Christian/7th Day Adventist Relationship Advice-Help!

[Endeavourer]

We here can't resolve the theological differences between your girlfriend and you. Your question was about your relationship with her, not your doctrine, so I'll give you an answer about your relationship.

Here is the BEST pre-marital advice you will ever get about your situation:

In an article about choosing the right person to marry, Dr. Harley says this about situations exactly like yours:

"5. Values. Moral values usually dictate how we behave. The Policy of Joint Agreement and the Policy of Radical Honesty are moral values that I encourage all married couples to adopt because they create and sustain love. But even when these two important values are agreed to at the time of marriage, conflicts with other moral values can make the creation of a compatible lifestyle very difficult to achieve. Getting back to our Christmas example, it's a cultural difference that makes a spouse unskilled in knowing how to celebrate Christmas. But if you marry an Orthodox Jew, it's more than skill that will be a problem. He will probably be deeply offended by such a celebration. And that offense comes from his moral convictions, not just his cultural background. A discussion of values is always a good idea when on a date, because if you find your values to be very divergent, it will make it difficult for you to agree on a lifestyle that you enthusiastically share.

A question often asked in a compatibility test is "Would you be willing to give up your religion to please your spouse?" It's not really a fair question, because it usually doesn't come to that drastic measure. But the point is important, and I would rephrase the question a little differently. I would ask, "Do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from following the Policy of Joint Agreement?" That is actually more to the point. Is there some belief that is so important to you that you would be willing to let your spouse suffer rather that give it up? If so, you should be certain that your spouse shares the same belief.

The point in all of this is that wide differences in any of these five characteristics of people make it difficult, but not impossible, to create a compatible lifestyle. When dating, if you try to follow the Policy of Joint Agreement (never do anything without an enthusiastic agreement), you will be able to pick up on areas of incompatibility immediately. And if you find yourself fighting a difference in one of these characteristics, it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that it's not worth the effort to try to resolve it. That's when you break up and start in all over again with someone else."

Full article - well worth your time - here:

Choosing the Right One to Marry #2

The Policy of Joint Agreement is a description of one of the most critical skills required in a marriage, which summed up in a nutshell is: Never do anything at your spouse's expense or else your spouse will start to fall out of love with you.

If you have an issue that one spouse is not willing to give up and they will demand you comply although you don't want to, you will eventually fall out of love with that spouse (or vice versa if you are the one demanding).

For a better description, read here:
The Giver & Taker
The Policy of Joint Agreement

God bless,
E.

 

[GandalfTheWise]

I'm speaking from the perspective of having been married for over 30 years. We were both Christians when we married and had very similar views on most things. We attended the same church when we married and have been in agreement on where we've been since then. She is a woman of much integrity, honesty, and character. My young beautiful bride now has gray hair and wrinkles (and is about the same weight as when we married) but has a maturity, grace, and attractiveness that emerged with age. We are both in some senses very different people than when we got married. I married into a fantastic family. We are both happy with both sets of in-laws.

Marriage is a long road. It will have dry spells, problems, and trials. You will both change over time and your marriage must change to adapt to your changes. The fewer fundamental disagreements that you start with, the better. Over time, feelings change. The initial passion and attraction will slowly fade and (if all goes well) will be replaced with feelings of contentment, comfort, and familiarity. Too many marriages end because couples do not realize that both they and the marriage change over time. I cannot imagine having been down this road if my wife was not a woman of good character, that we had a very common outlook on spiritual matters and life, and that we had strong support from both families.

It sounds like the woman you are considering marrying is a person of good character which is a very good thing. But, families, churches, friends, and other things like that will play a big role in either supporting or stressing a marriage over time. If being a diligent SDA is of great importance to her and is not to you, this could be a daily stress (for both of you) over meals or other practices and a weekly stress over when and where to go to church. If being a diligent SDA is of great important to her family, how well will you fit in. If you (or she) move to a foreign country, how well will that work as well? At some point, will one of the other of you start to feel like you are compromising your beliefs for the other?

I don't say these things to discourage you from considering her as a marriage partner. Just giving you a heads up for things to consider beforehand so you don't get blindsided 5 to 10 to 15 years into a marriage.

