|
Forums118
Topics9,234
Posts196,242
Members1,327
| |
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
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
5 registered members (dedication, Karen Y, Daryl, 2 invisible),
2,513
guests, and 16
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Strange and Unheard of Supposed Comments By Seventh-day Adventists
#116362
07/19/09 11:03 PM
07/19/09 11:03 PM
|
|
|
Strange and Unheard of Supposed Comments By Seventh-day Adventists
In the May/June edition of Proclamation! Magazine (2009) Mr. Ratzlaff just confirms the unethical feature of his methodology as he once again proposes to assesses Seventh-day Adventism. He begins an article he wrote (“Does Paul Conflict With Jesus?”, p. 14) alleging that he was “sitting in an audience where I heard an Adventist pastor say something to the effect that Paul had his disagreements with Jesus”. Then he proceeds to say that he was “deeply disturbed” with such opinion, going on in his misrepresentation of what SDA’s teach adding his opinion that this wouldn’t be an “isolated opinion” and that “many Adventists say that Paul misunderstood Jesus”. Worse, he declares in a nonchalant way that “Some Adventists indicate that one cannot trust what Paul wrote because he disagrees with Jesus and undermines the law”. Some who? How many? What is the proportion of these? Where do they live and teach these strange and unheard of things? By the way, the Apostle Paul is my favorite Bible author, and to many SDA’s too.
Now I would urge Mr. Ratzlaff to tell clearly WHO this pastor mentioned by him was that we can check with him what he really meant, for I never, in over 40 years of being a Seventh-day Adventist, heard any pastor, or even lay person, saying anything similar to that. There are two possibilities: a) he misunderstood what this pastor said; b) he distorts dishonestly something that this pastor said.
This dishonesty is confirmed later on in his innuendos that we think that salvation is by keeping the commandments (at least in part), which is not true, absolutely. Referring to the episode of the rich young man (Matt. 19:17ff), he says: “Here we see that keeping the commandments does not bring true assurance and peace with God. He, the obedient commandment keeper, recognize his continuing lack. One never knows if this law keeping is 'good enough’”. That is the kind of discourse that we can do without. It doesn’t affect us at all, as anyone can see just checking the 28 topics of our confessional document.
Besides, as I said, in over 40 years of reading so many pieces of SDA literature, listening to lectures, sermons, Sabbath School lessons expositions, Bible studies by both pastors and lay people, NEVER EVER I heard such a statement. So, I am inclined to think that what happened is letter b), since Mr. Ratzlaff has already revealed that he is not trustworthy in so many of his comments on our teachings and sentiments.
Further down, he continues: “Jesus’ telling him to keep the commandments was not giving him a method for getting to heaven; rather, the commandment were given to point out sin”. And: “. . . keeping the moral commandments of the law is good but not sufficient to save, and that the commandments are designed to cause us to realize that we still lack the goodness for eternal life. To be saved, one must trust Christ alone for salvation”.
Now, that, in a way, is surprising for he finally recognizes that the commandments “were given to point out sin”. That is correct and according to Rom. 3:20, where Paul confirms that the role of the law IS (using the present tense) to reveal sin, which he confirms in Rom. 7:7, 8. So, aren’t we still sinners? Don’t we need the law to show us were we fail, so that we resort to the solution--Christ’s shed blood and forgiveness? So, the law works as a mirror that points us our sins, and we resolve that, not breaking the mirror (as those who teach the abolition of the law theory), but looking for the forgiveness promised to those who look for the assistance of the Advocate (1 John 2:1).
Who came up with this law/mirror illustration? John Calvin did, in his Institutes. Other Christian authors say the same thing.
By the way, I have been stressing how Evangelical/Protestant Churches historically teach that the 10 Commandments represent God’s Moral law, in contrast to the Ceremonial and Civil laws, these last ones not applicable to the Church. Now, I have researched some more and came to a very “surprising” conclusion: ALL OF THE MOTHER-CHURCHES OF PROTESTANT CHRISTENDOM TEACH THAT! Yes, that is true--Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Congregational, Anglicans consensually teach that the 10 Commandments law continues being the rule of life for Christians in ALL their precepts. These are those churches from which all the other derived, including offshoots like this New Alliance movement of Ratzlaff.
