Some feedback comments on my posts (none from those to whom important and decisive questions were addressed):

From a moderator of one of the 5 Adventist Forums where the material is being posted (4 in English, 1 in Spanish, with texts also publicized among readers who master the Portuguese language, who normally can read Spanish easily):

Some of Adventists worst enemies are ex-Adventists. We have had our share of them here. Since this became a subscription-based site, we have had a lot less of them.

Sadly, this folks feel it their burden in life to expose something they believe to be false. Even if the Adventist church’s teachings are false, the supposedly false teachings would not cause anyone to lose out on salvation.

* If the Ten Commandments are no longer binding, no one is going to lose out on salvation for keeping them.
* If Sabbath observance is not required, no one will lose their salvation for keeping it.
* If avoiding meat, specifically unclean meats, isn’t required, no one will be damned for doing so.
* If the creation story isn’t true, those that believe in it will discover their error inside of heaven’s gates
One will not miss out on eternity because they refused to go to the theater, dance hall or pierce their ears

Yet many ex-Adventists act as if their work of exposing the Adventist church as being false is somehow saving souls. The opposite is true. If they do anything, they shake the faith of some of the weak brothers and sisters and instead of following a different religious belief, they drop out and follow none at all.


Feedback from a participant in the same Forum:

Excellent points, S. [names withheld throughout]. However I’ve found very few if any souls who are striving to avoid God’s requirements, persuaded by the best of “proofs” in favor of His requirements. Could it be that those who wish to disprove the clear Word are listening to the same sophistry to which Adam and Eve listened, to the detriment of all those that follow after them.

Those who claim salvation by grace without seeing the necessity for fulfilling the necessary requirements of a perfect creation, are legalists in the highest sense of the word, because they feel they must do all the Law requires for salvation. Their solution is to destroy the Law rather than asking the God of the universe, of Whom there is nothing too hard for Him, to fashion within them all the requirements necessary for eternal life, which would include writing the Law on the fleshy tables of their heart.

Their solution in theory removes the need for a new creation and allows the most depraved continuum to have confidence in a faith based on ropes of sand. But then only a believer in the God Who can do anything, can believe in that type of reasoning.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

That seems one good reason to sow the seeds of Truth and let God take care of the growth. Maybe it’s possible sometimes in an arena of debate, but I find it highly unlikely since each person debating is far more interested in their own teaching than they are in their own learning, or so it seems to me.

“...Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.” Romans 14:5 NASB
Blessings!!


Another Forum participant’s reaction:

I observed a long time ago that many people’s security of salvation is based upon the number of people who do NOT do as they do. Make sense? The more people who do differently then I do--the more saved I therefore am. Because, after all, I am right.

This is a hybrid martyr complex/setting salvation on a negative platform. Amazing, and it grows stronger as time endures.


J. has also something to say:

S., a long time ago I remember reading that former Adventists, and even former SDA pastors or Bible teachers, would become our worst enemies. Ellen White said the same thing. And once, as a kid, I saw a play based on Mary Kay’s little book about the end-times. I could hardly imagine such a thing happening-- I mean being ridiculed and questioned harshly by former SDA. But now I can understand it completely, sad to say. I “see” so many who talk as if they hate the Sabbath and virtually everything Adventists represent. And almost all of these used to be one of us, at least in name.

See GC 608-- “When Sabbathkeepers are brought before the courts to answer for their faith, these [former Sabbath-keeping] apostates are the most efficient agents of Satan to misrepresent and accuse them, and by false reports and insinuations to stir up the rulers against them.”

Imagine your shock when you see a famous SDA pastor or maybe your Bible teacher coming to interrogate you and telling you how wrong you are about the Sabbath, etc.


On his part, O. G. comments:

A common denominator I have observed among disgruntled Adventists who attack the “church” is unresolved bitterness towards individuals. This can lead a person to begin reacting to the “church.”

The Lord God warns us in Hebrews 12:15 that unresolved bitterness will begin to defile those around us.

Question: How many angry people does it take to get anger flowing through a church fellowship? Just one, friend. Just one.


