|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,214
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
|
|
|
9 registered members (dedication, daylily, TheophilusOne, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,517
guests, and 9
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba”
[Re: Azenilto]
#97092
03/18/08 05:15 PM
03/18/08 05:15 PM
|
|
|
The Wholistic View of Man’s Nature and Destiny—An Adventist Oddity?
In different places in this last Proclamation! issue there are references to our position on the conditional immortality, sometimes referred to as “soul sleep”, even though there is no “soul” to “sleep”, to begin with. We don’t think of a “soul” like a type of built-in ‘friendly ghost’ in man. “Soul” and “spirit” have a large variety of meanings in the Bible but these two words NEVER appear modified by adjectives such as “eternal”, “immortal”, “unending”, for the great disappointment of those who imagine that to be a Biblical doctrine, when it actually derives from paganism and serves no purpose in bringing people closer to Jesus.
Besides, even though the conditional immortality question is presented as if it were a sort of Adventist oddity, the truth is that more and more scholars of different persuasions have been accepting lately the holistic view of man’s nature and destiny, leaving behind these dualistic notions, to not mention the many along history who were also true believers in conditional immortality.
Recently I learned that the Brazilian Lutherans have instructional material teaching against the immortality of the soul idea, and Lutherans pastors that I contacted confirmed to me their holistic position, one of them even producing an article that I posted in some forums I participate of in the Portuguese language. I sent them some of my studies on the subject and they were pleased with the material and much grateful for my sending them.
They are certainly recovering some of Martin Luther’s statements condemning the idea of immortality of the soul as a despicable junk from Catholicism that should be discarded. Although Luther was not always consistent regarding this point (as regarding some others), the fact is that not only him, but important and reputed Christian men along history, including Bible translators Tyndale, Moffatt and Weymouth, English poet John Milton, politician and theologian William Gladstone, and the more recent Oscar Cullman, John Stott, Clark Pinnock, Paul Althaus, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner identified themselves as anti-immortality of the soul understanding adherents.
According to Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, who authored a magnificent work on the subject that I highly recommend to all, Immortality or Resurrection? [and the following text is from one of his Newsletters, which I reproduce ipsis verbis] this historical view of death as the separation of the soul from the body has come under a massive attack by many modern scholars. A few examples suffice to illustrate this point. Lutheran theologian Paul Althaus writes: “Death is more than a departure of the soul from the body. The person, body and soul, is involved in death. . . . The Christian faith knows nothing about an immortality of the personality. . . . It knows only an awakening from real death through the power of God. There is existence after death only by an awakening of the resurrection of the whole person.”
Althaus argues that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul does not do justice to the seriousness of death, since the soul passes through death unscathed. Moreover, the notion that a person can be totally happy and blessed without the body denies the significance of the body and empties the resurrection of its meaning. If believers are already blessed in heaven and the wicked are already tormented in hell, why is the final judgment still necessary? Althaus concludes that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul rips apart what belongs together: the body and the soul, the destiny of the individual and that of the world.
In his monograph Life after Death, Taito Kantonen makes this pointed statement: “The Christian view of death is in full accord with the view of natural science as far as the latter goes. When we die we are really dead. Our hopes and desires cannot change this fact. Man does not differ from the rest of creation by having a soul that cannot die.”
Even the liberal Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, in its article on death explicitly states: “The ‘departure’ of the nephesh [soul] must be viewed as a figure of speech, for it does not continue to exist independently of the body, but dies with it (Num 31:19; Jud 16:30; Ez 13:19). No Biblical text authorizes the statement that the ‘soul’ is separated from the body at the moment of death. The ruach [spirit] which makes man a living being (cf. Gen 2:7), and which he loses at death, is not, properly speaking, an anthropological reality, but a gift of God which returns to him at the time of death (Eccl 12:7).”
This challenge of modern scholarship to the traditional view of death as the separation of the soul from the body has been long overdue. It is hard to believe that for most of its history, Christianity by and large has held to a view of human death and destiny which has been largely influenced by Greek thought, rather than by the teachings of Scripture. What is even more surprising is that no amount of Biblical scholarship will change the traditional belief held by most churches on the intermediate state. The reason is simple. While individual scholars can and will change their doctrinal views without suffering devastating consequences, the same is not true for well-established churches.
A church that introduces radical changes in its historical doctrinal beliefs undermines the faith of its members and thus the stability of the institution. A case in point is the Worldwide Church of God which lost over half of its members when doctrinal changes were introduced by its leaders early in 1995.
The high cost of rectifying denominational religious beliefs should not deter Bible-believing Christians who are committed, not to preserve traditional beliefs for tradition’s sake, but to constantly seek for a fuller understanding of the teachings of Word of God on issues relevant to their lives.
Now, let’s see some of the many faithful Christian and Bible scholars who have manifested themselves against this dualistic theology, beginning in the next thread.
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba”
[Re: Azenilto]
#97093
03/18/08 05:21 PM
03/18/08 05:21 PM
|
|
|
CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY – A HALL OF ADVOCATES
What happens with man when, as he dies, cuts definitively contact with the world? Does he go to heaven to enjoy immediately an assured immortality? Does he remain during a period of waiting time somewhere in the universe? Is he thrown into an eternally burning hell to suffer indescribable agonies throughout eternity?
There are bishops, pastors, Bible translators, theologians and intellectuals and many others throughout the centuries who, searching for answers in the vast biblical repertoire, advocate the condition of unconsciousness during death and the concession of immortality as a faith reward, granted exclusively through Christ at the resurrection of God’s elects. These scholars belong to varied denominations, but they have in common the accurate analysis of the Bible texts that reveal the condition of man in death. They showed disposition to accept this revelation as sufficient in this important theological subject. Following are the statements on this theme drawn from divers sources.
