Some Challenging Questions for a Challenger of Our Faith on a Special Anniversary

Posted By: Azenilto

Some Challenging Questions for a Challenger of Our Faith on a Special Anniversary - 03/20/07 04:55 PM

Some Challenging Questions for a Challenger of Our Faith on a Special Anniversary

Today, March 20, 2007, I celebrate my 41th anniversary of baptism as a Seventh-day Adventist. That happened in my early youth, after I left the Army service in my native Brazil. I was raised in a traditional Evangelical family, the Congregational Church, and to this day some members of my extended family are members of that denomination.

I remember how I attended Sunday School in my boyhood regularly and sometimes after church I wished to go up to a soccer field near my home, where amateur clubs competed in a regional tournament. But my father, a veteran officer of the church, wouldn’t allow me, for that would not be permissible on the “Lord’s day”. Also, if either myself, or one of my four sisters, had test at school on Monday, we were not allowed to study for it, on Sunday.

That seems funny to me now as I see the new trends in Protestantism, in a much “user friendly” attitude of what I call anydayism/nodayism/everydayism—no more mandatory days to keep to the Lord, everybody being free to administer his/her time as one pleases. Some even consider this as part of the “Christian freedom” they are entitled to.

But that doesn’t correspond to what we read in the most representative Confessions of Faith, Creeds and Catechisms of mainline Evangelical-Protestant churches! They clearly enunciate the dedication of a 24-hour time span to God as “Lord’s day”, preferably on Sunday (supposedly the Resurrection Memorial).

Now, the majority of Evangelicals with whom I interact in forums and debate groups seem to even ignore what their own Churches teach regarding this Sabbath principle. It seems that most think that the modern mindset of having Sunday, not as a holy day, but as a holiday, is what always prevailed in the Christian field.

No, it is not. Something happened along the time that transformed Sunday in a day in which Evangelicals act exactly as the Roman Catholics. The RCC doesn’t emphasize the “sanctification” aspect of the “Lord’s day”, but the mere participation of the believer in Sunday mass. Since the Vatican Council II, even Saturday afternoons or evenings are okay for a Catholic to “fulfill his/her obligation” of attending mass, having, then, the remainder of the weekend free to accomplish whatever is wished, be it going to the Mall, or staying home watching a favorite sports show, doing business or even going to work.

That is not the spirit of the Sabbath, according to God’s commandment, which first of all emphasizes the “sanctification” aspect of God’s recommendation, with the “rest” element coming second (Exo. 20:8-11).

Now, as I already showed, that is not what Protestants traditionally learned and practiced as their faith expression, as I experienced in my own home as a child and adolescent. But times and mores have changed!

Jesus said that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). That shows the universal character of the commandment, as is recognized in the above-mentioned Christian confessional documents. The Edenic origins of the Sabbath was always a clear understanding of those Christians, as well as the “division” of the law, as being “moral”, “ceremonial”, “civil”, “penal”, etc.

Now, some Protestant instructors and preachers either ignore these facts, or are aware of them, but omit such information from their congregations. Many give the impression that these ideas of the Sabbath being a principle that stems from Creation, or the Ten Commandments as still being the rule of life for the Christians, are adopted only by Seventh-day Adventists or other few religious Sabbath-keeping groups, which is a clear misconception.

Other day I came across a very finely produced publication, made of high-quality paper and design, called Proclamation. It is promoted by a certain former SDA Pastor called Dale Ratzlaff who seems to see his mission in life now as that of convincing Seventh-day Adventists of the error of believing in these aforementioned points (among other things), despite being part of the Protestant tradition. I wonder whether he would qualify as someone who ignores them, or is aware of these facts but omits them from his readers and listeners.

So, I have some direct questions to submit to Mr. Dale Ratzlaff, and the first three are exactly:

* do you ignore that the “standard” Protestant position about the 10 Commandments is that they constitute God’s law (as Martin Luther himself so refers in the first lines of his document, “Treatise Against the Antinomians”), as can be seen in such confessional Christian documents as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Baptist Confession of 1689, or Luther’s Small Catechism?

* do you ignore that the “standard” Protestant position about God’s law is the same presented by Seventh-day Adventists, being “divided” into ‘moral’, ‘ceremonial’, ‘civil’, ‘penal’, etc. as taught in these confessional documents and by important instructors in the Protestant field along the centuries?

* do you ignore that the “standard” Protestant position about the 4th commandment is that it comes from God’s creation, thus being recognized as a universal principle, with Gen. 2:2, 3 and Mark 2:27 often quoted in said confessional documents and instructional works to confirm it?

By the way, I have been asking my Evangelical friends in Christian discussion Forums in the Internet what they think about the way the Congregational Church, which I attended for many years, defines this question of God’s law in regard to His grace. I think it is the most concise, objective and to the point definition of all the ones I have examined from Protestant expositions. I translated it into English from the text that I found in a publication of my Brazilian Congregational Church:

Topic 21—About the Believers’ Obedience – Although the saved ones don’t obtain salvation through obedience to the law, but by the merits of Jesus Christ, they receive the law and all God’s precepts as a means by which He manifests His will on the redeemed ones’ procedure and keep them even more carefully and thankfully for the reason of being found saved by grace. Eph. 2:8,9; I Jo 5:2,3; Tt 3:4-8. (From the document of the Congregational Church in Brazil, “The Twenty-eight Articles of the Short Exposition of the Foundational Doctrines of Christianity”).

Additionally, I learned through a Sunday School quarterly of said denomination (dated Aug, 15, 1971):

“The transmission of the Law on Mount Sinai represents one of the most remarkable and universal events. . . . Such as the rocks of the mountain upon which they were transmitted, these precepts form the immutable basis of the moral life of men and nations, the everlasting foundation of all worthy and firm civilization”.

That is our motivation in obeying His complete law, without finding pretexts to skip any of His precept.

What we have in Mr. Ratzlaff exposition is simply a clear “Herodian theology”. All the principles “behind the law” means, all the commandments such as they appear in the Ten Commandments, BUT FOR THE SABBATH, which is to be reinterpreted in the sense that they were totally abolished, and replaced by the new law of “Nine Commandments and One Suggestion”. . .

As Herod wanted to get rid of just one kid in the land of Judea, but for reaching his goal he ordered the killing of all babies there, those who want to circumvent the “inconvenient” Sabbath commandment preach the end of the WHOLE Ten Commandments just to guarantee that the one they want to get rid of goes away with all the rituals and ceremonies of the Jewish law.

With that he and his followers just throw out the baby with the bath water. . .


And a final question to Mr. Ratzlaff and his allies:

* do you agree with this definition of God’s law in relation to God’s grace expressed in the Congregational document, as well as the commentary of the Sunday School quarterly?

I have a favor to ask you, also: if these statements are wrong, please point to me exactly where the error lies so that I can advise dear relatives of mine (sisters, brothers-in-law, nephews) who attend that Church. I don’t want seeing them under a false teaching regarding these points.

I anticipate my best thanks for clear and objective answers to my questions above.

Best regards

Posted By: Azenilto

Re: Some Challenging Questions for a Challenger of Our Faith on a Special Anniversary - 03/20/07 05:07 PM


Mr. Ratzlaff Quiz to Challenge Seventh-day Adventists

Speaking of Proclamation! magazine, the January/February (2007) issue brings on page 3 a question, “Can you pass this quiz?” But this seemingly challenging and hard-to-answer series of questions shows some interesting and “quizzical” points, which I highlight in the format of some new questions to the author of the questionnaire. Mr. Ratzlaff, please, answer this:

* why in your questions about the “law” in Matthew, John, etc. you have the options of “always”, “usually”, “seldom”, “never” regarding the Ten Commandments as the specific meaning of the term “law”, but you forgot to add, “including”? Yes, because in Matthew, John and other occasions in the Bible, the Ten Commandments ARE INCLUDED in the reference to “law”, not excluded.

In Matthew 5:17, 18 Jesus says He didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Is He referring specifically to the Ten Commandments? No, He clearly refers to the complete Torah, which includes ALL aspects of the law. This is made clear in vs. 23: “. . . if you are offering your gift at the altar . . . leave your gift there in front of the altar”. That is typical language of the ritual part of the law.

That prompts a few new questions:

* do you agree that Jesus’ reference to the “law” in Matt. 5:17-20 comprehends all aspects of the Torah, INCLUDING, not excluding, the 10 Commandments and, with them, the Sabbath precept?

* if your answer is yes, as I think it would be, does that mean that if someone keeps the Ten Commandments, with God’s help, that person is also obliged to offer gifts at the altar of sacrifices and perform all rituals of Israel’s laws?

* if your answer is yes, as I also think is what you imply, does that mean that when Paul reminded the Ephesians regarding their necessity to remember “the first commandment with a promise”, which is the 5th of the Decalogue (Eph. 6:1-3), those Christians in Ephesus were obliged to also offer gifts at the altar of sacrifices and perform all rituals of Israel’s laws?

* if your answer is no, why do you discriminate against the keeping of the Sabbath in that regard, teaching that those who keep the 4th commandment, plus the other nine, would be obliged to fulfill all the other ceremonial aspects of the law, but not those who keep the 5th, and the other eight (with the 4th excluded)?

* why do you emphasize so much the EXCLUSION of the 10 Commandments from the expression “law” in the New Testament as something detrimental to the Christian faith? What is wrong with these commandments? Would it be,

- the rule of not having other gods?
- the rule of not utilizing images of sculpture in acts of worship?
- the rule of not pronouncing God’s name in vain?
- the rule on the duty of honoring the parents?
- the rule of not to kill
- the rule of not to commit adultery?
- the rule of not to steal?
- the rule of not to give false witness against others?
- the rule of not to covet a person’s things or spouse?

And a final question to Mr. Ratzlaff:

* in the context of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19 He referred to His hearers as “salt of the Earth”, “light of the world” and a little later taught them the “Lord’s prayer”. Why, then, His words in these texts cannot apply to those who TODAY consider themselves “salt of the Earth”, “light of the world” and pray the Lord’s prayer?



The False Premise of Dale Ratzlaff’s Theological Stand

When something begins wrong, chances are that it will continue being wrong all along its development.

In 1990 I had the opportunity of visiting Europe in a tour of eight countries with some Brazilian friends. One of our tours included a visit to the St. Peter’s Cathedral, in Rome. One thing that called my attention as I saw the artistic interior of the famous temple was the inscription, in golden letters, at the base of the “Rotunda” (the circle right in the middle of the ceiling). It was simply the reproduction of Matthews 16:18, 19—“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church. . .”)

When I saw that, I thought to myself: “Wow, such a fabulous physical and ideological structure encompassing so many millions of people, institutions, traditions, rituals, publications. . ., all that founded on a text out of its due context!”

Later on I visited the Brazilian “Bethel” and printing plant of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (I also had passed in front of the Watchtower headquarters when traveling across the Brooklyn section of New York City) and I could see all their efforts and material means to proclaim their message, all that based on a certain date which has no confirmation of any serious historian, Bible chronologist and archeologist—607 BCE. That date is foundational to the “Bible Chronology” of that religious organization, but if it is wrong, the chronology is wrong, and if the chronology is wrong, the theology is wrong! And the date is simply. . . wrong!

More recently I had to spend a day in Salt Lake City due to a technical problem in a plane I was traveling from New York to Portland, Ore., and I decided to take advantage of the delayed flight to take a tour of the famous world center of Mormonism.

One of the places we visited was the Genealogy Institute, a building full of computers and a body of workers dedicated to investigate people’s forefathers, so that baptisms are performed in their behalf. The investment in construction, equipment and personnel is really immense, and all that is based on a text that is not sufficiently clear in the Bible—1 Cor. 15:29 (“. . . if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead?. . .”).

Without entering into the details about these wrong basic teachings, the fact is that Mr. Ratzlaff also has all his theology twisted because of a similar false premise—the notion that under the “grace and love” period, the New Covenant, there is a certain “law of Christ”, more user-friendly to the believer, that excludes the 10 Commandments, which are replaced by a sort of “Rule of Nine Commandments and One Suggestion”.

It’s funny that the 10 Commandments are seen as nailed to the cross with all ceremonies of Judaism, but out of these 10, NINE remained intact after this “complete abolition” of the law. There are even those who emphasize that only nine of the 10 are repeated in the New Testament, with the Sabbath not being done so.

Well, we have other questions regarding that to Mr. Ratzlaff:

* when Jesus proclaimed the “golden rule” of only two commandments—love to God above everything and love to the neighbor as oneself—was He really creating something new, revolutionary, in terms of rule for His followers’ conduct (see Matt. 22:36-40)?

* if the answer is yes, why did the scribe who clearly wanted to trap Him in a question that would cause Jesus to contradict Israel’s traditions end up complimenting the Master’s answer, instead of finding fault in it (see Mar. 12:28-34)?

So, the false premise of Mr. Ratzlaff theology is to take this “golden rule” as a SUBSTITUTE of God’s moral law, when it is simply its SYNTHESIS, or a summary of the whole law. He mistakes the thing arguing that now there is only a “law of Christ” based on love to be fulfilled by the Christian. But Jesus was just reiterating what Moses had already said, for God’s law ALWAYS had as its basic principles “love to God above all else” and “love to the neighbor”. There was nothing new, no novelty, in Christ’s statement, as we already saw in Matt. 5:17-19. He is referring to the SAME complete Torah, the law that includes the ceremonial part, indeed (compare with Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18).

The summaries don’t override the originals. We can see that in the “Abstracts” that precede scientific articles, whose objective is to highlight the main points of the study so that whoever read them gets his/her attention called to a subject he/she might be interested in, and thus is led to the more profound presentation in the complete material.

Then, why don’t we perform the circumcision and all the other rituals of the Judaic law? The answer is very simple, and is found in Matthew 27:50, 51:

“And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom”.

In due time, the Christian community understood that all ceremonial aspects of the Jewish law were no more required of the followers of the Messiah, but its moral aspects could not find the same end, for that would mean complete chaos, at both individual and corporate levels. Imagine that such rules as “you shall not kill”, “you shall not steal”, “you shall not commit adultery” came to an end when the Temple’s veil was rent from top to bottom. . .

All that brings us to the BOTTOM LINE of all this discussion—the notion that the Sabbath commandment was abolished because it pointed to the rest in Christ. So, He is our “rest”, and the believers are thus freed from any obligation of dedicating a day do the Lord.

Well, we have a very objective Bible study showing the error of such reasoning—“Ten Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept”. We invite Mr. Ratzlaff to check in our next posts.

At this juncture, another of our studies would be very appropriate to be examined: “10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is the Most Important Commandment of the Decalogue” that we will be posting here, besides the following ones:

- 10 Questions The Anti-Sabbatarians Seem Incapable of Answering
- 10 Questions on the Subject of the Law of God/Law of Christ
- 10 Questions About the Sabbath for Anti-Sabbatarians to Think Seriously About
- 10 Questions on the Theory of “Everydayism”
- 10 Serious Difficulties For the Advocates of Either Sunday Keeping or the “Nodayism/Anydayism/Everydayism”
- 10 Questions on Christ’s Attitudes Regarding the Sabbath


A final question to Mr. Ratzlaff:

* if Jesus is our Sabbath rest, and Hebrews 4 shows it, so that we don’t have to keep a day of rest, why didn’t the holy women who served Him so closely, having reached the spiritual rest of salvation, didn’t, because of that, neglect keeping “the Sabbath according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56)?

That shows that they hadn't learned by Jesus' actions and words that the Sabbath would be gone with His death. Remember, they were ethnically Jews, but ideologically Christians.

Later on we will have some more food for thought to Mr. Ratzlaff. Let's see if and how he will answer our questions. . .

Posted By: Azenilto

10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 03/20/07 05:19 PM


10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept


1st. - Because it was instituted BEFORE the entrance of sin in the world (Gen. 2:2, 3; Exo. 20:8-11 and Mar. 2:27). The ceremonies represent an arrangement from AFTER sin showed up and served to provide its atonement by its symbolic value, pointing ahead to the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin from the World” (John 1:29).

2nd. - Because the Creation story stresses that God RESTED [ceased His activities of the creation week, for the Divinity doesn’t get tired] on that first Sabbath day, thus leaving an example for the being He had created (Gen. 2:3; Exo. 20:11). No ceremonial precept acquires such relevance in God’s consideration.

3rd. - Because the Creation story stresses that God BLESSED that first Sabbath day as a special mark of His approval and continuous physical, mental and spiritual benefit to those who observe it, a promise presented in many occasions throughout the Bible, as in Isaiah 56: 3-8; 58: 13, 14. Such divine blessing on the Sabbath is reminded in the commandment’s text (Exo. 20:11). There is no ceremonial precept that receives such consideration.

4th. - Because the Creation story stressed that God SANCTIFIED that first Sabbath, separating it as a memorial of His work as Creator, which is confirmed in the commandment’s text (Exo. 20:8-11). The word “sanctify” means “separate something to be consecrated to God”. Since God is already absolutely holy, to whom did He sanctify [separated] the Sabbath, but for His human creatures? It would make no sense to establish a memorial for an event at a time so far removed regarding it.

5th. - Because as He pronounced solemnly the moral law of the Ten Commandments at the Sinai mountain at the ears of the people of Israel, God included naturally the Sabbath as its 4th commandment and didn’t do the same with any of the ceremonial precepts. And as He concluded, the text says that He “added nothing more” (Deu. 5:22). Whoever adds ceremonial precepts to the Decalogue is going against what God did.

6th. - Because at the conclusion of His proclamation, God wrote those words on two stone tables, which Moses placed within the ark (Deu. 10:5). He didn’t write on those tables ANY CEREMONIAL PRECEPT. All that had ceremonial character was dictated to Moses for being recorded in books (scrolls) in another occasion.

7th. - Because God chose the Sabbath as a special sign between Himself and His chosen people (Exo. 31:17 and Eze. 20:12, 20). He wouldn’t choose for that objective a ceremonial commandment that would be abolished in the future, for His plan was that Israel always remained His chosen people and His witnesses among Earth dwellers.

8th. - Because Jesus reinforced the concept that the Sabbath was a divine institution, established “because of man” (Mar. 2:27), so that it served man in the physical, mental and spiritual aspects. No ceremonial commandment deserved such a treatment.

9th. - Because Jesus, Who is the Holy Lord and Creator (John 1:3; Heb. 1:2), gave the example of Sabbath observance (Luke 4:16) and revealed preoccupation as to its correct observance, discussing with the religious leaders about His acts of healing on that day, explaining that what He did on the Sabbath day was “lawful” (Mat. 12:12). The tenor of Christ's discussions with the Jewish leaders was not IF they should observe the Sabbath, nor WHEN they should observe the Sabbath, but HOW to do it, in the appropriate spirit. He never revealed the same preoccupation regarding any ceremonial precept.

10th. - Because despite the ceremonies having ceased on the cross and a long discussion on their meaning is found in the New Testament, especially in Hebrews 7 to 10, the 4th commandment is never discussed as having a ceremonial character. On the contrary, in the epistle to the Hebrews itself, the Sabbath receives special treatment in the chapters 3 and 4 where it is never referred to as having ceased.

Posted By: Azenilto

10 Reasons Why the Sabbath Is the Most Important Commandment of the Decalogue - 03/20/07 05:26 PM


10 Reasons Why the Sabbath Is the Most Important Commandment of the Decalogue

1st. – Because it was originated before sin entered planet Earth:

If we analyze human history, we realize that there are only two institutions that come from before sin entered our planet: the Sabbath and marriage. It’s no wonder that Satan engages himself so much in corrupting both institutions which he hates particularly: the Sabbath through false theologies that discard it completely or alter its significance, and marriage, through an avalanche of separations, divorce, negative innuendos in the show biz (radio, TV, songs, movies), and more recently, same-sex marriages.

2nd. – Because it was “made holy” by God and to be commanded to be “made holy” by man:

God Himself gave the example of resting, blessing and sanctifying the first Sabbath day (Gen. 2:2, 3). He is already completely holy and need not sanctify any day to Himself. If He did it, that was “because of man” (Mar. 2:27). Besides making the connection with the Creation of the world, the commandment begins ordering, “remember the Sabbath day to make it holy”. Rest comes after the order to make the day holy. The reason that it must be the seventh day, and not any other according to human expediency, is made clear in Exo. 20:11: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it”.

3rd. –Because it is located in the heart of the law and highlights both its vertical and horizontal aspects:

The Sabbath commandment is located right in center of the law, even as it was solemnly uttered by God to His people before Sinai (“and He added no more”—Deu. 5:22), later written on the two tables of stone. It is practically the only that deals with the two basic perspectives of man’s relationships: the vertical and the horizontal.

On the standpoint of the vertical perspective (“love God above all things”), if the seventh-day Sabbath is to be sanctified, this means to dedicate to God that day for a more intimate relationship with Him, without encumberments and distractions of secular preoccupations.

In the horizontal perspective (“love your neighbor as yourself”), the 4th commandment grants physical rest to those who serve a believer—“nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant. . . ”, and even the animals are benefited in a blessed act of mercy towards them—“nor thy cattle. . .”

4th. – Because it was selected as God’s sign between Him and His people:

Out of all the Decalogue rules, God chose the Sabbath to serve as His sign between Him and His children, both during the Exodus event and millenia afterwards, confirming the fact through Ezekiel, the prophet (see Exo. 31:17 and Eze. 20:12, 20). There is no indication that this sign has been discarded in the passage of the Old to the New Covenant (see Heb. 8:6-10, acc./ Jer. 31:31-33).

5th. – Because Jesus highlighted it as established “because of man”:

The Sabbath was made to serve the best interest of physical and mental rest, and spiritual refreshment to all men (Mar. 2:27). Besides, Christ had so much preoccupation in preserving the Sabbath as it was intended that he faced several clashes with the Jewish leadership, not about IF it should be kept, nor WHEN it should be kept, but about HOW to observe the “day of the Lord” in its due spirit. He engaged Himself in correcting the distortions caused by those leaders to the commandment because He was zealous of God’s things. He identified Himself as “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mat. 12:8).

6th. – Because Jesus declared Himself “Lord of the Sabbath”, not to disqualify the commandment:

In Matthew 12:8 Christ declares Himself “Lord of the Sabbath” in debates with the Jewish leaders. He does it, not to disqualify the commandment, despite some teaching the theological aberration that Jesus engaged Himself in a sort of anti-Sabbath campaign, when He was its Creator (John 1:3; Heb. 1:2). It makes no sense for Him to try to reduce the importance of that which He established “because of man”. If He in any measure violated the Sabbath or taught anything in that sense He Himself would have to be considered “the least in the kingdom of heaven”, on the light of His own words in Matthew 5:19. Jesus wouldn’t ever reduce the value of any commandment of God’s law, “even the least of them”. And the Sabbath commandment is actually the most important in God’s law.

Christ was “the Lord of the Sabbath” because He had authority to define the manner of observing it, in the face of the distortions of the Jewish leaders and their constant question to Him: “. . . by what authority doest thou these things? Or who is he that gave thee this authority?” – Luke 20:2. They didn’t corrupt only the meaning of the 4th commandment, as also did that with the 5th and the practice of tithing (see Mar. 7:9-11 and Mat. 23:23).

One can say that as Jesus expelled the vendors from the Temple, He expelled from the Sabbath all the false conceptions from human rules with which the Jewish leaders had encumbered the commandment.

7th. – Because of receiving special treatment in the epistle to the Hebrews and being indicated as still necessary:

In the epistle to the Hebrews, while the ceremonies and their prefigurations of Christ’s sacrifice are discussed in detail in chapters 7 to 10, the Sabbath receives a very special treatment in chapters 3 and 4, taken as symbol of the spiritual rest that one obtains in Christ. And despite the people of Israel having failed collectively to obtain such rest, there were within Israel those heroes, mentioned in chapter 11, who found that spiritual rest, and because of that they didn’t put the Sabbath commandment aside.

It is interesting that in chapters 3 and 4, while the Greek word for rest is katapausin, in vs. 4:9 the author employs a special term, used only once in the Bible, sabbatismos, remembering, as indicated in the footnotes of many Bible versions: “There is yet a Sabbath rest for God’s people”. Or, as G. Lamsa translated from original Aramaic sources, “there is still a Sabbath keeping for the people of God”.

Clearly, the Bible author wished to demonstrate that, in spite of utilizing the Sabbath metaphor to illustrate the spiritual rest, he wanted to avoid any ambiguity, making it clear that the weekly Sabbath didn’t cease, despite the systematic failure of the people of Israel in attaining the spiritual rest that God proposed to them. God’s people proceeded having the Sabbath rest as a little model of that rest in Christ.

8th. – Because of having been indicated as also a memorial of the redemption:

As he repeated the terms of the divine law to the people, Moses highlighted that the Sabbath, having the character of memorial of Creation in the original of the law given at Sinai, was also a memorial of redemption. It remembered the people of their deliverance from the Egyptian slavery, when they didn’t have the privilege of dedicating such a day to the Lord (Deu. 5:15).

Thus, the Sabbath is both a memorial of Creation and Redemption. It symbolizes perfectly that those who were delivered from the Egypt of sin now have the privilege of observing the Sabbath to dedicate it to the Lord and to obtain physical and mental rest, besides spiritual refreshment, something that they didn’t experience under the bondage of sin, defined in the Scripture as “transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4).

9th. – Because of being indicative of the willingness to serve the “Lord of the Sabbath” faithfully:

The fact is that whoever is willing to observe faithfully the Sabbath denotes a spirit of submission to all that the Lord determines in His law. Hardly an assassin, robber, customary adulterer would be willing to follow such a principle. These individuals mostly do not reveal any consideration towards other Bible rules even easier to follow, let alone would they voluntarily be subjected to a rule that means a restriction, seen as inconvenient and burdensome—to dedicate time for God regularly, on a day contrary to the social custom, in association with other worshippers of same vision in a church weekly.

10th. – Because it will continue in the New Earth as a perpetual principle:

Finally, of all the commandments, the Sabbath is the only mentioned specifically as being respected plainly by the saved ones in the New Earth “wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Pet. 3:13). There the redeemed ones will have two regular meetings—one monthly, on the new moon days, (possibly of social character), and one weekly, on the seventh-day Sabbaths, to worship the Lord (Isa. 66:22, 23).

Now, if the Sabbath is an institution that is confirmed from the newly created world and extends itself to the eternal eons of the recreated world, why shouldn’t we observe it now also, since Paul made it clear that faith didn’t come to annul the law, but to confirm it (Rom. 3:31­)?

CONCLUSION: Undoubtedly, the Sabbath is the most important commandment of the Decalogue. Whoever disagrees prove, please, that it’s not, then answer: Which one would, then, it be?

Posted By: Azenilto

Some direct correspondence with Dale Ratzlaff - 03/21/07 09:37 PM


Hello, friends

Mr. Ratzlaff was very prompt in answering our correspondence, something I appreciate. See two of his emails and my, also prompt, replies:

1st. Correspondence:

Azenilto,

Thanks for your email. You ask some good questions.

As I get hundreds of emails a day and have written extensively on the subject in Sabbath in Christ, what I would be happy to do is to send you without charge my book where it is written in more detail than I have time in an email.

Please send me your mailing address and a statement of your willingness to read the book and I will put it in the mail.

May God bless us each as we seek to be true to Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

In His joy,

Dale Ratzlaff



My reply:

Okay, my friend

I will read your book, but under one condition: that you first answer my basic question that no Protestant and Catholic are able to answer. Just that one, please. There it goes again:

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), God

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 – includes the 4th commandment, but as a vague, voluntary and non-obligatory principle that can be reinterpreted as any day 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.


2nd Correspondence:

Azenito,

I am just now nearly though an article for the Next Proclamation (May/June) on the law written on the heart.

It is my conclusion after much study the law that is written is ALL the Old Testament laws. However, it is not the letter but the moral principle behind the law.

Perhaps some examples will give needed insight. In Deuteronomy 22:8 we read, "When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you will not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone falls from it". Deut. 22:8.

First, we look for the eternal moral principle behind the law. Build homes in such a way that people won’t get hurt. Note how this principle can be reduced to love. It is the loving thing to keep people from being hurt!

How is this principle applied today? Many ways. If you are building a second story deck make sure you have sturdy hand rails. Most building regulations require that the rails be constructed such that a six inch ball will not fall through or out of the deck. Why? To make sure that no small child wiggles through the posts. We might also apply this principle of safety to fire alarms, door locks, pool fences, wheel chair ramps for the disabled, etc. However, unless we plan to spend time on our roof, there is no need to build a fence around the perimeter of our roof in order to obey the letter of old covenant law. We apply the moral principle behind the law to the situation at hand.

Next, let us consider the m ann a experience recorded in Ex. 16:16-30. The context shows that God is trying to get the Israelites to trust Him completely. He delivered them from the bondage of Egyptian slavery and is now leading them by the cloud. When the cloud moves, they move. He opened the Red Sea , He provided Water in the desert, now they are without food in the wilderness. Yes, and God lead them there.

In Exodus 16:13-19 we have the record of God not only giving them meat to eat, but He also provided manna. Moses instructed them to gather an omer for each person in the household. Most did. They were to leave nothing for the next day. God was trying to get them to trust him for daily provision. Some, however, left some m ann a for the next day just in case there was none and it became foul and bread worms.

Next, God expanded the test, again trying to get them to trust him for provision. They were instructed to gather two omers for each person on the sixth day as none would be there on Sabbath. Again, some thinking that what was left over on the sixth day might bread worms as it did on other days went out to gather it on Sabbath and found none.

So what is the moral principle behind the letter of the law of manna and Sabbath as recorded in Exodus 16? The moral principle outlined here is to obediently rest in God’s ability to provide.

Is this not the teachings of Christ in Matthew 6:31-34? Do not worry then, saying, “What will we eat?” or “What will we drink?” or “What will we wear for clothing?” For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

I will not give you the complete article at this time as it is not in its final form. Let me know if this satisfies your need.

If so, I will send you Sabbath in Christ.

In His joy,

Dale Ratzlaff



My reply:

Dear friend

You are right. I think exactly so. All principles that are not prefigurations of what Christ accomplished on the cross are there, in the hearts of the sincere servants of God. What was abolished were those things that wouldn't contribute to people's being closer to God and His Messiah, whatever made that people far from the community of "spiritual Israel" (Eph. 2:11ss).

Then, the bottom line is: why should the Sabbath be left out? It is not ceremonial, as I have proven and is what Christians along history have taught, although reinterpreting it to apply to Sunday--a day that has no backing in the Bible and, besides, has strong pagan roots--the Roman dies solis.

Everybody knows, even atheists, how good it is to the physical life having one day a week dedicated to physical and mental rest. If somebody engages in work, work, work all seven days of a week, will be a nerve wreck after a few months. So, God wisely set a time for man's rest because He wanted the best for His people. This divine preoccupation with man's welfare is illustrated in Jesus' recommendation to His disciples in Mark 6:31: "And he said unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while".

He associates that free time with a time for reflecting on Him and His work. That is the objective of the Sabbath that was always considered part of the "Moral Law" (and that not ONLY by Seventh-day Adventists, you should know. . .).

Besides, the Sabbath is not only a memorial of creation, but of redemption, as well (Deut. 5:15). So, if the Sabbath has something to do with salvation in Christ (and it does), remember that "salvation" is not only related to what Christ already accomplished on the cross and in our lives. "Salvation" has a more encompassing sense because we didn't have the "redemption of our bodies" yet, which will occur when Jesus comes for saving us not only from the consequences but of the presence of sin itself. And that is one of the objectives of the Sabbath commandment--pointing to that future eternal rest.

Now, you should know that there is a clear rule in Theology that the shadows end their symbolic role when encountering reality. Since we haven't reached the eternal rest of the New Earth yet, it goes on until then. Then, how could it end with Christ's death?

So, these points should be taken into consideration in any analysis of the Sabbath question:

a - It is clearly a moral precept that comes from the origin of the world, sanctified (separated) by God to serve a double purpose of granting man a necessary regular rest period and serving as a reminder of Him as Creator. That IS NOT a Seventh-day Adventist originated concept, but is part of the Christian tradition of centuries.

b - The Sabbath is not only a memorial of Creation, but also of redemption. Since it symbolizes the eternal rest of the complete salvation history, and since we haven't reached that final event, when "salvation" will be complete, there is no reason that it ceases to point forward to that day.

c - Isaiah 66:22, 23 indicates that in the New Earth the Sabbath will continue being a special time for the redeemed ones. The fact that the context mentions "new moons" doesn't negate the fact that it means simply that there will be two marks of time--a monthly one (new moon in Israel was the beginning of a new month) and a weekly one--the Sabbath.

Thus, as you can see, Hebrews 8:6-10 indicates the writing of God's law on hearts and minds of those who honor God as Creator, were redeemed in Christ and look forward for the completion of the salvation process when He returns, all of which simply confirm the important role of the Sabbath commandment.

There is no justification at all to simply get rid of this principle that is not ceremonial, as I have demonstrated in my study "10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is not a Ceremonial Precept", because both its practical function of granting people a regular day of rest (recognized by medical authorities as necessary and beneficial) and its spiritual role continue having its indisputable worth for all those who have in Jesus their "rest", and honor Him dedicating to Him a day to better think on the salvation He granted us. That could NEVER be accomplished through a nodayism/anydayism/everydayism mentality and attitude.

Best regards

P.S.: And it ended up that you DIDN'T answer objectively, to the point, my question on the passage of the Old to the New Covenant. Why the Sabbath commandment is left out of the picture.


Posted By: Azenilto

Some more correspondence with Dale Ratzlaff - 03/29/07 08:41 AM

An update regarding my correspondence with Mr. Ratzlaff. He insisted in sending me his book, I gave him my regular mail address and promised him I would read it, despite the "breach of contract", because he didn't answer my question first as I had stipulated as condition to receive it. Anyway, I will comply with his request that I dedicate time to read the book (not received yet).

But the basic premise we have already examined: that since Jesus is our salvation, we celebrate this fact by NOT CELEBRATING anything special regarding a day to dedicate to the Lord.

Since God Himself and His people always had special days and other special signs to celebrate important deeds and historical milestones (Creation--Sabbath; no more flood--rainbow; punishment for Babel Tower--confusion of languages; crossing of the Jordan--stone monument; deliverance from Egypt--Passover; different situations of difficulties overcome by men of God--building of altars), it seems strange that the most important of all events, both corporately and individually, is met by NO CELEBRATION AT ALL--cancellation of the "memorial of Creation" and no more day to dedicate to the Lord either as Creator or Redeemer. NO MEMORIAL AT ALL to celebrate salvation, in terms of our time invested to the end.

Does that seem to make sense?


Posted By: Kevin H

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 04/01/07 09:59 PM

You would enjoy some of the books like "Paul the Jewish Theologian" and "Reinventing Paul" (I don't remember their authors at the moment) and the Jim Fleming lectures and notebook "Acts: New Discoveries from the Early Church" and "Lest We Forget; A history of Anti-Jewishness and the Church." from Biblical Resources. Fleming is a Methodist archaeologist.

There has been new studies in Paul which says that traditionally Paul is interpeted through events such as the Church-Synogoge split of 135 AD, St. Augustine, and the Reformation Theologians, especially Martin Luther, but when studying archaeology and history we now know that these interpetations of Paul are incorrect. I have noticed that Ratzlaff's theology are built on these misconseptions of Paul that we have read back into his words.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 04/02/07 12:22 AM

Hi,
I think that Ratzlaff's theology is built on disobedience and disability [Romands 8:7].
R.V.
Posted By: Kevin H

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 04/04/07 12:34 AM

 Originally Posted By: Anonymous
Hi,
I think that Ratzlaff's theology is built on disobedience and disability [Romands 8:7].
R.V.


No, I don't think so. I just think that he is steeped in Christian traditions with his mind set in the 1500s. He is like a medical doctor who is at the cutting edge of medicine as it was taught and practiced by Doctors in the 1500s with maybe some updates from the 1800s, but is completely clueless as to medical discoveries from the 20th century.

But then we tend not to be any better with our traditions. Traditions die hard.

Another thing I've noticed about him... He describes himself as an Adventist as someone based on traditions and using who he thought was a prophet, Mrs. White, to hit over the head of others. Now he's converted to someone who is an evangelical based on traditions who thinks that Paul fit's the fundamentalists view of a prophet and uses the words of his prophet to bash Adventists. I don't see much difference.
Posted By: Azenilto

The Styrofoam Cross - 04/05/07 05:47 AM


We should remember the "'Styrofoam cross' factor". Many want to identify themselves as Christians and take up the cross, as Jesus ordered, provided it is one made of Styrofoam, and to follow Him, but through a path that is wide and comfortable.

It's not difficult to see why many would be attracted to this form of Christianity that just emphasizes grace, but forgets the law. But after granting grace to the adulterer in John 8, Jesus pointed her the law: "Go and sin no more". Both principles are always together, or we have only a caricature of Christianity.

To be a faithful Seventh-day Adventist is not easy in the modern world, and something of that challenge can be seen now with the anticipation of the saving time in the US. The Religious Liberty Dept. related the case of a lady who faced the dilemma of having to leave her job earlier on Fridays, but the boss wouldn't accept it. She quit working on her own before sundown, thinking of negotiating the question on Monday morning when back to work, but was fired on the spot. Finally, she even lost her house for being unable to pay the mortgage in a lesser-pay job she was able to land.

According to a certain statistic publicized by said Church Dept., three SDA's a day lose their jobs because of the Sabbath rest question in the "land of the free", USA.

I myself am facing some difficulty in my workplace and much prayer and firmness is required to overcome these hurdles. Not all are willing to go through these struggles and the easiest way out is to find pretexts to free oneself from these challenging situations. To these weaklings' ears Mr. Ratzlaff's theology sounds as music.

But I think of those early Christian who faced much tougher choices--either burn frankincense to the Emperor of Rome or being thrown to the beasts in the Roman arenas. History says that many failed the test.

Let's not fail this test of ours which, for the time being, is much easier than those early Christians faced, indeed a Styrofoam-light burden in comparison. . .


Posted By: Azenilto

10 Questions About the Sabbath for Anti-Sabbatarians to Think Seriously About - 04/05/07 08:59 PM


Well, let's advance in our examination of this important subject, with some more food for thought to the objector of our position on God's Sabbath commandament:


10 Questions About the Sabbath for Anti-Sabbatarians to Think Seriously About

They don’t need to be answered. Could be just for serious reflections . . .

1 – Since Isaiah 56:2-8 and Mark 2:27 show that the Sabbath is not an institution only for the literal children of Israel, encompassing the foreigners and “every man”, how can be it denied that it is a moral, universal precept, that stems from the Creation of the world?


Note: By the way, the only two institutions that still persist in the world since the entrance of sin are the Sabbath and marriage, both equally established for man (see Mar. 2:27 and Mat. 19:5). Both are equally the object of tremendous attacks from Satan, in the first case through the development of false theologies (promoting the ancient dies solis of Roman paganism, transformed into Sunday, or the ambiguous philosophy of the “anydayism/nodayism/everydayism”), and, in the second case, through the growing wave of separations, divorce, marital unfaithfulness and, more recently, same-sex marriages.

2 – Since the historical confessions of faith, creeds and catechisms of Protestant (and Catholic) Christendom admit that the Sabbath is a MORAL commandment, that comes from Eden, where did the interpretations that negate this come from?

Note: A clue would be to get information regarding a certain C. I. Scofield by the beginning of the 20th Century.

3 – Since those who found rest for their souls following Christ directly, when He inhabited among men, and didn’t for that reason dispense with the Sabbath (Luke 23:56), why should we act differently today, as Jesus came to save His people FROM their sins, and not WITH their sins (Mat. 1:21)?

Note: We find the Bible’s definition of “sin” in 1 John 3:4: “Sin is the transgression of the law”.

4 – Since Paul along the entire epistle to the Colossians never utilizes the word “law”, doesn’t that allow us to see he is not teaching anything in Chapter 2 regarding the end of laws, but is speaking of another thing related to the attribution of guilt to forgiven sinners?

Note: The “written code” (cheirographon, in the Greek --Col. 2:14) that was “against us” is not the “ceremonial law”, as some think, but the document that attributed guilt to a condemned man before a court.

5 – Since Paul as an Apostle never could have authority to abolish or alter any of God’s law, whatsoever, isn’t it clear enough that in Col. 2:16 he is not playing the role of a legislator who engages himself in altering the terms of God’s law?

Note: The parallel language of vs. 16 and 18 makes it clear the reason of Paul’s admonition: “. . . do not let anyone to judge you. . .”, “. . . do not let anyone . . . disqualify you. . .”

