Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith

Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don’t see things the way you do.
And don’t jump all over them every time they do or say something you don’t agree with
– even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department.
Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently. Romans 14.1: The Message

You are not logged in. [Log In] unOFFICIAL WORLDWIDE ADVENTIST FORUM » Forums » Bible, Theology and Related items » In Defense of the Faith » Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith

Topic Options

Rate This Topic

#130565 - 06/19/07 08:43 PM Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 127	Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith On March 20, 2007, I celebrated my 41st anniversary of baptism as a Seventh-day Adventist. That happened in my early youth, after I left the Army service in my native Brazil. I was raised in a traditional Evangelical family, the Congregational Church, and to this day some members of my extended family are members of that denomination. I remember how I attended Sunday School in my boyhood regularly and sometimes after church I wished to go up to a soccer field near my home, where amateur clubs competed in a regional tournament. But my father, a veteran officer of the church, wouldn’t allow me, for that would not be permissible on the “Lord’s day”. Also, if either myself, or one of my four sisters, had test at school on Monday, we were not allowed to study for it, on Sunday. That seems funny to me now as I see the new trends in Protestantism, in a much “user friendly” attitude of what I call anydayism/nodayism/everydayism—no more mandatory days to keep to the Lord, everybody being free to administer his/her time as one pleases. Some even consider this as part of the “Christian freedom” they are entitled to. But that doesn’t correspond to what we read in the most representative Confessions of Faith, Creeds and Catechisms of mainline Evangelical-Protestant churches! They clearly enunciate the dedication of a 24-hour time span to God as “Lord’s day”, preferably on Sunday (supposedly the Resurrection Memorial). Now, the majority of Evangelicals with whom I interact in forums and debate groups seem to even ignore what their own Churches teach regarding this Sabbath principle. It seems that most think that the modern mindset of having Sunday, not as a holy day, but as a holiday, is what always prevailed in the Christian field. No, it is not. Something happened along the time that transformed Sunday in a day in which Evangelicals act exactly as the Roman Catholics. The RCC doesn’t emphasize the “sanctification” aspect of the “Lord’s day”, but the mere participation of the believer in Sunday mass. Since the Vatican Council II, even Saturday afternoons or evenings are okay for a Catholic to “fulfill his/her obligation” of attending mass, having, then, the remainder of the weekend free to accomplish whatever is wished, be it going to the Mall, or staying home watching a favorite sports show, doing business or even going to work. That is not the spirit of the Sabbath, according to God’s commandment, which first of all emphasizes the “sanctification” aspect of God’s recommendation, with the “rest” element coming second (Exo. 20:8-11). Now, as I already showed, that is not what Protestants traditionally learned and practiced as their faith expression, as I experienced in my own home as a child and adolescent. But times and mores have changed! Jesus said that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). That shows the universal character of the commandment, as is recognized in the above-mentioned Christian confessional documents. The Edenic origins of the Sabbath was always a clear understanding of those Christians, as well as the “division” of the law, as being “moral”, “ceremonial”, “civil”, “penal”, etc. Now, some Protestant instructors and preachers either ignore these facts, or are aware of them, but omit such information from their congregations. Many give the impression that these ideas of the Sabbath being a principle that stems from Creation, or the Ten Commandments as still being the rule of life for the Christians, are adopted only by Seventh-day Adventists or other few religious Sabbath-keeping groups, which is a clear misconception. Other day I came across a very finely produced publication, made of high-quality paper and design, called Proclamation. It is promoted by a certain former SDA Pastor called Dale Ratzlaff who seems to see his mission in life now as that of convincing Seventh-day Adventists of the error of believing in these aforementioned points (among other things), despite being part of the Protestant tradition. I wonder whether he would qualify as someone who ignores them, or is aware of these facts but omits them from his readers and listeners. So, I have some direct questions to submit to Mr. Dale Ratzlaff, and the first three are exactly: * do you ignore that the “standard” Protestant position about the 10 Commandments is that they constitute God’s law (as Martin Luther himself so refers in the first lines of his document, “Treatise Against the Antinomians”), as can be seen in such confessional Christian documents as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Baptist Confession of 1689, or Luther’s Small Catechism? * do you ignore that the “standard” Protestant position about God’s law is the same presented by Seventh-day Adventists, being “divided” into ‘moral’, ‘ceremonial’, ‘civil’, ‘penal’, etc. as taught in these confessional documents and by important instructors in the Protestant field along the centuries? * do you ignore that the “standard” Protestant position about the 4th commandment is that it comes from God’s creation, thus being recognized as a universal principle, with Gen. 2:2, 3 and Mark 2:27 often quoted in said confessional documents and instructional works to confirm it? By the way, I have been asking my Evangelical friends in Christian discussion Forums in the Internet what they think about the way the Congregational Church, which I attended for many years, defines this question of God’s law in regard to His grace. I think it is the most concise, objective and to the point definition of all the ones I have examined from Protestant expositions. I translated it into English from the text that I found in a publication of my Brazilian Congregational Church: Topic 21—About the Believers’ Obedience – Although the saved ones don’t obtain salvation through obedience to the law, but by the merits of Jesus Christ, they receive the law and all God’s precepts as a means by which He manifests His will on the redeemed ones’ procedure and keep them even more carefully and thankfully for the reason of being found saved by grace. Eph. 2:8,9; I Jo 5:2,3; Tt 3:4-8. (From the document of the Congregational Church in Brazil, “The Twenty-eight Articles of the Short Exposition of the Foundational Doctrines of Christianity”). Additionally, I learned through a Sunday School quarterly of said denomination (dated Aug, 15, 1971): “The transmission of the Law on Mount Sinai represents one of the most remarkable and universal events. . . . Such as the rocks of the mountain upon which they were transmitted, these precepts form the immutable basis of the moral life of men and nations, the everlasting foundation of all worthy and firm civilization”. This prompts one more question to Mr. Ratzlaff: * do you agree with this definition of God’s law in relation to God’s grace expressed in the Congregational document, as well as the commentary of the Sunday School quarterly? I have a favor to ask you, also: if these statements are wrong, please point to me exactly where the error lies so that I can advise dear relatives of mine (sisters, brothers-in-law, nephews) who attend that Church. I don’t want seeing them under a false teaching regarding these points. I anticipate my best thanks for clear and objective answers to my questions above. Best regards
Top