Nicolas, Greek bishop, (2nd Century AD):
“When any created being is eternal, that is not by himself, nor in himself, nor to himself, but by God’s goodness; for everything that is made and created has a beginning and maintains its existence solely through the Creator’s goodness.” – Quoted in Compendium of the History of Doctrines, vol. 2, pp. 4 e 5.
The Waldenses (15th Century) contested the doctrine of purgatory and intercession of the saints, teaching in their catechism of instruction to the young people that man is only “mortal”. - Moreland, The History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of the Piedmont, 1658, p. 75.
Pietro Poponatius, of Mantua, noted Italian professor and leader among the Averrorists (who denied the immortality of the soul), issued a book in opposition of Pope Leo X’s bull that declared: “We do condemn and reprobate all who assert that the intelligent soul is mortal” (quoted by H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils, 1937, pp. 483, 487—as quoted in Questions on Doctrines, p. 569). As a result of his book, widely read, especially in Italian universities, he was haled before the Inquisition and his book publicly burned in Venice.
Martin Luther (1493-1546), German reformer and Bible translator:
In his 1520 Defence with 41 propositions, Luther refers to the belief of immortality of the soul, along other papal teachings, as “monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals (Proposition 27).
“Salomon iudgeth that the dead are a sleepe, and feele nothing at all. For the dead lye there accompting neyther dayes nor yeares, but wen they are awaked, they shall seeme to haue slept scarce one minute”. – An Exposition of Solomon’s Book, Called Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, 1573, fl. 151 v.
“But we Christians, who have been redeemed from all this through the precious blood of God’s son, should train and accustom ourselves in faith to despise death and regard it as a deep, strong, sweet sleep; to consider the coffin as nothing other than our Lord Jesus’ bosom or Paradise, the grave as nothing other than a soft couch of ease or rest. As verily, before God, it truly is just this; for he testifies, John 11:11: Lazarus, our friend sleeps; Matthew 9:24: The maiden is not dead, she sleeps. Thus, too, St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, removes from sight all hateful aspects of death as related to our mortal body and brings forward nothing but charming and joyful aspects of the promised life.”- Works of Luther, vol. 6, pp. 287 e 288.
William Tyndale (1484-1536), English Bible translator and martyr:
“And ye, in putting them [the departed souls] in heaven, hell, and purgatory, destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection. . . . And again, if the souls be in heaven, tell me why they be not in as good case as the angels be? And then what cause is there of the resurrection?”
“I marvel that Paul had not comforted the Thessalonians with that doctrine, if he had wist it, that the souls of their dead had been in joy; as he did with the resurrection, that their dead should rise again. If the souls be in heaven, in as great glory as the angels, after your doctrine, shew me what cause should be of the resurrection? – An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, liv. 4, cap. 4, pp. 180 e 181.
John Milton (1608-1674), considered the greatest of the sacred poets, Latin secretary of Cromwell:
“Inasmuch then as the whole man is uniformly said to consist of body, and soul (whatever may be the distinct provinces assigned to these divisions), I will show, that in death, first, the whole man, and secondly, each component part, suffers privation of life. . . . The grave is the common guardian of all till the day of judgment.” – Treatise of Christian Doctrine, vol. 1, cap. 13.
William E. Gladstone (1809-1898), British prime minister and theologian
“Another consideration of the highest importance is that the natural immortality of the soul is a doctrine wholly unknown to the Holy Scriptures, and standing on no higher plane than that of an ingeniously sustained, but gravely and formidably contested, philosophical opinion.” – Studies Subsidiary to the Works of Bishop Butler (1896 ed.), p. 197.
“The character of the Almighty is rendered liable to charges which cannot be repelled so long as the idea remains that there may by His ordinance be such a thing as never-ending punishment, but that it will have been sufficiently vindicated at the bar of human judgment, so soon as it has been established and allowed that punishment, whatever else it may be, cannot be never-ending.” – Ibid. , p. 241.
Edward White (1819-1887), congregational, president of the Congregationalist Union:
“I steadfastly maintain, after forty years of study of the matter, that it is the notion of the infliction of a torment in body and soul that shall be absolutely endless, which alone gives a foot of standing ground to Ingersoll in America, or Bradlaugh in England [both militant atheists]. I believe more firmly than ever that it is a doctrine as contrary to every line of the Bible as it is contrary to every moral instinct of humanity.” – Introduction to the book The Unspeakable Gift, by J. H. Pettingell, p. 22.
J. Agar Beet (1840-1924), Wesleyan professor:
“The following pages are . . . a protest against a doctrine which, during long centuries, has been almost universally accepted as divine truth taught in the Bible, but which seems to me altogether alien to it in both phrase and thought, and derived only from Greek Philosophy. Until recent times, this alien doctrine has been comparatively harmless. But, as I have here shown, it is now producing most serious results. . . .
“They who claim for their teaching the authority of God must prove that it comes from Him. Such proof in this case, I have never seen.” – The Immortality of Soul, 5th ed., 1902, Preface.
Franz Deliztsch (1813-1890), Hebraist, professor, Rostock, Erlangen, Leipsic.
“There is nothing in all the Bible which implies a native immortality.” (Comment on Gen. 3:22).
“From the Biblical point of view the soul can be put to death, it is mortal.” (Comment on Num. 23:10). – A New Commentary on Genesis.
George Dana Boardman (1828-1903), Baptist pastor, founder of the Boardman Foundation of Christian Ethics, University of Pennsylvania:
“Not a single passage of Holy Writ, from Genesis to Revelation, teaches, so far as I am aware, the doctrine of Man’s natural immortality. On the other hand, Holy Writ emphatically declares that God only hath immortality (1 Tim. 6:16): that is to say: God alone is naturally, inherently, in His own essence and nature, immortal.” – Studies in the Creative Week, pp. 215 e 216.