Someone quoting from one of my posts “...Then we have that little question that I addressed to Mr. Ratzlaff, among others, and so far got no answer: (The “blue question” about the passage from the old to the new covenant, based on Heb. 8:6-10)”.

You’ve got some excellent questions there. I will be very surprised if you hear much more from Mr. Ratzlaff. My experience has been that when you ask these kinds of questions that are difficult for them to answer, they simply stop corresponding with you.

I have a friend, Bradley Williams, who recently published a book you can get at the ABC. It’s entitled, The Silencing of Satan: The Gospel In the Investigative Judgment. It does a better job than any other book I know of in giving the Bible evidence for the Pre-Advent Judgment. He’s tried to dialogue seriously with both Desmond Ford and with Ratzlaff about the Investigative Judgment but to no avail. Here’s the website for those interested in taking part in the discussion on the IJ and related issues: http://www.forthegospel.org/forum/general_discussion/new_sanctuary_book#comment/


My own comment at a certain point:

Well, among the things Bro. S. listed, that are not “salvation decisive”, I would add believing in the investigative judgment, because the subject of God’s judgment has so many different interpretations in the Christian field. So, who has the final word on how exactly God will proceed judging every one of us and all the world? Nobody will lose his/her salvation for believing that the judgment will be this way or that way.

Actually there is a false propaganda regarding SDA’s living wringing their hands in anxiety for not knowing if their names have been scrutinized in the Heavenly Sanctuary. . . Do any of you guys live under that stressing sentiment? The truth is that in 41 years of SDA Church affiliation I never met one single brother or sister who harbors these terrible feelings. . .

About Ellen White, yes, there are some hard things to understand in her writings, but if we examine the material of ex-Evangelical pastor Dan Barker who became an atheist, and the way he disputes the Bible, exploring its supposed “contradictions”, then we will understand how far we are from understanding how inspiration really works. The problems and contradictions these anti-Christian folks point in the Bible are about the same these critics of Ellen White present regarding her writings.

Now, I think that one reason many people leave the church to enter these “new alliance” movements is because they read that text of Jesus telling those who want to follow Him that there is a cross to bear. But Jesus doesn’t specify what material this cross is made of--wood, iron, gold, silver, plumb? Then they reason: “Well, since Jesus didn’t tell what material the cross should be made of, who knows one made of Styrofoam wouldn’t do? After all, if we paint it as a genuine one, who will tell the difference?”

And the number of people carrying Styrofoam crosses around is legion. . .

Have a nice week.

God bless you all.


One more feedback:

Monsieur Brito,

I read with interest your question about the new covenant/new law. That issue is one which I, too, have faced. But here is my question in response:

How may one establish which ‘laws’ PAUL is referring to in Heb. 8 and 10? Paul, like other Bible writers, at times does quote OT passages out of context. The mere fact that Paul quotes from Jeremiah would not seem, in and of itself, sufficient to prove that he refers to the Ten Commandments. He may be applying a principle, with a different application for believers under the New Covenant.

D.

My answer:

Thanks for your feedback. It’s good to have this kind of participation, looking for clarification of important points of the Bible teaching.

I would remind you that Paul recommends normally, as of knowing nothing of any abolition of the Ten Commandments, the 5th., 8th, 9th and 10th precepts of the Decalogue to both the Ephesians and the Romans (see Eph. 6:1-3; 4:25-31; Rom. 13:8-10). He also says that he, with his mind, serves God’s law, and in the context he not only recognizes this law as holy, just, good, pleasurable, spiritual, as he mentions specifically the commandment “ye shall not covet” (Rom. 7, vs. 25, cf. vs. 7 and 8, plus 12, 14, 22...), which shows he didn’t think of that precept as belonging to an old, surpassed law.

