|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,195
Members1,325
| |
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
|
|
|
5 registered members (Karen Y, dedication, Kevin H, 2 invisible),
2,522
guests, and 8
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Some Challenging Questions for a Challenger of Our Faith on a Special Anniversary
#86676
03/20/07 12:55 PM
03/20/07 12:55 PM
|
|
|
Some Challenging Questions for a Challenger of Our Faith on a Special Anniversary
Today, March 20, 2007, I celebrate my 41th anniversary of baptism as a Seventh-day Adventist. That happened in my early youth, after I left the Army service in my native Brazil. I was raised in a traditional Evangelical family, the Congregational Church, and to this day some members of my extended family are members of that denomination.
I remember how I attended Sunday School in my boyhood regularly and sometimes after church I wished to go up to a soccer field near my home, where amateur clubs competed in a regional tournament. But my father, a veteran officer of the church, wouldn’t allow me, for that would not be permissible on the “Lord’s day”. Also, if either myself, or one of my four sisters, had test at school on Monday, we were not allowed to study for it, on Sunday.
That seems funny to me now as I see the new trends in Protestantism, in a much “user friendly” attitude of what I call anydayism/nodayism/everydayism—no more mandatory days to keep to the Lord, everybody being free to administer his/her time as one pleases. Some even consider this as part of the “Christian freedom” they are entitled to.
But that doesn’t correspond to what we read in the most representative Confessions of Faith, Creeds and Catechisms of mainline Evangelical-Protestant churches! They clearly enunciate the dedication of a 24-hour time span to God as “Lord’s day”, preferably on Sunday (supposedly the Resurrection Memorial).
Now, the majority of Evangelicals with whom I interact in forums and debate groups seem to even ignore what their own Churches teach regarding this Sabbath principle. It seems that most think that the modern mindset of having Sunday, not as a holy day, but as a holiday, is what always prevailed in the Christian field.
No, it is not. Something happened along the time that transformed Sunday in a day in which Evangelicals act exactly as the Roman Catholics. The RCC doesn’t emphasize the “sanctification” aspect of the “Lord’s day”, but the mere participation of the believer in Sunday mass. Since the Vatican Council II, even Saturday afternoons or evenings are okay for a Catholic to “fulfill his/her obligation” of attending mass, having, then, the remainder of the weekend free to accomplish whatever is wished, be it going to the Mall, or staying home watching a favorite sports show, doing business or even going to work.
That is not the spirit of the Sabbath, according to God’s commandment, which first of all emphasizes the “sanctification” aspect of God’s recommendation, with the “rest” element coming second (Exo. 20:8-11).
Now, as I already showed, that is not what Protestants traditionally learned and practiced as their faith expression, as I experienced in my own home as a child and adolescent. But times and mores have changed!
Jesus said that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). That shows the universal character of the commandment, as is recognized in the above-mentioned Christian confessional documents. The Edenic origins of the Sabbath was always a clear understanding of those Christians, as well as the “division” of the law, as being “moral”, “ceremonial”, “civil”, “penal”, etc.
Now, some Protestant instructors and preachers either ignore these facts, or are aware of them, but omit such information from their congregations. Many give the impression that these ideas of the Sabbath being a principle that stems from Creation, or the Ten Commandments as still being the rule of life for the Christians, are adopted only by Seventh-day Adventists or other few religious Sabbath-keeping groups, which is a clear misconception.
Other day I came across a very finely produced publication, made of high-quality paper and design, called Proclamation. It is promoted by a certain former SDA Pastor called Dale Ratzlaff who seems to see his mission in life now as that of convincing Seventh-day Adventists of the error of believing in these aforementioned points (among other things), despite being part of the Protestant tradition. I wonder whether he would qualify as someone who ignores them, or is aware of these facts but omits them from his readers and listeners.
So, I have some direct questions to submit to Mr. Dale Ratzlaff, and the first three are exactly:
* do you ignore that the “standard” Protestant position about the 10 Commandments is that they constitute God’s law (as Martin Luther himself so refers in the first lines of his document, “Treatise Against the Antinomians”), as can be seen in such confessional Christian documents as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Baptist Confession of 1689, or Luther’s Small Catechism?
* do you ignore that the “standard” Protestant position about God’s law is the same presented by Seventh-day Adventists, being “divided” into ‘moral’, ‘ceremonial’, ‘civil’, ‘penal’, etc. as taught in these confessional documents and by important instructors in the Protestant field along the centuries?
* do you ignore that the “standard” Protestant position about the 4th commandment is that it comes from God’s creation, thus being recognized as a universal principle, with Gen. 2:2, 3 and Mark 2:27 often quoted in said confessional documents and instructional works to confirm it?