F. R. Weymouth (1822-1902), translator of New Testament in Modern Speech:
“My mind fails to conceive a grosser misrepresentation of language than when five or six of the strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying to destroy or destruction, are explained to mean ‘maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence’.”– Quoted by Edward White in Life in Christ (1878), p. 365.
“The use in the N.T. of such words as ‘death,’ ‘destruction,’ ‘fire,’ ‘perish,’ to describe Future Retribution, point to the likelihood of fearful anguish, followed by extinction of being, as the doom which awaits those who by persistent rejection of the Saviour prove themselves utterly, and therefore irremediably, bad.” (Comment on Hebrews 9:28) – New Testament in Modern Speech.
William Temple (1881-1944), Late Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of Great Britain:
“[The] doctrine of the future life [will] involve our first disentangling the authentic teaching of the classical Scriptures from accretions which very quickly began to obscure this.” – Nature, Man and God, p. 460.
Martin J. Heinecken, professor of systematic theology, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia:
“In the Biblical account of creation we are told that God formed man of the dust and of the earth, and that he then breathed into his nostrils and man became a living soul. This is usually interpreted to mean that God made a soul, which is the real person, and that he then gave this soul a temporary home in a body, made of the dust of the earth. But this is a false dualism. . . . Man must be considered a unity.” – Basic Christian Teachings, pp. 36 e 37.
Emil Brunner (1889-1966), professor of systematic theology and practical theology, Zurich, guest professor at Princeton, and International Christian University of Tokyo.
“The opinion that we men are immortal because our soul is of an indestructible, because divine, essence is, once for all, irreconcilable with the Biblical view of God and man. . . . The philosophical belief in immortality is like an echo, both reproducing and falsifying the primal Word of this divine Creator. It is false because it does not take into account the real loss of this original destiny through sin.” – Eternal Hope, pp. 105, 106 e 107.
Dr. Basil F. C. Atkinson, under-librarian of Cambridge University:
“The breath of life was not breathed into man’s heart, but into his nostrils. It involved physical life. Throughout the Bible man, apart from Christ, is conceived of as made of dust and ashes, a physical creature, to whom is lent by god a principle of life. The Greek thinkers tended to think of man as an immortal soul imprisoned in a body. This emphasis is the opposite to that of the Bible, but has found a wide place in Christian thought.” – The Pocket Commentary of the Bible, Part 1, Book of Genesis, p. 32.
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba”
[Re: Azenilto]
#97452
03/29/08 07:40 PM
03/29/08 07:40 PM
|
|
|
Hello friends
I was checking a past Newsletter by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi with his analyses of the Ratzlaff challenge and found something really precious--a synthesis of his theology with his comments regarding four main points. What he argues is very compatible to my own analyses along the discussions in the previous threads, which shows that even a non-scholar like myself can easily refute Ratzlaff's "New Covenant" ideas.
I reproduce it below with my own “Notes” added:
Four Fundamental Problems of the New Covenant Theology
1. The New Covenant Theology creates an arbitrary and radical distinction between the Old Covenant, allegedly based on a package of laws given by Moses, and New Covenant established on the principles of love revealed by Christ. Such a distinction is nowhere to be found in the Bible. The New Covenant in the Bible, which incidentally is first given in the Old Testament, does not entail the replacement of laws with a generic principle of love, but the internalization of God’s Law: “This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my Law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God” (Jer 31:33). There is no antithesis in the Bible between law and love, because God’s laws are principles of love.
Note: There has never been a time when a law given by God WAS NOT based on the principle of love to God above all else, and love to the neighbor as to oneself. Didn’t the rebel angel start the sin process through a distortion of these principles, loving himself above God and his neighbors?
2. The New Covenant Theology fails to recognize the simple fact the biblical “covenant” is God’s commitment to save His people. And God has only one Plan of Salvation. God did not offer salvation to the Jews on the basis of works of the law and when He discovered that works do not work, He changed his plan and decided to offer salvation to Christians on the basis of grace. Salvation has always been a divine provision of grace. When Moses went up on Mt. Sinai, he received on the hand the Decalogue—God’s principles of life, and on the other hand, the blueprint of the tabernacle—God’s provision of grace (Ex 24:12 to 25:9).
Note: I’ve seen some embarrassing situations when the question is asked: how were sinners saved in Old Testament times? Some answer—”oh, they were saved by faithful obedience to the law” (which is an impossibility because “the law of the Lord is perfect”—Psa. 19:17—and nobody ever reached a condition of full perfection to correspond to the requirements of the law in his life). Others even said, “Well, Jesus went to preach to the ‘spirits in prison’” (which is a total distortion of meaning of some isolated texts).
Now, there was a certain gentleman I used to debate with, who replied: “Oh, there haven’t been judged yet”. Well, this prompts another question, that I addressed him: “And when they come to be judged, by what criteria that will be?”
He didn’t answer. The next day I again asked the same question. No answer. Later on I insisted with the same question. No word from him. Once more my question was put to him, “what criteria will be used for their judgment”, total silence. . .
Finally, after some few more times with the same enquiry, he decided to answer. And his answer was this: he called a friend of his who worked for the Immigration Dept. in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and asked him to investigate whether I was illegally in the USA.
No kidding, that was his answer. . .
By the way, I am an American citizen since the 15th of December, 2006.
