| Author | Message | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 1060 Registered: 8-2008 |
So I was reading though my Twitter feed when I came upon this little gem from Timothy Keller: The sabbath is about restoring diminished. It's about replenishing the drained. It's about repairing the broken. It's NOT just an off day What bothers me about this statement, is that I am increasingly seeing evangelicals spout these sorts of syrupy statements about how great the Sabbath is, without any Biblical support whatever. Like SDAs, evangelicals seem to have very emotionalistic views on the nature and purpose of the Sabbath that are not found anywhere in Scripture. Though God commanded the Israelites to rest on the Sabbath, no where does it state in the Bible that the purpose of the Sabbath is for humans to feel better, to experience "restoration," or what have you. Rather, the Bible says Sabbath pointed Israel back to two events that occurred in the past 1) Creation (Ex. 20:11), and 2) Israel's redemption from bondage in Egypt (Deut. 5:15). By giving Israel the Sabbath, God was commanding them to cease their activity and recognize two things about Him: 1) He is the One God who created all things by the Word of His mouth, and 2) He had redeemed them by bringing them out of bondage to the Egyptians and into a covenant relationship with Himself. Both of these two things serve to remind Israel of God's unquestioning right to rule over them, first as their Creator, and second as their Redeemer. These same two things are true of Christ Jesus in the New Covenant. In Colossians 1 and 2, Paul makes reference to Christ as Creator and through His death and resurrection, the Re-Creator (Col 1:16-18). He also refers to Christ as Savior and redeemer(Col 1:19-21, 2:8-15). It is then that Paul states (Col 2:16-17): Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.Christ is the fulfillment of the Sabbath because He is the substance of the two things that the Sabbath reflected only in shadow form. Now, I understand that Keller comes from a Reformed/Presbyterian perspective. I actually attend an unofficially Presbyterian church, so I am well versed in their view of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. What bothers me about this isn't the Sunday=Sabbath view per se. Even Presbyterian evangelicals don't have the hang-ups about Sabbath that SDAs do. Rather, what irritates me is the willingness to believe smooth-sounding human words and familiar traditions rather than accepting the testimony of the Word of God. Why is it so hard for evangelicals to believe that Sabbath has been fulfilled and that Christ is therefore greater? /rant (Message edited by bskillet on July 02, 2014) (Message edited by bskillet on July 02, 2014) | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 122 Registered: 4-2014 |
It's more sinister than you might think: "Seventh Day Adventists deny the resurrection by observing the Sabbath. We come to church on Sunday, the Lord's Day, to worship Him who "died for our sins, and rose again for our justification." We worship a living Savior, and with thanksgiving, can sing: "He lives, He lives, Christ Jesus lives today!" If I worship Christ on Saturday I deny that His work is finished, that He is a resurrected, living Savior." http://www.abaptistvoice.com/English/Articles/Miscelanous/WhyIAmABaptist.htm Pure and simple, Sabbath Keeping = "Resurrection Denial." Our "rest" is NOT because of a Holy Day. It is because of a Holy Event. The Resurrection. (Message edited by Resjudicata on July 02, 2014) (Message edited by Resjudicata on July 02, 2014) | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 2173 Registered: 6-2006  |
"Why is it so hard for evangelicals to believe that Sabbath has been fulfilled and that Christ is therefore greater?" I think people in general these days go for what sounds good to them as opposed to taking the time to research on their own. I see it all over facebook with political debates. Much of the time people are debating purely on emotion and not having all or even any of the facts. Bad cultural habits these days! I can only speak from my own experience, growing up Lutheran. I was always taught that Sabbath day worship was for Israel/Jews. At the same time, there was never an emphasis on "the Lord's Day", a term I never heard of until I was an adult. It was always an emphasis on seeing every Sunday as a mini-Easter celebrating Christ's resurrection. That being said, traditionally there has been a reference to the 10 commandments periodically which I took for granted as just part of the whole story. Invariably I feel there is a disconnect between traditional teaching and truly understanding the covenants, and I can see where passive church goers can be lured into a false view of Sabbath. (I'm not sure the term "Sabbatical" helps either!) I truly wish all mainstream churches would put more emphasis on the covenants and let go of the 10 C's as they do the Torah (They belong together, after all). I'd also like to see them teach a better grasp on basic church doctrine. Leigh Anne | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 123 Registered: 4-2014 |
