Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

[tall73]

The argument for editing/changing the Law of God is the point were we "differ" with all those sources.
The point where we (SDAs) agree with them all is their own affirmation of the 7th day Sabbath given to mankind in Eden and all TEN of the TEN commandments included in the law of God written on the heart under the New Covenant.

So if we are going by nose counting, why shouldn't we both accept their conclusion?

But since we don't, there is not much point in quoting them.

Here then is a huge problem for your position. We can both agree to differ on that very point where SDAs strongly affirm the Bible position of Bible scholarship in almost all major Christian denominations. But then where does that leave your argument??

Disagreeing with those statements. Adventists disagree with those scholars on many points, and it doesn't seem to bother you. And you disagree with them one step further down the logic train. And that doesn't bother you either.

So why should I care what Moody etc. say?

Moreover, could you please post the statement by the Orthodox church that establishes they think the solemnity was transferred to Sunday? I am familiar with Dies Domini for the Catholids, etc. But I would like to see your source for the Orthodox, as some of them have stated a bit different view to me. And of course you have the Coptic church which differs from others, and you have some early statements in the early church which differ from some modern Sunday churches as well.

But since you are arguing for Scripture being the deciding point, why is recourse to Moody necessary?

This is a thread about "is the SDA church Orthodox" and we have your argument standing out in opposition not only to the SDA position but to Bible scholarship in almost all Christian denominations on these specific points.

I hold to a number of views that would be unorthodox. I still lean towards the Adventist view of hell for instance. I am aware of only one early Christian statement that plainly supports it. However, some of the other earliest church fathers are difficult to say one way or the other.

But more importantly I think much of the biblical evidence makes sense to me for the Adventist view.

However, I will say I have an appreciation for church history and am still investigating on a number those points as well, but do not see church fathers as necessarily inspired, and certainly not as trumping Scripture.

We all have free will - and I don't mind at all leaving this point as "well we agree to differ" - but it leaves your position as the outlier.

If Adventists worried about being outliers there would be no SDA church. So if you wish to keep posting Moody, etc. in response to me I will just wonder at the irony and move on.

 

[tall73]

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.

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

Before any reigned...not "before any of these things that don't exist will exist"

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 that time the Canaanites were in the land. They still were in Moses' day, but not from the view of the author or Genesis.

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.

I would agree that you, as someone who holds Ellen White as inspired, would be more likely to agree with what she says, even if you have to make Moses writing in his time sound like he is in a future time for......some reason.

Now Bob, you said he wrote it in Midian. It now appears you are basing this on Ellen White, not Scripture, correct? Does that mean you cannot find a Scripture text that says Moses wrote it (in Midian or not)?

 

[tall73]

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

I have not argued this. Your posts tend to respond to points I am not making. And a number depend on presuppositions we don't share.

I read the rest of your statements. But see nothing to respond to for the above reason.

 

[BobRyan]

Now Bob, you said he wrote it in Midian. It now appears you are basing this on Ellen White, not Scripture, correct? Does that mean you cannot find a Scripture text that says Moses wrote it (in Midian or not)?

I said it makes more sense for someone that is "not you" to either take their own inference or something they think God said - over your own "inference". I think this point is irrefutable.

But more than that I - have this --

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?

in fact why would such a reader even need that??

Do you have any suggestion for how your own inference would show some proposed reader would be benefited by such a late insert into the text - if your inference were at all correct???

It appears the one I am using is the only one that allows for this.

 

[tall73]

Your response here...
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?

I am aware of the two great commandments. I am aware of the tables of stone.

I asked a more specific question. Why do you say the first four commandments are on the first table, and the next six on the second? I have seen no scripture for that. I have seen an Ellen White statement for that.

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).

I have no problem with Jesus' statement. His statement did not say the first four commandments are written on the first table.

And you haven't read that statement? Perhaps you have not read many of her statements then? Have you read Early Writings?

 

[BobRyan]

The argument for editing/changing the Law of God is the point were we "differ" with all those sources.

