HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading. We need at least $20 X 10 yearly donations.
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
ekoorb1030, jibb555, MBloomfield, Dina, Nelson
1323 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics9,189
Posts195,525
Members1,323
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
Rick H 16
kland 15
Daryl 4
March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Member Spotlight
Kevin H
Kevin H
New York
Posts: 625
Joined: November 2004
Show All Member Profiles 
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
3 registered members (Karen Y, 2 invisible), 2,795 guests, and 4 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept [Re: Azenilto] #90594
07/15/07 10:54 PM
07/15/07 10:54 PM
A
Azenilto  Offline OP
Active Member 2010
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 231
Bessemer, Ala., USA

Well, as our question that really puts things into perspective on the question of Old/New Alliance was not answered, and it becomes more and more evident that the equation

NEW COVENANT = NEW LAW

cannot be demonstrated, let's offer the CORRECT ANSWER in three basic stages. In the face of them the objector has only two options: a) to accept them as CORRECT; b) to refute them with really convincing arguments. To ignore them is to admit that nothing is left to be said regarding the question, thus it being admitted as CORRECT.

First, let's see again the question that was submitted to Mrs. Tinker, a 10-day deadline set for her to answer (which was extended for another 10 days) and we never got any answers. Thus, as promised, we post below the CORRECT ANSWER for said question, that really puts all this question of OLD/COVENANT/NEW COVENANT into due perspectives, as far as the Sabbath-Sunday-Nodayism/Anydayism/Everydayism is concerned:

Where is it written that in the change from the Old to the New Covenant, when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of the New Covenant [New Testament] (Heb. 8:6-10), transferring the contents of the cold tables of stone to the hearts warmed by the divine grace (2 Cor. 3:2-7), He

a – leaves out the 4th commandment of the moral law;

b – includes the 4th commandment, but changing the sanctity of the 7th to the 1st day of the week?

OR

c – leaves the day of rest question as a vague, voluntary and variable practice that can be reinterpreted as any day or time which is most convenient to the believer (or his employer)?

Basic texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Ezekiel 11:19, 20 and 36:26, 27.



Correct answer to the question on the passage from the Old to the New Covenant:

* It is not written anywhere in the Bible that in the passage of the Old to the New Alliance, when God promises to write His laws in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of this New Concert [New Testament] (which is called “My laws” in Hebrews 8:6-10, in a repetition of the promise already made to Israel before, in Jer. 31:31-33) He would leave out the Sabbath commandment; would keep the principle but transferring the sanctity of the seventh-day Sabbath to the first day of the week, or would maintain the principle, but turning it into “an optional rule”, vacant, volunteer and variable, with the flexibility to be adjusted according to the interests to of the believer (or of his/her employer).

Let us see in details each one of these three aspects:

a) Why would God abolish the principle of the day of rest?

Even the atheists and materialists recognize the necessity of a regular rest for good health. If somebody doubts this, just work non-stop every day of the week, for some months, only stopping at night to rest, and see how his/her nervous system will be negatively affected. God wisely joined this principle of regular physical and mental rest with a special time that served to memorialize His work as Creator “of heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water” (as highlighted by one of the three symbolic angels proclaiming a final warning message to the world--Rev. 14:7), a specific moment in which man has time to worship Him without being encumbered by secular activities (see Isa. 58:13, 14).

This aspect of God having His special day of worship is not a norm created by the Jews or the Adventists, but is recognized as necessary, biblically stipulated, being the Sabbath principle derived from the Creation of the world FOR CENTURIES in confessional documents and instructional works of Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationals, Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans and other Christians.

Some allege that the Sabbath religious day of rest is no more necessary because Jesus is their “rest”, with the salvation by grace excusing them from such rule. This is a totally perverted reasoning, for all the great acts of God and of His servants have been marked by memorial landmarks. The creation of the world was signaled with the “landmark” of the Sabbath--the memorial of the creation; man's challenge to God in the construction of the Babel tower was signaled by the divine intervention with the resulting confusion of their languages; the rainbow signals the divine promise that the Earth would not be destroyed by a flood again; the exodus from Egypt is signaled by the Passover; the passage through the dried Jordan was signaled by a stone monument, servants of God had always marked crisis moments of their lives with the building of altars, the sacrifice of Christ is celebrated regularly by the Communion Supper, and so forth.

Now, we can see the inconsistency of inconsistencies: we have the greatest of the events at individual and collective level, that is salvation in Christ, and this is signaled by NOT CELEBRATING ANY DAY to God! In other words, the believer is released from dedicating to God a day of rest and worship so that he/she demonstrate salvation obtained in Christ! That doesn't make any sense, does it?! Besides, it has no Bible backing. So much so that the holy women, so dedicated to the Lord, who had certainly known this “salvation rest”, found no excuses to not keeping the Sabbath “according to the commandment” after the death of Christ (Luke 23:56). This text is very interesting as it demonstrates that they: a) knew nothing about whoever accepts salvation in Christ will be excused of keeping one of the Decalogue's commandments as a symbol of that; b) had not learned with Christ Himself about any reduction of the importance of Sabbath keeping, let alone that salvation was an excuse to not keep the 4th commandment of God's law.

Moreover, if Israel had not failed in reaching the spiritual rest, as discussed in Hebrews 3 and 4, the nation would not, because of that, get rid of the Sabbath, as can be seen in the “hall of fame” of the many heroes of the faith”, in Hebrews 11. They certainly had found this “rest” of salvation individually, in the face of the national failure, but that was no excuse for their neglecting the Sabbath keeping. David said, “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart” (Psa. 40:8). That should be the experience of the entire nation.

Actually it makes no sense or there is no reason, nor Biblical basis, that God annulled the commandment that Jesus declared to have been established “for man”. And the text doesn't say “the Jewish man”, as the second part of the text of Mar. 2:27 makes clear. Thus, to be consistent with the reasoning of some, He should have said, “The Sabbath was made for the Jewish man, not the Jewish man for the Sabbath”. That cannot be, because God created “man”. The fact that later on he became Jew, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, American, Brazilian is due to very different circumstances. Besides, the original word for “man” in Mar. 2:27 is anthropós, the same that is used in the commentary of Christ about the man-anthropós who leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife (Mat. 19:5, 6). And is marriage, by any chance, something only for Jews?

[To be concluded in the next frame]





A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept [Re: Azenilto] #90595
07/15/07 10:57 PM
07/15/07 10:57 PM
A
Azenilto  Offline OP
Active Member 2010
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 231
Bessemer, Ala., USA

[Conclusion of previous frame]

b) Was there a transfer of the sanctity of the seventh to the first day of the week?

This hypothesis has been more and more abandoned by Protestant Christianity, although in the past it was an argument often used. It seems that more and more Christians have been convinced that there is no Biblical basis for the hypothesis that the apostles decided, from the Resurrection event, to change the day of observance from the seventh to the first day of the week. The texts that used to be quoted for “proving” that are not even employed any more, like Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:2. On the contrary, they are is a embarrassment for those who still stick to such interpretative tradition, for they show, rather, that the New Testament authors considered the “first day of the week” as just a common weekday, according to the Jewish counting of time, with no indication that Sunday had the least special character for them. In the Greek original, we find mia twn sabbatwn, for “first day of the week”, which literally is “the first from the Sabbath”.

If Jesus wished the day of His resurrection to become a memorial day of rest and worship, He would have capitalized on the day of His resurrection to establish such a memorial. It is important to note that divine institutions like the Sabbath, baptism, Lord's Supper, all trace their origin to a divine act that established them. But on the day of His resurrection Christ performed no act to institute a memorial of His resurrection.

If we think it through, both Christ’s death and resurrection are equally important events, foundational to the Christian faith. Both could deserve a special day for their celebration. If the Resurrection was supposed to be celebrated regularly on a special day, given its importance, why not the Savior’s death? So, we have two exceptional historical landmarks for a Christian—the death and the resurrection of Christ. Which would deserve a memorial day? Possibly both, but the Scriptures don’t establish that. Nothing is implied that any change occurred in the text of the divine law because of any of these events.

If Jesus intended to memorialize the day of His Resurrection, most likely He would have told the women and the disciples when He arose: “Come apart and celebrate My Resurrection!” Instead He told them, “Go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee” (Matt 28:10), and to the disciples, “Go . . . make disciples . . . baptizing them” (Matt 28:19). None of the utterances of the risen Savior reveal any intention to memorialize His Resurrection by making Sunday the new day of rest and worship.

The reason is that our Savior wanted His followers to view His Resurrection as an existential reality to be experienced daily by living victoriously by the power of His Resurrection, rather than a liturgical/religious event to be celebrated on Sunday. Paul expressed the hope to “know him and the power of his resurrection” (Phil 3:10), but he never mentions his desire to celebrate Christ's Resurrection on Sunday or Easter-Sunday.

c) Was there a transformation of the principle of the day of rest into a vacant, volunteer, variable day that can adjust to the interests of the believer (or his/her employer)?

The Bible says that God is a God of order, not of confusion. It does not make any sense that the “day of the Lord” be adjusted to human interests, whatever they are. If the Church ends up accepting what society determines in this point, it will be opening the floodgates for the invasion of many other things on this line, and is not that exactly what we have been witnessing along the time?

More and more the Church is deprived of the characteristic of “light of the world” and “salt of the Earth”, disdaining clear precepts of the Word of God. Thus, it keeps adapting itself to that in which the world believes as being its norm. From that we have the acceptance of evolution as a valid explanation for the creation of the world, the unisex marriages, with the new theological language of “inclusion”, by which homosexuals must be fully accepted in the life of the Church, even occupying leadership positions, as has been already defined by the American Anglicans with the nomination of a gay bishop, and certain Churches having in their ranks officials openly declaring to be homosexuals and lesbians.

