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

Page 2 of 2

Topic Options

Rate This Topic

#138025 - 08/17/07 12:09 AM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
melvin mccarty Registered: 05/18/02 Posts: 581 Loc: B,C.	I have wondered why Moses used the wording he did. Surely he knew he was not being accurate! mel
Top

#138156 - 08/18/07 04:03 AM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: melvin mccarty]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 127	Oh, you will find much of that throughout the Bible, like Matt. 16:18. For Roman Catholics, it's very clear that the meaning is Jesus nominating Peter as the head of the Church, period! The language seems ambiguous, indeed, and those who allege that Jesus gestured pointing first to Peter ("thou art Peter"), and then to Himself ("on this rock") are still to show us the video where we can see that. . . May be some archeologist in a near future will be able to discover the video showing all this gesturing, than all doubts will be overcome . . .
Top

#138912 - 08/27/07 09:44 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’s Disappointing Assessment of the “LAW WRITTEN ON THE HEART” Theme 1st Part: More Harmony Than One Could Expect In the July/August edition of the Proclamation! Magazine, that I had access to through a different channel, since our subscriptions of the magazine (my wife’s and mine) seem to have been cancelled without previous notice, the main feature is the Cover subject THE LAW WRITTEN ON THE HEART, by Mr. Ratzlaff. He himself starts his article with some good questions: * Who is to be included in the new covenant? Is the new covenant only for the “house of Israel” and the “house of Judah”? Is this promise also for the Gentiles who accept Christ? * To what do “mind” and “heart” refer? * What exactly is the “law” that will be written on the minds and hearts of the people included in the new covenant? * Does the law written on the heart of the new covenant Christians differ from the law that was written on stone? If so, in what way is it different? * How does the law written on the heart relate to the “natural law” that is written on the heart of everyone, including those who are unbelievers and are “without law”? * Under the arrangement of the new covenant, how is the new covenant Christian to use and apply the letter of the old covenant law? * How are we to understand that there will be no need to teach a brother to “know the Lord”? * Last, and probably most important for the readers of Proclamation! Does the law written on the heart include the keeping of the Sabbath? If so, what Sabbath law applies to the new covenant Christian? How is one to demonstrate the he is keeping the Sabbath, if indeed the Sabbath is included in the law written on the heart? Now, two things are really surprising in the development of the article, and the first is that practically everything that the author discusses is in full harmony with what the Seventh-day Adventists believe! The answers he himself provides to the opening questions of his article are perfectly acceptable to any SDA who knows well his/her Bible, as we will see in these new studies of ours. We have no problem in understanding that the New Covenant was not limited to the “house of Israel” and the “house of Judah”. It’s very clear to us that the promise God made to the nation of Israel to have a new heart and to allow Him to write His laws in their hearts and minds are reiterated to the “expanded Israel”—those who are the seed of Abraham by faith. One has just to compare Ezekiel 36:26, 27; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Hebrews 8:6-10 and 10:16 to understand that. This certainly is better than some I have met who stubbornly insisted that Hebrews 8:6-10 refers to the literal Israelites, a view especially held by those who subscribe to the dispensationalist interpretation of a Israel-centered eschatology, involving secret rapture, Jewish Antichrist, Temple reconstruction, and the like. So, we have no objection to his statement highlighted at the top of the article, “Paul never grounds the inclusion of the Gentiles into the new covenant promise by their obedience to any of the laws of Sinai. Rather, he always grounds the incorporation of the Gentiles into the gospel by way of the faith of Abraham”. As a matter of fact, it is a strange theology the one that gives the impression that God established His old covenant expecting the people of Israel to have their obedience based on their own power to do it. Wouldn’t it be more logical to realize that God’s intent in both old and new covenants was that His people could say, as David expressed: “I delight to do Thy will, o my God: yea, thy law in within my heart” (Psa. 40:8)? The SDA Bible Commentary explains very appropriately the matter and I don’t see where Mr. Ratzlaff could find fault in its exposition of the question, which is basically in harmony with what he says throughout his article: 31. New covenant The Israelites had not fulfilled the divine requirement because they had attempted to be just through their own useless efforts. The Lord knows this inherent human tendency, and promised them a “new covenant”, and through this means man is able to be holy by faith in the Redeemer and Sanctifier (Gal. 3; Heb. 8: 8-10; see com. Eze. 16-60). God wished that the repatriated experienced with all their hearts and soul the reality of the new covenant. But the nation failed in reaching this ideal. . . . 