 

[All4Christ]

AMBASSADOR HAT

Please remember that this is a no debate forum, and is not the place to debate theology. Please answer and address the OP directly.

Thank you!

 

[Jonathan Leo]

Jesus fulfilled the law because He was perfect, God, and without sin. He had to fulfill it because otherwise He would not be without sin.
What people fail to realise is that the 613 mosaic laws in Leviticus, Jesus up kept, but no man has ever being able to achieve it. As it states if you break one law, you have broken the whole law as you are a law breaker.
So to the 7th day advents I say this,
If you keep the sabbath but do not keep the other 600+ Laws, you are a law breaker and are already condemned.
Equally, thats why in romans, Paul says there is no longer circumcised or uncircumcised, if you become circumcised meaning depending on the law, then Christ is of no value to you.
Christ set us free from the law because the law could never save us. If it could then He didn't need to die. Christ gave us two commands, love God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself. Loving God is offering up our bodies as a sacrifice. ( abstaining from fleshly desires )

Keeping the sabbath as I stated in a previous post was for the Jews to rest from their works. The 7th day advents are deceived in this simple truth, so ask yourselves what else are they deceived in??

 

[sweetpsalmist]

Great advice guys, thank you again. Its nice to hear the reality of the situation.
GandalftheWise: Excellent advice, thank you sir. She actually is the only one in her family to be SDA, so I think they'll like me, haha. Also, she's not so keen on the diet, or the writings of their founder. Just law/grace mixed philosophy, I guess.

I think the route I'm going to take is to say, "whatever you want dear." I have no prob attending church on Sat with her, and care about her and her happiness more than my own. A concern is with raising children under that system, and them studying they're bible one day and realizing what momma is teaching them is not what Paul is teaching them. By showing my sacrifice in this matter and as doing as Paul did by behaving as one to win them over, even though I am not one, I hope change may come in God's perfect timing. I cannot change her mind, only Jesus can give a call she recognizes. I just care for her too much to argue anymore, and want her to have what she wants. "yes dear, whatever you want dear, lol".

Honestly, I feel if she just spent some time reading Paul's Gospel for some time, we would be on the same page mostly. The SDA's have so many other books that keep her busy, and whatever time she spends is mixed in new and old testaments.

Oh man, she might read these forums, I have to watch what I say, yikes! God Bless you all and thank you for your experienced answers.

 

[sweetpsalmist]

*their

 

[Soyeong]

Christ gave us two commands, love God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself. Loving God is offering up our bodies as a sacrifice. ( abstaining from fleshly desires )

In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus was not asked about which commands we should obeyed, but about what the greatest command was. He responded by saying that the greatest two commands were to love God and our neighbor and that the rest of the laws hang on these two. In other words, the greatest two commands are the greatest because they summarize all of the other commands and all of the other commands are examples of how to correctly obey the greatest two commands. So all of the 613 commands in the OT and 1,050 commands in the NT are part of God's instructions for how He wants us to love Him and our neighbor. The command to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind, strength, and soul, is a lot easier said than done, so thankfully we have all of these other commands to paint us a picture of what that looks like. It would be a mistake to say that we just need to obey God's command to love, so we can disregard all of His other commands for how He wants us to love Him and our neighbor. Jesus instructed more than two commands in Matthew 5 alone, so it is demonstrably false that he only gave two commands. He was sinless, so he taught how to obey all of the Mosaic Law by word and by example, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22).

Jesus fulfilled the law because He was perfect, God, and without sin. He had to fulfill it because otherwise He would not be without sin.

To fulfill the Law means "to cause God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS 2c). After Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law in Matthew 5:17, he then proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it as it should be. According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire Law, which refers to obeying it as it should be, and which means that it does not refer to something unique that only Jesus did. There are also many examples of other Jewish writings speaking about people fulfilling the law in this way. Likewise, Galatians 6:2 says that bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, which refers to obeying it as it should be, not to setting us free from having to obey it. In Romans 15:18-19, it says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, which again referred to causing the Gentiles to become fully obedient to it in word and in deed, not to doing away with it.