By the way, I have been asking my Evangelical friends in Christian discussion Forums in the Internet what they think about the way the Congregational Church, which I attended for many years, defines this question of God’s law in regard to His grace. I think it is the most concise, objective and to the point definition of all the ones I have examined from Protestant expositions. I translated it into English from the text that I found in a publication of my Brazilian Congregational Church:
Topic 21—About the Believers’ Obedience – Although the saved ones don’t obtain salvation through obedience to the law, but by the merits of Jesus Christ, they receive the law and all God’s precepts as a means by which He manifests His will on the redeemed ones’ procedure and keep them even more carefully and thankfully for the reason of being found saved by grace. Eph. 2:8,9; I Jo 5:2,3; Tt 3:4-8. (From the document of the Congregational Church in Brazil, “The Twenty-eight Articles of the Short Exposition of the Foundational Doctrines of Christianity”).
Additionally, I learned through a Sunday School quarterly of said denomination (dated Aug, 15, 1971):
“The transmission of the Law on Mount Sinai represents one of the most remarkable and universal events. . . . Such as the rocks of the mountain upon which they were transmitted, these precepts form the immutable basis of the moral life of men and nations, the everlasting foundation of all worthy and firm civilization”.
That is our motivation in obeying His complete law, without finding pretexts to skip any of His precept.
What we have in Mr. Ratzlaff exposition is simply a clear “Herodian theology”. All the principles “behind the law” means, all the commandments such as they appear in the Ten Commandments, BUT FOR THE SABBATH, which is to be reinterpreted in the sense that they were totally abolished, and replaced by the new law of “Nine Commandments and One Suggestion”. . .
As Herod wanted to get rid of just one kid in the land of Judea, but for reaching his goal he ordered the killing of all babies there, those who want to circumvent the “inconvenient” Sabbath commandment preach the end of the WHOLE Ten Commandments just to guarantee that the one they want to get rid of goes away with all the rituals and ceremonies of the Jewish law.
With that he and his followers just throw out the baby with the bath water. . .
And a final question to Mr. Ratzlaff and his allies:
* do you agree with this definition of God’s law in relation to God’s grace expressed in the Congregational document, as well as the commentary of the Sunday School quarterly?
I have a favor to ask you, also: if these statements are wrong, please point to me exactly where the error lies so that I can advise dear relatives of mine (sisters, brothers-in-law, nephews) who attend that Church. I don’t want seeing them under a false teaching regarding these points.
I anticipate my best thanks for clear and objective answers to my questions above.
Best regards
Last edited by Daryl Fawcett; 06/14/07 12:41 PM. Reason: Inserted additional information as requested just above the final question section.
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: Some Challenging Questions for a Challenger of Our Faith on a Special Anniversary
[Re: Azenilto]
#86678
03/20/07 01:07 PM
03/20/07 01:07 PM
|
|
|
Mr. Ratzlaff Quiz to Challenge Seventh-day Adventists
Speaking of Proclamation! magazine, the January/February (2007) issue brings on page 3 a question, “Can you pass this quiz?” But this seemingly challenging and hard-to-answer series of questions shows some interesting and “quizzical” points, which I highlight in the format of some new questions to the author of the questionnaire. Mr. Ratzlaff, please, answer this:
* why in your questions about the “law” in Matthew, John, etc. you have the options of “always”, “usually”, “seldom”, “never” regarding the Ten Commandments as the specific meaning of the term “law”, but you forgot to add, “including”? Yes, because in Matthew, John and other occasions in the Bible, the Ten Commandments ARE INCLUDED in the reference to “law”, not excluded.
In Matthew 5:17, 18 Jesus says He didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Is He referring specifically to the Ten Commandments? No, He clearly refers to the complete Torah, which includes ALL aspects of the law. This is made clear in vs. 23: “. . . if you are offering your gift at the altar . . . leave your gift there in front of the altar”. That is typical language of the ritual part of the law.
That prompts a few new questions:
* do you agree that Jesus’ reference to the “law” in Matt. 5:17-20 comprehends all aspects of the Torah, INCLUDING, not excluding, the 10 Commandments and, with them, the Sabbath precept?
* if your answer is yes, as I think it would be, does that mean that if someone keeps the Ten Commandments, with God’s help, that person is also obliged to offer gifts at the altar of sacrifices and perform all rituals of Israel’s laws?
* if your answer is yes, as I also think is what you imply, does that mean that when Paul reminded the Ephesians regarding their necessity to remember “the first commandment with a promise”, which is the 5th of the Decalogue (Eph. 6:1-3), those Christians in Ephesus were obliged to also offer gifts at the altar of sacrifices and perform all rituals of Israel’s laws?
* if your answer is no, why do you discriminate against the keeping of the Sabbath in that regard, teaching that those who keep the 4th commandment, plus the other nine, would be obliged to fulfill all the other ceremonial aspects of the law, but not those who keep the 5th, and the other eight (with the 4th excluded)?
* why do you emphasize so much the EXCLUSION of the 10 Commandments from the expression “law” in the New Testament as something detrimental to the Christian faith? What is wrong with these commandments? Would it be,
- the rule of not having other gods?
- the rule of not utilizing images of sculpture in acts of worship?
- the rule of not pronouncing God’s name in vain?
- the rule on the duty of honoring the parents?
- the rule of not to kill
- the rule of not to commit adultery?
- the rule of not to steal?
- the rule of not to give false witness against others?
- the rule of not to covet a person’s things or spouse?
