#134519 - 07/13/07 07:46 PM
Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
Ellen White’s Discussion on the Trinity—Not According to Mrs. Tinker’s False Allegations
As I pointed out in my last analysis of Mrs. Tinker study on Ellen White’s discussion of the Godhead, if Ellen White were to start a new view on the subject, like the tritheism that our opponent suggested as being Ellen White’s stand, that would have been adopted by the Church as a whole, which never was the case.
To discuss things pertaining to God is not easy and our poor human language will always be inadequate to express exactly how the Godhead “operates”. So, one can easily stumble on words in exploring EGW’s attempt to make sense of the “heavenly trio” (an expression of hers), which is exactly Mrs. Tinker's problem in her tritheism interpretation of the SDA author’s language.
Proclamation magazine’s editor makes certain statements that are purely speculative and have absolutely no basis. She says, at a certain point in her article: “While Ellen White grew up believing in the Trinity, she changed her views in adulthood. No doubt James influenced this change, but she claimed that her visions established her unorthodox beliefs. Early in her career she was overtly Arian, and although her later views endorsed ‘a heavenly trio’, she never taught an orthodox Trinity”[1].
The evidence for that statement is simply absent. What she presents as “proof” is no proof at all. It’s the text when Ellen White simply discusses the attitude of the rebel angel in Heaven, envious of Jesus’ privileges and proximity to God, as is well known to SDA’s [Spiritual Gifts, Vol., 3, p. 37]. But Mrs. White never gives the least impression that because of that she is considering Jesus inferior to the Father. What Mrs. Tinker does is no more than engaging herself in an exercise in intellectual dishonesty, quoting the Adventist pioneer out of due context, jumping to biased conclusions of what could be going on in Ellen White’s mind, which is simply speculation of the worst type.
If we study seriously Ellen White’s writings unbiasedly we will come to at least two conclusions: 1. Her understanding of the Trinity question was gradual; as she received more light on the issue, she expressed her opinion; 2. It can’t be proved that in any moment she had gone against the Trinity, but for some aspects of what doesn’t match with what the Bible says, among which the position of a certain SDA medical doctor (Kellogg) that was totally in contradiction with the SDA viewpoint, and a Methodist confessional document that said that “there is only one living, eternal and true God, without a body or parts”.
Dr. Jerry Moon, Ph. D., who is the chairman of the Church History Department of the Andrews University Theological Seminary, discusses that in a very illuminating essay that I would recommend to Mr. Ratzlaff and his associates, especially Mrs. Tinker, “Ellen White and the Trinity”, that can be found in Dr. Bacchiocchi's webpage
(http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_150.htm), he says:
“Perhaps her first statement that clearly disagreed with [Ellen White’s SDA leading contemporaries] . . . came in 1869 in a landmark chapter, ‘The Sufferings of Christ,’ where in the opening paragraph she asserted on the basis of Heb 1:3; Col 1:19; and Phil 2:6 that Christ in His pre-existence was ‘equal with God.’[2] Here it became evident that if no one else was listening, her husband was. Though James White’s early statements about the Trinity were uniformly negative,[3] by 1876 and 1877 he was following his wife’s lead.
“In an editorial comparison of the beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists with Seventh Day Baptists, James included the Trinity among the doctrines which ‘neither [SDAs nor SDBs] regard as tests of Christian character,’ that is, tests of fellowship. James now held that one could believe in the Trinity and still be an Adventist in good standing, because the Trinity was not a test of membership. ‘Adventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the trinitarian,’ he continued, ‘that we apprehend no trial [controversy] here.’[4] Clearly James was moving away from his early polemics against trinitarianism. A year later, 1877, in a Review article titled, ‘Christ is equal with God,’ he showed he was in sympathy with certain aspects of trinitarianism. ‘The inexplicable trinity that makes the godhead three in one and one in three is bad enough,” he wrote, “but ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse.’[5]
“In asserting Christ’s equality with the Father, James was echoing what his wife had written eight years earlier. For another evidence of her leading her colleagues, note that her assertions that Christ was uncreated[6] preceded by more than two decades Uriah Smith’s published acceptance of that concept”.[7]
The problem with Mrs. Tinker presentation of the matter is twofold: bias and lack of objectivity. Both are connected, because when someone acts under a prejudiced standpoint, objectivity is what cannot be found. Is Mrs. Tinker really interested in presenting a balanced view of Ellen G. White’s ministry and work? That I think is something we could hardly see in her writings, as a former Adventist who just wants to disparage not only Ellen White, but everything that is related to the teachings of the Church she now clearly despises.