6 – Since even considering the weekly Sabbath a shadow, but having an ample character that doesn’t imply its end (for it will continue in the New Earth--Isa. 66:22, 23), isn’t clear that the precept of the Sabbath differs contextually and conceptually from the ceremonial ordinances abolished on the cross (see Eph. 2:15)?

Note: Remembering that God uttered it solemnly on the ears of the people, jointly with all moral norms and wrote it on the stone tables, a fact that would never apply to any ceremonial precept.

7 – Since God declared that the Sabbath is a sign established between He and His people (Exo. 31:17; Eze. 20:12, 20) and since it is never said that God replaced such sign for any other, what justification do the anti-Sabbatarians have to neglect this divine sign, while pretending to belong to God’s people?

Note: To quote Eph. 1:13 as a “proof” that now there exists a new “sign” has no basis because the text doesn’t say that the Holy Spirit became that “sign”, and not even the noun “sign” occurs in the text. What is said is that the Holy Spirit seals the true believers, but the seal of the Spirit is reflected in the writing of God’s law on the hearts and minds of those who accept the New Covenant between God and His children (Heb. 8:6-10; Rom. 8:3, 4), which includes, and not excludes, the Sabbath commandment.

8 – Since the Roman Catholics allege that those who don’t want to utilize sculptured images in their acts of worship are not obliged to do so, while they complain against the Evangelicals' insistence in criticizing them for their use of these images, those who say they are not against us keeping the Sabbath, but just asking to not bother them regarding such commandment, are not acting in exactly the same way?

Note: To condemn the Catholics for their use of images, quoting a precept of the same code of law that contains the neglected Sabbath commandment, is not only inconsistent, but could even be an exercise in hypocrisy.

9 – Since Jesus discussed so many times with the Jewish leaders regarding the Sabbath question, not to disqualify the Sabbath, but to indicate the form it should be observed, and asserted being “the Lord of the Sabbath”—to show He had authority to correct them who corrupted the meaning of the divine commandments—shouldn’t we learn what Christ intended to teach us regarding the manner of observing correctly the “day of the Lord”?

Note: The Jewish leaders corrupted also the 5th commandment (Mark 7:9ff) and the tithe principle (Mat. 23:23). Jesus declared in Matthew 15:6 about them: “. . . nullify the word of God for the sake or your tradition”. Christ discussed with them not WHETHER they should keep the Sabbath, nor WHEN they should keep the Sabbath, but HOW they should keep it, in the right spirit.

10 – Since in the passage of the Old to the New Covenant, when God inscribes what is called “My laws” on the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of this New Covenant [New Testament] (Hebrews 8:6-10) nothing is said that He leaves out the commandment of the day of rest, nor that He transfers the sanctity of the seventh-day to the first day of the week (or that this principle became something vague, voluntary and variable), why should we resist this divine writing of that commandment in our minds and hearts, at the same time that we allege to fulfill God’s will, as the Psalmist said in the Psalm 40:8?

Note: Said text says, “I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart”.

[All Bible texts taken from the NIV]


Posted By: Azenilto

10 Serious Difficulties For the Advocates of Either Sunday Keeping or the “Nodayism/Anydayism. . . ” - 04/05/07 09:19 PM


10 Serious Difficulties For the Advocates of Either Sunday Keeping or the “Nodayism/Anydayism/Everydayism”

1 - Jesus said that “the Sabbath was made for man” without implying that it was a provisional institution to be cancelled some time later. He simply confirms the commandment as having a universal character. What, then, is the basis for the notion of the end of the Sabbath for the Christians?

2 - The most representative confessions of faith of the historical Christian churches (such as the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Baptist New Hampshire Confession), clearly confirm the Sabbath as a moral commandment derived from Creation for all men, in all times. The fact that they reinterpret such principle applying it to Sunday doesn’t reduce their enforcement of the 4th commandment as valid for Christians, which is much different from the nodayism/anydayism/everydayism that has characterized the discourse of the Evangelical world since the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. How do you justify the radical change in mentality as to the question of the day or rest in comparison to the historical thinking of the Protestant Christendom?

3 - Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Anglicans didn’t understood or understand things as defined by those of the semi-antinomian/dispensationalist line, who contradict the statements by Luther, Calvin, Wesley and many others Evangelical thinkers, both contemporary and past, especially the historical Confessions of Faith, Creeds and Catechisms of the Christian churches. All these Christian instructors, in harmony with the confessional documents of those churches they either founded, belonged to or still belong to, reiterate the Sabbath position as being a moral commandment that proceeds from Eden, for all men, in all times, including Pentecostal authors. The fact that they reinterpret such principle applying it to Sunday doesn’t reduce the strength of their setting apart the 4th commandment as valid and still in force for Christians, which is very different from the nodayism/anydayism/everydayism, which has characterized the discourse of the Evangelical world since the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. In the face of that historical reality, how do you justify the radical change in mentality vis-à-vis the question of the day of rest in contrast to the historical thinking of the Protestant Christendom?

Note: Luther, Calvin and Wesley sometimes were inconsistent and made comments disparaging the keeping of the 7th-day Sabbath as a biblical requirement. But they all admitted the validity of the 10 Commandaments as a rule for Christian conduct. They certainly found it difficult to explain why Sunday was the favored day to be kept when there is no such instruction in the Bible and came out with unconvincing excuses. They also raised unacceptable arguments to justify child baptism.

4 - The Evangelicals cannot define where the Bible establishes that the day of rest in the Christian era should be presently observed in a more “user friendly” way, with permission to buy and sell, watch games on TV, go to movies, theaters, mall, etc., with practically the only difference being that on their “Lord’s day” one stays some more time at the Church’s meetings. What biblical basis do you have to justify this change in the dedication of a day to the Lord?

5 - The Evangelicals cannot define why this supposed Christian Sabbath should be considered according to the Roman time reckoning, from midnight to midnight, instead of the Bible reckoning, from sunset to sunset, especially as the texts that deal with the first day of the week in the New Testament utilize the Jewish reckoning, not the Roman one. What biblical basis do you have to justify that change?

6 - It’s significant that the main meetings of worship, praise, preaching, altar calls in the Evangelical churches occur in their Sunday night meetings which, according to the Bible time reckoning, is already Monday, not Sunday! How do you justify that, at least those who still hold the idea that Sunday is a special day to dedicate to the Lord?

7 - Are the evangelicals able to define where, in the passage from the Old to the New Alliance, it is said that when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of His New Alliance [New Testament], He

- leaves out the 4th commandment of the Decalogue (Basic Texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; 10:16; Jeremiah 31:31-33 and Ezekiel 36:26, 27)?

8 - Are the evangelicals able to define where, in the passage from the Old to the New Alliance, it is said that when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of His New Alliance [New Testament], He

- maintains the 4th commandment, but transferring the sanctity of the seventh-day Sabbath to Sunday (Basic Texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; 10:16; Jeremiah 31:31-33 e Ezekiel 36:26, 27)?

9 - Are the evangelicals able to define where it is said, in the passage from the Old to the New Alliance, that when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of His New Alliance [New Testament], He

- leaves the question of the day of rest as something vague, voluntary and variable, to be set individually, according to the conveniences of the believer (or his/her employer) (Basic Texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; 10:16; Jeremiah 31:31-33 e Ezekiel 36:26, 27)?

10 - Since in the biblical promise of the New Heavens and a New Earth, when there will be no more sin or sinners, the Sabbath will continue to be observed by the redeemed ones eternally (see Isaiah 66:22, 23), why shouldn’t we now dedicate to the Lord His holy day, as He Himself established in His law, which was not cancelled by faith, but confirmed (Rom. 3:31)?


Posted By: Anonymous

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 04/20/07 03:50 PM

Post removed as this type of advertising without first obtaining permission is not allowed here at MSDAOL. - Daryl Fawcett, Administrator
Posted By: Azenilto

“Non-negotiable” Points that Match SDA' Fundamental Beliefs - 05/01/07 01:10 PM

Hello friends

As another update to our “dialogue” with Mr. Ratzlaff, the book he promised to send me hasn’t reached my address so far. May be he decided that it wouldn’t be worthwhile to throw his “pearl” to a stubborn “pig” like me.

Speaking of pig, he concluded, in a lecture during an especial event—the FAF Weekend 2007 (which means a special meeting of the Former Adventist Fellowship), as featured in the new March/April issue of Proclamation magazine that I received by regular mail—that in Acts 10, when Peter describes his vision of the sheet with many unclean animals, the Apostle is implying that the law that prohibited people from eating pork was abolished. Well, this idea of the abolition of the dietary laws is one of the points I want to analyze in this study to show one more serious error of Mr. Ratzlaff’s theology.

And among the key studies in the mentioned meeting, I found some “gems”, as a certain Dr. Gary Inrig gave some tips in a class of which churches a former Seventh-day Adventist should favor to attend and/or join. Quoting from the article: “He stressed three non-negotiable beliefs” that should be “the Trinity, a high view of Scriptures’ inerrancy, and the centrality of the cross”.

This is amazing, because our confessional document, adopted by over 15 million SDA’s all over the world, emphasize the Trinity, the centrality of the Scriptures as the foundation of our beliefs and practices, and the centrality of the cross.

Let’s see the specific topics that deal with that:


Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists

Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word.

1. The Holy Scriptures: The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

2. The Trinity: There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)

3. The Father: God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father. (Gen. 1:1; Rev. 4:11; 1 Cor. 15:28; John 3:16; 1 John 4:8; 1 Tim. 1:17; Ex. 34:6, 7; John 14:9.)

4. The Son: God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1-3.)

5. The Holy Spirit: God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ's life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Gen. 1:1, 2; Luke 1:35; 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:11, 12; Acts 1:8; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-13.)

(. . .)

9. The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ: In Christ's life of perfect obedience to God's will, His suffering, death, and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life, and the whole creation may better understand the infinite and holy love of the Creator. This perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God's law and the graciousness of His character; for it both condemns our sin and provides for our forgiveness. The death of Christ is substitutionary and expiatory, reconciling and transforming. The resurrection of Christ proclaims God's triumph over the forces of evil, and for those who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death. It declares the Lordship of Jesus Christ, before whom every knee in heaven and on earth will bow. (John 3:16; Isa. 53; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4, 20-22; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, 19-21; Rom. 1:4; 3:25; 4:25; 8:3, 4; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; Col. 2:15; Phil. 2:6-11.)

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.)

There we have the “non-negotiable” points highlighted by this instructor of former Seventh-day Adventists, all of them found in the “Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists” in its introductory remarks and topics 1-5 an 9, 10. Is there any need to leave the SDA Church to go after some church that teaches these non-negotiable tenets?!


Posted By: Azenilto

Proceeding with the discussions of the Ratzlaff material-I - 05/01/07 01:13 PM


Some Fine Points in the Testimonies of the Mirra’s, Richard Peifer and Christofer A. Lee


In the testimonies the magazine features, like in the articles “From Adventism to Christ Alone”, by Paul and Terry Mirra, or “Alive—A matter of life and death”, by Richard Peifer, and “Paid in Full. Completely”, by Christopher A. Lee, we find a succession of distortions and caricatures of our convictions and teachings, especially regarding salvation and our standing before God in the face of the judgment, besides a faulty theology amidst a few good points that deserve mentioning.

They tell their experiences as individuals raised by SDA parents who transmitted to them notions that simply don’t correspond to our official understanding of the gospel. Now, I know well the Evangelical environment and could also report of many believers I met along my life who also are unable to articulate precisely what the gospel is, or even what their churches officially teach regarding it. So, if there are in SDAism those who are unable to clearly articulate our beliefs, that is not a “phenomenon” restricted to the SDAC members, I can assure you.

Provided their versions of these teachings by their parents are correct, if these people, instead of simply limiting themselves to what their parents taught them, dedicated themselves to the task of checking what the SDA church really teaches, according to the Bible, they wouldn’t come up with stories of these poor articulations of the great themes of salvation and other fine theological points that, after leaving the SDA Church, they “discovered” as being taught by other Christians.

As I quoted on the top of this article, the SDA Fundamental beliefs official document covers perfectly well what they claim to have learned as they left the SDA Church, finding the “real gospel”, centered on the cross, in other denominations. Let’s see some of these distortions:

In the Mirra’s article Terry says: “When we learned that the Old Covenant pointed to the new, it made total sense. The whole book of Hebrews drives home the point that Jesus is superior to, and the fulfillment of, the Old Covenant—there’s no need to pick and choose parts of it to keep (Heb. 8:6-8, 13). It’s either one way or the other. To hang onto the Old Covenant is to say that Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t complete”.

Poor lady, how come she just discovered something so obvious and so clearly understood by any Seventh-day Adventist who studies his/her Bible regularly?! Recently we even had a Sabbath School Quarterly dedicated to the book of Hebrews where that is exactly what is taught! There is no semblance of this clinging to the Old Covenant, at all. . . So, again, how far she had to go to find this “non-negotiable” teaching that she could have had all the time, just learning better what her Church officially teaches!

But, there is something significant in her quotation of the Bible verses. She skips two important verses in the sequence of the ones she quoted, vs. 9 and 10 of Hebrews 8:

“It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares de Lord. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people”.

Well, Mrs. Mirra forgot to mention that this New Covenant [New Testament] is a wonderful promise by God that, according to His “better promises”, he would write “My laws”, as He says in vs. 10, in the hearts of those who accept the terms of this New Covenant, and put them in their minds. Why did she skipped them?!

Now, when we consider the fact that this text is just a reproduction of what we find in Jeremiah 31:31-33, when this promise of a new covenant was first transmitted to national Israel itself, we reach a very interesting conclusion: What “My laws” are these? Certainly they have to be THE SAME known by Jeremiah! Yes, the text is an application by Paul of THE SAME promise God had made to His people in the past. So, these “My laws” are THE SAME principles that God set to Israel as basic for a new covenant with His people at that time.

Oh, but how about all the ceremonies and rituals that were also part of the law at the time of Jeremiah? Well, let’s remember that when Paul applies to the Church of God the promise to Israel, both he and his primary Hebrew Christian readers knew very well that the Temple’s veil had been torn in two, from top to bottom, when Jesus died. The Christian community was already aware of what that meant—that all the ceremonial, ritual, aspects of God’s law were no more applicable to the Christian under the New Covenant [New Testament]. But the Sabbath is not a ceremonial law (and that is the “bottom line”), as we discussed in our special study, “10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept” that has never been refuted by any anti-sabbatarian.

Then we have that little question that I addressed to Mr. Ratzlaff, among others, and so far got no answer:

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), God

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 or rest principle as a vague, voluntary and variable practice that can be reinterpreted as any day 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.


This brings us to the real “bottom line” of all this discussion. The point in this discussion is basically a classical misunderstanding that I often find among Evangelicals: they mistake two different things—LAW and COVENANT. They are not the same. One thing is the law, which served as a basis to the covenant. There is nothing that proves that with the change of covenants, there was a change of the basic law. This is an equation that our opponents are still to demonstrate, and so far I haven’t seen it demonstrated:


NEW COVENANT = NEW LAW

Would either Paul or Terry Mirra be able to answer the blue question above for us? And, would they be able to resolve this equation that so far nobody resolved for us too? I will ask Mr. Ratzlaff or someone from his staff to forward this text to them. . .







Posted By: Azenilto

Proceeding with the discussions of the Ratzlaff material-II - 05/01/07 01:23 PM


Good and Bad Points in Two Articles: By Richard Peifer And Christopher A. Lee


Regarding Mr. Richard Peifer article (in Proclamation, March/Abril, 2007), it has some good points, as this thought that is even highlighted in a special box: “Jesus’ sermon on the Mount was the single most condemning sermon ever preached. If you finish reading it with any other than a sense of dread because you fall so far short of the ideal then you are not paying attention”.

His summary of the basic points in the article wouldn’t be disputed by any well-informed Seventh-day Adventist:

* Adam and Eve were created alive spiritually and physically.
* They chose independence from God and ate the forbidden fruit.
* The instantaneous result of this choice was spiritual death; the Holy Spirit left them.
* The long-term result of this choice was physical death.
* All of us were born in the image of Adam; that is, dead to the Holy Spirit in the process of dying physically.
* Jesus was born the Second Adam; alive Spiritually.
* Jesus lived a perfect life. That is, He lived in perfect submission to and dependence upon His Father. He succeeded where Adam and Eve failed.
* Because He lived the perfect life, Jesus’ death was the perfect substitution for the death we deserved.
* Jesus too, put away sin by becoming sin for us.
* Therefore, Jesus provided forgiveness, once and for all, for the entire world.

Again, do we have to leave the SDA Church to learn these points?! There is NOTHING in all of them that I can’t accept from the standpoint of a Seventh-day Adventist. Absolutely nothing!

But, there are a few points that I want to discuss in said article.

A – The author quotes at a certain point Matt. 7:21-23: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord’, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, die we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?” And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you: Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (Matt. 7:21-23).

Well, there are two fine points to analyze in this text. First, Jesus says He will recognize the ones who do “the will of My Father who is in heaven”. And where is this will of the Father clearly defined in the Bible? The Psalmist tells us in Psa. 40:8: “To do Your will, O my god, is my desire; Your law is within my heart”. Many translations have it, “my pleasure”, instead of “my desire”, but, anyway, God’s will is clearly revealed in His law.

The second point is that Jesus will reject those who, despite their impressive curriculum of “spiritual” activities, including the performance of miracles and casting out of demons” are labeled by Him as those who practice “lawlessness”. Now, in the Greek original, the word for “lawlessness” is anomian, the same that appears in 1 John 3:4 in the definition of sin: “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness”. Many versions, as the KJV, the French Louis Segond, the Italian Nuova Riveduta or the Spanish Reina Valera has it as “sin is the transgression of the law-anomian”.

So, we can clearly understand Jesus’ words as being equivalent to: “Depart from Me, you who are transgressors of the law”! That is something for those who learn this strange new theology of the “abolition of the law” to think seriously about. . .

B - Another point is when he quotes Romans 5:10, “For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”

He emphasizes the Resurrection aspect of “His life”, but we could understand this Pauline reference to Jesus’ perfect life, by which He fulfilled the law perfectly so that His justice, acquired along His perfect life, is credited to those who by faith accept His supreme sacrifice. Thus, we are saved by His life, in the sense that His perfect life of sanctity is taken into account in the place of our faulty life, since even “all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6). As we can see, nobody has to leave the SDA Church to understand that wonderful gospel truth.

C – Then, Mr. Peifer quotes Romans 8:3, 4, but clearly distorts the meaning of what Paul wants to say. He says, “What the law could never do, God did by sending Jesus. He both condemned sin in sinful flesh AND fulfilled the righteous requirement of the Law in us, ‘who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit’ (Rom. 8:4)”. Then he concludes: “In other words, we must stop looking at our behavior and start looking at Jesus. Behavior has never been and never will be the basis for our standing with God, because we have never had any good behavior to offer Him”.

Well, the Bible says that we have to do both things—look at Jesus AND look at our behavior as representatives of Jesus. Paul said that now “Keeping God’s commandments is what counts” (1 Cor. 7:19). If Mr. Peifer means that we should not consider our behavior, IN TERMS OF JUSTIFICATION, he is right. But we have to remember that without sanctification “no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14).

But, his error is his interpretation of Rom. 8:4: He gives the impression that what Paul is saying has nothing to do with an attitude of faithful obedience to God’s law by those who are led by the Spirit. Jesus just “fulfilled the righteous requirement of the Law in us”, he says. That is not right, because the same Paul not only recommended the keeping of commandments to the Romans (Rom. 13:8-10) and Ephesians (Eph. 6:1-3; 4:25-31) as he, himself, said that “I myself with my mind am a slave of God’s law”, which is the one that brings the commandment, “Do not covet” (Rom. 7:25, cf. vs. 7, 8).

A little further in the same chapter 8, Paul also says: “The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace, because the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God”.

Then, there is no “fulfillment of the righteous demands of the Law” by Christ or the Holy Spirit in our place. The Spirit rather guides the believer to do it, in the sanctification process. Nothing of our actions in JUSTIFICATION [God’s work FOR us] counts, but in SANCTIFICATION [God’s work IN us] they are essential. By the way, in the three points of a special box that indicates the “Mission”, “Motto” and “Message” of the Proclamation magazine, we read that the “Message” would be: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God; not of works, that no one should boast”. Ephesians 2:8, 9.

Good message, indeed, but INCOMPLETE. Whoever was the editor of this feature forgot to add vs. 10, which completes the picture: “For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Eph. 2:10). Why was this text left out? Jesus in His sermon on the Mount mentioned the need of good works, not for our boasting or own glory, but for attracting men’s praise to God: Matt. 5:16. So, we can’t leave the works feature out of the picture. Paul said clearly—“Keeping God’s commandments is what counts”. Yes, that is true, but always understanding that this is not in the JUSTIFICATION but in the SANCTIFICATION part of the salvation process.

D – Mr. Peifer tries to resolve the dilemma he creates to himself with his semi-antinomian theology commenting: “Someone will ask the next obvious question, ‘Does this mean it’s alright to sin, to do just anything we please regardless of the consequences?’ Not at all. In fact, the opposite is true. ‘For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace’ (Rom. 6:14). What is the inverse of this text? If you are under Law, then sin shall be master over you. It is the grace of God, not the Law, that teaches us to day no to ungodliness (Titus 2:12).

Mr. Peifer error is to misunderstand again the meaning of being led by the Spirit. It does not mean that obeying the commandments of God doesn’t count, but the opposite of that—to live in godliness, not in sin. And sin is “transgression of the law”. So, we could reinterpret Paul’s words in Rom. 6:14, on the light of his word in Rom. 8:3, 4, 6-8 as saying:

“For the transgression of God’s law, and its commandments--the faithful obedience of which is what now counts--is not what will have the mastery over you, for you are not under the law--since we are not under the condemnation the law imposes on those who are in sin--but under the grace of God, since we are redeemed by His grace, and God wrote His law in our hearts {Heb. 8:6-10}. That is why we now, led by the Spirit, have the righteous requirement of the law fulfilled in our lives, inasmuch as we don’t live according to the passions of the flesh, which are not in accordance to God’s law, but in newness of life”.

But how about examining how a recognized champion of this cause of the preaching of God’s righteousness interpreted this so misunderstood and distorted expression “under the law” in Rom. 6:14? Who better than Martin Luther to give us a good interpretation of it? Let’s see what was his exegesis or this passage in his classic “Preface to the Epistle of Paul to the Romans”:

“And this is what we can do, he states, because we are in the grace, and not in the law, which he himself interprets in the following sense: ‘Being without law’ it not the same as not having any law, and that we can do what pleases each one, but that ‘being under the law’ is when, without the grace, we deal with the works of the law. Then, certainly sin masters through the law, since nobody by nature is fond of the law, and this is a great sin. Grace, however, makes the law agreeable to us, so that there is no more sin, and the law is not against us, but in harmony with us. This is true freedom from sin and the law, of which he speaks at the end of this chapter. It’s a freedom to do only good, willing to live correctly without the forcefulness of the law. Because of that such freedom is a spiritual freedom, that doesn’t annul the law, rather offers that which is required by the law: willingness and love, with which the law is appeased and is no more inciting and requiring”. – Underlining added.

E – Finally, some few points in which Mr. Peifer’s exegesis shows big flaws:

1 – Hebrews 7:12 mentions change in the Law, but just reading the context it is made clear that this change is not that from 10 Commandments we now have a new rule, sort of “Nine Commandment and One Suggestion”.

Not at all. The Law that had to change is that of the Priesthood—since Jesus belonged to the tribe of Judah, and the priesthood law required that only Levites where nominated to this post, that aspect of the Law had to be theoretically changed. Paul uses that language clearly in a rhetorical fashion, for actually the Jews would not change any laws, and at the time Paul wrote that, there was no more valid priesthood Law to be dealt with.

2 – Galatians 5 also deals with this question of being “under the law” (vs. 18). We have the contrast between those who are “under the law” and the ones who are led by the Spirit. And what we notice clearly is that the ones “under the law” ARE NOT those who obey it, but, on the contrary, those who practice all those sins listed in vs. 19-21. So, this confirms that being “under the law” in this text, as well as in Rom. 6:14, IS NOT being dedicated to the obedience to God’s law, but to live in sin, which, by the way, is defined biblically as “transgression of the law”.

F – Regarding Mr. Christopher A. Lee article, “Paid in Full. Completely”, I think that most of what he alleges in that article is duly covered by my discussions above. And if he reads carefully topics 9, 10 and 18 of our SDA Beliefs document (of 28 items now) he will see that his allegations of Jesus’ death being just a “down payment” in the process of salvation, do be completed by our payment in installment of good works and efforts to fulfill the law is a mere snow man of Adventist theology that he built, then engages himself in the task of destroying this monster of his own creation.

As to the SDA end time scenario, maybe he needs to check the facts more carefully about what is going on in the back stages of the religious field. And it would be interesting that he got some information of the failed scenario of those who are the inspirers of this “abolished law” theology—the dispensationalists. Is Mr. Lee aware of the Hal Lindsay’s book The Great Late Planet Earth and the 1988 Church’s rapture scenario, and how it failed completely? And how about Israel’s territorial expansion, when they are, rather, preferring to return land to the Palestinians? And what reasons would Russia find to invade Israel? And I saw on TV one of these dispensationalist preachers telling people that in the final times of human history three angels would cross the skies, preaching the messages of Revelation 14 to the Jews! Does Mr. Lee agree with that astounding interpretation?! I wonder how would he interpret the whole chapter, point by point. . .

Well, if he knew how five out of nine Supreme Court judges belong to the Roman Catholic Church he would see how the SDA predictions are being more and more confirmed. I will have something more to say about that when I reveal the great campaign by the “10 Commandments Commission” I will discuss later on.

Posted By: Azenilto

Proceeding with the discussions of the Ratzlaff material-III - 05/02/07 09:09 PM


A Few More Things About The Mirra’s Testimony

Learn what are the two deadly blows on the semi-antinomian theology of the so-called New Covenant Christians


Going back to the Mirra’s (Paul and Terry) testimony of how they “discovered” the true meaning of the covenants as they left the SDA Church, I would comments a few more things of their also poor articulation of the Pauline writings regarding the subject of the covenants.

Mrs. Terry, again, who seems to be the most extensive Bible commentator of the family, alleges at certain point: “[God’s] ‘seal’ on us had nothing to do with our allegiance to the Sabbath. . . it was an internal security not dependent on what I did! As truth started to become clear, 2 Cor. 3:13-18 made sense. It states that a veil remains when the Old Covenant is read, because only in Christ is it taken away”.

First error in this brief exposition is that God’s seal is presented as allegiance to the God of the Sabbath, not to the Sabbath. When God says that the Sabbath is the “sign” between He and His people (Exo. 31:16; Eze. 20:12, 12) it’s because those who are faithful to Him will be characterized as those who honor Him especially as the Creator of “the heavens, the earth, and the sea and the springs of water” (Rev. 14:7).

Interestingly, the Brazilian Baptists, of the main Baptist organization (the National Baptist Convention) in their “Doctrinal Statement”, make clear that the Sabbath commandment is the sign between God and His people, in the footnotes of Topic XV—“The Christian Sabbath”. To serve as Bible backing of what is said on the subject, they quote, among other texts, Exo. 31:14-18.

Even though they reinterpret the principle applying to Sunday, its makes sense, because atheists, materialists and lax Christians are not known as people who are willing to dedicate a whole day to the Lord.

But the quotation of 2 Cor. 13-18 is very interesting because, once more, Mrs. Mirra missed important other texts of the context. She should mention Paul’s reference to the law in the tablets of stone (vs. 7) that brought death, in contrast to the writing of God’s law in the hearts of those who are “letters of recommendation”. This is a very misunderstood text by many who follow this semi-antinomian theology. They read about “letters on stone”, and “ministry of death” and jump to the conclusion that Paul is disqualifying the 10 Commandments, which is the only thing one thinks immediately about when reading about “letters written on stone” or “tablets of stone” in the Bible.

However, if 2 Cor. 3 proves something, it is that Paul is repeating in an improved way the same metaphor of Ezekiel 36:26, 27. Now, if the idea is that the contents of the tablets of stone meant death, then we have a very strange God, who summoned the people of Israel for a very much solemn occasion at the Sinai, to deliver them His law, with all that careful preparation described in Exodus 19--territory delineated so that not even animal roamed around there, even the husbands on the previous night had to sleep on the sofa (Exo. 19:15)--all that for them to receive a law of death! If I were there, I would feel myself fooled and abused!

Of course, the problem was not with the law, but with the people. This is made clear in Hebrews 8:8: “But God found fault with the people . . . because they did not remain faithful to my covenant”. Thus, what had to change was not the law, but the people’s hearts.

What is, then, the overall meaning of Paul’s discussion in the entire chapter? He is contrasting those who accepted the new covenant with those who remained attached to the principles of the old one. The latter are the ones who stumbled in the law, as Paul describes in Rom. 9:30-32, a key text to understand all his discussions on the theme of the law:

“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone’.”

For those who stumbled, the contents of the law remained on the cold tablets of stone, accusing them and not being able to convey righteousness, which was never the function of the law, instead of being written in their hearts and minds--the hallmark of the new covenant, as found in the other key text of Hebrew 8:6-10.

Now, one very special feature in that chapter, that is a deadly blow to the theories of those who teach this “other gospel” (Gal. 1:8, 9) of the abolished law, is the fact that when Paul resorts to the ‘tablets of stone/tablets of human heart’ illustration, certainly based on Ezekiel’s metaphor, he thinks about THE ENTIRE CONTENTS of the tablets of stone, not only 90% of it, transferred to the tablets of flesh! After all, Ezekiel didn’t think in terms of 90%, either. . .

It would make no sense for Paul to utilize this metaphor, in case he taught that one of the commandments of the tablets of stone was somehow out of the picture! If it were so he would have to employ some other language, like, “You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stones but on tablets of human hearts in nine of the commandments of the tablets of stone”.

No, no. . . That was not how Paul used the illustration, which makes very clear that he intended to say that THE ENTIRE CONTENTS of the tablets of stone (the Ten Commandments) are transferred from the cold letters on stone to the hearts warmed by God’s grace of those who submit themselves to His new covenant [New Testament].

Thus, 2 Corinthians 3 is one of these texts that backfire, being used by our opponents to deny the Sabbath principle, when actually it is a tremendous argument IN FAVOR of the validity of the commandment, one of those found in the tablets of stone and in the “My laws” [God’s] written by the Spirit on the hearts and minds of those who accept the provisions of the new covenant, according to the “superior promises” of Hebrews 8:6-10.

And to reinforce this deadly blow, we can read in the following chapter, vs. 15-17 that whenever a testator dies, it is not possible to change the terms of a will. So, when the Divine Testator died, it became impossible to alter His testament, either with a change from the Sabbath to Sunday, or from the Sabbath to the nodayism/anydayism/everydayism, favored by the majority of Evangelical Christians nowadays.


Posted By: Azenilto

Mr. Ratzlaff’s Poor Articulation of the Theme of God’s Law - 05/02/07 09:18 PM


Mr. Ratzlaff’s Poor Articulation of the Theme of God’s Law


Answering a letter from a reader of Proclamation magazine, Mr. Dale Ratzlaff says in its March/April issue: “Many letters we receive express a deep fear that by teaching the reign of law came in with Moses and lasted until Christ, new covenant Christians are left without any moral guides. The truth is, however, that the New Covenant Christians have a much higher and better—yes, better—moral guide than the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are external. The law of Christ is internal”.

The first error in this statement is to consider those who adopt his views as “New Covenant Christians” with a “superior” moral guide, which supposedly supersedes the “poor”, “inadequate” Ten Commandments.

What Mr. Ratzlaff and his allies should remember is that these expressions of degrading the Ten Commandments don’t match with the classic, historic view of Christendom that has always stressed the 10 Commandments as the undeniable “moral law” of God, summary of all that is ethical, moral, spiritual in the universe. In the first line of his document “Against the Antinomians” Martin Luther, that great champion of righteousness by faith, calls the 10 Commandment “God’s Law”. Calvin also speaks of “moral law” and “ceremonial law” naturally, as that is also expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the 39 Articles of the Church of England, the Baptist Confession of 1689 and many other confessional documents.

And along the centuries Christian authors and authorities expressed the same convictions about the role of these 10 Commandments as the rule of Christian life. Confirming this we could mention Wesley, Spurgeon, Moody, John Davis, Billy Graham, James Kennedy, and so many others.

In our present time we witness this new campaign in the US and other lands to highlight the importance of the 10 Commandments, like Oral Roberts who recently wrote a book exalting this divine rule as a necessity to be adopted as a national standard to save America from chaos.

This prompts us a new question to Mr. Ratzlaff and his allies:

* Are you, Mr. Ratzlaff and your allies, convinced of your superior understanding of this matter over all these past and present Christian confessional documents and leaders? Can Mr. Ratzlaff consider himself a new Reformer everybody should listen to, forgetting all the Christian documents and authoritative statements and instructions by the highest reputed Christian authors, pastors, and Seminary professors along the centuries, including Luther, Calvin, Chemnitz, Wesley?

We have seen how our question on the passage from the Old to the New Covenant was never answered by Mr. Ratzlaff. As we addressed it to people under his influence, let’s see if we finally get any answers to it. The question deals with the most important Bible text to explain why we have the Bible as a divided book, split into two parts: Old Testament/New Testament. This text is Hebrews 8:6-10.

There is no information in these texts of any new “Law of Christ” that replaced the 10 Commandments as the new Christian rule of life, as well as no “Law of the Spirit”, nor “Law of Faith”, nor “Law of Love”, nor “Law of Grace”, but MY LAWS [God’s] is referred to as those that God writes on the hearts and minds of whoever accepts the terms of this New Covenant [New Testament], according to “superior promises”. Of course God’s law incorporates all that—it’s is the law of Christ, the law of love, the law of faith, the law of the Spirit and the law of grace.

But there is no information that these “My laws” are DIFFERENT from the same “laws” that Jeremiah knew, inasmuch as Hebrews 8:6-10 is simply a reproduction of what we read in Jer. 31:31-33. They are THE SAME laws, with nothing having changed in the sense that: a- God left out the Sabbath commandment; b- God included the Sabbath commandment, but transferring the sanctity of the seventh to the first day of the week; c- God included the Sabbath commandment, but leaving it as a vague, voluntary and variable principle, adjustable to the believer’s conveniences or interest (or that of his/her employer).

This key text of the Bible is the exact one where this information should be clearly enunciated. Nevertheless there are no clues regarding any change of laws with the change of the covenant. Thus, the basic equation on this subject to be demonstrated, but never done so, would be:


NEW COVENANT = NEW LAW

Of course all the ceremonial, ritual, aspects of the law as known by Jeremiah are out. Both Paul and his primary readers of Hebrews were well aware that all the prefigurations of the ceremonial law had ended on the cross, as symbolized graphically by the curtain of the Temple being torn into two at the moment Christ proclaimed His “It is finished”.

Then, we come to the bottom line of all this discussion: the only commandment among the 10 of the Decalogue that is said to have been abolished is the 4th. For that to have happened it had to be a “ceremonial” precept. But since we have our study “10 Reasons Why the Sabbath Is Not a Ceremonial Precept” that hasn’t been refuted, we are assured that NONE of the principles recorded by God Himself in the two stone tables was eliminated through the passage from the Old to the New Covenant. No such information is presented to us in Hebrews 8:6-10.

And speaking of “internalization” of the law, no doubt, our key text deal with that alright. Again, there is no hints of this process being different from what the psalmist David had said: “To do your will, O my God, is my desire; your law is within my heart” (Psa. 40:8).

We read in 1 John 5:2, 3: “This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is the love for God: to obey His commands. And his commands are not burdensome”.

The love factor is what produces this internalization of the law, making its obedience not burdensome, even though humanly speaking it seems so. To dedicate an entire day every week to the Lord seems a burden, as so many who wish to be faithful to God’s principles face difficulties in their workplace, lose jobs, work in activities below their professional potential, students face hard times negotiating with their teachers new schedules for examinations, etc. But when we love God above all else, the joy of obeying Him surpasses these hardships, which are challenges to our fealty to Him, burdens that are made light when we are attached to the Lord who offered us rest, not of keeping a day to follow more easily the faith in accordance to the world and its customs, but to have His salvation, which involves not only having Him as Savior, but as Lord on our lives.

Another big mistake of Mr. Ratzlaff’s articulation of the God’s Law subject is when he engages himself in discussing the role of the Holy Spirit as a guide to the Christian. He says that the Spirit guides us in doing God’s will and empowers one to live producing its fruits, which is something obvious to any Bible student. But then he comes to a slippery spot as he alleges: “It is clear that the function of the Holy Spirit in the new covenant replaces the function of the law in the old”.

Wrong! The Spirit is not given as a SUBSTITUTE to specific commandments given by God. At least that was not how Paul and James understood the question. Paul speaks specifically of commandments to be observed by Christians. To the Ephesians and to the Romans he mentioned naturally the 8th, 9th and 10th commandments (see Eph. 6:1-3; 4:25-31; Rom. 13:8-10). In this last case, he quotes a few of the commandments but makes clear that he is just quoting the part for the whole in vs. 9 (“. . . and whatever other commandment there may be. . .”). To the Corinthians he said--after “dividing the law”, showing that commandments that were important in the past are no more so: “Keeping God’s commandments is what counts” (1 Cor. 7:19).

It’s important to contextualize the Bible statements. What his readers had in mind when he refers to “God’s commandments”? Did they think of any different ones from those who are in the Bible regarding obedience to God? In order to know that one has to just read Rom. 7:7-13. See how many times he utilizes the word “commandment”, referring to a specific one derived from the Decalogue, “Do not covet”.

And in vs. 25 we have a text that is a clear embarrassment to this abolished-law-replaced-by-the-Spirit theology. Paul says: “I myself with my mind am a slave to God’s law”. Since in the context he refers to the “Do not covet” commandment, besides exalting this law as holy, good, spiritual, pleasurable, it’s incredible to see a supposed New Covenant instructor teaching this theological aberration that the Spirit was given to replace the law of God as rule of life to the Christian. That is not what we find in either Rom. 7, 8 or Hebrews 8:6-10, as well as in James 2:10-12.

The same Paul had asked rhetorically before: “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith?” He himself answers in a way to leave no doubt: “Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law” (Rom. 3:31).

That is a language much different from teaching that the Spirit has replaced the law of God expressed in the 10 Commandments to guide man in doing what is right and averting what is wrong.

Actually we find so many specific instructions about not doing this, and rather doing that throughout the New Testament. . . How about, just randomly browsing its pages: “whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God”; “when you come together to eat, wait for each other”; “try to excel in gifts that build up the church”; “brothers, stop thinking like children”; “do not be yoked together with unbelievers”; “do everything without complaining or arguing”; “make it your ambition to live a quiet life”; “warn those who are idle”; “encourage the timid”; “help the weak”, “be patient with everyone”; “be joyful always”. . .

So many specific instructions. . . Why didn’t Paul just say: “Submit yourself to the guidance of the Spirit in all things pertaining to your relationship with one another that everything will be fine in the Church”?. . . But although he implied that, he was also specific in what to do and what not to do, which proves Mr. Ratzlaff wrong in his theological stand that the Spirit in the New Covenant replaces clear commandments of God.

Finally, Mr. Ratzlaff insists that the New Covenant Christians abide by the “law of Christ”, rather than the 10 Commandments, which are “the law of God”. Well, that prompts us to recommend that he read our study and try to answer our, “10 Questions on Law of God/Law of Christ”. See the following link for both studies--that the Sabbath is not a ceremonial precept and about the question of law of God/law of Christ:

http://foroadventista.com/index.php/topic,610.0.html

Finally, trying to answer another question (“What is the difference between legalism and sanctified obedience:”), Mr. Ratzlaff says: “Sanctified obedience is not obedience that makes us right with God. Rather, it is the outworking of the principles of the law of love that the Holy Spirit writes on the heart of a Christian. This would include all New Testament admonitions and all the oral principles behind Old Testament laws. However, we are not to apply the letter of Old Testament law but the moral principle behind the law”.

We have nothing to fear regarding this fine point of obedience nor making us right with God. That is clearly taught in our “SDA Beliefs” document, as nobody has to leave the SDA Church to know that we are not saved by fulfilling the law, but by God’s grace in Christ. We obey God’s law not to be saved, but because we love God. And we love him “because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). That is our motivation in obeying to His complete law, without finding pretexts to skip any of His precept.

