Dale Ratzlaff promotes Sunday; calls the Sabbath OC

[Robert]

I just viewed a video of former Adventist Dale Ratzlaff on You Tube.  In that video he uplifts Sunday and downplays the Sabbath as Old Covenant.  

Here's my response to him: 

The Sabbath in the NT, under the NC, is clearly presented in Hebrews chapter 4. For brevity I will go to the heart of chapter 4, verses 9,10

9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.

First let's tackle the phrase, "There remains a Sabbath rest". Whatever this Sabbath rest is the writer of Hebrews (probably Paul) stated that it remains.

What then does this phrase, "Sabbath rest", mean?

According to Strong's Greek Concordance # 4520 we have the following: sabbatismos = a sabbath rest or "a keeping of the Sabbath"

Okay, then let's translate what it actually states in verse 9:

"So there remains [a keeping of the Sabbath] for the people of God." That's what it states.

Now, the question is, why does there remain "a keeping of the Sabbath"?

Verse 10 answers this question: "For anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his."

What does it mean to enter "His rest"? Well, we need to let the context define "His rest":

verse 2: "For we also have had the good news (the gospel) proclaimed to us, just as they did (the Jews of the OT); but the message they heard was of no value to them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. 3 For we who have believed enter that rest..."

The Jews of the OT didn't believe....They wanted to be under law. They refused grace. They wanted to earn salvation. But, Paul states, we Jews who have believed enter God's rest. Therefore to enter God's rest is to accept the gospel.

Now back to verse 10: For the one who has entered His rest (i.e., has accepted the gospel) has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.

The believer who has accepted the gospel also does something else. What is that?

He/she rest as God rested. From what did God rest? verse 4

For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS”

Why did God rest on the 7th-day? Was He tired? No! Then why? His sinless creation was complete...it was finished...it was perfect. No additional, creative work was necessary. It was complete...it was perfect.

But there's a problem: The creation is no longer sinless and perfect. Paul states that it has been ruined by the entrance of sin (see Rom 8:20-22). God, therefore, is no longer resting from His perfect creation because, as I stated, it has been ruined by the fall of mankind.

Then what "Sabbath rest" did Paul have in mind? Answer: The Sabbath as connected to the gospel.

[More in a bit...]

[Robert]

Now go to Romans 5:10. What does it state?

"..when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son".

Did you get that? When Christ died the human race was reconciled to God through Christ's death upon the cross. Keep this in mind. Christ's death, not His resurrection, justified the human race.

Now, what day did Christ - the Savior of mankind - die? Turn to Luke 24:44-46

"Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour (about 3 PM). 45 Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. 46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said...

Jesus died sometime late afternoon. The veil, in the most Holy Place, was torn open. Why? Read Hebrews 10:19-22.

What day was it when Christ died? Let's continue reading: verse 54

"It was the Day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was drawing near."

It was the 6th-day, the preparation day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. BTW, Friday sundown until Saturday sundown is what the Bible considers the Sabbath.

Anyway, Christ died just shortly before the Sabbath. By His death the fallen, human race was reconciled to God.

Now, just before Christ died, what did He cry out? "It is finished" John 19:30 What was finished? Salvation full and complete. Can you add to what Christ did 2000 years ago? No! Why? His work of redemption stands complete. We are "complete in Him". We cannot add our works of faith to Christ's righteousness.

Now back to Hebrews 4:10 "For he who has entered His rest (i.e., the one who has accepted the gospel) has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His."

Who rested the Sabbath? Not Christ, He was dead. Then who? Answer: God the Father. God the Father rested from His perfect work of redemption through or "in Christ Jesus". Why did He rest? Was He tired? No! He rested because His work through Christ was perfect and complete.

"In Christ" the human race has been reconciled to a Holy God. Therefore the believer who has accepted the gospel by faith also rest as God rested from His perfect work of redemption in Christ.

What day did God rest from His perfect redemptive work?

The 7th-day Sabbath.

[Robert]

Just watched another Dale Ratzlaff video.  This time he was a guest on CAnswersTV.

Here's what they stated: 

Quote

"In place of the Old Testament law, Christians are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…and to love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39)."

My reply:

So we are under law, just a different law...hmmm? Well, that too is then salvation by law, just a different law.

BTW, are you really loving your neighbor as you love yourself? Keep in mind what Paul stated in 1 Cor 10:24

"Let no man seek his own (wealth), but every man another's wealth."

In 1 Cor 13:5 Paul defines agape as a love that is not self-seeking. Self-seeking, then, is sin. Therefore if you really love your neighbor as you love yourself then why have you worked all your life for stuff (homes, cars, money)?