But then, as her guru, Mr. Ratzlaff, is so ready to recommend books to better clarify his positions, how about he giving us a chance to also recommend books to clarify ours? I have another very special one to recommend to him and his editor-in-chief, as I will mention a little later.
The Real Role of a Prophet
Many problems related to Ellen White’s articulation of doctrinal material doesn’t take into account that the Adventist pioneer didn’t intend to act as the “final word” on these matters. Actually, the function of a prophet is not to set doctrinal matters, even though reference to doctrinal understanding of the leaders of the Church could be alluded to.
Paul sets the role of a prophet, writing to the Corinthians: “But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement, and comfort” (1 Cor. 14:3).
Once, Ellen White admitted frankly: “We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed.”[8]
Even though in occasions when the SDA Church faced serious challenges, as in certain crisis, like Dr. Kellogg’s pantheistic ideas, Ellen White stressed the importance of following her writings as a source of divine truth, she also stressed the importance of the Bible as our only source of truth and in many other places she even says that we should not use her writings to settle doctrinal issues. For instance, “The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God’s Word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word. . . . Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God.”[9]
Authorities of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, in response to requests for a clarification of the relationship between the Bible and EGW’s writings, affirmed that “The ministry and writings of Ellen White were a manifestation of the gift of prophecy, that her writings . . . are applicable and authoritative especially to Seventh-day Adventists.” But the statement also denies that “the writings of Ellen White function as the foundation and final authority of the Christian faith as does Scripture”.[10]
In fact, the 28 Fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists document makes clear that we believe that “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.”[11]
EGW’s Role in the Development of the SDA Church
Now, undoubtedly, Ellen White had a very important role and authority in the development of the SDA Church. As the author of More than a Prophet, Prof. Graeme Bradford, a book that I would highly recommend to our opponents, comments:
“There can be no doubt that she earned tremendous respect from her contemporaries in Adventism as they found her able to give advice and counsel that was so often correct and timely. When a person is in close contact with God over so long a period of time, as she was, their abilities in the area of wisdom and discernment can be sharpened. She herself was conscious of this when she wrote to her critics:
‘For the last forty-five years the Lord has been revealing to me the needs of His cause and the cases of individuals in every phase of experience, showing where and how they have failed to perfect Christian character. The history of hundreds of cases has been presented to me, and that which God approves, and that which He condemns, has been plainly set before me. . . .With the light communicated through the study of His word, with the special knowledge given of individual cases among His people under all circumstances and in every phase of experience, can I now be in the same ignorance, the same mental uncertainty and spiritual blindness, as at the beginning of this experience? Will my brethren say that Sister White has been so dull a scholar that her judgment in this direction is no better than before she entered Christ’s school, to be trained and disciplined for a special work? Am I no more intelligent in regard to the duties and perils of God’s people than are those before whom these things have never been presented? I would not dishonor my Maker by admitting that all this light, all the display of His mighty power in my work and experience, has been valueless, that it has not educated my judgment or better fitted me for His work.’