33. I will write on their hearts God’s law was not to be just an external norm of justice: it was supposed to be the determining tool that would guide and rule human conduct (see Rom. 8: 1-4; 2 Cor. 3: 3-6). 34. they shall not teach every man The failure of God’s servants, which in large measure didn’t transmit to the people the true knowledge of the Most High, due to the imperfect fulfillment of the rites and ceremonies of the old covenant, would be corrected through an intimate knowledge and the communication that the believers would enjoy with their Lord through faith, which the new covenant would provide them (John 6: 45-46; 1 Cor. 2: 6-16; Col. 1: 27-28). -- (Translated back into English from the Spanish edition). So, what is wrong in this commentary? Doesn’t it correspond to Mr. Ratzlaff’s development of the subject throughout his article? I see no difference in approach between what he says and the way the SDA Bible Commentary puts it. Later on he discusses Romans 2, where Paul dedicates some space to speak about the situation before God of “those who followed this natural revelation with a clear conscience”, followed by a brief discussion on the “natural law”, commenting: “we can say that natural law exists, should be followed, and when followed will point a person in the direction of God. All societies and cultures have an innate understanding of right and wrong”. Yes, that is exactly what we believe, and the SDA Bible Commentary, again, says nothing contrary to that. If he has access to that wonderful collection I would urge him to check it there. He could be surprised to see in how many points the contents of this collection of scholarly commentary of the Bible is in agreement, not conflict, with what he advocates in many points of this subject and others. He then engages in a discussion about the “difference” of the law in the old and new covenants, highlighting the famous commentaries of Jesus in Matt. 5:21ff—“ye have heard that it was said by them of old time. . . But I say unto you. . .” He refers additionally to the “golden rule” of the love motive in regard to the neighbor, but errs in implying that to be a sort of “new” law that Jesus came to establish, replacing the old principles taught by Moses. Well, since we already commented on that in previous of our studies regarding the Ratzlaff challenge, let’s briefly point out some few items that must be better understood on this question: A – Jesus has no intention to establish any new and revolutionary law with new precepts, as some imply. He is simply showing that His hearers, due to the bad religious teachers of their time, had lost sight of the most profound, ethical and spiritual meaning of the law. For some who insist in this theory of the “revolutionary” new “law of Christ”, with different precepts that make it a different rule of conduct to the “new alliance” Christians, I like to remember the episode in which Jesus addresses the Pharisees regarding their tithing habits (Matt. 23:23). They were so concerned with the technicalities of it, duly dividing the “mint, anise and cumin”, that missed the most important in the tithe law: “judgment, mercy and faith”. Now, I ask: Was Jesus adding these three things to the law of tithing at that exact moment, or were they there all the time, but not perceived by those religious leaders? Let’s remember that looking at a woman with impure intentions was already mentioned by the patriarch Job as something he wouldn’t practice (Job 31:1). And to hate a neighbor was always wrong (Lev. 19:17). So, Jesus was not creating new rules and principles at that point, but showing features of the law that had been overlooked by His contemporaries. That is why He emphasized (after clarifying that He had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it): “For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20). B - Oh, but how about the clear language of “new commandment”? Doesn’t Mr. Ratzlaff remember that this “new” was not so new, after all? Yes, because when Jesus uttered the famous “golden rule”, He was just repeating what Moses had already said! Just compare Matthew 22:36-40 with Deut. 6:5 and Levt. 19:18. Exactly the same words! So, how could these commandments be “new”? Before discussing that, let’s review another episode that helps to clarify this point, found in Mark 12:28-34: Another scribe came individually to Jesus trying to trap Him subtly, in the face of the embarrassment of the previous ones who inquired Him about the lady who had widowed seven husbands. This man asks Him which was the most important commandment in the law. But his scheme backfires: His answer prompted only compliments on his part, “Well, Master, thou hast said the truth. . .”