#130566 - 06/19/07 08:51 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 127	Mr. Ratzlaff Quiz to Challenge Seventh-day Adventists Speaking of Proclamation magazine, the January/February issue brings on page 3 a question, “Can you pass this quiz?” But this seemingly challenging and hard-to-answer series of questions shows some interesting and “quizzical” points, which I highlight in the format of some new questions to the author of the questionnaire. Mr. Ratzlaff, please, answer this: * why in your questions about the “law” in Matthew, John, etc. you have the options of “always”, “usually”, “seldom”, “never” regarding the Ten Commandments as the specific meaning of the term “law”, but you forgot to add, “including”? Yes, because in Matthew, John and other occasions in the Bible, the Ten Commandments ARE INCLUDED in the reference to “law”, not excluded. In Matthew 5:17, 18 Jesus says He didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Is He referring specifically to the Ten Commandments? No, He clearly refers to the complete Torah, which includes ALL aspects of the law. This is made clear in vs. 23: “. . . if you are offering your gift at the altar . . . leave your gift there in front of the altar”. That is typical language of the ritual part of the law. That prompts a few new questions: * do you agree that Jesus’ reference to the “law” in Matt. 5:17-20 comprehends all aspects of the Torah, INCLUDING, not excluding, the 10 Commandments and, with them, the Sabbath precept? * if your answer is yes, as I think it would be, does that mean that if someone keeps the Ten Commandments, with God’s help, that person is also obliged to offer gifts at the altar of sacrifices and perform all rituals of Israel’s laws? * if your answer is yes, as I also think is what you imply, does that mean that when Paul reminded the Ephesians regarding their necessity to remember “the first commandment with a promise”, which is the 5th of the Decalogue (Eph. 6:1-3), those Christians in Ephesus were obliged to also offer gifts at the altar of sacrifices and perform all rituals of Israel’s laws? * if your answer is no, why do you discriminate against the keeping of the Sabbath in that regard, teaching that those who keep the 4th commandment, plus the other nine, would be obliged to fulfill all the other ceremonial aspects of the law, but not those who keep the 5th, and the other eight (with the 4th excluded)? * why do you emphasize so much the EXCLUSION of the 10 Commandments from the expression “law” in the New Testament as something detrimental to the Christian faith? What is wrong with these commandments? Would it be, - the rule of not having other gods? - the rule of not utilizing images of sculpture in acts of worship? - the rule of not pronouncing God’s name in vain? - the rule on the duty of honoring the parents? - the rule of not to kill - the rule of not to commit adultery? - the rule of not to steal? - the rule of not to give false witness against others? - the rule of not to covet a person’s things or spouse? And a final question to Mr. Ratzlaff: * in the context of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19 He referred to His hearers as “salt of the Earth”, “light of the world” and a little later taught them the “Lord’s prayer”. Why, then, His words in these texts cannot apply to those who TODAY consider themselves “salt of the Earth”, “light of the world” and pray the Lord’s prayer? The False Premise of Dale Ratzlaff’s Theological Stand When something begins wrong, chances are that it will continue being wrong all along its development. In 1990 I had the opportunity of visiting Europe in a tour of eight countries with some Brazilian friends. One of our tours included a visit to the St. Peter’s Cathedral, in Rome. One thing that called my attention as I saw the artistic interior of the famous temple was the inscription, in golden letters, at the base of the “Rotunda” (the circle right in the middle of the ceiling). It was simply the reproduction of Matthews 16:18, 19—“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church. . .”) When I saw that, I thought to myself: “Wow, such a fabulous physical and ideological structure encompassing so many millions of people, institutions, traditions, rituals, publications. . ., all that founded on a text out of its due context!” Later on I visited the Brazilian “Bethel” and printing plant of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (I also had passed in front of the Watchtower headquarters when traveling across the Brooklyn section of New York City) and I could see all their efforts and material means to proclaim their message, all that based on a certain date which has no confirmation of any serious historian, Bible chronologist and archeologist—607 BCE. That date is foundational to the “Bible Chronology” of that religious organization, but if it is wrong, the chronology is wrong, and if the chronology is wrong, the theology is wrong! And the date is simply. . . wrong! More recently I had to spend a day in Salt Lake City due to a technical problem in a plane I was traveling from New York to Portland, Ore., and I decided to take advantage of the delayed