“She earned the respect of her contemporaries and, in turn, they gave her authority. She was established, in their minds, with prophetic authority because of her wise counsel. However, umpires in sport can have authority even when they make a wrong decision. Today we can see that, in hindsight, she did at times make some wrong calls. But that does not rob her of her prophetic authority anymore than Nathan lost his when he gave the wrong advice to David regarding the building of the temple. Or when John the Baptist got it wrong regarding the nature of the kingdom that Christ was setting up”.[12]
Ellen White didn’t claim infallibility, on the contrary, she asserts that she never claimed that, for “God only is infallible. His word is the truth, and in Him there is “no variableness, neither shadow of turning”.[13]
And Bradford adds, “Accepting her prophetic authority does not involve laying aside our mind or personal judgment. It means that we will listen carefully to what she has to say and, guided by the same Spirit who gave her a prophetic ministry, we will make valued judgments as to the wisdom of the counsel as Paul admonishes in 1 Corinthians 14: 29 and 1 Thessalonians 5: 21”.[14]
Well, let’s see what these texts say: “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge”; “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”.
Briefly on the Plagiarism Accusation
One of the accusations from critics of Ellen White is about her borrowing material from other authors, but in his book, Bradford shows that borrowing from other sources was a common practice in the nineteenth century, which was demonstrated through wide documentation by an independent consultant, Vincent Ramik, a copyright-law specialist. He researched the legal aspects of her use of other writers and came to the conclusion in his report that there would have been no legal case against her in her day, and that he, particularly, had his life changed forever by reading her books.
As Bacchiocchi clarifies additionally, “She used historical sources, not to approve or correct them, but to teach the way of salvation. She never claimed to be an authority on history or theology. In fact, she asked for help both in gathering the information and in correcting any inaccuracies”.
And he says further: “. . . she makes no attempt to exegete the text [of Col. 2:14, that he discusses giving a different interpretation from Ellen White’s]. The reason is simple. As Prof. Bradford’s chapter explains, she never claimed to be an exegete. She uses Bible texts homiletically to proclaim religious truths, not exegetically to explain their meaning.
“The recognition of this fact has led to a gradual acceptance of new historical and biblical interpretations. For example, today, I do not know of any scholar who uses Colossians 2:14 to teach the termination of the ceremonial law at the Cross. The reason is simple. They recognize that this is not what the text is talking about. There are plenty of other texts that can be used to support such teaching.
“This positive development gives me the courage to continue my ministry of Biblical research. It is my conviction that Adventists are committed to search for truth. To use Ellen White to stifle any new investigation of Bible teachings run contrary to her clear teachings, as Prof. Bradford shows. It is this commitment that ultimately allows our church to grow in the understanding and experience of Bible truths”.[15]
Notes
1. Proclamation, May/June issue, pp. 11, 12.
2. Ellen G. White, “Testimony 17 (1869),” in Testimonies for the Church, 9 vols. (1855-1909; reprint Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1948), 2:200; cf. “The Son of God was in the form of God, and he thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (E. G. White, Spirit of Prophecy [1877], 2:10).
3.”To assert that the sayings of the Son and his apostles are the commandments of the Father, is as wide from the truth as the old Trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and eternal God” (James White, “The Faith of Jesus,” Review and Herald, Aug 5, 1852, p. 52).
4. James White, “The Two Bodies,” RH Oct. 12, 1876, 116; cf. Froom, Movement of Destiny, 178.
5. James White, “Christ Equal with God,” Review and Herald, Nov. 29, 1877, p. 72.
6. Ellen G. White, “The First Advent of Christ,” Review and Herald, Dec. 17, 1872, par. 4; later published in Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2 (Battle Creek, MI: SDA Publishing Association, 1877), 9-10; cf. E. G. White, “Bible Study,” Review and Herald, Jan 11, 1881, par. 3.
7. Uriah Smith, Thoughts on the Revelation (Battle Creek, MI: SDA Publishing Association, 1865), 59, calls Christ the first created being; a view repudiated in Looking Unto Jesus (Battle Creek, MI: Review and Herald, 1898), 17, 12.
8. Counsels for Writers and Editors, p. 37.
9. Evangelism, p. 256.
10. “The Inspiration and Authority of the Ellen G. White Writings,” Adventist Review 159, December 23, 1982, p. 9.