And a final question to Mr. Ratzlaff:
* in the context of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19 He referred to His hearers as “salt of the Earth”, “light of the world” and a little later taught them the “Lord’s prayer”. Why, then, His words in these texts cannot apply to those who TODAY consider themselves “salt of the Earth”, “light of the world” and pray the Lord’s prayer?
The False Premise of Dale Ratzlaff’s Theological Stand
When something begins wrong, chances are that it will continue being wrong all along its development.
In 1990 I had the opportunity of visiting Europe in a tour of eight countries with some Brazilian friends. One of our tours included a visit to the St. Peter’s Cathedral, in Rome. One thing that called my attention as I saw the artistic interior of the famous temple was the inscription, in golden letters, at the base of the “Rotunda” (the circle right in the middle of the ceiling). It was simply the reproduction of Matthews 16:18, 19—“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church. . .”)
When I saw that, I thought to myself: “Wow, such a fabulous physical and ideological structure encompassing so many millions of people, institutions, traditions, rituals, publications. . ., all that founded on a text out of its due context!”
Later on I visited the Brazilian “Bethel” and printing plant of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (I also had passed in front of the Watchtower headquarters when traveling across the Brooklyn section of New York City) and I could see all their efforts and material means to proclaim their message, all that based on a certain date which has no confirmation of any serious historian, Bible chronologist and archeologist—607 BCE. That date is foundational to the “Bible Chronology” of that religious organization, but if it is wrong, the chronology is wrong, and if the chronology is wrong, the theology is wrong! And the date is simply. . . wrong!
More recently I had to spend a day in Salt Lake City due to a technical problem in a plane I was traveling from New York to Portland, Ore., and I decided to take advantage of the delayed flight to take a tour of the famous world center of Mormonism.
One of the places we visited was the Genealogy Institute, a building full of computers and a body of workers dedicated to investigate people’s forefathers, so that baptisms are performed in their behalf. The investment in construction, equipment and personnel is really immense, and all that is based on a text that is not sufficiently clear in the Bible—1 Cor. 15:29 (“. . . if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead?. . .”).
Without entering into the details about these wrong basic teachings, the fact is that Mr. Ratzlaff also has all his theology twisted because of a similar false premise—the notion that under the “grace and love” period, the New Covenant, there is a certain “law of Christ”, more user-friendly to the believer, that excludes the 10 Commandments, which are replaced by a sort of “Rule of Nine Commandments and One Suggestion”.
It’s funny that the 10 Commandments are seen as nailed to the cross with all ceremonies of Judaism, but out of these 10, NINE remained intact after this “complete abolition” of the law. There are even those who emphasize that only nine of the 10 are repeated in the New Testament, with the Sabbath not being done so.
Well, we have other questions regarding that to Mr. Ratzlaff:
* when Jesus proclaimed the “golden rule” of only two commandments—love to God above everything and love to the neighbor as oneself—was He really creating something new, revolutionary, in terms of rule for His followers’ conduct (see Matt. 22:36-40)?
* if the answer is yes, why did the scribe who clearly wanted to trap Him in a question that would cause Jesus to contradict Israel’s traditions end up complimenting the Master’s answer, instead of finding fault in it (see Mar. 12:28-34)?
So, the false premise of Mr. Ratzlaff theology is to take this “golden rule” as a SUBSTITUTE of God’s moral law, when it is simply its SYNTHESIS, or a summary of the whole law. He mistakes the thing arguing that now there is only a “law of Christ” based on love to be fulfilled by the Christian. But Jesus was just reiterating what Moses had already said, for God’s law ALWAYS had as its basic principles “love to God above all else” and “love to the neighbor”. There was nothing new, no novelty, in Christ’s statement, as we already saw in Matt. 5:17-19. He is referring to the SAME complete Torah, the law that includes the ceremonial part, indeed (compare with Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18).
The summaries don’t override the originals. We can see that in the “Abstracts” that precede scientific articles, whose objective is to highlight the main points of the study so that whoever read them gets his/her attention called to a subject he/she might be interested in, and thus is led to the more profound presentation in the complete material.
Then, why don’t we perform the circumcision and all the other rituals of the Judaic law? The answer is very simple, and is found in Matthew 27:50, 51:
“And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom”.
In due time, the Christian community understood that all ceremonial aspects of the Jewish law were no more required of the followers of the Messiah, but its moral aspects could not find the same end, for that would mean complete chaos, at both individual and corporate levels. Imagine that such rules as “you shall not kill”, “you shall not steal”, “you shall not commit adultery” came to an end when the Temple’s veil was rent from top to bottom. . .
All that brings us to the BOTTOM LINE of all this discussion—the notion that the Sabbath commandment was abolished because it pointed to the rest in Christ. So, He is our “rest”, and the believers are thus freed from any obligation of dedicating a day do the Lord.
Well, we have a very objective Bible study showing the error of such reasoning—“Ten Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept”. We invite Mr. Ratzlaff to check in our next posts.
