Paul and fellow apostles are accused of all kinds of anti-Jewish actions and teachings, but never once are they accused of doing away with the Sabbath.
#2 If eternal torment is God’s punishment for sinners, and Jesus received that punishment on the cross, why is He not still suffering today?
John 3:16 says people without Christ will “perish”—not have eternal life in hell. According to 1 John 5:12, only those in Christ have eternal life—to spend anywhere, in heaven or in hell!
#3 Why do you condemn Adventism today for the mistaken things their pioneers did and taught, while letting the Protestant pioneers off the hook?
Luther taught horribly hateful things against the Jews that historians believe set the stage for the German Holocaust. The leading Reformers in Geneva killed Dr. Michael Servetus by burning him alive at the stake for heresy 27 October 1553—no Adventist leader has ever come close to doing that! Many Protestants murdered Anabaptists for their opposition to infant baptism. They also were co-participants in the infamous Thirty Years’ War of religion; SDA have engaged in religious disagreements, but nothing like that! Give us a break!
#4 If you believe that Jesus is your Sabbath so now you don’t have to keep the day holy, what do you say to somebody who says: “Jesus is my baptism—so now I don’t have to be baptized”?
Both are signs of entering Christ’s rest—click on the Sabbath tab to see more on this.
#5 How can you say that Adventist leaders are required to believe that Ellen G. White is an infallible authority over Scripture—or be quiet about it to save their careers?
People like Martin Weber have been teaching and write publicly and emphatically otherwise for nearly 30 years, getting their books published by the church and holding positions of denominational responsibility. Click on the Ellen White tab to see a sample of what Martin has been writing in official church publications since 1983.
At this time, comments will no longer be accepted. Click here to see why.
Comments
Ray Garton commented on 11-Aug-2009 08:25 AM Adventism is condemned today for the mistakes made by ONE pioneer -- Ellen G. White -- because the church still maintains that she was a prophet and ignores the deception and duplicity that surrounds her. She was NOT a prophet. Her failed prophecies, her uncredited use of the work of other writers (especially when she attributes that work to god himself), her outrageous hypocrisy (requiring her followers to do one thing while she did another), and the efforts to change or conceal some of her writings make this painfully obvious. Protestant pioneers are off the hook because there are churches in existence today holding them up as prophets whose writings are infallible interpretations of scripture and equal in weight to scripture, as the Seventh-day Adventist church does with Ellen White. #5 is a typical Seventh-day Adventist evasion. Before you jump to Martin Weber, how do you explain the many Seventh-day Adventist employees who HAVE BEEN FIRED AND/OR DISFELLOWSHIPPED because they refuse to teach the church's lies about Ellen White? Until you address that, jumping to Martin Weber is nothing more than an infantile evasion.
Martin Weber commented on 11-Aug-2009 08:27 AM (Reply from Martin Weber:) Ray, you say that you see deception and duplicity when you read EGW, and evidently you that sums her up for you. I can't explain why she wasn't more candid than she was, but I do believe that whatever her faults were, a fair-minded reading of her books shows an earnest Christian author, flawed yet faithful. You would probably come back and say—that’s because she copied good stuff. I would reply, well OK, even if she did copy more than most Adventists are aware, at least she chose good things to share from her reading—and that tells you something of her spiritual discernment. That said, I do think it is unnecessary and even outrageous that Adventism should be in a position where it has to prove itself a genuine Christian movement based on the character of one person. It’s not about EGW! It’s about the Bible! We stand or fall based on our faithfulness to what the Word of God says, not based on the faithfulness of one human being. No matter what Ellen White struggled with, Jesus Christ is still Lord of the Sabbath, and He’s still coming again—and that’s the heart of SDA doctrine (in the context of the Gospel, of course). About people being fired or even disfellowshipped. Ray, I know from painful experience what you’re talking about. I lost my three closest friends back in 1980 (the same year that Dale Ratzlaff left the church) when the four of us were wresting with these doctrinal dilemmas. They got disillusioned and bitter when the answers weren’t forthcoming. Had they not gone negative and waited on the Lord, I don’t think they would have been fired. I understand their disappointment totally—I was right there in it with them. But I’m glad I persevered and got the answers I needed to stay with the church and try to make a difference these last 30 years. I think its fair to say that God has made a way for me to freely speak my convictions in church publications—and quite a few others as well. I don’t think that’s an “infantile evasion,” I think it’s simply a matter of record. (And by the way, I’m choosing to be amused rather than offended by your language there. I hope we can be friends, even when we don’t agree. At least discussion partners.) Thanks for sharing, Ray. Sorry for the lag time in getting your comment posted, along with this reply. I’ve been traveling all day.
Dale Ratzlaff commented on 13-Aug-2009 10:13 PM The missing controversy
There is yet another strong evidence that Paul in his ministry to the Gentile churches did not promote the keeping of the Sabbath. It is clear from the Gospels and Jewish history that the Jews of New Testament times had built up numerous rules to keep themselves from breaking the biblical Sabbath laws. Sabbath rules were legion and varied from one rabbi to the next. One was not to travel beyond 2000 cubits from his lodging. No sexual intercourse was permitted on the Sabbath. Better food was to be served on the Sabbath than on other days. No fasting was allowed on the Sabbath. One could not prepare, or eat anything prepared on the Sabbath. One could not carry an object from his home into a public area on the Sabbath. The Essenes even said that defecation was a work prohibited on the Sabbath. A tailor was not to carry a needle on the Sabbath. A householder was not to reach out of his house and place something in the hand of a poor person on the Sabbath.