11. Fundamental Beliefs, No. 1.
12. Quoted in Elder Samuele Bacchiocchi’s, “Endtime Issue Newsletter”, # 151 (electronic e-mail messages).
13. Selected Messages, Liv I, p. 37.
14. See note 12.
15. In Samuele Bacchiocchi’s Editorial Comment on the discussion “Ellen White and the Bible”, Endtime Issues Newsletter, # 150.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#134528 - 07/13/07 08:59 PM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: A_G_Brito]
|
Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 7677
Loc: CA
|
“. . . she makes no attempt to exegete the text [of Col. 2:14, that he discusses giving a different interpretation from Ellen White’s]. The reason is simple. As Prof. Bradford’s chapter explains, she never claimed to be an exegete. She uses Bible texts homiletically to proclaim religious truths, not exegetically to explain their meaning. Prophets rarely get their information from exegeting Bible texts. God gives them dreams and visions. Daniel was also not an exegete and neither was Paul an exegete by modern standards. Even by following the most careful techniques of exegesis, one would never get the insights into the meaning of the texts that Paul saw by the Holy Spirit and through the visions God gave him. So we ought not to be surprised that Ellen White was not an exegete. How many "great scholars" come up with the wrong meaning of the a text through their exegesis? Thousands. For instance, look at the books written by scholars who believe in the doctrine of the immorality of the wicked or in the secret rapture. They often support their false interpretations on the basis of what they call exegesis. (It's irrelevent that usually these false ideas are the result of eisegesis rather than true exegesis. The point I am making is simply that people often arrive at, or support, their false ideas by the use of exegesis.) While true exegesis can be helpful and is certainly needed, the most important things in studying the Bible are allowing our minds to be illuminated by the Holy Spirit and having a teachable attitude. Indeed, there is more truth to be learned by prayerfully studying the writings of one genuine prophet of God than there is in the reading of 10,000 books by uninspired exegetes.
Edited by John317 (07/13/07 09:23 PM)
_________________________
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
|
|
|
|
|
#134574 - 07/13/07 11:49 PM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: John317]
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
Very good points, John317.
Have a great Sabbath.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#134839 - 07/15/07 06:39 AM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: A_G_Brito]
|
Registered: 06/14/03
Posts: 4057
Loc: Western United States
|
Very good points, John317.
Have a great Sabbath. One of the greatest detriments to the introduction of the love of God into the lives of prospective new believers is to advance the idea that "our theology is the right theology as compared to this other person's theology". As I understand the Scriptures we are saved by the faith of Jesus. That and that alone is without equivocation irregardless of the so-called preeminence of any individual who claims to be more advanced in the things of God. "I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody." 2 Corinthians 12:11 NASB "Love never fails [never fades out or becomes obsolete or comes to an end]. As for prophecy the gift of interpreting the divine will and purpose), it will be fulfilled and pass away; as for tongues, they will be destroyed and cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away [it will lose its value and be superseded by truth].
For our knowledge is fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect), and our prophecy (our teaching) is fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect).
But when the complete and perfect (total) comes, the incomplete and imperfect will vanish away (become antiquated, void, and superseded)." 1 Cor 13:8-10 AMP parenthesis and brackets theirs LHC "And on the basis of faith in His name, it is the name of Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you see and know; and the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all."Acts 3:16 NASB Regards!! 
_________________________
Lift Jesus up!!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#134923 - 07/16/07 01:45 AM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: John317]
|
Registered: 07/03/02
Posts: 1279
Loc: NSW Australia
|
Thousands. For instance, look at the books written by scholars who believe in the doctrine of the immorality of the wicked or in the secret rapture.
Was this a typo? I have no problem with believing in the immorality of the wicked. But if you meant the immortality of the wicked I would definitely agree with you. Graeme
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#134989 - 07/16/07 07:36 PM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: Planey]
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
Well, let's continue with our discussions. And our question that really puts things into perspective on the question of Old/New Alliance was not answered, as it becomes more and more evident that the equation
NEW COVENANT = NEW LAW
cannot be demonstrated. Then, let's offer the CORRECT ANSWER in three basic stages. In the face of them the objector has only two options: a) to accept them as CORRECT; b) to refute them with really convincing arguments. To ignore them is to admit that nothing is left to be said regarding the question, thus it being admitted as CORRECT.