At this juncture, another of our studies would be very appropriate to be examined: “10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is the Most Important Commandment of the Decalogue” that we will be posting here, besides the following ones:
- 10 Questions The Anti-Sabbatarians Seem Incapable of Answering
- 10 Questions on the Subject of the Law of God/Law of Christ
- 10 Questions About the Sabbath for Anti-Sabbatarians to Think Seriously About
- 10 Questions on the Theory of “Everydayism”
- 10 Serious Difficulties For the Advocates of Either Sunday Keeping or the “Nodayism/Anydayism/Everydayism”
- 10 Questions on Christ’s Attitudes Regarding the Sabbath
A final question to Mr. Ratzlaff:
* if Jesus is our Sabbath rest, and Hebrews 4 shows it, so that we don’t have to keep a day of rest, why didn’t the holy women who served Him so closely, having reached the spiritual rest of salvation, didn’t, because of that, neglect keeping “the Sabbath according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56)?
That shows that they hadn't learned by Jesus' actions and words that the Sabbath would be gone with His death. Remember, they were ethnically Jews, but ideologically Christians.
Later on we will have some more food for thought to Mr. Ratzlaff. Let's see if and how he will answer our questions. . .
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept
[Re: Azenilto]
#86679
03/20/07 01:19 PM
03/20/07 01:19 PM
|
|
|
10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept
1st. - Because it was instituted BEFORE the entrance of sin in the world (Gen. 2:2, 3; Exo. 20:8-11 and Mar. 2:27). The ceremonies represent an arrangement from AFTER sin showed up and served to provide its atonement by its symbolic value, pointing ahead to the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin from the World” (John 1:29).
2nd. - Because the Creation story stresses that God RESTED [ceased His activities of the creation week, for the Divinity doesn’t get tired] on that first Sabbath day, thus leaving an example for the being He had created (Gen. 2:3; Exo. 20:11). No ceremonial precept acquires such relevance in God’s consideration.
3rd. - Because the Creation story stresses that God BLESSED that first Sabbath day as a special mark of His approval and continuous physical, mental and spiritual benefit to those who observe it, a promise presented in many occasions throughout the Bible, as in Isaiah 56: 3-8; 58: 13, 14. Such divine blessing on the Sabbath is reminded in the commandment’s text (Exo. 20:11). There is no ceremonial precept that receives such consideration.
4th. - Because the Creation story stressed that God SANCTIFIED that first Sabbath, separating it as a memorial of His work as Creator, which is confirmed in the commandment’s text (Exo. 20:8-11). The word “sanctify” means “separate something to be consecrated to God”. Since God is already absolutely holy, to whom did He sanctify [separated] the Sabbath, but for His human creatures? It would make no sense to establish a memorial for an event at a time so far removed regarding it.
5th. - Because as He pronounced solemnly the moral law of the Ten Commandments at the Sinai mountain at the ears of the people of Israel, God included naturally the Sabbath as its 4th commandment and didn’t do the same with any of the ceremonial precepts. And as He concluded, the text says that He “added nothing more” (Deu. 5:22). Whoever adds ceremonial precepts to the Decalogue is going against what God did.
6th. - Because at the conclusion of His proclamation, God wrote those words on two stone tables, which Moses placed within the ark (Deu. 10:5). He didn’t write on those tables ANY CEREMONIAL PRECEPT. All that had ceremonial character was dictated to Moses for being recorded in books (scrolls) in another occasion.
7th. - Because God chose the Sabbath as a special sign between Himself and His chosen people (Exo. 31:17 and Eze. 20:12, 20). He wouldn’t choose for that objective a ceremonial commandment that would be abolished in the future, for His plan was that Israel always remained His chosen people and His witnesses among Earth dwellers.
8th. - Because Jesus reinforced the concept that the Sabbath was a divine institution, established “because of man” (Mar. 2:27), so that it served man in the physical, mental and spiritual aspects. No ceremonial commandment deserved such a treatment.
9th. - Because Jesus, Who is the Holy Lord and Creator (John 1:3; Heb. 1:2), gave the example of Sabbath observance (Luke 4:16) and revealed preoccupation as to its correct observance, discussing with the religious leaders about His acts of healing on that day, explaining that what He did on the Sabbath day was “lawful” (Mat. 12:12). The tenor of Christ's discussions with the Jewish leaders was not IF they should observe the Sabbath, nor WHEN they should observe the Sabbath, but HOW to do it, in the appropriate spirit. He never revealed the same preoccupation regarding any ceremonial precept.
10th. - Because despite the ceremonies having ceased on the cross and a long discussion on their meaning is found in the New Testament, especially in Hebrews 7 to 10, the 4th commandment is never discussed as having a ceremonial character. On the contrary, in the epistle to the Hebrews itself, the Sabbath receives special treatment in the chapters 3 and 4 where it is never referred to as having ceased.
