Sabbath in Crisis": A Chapter-by-Chapter Review

[guibox]

Referring to Ratzlaf as a "disgruntled Adventist" is a cheap mischaracterization of the man, and a subtle attempt to fallaciously discredit an argument via the ol' ad hominem. Almost every article I've read which addresses Ratzlaff's book invariably resorts to attacking the man's character and challenging his sincerity. This is not only inappropriate, but it has no bearing on the validity of his (or anyone's) arguments.

I agree and I retratct my statement.

Ratzlaf did not leave the SDA church out of disgruntlement, but out of an inability to honestly continue to teach the unique doctrines of Ellen White, particularly that of the Investigative Judgment.

You know what? I have an issue with the Investigative Judgement and 1844 as well. I believe that it is possible for our church to not have all the truth and I have no problems disagreeing with my church on this matter and still consider myself a devout SDA. I am a Bible believing Christian first, not an SDA apologist.

And for the record, the investigative judgment is not a 'unique doctrine of EGW'. EGW didn't 'formulate' any of our doctrines. What people consider our 'unique' doctrines (which aren't really unique as some group some point in time has understood and practiced them) were formulated when EGW was finishing puberty.

People really need to get off the EGW kick because it is getting tiring.

'My real desire, hope, and prayer, is not that people would have to leave the Seventh-day Adventist church as we did, but that the Seventh-day Adventist church would candidly admit the doctrinal errors to which this book is devoted, and continue to move toward mainstream evangelicalism."

It seems that the notion that he could sincerely study his way out of Adventism is so unbelievable to those like guibox, that the only explanation must be that he's disgruntled, despite the fact that he considers his time with, and memories of, the Adventist church sacred.

I agree with Ratzlaff concerning Daniel 8:14 and the cleansing of the sanctuary. However, unlike Dr. Desmond Ford who was kicked out because of his disagreement with the sanctuary but still maintained the basic Adventist doctrines, Ratzlaff just jumped on the evangelical bandwagon and threw everything out. The Sabbath cannot be compared to the investigative judgement or considered a 'unique Adventist doctrine'. Ford still observes the Sabbath and understands the state of the dead, not as unique Adventist doctrines but sound biblical truths through the same process of studying that Ratzlaff says he did. And yet everyone seems to take Ratzlaff's anti-Adventist arguments as gospel because "he was one of them and he studied and came to different conclusions so he MUST be right and they must be false!"

As for Dr. Bachhiocchi's treatise, he fails to even address important arguments and Scriptures put forth by Ratzlaff, but instead addresses smaller points made by Ratzlaff outside of the context of the greater argument. Dr. Bacchiocchi seems to ignore 75% of what Ratzlaff said.This part of my argument cannot be appropriately refuted outside of the larger context of my total argument. This is similar to the forensic mistake Dr. Bacchiocchi makes.

I completely disagree and I would turn that same argument to apply to Bacchiocchi and the Sabbath. Many anti-sabbatarians don't see the whole biblical picture as far as the Sabbath. Instead, they will take Paul's language of the law and misconstrue specific bible texts to try and do away with Sabbatarianism. Bacchiocchi lays out a solid foundation of Sabbath keeping and the validity of the law. And exposes the knee-jerk interpretations and ignorance of biblical context of Ratzlaff's arguments. IMO, he shows that most of evangelical thinking of the Sabbath and the law is mostly tunnel vision and narrow thinking. The big picture is missed. Bacchiocchi uses the whole of scripture as we should do as Sola Scriptura Protestants.

Have you honestly read Sabbath Under Crossfire thoroughly? Have you read any of his other Sabbath books?[/quote]

 

[Aloha Joe]

And for the record, the investigative judgment is not a 'unique doctrine of EGW'. EGW didn't 'formulate' any of our doctrines. What people consider our 'unique' doctrines (which aren't really unique as some group some point in time has understood and practiced them) were formulated when EGW was finishing puberty.

People really need to get off the EGW kick because it is getting tiring.

Regardless of how the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment was adopted by the Adventist church, it is, to my knowledge, unique to the SDA church. I'd be interested to know of other groups who believe this doctrine. But maybe we'd better not get off-track

I agree with Ratzlaff concerning Daniel 8:14 and the cleansing of the sanctuary. However, unlike Dr. Desmond Ford who was kicked out because of his disagreement with the sanctuary but still maintained the basic Adventist doctrines, Ratzlaff just jumped on the evangelical bandwagon and threw everything out. The Sabbath cannot be compared to the investigative judgement or considered a 'unique Adventist doctrine'. Ford still observes the Sabbath and understands the state of the dead, not as unique Adventist doctrines but sound biblical truths through the same process of studying that Ratzlaff says he did. And yet everyone seems to take Ratzlaff's anti-Adventist arguments as gospel because "he was one of them and he studied and came to different conclusions so he MUST be right and they must be false!"