First, let's see again the question that was submitted to Mrs. Tinker, a 10-day deadline set for her to answer (which was extended for another 10 days) and we never got any answers. Thus, as promised, we post below the CORRECT ANSWER for said question, that really puts all this question of OLD/COVENANT/NEW COVENANT into due perspectives, as far as the Sabbath-Sunday-Nodayism/Anydayism/Everydayism is concerned:
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 non-obligatory 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.
Correct answer to the question on the passage from the Old to the New Covenant:
* It is not written anywhere in the Bible that in the passage of the Old to the New Alliance, when God promises to write His laws in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of this New Concert [New Testament] (which is called “My laws” in Hebrews 8:6-10, in a repetition of the promise already made to Israel before, in Jer. 31:31-33) He would leave out the Sabbath commandment; would keep the principle but transferring the sanctity of the seventh-day Sabbath to the first day of the week, or would maintain the principle, but turning it into “an optional rule”, vacant, volunteer and variable, with the flexibility to be adjusted according to the interests to of the believer (or of his/her employer).
Let us see in details each one of these three aspects:
a) Why would God abolish the principle of the day of rest?
Even the atheists and materialists recognize the necessity of a regular rest day for good health. If somebody doubts this, just work non-stop every day of the week, for some months, only stopping at night to rest, and see how his/her nervous system will be negatively affected. God wisely joined this principle of regular physical and mental rest with a special time that served to memorialize His work as Creator “of heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water” (as highlighted by one of the three symbolic angels proclaiming a final warning message to the world--Rev. 14:7), a specific moment in which man has time to worship Him without being encumbered by secular activities (see Isa. 58:13, 14).
This aspect of God having His special day of worship is not a norm created by the Jews or the Adventists, but is recognized as necessary, biblically stipulated, being the Sabbath principle derived from the Creation of the world FOR CENTURIES in confessional documents and instructional works of Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationals, Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans and other Christians.
Some allege that the Sabbath religious day of rest is no more necessary because Jesus is their “rest”, with the salvation by grace excusing them from such rule. This is a totally perverted reasoning, for all the great acts of God and of His servants have been marked by memorial landmarks. The creation of the world was signaled with the “landmark” of the Sabbath--the memorial of the creation; man's challenge to God in the construction of the Babel tower was signaled by the divine intervention with the resulting confusion of their languages; the rainbow signals the divine promise that the Earth would not be destroyed by a flood again; the exodus from Egypt is signaled by the Passover; the passage through the dried Jordan was signaled by a stone monument, servants of God had always marked crisis moments of their lives with the building of altars, the sacrifice of Christ is celebrated regularly by the Communion Supper, and so forth.
Now, we can see the inconsistency of inconsistencies: we have the greatest of the events at individual and collective level, that is salvation in Christ, and this is signaled by NOT CELEBRATING ANY DAY to God! In other words, the believer is released from dedicating to God a day of rest and worship so that he/she demonstrate salvation obtained in Christ! That doesn't make any sense, does it?! Besides, it has no Bible backing. So much so that the holy women, so dedicated to the Lord, who had certainly known this “salvation rest”, found no excuses to not keeping the Sabbath “according to the commandment” after the death of Christ (Luke 23:56). This text is very interesting as it demonstrates that they: a) knew nothing about whoever accepts salvation in Christ will be excused of keeping one of the Decalogue's commandments as a symbol of that; b) had not learned with Christ Himself about any reduction of the importance of Sabbath keeping, let alone that salvation was an excuse to not keep the 4th commandment of God's law.
Moreover, if Israel had not failed in reaching the spiritual rest, as discussed in Hebrews 3 and 4, the nation would not, because of that, get rid of the Sabbath, as can be seen in the “hall of fame” of the many heroes of the faith”, in Hebrews 11. They certainly had found this “rest” of salvation individually, in the face of the national failure, but that was no excuse for their neglecting the Sabbath keeping. David said, “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart” (Psa. 40:8). That should be the experience of the entire nation.
