|
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
|
|
|
10 Questions About the Sabbath for Anti-Sabbatarians to Think Seriously About
[Re: Azenilto]
#87611
04/05/07 04:59 PM
04/05/07 04:59 PM
|
|
|
Well, let's advance in our examination of this important subject, with some more food for thought to the objector of our position on God's Sabbath commandament:
10 Questions About the Sabbath for Anti-Sabbatarians to Think Seriously About
They don’t need to be answered. Could be just for serious reflections . . .
1 – Since Isaiah 56:2-8 and Mark 2:27 show that the Sabbath is not an institution only for the literal children of Israel, encompassing the foreigners and “every man”, how can be it denied that it is a moral, universal precept, that stems from the Creation of the world?
Note: By the way, the only two institutions that still persist in the world since the entrance of sin are the Sabbath and marriage, both equally established for man (see Mar. 2:27 and Mat. 19:5). Both are equally the object of tremendous attacks from Satan, in the first case through the development of false theologies (promoting the ancient dies solis of Roman paganism, transformed into Sunday, or the ambiguous philosophy of the “anydayism/nodayism/everydayism”), and, in the second case, through the growing wave of separations, divorce, marital unfaithfulness and, more recently, same-sex marriages.
2 – Since the historical confessions of faith, creeds and catechisms of Protestant (and Catholic) Christendom admit that the Sabbath is a MORAL commandment, that comes from Eden, where did the interpretations that negate this come from?
Note: A clue would be to get information regarding a certain C. I. Scofield by the beginning of the 20th Century.
3 – Since those who found rest for their souls following Christ directly, when He inhabited among men, and didn’t for that reason dispense with the Sabbath (Luke 23:56), why should we act differently today, as Jesus came to save His people FROM their sins, and not WITH their sins (Mat. 1:21)?
Note: We find the Bible’s definition of “sin” in 1 John 3:4: “Sin is the transgression of the law”.
4 – Since Paul along the entire epistle to the Colossians never utilizes the word “law”, doesn’t that allow us to see he is not teaching anything in Chapter 2 regarding the end of laws, but is speaking of another thing related to the attribution of guilt to forgiven sinners?
Note: The “written code” (cheirographon, in the Greek --Col. 2:14) that was “against us” is not the “ceremonial law”, as some think, but the document that attributed guilt to a condemned man before a court.
5 – Since Paul as an Apostle never could have authority to abolish or alter any of God’s law, whatsoever, isn’t it clear enough that in Col. 2:16 he is not playing the role of a legislator who engages himself in altering the terms of God’s law?
Note: The parallel language of vs. 16 and 18 makes it clear the reason of Paul’s admonition: “. . . do not let anyone to judge you. . .”, “. . . do not let anyone . . . disqualify you. . .”
6 – Since even considering the weekly Sabbath a shadow, but having an ample character that doesn’t imply its end (for it will continue in the New Earth--Isa. 66:22, 23), isn’t clear that the precept of the Sabbath differs contextually and conceptually from the ceremonial ordinances abolished on the cross (see Eph. 2:15)?
Note: Remembering that God uttered it solemnly on the ears of the people, jointly with all moral norms and wrote it on the stone tables, a fact that would never apply to any ceremonial precept.
7 – Since God declared that the Sabbath is a sign established between He and His people (Exo. 31:17; Eze. 20:12, 20) and since it is never said that God replaced such sign for any other, what justification do the anti-Sabbatarians have to neglect this divine sign, while pretending to belong to God’s people?
Note: To quote Eph. 1:13 as a “proof” that now there exists a new “sign” has no basis because the text doesn’t say that the Holy Spirit became that “sign”, and not even the noun “sign” occurs in the text. What is said is that the Holy Spirit seals the true believers, but the seal of the Spirit is reflected in the writing of God’s law on the hearts and minds of those who accept the New Covenant between God and His children (Heb. 8:6-10; Rom. 8:3, 4), which includes, and not excludes, the Sabbath commandment.
8 – Since the Roman Catholics allege that those who don’t want to utilize sculptured images in their acts of worship are not obliged to do so, while they complain against the Evangelicals' insistence in criticizing them for their use of these images, those who say they are not against us keeping the Sabbath, but just asking to not bother them regarding such commandment, are not acting in exactly the same way?
Note: To condemn the Catholics for their use of images, quoting a precept of the same code of law that contains the neglected Sabbath commandment, is not only inconsistent, but could even be an exercise in hypocrisy.
9 – Since Jesus discussed so many times with the Jewish leaders regarding the Sabbath question, not to disqualify the Sabbath, but to indicate the form it should be observed, and asserted being “the Lord of the Sabbath”—to show He had authority to correct them who corrupted the meaning of the divine commandments—shouldn’t we learn what Christ intended to teach us regarding the manner of observing correctly the “day of the Lord”?
Note: The Jewish leaders corrupted also the 5th commandment (Mark 7:9ff) and the tithe principle (Mat. 23:23). Jesus declared in Matthew 15:6 about them: “. . . nullify the word of God for the sake or your tradition”. Christ discussed with them not WHETHER they should keep the Sabbath, nor WHEN they should keep the Sabbath, but HOW they should keep it, in the right spirit.
10 – Since in the passage of the Old to the New Covenant, when God inscribes what is called “My laws” on the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of this New Covenant [New Testament] (Hebrews 8:6-10) nothing is said that He leaves out the commandment of the day of rest, nor that He transfers the sanctity of the seventh-day to the first day of the week (or that this principle became something vague, voluntary and variable), why should we resist this divine writing of that commandment in our minds and hearts, at the same time that we allege to fulfill God’s will, as the Psalmist said in the Psalm 40:8?
Note: Said text says, “I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart”.
[All Bible texts taken from the NIV]
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
10 Serious Difficulties For the Advocates of Either Sunday Keeping or the “Nodayism/Anydayism. . . ”
[Re: Azenilto]
#87614
04/05/07 05:19 PM
04/05/07 05:19 PM
|
|
|
10 Serious Difficulties For the Advocates of Either Sunday Keeping or the “Nodayism/Anydayism/Everydayism”
1 - Jesus said that “the Sabbath was made for man” without implying that it was a provisional institution to be cancelled some time later. He simply confirms the commandment as having a universal character. What, then, is the basis for the notion of the end of the Sabbath for the Christians?