Speaking of New Alliance, it would be good to remember the question we submitted to both him and his editor, which puts things in due perspective regarding this theme of the transfer from Old to New Alliance. They NEVER EVER gave us any answer. It seems impossible to these “New Alliancers” to give any response to this question. It paralyzes them totally and shows the error of their interpretation. I applied a slight change to the “famous” question. Let’s see it 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 in the process,
a) leaves out the 4th commandment of the moral law;
b) includes the 4th commandment, but changing the sanctity of the 7th to the 1st day of the week?
OR
c) leaves the question of the day of rest as a vague, voluntary and variable practice that can be reinterpreted as any day which is most convenient to the believer (or his employer)?
ALSO:
d) leaves out the dietary rules regarding unclean/clean meats?
Basic texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Ezekiel 11:19, 20 and 36:26, 27; Isaiah 66:15-18.
As to the HARMONY between Law and Grace, Faith and Works, Justification and Sanctification, the study that is found in another topic, which could be accessed through the link below suffices to resolve this supposed conflict that Ratzlaff tries to convince his readers that occurs in 7th-day Adventism, to the point of “many” believing that Paul was is disagreement with Jesus in our midst, which is totally untrue.
See below the study “10 Topics to Better Understand the Question of Law and Grace” -- UNDERSTANDING THE CONFLICTING STATEMENTS OF PAUL AND JAMES ON LAW & GRACE, FAITH & WORKS, JUSTIFICATION & SANCTIFICATION
For following the these discussions from the beginning see the initial article of the series “Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith” through this link:
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=92549&page=1
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: Strange and Unheard of Supposed Comments By Seventh-day Adventists
[Re: Azenilto]
#116363
07/19/09 11:30 PM
07/19/09 11:30 PM
|
|
|
10 Topics to Better Understand the Question of Law and Grace
UNDERSTANDING THE CONFLICTING STATEMENTS OF PAUL AND JAMES ON LAW & GRACE, FAITH & WORKS, JUSTIFICATION & SANCTIFICATION
In this sequence of 10 items the proposal is to promote a rational and objective study of the divine law question in the face of the message of salvation by grace, a theme that is often misunderstood by Christians in general.
The apostle Paul clearly says that salvation is only through faith, without any human merit (Eph. 2: 8 e 9). The prophet Isaiah had said that our works of justice are mere “filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6). No work performed by man is acceptable to God—Whose law is “perfect” (Psa. 19:7)—in terms of obtaining merits for salvation. Even our prayers, such a pious act of religious fervor, can only be heard through the intercession of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:26).
But after speaking of salvation not due to works in Ephesians 2:8 and 9, Paul adds in vs. 10: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them”. James reiterates that “faith, if it hath not works, is dead” (2:17) and Jesus also said: “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15).
Thus, we have a clear tension between being saved by faith, independently of the works of the law, but the necessity to demonstrate that faith by faithful obedience to the law. How to understand that?
Introduction
The theme of God’s law in contrast with that of grace could not be absent from theological materials, homepages of “Christian apologetics” ministries and in the confrontation of ideas in Evangelical forums in the Internet. However, since we promised to deal with the subject, let’s first raise a pertinent and encompassing question of what will be dealt with in this study:
* Are the Old Testament laws indeed valueless, no more applicable to the Christian community under the new covenant?
1) The answer is—yes and no. There are laws that were invalidated for fulfilling their prefigurative function, such as the rules on offering of lambs and foods, the sacrifices and several norms for priests and people. When John the Baptist pointed to Christ as “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) he reminded his hearers the meaning of the many lambs sacrificed by the Israelites as atonement for their sins. They were the antitype of the Great Type, Jesus Christ.
Nevertheless, if there are laws of temporary character, there are also those of a perennial character that could not be removed lest it opened the door for total chaos at public and private levels: “Honor thy father and thy mother”, “ye shall not kill”, “ye shall not steal”, “ye shall not commit adultery”. . . These precepts are reminded by the several New Testament authors as normative to Christians (see Eph. 6:1 e 2; Jas. 2:8-10). Paul makes that clear as he shows the validity of some rules and the nullity of others to the Christian community, as we will see briefly.