So, those who teach the end of the Ten Commandments have no basis for their allegations, for Paul simply ignored any such abolition. James, on the other hand, clearly refers to the 10 Commandments as the rule to be followed (James 2:8-12). So, here we have another New Testament writer who ignored any such abolition of the 10 Commandments. By the way, traditionally the Protestant-evangelical confessional documents stress the 10 Commandments as still the norm of Christian behavior. Didn’t you hear about this new campaign highlighting the importance of these 10 Commandments for Americans today? How about checking the “10 Commandments Commission” and its international campaign about that?

Now, the bottom line is the Sabbath commandment, which would have been abolished IF it really had any ceremonial role, something the anti-Sabbatarian struggle to prove but can’t. See that Paul discusses in Hebrews in detail all the meaning of the many ceremonies and rites in the law, in chapters 7 through 10. Now, since the Sabbath was such an important principle for Israel, if it had any such ceremonial, prefigurative role, being abolished in the cross, he no doubt would have discussed in detail such a role for the Sabbath. However, we find no hints of any idea of abolition of the Sabbath in these chapters for its supposed prefigurative role. That would be the right place where such a discussion would occur.

Instead of disqualifying the Sabbath commandment, Paul refers to it in a positive, rather than negative, manner in chaps. 3 and 4 of Hebrews.

To say that the Sabbath just pointed to salvation in Christ and was abolished as the “shadow” met the “reality” makes no sense. The women who served Jesus so closely and who, certainly had experienced the “salvation rest” didn’t, because of that, neglect keeping the Sabbath “according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56). [Additionally, they show they hadn’t learned from Jesus anything of disqualifying the Sabbath commandment].

Those in Israel who found the spiritual “rest” highlighted in Hebrews chaps. 3 and 4, and who are listed in the “hall of fame” of the heroes of Israel, in chap. 11, didn’t neglect their keeping of the Sabbath because of that.

How about reproducing the “Ten Commandments Day Proclamation” as can be found in the website of the “Ten Commandments Commission”, an interfaith grass-roots movement that is growing fast across the USA, and is already getting support from religious leaders of other countries? See below in navy what we copied from said website:

We, the members of the Ten Commandments Commission and supporting people of faith, proclaim The Ten Commandments Day on the first Sunday in the month of May, commencing on Sunday, May Sixth of 2007.

Furthermore, we proclaim the Ten Commandments Day to be a day dedicated for the display, awareness, commemoration and celebration of the Decalogue which we know to be the divine foundation of the Judeo-Christian faith.

We, the members of the commission, serve as a cohesive group of spiritual leaders representing millions of followers who affirm the beauty and the uniqueness of our differences. We believe that rooted in the Ten Commandments is a Divine plan that transcends color and diversity in cultural expression, sanctions brotherhood of man and respects expressions in all of God’s children.

We, who serve as a council of leaders, are committed to utilizing our united passion to provide purpose and direction for reversing the enormous tide of immorality continuing to be released throughout the United States of America, and on all continents of the world. This unified voice will culminate annually on the Ten Commandments Day and provide for a united, global, spiritual platform based on the Ten Commandments. This platform will respond to the call echoed throughout creation for a true expression love, harmony and reconciliation among all nations, ethnic diversities and genders through education and rededication to the moral standard as given by our Loving Creator.

Therefore, we are calling on all community and spiritual leaders; churches, synagogues, fellowships, ministries, organizations and all who care about moral values, to celebrate the annual Ten Commandments Day by hosting local events in support of the Ten Commandments and what they represent.

Finally, we proclaim the need to heal the wounds of history through strategic and practical objectives, proactive love and obedience to the commands of God.

By signing this document, I hereby give my commitment of support to the ideals brought forth by the Ten Commandments Commission in the establishment of the annual Ten Commandments Day, and to the moral standard we acknowledge and seek to uphold by the grace of Almighty God. -- The bold in some phrases are as in the original.

The number of signatures obtained has surpassed 331.000. And explaining “Who we are” we read:

The Ten Commandments Commission was formed in the spring of 2005. The main purpose behind the organization is to create of [sic] a global think tank with the world’s leaders who have already recognized the power behind the TCC. We are a grass root movement joined by some of the nation’s largest ministries.

Very significant, indeed.