Sometimes we laugh at all the rules the Jews made regarding the Sabbath. However, having come from a background where we tried to keep the biblical laws for the Sabbath, I can recall countless hours discussing what was appropriate and what was not appropriate Sabbath keeping.
When I was a boy, my mother did not cook or wash the dishes on the Sabbath. However, for Sabbath dinner she did reheat the food she had prepared the day before. When we began to use frozen vegetables she found that it was no more “work” to take frozen peas and cook them than it was to reheat the ones which were cooked the day before plus they tasted much better and were probably better for us. I remember the discussion we had in making this transition. However, we never did face the fact that even making a fire on the Sabbath was wrong! If we did, would it have been wrong to build a fire in a wood stove? What if you kept coals overnight so you did not have to light a match, would that be building a fire? And what about a modern gas cook-top which lights with a turn of the knob. Is that building a fire?
When we took long trips we tried not to travel on the Sabbath. However, we often took short trips in the car on Sabbath afternoon to “enjoy nature.” I remember on several occasions we compromised and decided to “enjoy nature” at the same time we “traveled.” However, when we did this, we always would gas up on Friday night and drive until the gas tank was about empty. We would then find a place to observe the rest of the Sabbath. As soon as the sun was down, we would gas up and continue our trip.
When I was pastoring in the Seventh-day Adventist church I remember a lady who was baptized and joined our church. I studied with her the biblical principles of Sabbath keeping and encouraged her to follow them. Some time later she called me and said that her husband did not like her keeping the Sabbath because she was not making the beds on Sabbath morning. I assured her that making the beds was acceptable Sabbath keeping. I had, in our previous study, instructed her that she should not use the sacred hours of the Sabbath to do her house-work, such as washing clothes, etc. In interpreting my instruction, coupled with the biblical rules for Sabbath keeping, she felt that there was more “work” in making a bed than there was in washing clothes in an automatic washing machine. I was hard pressed to defend my definition of what was “work” and what was right and what was wrong to do on the Sabbath.
Samuele Bacchiocchi, Seventh-day Adventist theologian, in his book, The Sabbath in the New Testament, has some twenty-one pages devoted to modern Sabbath observance. In these pages he asks many questions about Sabbath keeping and then gives his interpretation. For example: (1) “holding of weddings on the Sabbath should be discouraged.” (2) “As a general rule, however, it is advisable to avoid conducting funerals on the Sabbath, since they disrupt the spirit of rest, joy, and celebration of the Sabbath.” (3) “A distinction must be made between essential services rendered on the Sabbath in a Seventh-day Adventist institution and those rendered in a non-SDA institution.” The reason for this, says Dr. Bacchiocchi, is that in a non-SDA institution, such as a fire station, the Sabbath keeper might be asked to do routine maintenance work which would not be accepted Sabbath observance. (4) “Purchasing goods or services on the Sabbath, such as eating out in restaurants, will turn the mind of the believer away from the sacredness of the Sabbath to the secularism and materialism of the world.” (5) Dr. Bacchiocchi states that “Historically, Seventh-day Adventists have endeavored to follow the principle of sunset reckoning [to mark the beginning and end of Sabbath] even in the Arctic regions by broadening the meaning of ‘sunset’ to include, for example, the end of twilight, the diminishing of light, the moment when the sun is closest to the horizon.” Having said this, however, he then argues for Sabbath to be reckoned in arctic regions using equatorial sunset time, 6 p.m. to 6 p.m.
I include these few examples, from the Jews of Christ’s day, from my own experience and the counsel of Dr. Bacchiocchi, not because they are unusual or wrong, for I believe this counsel is good and necessary for those who keep the Sabbath. The point I want to underline is that when one really sets out to observe the Sabbath according to biblical guidelines there are hundreds of “gray areas” that must be addressed. Anyone who has seriously tried to keep the Sabbath according to biblical guidelines knows this from experience.
We must thoughtfully consider the following facts. There is real need for the interpretation of the Sabbath laws for anyone who is going to keep the Sabbath. Just going to church on Saturday is not “keeping” the Sabbath. The New Testament milieu was one where there were differing interpretations regarding Sabbath observance among the various sects of Judaism. Jesus took issue with at least several of the Jewish interpretations of Sabbath keeping and from their perspective seemed to go out of His way to “break” the Sabbath. It is totally inconceivable that Paul, in forming, instructing and nurturing young Gentile churches over a period of many years, would have said nothing about appropriate Sabbath observance. That the Gentiles knew many of the Jewish customs is evident from the New Testament. If Sabbath observance was a part of the theology and practice of the Gentile Christians they would have needed instruction on how to observe the Sabbath. The believers in Corinth asked many questions about Christian conduct; why did they not include “How do we keep the Sabbath?” Coupled with the other evidence in this chapter, it is obvious that Sabbath keeping was not required, expected or even recommended in the Gentile Churches.
There is yet another strong evidence that Paul in his ministry to the Gentile churches did not promote the keeping of the Sabbath. It is clear from the Gospels and Jewish history that the Jews of New Testament times had built up numerous rules to keep themselves from breaking the biblical Sabbath laws. Sabbath rules were legion and varied from one rabbi to the next. One was not to travel beyond 2000 cubits from his lodging. No sexual intercourse was permitted on the Sabbath. Better food was to be served on the Sabbath than on other days. No fasting was allowed on the Sabbath. One could not prepare, or eat anything prepared on the Sabbath. One could not carry an object from his home into a public area on the Sabbath. The Essenes even said that defecation was a work prohibited on the Sabbath. A tailor was not to carry a needle on the Sabbath. A householder was not to reach out of his house and place something in the hand of a poor person on the Sabbath.