The Bible laws are divided into clear categories regarding their objectives and value. Along the centuries, Christian documents and authors have defined these laws as being moral (expressed in the Ten Commandments), ceremonial, civil, hygienic, etc. The most representative Confessions of Faith of Christendom, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, always taught this “distinction” of the laws, as is clearly presented in the Westminster Confession of Faith and in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England.
There are those who allege that the Bible deals on “law” indicating only one indivisible “package”, but the “division” of the laws is obvious by the simple fact that on Sinai God proclaimed with His own voice, audibly, before the gathered people, only the Ten Commandments, later transcribing them on the tables of stone, “and He added no more” (Deu. 5:22). All the laws that were ceremonial, civil, hygienic, etc., were dictated to Moses in another occasion, so that he transcribed them on the scrolls of the law.
Conclusion: There are commandments which are important, but should not be fulfilled any more, and commandments that should be obeyed, as the apostle Paul engages himself in a clear “division” of Bible laws when he says in 1 Cor. 7:19: “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God”.
2) Both modern and ancient scholars, as well as historical faith confessions (including some among the main Reformers) have the Decalogue as the valid Christian conduct norm. In their confessions of faith they never allege that the divine law was abolished, replaced by some “law of Christ” (supposedly less rigorous) neither promoted the thesis that observing these commandments would be attach oneself to the “letter of the law” in place of being inspired by “Spirit”. They rather define the divine laws as having ceremonial, civil and moral precepts, the latter synthesized in the Ten Commandments.
Among the scholarly statements and creeds of the Christendom with these clear positions we could mention The Second Helvetic Confession (1566), the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England (of 1571) in its Article VII; The Irish Articles of Religion (1615); The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647); The Savoy Declaration of the Congregational Churches (1658); the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1688 (Philadelphia) based on the London Confession of 1677; the Methodist Articles of Religion (1784); The Presbyterian Small Catechism and such authors as Wesley, Moody, Spurgeon, and more recently Billy Graham, James Kennedy, etc.
In hymn books of Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, etc., one can find hymns of praise to God, speaking of God’s law as ruling the Christian’s conduct.
Conclusion: Great Christian scholars and creeds of Christendom always recognized the different types and objectives of the divine laws according to their civil, ceremonial, hygienic, penal aspects. These are divers codes ruled by the basic moral law, such as the Constitution is the foundational law of a democratic country, on which is based all civil legislation through its many codes (commercial, criminal, labor laws). These laws could be abolished or changed that they won’t interfere with the Constitution, but if the latter is changed, it will affect all the other laws.
3) It is necessary that Christians understand better the concepts of justification and sanctification. Justification is entirely by faith, and through it “peace with God” is established (Rom. 5:1). It means God’s work for us for salvation, centered on the cross of Christ. As a consequence, there is regeneration, or new birth, thus beginning the process of sanctification, which represents God’s work in us for granting us His Spirit and shedding His love in our hearts (Rom. 5:5). It’s a lifetime work of gradual and continuous growth in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2a. Pet. 3:18)—consequence, not basis, of the experience of salvation.
Conclusion: Obeying the commandments of God’s law occurs in the field of sanctification, not of justification. It means to accept Christ as Lord after having received Him as Savior.
4) The principle of genuine obedience, which synthesizes the tenor of all divine commandments, is love. Thus Jesus summarized (not substituted) the commands into a) love God above all things and b) love the neighbor as oneself. He is just quoting Old Testament statements (Mat. 22: 34-36, cf. Deu. 6:5; Lev. 19:18). The same basic principle of love is also His “new” commandment: John 13:24.
Conclusion: The covenants are built upon the moral principle of love—both the new and the [/b]old[/b] (see also Rom. 13:8-10). The divine laws were always, in all times, based on love.
