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 1 of 2

Topic Options

Rate This Topic

#137739 - 08/14/07 04:00 AM Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 149	CD Recorded Lecture: Ratzlaff’s “Simple Gospel” Message—An Exercise in Bible Twisting During the “Former Adventist Weekend”, in Redlands, Cal., on Feb. 17, 2007, Mr. Ratzlaff presented the key lecture on the “Astonishing Revelations” of the Gospel, or all the things that a Christian should find in the Bible in order to obtain salvation. According to his view of the “simple gospel”, that would exclude those “inconvenient” commandments that supposedly cause barrier, or are a “separation wall”, to someone to come to the truth. In that sense he quotes Ephesians 2:14, 15: “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace”. Now, it’s really amazing how a man, who is a pastor and even claims to be well knowledgeable of the Greek language, forgets that the “law of commandments” mentioned by Paul isn’t limited to the Sabbath and the dietary laws! In his interpretation of the quoted verse he clearly is thinking of the Ten Commandments and the dietary rules (or other rituals and ceremonies of Israel), but overlooks the fact that in his interpretation the mentioned “law of commandments” would deal also with such precepts as “ye shall not kill”, “ye shall not commit adultery”, “honor thy father and thy mother”. . . Why doesn’t he consider these contents of the “law of commandments” as also causing barrier to impede someone to accept the gospel? So, we can see how discriminatory is his theology. At a certain point he says in rather triumphalistic tones: “Woe to those who stand in the way of the simple gospel”. But his “simple gospel” is a tremendous distortion of the Bible message, as we have already seen in many ways, and will see some more evidence of that in this article. Now, speaking of “woe to. . .” I think he should pay attention to what Peter says also in 2a. Pet. 3:15-17, which deals with woe to those who distort the Bible message: “. . . our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in t all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people. Distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you many not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position”. – NIV. His lecture is divided into eight segments, each with a supposed “astonishing revelation” for those who examine carefully their Bibles. His key-text is Acts 10 that reports the vision Peter had of the sheet coming from heaven and bringing all sorts of animals and creeping creature, with the order coming from heaven to kill and eat. Commenting briefly on Peter’s resistance to eat unclean foods, Mr. Ratzlaff argues that he acted like that because of his attachment to the Torah. That is funny, because he forgets a simple detail: PETER WAS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CHRISTIAN LEADERS AT THE TIME. What attachment to the Torah was that?! Other day someone else said in a discussion group that Peter was Christian, but still hadn’t learned all the truth regarding the end of these laws. Well, that happened almost 20 years after the death of Christ, and learning the end of the supposedly ceremonial dietary laws, something that dealt with food, which is used in the day-to-day of anyone’s life, wouldn’t take more than five minutes, if that was the case. Any Christian instructor simply would have explained to him that those laws ended because it fulfilled their antitypical features, which were this, this, this and that. Was Peter such a slow learner?! I don’t think so. . . Now, Mr. Ratzlaff recognizes that the vision had to do with a change of attitude on the part of the Apostle—to stop discriminating against the gentiles and go preach to them. That is all that there is in the vision, but he tries to stretch it to also include the “amazing revelation” that God really abolished the dietary rules. They would be part of these “commandments” that had to give way to a new mentality, since they would be detrimental to the attraction of gentiles to the gospel. At the end of his conference he illustrates his point remembering an episode when he was a young pastor, when a man had lost his wife and he contacted him for making arrangements for the funeral. As he was invited by this man to eat in a restaurant, he says his host ate lobster, drank wine in his company, while he just ate vegetable and drank soda. Now he thinks that his attitude was not a good one, for after the funeral ceremony, as he invited this man to attend church, but he didn’t comply. So, according to him, his attitude of not eating the same food as the man, or not drinking the same beverage as he did, was a “stumbling block”, detrimental to attract the man to the church! Why! According to this tortuous reasoning, if the man offered him a cigarette to smoke, he should accept it promptly. And how about if the man invited him to accompany him to visit the red-light district in town?! Should he, diplomatically, in order to later have him accepting his invitation to attend church, follow this man’s suggestions? Well, what he should have done was to take advantage of the situation and give the man some good and tactful lessons on what God has to offer us in terms of advantage in following the regimen He set for man, whose good fruits we can see publicized by the press, with so many mentions to Seventh-day Adventists as having healthier, longer lives. This has been featured in such publications as Time and Prevention and the National Geographic magazines, even TV stories, as health researchers have confirmed the “Adventist Advantage” on their philosophy of life, including vegetarianism. By the way, there are Evangelical vegetarians, like the “Christian Vegetarian Association” or the “Early Christian Vegetarians” who highlight mostly the humanitarian aspect of this attitude—mercy towards animals. Additionally to the health aspects of eating just vegetables, doesn’t it seem so selfish to sacrifice these creatures of God just to satisfy man’s appetite, when there are so many options in the green plants field for us to be well and nutritiously fed? After all, as God just created one wife for man at the beginning, so excluding the “polygamy” advantage, He also gave no meat and killing of animals for man in the ideal regime of Eden. Made sense then, why it doesn’t make sense now, especially as in the New Earth there will be no meat eating? Well, we have our special studies about these points, but since Mr. Ratzlaff insists in quoting texts totally out of its context, like Genesis 9:3, which he understands as God contradictorily authorizing the eating of all types of meat, even after recently defining to Noah that there were clean and unclean ones to enter the ark, let’s examine this matter more carefully. In our main study, we present four “difficulties” for every one of the classical arguments of the adherents of the “eat-it-all” philosophy. That is an attempt to lead them to see that we don’t acquire Bible knowledge merely quoting texts, without any commitment with historical and literary context, as well as neglecting to check the general tenor of the Bible teaching on the subject. So, additionally, let’s ask 10 questions to Mr. Ratzlaff regarding the specific text of Genesis 9:3, even though he never gave us any answer to any of the questions that we submitted to him before:
Top

