Stories of FAITH or cONfUsIOn?

Well, finally I got the last issue of the Proclamation! magazine by regular mail. I wonder whether that was because of my mention that we had probably been removed from the mailing list, for we got it (July/August) in the first week of September, after our articles (which are sent to Mr. Ratzlaff and his staff) commenting on his article on the “law written on the heart”.

Anyway, since we already commented on the key article analyzing the poor articulation of the author, Mr. Dale Ratzlaff, of “The Law Written on the Heart” theme, I add that the emphasis of the remainder of this edition is the same superficial “Jesus sloganeering”, with little variation. The name of Jesus Christ is associated with “freedom”, but if one reads carefully the “fine print”, that “freedom” is simply the well-known and suspicious get-rid-of-the-Sabbath-and-dietary-rules theology. Yes, for the different authors don’t show any preoccupation with any of the other nine commandments of the Decalogue.

The first article presents one of the supposed “Stories of Faith”, or “testimonies” of ex-SDA’s, where former Adventist pastor Jess Dixon says that what was instrumental for him to leave the SDA Church was the Holy Spirit leading him to purchase a copy of Martin Luther’s commentary on Romans. That is funny, for I even quoted a couple of selections of, precisely, Luther’s commentary on Romans regarding two expressions which are so much twisted by these “new covenant” Christians: “to be under the law” and “to be free from the law”. Martin Luther doesn’t absolutely agree with their usual interpretation of these verses, in the sense of a Christian getting rid of the Ten Commandments as a rule of life. On the contrary, he says that the law was not abolished. I wonder how Mr. Dixon missed this point, but I would recommend that he rereads how Luther’s comments Romans chaps. 6 and 7!

Geoffrey Drew, on a different “story of faith”, says at one point: “There is only one reason to leave [which he means the Seventh-day Adventist Church]: Jesus”. The bottom line paragraph of his discourse is:

“The best and most profound reason to leave Adventism is Jesus Christ. The reason any of us should leave the Adventist Church is to run towards Jesus. Everything inside Adventism confounds and confuses our walk with Christ. This statement is not merely and arguments; it is a fact. It was the task of the apostle Paul to the churches of Galatia, Philippi, Colossae, Ephesus, and everywhere in between to lead believers to Jesus and away from the old covenant Judaistic things. Like it or not, the Sabbath and food restrictions belonged to the old covenant and were coming to an end”.

Oh, what a stupid reasoning! Of course the Sabbath and food restrictions belonged to the old covenant, and who is denying that? What this gentleman forgets is that “ye shall not commit adultery”, “ye shall not kill”, “ye shall not take the name of God in vain”, “honor thy father and thy mother” ALSO BELONGED TO THE OLD COVENANT! Are these “Judaistic” things? Why such a clear discrimination against the “inconvenient” commandments of keeping a Sabbath day and following the dietary rules as “Judaistic” rules, but not all the others that belonged to the same law?

We have already discussed all that in previous studies, and again and again that same get-rid-of-the-Sabbath-and-dietary-rules theology springs up in article after article, with one of them (Chris Badenhorst) even speaking about “argument of silence” as something wrong to use, but being exactly what he does throughout his article titled “What are new covenant ethics? Are they in the Ten Commandments?”

He, of course, concludes that the answer is “no, it is not”. As we already know well, with this theory of his he goes against not only what the SDA’s teach, but against what has been the historical, classical, official position of the most representative Creeds, Confessions of Faith and Doctrinal Statements of the Protestant Christendom. So much so that right now we see the 10 Commandments Commission, made up of the most representative Evangelical-Protestant leadership in the US, working hard to have the 10 Commandments promoted as the basis of the American and world ethics!

Mr. Badenhorst pontificates at a certain point:

“To insist on observing the old covenant sign of the Sabbath would be tantamount to a denial of what God offers us in the New Testament Gospel. New covenant believers should come to terms with the fact that the old covenant Sabbath is NOT adequate to celebrate the new eschatological age of the Gospel and the Spirit that came with the new covenant. The old wineskins of the old covenant are not adequate to contain the new wine of the new covenant”.

Well, how about Hebrews 8:6-10, the most important text in the Bible to explain the passage of the old to the new covenant, which just says that God writes what is called “My laws” on the hearts of those who accept it? It doesn’t say “My NEW laws”, not even mentions “the law of Christ”, or “the law of faith”, or “the law of the Spirit”, or “the law of love”, but MY LAWS! Of course God’s laws are the same as the law of Christ, of faith, of the Spirit, of love.

Besides, we have stressed how the Adventist beliefs are caricatured by these folks, since we know very well the real meaning of Jesus Christ and the salvation only in Him, as topics, 9, 10 and 18 clearly define that for us. I have to say at this point that I don’t want to be under the skin of those who so dishonestly distort our teachings and sentiments with these strawmen of their fabrication on that day of reckoning (Matt. 12:36, 37)! Maybe the reason for that attitude is that the commandment that says, “ye shall not give false witness against thy neighbor” is also taught as “Judaistic”, or “abolished” by these masters of deceit.

They even quote Eph. 2:15 to give this impression—since it speaks of “law of commandments”. Bingo, that must refer to the 10 Commandments! But, then, contradictorily they come up with the “Christian ethics” theory, which includes NINE of the supposedly totally abolished “law of commandments”! Then they come up with that foolish argument that only nine commandment of the Decalogue are repeated in the New Testament, excluding the one that deals with the Sabbath. Well, that is exactly an “argument of silence”!

There is a false reasoning that a kind of “revalidation” of each one of them occurs, when Paul, John, James refer to any of the commandments, which belonged to the “tables of stones”. I discussed that in an article entitled “10 Dilemmas of Those Who Deny That the 10 Commandments Are the Christian Rule of Conduct”, which I will put into English (the original is in my native Portuguese), but let’s see now just the 5th dilemma, that reads like this:

The fifth dilemma of those who hold the theory of abolition of the divine Decalogue is their evident contradiction and illogical reasoning about the “restoration of the commandments in the New Testament”.

If all the commandments were abolished on the cross, being later restored in the New Testament (but for the 4th), let’s imagine an incredible situation that would emerge from this: The 5th commandment was discharged along with all the other moral and ceremonial rules when Jesus uttered the “It is finished”. Then, in the next minute, any child of a follower of Christ could kick his leg, insult and disobey freely him, since the 5th commandment was only “restored” when Paul remembered to refer it as he wrote to the Ephesians, and that by the year 58 BC (see Eph. 6:1-3)! And, even worst, the terms of the commandment “ye shall not kill”, was only reiterated by Paul in Romans 13:9, by the year 56 or 58 BC (as well as “ye shall not steal”, “ye shall not commit adultery”,“ye shall not covet. . .”).

In other words, for almost 30 years the children of the Christians did not have to respect their parents, for the 5th commandment is only restored after some three decades, and that only to the Ephesians. Many decades more passed by until reaching the entire Christian community so that all became aware of the necessity of the children to obey and respect their parents! Besides the Christians being allowed to kill one another, etc., during this period “without the law”. . . Does that make any sense?

Through that reasoning we can see the tremendous confusion these people who go against the “Thus saith the Lord” of the Scriptures delve into headlong.