2 - The most representative confessions of faith of the historical Christian churches (such as the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Baptist New Hampshire Confession), clearly confirm the Sabbath as a moral commandment derived from Creation for all men, in all times. The fact that they reinterpret such principle applying it to Sunday doesn’t reduce their enforcement of the 4th commandment as valid for Christians, which is much different from the nodayism/anydayism/everydayism that has characterized the discourse of the Evangelical world since the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. How do you justify the radical change in mentality as to the question of the day or rest in comparison to the historical thinking of the Protestant Christendom?
3 - Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Anglicans didn’t understood or understand things as defined by those of the semi-antinomian/dispensationalist line, who contradict the statements by Luther, Calvin, Wesley and many others Evangelical thinkers, both contemporary and past, especially the historical Confessions of Faith, Creeds and Catechisms of the Christian churches. All these Christian instructors, in harmony with the confessional documents of those churches they either founded, belonged to or still belong to, reiterate the Sabbath position as being a moral commandment that proceeds from Eden, for all men, in all times, including Pentecostal authors. The fact that they reinterpret such principle applying it to Sunday doesn’t reduce the strength of their setting apart the 4th commandment as valid and still in force for Christians, which is very different from the nodayism/anydayism/everydayism, which has characterized the discourse of the Evangelical world since the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. In the face of that historical reality, how do you justify the radical change in mentality vis-à-vis the question of the day of rest in contrast to the historical thinking of the Protestant Christendom?
Note: Luther, Calvin and Wesley sometimes were inconsistent and made comments disparaging the keeping of the 7th-day Sabbath as a biblical requirement. But they all admitted the validity of the 10 Commandaments as a rule for Christian conduct. They certainly found it difficult to explain why Sunday was the favored day to be kept when there is no such instruction in the Bible and came out with unconvincing excuses. They also raised unacceptable arguments to justify child baptism.
4 - The Evangelicals cannot define where the Bible establishes that the day of rest in the Christian era should be presently observed in a more “user friendly” way, with permission to buy and sell, watch games on TV, go to movies, theaters, mall, etc., with practically the only difference being that on their “Lord’s day” one stays some more time at the Church’s meetings. What biblical basis do you have to justify this change in the dedication of a day to the Lord?
5 - The Evangelicals cannot define why this supposed Christian Sabbath should be considered according to the Roman time reckoning, from midnight to midnight, instead of the Bible reckoning, from sunset to sunset, especially as the texts that deal with the first day of the week in the New Testament utilize the Jewish reckoning, not the Roman one. What biblical basis do you have to justify that change?
6 - It’s significant that the main meetings of worship, praise, preaching, altar calls in the Evangelical churches occur in their Sunday night meetings which, according to the Bible time reckoning, is already Monday, not Sunday! How do you justify that, at least those who still hold the idea that Sunday is a special day to dedicate to the Lord?
7 - Are the evangelicals able to define where, in the passage from the Old to the New Alliance, it is said that when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of His New Alliance [New Testament], He
- leaves out the 4th commandment of the Decalogue (Basic Texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; 10:16; Jeremiah 31:31-33 and Ezekiel 36:26, 27)?
8 - Are the evangelicals able to define where, in the passage from the Old to the New Alliance, it is said that when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of His New Alliance [New Testament], He
- maintains the 4th commandment, but transferring the sanctity of the seventh-day Sabbath to Sunday (Basic Texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; 10:16; Jeremiah 31:31-33 e Ezekiel 36:26, 27)?
9 - Are the evangelicals able to define where it is said, in the passage from the Old to the New Alliance, that when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of His New Alliance [New Testament], He
- leaves the question of the day of rest as something vague, voluntary and variable, to be set individually, according to the conveniences of the believer (or his/her employer) (Basic Texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; 10:16; Jeremiah 31:31-33 e Ezekiel 36:26, 27)?
10 - Since in the biblical promise of the New Heavens and a New Earth, when there will be no more sin or sinners, the Sabbath will continue to be observed by the redeemed ones eternally (see Isaiah 66:22, 23), why shouldn’t we now dedicate to the Lord His holy day, as He Himself established in His law, which was not cancelled by faith, but confirmed (Rom. 3:31)?
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: 10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept
[Re: Azenilto]
#88053
04/20/07 11:50 AM
04/20/07 11:50 AM
|
|
|
Post removed as this type of advertising without first obtaining permission is not allowed here at MSDAOL. - Daryl Fawcett, Administrator
Last edited by Daryl Fawcett; 04/20/07 12:37 PM. Reason: Content of post removed
|
|
|
“Non-negotiable” Points that Match SDA' Fundamental Beliefs
[Re: Azenilto]
#88480
05/01/07 09:10 AM
05/01/07 09:10 AM
|
|
|
Hello friends
As another update to our “dialogue” with Mr. Ratzlaff, the book he promised to send me hasn’t reached my address so far. May be he decided that it wouldn’t be worthwhile to throw his “pearl” to a stubborn “pig” like me.
Speaking of pig, he concluded, in a lecture during an especial event—the FAF Weekend 2007 (which means a special meeting of the Former Adventist Fellowship), as featured in the new March/April issue of Proclamation magazine that I received by regular mail—that in Acts 10, when Peter describes his vision of the sheet with many unclean animals, the Apostle is implying that the law that prohibited people from eating pork was abolished. Well, this idea of the abolition of the dietary laws is one of the points I want to analyze in this study to show one more serious error of Mr. Ratzlaff’s theology.
And among the key studies in the mentioned meeting, I found some “gems”, as a certain Dr. Gary Inrig gave some tips in a class of which churches a former Seventh-day Adventist should favor to attend and/or join. Quoting from the article: “He stressed three non-negotiable beliefs” that should be “the Trinity, a high view of Scriptures’ inerrancy, and the centrality of the cross”.
This is amazing, because our confessional document, adopted by over 15 million SDA’s all over the world, emphasize the Trinity, the centrality of the Scriptures as the foundation of our beliefs and practices, and the centrality of the cross.
Let’s see the specific topics that deal with that:
Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists
Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word.
1. The Holy Scriptures: The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)
2. The Trinity: There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)
3. The Father: God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father. (Gen. 1:1; Rev. 4:11; 1 Cor. 15:28; John 3:16; 1 John 4:8; 1 Tim. 1:17; Ex. 34:6, 7; John 14:9.)
4. The Son: God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1-3.)
5. The Holy Spirit: God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ's life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Gen. 1:1, 2; Luke 1:35; 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:11, 12; Acts 1:8; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-13.)