#137740 - 08/14/07 04:01 AM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 149	The Question of Clean/Unclean Animals During the Flood and its Aftermath Genesis 9:3: One Difficulty Resolved, 10 Still To Be Genesis 9:1-3: “Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything’”. – NIV. The difficulty presented in these words is easily overcome when we take the Bible globally. The big problem of some false interpretations is always the undue segmentation of God’s Word, taking in isolation verses, clauses or even independent words to fit one’s presuppositions and prejudices, thus twisting the whole thought of the sacred author. For example, the text says that all the beasts of the Earth would fear man. However, should we understand that in absolute terms? How about bears, leopards, lions, hippopotamus, crocodiles, sharks, animals man flees from, and with good reasons? It is certainly a serious risk to face such animals in their natural state. Will be food for you. God permitted man to eat meat due to the total destruction of the vegetation during the Flood. In the face of the emergency, man had permission to kill animals to eat. But this permission wasn’t certainly without restrictions. The phrase “all that moves upon the Earth” clearly excludes to eat cadavers of animals found dead by other beasts, as was later specifically recorded in the mosaic law (Exo. 22: 31; Lev. 22: 8). Even though the distinction of clean and unclean animals is not shown here, that doesn’t mean that the rule was unknown by Noah, as can be seen through Gen. 7:2 and 8:20. Now, let’s remember that “everything . . . that moves” would include man himself! If the “everything” is to be taken too literally, wouldn’t that allow cannibalism among those early inhabitants of the planet? Green plants. This involves the novelty of the permission to eat meat, besides green plants, which originally had been destined for man’s feeding (Gen . 1:29). But we should remember that although God gave man all green plants to eat, that is also limited to those non-poisonous ones. How about someone taking this order in absolute terms to eat “wild vine”? That would be a deadly attitude (see 2 Kings 4:39, 40). So, this “all” has its limitations. . . Man had also to discriminate between healthy and unhealthy food in the fields. . . Meet that has its lifeblood. The prohibition applies to eating meat with blood, which was the costume of certain tribes in the past. This prohibition is an interesting counterpoint to the previous order. Now, the “eat-it-all” adherents understand that God changed His mind regarding discriminating what to eat and not to eat (now liberating everything for man’s consumption after having referred to the distinction of clean and unclean animals to Noah, later on reversing the order to set discriminatory rules on that again to Moses—a rather voluble God that doesn’t seem to fit the Bible picture of a God that “doesn’t change”. . .). Among other things, this prohibition was a safeguard against cruelty towards animals and a reminder of the sacrifice of animals (and always clean ones), in which the blood, as life bearer, was considered sacred. Due to certain attachments to blood as a religious item in heathenism, besides other reasons not made clear (probably the fact that part of the blood itself is ‘unclean’, carrying bad toxins—before being oxygenated by the lungs), it was irrevocably prohibited to eat meat with blood. The apostles considered that this prohibition was still in force in the Christian age, as can be seen in the decision of what to recommend to the gentile Christians as things to abstain from (Acts 15: 20, 29). [Adapted from the SDA Bible Commentary, in Spanish]. And a final consideration: Moses’ writings don’t reflect a description of the diary journal type, being prepared as the events came to pass. He wrote on the scrolls at one time, and all was transmitted to the people jointly. There was not a report on Gen. 9:3 in a remote time, then a law about not feeding on dead animals found in the fields in another