What people fail to realise is that the 613 mosaic laws in Leviticus, Jesus up kept, but no man has ever being able to achieve it. As it states if you break one law, you have broken the whole law as you are a law breaker.
So to the 7th day advents I say this,
If you keep the sabbath but do not keep the other 600+ Laws, you are a law breaker and are already condemned.

What people fail to realize is that in Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God said that what He command was not too difficult for us and Romans 10:5-8 quotes this passage in regard to what our faith says, so to say that we can't keep the Law is to call God a liar and to deny what our faith says, which you need to repent of doing. In James 2:1-10, the point that he was making was not that they were already condemned because they had broken and law and become a law breaker, so they shouldn't bother trying to keep the Law, but rather he was encouraging them to do a better job of obeying the Law more consistently by not showing favoritism. If the Law was about the need for perfect obedience, then there would be no point in repenting for our sins because it would already be too late, yet the message of every single prophet up to an including Jesus was one of repentance from our disobedience to the Law, not about the need for perfect obedience in order to obtain something. When we break a law and become a lawbreaker, then the consequence is that we need to repent and return to obedience, which is precisely what James was encouraging them to do.

Christ set us free from the law because the law could never save us. If it could then He didn't need to die.

The Law can not save us because it was never given for that purpose, but rather it was given to instruct us in how to walk in God ways and in how someone who has been declared righteous should therefore act. Nowhere does the Bible says that Christ set us free from the Law, but rather it says that he set us free from sin, which is the transgression of the Law, so he set us free so that we could live in obedience to it and meet its righteous requirement (Romans 8:3-4). In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from the Law, but to redeem us from all Lawlessness, so to return to the Lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from would trample what he gave himself to accomplish.

Equally, thats why in romans, Paul says there is no longer circumcised or uncircumcised, if you become circumcised meaning depending on the law, then Christ is of no value to you.

The fact that we should not obey the Law for the purpose for which it was never given does not mean that we therefore should not keep the Law for the purposes for which it was given. And when we shouldn't obey God's Law for the purpose of trying to become justified, then it is that much more true for man-made works of law. Depending on man-made works of law for our justification instead of on faith in Christ would indeed make him of no value, but the idea that following Christ's example that he set for us to follow makes him of no value is completely absurd.

Keeping the sabbath as I stated in a previous post was for the Jews to rest from their works. The 7th day advents are deceived in this simple truth, so ask yourselves what else are they deceived in??

You have actually allowed yourself to be convinced that it is better to live in complete disobedience to God than to seek to obey Him, but fail to do so perfectly and that to follow Christ means to reject the Law that he followed and taught by word and by example, so you should first concern yourself with what you have been deceived in before you concern yourself with others. The Law was given to the Jews, but it was never meant only for the Jews because the Jews were intended to be a light to the nations, teaching them about how to walk in His ways (Isaiah 2:2-3, Isaiah 49:6, Deuteronomy 4:5-8).

 

[sweetpsalmist]

Soyeong, I appreciate your concern, but the MOD warned us not to debate. You're hijacking my thread bro! I would love to hear your opinion not on theology, but an inter-faith based relationship with minor differences and how you would handle it. Please give me your opinion on that, I appreciate you. Thank you.

I know Christ didn't shove His truths down people's throats, He was a gentleman. You will not change my mind no matter what, nor the person's you're arguing with, I am sure of it. I understand where you are coming from.

 

[Soyeong]

Soyeong, I appreciate your concern, but the MOD warned us not to debate. You're hijacking my thread bro! I would love to hear your opinion not on theology, but an inter-faith based relationship with minor differences and how you would handle it. Please give me your opinion on that, I appreciate you. Thank you.

I know Christ didn't shove His truths down people's throats, He was a gentleman. You will not change my mind no matter what, nor the person's you're arguing with, I am sure of it. I understand where you are coming from.

We a number of debates that Jesus had with the Pharisees as well as some rather harsh word towards them, so I certainly have not gone beyond what he has done, but I certainly did not intended for my words to be taken an shoving truths down your throat, but simply having a discussion where we give reasons for why we think our position is right and the other position is wrong. This is afterall a discussion forum, though I will agree that this probably isn't the best subforum to have this discussion.

I think the route I'm going to take is to say, "whatever you want dear."