Another participant, J., after quoting from one of my posts: “. . . [Ellen White] makes no attempt to exegete the text (of Col. 2:14, that [Samuele Bacchiocchi] discusses giving a different interpretation from Ellen White’s). The reason is simple. As Prof. Bradford’s chapter explains, she never claimed to be an exegete. She uses Bible texts homiletically to proclaim religious truths, not exegetically to explain their meaning”.

Prophets rarely get their information from exegeting Bible texts. God gives them dreams and visions. Daniel was also not an exegete and neither was Paul an exegete by modern standards. Even by following the most careful techniques of exegesis, one would never get the insights into the meaning of the texts that Paul saw by the Holy Spirit and through the visions God gave him. So we ought not to be surprised that Ellen White was not an exegete.

How many “great scholars” come up with the wrong meaning of the a text through their exegesis? Thousands. For instance, look at the books written by scholars who believe in the doctrine of the immorality of the wicked or in the secret rapture. They often support their false interpretations on the basis of what they call exegesis. (It’s irrelevant that usually these false ideas are the result of eisegesis rather than true exegesis. The point I am making is simply that people often arrive at, or support, their false ideas by the use of exegesis.)

While true exegesis can be helpful and is certainly needed, the most important things in studying the Bible are allowing our minds to be illuminated by the Holy Spirit and having a teachable attitude. Indeed, there is more truth to be learned by prayerfully studying the writings of one genuine prophet of God than there is in the reading of 10,000 books by uninspired exegetes.

See some of the basic points in our defense of the validity of the dietary laws for our times, especially our study, "An Assessment of the Arguments Presented By the Adherents of 'Total Freedom' From the Bible’s Dietary Laws", through the following link:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=91360&page=0#Post91360

2nd Part – The Disappointing Lack of Detailing the Bottom Line Issue

Since Ratzlaff himself stressed among his introductory remarks the idea—“Last, and probably most important for the readers of Proclamation!, Does the law written on the heart include the keeping of the Sabbath? If so, what Sabbath law applies to the new covenant Christian? How is one to demonstrate the he is keeping the Sabbath, if indeed the Sabbath is included in the law written on the heart?”—it turns out very disappointing that he doesn’t elaborate on that. The Sabbath being applicable to “new covenant” Christians or not is virtually absent from his long exposition, while admitting to be the most necessary issue to be discussed!

After all things considered of what he discussed, is the Sabbath commandment included in the law written on the heart or not?

He didn’t answer objectively this question. He just alleged that the Sabbath commandment is never repeated by Paul or any other New Testament writers. Well, if every one of God’s moral laws and requirements had to be validated for the Christian by its reference in the New Testament, than the Spiritists have a good point when they allege that the law against contacting the deceased ones belonged only to the Old Testament Era since it is not repeated anywhere in the New Testament (Deut. 18:9-12; Isa. 8:19, 20). And there is no clear, ipsis literis repetition of the precept against speaking God’s name in vain. Nor even any clear reference to not manufacturing sculpted images and use them as an auxiliary for devotion. In the New Testament there are only indirect references to that, for the mention to principles against idolatry is just limited to “idols”, which have to do with statues of pagan divinities, not the Church’s saints. So, the Roman Catholics have a good point about that too, to take seriously this kind of “argument of silence”, a very weak tool to either advocate or combat any cause. And it is the only that Mr. Ratzlaff uses in order to “prove” that the Sabbath is not included in the New Covenant.

We have already seen that the promise for the New Covenant is that God writes on the hearts and minds of His children what is called “My laws”. The text of Hebrews 8:8-10 is purely a reproduction of Jer. 31:31-33. So, the logical conclusion is that all those universal principles that were part of the law known by Jeremiah (and Ezekiel) are confirmed as also being among these “My laws” that God writes on the hearts and minds of whoever accepts the terms of this New Covenant [New Testament].