Since Jesus said that “the Sabbath was made for man”--for its physical, mental and spiritual benefit--and the present man continues having the same necessities in these three areas, there is no justification for anyone to be excused from a principle that only aims at his well being. More than ever, we need the benefits that God propitiates with the Sabbath observance, one day that God said that we must see as “delightful” (Isa. 58:13, 14), not as a “burden”.

Here is how Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi concludes his series of Sabbath Enrichment Seminars:

Do you know something? The predominant reason presented in the earliest Christian documents for the observance of Sunday, from the first five centuries, is this, as Jerome declares: “We observe the day of the Sun because the light was created in the first day of the Creation”. Can you see the connection between the Sun, generator of life, and the creation of the light in the first day of the week? Thus you can see how the Christians adopted the day of the Sun as a new day of worship. They were scratching their heads to find some Biblical reason, and thus, found this reason in the history of the Creation, that in the first day the light was created, and this would be a good reason to explain why to observe Sunday. Now, obviously this reason was abandoned a long time ago.

To summarize everything, dear Christian friends, let me tell you that the conclusion that emerged from years of dedicated research, in the excellent library of the Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome, is this: that the historical change of the Sabbath to Sunday did not occur by authority of Christ, nor the authority of the apostles, nor because of a desire to honor the Resurrection of Jesus Christ in the first day of the week. The process all started approximately a century after the death of Jesus. As I said earlier, it was during the reign of Emperor Hadrian, approximately in 135 AD, and it appeared as a result of an interaction of social, political, religious and heathen factors, which also gave origin to the celebration of Christmas on December 25.

The conclusion that emerged from my entire research is that when this change took place, it was not about a mere change of names, Sabbath to Sunday, nor a change of numbers, of the seventh to the first day, but a change of meaning, a change of authority and a change of experience.

Yes, it was the change of a 24-hour day that God granted us to express commitment to Him, concern towards our fellow beings, into one day that was chosen to demonstrate disdain for the Jews, not a commitment towards God. Yes, actually, it was a change of one day that God granted us to help us experience His presence and peace in our lives into a day that became occasion for many people to look for pleasure and profit.

To wrap up everything, it was a change from a “holy day” to a “holiday”. And this change has greatly affected the quality of the Christian life of millions of people along the centuries, people that have been deprived from the physical, moral and spiritual renewal that the Sabbath has the objective of proclaiming.

Dear friends and brethren, this research experience convinced me fully that if there was ever a time when we need the renewal, relief and realignment of the Sabbath, this time is today! We live at a time when people are suffering all the types of crisis--marital crisis, identity crisis, racial crisis, crises generated by tension, inquietude, competition.

In this Seminary of the Lord's Day we considered together how the Sabbath helps us, through the Savior, to find again a divine remedy for some of these crises.




A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept [Re: Azenilto] #90809
07/27/07 05:20 PM
07/27/07 05:20 PM
A
Azenilto  Offline OP
Active Member 2010
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 231
Bessemer, Ala., USA

Some feedback comments on my posts (none from those to whom important and decisive questions were addressed):


From a moderator of one of the 5 Adventist Forums where the material is being posted (4 in English, 1 in Spanish, with texts also publicized among readers who master the Portuguese language, who normally can read Spanish easily):

Some of Adventists worst enemies are ex-Adventists. We have had our share of them here. Since this became a subscription-based site, we have had a lot less of them.

Sadly, this folks feel it their burden in life to expose something they believe to be false. Even if the Adventist church’s teachings are false, the supposedly false teachings would not cause anyone to lose out on salvation.

* If the Ten Commandments are no longer binding, no one is going to lose out on salvation for keeping them.
* If Sabbath observance is not required, no one will lose their salvation for keeping it.
* If avoiding meat, specifically unclean meats, isn’t required, no one will be damned for doing so.
* If the creation story isn’t true, those that believe in it will discover their error inside of heaven’s gates
One will not miss out on eternity because they refused to go to the theater, dance hall or pierce their ears

Yet many ex-Adventists act as if their work of exposing the Adventist church as being false is somehow saving souls. The opposite is true. If they do anything, they shake the faith of some of the weak brothers and sisters and instead of following a different religious belief, they drop out and follow none at all.


Feedback from a participant in the same Forum:

Excellent points, S. [names withheld throughout]. However I’ve found very few if any souls who are striving to avoid God’s requirements, persuaded by the best of “proofs” in favor of His requirements. Could it be that those who wish to disprove the clear Word are listening to the same sophistry to which Adam and Eve listened, to the detriment of all those that follow after them.

Those who claim salvation by grace without seeing the necessity for fulfilling the necessary requirements of a perfect creation, are legalists in the highest sense of the word, because they feel they must do all the Law requires for salvation. Their solution is to destroy the Law rather than asking the God of the universe, of Whom there is nothing too hard for Him, to fashion within them all the requirements necessary for eternal life, which would include writing the Law on the fleshy tables of their heart.

Their solution in theory removes the need for a new creation and allows the most depraved continuum to have confidence in a faith based on ropes of sand. But then only a believer in the God Who can do anything, can believe in that type of reasoning.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

That seems one good reason to sow the seeds of Truth and let God take care of the growth. Maybe it’s possible sometimes in an arena of debate, but I find it highly unlikely since each person debating is far more interested in their own teaching than they are in their own learning, or so it seems to me.

“...Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.” Romans 14:5 NASB
Blessings!!


Another Forum participant’s reaction:

I observed a long time ago that many people’s security of salvation is based upon the number of people who do NOT do as they do. Make sense? The more people who do differently then I do--the more saved I therefore am. Because, after all, I am right.

This is a hybrid martyr complex/setting salvation on a negative platform. Amazing, and it grows stronger as time endures.


J. has also something to say:

S., a long time ago I remember reading that former Adventists, and even former SDA pastors or Bible teachers, would become our worst enemies. Ellen White said the same thing. And once, as a kid, I saw a play based on Mary Kay’s little book about the end-times. I could hardly imagine such a thing happening-- I mean being ridiculed and questioned harshly by former SDA. But now I can understand it completely, sad to say. I “see” so many who talk as if they hate the Sabbath and virtually everything Adventists represent. And almost all of these used to be one of us, at least in name.

See GC 608-- “When Sabbathkeepers are brought before the courts to answer for their faith, these [former Sabbath-keeping] apostates are the most efficient agents of Satan to misrepresent and accuse them, and by false reports and insinuations to stir up the rulers against them.”

Imagine your shock when you see a famous SDA pastor or maybe your Bible teacher coming to interrogate you and telling you how wrong you are about the Sabbath, etc.


On his part, O. G. comments:

A common denominator I have observed among disgruntled Adventists who attack the “church” is unresolved bitterness towards individuals. This can lead a person to begin reacting to the “church.”

The Lord God warns us in Hebrews 12:15 that unresolved bitterness will begin to defile those around us.

Question: How many angry people does it take to get anger flowing through a church fellowship? Just one, friend. Just one.


Someone quoting from one of my posts “...Then we have that little question that I addressed to Mr. Ratzlaff, among others, and so far got no answer: (The “blue question” about the passage from the old to the new covenant, based on Heb. 8:6-10)”.

You’ve got some excellent questions there. I will be very surprised if you hear much more from Mr. Ratzlaff. My experience has been that when you ask these kinds of questions that are difficult for them to answer, they simply stop corresponding with you.

I have a friend, Bradley Williams, who recently published a book you can get at the ABC. It’s entitled, The Silencing of Satan: The Gospel In the Investigative Judgment. It does a better job than any other book I know of in giving the Bible evidence for the Pre-Advent Judgment. He’s tried to dialogue seriously with both Desmond Ford and with Ratzlaff about the Investigative Judgment but to no avail. Here’s the website for those interested in taking part in the discussion on the IJ and related issues: http://www.forthegospel.org/forum/general_discussion/new_sanctuary_book#comment/


My own comment at a certain point:

Well, among the things Bro. S. listed, that are not “salvation decisive”, I would add believing in the investigative judgment, because the subject of God’s judgment has so many different interpretations in the Christian field. So, who has the final word on how exactly God will proceed judging every one of us and all the world? Nobody will lose his/her salvation for believing that the judgment will be this way or that way.

Actually there is a false propaganda regarding SDA’s living wringing their hands in anxiety for not knowing if their names have been scrutinized in the Heavenly Sanctuary. . . Do any of you guys live under that stressing sentiment? The truth is that in 41 years of SDA Church affiliation I never met one single brother or sister who harbors these terrible feelings. . .

About Ellen White, yes, there are some hard things to understand in her writings, but if we examine the material of ex-Evangelical pastor Dan Barker who became an atheist, and the way he disputes the Bible, exploring its supposed “contradictions”, then we will understand how far we are from understanding how inspiration really works. The problems and contradictions these anti-Christian folks point in the Bible are about the same these critics of Ellen White present regarding her writings.

Now, I think that one reason many people leave the church to enter these “new alliance” movements is because they read that text of Jesus telling those who want to follow Him that there is a cross to bear. But Jesus doesn’t specify what material this cross is made of--wood, iron, gold, silver, plumb? Then they reason: “Well, since Jesus didn’t tell what material the cross should be made of, who knows one made of Styrofoam wouldn’t do? After all, if we paint it as a genuine one, who will tell the difference?”

And the number of people carrying Styrofoam crosses around is legion. . .

Have a nice week.

God bless you all.