I do not think for a minute that what she wants is for you to pretend to be SDA, to spend the rest of your life going through the motions of something that you don't believe, or to hope that her children turn against what she believes. If that were to happen, that would be a heartbreaker for her, and she would likely blame you for influencing them, and it certainly would not be conductive to a healthy marriage. If you can be convinced that your first position was wrong, then you should be able to be convinced that you were mistaken in thinking that your first position was wrong, and the same thing goes for me in the opposite direction. The best hope that I see for having a successful marriage would be for you to be genuinely convinced that her beliefs are correct, and that is what I have tried to do to some extent.

Great advice guys, thank you again. Its nice to hear the reality of the situation.
GandalftheWise: Excellent advice, thank you sir. She actually is the only one in her family to be SDA, so I think they'll like me, haha. Also, she's not so keen on the diet, or the writings of their founder. Just law/grace mixed philosophy, I guess.

If you have a problem with mixing law and grace, then please explain Psalms 119:29 and Titus 2:11-14.

I have no prob attending church on Sat with her, and care about her and her happiness more than my own. A concern is with raising children under that system, and them studying they're bible one day and realizing what momma is teaching them is not what Paul is teaching them. By showing my sacrifice in this matter and as doing as Paul did by behaving as one to win them over, even though I am not one, I hope change may come in God's perfect timing. I cannot change her mind, only Jesus can give a call she recognizes. I just care for her too much to argue anymore, and want her to have what she wants. "yes dear, whatever you want dear, lol".

Honestly, I feel if she just spent some time reading Paul's Gospel for some time, we would be on the same page mostly. The SDA's have so many other books that keep her busy, and whatever time she spends is mixed in new and old testaments.

Paul was not speaking lying, deceiving others, or sinning in order to reach people for Christ because that would complete undermine his message to the, but rather he was speaking about giving up his rights in order to meet people where they were at, and we should not malign Paul's character in order to justify our theology. In 2 Peter 3:15-17, it says that Paul is difficult to understand, but that those who are ignorant and unstable twist his words to their own destruction and fall into the error of Lawlessness, so we can be confident that Paul did not promote Lawlessness and that those who think that he did have misunderstood him. Paul's Gospel message involved bringing the Gentiles to full obedience in word and in deed, so he also taught repentance from what God has revealed to be sin. So again, I do not suggest that you deceive her into thinking that you are SDA when you are not.

Oh man, she might read these forums, I have to watch what I say, yikes! God Bless you all and thank you for your experienced answers.

That is unlikely unless she already spends time on this forum.

 

[Endeavourer]

I think the route I'm going to take is to say, "whatever you want dear." I have no prob attending church on Sat with her, and care about her and her happiness more than my own.

There's a huge problem with this philosophy, and it's described in this article here:

The Giver & Taker

You are negotiating with your giver but your giver will become tired and then you'll start behaving with your taker. If you are unable to find solutions you are both enthusiastic about your marriage will have problems ahead.

A concern is with raising children under that system, and them studying they're bible one day and realizing what momma is teaching them is not what Paul is teaching them.

This is where your taker will rise up. No pappa griz wants his children taught and bound by a doctrinal restriction he feels is not correct, with perhaps their view of Christianity soured overall. Children brought up in an environment that is, in your opinion, over strict (your body language will be informing them it is over strict), often forsake church (and sometimes God) altogether.

By showing my sacrifice in this matter and as doing as Paul did by behaving as one to win them over, even though I am not one, I hope change may come in God's perfect timing.

I can't imagine Paul allowing his children to be raised in heresies and legalism, can you? (I use those words from your sentiments, and not of my own judgement. I'm not taking a stand on the doctrinal debate for the purpose of this post.)

I just care for her too much to argue anymore, and want her to have what she wants. "yes dear, whatever you want dear, lol".

If you care for someone, you *R*E*A*L*L*Y* want to protect them from your taker. You are exposing her flank to an attack on the inside that will come sooner or later. You don't want artificial agreements like this, especially for something this monumental.

This is the essential skillset you guys will need for a successful marriage. Practice it on this issue now to see if you can problem solve together - but you both need to negotiate with each other's "taker", i.e. negotiate until the other person is enthusiastic about the solution.