flight to take a tour of the famous world center of Mormonism. One of the places we visited was the Genealogy Institute, a building full of computers and a body of workers dedicated to investigate people’s forefathers, so that baptisms are performed in their behalf. The investment in construction, equipment and personnel is really immense, and all that is based on a text that is not sufficiently clear in the Bible—1 Cor. 15:29 (“. . . if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead?. . .”). Without entering into the details about these wrong basic teachings, the fact is that Mr. Ratzlaff also has all his theology twisted because of a similar false premise—the notion that under the “grace and love” period, the New Covenant, there is a certain “law of Christ”, more user-friendly to the believer, that excludes the 10 Commandments, which are replaced by a sort of “Rule of Nine Commandments and One Suggestion”. It’s funny that the 10 Commandments are seen as nailed to the cross with all ceremonies of Judaism, but out of these 10, NINE remained intact after this “complete abolition” of the law. There are even those who emphasize that only nine of the 10 are repeated in the New Testament, with the Sabbath not being done so. Well, we have other questions regarding that to Mr. Ratzlaff: * when Jesus proclaimed the “golden rule” of only two commandments—love to God above everything and love to the neighbor as oneself—was He really creating something new, revolutionary, in terms of rule for His followers’ conduct (see Matt. 22:36-40)? * if the answer is yes, why did the scribe who clearly wanted to trap Him in a question that would cause Jesus to contradict Israel’s traditions end up complimenting the Master’s answer, instead of finding fault in it (see Mar. 12:28-34)? So, the false premise of Mr. Ratzlaff theology is to take this “golden rule” as a SUBSTITUTE of God’s moral law, when it is simply its SYNTHESIS, or a summary of the whole law. He mistakes the thing arguing that now there is only a “law of Christ” based on love to be fulfilled by the Christian. But Jesus was just reiterating what Moses had already said, for God’s law ALWAYS had as its basic principles “love to God above all else” and “love to the neighbor”. There was nothing new, no novelty, in Christ’s statement, as we already saw in Matt. 5:17-19. He is referring to the SAME complete Torah, the law that includes the ceremonial part, indeed. The summaries don’t override the originals. We can see that in the “Abstracts” that precede scientific articles, whose objective is to highlight the main points of the study so that whoever read them gets his/her attention called to a subject he/she might be interested in, and thus is led to the more profound presentation in the complete material. Then, why don’t we perform the circumcision and all the other rituals of the Judaic law? The answer is very simple, and is found in Matthew 27:50, 51: “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom”. In due time, the Christian community understood that all ceremonial aspects of the Jewish law were no more required of the followers of the Messiah, but its moral aspects could not find the same end, for that would mean complete chaos, at both individual and corporate levels. Imagine that such rules as “you shall not kill”, “you shall not steal”, “you shall not commit adultery” came to an end when the Temple’s veil was rent from top to bottom. . . All that brings us to the BOTTOM LINE of all this discussion—the notion that the Sabbath commandment was abolished because it pointed to the rest in Christ. So, He is our “rest”, and the believers are thus freed from any obligation of dedicating a day do the Lord. Well, we have a very objective Bible study showing the error of such reasoning—“Ten Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept”. We invite Mr. Ratzlaff to check it through the following link: http://foroadventista.com/index.php/topic,610.0.html At this juncture, another of our studies would be very appropriate to be examined: “10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is the Most Important Commandment of the Decalogue”. The same link indicated above leads directly to it. Take advantage of your visit to that page and also see the following articles: - 10 Questions The Anti-Sabbatarians Seem Incapable of Answering - 10 Questions on the Subject of the Law of God/Law of Christ - 10 Questions About the Sabbath for Anti-Sabbatarians to Think Seriously About - 10 Questions on the Theory of “Everydayism” - 10 Serious Difficulties For the Advocates of Either Sunday Keeping or the “Nodayism/Anydayism/Everydayism” - 10 Questions on Christ’s Attitudes Regarding the Sabbath A final question to Mr. Ratzlaff: * if Jesus is our Sabbath rest, and Hebrews 4 shows it, so that we don’t have to keep a day of rest, why didn’t the holy women who served Him so closely, having reached the spiritual rest of salvation, didn’t, because of that, neglect keeping “the Sabbath according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56)? Later on we will have some more food for thought to Mr. Ratzlaff. Let's see if and how he will answer our questions. . .
Top

