Posted By: Azenilto
THE SCAPEGOAT QUESTION: RATZLAFF’S BIGGEST ANTI-SDA STRAWMAN - 09/06/10 03:37 AM
THE SCAPEGOAT QUESTION: RATZLAFF’S BIGGEST ANTI-SDA STRAWMAN
The big fuss about the SDA doctrine of Investigative Judgment and, within it, the “scapegoat question”, is not surprising, nor the distortions and false allegations attached to the objections regarding these teachings.
Some objectors of our faith make a big fuss about such doctrinal details, totally irrelevant, as the attribution of the title Michael to Jesus Christ. What some dishonestly do is to compare SDA’s with Jehovah’s Witnesses, who DENY Jesus’ divinity, teaching that He is just a creature of God. These critics omit from their public the information that we do not deny Christ’s divinity and equality with the Father, within a trinitarian view. This purposeful omission is an unethical attitude.
Also, they never comment (for ignoring the fact?) that important classic Protestant Bible commentaries, like Matthew Henry’s, Adam Clarke’s, John Gill’s, Albert Barnes’, teach the same. However, they were never considered heretics because of that. John Calvin declared that “many people believe that Michael is Christ” adding that he didn’t object to this opinion. But these critics, not knowing these opinions and interpretations, take advantage of the general lack of knowledge about the fact to explore that as an anti-SDA asset.
Before discussing directly the main subject of the April-June, 2010 issue of Proclamation! magazine, let’s reproduce some comments by readers of our material in one of the forums they were posted a time ago:
From a moderator of one of the about 10 Adventist Forums where the material is being posted in both English and Spanish:
Some of Adventists worst enemies are ex-Adventists. . . . 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.
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 over 40 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, and discrepancies, 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 would 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. . .
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: . . . . 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 immortality 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.
As I was reading the article by Mr. Chris Badenhorst, who left Adventism but preferred not to join any specific church, just attending a Baptist Church for worship and fellowship, as is said in a short biography at the end of his article, I noticed that he invests heavily in a few statements by Ellen G. White, in her Early Writings, while ignoring many others of her own pen. He decides for SDA’s that once EGW said something, we are supposed to have that as an inmovable final word, directly from God. Anything said that is not compatible to that initial statement then should be ignored. That is not honest nor reflects our best understanding of EGW’s prophetic ministry.
If I decide to take some isolated Bible texts to prove a point, like, for example, that salvation is INDEED by works, I could select Matt. 19:17; Matt. 25:31-46, Rom. 2:13; Phil. 2:12, 1 Tim. 4:16, James 2:24. These texts speak about keeping commandments, practing good works, obeying the law, striving personally, even being careful about doctrine to be saved. Do they reflect the global tenor of the Bible teaching? Of course not.
The fact is that the Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists is never considered in the context of these accusations regarding certain interpretations of things not very clear in the Bible. JW’s and other Unitarians also come up with all kinds of objections and false attributions against those who accept the Trinity doctrine, which is not as clearly discussed in the Bible pages as we would prefer. There is no comparison between how the doctrine of salvation by faith and the Godhead and His actions of Judgment are exposed. The first enjoys ample analyses, especially by Paul, while there are so many gaps in understanding everything related to God, His nature, His criterion to “select” the saved ones (from which so many ideas and debates on freewill/predestination stem, even though these points are not seen as “salvational”).
Topics 9 and 10 of the SDA Fundamental Beliefs give us every assurance that in Christ we are saved by faith, and no additional requirement is ever imposed upon the believers. Details of the future judgment don’t absolutely affect our faith in God’s provision of salvation on the cross. The details of atonement completed on the cross are never put in doubt by any well-informed Seventh-day Adventist. But there is an interesting reasoning to be taken into account:
* Jesus died on the cross to atone for our sins, no doubt about that. But how about IF He had not come out of the tomb on the third day? The atonement would not be completed. . .
But, how about,
* IF He had come out of the tomb, but not ascended to heaven? Then the atonement would not be completed.
* IF He had ascended to heaven, but not engaged in His intercessor, Advocate, role? Then the atonement would not be completed.
* IF He had engaged Himself in this intercessory work, but will not RETURN from heaven to take His own to heaven, as His promise in John 14:1-3? Then the atonement would not be completed, and there would be no resurrection and final redemption. . .
Thus, we see that the “complete atonement” idea is something that has some features that can’t be ignored.
To conclude this initial analysis of this subject as discussed in the publication referred to, let’s just quote four of Ellen White’s staments in the Testimonies series that show the supremacy of the atonement on the cross as the focus of her message:
“The gospel is the sanctifying influence in our world. Its influence upon hearts will bring harmony. The standard of truth is to be uplifted and the atonement of Christ presented as the grand, central theme for consideration”. -- 8T, 77,
“He intercedes in behalf of those who receive Him. With His own blood He has paid their ransom. By virtue of His merits He gives them power to become members of the royal family, children of the heavenly King. And the Father demonstrates His infinite love for Christ by receiving and welcoming Christ´s friends as His friends. He is satisfied with the atonement made. He is glorified by the incarnation, the life, death, and mediation of His Son”. -- 8T, 177.
“The corruptions of this degenerate age have stained many souls who have been professedly serving God. But even now it is not too late for wrongs to be righted and for the blood of a crucified and risen Saviour to atone in your behalf if you repent and feel your need of pardon”. -- 3T, 476.
“They [the faithful ministers of Christ] feel that souls are in peril, and with earnest, humble faith they plead the promises of God in their behalf. The ransom paid by Christ--the atonement on the cross--is ever before them. They will have souls as seals of their ministry”. -- 5T, 190.
[To see the series of these discussion related to the Proclamation! magazine from the beginning, click on the following link:
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=86676 ]