3. The New Covenant Theology ignores the cosmic sweep of the Sabbath, which embraces creation, redemption, and final restoration. Incidentally, the Pope recognizes this fact when he speaks of the Sabbath as marking the “sacred architecture of time” [in the Pastoral Letter, Domini Dies—The Lord’s Day] that reveals the unfolding of salvation history from creation to its final restoration. It is noteworthy that while Hebrews declares the Levitical priesthood and services as “abolished” (Heb 10:9), “obsolete,” and “ready to vanish away” (Heb 8:13), it explicitly teaches that a “Sabbathkeeping [sabbatismos] has been left behind for the people of God” (Heb 4:9). Why? Because the Sabbath point to the eternal rest and peace that awaits the people of God.
Note: In Heb. 3 and 4 the author NEVER leaves any hint that the Sabbath would be a typological institution that should end after accomplishing its symbolic role. That it couldn’t be so we see for some few reasons:
a) the emphasis on the Sabbath’s role in Scripture is being a “memorial of Creation”, which is not related to Israel, but to humankind;
b) Jesus reinforced this universal role of the Sabbath as He said it was made “because of man”;
c) this universality of the Sabbath principle is a fact recognized by the most representative Christian confessional documents, authors and Bible commentaries;
d) if the Sabbath were ceremonial, the author of Hebrews would discuss it in Chaps. 7-10 where he details the typological meaning of the different aspects of the Jewish law;
e) those few in Israel who were faithful and entered the spiritual rest of salvation—like Moses, Joshua, David, Elias, etc., etc.—didn’t because of that renounce to the keeping of the Sabbath;
f) the faithful women who served Jesus and who had entered in the rest of salvation, soon after His death kept the Sabbath “according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56), which shows that they hadn’t learned with Jesus that the Sabbath was no more to be kept with His death, nor that to believe in Him and faithfully serving Him released them from that obligation;
g) in the description of the condition of Israel IN CASE OF HAVING ACCEPTED THE MESSIAH, thus having entered in the spiritual rest of salvation, as found in Isa. 66:22, 23, the Sabbath is still honored as a special day weekly dedicated to God, not put aside.
4. By replacing the physical rest of the Sabbath with the spiritual rest of salvation, the New Covenant Theology deprives believers of a vital institution established by God to internalize the reality of salvation. The physical Sabbath rest is the channel through which we experience the reality of the spiritual salvation rest (Heb 4:10). Physical symbols like the water of baptism, the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper, and the physical rest of the Sabbath, are designed to help believers conceptualize and internalize the reality of salvation they represent. We stop our work on the Sabbath to allow God to work in us more fully and freely.
Note: Everybody knows how important it is to have regular rest, and even a medical doctor, who happens also to be an Evangelical pastor, Dr. Michael Cesar, considers the Sabbath rest a divine blessing for the wellness of His children.
He even tells how Hitler tried to break this principle having those who built his arsenal, previous to the 2nd World War, working non-stop seven days a week, just resting at night. It didn’t work—they were soon exhausted, sick, production fell brutally, then the Führer reinstated the principle of one day of rest weekly.
Especially in these so much agitated times of ours, the physical and mental rest granted by the Sabbath is so much needed by everyone. Besides, if there is this “Christian freedom” to not keep the Sabbath, someone could even neglect that and harm, even kill, himself due to an excessive workload. Is that okay, when the Bible says that our body is the “temple of the Holy Spirit”?
|
|
|
Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba”
[Re: Azenilto]
#97463
03/29/08 10:41 PM
03/29/08 10:41 PM
|
|
|
Well, that all sounds pretty lame to me. So do all your other posts. WOW, you people are WAY to wrapped up in your own little world, and your own dogmatic religion.
Try to open your eyes to the world around you. Better yet, keep your head in the sand, that way I don't have to look into the eyes of such simple people. I urge you to continue your cultistic views, as it will surely mean the end of another retarded religion.
|
|
|
Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba”
[Re: Anonymous]
#97671
04/02/08 09:56 PM
04/02/08 09:56 PM
|
|
|
Well, Anonymous, I think that you are the one with your head in the sand. You need to get it out and study the Word like a small group of Christians did many years ago. Out of their study emerged this "retarded" religion that has spanned the globe with the Good New of Jesus and His second coming. Someday soon you will see the folly of your scoffing and may you change your course before it is too late for you.
|
|
|
Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba”
[Re: Anonymous]
#97748
04/04/08 02:02 AM
04/04/08 02:02 AM
|
|
|
Criticizing and fault-finding is much easier than to build something better in place of the criticized thing.
I wonder if this person who criticizes my posts is a Christian, believes in the Bible, or simply despises anything related to religion (as sometimes seems being his position).
So, for those who believe his/her Bible I think that what we have discussed is really an eye-opener regarding certain dangerous trends in the religious field, people who think they are helping others to understand the Scriptures, but are simply so much confused, not even realizing that their particular theological views aren't even compatible to what Christians have believed along the centuries, as far as the value of the 10 Commandments is concerned.
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba”
[Re: Azenilto]
#98821
04/29/08 05:17 AM
04/29/08 05:17 AM
|
|
|
Ratzlaff Struggles Again With Matthew 5:17-19
In the March/April 2008 issue of Proclamation! Magazine we find Mr. Ratzlaff struggling again with the text of Matthew 5:17-19, as had been the case in the January/February 2007 issue. His dominant preoccupation is to “prove” that this text doesn’t refer solely to the 10 Commandments, leaving the impression that Seventh-day Adventists think so. But I never learned as an SDA that this passage is limited to the Decalogue, nor is what one can see reading the SDA Bible Commentary about it. In fact, it’s so clear that Jesus refers also to the ceremonial aspects of the Torah, in vs. 23, 24 as He mentions the offer taken to the altar, which shows how this Mr. Ratzlaff’s straw man is one more futile attempt to denigrate the image of Adventist theology on his part.