The point where we (SDAs) agree with them all is their own affirmation of the 7th day Sabbath given to mankind in Eden and all TEN of the TEN commandments included in the law of God written on the heart under the New Covenant.

Your statement ignores all the reasons for quoting those sources where we have common ground - not-at-all-disputed , and you are only mentioning the one point where we differ with them (which is the same point where you also differ with them). The difference being that you ALSO differ with them in all these other areas where we admit to the same Bible details that they affirm.

Here then is a huge problem for your position. We can both agree to differ on that very point where SDAs strongly affirm the Bible position of Bible scholarship in almost all major Christian denominations. But then where does that leave your argument?? This is a thread about "is the SDA church Orthodox" and we have your argument standing out in opposition not only to the SDA position but to Bible scholarship in almost all Christian denominations on these specific points.

We all have free will - and I don't mind at all leaving this point as "well we agree to differ" - but it leaves your position as the outlier.

If Adventists worried about being outliers there would be no SDA church. So if you wish to keep posting Moody, etc. in response to me I will just wonder at the irony and move on.

I have no problem with your claim that you are happy to be the outlier on this idea of rejecting what Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations accept as the TEN being in Eden and included in the LAW of the New Covenant.

I also have no problem with admitting that in some other doctrinal point - it is SDAs that hold to some position that is not held by the Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations.

 

[BobRyan]

I have no problem with Jesus' statement. His statement did not say the first four commandments are written on the first table.

True Jesus does not speak to that detail at all

Still it is true that Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations do admit to this grouping of four and the six -- as we see in the Baptist Confession of Faith sectn 19 and also the Westminster Confession of Faith sectn 19

 

[BobRyan]

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

Before any reigned...not "before any of these things that don't exist will exist"

Which only works if Moses is writing Genesis and no other book exists. Nobody living during the time of the kings would be waiting to learn that Abraham (the grandfather of Jacob) existed before kings of Israel - since they would already have all the books of moses, Judges, Joshua, Samuel, 1 Kings, etc

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 that time the Canaanites were in the land. They still were in Moses' day, but not from the view of the author or Genesis.

So then an insert by a copyist at a later time for the sake of the reader.

 

[tall73]

True Jesus does not speak to that detail at all

Still it is true that Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations do admit to this grouping of four and the six -- as we see in the Baptist Confession of Faith sectn 19 and also the Westminster Confession of Faith sectn 19

It has been a while since I looked at those documents, at least that section, looked at a different section recently for a discussion with Calvinists. But do they relate it to the two tables?

The two great commands certainly summarize two over-arching truths related to love for man and God, and I have no issue with the ten commandments or the whole law dealing with both, and even the prophets as well, per Jesus' statement.

As to speculation regarding what was on the tablets, we just don't know. It does say the were written on both sides...and we don't usually picture it that way.

And as I noted earlier some scholars see a parallel to the deposition of two records in a suzerainty covenant which in some respects the covenant with Israel seem to parallel.

The larger issue is that even Adventists who have never read Ellen White sometimes confuse a thought with being from the Bible, when it is not. It may be from other scholars, it may be from Ellen White, it may be from Ellen White working with reference from other scholars. But I just think it is helpful to keep distinctions between what can be shown from the Bible and what cannot.

Now if you want to hold to something Ellen White says if it doesn't go against the Bible. I can see that. But then Adventists here often indicate they are trying to go just by Scripture.

So the book of Genesis being written by Moses in the desert of Midian--not stated in Scripture.

The first table having the first four commandments--not stated in Scripture.

If someone shows a Scripture that I have not seen, great, then that actually helps me integrate those two concepts.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
The argument for editing/changing the Law of God is the point were we "differ" with all those sources.
The point where we (SDAs) agree with them all is their own affirmation of the 7th day Sabbath given to mankind in Eden and all TEN of the TEN commandments included in the law of God written on the heart under the New Covenant.

So if we are going by nose counting, why shouldn't we both accept their conclusion?