Now, how about all the ceremonies and rites that also belonged to the law at the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel? In Matt. 27:51 we read about the Temple’s veil that was rented from top to bottom. In due time the Christian community understood that to represent the end of all typological aspects of the Mosaic law. But the Sabbath is not ceremonial, as we have proven in the article that was never refuted point by point, “10 Reasons Why the Sabbath Is Not a Ceremonial Law”, that can be found in the following Internet address:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=91592&page=0&fpart=1

In his article Mr. Ratzlaff reminded us of the existing “natural law”. Isn’t the requirement of resting regularly a “natural law”, in a sense? Somebody sent me a C.D. lecture by a medical doctor and Evangelical pastor, called Dr. Michael Cesar, who even mentions how Hitler had his workers dedicating every day of the week to build his planned arsenal, before Second World War. They would only pause at night, but would carry on their job from Sunday to Sunday. The outcome was not good at all. Production fell, the workers got sick, had nervous breakdowns, and finally Hitler decided to restore the six weekdays labor practices. To work seven days a week non-stop proved totally unnatural.

So, God so lovingly created this weekly pause for man at the creation of the world, for He knew well man’s physical and mental structure, how that would be a blessing to him, and associated this special time to a holy day. If later on men turned it into a holiday, a time for looking for pleasure and material gain, that was never God’s intention for His “Lord’s day”.

What Mr. Ratzlaff & Co. seem to ignore is that as he teaches that the Sabbath is not a commandment of God derived from the Creation of the world, he is not at odds only with the “Adventist tradition”, but against what Baptists, Presbyterians and other Christians have been teaching along the centuries in their confessional documents. The fact that they reapply the commandment to the first day of the week doesn’t reduce the truth that “the Sabbath was made for man”, as Jesus said, thus confirming its moral and universal character.

And, interestingly, both Baptists and Presbyterians say in their respective Confessions of Faith, that the first four commandments deal with man’s responsibility vis-à-vis God, and the last six, the same vis-à-vis his neighbor. So, how could the Sabbath not being part of the New Covenant?

By the way, even now the most representative Evangelical-Protestant leadership in the US is dedicated to promote the 10 Commandments as a necessity for our society to adopt as rule of conduct, and even a campaign to establish the “10 Commandments’ Day” is under way, with its signature collection having already reached over 331,000. This proposed day is the first Sunday of May. Isn’t that very significant?

Finally, Mr. Ratzlaff proposes some answers to his initial questions, which I don’t see any reason to not accept one by one, as a Seventh-day Adventist. Let’s check one by one, and later see the “Proposal of Consensus” that I have been submitting to Evangelical Christians in general, with mixed reactions:

* The promise of the new covenant with its associated blessing of the law written on the heart applies to all Christians. {Check}

* Gentiles, who do not have the written law, nevertheless have some knowledge of God through natural law and often know right from wrong. {Check}

* Members of the old covenant community had the letter of the written law, some of which may have been moved to the heart through meditation and memorization. However, the thrust of both Jeremiah and Hebrews is on the contrast between the letter of old covenant law and that written on the heart by the Spirit in the new covenant Christian. {Check}

* The law written on the heart is the law of love, and it is the fulfillment of the whole law and is said to be a “new commandment”. {Check}

* Now our focus is not on the external letter of old covenant law and ritual. Rather it is the indwelling “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” that fully meets “the requirement of the law”--love, which is the law’s fulfillment. This moves the focus of our attention from “here is a list of things we must do”, to “here is a list of things Christ has done for us”. {Check}

Bible Texts That “Backfire”

Some Bible texts used to prove certain opinions often mean exactly the opposite of what is taught using them

* 2 Corinthians 3:3, 7, 8: You show that you are a letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. . . the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. . . . Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?

Since Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:3ff refers to the Ten Commandment as the law “written on stones” as a “ministry of death”, and in another text he shows that the law became “weakened by the sinful nature” (Rom. 8:3), some imagine that he is discarding the Decalogue, to replace it for another set of rules for the Christian community.