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
10 Reasons Why the Sabbath Is the Most Important Commandment of the Decalogue
[Re: Azenilto]
#86680
03/20/07 01:26 PM
03/20/07 01:26 PM
|
|
|
10 Reasons Why the Sabbath Is the Most Important Commandment of the Decalogue
1st. – Because it was originated before sin entered planet Earth:
If we analyze human history, we realize that there are only two institutions that come from before sin entered our planet: the Sabbath and marriage. It’s no wonder that Satan engages himself so much in corrupting both institutions which he hates particularly: the Sabbath through false theologies that discard it completely or alter its significance, and marriage, through an avalanche of separations, divorce, negative innuendos in the show biz (radio, TV, songs, movies), and more recently, same-sex marriages.
2nd. – Because it was “made holy” by God and to be commanded to be “made holy” by man:
God Himself gave the example of resting, blessing and sanctifying the first Sabbath day (Gen. 2:2, 3). He is already completely holy and need not sanctify any day to Himself. If He did it, that was “because of man” (Mar. 2:27). Besides making the connection with the Creation of the world, the commandment begins ordering, “remember the Sabbath day to make it holy”. Rest comes after the order to make the day holy. The reason that it must be the seventh day, and not any other according to human expediency, is made clear in Exo. 20:11: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it”.
3rd. –Because it is located in the heart of the law and highlights both its vertical and horizontal aspects:
The Sabbath commandment is located right in center of the law, even as it was solemnly uttered by God to His people before Sinai (“and He added no more”—Deu. 5:22), later written on the two tables of stone. It is practically the only that deals with the two basic perspectives of man’s relationships: the vertical and the horizontal.
On the standpoint of the vertical perspective (“love God above all things”), if the seventh-day Sabbath is to be sanctified, this means to dedicate to God that day for a more intimate relationship with Him, without encumberments and distractions of secular preoccupations.
In the horizontal perspective (“love your neighbor as yourself”), the 4th commandment grants physical rest to those who serve a believer—“nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant. . . ”, and even the animals are benefited in a blessed act of mercy towards them—“nor thy cattle. . .”
4th. – Because it was selected as God’s sign between Him and His people:
Out of all the Decalogue rules, God chose the Sabbath to serve as His sign between Him and His children, both during the Exodus event and millenia afterwards, confirming the fact through Ezekiel, the prophet (see Exo. 31:17 and Eze. 20:12, 20). There is no indication that this sign has been discarded in the passage of the Old to the New Covenant (see Heb. 8:6-10, acc./ Jer. 31:31-33).
5th. – Because Jesus highlighted it as established “because of man”:
The Sabbath was made to serve the best interest of physical and mental rest, and spiritual refreshment to all men (Mar. 2:27). Besides, Christ had so much preoccupation in preserving the Sabbath as it was intended that he faced several clashes with the Jewish leadership, not about IF it should be kept, nor WHEN it should be kept, but about HOW to observe the “day of the Lord” in its due spirit. He engaged Himself in correcting the distortions caused by those leaders to the commandment because He was zealous of God’s things. He identified Himself as “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mat. 12:8).
6th. – Because Jesus declared Himself “Lord of the Sabbath”, not to disqualify the commandment:
In Matthew 12:8 Christ declares Himself “Lord of the Sabbath” in debates with the Jewish leaders. He does it, not to disqualify the commandment, despite some teaching the theological aberration that Jesus engaged Himself in a sort of anti-Sabbath campaign, when He was its Creator (John 1:3; Heb. 1:2). It makes no sense for Him to try to reduce the importance of that which He established “because of man”. If He in any measure violated the Sabbath or taught anything in that sense He Himself would have to be considered “the least in the kingdom of heaven”, on the light of His own words in Matthew 5:19. Jesus wouldn’t ever reduce the value of any commandment of God’s law, “even the least of them”. And the Sabbath commandment is actually the most important in God’s law.
Christ was “the Lord of the Sabbath” because He had authority to define the manner of observing it, in the face of the distortions of the Jewish leaders and their constant question to Him: “. . . by what authority doest thou these things? Or who is he that gave thee this authority?” – Luke 20:2. They didn’t corrupt only the meaning of the 4th commandment, as also did that with the 5th and the practice of tithing (see Mar. 7:9-11 and Mat. 23:23).
One can say that as Jesus expelled the vendors from the Temple, He expelled from the Sabbath all the false conceptions from human rules with which the Jewish leaders had encumbered the commandment.
7th. – Because of receiving special treatment in the epistle to the Hebrews and being indicated as still necessary:
In the epistle to the Hebrews, while the ceremonies and their prefigurations of Christ’s sacrifice are discussed in detail in chapters 7 to 10, the Sabbath receives a very special treatment in chapters 3 and 4, taken as symbol of the spiritual rest that one obtains in Christ. And despite the people of Israel having failed collectively to obtain such rest, there were within Israel those heroes, mentioned in chapter 11, who found that spiritual rest, and because of that they didn’t put the Sabbath commandment aside.
It is interesting that in chapters 3 and 4, while the Greek word for rest is katapausin, in vs. 4:9 the author employs a special term, used only once in the Bible, sabbatismos, remembering, as indicated in the footnotes of many Bible versions: “There is yet a Sabbath rest for God’s people”. Or, as G. Lamsa translated from original Aramaic sources, “there is still a Sabbath keeping for the people of God”.
