|
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,594
Members1,323
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept
[Re: Azenilto]
#92013
09/25/07 01:06 AM
09/25/07 01:06 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]
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept
[Re: Azenilto]
#92014
09/25/07 01:11 AM
09/25/07 01:11 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
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept
[Re: Azenilto]
#92015
09/25/07 12:04 PM
09/25/07 12:04 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept
[Re: Rosangela]
#92064
09/29/07 09:28 PM
09/29/07 09:28 PM
|
|
|
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
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept
[Re: Azenilto]
#92066
09/30/07 05:32 PM
09/30/07 05:32 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
|
|
|
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept
[Re: Anonymous]
#92099
10/06/07 04:02 AM
10/06/07 04:02 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.
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept
[Re: Azenilto]
#92549
11/02/07 08:37 PM
11/02/07 08:37 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
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept
[Re: Azenilto]
#92605
11/05/07 04:23 AM
11/05/07 04:23 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]
|
|
|
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept
[Re: Anonymous]
#92606
11/05/07 04:26 AM
11/05/07 04:26 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]
|
|
|
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept
[Re: Anonymous]
#92607
11/05/07 04:30 AM
11/05/07 04:30 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