But what Paul is really doing is contrasting the ministry of the old covenant with the new covenant. As he applies the qualification of “ministry of death” by mentioning the “tables of stones”, some Bible interpreters mistake his language to mean that the contents of these tables of stones represented a “ministry of death”. Then, we have something very strange—God, who presented Himself to Israel as “longsuffering, merciful, good, forgiving” actually prepared a terrible trap to that people at Sinai: He offered them there a legal code that would result inescapably in death! He reserved the “law of love and grace” only to the New Testament folks! Is that the God Who is no respecter of people?

Going back to the scenery of where God’s law was solemnly proclaimed to the people we can read in Exodus 19:10ff God’s order that Israel purified and even abstained from sexual activity (vs. 15) for an integral dedication to Him in preparation to the utterance of the law. Limits were set around the mount so that not even animals should roam across the area. Finally the Ten Commandments were audibly pronounced before being recorded on the tables of stones. Now, all this preparation, expectation and remarkable solemnity for the deliverance of a . . . “law of death”! That’s incredible! Any one would feel cheated!

Notwithstanding, that is the bottom line of the exegesis that can be read in the writings of certain interpreters of a semi-antinomian orientation, who are unable to realize that “the law of the Lord is perfect and restores the soul” (Psalm 19:7). Truly, David has in mind the entire law (Torah), but that means the inclusion, not the exclusion, of the Decalogue.

Anyway, something went wrong in that agreement, turning its ministry into a death-producing factor. Why? Where was the problem? Was the law of such a tenor—generator of death? Then it couldn’t be “perfect”.

What some people can’t understand is that the problem was not with the law, but with the people who, even before knowing fully what would be proclaimed, precipitously declared regarding the Sinai proclamation: “we will do everything the Lord had said” (Exo. 19:8). But that was a stiff-necked people, so often condemned for their stumbling. Thus, it’s easier to understand: the problem was not in the law, but in the people. That is made very clear in the promise of the New Covenant at Ezekiel’s time—“I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (Eze. 36:26).

The ones who had the wrong heart were the people, then the necessity of this people to change their attitude allowing God to perform a serious change—their stony heart removed and replaced by one of flesh.

And the important detail is that as Paul utilizes the “tables of stone/tables of flesh” metaphor it is implied that he intends to include ALL the commandments belonging to the “tables of stone”, as now transferred to the “flesh stones”. Otherwise, the use of the comparison wouldn’t make sense and he would have to employ a different and more appropriate language in vs. 3:3, something like “being manifested as letter of Christ, ministered for us, and written, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in tables of flesh of the heart, i.e., only nine commandments of the tables of stones, excluded that of the Sabbath day. . .” But that was not Paul’s language. Consequently, the Sabbath commandment SHOULD BE INCLUDED on the tables of flesh.

Conclusion: In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul doesn’t say that the law is of death, but the ministry of the old covenant came to be like that. The Pauline illustration of “tables of stone/tables of flesh” deals with the old divine promise to Israel in Ezekiel 36:26, 27 that by the action of the Spirit the stony heart would be removed from them so that a more malleable fleshy heart were granted. On the heart of flesh the complete God’s moral law would be written, as promised in the New Covenant (Heb. 8:6-10).

As Paul employs the “tables of stone/tables of flesh” allegory, which is about the same used by Ezekiel (see 11:19, 20 and 36:26, 27), he certainly wouldn’t think of excluding any part of the “tables of stone”, as Ezekiel wouldn’t either. Otherwise the Apostle would have to explain that the Christian would be a letter written, not in tables of stones, but in tables of flesh, excluding the Sabbath commandment, or something on this line.

Paul’s intention is to show that for the Christians renewed by the Spirit, the terms of the divine moral law leave the cold tables of stone to be recorded on their hearts warmed by God’s grace (see Rom. 8: 3, 4). That makes the semi-antinomian interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3:3ff another interpretative “shot” that backfires.