later period. Specialists consider 1,450 BC as date to the Pentateuch writings, thus the people heard the reports all together and connected the narrated facts of ancient times with the divine instructions to them, which were consistent with the previous instructions. Besides, if the clean animals were taken sevenfold to the ark, in comparison to the unclean ones, and that was just because of serving to sacrifice, the fact is that we don’t see so many sacrifices to justify that much higher number of clean animals. It shows that they were supposed to be used for food, thus being intensely used and having to count with greater numbers for the supply not to become too scarce, in contrast to the animals that were not supposed to be eaten and that could multiply freely in the wild, since they were not supposed to be killed by man for food. Well, since the Gen. 9:3 difficulty was resolved, how about our objecting friends to resolve these 10 below? 1 – Why did God classify the animals as clean and unclean as early as in the Flood episode (Gen. 7:2)? Did He simply decide arbitrarily that certain types of animals should be shunned by His people, without no logical and practical reason for that? 2 – If said division aimed at sacrifices, why did God sent to the ark seven times more clean animals than unclean ones, when nothing indicates that the number of sacrifices were so frequent and so numerous? 3 – Why did God only accept clean animals for sacrifice? [A tip: See 1 Cor. 9:13]. 4 – Being a divine principle that we should glorify God with what we eat or drink (1 Cor. 10:31), how could unclean meats—that would be excluded from the sacrifices (since they certainly were not fit for that purpose)—serve to glorify God soon after the Flood? 5 – Why were the restrictions regarding the consumption of blood instituted when God authorized the consumption of meat (Gen. 9:4, 5)? Shouldn’t full freedom prevail for man to eat whatever he wanted? 6 – How can it be proven that the order to eat “everything . . . that moves” included the unclean animals, since Noah had been notified of the division of clean and unclean animals (Gen. 7:2, 3), and even the manner as the text is written gives the clear impression that such division was already known by the patriarch, not being something new to him? 7 – How do you prove that the order for man to eat “everything . . . that moves” included unclean animals, since later on the same author of Genesis, Moses, explains in Exo. 22:31 the meaning of such order, as being prohibited to eat meat that have been “torn by wild beasts” in Exo. 22:31, i.e., they should eat only animals that were alive, not those found dead? 8 – What was the advantage for humanity for God to allow men to feed freely from all kinds of animals, such as rats, raven, cobras and lizards, since today it is known that the consumption of some of them, as in the case of Africans, bring terrible diseases, such as AIDS, ebola fever and the bubonic plague, transmitted by rats, which caused the death of millions of people in Europe during the Middle Ages? 9 –– Even though the divine order for Noah to feed on animals is contrasted with the previous order for man to feed on plants (Gen. 1:29), where is it said that as God spoke on “green plants” allowed for man’s consumption (Gen. 9:3), that excluded those that are poisonous for the human being? 10 – How would Moses explain himself to the people of Israel, as they heard the reading of his Genesis text, being also aware that the animals found dead were not to be eaten? Wouldn’t they see the contradiction of this rule with Genesis 9:3, if they understood that God allowed Noah to eat “everything . . . that moves”? Wouldn’t they think that God was somewhat voluble, for He treats with Noah on clean and unclean animals, including what regards to worship to Him (sacrifices only with clean animals), then gives orders to ignore that classification, especially when the collection of books with instructions to Israel was gathered in just one time (specialists attribute it to 1.450 BC)?
Top