(. . .)
9. The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ: In Christ's life of perfect obedience to God's will, His suffering, death, and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life, and the whole creation may better understand the infinite and holy love of the Creator. This perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God's law and the graciousness of His character; for it both condemns our sin and provides for our forgiveness. The death of Christ is substitutionary and expiatory, reconciling and transforming. The resurrection of Christ proclaims God's triumph over the forces of evil, and for those who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death. It declares the Lordship of Jesus Christ, before whom every knee in heaven and on earth will bow. (John 3:16; Isa. 53; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4, 20-22; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, 19-21; Rom. 1:4; 3:25; 4:25; 8:3, 4; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; Col. 2:15; Phil. 2:6-11.)
10. The Experience of Salvation: In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God's grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God's sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God's law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment. (2 Cor. 5:17-21; John 3:16; Gal. 1:4; 4:4-7; Titus 3:3-7; John 16:8; Gal. 3:13, 14; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; Rom. 10:17; Luke 17:5; Mark 9:23, 24; Eph. 2:5-10; Rom. 3:21-26; Col. 1:13, 14; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26; John 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 8:7-12; Eze. 36:25-27; 2 Peter 1:3, 4; Rom. 8:1-4; 5:6-10.)
There we have the “non-negotiable” points highlighted by this instructor of former Seventh-day Adventists, all of them found in the “Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists” in its introductory remarks and topics 1-5 an 9, 10. Is there any need to leave the SDA Church to go after some church that teaches these non-negotiable tenets?!
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Proceeding with the discussions of the Ratzlaff material-I
[Re: Azenilto]
#88481
05/01/07 09:13 AM
05/01/07 09:13 AM
|
|
|
Some Fine Points in the Testimonies of the Mirra’s, Richard Peifer and Christofer A. Lee
In the testimonies the magazine features, like in the articles “From Adventism to Christ Alone”, by Paul and Terry Mirra, or “Alive—A matter of life and death”, by Richard Peifer, and “Paid in Full. Completely”, by Christopher A. Lee, we find a succession of distortions and caricatures of our convictions and teachings, especially regarding salvation and our standing before God in the face of the judgment, besides a faulty theology amidst a few good points that deserve mentioning.
They tell their experiences as individuals raised by SDA parents who transmitted to them notions that simply don’t correspond to our official understanding of the gospel. Now, I know well the Evangelical environment and could also report of many believers I met along my life who also are unable to articulate precisely what the gospel is, or even what their churches officially teach regarding it. So, if there are in SDAism those who are unable to clearly articulate our beliefs, that is not a “phenomenon” restricted to the SDAC members, I can assure you.
Provided their versions of these teachings by their parents are correct, if these people, instead of simply limiting themselves to what their parents taught them, dedicated themselves to the task of checking what the SDA church really teaches, according to the Bible, they wouldn’t come up with stories of these poor articulations of the great themes of salvation and other fine theological points that, after leaving the SDA Church, they “discovered” as being taught by other Christians.
As I quoted on the top of this article, the SDA Fundamental beliefs official document covers perfectly well what they claim to have learned as they left the SDA Church, finding the “real gospel”, centered on the cross, in other denominations. Let’s see some of these distortions:
In the Mirra’s article Terry says: “When we learned that the Old Covenant pointed to the new, it made total sense. The whole book of Hebrews drives home the point that Jesus is superior to, and the fulfillment of, the Old Covenant—there’s no need to pick and choose parts of it to keep (Heb. 8:6-8, 13). It’s either one way or the other. To hang onto the Old Covenant is to say that Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t complete”.
Poor lady, how come she just discovered something so obvious and so clearly understood by any Seventh-day Adventist who studies his/her Bible regularly?! Recently we even had a Sabbath School Quarterly dedicated to the book of Hebrews where that is exactly what is taught! There is no semblance of this clinging to the Old Covenant, at all. . . So, again, how far she had to go to find this “non-negotiable” teaching that she could have had all the time, just learning better what her Church officially teaches!
But, there is something significant in her quotation of the Bible verses. She skips two important verses in the sequence of the ones she quoted, vs. 9 and 10 of Hebrews 8:
“It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares de Lord. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people”.
Well, Mrs. Mirra forgot to mention that this New Covenant [New Testament] is a wonderful promise by God that, according to His “better promises”, he would write “My laws”, as He says in vs. 10, in the hearts of those who accept the terms of this New Covenant, and put them in their minds. Why did she skipped them?!
Now, when we consider the fact that this text is just a reproduction of what we find in Jeremiah 31:31-33, when this promise of a new covenant was first transmitted to national Israel itself, we reach a very interesting conclusion: What “My laws” are these? Certainly they have to be THE SAME known by Jeremiah! Yes, the text is an application by Paul of THE SAME promise God had made to His people in the past. So, these “My laws” are THE SAME principles that God set to Israel as basic for a new covenant with His people at that time.
Oh, but how about all the ceremonies and rituals that were also part of the law at the time of Jeremiah? Well, let’s remember that when Paul applies to the Church of God the promise to Israel, both he and his primary Hebrew Christian readers knew very well that the Temple’s veil had been torn in two, from top to bottom, when Jesus died. The Christian community was already aware of what that meant—that all the ceremonial, ritual, aspects of God’s law were no more applicable to the Christian under the New Covenant [New Testament]. But the Sabbath is not a ceremonial law (and that is the “bottom line”), as we discussed in our special study, “10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept” that has never been refuted by any anti-sabbatarian.
Then we have that little question that I addressed to Mr. Ratzlaff, among others, and so far got no answer:
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 – leaves the day or rest principle as a vague, voluntary and variable practice 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.
This brings us to the real “bottom line” of all this discussion. The point in this discussion is basically a classical misunderstanding that I often find among Evangelicals: they mistake two different things—LAW and COVENANT. They are not the same. One thing is the law, which served as a basis to the covenant. There is nothing that proves that with the change of covenants, there was a change of the basic law. This is an equation that our opponents are still to demonstrate, and so far I haven’t seen it demonstrated:
NEW COVENANT = NEW LAW
Would either Paul or Terry Mirra be able to answer the blue question above for us? And, would they be able to resolve this equation that so far nobody resolved for us too? I will ask Mr. Ratzlaff or someone from his staff to forward this text to them. . .