What we have in Mr. Ratzlaff exposition is simply a clear “Herodian theology”. All the principles “behind the law” means, all the commandments such as they appear in the Ten Commandments, BUT FOR THE SABBATH, which is to be reinterpreted in the sense that they were totally abolished, and replaced by the new law of “Nine Commandments and One Suggestion”. . .

As Herod wanted to get rid of just one kid in the land of Judea, but for reaching his goal he ordered the killing of all babies there, those who want to circumvent the “inconvenient” Sabbath commandment preach the end of the WHOLE Ten Commandments just to guarantee that the one they want to get rid of goes away with all the rituals and ceremonies of the Jewish law.

With that he and his followers just throw out the baby with the bath water. . .

And a final question to Mr. Ratzlaff and his allies:

* What will you do with this campaign promoted all across the US, now reaching other countries, to promote the Ten Commandments as a truly “national salvation” resource, with even the “10 Commandments Day” set for the first Sunday of May? Are you going to participate of such a campaign? It would be contradictory to your cause, don’t you see? Do you agree with what these religious leaders of Protestant denominations in the US are proposing? [See next frame]

Posted By: Azenilto

An Embarassing International Campaign for Mr. Ratzlaff & Co -- Promotion of the 10 Commandments. - 05/02/07 09:32 PM

An Embarassing International Campaign for Mr. Ratzlaff & Co.:



Who Would Imagine It?! Evangelical Leaders Proclaim the Importance of the 10 Commandments

James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Chuck Colson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson are only some of the contemporary Christian leaders who are engaged in a campaign that you probably never heard of before: to exalt the 10 Commandments!

That seems unusual, when what is taught in Evangelical circles around is the “abolition” of the law of the 10 Commandments, replaced by a supposedly superior “law of Christ” of the “new dispensation”. But these leaders, and many others, want the people of the United States and of the entire world now to pay greater attention to the moral imperatives of this divine code.

It all began when Roy Moore, the chief justice of the State of Alabama, a Baptist, decided to order the installation of a 2-ton monument to the 10 Commandments right on the lobby of the Supreme Court building in Montgomery, Alabama’s capital. This caused a big fuss, for there were those who mobilized themselves to have it removed, under the allegation it was a measure that interferes with the separation of Church and State (and they are right—no religious symbol should occupy public buildings).

There were fierce legal disputes about it, but finally said monument had to be removed by decision of a federal judge. And judge Moore ended up losing his post due to his insistence in maintaining the offensive monument in its place.

Later, the monument was installed on a flat bed and made to circulate across the country, as a testimony of its promoters’ faith that “the 10 Commandments are the foundation of the American legislation”.

From that point on, there was mobilization of Christian leaders to compensate for the discarding of the public exhibition of the monument. They launched a campaign for obtaining permission to display that religious symbol in public places, as well as encouraging the American population to honor these neglected 10 Commandments. It has been used as a revival of the Christians’ faith, in the face of so many disasters and problems of moral character that have affected negatively the nation (the destructive hurricanes, the gay marriages, the increase in crime and political corruption, and other evils, now attributed to a lack of duly considering the ethical biblical principles by the people of this nation, supposedly built on Christian foundations). Then, this “Ten Commandments Commission” was formed, backed by the most representative Evangelical leaders in the country.

Seventh-day Adventist leaders see in these initiatives a golden opportunity to clarify to the general public the real meaning of these 10 Commandments, and the distortion that occurred regarding them, with the unauthorized change in the 4th commandment, when the Sunday worship was introduced, based on a tradition of suspicious origin—the sun-worship day of the Romans, the dies solis, that became Sunday through Roman Catholicism, substituting the true Sabbath day, which is the seventh-day of the week.

And a petition is being prepared by the leaders of the Hope Channel, a SDA TV Ministry, to be sent to this Commission, signed by as many Seventh-day Adventists that they can gather [see its reproduction below].

This petition will be sent to the leaders of the “Ten Commandments Commission” accompanied by a Bible Study on the role of God’s law, in a Christ-centered appeal to people really learn what these commandments mean in its original, pure form, without the distortions that were applied to it.

As part of the campaign, on the coming May 7 there will be a special celebration in all churches in the USA that join the bandwagon of this 10 Commandments honoring. As an SDA leader put it, “there is nothing wrong with promoting the Ten Commandments. In fact, everything is right about it. We wish more churches taught the role of God’s holy law in our lives. But the pastors who follow the Commission’s script this Sunday will find themselves in an awkward position trying to explain why the Ten Commandments are so important when they keep only nine themselves”.

Explaining that the petition letter will be sent to Ron Wexler [president of the Commission] and important leaders of the “Ten Commandments Commission”, he continues:

“Using a positive Christlike spirit, we will encourage them to stand for God’s law while also protecting our religious freedoms. We will invite them to help people return to Christ and obedience to all ten of the commandments.

And in conclusion, to his message, addressed to Seventh-day Adventists, he says:

“This is an unprecedented opportunity to talk to these leaders on an issue that we both hold dear. No other group of believers can help them understand these things like we can. This is our hour to do our duty and stand for God. We believe you share our conviction that Jesus is coming soon”.


The text of the Petition:


TO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS COMMISSION

As fellow believers in the gospel of Jesus Christ we want to encourage you in your work to uphold the Ten Commandments. We agree that our society has strayed far from God. People need to accept Jesus Christ and His gift of salvation. This will prove to be the only enduring solution for our world’s problems. Recognizing your purpose is to honor God’s eternal law, we encourage you to. . .

* Invite Christians to repent of their sins. As Christians live according to Bible principles we will have the integrity to change society.

* Call Christian leaders not to teach the Ten Commandments have been nailed to the cross. We find it difficult to lead the lost to Christ and honor the Ten Commandments while the church teaches God’s law was abolished.

* Call upon believers to be loyal to all ten of God’s commandments including the fourth. The seventh-day Sabbath was given to bless society and help making stay connected to their Maker.

* Commit to not urge the government to legislate the first four commandments that define how we are to worship God. True worship can never be forced by governmental decrees. God only accepts the service of love.

Name and Date


To get in touch with the Hope TV Ministry address the following link:

www.hopetv.org

________

Links that lead to the 10 Commandments Comission’s website and to the “Lord’s Day Alliance” (an old Protestant institution that is concerned with a more faithful observance of the day of rest, preferably on Sunday):

http://www.tencommandmentsday.com/

http://www.ldausa.org/index.cfm

Posted By: Azenilto

Detail on the "10 Commandments Day" - 05/05/07 05:26 AM

Note:

The the 7th of May date that appears in the document above for the "10 Commandments Day" refers to the date set for the event in 2006. For this year, the date is the 6th of May.
Posted By: Azenilto

Basic Questions for the Discussion of the Dietary Laws in the Bible - 05/06/07 03:19 AM


Hello friends

I mentioned Mr. Ratzlaff's comments on Acts 10, in which he gives the idea of Peter preaching the end of all the dietary rules.

Well, we discussed that and other points regarding the dietary laws in another topic of this forum, with a complete assessment of the arguments presented by opposers of our positions, which I indicate below:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/forum...=true#Post46698

We sent Mr. Ratzlaff the study and he reacted asking me my address for sending me a CD with a lecture of his on the subject. I am waiting to receive it, this time hopefully having his promise fulfilled.

But I should add an introductory part that was composed later on and is not there, which I do below:

Any discussion regarding the Bible’s dietary rules should take into account three basic questions that need to be well defined. These three questions really set the foundation of the discussion on these divine laws, and they are:

1 – Why did God create these laws of dietary limitations, to begin with? Did He simply decide arbitrarily that certain meats were bad, without any clear reasons, and that was it?

2 – In what aspects were the dietary rules abolished on the cross, since they were not ceremonial? In what did they point forward to Christ's atoning sacrifice?

Note: Somebody suggested they would symbolize the separation between Jews and gentiles. But if that is true, would God include in His law a feature of something He, Who is not a respecter of persons (Rom. 2:11), condemns?

3 – How the shed blood of Christ would have been efficacious to purify the meat of pigs, rats, ravens, serpents and lizards? Had it operated some change in the structural composition in a way of turning them adequate to human consumption?


Best regards


Posted By: Azenilto

These Discussions Also in Spanish - 05/27/07 01:01 AM

I am pleased to inform that all this discussion about the Ratzlaff challenge is translated into Spanish, in the 'Foro Adventista'.

Those who want more information where to find it there could send me a private message.

Have a nice week
Posted By: Azenilto

William Miller Under Ratzlaff’s Scrutiny. Is He Being Fair? - 06/13/07 11:34 PM


William Miller Under Ratzlaff’s Scrutiny. Is He Being Fair?

In an previous edition of the Proclamation Magazine a strong case is made against William Miller’s being someone directed by God in his preaching of the Second Advent Message, due to his blunder of setting a date for that event. However, some reflections would fit at this point. Maybe, we could even start asking the critics of that Baptist fervent preacher, who triggered the Advent Movement, some pertinent questions:

* Was Martin Luther a man under God’s guidance when he attached his 95 theses to the door of the Wittenberg cathedral? Were Luther’s 95 theses a reflection of good theological research in the field of justification/sanctification? Was Luther’s later theological views exempt of errors? Was Luther’s personal conduct as a religious leader always flawless?

* How about the other great Reformer, John Calvin? Was Calvin’s theological views exempt of error? Was Calvin’s attitude towards his fellowmen always in harmony with the highest expectations from someone with his influence and authority? Was someone hurt by his personal conduct?

* And how about the other John, Wesley, who was such a wonderful revivalist in the Seventeenth Century, but his teachings in part are seen as the seed of the Pentecostal movement, due to his idea of “second blessing”, interpreted later on as the “baptism of the Holy Spirit”, manifested through the gift of tongues? Was that a good contribution to the Gospel cause on his part?

* Do you know that even Billy Graham, considered the greatest evangelist of modern times, who won so many soul to Christ, in so many different parts of the world, has been criticized by many people because of certain views he expressed, like considering Pope John Paul II as a real dedicated Christian leader, and other favorable opinions regarding the Catholic Church?

A reading of the Bible shows that time after time God used men and women to accomplish His work who were far from perfect in conduct, and even understanding of their role. Eli, Samson, Elijah, David, Solomon accomplished great things for God, but were so often so much short of His ideals.

Miller was a dedicated Christian and there is no doubt that the movement he launched had the highest and most sincere motivation. He was a man who really loved His Master and looked forward to meeting Him soon, and that was the leitmotif of all his campaign. Nobody can point to any selfish intentions on his part, no interest in acquiring fame and fortune, no plans to even start a new denomination (what for, since the world would soon come to an end?!).

Now, Miller had his blunders, no doubt. His too “optimistic” prophetic studies led him to the error of setting the 1843, later 1844, dates. But if he made mistakes, he also deserves credit for the good things we can glean from his efforts.

Yes, Miller set the date for the Advent, an error, indeed. But how about seeing him under a new perspective? First let’s remember that the apostles of Christ also made mistakes regarding the nature of Christ’s kingdom. They harbored false expectations concerning Jesus’ promised kingdom, as we can see in Luke 24:21 (“But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.”) and Acts 1:6 e 7 (“When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.”

Thus, the human founders of the Christian Church also “erred”! And how about the serious Peter’s flaw of conduct, which deserved a severe reprimand from Paul, in Galatians 2:11ff? Do these bad incidents disqualify the Christian religion or put it in jeopardy?

Many think that Miller is someone we have to be ashamed of. How wrong are these people! That farmer without theological training read his Bible correctly and realized that it predicted a premillennial return of Christ. Miller superseded the majority of the Christian scholars of his time. The main Bible commentaries for most of the 19th Century taught the postmillenial coming of Christ, which proved wrong and is a theory mostly abandoned today.

Who would have any enthusiasm with an event at least one thousand years away? Adam Clarke, Bishop Barnes, and, before them, Matthew Henry, made the same mistake. Miller helped to cause a breakthrough in the religious world regarding this vital question that resounds throughout the New Testament text—the thrilling hope of the soon return of our Lord. To harbor this hope is appropriate, either we live in the apostolic age or now.

Following the two world wars, almost the entire religious world has followed the direction set by Miller. The fact that he was wrong in following certain trends of religious people of his time to set “prophetic dates” doesn’t diminish significantly his stature.

How appropriate was the occasion for the essence of the SDA message. For example, Darwin wrote his first sketch for The Origin of Species in 1844 and simultaneously God revived the Sabbath truth to challenge all the atheistic theories regarding the origin of life.

Modern spiritualism also emerged in the 1840’s and was confronted by Adventist emphasis on the conditional immortality. Also it was about that time that Marx and Engels wrote the ‘Communist Manifesto’, stating that “law, morality and religion are only bourgeois prejudices”. Thus, I affirm that God raised the Adventist movement for His purposes in the latter days.

Now, back to Miller, while he proclaimed the neglected message of Christ’s soon coming, the Protestants were expanding their plantations (of cotton and TOBACCO) because their preachers promised 1,000 years of peace and prosperity in anticipation of Jesus’ return. Postmillennialism prevailed at that time, a concept that nowadays is practically abandoned by the religious people who favor premillennialism as more correct. Thus, we conclude that on that point MILLER WAS RIGHT ALL THE TIME, after all. . .

To say nothing of how Miller’s Protestant contemporaries funded the Secession War because of their financial interest in maintaining slavery. And they employed Bible arguments to defend maintenance of slaves! Doesn’t that count as interpretive error?

On the other hand, Mrs. White, at this difficult time, wrote testimonies condemning slavery, which would not be considered a “politically correct” attitude on her part in that cultural and historical milieu.

So, when we put things in the due perspective and cultural and historical context, they acquire a very different logic.

William Miller was a hero of the Christian faith and should be honored as such, not disparaged so unfairly by biased and not well informed people, no doubt about that.
______


Note: Some of the material above has inputs from some good points of the polemic SDA theologian Desmond Ford, in an interview he gave to an independent Adventist publication.

Posted By: Azenilto

Expanding the venues for the discussions - 06/13/07 11:38 PM

These articles on the Ratzlaff challenge are being posted in another 02 forums in English and 01 in Spanish.
Posted By: Azenilto

A Question For Rick Langer--Never Answered - 06/18/07 08:37 PM


THE TREE: ARE YOU CONNECTED?


Theology associate teacher Rick Langer writes a good article with just one flaw. We have a question to him. Will he answer it?

Rick Langer, an associate professor in the Biblical Studies and Theology Department of Biola University, contributes with a good and informative article to the May/June issue of Proclamation Magazine (2007), featured as the main one on the cover. It discusses the basic Christianity tree, with its different branches, and how we should check if the branch we belong to is attached or not to the original trunk.

He mentions some of the branches that seem to be related to the others, but just apparently, not for real, because a careful examination of its basis won’t show the necessary connection to the original trunk of the Apostolic faith.

So, he mentions particularly Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons as examples of movements that cannot be identified with this basic Christian trunk, something that seems to us quite obvious.

In his development of the history of how the branches developed along the centuries he refers to Martin Luther and his ideals of ecclesia reformata semper reformanda [The reformed church should be always under reform]. We know how Luther himself didn’t live up to his own ideals in that respect because he simply attached himself to the truths he had uncovered from error, but rejected other advances in the restoration of important truths and practices of the Christian faith. For example, Lutherans to this day baptize children, which has no backing in Scripture, and practice the baptism by sprinkling (which some could think is no big deal).

But, besides this supposedly not important issue, there was Luther’s neglect of reforming other things. To Luther’s credit, however, according to Lutheran historian Paul Althaus, he even suggested that the popular belief in the immortality of the soul should be discarded among the false teachings of Rome. Unhappily later Lutherans didn’t pay attention to that, even though I was informed that there are certain branches of Lutheranism that accept the teaching of immortality only in Christ and the coming back to life after death only through resurrection as the correct view on subject of man’s nature.

But if Luther advanced some steps in the right direction regarding that and the basic understanding of the justification/sanctification issue, he neglected correcting other important points. For example, his Minor Catechism on the 10 Commandments strangely keeps the same numerical order of commandments as in the Roman Catholic Church traditional catechisms. There is no commandment against the use of sculpted images, like in the Catholics doctrinal documents. Why didn’t Luther correct this according to the Biblical original Decalogue, which clearly condemns this idolatrous practice of Roman Catholicism?

And, of course, together with the neglect in correcting this failure, Luther also neglected to correct the Sabbath question. He even wrote some texts condemning the seventh-day Sabbath as a Jewish institution, in which he certainly contradicted himself completely, for he also admitted that the 10 Commandments were the pattern of Christian conduct, even saying that he tried to memorize each one of them, and taught clearly their validity in his 1539 document “Against the Antinomians”. Besides, if the Sabbath is a Jewish institution, the same applies to any of the other Decalogue’s commandments, for they belong to the same law. Why discriminate against the 4th among them, when all the others had the same origin?

Anyway, in the progress for restoring truth, there were the Baptists, certainly more advanced than the Lutherans in correcting errors neglected by the Reformer, like the immersion baptism only for those who believe (which excludes babies). The Baptists certainly are seen as plainly attached to the trunk of the original faith, aren’t they? And since Mr. Langer mentions the rule of thumbs “to check a belief by seeing if it attaches to the apostolic foundation”, which includes “the credal confessions, and the canon of Scripture”, it would be interesting to see what the Baptist Confession of Faith historically establishes as the day of rest commandment.

Differently from Luther, the Baptists (and Presbyterians in their Westminster Confession of Faith, before them) established that the “Lord’s day”, not only is a principle that comes from the creation of the world (thus being universal and moral), but should follow the pattern set by the 4th commandment—to be kept holy, without any secular or recreational activities. They even quote as Scriptural basis for their reasoning such verses as Exo. 20:8-11 (the Sabbath commandment), Isa. 58:13, 14 (how to keep the Sabbath) and even Jer. 17:21-27 (God’s punishment to transgressors of the Sabbath).

Of course they reinterpret the commandment to apply to Sunday, under the wrong allegation that the Apostles changed the seventh-day Sabbath to Sunday as the Lord’s day, but the texts quoted in that regard simply don’t serve as proof of that. They are right regarding the maintenance of the 4th commandment as unambiguously binding to the Christian community, but are in error to reinterpret it to apply to the day defined by Roman Catholic tradition as the Lord’s Day--Sunday.

Now, there were those Baptists who noticed this neglect on the part of the Reformers to correct that error, and from the seventeenth century started a new movement to put the 4th commandment in its due place, forming in England the Seventh-day Baptist Church. Aren’t they genuinely attached to the original apostolic trunk? I think Mr. Langer, or even Mr. Ratzlaff, won’t object to this statement.

Well, then the Seventh-day Baptists influenced the Adventists pioneers. And, as I have already made clear in articles above, those who formed the SDA Church don’t deny any of the basic Christian beliefs, like the sole authority of Scriptures to define doctrine and practice, the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, His glorious second coming, justification only by faith, and the keeping of God’s commandment, expressed in the Decalogue, not to obtain merits before God, but under the motivation that “we love because He loved us first” (1 John 4:19).

As to Mr. Langer mention of the Ebionites, trying to link them to Seventh-day Adventists, this is the only dissonant note in his study, otherwise profitable. He says that the connection of Ebionites with SDA’s is “obvious” for reasons that we have already proved to be totally false--“salvation as a human work . . . accomplished by a return to the Jewish law—though generally with an emphasis on a pre-flood diet that abstained from eating meat”.

Since what is “obvious” is that Seventh-day Adventists don’t teach “salvation as human work . . . accomplished by a return to the Jewish law”, as topics 9, 10 and 18 of the Creedal Adventist document makes very clear, and the “pre-flood diet that abstained from eating meat” is no requisite for salvation (which cannot be proved as an Adventist belief), his innuendo proves a big flaw in his otherwise good study.

Anyway, it is worth mentioning that vegetarianism is recognized as a good and profitable regime by many specialists, and is even suggested as causing greater impact than driving a hybrid car in the campaign to reduce CO2 gas, in an especial edition of Time magazine with suggestions on what one can do to contribute for that—suggestion # 22. At that point Mr. Langer’s article shows a lack of better research on his part. But then, if he had taken these facts into consideration his article would hardly be approved for publication. . .

Besides, if keeping the seventh-day Sabbath is “a return to the Jewish law”, why not abstaining from utilizing sculpted images, which is the 2nd commandment of THE SAME LAW? Paul said that with his mind he served “God’s law”, which he himself identified as the one that brings the commandment, “ye shall not covet” (compare Rom. 7:25, with verses 7 and 8).

So, we have this special question to Mr. Langer: Would obedience to the commandment “ye shall not covet” be also considered a return to the Jewish law? If not, why not?

Posted By: Azenilto

Ratzlaff’s Concern With Those Who Abandon the Faith -- A Wider Problem Than He Thinks - 06/22/07 09:28 PM


Ratzlaff’s Concern With Those Who Abandon the Faith -- A Wider Problem Than He Thinks

In a previous edition of his Proclamation magazine Mr. Ratzlaff expresses great preoccupation with a proportionately large number of Seventh-day Adventists who, after a time, leave the Church. He seems to keep thinking of his ministry as the most valid alternative for this kind of people (besides those who already belong to the Church and are living their faith faithfully, who he wants to woo to his “new alliance” supposedly superior understanding of the Scriptures).

Now, it is really regrettable that so many leave the ranks of the SDA Church every year. But we should remember that a church with the fast growth and intense evangelistic efforts like the SDA Church runs this risk most unavoidably. Many join the church through public evangelism campaigns and often are more enthused than converted, and sooner or later give up their faith for a series of reasons. Besides, being a Seventh-day Adventist represents to face challenges and restrictions that others don’t experience. Barriers to the practice of their faith are much bigger than for those belonging to other more easy-to-follow churches (Sabbath keeping, dietary rules, tithing, etc.).

However, the problem is that even in other more “stable” and easy-to-follow churches, that don’t promote all these evangelistic campaigns and don’t have large number of baptisms, as happens with our Church, the problem with defection is also worrisome.

One Hispanic congregation in our area, with which I contribute preaching to their congregation every second Sabbath, had to rent the premises of a Baptist church for their Sabbath services until they concluded negotiations for the acquisition of their own temple. I met the Baptist church Pastor there who went to attend our meetings as courtesy, or to serve in any needed support for the use of the installations and equipments, and I asked him: “How many members do you have here in your church?” He answered candidly: “In the books they are 250, but only about 50 or 60 attend church regularly. I don’t know where the others are. . .”

A recent piece of news in our area’s main newspaper, The Birmingham News, reproduced a news dispatch from the Associated Press that has as title, “Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Shrinking”. And, the main body of the information:

Louisville, Ky, (AP) – Membership in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) declined again last year, dropping by more than 46.000 in 2006, the denomination says. The number of active Presbyterians fell from 2,313,662 in 2005, to 2,267,118 in 2006, according to an annual church survey released June 7. . . . In addition, the number of congregations fell by 56 to 10,903.
Like other mainline Protestant denominations, the Presbyterians have seen membership rolls shrink over the last couple of decades. In 2004 and 2005 alone, the denomination lost 48,474 active members.

The latest drop comes as fighting intensifies within the church over how Presbyterians should interpret Scripture. Congregants are divided over whether the Bible bars gay relationships, among other theological issues. – The Birmingham News, June 15, 2007, page 4-H.


So, if Mr. Ratzlaff is concerned with those who left their Churches, the field is really very ample for him to act about. He doesn’t have to concentrate on Seventh-day Adventists.
May be his own “new alliance” members could lose their initial enthusiasm after they discover his poor articulation of the gospel theme and that what he teaches is not even in accordance with the traditional doctrines of Protestantism, as we have stressed in previous analyses of his SDA-centered “evangelistic” efforts.

So, maybe he should take better care of his own fold, providing them consistent instruction that doesn’t represent new and dysfunctional ideas, alien to what is the real understanding of the gospel and law relationship throughout the centuries by the most representative Protestant-Evangelical confessional documents and leading instructors in that milieu.

Now, the May/June edition of Proclamation magazine (2007) again brings some testimonies of SDA Adventists who abandoned their faith because they discovered the supposedly “new alliance” message, which inspired them and led them to discover the true meaning of the gospel.

But, one question arises at this point: what is the true meaning of the gospel? How about this?:

The Bible makes it clear that our walk with Christ doesn’t end on the day of conversion. On the contrary, when people give themselves totally to Christ, they begin a whole new life, a whole new existence (Rom. 6:4). It’s not that a new Christian has to work to reach salvation, as in other faiths; instead, because he or she already has salvation, already stands perfect and accepted in God, the Christian begins to live a life that reveals and reflects that salvation. Sure, we are saved by faith, but what kind of faith? A faith that is expressed in a life that reveals a commitment to Jesus Christ.

Central to our new life in Christ is spiritual growth. As Christians, we can’t remain static: We are always in the process of change as we should better reflect the image of Jesus Christ. And crucial to the whole growth process is the Word of God, which shows us how and why we must “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18, NIV). – Adult Teachers Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Lesson 12, “Growing Through the Word”, p. 137.


Millions of Seventh-day Adventists around the world studied this lesson, which reflects exactly what is the Church’s official teaching. Again we wonder: Is there any need for someone to leave the SDA Church to encounter somewhere else these important truths, with which Mr. Ratzlaff and his followers certainly would agree? Or wouldn’t? If not, why not? What is wrong in that statement that would disqualify it as a real Christ-centered and gospel based language? I wonder what failure in terms of transmitting the real meaning of what it means to be a Christian is lacking in these two paragraphs, that introduces Lesson 12 of the referred to Sabbath School quarterly.

Next we will analyze Mrs. Colleen Tinker’s real exercise in intellectual dishonesty in her assessment of the Church’s and, especially, Ellen G. White’s development of the Divinity issue in the article she wrote, "Discovering the Adventist Jesus".


Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 06/23/07 08:06 AM

An update on the publicizing of this material: Now we have 04 forums in English and 01 in Spanish where this same articles are being posted.
Posted By: Azenilto

The Contradictory and Confusing Theology of "Proclamation" Magazine’s Editor - 06/29/07 08:20 PM


“Discovering the Adventist Jesus”—The Contradictory and Confusing Theology of Proclamation Magazine’s Editor


In her article, “Discovering the Adventist Jesus”, Colleen Tinker, who is the editor of Proclamation magazine and a former Seventh-day Adventist, says something very interesting in one of the first paragraphs of her article, recalling something of her religious experience:

“It was May 1996, when Richard and I attended an Adventist Forum meeting in San Diego, California, and heard Dale Ratzlaff explain that the New Covenant, unlike the Old Covenant, was an unconditional promise. Where the Old Covenant promised Israel blessings in exchange for obedience, the New Covenant unilaterally promised that God would write His law on human hearts. This covenant did not depend upon promises of obedience from me. Dale explained that Jesus fulfilled the covenant obligation on behalf of humanity by fulfilling the law, by dying for sin, and by conquering death. In the New Covenant, God’s blessings are ours when we place our trust in Jesus. Our own behavior and performance are not involved in our acceptance into the New Covenant. God Himself makes and keeps the terms of the New Covenant. Jesus represents humanity before the Father, and the New Covenant blessings are ours when we are in Christ”. – Op. Cit., May/June edition, 2007.


Besides the poor theology of that statement, the incredible contradictions found in it shows additionally how confusing is this supposed “new alliance” message of Ratzlaff & Co.

First, Jesus said: “If ye love Me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15), while Mrs. Tinker says that our “own behavior and performance are not involved in our acceptance into the New Covenant”. Now, how someone can keep Jesus’ commandments without involving his/her behavior and “performance” she didn’t explain.

Well, there is that beautiful Evangelical Hymn that really says, “Just as I am, without one plea but that Thy blood was shed for me, and that thou bid’st me come to Thee, O Lamb of God, I come, I come. . .”.

But, another hymn completes the picture: “Trust and obey, for there’s no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey. . .”

Both hymns are part of the Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal (respectively ## 590 and 314) and sang regularly in our churches. They simply teach that we go to Jesus just as we are, but that is because He promises to FORGIVE OUR SINS. And, again, let’s not forget the Bible’s definition of sin: “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). What law? Wouldn’t that be exactly the one that Mrs. Tinker confirms that God writes on human hearts? The context of Heb. 8:10 says that it is “My laws” (God’s), the same that Jeremiah knew, because this text is a mere reproduction of what Jeremiah says in Jer. 31:31-33.

Someone could allege that Jesus, in the context of John 14:15, refers to the commandment of loving one another. That is true, but doesn’t He also imply the other part of His double “golden rule” of loving God above all else and loving the neighbor as oneself? He certainly does. After all, the word “commandments” in John 14:15 is plural. So, it must be, at least, two.

But still we have the law that God writes on human hearts. What law is that? God’s law, certainly. And isn’t God’s law also Christ’s commandments? Isn’t it expressed in the double principle of love to God above all else, and love to the neighbor? For centuries Baptists and Presbyterians say that the first four commandments have to do with our relationship with God, and the last six, the same regarding our neighbor. . . Have they being wrong all that time? I don’t think so. . . Don’t also Mr. Ratzlaff and his followers?

Related to that there is that very special question that I asked Mr. Ratzlaff months ago, and so far he gave me no answer. Who knows his editor-in-chief is better at answering questions? Well, let’s try, then, to address her the same question he snubbed:

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 – includes the 4th commandment, but leaving it as a vague, voluntary and non-obligatory principle 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.


Now I will act differently. As I do in some discussion groups and forums, when I address this question to “new alliance” adherents, since they normally show no disposition to answer, preferring rather to continue trying to manipulate the debates through the well-known technique of ignoring questions and questionings, I set a deadline for having it responded. If not, I advise that I will publish what I deem to be the CORRECT ANSWER at the end of the time set. Then, the opponents have two options: a – to accept the answer as correct; b – to refuse it offering convincing arguments to prove that it is not correct.

So, Mrs. Colleen Tinker has 10 days to give us a good and convincing, Bible-based answer. If not, we will offer the CORRECT ANSWER and she has the two options above to deal with.

Now, we find something very strange as we read further Mrs. Tinker understanding of the New Covenant in her article: “God Himself makes and keeps the terms of the New Covenant”.

But a “covenant” is tantamount to a contract, a pact, an alliance, or an agreement. And there are always at least two parties involved in any of such deals. What is she really saying? It seems very confusing on the light of her own context.

Does that mean that God does everything that the New Covenant comprehends, including “our obedience”? Oh, Jesus fulfilled the law for us, of course. But what does that mean, in practical terms?

* Did He fulfill the law of not having other gods? He certainly did. Does that mean we are free for worshipping other gods?

* Did He fulfill the law of not utilizing sculpted image in our acts of worship? He certainly did. Does that mean we are free from obeying this principle? Then the Roman Catholics and members of the Orthodox Church are right, we can’t criticize them for utilizing images and icons in their churches and homes. . .

* Did He fulfill the law of not pronouncing God’s name in vain? He certainly did. Does that mean we are free from obeying this principle?

* Did He fulfill the law of respecting the parents, of not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to give false witness against the neighbor, and so on? He certainly did. Does that mean we are free from obeying all these commandments?

The apostle Paul, the great champion of justification by faith, said something so much different from Mrs. Tinker’s theology to those who live under the new covenant. He wrote to the Romans in the 7th chapter of his epistle to the Christian community there that God’s law is holy, just, good and pleasurable, and that He obeyed it with his mind. That he refers to the 10 Commandments is clear comparing vs. 25 with 7 and 8—it is the law that brings the commandment, “Thou shalt not covet”. Which one is that?

The entire chapter speaks of a new life for those who abandoned sin (remember, “transgression of the law”) and “got married” with the new “husband”, Jesus Christ (vs. 4-6). And this new life is one of struggle against temptation, because, as he adds in the following chapter, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7, 8).

Then, in another paragraph, the author shows how far she was from being a well knowledgeable believer regarding the official teaching of the church she decided to abandon:

“My entire worldview changed at that moment
[as she heard Ratzlaff’s explanation on the contrast between covenants]. Jesus was no longer a piece of the salvation puzzle. Instead, He IS salvation. In order to be saved, all I needed was Jesus. A flood of emotion overflowed in tears, and I felt something completely new: awe, reverence, and love for Jesus”.

She goes on speaking of her lack of knowing the “real” Jesus in Seventh-day Adventism. Another poor lady who missed some important materials that only the SDA Church has to provide its members and the public in general, two magnificent works especially dedicated to lead people to this wonderful Jesus that she alleges having discovered only after she left the SDA Church, to embrace this confusing and contradictory “new alliance” current: Steps to Christ and The Desire of Ages.

Seventh-day Adventists are really privileged to have these books available in their publishing houses and ABC stores. There is no need to discover that “special” Jesus with Ratzlaff or whoever intends to be the “guru” of a new alliance that doesn’t have anything new to tells us regarding the plan of salvation.

For one thing, I already published topics 9, 10 and 18 of our 28 basic beliefs, and there is nothing, but absolutely NOTHING, that Mrs. Tinker alleges about “discovering” the real Jesus that is not part of the mentioned topics, wonderfully enriched by the two books. The first of them had its first editions published by the Evangelical publishing company Revell, because its editor saw its Christ-centered character and evangelistic potential.

After discussing her own feelings and supposed lack of clear understanding of the real Jesus in 7th Day Adventism, she enters a new field, trying to discuss our understanding of the Godhead, presenting a brief history of what the SDA pioneers said about, later dealing with Ellen White’s treatment of the subject, coming to the absurd conclusion that she taught a tritheist Godhead. That is certainly strange, because if she had that view, how come the Church, either in her own time or in the future, never adopted such a position?

For now I will just discuss the first part of her discussion on that, reproducing the introduction of the book Questions on Doctrine, where the problem of the SDA pioneers who dealt with the Divinity question is fully clarified. Later on I will discuss how Mrs. Tinker presents Ellen White dealing with the Godhead in a totally distorted way.


The SDA Pioneers’ Struggle to Form a New Church

The founding fathers of the SDA Church over a century ago came out of various denominational backgrounds. While all were premillennialists, some were Trinitarians, others were Arian. The majority were Arminians; a few were Calvinists. Some insisted on immersion; a few were content with sprinkling. There was diversity on these points. And as with various other religious groups, our early days were characterized by transition and adjustment. As these men were already born-again believers, the initial study and emphasis was placed upon the distinctive teachings of the movement. And they were similarly occupied in developing an effective organization.

In those early years relatively little attention was paid to the respective merits of Arminianism in contrast with the Calvinist position. The historic differences of thought involved had reached back to Augustine and Chrysostom. They did not concern themselves with “absolute decrees”, “divine sovereignty”, “particular election”, or “limited atonement”. Nor did they, at first, seek to define the nature of the Godhead, or the problems of Christology, involving the deity of Christ and His nature during the incarnation; the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit; the nature, scope, and completeness of the atonement; the relationship of law to grace and the fullness of the doctrine of righteousness by faith; and the like.

But with the passage of years the earlier diversity of view on certain doctrines gradually gave way to unity of view. Clear and sound positions were then taken by the great majority on such doctrines as the Godhead, the deity and eternal pre-existence of Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Clear-cut views were established on righteousness by faith, the true relationship of law and grace, and on the death of Christ as the complete sacrificial atonement for sin.

A few, however, held to some of their former views, and at times these ideas got into print. However, for decades now the church has been practically at one on the basic truths of the Christian faith.

The very fact that our positions were now clarified seemed to us sufficient. Our teachings, we felt, were clear. And no particular statement of change from those earlier ideas appeared necessary. Today the primary emphasis of all our leading denominational literature, as well as the continuous presentation over radio and television, emphasizes the historic fundamentals of the Christian faith.

But the charges and attacks have persisted. Some continue to gather up quotations from some of our earlier literature long since out of date, and print. Certain statements are cited, often wrested out of context, which give a totally distorted picture of the beliefs and teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church of today.

Another consideration should be taken into account. Is it that Seventh-day Adventists, having no formal creed, do not rigidly bind the thinking of their ministry. It would be strange indeed if from some Adventist writer there did not appear an occasional statement that was out of line with the consensus of Seventh-day Adventist belief. Most religious bodies face this problem and embarrassment from time to time.

All this has made it desirable and necessary for us to declare our position anew upon the great fundamental teachings of the Christian faith, and to deny every statement or implication that Christ, the second person of the Godhead, was not one with the Father from all eternity, and that His death on the cross was not a full and complete sacrificial atonement. The belief of Seventh-day Adventist on these great truths is clear and emphatic. And we feel that we should not be identified with, or stigmatized for, certain limited and faulty concepts held by some, particularly in our formative years.

The statement should therefore nullify the stock “quotations” that have been circulated against us. We are one with our fellow Christians of denominational groups in the great fundamentals of the faith once delivered to the saints. Our hope is in a crucified, risen, ministering, and soon returning Savior. -– Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (Review and Herald Publ. Assn., Washington D.C., 1957), pp. 29-32.
_______

Indeed the different origins of our pioneers explain certain doctrinal points they still adhered to for a time, among which we also can identify what characterized the consensus of the conservative Christian churches: a) The Ten Commandments as God’s law in all their precepts; b) Within the Ten Commandments, its principle of a day of rest derived from the creation of the world, thus being of moral and universal character; c) the divine laws being classified as “moral” (the Decalogue), “ceremonial” (the prefigurative rites of Christ’s atoning death, abolished on the cross), “civil”, “judicial”, etc.

Do Mr. Ratzlaff and his admirers admit these three historic “non-negotiables” in the understanding of the Bible among Evangelical-Protestants, brought into the SDA Church by its pioneers? Or is he, rather, pioneering other views that won’t match the typical doctrines of the Protestant Christendom (even Roman Catholicism) on these points?


Posted By: Azenilto

The "Ten Commandments Day Proclamation" - 07/05/07 03:34 AM


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 already getting support from religious leaders of other countries (we referred to their campaign some frames above)? 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 number of signatures obtained is nearing 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 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.

For checking this information better, see the link below:

http://www.tencommandmentsday.com/index.php


Posted By: Azenilto

Ellen White’s Discussion on the Trinity—Not According to Mrs. Tinker’s False Allegations - 07/14/07 12:55 AM


Ellen White’s Discussion on the Trinity—Not According to Mrs. Tinker’s False Allegations


As I pointed out in my last analysis of Mrs. Tinker study on Ellen White’s discussion of the Godhead, if Ellen White were to start a new view on the subject, like the tritheism that our opponent suggested as being Ellen White’s stand, that would have been adopted by the Church as a whole, which never was the case.

To discuss things pertaining to God is not easy and our poor human language will always be inadequate to express exactly how the Godhead “operates”. So, one can easily stumble on words in exploring EGW’s attempt to make sense of the “heavenly trio” (an expression of hers), which is exactly Mrs. Tinker's problem in her tritheism interpretation of the SDA author’s language.

Proclamation magazine’s editor makes certain statements that are purely speculative and have absolutely no basis. She says, at a certain point in her article: “While Ellen White grew up believing in the Trinity, she changed her views in adulthood. No doubt James influenced this change, but she claimed that her visions established her unorthodox beliefs. Early in her career she was overtly Arian, and although her later views endorsed ‘a heavenly trio’, she never taught an orthodox Trinity”[1].

The evidence for that statement is simply absent. What she presents as “proof” is no proof at all. It’s the text when Ellen White simply discusses the attitude of the rebel angel in Heaven, envious of Jesus’ privileges and proximity to God, as is well known to SDA’s [Spiritual Gifts, Vol., 3, p. 37]. But Mrs. White never gives the least impression that because of that she is considering Jesus inferior to the Father. What Mrs. Tinker does is no more than engaging herself in an exercise in intellectual dishonesty, quoting the Adventist pioneer out of due context, jumping to biased conclusions of what could be going on in Ellen White’s mind, which is simply speculation of the worst type.

If we study seriously Ellen White’s writings unbiasedly we will come to at least two conclusions: 1. Her understanding of the Trinity question was gradual; as she received more light on the issue, she expressed her opinion; 2. It can’t be proved that in any moment she had gone against the Trinity, but for some aspects of what doesn’t match with what the Bible says, among which the position of a certain SDA medical doctor (Kellogg) that was totally in contradiction with the SDA viewpoint, and a Methodist confessional document that said that “there is only one living, eternal and true God, without a body or parts”.