Sometimes we laugh at all the rules the Jews made regarding the Sabbath. However, having come from a background where we tried to keep the biblical laws for the Sabbath, I can recall countless hours discussing what was appropriate and what was not appropriate Sabbath keeping.
When I was a boy, my mother did not cook or wash the dishes on the Sabbath. However, for Sabbath dinner she did reheat the food she had prepared the day before. When we began to use frozen vegetables she found that it was no more “work” to take frozen peas and cook them than it was to reheat the ones which were cooked the day before plus they tasted much better and were probably better for us. I remember the discussion we had in making this transition. However, we never did face the fact that even making a fire on the Sabbath was wrong! If we did, would it have been wrong to build a fire in a wood stove? What if you kept coals overnight so you did not have to light a match, would that be building a fire? And what about a modern gas cook-top which lights with a turn of the knob. Is that building a fire?
When we took long trips we tried not to travel on the Sabbath. However, we often took short trips in the car on Sabbath afternoon to “enjoy nature.” I remember on several occasions we compromised and decided to “enjoy nature” at the same time we “traveled.” However, when we did this, we always would gas up on Friday night and drive until the gas tank was about empty. We would then find a place to observe the rest of the Sabbath. As soon as the sun was down, we would gas up and continue our trip.
When I was pastoring in the Seventh-day Adventist church I remember a lady who was baptized and joined our church. I studied with her the biblical principles of Sabbath keeping and encouraged her to follow them. Some time later she called me and said that her husband did not like her keeping the Sabbath because she was not making the beds on Sabbath morning. I assured her that making the beds was acceptable Sabbath keeping. I had, in our previous study, instructed her that she should not use the sacred hours of the Sabbath to do her house-work, such as washing clothes, etc. In interpreting my instruction, coupled with the biblical rules for Sabbath keeping, she felt that there was more “work” in making a bed than there was in washing clothes in an automatic washing machine. I was hard pressed to defend my definition of what was “work” and what was right and what was wrong to do on the Sabbath.
Samuele Bacchiocchi, Seventh-day Adventist theologian, in his book, The Sabbath in the New Testament, has some twenty-one pages devoted to modern Sabbath observance. In these pages he asks many questions about Sabbath keeping and then gives his interpretation. For example: (1) “holding of weddings on the Sabbath should be discouraged.” (2) “As a general rule, however, it is advisable to avoid conducting funerals on the Sabbath, since they disrupt the spirit of rest, joy, and celebration of the Sabbath.” (3) “A distinction must be made between essential services rendered on the Sabbath in a Seventh-day Adventist institution and those rendered in a non-SDA institution.” The reason for this, says Dr. Bacchiocchi, is that in a non-SDA institution, such as a fire station, the Sabbath keeper might be asked to do routine maintenance work which would not be accepted Sabbath observance. (4) “Purchasing goods or services on the Sabbath, such as eating out in restaurants, will turn the mind of the believer away from the sacredness of the Sabbath to the secularism and materialism of the world.” (5) Dr. Bacchiocchi states that “Historically, Seventh-day Adventists have endeavored to follow the principle of sunset reckoning [to mark the beginning and end of Sabbath] even in the Arctic regions by broadening the meaning of ‘sunset’ to include, for example, the end of twilight, the diminishing of light, the moment when the sun is closest to the horizon.” Having said this, however, he then argues for Sabbath to be reckoned in arctic regions using equatorial sunset time, 6 p.m. to 6 p.m.
I include these few examples, from the Jews of Christ’s day, from my own experience and the counsel of Dr. Bacchiocchi, not because they are unusual or wrong, for I believe this counsel is good and necessary for those who keep the Sabbath. The point I want to underline is that when one really sets out to observe the Sabbath according to biblical guidelines there are hundreds of “gray areas” that must be addressed. Anyone who has seriously tried to keep the Sabbath according to biblical guidelines knows this from experience.
We must thoughtfully consider the following facts. There is real need for the interpretation of the Sabbath laws for anyone who is going to keep the Sabbath. Just going to church on Saturday is not “keeping” the Sabbath. The New Testament milieu was one where there were differing interpretations regarding Sabbath observance among the various sects of Judaism. Jesus took issue with at least several of the Jewish interpretations of Sabbath keeping and from their perspective seemed to go out of His way to “break” the Sabbath. It is totally inconceivable that Paul, in forming, instructing and nurturing young Gentile churches over a period of many years, would have said nothing about appropriate Sabbath observance. That the Gentiles knew many of the Jewish customs is evident from the New Testament. If Sabbath observance was a part of the theology and practice of the Gentile Christians they would have needed instruction on how to observe the Sabbath. The believers in Corinth asked many questions about Christian conduct; why did they not include “How do we keep the Sabbath?” Coupled with the other evidence in this chapter, it is obvious that Sabbath keeping was not required, expected or even recommended in the Gentile Churches.
Dale Ratzlaff commented on 13-Aug-2009 11:02 PM Where is my post?