#130567 - 06/19/07 08:57 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 127	Hello, friends Mr. Ratzlaff was very prompt in answering our correspondence, something I appreciate. See two of his emails and my, also prompt, replies: 1st. Correspondence: Azenilto, Thanks for your email. You ask some good questions. As I get hundreds of emails a day and have written extensively on the subject in Sabbath in Christ, what I would be happy to do is to send you without charge my book where it is written in more detail than I have time in an email. Please send me your mailing address and a statement of your willingness to read the book and I will put it in the mail. May God bless us each as we seek to be true to Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit. In His joy, Dale Ratzlaff My reply: Okay, my friend I will read your book, but under one condition: that you first answer my basic question that no Protestant and Catholic are able to answer. Just that one, please. There it goes again: Where is it written that in the change from the Old to the New Covenant, when God writes what is called "My laws" in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of the New Covenant [New Testament] (Heb. 8:6-10), transferring the contents of the cold tables of stone to the hearts warmed by the divine grace (2 Cor. 3:2-7), God a – leaves out the 4th commandment of the moral law; b – includes the 4th commandment, but changing the sanctity of the 7th to the 1st day of the week? OR c – includes the 4th commandment, but as a vague, voluntary and non-obligatory principle that can be reinterpreted as any day which is most convenient to the believer (or his employer)? Basic texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Ezekiel 11:19, 20 and 36:26, 27. 2nd Correspondence: Azenito, I am just now nearly though an article for the Next Proclamation (May/June) on the law written on the heart. It is my conclusion after much study the law that is written is ALL the Old Testament laws. However, it is not the letter but the moral principle behind the law. Perhaps some examples will give needed insight. In Deuteronomy 22:8 we read, "When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you will not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone falls from it". Deut. 22:8. First, we look for the eternal moral principle behind the law. Build homes in such a way that people won’t get hurt. Note how this principle can be reduced to love. It is the loving thing to keep people from being hurt! How is this principle applied today? Many ways. If you are building a second story deck make sure you have sturdy hand rails. Most building regulations require that the rails be constructed such that a six inch ball will not fall through or out of the deck. Why? To make sure that no small child wiggles through the posts. We might also apply this principle of safety to fire alarms, door locks, pool fences, wheel chair ramps for the disabled, etc. However, unless we plan to spend time on our roof, there is no need to build a fence around the perimeter of our roof in order to obey the letter of old covenant law. We apply the moral principle behind the law to the situation at hand. Next, let us consider the manna experience recorded in Ex. 16:16-30. The context shows that God is trying to get the Israelites to trust Him completely. He delivered them from the bondage of Egyptian slavery and is now leading them by the cloud. When the cloud moves, they move. He opened the Red Sea , He provided Water in the desert, now they are without food in the wilderness. Yes, and God lead them there. In Exodus 16:13-19 we have the record of God not only giving them meat to eat, but He also provided manna. Moses instructed them to gather an omer for each person in the household. Most did. They were to leave nothing for the next day. God was trying to get them to trust him for daily provision. Some, however, left some manna for the next day just in case there was none and it became foul and bread worms. Next, God expanded the test, again trying to get them to trust him for provision. They were instructed to gather two omers for each person on the sixth day as none would be there on Sabbath. Again, some thinking that what was left over on the sixth day might bread worms as it did on other days went out to gather it on Sabbath and found none. So what is the moral principle behind the letter of the law of manna and Sabbath as recorded in Exodus 16? The moral principle outlined here is to obediently rest in God’s ability to provide. Is this not the teachings of Christ in Matthew 6:31-34? Do not worry then, saying, “What will we eat?” or “What will we drink?” or “What will we wear for