5) Certain Bible expositors make a lot of confusion in pulpits, presses and text processors regarding the theme of the law in the Pauline epistles. This misunderstanding is dangerous on the light of 2 Pet. 3: 15 e 16, for those who act like that are called “unlearned” and “unstable”. They don’t realize the meaning of the apostle Paul’s words when he speaks negatively on the law in some texts, dealing, however, with it in other places in positive terms and quoting its commandments as valid. This should be understood on the light of the concepts of justification by faith and sanctification. Let’s see these Bible paradoxes:
a) Texts in which Paul deals with the law “negatively”: Rom. 3: 20-24; 5:20; 6:14, 15; 7:6; 8:3; Gal. 2:16-19; 3:10-13; 5:4; Eph. 2:7, 8; 15.
b) Texts in which Paul confirms the validity of the law as normative to Christians and exalts it saying that it pleases him: Rom. 3:31; 7: 7, 14, 22; 8: 4; 13:9-10; 7:19; Gal. 5:14; Eph. 6:1, 2.
How to understand this? The explanation is simple: those who try to have the law as a source or means of salvation, placing his obedience in the area of justification, can only put themselves under its malediction, for “by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20 and 7:7). These ones could even come to the point of losing salvation if they were grounded in grace before: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). Failing to trust in the merits of Christ by including their works as means of salvation, they deny their experience of genuine faith in the complete, perfect and meritorious work of Christ for the salvation of all those who believe.
6) Two episodes illustrate the harmony between law and grace in both the Old and the New Testament:
a) In the Old Testament: At the solemn proclamation of the Ten Commandments at Sinai, God declared, even before pronouncing the first commandment: “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exo. 20:2). This is a revelation of His grace. It follows the enunciation of the law in vs. 3 to 17.
b) In the New Testament: Before the woman caught in adultery Christ first presented her His forgiving grace —“Neither do I condemn thee”. After that He presented her His law: “Go and sin no more” (John 8:10, 11).
Thus, the obedience to God’s commandments (works) not only doesn’t go against the principle of justification by faith alone, but is, rather, its consequence, placing itself in the field of sanctification. Thence the statement by the apostle James: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone” (Jas. 2:17, cf. Eph. 2:10).
Conclusion: As two tracks of a railway run side by side and give the necessary balance that the train speeds ahead safely, thus it is with grace and law, faith and works, God’s action and man’s response in the process of justification, sanctification until the final glorification.
7) A factor for misunderstanding the theme of the Bible laws is what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3 regarding the “ministration of death, written and engraven in stones” in contrast with the “ministration of the Spirit”, by which the Christians present themselves as recommendation letters written “not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart” (vs. 8 e 3).
Paul contrasts those who live under a regimen of “condemnation” for not having experienced salvation in Christ, with those who accepted the terms of the new covenant, thus having the divine law, not merely in the form of letters etched on stones, but written on their hearts and minds by God’s Spirit, according to the promise of this new covenant (Heb. 8:6-10). The psalmist speaks of that experience in Psalm 40:8.
Those who still lived under the “old covenant” were the same who Christ reprimanded for being more concerned about the letter “which kills” than with the spirit of the law. That was the case of His criticism to their practice of tithing (Mat. 23:23). Christ didn’t condemn them for tithing, but for being so much concerned with the technicalities of dividing the “mint and anise and cummin”, to the point of losing sight of the spiritual aspects of the ordinance.
Paul didn’t live in times so far removed from that of Christ, and he himself had been a Pharisee, thus he knew the mindset of his previous fellows in the religion field. To mistake the law, that he considered “holy”, “just”, “good”, “pleasurable” and that he had served with his mind (Rom. 7:12, 14, 22, 25), with a “ministration of condemnation” makes no sense, inasmuch as he confirms that “the law is good, if a man use it lawfully” (1 Tim. 1:8). Would God summon His people for the solemn event of the delivery of the law, to offer them a law of death?! Moreover, the problem of this “ministration of death” was not with the law, which is perfect (Psa. 19:7), but with the people, who didn’t realize its more profound and spiritual character.
Conclusion: For not understanding the difference between “law”, “covenant” and “ministration of the Spirit” and “ministration of condemnation” many fail to perceive that Paul is not diminishing the importance of the moral law as normative to the Christian in 2 Corinthians 3, rather he is contrasting attitudes vis-à-vis the law. He compares what it means to live under the regimen of the old covenant, more preoccupied with the letter, with the life of Christians he compares with letters written with the divine Spirit, having the law, not in letter on the cold stone tables, but recorded in their hearts, warmed by the divine grace (see Rom. 8:3 e 4 and Psa. 40:8).