Dale Ratzlaff. Where can I answer your questions? Please email
dale@Ratzlaf.com
Dale Ratzlaff. Where can I answer your questions? Please email
dale@Ratzlaf.com
Martin Weber answers commented on 14-Aug-2009 12:45 AM Dear Dale, I'm sorry about the delay in getting your comment posted--I was traveling all day and only now, past midnight, I'm getting to my e-mail.
The reason I’ve set the software to delay posting comments pending my approval of them is to ensure that nothing on sdaforme.com will be a personal attack (ad hominem) against anybody, including you. Even some religious blogs can get nasty, and I want to keep the level of conversation focused on understanding truth, not denigrating people with what amounts to hate mail. I certainly welcome your critique of whatever we have on this website, Dale, and I hope that, in turn, you will link us up to your website.
Obviously we disagree on a lot of things, but I’m sure we can engage in respectful dialogue. Tomorrow morning I’m traveling again, but I will respond to your post sometime during this weekend.
Grace and peace,
Martin
The reason I’ve set the software to delay posting comments pending my approval of them is to ensure that nothing on sdaforme.com will be a personal attack (ad hominem) against anybody, including you. Even some religious blogs can get nasty, and I want to keep the level of conversation focused on understanding truth, not denigrating people with what amounts to hate mail. I certainly welcome your critique of whatever we have on this website, Dale, and I hope that, in turn, you will link us up to your website.
Obviously we disagree on a lot of things, but I’m sure we can engage in respectful dialogue. Tomorrow morning I’m traveling again, but I will respond to your post sometime during this weekend.
Grace and peace,
Martin
Steven Torres commented on 14-Aug-2009 07:31 PM In response to Mr. Garton's comment. I am an ordained minister in the Seventh-day Adventist church and I have never been asked to say, nor required to believe that Ellen G. White is an infallible authority over Scripture. Perhaps there was a time when people were fired for that sort of thing, but I have not seen it. I personally know colleagues who struggle with what to make of Mrs. White's writings and have made that public. I myself have struggled with several of her statements. I do not believe that she was infallible and I certainly do not believe she is equal to or greater than the Scriptures. I'm also not afraid to say so.
Richard commented on 15-Aug-2009 03:11 AM I appreciate Dale's point that Sabbath had virtually become the outward manifestation of a religion based on behaviorism to passionate Jews of Jesus's day and unfortunately to many well meaning and passionate Adventists in more recent times. Jesus recognized this and pointed out that the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. In essence He refocused what the Sabbath should have been about -- not a list of rules but about relationships and primarily our relationship with God.
Relationships tend to be somewhat messy and difficult to quantify (whereas rules are easy to quantify!). As a result what Sabbath observance looks like will usually be as unique and varied as are the people who are involved in that relationship.
It is also true that relationships do better when given some kind of basic definition or boundries (marriage for example). Scripture and particularly the gospels (written by NT Christians including Luke a Gentile) provide some examples and stories that help me understand what these might look like and those things that will strengthen and enhance my Sabbath experience with my friend Jesus. I'm reminded of John Brunts little book "A Day for Healing" where he traces the gospel stories of Jesus' experiences on Sabbath.
But when a relationship is defined primarily by boundries alone it suffers and will eventually die. Sabbath can of course only truly be experienced or "kept" in/with the heart.
Unfortunately Adventism often exists in institutional settings and institutions in general tend to have trouble with applying the principles of relationships-- it often is "easier" to make rules than to do the hard work of relationships in these settings. I think the gift of the Sabbath has sometimes suffered in these environments.
If the Sabbath is primarily about Worshiping God and spending time with fellow believers and with God deepening our relationship with him. And if as is apparent in Acts gathering on the Sabbath was the common practice it would seem unlikely or even dangerous to try to return to the behavior centered focus of Judaism by giving more instructions on "how to keep" Sabbath.
Thank you for spurring on my thinking!
Hope everyone has a blessed Sabbath with Jesus!
Relationships tend to be somewhat messy and difficult to quantify (whereas rules are easy to quantify!). As a result what Sabbath observance looks like will usually be as unique and varied as are the people who are involved in that relationship.
It is also true that relationships do better when given some kind of basic definition or boundries (marriage for example). Scripture and particularly the gospels (written by NT Christians including Luke a Gentile) provide some examples and stories that help me understand what these might look like and those things that will strengthen and enhance my Sabbath experience with my friend Jesus. I'm reminded of John Brunts little book "A Day for Healing" where he traces the gospel stories of Jesus' experiences on Sabbath.
But when a relationship is defined primarily by boundries alone it suffers and will eventually die. Sabbath can of course only truly be experienced or "kept" in/with the heart.
Unfortunately Adventism often exists in institutional settings and institutions in general tend to have trouble with applying the principles of relationships-- it often is "easier" to make rules than to do the hard work of relationships in these settings. I think the gift of the Sabbath has sometimes suffered in these environments.
If the Sabbath is primarily about Worshiping God and spending time with fellow believers and with God deepening our relationship with him. And if as is apparent in Acts gathering on the Sabbath was the common practice it would seem unlikely or even dangerous to try to return to the behavior centered focus of Judaism by giving more instructions on "how to keep" Sabbath.
Thank you for spurring on my thinking!
Hope everyone has a blessed Sabbath with Jesus!