Dr. Jerry Moon, Ph. D., who is the chairman of the Church History Department of the Andrews University Theological Seminary, discusses that in a very illuminating essay that I would recommend to Mr. Ratzlaff and his associates, especially Mrs. Tinker, “Ellen White and the Trinity”, that can be found in Dr. Bacchiocchi's webpage
(http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_150.htm), he says:

“Perhaps her first statement that clearly disagreed with [Ellen White’s SDA leading contemporaries] . . . came in 1869 in a landmark chapter, ‘The Sufferings of Christ,’ where in the opening paragraph she asserted on the basis of Heb 1:3; Col 1:19; and Phil 2:6 that Christ in His pre-existence was ‘equal with God.’[2] Here it became evident that if no one else was listening, her husband was. Though James White’s early statements about the Trinity were uniformly negative,[3] by 1876 and 1877 he was following his wife’s lead.

“In an editorial comparison of the beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists with Seventh Day Baptists, James included the Trinity among the doctrines which ‘neither [SDAs nor SDBs] regard as tests of Christian character,’ that is, tests of fellowship. James now held that one could believe in the Trinity and still be an Adventist in good standing, because the Trinity was not a test of membership. ‘Adventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the trinitarian,’ he continued, ‘that we apprehend no trial [controversy] here.’[4] Clearly James was moving away from his early polemics against trinitarianism. A year later, 1877, in a Review article titled, ‘Christ is equal with God,’ he showed he was in sympathy with certain aspects of trinitarianism. ‘The inexplicable trinity that makes the godhead three in one and one in three is bad enough,” he wrote, “but ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse.’[5]

“In asserting Christ’s equality with the Father, James was echoing what his wife had written eight years earlier. For another evidence of her leading her colleagues, note that her assertions that Christ was uncreated[6] preceded by more than two decades Uriah Smith’s published acceptance of that concept”.[7]

The problem with Mrs. Tinker presentation of the matter is twofold: bias and lack of objectivity. Both are connected, because when someone acts under a prejudiced standpoint, objectivity is what cannot be found. Is Mrs. Tinker really interested in presenting a balanced view of Ellen G. White’s ministry and work? That I think is something we could hardly see in her writings, as a former Adventist who just wants to disparage not only Ellen White, but everything that is related to the teachings of the Church she now clearly despises.

But then, as her guru, Mr. Ratzlaff, is so ready to recommend books to better clarify his positions, how about he giving us a chance to also recommend books to clarify ours? I have another very special one to recommend to him and his editor-in-chief, as I will mention a little later.

The Real Role of a Prophet

Many problems related to Ellen White’s articulation of doctrinal material doesn’t take into account that the Adventist pioneer didn’t intend to act as the “final word” on these matters. Actually, the function of a prophet is not to set doctrinal matters, even though reference to doctrinal understanding of the leaders of the Church could be alluded to.

Paul sets the role of a prophet, writing to the Corinthians: “But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement, and comfort” (1 Cor. 14:3).

Once, Ellen White admitted frankly: “We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed.”[8]

Even though in occasions when the SDA Church faced serious challenges, as in certain crisis, like Dr. Kellogg’s pantheistic ideas, Ellen White stressed the importance of following her writings as a source of divine truth, she also stressed the importance of the Bible as our only source of truth and in many other places she even says that we should not use her writings to settle doctrinal issues. For instance, “The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God’s Word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word. . . . Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God.”[9]

Authorities of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, in response to requests for a clarification of the relationship between the Bible and EGW’s writings, affirmed that “The ministry and writings of Ellen White were a manifestation of the gift of prophecy, that her writings . . . are applicable and authoritative especially to Seventh-day Adventists.” But the statement also denies that “the writings of Ellen White function as the foundation and final authority of the Christian faith as does Scripture”.[10]

In fact, the 28 Fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists document makes clear that we believe that “The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines.”[11]

EGW’s Role in the Development of the SDA Church

Now, undoubtedly, Ellen White had a very important role and authority in the development of the SDA Church. As the author of More than a Prophet, Prof. Graeme Bradford, a book that I would highly recommend to our opponents, comments:

“There can be no doubt that she earned tremendous respect from her contemporaries in Adventism as they found her able to give advice and counsel that was so often correct and timely. When a person is in close contact with God over so long a period of time, as she was, their abilities in the area of wisdom and discernment can be sharpened. She herself was conscious of this when she wrote to her critics:

‘For the last forty-five years the Lord has been revealing to me the needs of His cause and the cases of individuals in every phase of experience, showing where and how they have failed to perfect Christian character. The history of hundreds of cases has been presented to me, and that which God approves, and that which He condemns, has been plainly set before me. . . .With the light communicated through the study of His word, with the special knowledge given of individual cases among His people under all circumstances and in every phase of experience, can I now be in the same ignorance, the same mental uncertainty and spiritual blindness, as at the beginning of this experience? Will my brethren say that Sister White has been so dull a scholar that her judgment in this direction is no better than before she entered Christ’s school, to be trained and disciplined for a special work? Am I no more intelligent in regard to the duties and perils of God’s people than are those before whom these things have never been presented? I would not dishonor my Maker by admitting that all this light, all the display of His mighty power in my work and experience, has been valueless, that it has not educated my judgment or better fitted me for His work.’

“She earned the respect of her contemporaries and, in turn, they gave her authority. She was established, in their minds, with prophetic authority because of her wise counsel. However, umpires in sport can have authority even when they make a wrong decision. Today we can see that, in hindsight, she did at times make some wrong calls. But that does not rob her of her prophetic authority anymore than Nathan lost his when he gave the wrong advice to David regarding the building of the temple. Or when John the Baptist got it wrong regarding the nature of the kingdom that Christ was setting up”.[12]

Ellen White didn’t claim infallibility, on the contrary, she asserts that she never claimed that, for “God only is infallible. His word is the truth, and in Him there is “no variableness, neither shadow of turning”.[13]

And Bradford adds, “Accepting her prophetic authority does not involve laying aside our mind or personal judgment. It means that we will listen carefully to what she has to say and, guided by the same Spirit who gave her a prophetic ministry, we will make valued judgments as to the wisdom of the counsel as Paul admonishes in 1 Corinthians 14: 29 and 1 Thessalonians 5: 21”.[14]

Well, let’s see what these texts say: “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge”; “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”.

Briefly on the Plagiarism Accusation

One of the accusations from critics of Ellen White is about her borrowing material from other authors, but in his book, Bradford shows that borrowing from other sources was a common practice in the nineteenth century, which was demonstrated through wide documentation by an independent consultant, Vincent Ramik, a copyright-law specialist. He researched the legal aspects of her use of other writers and came to the conclusion in his report that there would have been no legal case against her in her day, and that he, particularly, had his life changed forever by reading her books.

As Bacchiocchi clarifies additionally, “She used historical sources, not to approve or correct them, but to teach the way of salvation. She never claimed to be an authority on history or theology. In fact, she asked for help both in gathering the information and in correcting any inaccuracies”.

And he says further: “. . . she makes no attempt to exegete the text [of Col. 2:14, that he 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.

“The recognition of this fact has led to a gradual acceptance of new historical and biblical interpretations. For example, today, I do not know of any scholar who uses Colossians 2:14 to teach the termination of the ceremonial law at the Cross. The reason is simple. They recognize that this is not what the text is talking about. There are plenty of other texts that can be used to support such teaching.

“This positive development gives me the courage to continue my ministry of Biblical research. It is my conviction that Adventists are committed to search for truth. To use Ellen White to stifle any new investigation of Bible teachings run contrary to her clear teachings, as Prof. Bradford shows. It is this commitment that ultimately allows our church to grow in the understanding and experience of Bible truths”.[15]

Notes


1. Proclamation, May/June issue, pp. 11, 12.

2. Ellen G. White, “Testimony 17 (1869),” in Testimonies for the Church, 9 vols. (1855-1909; reprint Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1948), 2:200; cf. “The Son of God was in the form of God, and he thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (E. G. White, Spirit of Prophecy [1877], 2:10).

3.”To assert that the sayings of the Son and his apostles are the commandments of the Father, is as wide from the truth as the old Trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and eternal God” (James White, “The Faith of Jesus,” Review and Herald, Aug 5, 1852, p. 52).

4. James White, “The Two Bodies,” RH Oct. 12, 1876, 116; cf. Froom, Movement of Destiny, 178.

5. James White, “Christ Equal with God,” Review and Herald, Nov. 29, 1877, p. 72.

6. Ellen G. White, “The First Advent of Christ,” Review and Herald, Dec. 17, 1872, par. 4; later published in Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2 (Battle Creek, MI: SDA Publishing Association, 1877), 9-10; cf. E. G. White, “Bible Study,” Review and Herald, Jan 11, 1881, par. 3.

7. Uriah Smith, Thoughts on the Revelation (Battle Creek, MI: SDA Publishing Association, 1865), 59, calls Christ the first created being; a view repudiated in Looking Unto Jesus (Battle Creek, MI: Review and Herald, 1898), 17, 12.

8. Counsels for Writers and Editors, p. 37.

9. Evangelism, p. 256.

10. “The Inspiration and Authority of the Ellen G. White Writings,” Adventist Review 159, December 23, 1982, p. 9.

11. Fundamental Beliefs, No. 1.

12. Quoted in Elder Samuele Bacchiocchi’s, “Endtime Issue Newsletter”, # 151 (electronic e-mail messages).

13. Selected Messages, Liv I, p. 37.

14. See note 12.

15. In Samuele Bacchiocchi’s Editorial Comment on the discussion “Ellen White and the Bible”, Endtime Issues Newsletter, # 150.




Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 07/16/07 01:54 AM


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]



Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 07/16/07 01:57 AM


[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.


Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 07/27/07 08:20 PM


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.


Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 08/14/07 04:22 AM


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:


Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 08/14/07 04:29 AM

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)?


Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 08/14/07 04:55 AM

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
Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 08/27/07 11:02 PM


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).



Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 08/27/07 11:11 PM


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.



Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 08/30/07 05:57 AM

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).
Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 09/07/07 09:20 PM


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.

Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 09/25/07 04:06 AM


CORRESPONDENCE WITH ANOTHER EX-ADVENTIST WHO SENT US A RECORDED COMPACT DISK
:

Dear Y. [Name witheld throughout]

Greetings

Thank you for the Compact Disk you sent us, with the lecture by Dr. Michael Cesar [who is both a medical doctor and an Evangelical pastor]. It shows a positive attitude on your part to share with others what you deem to be important teachings for us who belong to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which, as I understand, you belonged to for a time.

By coincidence it arrived on the Sabbath afternoon, when Clelia and I, were enjoying the physical and mental rest granted by the Sabbath commandment, that Dr. Cesar recognizes being so important to our health. I heard it carefully and even enjoyed learning about Hitler’s labor practices when building the Nazi arsenal having people working non-stop seven days a week, and how that didn’t work. Very good! That was one more argument IN FAVOR of the Sabbath commandment. Thank Dr. Cesar for that input for me, please, if you meet him. . .

Now, as I did my part in hearing carefully your Compact Disk I hope you also read carefully my assessment of this discussion to the end and, if possible, answer the questions that I address you as are added to my commentaries (the 10 “surprises”), sending them to me afterwards. If you don’t feel like doing it, at least have them as some points to ponder in your examination of this important religious matter.

May God bless you richly and guide you in His truth, especially as we see the signs of the soon coming of Christ, with so many things happening that confirm what the SDA Church has been announcing for over 150 years.

Best regards

Azenilto G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
Bessemer, AL


10 Surprises for Y. Regarding Dr. Michael Cesar’s Anti-Sabbatarian Compact Disk

1st. Surprise: Dr. Michael Cesar doesn’t rightly divide the Word of Truth.

At a certain point of his conference Dr. Michael Cesar quotes 2 Tim. 2:15, about rightly dividing the Word of Truth (the Bible), and he even criticizes many Christians, including pastors, who don’t do it as should. Well, your first surprise, Y., is to learn that Dr. Cesar is one of those who don’t divide God’s Word correctly. In the name of Jesus I will demonstrate why I state that.

For example, he begins his lecture on the 10 Commandments saying that they don’t apply to the Christian anymore. That is funny as he later on says that NINE out of the TEN are reiterated in the NT. So, is he dividing correctly God’s Word when he denies something completely but later on comes back to salvage 90% of that thing that doesn’t apply to the Christian community? Confusing, isn’t it? Besides, he adds that the 10 Commandments only serve to show that we are sinners! Then what?! Aren’t we really sinners?!

Now, dividing correctly the word of truth we find John saying: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 Jo. 1:8).

Dr. Cesar should check Calvin’s Institutes to learn the illustration of the mirror. He compares the law with a mirror that shows the stain in our face, but has no power to erase it. Then, the sinner, thus informed of his failures, will look for solution, which is found in Christ. Isn’t that exactly what Paul says in Roman 7:7, 8? “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet”.

We are sinners, indeed, and the law points to us our flaws so that we can count on the magnificent promise we find in the next verse of what I quoted from John: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jo. 1:9).

* Now, I have a question for Y. (and for Dr. Cesar in case she can reach him): What is the Bible definition of “sin”? (I will even give a hint—read 1 John 3:4).


2nd. Surprise: Dr. Michael Cesar is not only anti-Seventh-day Adventist, but anti-Protestant/Evangelical in his approach to the 10 Commandments.

That could sound shocking to you, but this man shows he is not a well-informed Evangelical teacher. His notions on the Ten Commandments not applying to the Christians anymore under the New Covenant go against what Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Anglicans and even Lutherans FOR CENTURIES established as Bible truth in their historical Confessions of Faith and instructional material by great men in their milieu. Just check what the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, or the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England say about the role of these 10 Commandments and you will see how this gentleman is contradicting what the Protestant/Evangelical community has been teaching regarding that matter along the times. Or else, read what Luther, Calvin, Wesley taught on the importance of abiding faithfully to this rule of Christian conduct as they considered being the Decalogue, and you will see the discrepancy between Mr. Cesar’s teachings and theirs.

* Now, I have a question for Y. (and for Dr. Cesar in case she can reach him): Have you ever read what Martin Luther says in his document “Treatise Against the Antinomians”, protesting their implying that he taught the abolition of the 10 Commandments, which he says he even memorized one by one, as a child would do?


3rd. Surprise: Dr. Michael Cesar is tremendously contradictory in many points.

He quotes Matt. 22:35-40, about Jesus’ answering the question of the Jewish leader regarding what is the greatest commandment in the law. Correctly dividing the word of truth he says that the first 4 commandments apply to our relationship with God, and the last 6, to our relationship with our neighbors. That is correct, and in harmony with what both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 explain.

Now, since he tries to discard the Sabbath from these TEN Commandments, leaving it just with NINE as applicable to the Christian community how come he stresses the FOUR “spiritual” ones, when one of them was abolished, being just a shadow of the rest of salvation in Christ? And that after his recognition of the importance of the physical and mental rest that this commandment grants the believer. Very much confusing, indeed. . .

* Now, I have a question for Y. (and for Dr. Cesar in case she can reach him): why did the scribe, who clearly wanted to trap Jesus in a question that would cause Him to contradict Israel’s traditions, end up complimenting the Master’s answer, instead of finding fault in it (see Mar. 12:28-34)?


4th. Surprise: Dr. Michael Cesar confuses the question of the “sign” of God regarding the Sabbath.

He confuses the matter of the “sign” between God and His people established through the Sabbath commandment as he stresses insistently that it was set JUST between God and the Israelites. Now, he never mentions a text that destroys this argument of his, which is Isa. 56:2-7. What we read there is that God calls the FOREIGNERS to accept His covenant with Israel within His ideal expressed in vs. 7: “Mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people”. Thus, the Sabbath was not limited to Israel, but to all who believed from all nations since immemorial times. . ..

The problem is that Dr. Cesar, as many other Christians who don’t divide rightly the Word of Truth, has a very diminutive conception of God’s plan to Israel and the world. He ignores that God chose Israel to be “My witnesses”, as He says in Isa. 43:9, 10, the “light of the nations” (Isa. 60). Israel was placed in the crossroads of three continents to be a showcase nation, so that foreign travelers were influenced by that nation that would point to them the true God, His law and His plan of salvation. That is a “macro” view of God that those who just have a “micro” understanding of His plans to Israel and the world cannot comprehend.

Israel failed miserably in fulfilling that ideal, but that doesn’t annul God’s plan that now is transferred to the “expanded Israel” of the New Covenant, encompassing both Jews and Gentiles (Gal. 3:7-9, 29). How regrettable that so many students of the Bible are unable to rightly divide the Word of Truth at that point, which leads them to confuse the importance of this “sign” between God and His people, potentially from all the world.

Maybe it could represent an additional surprise to Y. that the Baptists, of the main Brazilian Baptist Convention (the Convenção Batista Nacional), in its “Doctrinal Statement”, bring the text of Exo. 31:14-18 as footnote to their Bible backing of the topic “The Christian Sabbath”. Even though they apply it to Sunday (in which they are wrong), it makes much sense, because atheists, materialists and lax Christians won’t have any disposition to dedicate regularly a whole day to the Lord. Thus, the Sabbath commandment is observed as a “sign” of true Christians dedicated to honor their God.

* Now, I have a question for Y. (and for Dr. Cesar in case she can reach him): why did God set the Sabbath as a sign with Israel, not with the Egyptians, nor Babylonians, nor Philistines, nor Syrians, nor Nubians. . .


5th. Surprise: Dr. Cesar Utilizes the Poor “Argument of Silence” Which Doesn’t Prove Anything.

People who are not only good at rightly dividing the Word of Truth, but also at Apologetics know that resorting to these “arguments of silence” is a poor tool to demonstrate whatsoever. To prove a certain point based on the absence of certain statement is a two-sword weapon, because if the Bible, for example, doesn’t say that Adam kept the Sabbath, it also doesn’t say that Adam DID NOT keep it!

Thus, we have a tie there, don’t we? But, let’s go to a tiebreak: the Bible says that God did three things regarding the Sabbath: He rested on the seventh day (leaving an example to His human creatures, as Calvin states), He blessed the seventh day and He sanctified (separated) the seventh day. As God is fully holy He didn’t have to sanctify anything to Himself, thus if He did it, that was for man. And Jesus confirmed it, as we will see in our next point.

Now, did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob keep the Sabbath? The Bible doesn’t say they did. But did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob worship idols? The Bible doesn’t say they did or that they DIDN’T! However we read in Genesis 26:5: “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charges, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws”. Now, does this statement mean these charges, commandments, statutes and laws encompassed principles not to lie, not to covet other man’s wives, not to take God’s name in vain, not to worship idols, but EXCLUDED the principle of dedicating one day to God? How that can be proved?

And an extra surprise is that the Baptists, Presbyterians and other Christians recognize that the Sabbath commandment stems from the creation of the world. Christian leaders have often referred to the Sabbath as a principle respected since Adam, in many instructional books, in what they are in harmony with such Christian confessional documents as the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 and other later similar documents. Calvin, Luther and Wesley (see “A Word to a Sabbath-breaker”, in Works, Vol. 11, pp. 164-166) confirm that the Sabbath comes from Eden, thus being a moral and universal principle.

* Now, I have a question for Y. (and for Dr. Cesar in case she can reach him): can you prove to me that Adam, who had the occupation of a gardener in Eden (Gen. 2:15), worked all seven days of the week, just stopping to rest at night, as the Germans under Hitler?


6th. Surprise: Dr. Cesar in his discussion on the Sabbath suspiciously skips certain key-texts.

We’ve already seen that when he skipped Isa. 56:2-7 trying to prove that the Sabbath laws applied only to the nation of Israel, and again that happens when he quotes Mark 2:28, “The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath”. Well, he skipped the previous verse that says: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath”.

Now, it seems strange the way he both recognizes the spiritual character of the first four commandments and the importance of physical and mental rest for everyone, but then tries to convince us that the Sabbath is worth nothing to the Christian. What a confusing rationale is there in this exposition?!

See that the text he missed doesn’t say “the Jewish man”, as the second part of Mar. 2:27 makes clear. Thus, to be consistent with the reasoning of some, Jesus 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?

* Now, I have a question for Y. (and for Dr. Cesar in case she can reach him): can you prove to me that Jesus excluded the Sabbath commandment when he recommended to His followers, “Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so [of the law he said He had not come to abolish, but to fulfill], he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19)?


7th. Surprise: Dr. Cesar misses the reiteration of the Sabbath in the New Testament and allows the practice of communication with the dead!

He says repeatedly that the Sabbath is the only of the Ten Commandments that is not reiterated in the New Testament. Now, is it necessary that God’s commands be fully and literally repeated in the New Testament so that they become valid for the Christians? Well, if that is so, then we have some serious problems to face.

Besides the weakness of, again, this type of “argument of silence”, Dr. Cesar forgets that to follow his tortuous reasoning allows the Spiritists to justify biblically their practice of communicating with the dead! Yes, for they often actually employ this exact argument of not being repeated in the New Testament the law “only for Israel” prohibiting that, as in Deu. 18:9-11 and Isa. 8:19, 20! Where does the New Testament reiterate the order to not have this kind of communication with those who departed from us?

And how about manufacturing sculpted images? The New Testament just mentions “idols”, basically applicable to pagan deities, which wouldn’t apply to the saints, or to Mary or even to the Incarnate Jesus. In the New Testament there is no ipsis verbis repetition of the second commandment. Not even of the third one, “ye shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”, in a direct way. There are only indirect references to that commandment.

Besides, how about the tithe principle? Where is it found in the New Testament any direct, objective, specific command for the Christians to adopt it? However, many churches and pastors wouldn’t do without it, even when they contradictorily allege that the Sabbath belongs to the old covenant, as it is not directly required in the New Testament! Speak of inconsistency!

Now, the surprising fact to Y. et al is that the Sabbath is reiterated in the New Testament indeed. Let’s see how that can be proven: Besides what we have already covered regarding Christ’s statement that “the Sabbath was made for man”, confirming its Edenic origin and universal character, He recommended to His disciples and “to the multitudes”: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works. For they say and do not” (Matt. 23:1-3).

Now, one of the things they said was that they should keep the Sabbath faithfully (see Luke 13:14). Thus, Jesus is reiterating ALL that their religious leaders taught, which was in accordance to the commandments that He said He didn’t come to abolish, but to fulfill, and that they should obey plainly in their least aspects (Matt. 5:17-19).

Jesus shows in these texts total CONFIRMATION of every feature of God’s law, which is divided rightly into “love to God” (the first 4 commandments, which inescapably includes the Sabbath) and “love to your neighbor” (the last 6 commandments). He recommends the keeping of ALL that was taught by their religious leaders, just reminding them that their hypocritical do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do attitude should be put aside.

* Now, I have a question for Y. (and for Dr. Cesar in case she can reach him): what was the tenor of Christ’s several discussions with the Jewish leaders regarding the Sabbath—was it IF the Sabbath should be kept, WHEN the Sabbath should be kept, or HOW the Sabbath should be kept in its due spirit?

[To be concluded in the next thread]


Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 09/25/07 04:11 AM


[Conclusion of previous thread]

8th. Surprise: Dr. Cesar misses the meaning of the “salvation rest” in both Matt. 11:28 and Hebrews 3 and 4.

The attempt to apply the Sabbath commandment to the “salvation rest” in both Matt. 11:28 and Hebrews 3 and 4 ends up defining the Sabbath as a ceremonial commandment that ended with the proclamation of that salvation freely granted to all on the cross. But if Jesus applied the “salvation rest” in Matt. 11:28 (“Come to Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest”), when did that “salvation rest” begin to put the Sabbath aside? Wasn’t the Sabbath commandment ended on the cross? If so, how about those who already experienced the “salvation rest” before Jesus’ death, like the dedicated women who served Him faithfully and were so close to Him, but after His death, while preparing ointments for embalming His body “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56)? Their experience of salvation didn’t mean that the Sabbath became meaningless to them. . .

And let’s remember that Luke recorded this episode 30 years AFTER it, stressing that they did it “according to the commandment”, in a natural manner as in accordance to his understanding. And the following verse (24:1) shows that the Sabbath they kept “according to the commandment” was the day that comes before the one he called “first day of the week”, or mía twn sabbaton, in Greek, which simply means, “the first from the Sabbath”. Luke knew nothing, 30 years after Christ’s death, of this first day being “Lord’s day”. . .

Then, we have Paul’s discussion on the “rest” that Israel failed to obtain due to their sin, and his illustration of the Sabbath rest that God Himself set (Heb. 4:4). Many who don’t divide rightly the Word of Truth try to convince us that this indicates the prefigurative aspect of the Sabbath. But if Israel failed in reaching that rest, there were those within the nation who indeed experienced this “salvation rest”, like the heroes listed in the “Hall of Fame” of the faithful servants of God, as Hebrews 11 is often referred to. However, they didn’t neglect keeping the Sabbath because of that. David, for one, said: “I delight to do thy will, O my God. Yea, thy law is within my heart” (Psa. 40:8). David’s statement should have reflected the experience of the entire nation of Israel.

Now, the nation failed miserably as we have already covered, but had they not departed from God, but rather experienced that spiritual rest fulfilling its mission to proclaim the true God, His law and His plan of salvation to the other nations, that would not mean the end of the Sabbath, would it?

The fact is that the promise God made to Israel was not to have them freed from any commandment of His law, but, on the contrary to have that law written in their hearts and minds (Eze. 36:26, 27; Jer. 31:31-33) if they accepted the “spiritual rest” by accepting this “new covenant” God proposed them repeatedly. By the way that same promise was later made to those who belonged to Israel by faith (Heb. 8:6-10 and 10:16).

* Now, I have a question for Y. (and for Dr. Cesar in case she can reach him): 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) includes the 4th commandment, but leaving it as a vague, voluntary and variable principle 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.


9th. Surprise: Dr. Cesar doesn’t understand Paul’s discussion on the law in Galatians, Romans and other locations.

A key-text to understand Paul’s discussion on the law in his epistles is Romans 9:30-32:

“What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone”.

So, the problem was not in the law, which Paul himself called “holy”, “just”, “good”, “spiritual” and a delight to him, stating that he himself fulfilled it with his mind (Rom. 7:12, 14, 22, 25). The problem was in its wrong use—to take it as a source of righteousness when that was not its function. He clarifies in 1 Timothy 1:8: “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully” [other translations say “properly”-NIV].

Many who don’t divide rightly the Word of Truth discriminate against the Sabbath commandment as the ONLY that puts people “under the law”. They never refer to being under such condition by the fulfillment of any of the other nine, why?! Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians, are quoted to “prove” that the Christian is not under the obligation to fulfill the law to obtain salvation, which is not a question of dispute in the face of the clear texts that show that salvation is by grace, not by obedience to any laws.

The “under the law” language is a favorite of these people, but it would be interesting to analyze it according to the text of Galatians. We read: “This I say then. Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. . . . But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: [Then comes a list of sins, or violations of God’s law]” (Gal. 5:16, 18-21).

Clearly in this text to be “under the law” is contrasted with being led by the Spirit. But those who ARE NOT led by the Spirit--consequently are “under the law”--are not whoever keeps the law, but, on the contrary the ones who TRANSGRESS it, practicing all those sins listed in vs. 19-21!

Now, among the many surprises found in this study maybe one of the most insightful is Martin Luther’s commentary on this expression so distorted and misunderstood by those who don’t divide rightly the Word of Truth. Let’s see how Luther discusses the phrase “under the law” in his classic “Preface to the Epistle of Paul to the Romans”:

“And this is what we can do, he [Paul] states, because we are in the grace, and not in the law, which he himself interprets in the following sense: ‘Being without law’ it not the same as not having any law, and that we can do whatever pleases each one, but that ‘being under the law’ is when, without the grace, we deal with the works of the law. Then, certainly sin masters through the law, since nobody by nature is fond of the law, and this is a great sin. Grace, however, makes the law agreeable to us, so that there is no more sin, and the law is not against us, but in harmony with us. This is true freedom from sin and the law, of which he speaks at the end of this chapter. It’s a freedom to do only good, willing to live correctly without the forcefulness of the law. Because of that, such freedom is a spiritual freedom, that doesn’t annul the law, rather offers that which is required by the law: willingness and love, with which the law is appeased and is no more inciting and requiring”. – Underlining added.

* Now, I have a question for Y. (and for Dr. Cesar in case she can reach him): Since it is impossible to alter the terms of a will after the death of the testator (Heb. 9:15-17) how could the death of the divine Testator allow the change in God’s law, be it from the Sabbath to Sunday or from the Sabbath to the new theological notion of the semi-antinomian dispensationalists’ Nodayism/Anydayism/Everydayism?


10th. Surprise: Seventh-day Adventists need no sermon regarding salvation solely by faith, inasmuch as that is part of SDA official teachings, perfectly in harmony with Galatians and other Pauline writings.

How about just reproducing topics 9, 10 and 18 from the official “Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists”?

9. The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ: In Christ’s life of perfect obedience to God’s will, His suffering, death, and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life, and the whole creation may better understand the infinite and holy love of the Creator. This perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God’s law and the graciousness of His character; for it both condemns our sin and provides for our forgiveness. The death of Christ is substitutionary and expiatory reconciling and transforming. The resurrection of Christ proclaims God’s triumph over the forces of evil, and for those who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death. It declares the Lordship of Jesus Christ, before whom every knee in heaven and on earth will bow. (John 3:16; Isa. 53; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4, 20-22; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, 19-21; Rom. 1:4; 3:25; 4:25; 8:3, 4; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; Col. 2:15; Phil. 2:6-11.)

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.)

18. The Law of God: The great principles of God’s law are embodied in the Ten Commandments and exemplified in the life of Christ. They express God’s love, will, and purposes concerning human conduct and relationships and are binding upon all people in every age. These precepts are the basis of God’s covenant with His people and the standard in God’s judgment. Through the agency of the Holy Spirit they point out sin and awaken a sense of need for a Saviour. Salvation is all of grace and not of works, but its fruitage is obedience to the Commandments. This obedience develops Christian character and results in a sense of well-being. It is an evidence of our love for the Lord and our concern for our fellow men. The obedience of faith demonstrates the power of Christ to transform lives, and therefore strengthens Christian witness. (Ex. 20:1-17; Ps. 40:7, 8; Matt. 22:36-40; Deut. 28:1-14; Matt. 5:17-20; Heb. 8:8-10; John 15:7-10; Eph. 2:8-10; 1 John 5:3; Rom. 8:3, 4; Ps. 19:7-14.)
–- Underlining added.

Or how about the reproduction of this text from a Sabbath School quarterly that is the text of study for over 15 million SDA’s all over the world?:

“The Bible makes it clear that our walk with Christ doesn’t end on the day of conversion. On the contrary when people give themselves totally to Christ, they begin a whole new life, a whole new existence (Rom. 6:4). It’s not that a new Christian has to work to reach salvation, as in other faiths; instead, because he or she already has salvation, already stands perfect and accepted in God, the Christian begins to live a life that reveals and reflects that salvation. Sure, we are saved by faith, but what kind of faith? A faith that is expressed in a life that reveals a commitment to Jesus Christ.

“Central to our new life in Christ is spiritual growth. As Christians, we can’t remain static: We are always in the process of change as we should better reflect the image of Jesus Christ. And crucial to the whole growth process is the Word of God, which shows us how and why we must ‘grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’”. (2 Pet. 3:18, NIV). – Adult Teachers Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Lesson 12, “Growing Through the Word”, p. 137.


* Now, I have a question for Y. (and for Dr. Cesar in case she can reach him): Could you please point to me in what topics 9, 10 and 18 of the SDA’s official statement of faith, besides the quotation from the Sabbath School Quarterly conflict with the message of Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, or any other Bible passage that deals with the means of salvation?
__________

Note: If you have access to the Internet please check our discussion with ex-SDA pastor Dale Ratzlaff and his associates in the following address:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=92014&page=0&fpart=1


Posted By: Rosangela

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 09/25/07 03:04 PM

 Quote:
Many who don’t divide rightly the Word of Truth discriminate against the Sabbath commandment as the ONLY that puts people “under the law”. They never refer to being under such condition by the fulfillment of any of the other nine, why?!

As the late Pastor Christianini would say, if we are 100% under the law, they are 90% under the law...

Keep up the good work, brother Azenilto.
Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 09/30/07 12:28 AM

 Originally Posted By: Rosangela
 Quote:
Many who don’t divide rightly the Word of Truth discriminate against the Sabbath commandment as the ONLY that puts people “under the law”. They never refer to being under such condition by the fulfillment of any of the other nine, why?!

As the late Pastor Christianini would say, if we are 100% under the law, they are 90% under the law...

Keep up the good work, brother Azenilto.


Yes, that is right, sis. Rosangela. So, you see, the difference ends up not being so big. . .

Best regards
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 09/30/07 08:32 PM

I think Ratzliff's theology come form his anger because of what happened to him as an SDA. He can believed what he wants. I studied for three years before keeping my first Sabbath. At 8 PM friday evening all of a sudden I felt guilty for not keeping the Sabbath and I found out the next day there were 12 people praying for me at that very time.
I then decided to study to become a minister and went back to the original languages to do more research and found the Bible to be true.
I also watch here in Oregon Something called the New Life Church and Dave Synder also lift the church and is angery at the SDA church.
I hold on to my faith in God not the church as we all should.
God Bless
Sweet William
Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 10/06/07 07:02 AM

Well, I don't know what happened to him when he was an SDA. Bad things happened to me also, along my life as a member of the SDA Church, but that would be no justification for me to engage in a campaign to condemn the teachings of the Church and dishonestly distort its real beliefs.
Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 11/02/07 11:37 PM


Immortality of the Soul—The “New Covenant Christians” Finally Show Their COLORS on the Subject


I was wondering whether the Ratzlaff theology led him and his followers to get the “complete package” of false doctrines of Christendom regarding not only the “abolished/fulfilled/changed” law of God (turned into a more “user friendly” sort of “Rule of Nine Commandments and One Suggestion”) but also the condition of the dead, and, bingo, the September/October 2007 issue of Proclamation! Magazine resolves my doubt.

The doctrine of pagan origin of the immortality of the soul, that Protestant theologian Oscar Cullmann says to be against both Jewish and Christian interpretation of the Bible, which “excludes all the Greek dualism of body and soul” (Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?, pp. 29, 30), is also part of the deplorable package of false teachings that they adopted as they left Seventh-day Adventism, and proclaim it to poor disgruntled souls of mostly problematic Adventists, by what we can read in their “testimonies”. To confirm what I mean by my last statement, just see a segment of one of these testimonies of an ex-Adventist lady who now boasts having been set free to a real understanding of the gospel, as a member of an Evangelical church:

“I had been raising my daughter in a very non-Adventist way; we ate meat, watched whatever we wanted on TV during Sabbath hours, grocery shopped Saturday mornings, wore jewelry, and so on. I was determined my daughter would not grow up questioning God’s love and acceptance, as I had, feeling as if she could never measure up. I also determined she would understand His unconditional love, His mercy, and His grace so following Him would not seem to be an impossible burden. Therefore, even though I returned to the Adventist Church, I did not change anything else about the way we lived. Surprisingly, even withy my background, I felt no guilt and knew that God loved and accepted me unconditionally”.

Later on, she speaks of her divorce (not giving details of what caused it. . .) and married a Baptist gentleman who, according to her report, she initially attempted to convert to Adventism, but, “I didn’t know my Bible nearly as well as he did and never won any debates”, she admits.

So, we have a supposed faithful Seventh-day Adventist that wasn’t well versed in the Bible and broke purposefully basic rules of the Church’s teachings, making a point of transmitting to her child those ‘liberalizing’ notions to prove that God accepts us unconditionally. Of course He does, for those who sincerely look for justification, but would He later on leave people practicing sin? No way, for the prophecy about Jesus was that He would “save his people from their sins”, and not WITH their sins (Matt. 1:21). Now, that lady’s concept of Christian education, is veeeeery strange, indeed!

Now, why did she select Sabbath breaking to prove that point? Couldn’t she choose to teach the poor little girl lying, stealing, blaspheming, coveting as well? If not, why not?!

Besides, after she became a Baptist, under the influence of the new husband, she doesn’t tell what happens, for according to the Baptist official confessional document, to go shopping and engage in one’s interests on the “Lord’s day” is a serious misdeed . . . But we will discuss that later on. Are she and the husband aware of that fact?

Back to the immortality of the soul issue, the internal front cover of the magazine brings a brief message by editor-amateur theologian Colleen Tinker where she makes clear her rejection of our position on the condition of the dead. Later on we see more of that in other articles, like the ridiculous “Understanding Adventist Terms”, full of distortions of our beliefs and sentiments, which curiously ends with a text that I would promptly quote to their authors, “theologian” Colleen Tinker and Jeremy Graham: “But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned” (Mat. 12:36, 37). That applies specifically to those who distort meanings, ideas and convictions of others due to a prejudiced attitude of sheer rejection of whoever teaches “inconvenient truths”, like this thing of having to keep the Sabbath and being taught to abstain from certain foods and beverages.

But regarding the holistic view, what these people never mention is that the rejection of the traditional and popular concept of immortality of the soul is not only characteristic of Seventh-day Adventism. It has been more and more expressed by great Bible students and theologians, among whom we could mention the more recent Oscar Cullmann, John Stott, Clark Pinnock, Emil Brunner, Paul Althaus, Karl Barth, Helmut Thielecke, as well as many more in the past, men of the greatest authority and reputation as scholars like the Bible translators Tyndale, Wycliff, Moffat, Weymouth and many more.

Even Martin Luther manifested himself against the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, considering it a junk doctrine from Romanism to be thrown out. Even though he was not always consistent in his ideas, the fact is that even now the Brazilian Lutherans reject the concept of immortality of the soul. I have recently corresponded with a Lutheran pastor of the IECLB (Portuguese language acronym for Brazilian Evangelical Church of Lutheran Confession), after I read an article in their website stressing the negation of the immortality of the soul idea. I sent him some of the material we have produced in our ministry, for which he much thanked me, calling it “precious studies”.

Speaking of “precious studies”, how about publicizing some of them for the benefit of our readers? That is what I will do some frames below.

We also have some thought-provoking questionnaires, which we submit to Mrs. Colleen et alii in the Proclamation! Magazine staff, not to the exclusion of their “guru”, Ratzlaff, of course. . . .

But I know they are not in the habit of answering our questions, even though on page 3, Mr. Ratzlaff invites people to write to him with Bible questions, informing a regular postal address for that end. Who knows that works better?! Yes, I will do that—I will submit to him, through regular mail, the many questions I addressed him (and editor Colleen Tinker) through the Internet, which were never answered. Let’s see if this way I am more successful. I will keep you posted about possible responses (or none of that, again. . .).

[For special studies on the subject of the human nature and destiny see the topics related to the subject, see studies:

* 10 Topics That Demonstrate the Superiority of the Holistic View of Human Nature Over the Dualistic View

* 10 Questions For Those Who Believe in the Immortality of the Soul

* 10 Specific Questions on the Foundation of the Bible Teaching on Man’s Nature

They can be reached through the following link:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/forum...=true#Post38778
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 11/05/07 07:23 AM


More Discussions on the Law Issue:

A Look Back Confirms Ratzlaff’s Poor Articulation of the Covenants Theme (Again)


In the longest article of the 2007 September/October issue of Proclamation! Magazine, under the title “Old Covenant Law—A look back and a look away”, Mr. Ratzlaff just confirms his poor articulation of the law theme as we have already covered both in the articles “The False Premise of Dale Ratzlaff’s Theological Stand”, “Mr. Ratzlaff’s Poor Articulation of the Theme of God’s Law” and “Mr. Ratzlaff’s Disappointing Assessment of ‘THE LAW WRITTEN ON THE HEART’ Theme”, besides many other references to the false interpretations of the whole semi-antinomian/semi-dispensationalist theology that he embraced along pags. 1 and 2 of the topic, “Some Challenging Questions to a Challenger of Our Faith” of different forums (now in 5 forums in English, 2 in Spanish, with indication of link in one more in English. All the material is also promoted among Portuguese-speaking people who can read Spanish easily).

Basically what we have is the same get-rid-of-the-Sabbath-and-dietary-rules principles in exchange for a vague “law of Christ”, that has no “specifics” duly enumerated for a Christian to follow. It’s all based on a supposed guidance of the Spirit that somehow substitutes the Ten Commandments, which proved an inadequate rule of Christian conduct, for being “incomplete.” Now, it is paradoxical that despite this supposed inadequacy of the 10 Commandments as a rule for the Christian life, NINE out of TEN of these commandments are validated in the New Testament, inadequate and incomplete as this rule is said to be. Speak of contradiction. . .