clothing?” For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. I will not give you the complete article at this time as it is not in its final form. Let me know if this satisfies your need. If so, I will send you Sabbath in Christ. In His joy, Dale Ratzlaff My reply: Dear friend You are right. I think exactly so. All principles that are not prefigurations of what Christ accomplished on the cross are there, in the hearts of the sincere servants of God. What was abolished were those things that wouldn't contribute to people's being closer to God and His Messiah, whatever made that people far from the community of "spiritual Israel" (Eph. 2:11ss). Then, the bottom line is: why should the Sabbath be left out? It is not ceremonial, as I have proven and is what Christians along history have taught, although reinterpreting it to apply to Sunday--a day that has no backing in the Bible and, besides, has strong pagan roots--the Roman dies solis. Everybody knows, even atheists, how good it is to the physical life having one day a week dedicated to physical and mental rest. If somebody engages in work, work, work all seven days of a week, will be a nerve wreck after a few months. So, God wisely set a time for man's rest because He wanted the best for His people. This divine preoccupation with man's welfare is illustrated in Jesus' recommendation to His disciples in Mark 6:31: "And he said unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while". He associates that free time with a time for reflecting on Him and His work. That is the objective of the Sabbath that was always considered part of the "Moral Law" (and that not ONLY by Seventh-day Adventists, you should know. . .). Besides, the Sabbath is not only a memorial of creation, but of redemption, as well (Deut. 6:15). So, if the Sabbath has something to do with salvation in Christ (and it does), remember that "salvation" is not only related to what Christ already accomplished on the cross and in our lives. "Salvation" has a more encompassing sense because we didn't have the "redemption of our bodies" yet, which will occur when Jesus comes for saving us not only from the consequences but of the presence of sin itself. And that is one of the objectives of the Sabbath commandment--pointing to that future eternal rest. Now, you should know that there is a clear rule in Theology that the shadows end their symbolic role when encountering reality. Since we haven't reached the eternal rest of the New Earth yet, it goes on until then. Then, how could it end with Christ's death? So, these points should be taken into consideration in any analysis of the Sabbath question: a - It is clearly a moral precept that comes from the origin of the world, sanctified (separated) by God to serve a double purpose of granting man a necessary regular rest period and serving as a reminder of Him as Creator. That IS NOT a Seventh-day Adventist originated concept, but is part of the Christian tradition of centuries. b - The Sabbath is not only a memorial of Creation, but also of redemption. Since it symbolizes the eternal rest of the complete salvation history, and since we haven't reached that final event, when "salvation" will be complete, there is no reason that it ceases to point forward to that day. c - Isaiah 66:22, 23 indicates that in the New Earth the Sabbath will continue being a special time for the redeemed ones. The fact that the context mentions "new moons" doesn't negate the fact that it means simply that there will be two marks of time--a monthly one (new moon in Israel was the beginning of a new month) and a weekly one--the Sabbath. Thus, as you can see, Hebrews 8:6-10 indicates the writing of God's law on hearts and minds of those who honor God as Creator, were redeemed in Christ and look forward for the completion of the salvation process when He returns, all of which simply confirm the important role of the Sabbath commandment. There is no justification at all to simply get rid of this principle that is not ceremonial, as I have demonstrated in my study "10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is not a Ceremonial Precept", because both its practical function of granting people a regular day of rest (recognized by medical authorities as necessary and beneficial) and its spiritual role continue having its indisputable worth for all those who have in Jesus their "rest", and honor Him dedicating to Him a day to better think on the salvation He granted us. That could NEVER be accomplished through a nodayism/anydayism/everydayism mentality and attitude. Best regards P.S.: And it ended up that you DIDN'T answer objectively, to the point, my question on the passage of the Old to the New Covenant. Why the Sabbath commandment is left out of the picture.
Top