Clearly, the Bible author wished to demonstrate that, in spite of utilizing the Sabbath metaphor to illustrate the spiritual rest, he wanted to avoid any ambiguity, making it clear that the weekly Sabbath didn’t cease, despite the systematic failure of the people of Israel in attaining the spiritual rest that God proposed to them. God’s people proceeded having the Sabbath rest as a little model of that rest in Christ.
8th. – Because of having been indicated as also a memorial of the redemption:
As he repeated the terms of the divine law to the people, Moses highlighted that the Sabbath, having the character of memorial of Creation in the original of the law given at Sinai, was also a memorial of redemption. It remembered the people of their deliverance from the Egyptian slavery, when they didn’t have the privilege of dedicating such a day to the Lord (Deu. 5:15).
Thus, the Sabbath is both a memorial of Creation and Redemption. It symbolizes perfectly that those who were delivered from the Egypt of sin now have the privilege of observing the Sabbath to dedicate it to the Lord and to obtain physical and mental rest, besides spiritual refreshment, something that they didn’t experience under the bondage of sin, defined in the Scripture as “transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4).
9th. – Because of being indicative of the willingness to serve the “Lord of the Sabbath” faithfully:
The fact is that whoever is willing to observe faithfully the Sabbath denotes a spirit of submission to all that the Lord determines in His law. Hardly an assassin, robber, customary adulterer would be willing to follow such a principle. These individuals mostly do not reveal any consideration towards other Bible rules even easier to follow, let alone would they voluntarily be subjected to a rule that means a restriction, seen as inconvenient and burdensome—to dedicate time for God regularly, on a day contrary to the social custom, in association with other worshippers of same vision in a church weekly.
10th. – Because it will continue in the New Earth as a perpetual principle:
Finally, of all the commandments, the Sabbath is the only mentioned specifically as being respected plainly by the saved ones in the New Earth “wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Pet. 3:13). There the redeemed ones will have two regular meetings—one monthly, on the new moon days, (possibly of social character), and one weekly, on the seventh-day Sabbaths, to worship the Lord (Isa. 66:22, 23).
Now, if the Sabbath is an institution that is confirmed from the newly created world and extends itself to the eternal eons of the recreated world, why shouldn’t we observe it now also, since Paul made it clear that faith didn’t come to annul the law, but to confirm it (Rom. 3:31)?
CONCLUSION: Undoubtedly, the Sabbath is the most important commandment of the Decalogue. Whoever disagrees prove, please, that it’s not, then answer: Which one would, then, it be?
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Some direct correspondence with Dale Ratzlaff
[Re: Azenilto]
#86761
03/21/07 05:37 PM
03/21/07 05:37 PM
|
|
|
Hello, friends
Mr. Ratzlaff was very prompt in answering our correspondence, something I appreciate. See two of his emails and my, also prompt, replies:
1st. Correspondence:
Azenilto,
Thanks for your email. You ask some good questions.
As I get hundreds of emails a day and have written extensively on the subject in Sabbath in Christ, what I would be happy to do is to send you without charge my book where it is written in more detail than I have time in an email.
Please send me your mailing address and a statement of your willingness to read the book and I will put it in the mail.
May God bless us each as we seek to be true to Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit.
In His joy,
Dale Ratzlaff
My reply:
Okay, my friend
I will read your book, but under one condition: that you first answer my basic question that no Protestant and Catholic are able to answer. Just that one, please. There it goes again:
Where is it written that in the change from the Old to the New Covenant, when God writes what is called "My laws" in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of the New Covenant [New Testament] (Heb. 8:6-10), transferring the contents of the cold tables of stone to the hearts warmed by the divine grace (2 Cor. 3:2-7), God
a – leaves out the 4th commandment of the moral law;
b – includes the 4th commandment, but changing the sanctity of the 7th to the 1st day of the week?
OR
c – includes the 4th commandment, but as a vague, voluntary and non-obligatory principle that can be reinterpreted as any day which is most convenient to the believer (or his employer)?
Basic texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Ezekiel 11:19, 20 and 36:26, 27.
2nd Correspondence:
Azenito,
I am just now nearly though an article for the Next Proclamation (May/June) on the law written on the heart.
It is my conclusion after much study the law that is written is ALL the Old Testament laws. However, it is not the letter but the moral principle behind the law.
Perhaps some examples will give needed insight. In Deuteronomy 22:8 we read, "When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you will not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone falls from it". Deut. 22:8.
First, we look for the eternal moral principle behind the law. Build homes in such a way that people won’t get hurt. Note how this principle can be reduced to love. It is the loving thing to keep people from being hurt!
How is this principle applied today? Many ways. If you are building a second story deck make sure you have sturdy hand rails. Most building regulations require that the rails be constructed such that a six inch ball will not fall through or out of the deck. Why? To make sure that no small child wiggles through the posts. We might also apply this principle of safety to fire alarms, door locks, pool fences, wheel chair ramps for the disabled, etc. However, unless we plan to spend time on our roof, there is no need to build a fence around the perimeter of our roof in order to obey the letter of old covenant law. We apply the moral principle behind the law to the situation at hand.