One more feedback:

Monsieur Brito,

I read with interest your question about the new covenant/new law. That issue is one which I, too, have faced. But here is my question in response:

How may one establish which ‘laws’ PAUL is referring to in Heb. 8 and 10? Paul, like other Bible writers, at times does quote OT passages out of context. The mere fact that Paul quotes from Jeremiah would not seem, in and of itself, sufficient to prove that he refers to the Ten Commandments. He may be applying a principle, with a different application for believers under the New Covenant.

D.

My answer:

Thanks for your feedback. It’s good to have this kind of participation, looking for clarification of important points of the Bible teaching.

I would remind you that Paul recommends normally, as of knowing nothing of any abolition of the Ten Commandments, the 5th., 8th, 9th and 10th precepts of the Decalogue to both the Ephesians and the Romans (see Eph. 6:1-3; 4:25-31; Rom. 13:8-10). He also says that he, with his mind, serves God’s law, and in the context he not only recognizes this law as holy, just, good, pleasurable, spiritual, as he mentions specifically the commandment “ye shall not covet” (Rom. 7, vs. 25, cf. vs. 7 and 8, plus 12, 14, 22...), which shows he didn’t think of that precept as belonging to an old, surpassed law.

So, those who teach the end of the Ten Commandments have no basis for their allegations, for Paul simply ignored any such abolition. James, on the other hand, clearly refers to the 10 Commandments as the rule to be followed (James 2:8-12). So, here we have another New Testament writer who ignored any such abolition of the 10 Commandments. By the way, traditionally the Protestant-evangelical confessional documents stress the 10 Commandments as still the norm of Christian behavior. Didn’t you hear about this new campaign highlighting the importance of these 10 Commandments for Americans today? How about checking the “10 Commandments Commission” and its international campaign about that?

Now, the bottom line is the Sabbath commandment, which would have been abolished IF it really had any ceremonial role, something the anti-Sabbatarian struggle to prove but can’t. See that Paul discusses in Hebrews in detail all the meaning of the many ceremonies and rites in the law, in chapters 7 through 10. Now, since the Sabbath was such an important principle for Israel, if it had any such ceremonial, prefigurative role, being abolished in the cross, he no doubt would have discussed in detail such a role for the Sabbath. However, we find no hints of any idea of abolition of the Sabbath in these chapters for its supposed prefigurative role. That would be the right place where such a discussion would occur.

Instead of disqualifying the Sabbath commandment, Paul refers to it in a positive, rather than negative, manner in chaps. 3 and 4 of Hebrews.

To say that the Sabbath just pointed to salvation in Christ and was abolished as the “shadow” met the “reality” makes no sense. The women who served Jesus so closely and who, certainly had experienced the “salvation rest” didn’t, because of that, neglect keeping the Sabbath “according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56). [Additionally, they show they hadn’t learned from Jesus anything of disqualifying the Sabbath commandment].

Those in Israel who found the spiritual “rest” highlighted in Hebrews chaps. 3 and 4, and who are listed in the “hall of fame” of the heroes of Israel, in chap. 11, didn’t neglect their keeping of the Sabbath because of that.

How about reproducing the “Ten Commandments Day Proclamation” as can be found in the website of the “Ten Commandments Commission”, an interfaith grass-roots movement that is growing fast across the USA, and is already getting support from religious leaders of other countries? See below in navy what we copied from said website:

We, the members of the Ten Commandments Commission and supporting people of faith, proclaim The Ten Commandments Day on the first Sunday in the month of May, commencing on Sunday, May Sixth of 2007.

Furthermore, we proclaim the Ten Commandments Day to be a day dedicated for the display, awareness, commemoration and celebration of the Decalogue which we know to be the divine foundation of the Judeo-Christian faith.

We, the members of the commission, serve as a cohesive group of spiritual leaders representing millions of followers who affirm the beauty and the uniqueness of our differences. We believe that rooted in the Ten Commandments is a Divine plan that transcends color and diversity in cultural expression, sanctions brotherhood of man and respects expressions in all of God’s children.

We, who serve as a council of leaders, are committed to utilizing our united passion to provide purpose and direction for reversing the enormous tide of immorality continuing to be released throughout the United States of America, and on all continents of the world. This unified voice will culminate annually on the Ten Commandments Day and provide for a united, global, spiritual platform based on the Ten Commandments. This platform will respond to the call echoed throughout creation for a true expression love, harmony and reconciliation among all nations, ethnic diversities and genders through education and rededication to the moral standard as given by our Loving Creator.

Therefore, we are calling on all community and spiritual leaders; churches, synagogues, fellowships, ministries, organizations and all who care about moral values, to celebrate the annual Ten Commandments Day by hosting local events in support of the Ten Commandments and what they represent.

Finally, we proclaim the need to heal the wounds of history through strategic and practical objectives, proactive love and obedience to the commands of God.

By signing this document, I hereby give my commitment of support to the ideals brought forth by the Ten Commandments Commission in the establishment of the annual Ten Commandments Day, and to the moral standard we acknowledge and seek to uphold by the grace of Almighty God.
-- The bold in some phrases are as in the original.

The number of signatures obtained has surpassed 331.000. And explaining “Who we are” we read:

The Ten Commandments Commission was formed in the spring of 2005. The main purpose behind the organization is to create of [sic] a global think tank with the world’s leaders who have already recognized the power behind the TCC. We are a grass root movement joined by some of the nation’s largest ministries.


Very significant, indeed.


Another participant, J., after quoting from one of my posts: “. . . [Ellen White] makes no attempt to exegete the text (of Col. 2:14, that [Samuele Bacchiocchi] discusses giving a different interpretation from Ellen White’s). The reason is simple. As Prof. Bradford’s chapter explains, she never claimed to be an exegete. She uses Bible texts homiletically to proclaim religious truths, not exegetically to explain their meaning”.

Prophets rarely get their information from exegeting Bible texts. God gives them dreams and visions. Daniel was also not an exegete and neither was Paul an exegete by modern standards. Even by following the most careful techniques of exegesis, one would never get the insights into the meaning of the texts that Paul saw by the Holy Spirit and through the visions God gave him. So we ought not to be surprised that Ellen White was not an exegete.

How many “great scholars” come up with the wrong meaning of the a text through their exegesis? Thousands. For instance, look at the books written by scholars who believe in the doctrine of the immorality of the wicked or in the secret rapture. They often support their false interpretations on the basis of what they call exegesis. (It’s irrelevant that usually these false ideas are the result of eisegesis rather than true exegesis. The point I am making is simply that people often arrive at, or support, their false ideas by the use of exegesis.)

While true exegesis can be helpful and is certainly needed, the most important things in studying the Bible are allowing our minds to be illuminated by the Holy Spirit and having a teachable attitude. Indeed, there is more truth to be learned by prayerfully studying the writings of one genuine prophet of God than there is in the reading of 10,000 books by uninspired exegetes.



Last edited by Azenilto; 07/27/07 05:21 PM.

A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept [Re: Azenilto] #91356
08/14/07 01:22 AM
08/14/07 01:22 AM
A
Azenilto  Offline OP
Active Member 2010
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 231
Bessemer, Ala., USA

CD Recorded Lecture:


Ratzlaff’s “Simple Gospel” Message—An Exercise in Bible Twisting

During the “Former Adventist Weekend”, in Redlands, Cal., on Feb. 17, 2007, Mr. Ratzlaff presented the key lecture on the “Astonishing Revelations” of the Gospel, or all the things that a Christian should find in the Bible in order to obtain salvation. According to his view of the “simple gospel”, that would exclude those “inconvenient” commandments that supposedly cause barrier, or are a “separation wall”, to someone to come to the truth. In that sense he quotes Ephesians 2:14, 15: “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace”.

Now, it’s really amazing how a man, who is a pastor and even claims to be well knowledgeable of the Greek language, forgets that the “law of commandments” mentioned by Paul isn’t limited to the Sabbath and the dietary laws! In his interpretation of the quoted verse he clearly is thinking of the Ten Commandments and the dietary rules (or other rituals and ceremonies of Israel), but overlooks the fact that in his interpretation the mentioned “law of commandments” would deal also with such precepts as “ye shall not kill”, “ye shall not commit adultery”, “honor thy father and thy mother”. . . Why doesn’t he consider these contents of the “law of commandments” as also causing barrier to impede someone to accept the gospel? So, we can see how discriminatory is his theology.

At a certain point he says in rather triumphalistic tones: “Woe to those who stand in the way of the simple gospel”. But his “simple gospel” is a tremendous distortion of the Bible message, as we have already seen in many ways, and will see some more evidence of that in this article.

Now, speaking of “woe to. . .” I think he should pay attention to what Peter says also in 2a. Pet. 3:15-17, which deals with woe to those who distort the Bible message:

“. . . our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in t all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people. Distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you many not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position”. – NIV.

His lecture is divided into eight segments, each with a supposed “astonishing revelation” for those who examine carefully their Bibles. His key-text is Acts 10 that reports the vision Peter had of the sheet coming from heaven and bringing all sorts of animals and creeping creature, with the order coming from heaven to kill and eat. Commenting briefly on Peter’s resistance to eat unclean foods, Mr. Ratzlaff argues that he acted like that because of his attachment to the Torah. That is funny, because he forgets a simple detail: PETER WAS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CHRISTIAN LEADERS AT THE TIME. What attachment to the Torah was that?! Other day someone else said in a discussion group that Peter was Christian, but still hadn’t learned all the truth regarding the end of these laws. Well, that happened almost 20 years after the death of Christ, and learning the end of the supposedly ceremonial dietary laws, something that dealt with food, which is used in the day-to-day of anyone’s life, wouldn’t take more than five minutes, if that was the case. Any Christian instructor simply would have explained to him that those laws ended because it fulfilled their antitypical features, which were this, this, this and that. Was Peter such a slow learner?! I don’t think so. . .