Roscoe commented on 16-Aug-2009 05:24 PM I find it interesting from Mr Ratzlaff's comments about the Sabbath that there are many pre-suppositions and assumptions that have no Biblical foundation, only his human reasoning and oppinions. We all bring meaning to the page and sometimes that meaning is flawed with wrong assumptions that we use to argue from apparent silence on a topic. I would love to see what the scripture (in context), without commentary, has to say about the Sabbath in the Old and New testament. And I would love for him to show me and his followers (in context) without commentary what the scriptures have to say about worship on the first day of the week. On something so important shouldn't we let the Word of God speak for itself with out our interpretations and let the Spirit of God convince and convict us as to what truth is? John 16:5-15
Dale Ratzlaff commented on 16-Aug-2009 11:51 PM There is no command to keep the Sabbath in the N.T.
All the meetings in the book of Acts are in a Jewish setting.
There is no instruction on how to keep the Sabbath in letters written to young Gentile churches.
Sabbath breaking is never listed in any lists of NT sins.
When the Sabbath in mentioned in the epistles, it is either in a negative or unimportant context.
The O.T. prophets confront the gentile nations for worshiping idols, blaspheming the name of God, ruthless killing, injustice and immorality, but never for breaking the Sabbath.
The Jews considered the Sabbath to be a ritual law.
The Jews insisted that a Gentile staying with a Jew was to keep the Sabbath.
However, if the Gentile kept the Sabbath on his own he was to be put to death.
Jesus, according to John 5 broke the Sabbath and from his defense of his other Sabbath incidents it seems clear that He understood the Sabbath to be a ritual law.
The entrance sign to the Old Covenant was circumcision.
The continuing sign the Old Covenant was Sabbath. “Remember the Sabbath”
The entrance sign to the New Covenant is baptism
The continuing sign in the New Covenant is the Lord’s Supper. “Do this in remembrance of Me”
All the meetings in the book of Acts are in a Jewish setting.
There is no instruction on how to keep the Sabbath in letters written to young Gentile churches.
Sabbath breaking is never listed in any lists of NT sins.
When the Sabbath in mentioned in the epistles, it is either in a negative or unimportant context.
The O.T. prophets confront the gentile nations for worshiping idols, blaspheming the name of God, ruthless killing, injustice and immorality, but never for breaking the Sabbath.
The Jews considered the Sabbath to be a ritual law.
The Jews insisted that a Gentile staying with a Jew was to keep the Sabbath.
However, if the Gentile kept the Sabbath on his own he was to be put to death.
Jesus, according to John 5 broke the Sabbath and from his defense of his other Sabbath incidents it seems clear that He understood the Sabbath to be a ritual law.
The entrance sign to the Old Covenant was circumcision.
The continuing sign the Old Covenant was Sabbath. “Remember the Sabbath”
The entrance sign to the New Covenant is baptism
The continuing sign in the New Covenant is the Lord’s Supper. “Do this in remembrance of Me”
Martin Weber answers Dale commented on 17-Aug-2009 11:43 AM Martin Weber responds:
Dear Dale, thanks for engaging us in dialogue. I appreciate this opportunity to have a Christian discussion and am glad to respond to your statements.
Since the Sabbath day itself was deeply entrenched in Christ’s day, there was no need for Him to re-command it. The issue in the Gospels was not whether to keep the Sabbath but how to keep it—and Jesus gave plenty of attention to that. If Christ intended to do away with the Sabbath, He sure wasted a lot of energy defending it. And then to top it off, He proclaimed Himself “Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8).
As for the rest of the NT, we find nothing negative about the weekly Sabbath—it’s the non-weekly ceremonial sabbaths that are done away with in Colossians 2. Remember, the Mosaic ceremonial laws had monthly and yearly sabbaths beyond the weekly Sabbath of the Ten Commandments (see Leviticus 23:38, for example). These ceremonial monthly and yearly sabbaths are obviously what’s under discussion in verses 17 and 18: “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” By contrast, the weekly Sabbath of Creation and Calvary is not a shadow pointing forward. It calls us to “remember,” being a memorial pointing back to Christ’s historic accomplishments.
Romans 14 also refers to ceremonial Sabbaths. The continued keeping of them was optional according to one’s own convictions. Note that once again the context in that chapter is about Jewish ceremonies, not anything in the Ten Commandments.
Throughout the church-planting narrative of the book of Acts, Sabbath-keeping is mentioned quite naturally, and never negatively. If Paul had done away with the seventh-day Sabbath, there would have been a firestorm of controversy—as we do find regarding circumcision and food laws.
To summarize: It is simply not credible to imagine that something as fundamental and entrenched as the Sabbath could be abolished without controversy in the NT, particularly when we see so much discussion about other things Jewish—even in the predominantly Gentile churches.
Moving on with your critique, Dale. You consider the Sabbath a Jewish ritual. Well, everything in Jewish culture was ritualized, including eternal moral principles such as marital fidelity—and the eternal worship principle of the Sabbath. Let’s remember that the Sabbath is not introduced amid rituals and ceremonies but as the grand memorial of Creation. It was “made for man” (Mark 2:27,28)—not just for Jews for Mosaic rituals. The Greek word there is anthropos, which you know means “people.”
As for the Gentile nations of the OT not being confronted for breaking the Sabbath—first things first! They first had to turn from their idols to worship the true Creator. Then they could begin keeping the Sabbath, as Gentile converts indeed were invited to do in Isaiah 56 (verses 6, 7).