8) Far from teaching that the New Testament represents a new covenant without the basic moral law expressed in the Ten Commandments, the author of Hebrews shows that to those who accept the terms of the New Covenant (or New Testament) God Himself would write His law in their hearts and print it in their minds (Heb. 8:6-10; 10:16). We’ve seen as Paul compares the Christian under the new covenant with “epistles written in our hearts, known and read of all men . . . not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart” (2 Cor. 3:1-11).
Under the new covenant, established upon “better promises”, God writes His law in the hearts of those who accept its terms, taking them from the cold stone tables to record it in their hearts warmed by the divine grace (ver Heb. 8:6). Notice that this “law of God” is the same that was contained in the original promise directed to the children of Israel in Jeremiah 31:31-33, not any other. The burden of proof rests with those who deny this fact, clearly set in these texts. Heb. 10:16 confirms: God writes His law in the hearts of His children under the new covenant. The Hebrew-Christian readers of the epistle would understand that perfectly. And the promise of divine assistance for obedience to this law is found also in Eze. 36:26, 27.
Conclusion: The context of these verses (chaps. 8 and 10 of Hebrews) clearly defines that they apply to the expanded Israel of God, under the Christian dispensation. After all, the new covenant is now available to all, Jews and gentiles, for the wall of separation was broken down through the abolition of the “ceremonial law”—not the “moral law” (Eph. 2:11 to 22). Thus, the theme of the divine law is not something that belongs to the Old Testament. On the contrary, it is a foundational component of theNew Testament, itself, certainly in its moral, not ceremonial aspects.
9) There are those who teach that the “law of Christ”, or His commandments (as in John 14:15), has nothing to do with the Decalogue, being such “law of Christ” the new norm for the Christian, which brings only nine of the 10 commandments of the “old fashioned” law (did Christ rupture with His Father, establishing a different law?). Although he speaks repeatedly of the “law of Christ”, Paul also speaks of the “law of God” with similar validity weigh (compare Rom. 7:22, 25; 13:8-10; with Gal. 6:2 e 1 Cor. 9:21).
James speaks of the law as based on love, and calls it “law of liberty” (Jas. 2:8-12). John speaks of law of God and law of Christ as if they were just one and the same, without distinction, along his epistles, 1st and 2nd John (e.g., 1 John 2:7; 3:2-4; 21-24; 4: 7-11, 19-21; 5:1-3 e 2 John vs. 5 e 6).
In the book of Revelation, God’s remnant people is characterized as those who “keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 12:17 and 14:12). John describes a vision he had of God’s Temple, within which he contemplated the “ark of his testament” (Rev.11:19). Those who know the Bible are aware that the Ten Commandments were kept in this ark (Deu. 10:5). Why was it shown to John this “ark of his testament” in a clearly eschatological context? It’s because it represents the throne of God which is founded on justtice (the law) and mercy (the mercy seat).
Conclusion: Christ’s law and God’s law are just one and the same. Jesus declared: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). He stressed the principle of love to God and to the neighbor as the basis of His commandments, according to the same basic principles of God’s law since the beginning (Deu. 6:5; Lev. 19:18, cf. Mat. 22:37-40). For Paul, to be “under the law of Christ” is comparable to being in harmony with God’s law (1 Cor. 9:21).
10) Sometimes there is a clear misunderstanding regarding the tenor of Christ’s debates with the Jewish leaders on the validity of His cures on the Sabbath day. Jesus defends Himself of the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ accusations (and those of certain contemporary leaders of Christendom nowadays) that He broke the Sabbath, clarifying being LAWFUL (in harmony with the law) to heal on the Sabbath (Mat. 12:12). What Christ condemned was not their practice of the Sabbath rest by them, for He Himself was an observer of this commandment (Luke 4:16), but the wrong spirit in which they practiced it. For that reason He said that “the Sabbath was made for man [not only for the Jews], and not man for the Sabbath” (Mar. 2:27), besides declaring Himself “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mat. 12:8). The tenor of His debates with the Jewish leadership was not IF they should keep the Sabbath, nor WHEN to keep the Sabbath, but HOW to keep the Sabbath in the due spirit.