Now, Mr. Ratzlaff recognizes that the vision had to do with a change of attitude on the part of the Apostle—to stop discriminating against the gentiles and go preach to them. That is all that there is in the vision, but he tries to stretch it to also include the “amazing revelation” that God really abolished the dietary rules. They would be part of these “commandments” that had to give way to a new mentality, since they would be detrimental to the attraction of gentiles to the gospel.

At the end of his conference he illustrates his point remembering an episode when he was a young pastor, when a man had lost his wife and he contacted him for making arrangements for the funeral. As he was invited by this man to eat in a restaurant, he says his host ate lobster, drank wine in his company, while he just ate vegetable and drank soda. Now he thinks that his attitude was not a good one, for after the funeral ceremony, as he invited this man to attend church, but he didn’t comply. So, according to him, his attitude of not eating the same food as the man, or not drinking the same beverage as he did, was a “stumbling block”, detrimental to attract the man to the church!

Why! According to this tortuous reasoning, if the man offered him a cigarette to smoke, he should accept it promptly. And how about if the man invited him to accompany him to visit the red-light district in town?! Should he, diplomatically, in order to later have him accepting his invitation to attend church, follow this man’s suggestions?

Well, what he should have done was to take advantage of the situation and give the man some good and tactful lessons on what God has to offer us in terms of advantage in following the regimen He set for man, whose good fruits we can see publicized by the press, with so many mentions to Seventh-day Adventists as having healthier, longer lives. This has been featured in such publications as Time and Prevention and the National Geographic magazines, even TV stories, as health researchers have confirmed the “Adventist Advantage” on their philosophy of life, including vegetarianism. By the way, there are Evangelical vegetarians, like the “Christian Vegetarian Association” or the “Early Christian Vegetarians” who highlight mostly the humanitarian aspect of this attitude—mercy towards animals.

Additionally to the health aspects of eating just vegetables, doesn’t it seem so selfish to sacrifice these creatures of God just to satisfy man’s appetite, when there are so many options in the green plants field for us to be well and nutritiously fed? After all, as God just created one wife for man at the beginning, so excluding the “polygamy” advantage, He also gave no meat and killing of animals for man in the ideal regime of Eden. Made sense then, why it doesn’t make sense now, especially as in the New Earth there will be no meat eating?

Well, we have our special studies about these points, but since Mr. Ratzlaff insists in quoting texts totally out of its context, like Genesis 9:3, which he understands as God contradictorily authorizing the eating of all types of meat, even after recently defining to Noah that there were clean and unclean ones to enter the ark, let’s examine this matter more carefully.

In our main study, we present four “difficulties” for every one of the classical arguments of the adherents of the “eat-it-all” philosophy. That is an attempt to lead them to see that we don’t acquire Bible knowledge merely quoting texts, without any commitment with historical and literary context, as well as neglecting to check the general tenor of the Bible teaching on the subject. So, additionally, let’s ask 10 questions to Mr. Ratzlaff regarding the specific text of Genesis 9:3, even though he never gave us any answer to any of the questions that we submitted to him before:




A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept [Re: Azenilto] #91358
08/14/07 01:29 AM
08/14/07 01:29 AM
A
Azenilto  Offline OP
Active Member 2010
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 231
Bessemer, Ala., USA
The Question of Clean/Unclean Animals During the Flood and its Aftermath

Genesis 9:3: One Difficulty Resolved, 10 Still To Be


Genesis 9:1-3: “Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything’”. – NIV.

The difficulty presented in these words is easily overcome when we take the Bible globally. The big problem of some false interpretations is always the undue segmentation of God’s Word, taking in isolation verses, clauses or even independent words to fit one’s presuppositions and prejudices, thus twisting the whole thought of the sacred author.

For example, the text says that all the beasts of the Earth would fear man. However, should we understand that in absolute terms? How about bears, leopards, lions, hippopotamus, crocodiles, sharks, animals man flees from, and with good reasons? It is certainly a serious risk to face such animals in their natural state.

Will be food for you. God permitted man to eat meat due to the total destruction of the vegetation during the Flood. In the face of the emergency, man had permission to kill animals to eat. But this permission wasn’t certainly without restrictions. The phrase “all that moves upon the Earth” clearly excludes to eat cadavers of animals found dead by other beasts, as was later specifically recorded in the mosaic law (Exo. 22: 31; Lev. 22: 8). Even though the distinction of clean and unclean animals is not shown here, that doesn’t mean that the rule was unknown by Noah, as can be seen through Gen. 7:2 and 8:20.

Now, let’s remember that “everything . . . that moves” would include man himself! If the “everything” is to be taken too literally, wouldn’t that allow cannibalism among those early inhabitants of the planet?

Green plants. This involves the novelty of the permission to eat meat, besides green plants, which originally had been destined for man’s feeding (Gen . 1:29). But we should remember that although God gave man all green plants to eat, that is also limited to those non-poisonous ones. How about someone taking this order in absolute terms to eat “wild vine”? That would be a deadly attitude (see 2 Kings 4:39, 40). So, this “all” has its limitations. . . Man had also to discriminate between healthy and unhealthy food in the fields. . .

Meet that has its lifeblood. The prohibition applies to eating meat with blood, which was the costume of certain tribes in the past. This prohibition is an interesting counterpoint to the previous order. Now, the “eat-it-all” adherents understand that God changed His mind regarding discriminating what to eat and not to eat (now liberating everything for man’s consumption after having referred to the distinction of clean and unclean animals to Noah, later on reversing the order to set discriminatory rules on that again to Moses—a rather voluble God that doesn’t seem to fit the Bible picture of a God that “doesn’t change”. . .).

Among other things, this prohibition was a safeguard against cruelty towards animals and a reminder of the sacrifice of animals (and always clean ones), in which the blood, as life bearer, was considered sacred. Due to certain attachments to blood as a religious item in heathenism, besides other reasons not made clear (probably the fact that part of the blood itself is ‘unclean’, carrying bad toxins—before being oxygenated by the lungs), it was irrevocably prohibited to eat meat with blood. The apostles considered that this prohibition was still in force in the Christian age, as can be seen in the decision of what to recommend to the gentile Christians as things to abstain from (Acts 15: 20, 29). [Adapted from the SDA Bible Commentary, in Spanish].

And a final consideration: Moses’ writings don’t reflect a description of the diary journal type, being prepared as the events came to pass. He wrote on the scrolls at one time, and all was transmitted to the people jointly. There was not a report on Gen. 9:3 in a remote time, then a law about not feeding on dead animals found in the fields in another later period.

Specialists consider 1,450 BC as date to the Pentateuch writings, thus the people heard the reports all together and connected the narrated facts of ancient times with the divine instructions to them, which were consistent with the previous instructions. Besides, if the clean animals were taken sevenfold to the ark, in comparison to the unclean ones, and that was just because of serving to sacrifice, the fact is that we don’t see so many sacrifices to justify that much higher number of clean animals. It shows that they were supposed to be used for food, thus being intensely used and having to count with greater numbers for the supply not to become too scarce, in contrast to the animals that were not supposed to be eaten and that could multiply freely in the wild, since they were not supposed to be killed by man for food.

Well, since the Gen. 9:3 difficulty was resolved, how about our objecting friends to resolve these 10 below?

1 – Why did God classify the animals as clean and unclean as early as in the Flood episode (Gen. 7:2)? Did He simply decide arbitrarily that certain types of animals should be shunned by His people, without no logical and practical reason for that?

2 – If said division aimed at sacrifices, why did God sent to the ark seven times more clean animals than unclean ones, when nothing indicates that the number of sacrifices were so frequent and so numerous?

3 – Why did God only accept clean animals for sacrifice? [A tip: See 1 Cor. 9:13].

4 – Being a divine principle that we should glorify God with what we eat or drink (1 Cor. 10:31), how could unclean meats—that would be excluded from the sacrifices (since they certainly were not fit for that purpose)—serve to glorify God soon after the Flood?

5 – Why were the restrictions regarding the consumption of blood instituted when God authorized the consumption of meat (Gen. 9:4, 5)? Shouldn’t full freedom prevail for man to eat whatever he wanted?

6 – How can it be proven that the order to eat “everything . . . that moves” included the unclean animals, since Noah had been notified of the division of clean and unclean animals (Gen. 7:2, 3), and even the manner as the text is written gives the clear impression that such division was already known by the patriarch, not being something new to him?

7 – How do you prove that the order for man to eat “everything . . . that moves” included unclean animals, since later on the same author of Genesis, Moses, explains in Exo. 22:31 the meaning of such order, as being prohibited to eat meat that have been “torn by wild beasts” in Exo. 22:31, i.e., they should eat only animals that were alive, not those found dead?

8 – What was the advantage for humanity for God to allow men to feed freely from all kinds of animals, such as rats, raven, cobras and lizards, since today it is known that the consumption of some of them, as in the case of Africans, bring terrible diseases, such as AIDS, ebola fever and the bubonic plague, transmitted by rats, which caused the death of millions of people in Europe during the Middle Ages?

9 – Even though the divine order for Noah to feed on animals is contrasted with the previous order for man to feed on plants (Gen. 1:29), where is it said that as God spoke of “green plants” allowed for man’s consumption (Gen. 9:3), that excluded those that are poisonous for the human being?