Next, let us consider the m ann a experience recorded in Ex. 16:16-30. The context shows that God is trying to get the Israelites to trust Him completely. He delivered them from the bondage of Egyptian slavery and is now leading them by the cloud. When the cloud moves, they move. He opened the Red Sea , He provided Water in the desert, now they are without food in the wilderness. Yes, and God lead them there.
In Exodus 16:13-19 we have the record of God not only giving them meat to eat, but He also provided manna. Moses instructed them to gather an omer for each person in the household. Most did. They were to leave nothing for the next day. God was trying to get them to trust him for daily provision. Some, however, left some m ann a for the next day just in case there was none and it became foul and bread worms.
Next, God expanded the test, again trying to get them to trust him for provision. They were instructed to gather two omers for each person on the sixth day as none would be there on Sabbath. Again, some thinking that what was left over on the sixth day might bread worms as it did on other days went out to gather it on Sabbath and found none.
So what is the moral principle behind the letter of the law of manna and Sabbath as recorded in Exodus 16? The moral principle outlined here is to obediently rest in God’s ability to provide.
Is this not the teachings of Christ in Matthew 6:31-34? Do not worry then, saying, “What will we eat?” or “What will we drink?” or “What will we wear for clothing?” For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
I will not give you the complete article at this time as it is not in its final form. Let me know if this satisfies your need.
If so, I will send you Sabbath in Christ.
In His joy,
Dale Ratzlaff
My reply:
Dear friend
You are right. I think exactly so. All principles that are not prefigurations of what Christ accomplished on the cross are there, in the hearts of the sincere servants of God. What was abolished were those things that wouldn't contribute to people's being closer to God and His Messiah, whatever made that people far from the community of "spiritual Israel" (Eph. 2:11ss).
Then, the bottom line is: why should the Sabbath be left out? It is not ceremonial, as I have proven and is what Christians along history have taught, although reinterpreting it to apply to Sunday--a day that has no backing in the Bible and, besides, has strong pagan roots--the Roman dies solis.
Everybody knows, even atheists, how good it is to the physical life having one day a week dedicated to physical and mental rest. If somebody engages in work, work, work all seven days of a week, will be a nerve wreck after a few months. So, God wisely set a time for man's rest because He wanted the best for His people. This divine preoccupation with man's welfare is illustrated in Jesus' recommendation to His disciples in Mark 6:31: "And he said unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while".
He associates that free time with a time for reflecting on Him and His work. That is the objective of the Sabbath that was always considered part of the "Moral Law" (and that not ONLY by Seventh-day Adventists, you should know. . .).
Besides, the Sabbath is not only a memorial of creation, but of redemption, as well (Deut. 5:15). So, if the Sabbath has something to do with salvation in Christ (and it does), remember that "salvation" is not only related to what Christ already accomplished on the cross and in our lives. "Salvation" has a more encompassing sense because we didn't have the "redemption of our bodies" yet, which will occur when Jesus comes for saving us not only from the consequences but of the presence of sin itself. And that is one of the objectives of the Sabbath commandment--pointing to that future eternal rest.
Now, you should know that there is a clear rule in Theology that the shadows end their symbolic role when encountering reality. Since we haven't reached the eternal rest of the New Earth yet, it goes on until then. Then, how could it end with Christ's death?
So, these points should be taken into consideration in any analysis of the Sabbath question:
a - It is clearly a moral precept that comes from the origin of the world, sanctified (separated) by God to serve a double purpose of granting man a necessary regular rest period and serving as a reminder of Him as Creator. That IS NOT a Seventh-day Adventist originated concept, but is part of the Christian tradition of centuries.
b - The Sabbath is not only a memorial of Creation, but also of redemption. Since it symbolizes the eternal rest of the complete salvation history, and since we haven't reached that final event, when "salvation" will be complete, there is no reason that it ceases to point forward to that day.
c - Isaiah 66:22, 23 indicates that in the New Earth the Sabbath will continue being a special time for the redeemed ones. The fact that the context mentions "new moons" doesn't negate the fact that it means simply that there will be two marks of time--a monthly one (new moon in Israel was the beginning of a new month) and a weekly one--the Sabbath.
Thus, as you can see, Hebrews 8:6-10 indicates the writing of God's law on hearts and minds of those who honor God as Creator, were redeemed in Christ and look forward for the completion of the salvation process when He returns, all of which simply confirm the important role of the Sabbath commandment.
There is no justification at all to simply get rid of this principle that is not ceremonial, as I have demonstrated in my study "10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is not a Ceremonial Precept", because both its practical function of granting people a regular day of rest (recognized by medical authorities as necessary and beneficial) and its spiritual role continue having its indisputable worth for all those who have in Jesus their "rest", and honor Him dedicating to Him a day to better think on the salvation He granted us. That could NEVER be accomplished through a nodayism/anydayism/everydayism mentality and attitude.
Best regards
P.S.: And it ended up that you DIDN'T answer objectively, to the point, my question on the passage of the Old to the New Covenant. Why the Sabbath commandment is left out of the picture.