But what many readers of Ratzlaff’s materials ignore is that this theology of his is in the wrong way in relation to the classical, historical and official teachings of the most representative and authoritative Protestant/Evangelical confessional documents and the interpretations of prominent authors in that milieu, both of the present and the past. So much so that even now there is a campaign under way in the USA, already reaching other countries, to promote a “10 Commandments Day” by a “10 Commandments Committee”, under the auspices of the Protestant leaders of the highest reputation and authority in this country, like James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, James D. Kennedy (the latter two already deceased), and many others. They are collecting signatures for setting the first Sunday of May as “10 Commandments Day”, having collected over 332,000 only through the Internet.

For all these important people in the command of the Evangelical/Protestant community, the 10 Commandments don’t seem so inadequate and incomplete, as “new covenant” theologian Dale Ratzlaff imagines.

His argument is that the new paradigm for the Christian is not “old covenant law, not even the Decalogue”, but new principles based on “love.” Now, it’s incredible how he can repeat the same type of argument that we already refuted, just reminding him that when Jesus proclaimed His “golden rule” of the two basic commandments (“love to God/love to the neighbor”) He simply reiterated what Moses had already said. There is nothing new in this double principle, which ALWAYS characterized God’s law.

There was NEVER a law of God that didn’t have as its foundation love to God and love to the neighbor. Can’t Mr. Ratzlaff understand something so obvious? Besides, it is just a question of applying the “small letter rule”, as I call it—utilize the small letters added by the Bible editors in the text, that lead to the footnotes, where equivalent letters point to other related texts. If Mr. Ratzlaff just do that, he will notice that Matthew 22:36-40 or Mark 12:28-34 are referenced as a quotation by Jesus of Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 6:5.

Now, I once found an Evangelical “theologian” of this same semi-antinomian semi-dispensationalist line of reasoning who said something like—“the Decalogue is incomplete because it doesn’t prohibit to smoke, for example. . .” Oh yeah? But if it forbade smoking, it could be deemed incomplete because it doesn’t prohibit to sniff marihuana. If it forbade that, it could still be deemed incomplete because it doesn’t prohibit to inhale cocaine. If it did forbade that, it could still be deemed incomplete because it doesn’t prohibit to inject heroin in the veins. If it forbade that, it could still be deemed incomplete because . . .

Well, but how about seeing what people of the highest prestige in the Protestant/Evangelical field said and say about the role and importance of the Decalogue? Let’s start with the great champion of the Reformation:

* Martin Luther:

The Reformer and great righteousness by faith champion, in his document “A Treatise Against Antinomians” refers to these deniers of the validity of the Ten Commandments in his time as “new spirits . . . which have undertaken to thrust the law of God, or the ten commandments out of the Church.”

A little later he refers again to a certain opponent who has “written against the Moral Law, or Ten Commandments; and to profess that he is of the same judgment as we are here at Wittenberg, as likewise at Augsburg, according to the tenor of our confession and Apology tendered to the Emperor: And if hereafter he shall hold or teach the contrary, he willeth me to pronounce the same to be Null and condemned. I could find in my heart to commend him for stooping so low. . .”, to add some paragraphs below that: “I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or Ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours.”

Now, how about what other great giant of the Protestant Reformation said:

* John Calvin:

“We must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law; for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform”—Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, (1845), vol. I, p. 277.

Advancing to the eighteenth century, we have the great English revivalist John Wesley also giving his contribution to this study:

“In the highest rank of the enemies of the gospel of Christ, are they who openly and explicitly ‘judge the law’ itself, and ‘speak evil of the law’; who teach men to break . . . all the commandments at a stroke; who teach, without any cover, in so many words,--‘What did our Lord do with the law? He abolished it. There is but one duty, which is that of believing. All commands are unfit for our times. . ..’ Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do!” – John Wesley, “Upon Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount”, Discourse 5, in Works (New York: Waugh & Mason, 1833), Vol. 5, 1829 ed.), pp. 311, 317.

[To be continued in the next frame]

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 11/05/07 07:26 AM


[Continued from the previous frame]

Reaching more recent times, we have the fervent evangelist Dwight L. Moody adding some comments also quite embarrassing to Mr. Ratzlaff:

“I never met an honest man who found any flaws in the Ten Commandments. The law given at the Sinai has lost nothing of its solemnity. . . People need to be led to understand that the Ten Commandments are still in vigor, and that there is a penalty related to each violation. . . The Sermon of the Mount did not cancel the Ten Commandments.” – Weighed and Wanting, pp. 11 and 16.

And the great Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon adds to Ratzlaff’s perplexing condition in his poor articulation of the theme of God’s law:

“The law of God is a divine law, holy, heavenly, perfect. Those who find fault with the law, or in the least degree depreciate it, do not understand its design, and have no right idea of the law itself. . . . In all we ever say concerning justification by faith, we never intend to lower the opinion which our hearers have of the law, for the law is one of the most sublime of God’s works. There is not a commandment too many; there is not one too few; but it is so incomparable, that its perfection is a proof of its divinity.” – C. H. Spurgeon, Sermons, 2d series (1857), p. 280.

“No human lawgiver could have given forth such a law as that which we find in the Decalogue. It is a perfect law; for all human laws that are right are to be found in that brief compendium and epitome of all that is good and excellent toward God, or between man and man.” – Ibid.

In 1933 the Moody Bible Institute Monthly published a series of articles under the title “Are Christians Freed From the Law?” in which the author shows how the New Testament emphasizes, enlarges and enforces it in all its details. He shows how Christ and the apostles dealt with it:

“So far from annulling any of the Ten Commandments, He [Christ] amplified their scope, teaching that an angry thought or bitter word violated the sixth, and a lustful look the seventh (Matt. 5:21, 22, 27, 28). The teaching of the apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is even more emphatic and explicit concerning the scope and obligations of the moral law.”—Op. Cit., October, 1933.

Christ’s act of amplifying the meaning of the law, stressing its more profound, ethical and moral aspects, doesn’t represent any establishment of new laws, but a reiteration of the SAME law that His hearers knew very well, but had lost sight of these features. After all, it was ALWAYS wrong to look at a woman with impure intentions (see Job 31:1) and it was ALWAYS wrong to hate a neighbor (Lev. 19:17).

I have been asking to advocates of these “new law” theories, who base themselves in this argument of Christ’s comments on the law, if when He said to the Pharisees that in their tithing practice they should take into account judgment, mercy and faith, He was creating these principles on the spot or were they there, in the tithe law, all the time, but not realized by those religious people (see Matt. 23:23)? I think that any one who knows how to answer this question will understand the whole issue of what Jesus meant in Matt. 5:21ff. That is in the context of what He said in the key-text of Matt. 5:20: “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.”

Now, how about examining some of exegetical points regarding certain distorted texts through some highly regarded Bible commentaries? Let’s start with Adam Clarke, on Rom. 7:13:

* Adam Clarke:

“. . . it was one design of the law to show the abominable and destructive nature of sin, as well as to be a rule of life. It would be almost impossible for a man to have that just notion of the demerit of sin so as to produce repentance, or to see the nature and necessity of the death of Christ, if the law were not applied to his conscience by the light of the Holy Spirit; it is then alone that he sees himself to be carnal, and sold under sin; and that the law and the commandment are holy, just, and good. And let it be observed, that the law did not answer this end merely among the Jews in the days of the apostle; it is just as necessary to the Gentiles to the present hour. Nor do we find that true repentance takes place where the moral law is not preached and enforced. Those who preach only the Gospel to sinners, at best only heal the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly. The law, therefore, is the grand instrument in the hands of a faithful minister, to alarm and awaken sinners; and he may safely show that every sinner is under the law, and consequently under the curse, who has not fled for refuge to the hope held out by the Gospel: for, in this sense also, Jesus Christ is the End of the Law for justification to them that believe.” (Source: http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book:ro&chapter:007; also: http://www.e-sword.net)

Let’s see two more commentaries, on the misunderstood text of Hebrews 7:12:

* John Gill:

“. . . the moral law, that was in being before the priesthood of Aaron . . . still remains, for it is perfect, and cannot be made void by any other; nor is it set aside by Christ's priesthood: though there is a sense in which it is abolished; as it is in the hands of Moses; as it is a covenant of works; as to justification by it; and as to its curse and condemnation to them that are Christ's; yet it still remains in the hands of Christ, and as a rule of walk and conversation. . . the ceremonial law, which was but a shadow of good things to come . . . was given but for a time; and this concerned the priesthood, and was made void by the priesthood of Christ; for that putting an end to the Levitical priesthood, . . . must unavoidably cease, and become of no effect.” – John Gill’s commentary on Heb. 7:12 (Source: http://www.e-sword.net)

* Albert Barnes:

“The Law so far as it grew out of that, or was dependent on it. The connection requires us to understand it only of the Law ‘so far as it was connected with the Levitical priesthood.’ This could not apply to the ten commandments – for they were given before the institution of the priesthood; nor could it apply to any other part of the moral law, for that was not dependent on the appointment of the Levitical priests. But the meaning is, that since a large number of laws - constituting a code of considerable extent and importance – was given for the regulation of the priesthood, and in reference to the rites of religion, which they were to observe or superintend, it followed that when their office was superseded by ‘one of a wholly different order,’ the Law which had regulated them vanished also, or ceased to be binding.’ This was a very important point in the introduction of Christianity, and hence, it is that it is so often insisted on in the writings of Paul.” (Source: http://www.e-sword.net).

[To be concluded in the next frame]

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 11/05/07 07:30 AM


[Continued from the previous frame]

Mr. Ratzlaff quotes out of context Romans 7:6 skipping others texts in the same chapter, as vs. 7, 8, 12, 14, 22, and especially 25, where Paul, using the present tense throughout, says that he with his mind serves the “law of God”, which is holy, good, just, spiritual and contains the precept, “ye shall not covet.” So let’s see what other authors of Bible commentaries have to say on that text:

* Matthew Henry:

“The second marriage [of Paul’s illustration in Rom. 7:6] is to Christ. By death we are freed from obligation to the law as a covenant, as the wife is from her vows to her husband. In our believing powerfully and effectually, we are dead to the law, and have no more to do with it than the dead servant, who is freed from his master, has to do with his master's yoke. The day of our believing, is the day of being united to the Lord Jesus. We enter upon a life of dependence on him, and duty to him. Good works are from union with Christ; as the fruitfulness of the vine is the product of its being united to its roots; there is no fruit to God, till we are united to Christ. The law, and the greatest efforts of one under the law, still in the flesh, under the power of corrupt principles, cannot set the heart right with regard to the love of God, overcome worldly lusts, or give truth and sincerity in the inward parts, or any thing that comes by the special sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit. Nothing more than a formal obedience to the outward letter of any precept, can be performed by us, without the renewing, new-creating grace of the new covenant.” (Source: http://www.e-sword.net).

Matthew Henry comments additionally on vs. 22: “For as the believer is under grace, and his will is for the way of holiness, he sincerely delights in the law of God, and in the holiness which it demands, according to his inward man; that new man in him, which after God is created in true holiness.” (Source: http://www.e-sword.net).

That is in perfect harmony with Martin Luther’s commentary, which I already quoted in one of our articles aforementioned, where he says that “our conscience under the law is attached to the old sinful man; but as he is dead by the Spirit, the conscience is free . . . so that now it can be linked so much more to Christ, the new man, and produce fruits for life.”

And let’s see how John Wesley comments Rom. 8:4:

“That the righteousness of the law – The holiness it required, described, Rom_8:11. Might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit – Who are guided in all our thoughts, words, and actions, not by corrupt nature, but by the Spirit of God. From this place St. Paul describes primarily the state of believers, and that of unbelievers only to illustrate this.” (Source: http://www.e-sword.net).

The text of Romans 8:8-11 is a mortal blow on this semi-antinomian semi-dispensationalist theological noveltymonger Ratzlaff, especially as we check the illuminating way the New English Bible translated it:

“What the law could not do, because human nature was weak, God did. He condemned sin in human nature by sending his own Son, who came with a nature like man’s sinful nature to do away with sin. God did this so that the righteous demands of the Law might be fully satisfied in us who live according to the Spirit, not according to human nature. . . . . . a man becomes an enemy of God when his mind is controlled by what human nature wants; for he does not obey the law, and in fact he cannot obey it. Those who obey their human nature cannot please God. But you do not live as your human nature tells you to; you live as the Spirit tells you to—if, in fact, God’s Spirit lives in you.”

We can see that the Spirit guides a man, indeed, but leading him to obedience to God’s law, not to substitute it establishing itself as a “new law”, as Ratzlaff’s theology.

All these statements above by these most reputed Christian pioneers and authors (and we could quote many more) is in perfect harmony with the historical Confessions of Faith of the diverse Protestant churches, of which we could cite the following ones:

Baptist Church: “We believe that the Law of God is the eternal and unchangeable rule of His moral government; that it is holy, good, just and the inability which the Scriptures ascribe to fallen man to fulfill its precepts arises entirely from their love of sin; to deliver them from which, and to restore them through a Mediator to unfeigned obedience to the holy Law, is one great end of the Gospel, and of the means of grace connected with the establishment of the visible church.” -- New Hampshire Confession of Faith, Article 12.

Methodist Church: “The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and man. . . . Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christians men, . . . no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called Moral”-- Article 7 of the Thirty and Nine Articles of Religion. [Note.: This same confession is adopted by the Episcopal/Anglican Church].

Presbyterian Church: “The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel in any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation. . . . the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.” . . . The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law. . . under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected” – Sections V, VII and XX of Chap. XIX of the “Westminster Confession of Faith.” [Note.: This is also validated for the Congregational Church].

CONCLUSION

I have an old aunt who is not very attentive to certain important “details” in life, and once she filled her car that run on gasoline with diesel oil. Of course it stopped soon after she left the gas station and wouldn’t run anymore. The mechanics had a hard time to discover where the problem was, for they were looking to the mechanical part, when the source of the problem was somewhere else. But an even worse trouble for her was when she was traveling through a region she was not familiar with, looking for a highway that would lead her to her destination. She finally reached an intersection to get to the Interstate, and got to the access ramp happy for finally having come to that thoroughfare. Unexpectedly her car crashed head on with another vehicle that came down the same ramp. She had taken the one that exits the highway, instead of getting to that entering it.

Mr. Ratzlaff should get better information of what is the historical, classical and even OFFICIAL stand of the most representative Evangelical/Protestant confessional documents and instructional material by the most reputed leaders of this community of Christian believers before launching himself in this enterprise of interpreting the law/grace issue, for he could be crashing theologically for taking the WRONG WAY in his discussions of a subject he clearly shows he is not well acquainted with.

Posted By: Azenilto

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 12/22/07 08:08 AM


Hi folks.

See this:



And check these links:

http://www.saveoursundays.ca/

http://saveoursundays.tripod.com/index.html

http://cv.11.forumer.com/a/a-national-day-of-rest-save-our-sundays_post345.html

http://saveoursundays.tripod.com/WesternAustralia.htm

http://wa.greens.org.au/items/Media_Release.2004-10-26.1431

Now, I subscribed to the Forum of one of these sites and I transcribe below what I said there:

Speaking of pollution, how about all these ads that hackers are posting in this topic (and probably others)? I would urge the moderators to find ways of blocking these polluters, and no "carbon credit" acceptable. . .

As to what Carolyn said, I agree 100% with her. The idea of stopping everything one day a week is right, efficient and biblical. The idea is right, but THE DAY IS WRONG. The "Never on Sundays" idea may be good for a title of a Hollywood film, but not for the purposes of religious freedom for all.

Now, one thing is really worrisome: there are those religious people who are taking advantage of this world crisis to launch a "save the planet" campaign, by which they try to impose their agenda upon human society.

We have to face the common challenges that this crisis represent, but always respecting people's religious freedom.

Unhappily we know how history has this tendency to repeat itself. I heard that in Auschwitz, now a museum, there is a big poster in several languages saying, "NEVER MORE".

Oh, how wonderful if such ideal were really materialized among mankind. But the crude reality is that after Auschwitz we had Cambodia of Pol Pot fame, Ruanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, East Timor, and now Darfur. . . And if things are left alone in Iraq, shiites will do their ethnic cleasing job on minority sunis. . .

This religious campaigns we see under development in the US and other countries is worrisome, my friends, very worrisome, because behind the scenes there are vested interests of those who don't care for the small numbers of people who take seriously the ideals of stopping all secular and recreational activies one day a week, but do that according to God's command, not human convenience and dogmas of intolerant religious bodies.

May God have mercy on this poor battered planet, as well as on those faithful few who try to obey His commandment, keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, not the Sunday of pagan origin (the old dies solis--day of the Sun, of Roman Mithraism) that certain people are trying to impose as an inescapable law upon everyone.
--Source: http://www.saveoursundays.ca/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=275#275

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept - 12/24/07 01:25 PM


A brief note about what we presented above
:

One of the sites listed is "celebrating" the fact that the well-known American supermarket chain Walmart (with branches already in other countries) set an internal committee to study the feasibility of closing on Sundays.
Posted By: Azenilto

Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba” - 01/29/08 02:34 AM


Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba”

The November/December edition of Proclamation! just brings much of the same stuff that we have already covered in the several articles in this series, nothing new—articles distorting the SDA doctrines and sentiments regarding the understanding of the Gospel message, beside twisting the meaning of the Bible, especially the writings of Paul, which is a dangerous enterprise in view of what Peter warns:

“. . . our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable writes, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” – 2 Pet. 3:15-17.

Two articles have as basis the text of Colossians 2:16 and the objective of their reasoning is clearly to get rid of the Sabbath commandment, which is the leitmotif of all this ministry of deceit, even though they deny that.

Besides an article by Ratzlaff on the subject, Mr. R. K. McGregor Wright contributes with an article, titled “Nailed! The Law in Col. 2:10-13”, pretending to give the correct exegesis of the text. I addressed him personally in an e-mail and stressed how he had missed the point completely. Paul in the entire epistle of Colossians not once uses the term “law”, and what he deals with in his entire epistle is not any abolition of the law, but elimination of the guilt of a sinner forgiven by Jesus. He mentions the Sabbath and other legal principles just in passing, as he refers to some extremists that were disturbing the Christian community is Colossae.

Clearly Paul is addressing a local problem, not establishing universal principles. He refers to individuals of ascetics attitudes there who were acting among the Colossians, trying to impose upon them certain strange customs, including a certain and not well-known worship of angels. Mr. Wright replied to me even making fun of this explanation, saying in his e-mail: “This assertion is a rhetorical trick often used by liberals who want to get the focus off the point at hand (such as ‘God sends sinners to Hell’) onto some subsidiary issue (such as ‘God is love’) so that the central point is avoided, but not responded to”. With that he just shows how he missed the point again. . .

However, the fact is that nowhere else Paul discusses such teachings as “worship of angels” and people who wanted to impose upon the Christian community ideas of “touch not, taste not, handle not”, which Paul labels as “commandments and doctrines of men”. He would never refer to the Sabbath or any of the other Jewish rules utilizing this kind of language, because the Sabbath was not “doctrine of man”.

Besides, this people who use Col. 2:16 as a kind of “One-note anti-Sabbatarian Samba”, reminding the famous Tom Jobim’s bossa nova composition, can’t resolve certain serious problems in their biased interpretation:

A – If Paul’s intention is to teach freedom from Sabbathkeeping, he leaves nothing in its place. He simply would be discarding the principle of a day of rest for the Christian, which would be detrimental to one’s physical and spiritual life. See that he says nothing of then adopting any other day. . .

B – If Paul mentions rules which are “against us”, and the Sabbath is one of these things, that contradicts what Jesus said, that “the Sabbath was made because of man”, thus being for his physical and spiritual benefit. We saw how a physician, who happens to be also an Evangelical pastor, Dr. Michael Cesar, as a medical doctor exalts the principle of the Sabbath as a blessing provided by God for man. So, how could it be “against us”?

C – If Paul mentions the Sabbath commandment as a mere symbol of the salvation rest in Christ, he would be considering it a ceremonial precept. Well, we have our special study, “10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is not a Ceremonial Precept”, which nor Ratzlaff or any other anti-Sabbatarian ever refuted. So, as long as it is not refuted, our arguments there prevail. This is the link that leads to the mentioned study:

http://foroadventista.com/index.php/topic,610.0.html

D – What Mr. Wright explained to me in his brief correspondence replying my e-mail, stressing that old allegation that the Sabbath is just the symbol of our rest of salvation in Christ, would the be what is found in Hebrews 3 and 4. That we have discussed already and left well proven that it is a wrong reasoning, for very good reasons we listed in the 8th surprise, in the text above, “10 Surprises for Y. Regarding Dr. Michael Cesar’s Anti-Sabbatarian CD”.

E – If the Sabbath commandment had a mere temporary, ceremonial, meaning, since it was something so important in the Jewish life, he wouldn’t miss explaining in detail its typological character, and he would elaborate in greater detail this special meaning of that principle in chapters 7 to 10 of Hebrews, which had that objective—to show how the shadows met the reality in Christ, thus abolishing those symbolic elements of the ceremonial law.

F – We have seen in our last studies how Ratzlaff is in the “wrong way” of what has been taught by the most authoritative confessional documents of the Protestant community along the centuries. Both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Baptists’ different confessions (like that of 1689 and the one revised by Charles Spurgeon in 1855) point to the Sabbath commandment as valid and in force to the Church. Among the text that back the expositions of this tenet they quote Gen. 2:2, 3 (the Edenic origins of the Sabbath), Exo. 20:8-11 (the 4th commandment of God’s moral law), Isa. 58:13, 14 (how to keep the Sabbath, without secular or recreational activities along the time sanctified to God) and even Jer. 17:21, 27 (God’s punishment for breaking the Sabbath). Of course they reinterpret the commandment to apply it now to Sunday (which is an error), but the ideological basis of it remains.

G – We also mentioned that even now, the most representative Evangelical/Protestant leadership in the US is engaged in promoting the 10 Commandments among the Christian community as a national basis of conduct (already attracting international attention and support). Even a campaign to establish a “10 Commandments Day”--set for the first Sunday of May--is under way, something that goes against these theories of the Decalogue not being a Christian rule anymore, as Ratzlaff and his friends allege.

H – Bro. Samuele Bacchiocchi’s study on the text represents a much superior and scholarly approach to this text, and we are pleased to reproduce it here for everyone’s consideration. I think it is all we need to shut up the new collection of sophistries that this last edition of the referred to magazine presents. Enjoy it.


Posted By: Azenilto

Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba” - 01/29/08 02:38 AM


PAUL AND THE SABBATH

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University

The most popular weapons used to attack the Sabbath are the following three Pauline texts: Colossians 2:14-17, Galatians 4:8-11, and Romans 10:4-5. Of these references, greater importance has been attached to Colossians 2:14-17, inasmuch as the passage explicitly speaks of Christ’s nailing something to the Cross (Col 2:14) and warns against paying heed to regulations regarding several things, including “a sabbath” (Col 2:16).

Based on these texts, the predominant historical consensus has been that Paul regarded the Sabbath as part of the Old Covenant that was nailed to the Cross.[1] Paul K. Jewett exemplifies the historical interpretation when he writes: “Paul’s statement (Col 2:16) comes as near to a demonstration as anything could, that he taught his converts they had no obligation to observe the seventh-day Sabbath of the Old Testament.”[2]

This popular view has been adopted and defended recently by former Sabbatarians. For example, commenting on Colossians 2:16-17, the Worldwide Church of God affirms: “Under the laws of Moses, the Sabbath was a law by which people were judged. But Jesus’ crucifixion has changed that. Now the Sabbath is no longer a basis for judgment.”[3] The implication is that Christians are no longer held accountable for transgressing the Sabbath commandment because it was a “‘shadow’ of things to come.”[4]

In Sabbath in Crisis, Dale Ratzlaff categorically affirms: “In every instance in the epistles [of Paul] where there is teaching about the Sabbath, that teaching suggests that the Sabbath either undermines the Christian’s standing in Christ, or is nonessential. . . . The Sabbath is said to be enslaving. Observance of the Sabbath, and the related old covenant convocations, made Paul ‘fear’ that he had labored in vain.”[5] Ratzlaff goes so far as to say that, according to Paul, “the observance of the Sabbath by Christians seriously undermines the finished work of Christ.”[6]

Did Paul take such a strong stand against the Sabbath, warning his converts against the detrimental effects of its observance in their Christian life? Did the Apostle really find Sabbathkeeping so dangerous? In what way could the act of stopping our work on the Sabbath to allow our Savior to work in our lives more fully and freely “seriously undermine the finished work of Christ”?

Objectives of This Chapter. This chapter seeks to answer these questions by examining Paul’s attitude toward the Sabbath as reflected primarily in Colossians 2:14-17 and secondarily in Galatians 4:8-11 and Romans 14:5-6. We endeavor to establish whether Paul advocated the abrogation or the permanence of the principle and practice of Sabbathkeeping.


PART 1

COLOSSIANS 2:14-17: APPROBATION OR
CONDEMNATION OF THE SABBATH?

(1) The Colossian Heresy


Paul’s reference to the observance of “Sabbaths” in Colossians 2:16 is only one aspect of the “Colossian heresy” refuted by Paul. It is necessary, therefore, to ascertain first of all the overall nature of the false teachings that threatened to “disqualify” (Col 2:18) the Colossian believers. Were these teachings Mosaic ordinances and can they be identified with the “written document—cheirographon” which God through Christ ‘wiped out . . . removed, nailed to the cross” (Col 2:14)?

Most commentators define the Colossian heresy as syncretistic teachings which incorporated both Hellenistic and Jewish elements. Such a false teaching had both a theological and practical aspect.

Theological Aspect. Theologically, the Colossian “philosophy” (Col 2:8) was competing with Christ for believer’s allegiance. Its source of authority was human “tradition” (Col 2:8), and its object was to impart true “wisdom” (Col 2:3, 23), “knowledge” (Col 2:2-3; 3:10) and the assurance access to and participation in the divine “fullness” (Col 2:9-10; 1:19).

To attain divine fullness, Christians were urged to do homage to cosmic principalities (Col 2:10, 15), to “the elements of the universe” (Col 2:8, 20), and to angelic powers (2:15, 18), following ritualistic ascetic practices (Col 2:11-14,16,17,21-22).

To gain protection from these cosmic powers and principalities, the Colossian “philosophers” urged Christians to offer cultic adoration to angelic powers (Col 2:15,18,19,23) and to follow ritualistic and ascetic practices (Col 2:11,14,16,17,21,22). By that process, one was assured of access to and participation in the divine “fullness—pleroma” (Col 2:9,10, cf. 1:19). Essentially, then, the theological error consisted in interposing inferior mediators in place of the Head Himself, Jesus Christ (Col 2:9-10, 18-19).

Practical Aspect. The practical outcome of the theological speculations of the Colossian heretics was their insistence on strict ascetism and ritualism. These consisted in “putting off the body of flesh” (Col 2:11—apparently meaning withdrawal from the world); rigorous treatment of the body (Col 2:23); prohibition to either taste or touch certain kinds of foods and beverages (Col 2:16, 21), and careful observance of sacred days and seasons—festival, new moon, sabbath (Col 2:16).

Christians presumably were led to believe that by submitting to these ascetic practices, they were not surrendering their faith in Christ but rather, they were receiving added protection and were assured of full access to the divine fullness. This may be inferred both from Paul’s distinction between living “according to the elements of the universe” and “according to Christ” (Col 2:8) and from the Apostle’s insistence on the supremacy of the incarnate Christ. “In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:9); therefore Christians attain “the fullness—pleroma” of life not by worshipping the elements of the universe, but through Christ, “who is the head of all rule and authority” (2:10; cf. 1:15-20; 3:3).

This bare outline suffices to show that the Sabbath is not mentioned in the passage in the context of a direct discussion of the Old Covenant law, as Ratzlaff claims,[7] but rather in the context of syncretistic beliefs and practices, which included elements from the Old Testament. Presumably the latter provided a justification for the ascetic principles advocated by the Colossian “philosophers.” We are not informed what type of Sabbath observance these teachers promoted; nevertheless, on the basis of their emphasis on scrupulous adherence to “regulations,” it is apparent that the day was to be observed in a most rigorous and superstitious manner.

Circumcision and Baptism. To combat the above false teachings, Paul chose to extol the centrality and superiority of Christ who possesses “the fullness of deity” (Col 2:9) and provides full redemption and forgiveness of sin (Col 2:11-14). To emphasize the certainty and fullness of Christ’s forgiveness, Paul utilizes three metaphors: circumcision, baptism, and “the written document” (Col 2:11-14).

Of the first two metaphors, Paul says: “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of the flesh, God has made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses” (Col 2:11-13).

To support his contention that the Sabbath is part of the Old Covenant nailed to the Cross, Ratzlaff interprets Paul's reference to the circumcision and baptism in this passage as indicating that the Old Covenant, of which circumcision was the entrance sign, has been replaced by the New Covenant, of which baptism is the entrance sign. “Circumcision not only served as the entrance sign to the old covenant, Paul shows how it also pointed forward to Christ, yet it does not continue as a sign in the new covenant. In the new covenant baptism replaces circumcision.”[8]

The problem with Ratzlaff's interpretation is his failure to recognize that Paul is not comparing or contrasting the Old and New Covenants, but affirming the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection through the imageries of circumcision and baptism. The imageries of circumcision and baptism are not used by Paul to discuss the Old and New Covenants, but to affirm the fullness of God’s forgiveness, accomplished by Christ on the cross and extended through baptism to the Christian. Indeed, the proclamation of God's forgiveness constitutes Paul’s basic answer to those attempting perfection by submitting to worship of angels (Col 2:18) and of the “elements of the world” (Col 2:8) by means of ascetic practices.


(2) The Written Document Nailed to the Cross

To further emphasize the certainty and fullness of divine forgiveness explicitly mentioned in verses 11-13, Paul utilizes a legal metaphor in verse 14, namely that of God as a judge who “wiped out, . . . removed [and] nailed to the cross . . . the written document—cheirographon.”

Mosaic Law? What is the “written document—cheirographon” nailed to the Cross? Traditionally, it has been interpreted to be the Mosaic Law with all its ordinances, including the Sabbath, which God allegedly set aside and nailed to the Cross. This interpretation is defended by Ratzlaff who writes: “What was the ‘certificate of debt’ or ‘decrees’ which were nailed to the cross? In context, Paul has been speaking of the old covenant. Was the old covenant ‘against us’? We should remember from our study of the old covenant that one of its functions was to act as a ‘testimony’ against Israel if they sinned . . . (Deut 31:26). The cursing associated with the broken law and the ability of the law to condemn were both taken away when Christ was nailed to the Cross. ‘There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’ (Rom 8:1).”[9]

This interpretation has several serious problems. First, the wrong assumption is made that the Old Covenant was “against us.” If that were true, God would be guilty of establishing a covenant that was against His people. Could a gracious, redeeming God do such an unjust thing? What was against the people was not the covenant, which is God's commitment to save, but their sins, which were exposed by the Law. The reason there is “no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1) is not because Christ nailed to the Cross “the ability of the law to condemn,” thus leaving mankind without moral principles, but because God sent “his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh . . . in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:3-4).

Even more serious is Ratzlaff's misinterpretation of the “written document” that was nailed to the Cross. He interprets this document to be the Old Covenant including the Sabbath, which God allegedly set aside and nailed to the Cross.[10] This popular and traditional interpretation has largely been discredited by modern scholarship for at least two reasons. First, as Eduard Lohse points out in his commentary on Colossians, “in the whole of the epistle the word law is not used at all. Not only that, but the whole significance of the law, which appears unavoidable for Paul when he presents his gospel, is completely absent.”[11]

Second, this interpretation detracts from the immediate argument designed to prove the fullness of God’s forgiveness. The wiping out of the moral and/or ceremonial law would hardly provide Christians with the divine assurance of forgiveness. Guilt is not removed by destroying law codes. The latter would only leave mankind without moral principles.

The validity of these comments is acknowledged even by Douglas R. De Lacey, Professor of New Testament at Cambridge University and contributor to the scholarly symposium From Sabbath to the Lord’s Day, which is largely a response to my dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday. De Lacey writes: “Bacchiocchi lays great stress on the fact that the term nomos [law] is entirely absent from Colossians, and although his own interpretation at times fails to convince, he is surely right in his conclusion that this passage cannot be interpreted as stating that the Mosaic law itself was ‘wiped out’ in the death of Christ.”[12]

Record Book of Sin. The meaning of cheirographon, which occurs only once in Scripture (Col 2:14), has been clarified by recent studies on the usage of the term in apocalyptic and rabbinic literature.[13] The term is used to denote the “record book of sins” or a “certificate of sin-indebtedness” but not the moral or ceremonial law. This view is supported also by the clause “and this he has removed out of the middle” (Col 2:14). “The middle” was the position occupied at the center of the court or assembly by the accusing witness. In the context of Colossians, the accusing witness is the “record book of sins” which God in Christ has erased and removed out of the court.

By this daring metaphor, Paul affirms the completeness of God’s forgiveness. Through Christ, God has “cancelled,” “set aside,” and “nailed to the cross” “the written record of our sins which because of the regulations was against us.” The legal basis of the record of sins was “the binding statutes,” or “regulations” (tois dogmasin), but what God destroyed on the Cross was not the legal ground (law) for our entanglement into sin, but the written record of our sins.

By destroying the evidence of our sins, God also “disarmed the principalities and powers” (Col 2:15) since it is no longer possible for them to accuse those who have been forgiven. There is no reason, therefore, for Christians to feel incomplete and to seek the help of inferior mediators since Christ has provided complete redemption and forgiveness.

We conclude, then, that the document nailed to the Cross is not the Law, in general, or the Sabbath, in particular, but rather the record of our sins. Any attempt to read into this text a reference to the Law or the Sabbath lacks contextual and linguistic support.

[To be continued in the next frame]
Posted By: Azenilto

Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba” - 01/29/08 02:40 AM


[Continued from previous frame]

(3) Approbation or Condemnation of Sabbathkeeping?

Having refuted the theological speculations of the Colossian false teachers by reaffirming the supremacy of Christ and the fullness of His redemption (Col 2:8-15), Paul turns to some practical aspects of their religious practices, saying: “Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col 2:16-17).

Warning Against the Sabbath? Historically, this passage has been interpreted, as stated by Luther, that “here Paul abolished the Sabbath by name and called it a bygone shadow because the body, which is Christ himself, has come.”[14] Ratzlaff interprets the passage along the same line, saying: “The context makes it clear that Paul is against those who are trying to force the Colossians to keep the Sabbath and other old covenant convocations. They are to allow no one to make them feel guilty for not observing them.”[15] He interprets the statement “Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you . . .” as a warning from Paul against the five mentioned practices, which include the Sabbath.[16]

This interpretation is wrong because in this passage Paul warns the Colossians not against the observances of these practices as such, but against “anyone” (tis) who passes judgment on how to eat, to drink, and to observe sacred times. The judge who passed judgment is not Paul but the Colossians false teachers who imposed “regulations” (Col 2:20) on how to observe these practices in order to achieve “rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body” (Col 2:23).

Douglas De Lacey, a contributor to the scholarly symposium From Sabbath to the Lord’s Day cited earlier, rightly comments: “The judge is likely to be a man of ascetic tendencies who objects to the Colossians’ eating and drinking. The most natural way of taking the rest of the passage is not that he also imposes a ritual of feast days, but rather that he objects to certain elements of such observation.”[17] Presumably the “judge” wanted the community to observe these practices in a more ascetic way (“severity to the body”—Col 2:23, 21); to put it bluntly, he wanted the Colossian believers to do less feasting and more fasting.

Approbation of the Sabbath. By warning against the right of the false teachers to “pass judgment” on how to observe festivals, Paul is challenging not the validity of the festivals as such but the authority of the false teachers to legislate the manner of their observance. The obvious implication, then, is that Paul in this text is expressing not a condemnation but an approbation of the mentioned practices, which include Sabbathkeeping.

It is noteworthy that even De Lacey reaches this conclusion, in spite of his view that Paul did not expect Gentile converts to observe the Sabbath. He writes: “Here again (Col 2:16), then, it seems that Paul could happily countenance Sabbathkeeping . . . However, we interpret the situation, Paul’s statement ‘Let no one pass judgement on you,’ indicates that no stringent regulations are to be laid down over the use of festivals.”[18]

Troy Martin, Professor at Saint Xavier University in Chicago, comes to the same conclusion in a recent article published in New Testament Studies. He writes: “This essay provides evidence that the Pauline community at Colossae, not the opponents, practices the temporal schemes outlined by Colossians 2:16. . . . This investigation into the function of the list in Colossians 2:16 indicates that the Colossians Christians, not their critics, participate in a religious calendar that includes festivals, new moons, and sabbaths.”[19]

It is encouraging to see scholars finally recognizing that, contrary to the traditional and popular interpretation advocated by people like Ratzlaff, Colossians 2:16 is not the death knell of Sabbathkeeping in the New Testament but, instead, a proof of its Pauline approbation. Why does Ratzlaff totally ignore the conclusion of Prof. De Lacey (and others), though he uses the symposium as the major resource for his own book? Most likely because he does not want readers to learn about anything that contradicts his anti-Sabbath interpretation of Colossians 2:16. This methodology is hardly reflective of responsible scholarship which requires the examination of opposing views before presenting one's own conclusions.


(4) The Manner of Sabbathkeeping

What is the nature of the “regulations” promoted by the Colossians false teachers regarding food and festivals, including the weekly Sabbath? Regretfully, Paul gives us only few catch phrases such as “self-abasement and worship of angels,” “rigor of devotion . . . severity to the body” (Col 2:18, 23) and their teachings—”Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (Col 2:21). These catch phrases indicate that the regulations did not derive from the Levitical law since nowhere does the latter contemplate such an ascetic program. Though the designation of the festivals is Jewish, the motivation and manner of their observance stems from pagan syncretistic ideologies.

Eduard Lohse perceptively notes that “In the context of Colossians, the command to keep festival, new moon, and Sabbath is not based on the Torah according to which Israel received the Sabbath as a sign of her election from among the nations. Rather the sacred days must be kept for the sake of ‘the elements of the universe’ who direct the course of the stars and also prescribe minutely the order of the calendar . . .

The ‘philosophy’ made use of terms which stemmed from Jewish tradition, but which had been transformed in the crucible of syncretism to be subject to the service of ‘the elements of the universe.’”[20]

In the ancient world there was widespread belief that ascetism and fasting enabled a person to come closer to a deity and to receive divine revelation.[21] In the case of the Colossian “philosophy,” the dietary taboos and the observance of sacred times were apparently regarded as an expression of subjection to and worship of the cosmic powers (elements) of the universe.

Paul’s warning against the “regulations” of the false teachers cannot be interpreted as a condemnation of Mosaic laws regarding food and festivals, since what the Apostle condemns is not the teachings of Moses but their perverted use by Colossian false teachers. A precept is not nullified by the condemnation of its perversion.

Shadow of the Reality. Paul continues his argument in the following verse, saying: “These are the shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col 2:17). To what does the relative pronoun “these” (ha in Greek) refer? Does it refer to the five practices mentioned in the previous verse or to the “regulations” (dogmata) regarding these practices promoted by the false teachers?

In a previous study, I argued for the former, suggesting that Paul places dietary practices and the observance of days “in their proper perspective with Christ by means of the contrast ‘shadow-body.’”[22] Additional reflection caused me to change my mind and to agree with Eduard Lohse that the relative pronoun “these” refers not to the five mentioned practices as such, but rather to the “regulations” regarding such practices promoted by the false teachers.[23]

A Reference to “Regulations.” This conclusion is supported by two considerations. First, in verse 16, Paul is not warning against the merits or demerits of the Mosaic law regarding food and festivals, but against the “regulations” regarding these practices advocated by the false teachers. Thus, it is more plausible to take “the regulations” rather than the actual practices as the antecedent of “these.”

Second, in the verses that immediately follow, Paul continues his warning against the deceptive teachings, saying, for example, “Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement . . .” (Col 2:18); “Why do you submit to regulations, ‘Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’?” (Col 2:20-21). Since what precedes and what follows that relative pronoun “these” deals with the “regulations” of the Colossian “philosophy,” it is most likely that Paul describes the latter as “a shadow of what is to come” (Col 2:17).

The proponents of the Colossian “philosophy” presumably maintained that their “regulations” represented a copy, which enabled the believer to have access to the reality (“fullness”). In such a case, Paul is turning their argument against them by saying that their regulations “are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col 2:17). By emphasizing that Christ is the “body” and the “head” (Col 2:17, 19), Paul indicates that any “shadow” cast by the regulations has no significant value.

In the light of the above indications, we conclude that what Paul calls a “bygone shadow” is not the Sabbath but the deceptive teachings of the Colossian “philosophy” which promoted dietary practices and the observance of sacred times as auxiliary aids to salvation.