#137777 - 08/14/07 05:52 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 149	Please, consider that questions 9 and 10 were slightly reformulated.
Top

#137784 - 08/14/07 06:40 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
melvin mccarty Registered: 05/18/02 Posts: 617 Loc: B,C.	Quote "God permitted man to eat meat due to the total destruction of vegetation" I have heard about this red herring before! So when the cow came out of the ark what did she eat? Couldn't Noah have taken an extra sack of beans into the ark to begin with? Should stop and think a minute before propogating nonsense! mel
Top

#137800 - 08/14/07 07:42 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: melvin mccarty]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 149	Were the supplies of food that Noah brought along in the ark unlimited? As far as I know, only Jesus performed the miracle of multiplication of food. Anyway, for further discussions on this subject of dietary laws, check the articles that I posted in another section, which can be reached by the following link: http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=137799#Post137799 See especially the subjects, "An Assessment of the Arguments Presented By the Adherents of 'Total Freedom' From the Bible’s Dietary Laws" and, "Divine Manual For the Operation of the Human Machine".
Top

#137815 - 08/14/07 11:00 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
melvin mccarty Registered: 05/18/02 Posts: 617 Loc: B,C.	So what did the cows and horses eat when they came out of the ark ? mel
Top

#137855 - 08/15/07 08:28 AM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: melvin mccarty]
melvin mccarty Registered: 05/18/02 Posts: 617 Loc: B,C.	Looks like I will have to answer my own question! (smile). Seems likely they ate grass huh and there could easily have been some veggies for Noah and his crew. No there was no crises for food spoken of but there is actually a reason given if you want to check EGW. And the extra "clean animals" were needed for sacrifices I was raised a vegetarian and have no axe to grind here. I just dont like to see people jumping to conclusions and then treating them as facts. mel
Top

#137924 - 08/15/07 11:38 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: melvin mccarty]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 149	I didn't deny that Noah had a supply of food. The cows that concern you so much would be well served, okay? On the other hand, how about having a word of appreciation and recognition for the good things that I also said? To just come with condemnation and criticism seems very "comfortable", but is not constructive at all. And what I said about the lack of vegetation after the Flood was based on the SDA Bible Commentary, which takes EGW seriously.
Top

#137945 - 08/16/07 03:10 AM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
melvin mccarty Registered: 05/18/02 Posts: 617 Loc: B,C.	Ok could we just talk about it then. I'm sorry if I came on too strong there. Forget the cows. There were two elephants. They would need more food than all eight people. If food was provided for the elephants without going carnivorus it would be reasonable that God could have provided for the eight people dont you think? Also if it was actually an emergency thing it would only last until they could find some veggies. No I think if you check a bit you will find that Ellen says something like it was to shorten their lives that they were "permitted" not "commanded" to eat flesh. The Scripture also speaks of Noah sacrificing the "clean" animals. So the arguement made re clean/unclean is not valid as stated. But here again there is not complete information given so it behooves us to be less than dogmatic about it. mel
Top

#138020 - 08/16/07 11:10 PM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 149	I think there is some misunderstanding because I speak of "permission" that God gave for Noah and his folks to eat meat, not "order". Then, in the final questionnaire, I really mention "order", but that is implied the understanding of those who are being questioned. Then, I altered in another Forum (where I can change freely the text, which doesn't happen here), some of the language of the questionnaire to better express what I had in mind. For example, for question 7 I rephrased it to say, "How do you prove that the supposed order for man to eat “everything . . . that moves” included unclean animals, since later on the same author of Genesis, Moses, explains in Exo. 22:31 the . . ." Seems better now?
Top