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Some more correspondence with Dale Ratzlaff
[Re: Azenilto]
#87174
03/29/07 04:41 AM
03/29/07 04:41 AM
|
|
|
An update regarding my correspondence with Mr. Ratzlaff. He insisted in sending me his book, I gave him my regular mail address and promised him I would read it, despite the "breach of contract", because he didn't answer my question first as I had stipulated as condition to receive it. Anyway, I will comply with his request that I dedicate time to read the book (not received yet).
But the basic premise we have already examined: that since Jesus is our salvation, we celebrate this fact by NOT CELEBRATING anything special regarding a day to dedicate to the Lord.
Since God Himself and His people always had special days and other special signs to celebrate important deeds and historical milestones (Creation--Sabbath; no more flood--rainbow; punishment for Babel Tower--confusion of languages; crossing of the Jordan--stone monument; deliverance from Egypt--Passover; different situations of difficulties overcome by men of God--building of altars), it seems strange that the most important of all events, both corporately and individually, is met by NO CELEBRATION AT ALL--cancellation of the "memorial of Creation" and no more day to dedicate to the Lord either as Creator or Redeemer. NO MEMORIAL AT ALL to celebrate salvation, in terms of our time invested to the end.
Does that seem to make sense?
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept
[Re: Azenilto]
#87358
04/01/07 05:59 PM
04/01/07 05:59 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2024
Senior Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 635
New York
|
|
You would enjoy some of the books like "Paul the Jewish Theologian" and "Reinventing Paul" (I don't remember their authors at the moment) and the Jim Fleming lectures and notebook "Acts: New Discoveries from the Early Church" and "Lest We Forget; A history of Anti-Jewishness and the Church." from Biblical Resources. Fleming is a Methodist archaeologist.
There has been new studies in Paul which says that traditionally Paul is interpeted through events such as the Church-Synogoge split of 135 AD, St. Augustine, and the Reformation Theologians, especially Martin Luther, but when studying archaeology and history we now know that these interpetations of Paul are incorrect. I have noticed that Ratzlaff's theology are built on these misconseptions of Paul that we have read back into his words.
|
|
|
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept
[Re: Kevin H]
#87377
04/01/07 08:22 PM
04/01/07 08:22 PM
|
|
|
Hi,
I think that Ratzlaff's theology is built on disobedience and disability [Romands 8:7].
R.V.
|
|
|
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept
[Re: Anonymous]
#87498
04/03/07 08:34 PM
04/03/07 08:34 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2024
Senior Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 635
New York
|
|
Hi,
I think that Ratzlaff's theology is built on disobedience and disability [Romands 8:7].
R.V. No, I don't think so. I just think that he is steeped in Christian traditions with his mind set in the 1500s. He is like a medical doctor who is at the cutting edge of medicine as it was taught and practiced by Doctors in the 1500s with maybe some updates from the 1800s, but is completely clueless as to medical discoveries from the 20th century. But then we tend not to be any better with our traditions. Traditions die hard. Another thing I've noticed about him... He describes himself as an Adventist as someone based on traditions and using who he thought was a prophet, Mrs. White, to hit over the head of others. Now he's converted to someone who is an evangelical based on traditions who thinks that Paul fit's the fundamentalists view of a prophet and uses the words of his prophet to bash Adventists. I don't see much difference.
|
|
|
The Styrofoam Cross
[Re: Kevin H]
#87568
04/05/07 01:47 AM
04/05/07 01:47 AM
|
|
|
We should remember the "'Styrofoam cross' factor". Many want to identify themselves as Christians and take up the cross, as Jesus ordered, provided it is one made of Styrofoam, and to follow Him, but through a path that is wide and comfortable.
It's not difficult to see why many would be attracted to this form of Christianity that just emphasizes grace, but forgets the law. But after granting grace to the adulterer in John 8, Jesus pointed her the law: "Go and sin no more". Both principles are always together, or we have only a caricature of Christianity.
To be a faithful Seventh-day Adventist is not easy in the modern world, and something of that challenge can be seen now with the anticipation of the saving time in the US. The Religious Liberty Dept. related the case of a lady who faced the dilemma of having to leave her job earlier on Fridays, but the boss wouldn't accept it. She quit working on her own before sundown, thinking of negotiating the question on Monday morning when back to work, but was fired on the spot. Finally, she even lost her house for being unable to pay the mortgage in a lesser-pay job she was able to land.
According to a certain statistic publicized by said Church Dept., three SDA's a day lose their jobs because of the Sabbath rest question in the "land of the free", USA.
I myself am facing some difficulty in my workplace and much prayer and firmness is required to overcome these hurdles. Not all are willing to go through these struggles and the easiest way out is to find pretexts to free oneself from these challenging situations. To these weaklings' ears Mr. Ratzlaff's theology sounds as music.
But I think of those early Christian who faced much tougher choices--either burn frankincense to the Emperor of Rome or being thrown to the beasts in the Roman arenas. History says that many failed the test.
Let's not fail this test of ours which, for the time being, is much easier than those early Christians faced, indeed a Styrofoam-light burden in comparison. . .
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