(5) The Sabbath in Colossians 2:16


The “regulations” advocated by the Colossian “philosophy” had to do not only with “food and drink” but also with sacred times referred to as “a festival or a new moon or a sabbath” (Col 2:16). Commentators agree that these three words represent a logical and progressive sequence (annual, monthly, and weekly), as well as an exhaustive enumeration of sacred times. This interpretation is validated by the occurrence of these terms in similar or reverse sequence five times in the Septuagint and several other times in other literature.[24]

Some view the “sabbaths—sabbaton” as a reference to annual ceremonial Sabbaths rather than the weekly Sabbath (Lev 23:6-8, 21, 24- 25, 27-28, 37-38).25 Such a view, however, breaks the logical and progressive sequence and ignores the fact that in the Septuagint the annual ceremonial Sabbaths are never designated simply as “sabbath” (sabbaton), but always with the compound expression “Sabbath of Sabbaths” (sabbata sabbaton). Indications such as these compellingly show that the word “sabbaton” used in Colossians 2:16 cannot refer to any of the annual ceremonial Sabbaths.

Weekdays. The plural form “Sabbaths” (sabbaton) is used in Scripture to designate not only the seventh-day Sabbath but also the week as a whole (Greek Septuagint on Ps 23:1; 47:1; 93:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; Acts 20:7). This fact suggests the possibility that the term “Sabbath” may refer to weekdays as a whole.[26] The latter view harmonizes better with the sequence of the enumeration which suggests yearly, monthly, and weekly festivities.

A similar sequence, though in reverse order, is given by Paul in Galatians 4:10 where he opposes a strikingly similar teaching which included the observance of “days, and months, and seasons, and years.” The fact that the Galatian list begins with “days” (hemeras, plural) suggests the possibility that the “Sabbaths” in Colossians may also refer to weekdays, in general, rather than to the seventh-day Sabbath, in particular.

Assuming for the sake of inquiry that the “sabbaths” in Colossians do refer to or include the Sabbath day, the question to be considered is this: What kind of Sabbath observance would the false teachers advocate? The data provided by Colossians are too meager to answer this question conclusively. Yet the nature of the heresy allows us to conclude that the rigoristic emphasis on observance of dietary rules would undoubtedly be carried over to Sabbathkeeping as well. The veneration of “the elements of the universe” would also affect the observance of the Sabbath and of sacred times, since it was commonly believed that the astral powers, which direct the stars, control both the calendar and human lives.[27]

We know that in the pagan world Saturday was regarded as an unlucky day because of its association with the planet Saturn.[28] In view of the prevailing astral superstitions associated with the days of the week, any Sabbath observance promoted by the Colossians’ ascetic teachers—known for their worship of the elements of the world—could only have been of a rigorous, superstitious type. A warning against such a superstitious type of Sabbathkeeping by Paul would have been not only appropriate but also desirable. In this case, Paul could be attacking not the principle of Sabbathkeeping but its perverted function and motivation which adulterated the ground of salvation. This conclusion is confirmed by two other Pauline passages (Rom 14:4-5; Gal 4:10) to be considered now.

[To be continued in the next frame]


Posted By: Azenilto

Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba” - 01/29/08 02:41 AM


[Continued from previous frame]

PART 2

THE SABBATH IN ROMANS AND GALATIANS


(1) The Sabbath in Romans

The Sabbath is not specifically mentioned in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. However, in chapter 14, the Apostle distinguishes between two types of believers: the “strong” who believed “he may eat anything” and the “weak” who ate only “vegetables” and drank no wine (Rom 14:2, 21). The difference extended also to the observance of days, as indicated by Paul’s statement: “One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom 14:5).

Many Christians maintain that the weekly Sabbath comes within the scope of this distinction respecting days. They presume that the “weak” believers esteemed the Sabbath better than other days while “the strong” treated the Sabbath like the rest of the weekdays. For example, the Worldwide Church of God uses Romans 14:5 to argue that “Paul did not teach Gentile Christians to keep the Sabbath. He actually told them that the Sabbath was not an area in which we should be judged.”[29] “That is because something had happened to change the basis of our relationship with God . . . the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Because of that, the Old Covenant laws came to an end. Days are no longer a matter for judging behavior.”[30] In a similar vein, Ratzlaff concludes that “The ‘days’ mentioned in this chapter [Rom 14:5] that some ‘regard’ and ‘observe’ over other days, are probably Sabbath days, although the evidence is not conclusive.”[31]

No Reference to Mosaic Law. Can the Sabbath be legitimately read into this passage? The answer is “No!” for at least three reasons. First, the conflict between the “weak” and the “strong” over diet and days cannot be traced back to the Mosaic law. The “weak man” who “eats only vegetables” (Rom 14:2), drinks no wine (Rom 14:21), and “esteems one day as better [apparently for fasting] than another” (Rom 14:5) can claim no support for such convictions from the Old Testament. Nowhere does the Mosaic law prescribe strict vegetarianism, total abstinence from fermented and unfermented wine,[32] and a preference for fasting days.

Similarly, the “strong man” who “believes he may eat anything” (Rom 14:2) and who “esteems all days alike” is not asserting his freedom from the Mosaic law but from ascetic beliefs apparently derived from sectarian movements. The whole discussion then is not about freedom to observe the law versus freedom from its observance, but concerns “unessential” scruples of conscience dictated not by divine precepts but by human conventions and superstitions. Since these differing convictions and practices did not undermine the essence of the Gospel, Paul advises mutual tolerance and respect in this matter.

That the Mosaic law is not at stake in Romans 14 is also indicated by the term “koinos—common” which is used in verse 14 to designate “unclean” food. This term is radically different from the word “akathartos—impure” used in Leviticus 11 (Septuagint) to designate unlawful foods. This suggests that the dispute was not over meat which was unlawful according to the Mosaic Law, but about meat which per se was lawful to eat but because of its association with idol worship (cf. 1 Cor 8:1-13) was regarded by some as “koinos—common,” that is, to be avoided by Christians.

A second point to note is that Paul applies the basic principle “observe it in honor of the Lord” (Rom 14:6) only to the case of the person “who observes the day.” He never says the opposite, namely, “the man who esteems all days alike, esteems them in honor of the Lord.” In other words, with regard to diet, Paul teaches that one can honor the Lord both by eating and by abstaining (Rom 14:6); but with regard to days, he does not even concede that the person who regards all the days alike does so to the Lord. Thus, Paul hardly gives his endorsement to those who esteemed all days alike.

Sabbathkeeping: For “Weak” Believers? Finally, if as generally presumed, it was the “weak” believer who observed the Sabbath, Paul would classify himself with the “weak” since he observed the Sabbath and other Jewish feasts (Acts 18:4, 19; 17:1, 10, 17; 20:16). Paul, however, views himself as “strong” (“we who are strong”—Rom 15:1); thus, he could not have been thinking of Sabbathkeeping when he speaks of the preference over days.

Support for this conclusion is also provided by Paul’s advice: “Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom 14:5). It is difficult to see how Paul could reduce the observance of holy days such as the Sabbath, Passover, and Pentecost to a matter of personal conviction without ever explaining the reason for it. This is especially surprising since he labors at great length to explain why circumcision was not binding upon the Gentiles.

If Paul taught his Gentile converts to regard Sabbathkeeping as a personal matter, Jewish Christians readily would have attacked his temerity in setting aside the Sabbath law, as they did regarding circumcision (Acts 21:21). The fact that there is no hint of any such controversy in the New Testament indicates that Paul never discouraged Sabbathkeeping or encouraged Sundaykeeping instead.[33]

No Hint of Conflict. The preference over days in Romans presumably had to do with fast days rather than feast days, since the context deals with abstinence from meat and wine (Rom 14:2, 6, 21). Support for this view is provided by the Didache (ch. 8) which enjoins Christians to fast on Wednesday and Friday rather than on Monday and Thursday like the Jews.

Paul refuses to deliberate on private matters such as fasting, because he recognizes that spiritual exercises can be performed in different ways by different people. The important thing for Paul is to “pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Rom 14:19).

If the conflict in the Roman Church had been over the observance of holy days, the problem would have been even more manifest than the one over diet. After all, eating habits are a private matter, but Sabbath-keeping is a public, religious exercise of the whole community. Any disagreement on the latter would have been not only noticeable but also inflammatory.

The fact that Paul devotes 21 verses to the discussion of food and less than two verses (Rom 14:5-6) to that of days suggests that the latter was a very limited problem for the Roman Church, presumably because it had to do with private conviction on the merit or demerit of doing certain spiritual exercises such as fasting on some specific days.

In the Roman world there was a superstitious belief that certain days were more favorable than others for undertaking some specific projects. The Fathers frequently rebuked Christians for adopting such a superstitious mentality.34 Possibly, Paul alludes to this kind of problem, which at his time was still too small to deserve much attention. Since these practices did not undermine the essence of the Gospel, Paul advises mutual tolerance and respect on this matter. In the light of these considerations, we conclude that it is hardly possible that Sabbathkeeping is included in the “days” of Romans 14:5.


(2) The Sabbath in Galatians


In Galatians, as in Romans, there is no specific reference to the Sabbath. Paul does mention, however, that some Galatian Christians had themselves circumcised (Gal 6:12; 5:2) and had begun to “observe days, and months, and seasons, and years” (Gal 4:10).

In many respects, the polemic in Galatians 4:8-11 is strikingly similar to that of Colossians 2:8-23. In both places the superstitious observance of sacred times is described as slavery to the “elements.” In Galatians, however, the denunciation of the “false teachers” is stronger. They are regarded as “accursed” (Gal 1:8, 9) because they were teaching a “different gospel.” Their teaching that the observance of days and seasons was necessary to justification and salvation perverted the very heart of the Gospel (Gal 5:4).

Pagan Days or Sabbath Day? The question to be addressed is whether the “days” (hemerai—Gal 4:10) observed by the Galatians were superstitious pagan holidays or the biblical Sabbath day. Some scholars argue on the basis of the parallel passage of Colossians 2:16, where “sabbaths” are explicitly mentioned, that the “days” mentioned in Galatians were the Biblical seventh-day Sabbaths.[35]

Ratzlaff affirms categorically this view saying: “We have a clear reference to the seventh-day Sabbath in this passage [Gal 4:10] for the following four reasons. (1) The context of the book of Galatians, including chapter 4, is dealing with those ‘who want to be under the law.’ (2) Paul’s use of ‘elemental things’ usually, if not always, refer to that which is contained in the old covenant. (3) The Galatians were observing days, months, seasons, and years, thus placing themselves back under the old covenant law. (4) These convocations are listed in order.”[36]

Comparison of Colossians 2:16 and Galatians 4:10. The fundamental problem with Ratzlaff’s four reasons is that they are based on gratuitous assumptions rather than on a careful analysis of the context. In the immediate context, Paul reminds the Galatians that in their pre-Christian days they “were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe” (Gal 4:3). The “elemental spirits—stoikeia tou kosmou” have nothing to do with the Old Covenant since the Mosaic Law was unknown to the Corinthians in their pagan days. Most scholars interpret the “elements” as the basic elements of this world, such as the earth, water, air, and fire, or pagan astral gods who were credited with controlling human destiny.[37]

The context clearly indicates that Paul rebukes the Galatians for turning back to their pagan days by reverting to their pagan calendar. Thus, the issue is not their adoption of Jewish Holy Days but their return to observing pagan superstitious days. Paul makes this point rather clearly: “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods; but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years! I am afraid that I have labored over you in vain” (Gal 4:8-10).

Two recent articles by Troy Martin, published in New Testament Studies and the Journal of Biblical Literature, make a significant contribution to the understanding of the passage under consideration. Martin points out that the time-keeping scheme found in Galatians 4:10 (“days, and months, and seasons, and years”) is clearly different from that found in Colossians 2:16 (“a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths”). He shows that while the list in Colossians 2:16 is unquestionably Jewish, because the temporal categories of festival, new moon, and Sabbaths are characteristic of the Jewish religious calendar, the list in Galatians 4:10 of “days, and months, and seasons, and years” “describes a pagan calendar unacceptable to Paul and his communities.”[38]

Martin reaches this conclusion by examining not only the time structure of pagan calendars,[39] but especially the immediate context where Paul condemns the Galatians’ attempt to return to their pagan practices (Gal 4:8-9) by reverting to the use of their pagan calendar. “As the immediate context clearly states, Paul is worried that he has labored for the Galatians in vain since they have returned to their former pagan life as evidenced by their renewed pre-conversion reckoning of time. Because of its association with idolatry and false deities, marking time according to this pagan scheme is tantamount to rejecting Paul’s Gospel and the one and only true God it proclaims (Gal 4:8-9). Galatians 4:10, therefore, stipulates that when the Galatians accepted Paul’s Gospel with its aversion to idolatry (Gal 4:8), they discarded their pagan method of reckoning time. . . . A comparison of these lists demonstrates that the Gentile conversion to Paul’s gospel involves rejection of idolatrous pagan temporal schemes in favor of the Jewish liturgical calendar.”[40]

[To be concluded in the next frame]

Posted By: Azenilto

Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba” - 01/29/08 02:42 AM


[Continued from the previous frame and conclusion]

Gentiles’ Adoption of Jewish Calendar. Troy Martin’s conclusion, that the Gentiles’ conversion to the Gospel involved the rejection of their pagan calendar built upon the idolatrous worship of many gods and the adoption of the Jewish religious calendar which had been transformed by Christ’s coming, represents in my view a significant breakthrough in our understanding of the continuity between Judaism and Christianity.

Paul’s time references clearly reflect his adoption of the Jewish religious calendar, though modified and transformed by the coming of Christ. For example, in 1 Corinthians 16:2, Paul recommends a fund-raising plan for the Jerusalem church consisting of laying aside at home some money kata mian sabbaton, that is, “every first day from the Sabbath.” The fact that Paul refers to the first day of the week by the Jewish designation “first day from the Sabbath,” and not by the prevailing pagan name dies solis—Day of the Sun, reveals that he taught his Gentile converts to regulate their lives by the Jewish calendar.

In the same epistle, Paul builds an elaborate argument based upon the festival of Passover and unleavened bread in order to exhort the Corinthians, “Let us keep the festival” (1 Cor 5:6-8). The whole argument and exhortation to keep Passover would have been meaningless to the Gentile congregation of Corinth unless Paul had taught about the Jewish religious calendar. In the light of these considerations we conclude, with Martin, that “although the temporal references in Paul’s letters are sparse, 1 Corinthians provides strong evidence for the Pauline adoption of the Jewish practice that marked time by festivals and Sabbaths.”[41]

The Christian adherence to the Jewish calendar is especially evident in the book of Acts. Repeatedly, Paul proclaims the Gospel in synagogues and in the outdoors on the Sabbath (Acts 13:14, 44; 16:13; 17:2). In Troas, Paul speaks to the believers on the first day from Sabbath (mia ton sabbaton) (Acts 20:7). “The portrayal of Paul in Acts,” as Martin points out, “supplies clear evidence that Christians mark time by segments of festivals and Sabbaths.”[42] This conclusion is clearly supported by Colossians 2:16 where we find the standard Jewish nomenclature of annual feasts, monthly new moons, and weekly Sabbaths.

The fact that Paul taught his Gentile congregations to reject their pagan calendar, where the days were named after planetary gods and the months after deified emperors, and to reckon time according to the Jewish religious calendar, does not necessarily mean that he taught them to practice Jewish religious rituals. The Romans themselves replaced just before the origin of Christianity their “eight day week—nundinum” with the Jewish seven-day week and adopted in the first century the Jewish Sabbath as their new day for rest and feasting, without the concomitant adoption of the Jewish rituals.[43] By the same token, Paul taught his Gentile converts to reckon time according to the Jewish religious calendar without expecting them to practice the rituals associated with it. A good example is Paul’s discussion of the new meaning of the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread in the light of Christ’s event (1 Cor 5:6-8).[44]

Superstitious Motivation. Our preceding discussion shows that the temporal categories of Galatians 4:10 (“days, and months, and seasons, and years”) are pagan and not Jewish, like the list found in Colossians 2:16. To argue, as Ratzlaff does, that the Galatians were observing the Old Covenant Holy Days means to ignore the immediate context where Paul speaks of pagan temporal categories to which the Galatians were turning back again.

The Galatians’ observance of pagan sacred times was motivated by superstitious beliefs in astral influences. This is suggested by Paul’s charge that their adoption of these practices was tantamount to a return to their former pagan subjection to elemental spirits and demons (Gal 4:8-9).

Paul’s concern is not to expose the superstitious ideas attached to these observances but to challenge the whole system of salvation, which the Galatians’ false teachers had devised. By conditioning justification and acceptance with God to such things as circumcision and the observance of pagan days and seasons, the Galatians were making salvation dependent upon human achievement. This for Paul was a betrayal of the Gospel: “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace” (Gal 5:4).

It is within this context that Paul’s denouncement of the observance of days and seasons must be understood. If the motivations for these observances had not undermined the vital principle of justification by faith in Jesus Christ, Paul would only have recommended tolerance and respect, as he does in Romans 14. The motivation for these practices, however, adulterated the very ground of salvation. Thus the Apostle had no choice but strongly to reject them. In Galatians as in Colossians, then, it is not the principle of Sabbathkeeping that Paul opposes, but rather the perverted use of cultic observations, which were designed to promote salvation as a human achievement rather than as a divine gift of grace.


Conclusion


Several conclusions emerge from this study of Paul’s attitude toward the law, in general, and the Sabbath, in particular.

First, the three texts (Col 2:14-16; Rom 14:5, Gal 4:10) generally adduced as proof of Paul’s repudiation of the Sabbath do not deal with the validity or invalidity of the Sabbath commandment for Christians but, rather, with ascetic and cultic practices which undermined (especially in Colossians and Galatians) the vital principle of justification by faith in Jesus Christ.

Second, in the crucial passage of Colossians 2:16, Paul’s warning is not against the validity of observing the Sabbath and festivals as such but against the authority of false teachers to legislate on the manner of their observance. Implicitly, Paul expresses approval rather than disapproval of their observance. Any condemnation had to do with a perversion rather than a precept.

Third, Paul’s tolerance with respect to diet and days (Rom 14:3-6) indicates that he would not have promoted the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday observance instead. If he had done so, he would have encountered endless disputes with Sabbath advocates, especially among Jewish Christians. The absence of any trace of such a polemic is perhaps the most telling evidence of Paul’s respect for the institution of the Sabbath.

In the final analysis, Paul’s attitude toward the Sabbath must be determined not on the basis of his denunciation of heretical and superstitious observances which may have influenced Sabbathkeeping, but rather on the basis of his overall attitude toward the law.

The failure to understand that Paul rejects the law as a method of salvation but upholds it as a moral standard of Christian conduct has been the root cause of much misunderstanding of Paul’s attitude toward the law, in general, and toward the Sabbath, in particular. May this study contribute to clarify this misunderstanding and allow us to discover, with Paul, that “the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully” (1 Tim 1:8).


NOTES

1. For a brief historical survey of this interpretation, see Samuele Bacchiocchi, “Paul and the Sabbath,” in From Sabbath to Sunday (Rome, 1977), Appendix, pp. 339-343.

2. Paul K. Jewett, The Lord’s Day: A Theological Guide to the Christian Day of Worship (Grand Rapids, 1971), p. 45.

3. “The Sabbath in Acts and the Epistles,” Bible Study prepared by the Worldwide Church of God and posted in its web page (www.wcg.org, September, 1998), p. 2.

4. Ibid.

5. Dale Ratzlaff, Sabbath in Crisis: Transfer/Modification? Reformation/Continuation? Fulfillment/Transformation? (Applegate, California, 1990), pp. 173-174.

6. Ibid., p. 174.

7. Commenting on Colossians 2:14,15, Ratzlaff writes: “What was the ‘certificate of debt’ or the ‘decrees’ which were nailed to the Cross? In context, Paul has been speaking about the old covenant” (note 5, p. 156). This cannot be true, because in the context Paul refutes the Colossian heresy by affirming the fullness of God’s forgiveness.

8. Dale Ratzlaff (note 5), pp. 155-156.

9. Ibid., p. 156.

10. Ibid., pp. 156-161.

11. Eduard Lohse, A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Philadelphia, 1971), p. 116. In a similar vein, Herold Weiss emphasizes that in Paul’s argument (Col 2:8-19), the law “plays no role at all” (“The Law in the Epistle to the Colossians,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 [1972]: 311).

12. Douglas R. De Lacey, “The Sabbath/Sunday Question and the Law in the Pauline Corpus,”
From Sabbath to Lord’s Day. A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, ed. Donald A. Carson (Grand Rapids, 1982), p. 173. Emphasis supplied.

13. For a lengthy list of commentators who interpret the cheirographon either as the “certificate of indebtedness” resulting from our transgressions or as the “book containing the record of sin,” see Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday. A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome, 1977), Appendix, pp. 349-350.

14. Martin Luther, “Wider die himmlischen Propheten,” in his Sämtliche Schriften, ed. by Johann Georg Walch (1890), vol. XX, col. 148.

15. Dale Ratzlaff (note 5), p. 163.

16. Ibid., pp. 161-162.

17. Douglas R. De Lacey (note 12), p. 182.

18. Ibid., emphasis supplied.

19. Troy Martin, “Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-keeping Schemes in Galatians 4:10 and Colossians 2:16,” New Testament Studies 42 (1996), p. 111.

20. Eduard Lohse (note 11), p. 155.

21. For texts and discussion, see G. Bornhamm, “Lakanon,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, 1967), vol. 4, p. 67; also J. Behm writes in the same Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, IV, p. 297: “The Greeks and Romans knew that abstention makes receptive to ecstatic revelations.”

22. For a discussion of Colossians 2:17, see Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday (note 1), pp. 356-357.

23. Eduard Lohse (note 11), p. 116.

24. See the Septuagint on 2 Chron 2:4; 31:3; Neh 10:33; Ezek 45:17; Hos 2:11. Also Jub 1:14; Jos. Ber. 3:11; Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 8:4.

25. See, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, D. C., 1957), vol. 7, pp. 205-206.

26. This is the view of Nobert Hugedé, Commentaire de L’Epître aux Colossiens (Paris, 1969), p. 144. On the plural usage of “Sabbaths” to designate the week as a whole, see Eduard Lohse (note 11), pp. 7, 20.

27. Günter Bornhamm emphasizes this view when he writes: “Paul mentions New Moon and Sabbath (Col 2:16), days, months, season, and years (Gal 4:10), i.e., in each case days and seasons that do not stand under the sign of the history of salvation, but under the sign of the periodic cycles of nature, i.e., corresponding to the movement of the stars” (“The Heresy of Colossians,” in Fred O. Francis and Wayne A. Meeks, eds., Conflict at Colossae, SBL Sources for Biblical Study 4, 1973, p. 131).

28. Texts and discussion are found in Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday (note 1), pp. 173f. and 243.

29. “Paul and the Sabbath,” Bible Study prepared by the Worldwide Church of God and posted in its web page (www.wcg.org, September, 1998), p. 1.

30. “The Sabbath in Acts and the Epistles,” Bible Study prepared by the Worldwide Church of God and posted in its web page (www.wcg.org, September, 1998), p. 2.

31. Dale Ratzlaff (note 5), p. 169.

32. The Nazarite’s vow included abstention from all grape products (Num 6:2-4). This, however, was a temporary and voluntary vow. Some, such as Samuel (1 Sam 1:11) and John the Baptist (Luke 1:15) were Nazarites for life. But we have no record of a person taking the vow voluntarily for life. Perpetual vows were taken by parents on behalf of children. The Rechabites led a nomadic life in tents and abstained from all intoxicating drinks (Jer 35:1-19). For a study on the Biblical teaching regarding the use of alcoholic beverages, see Samuele Bacchiocchi, Wine in the Bible (Berrien Springs, Michigan, 1989). My study shows that the Bible disapproves of the use of fermented wine but approves the consumption of unfermented wine, commonly called “grape juice.”

33. Paul K. Jewett wisely acknowledges that “if Paul had introduced Sunday worship among the Gentiles, it seems likely Jewish opposition would have accused his temerity in setting aside the law of the Sabbath, as was the case with the rite of circumcision (Acts 21:21)” (note 2), p. 57.

34. For texts and discussion, see Samuele Bacchiochi, From Sabbath to Sunday (note 1), p. 254.

35. See, for example, Willy Rordorf, Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church (Philadelphia, 1968), p. 131; C. S. Mosna, Storia della Domenica dalle Origini Fino agli Inizi del V. Secolo (Rome, 1969), p. 183.

36. Dale Ratzlaff (note 5), p. 165.

37. For a discussion of scholarly views regarding the meaning of stoicheia, see Samuele Bacchiochi, From Sabbath to Sunday (note 1), pp. 344-345.

38. Troy Martin (note 19), p. 119. See also idem, “But Let Everyone Discern the Body of Christ (Colossians 2:17),” Journal of Biblical Literature 114/2 (1995), p. 255.

39. For a discussion of the pagan calendar, see also E. J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World (Ithaca, New York, 1968), pp. 70-79.

40. Troy Martin (note 19), pp. 117, 119.

41. Ibid., pp. 108-109.

42. Ibid., p. 109.

43. The Roman adoption of the seven-day planetary week just prior to the beginning of Christianity is discussed at some length in Samuele Bacchiochi, From Sabbath to Sunday (note 1), pp. 238-251.

44. For a discussion of the observance and meaning of Passover/Unleavened Bread in the New Testament, see Samuele Bacchiocchi, God’s Festivals in Scripture and History: Volume 1: The Spring Festivals (Berrien Springs, Michigan, 1995), pp. 75-77.

Posted By: Azenilto

Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba” - 01/29/08 02:54 AM


An Additional Reflection

Let’s imagine a hypothetical situation, inspired in this theory that the Sabbath was ended as a commandment for the Christian community in some time, not clearly defined in history.

George is a dedicated carpenter, a specialist in building fine furniture units. His reputation of a good and careful professional brings him lots of orders to different works and his schedule is full, with many important people in town placing orders with him. He doesn’t want to disappoint all these good people and does everything he can to finish their orders in due time.

But then he becomes a Christian and thinks of attending church every Sunday, dedicating this day to physical and mental rest, besides going to church and dedicating himself to religious activities on that day. One day, the pastor in his church presents a study explaining that the Sabbath commandment is an old fashioned institution for the Jews only, the Christians having nothing to do with. Since the Sabbath was just a symbol of our rest of salvation in Christ, one who confesses Jesus as Lord and Savior should not keep the Sabbath, for that would be a denial of his experience of salvation.

George was very impressed with that, and since he had so many orders to complete, he decided to work on Sundays also, just reserving the nights to go to church. He checked with the pastor about that, and he assured him that it was okay. The important thing was that he kept in touch, not missing the Sunday evening services. Of course there was also a subtle point there—if he made more money working this extra time that would mean greater gains, and a fatter tithe and higher offerings to the church. . .

Anyway, George engaged in his professional activities, not missing the Sunday night meetings. Some of his Sunday School friends missed him and even tried to convince him to not skip their regular meetings, but he explained he had a full load of work to carry out, and, besides, he had learned that keeping a day to God would be a Sabbath, which would be detrimental to his Christian witness. If he dedicated a day to God, as was the custom of Israel, he would not be confirming that he found the rest of salvation in Christ.

His explanation seemed to make sense to the others, and nobody insisted with him about that anymore. And George kept on working seven days a week, just having his rest at night, going to church on Sunday nights and, occasionally, a few other nights during the week.

But one day, he felt weak and seemed especially touchy with his relatives. His wife didn’t like to see him working so hard, seven days a week, and told him to rest on Sundays. “No, I can’t for two reasons”, he explained. “First, my work load is really big and I have all this good people to serve with their order, and the deadlines are tight. Second, I learned with the pastor that I can’t dedicate a day exclusively to religious activities, because that would be a denial of my experience of resting in Christ’s salvation”.

So, he kept on with his regimen, but his condition, both physically and mentally, were just getting worse. He acquired an ulcer, and tried to resolve it taking over-the-counter medicines. But his immune system also was affected, and one night, as he was in the Church, he felt very weak and collapsed to the floor.

It was a big scare to his relatives and friends, and soon he was on a hospital bed. He was examined, and the doctor told his folks that his ulcers had gone wild, his general health was in a very poor condition, and his system was not ill prepared to face a flu epidemics in the region. Thus, to complicate things, he had contracted pneumonia and with all the other negative things in his health condition, he would not be able to survive.

George was told that he had not taken good care of his health, not giving attention to what the doctor had told him. That left all his relatives and friends very disturbed, but as he approach his last moments, he said to them all: “Well, my dear ones, I know that I am going to die soon, but tell the pastor that I followed faithfully his instructions. I didn’t keep a Sabbath but, instead, worked every day, because I didn’t want to deny my experience of salvation, which the Sabbath symbolizes, as the pastor taught us”.

Well, so George gave away his last breath, but he was consistent with what he had learned from his pastor. If someone says he was wrong to not save one day a week for resting remember that he was being consistent, and using his “Christian freedom” to not do that, concerned with avoiding this “Jewish Sabbath” thing.

Does that make any sense? How about whoever hides under the name Mr. Joseph River, who writes an article with an “Appeal to Adventists”, tell us what he thinks about that little story? Was George submitting to the plumbline?


A List of Pertinent Studies That Help Better Understand the Subjects and the Objections

Some of these studies, all based on the Bible, can be accessed on pages 1 and 2 of this series. Whoever wants to get information of where to find all of them please contact me through the e-mail indicated in my Profile.

* 10 Dilemmas of Those Who Deny The Validity of The 10 Commandments as Christian Norm

* 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath Is an Institution That Precedes the Sinai Event

* 10 Points for Reflection on the Continuity, Not Rupture, of the Decalogue as Norm of Christian Conduct

* 10 Anti-Sabbatarians’ Arguments and the Difficulties They Face In Their Theses

* 10 TOPICS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION OF LAW AND GRACE -- (HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE CONFLICTING STAMENTS OF PAUL AND JAMES ON LAW & GRACE, FAITH & WORKS, JUSTIFICATION & SANCTIFICATION)

* The Balaam Factor

* Did the law end with John the Baptist?

* THE SABBATH AND THE SAVIOR (By Dr. Bacchiocchi)

* 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept

* 10 SPECIFIC QUESTIONS REGARDING ROMANS 14:5, 6

* 10 QUESTIONS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE LAW OF GOD/LAW OF CHRIST

* 10 POINTS TO PONDER ON THE THEME OF GOD’S LAW AND THE SABBATH

* 10 REASONS WHY COLOSSIANS 2:16 DOES NOT TREAT THE WEEKLY SABBATH AS A CEREMONIAL PRECEPT

* 10 Questions About the Sabbath for Anti-Sabbatarians to Think Seriously About

* 10 Main Reasons That Discredit the Observance of Sunday

* 10 Questions on the Theory of “Everydayism” -- (For reflection and possible answers by those who teach that there is no more “specific” Sabbath day to observe, just keep “every day”, or “any day”, to the Lord)

* 10 Serious Difficulties For the Advocates of Either Sunday Keeping or the “Nodayism/Anydayism/Everydayism”

* 10 Questions Regarding the Supposed Limitation of the Gentile Christians to Obey Only the “Noachian Laws”, Not the 10 Commandments -- (Some serious reflections for our Messianic-Jew friends)

* 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath Is the Most Important Commandment of the Decalogue

* 10 Questions The Anti-Sabbatarians Seem Incapable of Answering

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

* 10 Questions on Christ’s Attitudes Regarding the Sabbath


Posted By: Azenilto

Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba” - 03/14/08 08:32 PM


Are Seventh-day Adventists Afraid of Galatians?


The last edition of Proclamation! Magazine (Jan./Feb. 2008) brings a collection of more stories of disgruntled and/or disoriented Seventh-day Adventists who give their “testimonies” of how they “discovered freedom” (which means normally freedom from having to keep a Sabbath day and to care for the dietary laws, never referring in that sense to any of the other NINE commandments of the same law the Sabbath principle is part of).

But there is an article by ex-SDA professor Desmond Ford about his favorite subject, which is the Sanctuary doctrine, in which he criticizes the traditional SDA position without offering any better solution to the problems that Dan. 8:14 would present. He himself, in his thick book about his discussions on the matter, recognizes that this is one of the most difficult texts in the Bible for due interpretation. But it seems that the solution to the problems, which he doesn’t offer in the article, didn’t attract the attention of other scholars also preoccupied with the verse, so his simply criticizing doesn’t prove constructive at all. No real contribution for the “ideal” interpretation of this text, that stemming from his “rebellion” has led the Bible scholarship to adopt it, that I know of.

Well, the work of criticizing, destroying, defaming is always much easier than to build something better.

Anyway, in a final footnote, Mr. Ford and his wife Gillian are introduced as “sabbatarians”. That is interesting. . . So, Ford (who has authored very good material, even a whole book, defending the Sabbath institution), is used by Ratzlaff when what he says is convenient to him, but how about to suggest that his articles on the Sabbath and the validity of the Ten Commandments as the norm of Christian conduct be also used in future Proclamation! issues?

Now, let’s analyze one of these testimonies by former Adventists, like one authored by a certain Royce Earp. At certain point he presents this allegation:

What I read in Galatians changed my life. As an Adventist I had always believed that the commandments had been in place before the earth was made and that we are still under the law. But in Galatians Paul very clearly states that the law was given 430 years after the promise given to Abraham (Gal. 3:17), and he says that the law was put into place until the seed (Jesus) had come (Gal. 3:19). In Gal 3:19 he even says why the law was put into place; “It was added because of transgression.” If Paul were here today he might say, “You foolish Adventists! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, of by believing what you heard? . . . Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?”

This man is either very misinformed about the SDA official teachings, or very forgetful of what he learned along his years as a Seventh-day Adventist. Or, else, he knows the truth about our real teachings and sentiments regarding these matters but isn’t interested in what that is, for it would be an “inconvenient truth” to him. Well, if the latter is the case, then we have another situation of regrettable intellectual dishonesty on his part, as we see so often among critics of Seventh-day Adventism, those whom the Baptist apologist Walter Martin called “straw analysts”.

Now, if the Apostle Paul were here today, he wouldn’t be so concerned about what Seventh-day Adventists teach regarding this subject of law and grace, because if he had to criticize us regarding that, there would be lots of important Evangelical/Protestant scholars along the history of the Protestant Movement he would have to confront in the same fashion as imagined by this confused former SDA.

A little further down he continues showing his ignorance of not only SDA doctrine, but of what is taught by important instructors and thought-forming Christian leaders and pioneers. We have already seen some of these. Says he additionally:

The Adventists teach that the law is separated into ceremonial, civil, and moral laws, and this artificial division is the reason they keep some of the law and not all of it. Once again Paul is very clear about these issues. First, he says in Eph. 2:15 that the law is the commandments and regulations. (. . . by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations). He does not separate the law into three divisions. Second, he repeats Moses’ words in Deuteronomy when he says in Gal. 3:10, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law”. So on what authority do Ellen White and the Adventists say tat they can decided to keep only part of the law? I even did a Bible search on the computer looking for the words ceremonial, civil, and moral followed by the word law. They are non-existent.

Well, the Unitarians could use the same computer resource to look for such words as Trinity, personality of the Holy Spirit and not finding any of them, thus thinking of refuting our Trinitarian convictions. And how about such words so often used in religious material, such as theocracy, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, millennium? They are all absent from the Bible . . .

Mr. Earp ignores that much before SDA’s began preaching the gospel as an organized church, the “division of the law” was already normally taught by the Reformers. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and, later, Wesley clearly spoke of “moral law” and “ceremonial law”. And that is clearly thus defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith (of 1647), the Baptist Confession of Faith (of 1689, later revised by Charles Spurgeon in 1855 with small changes), the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England (official confessional document of Anglicans and Methodists, issued in 1571) and practically all the most important Bible commentaries authors, such as Albert Barnes, Matthew Henry, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, et alii.

But since he mentions Galatians, giving the impression that Seventh-day Adventists teach it wrong, or neglect even reading it, how about analyzing the important text of Gal 3:24, “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith”.

Let’s start with John Calvin’s commentary regarding that text and its immediate context:


. . . for what end did sacrifices and washings serve but to keep the mind continually fixed on pollution and condemnation? When a man’s uncleanness is placed before his eyes, when the unoffending animal is held forth as the image of his own death, how can he indulge in sleep? How can he but be roused to the earnest cry for deliverance? Beyond all doubt, ceremonies accomplished their object, not merely by alarming and humbling the conscience, but by exciting them to the faith of the coming Redeemer. In the imposing services of the Mosaic ritual, every thing that was presented to the eye bore an impress of Christ. The law, in short, was nothing else than an immense variety of exercises, in which the worshippers were led by the hand to Christ.

That we might be justified by faith. He has already said that the law is not perfect, when he compared it to the training of childhood; but it would make men perfect if it bestowed upon them righteousness. What remains but that faith shall take its place? And so it does, when we, who are destitute of a righteousness of our own, are clothed by it with the righteousness of Christ. Thus is the saying accomplished, “he hath filled the hungry with good things.” (Luke 1:53.)

25. But after that faith is come. This phrase has been already considered. It denotes the brighter revelation of grace after that “the vail of the temple was rent in twain,” (Matthew 27:51,) which, we know, was effected by the manifestation of Christ. He affirms that, under the reign of Christ, there is no longer any childhood which needs to be placed under a schoolmaster, and that, consequently, the law has resigned its office, — which is another application of the comparison. There were two things which he had undertaken to prove, — that the law is a preparation for Christ, and that it is temporal. But here the question is again put, Is the law so abolished that we have nothing to do with it? I answer, the law, so far as it is a rule of life, a bridle to keep us in the fear of the Lord, a spur to correct the sluggishness of our flesh, — so far, in short, as it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that believers may be instructed in every good work,” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17,)— is as much in force as ever, and remains untouched.

In what respect, then, is it abolished? Paul, we have said, looks at the law as possessing certain qualities, and those qualities we shall enumerate. It annexes to works a reward and a punishment; that is, it promises life to those who keep it, and curses all transgressors. Meanwhile, it requires from man the highest perfection and most exact obedience. It makes no abatement, gives no pardon, but calls to a severe reckoning the smallest offenses. It does not openly exhibit Christ and his grace, but points him out at a distance, and only when hidden by the covering of ceremonies. All such qualities of the law, Paul tells us, are abolished; so that the office of Moses is now at an end, so far as it differs in outward aspect from a covenant of grace. – (Underlined highlights added.)

Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iii.v.vi.html


And let’s see some of other Bible commentaries regarding this subject:

Albert Barnes:


The Law performs the office of the ancient pedagogue, to lead us to the teacher or the instructor. That teacher or instructor is Christ. The ways in which the Law does this may be the following:

(1) It restrains us and rebukes us, and keeps us as the ancient pedagogue did his boys.

(2) The whole law was designed to be introductory to Christ. The sacrifices and offerings were designed to shadow forth the Messiah, and to introduce him to the world.

(3) The moral law - the Law of God - shows people their sin and danger, and thus leads them to the Saviour. It condemns them, and thus prepares them to welcome the offer of pardon through a Redeemer.

(4) It still does this. The whole economy of the Jews was designed to do this and under the preaching of the gospel it is still done. People see that they are condemned; they are convinced by the Law that they cannot save themselves, and thus they are led to the Redeemer. The effect of the preached gospel is to show people their sins, and thus to be preparatory to the embracing of the offer of pardon. Hence, the importance of preaching the Law still; and hence, it is needful that people should be made to feel that they are sinners, in order that they may be prepared to embrace the offers of mercy. . .


John Wesley:


[The law] was designed to train us up for Christ. And this it did both by its commands, which showed the need we had of his atonement; and its ceremonies, which all pointed us to him.


Matthew Henry:


. . . the terrors of the law are often used by the convincing Spirit, to show the sinner his need of Christ, to bring him to rely on his sufferings and merits, that he may be justified by faith. Then the law, by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, becomes his loved rule of duty, and his standard for daily self-examination. In this use of it he learns to depend more simply on the Saviour.


This latter comment is in good harmony with Luther’s reasoning in his classical “Treatise Against the Antinomians”, where he not only calls the 10 Commandments “God’s Law” in its first lines, as asserts the importance of preaching the law to lead people to repentance, after presenting his protest against some who implied he had rejected the Ten Commandments as a Christian rule of conduct.