Actually it makes no sense or there is no reason, nor Biblical basis, that God annulled the commandment that Jesus declared to have been established “for man”. And the text doesn't say “the Jewish man”, as the second part of the text of Mar. 2:27 makes clear. Thus, to be consistent with the reasoning of some, He should have said, “The Sabbath was made for the Jewish man, not the Jewish man for the Sabbath”. That cannot be, because God created “man”. The fact that later on he became Jew, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, American, Brazilian is due to very different circumstances. Besides, the original word for “man” in Mar. 2:27 is anthropós, the same that is used in the commentary of Christ about the man-anthropós who leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife (Mat. 19:5, 6). And is marriage, by any chance, something only for Jews?
[To be concluded in the next frame]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#134990 - 07/16/07 07:38 PM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: A_G_Brito]
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
[Conclusion of previous frame]
b) Was there a transfer of the sanctity of the seventh to the first day of the week?
This hypothesis has been more and more abandoned by Protestant Christianity, although in the past it was an argument often used. It seems that more and more Christians have been convinced that there is no Biblical basis for the hypothesis that the apostles decided, from the Resurrection event, to change the day of observance from the seventh to the first day of the week. The texts that used to be quoted for “proving” that are not even employed any more, like Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:2. On the contrary, they are is a embarrassment for those who still stick to such interpretative tradition, for they show, rather, that the New Testament authors considered the “first day of the week” as just a common weekday, according to the Jewish counting of time, with no indication that Sunday had the least special character for them. In the Greek original, we find mia twn sabbatwn, for “first day of the week”, which literally is “the first from the Sabbath”.
If Jesus wished the day of His resurrection to become a memorial day of rest and worship, He would have capitalized on the day of His resurrection to establish such a memorial. It is important to note that divine institutions like the Sabbath, baptism, Lord's Supper, all trace their origin to a divine act that established them. But on the day of His resurrection Christ performed no act to institute a memorial of His resurrection.
If we think it through, both Christ’s death and resurrection are equally important events, foundational to the Christian faith. Both could deserve a special day for their celebration. If the Resurrection was supposed to be celebrated regularly on a special day, given its importance, why not the Savior’s death? So, we have two exceptional historical landmarks for a Christian—the death and the resurrection of Christ. Which would deserve a memorial day? Possibly both, but the Scriptures don’t establish that. Nothing is implied that any change occurred in the text of the divine law because of any of these events.
If Jesus intended to memorialize the day of His Resurrection, most likely He would have told the women and the disciples when He arose: “Come apart and celebrate My Resurrection!” Instead He told them, “Go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee” (Matt 28:10), and to the disciples, “Go . . . make disciples . . . baptizing them” (Matt 28:19). None of the utterances of the risen Savior reveal any intention to memorialize His Resurrection by making Sunday the new day of rest and worship.
The reason is that our Savior wanted His followers to view His Resurrection as an existential reality to be experienced daily by living victoriously by the power of His Resurrection, rather than a liturgical/religious event to be celebrated on Sunday. Paul expressed the hope to “know him and the power of his resurrection” (Phil 3:10), but he never mentions his desire to celebrate Christ's Resurrection on Sunday or Easter-Sunday.
c) Was there a transformation of the principle of the day of rest into a vacant, volunteer, variable day that can adjust to the interests of the believer (or his/her employer)?
The Bible says that God is a God of order, not of confusion. It does not make any sense that the “day of the Lord” be adjusted to human interests, whatever they are. If the Church ends up accepting what society determines in this point, it will be opening the floodgates for the invasion of many other things on this line, and is not that exactly what we have been witnessing along the time?
More and more the Church is deprived of the characteristic of “light of the world” and “salt of the Earth”, disdaining clear precepts of the Word of God. Thus, it keeps adapting itself to that in which the world believes as being its norm. From that we have the acceptance of evolution as a valid explanation for the creation of the world, the unisex marriages, with the new theological language of “inclusion”, by which homosexuals must be fully accepted in the life of the Church, even occupying leadership positions, as has been already defined by the American Anglicans with the nomination of a gay bishop, and certain Churches having in their ranks officials openly declaring to be homosexuals and lesbians.