I may be mistaken, but Ratzlaf, to my knowledge, remained a Sabbatarian after leaving the SDA church, and didn't "abandon" the Sabbath until later studies convinced him that it was not binding on New Covenant Christians. Neither he nor I have claimed that Sabbatarianism is unique to Adventism. The "doctrinal error" he hoped Adventism would move away from did not include (in the context of that quote, at least) Sabbatarianism.

I'm sure there are people who lend more credence to Ratzlaff's words because he's a former SDA, just as I'm sure many assume Bacchiocchi is right simply because he has a Dr. in front of his name and has been held up as a Biblical authority. Similarly, I'm sure SDAs are quicker to dismiss or ignore those whom they perceive to have no firsthand knowledge of the SDA church. My beliefs on the subject came from much intense study that preceded my ever having heard of Ratzlaff, though he did introduce some ideas I hadn't previously considered (and omitted observations I think he should have included) and confirmed my position on the matter. There are points on which we differ.

There is something to be said for his having been an SDA, as it gives the reader a reasonable assurance that Ratzlaff intricately knows the SDA position and is not misrepresenting it (assuming he's sincere).

I completely disagree and I would turn that same argument to apply to Bacchiocchi and the Sabbath. Many anti-sabbatarians don't see the whole biblical picture as far as the Sabbath. Instead, they will take Paul's language of the law and misconstrue specific bible texts to try and do away with Sabbatarianism. Bacchiocchi lays out a solid foundation of Sabbath keeping and the validity of the law. And exposes the knee-jerk interpretations and ignorance of biblical context of Ratzlaff's arguments. IMO, he shows that most of evangelical thinking of the Sabbath and the law is mostly tunnel vision and narrow thinking. The big picture is missed. Bacchiocchi uses the whole of scripture as we should do as Sola Scriptura Protestants.

Have you honestly read Sabbath Under Crossfire thoroughly? Have you read any of his other Sabbath books?

A quick background (which I hesitate to give, as it tends to give people ad hominem ammo): my best friend is a SDA pastor--we've been best friends for almost 20 years, and it was he who introduced me to the Gospel at the age of 12 (before that, I'd never even set foot in a church), though I didn't accept the Lord until I was 14, through a non-denominational outreach ministry. My decision regarding the Sabbath was anything but knee-jerk, as it took lot of time, study, and tears before I came to understand the true nature of the Sabbath. My study was intitiated solely by me, as I desperately wanted to find God's will in the matter--no one ever tried to convince me to keep Sunday, nor discourage me from keeping Saturday. Contrary to your assertion, it was Sabbatarian (and thus, Mosaic) tunnel vision that kept me for so long from understanding the true new covenant Sabbath, and how the entirety of Scripture, not a flimsy, threadbare coalition of out-of-context passages, comes together to demonstrate how the Law, in its entirety, was fulfilled by Christ, and the Old Covenant was replaced by the New.

I have only read the Sabbath under Crossfire chapters that were available on the website, and the email debate between Bacchiocchi and Ratzlaff (this was my first exposure to Ratzlaff, btw). I've also read Mark Finley's The Almost Forgotten Day.

Bacchiocchi's treatise on music, on a somewhat unrelated note, is almost laughable in its legalism and exegetical flimsiness.

Have you read Sabbath in Christ (former editions known as Sabbath in Crisis), by the way?

In love (and hopefully tact),
Joe

 

[Servant_2000]

Regardless of all of your warnings against anyone having the audacity to remain obedient to a command of God, I'll continue to keep the 7th-day Sabbath anyway. And, you also have the same freedom to keep Sunday as your Sabbath if you wish. God will be the ultimate judge as to who 'keeps' the right day. Now, wasn't that easy? :fadein:

Sputnikboy,

Just remember, Paul never said that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday.

Paul did say that the Sabbath was a mere shadow pointing to the "substance" that "belongs to Christ."

Do you know what happens to all shadows on the day of the summer solstice when the sun reaches high noon?

They all disappear!

Something tells me Paul knew that.

Much grace to you,

 

[Heidi]

Colossians 2:20-21, "Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of the world, why, as though you belonged to it, do you sbmit to its rules: 'Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings."

People who look to the Sabbath as a day of the week are like people looking to see what time we should pray instead of when the Spirit leads us! This is ludicrous! This is as Jesus says, "honoring me with their lips but their hearts are far from me", and also "teachings that are but rules taught by men." Do people who look for rules know why the temple curtain tore in half when Christ died? :o Do they know that he replaced it and there are no rules about when we honor him?