Clearly, under the new law (as you call it), we are not to seek our own wealth, but the wealth of those around us. IF we all did this we would have paradise on earth. Instead we have greed and poverty.

So the new law you claim to be keeping you are in reality transgressing.

What you are presenting is just a different type of legalism. Leaving the SDA denomination did'n't solve your problem because legalism is legalism. You are still in the same hole... 

[Ron Amnsn]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

What you are presenting is just a different type of legalism.

I agree with you that the Sabbath of the Old Testament remains valid. 

However, I think legalism is often in the eye of the beholder.

You seem to be assuming that the only purpose of God's law was to show people how to earn salvation.  I think you and I grew up in the SDA church in an era when the church taught us that kind of legalism.  And you are correct to reject that kind of legalism, because it is not Biblical.  However, not everyone views the law of God through the lens of legalism.

When my children were born, my wife and I started teaching and training them in the ways of our family and we set out some rules.  But the purpose of those rules was never to show the children how to earn a place in our family.  They already have a place in the family, whether they want it or not, because they are born into the family.  Imagine our frustration and disappointment if someone had taught our children that they had to follow our rules perfectly in order to become members of our family, and our children were convinced that they needed to do so.

That seems to be what you are still teaching about God's rules.  Often you seem to be projecting your past legalism onto others who may not be infected with legalism at all.  Can you really know what motivates a person to follow the law of God or the "law of Christ"?  One person may do it for legalistic reasons thinking they must earn their position before God.  But another person may do the exact same behaviors because they already know they are saved and they are motivated totally by love for their God and Redeemer and they simply don't want to do anything other than what Jesus did.

Legalism is a valid stage of moral development.  Although you have grown beyond legalism yourself,  it often seems that you try to lock others into that legalism stage, without realizing that others are capable of growing beyond legalism without following the same path you followed and without rejecting God's law as a reliable guide to knowing the character of God and living righteously as Jesus did.

[Robert]

2 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Legalism is a valid stage of moral development. 

No...legalism is anti-gospel.  It must go....

If we presented the correct gospel then legalism would never had showed its ugly head. 

[Robert]

Do any of you have any idea where I could go and chat with ex-SDAs?  I noticed a lot of them have thrown out the baby with the bathwater....Have they lost their minds?

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/24/2016 at 1:01 PM, Robert said:

No...legalism is anti-gospel.  It must go....

If we presented the correct gospel then legalism would never had showed its ugly head. 

I was speaking of the legalism stage of moral development that is seen in young children toward rules of any kind.  It is sometimes seen in new believers as well.

If we presented the truth about the God's original covenant at Sinai, then the true gospel could be easily taught, and legalism would show up in the church just as often as the word "legalism" shows up in the Bible.

Let's look at all the Bible passages that teach that legalism is a bad thing.  I don't know if I've looked at all such Bible passages.  In many of the passages that are brought forward when teaching against legalism there is actually no rebuke for wrongly motivated obedience -- the rebuke is for disobedience, usually disobedience to some more important aspect of God's law.

Someone else will need to start this off because I can't presently think of any passages that teach against legalistic obedience.  I think the Bible teaches fairly consistently that obedience is a good thing.  The legalism that was a problem in the church when I was young was based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of God's law, and a misunderstanding of the Gospel.

[8thdaypriest]

Why do you even need to address the Sinai Covenant?  I do not even use it in my "proofs" with Ratzlaff types. 

Even IF that Covenant IS "obsolete",  (which we have debated on CA before) the LORD declared the 7th day "holy" (belonging to the LORD) at the end of creation week - LONG BEFORE the Sinai Covenant.  He has never designated another day, or declared the 7th day no longer "holy". 

And Isaiah 66:22-23 puts the LORD's appointed times (including the rest of the 7th day) in the "new earth". 

And when they quote Paul, to say "we are not under the LAW", I tell them that the words mean that we are not under the condemnation of the law, or the curse which is pronounced upon those who BREAK the law. 

I ask them if they know where the "new covenant" is found, and what it includes.  They never do....

So I quote Hebrews and Jeremiah. 

The "new covenant" clearly includes God's "LAW".  Under the New Covenant, He will write His LAW on our hearts. 

Far from ditching the LAW, it will be miraculously internalized.  So they cannot say there is no LAW involved. 

I actually went through these simple arguments with some baptist ladies at the second hand store, just recently.  The son of one of the ladies is dating an SDA girl. 

Took me about 7 minutes.  And I did not quote the 4th commandment of Exodus 20 - even once.