, of heaven, not the world.

Jesus:
The field is the world

I believe this is why Ellen put emphasis on it being about the church. I don't think it takes away from the world aspect, I think she was applying it to the church to wake people up to the fact that the church has tares in it as well.

Click to expand...

If she wanted to say that this has primary reference to the whole world, but that tares exist in the church as well, I would completely agree. That is not out of line with the meaning of Jesus' parable. But it was certainly not the point of Jesus' parable.

For instance, I don't have an issue with her using the analogy of the tares metaphorically in her Letter 87, 1896, p. 6 (August 25, 1896, to O. A. Olsen), when she warns against spreading seeds of doubt. It is clearly metaphorical, and she spells out what she means by that.

The issue here is that she claims that the church is what Jesus was talking about. And to do so she has to redefine what Jesus already clearly said.

The parable was not primarily about the church, and redefining Jesus' words to make it so is quite strange.

It is clear that all will be tested by the tribulation, but by that time, the world may be too far gone (as in the days of Noah), for this particular parable to be applicable to Joe Secular.

Click to expand...

This parable is applicable to all humanity because it is a description of the disposition of all the lost and all the saved. Jesus framed it that way, and hence the field was the whole world. His Kingdom will remain with the sons of the kingdom, and the wicked will be no more in the world at all.

Ok, a lot to address still. Good discussion, but I need a break, and to complete some other tasks!

tall73 said:

I would have to reconcile all the doctrinal differences. However, the subject of the thread touches on how Adventists handle Scripture.

Click to expand...

Which is why it is pointless to quote Ellen White.

For the non-SDA evaluation process the closest we get is "what does the Bible say a Christian should do when a prophet makes a statement". And that gets to test of a prophet, work of the holy spirit, what does the Bible say about Spiritual Gifts, 1 Cor 14:1-2 , 1 Cor 12 etc.

After that it gets to "test sola scriptura" and for us to discuss it - we need a common reference point which we don't have until the "yes well what exactly does the Bible say" discussion is had in detail.

Thank you @tall73 for putting out this test regarding how people (denominations ) can follow biblical interpretation of their leaders instead of the Author of Scriptures Himself...

As Jesus said in John 5:43..." I have come in my Fathers name, and you do not accept me, but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him....

This is happening before our eyes...

And that means there is no point in going back-and-forth about Ellen White on edge-points like "what is her thoughts on the scope of term "Church of Christ" in this part of C.O.L. given that she thought some people who did not even know the name of Christ would still be saved/born-again/people-of-God"

tall73 said:

No Bob, the point is that she changed the words of Christ, and changed the whole point of His parable.

Click to expand...

1. I have not seen that case made yet.
2. I don't see the value in "what did she say that differs with the bible" until we get to "what does the Bible say"

The idea that we can ignore Bible doctrine and just test a prophet by the Bible no matter that we don't agree on bible doctrine has an extremely limited usefulness in my POV. I prefer to get the bible right first.

pasifika said:

Hello Freth, so according to your interpretation of this parable (Matthew 13:24-30) as the "field" to be about the church Not the World (as Jesus interpret it) Matt 13:38..so in verse 30 are those who are in the church saved and those who are in the church that aren't saved....so the question is; how about those in the "World"?

Click to expand...

You are correct, I misspoke. I've amended my post.

Old: This isn't about the world, it's about Jesus sowing seeds to His flock, of heaven, not the world.
New: Ellen's adaptation isn't about the world, it's about the church; Jesus sowing seeds to His flock.

My intention was apparent in my first iteration, as I wrote this: "I believe this is why Ellen put emphasis on it being about the church. I don't think it takes away from the world aspect, I think she was applying it to the church to wake people up to the fact that the church has tares in it as well."