Noticing this preoccupation of Mr. Ratzlaff to get rid of any impression that the 10 Commandments would be the main point in Jesus’ discourse in these texts, I addressed him some questions, as you can see in my initial discussions, that can be found through the following link:
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=97748&fpart=1 (see 2nd thread from top)
He never gave me any answer to these questions (he receives personally all the material published here).
Now, since he returns to this subject, through another questionnaire whose final result would be the admission that Matt. 5:17-19 doesn’t refer solely to the 10 Commandments, how about examining what other important and highly reputed theologians and Bible commentary authors have to say regarding these texts? But before doing that, it would be interesting to point out two things:
a – Jesus admittedly is not referring SOLELY to the 10 Commandments in these texts, but these 10 Commandments are not EXCLUDED from them, either.
b – The context of this passage emphasizes, not “abolition” of laws, but, on the contrary, an attitude of obeisance to God reflected in performing good works, which attract man’s praise to Him (see vs. 16: “Let you light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven”.) So, instead of the INTENTION of Jesus’ words having to do with freeing men from any of God’s laws, they highlight the importance of practicing what is contained in God’s laws faithfully in a way that even “exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees” (vs. 20). That is the framework of vs. 17-19 that Mr. Ratzlaff and other anti-Sabbatarians generally don’t take into account.
Now, let’s see if what different Bible specialists have to say regarding the text under consideration, (their comments concentrate mostly in the clause, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law”):
Albert Barnes:
Our Saviour was just entering on his work. It was important for him to state what he came to do. By his setting up to be a teacher in opposition to the scribes and Pharisees, some might charge him with an intention to destroy their law, and to abolish the customs of the nation. He therefore told them that he did not come for that end, but really to fulfill or accomplish what was in the law and the prophets.
Adam Clarke:
Do not imagine that I am come to violate the law καταλυσαι, from κατα, and λυω, I loose, violate, or dissolve - I am not come to make the law of none effect - to dissolve the connection which subsists between its several parts, or the obligation men are under to have their lives regulated by its moral precepts; nor am I come to dissolve the connecting reference it has to the good things promised. But I am come, πληρωσαι, to complete - to perfect its connection and reference, to accomplish every thing shadowed forth in the Mosaic ritual, to fill up its great design; and to give grace to all my followers, πληρωσαι, to fill up, or complete, every moral duty. In a word, Christ completed the law:
1st. In itself, it was only the shadow, the typical representation, of good things to come; and he added to it that which was necessary to make it perfect, His Own Sacrifice, without which it could neither satisfy God, nor sanctify men.
2dly. He completed it in himself by submitting to its types with an exact obedience, and verifying them by his death upon the cross.
3dly. He completes this law, and the sayings of his prophets, in his members, by giving them grace to love the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and their neighbor as themselves; for this is all the law and the prophets.
It is worthy of observation, that the word גמר gamar, among the rabbins, signifies not only to fulfill, but also to teach; and, consequently, we may infer that our Lord intimated, that the law and the prophets were still to be taught or inculcated by him and his disciples; and this he and they have done in the most pointed manner. See the Gospels and epistles; and see especially this sermon on the mount, the Epistle of James, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. And this meaning of the word gives the clear sense of the apostle’s words, Col_1:25. Whereof I am made a minister, πληρωσαι τον λογον του Θεου, to fulfill the word of God, i.e. to teach the doctrine of God.
Geneva Bible Translation Notes:
Christ did not come to bring any new way of righteousness and salvation into the world, but indeed to fulfill that which was shadowed by the figures of the Law, by delivering men through grace from the curse of the Law: and moreover to teach the true use of obedience which the Law appointed, and to engrave in our hearts the power for obedience.
Robertson Word Picture:
(ouk ēlthon katalusai alla plērōsai). The verb “destroy” means to “loosen down” as of a house or tent (2Co_5:1). Fulfil is to fill full. This Jesus did to the ceremonial law which pointed to him and the moral law he kept. “He came to fill the law, to reveal the full depth of meaning that it was intended to hold” (McNeile).
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown:
Not to subvert, abrogate, or annul, but to establish the law and the prophets - to unfold them, to embody them in living form, and to enshrine them in the reverence, affection, and character of men, am I come.
Matthew Henry:
Let none suppose that Christ allows his people to trifle with any commands of God's holy law. No sinner partakes of Christ's justifying righteousness, till he repents of his evil deeds. The mercy revealed in the gospel leads the believer to still deeper self-abhorrence. The law is the Christian's rule of duty, and he delights therein. If a man, pretending to be Christ's disciple, encourages himself in any allowed disobedience to the holy law of God, or teaches others to do the same, whatever his station or reputation among men may be, he can be no true disciple. Christ's righteousness, imputed to us by faith alone, is needed by every one that enters the kingdom of grace or of glory; but the new creation of the heart to holiness, produces a thorough change in a man's temper and conduct.
John Calvin:
God had, indeed, promised a new covenant at the coming of Christ; but had, at the same time, showed, that it would not be different from the first, but that, on the contrary, its design was, to give a perpetual sanction to the covenant, which he had made from the beginning, with his own people.
“I will write my law, (says he,) in their hearts,
and I will remember their iniquities no more,”
(Jeremiah 31:33, 34.)
By these words he is so far from departing from the former covenant, that, on the contrary, he declares, that it will be confirmed and ratified, when it shall be succeeded by the new. This is also the meaning of Christ’s words, when he says, that he came to fulfill the law: for he actually fulfilled it, by quickening, with his Spirit, the dead letter, and then exhibiting, in reality, what had hitherto appeared only in figures.
