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 4 of 16

...

Topic Options

Rate This Topic

#163575 - 03/29/08 02:55 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 150	10 Reasons Why the Sabbath IS NOT a Ceremonial Precept TRANSFERRED TO PAGE 16 FOR CONTEXTUALIZATION OF DISCUSSION
Top

#163593 - 03/29/08 04:14 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
David Koot Craftsman Registered: 03/13/06 Posts: 3513 Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m	Originally Posted By: A_G_Brito If you are able to present to me a full refutation of one by one of my 10 points I promise that I will never mention this Sabbath idea to anyone, either in the Internet or other means. Agreed?! Very well. I accept your challenge. I pick up your glove. High stakes, here. Now, then, one important issue . . . You say, "Full refutation." According to whom? With you as the arbiter? We need a neutral umpire. Meanwhile, I shall begin a response. Dave
Top

#163600 - 03/29/08 04:54 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: David Koot]
Redwood Swiss n Swedish American Registered: 12/09/06 Posts: 9056 Loc: A citizen of Heaven	Originally Posted By: David Koot Originally Posted By: A_G_Brito If you are able to present to me a full refutation of one by one of my 10 points I promise that I will never mention this Sabbath idea to anyone, either in the Internet or other means. Agreed?! Very well. I accept your challenge. I pick up your glove. High stakes, here. Now, then, one important issue . . . You say, "Full refutation." According to whom? With you as the arbiter? We need a neutral umpire. Meanwhile, I shall begin a response. Dave I'll volunteer to be the judge. _________________________ Another one of Woodies Goodies Love WON Another. Redwood the tree
Top

#163602 - 03/29/08 05:05 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: Redwood]
David Koot Craftsman Registered: 03/13/06 Posts: 3513 Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m	Okay, that's fine with me. That okay with you, A.G.?
Top

#163653 - 03/29/08 09:08 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: David Koot]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 150	I don’t know this “referee’s” competence and neutrality. . . I think that the final arbiter should be the consensus of the Bible teaching and that of the most representative AND HISTORICAL confessions of faith, Bible commentaries and instructional books of Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationals, Anglicans (excluded some modernists trends in these fields. . .). Anyway, I was checking a past Newsletter by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi with analyses of the Ratzlaff challenge and found something really precious--a synthesis of Ratzlaff's 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 that 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, they 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. And he bragged with the others in the discussion group we participated that if I were illegal he would see to it that I were deported! 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, having them 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”?
Top

#163657 - 03/29/08 09:25 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
David Koot Craftsman Registered: 03/13/06 Posts: 3513 Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m	Okay, rules of engagement: SOLA SCRIPTURA. The Bible and the Bible only. NOT what man has said, NOT what so and so confessional statement said, NOT what Bacchiochi said!! ONLY Scripture. As for "consensus statements," then according to whom? Whose consensus? Interpreted by whom? Your agenda is plain. You cannot be an advocate for a position, and also the judge. As for a referee, I will ask Redwood to share his observations and conclusions. We certainly don't want an institutional employee, nor would we want someone from the 'other' camp. Redwood would be a good juror/judge IMO. Once again, A.G.--the BIBLE and the Bible only, please!!! Dave P.S.: Oh, and PLEASE, PLEASE lets cut to the chase. Not these lengthy, wordy posts. A flood of words will not prove a position. Edited by David Koot (03/29/08 09:33 PM) _________________________ "Study to show yourself approved by God, a good workman who needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15
Top

#163659 - 03/29/08 09:45 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: David Koot]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 150	Well, I added a little extra thought to my text above: "What he [Bacchiocchi] 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". Now What is Mr. Redwood's stand? I ignore. . . So, how can I trust in the judgment of someone I don't know what he really thinks? I think that a really "neutral" judge would be an Atheist. He has no commitment with any religious idea.
Top

#163663 - 03/29/08 09:53 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
David Koot Craftsman Registered: 03/13/06 Posts: 3513 Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m	Very honestly, Monsieur, your analyses throughout this thread appear to have significant weak areas. But enough of that. To the chase! Now, then, the Bible and the Bible only. Let's stick with the Bible. As for Redwood, he has volunteered. A neutral party is needed, you say he doesn't "know what he really thinks," sounds like an ideal juror. But alors! To the chase! I shall return to this shortly. Dave
Top

#163670 - 03/29/08 10:33 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
David Koot Craftsman Registered: 03/13/06 Posts: 3513 Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m	Incidentally, Monsieur, I need not remind you, I am sure, that since you are the one who has thrown down the challenge, to me, and I have accepted your challenge, then the choice of weapons is mine. And I choose the Bible, sola scriptura, no other source. Of course, dictionary sources in case there are questions about word meanings in the Bible are appropriate, but not commentaries and the like. Perhaps I should also point out that if you cannot establish your position from the Word, but must rely on "the arm of flesh," then your position must be weak indeed! Right now, I am preparing for a service. Later on this evening, I shall begin responding to your ten point challenge. Meanwhile, I have the honor to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, David Koot Edited by David Koot (03/29/08 10:40 PM)
Top

#163675 - 03/29/08 11:01 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: David Koot]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 150	Originally Posted By: David Koot Very honestly, Monsieur, your analyses throughout this thread appear to have significant weak areas. But enough of that. To the chase! Now, then, the Bible and the Bible only. Let's stick with the Bible. As for Redwood, he has volunteered. A neutral party is needed, you say he doesn't "know what he really thinks," sounds like an ideal juror. But alors! To the chase! I shall return to this shortly. Dave I have no pretension of being infallible. Maybe there are weak points in my arguments, but overall I would say that these weak spots are much lesser than those in Ratzlaff's material. Also I don't think you should see this as a dispute, a "chase", by which an "enemy" has to be defeated. Who knows you should concentrate in looking for the real truth of God's Word, even when it points to certain "inconvenient" things that require certain commitments we naturally are not so willing to accept? Pray to God for guidance and, who knows, you will change your mind and see things through a different perspective? Remember that I am a former 'new-alliancer', in a way. I have been treading that path before, so I know veeeeery well all the arguments of anti-Sabbatarianism. I faced these challenges within my own home when I was a young man, eager for truth.
Top