The Policy of Joint Agreement
Four Guidelines for Successful Negotiation


The other problem you have with your approach is it is deceiving her into thinking she's marrying someone who agrees with her. That's completely not fair to her whatsoever.

God bless,
E.

 

[Endeavourer]

I do not think for a minute that what she wants is for you to pretend to be SDA, to spend the rest of your life going through the motions of something that you don't believe, or to hope that her children turn against what she believes. If that were to happen, that would be a heartbreaker for her, and she would likely blame you for influencing them, and it certainly would not be conductive to a healthy marriage.

So again, I do not suggest that you deceive her into thinking that you are SDA when you are not.

This is VERY wise advice. Please heed this.

The last thing you should do is enter into a marriage with your giver in full swing, making sacrifices for a wife who doesn't even know you are making sacrifices and giving. She will be shocked to find she is terribly indebted to your taker when she had **NO** idea you were giving and sacrificing. That is not fair to her. Enter the marriage in an equal footing, in an equal understanding of what your true feelings are.

I would be so very angry if my husband deceived me about his faith in order to marry me. It would probably be something I'd never get over. I'd feel like the rest of my life was stolen from me in that my husband decided for himself to take my future based on his deceit.

Don't do it.

 

[Dedication]

From what was written I gather that your lady friend is very committed to her beliefs. It also seems that you view the keeping of the 7th day Sabbath and some of the health principles as "legalism". Most Adventists do not regard their Sabbath as legalism, but as a beautiful time to put aside the pressures of the "rat race" and be free to engage in worship of the Creator God, with family, church, and individually -- it's a very IMPORTANT part of their life, part of their very lifestyle and walk with God! It would be a constant source of friction between one who thinks it is "legalism" and one who thinks it is an important part of their very way of living. I know -- as I've seen couples caught up in that dilemma, they thought it would work, but it brought them years of sadness, and loneliness and frustration, as they could never share in the weekly Sabbath blessing. The dietary principles are also part of the lifestyle. Some may be legalistic about it, but for most it is for health and they don't even know HOW to cook differently. It's no fun cooking for someone who wants meat, when the very sight of it makes one nauseous. (And I find that most people can't understand that -- they assume everyone likes meat). For an Adventist to marry someone who thinks their lifestyle is "legalism" is to marry a lot of heart ache. She wants you to be SDA to avoid that heartache, she apparently loves you, but realizes unless you both enjoy the same lifestyle as well as share your love for Christ (and yes, SDA's do believe salvation is only in Christ, His death, resurrection and abiding in Him) but if you don't agree in the lifestyle it will be a constant source of friction and unhappiness.

 

[Jonathan Leo]

In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus was not asked about which commands we should obeyed, but about what the greatest command was. He responded by saying that the greatest two commands were to love God and our neighbor and that the rest of the laws hang on these two. In other words, the greatest two commands are the greatest because they summarize all of the other commands and all of the other commands are examples of how to correctly obey the greatest two commands. So all of the 613 commands in the OT and 1,050 commands in the NT are part of God's instructions for how He wants us to love Him and our neighbor. The command to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind, strength, and soul, is a lot easier said than done, so thankfully we have all of these other commands to paint us a picture of what that looks like. It would be a mistake to say that we just need to obey God's command to love, so we can disregard all of His other commands for how He wants us to love Him and our neighbor. Jesus instructed more than two commands in Matthew 5 alone, so it is demonstrably false that he only gave two commands. He was sinless, so he taught how to obey all of the Mosaic Law by word and by example, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22).



To fulfill the Law means "to cause God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS 2c). After Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law in Matthew 5:17, he then proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it as it should be. According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire Law, which refers to obeying it as it should be, and which means that it does not refer to something unique that only Jesus did. There are also many examples of other Jewish writings speaking about people fulfilling the law in this way. Likewise, Galatians 6:2 says that bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, which refers to obeying it as it should be, not to setting us free from having to obey it. In Romans 15:18-19, it says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, which again referred to causing the Gentiles to become fully obedient to it in word and in deed, not to doing away with it.