With respect to doctrine, we must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law: for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform. With respect to ceremonies, there is some appearance of a change having taken place; but it was only the use of them that was abolished, for their meaning was more fully confirmed. The coming of Christ has taken nothing away even from ceremonies, but, on the contrary, confirms them by exhibiting the truth of shadows: for, when we see their full effect, we acknowledge that they are not vain or useless. Let us therefore learn to maintain inviolable this sacred tie between the law and the Gospel, which many improperly attempt to break. For it contributes not a little to confirm the authority of the Gospel, when we learn, that it is nothing else than a fulfillment of the law; so that both, with one consent, declare God to be their Author.
18. Till heaven and earth pass. Luke expresses it a little differently, but to the same import, that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one point of the law to fail The design of Christ, in both passages, was to teach, that the truth of the law and of every part of it, is secure, and that nothing so durable is to be found in the whole frame of the world.
Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.xliii.html
John Wesley:
Think not - Do not imagine, fear, hope, that I am come - Like your teachers, to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy - The moral law, but to fulfill - To establish, illustrate, and explain its highest meaning, both by my life and doctrine.
Dr. James D. Kennedy:
“We live in a time when the institution of the Sabbath has come under great attack from several different points of view. There are those who declare that it was abolished by Christ and is no longer in effect today. But what do the Scriptures teach? The Scriptures do not teach that Christ ever annulled, abrogated, or abolished the Sabbath or any of the Commandments. On the contrary, the Scripture very plainly teach that the Commandments remain in effect today and have been strengthened by Christ who declared that not only the deed but the thought and the word are part of that which God has given us. He clearly states that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments. . . .
“Even as late as the Book of Revelation we read that here is the patience of the saints of God, those who have the faith of Jesus and keep the commandments of God. In the very last chapter of the Bible we read of those who keep the commandments of God and have the right to the tree of life.” – Sermon by Dr. James Kennedy, “The Gift of Rest,” quoted by Elder Samuele Bacchiocchi in his Endtimes Issues Newsletter, # 79
(http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_79.html)
Dr. Kennedy’s sermon was broadcast nationwide on November 4, 2001 through the Coral Ridge TV Network.
[Note: Dr. Kennedy passed away in September 2007].
|
|
|
Re: Ratzlaff & Co. Play the “One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba”
[Re: Azenilto]
#99261
05/12/08 02:25 AM
05/12/08 02:25 AM
|
|
|
The Danger of Ratzlaffism
We have already seen how dangerous it is to misinterpret the Bible, especially when it involves faithfulness to keeping God’s law, reflected in the Ten Commandments, as Luther, Calvin, Wesley and the most representative confessional documents of Christendom (both Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) expose its role as normative to the conduct of those belonging to the Christian community. By the way, St. Peter even stressed how those who practice this terrible art of Bible twisting will face a terrible destiny:
“. . . our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, and they do also the also scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved . . . beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.” (2a. Ped. 3:15-17).
Lately we saw how Mr. Ratzlaff is so much confused in his interpretation of Matt. 5:17-19, and we quoted some important Bible commentaries, like the ones by Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, the Geneve Bible notes, John Calvin, John Wesley and James Kennedy. Ratzlaff should submit his questionnaire, which has the objective to deny that the Ten Commandments is the expression of God's moral law to the Church, to these authors. None of the mentioned ones agree with his view on the subject. . .
In Brazil there was a Baptist pastor some years ago who published a book called Sabatismo à Luz da Palavra de Deus (Sabbatarianism on the Light of God's Word) and he refers to the text of Matt. 5:17-19 as “the fortress of the Sabbatarians”. Then he engages himself in trying to prove the error of understanding that Jesus is confirming the validity of the 10 Commandaments as a rule for the Christian conduct in such texts. Rather, he says, Jesus “fulfilled the law” to remove it for the Christian, leaving in its place His own new law.
The Bible speaks of “the law of Christ”, as Paul refers in 1 Cor. 9:21, but he doesn't quote any commandment of such a law to make us know what it is. . . But we have a good hint in Galatians 6:2, where he is more specific: “Bear ye one another's burden, and so fulfil the law of Christ.” So, that is what the law of Christ is all about--to bear one another's burden. But is that different from “love your neighbor as yourself”? Certainly not, especially as that is part of the “golden rule” uttered by Christ himself. So, would we be wrong if we concluded that the law of Christ is the same “golden rule”? I don't think Mr. Ratzlaff and his admirers and followers would disagree that the answer is YES.
But, then, when Jesus was uttering this “golden rule” He was not even being “creative”, for he just “plagiarized” Moses, as we can see in Deut. 6:5 and Levt. 19:18! Well, then is the “golden rule” Jesus’ law or Moses’ law?! Wouldn’t the best answer be -- it is GOD’S LAW? Does Ratzlaff disagree with that? If the answer is yes, why then?
Now, the referred to Baptist author, called Ricardo Pitrowski (seems like being a Brazilian of Polish descent) has this chapter on the fortress of the Sabbatarians, but Arnaldo B. Christianini (a Brazilian of Italian descent) refuted totally his book using mostly material from the Baptists themselves!
It was funny to see how Christianini simply got all these Baptist authors, Bible commentaries, Sunday School quarterlies and destroyed one by one the arguments of this poor Baptist minister who just showed the theological incompetence of those who try to refute Sabbath keeping as a Christian rule.
I quoted in my last discussions of Ratzlaff’s ideas how important people in the Theological field analyzed this text, in a way that just confirms how Ratzlaff and his followers are in the wrong way as to how is the best historical theological stand of conservative Protestant scholarship regarding the subject of God’s law.