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Proceeding with the discussions of the Ratzlaff material-II
[Re: Azenilto]
#88482
05/01/07 09:23 AM
05/01/07 09:23 AM
|
|
|
Good and Bad Points in Two Articles: By Richard Peifer And Christopher A. Lee
Regarding Mr. Richard Peifer article (in Proclamation, March/Abril, 2007), it has some good points, as this thought that is even highlighted in a special box: “Jesus’ sermon on the Mount was the single most condemning sermon ever preached. If you finish reading it with any other than a sense of dread because you fall so far short of the ideal then you are not paying attention”.
His summary of the basic points in the article wouldn’t be disputed by any well-informed Seventh-day Adventist:
* Adam and Eve were created alive spiritually and physically.
* They chose independence from God and ate the forbidden fruit.
* The instantaneous result of this choice was spiritual death; the Holy Spirit left them.
* The long-term result of this choice was physical death.
* All of us were born in the image of Adam; that is, dead to the Holy Spirit in the process of dying physically.
* Jesus was born the Second Adam; alive Spiritually.
* Jesus lived a perfect life. That is, He lived in perfect submission to and dependence upon His Father. He succeeded where Adam and Eve failed.
* Because He lived the perfect life, Jesus’ death was the perfect substitution for the death we deserved.
* Jesus too, put away sin by becoming sin for us.
* Therefore, Jesus provided forgiveness, once and for all, for the entire world.
Again, do we have to leave the SDA Church to learn these points?! There is NOTHING in all of them that I can’t accept from the standpoint of a Seventh-day Adventist. Absolutely nothing!
But, there are a few points that I want to discuss in said article.
A – The author quotes at a certain point Matt. 7:21-23: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord’, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, die we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?” And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you: Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (Matt. 7:21-23).
Well, there are two fine points to analyze in this text. First, Jesus says He will recognize the ones who do “the will of My Father who is in heaven”. And where is this will of the Father clearly defined in the Bible? The Psalmist tells us in Psa. 40:8: “To do Your will, O my god, is my desire; Your law is within my heart”. Many translations have it, “my pleasure”, instead of “my desire”, but, anyway, God’s will is clearly revealed in His law.
The second point is that Jesus will reject those who, despite their impressive curriculum of “spiritual” activities, including the performance of miracles and casting out of demons” are labeled by Him as those who practice “lawlessness”. Now, in the Greek original, the word for “lawlessness” is anomian, the same that appears in 1 John 3:4 in the definition of sin: “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness”. Many versions, as the KJV, the French Louis Segond, the Italian Nuova Riveduta or the Spanish Reina Valera has it as “sin is the transgression of the law-anomian”.
So, we can clearly understand Jesus’ words as being equivalent to: “Depart from Me, you who are transgressors of the law”! That is something for those who learn this strange new theology of the “abolition of the law” to think seriously about. . .
B - Another point is when he quotes Romans 5:10, “For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”
He emphasizes the Resurrection aspect of “His life”, but we could understand this Pauline reference to Jesus’ perfect life, by which He fulfilled the law perfectly so that His justice, acquired along His perfect life, is credited to those who by faith accept His supreme sacrifice. Thus, we are saved by His life, in the sense that His perfect life of sanctity is taken into account in the place of our faulty life, since even “all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6). As we can see, nobody has to leave the SDA Church to understand that wonderful gospel truth.
C – Then, Mr. Peifer quotes Romans 8:3, 4, but clearly distorts the meaning of what Paul wants to say. He says, “What the law could never do, God did by sending Jesus. He both condemned sin in sinful flesh AND fulfilled the righteous requirement of the Law in us, ‘who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit’ (Rom. 8:4)”. Then he concludes: “In other words, we must stop looking at our behavior and start looking at Jesus. Behavior has never been and never will be the basis for our standing with God, because we have never had any good behavior to offer Him”.
Well, the Bible says that we have to do both things—look at Jesus AND look at our behavior as representatives of Jesus. Paul said that now “Keeping God’s commandments is what counts” (1 Cor. 7:19). If Mr. Peifer means that we should not consider our behavior, IN TERMS OF JUSTIFICATION, he is right. But we have to remember that without sanctification “no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14).
But, his error is his interpretation of Rom. 8:4: He gives the impression that what Paul is saying has nothing to do with an attitude of faithful obedience to God’s law by those who are led by the Spirit. Jesus just “fulfilled the righteous requirement of the Law in us”, he says. That is not right, because the same Paul not only recommended the keeping of commandments to the Romans (Rom. 13:8-10) and Ephesians (Eph. 6:1-3; 4:25-31) as he, himself, said that “I myself with my mind am a slave of God’s law”, which is the one that brings the commandment, “Do not covet” (Rom. 7:25, cf. vs. 7, 8).
A little further in the same chapter 8, Paul also says: “The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace, because the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God”.
Then, there is no “fulfillment of the righteous demands of the Law” by Christ or the Holy Spirit in our place. The Spirit rather guides the believer to do it, in the sanctification process. Nothing of our actions in JUSTIFICATION [God’s work FOR us] counts, but in SANCTIFICATION [God’s work IN us] they are essential. By the way, in the three points of a special box that indicates the “Mission”, “Motto” and “Message” of the Proclamation magazine, we read that the “Message” would be: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God; not of works, that no one should boast”. Ephesians 2:8, 9.
Good message, indeed, but INCOMPLETE. Whoever was the editor of this feature forgot to add vs. 10, which completes the picture: “For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Eph. 2:10). Why was this text left out? Jesus in His sermon on the Mount mentioned the need of good works, not for our boasting or own glory, but for attracting men’s praise to God: Matt. 5:16. So, we can’t leave the works feature out of the picture. Paul said clearly—“Keeping God’s commandments is what counts”. Yes, that is true, but always understanding that this is not in the JUSTIFICATION but in the SANCTIFICATION part of the salvation process.
D – Mr. Peifer tries to resolve the dilemma he creates to himself with his semi-antinomian theology commenting: “Someone will ask the next obvious question, ‘Does this mean it’s alright to sin, to do just anything we please regardless of the consequences?’ Not at all. In fact, the opposite is true. ‘For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace’ (Rom. 6:14). What is the inverse of this text? If you are under Law, then sin shall be master over you. It is the grace of God, not the Law, that teaches us to day no to ungodliness (Titus 2:12).
