|
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,600
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
|
|
|
6 registered members (dedication, Karen Y, ProdigalOne, Kevin H, Daryl, 1 invisible),
2,960
guests, and 19
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism
[Re: Tom]
#103531
10/11/08 08:01 PM
10/11/08 08:01 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
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism
[Re: Azenilto]
#107225
01/06/09 09:28 PM
01/06/09 09:28 PM
|
|
|
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.
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism
[Re: Azenilto]
#107226
01/06/09 09:32 PM
01/06/09 09:32 PM
|
|
|
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. . .
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism
[Re: Azenilto]
#107301
01/08/09 03:26 PM
01/08/09 03:26 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
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!!!
|
|
|
Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism
[Re: Mountain Man]
#107377
01/10/09 02:24 AM
01/10/09 02:24 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. . .
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism
[Re: Mountain Man]
#107391
01/10/09 04:39 AM
01/10/09 04:39 AM
|
Group: Admin Team
3000+ Member
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,114
Florida, USA
|
|
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!
Last edited by Richard; 01/10/09 04:44 AM.
|
|
|
Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism
[Re: Rick H]
#107410
01/10/09 05:20 PM
01/10/09 05:20 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Right on, Richard. Amen! God is good - all the time!
|
|
|
Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism
[Re: Mountain Man]
#113736
05/29/09 01:09 AM
05/29/09 01:09 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
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