Seeing the Sabbath as a day of the week is also the same as not breaking the Ten Commandments because we're not supposed to rather than out of love for our neighbors. Obeying "teachings that are but rules taught by men" is what the Jews still do! But we Christians are now under Christ who fulfilled all the laws & the commandments for us! Once we receive his love, "He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be holy and blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Regardless of all of your warnings against anyone having the audacity to remain obedient to a command of God, I'll continue to keep the 7th-day Sabbath anyway. And, you also have the same freedom to keep Sunday as your Sabbath if you wish. God will be the ultimate judge as to who 'keeps' the right day. Now, wasn't that easy? :fadein:

servant: Sputnikboy, Just remember, Paul never said that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday.

Sputnik: Excuse the long delay since the above was posted. I'm not sure how or why it was ignored. Anyway, with that said, I'm not really sure why you prompted me about Paul's not having endorsed a change of Sabbath to Sunday. I already know that and I never said that he did. There are many mainstream Christians, however, who DO believe that Paul initiated a change of day. Maybe your post should be directed at them.

servant: Paul did say that the Sabbath was a mere shadow pointing to the "substance" that "belongs to Christ."

Do you know what happens to all shadows on the day of the summer solstice when the sun reaches high noon?

They all disappear!

Something tells me Paul knew that.

Sputnik: A nice bit of rhetoric, servant, but I'm not going to fall for that one. I hope that we don't debate these issues merely to show others how clever we think we are. I don't believe that Paul was referring to the moral commands of God when he refers to 'shadows'. He was making reference to the sacrificial laws and other relevant aspects between the Old and the New Covenants. These specific issues have been pointed out repeatedly on this and other forums to the point where we're covering the same ground and getting nowhere.

If we're to believe that the 4th-commandment (the Sabbath) was merely a 'shadow', then we're also to believe that, so too, were the other nine. Are we then REALLY to believe that Paul was instructing his audience against: V. honoring one's parents? V1. not murdering? V11. not committing adultery? V111. not stealing? 1X. not bearing false witness? X. not coveting? Exodus 20:12-17

Likewise, would Paul REALLY have been instructing his audience against obedience to God in the form of: I. having no other gods? II. not building any misrepresentations of God? III. not profaning God's name? IV. Observing the Creation Sabbath? Exodus 20:3-11

The Sabbath in question on this particular thread was included with all of the above commands on tablets of stone. We're told that they were important enough to have actually been carved into stone by the finger of God. Why? Was this done, perhaps in order to keep the Decalogue (The Ten Commandments) distinct from the 'Book of the Covenant'? Isn't THIS latter covenant (Exodus 24:7), in fact, the Old Covenant that was no longer in effect since the blood of bulls was replaced by the blood of Jesus (i.e. the New Covenant)? I believe so. I also believe that it was THIS covenant, NOT the Decalogue, that Paul was referring to in all cases. It's the only thing that makes sense.

 

[Servant_2000]

Basically your saying..."The ceremonial laws of types & shadows ... pointed to the death of Jesus and had no further meaning beyond the cross."

Indeed so! But so did the moral aspects of the Law of Moses (Torah or first five books of the Bible). The New Testament makes this clear.

Christ is superior to (the entirety of the Law of) Moses. Hebrews 3:1-4,13. Including the Fourth Commandment. Hebrews 4:1-13.

And in fact Colossians 2:13-19, makes it embarrassingly clear that it is the Sabbath itself which is one of the "shadows that pointed to the death of Jesus and had no further meaning beyond the cross. That's why Paul said it was contrary to the Christian."

For, "Do not let anyone judge yhou by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a [YEARLY] religious festival, a [MONTHLY] New Moon celebration or a [WEEKLY] Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." Colossians 2:16-17 NIV.

Yes, indeed, That IS "why Paul said it [the Sabbath when viewed as a requirement] was contrary to the Christian."

Nowhere in the entire New Testament is there any support for saying that any ceremonial law was "nailed to the cross" or "abolished in his flesh" or "taken out of the way." That is a complete SDA fabrication from start to finish.

It is only human beings, SDAs to be specific, who divide the Law of Moses up into three parts: (1) moral, (2) ceremonial, and (3) civil. Neither the Old nor the New Testament makes any such distinction or trichotomy! It's all a fiction!

We can, from our 21st century, Western perception recognize different moral, ceremonial and civil ASPECTS of the Law of Moses: But that's OUR doing. The Bible simply doesn't do that.

 

[SputnikBoy]

According to guibox, servant, we're BOTH wrong in regard to Colossians 2:14-17! Would you care to respond to this on that particular thread?