Mr. Peifer error is to misunderstand again the meaning of being led by the Spirit. It does not mean that obeying the commandments of God doesn’t count, but the opposite of that—to live in godliness, not in sin. And sin is “transgression of the law”. So, we could reinterpret Paul’s words in Rom. 6:14, on the light of his word in Rom. 8:3, 4, 6-8 as saying:
“For the transgression of God’s law, and its commandments--the faithful obedience of which is what now counts--is not what will have the mastery over you, for you are not under the law--since we are not under the condemnation the law imposes on those who are in sin--but under the grace of God, since we are redeemed by His grace, and God wrote His law in our hearts {Heb. 8:6-10}. That is why we now, led by the Spirit, have the righteous requirement of the law fulfilled in our lives, inasmuch as we don’t live according to the passions of the flesh, which are not in accordance to God’s law, but in newness of life”.
But how about examining how a recognized champion of this cause of the preaching of God’s righteousness interpreted this so misunderstood and distorted expression “under the law” in Rom. 6:14? Who better than Martin Luther to give us a good interpretation of it? Let’s see what was his exegesis or this passage in his classic “Preface to the Epistle of Paul to the Romans”:
“And this is what we can do, he states, because we are in the grace, and not in the law, which he himself interprets in the following sense: ‘Being without law’ it not the same as not having any law, and that we can do what pleases each one, but that ‘being under the law’ is when, without the grace, we deal with the works of the law. Then, certainly sin masters through the law, since nobody by nature is fond of the law, and this is a great sin. Grace, however, makes the law agreeable to us, so that there is no more sin, and the law is not against us, but in harmony with us. This is true freedom from sin and the law, of which he speaks at the end of this chapter. It’s a freedom to do only good, willing to live correctly without the forcefulness of the law. Because of that such freedom is a spiritual freedom, that doesn’t annul the law, rather offers that which is required by the law: willingness and love, with which the law is appeased and is no more inciting and requiring”. – Underlining added.
E – Finally, some few points in which Mr. Peifer’s exegesis shows big flaws:
1 – Hebrews 7:12 mentions change in the Law, but just reading the context it is made clear that this change is not that from 10 Commandments we now have a new rule, sort of “Nine Commandment and One Suggestion”.
Not at all. The Law that had to change is that of the Priesthood—since Jesus belonged to the tribe of Judah, and the priesthood law required that only Levites where nominated to this post, that aspect of the Law had to be theoretically changed. Paul uses that language clearly in a rhetorical fashion, for actually the Jews would not change any laws, and at the time Paul wrote that, there was no more valid priesthood Law to be dealt with.
2 – Galatians 5 also deals with this question of being “under the law” (vs. 18). We have the contrast between those who are “under the law” and the ones who are led by the Spirit. And what we notice clearly is that the ones “under the law” ARE NOT those who obey it, but, on the contrary, those who practice all those sins listed in vs. 19-21. So, this confirms that being “under the law” in this text, as well as in Rom. 6:14, IS NOT being dedicated to the obedience to God’s law, but to live in sin, which, by the way, is defined biblically as “transgression of the law”.
F – Regarding Mr. Christopher A. Lee article, “Paid in Full. Completely”, I think that most of what he alleges in that article is duly covered by my discussions above. And if he reads carefully topics 9, 10 and 18 of our SDA Beliefs document (of 28 items now) he will see that his allegations of Jesus’ death being just a “down payment” in the process of salvation, do be completed by our payment in installment of good works and efforts to fulfill the law is a mere snow man of Adventist theology that he built, then engages himself in the task of destroying this monster of his own creation.
As to the SDA end time scenario, maybe he needs to check the facts more carefully about what is going on in the back stages of the religious field. And it would be interesting that he got some information of the failed scenario of those who are the inspirers of this “abolished law” theology—the dispensationalists. Is Mr. Lee aware of the Hal Lindsay’s book The Great Late Planet Earth and the 1988 Church’s rapture scenario, and how it failed completely? And how about Israel’s territorial expansion, when they are, rather, preferring to return land to the Palestinians? And what reasons would Russia find to invade Israel? And I saw on TV one of these dispensationalist preachers telling people that in the final times of human history three angels would cross the skies, preaching the messages of Revelation 14 to the Jews! Does Mr. Lee agree with that astounding interpretation?! I wonder how would he interpret the whole chapter, point by point. . .
Well, if he knew how five out of nine Supreme Court judges belong to the Roman Catholic Church he would see how the SDA predictions are being more and more confirmed. I will have something more to say about that when I reveal the great campaign by the “10 Commandments Commission” I will discuss later on.
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Proceeding with the discussions of the Ratzlaff material-III
[Re: Azenilto]
#88556
05/02/07 05:09 PM
05/02/07 05:09 PM
|
|
|
A Few More Things About The Mirra’s Testimony
Learn what are the two deadly blows on the semi-antinomian theology of the so-called New Covenant Christians
Going back to the Mirra’s (Paul and Terry) testimony of how they “discovered” the true meaning of the covenants as they left the SDA Church, I would comments a few more things of their also poor articulation of the Pauline writings regarding the subject of the covenants.
Mrs. Terry, again, who seems to be the most extensive Bible commentator of the family, alleges at certain point: “[God’s] ‘seal’ on us had nothing to do with our allegiance to the Sabbath. . . it was an internal security not dependent on what I did! As truth started to become clear, 2 Cor. 3:13-18 made sense. It states that a veil remains when the Old Covenant is read, because only in Christ is it taken away”.
First error in this brief exposition is that God’s seal is presented as allegiance to the God of the Sabbath, not to the Sabbath. When God says that the Sabbath is the “sign” between He and His people (Exo. 31:16; Eze. 20:12, 12) it’s because those who are faithful to Him will be characterized as those who honor Him especially as the Creator of “the heavens, the earth, and the sea and the springs of water” (Rev. 14:7).
Interestingly, the Brazilian Baptists, of the main Baptist organization (the National Baptist Convention) in their “Doctrinal Statement”, make clear that the Sabbath commandment is the sign between God and His people, in the footnotes of Topic XV—“The Christian Sabbath”. To serve as Bible backing of what is said on the subject, they quote, among other texts, Exo. 31:14-18.
Even though they reinterpret the principle applying to Sunday, its makes sense, because atheists, materialists and lax Christians are not known as people who are willing to dedicate a whole day to the Lord.
But the quotation of 2 Cor. 13-18 is very interesting because, once more, Mrs. Mirra missed important other texts of the context. She should mention Paul’s reference to the law in the tablets of stone (vs. 7) that brought death, in contrast to the writing of God’s law in the hearts of those who are “letters of recommendation”. This is a very misunderstood text by many who follow this semi-antinomian theology. They read about “letters on stone”, and “ministry of death” and jump to the conclusion that Paul is disqualifying the 10 Commandments, which is the only thing one thinks immediately about when reading about “letters written on stone” or “tablets of stone” in the Bible.