10 – How would Moses explain himself to the people of Israel, as they heard the reading of his Genesis text, being also aware that the animals found dead were not to be eaten? Wouldn’t they see the contradiction of this rule with Genesis 9:3, if they understood that God allowed Noah to eat “everything . . . that moves”? Wouldn’t they think that God was somewhat voluble, for He treats with Noah on clean and unclean animals, including what regards to worship to Him (sacrifices only with clean animals), then gives orders to ignore that classification, especially when the collection of books with instructions to Israel was gathered in just one time (specialists attribute it to 1.450 BC)?




A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept [Re: Azenilto] #91361
08/14/07 01:55 AM
08/14/07 01:55 AM
A
Azenilto  Offline OP
Active Member 2010
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 231
Bessemer, Ala., USA
See some of the basic points in our defense of the validity of the dietary laws for our times, especially our study, "An Assessment of the Arguments Presented By the Adherents of 'Total Freedom' From the Bible’s Dietary Laws", through the following link:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=91360&page=0#Post91360


A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept [Re: Azenilto] #91592
08/27/07 08:02 PM
08/27/07 08:02 PM
A
Azenilto  Offline OP
Active Member 2010
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 231
Bessemer, Ala., USA

Mr. Ratzlaff’s Disappointing Assessment of the “LAW WRITTEN ON THE HEART” Theme

1st Part: More Harmony Than One Could Expect

In the July/August edition of the Proclamation! Magazine, that I had access to through a different channel, since our subscriptions of the magazine (my wife’s and mine) seem to have been cancelled without previous notice, the main feature is the Cover subject THE LAW WRITTEN ON THE HEART, by Mr. Ratzlaff. He himself starts his article with some good questions:

* Who is to be included in the new covenant? Is the new covenant only for the “house of Israel” and the “house of Judah”? Is this promise also for the Gentiles who accept Christ?

* To what do “mind” and “heart” refer?

* What exactly is the “law” that will be written on the minds and hearts of the people included in the new covenant?

* Does the law written on the heart of the new covenant Christians differ from the law that was written on stone? If so, in what way is it different?

* How does the law written on the heart relate to the “natural law” that is written on the heart of everyone, including those who are unbelievers and are “without law”?

* Under the arrangement of the new covenant, how is the new covenant Christian to use and apply the letter of the old covenant law?

* How are we to understand that there will be no need to teach a brother to “know the Lord”?

* Last, and probably most important for the readers of Proclamation! Does the law written on the heart include the keeping of the Sabbath? If so, what Sabbath law applies to the new covenant Christian? How is one to demonstrate the he is keeping the Sabbath, if indeed the Sabbath is included in the law written on the heart?


Now, two things are really surprising in the development of the article, and the first is that practically everything that the author discusses is in full harmony with what the Seventh-day Adventists believe! The answers he himself provides to the opening questions of his article are perfectly acceptable to any SDA who knows well his/her Bible, as we will see in these new studies of ours.

We have no problem in understanding that the New Covenant was not limited to the “house of Israel” and the “house of Judah”. It’s very clear to us that the promise God made to the nation of Israel to have a new heart and to allow Him to write His laws in their hearts and minds are reiterated to the “expanded Israel”—those who are the seed of Abraham by faith. One has just to compare Ezekiel 36:26, 27; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Hebrews 8:6-10 and 10:16 to understand that.

This certainly is better than some I have met who stubbornly insisted that Hebrews 8:6-10 refers to the literal Israelites, a view especially held by those who subscribe to the dispensationalist interpretation of a Israel-centered eschatology, involving secret rapture, Jewish Antichrist, Temple reconstruction, and the like.

So, we have no objection to his statement highlighted at the top of the article, “Paul never grounds the inclusion of the Gentiles into the new covenant promise by their obedience to any of the laws of Sinai. Rather, he always grounds the incorporation of the Gentiles into the gospel by way of the faith of Abraham”.

As a matter of fact, it is a strange theology the one that gives the impression that God established His old covenant expecting the people of Israel to have their obedience based on their own power to do it. Wouldn’t it be more logical to realize that God’s intent in both old and new covenants was that His people could say, as David expressed: “I delight to do Thy will, o my God: yea, thy law in within my heart” (Psa. 40:8)?

The SDA Bible Commentary explains very appropriately the matter and I don’t see where Mr. Ratzlaff could find fault in its exposition of the question, which is basically in harmony with what he says throughout his article:


31.

New covenant


The Israelites had not fulfilled the divine requirement because they had attempted to be just through their own useless efforts. The Lord knows this inherent human tendency, and promised them a “new covenant”, and through this means man is able to be holy by faith in the Redeemer and Sanctifier (Gal. 3; Heb. 8: 8-10; see com. Eze. 16-60). God wished that the repatriated experienced with all their hearts and soul the reality of the new covenant. But the nation failed in reaching this ideal. . . .

33.

I will write on their hearts


God’s law was not to be just an external norm of justice: it was supposed to be the determining tool that would guide and rule human conduct (see Rom. 8: 1-4; 2 Cor. 3: 3-6).

34.

they shall not teach every man


The failure of God’s servants, which in large measure didn’t transmit to the people the true knowledge of the Most High, due to the imperfect fulfillment of the rites and ceremonies of the old covenant, would be corrected through an intimate knowledge and the communication that the believers would enjoy with their Lord through faith, which the new covenant would provide them (John 6: 45-46; 1 Cor. 2: 6-16; Col. 1: 27-28). -- (Translated back into English from the Spanish edition).


So, what is wrong in this commentary? Doesn’t it correspond to Mr. Ratzlaff’s development of the subject throughout his article? I see no difference in approach between what he says and the way the SDA Bible Commentary puts it.

Later on he discusses Romans 2, where Paul dedicates some space to speak about the situation before God of “those who followed this natural revelation with a clear conscience”, followed by a brief discussion on the “natural law”, commenting: “we can say that natural law exists, should be followed, and when followed will point a person in the direction of God. All societies and cultures have an innate understanding of right and wrong”.

Yes, that is exactly what we believe, and the SDA Bible Commentary, again, says nothing contrary to that. If he has access to that wonderful collection I would urge him to check it there. He could be surprised to see in how many points the contents of this collection of scholarly commentary of the Bible is in agreement, not conflict, with what he advocates in many points of this subject and others.

He then engages in a discussion about the “difference” of the law in the old and new covenants, highlighting the famous commentaries of Jesus in Matt. 5:21ff—“ye have heard that it was said by them of old time. . . But I say unto you. . .”

He refers additionally to the “golden rule” of the love motive in regard to the neighbor, but errs in implying that to be a sort of “new” law that Jesus came to establish, replacing the old principles taught by Moses.

Well, since we already commented on that in previous of our studies regarding the Ratzlaff challenge, let’s briefly point out some few items that must be better understood on this question:

A – Jesus has no intention to establish any new and revolutionary law with new precepts, as some imply. He is simply showing that His hearers, due to the bad religious teachers of their time, had lost sight of the most profound, ethical and spiritual meaning of the law.

For some who insist in this theory of the “revolutionary” new “law of Christ”, with different precepts that make it a different rule of conduct to the “new alliance” Christians, I like to remember the episode in which Jesus addresses the Pharisees regarding their tithing habits (Matt. 23:23). They were so concerned with the technicalities of it, duly dividing the “mint, anise and cumin”, that missed the most important in the tithe law: “judgment, mercy and faith”. Now, I ask: Was Jesus adding these three things to the law of tithing at that exact moment, or were they there all the time, but not perceived by those religious leaders?

Let’s remember that looking at a woman with impure intentions was already mentioned by the patriarch Job as something he wouldn’t practice (Job 31:1). And to hate a neighbor was always wrong (Lev. 19:17). So, Jesus was not creating new rules and principles at that point, but showing features of the law that had been overlooked by His contemporaries. That is why He emphasized (after clarifying that He had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it): “For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20).

B - Oh, but how about the clear language of “new commandment”? Doesn’t Mr. Ratzlaff remember that this “new” was not so new, after all? Yes, because when Jesus uttered the famous “golden rule”, He was just repeating what Moses had already said! Just compare Matthew 22:36-40 with Deut. 6:5 and Levt. 19:18. Exactly the same words! So, how could these commandments be “new”?

Before discussing that, let’s review another episode that helps to clarify this point, found in Mark 12:28-34: Another scribe came individually to Jesus trying to trap Him subtly, in the face of the embarrassment of the previous ones who inquired Him about the lady who had widowed seven husbands. This man asks Him which was the most important commandment in the law. But his scheme backfires: His answer prompted only compliments on his part, “Well, Master, thou hast said the truth. . .”. Why he reacted that way? He expected to catch Jesus contradicting the traditions of Israel, certainly to have something to accuse him of. Nonetheless his inquiry ended up in total agreement with what Jesus said. The reason is that Jesus had not contradicted the law of Israel that the man knew very well: the most important command of the law was the double rule of loving God above all else, and loving the neighbor as oneself. Perfectly according to what Moses had taught.

Now, how come this is called a “new” commandment? Well, there are two different words in Greek for new: neos and kainos. The first is many times applied to things that are totally new, of a different substance, like the new wineskins that replaced entirely the old ones. On the other hand, the second applies to such things as “new creature” and “new heavens and new earth”, which refer to the same basic substance that undergoes a complete renewal.

So, they are “new”(kainos) commandments because the old law acquires a new meaning within the gospel message, things that had been lost sight of, not because the law was defective, but because of the people’s rebellion and spiritual blindness. That was the real cause of a new covenant being made necessary: “For if the first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith: Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Heb. 8:7, 8).