I can hardly believe, Dale, that you would accuse Jesus of breaking the Sabbath in John 5. This would turn our Savior into a sinner! Yes, He did ignore the Jewish rituals about the Sabbath, and everything else. But if our Lord had broken His Father’s commandment, He could not have challenged His enemies: “Which of you convicts me of sin?” (John 8:46). He kept the Sabbath in His life and even in His death, as along with His disciples He “rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56—evidently the Sabbath was still a commandment when Luke wrote his Gospel, decades later). Only after Jesus honored the Sabbath by resting on that day from His finished work on the cross did He rise from the dead.
Dale, you teach that the Sabbath is done away, and now Jesus Himself is your Sabbath. Please, let’s not deify the Sabbath! Jesus didn’t say, “The Sabbath used to be a day, but now it’s Me.” No, Jesus said He is Lord of the day, not the day itself. (Let’s maintain the distinction between the Creator and His creation, lest we set the stage for pantheism.) The Sabbath is like baptism in the New Covenant: an expression of identification with Christ for our salvation. Whereas baptism is a once-in-a-lifetime expression of our solidarity with Christ, the Sabbath is a weekly expression of the same faith.
Jesus is not our baptism, and He is not our Sabbath. Both baptism and the Sabbath are symbols of Christ’s rest—but they are not our Lord Himself. Whereas baptism is a once-in-a-lifetime symbol of entering Christ’s rest, the Sabbath is a weekly expression of the same faith experience.
Dale, you teach that the New Covenant does away with the Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath. But the NT teaches that what God wrote on the tables of stone in the Old Covenant is now written on our hearts. Hebrews 10:16 says: “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds.” These are not just spiritual principles (as you say), but God’s actual commandments.
Does this obedience amount to legalism? Not when motivated by loving gratitude rather than appeasement.
We are not saved by keeping the law—but the life of faith will make us faithful, drawing us into harmony with God’s Ten Commandments so that the “righteousness of the law will be fulfilled in us” (Romans 8:3-4). Whereas ceremonial laws are done away with, God’s eternal law remains to test the genuineness of our faith. And so we read in 1 Corinthians 7:19: “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.”
Keeping the commandments matters to God, Dale. I wish it mattered to you.
Dear Dale, thanks for engaging us in dialogue. I appreciate this opportunity to have a Christian discussion and am glad to respond to your statements.
Since the Sabbath day itself was deeply entrenched in Christ’s day, there was no need for Him to re-command it. The issue in the Gospels was not whether to keep the Sabbath but how to keep it—and Jesus gave plenty of attention to that. If Christ intended to do away with the Sabbath, He sure wasted a lot of energy defending it. And then to top it off, He proclaimed Himself “Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8).
As for the rest of the NT, we find nothing negative about the weekly Sabbath—it’s the non-weekly ceremonial sabbaths that are done away with in Colossians 2. Remember, the Mosaic ceremonial laws had monthly and yearly sabbaths beyond the weekly Sabbath of the Ten Commandments (see Leviticus 23:38, for example). These ceremonial monthly and yearly sabbaths are obviously what’s under discussion in verses 17 and 18: “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” By contrast, the weekly Sabbath of Creation and Calvary is not a shadow pointing forward. It calls us to “remember,” being a memorial pointing back to Christ’s historic accomplishments.
Romans 14 also refers to ceremonial Sabbaths. The continued keeping of them was optional according to one’s own convictions. Note that once again the context in that chapter is about Jewish ceremonies, not anything in the Ten Commandments.
Throughout the church-planting narrative of the book of Acts, Sabbath-keeping is mentioned quite naturally, and never negatively. If Paul had done away with the seventh-day Sabbath, there would have been a firestorm of controversy—as we do find regarding circumcision and food laws.
To summarize: It is simply not credible to imagine that something as fundamental and entrenched as the Sabbath could be abolished without controversy in the NT, particularly when we see so much discussion about other things Jewish—even in the predominantly Gentile churches.
Moving on with your critique, Dale. You consider the Sabbath a Jewish ritual. Well, everything in Jewish culture was ritualized, including eternal moral principles such as marital fidelity—and the eternal worship principle of the Sabbath. Let’s remember that the Sabbath is not introduced amid rituals and ceremonies but as the grand memorial of Creation. It was “made for man” (Mark 2:27,28)—not just for Jews for Mosaic rituals. The Greek word there is anthropos, which you know means “people.”
As for the Gentile nations of the OT not being confronted for breaking the Sabbath—first things first! They first had to turn from their idols to worship the true Creator. Then they could begin keeping the Sabbath, as Gentile converts indeed were invited to do in Isaiah 56 (verses 6, 7).
I can hardly believe, Dale, that you would accuse Jesus of breaking the Sabbath in John 5. This would turn our Savior into a sinner! Yes, He did ignore the Jewish rituals about the Sabbath, and everything else. But if our Lord had broken His Father’s commandment, He could not have challenged His enemies: “Which of you convicts me of sin?” (John 8:46). He kept the Sabbath in His life and even in His death, as along with His disciples He “rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56—evidently the Sabbath was still a commandment when Luke wrote his Gospel, decades later). Only after Jesus honored the Sabbath by resting on that day from His finished work on the cross did He rise from the dead.
Dale, you teach that the Sabbath is done away, and now Jesus Himself is your Sabbath. Please, let’s not deify the Sabbath! Jesus didn’t say, “The Sabbath used to be a day, but now it’s Me.” No, Jesus said He is Lord of the day, not the day itself. (Let’s maintain the distinction between the Creator and His creation, lest we set the stage for pantheism.) The Sabbath is like baptism in the New Covenant: an expression of identification with Christ for our salvation. Whereas baptism is a once-in-a-lifetime expression of our solidarity with Christ, the Sabbath is a weekly expression of the same faith.