But let me add some more authors, as Christianini quotes a few. I will be translating from his quotations in Portuguese for I don’t have access to the same material in English. Some I think were from Brazilian Evangelical authors. So, introducing his arguments, Christianini says, in his book Subtilezas do Erro (Subtleties of Error):
Let’s proceed. To this important text (Matt. 5:17-18) [Pitrowski] calls “the fortress of Sabbatarians”. . . . we will not miss this chance to use this excellent opportunity he grants us to show who are the builders and artisans of such a solid fortress:
l. First of all, as Cornerstone, we have the Author, Architect and Planner: CHRIST, for he was the One to say in crystal clear terms, “. . . Think not I am come to destroy the law . . . I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil”. Did Jesus know what He was talking about? No doubt. “Fulfill” is not to discard a law or cease its validity for having covered all its requirements or for having complied with its precepts, for is that were so, that would simply mean to abrogate it. But in the text Christ declared unequivocally: I am not come to DESTROY”.
Webster defines to abrogate saying that “to fulfill is to obey.” . . . A citizen fulfills his duty to vote, for example. Is the voting institution extinguished because of him having fulfilled it? No! The requirement is permanent; the fulfillment is transient. The fulfillment affects the person, not the requirement; it connects the person with the requirement but doesn’t remove it. Only a superior law that would state it expressly could remove it. . . . Christ fulfilled the baptism, but didn’t abolish it. In Gal. 6:2 we read: “Bear ye one another’s burden, and so fulfil the law of Christ” Imagine the reader whether this means to abolish! That would be a totally distorted and absurd conclusion. . . . No doubt, Christ is the foundation of this fortress of Seventh-day Adventists.(1)
2. A. H. Strong, a much quoted Baptist author, who is also in total contradiction with [Pitrowski’s] thesis, also helps to erect this fortress, when he says:
“He [Jesus] should ‘fulfill’ the law and the prophets through complete execution of the revealed will of God. . . . Since the law is a transcription of God’s sanctity, its requirements as a moral rule are immutable. Only as a system of penalty . . . it was abolished by Christ’s death. ‘Think not I am come to destroy the law. . . [quotation of the entire text]”(2)
. . . Thus, Strong is an excellent contributor for the fortress of Sabbatarians, don’t you think so?
3. J. Broadus, highly reputed Baptist commentator also engages himself in aligning among the fortress’ builders. He writes on Matt. 5:17-18: “Fulfill – is the translation of a Greek word that means ‘to fill up’, ‘to complete’. . . . It means ‘to execute plainly’, ‘to realize’, applied to any work or duty. . . . ‘In vain it is attempted to put these Jesus’ words in conflict with what Paul teaches regarding the law. . . . The idea that sometimes emerges, that Jesus was a great and radical reformer that put aside Moses’ law for being imperfect and outdated, IS CONTRARY TO THE ENTIRE SPIRIT OF THE TEXT” (3) (Highlighted in capital letters by myself).
We thank Broadus wholeheartedly for his uninterested and valuable contribution for the erection of the fortress.
4. C. H. Spurgeon, the prince of the Baptists preachers, alluding to Matt. 5:17, says: “To show that He never thought of abrogating the law, our Lord exemplified all the precepts in His own life.” (4).
. . . No doubt, Spurgeon also render an excellent service in constructing this fortress of Seventh-day Adventists.
5. S. L. Gingsburg, also a Baptist, referring to the Decalogue, with Mat. 5:17-19, writes: “Those who teach the lie that the law has no more value or authority, certainly have not read yet the texts that are here for us to study: MATTHEW 5:17-19.” (5)
Gingsburg is a bold worker in the construction of this citadel . . .
6. Moody, the remarkable revivalist, thus understands Matt. 5:17: “Some think that we have already supplanted the Ten Commandment. What did Christ say? ‘. . . Think not I am come to destroy the law . . . I am not come to destroy . . .; Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass form the law, till all be fulfilled.’ The commandments of God given to Moses . . . are as obligatory today as they were when proclaimed to the ears of the people. The Jews used to say that the law was not given in Palestine (that belonged to Israel) but in the desert, because the law was destined to all the nations.” (6)
We better stop here, otherwise the fortress will be excessively large. We browsed about 20 works of authors who don’t belong to the Adventist fold and all agree in one point: Jesus didn’t ABROGATE anything from the Decalogue. So we have to conclude that this fortress belongs less to the Sabbatarians than to other interpreters who built it, a good number of them Baptists. And as [Pitrowski] thought to tear down the fortress—as the he imagines . . .—he is attempting to destroy someone else’s work. Yes, because the fortress, as we’ve seen, was built by others and given to the Seventh-day Adventists. . .
NOTES
(1) Subtilezas do Erro, pp 101-106.
(2) A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, pp. 546 and 875.
(3) Broadus, Commentary to the Gosple of Matthew, vol. 1, pp. 66, 164 and 165
(4) C. H. Spurgeon, sermon published in the Melbourne Age, 1888.
(5) S. L. Gingsburg, The Decalogue or the Ten Commandments, p. 4.
(6) D. L. Moody, Weighed and Wanting, p. 14.
We see how dangerous it is to attempt destroying fortresses thinking they are built by poor confused people, aiming at defending inadequate positions. Those who know some of the world’s great literature masterpieces might have read the classic Cervantes’ Don Quijote de la Mancha. To fight against windmills was a no-win situation for him, as is a waste of time to Raztzlaff and his supporters to refute Sabbath keeping. And he seems to have some faithful Sancho Panzas to help him.
One example of that is the mail in Spanish that I got from an ex-Adventist group, where they argue that there is nothing wrong in keeping the Sabbath, but working on that day for supplying the family’s necessities is okay, for the Bible says that one should work honestly for making a living. To neglect that, because of a “fanatical” attachment to the Sabbath law, running the risk of facing financial difficulties could jeopardize the family’s survival, which is totally wrong and unbiblical, they allege.