It's a helpful data point for context. We both would study the Bible and accept doctrine according to the Bible and as you have already noted -- you would add some inference in the process. And of course "opinions may vary".

The reason for "the context" of when something is an outlier and when it is not - is because very often those who oppose some SDA POV like to claim "it is just Ellen White" or "it is just SDAs" that know about some Bible detail ... rather than admitting that it is "Bible scholarship in almost all major denominations that also admits to this key Bible detail".

So as already agreed - there are "other" topics/points of difference where the Adventist POV does not agree with such a group -- but that does not mean it is on every point where some of the non-SDAs would have liked to think that such is the case.

 

[BobRyan]

It has been a while since I looked at those documents, at least that section, looked at a different section recently for a discussion with Calvinists. But do they relate it to the two tables?

I added the quotes on a thread recently

Baptist Confession of Faith -- as formatted by C.H.Spurgeon


The Law of God - Baptist Confession of Faith: Section 19


1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.

2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the Ten Commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

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.

4. To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

5. The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it.

6. Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expected in this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace.

7. The aforementioned uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but they sweetly comply with it, as the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the will of man to do freely and cheerfully those things which the will of God, which is revealed in the law, requires to be done.

Westminster Confession of Faith -

Chapter XIX

Of the Law of God

I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.[1]

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in Ten Commandments, and written in two tables:[2] the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.[3]

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[6]

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.[7]

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[8] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[9] Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[10]

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned;[11] yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;[12] discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives;[13] so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin,[14] together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.[15] It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin:[16] and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.[17] The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof:[18] although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.[19] So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.[20]

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it;[21] the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.[22]

 

[tall73]

Which only works if Moses is writing Genesis and no other book exists. Nobody living during the time of the kings would be waiting to learn that Abraham (the grandfather of Jacob) existed before kings of Israel.

It is a record of the kings of Edom, and those living in the time of the Kings of Israel might not know all the timing of the formation of the nation of Edom, etc.

There are certainly other such genealogical details in Scripture that were preserved.

So then an insert by a copyist at a later time for the sake of the reader.

This would have been your best bet for both statements from the beginning. And since I am not primarily going through these to argue with you, that is fine. I am just reviewing the data again.

I just don't think it makes sense to argue that Moses it making something sound like it is in the past when there is no reason for that.

I am personally trying to find a position that I do not feel I am explaining away any text. That has been quite difficult on either side of this issue, which is why I am reviewing it again. I don't want to have to explain away things or pretend they don't say what they say. I want to have all the texts make sense.

Now, on the Genesis 2 front, I wish it just said what Adventists claim so it was plain. I wish it spelled out the Sabbath, and the timing, and that it was for all men. I get that you think that. I just am not sure I think that, in light of Exodus 31, Deut. 5, etc.

Now that is only part of the question. I think it is possible that if the two are now one, and Peter applies the promises of the covenant in Ex. 19 to the gentiles, that we would all keep the Sabbath even if it was just to the Israelites. But then even on that point gentile Christians didn't keep everything given to Israelites.

If it were completely clear I wouldn't have spent thousands of hours looking into it, we could just all get on with doing what it says. And if it were all completely clear you wouldn't have to be doing the same because Sunday sacredness, or other views would just see it.

And on top of that there is the other wrinkle that the early church itself was certainly sola scriptura in regards to the old testament, but they were also testing what the apostles said and were receiving truth from those who had been with Christ, and from the Holy Spirit.

And they clearly passed the truth down from person to person. Now we have hundreds of denominations and even the earliest apostolic branches don't agree on a number of issues.

And the reality is I tend to find it more important to focus on walking in the Spirit to put to death the flesh so that I can allow Christ to keep what is plainly stated, despite my sinful nature being opposed to the Spirit (as are everyone's).

However, I still don't want to let this go if I don't know for sure. And I don't know how to know for sure.

 

[BobRyan]

So the book of Genesis being written by Moses in the desert of Midian--not stated in Scripture.