Conclusion: The Jewish leaders didn’t corrupt only the meaning of the Sabbath commandment, but also of the 5th one (Mar. 7:8-10), as well as the tithing practice (Mat. 23:23), as already seen. However, Christ told His hearers (the multitudes and the disciples) to practice all that they said, although not following their bad example of “do as I say, but not as I do” (see Mat. 23:2, 3). Among the right things that they said was their insistence regarding a faithful observance of the Sabbath, even though they were wrong in condemning them for coming to seek healing on that day (Luke 13:14).
For following these discussions from the beginning see the initial article of the series “Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith” through this link:
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=92549&page=1
On pages 1 and 2 of said discussions there are some other studies on the law and Sabbath questions, based also on 10 topics.
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: Strange and Unheard of Supposed Comments By Seventh-day Adventists
[Re: Azenilto]
#116369
07/20/09 04:54 AM
07/20/09 04:54 AM
|
SDA
Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
Strange and Unheard of Supposed Comments By Seventh-day Adventists
In the May/June edition of Proclamation! Magazine (2009) Mr. Ratzlaff just confirms the unethical feature of his methodology as he once again proposes to assesses Seventh-day Adventism. He begins an article he wrote (“Does Paul Conflict With Jesus?”, p. 14) alleging that he was “sitting in an audience where I heard an Adventist pastor say something to the effect that Paul had his disagreements with Jesus”. Then he proceeds to say that he was “deeply disturbed” with such opinion, going on in his misrepresentation of what SDA’s teach adding his opinion that this wouldn’t be an “isolated opinion” and that “many Adventists say that Paul misunderstood Jesus”. Worse, he declares in a nonchalant way that “Some Adventists indicate that one cannot trust what Paul wrote because he disagrees with Jesus and undermines the law". Some who? How many? What is the proportion of these? Where do they live and teach these strange and unheard of things? By the way, the Apostle Paul is my favorite Bible author, and to many SDA’s too.
Azenilto, I am by no means a supporter of Dale Ratzlaff. Not at all do I support him nor his tactics. However, on the point you bring up here, I think you are perhaps more in the wrong than Ratzlaff. You see, I would agree with those statements of Ratzlaff. Paul DID have his disagreements with Jesus, didn't he? He was "kicking against the pricks" until Jesus confronted him on his way to Damascus. Do you think Paul always understood Jesus? Do you? I don't. I can only wish I did. Jesus' own disciples misunderstood Him when He spoke with them face-to-face...and rather frequently, at that. How can we suppose those of us who have come afterwards would be any better? Paul may be your favorite Bible author, but he just so happens to be one of the most difficult to correctly understand. The imprecise wording which he frequently chose and his convoluted grammar have created a large number of the "problem texts" that Adventists struggle to explain today. I have heard it said that if it were not for Paul's writings, it would be easier to preach the Adventist message. I do not doubt for a minute Ratzlaff's intention to misconstrue, misalign, and to criticize the Adventist church. But in this case, at least, I wouldn't try to argue with his quote of the pastor, only with his representation and understanding of it. Blessings, Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
Re: Strange and Unheard of Supposed Comments By Seventh-day Adventists
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#116385
07/20/09 01:27 PM
07/20/09 01:27 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
GC, why do you think God allowed Paul's epistles to become a part of the Bible? Was God powerless to prevent Paul's "imprecise wording" and "convoluted grammar" from making it difficult for Adventists to preach the truth as it is in Jesus? Or, do you think, as I do, that God purposely raised up and inspired Paul to explain the truth in his unique, challenging style? If so, why? That is, why would God choose someone like Paul to write a large portion of the NT? Was it because of or in spite of his way of writing? I think it was because of it. I think it serves to prove the divine origin of the Bible. Do you agree?