10 POINTS FOR REACHING A POSSIBLE CONSENSUS IN THE DEBATE ON GOD’S LAW

After long discussions in an Evangelical Forum in the Internet, on the topic “The Eternal Law of God”, with several Christians who adopt a semi-antinomian/dispensationalist vision on the subject, 10 very important points were submitted to them so that they expressed their agreement or disagreement in order to see how this theme could be better defined, according to what the Bible really teaches. It was proposed that if in some point there were differences in understanding, that could be worked out and some other way of agreement could be looked for, in the face of alternative proposals submitted by the objectors. It would be a blessing if a consensus on the main points could be reached. Let’s see what these 10 points for the proposed consensus could be:

1) The question of obedience to the divine commandments, or all that God ordains, will not aim at salvation in any measure, since our obedience belongs to the field of sanctification (or “perseverance of the saints”), not justification. The law in itself transmits nothing in terms of justice. To understand the role of the law as a means of salvation would be an “illegitimate” use of it (1 Timothy 1:8).

2) The spiritual failure of Israel, which led to its rejection as a “theocratic nation”, was not in the law, which is “perfect”, “holy”, “just”, “good”, “spiritual”, “pleasurable” (Romans 7:12, 14, 22), rather in the people’s self-confidence attitude (“all that the Lord has said we will do”) regarding their possibilities to obey it plainly.

3) Jesus Christ stressed the basic principles of God’s law as being “love God above all things” and “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:36-40). Paul confirms it in Romans 13:8-10 and both these principles were always recognized by Christians as the synthesis of the divine law, both in the “horizontal” [creature-creature] perspective, as well in the “vertical” one [creature-Creator].

4) There are precepts of ceremonial, civil and moral character in the divine law, independently of occurring such “technical” language in the Bible pages, a fact recognized by the Confessions of Faith and Christian authorities of different persuasions, both of the present and the past, as exemplified by the “Westminster Confession of Faith”, the “39 Articles on Religion of the Church of England” and the “Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689”.

5) In the Sermon on the Mountain (Matthew 5 to 7), as well as in the conversation with the young ruler (Matthew 19:16ff), as Christ dealt with the true spirit of the law He reminded that God takes into account not only the mere external obedience to its texts, but the real, inner intentions of the individual vis-à-vis such obedience.

6) None of the Decalogue’s commandments has application limited to Israel. The Sabbath principle was extended to the “foreigners” (Isaiah 56:2-8), and people of every nationality need a regular day for rest, hence “the Sabbath was made because of man” (Mark 2:27). The most representative, historic, Confessions of Faith of the Protestant Christendom track the principle of a rest day to the Creation of the world.

7) Under the new covenant the basic principles of the divine law are written by God in the hearts and minds of His children, Jews or gentiles, in the manner it had been promised to ancient Israel in Ezekiel 36:26, 27 and Jeremiah 31:31-33 (cf. Hebrews 8:6-10 and 10:16).

8) In Christ’s debates with the scribes and Pharisees on the Sabbath He was correcting the extreme and insensible practice of the commandment by them, not campaigning against a norm established by Himself as Creator and Legislator (see Matthew 12:1-12; Hebrews 1:2).

9) In the beginning of Revelation (1:10) John refers to the “Lord’s day” as being a special day that he dedicated to God, for he speaks on that in the introduction of his book, as he locates himself in space (island of Patmos--vs. 9) and time (“on the Lord’s day”). Thus, he maintained a special day of observance, as established in the 4th commandment of God’s law, a fact that is recognized by the most representative historic “Confessions of Faith” of the Protestant Christendom, and is reiterated by important leaders, authors and teachers in that milieu.

10) The early Church suffered negative influences and adopted condemned practices and teachings after the passing away of the apostles, as had been prophesized by Paul in Act 20:29, 30, 2 Thessalonians 2:7, by Peter in 2a. Peter 2:1-3, a process that already manifested itself at the time when John describes some of the seven churches he addresses Jesus’ messages in the book of Revelation, chapters 2 and 3.

We added one more forum in Spanish where this material is being posted. So now we have 6, being 4 in English and 2 in Spanish. We might start publishing in one more in English soon.

The texts in Spanish are being publicized to Portuguese language readers who can easily read Spanish materials (those who have a reasonable educational training, like High School level).