Since Jesus said that “the Sabbath was made for man”--for its physical, mental and spiritual benefit--and the present man continues having the same necessities in these three areas, there is no justification for anyone to be excused from a principle that only aims at his well being. More than ever, we need the benefits that God propitiates with the Sabbath observance, one day that God said that we must see as “delightful” (Isa. 58:13, 14), not as a “burden”.
Here is how Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi concludes his series of Sabbath Enrichment Seminars:
Do you know something? The predominant reason presented in the earliest Christian documents for the observance of Sunday, from the first five centuries, is this, as Jerome declares: “We observe the day of the Sun because the light was created in the first day of the Creation”. Can you see the connection between the Sun, generator of life, and the creation of the light in the first day of the week? Thus you can see how the Christians adopted the day of the Sun as a new day of worship. They were scratching their heads to find some Biblical reason, and thus, found this reason in the history of the Creation, that in the first day the light was created, and this would be a good reason to explain why to observe Sunday. Now, obviously this reason was abandoned a long time ago.
To summarize everything, dear Christian friends, let me tell you that the conclusion that emerged from years of dedicated research, in the excellent library of the Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome, is this: that the historical change of the Sabbath to Sunday did not occur by authority of Christ, nor the authority of the apostles, nor because of a desire to honor the Resurrection of Jesus Christ in the first day of the week. The process all started approximately a century after the death of Jesus. As I said earlier, it was during the reign of Emperor Hadrian, approximately in 135 AD, and it appeared as a result of an interaction of social, political, religious and heathen factors, which also gave origin to the celebration of Christmas on December 25.
The conclusion that emerged from my entire research is that when this change took place, it was not about a mere change of names, Sabbath to Sunday, nor a change of numbers, of the seventh to the first day, but a change of meaning, a change of authority and a change of experience.
Yes, it was the change of a 24-hour day that God granted us to express commitment to Him, concern towards our fellow beings, into one day that was chosen to demonstrate disdain for the Jews, not a commitment towards God. Yes, actually, it was a change of one day that God granted us to help us experience His presence and peace in our lives into a day that became occasion for many people to look for pleasure and profit.
To wrap up everything, it was a change from a “holy day” to a “holiday”. And this change has greatly affected the quality of the Christian life of millions of people along the centuries, people that have been deprived from the physical, moral and spiritual renewal that the Sabbath has the objective of proclaiming.
Dear friends and brethren, this research experience convinced me fully that if there was ever a time when we need the renewal, relief and realignment of the Sabbath, this time is today! We live at a time when people are suffering all the types of crisis--marital crisis, identity crisis, racial crisis, crises generated by tension, inquietude, competition.
In this Seminary of the Lord's Day we considered together how the Sabbath helps us, through the Savior, to find again a divine remedy for some of these crises.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
Be sure to click on the free shipping at the checkout else you get charged.
|
|
|
12 Registered (Bravus, Ilovenaomi22, John317, Nan, Redwood, Robert, Suzanne Sutton, 5 invisible),
40
Guests and
15
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
2866 Members
136 Forums
16900 Topics
158073 Posts
Max Online: 1237 @ 04/20/07 08:43 PM
|
|
To become a full member, and view more forums.
Please contact Stan, if you live in a developing Country or have other financial hardships, for a scholarship.
This income helps pay for hosting, advertising, domain names, software support etc etc
IF YOUR COUNTRY IS NOT LISTED OR IF YOU LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES
- - - - - - - - - - -
IF YOU LIVE IN NEW ZEALAND
- - - - - - - - - - -
IF YOU LIVE IN AUSTRALIA
- - - - - - - - - - -
IF YOU LIVE IN GREAT BRITAIN
- - - - - - - - - - -
IF YOU LIVE IN EUROPE
- - - - - - - - - - -
LIVE IN MEXICO
* * * NEW * * * NEW * * * NEW * * *
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index