However, if 2 Cor. 3 proves something, it is that Paul is repeating in an improved way the same metaphor of Ezekiel 36:26, 27. Now, if the idea is that the contents of the tablets of stone meant death, then we have a very strange God, who summoned the people of Israel for a very much solemn occasion at the Sinai, to deliver them His law, with all that careful preparation described in Exodus 19--territory delineated so that not even animal roamed around there, even the husbands on the previous night had to sleep on the sofa (Exo. 19:15)--all that for them to receive a law of death! If I were there, I would feel myself fooled and abused!
Of course, the problem was not with the law, but with the people. This is made clear in Hebrews 8:8: “But God found fault with the people . . . because they did not remain faithful to my covenant”. Thus, what had to change was not the law, but the people’s hearts.
What is, then, the overall meaning of Paul’s discussion in the entire chapter? He is contrasting those who accepted the new covenant with those who remained attached to the principles of the old one. The latter are the ones who stumbled in the law, as Paul describes in Rom. 9:30-32, a key text to understand all his discussions on the theme of the law:
“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone’.”
For those who stumbled, the contents of the law remained on the cold tablets of stone, accusing them and not being able to convey righteousness, which was never the function of the law, instead of being written in their hearts and minds--the hallmark of the new covenant, as found in the other key text of Hebrew 8:6-10.
Now, one very special feature in that chapter, that is a deadly blow to the theories of those who teach this “other gospel” (Gal. 1:8, 9) of the abolished law, is the fact that when Paul resorts to the ‘tablets of stone/tablets of human heart’ illustration, certainly based on Ezekiel’s metaphor, he thinks about THE ENTIRE CONTENTS of the tablets of stone, not only 90% of it, transferred to the tablets of flesh! After all, Ezekiel didn’t think in terms of 90%, either. . .
It would make no sense for Paul to utilize this metaphor, in case he taught that one of the commandments of the tablets of stone was somehow out of the picture! If it were so he would have to employ some other language, like, “You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stones but on tablets of human hearts in nine of the commandments of the tablets of stone”.
No, no. . . That was not how Paul used the illustration, which makes very clear that he intended to say that THE ENTIRE CONTENTS of the tablets of stone (the Ten Commandments) are transferred from the cold letters on stone to the hearts warmed by God’s grace of those who submit themselves to His new covenant [New Testament].
Thus, 2 Corinthians 3 is one of these texts that backfire, being used by our opponents to deny the Sabbath principle, when actually it is a tremendous argument IN FAVOR of the validity of the commandment, one of those found in the tablets of stone and in the “My laws” [God’s] written by the Spirit on the hearts and minds of those who accept the provisions of the new covenant, according to the “superior promises” of Hebrews 8:6-10.
And to reinforce this deadly blow, we can read in the following chapter, vs. 15-17 that whenever a testator dies, it is not possible to change the terms of a will. So, when the Divine Testator died, it became impossible to alter His testament, either with a change from the Sabbath to Sunday, or from the Sabbath to the nodayism/anydayism/everydayism, favored by the majority of Evangelical Christians nowadays.
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Mr. Ratzlaff’s Poor Articulation of the Theme of God’s Law
[Re: Azenilto]
#88558
05/02/07 05:18 PM
05/02/07 05:18 PM
|
|
|
Mr. Ratzlaff’s Poor Articulation of the Theme of God’s Law
Answering a letter from a reader of Proclamation magazine, Mr. Dale Ratzlaff says in its March/April issue: “Many letters we receive express a deep fear that by teaching the reign of law came in with Moses and lasted until Christ, new covenant Christians are left without any moral guides. The truth is, however, that the New Covenant Christians have a much higher and better—yes, better—moral guide than the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are external. The law of Christ is internal”.
The first error in this statement is to consider those who adopt his views as “New Covenant Christians” with a “superior” moral guide, which supposedly supersedes the “poor”, “inadequate” Ten Commandments.
What Mr. Ratzlaff and his allies should remember is that these expressions of degrading the Ten Commandments don’t match with the classic, historic view of Christendom that has always stressed the 10 Commandments as the undeniable “moral law” of God, summary of all that is ethical, moral, spiritual in the universe. In the first line of his document “Against the Antinomians” Martin Luther, that great champion of righteousness by faith, calls the 10 Commandment “God’s Law”. Calvin also speaks of “moral law” and “ceremonial law” naturally, as that is also expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the 39 Articles of the Church of England, the Baptist Confession of 1689 and many other confessional documents.
And along the centuries Christian authors and authorities expressed the same convictions about the role of these 10 Commandments as the rule of Christian life. Confirming this we could mention Wesley, Spurgeon, Moody, John Davis, Billy Graham, James Kennedy, and so many others.
In our present time we witness this new campaign in the US and other lands to highlight the importance of the 10 Commandments, like Oral Roberts who recently wrote a book exalting this divine rule as a necessity to be adopted as a national standard to save America from chaos.
This prompts us a new question to Mr. Ratzlaff and his allies:
* Are you, Mr. Ratzlaff and your allies, convinced of your superior understanding of this matter over all these past and present Christian confessional documents and leaders? Can Mr. Ratzlaff consider himself a new Reformer everybody should listen to, forgetting all the Christian documents and authoritative statements and instructions by the highest reputed Christian authors, pastors, and Seminary professors along the centuries, including Luther, Calvin, Chemnitz, Wesley?
We have seen how our question on the passage from the Old to the New Covenant was never answered by Mr. Ratzlaff. As we addressed it to people under his influence, let’s see if we finally get any answers to it. The question deals with the most important Bible text to explain why we have the Bible as a divided book, split into two parts: Old Testament/New Testament. This text is Hebrews 8:6-10.
There is no information in these texts of any new “Law of Christ” that replaced the 10 Commandments as the new Christian rule of life, as well as no “Law of the Spirit”, nor “Law of Faith”, nor “Law of Love”, nor “Law of Grace”, but MY LAWS [God’s] is referred to as those that God writes on the hearts and minds of whoever accepts the terms of this New Covenant [New Testament], according to “superior promises”. Of course God’s law incorporates all that—it’s is the law of Christ, the law of love, the law of faith, the law of the Spirit and the law of grace.