What people fail to realize is that in Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God said that what He command was not too difficult for us and Romans 10:5-8 quotes this passage in regard to what our faith says, so to say that we can't keep the Law is to call God a liar and to deny what our faith says, which you need to repent of doing. In James 2:1-10, the point that he was making was not that they were already condemned because they had broken and law and become a law breaker, so they shouldn't bother trying to keep the Law, but rather he was encouraging them to do a better job of obeying the Law more consistently by not showing favoritism. If the Law was about the need for perfect obedience, then there would be no point in repenting for our sins because it would already be too late, yet the message of every single prophet up to an including Jesus was one of repentance from our disobedience to the Law, not about the need for perfect obedience in order to obtain something. When we break a law and become a lawbreaker, then the consequence is that we need to repent and return to obedience, which is precisely what James was encouraging them to do.



The Law can not save us because it was never given for that purpose, but rather it was given to instruct us in how to walk in God ways and in how someone who has been declared righteous should therefore act. Nowhere does the Bible says that Christ set us free from the Law, but rather it says that he set us free from sin, which is the transgression of the Law, so he set us free so that we could live in obedience to it and meet its righteous requirement (Romans 8:3-4). In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from the Law, but to redeem us from all Lawlessness, so to return to the Lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from would trample what he gave himself to accomplish.



The fact that we should not obey the Law for the purpose for which it was never given does not mean that we therefore should not keep the Law for the purposes for which it was given. And when we shouldn't obey God's Law for the purpose of trying to become justified, then it is that much more true for man-made works of law. Depending on man-made works of law for our justification instead of on faith in Christ would indeed make him of no value, but the idea that following Christ's example that he set for us to follow makes him of no value is completely absurd.



You have actually allowed yourself to be convinced that it is better to live in complete disobedience to God than to seek to obey Him, but fail to do so perfectly and that to follow Christ means to reject the Law that he followed and taught by word and by example, so you should first concern yourself with what you have been deceived in before you concern yourself with others. The Law was given to the Jews, but it was never meant only for the Jews because the Jews were intended to be a light to the nations, teaching them about how to walk in His ways (Isaiah 2:2-3, Isaiah 49:6, Deuteronomy 4:5-8).

I have not convinced myself to live in complete obedience to God, quiet the opposite acctually.
For the record when Moses received the 10 commandments, these are the commands of God and be it Jew or gentile, we all must obey. When Jesus said I will leave you these 2 commands ,they sum up all the other commands to which I obey.
The difference between the commands and the law is that the commands are moral and in and of themselves state to love God and love your neighbour.
In the law when it says that you shall not wear garment of mixed fabrics, I ask, is this moral? Secondaly, do you keep this law? Thirdly can you keep all of the law, fourthly, have you ever broken at least one of laws? Fifthly, do you depend on the law for salvation?

My point being that if you depend on the law ( not commands now) aka becoming circumcised, then christ is of no value to you because you are trying to obey the law to earn your righteousness. When God said none are righteous not one, it was because nobody could keep the law. And if the Jews couldn't keep the law, how do you expect the gentiles to follow them for they are equally doomed.

Christ fulfilled the law to show He was without sin. To show that the standard He (God) set, He could keep. Nobody, not one human was ever able to up keep the whole law.
Read full chapter of
Romans 7
The law was given to show us how much of sinners we actually are.
We are released from the law into Jesus Christ. It doesn't make sense to be bound to the law but be realeased from it into Jesus Christ for Him to bind us again to it. Jesus is saviour, not s mad man. We are to keep the commands of God and the 2 Jesus gave which is love your God and love your neighbour sums up the 10 commands. The law could never be kept perfectly, if it could, I'm pretty sure of this. God would not have crucified His own son.
Secondly, in the garden of gethsemone when Christ saw what lies ahead of Him and He sweated blood because of it. He begged the father for this cup of wrath to be passed from Him, but let Your will be done not mine. If there is any other way Lord please pass it away from me.

If the law could be kept perfectly, Jesus did not need to die. Equally if you depend on keeping the law, Christ is of no value to you.