C - But it is the same law, because God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and the ethics of His kingdom didn’t change. After all, the promise of the new covenant is that He would write what is called “My laws”, not “My new, different laws”, on the hearts and the minds of those who accept His new covenant [New Testament]. Now, that is something that prompted the question that I expected being resolved by Mr. Ratzlaff and someone in his staff, and never was. Even in this article he had an opportunity to do so, but disappointingly didn’t either. Let’s again see what the question was:

Where is it written that in the change from the Old to the New Covenant, when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of the New Covenant [New Testament] (Heb. 8:6-10), transferring the contents of the cold tables of stone to the hearts warmed by the divine grace (2 Cor. 3:2-7), He

a – leaves out the 4th commandment of the moral law;

b – includes the 4th commandment, but changing the sanctity of the 7th to the 1st day of the week?

OR

c – leaves the day of rest question as a vague, voluntary and variable practice that can be reinterpreted as any day or time which is most convenient to the believer (or his employer)?

Basic texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Ezekiel 11:19, 20 and 36:26, 27.


There was also the equation to be resolved, and was not so far:


NEW COVENANT : NEW LAW

Mr. Ratzlaff emphasizes correctly, with our total agreement, that “the law is not the focus of the new covenant”. Then he quotes some few Bible texts, which don’t contradict absolutely our position: Gal. 3:10, 11, 14, 17-22. And that we can prove easily just by quoting the SDA confessional official document, the “28 Beliefs. . .”, item 10:

10. The Experience of Salvation:

In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God’s grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God’s sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God’s law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment. (2 Cor. 5:17-21; John 3:16; Gal. 1:4; 4:4-7; Titus 3:3-7; John 16:8; Gal. 3:13, 14; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; Rom. 10:17; Luke 17:5; Mark 9:23, 24; Eph. 2:5-10; Rom. 3:21-26; Col. 1:13, 14; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26; John 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 8:7-12; Eze. 36:25-27; 2 Peter 1:3, 4; Rom. 8:1-4; 5:6-10.)


Doesn’t the statement—“Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God’s law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life”—correspond perfectly to what Mr. Ratzlaff preaches, regarding the character of that law that is written by God in our hearts? Isn’t the “law of God” the “law of love”, the same that is called “My laws” in Heb. 8:6-10?

Then he quotes 2a. Cor. 3:6-13, which is indeed a text that backfires on those who attempt to use it to prove anything that implies a “new law” for the “new covenant” Christian, which will be the subject of our next study. At this point I only would reproduce a very interesting clause he has in his article: “Paul makes it very clear that of the one who has sin in his life (and that is all of us) the letter of the law (old covenant law) works for death”. In this context he quotes Rom. 7:5, 6.

I already mentioned how Luther, the great champion of the righteousness by faith message, interprets Roman 6 and the meaning of the so much misunderstood phrase, “to be under the law”. Now, let’s see how Luther interprets the other often misunderstood phrase “delivered from the law”, based on the image of the death of the woman’s husband, which sets her free to marry another man. Again I quote from Luther’s classic work, “Preface to the Epistle of Paul to the Romans”:

Chapter 7 — Dead for the law and the conflict within the believer

In the seventh chapter, Paul confirms the previous through a comparison with the marital life: When a husband dies, the wife is unimpeded and one is separated and free from the other. Not that the woman couldn’t or shouldn’t take another man. She is apt to take another one, which she couldn’t previously do for not being freed from the first. In the same way, also our conscience under the law is attached to the old sinful man; but as he is dead by the Spirit, the conscience is free, and one is unencumbered from the other; not that the conscience could do nothing; but rather so that now it can be linked so much more to Christ, the new man, and produce fruits for life.


One can see that Mr. Ratzlaff’s interpretation of this Pauline picture is out of step with what Luther says. The article says at a certain point: “Now, in Christ we are released from the law in that the law can only condemn to death once. Once the law has carried out its execution, it no longer has jurisdiction over us!”

In saying that the law has no longer any jurisdiction over us he forgets that this applies to the law that condemns whoever is a sinner, a non-converted person, the one who is “married” to the “old man”. But those who legitimately accept Jesus as Savior, have to accept Him also as Lord. And He said to them: “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Of course Christ’s commandments are the same as His Father’s, for He said: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).

Besides, since Mr. Ratzlaff speaks of sinner and sin, let’s remember what is the Bible’s definition of sin: “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). What law is that? It can only be that law that Paul honored with his mind, and considered holy, just, good, spiritual, and has the precept, “ye shall not covet” (see Rom. 7: 12, 14, 22, 25, acd. vs. 7 and 8). After all, the prophecy regarding the Messiah was that He would save His people FROM their sins, not WITH their sins (Matt. 1:21).





A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept [Re: Azenilto] #91593
08/27/07 08:11 PM
08/27/07 08:11 PM
A
Azenilto  Offline OP
Active Member 2010
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 231
Bessemer, Ala., USA

2nd Part – The Disappointing Lack of Detailing the Bottom Line Issue


Since Ratzlaff himself stressed among his introductory remarks the idea—“Last, and probably most important for the readers of Proclamation!, Does the law written on the heart include the keeping of the Sabbath? If so, what Sabbath law applies to the new covenant Christian? How is one to demonstrate the he is keeping the Sabbath, if indeed the Sabbath is included in the law written on the heart?”—it turns out very disappointing that he doesn’t elaborate on that. The Sabbath being applicable to “new covenant” Christians or not is virtually absent from his long exposition, while admitting to be the most necessary issue to be discussed!

After all things considered of what he discussed, is the Sabbath commandment included in the law written on the heart or not?

He didn’t answer objectively this question. He just alleged that the Sabbath commandment is never repeated by Paul or any other New Testament writers. Well, if every one of God’s moral laws and requirements had to be validated for the Christian by its reference in the New Testament, than the Spiritists have a good point when they allege that the law against contacting the deceased ones belonged only to the Old Testament Era since it is not repeated anywhere in the New Testament (Deut. 18:9-12; Isa. 8:19, 20). And there is no clear, ipsis literis repetition of the precept against speaking God’s name in vain. Nor even any clear reference to not manufacturing sculpted images and use them as an auxiliary for devotion. In the New Testament there are only indirect references to that, for the mention to principles against idolatry is just limited to “idols”, which have to do with statues of pagan divinities, not the Church’s saints. So, the Roman Catholics have a good point about that too, to take seriously this kind of “argument of silence”, a very weak tool to either advocate or combat any cause. And it is the only that Mr. Ratzlaff uses in order to “prove” that the Sabbath is not included in the New Covenant.

We have already seen that the promise for the New Covenant is that God writes on the hearts and minds of His children what is called “My laws”. The text of Hebrews 8:8-10 is purely a reproduction of Jer. 31:31-33. So, the logical conclusion is that all those universal principles that were part of the law known by Jeremiah (and Ezekiel) are confirmed as also being among these “My laws” that God writes on the hearts and minds of whoever accepts the terms of this New Covenant [New Testament].

Now, how about all the ceremonies and rites that also belonged to the law at the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel? In Matt. 27:51 we read about the Temple’s veil that was rented from top to bottom. In due time the Christian community understood that to represent the end of all typological aspects of the Mosaic law. But the Sabbath is not ceremonial, as we have proven in the article that was never refuted point by point, “10 Reasons Why the Sabbath Is Not a Ceremonial Law”, that can be found in the following Internet address:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=91592&page=0&fpart=1

In his article Mr. Ratzlaff reminded us of the existing “natural law”. Isn’t the requirement of resting regularly a “natural law”, in a sense? Somebody sent me a C.D. lecture by a medical doctor and Evangelical pastor, called Dr. Michael Cesar, who even mentions how Hitler had his workers dedicating every day of the week to build his planned arsenal, before Second World War. They would only pause at night, but would carry on their job from Sunday to Sunday. The outcome was not good at all. Production fell, the workers got sick, had nervous breakdowns, and finally Hitler decided to restore the six weekdays labor practices. To work seven days a week non-stop proved totally unnatural.

So, God so lovingly created this weekly pause for man at the creation of the world, for He knew well man’s physical and mental structure, how that would be a blessing to him, and associated this special time to a holy day. If later on men turned it into a holiday, a time for looking for pleasure and material gain, that was never God’s intention for His “Lord’s day”.

What Mr. Ratzlaff & Co. seem to ignore is that as he teaches that the Sabbath is not a commandment of God derived from the Creation of the world, he is not at odds only with the “Adventist tradition”, but against what Baptists, Presbyterians and other Christians have been teaching along the centuries in their confessional documents. The fact that they reapply the commandment to the first day of the week doesn’t reduce the truth that “the Sabbath was made for man”, as Jesus said, thus confirming its moral and universal character.

And, interestingly, both Baptists and Presbyterians say in their respective Confessions of Faith, that the first four commandments deal with man’s responsibility vis-à-vis God, and the last six, the same vis-à-vis his neighbor. So, how could the Sabbath not being part of the New Covenant?

By the way, even now the most representative Evangelical-Protestant leadership in the US is dedicated to promote the 10 Commandments as a necessity for our society to adopt as rule of conduct, and even a campaign to establish the “10 Commandments’ Day” is under way, with its signature collection having already reached over 331,000. This proposed day is the first Sunday of May. Isn’t that very significant?