But there is no information that these “My laws” are DIFFERENT from the same “laws” that Jeremiah knew, inasmuch as Hebrews 8:6-10 is simply a reproduction of what we read in Jer. 31:31-33. They are THE SAME laws, with nothing having changed in the sense that: a- God left out the Sabbath commandment; b- God included the Sabbath commandment, but transferring the sanctity of the seventh to the first day of the week; c- God included the Sabbath commandment, but leaving it as a vague, voluntary and variable principle, adjustable to the believer’s conveniences or interest (or that of his/her employer).
This key text of the Bible is the exact one where this information should be clearly enunciated. Nevertheless there are no clues regarding any change of laws with the change of the covenant. Thus, the basic equation on this subject to be demonstrated, but never done so, would be:
NEW COVENANT = NEW LAW
Of course all the ceremonial, ritual, aspects of the law as known by Jeremiah are out. Both Paul and his primary readers of Hebrews were well aware that all the prefigurations of the ceremonial law had ended on the cross, as symbolized graphically by the curtain of the Temple being torn into two at the moment Christ proclaimed His “It is finished”.
Then, we come to the bottom line of all this discussion: the only commandment among the 10 of the Decalogue that is said to have been abolished is the 4th. For that to have happened it had to be a “ceremonial” precept. But since we have our study “10 Reasons Why the Sabbath Is Not a Ceremonial Precept” that hasn’t been refuted, we are assured that NONE of the principles recorded by God Himself in the two stone tables was eliminated through the passage from the Old to the New Covenant. No such information is presented to us in Hebrews 8:6-10.
And speaking of “internalization” of the law, no doubt, our key text deal with that alright. Again, there is no hints of this process being different from what the psalmist David had said: “To do your will, O my God, is my desire; your law is within my heart” (Psa. 40:8).
We read in 1 John 5:2, 3: “This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is the love for God: to obey His commands. And his commands are not burdensome”.
The love factor is what produces this internalization of the law, making its obedience not burdensome, even though humanly speaking it seems so. To dedicate an entire day every week to the Lord seems a burden, as so many who wish to be faithful to God’s principles face difficulties in their workplace, lose jobs, work in activities below their professional potential, students face hard times negotiating with their teachers new schedules for examinations, etc. But when we love God above all else, the joy of obeying Him surpasses these hardships, which are challenges to our fealty to Him, burdens that are made light when we are attached to the Lord who offered us rest, not of keeping a day to follow more easily the faith in accordance to the world and its customs, but to have His salvation, which involves not only having Him as Savior, but as Lord on our lives.
Another big mistake of Mr. Ratzlaff’s articulation of the God’s Law subject is when he engages himself in discussing the role of the Holy Spirit as a guide to the Christian. He says that the Spirit guides us in doing God’s will and empowers one to live producing its fruits, which is something obvious to any Bible student. But then he comes to a slippery spot as he alleges: “It is clear that the function of the Holy Spirit in the new covenant replaces the function of the law in the old”.
Wrong! The Spirit is not given as a SUBSTITUTE to specific commandments given by God. At least that was not how Paul and James understood the question. Paul speaks specifically of commandments to be observed by Christians. To the Ephesians and to the Romans he mentioned naturally the 8th, 9th and 10th commandments (see Eph. 6:1-3; 4:25-31; Rom. 13:8-10). In this last case, he quotes a few of the commandments but makes clear that he is just quoting the part for the whole in vs. 9 (“. . . and whatever other commandment there may be. . .”). To the Corinthians he said--after “dividing the law”, showing that commandments that were important in the past are no more so: “Keeping God’s commandments is what counts” (1 Cor. 7:19).
It’s important to contextualize the Bible statements. What his readers had in mind when he refers to “God’s commandments”? Did they think of any different ones from those who are in the Bible regarding obedience to God? In order to know that one has to just read Rom. 7:7-13. See how many times he utilizes the word “commandment”, referring to a specific one derived from the Decalogue, “Do not covet”.
And in vs. 25 we have a text that is a clear embarrassment to this abolished-law-replaced-by-the-Spirit theology. Paul says: “I myself with my mind am a slave to God’s law”. Since in the context he refers to the “Do not covet” commandment, besides exalting this law as holy, good, spiritual, pleasurable, it’s incredible to see a supposed New Covenant instructor teaching this theological aberration that the Spirit was given to replace the law of God as rule of life to the Christian. That is not what we find in either Rom. 7, 8 or Hebrews 8:6-10, as well as in James 2:10-12.
The same Paul had asked rhetorically before: “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith?” He himself answers in a way to leave no doubt: “Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law” (Rom. 3:31).
That is a language much different from teaching that the Spirit has replaced the law of God expressed in the 10 Commandments to guide man in doing what is right and averting what is wrong.
Actually we find so many specific instructions about not doing this, and rather doing that throughout the New Testament. . . How about, just randomly browsing its pages: “whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God”; “when you come together to eat, wait for each other”; “try to excel in gifts that build up the church”; “brothers, stop thinking like children”; “do not be yoked together with unbelievers”; “do everything without complaining or arguing”; “make it your ambition to live a quiet life”; “warn those who are idle”; “encourage the timid”; “help the weak”, “be patient with everyone”; “be joyful always”. . .
So many specific instructions. . . Why didn’t Paul just say: “Submit yourself to the guidance of the Spirit in all things pertaining to your relationship with one another that everything will be fine in the Church”?. . . But although he implied that, he was also specific in what to do and what not to do, which proves Mr. Ratzlaff wrong in his theological stand that the Spirit in the New Covenant replaces clear commandments of God.
Finally, Mr. Ratzlaff insists that the New Covenant Christians abide by the “law of Christ”, rather than the 10 Commandments, which are “the law of God”. Well, that prompts us to recommend that he read our study and try to answer our, “10 Questions on Law of God/Law of Christ”. See the following link for both studies--that the Sabbath is not a ceremonial precept and about the question of law of God/law of Christ:
http://foroadventista.com/index.php/topic,610.0.html
Finally, trying to answer another question (“What is the difference between legalism and sanctified obedience:”), Mr. Ratzlaff says: “Sanctified obedience is not obedience that makes us right with God. Rather, it is the outworking of the principles of the law of love that the Holy Spirit writes on the heart of a Christian. This would include all New Testament admonitions and all the oral principles behind Old Testament laws. However, we are not to apply the letter of Old Testament law but the moral principle behind the law”.