Certain phrases in italics [but for book titles] and bold in the original where all made as normal type; also the interspersed footnote numbers within the text were not included:


“I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours. Add hereunto the custom we have to sing the Commandments in two different tunes; besides the painting, printing, carving, and rehearsing them by children, both morning, noon, and evening; So that I know no other way than what we have used, but that we do not (alas!) as we ought, really express and delineate them in our lives and conversations. And I myself as old as I am, use to [have it for my custom to] recite them daily, as a child, Word for Word; so that if any should have mistaken, what I had written, he might (seeing and feeling as it were, how vehemently I use to urge these Catechetical exercises) in reason have been persuaded to call upon me, and demand these or the like questions. What? Good Doctor Luther, dost thou press so eagerly the ten Commandments, and yet teachest withal, that they must be rejected? . . .


[To be concluded in the next thread]

Posted By: Azenilto

Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba” - 03/14/08 08:41 PM


[Conclusion of previous thread]


“Verily, I have taught and still teach, that sinners must be moved to Repentance by the preaching & pondering of the sufferings of Christ, that they may see how great the wrath of God is against sin: and that it cannot be otherwise expiated but by the death of the son of God. . . . But how doth it hence follow, that therefore the law must be taken away? I find no such inference in my Logick; and I would gladly see or hear that Logician, that would demonstrate the truth of this conclusion. When Isaias saith, chapter 53, I have smitten him for the sins of my people; I pray tell me; here Christ’s sufferings are preached, that he was smitten for our sins: Is the Law hereby rejected? what is the meaning of these words: For the sins of my people? Is not this the sense of them: Because my people have sinned against my law, and not kept the same? Or can it be imaginable, that there should be any sin, where there is no law? Whosoever abrogates the law, must of necessity abrogate sin also. If he must suffer sin to be, he must much more suffer the being of the law. For the Apostle saith: Rom. 5: Where no law is, there is no sin. If there be no sin, then Christ is nothing. For why died he, if there were no law nor sin, for which he ought to die? Hence you may see, that the Devil intends, by this Ghostly Gambold to take away, not so much the law, as Christ, the fulfiller of the law.

“For he knows too well, that Christ may quickly & lightly be forgotten: but the law being engraven in the bottom of the heart, it is impossible to raze it out, as you may observe in the complaints, which are uttered by the blessed Saints of God in the Psalms, that are not able to undergo the wrath of God: which can be nothing else by the lively preaching of the law in their consciences.

The preaching of the Law necessary both before & after conversion

Let me therefore beseech you (Good Mr. Doctor) to continue, as hitherto you have, in the pure doctrine, and to preach, that sinners can, and must, be drawn to Repentance, not only by the sweetness of grace, that Christ suffered and died for us, but also by the terrors of the Law. For when they pretend, that we must follow but one kind of Method in teaching the Doctrine of Repentance (to wit, that Christ suffered for us) lest all Christendom should deviate from the true and only way; this is little to the purpose. For it is our duty to improve all manner of means (such as are divine Menaces, Promises, Punishments, Blessings, and whatever helps we can) to bring men to Repentance: I mean, by all the Precedents in the word, to bring them to the acknowledgment of sin, and of the Law.

The Law preached with Christ’s sufferings, for the preaching thereof, terrifieth more

I conclude therefore, that the Law, will we, nill we, must be preached, if we mean to preach Christ, though we should not use the word Law. For, do what you can, the conscience will be terrified by the Law, when it is told, that Christ was to fulfill the Law for us, at so dear a rate. Why therefore should any go about to abolish it, when it cannot be abolished? Yea, when by the abolition of it, it is the more firmly established, and deeper rooted? For the Law terrifies far more dreadfully, when I am told, that Christ the Son of God must necessarily satisfy the same for me, than if without Christ, and such great torments of the Son of God, it had been preached to me, with bare threatenings. For in the Son of God, I really see the wrath of God, which the Law declares but verbally, and with far less operation and efficacy.


Luther additionally comments in the same document about the many sectarians he had to confront along his experience as a Reformer, highlighting the “antinomians”.

In the footnotes, the compiler adds an interesting information (note 4): “Contrary to this, Towne the Antinomian saith we are freed from the Moral Law or Decalogue, with all its authority, dominion, offices, and effects. So [likewise] Saltmarsh, free grace, p. 140”.

The first note in the footnotes by the editor explains:


“This edition of Luther’s treatise ‘Against the Antinomians,’ is excerpted from Samuel Rutherford’s ‘Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist,’ (1648), part II, chapter XI, pages 69-80, where it is translated from the High Dutch in its entirety. The reader may wish to compare the text to a more recent translation available in Luther’s Works (American Edition), volume 47, pages 107-119, the text of which he will find to be in agreement with that which is provided here. Underlined headings are marginalia provided in Rutherford’s ‘Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist,’ whereby he seeks to direct the reader to make applications and comparisons with regards to the Antinomians of his own day, which are no less relevant at the present time. All footnotes are provided by Rutherford, saving only numbers 1, 2, and 10, provided by the present editor.”


Oh, by the way, the 430 years later (when the law was given at Sinai, after the Abrahamic pact)—Gal. 3:17—doesn’t mean that there was no God’s law before these four hundred something years, for even Abraham was a faithful and obedient servant of God’s laws, statutes and commandments (Gen. 26:5). As a Bible Moody Institute scholar explains:

“We should not suppose that the Ten Commandments were entirely new enactments when they were proclaimed from Sinai, for the Hebrew word torah is used in such previous passages of the Old Testament as Genesis 26:5; Exodus 12:49; Genesis 35:2 and 13:9; 16:4, 28; 18:16. [Genesis 4:26; 14:22; 31:53 are cited for the principle of the third; Genesis 2:3 and Exodus 16:22-30 for the fourth; Genesis 9:6, for the sixth; and Genesis 2:24 for the seventh.] The Decalogue may therefore be regarded as the full and solemn declaration of duties which had been more or less revealed previously, and this public enunciation took place under absolutely unique circumstances. We are told that the ‘ten words’ were spoken by God’s own voice (Exod. 20:1; Deut. 5:4, 22-26); and twice afterwards ‘written on tables of stones with the finger of God’ (Exod. 24:12; 31:18; 32:16; 34:1; 28; Deut. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:1-4), thus appealing alike to the ear and eye, and emphasizing both their supreme importance and permanent obligation”. – William C. Procter, Moody Bible Institute Monthly, October 1933, p. 49. [As quoted in Bible Readings for the Home, Mountain View, Cal, Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1967, p. 283].

What Paul is saying is that the promise of the pact with Abraham at the beginning of the promise made to him, up to the time of the law’s solemn proclamation at Sinai--to serve as basis of this covenant extended to Israel--there is a span of 430 years, and this establishment of the Sinai covenant doesn’t annul the promise made to the patriarch. On the contrary, it is the natural development of God’s plan to have the Messiah coming through his seed.

As to the question of salvation by faith, nothing changed, for Israel also was saved through faith in the coming Messiah, as the offerings and other rites instituted at the Sinai covenant had the purpose of pointing forward to.

Now, one more point within the epistle of Galatians, that some people think is a “torture” to Seventh-day Adventists. Everybody knows how the phrase “under the law” is often used negatively to characterize those who defend the observance of the Sabbath commandment. Now, how about a brief analysis of this expression, as we find it in the Galatians epistle? Let’s see how Paul articulates this question in Gal. 5:16-25:

“I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that, ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit”.

What do you have here? A contrast between those who are “led by the Spirit” and those who are “under the law”. Now, the ones “led by the Spirit” produce those fruits listed in vs. 22ss. In contrast, those who are NOT “led by the Spirit” do what? They are the ones who practice all those sins listed in vs. 19-21. Then, contrary to the common interpretation of anti-sabbatarians, those who are “under the law” ARE NOT whoever obeys it, but the ones who commit sin. They are “under the law” in the sense that it condemns them.

Now, when we compare that with what we read in Rom. 8:3-8, what do we find there? The language is very similar: the ones who are not led by the Spirit are those who live according to the flesh. Then, we read in vs. 8 and 9:

“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God”.


The language of “NOT subject to the law of God” is clearly related to sinners, not those who obey the law. The latter are contrasted with the ones who live according to the flesh, not led by the Spirit. For these last ones are those who display in their lives, “the righteousness of the law”, because they “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (vs. 4).

And what “law of God” would that be, but the one that in the context Paul himself identified as that he served with his mind (Rom. 7:25), and the one (holy, just, good, spiritual—vs. 12, 14, 22) that brings the precept “ye shall not covet”—vs. 7, 8?

Thus, in harmony with Romans, the clear message in Galatians 5:16-25 is in perfect agreement with our teachings regarding obedience to the law of God, so why should Seventh-day Adventist fear to read and base their faith on what Paul has to teach us in his epistle to the Galatians?

Posted By: Azenilto

Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba” - 03/18/08 09:15 PM


The Wholistic View of Man’s Nature and Destiny—An Adventist Oddity?


In different places in this last Proclamation! issue there are references to our position on the conditional immortality, sometimes referred to as “soul sleep”, even though there is no “soul” to “sleep”, to begin with. We don’t think of a “soul” like a type of built-in ‘friendly ghost’ in man. “Soul” and “spirit” have a large variety of meanings in the Bible but these two words NEVER appear modified by adjectives such as “eternal”, “immortal”, “unending”, for the great disappointment of those who imagine that to be a Biblical doctrine, when it actually derives from paganism and serves no purpose in bringing people closer to Jesus.

Besides, even though the conditional immortality question is presented as if it were a sort of Adventist oddity, the truth is that more and more scholars of different persuasions have been accepting lately the holistic view of man’s nature and destiny, leaving behind these dualistic notions, to not mention the many along history who were also true believers in conditional immortality.

Recently I learned that the Brazilian Lutherans have instructional material teaching against the immortality of the soul idea, and Lutherans pastors that I contacted confirmed to me their holistic position, one of them even producing an article that I posted in some forums I participate of in the Portuguese language. I sent them some of my studies on the subject and they were pleased with the material and much grateful for my sending them.

They are certainly recovering some of Martin Luther’s statements condemning the idea of immortality of the soul as a despicable junk from Catholicism that should be discarded. Although Luther was not always consistent regarding this point (as regarding some others), the fact is that not only him, but important and reputed Christian men along history, including Bible translators Tyndale, Moffatt and Weymouth, English poet John Milton, politician and theologian William Gladstone, and the more recent Oscar Cullman, John Stott, Clark Pinnock, Paul Althaus, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner identified themselves as anti-immortality of the soul understanding adherents.

According to Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, who authored a magnificent work on the subject that I highly recommend to all, Immortality or Resurrection? [and the following text is from one of his Newsletters, which I reproduce ipsis verbis] this historical view of death as the separation of the soul from the body has come under a massive attack by many modern scholars. A few examples suffice to illustrate this point. Lutheran theologian Paul Althaus writes: “Death is more than a departure of the soul from the body. The person, body and soul, is involved in death. . . . The Christian faith knows nothing about an immortality of the personality. . . . It knows only an awakening from real death through the power of God. There is existence after death only by an awakening of the resurrection of the whole person.”

Althaus argues that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul does not do justice to the seriousness of death, since the soul passes through death unscathed. Moreover, the notion that a person can be totally happy and blessed without the body denies the significance of the body and empties the resurrection of its meaning. If believers are already blessed in heaven and the wicked are already tormented in hell, why is the final judgment still necessary? Althaus concludes that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul rips apart what belongs together: the body and the soul, the destiny of the individual and that of the world.

In his monograph Life after Death, Taito Kantonen makes this pointed statement: “The Christian view of death is in full accord with the view of natural science as far as the latter goes. When we die we are really dead. Our hopes and desires cannot change this fact. Man does not differ from the rest of creation by having a soul that cannot die.”

Even the liberal Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, in its article on death explicitly states: “The ‘departure’ of the nephesh [soul] must be viewed as a figure of speech, for it does not continue to exist independently of the body, but dies with it (Num 31:19; Jud 16:30; Ez 13:19). No Biblical text authorizes the statement that the ‘soul’ is separated from the body at the moment of death. The ruach [spirit] which makes man a living being (cf. Gen 2:7), and which he loses at death, is not, properly speaking, an anthropological reality, but a gift of God which returns to him at the time of death (Eccl 12:7).”

This challenge of modern scholarship to the traditional view of death as the separation of the soul from the body has been long overdue. It is hard to believe that for most of its history, Christianity by and large has held to a view of human death and destiny which has been largely influenced by Greek thought, rather than by the teachings of Scripture. What is even more surprising is that no amount of Biblical scholarship will change the traditional belief held by most churches on the intermediate state. The reason is simple. While individual scholars can and will change their doctrinal views without suffering devastating consequences, the same is not true for well-established churches.

A church that introduces radical changes in its historical doctrinal beliefs undermines the faith of its members and thus the stability of the institution. A case in point is the Worldwide Church of God which lost over half of its members when doctrinal changes were introduced by its leaders early in 1995.
The high cost of rectifying denominational religious beliefs should not deter Bible-believing Christians who are committed, not to preserve traditional beliefs for tradition’s sake, but to constantly seek for a fuller understanding of the teachings of Word of God on issues relevant to their lives.

Now, let’s see some of the many faithful Christian and Bible scholars who have manifested themselves against this dualistic theology, beginning in the next thread.

Posted By: Azenilto

Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba” - 03/18/08 09:21 PM


CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY – A HALL OF ADVOCATES

What happens with man when, as he dies, cuts definitively contact with the world? Does he go to heaven to enjoy immediately an assured immortality? Does he remain during a period of waiting time somewhere in the universe? Is he thrown into an eternally burning hell to suffer indescribable agonies throughout eternity?

There are bishops, pastors, Bible translators, theologians and intellectuals and many others throughout the centuries who, searching for answers in the vast biblical repertoire, advocate the condition of unconsciousness during death and the concession of immortality as a faith reward, granted exclusively through Christ at the resurrection of God’s elects. These scholars belong to varied denominations, but they have in common the accurate analysis of the Bible texts that reveal the condition of man in death. They showed disposition to accept this revelation as sufficient in this important theological subject. Following are the statements on this theme drawn from divers sources.


Nicolas, Greek bishop, (2nd Century AD):

“When any created being is eternal, that is not by himself, nor in himself, nor to himself, but by God’s goodness; for everything that is made and created has a beginning and maintains its existence solely through the Creator’s goodness.” – Quoted in Compendium of the History of Doctrines, vol. 2, pp. 4 e 5.

The Waldenses (15th Century) contested the doctrine of purgatory and intercession of the saints, teaching in their catechism of instruction to the young people that man is only “mortal”. - Moreland, The History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of the Piedmont, 1658, p. 75.

Pietro Poponatius, of Mantua, noted Italian professor and leader among the Averrorists (who denied the immortality of the soul), issued a book in opposition of Pope Leo X’s bull that declared: “We do condemn and reprobate all who assert that the intelligent soul is mortal” (quoted by H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils, 1937, pp. 483, 487—as quoted in Questions on Doctrines, p. 569). As a result of his book, widely read, especially in Italian universities, he was haled before the Inquisition and his book publicly burned in Venice.

Martin Luther (1493-1546), German reformer and Bible translator:

In his 1520 Defence with 41 propositions, Luther refers to the belief of immortality of the soul, along other papal teachings, as “monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals (Proposition 27).

“Salomon iudgeth that the dead are a sleepe, and feele nothing at all. For the dead lye there accompting neyther dayes nor yeares, but wen they are awaked, they shall seeme to haue slept scarce one minute”. – An Exposition of Solomon’s Book, Called Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, 1573, fl. 151 v.

“But we Christians, who have been redeemed from all this through the precious blood of God’s son, should train and accustom ourselves in faith to despise death and regard it as a deep, strong, sweet sleep; to consider the coffin as nothing other than our Lord Jesus’ bosom or Paradise, the grave as nothing other than a soft couch of ease or rest. As verily, before God, it truly is just this; for he testifies, John 11:11: Lazarus, our friend sleeps; Matthew 9:24: The maiden is not dead, she sleeps. Thus, too, St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, removes from sight all hateful aspects of death as related to our mortal body and brings forward nothing but charming and joyful aspects of the promised life.”- Works of Luther, vol. 6, pp. 287 e 288.

William Tyndale (1484-1536), English Bible translator and martyr:

“And ye, in putting them [the departed souls] in heaven, hell, and purgatory, destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection. . . . And again, if the souls be in heaven, tell me why they be not in as good case as the angels be? And then what cause is there of the resurrection?”

“I marvel that Paul had not comforted the Thessalonians with that doctrine, if he had wist it, that the souls of their dead had been in joy; as he did with the resurrection, that their dead should rise again. If the souls be in heaven, in as great glory as the angels, after your doctrine, shew me what cause should be of the resurrection? – An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, liv. 4, cap. 4, pp. 180 e 181.

John Milton (1608-1674), considered the greatest of the sacred poets, Latin secretary of Cromwell:

“Inasmuch then as the whole man is uniformly said to consist of body, and soul (whatever may be the distinct provinces assigned to these divisions), I will show, that in death, first, the whole man, and secondly, each component part, suffers privation of life. . . . The grave is the common guardian of all till the day of judgment.” – Treatise of Christian Doctrine, vol. 1, cap. 13.

William E. Gladstone (1809-1898), British prime minister and theologian

“Another consideration of the highest importance is that the natural immortality of the soul is a doctrine wholly unknown to the Holy Scriptures, and standing on no higher plane than that of an ingeniously sustained, but gravely and formidably contested, philosophical opinion.” – Studies Subsidiary to the Works of Bishop Butler (1896 ed.), p. 197.

“The character of the Almighty is rendered liable to charges which cannot be repelled so long as the idea remains that there may by His ordinance be such a thing as never-ending punishment, but that it will have been sufficiently vindicated at the bar of human judgment, so soon as it has been established and allowed that punishment, whatever else it may be, cannot be never-ending.” – Ibid. , p. 241.

Edward White (1819-1887), congregational, president of the Congregationalist Union:

“I steadfastly maintain, after forty years of study of the matter, that it is the notion of the infliction of a torment in body and soul that shall be absolutely endless, which alone gives a foot of standing ground to Ingersoll in America, or Bradlaugh in England [both militant atheists]. I believe more firmly than ever that it is a doctrine as contrary to every line of the Bible as it is contrary to every moral instinct of humanity.” – Introduction to the book The Unspeakable Gift, by J. H. Pettingell, p. 22.

J. Agar Beet (1840-1924), Wesleyan professor:

“The following pages are . . . a protest against a doctrine which, during long centuries, has been almost universally accepted as divine truth taught in the Bible, but which seems to me altogether alien to it in both phrase and thought, and derived only from Greek Philosophy. Until recent times, this alien doctrine has been comparatively harmless. But, as I have here shown, it is now producing most serious results. . . .

“They who claim for their teaching the authority of God must prove that it comes from Him. Such proof in this case, I have never seen.” – The Immortality of Soul, 5th ed., 1902, Preface.

Franz Deliztsch (1813-1890), Hebraist, professor, Rostock, Erlangen, Leipsic.

“There is nothing in all the Bible which implies a native immortality.” (Comment on Gen. 3:22).
“From the Biblical point of view the soul can be put to death, it is mortal.” (Comment on Num. 23:10). – A New Commentary on Genesis.

George Dana Boardman (1828-1903), Baptist pastor, founder of the Boardman Foundation of Christian Ethics, University of Pennsylvania:

“Not a single passage of Holy Writ, from Genesis to Revelation, teaches, so far as I am aware, the doctrine of Man’s natural immortality. On the other hand, Holy Writ emphatically declares that God only hath immortality (1 Tim. 6:16): that is to say: God alone is naturally, inherently, in His own essence and nature, immortal.” – Studies in the Creative Week, pp. 215 e 216.

F. R. Weymouth (1822-1902), translator of New Testament in Modern Speech:

“My mind fails to conceive a grosser misrepresentation of language than when five or six of the strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying to destroy or destruction, are explained to mean ‘maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence’.”– Quoted by Edward White in Life in Christ (1878), p. 365.

“The use in the N.T. of such words as ‘death,’ ‘destruction,’ ‘fire,’ ‘perish,’ to describe Future Retribution, point to the likelihood of fearful anguish, followed by extinction of being, as the doom which awaits those who by persistent rejection of the Saviour prove themselves utterly, and therefore irremediably, bad.” (Comment on Hebrews 9:28) – New Testament in Modern Speech.

William Temple (1881-1944), Late Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of Great Britain:

“[The] doctrine of the future life [will] involve our first disentangling the authentic teaching of the classical Scriptures from accretions which very quickly began to obscure this.” – Nature, Man and God, p. 460.

Martin J. Heinecken, professor of systematic theology, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia:

“In the Biblical account of creation we are told that God formed man of the dust and of the earth, and that he then breathed into his nostrils and man became a living soul. This is usually interpreted to mean that God made a soul, which is the real person, and that he then gave this soul a temporary home in a body, made of the dust of the earth. But this is a false dualism. . . . Man must be considered a unity.” – Basic Christian Teachings, pp. 36 e 37.

Emil Brunner (1889-1966), professor of systematic theology and practical theology, Zurich, guest professor at Princeton, and International Christian University of Tokyo.

“The opinion that we men are immortal because our soul is of an indestructible, because divine, essence is, once for all, irreconcilable with the Biblical view of God and man. . . . The philosophical belief in immortality is like an echo, both reproducing and falsifying the primal Word of this divine Creator. It is false because it does not take into account the real loss of this original destiny through sin.” – Eternal Hope, pp. 105, 106 e 107.

Dr. Basil F. C. Atkinson, under-librarian of Cambridge University:

“The breath of life was not breathed into man’s heart, but into his nostrils. It involved physical life. Throughout the Bible man, apart from Christ, is conceived of as made of dust and ashes, a physical creature, to whom is lent by god a principle of life. The Greek thinkers tended to think of man as an immortal soul imprisoned in a body. This emphasis is the opposite to that of the Bible, but has found a wide place in Christian thought.” – The Pocket Commentary of the Bible, Part 1, Book of Genesis, p. 32.


Posted By: Azenilto

Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba” - 03/29/08 11:40 PM



Hello friends

I was checking a past Newsletter by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi with his analyses of the Ratzlaff challenge and found something really precious--a synthesis of his theology with his comments regarding four main points. What he argues is very compatible to my own analyses along the discussions in the previous threads, which shows that even a non-scholar like myself can easily refute Ratzlaff's "New Covenant" ideas.

I reproduce it below with my own “Notes” added:


Four Fundamental Problems of the New Covenant Theology

1. The New Covenant Theology creates an arbitrary and radical distinction between the Old Covenant, allegedly based on a package of laws given by Moses, and New Covenant established on the principles of love revealed by Christ. Such a distinction is nowhere to be found in the Bible. The New Covenant in the Bible, which incidentally is first given in the Old Testament, does not entail the replacement of laws with a generic principle of love, but the internalization of God’s Law: “This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my Law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God” (Jer 31:33). There is no antithesis in the Bible between law and love, because God’s laws are principles of love.

Note: There has never been a time when a law given by God WAS NOT based on the principle of love to God above all else, and love to the neighbor as to oneself. Didn’t the rebel angel start the sin process through a distortion of these principles, loving himself above God and his neighbors?

2. The New Covenant Theology fails to recognize the simple fact the biblical “covenant” is God’s commitment to save His people. And God has only one Plan of Salvation. God did not offer salvation to the Jews on the basis of works of the law and when He discovered that works do not work, He changed his plan and decided to offer salvation to Christians on the basis of grace. Salvation has always been a divine provision of grace. When Moses went up on Mt. Sinai, he received on the hand the Decalogue—God’s principles of life, and on the other hand, the blueprint of the tabernacle—God’s provision of grace (Ex 24:12 to 25:9).

Note: I’ve seen some embarrassing situations when the question is asked: how were sinners saved in Old Testament times? Some answer—”oh, they were saved by faithful obedience to the law” (which is an impossibility because “the law of the Lord is perfect”—Psa. 19:17—and nobody ever reached a condition of full perfection to correspond to the requirements of the law in his life). Others even said, “Well, Jesus went to preach to the ‘spirits in prison’” (which is a total distortion of meaning of some isolated texts).

Now, there was a certain gentleman I used to debate with, who replied: “Oh, there haven’t been judged yet”. Well, this prompts another question, that I addressed him: “And when they come to be judged, by what criteria that will be?”

He didn’t answer. The next day I again asked the same question. No answer. Later on I insisted with the same question. No word from him. Once more my question was put to him, “what criteria will be used for their judgment”, total silence. . .

Finally, after some few more times with the same enquiry, he decided to answer. And his answer was this: he called a friend of his who worked for the Immigration Dept. in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and asked him to investigate whether I was illegally in the USA.

No kidding, that was his answer. . .

By the way, I am an American citizen since the 15th of December, 2006.

3. The New Covenant Theology ignores the cosmic sweep of the Sabbath, which embraces creation, redemption, and final restoration. Incidentally, the Pope recognizes this fact when he speaks of the Sabbath as marking the “sacred architecture of time” [in the Pastoral Letter, Domini Dies—The Lord’s Day] that reveals the unfolding of salvation history from creation to its final restoration. It is noteworthy that while Hebrews declares the Levitical priesthood and services as “abolished” (Heb 10:9), “obsolete,” and “ready to vanish away” (Heb 8:13), it explicitly teaches that a “Sabbathkeeping [sabbatismos] has been left behind for the people of God” (Heb 4:9). Why? Because the Sabbath point to the eternal rest and peace that awaits the people of God.

Note: In Heb. 3 and 4 the author NEVER leaves any hint that the Sabbath would be a typological institution that should end after accomplishing its symbolic role. That it couldn’t be so we see for some few reasons:

a) the emphasis on the Sabbath’s role in Scripture is being a “memorial of Creation”, which is not related to Israel, but to humankind;

b) Jesus reinforced this universal role of the Sabbath as He said it was made “because of man”;

c) this universality of the Sabbath principle is a fact recognized by the most representative Christian confessional documents, authors and Bible commentaries;

d) if the Sabbath were ceremonial, the author of Hebrews would discuss it in Chaps. 7-10 where he details the typological meaning of the different aspects of the Jewish law;

e) those few in Israel who were faithful and entered the spiritual rest of salvation—like Moses, Joshua, David, Elias, etc., etc.—didn’t because of that renounce to the keeping of the Sabbath;

f) the faithful women who served Jesus and who had entered in the rest of salvation, soon after His death kept the Sabbath “according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56), which shows that they hadn’t learned with Jesus that the Sabbath was no more to be kept with His death, nor that to believe in Him and faithfully serving Him released them from that obligation;

g) in the description of the condition of Israel IN CASE OF HAVING ACCEPTED THE MESSIAH, thus having entered in the spiritual rest of salvation, as found in Isa. 66:22, 23, the Sabbath is still honored as a special day weekly dedicated to God, not put aside.

4. By replacing the physical rest of the Sabbath with the spiritual rest of salvation, the New Covenant Theology deprives believers of a vital institution established by God to internalize the reality of salvation. The physical Sabbath rest is the channel through which we experience the reality of the spiritual salvation rest (Heb 4:10). Physical symbols like the water of baptism, the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper, and the physical rest of the Sabbath, are designed to help believers conceptualize and internalize the reality of salvation they represent. We stop our work on the Sabbath to allow God to work in us more fully and freely.

Note: Everybody knows how important it is to have regular rest, and even a medical doctor, who happens also to be an Evangelical pastor, Dr. Michael Cesar, considers the Sabbath rest a divine blessing for the wellness of His children.

He even tells how Hitler tried to break this principle having those who built his arsenal, previous to the 2nd World War, working non-stop seven days a week, just resting at night. It didn’t work—they were soon exhausted, sick, production fell brutally, then the Führer reinstated the principle of one day of rest weekly.

Especially in these so much agitated times of ours, the physical and mental rest granted by the Sabbath is so much needed by everyone. Besides, if there is this “Christian freedom” to not keep the Sabbath, someone could even neglect that and harm, even kill, himself due to an excessive workload. Is that okay, when the Bible says that our body is the “temple of the Holy Spirit”?


Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba” - 03/30/08 02:41 AM

Well, that all sounds pretty lame to me. So do all your other posts. WOW, you people are WAY to wrapped up in your own little world, and your own dogmatic religion.

Try to open your eyes to the world around you. Better yet, keep your head in the sand, that way I don't have to look into the eyes of such simple people. I urge you to continue your cultistic views, as it will surely mean the end of another retarded religion.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba” - 04/03/08 01:56 AM

Well, Anonymous, I think that you are the one with your head in the sand. You need to get it out and study the Word like a small group of Christians did many years ago. Out of their study emerged this "retarded" religion that has spanned the globe with the Good New of Jesus and His second coming. Someday soon you will see the folly of your scoffing and may you change your course before it is too late for you.
Posted By: Azenilto

Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba” - 04/04/08 06:02 AM

Criticizing and fault-finding is much easier than to build something better in place of the criticized thing.

I wonder if this person who criticizes my posts is a Christian, believes in the Bible, or simply despises anything related to religion (as sometimes seems being his position).

So, for those who believe his/her Bible I think that what we have discussed is really an eye-opener regarding certain dangerous trends in the religious field, people who think they are helping others to understand the Scriptures, but are simply so much confused, not even realizing that their particular theological views aren't even compatible to what Christians have believed along the centuries, as far as the value of the 10 Commandments is concerned.
Posted By: Azenilto

Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba” - 04/29/08 09:17 AM


Ratzlaff Struggles Again With Matthew 5:17-19


In the March/April 2008 issue of Proclamation! Magazine we find Mr. Ratzlaff struggling again with the text of Matthew 5:17-19, as had been the case in the January/February 2007 issue. His dominant preoccupation is to “prove” that this text doesn’t refer solely to the 10 Commandments, leaving the impression that Seventh-day Adventists think so. But I never learned as an SDA that this passage is limited to the Decalogue, nor is what one can see reading the SDA Bible Commentary about it. In fact, it’s so clear that Jesus refers also to the ceremonial aspects of the Torah, in vs. 23, 24 as He mentions the offer taken to the altar, which shows how this Mr. Ratzlaff’s straw man is one more futile attempt to denigrate the image of Adventist theology on his part.

Noticing this preoccupation of Mr. Ratzlaff to get rid of any impression that the 10 Commandments would be the main point in Jesus’ discourse in these texts, I addressed him some questions, as you can see in my initial discussions, that can be found through the following link:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=97748&fpart=1 (see 2nd thread from top)

He never gave me any answer to these questions (he receives personally all the material published here).

Now, since he returns to this subject, through another questionnaire whose final result would be the admission that Matt. 5:17-19 doesn’t refer solely to the 10 Commandments, how about examining what other important and highly reputed theologians and Bible commentary authors have to say regarding these texts? But before doing that, it would be interesting to point out two things:

a – Jesus admittedly is not referring SOLELY to the 10 Commandments in these texts, but these 10 Commandments are not EXCLUDED from them, either.

b – The context of this passage emphasizes, not “abolition” of laws, but, on the contrary, an attitude of obeisance to God reflected in performing good works, which attract man’s praise to Him (see vs. 16: “Let you light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven”.) So, instead of the INTENTION of Jesus’ words having to do with freeing men from any of God’s laws, they highlight the importance of practicing what is contained in God’s laws faithfully in a way that even “exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees” (vs. 20). That is the framework of vs. 17-19 that Mr. Ratzlaff and other anti-Sabbatarians generally don’t take into account.

Now, let’s see if what different Bible specialists have to say regarding the text under consideration, (their comments concentrate mostly in the clause, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law”):


Albert Barnes:

Our Saviour was just entering on his work. It was important for him to state what he came to do. By his setting up to be a teacher in opposition to the scribes and Pharisees, some might charge him with an intention to destroy their law, and to abolish the customs of the nation. He therefore told them that he did not come for that end, but really to fulfill or accomplish what was in the law and the prophets.

Adam Clarke:

Do not imagine that I am come to violate the law καταλυσαι, from κατα, and λυω, I loose, violate, or dissolve - I am not come to make the law of none effect - to dissolve the connection which subsists between its several parts, or the obligation men are under to have their lives regulated by its moral precepts; nor am I come to dissolve the connecting reference it has to the good things promised. But I am come, πληρωσαι, to complete - to perfect its connection and reference, to accomplish every thing shadowed forth in the Mosaic ritual, to fill up its great design; and to give grace to all my followers, πληρωσαι, to fill up, or complete, every moral duty. In a word, Christ completed the law:

1st. In itself, it was only the shadow, the typical representation, of good things to come; and he added to it that which was necessary to make it perfect, His Own Sacrifice, without which it could neither satisfy God, nor sanctify men.

2dly. He completed it in himself by submitting to its types with an exact obedience, and verifying them by his death upon the cross.

3dly. He completes this law, and the sayings of his prophets, in his members, by giving them grace to love the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and their neighbor as themselves; for this is all the law and the prophets.

It is worthy of observation, that the word גמר gamar, among the rabbins, signifies not only to fulfill, but also to teach; and, consequently, we may infer that our Lord intimated, that the law and the prophets were still to be taught or inculcated by him and his disciples; and this he and they have done in the most pointed manner. See the Gospels and epistles; and see especially this sermon on the mount, the Epistle of James, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. And this meaning of the word gives the clear sense of the apostle’s words, Col_1:25. Whereof I am made a minister, πληρωσαι τον λογον του Θεου, to fulfill the word of God, i.e. to teach the doctrine of God.

Geneva Bible Translation Notes:

Christ did not come to bring any new way of righteousness and salvation into the world, but indeed to fulfill that which was shadowed by the figures of the Law, by delivering men through grace from the curse of the Law: and moreover to teach the true use of obedience which the Law appointed, and to engrave in our hearts the power for obedience.

Robertson Word Picture:

(ouk ēlthon katalusai alla plērōsai). The verb “destroy” means to “loosen down” as of a house or tent (2Co_5:1). Fulfil is to fill full. This Jesus did to the ceremonial law which pointed to him and the moral law he kept. “He came to fill the law, to reveal the full depth of meaning that it was intended to hold” (McNeile).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown:

Not to subvert, abrogate, or annul, but to establish the law and the prophets - to unfold them, to embody them in living form, and to enshrine them in the reverence, affection, and character of men, am I come.

Matthew Henry:

Let none suppose that Christ allows his people to trifle with any commands of God's holy law. No sinner partakes of Christ's justifying righteousness, till he repents of his evil deeds. The mercy revealed in the gospel leads the believer to still deeper self-abhorrence. The law is the Christian's rule of duty, and he delights therein. If a man, pretending to be Christ's disciple, encourages himself in any allowed disobedience to the holy law of God, or teaches others to do the same, whatever his station or reputation among men may be, he can be no true disciple. Christ's righteousness, imputed to us by faith alone, is needed by every one that enters the kingdom of grace or of glory; but the new creation of the heart to holiness, produces a thorough change in a man's temper and conduct.

John Calvin:

God had, indeed, promised a new covenant at the coming of Christ; but had, at the same time, showed, that it would not be different from the first, but that, on the contrary, its design was, to give a perpetual sanction to the covenant, which he had made from the beginning, with his own people.

“I will write my law, (says he,) in their hearts,
and I will remember their iniquities no more,”
(Jeremiah 31:33, 34.)

By these words he is so far from departing from the former covenant, that, on the contrary, he declares, that it will be confirmed and ratified, when it shall be succeeded by the new. This is also the meaning of Christ’s words, when he says, that he came to fulfill the law: for he actually fulfilled it, by quickening, with his Spirit, the dead letter, and then exhibiting, in reality, what had hitherto appeared only in figures.

With respect to doctrine, we must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law: for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform. With respect to ceremonies, there is some appearance of a change having taken place; but it was only the use of them that was abolished, for their meaning was more fully confirmed. The coming of Christ has taken nothing away even from ceremonies, but, on the contrary, confirms them by exhibiting the truth of shadows: for, when we see their full effect, we acknowledge that they are not vain or useless. Let us therefore learn to maintain inviolable this sacred tie between the law and the Gospel, which many improperly attempt to break. For it contributes not a little to confirm the authority of the Gospel, when we learn, that it is nothing else than a fulfillment of the law; so that both, with one consent, declare God to be their Author.

18. Till heaven and earth pass. Luke expresses it a little differently, but to the same import, that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one point of the law to fail The design of Christ, in both passages, was to teach, that the truth of the law and of every part of it, is secure, and that nothing so durable is to be found in the whole frame of the world.

Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.xliii.html

John Wesley:

Think not - Do not imagine, fear, hope, that I am come - Like your teachers, to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy - The moral law, but to fulfill - To establish, illustrate, and explain its highest meaning, both by my life and doctrine.

Dr. James D. Kennedy:

“We live in a time when the institution of the Sabbath has come under great attack from several different points of view. There are those who declare that it was abolished by Christ and is no longer in effect today. But what do the Scriptures teach? The Scriptures do not teach that Christ ever annulled, abrogated, or abolished the Sabbath or any of the Commandments. On the contrary, the Scripture very plainly teach that the Commandments remain in effect today and have been strengthened by Christ who declared that not only the deed but the thought and the word are part of that which God has given us. He clearly states that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments. . . .

“Even as late as the Book of Revelation we read that here is the patience of the saints of God, those who have the faith of Jesus and keep the commandments of God. In the very last chapter of the Bible we read of those who keep the commandments of God and have the right to the tree of life.” – Sermon by Dr. James Kennedy, “The Gift of Rest,” quoted by Elder Samuele Bacchiocchi in his Endtimes Issues Newsletter, # 79

(http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_79.html)

Dr. Kennedy’s sermon was broadcast nationwide on November 4, 2001 through the Coral Ridge TV Network.

[Note: Dr. Kennedy passed away in September 2007].

Posted By: Azenilto

Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba” - 05/12/08 06:25 AM


The Danger of Ratzlaffism


We have already seen how dangerous it is to misinterpret the Bible, especially when it involves faithfulness to keeping God’s law, reflected in the Ten Commandments, as Luther, Calvin, Wesley and the most representative confessional documents of Christendom (both Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) expose its role as normative to the conduct of those belonging to the Christian community. By the way, St. Peter even stressed how those who practice this terrible art of Bible twisting will face a terrible destiny:

“. . . our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, and they do also the also scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved . . . beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.” (2a. Ped. 3:15-17).

Lately we saw how Mr. Ratzlaff is so much confused in his interpretation of Matt. 5:17-19, and we quoted some important Bible commentaries, like the ones by Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, the Geneve Bible notes, John Calvin, John Wesley and James Kennedy. Ratzlaff should submit his questionnaire, which has the objective to deny that the Ten Commandments is the expression of God's moral law to the Church, to these authors. None of the mentioned ones agree with his view on the subject. . .

In Brazil there was a Baptist pastor some years ago who published a book called Sabatismo à Luz da Palavra de Deus (Sabbatarianism on the Light of God's Word) and he refers to the text of Matt. 5:17-19 as “the fortress of the Sabbatarians”. Then he engages himself in trying to prove the error of understanding that Jesus is confirming the validity of the 10 Commandaments as a rule for the Christian conduct in such texts. Rather, he says, Jesus “fulfilled the law” to remove it for the Christian, leaving in its place His own new law.

The Bible speaks of “the law of Christ”, as Paul refers in 1 Cor. 9:21, but he doesn't quote any commandment of such a law to make us know what it is. . . But we have a good hint in Galatians 6:2, where he is more specific: “Bear ye one another's burden, and so fulfil the law of Christ.” So, that is what the law of Christ is all about--to bear one another's burden. But is that different from “love your neighbor as yourself”? Certainly not, especially as that is part of the “golden rule” uttered by Christ himself. So, would we be wrong if we concluded that the law of Christ is the same “golden rule”? I don't think Mr. Ratzlaff and his admirers and followers would disagree that the answer is YES.

But, then, when Jesus was uttering this “golden rule” He was not even being “creative”, for he just “plagiarized” Moses, as we can see in Deut. 6:5 and Levt. 19:18! Well, then is the “golden rule” Jesus’ law or Moses’ law?! Wouldn’t the best answer be -- it is GOD’S LAW? Does Ratzlaff disagree with that? If the answer is yes, why then?

Now, the referred to Baptist author, called Ricardo Pitrowski (seems like being a Brazilian of Polish descent) has this chapter on the fortress of the Sabbatarians, but Arnaldo B. Christianini (a Brazilian of Italian descent) refuted totally his book using mostly material from the Baptists themselves!

It was funny to see how Christianini simply got all these Baptist authors, Bible commentaries, Sunday School quarterlies and destroyed one by one the arguments of this poor Baptist minister who just showed the theological incompetence of those who try to refute Sabbath keeping as a Christian rule.