Finally, Mr. Ratzlaff proposes some answers to his initial questions, which I don’t see any reason to not accept one by one, as a Seventh-day Adventist. Let’s check one by one, and later see the “Proposal of Consensus” that I have been submitting to Evangelical Christians in general, with mixed reactions:

* The promise of the new covenant with its associated blessing of the law written on the heart applies to all Christians. {Check}

* Gentiles, who do not have the written law, nevertheless have some knowledge of God through natural law and often know right from wrong. {Check}

* Members of the old covenant community had the letter of the written law, some of which may have been moved to the heart through meditation and memorization. However, the thrust of both Jeremiah and Hebrews is on the contrast between the letter of old covenant law and that written on the heart by the Spirit in the new covenant Christian. {Check}

* The law written on the heart is the law of love, and it is the fulfillment of the whole law and is said to be a “new commandment”. {Check}

* Now our focus is not on the external letter of old covenant law and ritual. Rather it is the indwelling “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” that fully meets “the requirement of the law”--love, which is the law’s fulfillment. This moves the focus of our attention from “here is a list of things we must do”, to “here is a list of things Christ has done for us”. {Check}

Bible Texts That “Backfire”

Some Bible texts used to prove certain opinions often mean exactly the opposite of what is taught using them

* 2 Corinthians 3:3, 7, 8: You show that you are a letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. . . the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. . . . Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?

Since Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:3ff refers to the Ten Commandment as the law “written on stones” as a “ministry of death”, and in another text he shows that the law became “weakened by the sinful nature” (Rom. 8:3), some imagine that he is discarding the Decalogue, to replace it for another set of rules for the Christian community.

But what Paul is really doing is contrasting the ministry of the old covenant with the new covenant. As he applies the qualification of “ministry of death” by mentioning the “tables of stones”, some Bible interpreters mistake his language to mean that the contents of these tables of stones represented a “ministry of death”. Then, we have something very strange—God, who presented Himself to Israel as “longsuffering, merciful, good, forgiving” actually prepared a terrible trap to that people at Sinai: He offered them there a legal code that would result inescapably in death! He reserved the “law of love and grace” only to the New Testament folks! Is that the God Who is no respecter of people?

Going back to the scenery of where God’s law was solemnly proclaimed to the people we can read in Exodus 19:10ff God’s order that Israel purified and even abstained from sexual activity (vs. 15) for an integral dedication to Him in preparation to the utterance of the law. Limits were set around the mount so that not even animals should roam across the area. Finally the Ten Commandments were audibly pronounced before being recorded on the tables of stones. Now, all this preparation, expectation and remarkable solemnity for the deliverance of a . . . “law of death”! That’s incredible! Any one would feel cheated!

Notwithstanding, that is the bottom line of the exegesis that can be read in the writings of certain interpreters of a semi-antinomian orientation, who are unable to realize that “the law of the Lord is perfect and restores the soul” (Psalm 19:7). Truly, David has in mind the entire law (Torah), but that means the inclusion, not the exclusion, of the Decalogue.

Anyway, something went wrong in that agreement, turning its ministry into a death-producing factor. Why? Where was the problem? Was the law of such a tenor—generator of death? Then it couldn’t be “perfect”.

What some people can’t understand is that the problem was not with the law, but with the people who, even before knowing fully what would be proclaimed, precipitously declared regarding the Sinai proclamation: “we will do everything the Lord had said” (Exo. 19:8). But that was a stiff-necked people, so often condemned for their stumbling. Thus, it’s easier to understand: the problem was not in the law, but in the people. That is made very clear in the promise of the New Covenant at Ezekiel’s time—“I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (Eze. 36:26).

The ones who had the wrong heart were the people, then the necessity of this people to change their attitude allowing God to perform a serious change—their stony heart removed and replaced by one of flesh.

And the important detail is that as Paul utilizes the “tables of stone/tables of flesh” metaphor it is implied that he intends to include ALL the commandments belonging to the “tables of stone”, as now transferred to the “flesh stones”. Otherwise, the use of the comparison wouldn’t make sense and he would have to employ a different and more appropriate language in vs. 3:3, something like “being manifested as letter of Christ, ministered for us, and written, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in tables of flesh of the heart, i.e., only nine commandments of the tables of stones, excluded that of the Sabbath day. . .” But that was not Paul’s language. Consequently, the Sabbath commandment SHOULD BE INCLUDED on the tables of flesh.

Conclusion: In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul doesn’t say that the law is of death, but the ministry of the old covenant came to be like that. The Pauline illustration of “tables of stone/tables of flesh” deals with the old divine promise to Israel in Ezekiel 36:26, 27 that by the action of the Spirit the stony heart would be removed from them so that a more malleable fleshy heart were granted. On the heart of flesh the complete God’s moral law would be written, as promised in the New Covenant (Heb. 8:6-10).

As Paul employs the “tables of stone/tables of flesh” allegory, which is about the same used by Ezekiel (see 11:19, 20 and 36:26, 27), he certainly wouldn’t think of excluding any part of the “tables of stone”, as Ezekiel wouldn’t either. Otherwise the Apostle would have to explain that the Christian would be a letter written, not in tables of stones, but in tables of flesh, excluding the Sabbath commandment, or something on this line.

Paul’s intention is to show that for the Christians renewed by the Spirit, the terms of the divine moral law leave the cold tables of stone to be recorded on their hearts warmed by God’s grace (see Rom. 8: 3, 4). That makes the semi-antinomian interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3:3ff another interpretative “shot” that backfires.


10 POINTS FOR REACHING A POSSIBLE CONSENSUS IN THE DEBATE ON GOD’S LAW

After long discussions in an Evangelical Forum in the Internet, on the topic “The Eternal Law of God”, with several Christians who adopt a semi-antinomian/dispensationalist vision on the subject, 10 very important points were submitted to them so that they expressed their agreement or disagreement in order to see how this theme could be better defined, according to what the Bible really teaches. It was proposed that if in some point there were differences in understanding, that could be worked out and some other way of agreement could be looked for, in the face of alternative proposals submitted by the objectors. It would be a blessing if a consensus on the main points could be reached. Let’s see what these 10 points for the proposed consensus could be:

1) The question of obedience to the divine commandments, or all that God ordains, will not aim at salvation in any measure, since our obedience belongs to the field of sanctification (or “perseverance of the saints”), not justification. The law in itself transmits nothing in terms of justice. To understand the role of the law as a means of salvation would be an “illegitimate” use of it (1 Timothy 1:8).

2) The spiritual failure of Israel, which led to its rejection as a “theocratic nation”, was not in the law, which is “perfect”, “holy”, “just”, “good”, “spiritual”, “pleasurable” (Romans 7:12, 14, 22), rather in the people’s self-confidence attitude (“all that the Lord has said we will do”) regarding their possibilities to obey it plainly.

3) Jesus Christ stressed the basic principles of God’s law as being “love God above all things” and “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:36-40). Paul confirms it in Romans 13:8-10 and both these principles were always recognized by Christians as the synthesis of the divine law, both in the “horizontal” [creature-creature] perspective, as well in the “vertical” one [creature-Creator].

4) There are precepts of ceremonial, civil and moral character in the divine law, independently of occurring such “technical” language in the Bible pages, a fact recognized by the Confessions of Faith and Christian authorities of different persuasions, both of the present and the past, as exemplified by the “Westminster Confession of Faith”, the “39 Articles on Religion of the Church of England” and the “Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689”.

5) In the Sermon on the Mountain (Matthew 5 to 7), as well as in the conversation with the young ruler (Matthew 19:16ff), as Christ dealt with the true spirit of the law He reminded that God takes into account not only the mere external obedience to its texts, but the real, inner intentions of the individual vis-à-vis such obedience.

6) None of the Decalogue’s commandments has application limited to Israel. The Sabbath principle was extended to the “foreigners” (Isaiah 56:2-8), and people of every nationality need a regular day for rest, hence “the Sabbath was made because of man” (Mark 2:27). The most representative, historic, Confessions of Faith of the Protestant Christendom track the principle of a rest day to the Creation of the world.

7) Under the new covenant the basic principles of the divine law are written by God in the hearts and minds of His children, Jews or gentiles, in the manner it had been promised to ancient Israel in Ezekiel 36:26, 27 and Jeremiah 31:31-33 (cf. Hebrews 8:6-10 and 10:16).

8) In Christ’s debates with the scribes and Pharisees on the Sabbath He was correcting the extreme and insensible practice of the commandment by them, not campaigning against a norm established by Himself as Creator and Legislator (see Matthew 12:1-12; Hebrews 1:2).

9) In the beginning of Revelation (1:10) John refers to the “Lord’s day” as being a special day that he dedicated to God, for he speaks on that in the introduction of his book, as he locates himself in space (island of Patmos--vs. 9) and time (“on the Lord’s day”). Thus, he maintained a special day of observance, as established in the 4th commandment of God’s law, a fact that is recognized by the most representative historic “Confessions of Faith” of the Protestant Christendom, and is reiterated by important leaders, authors and teachers in that milieu.

10) The early Church suffered negative influences and adopted condemned practices and teachings after the passing away of the apostles, as had been prophesized by Paul in Act 20:29, 30, 2 Thessalonians 2:7, by Peter in 2a. Peter 2:1-3, a process that already manifested itself at the time when John describes some of the seven churches he addresses Jesus’ messages in the book of Revelation, chapters 2 and 3.





A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept [Re: Azenilto] #91634
08/30/07 02:57 AM
08/30/07 02:57 AM
A
Azenilto  Offline OP
Active Member 2010
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 231
Bessemer, Ala., USA
We added one more forum in Spanish where this material is being posted. So now we have 6, being 4 in English and 2 in Spanish. We might start publishing in one more in English soon.

The texts in Spanish are being publicized to Portuguese language readers who can easily read Spanish materials (those who have a reasonable educational training, like High School level).


A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept [Re: Azenilto] #91769
09/07/07 06:20 PM
09/07/07 06:20 PM
A
Azenilto  Offline OP
Active Member 2010
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 231
Bessemer, Ala., USA

Stories of FAITH or CONFUSION?