Grace_Alone, In my mind, the underlying issue of the Sabbath/Lord's Day/Mini Easter confusion is that many clergy flat do not believe in the miracle of the Resurrection. Or like Adventists, severely constrain or deny its importance. Once you have the Resurrection straight, everything else falls into its proper perspective. That's my theory. Tell me what do you think of the Resurrection, and I will be able to accurately guess how you think of the Sabbath or the Lord's Day. Without mentioning any names, I have taken communion in a cathedral where it was obvious the clerics believed in neither the Eucharist, nor the Resurrection. You could see it in their eyes. I half expected their fingers were crossed behind their back when they handed me the wafer. And their writings confirmed my intuition: It was all about the "social gospel" and all the many contemporary and trivial social issues. Or self-help group this, or group-therapy that. I left that denomination as a result, and joined one that almost ridiculously makes Easter a solid month-long, wildly-over-the-top extravaganza celebration, with about a six week Lent leading up to it. And then you need about two more months to recover from it. Yeah, Easter really IS important enough to take those three or four months out of the year to celebrate it properly. In my mind, the Sunday "mini-Easter" idea does not go near far enough. It's a good start, a bare minimum. | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 2175 Registered: 6-2006 |
I'm not sure if you're meaning to speak in general or straight to me, Resjudicata. The "mini-Easter" is just my small commentary. It's not a doctrinal term used at church. We celebrate Christ's death and resurrection according to the gospel the disciples preached as Paul recorded in 1 Cor. 15. At the same time, (as I was raised) every single day belongs to Christ Jesus, so there is less emphasis on the day we worship and more on our Lord and Savior. Not that I have anything to prove to you. Just joining in on the conversation. ;) Leigh Anne | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 124 Registered: 4-2014 |
Leigh Anne, I was only speaking in general terms. I have gone to a wide variety of church's since leaving Adventism, everything from Oneness Pentecostal (yuck!) to High Church Episcopalian (much better). And as a result, only a few things are important to me anymore....The Resurrection, the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ. Maybe a handful of other, lesser doctrines. I think your small commentary of the "mini-Easter" was actually excellent! | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 1061 Registered: 8-2008 |
Leigh Anne, we know from the Church Fathers that believers met on the First Day to commemorate the Lord's Resurrection. So your interpretation of it as a mini-Easter is pretty accurate I think. I think your experience growing up is consistent with my understanding of Lutheran doctrine. Luther himself taught that Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ. I know Lutheranism does not specifically get its doctrines from him, but his historical influence in this regard is undeniable. Generally speaking Reformed Baptists tend to be more knowledgeable on the OC/NC distinction than others. I think people in general these days go for what sounds good to them as opposed to taking the time to research on their own. I see it all over facebook with political debates. Much of the time people are debating purely on emotion and not having all or even any of the facts. Bad cultural habits these days!In general this is certainly the case, but I don't think it's the case with a theologian like Tim Keller. In my mind, the underlying issue of the Sabbath/Lord's Day/Mini Easter confusion is that many clergy flat do not believe in the miracle of the Resurrection. Or like Adventists, severely constrain or deny its importance. Once you have the Resurrection straight, everything else falls into its proper perspective. That's my theory.I would have to disagree there. For instance, my own pastor R.C. Sproul teaches Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. I can guarantee you he both believes in the Resurrection and grasps its importance. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 3429 Registered: 7-2007 |
A lot of Christians think that the seventh day was changed to the first day so now Sunday is the new "Sabbath." It wasn't changed. Jesus fulfilled the day completely and now He is our Sabbath Rest! Christians who think the Sabbath Rest now is a day rather than Jesus are practically Adventists and could easily be decieved by Adventists, since the day was never changed. What I don't get is how Adventists don't see that the New Covanant is completely different from the Old one! But I guess I was like that too - completely ignorant of the Bible except the twists I was spoon fed. When I did see those verses in Colossians 2:16-17 that so clearly show that ALL the Sabbath were a shadow of Christ, I just skipped over those quickly, telling myself that somewhere Ellen White explained it. | ||