We have nothing to fear regarding this fine point of obedience nor making us right with God. That is clearly taught in our “SDA Beliefs” document, as nobody has to leave the SDA Church to know that we are not saved by fulfilling the law, but by God’s grace in Christ. We obey God’s law not to be saved, but because we love God. And we love him “because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). That is our motivation in obeying to 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:
* What will you do with this campaign promoted all across the US, now reaching other countries, to promote the Ten Commandments as a truly “national salvation” resource, with even the “10 Commandments Day” set for the first Sunday of May? Are you going to participate of such a campaign? It would be contradictory to your cause, don’t you see? Do you agree with what these religious leaders of Protestant denominations in the US are proposing? [See next frame]
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
An Embarassing International Campaign for Mr. Ratzlaff & Co -- Promotion of the 10 Commandments.
[Re: Azenilto]
#88562
05/02/07 05:32 PM
05/02/07 05:32 PM
|
|
|
An Embarassing International Campaign for Mr. Ratzlaff & Co.:
Who Would Imagine It?! Evangelical Leaders Proclaim the Importance of the 10 Commandments
James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Chuck Colson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson are only some of the contemporary Christian leaders who are engaged in a campaign that you probably never heard of before: to exalt the 10 Commandments!
That seems unusual, when what is taught in Evangelical circles around is the “abolition” of the law of the 10 Commandments, replaced by a supposedly superior “law of Christ” of the “new dispensation”. But these leaders, and many others, want the people of the United States and of the entire world now to pay greater attention to the moral imperatives of this divine code.
It all began when Roy Moore, the chief justice of the State of Alabama, a Baptist, decided to order the installation of a 2-ton monument to the 10 Commandments right on the lobby of the Supreme Court building in Montgomery, Alabama’s capital. This caused a big fuss, for there were those who mobilized themselves to have it removed, under the allegation it was a measure that interferes with the separation of Church and State (and they are right—no religious symbol should occupy public buildings).
There were fierce legal disputes about it, but finally said monument had to be removed by decision of a federal judge. And judge Moore ended up losing his post due to his insistence in maintaining the offensive monument in its place.
Later, the monument was installed on a flat bed and made to circulate across the country, as a testimony of its promoters’ faith that “the 10 Commandments are the foundation of the American legislation”.
From that point on, there was mobilization of Christian leaders to compensate for the discarding of the public exhibition of the monument. They launched a campaign for obtaining permission to display that religious symbol in public places, as well as encouraging the American population to honor these neglected 10 Commandments. It has been used as a revival of the Christians’ faith, in the face of so many disasters and problems of moral character that have affected negatively the nation (the destructive hurricanes, the gay marriages, the increase in crime and political corruption, and other evils, now attributed to a lack of duly considering the ethical biblical principles by the people of this nation, supposedly built on Christian foundations). Then, this “Ten Commandments Commission” was formed, backed by the most representative Evangelical leaders in the country.
Seventh-day Adventist leaders see in these initiatives a golden opportunity to clarify to the general public the real meaning of these 10 Commandments, and the distortion that occurred regarding them, with the unauthorized change in the 4th commandment, when the Sunday worship was introduced, based on a tradition of suspicious origin—the sun-worship day of the Romans, the dies solis, that became Sunday through Roman Catholicism, substituting the true Sabbath day, which is the seventh-day of the week.
And a petition is being prepared by the leaders of the Hope Channel, a SDA TV Ministry, to be sent to this Commission, signed by as many Seventh-day Adventists that they can gather [see its reproduction below].
This petition will be sent to the leaders of the “Ten Commandments Commission” accompanied by a Bible Study on the role of God’s law, in a Christ-centered appeal to people really learn what these commandments mean in its original, pure form, without the distortions that were applied to it.
As part of the campaign, on the coming May 7 there will be a special celebration in all churches in the USA that join the bandwagon of this 10 Commandments honoring. As an SDA leader put it, “there is nothing wrong with promoting the Ten Commandments. In fact, everything is right about it. We wish more churches taught the role of God’s holy law in our lives. But the pastors who follow the Commission’s script this Sunday will find themselves in an awkward position trying to explain why the Ten Commandments are so important when they keep only nine themselves”.
Explaining that the petition letter will be sent to Ron Wexler [president of the Commission] and important leaders of the “Ten Commandments Commission”, he continues:
“Using a positive Christlike spirit, we will encourage them to stand for God’s law while also protecting our religious freedoms. We will invite them to help people return to Christ and obedience to all ten of the commandments.
And in conclusion, to his message, addressed to Seventh-day Adventists, he says:
“This is an unprecedented opportunity to talk to these leaders on an issue that we both hold dear. No other group of believers can help them understand these things like we can. This is our hour to do our duty and stand for God. We believe you share our conviction that Jesus is coming soon”.
The text of the Petition:
TO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS COMMISSION
As fellow believers in the gospel of Jesus Christ we want to encourage you in your work to uphold the Ten Commandments. We agree that our society has strayed far from God. People need to accept Jesus Christ and His gift of salvation. This will prove to be the only enduring solution for our world’s problems. Recognizing your purpose is to honor God’s eternal law, we encourage you to. . .
* Invite Christians to repent of their sins. As Christians live according to Bible principles we will have the integrity to change society.
* Call Christian leaders not to teach the Ten Commandments have been nailed to the cross. We find it difficult to lead the lost to Christ and honor the Ten Commandments while the church teaches God’s law was abolished.
* Call upon believers to be loyal to all ten of God’s commandments including the fourth. The seventh-day Sabbath was given to bless society and help making stay connected to their Maker.
* Commit to not urge the government to legislate the first four commandments that define how we are to worship God. True worship can never be forced by governmental decrees. God only accepts the service of love.
Name and Date
To get in touch with the Hope TV Ministry address the following link:
www.hopetv.org
________
Links that lead to the 10 Commandments Comission’s website and to the “Lord’s Day Alliance” (an old Protestant institution that is concerned with a more faithful observance of the day of rest, preferably on Sunday):
http://www.tencommandmentsday.com/
http://www.ldausa.org/index.cfm
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Detail on the "10 Commandments Day"
[Re: Azenilto]
#88638
05/05/07 01:26 AM
05/05/07 01:26 AM
|
|
|
Note:
The the 7th of May date that appears in the document above for the "10 Commandments Day" refers to the date set for the event in 2006. For this year, the date is the 6th of May.
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