. Why he reacted that way? He expected to catch Jesus contradicting the traditions of Israel, certainly to have something to accuse him of. Nonetheless his inquiry ended up in total agreement with what Jesus said. The reason is that Jesus had not contradicted the law of Israel that the man knew very well: the most important command of the law was the double rule of loving God above all else, and loving the neighbor as oneself. Perfectly according to what Moses had taught. Now, how come this is called a “new” commandment? Well, there are two different words in Greek for new: neos and kainos. The first is many times applied to things that are totally new, of a different substance, like the new wineskins that replaced entirely the old ones. On the other hand, the second applies to such things as “new creature” and “new heavens and new earth”, which refer to the same basic substance that undergoes a complete renewal. So, they are “new”(kainos) commandments because the old law acquires a new meaning within the gospel message, things that had been lost sight of, not because the law was defective, but because of the people’s rebellion and spiritual blindness. That was the real cause of a new covenant being made necessary: “For if the first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith: Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Heb. 8:7, 8). C - But it is the same law, because God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and the ethics of His kingdom didn’t change. After all, the promise of the new covenant is that He would write what is called “My laws”, not “My new, different laws”, on the hearts and the minds of those who accept His new covenant [New Testament]. Now, that is something that prompted the question that I expected being resolved by Mr. Ratzlaff and someone in his staff, and never was. Even in this article he had an opportunity to do so, but disappointingly didn’t either. Let’s again see what the question was: 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), He 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 leaving it as a vague, voluntary and variable principle that can be reinterpreted as any day or time 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. There was also the equation to be resolved, and was not so far: NEW COVENANT = NEW LAW Mr. Ratzlaff emphasizes correctly, with our total agreement, that “the law is not the focus of the new covenant”. Then he quotes some few Bible texts, which don’t contradict absolutely our position: Gal. 3:10, 11, 14, 17-22. And that we can prove easily just by quoting the SDA confessional official document, the “28 Beliefs. . .”, item 10: 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.) Doesn’t the statement—“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”—correspond perfectly to what Mr. Ratzlaff preaches, regarding the character of that law that is written by God in our hearts? Isn’t the “law of God” the “law of love”, the same that is called “My laws” in Heb. 8:6-10? Then he quotes 2a. Cor. 3:6-13, which is indeed a text that backfires on those who attempt to use it to prove anything that implies a “new law” for the “new covenant” Christian, which will be the subject of our next study. At this point I only would reproduce a very interesting clause he has in his article: “Paul makes it very clear that of the one who has sin in his life (and that is all of us) the letter of the law (old covenant law) works for death”. In this context he quotes Rom. 7:5, 6. I already mentioned how Luther, the great champion of the righteousness by faith message, interprets Roman 6 and the meaning of the so much misunderstood phrase, “to be under the law”. Now, let’s see how Luther interprets the other often misunderstood phrase “delivered from the law”, based on the image of the death of the woman’s husband, which sets her free to marry another man. Again I quote from Luther’s classic work, “Preface to the Epistle of Paul to the Romans”: Chapter 7 — Dead for the law and the conflict within the believer In the seventh chapter, Paul confirms the previous through a comparison with the marital life: When a husband dies, the wife is unimpeded and one is separated and free from the other. Not that the woman couldn’t or shouldn’t take another man. She is apt to take another one, which she couldn’t previously do for not being freed from the first. In the same way, also our conscience under the law is attached to the old sinful man; but as he is dead by the Spirit, the conscience is free, and one is unencumbered from the other; not that the conscience could do nothing; but rather so that now it can be linked so much more to Christ, the new man, and produce fruits for life. One can see that Mr. Ratzlaff’s interpretation of this Pauline picture is out of step with what Luther says. The article says at a certain point: “Now, in Christ we are released from the law in that the law can only condemn to death once. Once the law has carried out its execution, it no longer has jurisdiction over us!” In saying that the law has no longer any jurisdiction over us he forgets that this applies to the law that condemns whoever is a sinner, a non-converted person, the one who is “married” to the “old man”. But those who legitimately accept Jesus as Savior, have to accept Him also as Lord. And He said to them: “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Of course Christ’s commandments are the same as His Father’s, for He said: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Besides, since Mr. Ratzlaff speaks of sinner and sin, let’s remember what is the Bible’s definition of sin: “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). What law is that? It can only be that law that Paul honored with his mind, and considered holy, just, good, spiritual, and has the precept, “ye shall not covet” (see Rom. 7: 12, 14, 22, 25, acd. vs. 7 and 8). After all, the prophecy regarding the Messiah was that He would save His people FROM their sins, not WITH their sins (Matt. 1:21).
Top

Page 2 of 2

Previous Topic

Index

Next Topic

Hop to:

Moderator: A_G_Brito, A_G_Brito