#130571 - 06/19/07 09:15 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 127	[March 28]: An update regarding my correspondence with Mr. Ratzlaff: He insisted in sending me his book, I gave him my regular mail address and promised him I would read it, despite the "breach of contract", because he didn't answer my question first as I had stipulated as condition to receive it. Anyway, I will comply with his request that I dedicate time to read the book (not received yet). But the basic premise we have already examined: that since Jesus is our salvation, we celebrate this fact by NOT CELEBRATING anything special regarding a day to dedicate to the Lord. Since God Himself and His people always had special days and other special signs to celebrate important deeds and historical milestones (Creation--Sabbath; no more flood--rainbow; punishment for Babel Tower--confusion of languages; crossing of the Jordan--stone monument; deliverance from Egypt--Passover; different situations of difficulties overcome by men of God--building of altars), it seems strange that the most important of all events, both corporately and individually, is met by NO CELEBRATION AT ALL--cancellation of the "memorial of Creation" and no more day to dedicate to the Lord either as Creator or Redeemer. NO MEMORIAL AT ALL to celebrate salvation, in terms of our time invested to that end. Does that seem to make sense? [April 30]: Hello friends 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 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?!
Top

#130574 - 06/19/07 09:28 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 127	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 – includes the 4th commandment, but as a vague, voluntary and non-obligatory principle that can be reinterpreted as any day which is most convenient to the believer (or his employer)? Basic texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Ezekiel 11:19, 20 and 36:26, 27. 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. . .
Top

#130578 - 06/19/07 09:53 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 127	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 say 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 and 1 Cor. 7:19 as saying: “For the transgression of God’s law, and its commandments--the faithful obedience of which is what now counts{1 Cor. 7:19}--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.
Top

#131194 - 06/24/07 12:58 AM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
John317 Registered: 11/13/05 Posts: 9063 Loc: CA	Quote: ...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 – includes the 4th commandment, but as a vague, voluntary and non-obligatory principle that can be reinterpreted as any day which is most convenient to the believer (or his employer)? Basic texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Ezekiel 11:19, 20 and 36:26, 27. 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. . . 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/ Edited by John317 (06/24/07 01:01 AM) _________________________ Turning and turning in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer;/ things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world... Surely some revelation is at hand;/Surely the Second Coming is at hand. W.B. Yeats
Top

Previous Topic

Index

Next Topic

Hop to:

Moderator: A_G_Brito, A_G_Brito