Jesus is not our baptism, and He is not our Sabbath. Both baptism and the Sabbath are symbols of Christ’s rest—but they are not our Lord Himself. Whereas baptism is a once-in-a-lifetime symbol of entering Christ’s rest, the Sabbath is a weekly expression of the same faith experience.
Dale, you teach that the New Covenant does away with the Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath. But the NT teaches that what God wrote on the tables of stone in the Old Covenant is now written on our hearts. Hebrews 10:16 says: “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds.” These are not just spiritual principles (as you say), but God’s actual commandments.
Does this obedience amount to legalism? Not when motivated by loving gratitude rather than appeasement.
We are not saved by keeping the law—but the life of faith will make us faithful, drawing us into harmony with God’s Ten Commandments so that the “righteousness of the law will be fulfilled in us” (Romans 8:3-4). Whereas ceremonial laws are done away with, God’s eternal law remains to test the genuineness of our faith. And so we read in 1 Corinthians 7:19: “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.”
Keeping the commandments matters to God, Dale. I wish it mattered to you.
Chris commented on 17-Aug-2009 02:34 PM Dale, I would assume that you believe that God is a perfect, unerring God, yes? If God were not perfect, He would not be God. If God is perfect, why would He ever change? There would be no need to change if indeed He is perfect in everything. Hebrews 13:8 says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." If that is the case, why would God change or do away with any of the commandments, including the 4th? I find it interesting that you have only attempted to answer one of Martin's 5 questions. I am glad that Martin has graciously allowed your comments to be posted on this website for all to see despite the fact that you denied him the courtesy of a voice at your meetings in Nebraska. A few more texts. Paul, in Romans 3:31, states, "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." In addition, Jesus says, "If you love me, keep my commandments," John 14:15.
Karen Fandrich commented on 18-Aug-2009 01:39 PM Dear Martin,
Thank you for being our modern-day Daniel and voicing the truth about Seventh-day Adventists on the website SDA4me. On The Issues page of the website you make the following statement: “We invite you to hold us accountable on this (SDA beliefs) by checking out these six main areas of SDA doctrine that have been challenged by Dale Ratzlaff and Life Assurance Ministries.” I appreciate your transparency and willingness to be challenged, Martin. Accountability and cult activity cannot coexist! Thank you for opening the way for people to see that Ratzlaff’s accusation about Adventists being a cult is a very extreme opinion and falsehood. Personally, I would suggest that a group who holds meetings and presents only their ideas—not allowing the audience to hear the other side of the issues is possibly more engaged in cultic activity and certainly not encouraging critical thinking. Also, I would be very uncomfortable if I heard of newly baptized SDA Christians referred to as “transitioning” out of Catholicism, etc. Once again, that has a cultic ring to my way of thinking.
There is no question many people have been hurt by well meaning SDA’s who do not truly understand grace in Jesus Christ. I’m praying this website will be a vehicle to help clear up those misunderstandings and enable us all to grow in His grace.
Thank you for being our modern-day Daniel and voicing the truth about Seventh-day Adventists on the website SDA4me. On The Issues page of the website you make the following statement: “We invite you to hold us accountable on this (SDA beliefs) by checking out these six main areas of SDA doctrine that have been challenged by Dale Ratzlaff and Life Assurance Ministries.” I appreciate your transparency and willingness to be challenged, Martin. Accountability and cult activity cannot coexist! Thank you for opening the way for people to see that Ratzlaff’s accusation about Adventists being a cult is a very extreme opinion and falsehood. Personally, I would suggest that a group who holds meetings and presents only their ideas—not allowing the audience to hear the other side of the issues is possibly more engaged in cultic activity and certainly not encouraging critical thinking. Also, I would be very uncomfortable if I heard of newly baptized SDA Christians referred to as “transitioning” out of Catholicism, etc. Once again, that has a cultic ring to my way of thinking.
There is no question many people have been hurt by well meaning SDA’s who do not truly understand grace in Jesus Christ. I’m praying this website will be a vehicle to help clear up those misunderstandings and enable us all to grow in His grace.
Jeremy commented on 18-Aug-2009 06:41 PM Martin,
You wrote: "I certainly welcome your critique of whatever we have on this website, Dale, and I hope that, in turn, you will link us up to your website."
I don't see any link to Dale's site on your site. Isn't that a bit of a double standard?
Karen,
You wrote: "Personally, I would suggest that a group who holds meetings and presents only their ideas—not allowing the audience to hear the other side of the issues is possibly more engaged in cultic activity and certainly not encouraging critical thinking."
Since when do SDA seminars allow the other side to present their view? Do you really think an SDA evangelistic seminar would allow Dale Ratlzaff to speak??? Again, there's a double standard here.
Jeremy
You wrote: "I certainly welcome your critique of whatever we have on this website, Dale, and I hope that, in turn, you will link us up to your website."
I don't see any link to Dale's site on your site. Isn't that a bit of a double standard?
Karen,
You wrote: "Personally, I would suggest that a group who holds meetings and presents only their ideas—not allowing the audience to hear the other side of the issues is possibly more engaged in cultic activity and certainly not encouraging critical thinking."
Since when do SDA seminars allow the other side to present their view? Do you really think an SDA evangelistic seminar would allow Dale Ratlzaff to speak??? Again, there's a double standard here.