That is another big danger of false reasoning, because they are discriminating against only ONE of God’s commandment. They forget that this applies to ANY commandment. By this reasoning, if a lady has no professional qualifications that grant her a good salary to support her children, and she is offered a job in which she has to get involved with prostitution, that would be okay with the Church! Or else, if a man has no other professional option, but is offered to sell drugs and make a good profit, it is okay, since his intention is just to make a living to support his family. . .
Very dangerous ideas, indeed.
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism
[Re: Azenilto]
#101397
08/08/08 03:07 AM
08/08/08 03:07 AM
|
|
|
The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism
In a certain Brazilian SDA Orkut community an Evangelical pastor started a new topic for discussion with the challenging question, “Where is there an order for the Church to keep the Sabbath?”
In the development of the discussions what happened is that we answered his question fully, and in retribution addressed him another question which he NEVER answered: “Where is there an order for the Church NOT to keep the Sabbath?”
In answering his question we simply quoted what orthodox Protestantism has been teaching along the centuries--that the 10 Commandments are the rule of Christian life in ALL their precepts. Those Mother-churches (like the Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, Lutheran, Anglican) from which so many other Evangelical/Protestant movements have stemmed have in their confessional documents this basic and official teaching, which is something that the majority of Evangelicals ignore.
There is, of course, the “detail” that they reinterpret the 4th commandment to apply to Sunday, which is ANOTHER DISCUSSION. Actually, they are right in teaching the validity of the 4th commandment, even recognizing its Edenic origin, thus being a commandment of MORAL and UNIVERSAL character (the Westminster Confession of Faith even stresses that it is of the NATURAL LAW). However, they are WRONG in arguing that Sunday took the place of the seventh-day Sabbath in the event of Christ’s resurrection. The texts they quote trying to prove that simply don’t deliver. . . They simply don’t prove that allegation.
Then, to show how unfounded is this neo-antinomian dispensational theology of modern Evangelicalism, we addressed him the question, “How were sinners saved in Old Testament times?” His answer to this question revealed the tremendous confusion that prevails in Evangelicalism today due to the preaching of these neo-antinomian dispensationalist theories since the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.
Analyzing briefly his answers we collected the following strange ideas:
a) there was no grace before Christ and some who were saved, that was due to the pure “mercy” of God.
Then I asked what difference is there between “grace” and “mercy”. So far he did not answer, in spite of my insistent questioning on that.
b) He also said that Jesus went preach to “the spirits in prison”. But the text, from 1 Pet. 3:19, 20 (considered an obscure passage in the Bible), says that such “spirits in prison” were limited to the DAYS OF NOAH!
I asked him why, first of all, Jesus went preach to spirits “in prison”, that is—condemned ones. And since they were of “the days of Noah,” what happened to those who were of other times?
Besides, if those who were convicted could repent and be saved, that would be antibiblical, in the light of Heb. 9:27--granting a 2nd. opportunity to unsaved people.
Do I need to say that he hasn’t answered this also?
I cannot generalize, but on the evangelical field, after the tremendous “dispensationalist” brainwashing, the confusion on this and other points is really widespread.
Most evangelicals simply don’t know how to answer this question. They face a tremendous dilemma: if they allege that salvation in the OT times was by the keeping of the law (as some say), that would be an impossibility. Never a man was able to gather to himself enough virtue and credit to deserve going to live with God forever. If they admit that salvation then was also by grace that destroys the foundations of this dispensationalist division of the law/grace eras.
The Sabbath ordinance was recommended to “all people” in Isa. 56:2-7 when God called the foreigners to join Israel in accepting His special covenant with that nation, so that His ideal to the world were accomplished, as expressed in vs. 7, “for mine house shall be called a house of prayer FOR ALL PEOPLE.”
The Sabbath was chosen among all the commandments as a certificate of the conversion of peoples worldwide, for what Israel was to act as a divine instrumentality, placed at the crossroads of three continents, with the mission to be “IHWH’s witnesses” (Isa. 43: 10, 11) “light of the nations . . . unto the end of the Earth” (Isa. 49:6).
What we see among many Evangelicals is a micro worldview regarding God’s plan for Israel and the world, which characterizes this neo-antinomian theology, whose fruits can be seen in the total confusion regarding their understanding of the way by which sinners were saved along human history. That certainly is the “other gospel” (Gal. 1:8) that Protestant Christianity was submitted to since the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Anyway, the participation of this pastor in our community with his challenge has been a blessing to show our brothers and sisters who also participate as members of the community, or anyone who just accompanies the discussions independently, the total fallacy of these neo-antinomian sophistries. As we put this material into English and Spanish this blessing will be multiplied to many more people around the world, thanks to our analyses of these errors.
This is what I call the BALAAM FACTOR again in action, as has already been shown here with other studies that accompany these discussions.
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: The Dilemma of Neo-Antinomian Dispensationalism
[Re: Azenilto]
#101408
08/08/08 04:52 PM
08/08/08 04:52 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Just within Adventism, there is a lot of differing points of view, which is easy to see, just by considering this forum. Within Evangelical Christianity, there is even greater differing ideas, which one would expect. So you've correctly identified an area (or areas) of confusion, but there are many different ways they try to deal with the issue you brought up.
One of things I really liked about Adventism was how it unites the plan of salvation. It really doesn't make sense that people should be saved in different ways depending on when they lived. One way it's easy to see that thew plan of salvation didn't change is by considering how the NT authors make their case, especially Paul. He does so by giving examples of righteousness by faith, including David, who lived smack dab in the middle of the supposedly pre-grace dispensation.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