Ellen White wrote:
There are in the Scriptures some things which are hard to be understood, and which, according to the language of Peter, the unlearned and unstable wrest unto their own destruction. We may not, in this life, be able to explain the meaning of every passage of Scripture; but there are no vital points to practical truth that will be clouded in mystery. {CD 187.1}
The apostle Peter says that there are in Scripture "things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest . . . unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16. The difficulties of Scripture have been urged by skeptics as an argument against the Bible; but so far from this, they constitute a strong evidence of its divine inspiration. If it contained no account of God but that which we could easily comprehend; if His greatness and majesty could be grasped by finite minds, then the Bible would not bear the unmistakable credentials of divine authority. The very grandeur and mystery of the themes presented should inspire faith in it as the word of God. {SC 107.1}
|
|
|
Re: Strange and Unheard of Supposed Comments By Seventh-day Adventists
[Re: Mountain Man]
#116390
07/20/09 02:11 PM
07/20/09 02:11 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
Mike,
My problem with Paul is that I have met too many people who are sincerely convinced he is saying things which I do not believe he said. Have you ever struggled to explain Paul to someone like this? How about a Mormon? A Jehovah's Witness? Try as you might, there seems no path to the person's soul. Satan has bound them up in a strong web of misconceptions. Is God powerless to break this? If not, why does He not break it?
The father-in-law of one of our church members back at home had a real enjoyment for deep and thorough study of the Bible. He was not, however, an Adventist. His beliefs, in fact, are sufficiently unique that I am not sure he belongs to any church. We invited him to our home several Sabbaths and discussed basic Adventist beliefs with him in Bible study fashion. He loved to study. But he had such strange ideas! And he had scripture to back him up!
I'm not a stranger to the Bible, but when I would bring a text that supported the truth, he had a different way of explaining the same text...almost every time. And, let me tell you, Paul was the biggest troublespot. Will God save the man in spite of his not accepting the Sabbath truth? the state of the dead? the judgment? Perhaps. But I cannot help but feel that God is sad when people choose to mishandle His Word, even if it is by "honest mistake."
Do you not think God is saddened when people are deceived, by whatever means they may have become so?
I am not saying Paul should not have written. I believe God wanted Paul to write. That is not the issue. However, there are certain points upon which Paul should have been more clear, and I believe God would have been honored by it. The chiefest of these has to do with the law.
I agree with the pastor(s) that Ratzlaff quoted as saying Paul has undermined the law. By his careless wording on this point, I believe Paul inadvertently did just that. For example, in the following statement, Paul omitted two words: "ye are not under the law." The omission of these two words, which would have cleared things up greatly, has caused the majority of our own Adventist pastors and members to misunderstand his meaning. Those words are "penalty of." Unfortunately, many are just too happy to throw out the law because of the imprecise wording here, in spite of the fact Paul also claims to "uphold the law."
Blessings,
Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
Re: Strange and Unheard of Supposed Comments By Seventh-day Adventists
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#116423
07/21/09 02:32 AM
07/21/09 02:32 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
GC, I don't see it the way you do. I do not think it is unfortunate Paul explained things the way he did. Nor do I wish he had explained things more clearly. I am convinced the letters he wrote were inspired by God. Every word.
|
|
|
Re: Strange and Unheard of Supposed Comments By Seventh-day Adventists
[Re: Mountain Man]
#116425
07/21/09 03:54 AM
07/21/09 03:54 AM
|
SDA
Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
Mike, do you see God as inspiring mistakes?
Blessings,
Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
Re: Strange and Unheard of Supposed Comments By Seventh-day Adventists
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#116427
07/21/09 04:10 AM
07/21/09 04:10 AM
|
SDA
Active Member 2024
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,984
CA, USA
|
|
I am not saying Paul should not have written. I believe God wanted Paul to write. That is not the issue. However, there are certain points upon which Paul should have been more clear, and I believe God would have been honored by it. The chiefest of these has to do with the law.
... By his careless wording on this point, I believe Paul inadvertently did just that. For example, in the following statement, Paul omitted two words: "ye are not under the law." The omission of these two words, which would have cleared things up greatly, has caused the majority of our own Adventist pastors and members to misunderstand his meaning. Those words are "penalty of." Unfortunately, many are just too happy to throw out the law because of the imprecise wording here, in spite of the fact Paul also claims to "uphold the law." wow, brother!! sorry, but very scary!! i mean i can understand wishing he were plainer, easier to understand but really! our bibles are translations of the original, but even so i feel God Himself is being criticized here!! it is, after all, God Himself, Who not only inspired the written word, but also inspired what was to be included in the bible. as for those who will not believe thats pretty much on them. it doesnt matter how convincing anything is we all choose what we believe. paul is very deep, but we will never fully understand the bible even if we could live as long as the antediluvians. thank God for paul and his writings as "imperfect" as they may be!!