Jeremy
Martin Weber answers Jeremy commented on 18-Aug-2009 06:55 PM Jeremy, Martin here. I think that's a great idea! If you can get Dale to link our website to his, I will be very happy to post a link here to his website. Let me know how that works out!
Meanwhile, please note that I've already been posting every comment from Dale that he has sent us. I'm hoping to have the same access to his website.
I really am trying to be fair to Life Assurance Ministries and have a completely open dialogue here.
Thanks for the idea.
Meanwhile, please note that I've already been posting every comment from Dale that he has sent us. I'm hoping to have the same access to his website.
I really am trying to be fair to Life Assurance Ministries and have a completely open dialogue here.
Thanks for the idea.
Jeremy commented on 19-Aug-2009 12:20 AM Martin,
Is it possible to make it so that we can add "line breaks" in our comments on here? The lack of paragraphs/spacing makes it it difficult to read some of the longer posts.
Is it possible to make it so that we can add "line breaks" in our comments on here? The lack of paragraphs/spacing makes it it difficult to read some of the longer posts.
Lynric commented on 19-Aug-2009 01:48 AM I totally understand the Adventist arguments here. The problem is that, in exactly the same way I would have ignored these things as an Adventist, there are certain foundational beliefs that shape Adventism and denature all their "gospel talk".
All Adventists, no matter how liberal or historic or evangelical, hold to at least these four beliefs:1. The eternal significance of the Sabbath in the lives of the saved; 2. The belief in soul sleep which denies the existence of an immaterial human spirit, thus altering the nature of man, the nature of Christ, the nature of sin, and the nature of salvation; 3. The belief in an ongoing judgment in which the saved will have their sins carried away by Satan the scapegoat and in which the saved will help to vindicate God's character to a watching universe after Satan supposedly accuses Him of being unfair; and 4. Some degree of adherence to Ellen White.
These four foundational beliefs shape every doctrine of Adventism. The foundation either supports or condemns the building. The true gospel cannot be built on top of an unbiblical foundation.
No matter how articulately one defends one's Adventist belief in "grace" and "the gospel", they do not mean the same thing evangelical Christians mean when they talk about those things. Adventists add the Sabbath and the "health message" to the gospel; they subtract from the all-sufficiency and infallibility of Jesus; they multiply the requirements for salvation by demanding "commandment keeping"; they divide the body of Christ by demanding that believers "come out of Babylon" and keep the Sabbath.
We cannot ignore the Adventist foundation and pretend that it is a variation of the Christian faith. The Adventist bottom line is incompatible with the Christian faith.
Lynric
All Adventists, no matter how liberal or historic or evangelical, hold to at least these four beliefs:1. The eternal significance of the Sabbath in the lives of the saved; 2. The belief in soul sleep which denies the existence of an immaterial human spirit, thus altering the nature of man, the nature of Christ, the nature of sin, and the nature of salvation; 3. The belief in an ongoing judgment in which the saved will have their sins carried away by Satan the scapegoat and in which the saved will help to vindicate God's character to a watching universe after Satan supposedly accuses Him of being unfair; and 4. Some degree of adherence to Ellen White.
These four foundational beliefs shape every doctrine of Adventism. The foundation either supports or condemns the building. The true gospel cannot be built on top of an unbiblical foundation.
No matter how articulately one defends one's Adventist belief in "grace" and "the gospel", they do not mean the same thing evangelical Christians mean when they talk about those things. Adventists add the Sabbath and the "health message" to the gospel; they subtract from the all-sufficiency and infallibility of Jesus; they multiply the requirements for salvation by demanding "commandment keeping"; they divide the body of Christ by demanding that believers "come out of Babylon" and keep the Sabbath.
We cannot ignore the Adventist foundation and pretend that it is a variation of the Christian faith. The Adventist bottom line is incompatible with the Christian faith.
Lynric
Arlie Fandrich commented on 19-Aug-2009 11:35 PM In reference to not letting Dale Ratzlaff come to an evangalistic meeting to speak, I would say that is not the same type of meeting that Dale wouldn't allow Martin to have input at his meeting in Lincoln. Dale's main purpose of the meeting was to inform people of the errors of Adventism without any dialogue from those inside Adventism. If I want to know what any other religious body believes, I would like someone from tht religious organization to explain their beliefs.
A while ago I went to a religious debate between an authority of the Church of Christ and a Catholic Apologist where both sides were allowed to give their sides which included time for rebutals. The rules of an official debate were followed. Dales meeting was very one sided although he did allow people to turn in questions which is not the same as open dialogue.
A while ago I went to a religious debate between an authority of the Church of Christ and a Catholic Apologist where both sides were allowed to give their sides which included time for rebutals. The rules of an official debate were followed. Dales meeting was very one sided although he did allow people to turn in questions which is not the same as open dialogue.
Anonymous commented on 21-Aug-2009 12:04 AM Arlie Fandrich, OK, so would an SDA Revelation Seminar allow someone from the Catholic Church to explain their beliefs, or do they simply condemn the Catholic Church and its beliefs?
Arlie Fandrich commented on 22-Aug-2009 08:11 PM Anonymous, How long has it been since you've attended an SDA Revelation Seminar and what specifically was done at the seminar that is similar to what Dale's meeting entailed? Seems like Dale's meeting had only one purpose and that was to prove some adventist beliefs are based on scripture. Maybe he thinks all adventist beliefs are not scriptural.
Comments
{tag_commentlist}