I quoted in my last discussions of Ratzlaff’s ideas how important people in the Theological field analyzed this text, in a way that just confirms how Ratzlaff and his followers are in the wrong way as to how is the best historical theological stand of conservative Protestant scholarship regarding the subject of God’s law.

But let me add some more authors, as Christianini quotes a few. I will be translating from his quotations in Portuguese for I don’t have access to the same material in English. Some I think were from Brazilian Evangelical authors. So, introducing his arguments, Christianini says, in his book Subtilezas do Erro (Subtleties of Error):

Let’s proceed. To this important text (Matt. 5:17-18) [Pitrowski] calls “the fortress of Sabbatarians”. . . . we will not miss this chance to use this excellent opportunity he grants us to show who are the builders and artisans of such a solid fortress:

l. First of all, as Cornerstone, we have the Author, Architect and Planner: CHRIST, for he was the One to say in crystal clear terms, “. . . Think not I am come to destroy the law . . . I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil”. Did Jesus know what He was talking about? No doubt. “Fulfill” is not to discard a law or cease its validity for having covered all its requirements or for having complied with its precepts, for is that were so, that would simply mean to abrogate it. But in the text Christ declared unequivocally: I am not come to DESTROY”.

Webster defines to abrogate saying that “to fulfill is to obey.” . . . A citizen fulfills his duty to vote, for example. Is the voting institution extinguished because of him having fulfilled it? No! The requirement is permanent; the fulfillment is transient. The fulfillment affects the person, not the requirement; it connects the person with the requirement but doesn’t remove it. Only a superior law that would state it expressly could remove it. . . . Christ fulfilled the baptism, but didn’t abolish it. In Gal. 6:2 we read: “Bear ye one another’s burden, and so fulfil the law of Christ” Imagine the reader whether this means to abolish! That would be a totally distorted and absurd conclusion. . . . No doubt, Christ is the foundation of this fortress of Seventh-day Adventists.(1)

2. A. H. Strong, a much quoted Baptist author, who is also in total contradiction with [Pitrowski’s] thesis, also helps to erect this fortress, when he says:

“He [Jesus] should ‘fulfill’ the law and the prophets through complete execution of the revealed will of God. . . . Since the law is a transcription of God’s sanctity, its requirements as a moral rule are immutable. Only as a system of penalty . . . it was abolished by Christ’s death. ‘Think not I am come to destroy the law. . . [quotation of the entire text]”(2)

. . . Thus, Strong is an excellent contributor for the fortress of Sabbatarians, don’t you think so?

3. J. Broadus, highly reputed Baptist commentator also engages himself in aligning among the fortress’ builders. He writes on Matt. 5:17-18: “Fulfill – is the translation of a Greek word that means ‘to fill up’, ‘to complete’. . . . It means ‘to execute plainly’, ‘to realize’, applied to any work or duty. . . . ‘In vain it is attempted to put these Jesus’ words in conflict with what Paul teaches regarding the law. . . . The idea that sometimes emerges, that Jesus was a great and radical reformer that put aside Moses’ law for being imperfect and outdated, IS CONTRARY TO THE ENTIRE SPIRIT OF THE TEXT” (3) (Highlighted in capital letters by myself).

We thank Broadus wholeheartedly for his uninterested and valuable contribution for the erection of the fortress.

4. C. H. Spurgeon, the prince of the Baptists preachers, alluding to Matt. 5:17, says: “To show that He never thought of abrogating the law, our Lord exemplified all the precepts in His own life.” (4).

. . . No doubt, Spurgeon also render an excellent service in constructing this fortress of Seventh-day Adventists.

5. S. L. Gingsburg, also a Baptist, referring to the Decalogue, with Mat. 5:17-19, writes: “Those who teach the lie that the law has no more value or authority, certainly have not read yet the texts that are here for us to study: MATTHEW 5:17-19.” (5)

Gingsburg is a bold worker in the construction of this citadel . . .

6. Moody, the remarkable revivalist, thus understands Matt. 5:17: “Some think that we have already supplanted the Ten Commandment. What did Christ say? ‘. . . Think not I am come to destroy the law . . . I am not come to destroy . . .; Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass form the law, till all be fulfilled.’ The commandments of God given to Moses . . . are as obligatory today as they were when proclaimed to the ears of the people. The Jews used to say that the law was not given in Palestine (that belonged to Israel) but in the desert, because the law was destined to all the nations.” (6)

We better stop here, otherwise the fortress will be excessively large. We browsed about 20 works of authors who don’t belong to the Adventist fold and all agree in one point: Jesus didn’t ABROGATE anything from the Decalogue. So we have to conclude that this fortress belongs less to the Sabbatarians than to other interpreters who built it, a good number of them Baptists. And as [Pitrowski] thought to tear down the fortress—as the he imagines . . .—he is attempting to destroy someone else’s work. Yes, because the fortress, as we’ve seen, was built by others and given to the Seventh-day Adventists. . .


NOTES


(1) Subtilezas do Erro, pp 101-106.
(2) A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, pp. 546 and 875.
(3) Broadus, Commentary to the Gosple of Matthew, vol. 1, pp. 66, 164 and 165
(4) C. H. Spurgeon, sermon published in the Melbourne Age, 1888.
(5) S. L. Gingsburg, The Decalogue or the Ten Commandments, p. 4.
(6) D. L. Moody, Weighed and Wanting, p. 14.


We see how dangerous it is to attempt destroying fortresses thinking they are built by poor confused people, aiming at defending inadequate positions. Those who know some of the world’s great literature masterpieces might have read the classic Cervantes’ Don Quijote de la Mancha. To fight against windmills was a no-win situation for him, as is a waste of time to Raztzlaff and his supporters to refute Sabbath keeping. And he seems to have some faithful Sancho Panzas to help him.

One example of that is the mail in Spanish that I got from an ex-Adventist group, where they argue that there is nothing wrong in keeping the Sabbath, but working on that day for supplying the family’s necessities is okay, for the Bible says that one should work honestly for making a living. To neglect that, because of a “fanatical” attachment to the Sabbath law, running the risk of facing financial difficulties could jeopardize the family’s survival, which is totally wrong and unbiblical, they allege.

That is another big danger of false reasoning, because they are discriminating against only ONE of God’s commandment. They forget that this applies to ANY commandment. By this reasoning, if a lady has no professional qualifications that grant her a good salary to support her children, and she is offered a job in which she has to get involved with prostitution, that would be okay with the Church! Or else, if a man has no other professional option, but is offered to sell drugs and make a good profit, it is okay, since his intention is just to make a living to support his family. . .

Very dangerous ideas, indeed.


Posted By: Azenilto

The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism - 08/08/08 07:07 AM


The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism

In a certain Brazilian SDA Orkut community an Evangelical pastor started a new topic for discussion with the challenging question, “Where is there an order for the Church to keep the Sabbath?”

In the development of the discussions what happened is that we answered his question fully, and in retribution addressed him another question which he NEVER answered: “Where is there an order for the Church NOT to keep the Sabbath?”

In answering his question we simply quoted what orthodox Protestantism has been teaching along the centuries--that the 10 Commandments are the rule of Christian life in ALL their precepts. Those Mother-churches (like the Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, Lutheran, Anglican) from which so many other Evangelical/Protestant movements have stemmed have in their confessional documents this basic and official teaching, which is something that the majority of Evangelicals ignore.

There is, of course, the “detail” that they reinterpret the 4th commandment to apply to Sunday, which is ANOTHER DISCUSSION. Actually, they are right in teaching the validity of the 4th commandment, even recognizing its Edenic origin, thus being a commandment of MORAL and UNIVERSAL character (the Westminster Confession of Faith even stresses that it is of the NATURAL LAW). However, they are WRONG in arguing that Sunday took the place of the seventh-day Sabbath in the event of Christ’s resurrection. The texts they quote trying to prove that simply don’t deliver. . . They simply don’t prove that allegation.

Then, to show how unfounded is this neo-antinomian dispensational theology of modern Evangelicalism, we addressed him the question, “How were sinners saved in Old Testament times?” His answer to this question revealed the tremendous confusion that prevails in Evangelicalism today due to the preaching of these neo-antinomian dispensationalist theories since the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.

Analyzing briefly his answers we collected the following strange ideas:

a) there was no grace before Christ and some who were saved, that was due to the pure “mercy” of God.

Then I asked what difference is there between “grace” and “mercy”. So far he did not answer, in spite of my insistent questioning on that.

b) He also said that Jesus went preach to “the spirits in prison”. But the text, from 1 Pet. 3:19, 20 (considered an obscure passage in the Bible), says that such “spirits in prison” were limited to the DAYS OF NOAH!

I asked him why, first of all, Jesus went preach to spirits “in prison”, that is—condemned ones. And since they were of “the days of Noah,” what happened to those who were of other times?

Besides, if those who were convicted could repent and be saved, that would be antibiblical, in the light of Heb. 9:27--granting a 2nd. opportunity to unsaved people.

Do I need to say that he hasn’t answered this also?

I cannot generalize, but on the evangelical field, after the tremendous “dispensationalist” brainwashing, the confusion on this and other points is really widespread.

Most evangelicals simply don’t know how to answer this question. They face a tremendous dilemma: if they allege that salvation in the OT times was by the keeping of the law (as some say), that would be an impossibility. Never a man was able to gather to himself enough virtue and credit to deserve going to live with God forever. If they admit that salvation then was also by grace that destroys the foundations of this dispensationalist division of the law/grace eras.

The Sabbath ordinance was recommended to “all people” in Isa. 56:2-7 when God called the foreigners to join Israel in accepting His special covenant with that nation, so that His ideal to the world were accomplished, as expressed in vs. 7, “for mine house shall be called a house of prayer FOR ALL PEOPLE.”

The Sabbath was chosen among all the commandments as a certificate of the conversion of peoples worldwide, for what Israel was to act as a divine instrumentality, placed at the crossroads of three continents, with the mission to be “IHWH’s witnesses” (Isa. 43: 10, 11) “light of the nations . . . unto the end of the Earth” (Isa. 49:6).

What we see among many Evangelicals is a micro worldview regarding God’s plan for Israel and the world, which characterizes this neo-antinomian theology, whose fruits can be seen in the total confusion regarding their understanding of the way by which sinners were saved along human history. That certainly is the “other gospel” (Gal. 1:8) that Protestant Christianity was submitted to since the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Anyway, the participation of this pastor in our community with his challenge has been a blessing to show our brothers and sisters who also participate as members of the community, or anyone who just accompanies the discussions independently, the total fallacy of these neo-antinomian sophistries. As we put this material into English and Spanish this blessing will be multiplied to many more people around the world, thanks to our analyses of these errors.

This is what I call the BALAAM FACTOR again in action, as has already been shown here with other studies that accompany these discussions.
Posted By: Tom

Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism - 08/08/08 08:52 PM

Just within Adventism, there is a lot of differing points of view, which is easy to see, just by considering this forum. Within Evangelical Christianity, there is even greater differing ideas, which one would expect. So you've correctly identified an area (or areas) of confusion, but there are many different ways they try to deal with the issue you brought up.

One of things I really liked about Adventism was how it unites the plan of salvation. It really doesn't make sense that people should be saved in different ways depending on when they lived. One way it's easy to see that thew plan of salvation didn't change is by considering how the NT authors make their case, especially Paul. He does so by giving examples of righteousness by faith, including David, who lived smack dab in the middle of the supposedly pre-grace dispensation.
Posted By: Azenilto

Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism - 10/11/08 11:01 PM


Hello, friends

We discuss the material in the last issue of Proclamation! Magazine in another topic.

Since that edition is dedicated to discuss the subject of man's nature and destiny (immortality of the soul) we decided to just add our material to articles and studies already dealing with the subject.

To reach it, just go through the following link:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=103530&fpart=1

Posted By: Azenilto

Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism - 01/07/09 12:28 AM


Dishonest Distortions and Omissions, Recipe for a Ministry of Error

The two last editions of Proclamation! Magazine bring nothing about what would be the logical sequel of the edition in which its promoters discussed the nature of man, advocating the popular thesis of immortality of the soul. But, where are the consequent discussions on the fate of guilty men? Where is the analysis of the final punishment?

Is the theme of an eternally burning hell just too embarrassing for Mr. Ratzlaff and his team to deal with, so they prefer to lay the matter untouched, left to the imagination of each one? Belief in immortality of the soul must lead to serious discussions on what happens to the folks of the “resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:29). But Ratzlaff has nothing to say about it, just complete silence, in spite of having attempted to “prove” with an entire special edition of his magazine the immortality of the soul issue. What a disappointment! But we did discuss this aspect of man’s destiny in our analyses, as can be checked through this link:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=107224&page=1

In the September/October edition the magazine discusses, with cover highlights, the Israelite festivals, with an analysis of how Seventh-day Adventists would be divided on the subject. But the exact proportion of Adventists who are really enthused about the subject is never revealed. What proportion of the SDA Church membership, of 16 millions and counting, are trying to introduce the celebrations of Israel--as Pentecost, Feast of Tabernacle, Day of Atonement--within Adventism? In my over 40 years of Adventism I never saw this as a dominant concern in our midst, and if there are small groups here and there, restricted in time and space, this does not indicate absolutely any denominational “trend” or a big sensation in that direction. Again we witness the usual dishonest distortions, some small thing conveniently blown out of proportion.

Is God an Incompetent Legislator?

In the editorial page, Colleen Tinker tinkers again with Theology matters discussing the “problem” of the impossibility of the Sabbath to be universally observed, due to circumstances of modern life. She decided being really something simply out of touch with the reality of modern days. Of course that is not as much offensive to Sabbath keepers as to God Himself, as a Legislator who didn’t anticipate such terrible problem of having the entire world obeying this command in His moral law. This God of Tinker’s imagination really didn’t think of the terrible consequences of having everyone keeping the Sabbath, for He extended this invitation to ALL FOREIGNERS:

“Blessed is the man who does this, the man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil. Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say, ‘The LORD will surely exclude me from his people.’ And let not any eunuch complain, ‘I am only a dry tree.’ For this is what the LORD says: ‘To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off. And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant, these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.’


A serious difficulty among many who study the Bible is that they ignore the reason why God chose Israel to be His people, first of all. This ignorance leads to this idea of a Sabbath exclusive to Israel and nobody else, when God intended that Israel were His “witnesses”, the light of the nations to the ends of the Earth (Isa. 43:10, 11; 49:6). So, if Israel had fulfilled its role of announcer of the true God, His law and His plan of salvation, entire nations would turn to the Lord, accept Him and His promise of salvation, and keep His holy law, which would include the Sabbath, as the invitation and promises to ALL FOREIGNERS make clear.

We can see Mrs. Tinker’s handicap on that point—this “new alliance” theology she adopted blinded her understanding of this matter (and several others), and her comments just point to this sad condition.

Mr. Palmer’s 360-Degree Journey

The most regrettable, however, is an article written by a certain pastor, called Dennis Palmer, who was first an Evangelical Protestant, then became a Seventh-day Adventist who attended some of our colleges, “evolved” to a Seventh-day Baptist, becoming even a pastor of that church. But now he says he “discovered” that there are no day to be dedicated especially to the Lord, alleging that his “struggle” with Colossians 2:16 is over as he submits himself to the light of “no Sabbath at all” to be kept, to probably return to his original Evangelical non-Sabbath observant community.

Now, he quotes Samuele Bacchiocchi’s book From Sabbath to Sunday, but in just a very limited manner. He tries to explore the fact that Bacchiocchi admits that the Sabbaths referred to in the text are the weekly ones, but never shows what is the whole gamut of his reasoning. Besides, he ignores the tremendous historical and biblical research carried out by the same book that proves the true origins of Sunday, and the truth of the seventh-day Sabbath as a perennial principle adopted by the Church. These omissions can only be seen as a very dishonest attitude, not worthy of a real scholar.

This kind of impregnable-fortress-texts theology, based on two or three selected and isolated verses, is a well-known methodology of error. It is the same rationale of Catholics to defend their Petrine theory, based on Matthew 16:18 and some few other texts. The Mormons also resort to that in their practice of baptism for the dead based on a misunderstood exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:29. Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other hand, follow the same route with their ban on blood transfusions, based on a few misunderstood texts.

The Impregnable-Fortress-Texts Methodology

Not long ago I saw in Youtube the testimony of a former Baptist minister, who came to be even a seminary teacher, as he told his story of his finished “battle” over the Transubstantiation theory. He alleged to have found grammatical details in John chap. 6 that for him were undeniable “evidences” that the Catholic interpretation is correct, as he was interviewed in a Roman-Catholic TV station and gave witness of his acceptance of Catholicism as a whole. He said he had “discovered” that there is no way to challenge the “truth” that the bread that Jesus was referring to was His literal body, and he wine was the real blood He shed on the cross.

In the Assembly of God Church, which is the largest Brazilian evangelical denomination, the problem was with a pastor of a large congregation of Portuguese and Brazilian immigrants in Boston, USA. He not only maintains a very “lively” worship system, with practices that their leaders in Brazil frowned upon (as the “fall under the power”--the “miraculous” touch that causes people to collapse on their backs, supposedly under the power of the Spirit, in the well-known style of Benny Hinn), and came to claim that he had direct communication with angels and other biblical figures as Abraham, Elijah, Moses, etc. He certainly had also his “discoveries”, but his Church headquarters, established in Brazil, ended up discarding his system, which led him to the creation of one more “independent” religious group, forming what is called Renewed Assembly of God Church. . .

Preferring the Styrofoam Cross

Thus, these “discoveries” and “unsuccessful battles” with Bible texts are not new in the Protestant religious field. The methodology of the texts that taken in isolation become “interpretative impregnable fortresses” is neither new nor surprising when pretexts are found to overcome intimate conflicts, by those who chose an easier or more popular path for their religious lives, or something of greater impact. Jesus bade everyone to pick up his cross and follow Him. However, He didn’t give a definition of what material this cross should be built. Then, some reason—”Well, who knows one made of Styrofoam wouldn’t do?” The number of so-called Christians who carry around Styrofoam crosses is legion. . .

The belief that in Colossians 2:16 Paul is releasing the Christian’s obligation to observe a Sabbath (a subject that was discussed in depth, as can be seen at http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=103531&page=6) is a decision that might be very convenient to Mr. Palmer, but brings immense difficulties as well.

First, if Paul is discarding the obligation of the Sabbath commandment, he leaves nothing in its place, so the very principle of a regular day of rest, beneficial to physical and spiritual health (as a scientific article proves), is “optional”. Based on that, a believer might disregard that practice completely thus negatively affecting his/her health.

Second, it makes no sense to believe that because of the death of Christ the principle of a day devoted entirely to the Lord became optional, as if He were no longer worthy of it.

Third, the false attribution of the Sabbath as merely a symbol of spiritual rest in Christ, a mere type of His death, finds no support in a serious analysis of the Scripture. So much so that this interpretation is not what characterizes the “Protestant tradition”, since the confessional documents of those Mother-churches, from which so many others were derived, establish that the 4th commandment proceeds from Creation, thus being of moral and universal character (even though wrongly reinterpreted to Sunday).

To quote texts such as Hebrews 4, where it is never said that the Sabbath symbolizes salvation in Christ, thus having been abolished by His death, is pure distortion of Scripture, a serious danger in the light of 2 Ped. 3:15-17. Furthermore, when the apostle had the opportunity to discuss the symbolism of the law of Israel, in the chapters 7 to 10 of Hebrews, he never mentions either the Sabbath or the dietary laws as having fulfilled any ceremonial, typological role. That is unthinkable of, in the face of the great importance that both types of law had in the day-to-day life of the Jews. These are issues already covered in previous discussions.

And Romans 14 (another “impregnable fortress” of anti-sabbatarians) deserves a questionnaire to be submitted to the promoters of these theories, which we do below but without any slightest hope of objective, specific answers, as our question on the transition from the old to the new covenant never was (see: http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=103531&page=4).

Whatever is the case, we submit two questionnaires dealing objectively with these texts so much explored by these anti-sabbatical theorists, one on Romans 14, another on Colossians 2:16, as can be seen in the following frame.


Posted By: Azenilto

Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism - 01/07/09 12:32 AM


10 SPECIFIC QUESTIONS REGARDING ROMANS 14:5, 6

1 – Since Jesus said that “the Sabbath was established because of man” (Mar. 2:27), why did Paul feel he had a right to turn it into an optional principle?

2 – Since when did this optional mentality for the observance of the “Lord’s day” begin? From the Resurrection time? From the writing of the epistle to the Romans in AD 56-58?

3 – Why is it that in Galatians 4:9-11 Paul doesn’t allow for any day to be observed, while in Romans 14:5, 6 he leaves it up to each one to have a day or no day to observe? Wouldn’t that seem a clear contradiction on the part of the Apostle?

4 – What either Biblical or historical proof is there that among the early Christians there was this criterion of each one observing the day that best served his interest (or that of his employer), some observing Sunday, others Monday, even others Tuesday, besides observers of Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, as well as the adherents of the “nodayism”?

5 – In what day did they gather for worship and fellowship? Or else, were there services every day, according to the options of days to observe?

6 – And how about the adherents of the “nodayism”? How did they act in the face of the Hebrews 10:25 recommendation, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing”?

7 – When did the Christians depart from the “any day/no day” criterion to adopt Sunday officially and collectively?

8 – If any day was equally good, why does John, in Revelation 1:10, speak of a specific “Lord’s day”? Was it his private “Lord’s day”, according to his decision?

9 – Where is it said that, with the transfer of the Old to the New Covenant, as God writes His laws on the hearts and minds of those who accept His New Covenant [New Testament] (Hebrews 8:6-10), He records the principle of a day of rest setting a different day for each one?

10 – If any day is equally good, why shouldn’t we stick to that which is clearly established in the divine law--the seventh-day Sabbath--instead of remaining under this ambiguity, being God a God of order, not of confusion?


10 QUESTIONS ON COLOSSIANS 2:16

1 - If the Sabbath was a ceremonial precept to be abolished later (something which would be reflected in Colossians 2:16), with what authority did Paul engage himself in changing the divine law that Jesus said He did not come to abolish, but to fulfill (Mat 5:17-19), and in His entire Sermon on the Mount never indicated that He: a) came to abolish the law, b) came to change the law?

2 - If the Sabbath was a ceremonial precept to be abolished later (something which would be reflected in Colossians 2:16) what did Paul leave in its place, since that would indicate the end of the principle of a rest day established by God since Eden, and there is no indication of what has been left in its place?

Note: Those who raise such sophistry are good at the task of destroying, but not in that of building something better to replace the “eliminated” thing. It is always easier to destroy than to build.

3 - If the Sabbath was a ceremonial precept to be abolished later (something which would be reflected in Colossians 2:16), how would John ignore this fact, since he indicates having himself a day dedicated to the Lord (Rev. 1:10)?

Note: He certainly is not referring to Sunday, for when he dealt with the episode of the Resurrection he does not employ any special title for the day, calling it simply “the first day of the week”, or mía twn sabbatwn [the first regarding the Sabbath, according to the Greek original, reflecting the Jewish time reckoning] (see John 20:1).

4 - If the Sabbath was a ceremonial precept to be abolished later (something which would be reflected in Colossians 2:16) why was not that listed as one of the things the Gentile Christians should abstain from in the recommendations of the Jerusalem Council, if that was one of the things agitated by the Judaizers, as some allege (see Acts 15:20, 29)?

Note: It is no use to quote vs. 5 that speaks of “law of Moses”, because that is not limited to the Sabbath precept, but encompasses “ye shall not kill”, “not steal”, “not commit adultery”, etc.

5 - If the Sabbath was a ceremonial precept to be abolished later (something which would be reflected in Colossians 2:16) why is not that confirmed by Paul as he mentions the WHOLE contents of the cold stone tables as having to be transferred do the hearts warmed by the divine grace of those who accept the terms of the New Covenant (cf. 2 Cor. 3:2, 3, 6 e 7)?

Note: If he wanted to exclude the Sabbath, his language in vs. 3 would be something like: “. . . not on tables of stone but on tables of flesh, that is, on the hearts, with the exclusion of the Sabbath commandment. . .” To make full sense of his illustration, since he bases his rationale on an allegory used by Ezekiel (36:26, 27), he clearly implies that he covered the entire contents of the “tables of stone” transferred to the “tables of flesh”, which unavoidably includes the Sabbath.

6 - If the Sabbath was a ceremonial precept to be abolished later (something which would be reflected in Colossians 2:16) why does the author of Hebrews give a very special treatment to the Sabbath in chaps. 3 and 4, instead of dealing with it in chaps. 7 to 10, dedicated to the discussions of the Jewish ceremonies in the epistle?

Note: Far from saying that the Sabbath was abolished for being ceremonial, the author of Hebrews says that “There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God.” (Heb. 4:9-NIV). There were also those in Israel who really entered in the spiritual “rest”, although the nation as a whole failed (as the heroes of Heb. 11) and did not fail to observe the Sabbath (see, for example, Psalm 40:8 – the experience of David that should have been that of the entire nation).

7 - If the Sabbath was a ceremonial precept to be abolished later (something which would be reflected in Colossians 2:16), why do important theology Christian authorities interpret these passages not indicating that at all, like the Baptists Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, the Methodist Adam Clarke and the Presbyterians Albert Barnes and Charles Hodge?

Note: Here are excerpts from their writings:

“There is no intimation here that the Sabbath was done away, or that its moral use was superseded, by the introduction of Christianity. I have shown elsewhere that, Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, is a command of perpetual obligation, and can never be superseded but by the final termination of time. As it is a type of that rest which remains for the people of God, of an eternity of bliss, it must continue in full force till that eternity arrives; for no type ever ceases till the antitype be come. Besides, it is not clear that the apostle refers at all to the Sabbath in this place, whether Jewish or Christian; his sabbaton of sabbaths or weeks, most probably refers to their feasts of weeks, of which much has been said in the notes on the Pentateuch.
– Adam Clarke’s commentary.

“SABBATHS” (not “the sabbaths”) of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Lev_23:32, Lev_23:37-39). The weekly sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days. Lev_23:38 expressly distinguished “the sabbath of the Lord” from the other sabbaths. A positive precept is right because it is commanded, and ceases to be obligatory when abrogated; a moral precept is commanded eternally, because it is eternally right. If we could keep a perpetual sabbath, as we shall hereafter, the positive precept of the sabbath, one in each week, would not be needed. Heb_4:9, “rests,” Greek, “keeping of sabbath” (Isa_66:23). But we cannot, since even Adam, in innocence, needed one amidst his earthly employments; therefore the sabbath is still needed and is therefore still linked with the other nine commandments, as obligatory in the spirit, though the letter of the law has been superseded by that higher spirit of love which is the essence of law and Gospel alike (Rom_13:8-10).
– Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown.

And we have this commentary by an unsuspected Sunday observer:

“They [the texts of Col. 2:16 and Rom. 14:5, 6] make no reference to the weekly Sabbath, which had been observed since Creation, and which the Apostles themselves introduced and perpetuated in the Christian Church.”
Systematic Theology, Charles Hodge, pp. 1269 [translated from the Portuguese text].


Dr. Albert Barnes, known Presbyterian authority, adds his comments on the text of Colossians 2:16:

“. . . the apostle does not refer particularly to the Sabbath properly so called. There is no evidence from this passage that he would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. If he had used the word in the singular number – ‘the Sabbath,’ it would then, of course, have been clear that he meant to teach that that commandment had ceased to be binding, and that a Sabbath was no longer to be observed. But the use of the term in the plural number, and the connection, show that he had his eye on the great number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their ceremonial and typical law, and not to the moral law, or the Ten Commandments. No part of the moral law -- no one of the ten commandments could be spoken of as ‘a shadow of good things to come.’ These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and universal obligation”.


8 - If the Sabbath was a ceremonial precept to be abolished later (something which would be reflected in Colossians 2:16), why then important Christians confessional documents, such as the confessions of faith of Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, deal with the principle of the day of rest as a MORAL commandment originating from Eden?

Note: Here is what some of the most representative confessions of Protestant Christianity say:

VII. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He has particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week: and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.

VIII. This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
-- Chapter XXI - the Westminster Confession of Faith.

7. As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God’s appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord’s day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished. . . . The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
– 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

Note: The document is right on the premise that Sabbath day should still be considered a commandment of the Decalogue valid and current. However, it is wrong to say that Sunday took the place of the seventh-day Sabbath, because there is no biblical evidence of that (as the next question makes clear).

9 - If the Sabbath was a ceremonial precept to be abolished later (something which would be reflected in Colossians 2:16) why doesn't the author of Hebrews, when dealing with the transfer of the Old to the New Covenant, indicate, as he refers to what is called “My laws” written on the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of this New Covenant [New Testament], that in this process God

a - leaves out the 4th. commandment of the moral law?

b - includes 4. commandment, but it changes the day of observance of the Sabbath to Sunday?

OR

c – leaves the principle of a day of rest as a vague, voluntary and variable practice, that could be reinterpreted as any day that best suits the believer’s interest (or his/her employer’s)?

10 - Why deny that which Christ established for the physical, mental and spiritual benefit of man and to serve as a “memorial of Creation” preferring the sophistry of incompetent people who deny that the authors of greater intellectual and spiritual category, of the past and present, as Wesley, Calvin, Billy Graham, James Kennedy, the Classic authors of Bible commentaries as Barnes, Clarke, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, etc., taught regarding God’s moral law and its day of rest principle?

Note: It is clear that all this discrimination against the commandment of the Sabbath has as one of its chief reasons—the preference to tread on a more spacious and comfortable path in religious life. It is much easier to roar in the direction that current goes than contrary to it, and not everyone is willing to face sacrifice to their self-indulgence. . .

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism - 01/08/09 06:26 PM

Quote:
It is much easier to roar in the direction that current goes than contrary to it, and not everyone is willing to face sacrifice to their self-indulgence.

I so look forward to the Sabbath. I don't see how people can not want to take a break from the hectic world we live in. What can be more relaxing, more rejuvenating than chilling with Jesus and friends and family on the Sabbath!!!
Posted By: Azenilto

Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism - 01/10/09 05:24 AM

Yes, brother, we know that, but some people still think that this Sabbath-keeping question is sort of an interference of religion in their administration of time. They want to set their schedule, and religious matters are secondary regarding that point.

The same occurs with the dietary rules. People think they know better what their menu should be, again without "interference" of religion. . .

And how about the tithe principle? Inteference of religion on the way one handles his finances. . .

So, many are under the illusion they know better how to control these three things--time, food, money.

Then, we have all this resistance to these Bible principles, even on the part of those who guarantee they are faithful Bible followers. . .
Posted By: Rick H

Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism - 01/10/09 07:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Quote:
It is much easier to roar in the direction that current goes than contrary to it, and not everyone is willing to face sacrifice to their self-indulgence.

I so look forward to the Sabbath. I don't see how people can not want to take a break from the hectic world we live in. What can be more relaxing, more rejuvenating than chilling with Jesus and friends and family on the Sabbath!!!


Some people looked to the Unions to give them a day off in some of the industries when the Industrial Revolution came about, and even today some companies expect you to 'volunteer' your weekends as part of the team to meet deadlines. I worked getting software out at one company where weekends was a given when under a deadline, and our 9-5 sometines turned into 9 to 2-3am and still be expected back at 9 in the morning. But no matter what, they all knew I would leave at 5 on Friday to prepare for the Sabbath rest and it was a witness to them. So thank God for the Sabbath!
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism - 01/10/09 08:20 PM

Right on, Richard. Amen! God is good - all the time!
Posted By: Azenilto

Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism - 05/29/09 04:09 AM


The Clear Word Bible Paraphrase:

Much Ado About Nothing

In the 2009 January/February edition of Proclamation magazine Mr. Ratzlaff takes the edition of SDA author and retired Theology professor, Jack J. Blanco’s The Clear Word as the main target of his new anti-Adventist bashing campaign. However, his is a clear water-muddling and wave-making series of false allegations on how important and “decisive” that volume is for SDA's. I, myself, had never seen one and had just one brother in our congregation who owned the copy he loaned me to examine and discuss the question raised by Ratzlaff. Let's see what we could glean from said book, as the author explains its objective and personal experience leading to its writing:

On its cover one can find the explanation that it is “an expanded paraphrase to build strong faith and nurture spiritual growth”. On the back cover it adds that its intention is that “as the meaning of Scripture becomes more transparent, you see more of God's grace”. Now, that is interesting. . . Critics of Seventh-day Adventism would imagine that the author's intention would be to have people seeing more of God's law, but the emphasis in on God's grace.

In the “Preface” Jack J. Blanco, the author, makes a clear effort to show that this volume has no intention to replace the Bible or being another Bible.

“As has been stated in previous editions, The Clear Word is not a translation, but a devotional paraphrase of Scripture expanded for clarity. . . . It should not be considered a study Bible. Excellent translations of Scriptures are available for such purposes.”

In some paragraphs further down he explains some more:

“A paraphrase uses current language to make the text more understandable. Over the years there have been several modern paraphrases such as Phillip's New Testament in Modern English, Taylor's The Living Bible, and Peterson's The Message. These provide a variety of reading choices. God has more ways than we can fathom to reach His children wherever they are. Each translation or paraphrase has proved beneficial in its own way to bring readers to a clearer understanding of God's magnificent gift to a fallen race.”

Of course, every paraphrase will reflect the author's personal convictions. If the author is a Calvinist one can identify his inclinations toward the “election” doctrine in the exposition of certain key texts used for advocating that notion, as well as a bias in the use of other texts that are not directly related to his views, but probably will be slanted in that direction. Thus, it is simply natural that Mr. Blanco’s positions will reflect his Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the Bible. However, the dishonest assessment of its contents can be seen in the conclusion Ratzlaff jumps to, implying even that either the author and/or the S.D.A. Church teach justification by Sabbath keeping.

Under the title “Saved by the Sabbath” he quotes Mr. Blanco’s commentary on Col. 2:16 (a key-text for anti-Sabbatarian, a truly one single note anti-Sabbatarian samba as we have already covered—see http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=98821&page=6)

But he distorts the meaning of what the author says as he points to a difference between the ceremonial Sabbaths and the “special Sabbaths” (which is not a S.D.A. Church interpretation only, but, as we have seen, that of different Protestant Bible commentary authors, such as Albert Barnes and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown). He emphasized especially a version for kids, where the Mr. Blanco says:

“Don't let anyone tell you that you have to go through certain rituals, eat certain foods, keep certain feasts, or observe extra Sabbaths to be saved. All these things pointed forward to Jesus. So now they're meaningless”.

Now, where is any least hint of any preaching of salvation by keeping the Sabbath there?! Only in a sickly anti-Sabbatarian mind that conclusion could be come to. See how Mr. Ratzlaff proves without any shadow of doubt how he acts without any Christian ethics in his assessment of what the author means:

“This passage is one of the clearest implicit examples from Blanco’s eisegesis indicating that the keeping of the weekly (not an ‘extra’ Sabbath) is something observed by those who are being saved. This Sabbath-requirement is the kind of legalism with which Jesus constantly confronted the Pharisees. It is the kind of legalism that Christians are to avoid, particularly given Paul's stern warning to the ‘bewitched’ Galatians gentiles who were being led into Jewish practices like those taught by the Adventist church and emphasized by Blanco”.

Any unbiased person can see the “clear word” of prejudice and dishonest distortion of not only what Mr. Blanco says (and he emphasizes, “Don't let anyone tell you that you have to go through certain rituals, eat certain foods, keep certain feasts, or observe extra Sabbaths to be saved” because these things became “meaningless”, never, ever, implying any Sabbath-keeping requirement for salvation), but of what the Seventh-day Adventist church teaches regarding the means of salvation, which we also have covered in past analyzes and can be checked in the SDA Doctrinal Official statements (see topics 9, 10 and 18) through the following link:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=98821&page=2

Other distortions and demonstrations of unethical attitude could be mentioned in Mr. Ratzlaff's comments on the Clear Word text, but that suffices as a sample of how bias and prejudice act when a brainwashed mind puts forth the result of its evil machinations to harm the reputation of someone or some institution. Haven't Mr. Ratzlaff and his staff ever read Matt. 12:36?!

Anyway, telling of his personal motivation to create this paraphrase the author, who has a Th.D. title and is a retired dean of Theology, adds:

“This paraphrase began as my own devotional journey in seeking a deeper relationship with the One who loved me and gave His life for me”. So, no intention to promote the law, but the grace of God. . . Again, this is noteworthy. . .


Does reading Galatians makes us renounce to 7th-day Adventism? How come?!

What we said above gives us a glimpse of how this “new alliance” folks so often distort the truth of what SDA's really understand of their Bible study, like the article by Berit Fischer, who recommends the reading of Galatians as a remedy for Adventists not to be so attached to the law. Since we already wrote a brief article, “Are Adventists Afraid of Galatians?” (see: http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=98821&page=6)

I just reproduce a little list of questions she poses as if they represented tremendous challenges to a Seventh-day Adventist:

* Why is the fourth commandment itself not repeated even once in the New Testament?

* Why is it that nowhere in the New Testament is Sabbath-breaking condemned as sin?

* If Sabbath-keeping is so important for a follower of Jesus, why did Jesus not mention it in his Sermon on the Mountain or in any of his teachings?

* Why did not Jesus, the apostles, or Paul command Sabbath keeping?

* Why is the Sabbath not mentioned in Revelation if the Sabbath will have such significance in the end time?

These questions have been mostly covered in our previous discussions, but I will this time post a very interesting questionnaire that I found in a Christian forum in Spanish, under the title “40 Questions For Seventh-Day Adventists”, which covers these ones too. I will give greater details of said material later on.

Another contributing author in this Proclamation edition is a Pentecostal guy, called Adrian Bury, who boasts of how he “helped” a friend to not get involved with 7th-day Adventism, and who relates two interesting things:

a) That he got involved with a Pentecostal pastor when a young man and asked him to pray for him, “and from then on I experienced and understood the Holy Spirit as Someone who is real, not merely abstract or theoretical”. Now, this puts editor Ratzlaff in an embarrassing situation—does someone who ask him to pray in his/her favor also go through this mentioned experience, thus understanding who the Spirit really is? If not, Ratzlaff would be among those who DON'T understand who the Holy Spirit really is, and don't have experienced it truly, as this Pentecostal contributor to his magazine stresses.

b) He decided to investigate 7th-day Adventism, not directly through the SDA Church channels, literature or personal contacts with members or pastor of our church, but “through the Internet”. It's no wonder, then, he was so “shocked” when he read about the “scapegoat” teaching, according to which it is Satan who finally bears our sins. I must admit I was shocked”. The problem is that he simply came across a caricature of the REAL 7th-day Adventist teaching so popular among those who specialize in corrupting the meaning of the expiation and other of our teachings.

Going back to the "40 Questions For Seventh-day Adventists”, I took the trouble of answering briefly every question, but I added at the end of each a “QUESTION FOR RETRIBUTION”. I published everything in said forum. Do you think I got any answers for my questions? As it would be expected, these anti-Adventists are very good in formulating questions and addressing them to us, but after they are answered they simply IGNORE the ones we have for them. Is that fair?

So, see the 40 questions, their answers and our “QUESTIONS FOR RETRIBUTION” duly translated into English. That material will suffice to answering all these questions Mrs. Fischer poses (besides the arguments by Mr. Bury), as well as some of other of her arguments, like when she tells her story at a certain point:

“When I began to read about the covenants, I came to see that the Ten Commandments are inseparable from the law and the old covenant. The Bible told me that the Ten Commandments were a part of the whole law to which Jesus came to make an end. I was totally shocked!”

Well, it is indeed a shock to any balanced mind to think of Jesus putting an end to the entire 10 Commandments, which means that the gauntlet for all kinds of sins is thrown open, with the chaotic situation that would follow suit. . . Unhappily that is what is taught in certain sectors of Christendom, contrary to what has been FOR CENTURIES the official teaching of ALL mother-churches of Protestantism, from which so many others derived (including these “new alliance” neo-antinomian offshoots), with all the ambiguity and contradiction that this kind of rationale leads to. And all that to JUST get rid of the “inconvenient” Sabbath commandment, for those who come up with this kind of allegation finally realize that NINE out of the TEN “abolished” commandments survived intact this total “law abolition” stuff. How shocking that also sounds, doesn't it?

Let's see the 40 questions, then, in the threads that can be located through the following link:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=113863#Post113863
© 2024 Maritime 2nd Advent Christian Believers OnLine Forums Consisting Mainly of Both Members & Friends of the SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) Church