Well, finally I got the last issue of the Proclamation! magazine by regular mail. I wonder whether that was because of my mention that we had probably been removed from the mailing list, for we got it (July/August) in the first week of September, after our articles (which are sent to Mr. Ratzlaff and his staff) commenting on his article on the “law written on the heart”.

Anyway, since we already commented on the key article analyzing the poor articulation of the author, Mr. Dale Ratzlaff, of “The Law Written on the Heart” theme, I add that the emphasis of the remainder of this edition is the same superficial “Jesus sloganeering”, with little variation. The name of Jesus Christ is associated with “freedom”, but if one reads carefully the “fine print”, that “freedom” is simply the well-known and suspicious get-rid-of-the-Sabbath-and-dietary-rules theology. Yes, for the different authors don’t show any preoccupation with any of the other nine commandments of the Decalogue.

The first article presents one of the supposed “Stories of Faith”, or “testimonies” of ex-SDA’s, where former Adventist pastor Jess Dixon says that what was instrumental for him to leave the SDA Church was the Holy Spirit leading him to purchase a copy of Martin Luther’s commentary on Romans. That is funny, for I even quoted a couple of selections of, precisely, Luther’s commentary on Romans regarding two expressions which are so much twisted by these “new covenant” Christians: “to be under the law” and “to be free from the law”. Martin Luther doesn’t absolutely agree with their usual interpretation of these verses, in the sense of a Christian getting rid of the Ten Commandments as a rule of life. On the contrary, he says that the law was not abolished. I wonder how Mr. Dixon missed this point, but I would recommend that he rereads how Luther’s comments Romans chaps. 6 and 7!

Geoffrey Drew, on a different “story of faith”, says at one point: “There is only one reason to leave [which he means the Seventh-day Adventist Church]: Jesus”. The bottom line paragraph of his discourse is:

“The best and most profound reason to leave Adventism is Jesus Christ. The reason any of us should leave the Adventist Church is to run towards Jesus. Everything inside Adventism confounds and confuses our walk with Christ. This statement is not merely and arguments; it is a fact. It was the task of the apostle Paul to the churches of Galatia, Philippi, Colossae, Ephesus, and everywhere in between to lead believers to Jesus and away from the old covenant Judaistic things. Like it or not, the Sabbath and food restrictions belonged to the old covenant and were coming to an end”.

Oh, what a stupid reasoning! Of course the Sabbath and food restrictions belonged to the old covenant, and who is denying that? What this gentleman forgets is that “ye shall not commit adultery”, “ye shall not kill”, “ye shall not take the name of God in vain”, “honor thy father and thy mother” ALSO BELONGED TO THE OLD COVENANT! Are these “Judaistic” things? Why such a clear discrimination against the “inconvenient” commandments of keeping a Sabbath day and following the dietary rules as “Judaistic” rules, but not all the others that belonged to the same law?

We have already discussed all that in previous studies, and again and again that same get-rid-of-the-Sabbath-and-dietary-rules theology springs up in article after article, with one of them (Chris Badenhorst) even speaking about “argument of silence” as something wrong to use, but being exactly what he does throughout his article titled “What are new covenant ethics? Are they in the Ten Commandments?”

He, of course, concludes that the answer is “no, it is not”. As we already know well, with this theory of his he goes against not only what the SDA’s teach, but against what has been the historical, classical, official position of the most representative Creeds, Confessions of Faith and Doctrinal Statements of the Protestant Christendom. So much so that right now we see the 10 Commandments Commission, made up of the most representative Evangelical-Protestant leadership in the US, working hard to have the 10 Commandments promoted as the basis of the American and world ethics!

Mr. Badenhorst pontificates at a certain point:

“To insist on observing the old covenant sign of the Sabbath would be tantamount to a denial of what God offers us in the New Testament Gospel. New covenant believers should come to terms with the fact that the old covenant Sabbath is NOT adequate to celebrate the new eschatological age of the Gospel and the Spirit that came with the new covenant. The old wineskins of the old covenant are not adequate to contain the new wine of the new covenant”.

Well, how about Hebrews 8:6-10, the most important text in the Bible to explain the passage of the old to the new covenant, which just says that God writes what is called “My laws” on the hearts of those who accept it? It doesn’t say “My NEW laws”, not even mentions “the law of Christ”, or “the law of faith”, or “the law of the Spirit”, or “the law of love”, but MY LAWS! Of course God’s laws are the same as the law of Christ, of faith, of the Spirit, of love.

Besides, we have stressed how the Adventist beliefs are caricatured by these folks, since we know very well the real meaning of Jesus Christ and the salvation only in Him, as topics, 9, 10 and 18 clearly define that for us. I have to say at this point that I don’t want to be under the skin of those who so dishonestly distort our teachings and sentiments with these strawmen of their fabrication on that day of reckoning (Matt. 12:36, 37)! Maybe the reason for that attitude is that the commandment that says, “ye shall not give false witness against thy neighbor” is also taught as “Judaistic”, or “abolished” by these masters of deceit.

They even quote Eph. 2:15 to give this impression—since it speaks of “law of commandments”. Bingo, that must refer to the 10 Commandments! But, then, contradictorily they come up with the “Christian ethics” theory, which includes NINE of the supposedly totally abolished “law of commandments”! Then they come up with that foolish argument that only nine commandment of the Decalogue are repeated in the New Testament, excluding the one that deals with the Sabbath. Well, that is exactly an “argument of silence”!

There is a false reasoning that a kind of “revalidation” of each one of them occurs, when Paul, John, James refer to any of the commandments, which belonged to the “tables of stones”. I discussed that in an article entitled “10 Dilemmas of Those Who Deny That the 10 Commandments Are the Christian Rule of Conduct”, which I will put into English (the original is in my native Portuguese), but let’s see now just the 5th dilemma, that reads like this:

The fifth dilemma of those who hold the theory of abolition of the divine Decalogue is their evident contradiction and illogical reasoning about the “restoration of the commandments in the New Testament”.

If all the commandments were abolished on the cross, being later restored in the New Testament (but for the 4th), let’s imagine an incredible situation that would emerge from this: The 5th commandment was discharged along with all the other moral and ceremonial rules when Jesus uttered the “It is finished”. Then, in the next minute, any child of a follower of Christ could kick his leg, insult and disobey freely him, since the 5th commandment was only “restored” when Paul remembered to refer it as he wrote to the Ephesians, and that by the year 58 BC (see Eph. 6:1-3)! And, even worst, the terms of the commandment “ye shall not kill”, was only reiterated by Paul in Romans 13:9, by the year 56 or 58 BC (as well as “ye shall not steal”, “ye shall not commit adultery”,“ye shall not covet. . .”).

In other words, for almost 30 years the children of the Christians did not have to respect their parents, for the 5th commandment is only restored after some three decades, and that only to the Ephesians. Many decades more passed by until reaching the entire Christian community so that all became aware of the necessity of the children to obey and respect their parents! Besides the Christians being allowed to kill one another, etc., during this period “without the law”. . . Does that make any sense?


Through that reasoning we can see the tremendous confusion these people who go against the “Thus saith the Lord” of the Scriptures delve into headlong.



A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Moderator  dedication, Rick H 

Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 03/27/24 09:35 AM
Are the words in the Bible "imperfect"?
by Kevin H. 03/24/24 09:02 PM
The Story of David and Goliath
by ProdigalOne. 03/23/24 08:06 PM
Global Warming Farce
by kland. 03/22/24 10:17 AM
Carbon Dioxide What's so Bad about It?
by kland. 03/21/24 12:34 PM
The Value of Bible Types
by TruthinTypes. 03/17/24 06:22 PM
Orion Which Every One on the Globe Can See
by Rick H. 03/16/24 06:26 PM
'Prophet' Summons UFOs
by ProdigalOne. 03/16/24 02:19 AM
Will You Take The Wuhan Virus Vaccine?
by dedication. 03/11/24 06:31 PM
Get That Razor Wire Up!
by kland. 03/05/24 12:49 PM
Messages for This Time
by ProdigalOne. 03/04/24 05:54 AM
The Lake of Fire is Hell
by Rick H. 03/02/24 05:01 PM
Adventist Agriculture
by kland. 02/29/24 12:33 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
The Wound Is Healed! The Mark Is Forming!
by Rick H. 03/27/24 10:36 PM
Are we seeing a outpouring of the Holy Spirit?
by Rick H. 03/24/24 06:50 PM
Time Is Short!
by Rick H. 03/24/24 06:45 PM
Climate Change and the Sunday Law
by Rick H. 03/24/24 06:42 PM
WHAT IS THE VERY END-TIME PROPHECY?
by Rick H. 03/23/24 06:03 PM
Digital Identity Control
by Rick H. 03/23/24 02:08 PM
A.I. - The New God?
by Rick H. 03/23/24 01:59 PM
Christian Nationalism/Sunday/C
limate Change

by ProdigalOne. 03/16/24 08:38 PM
Perils of the Emerging Church Movement
by Rick H. 03/16/24 06:30 PM
Is There A Connection Between WO & LGBTQ?
by Kevin H. 03/12/24 09:20 PM
A Second American Civil War?
by Daryl. 03/04/24 06:14 PM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter
Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com

Copyright 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

LEGAL NOTICE:
The views expressed in this forum are those of individuals
and do not necessarily represent those of Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine,
as well as the Seventh-day Adventist Church
from the local church level to the General Conference level.

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine) is also a self-supporting ministry
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland
or any of its subsidiaries.

"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1