Psa 64:5 ...an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them?
Psa 7:14 Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. 15 He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. 16 His mischief (and his violent dealing) shall return upon his own head.
Psa 7:17 I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high.
|
|
|
Re: Strange and Unheard of Supposed Comments By Seventh-day Adventists
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#116433
07/21/09 08:51 AM
07/21/09 08:51 AM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
Mike,
My problem with Paul is that I have met too many people who are sincerely convinced he is saying things which I do not believe he said. Have you ever struggled to explain Paul to someone like this? How about a Mormon? A Jehovah's Witness? Try as you might, there seems no path to the person's soul. Satan has bound them up in a strong web of misconceptions. Is God powerless to break this? If not, why does He not break it?
The father-in-law of one of our church members back at home had a real enjoyment for deep and thorough study of the Bible. He was not, however, an Adventist. His beliefs, in fact, are sufficiently unique that I am not sure he belongs to any church. We invited him to our home several Sabbaths and discussed basic Adventist beliefs with him in Bible study fashion. He loved to study. But he had such strange ideas! And he had scripture to back him up!
I'm not a stranger to the Bible, but when I would bring a text that supported the truth, he had a different way of explaining the same text...almost every time. And, let me tell you, Paul was the biggest troublespot. Will God save the man in spite of his not accepting the Sabbath truth? the state of the dead? the judgment? Perhaps. But I cannot help but feel that God is sad when people choose to mishandle His Word, even if it is by "honest mistake."
Do you not think God is saddened when people are deceived, by whatever means they may have become so?
I am not saying Paul should not have written. I believe God wanted Paul to write. That is not the issue. However, there are certain points upon which Paul should have been more clear, and I believe God would have been honored by it. The chiefest of these has to do with the law.
I agree with the pastor(s) that Ratzlaff quoted as saying Paul has undermined the law. By his careless wording on this point, I believe Paul inadvertently did just that. For example, in the following statement, Paul omitted two words: "ye are not under the law." The omission of these two words, which would have cleared things up greatly, has caused the majority of our own Adventist pastors and members to misunderstand his meaning. Those words are "penalty of." Unfortunately, many are just too happy to throw out the law because of the imprecise wording here, in spite of the fact Paul also claims to "uphold the law."
Blessings,
Green Cochoa. So when your understanding of what the bible ought to teach conflicts with what it acctually says, you choose to mend the bible? I guess that is one option you have, not a very good one but non the less an option.
Galatians 2
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
|
Re: Strange and Unheard of Supposed Comments By Seventh-day Adventists
[Re: vastergotland]
#116436
07/21/09 10:30 AM
07/21/09 10:30 AM
|
SDA
Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
So when your understanding of what the bible ought to teach conflicts with what it acctually says, you choose to mend the bible? I guess that is one option you have, not a very good one but non the less an option. Perhaps you haven't grasped what I am saying. I am not trying to teach anything non-biblical. What I am saying is that there are places where the Bible appears to teach something that it does not actually teach. Do you disagree with this? In those places, do you not think it might be easier to understand the Bible had the words been expressed more clearly to avoid such misunderstandings? Paul was inspired. His writings fit in the Canon. They belong there, and he has much wisdom to share with us. Nor do I disagree with his message. I am commenting more on his manner of delivery of said message. It is because of his imprecision that many mistakes are made by those who read his writings. Is it 100% their own fault for misunderstanding? If so, what should they have done to make sure they did not misunderstand? What should God do? Would it be forcing their wills to cause them to understand? Peter comments in the Bible about how people misunderstand Paul's writings to their own destruction. It is interesting to note that we do not see any other Bible author mentioned in this sort of light! And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:15-16 I guess what I'm saying is that it is a sad thing to see so many people go off the path to truth because of how they have misunderstood Paul. I have come across many people who are led astray because of his writings. Blessings, Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