So back to my point about the 7th day advents or any denomination that teaches you need to keep the laws of God, ye teach nothing but a false gospel. Understand properly why Christ died. You say ye accept Jesus Christ as your saviour but yet, ye try t live according to the law, the very thing He came to set you free from. Ye cannot earn righteousness through the law. So go ahead and keep the sabbath and wear 100% same fabric clothing. How many of ye have tattoos by the way? Men, I hope you haven't shaved your beards.
Lol are these things important to Christ? Or do you think keeping Gods Commands is what's important?
How many of ye offer up clean lambs and two turtle doves for breaking these laws? Don't say you are able to keep the whole law for you are a liar and the truth is not in you.
How many of ye have defiled yourselves with unclean food and sat on the street for a week outside your own home. Hypocrites the lot of ye
.

 

[Endeavourer]

I was also under a life of extreme legalism (dietary and spiritual), serious bondage to sin, guilt, and condemnation. I feel set free now, regularly attend a normal church service, and the bondage chains to certain sins have broken away by God's grace as I understand the gospel better. Thank you Jesus.

The problem is she is extremely legalistic, under that same bondage of guilt condemnation (when she fails to keep the sabbath "properly") and want me to be back under that same system. Does a butterfly change back to a caterpillar?

As far as children goes, it's her way or the highway. She wants to raise them SDA, and be the governing spiritual authority in the household. Both I feel are unbiblical. I don't mind resting with her and worshiping God on Saturday, but I feel this will turn my children down the wrong path.

She is extremely saddened that I don't want to be SDA, but won't give up trying to convert me. The basis of this post is...should I convert to SDA for her?? Please forgive me if I have offended any SDA or other members and would appreciate your views. Thank you very much.

A question often asked in a compatibility test is "Would you be willing to give up your religion to please your spouse?" It's not really a fair question, because it usually doesn't come to that drastic measure. But the point is important, and I would rephrase the question a little differently. I would ask, "Do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from following the Policy of Joint Agreement?" That is actually more to the point. Is there some belief that is so important to you that you would be willing to let your spouse suffer rather that give it up? If so, you should be certain that your spouse shares the same belief.

The point in all of this is that wide differences in any of these five characteristics of people make it difficult, but not impossible, to create a compatible lifestyle. When dating, if you try to follow the Policy of Joint Agreement (never do anything without an enthusiastic agreement), you will be able to pick up on areas of incompatibility immediately. And if you find yourself fighting a difference in one of these characteristics, it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that it's not worth the effort to try to resolve it. That's when you break up and start in all over again with someone else."

Sweet psalmist, I would ask her if her SDA doctrine is so important to her that she'd be willing for you to suffer by being coerced into following it and raising the children in it?

Also ask yourself, are you willing to let your wife suffer instead of being forced to "turn your children down the wrong path" or to restrict them from the freedom you have found?

If either of those questions are yes, she may not be the right match for you. There is a fundamental incompatibility that cannot be reconciled and will cause an incalculable amount of suffering and grief in your future.

 

[sweetpsalmist]

Thank you all very much. I tell you God works miracles in His perfect timing, and we seen some progress in this area over the last couple days. Thank you for your prayers. Will keep updated.

Soyeong, thank you for your advice, and perspective, all points are well taken and appreciated.

Endeavourer: Excellent article, thank you, and great insight from a woman's perspective. Those are indeed very important questions to ask myself. Very valuable feedback, thank you again. I will not deceive her, she know's exactly where I stand, but am also willing to compromise.

Dedication: That is a great point as SDA's not viewing the Sabbath as legalism. I know they do live longer lives on average because they eat well and spend a day in complete rest with the Lord. I actually eat cleaner than her, enjoy healthy living, and understand the meat thing. She does not care so much about the diet aspect of it, and I also enjoy a solid day of rest, and would not mind the lifestyle one bit of an SDA. We can enjoy the 7th day rest together without a problem.

Jonathan Leo: Well said, and I agree brother. Let me share with you a truth I have found...I am in the health profession, and use the grace doctrine over the law with great success.
If I tell someone to ,"don't eat greasy foods or drink soda!" They try for a while, fail, end up eating more of it than before, followed by guilt and self-condemnation; endless cycle of failure. Instead I say, "let's eat more clean/unprocessed foods, water, fruits/vegetables; focus on these; healthy living, and Rest. We get more consistent, lasting results with lifestyle transformations as their image becomes what they focus on. Paul's doctrine has changed my life and if I don't wrap my mind it it everyday, I lose the message quickly.