Books of Moses written during the times of the kings of Israel - not stated in scripture - or supported by it.
Genesis written during the time of kings of Israel rather than written by Moses and kept in the ark - not supported by scripture.

 

[tall73]

It's a helpful data point for context. We both would study the Bible and accept doctrine according to the Bible and as you have already noted -- you would add some inference in the process. And of course "opinions may vary".

Is this a joke? You had to admit an editors note to get around the text, so you can drop the inference song and dance.

The reason for "the context" of when something is an outlier and when it is not - is because very often those who oppose some SDA POV like to claim "it is just Ellen White" or "it is just SDAs" that know about some Bible detail ... rather than admitting that it is "Bible scholarship in almost all major denominations that also admits to this key Bible detail".

If I was worried about that why would I have been an Adventist pastor for years, when you already admitted they are quite familiar with taking positions outside the norm?

So as already agreed - there are "other" topics/points of difference where the Adventist POV does not agree with such a group -- but that does not mean it is on every point where some of the non-SDAs would have liked to think that such is the case.

The reality is the churches you reference have a totally different understanding of epistemology and authority. In the case of Rome, it is stated. In the case of those who are just going with what Rome passed on to them, it is not. And you cannot bridge that gap on one issue without addressing that Rome thinks the church is the pillar of truth and has authority even over the Scriptures. Have you read all of Dies Domini to see how he got to the conclusion you claim you share? It sure looks a lot different than what you are positing here.

 

[BobRyan]

It is a record of the kings of Edom, and those living in the time of the Kings of Israel might not know all the timing of the formation of the nation of Edom, etc.

They would know about Edomites and they would know that these are relatives of Israel - the descendants of Esau. In fact they were more organized - at an earlier date than Israel. But the fact that Esaus' descendants were in Caanan/Edom while Israel was in Egypt would not be news to people that already had all the other books of Moses and Joshua, and Judges and Samuel and 1 Kings etc.

 

[tall73]

Books of Moses written during the times of the kings of Israel - not stated in scripture - or supported by it.
Genesis written during the time of kings of Israel rather than written by Moses and kept in the ark - not supported by scripture.

So you posited a second hand editing the text in at least two places (Deut, and Genesis) as a way to escape that for what reason?

 

[tall73]

They would know about Edomites and they would know that these are relatives of Israel - the descendants of Esau. In fact they were more organized - at an earlier date than Israel. But the fact that Esaus' descendants were in Caanan/Edom while Israel was in Egypt would not be news to people that already had all the other books of Moses and Joshua, and Judges and Samuel and 1 Kings etc.

So then show me that list of kings from Esau somewhere else.

 

[BobRyan]

The reason for "the context" of when something is an outlier and when it is not - is because very often those who oppose some SDA POV like to claim "it is just Ellen White" or "it is just SDAs" that know about some Bible detail ... rather than admitting that it is "Bible scholarship in almost all major denominations that also admits to this key Bible detail".

If I was worried about that why would I have been an Adventist pastor for years, when you already admitted they are quite familiar with taking positions outside the norm?

How many Adventist pastors do you see on CF comparing notes daily with non-SDA POV? Inside one's own group it is easy not to pick up on all these little helpful details because the playing field here is very different from an evangelistic series or one-on-one Bible study. Here every detail that sets correct context is useful.

Pastors "know about" opposing views - which is very different from engaging in this sort of discussion on a regular basis.

 

[tall73]

Someone "else" would be someone from the vast group of people that were alive between Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 16.

How many do you think retained the sabbath by the time of the Israelite's slavery in Egypt?

 

[BobRyan]

So then show me that list of kings from Esau somewhere else.

It's not the "list of kings from Esau" that raises the question... it is the comment reminding the reader that those kings are before the kings of Israel.

Edomites are in 2 Samuel, 1 kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles

If the idea is that the Edomite kings in Canaan were unknown to live before the kings of Israel then a lot of OT books would have to have "not existed" at the time of the kings.