| Islander Registered user Username: Islander Post Number: 17 Registered: 4-2014 |
Dear Resjudicata, it is interesting what you say about denying the resurrection. For many years I attended a local Seventh Day Baptist church and I never had that opinion about anyone there. In fact,it was the opposite. Everyone who went to that church would rather have someone attend a Christian church on Sundays than not worship at all with The Body of Christ. | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 126 Registered: 4-2014 |
Islander, I totally agree about Seventh Day Baptists. They are a world of difference with SDA. | ||
| 1stthings1st Registered user Username: 1stthings1st Post Number: 12 Registered: 9-2013  |
Res, Huh. I had never made the connection from your earlier post that Sabbath Keeping = Resurrection Denial, until just now (although growing up as an Adventist, I often wondered why the resurrection was such a big deal in other churches). I just finished reading Romans 6, and the connection seems even clearer now. 5 Since we have been united with him in his death, we will also be raised to life as he was. 6 We know that our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ so that sin might lose its power in our lives. We are no longer slaves to sin. 7 For when we died with Christ we were set free from the power of sin. 8 And since we died with Christ, we know we will also live with him. 9 We are sure of this because Christ was raised from the dead, and he will never die again. Death no longer has any power over him. 10 When he died, he died once to break the power of sin. But now that he lives, he lives for the glory of God. 11 So you also should consider yourselves to be dead to the power of sin and alive to God through Christ Jesus. 12 Do not let sin control the way you live;[a] do not give in to sinful desires. 13 Do not let any part of your body become an instrument of evil to serve sin. Instead, give yourselves completely to God, for you were dead, but now you have new life. So use your whole body as an instrument to do what is right for the glory of God. 14 Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God’s grace. If I'm reading Paul correctly, it seems that if we are dead to sin through Christ's death, and we are raised to new life through his resurrection, then to live under the requirements of the law is to choose to deny the reality of the resurrection and the new life that is ours in Christ Jesus. And as Paul says "we are sure of this because Christ was raised from the dead". | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 137 Registered: 4-2014 |
1stthings1st; Thank you for your gentle remarks. Disclosure: I practiced Criminal Defense law for 19 years. I never witnessed one single person who was transformed by or became more moral because of law. This is such a profound reality, that the entire legal system has been overran by "Legal Realism:" We care what the Law actually IS, rather than it should be. Legal realism indicates the breakdown between Law and Morality: In the twain, they shall never meet. Law can never equal morality, or cause it. And the Sabbath is entirely an artificial legal construct. The Jews have more than 5,000 years of thinking about the Sabbath: That is how they see it. ANY of the Mosaic Law that becomes realistically impossible to follow is quickly abandoned. The Temple rites and laws are a prime example of this. There are 613 Mitzvot in the Old Testament, Judaism posits that only about 1/2 or less of them are applicable since the destruction of the Second Temple. We would do well to emulate the way they think about the Old Testament Law. Ask yourself this: if the destruction of the Temple instantly made obsolete 1/2 of the Old Testament Law, how much more should the Resurrection have obsoleted? Paul was an expert on the Jewish Law: He was taught by the foremost experts of his time. It is clear from the verse you cite that Law and the Resurrection are incompatible. Here's Ignatius of Antioch, who was uniquely a disciple of Apostles Peter and John: "8:1 Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we vow that we have not received grace: .... 9:1 If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny...." http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-magnesians-lightfoot.html (Message edited by Resjudicata on July 05, 2014) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 14868 Registered: 12-2003  |
Interesting observations about "resurrection denial". It makes a lot of sense. From my perspective as a former Adventist, I see Sabbath-keeping as a clear resurrection denial. We diminished it completely and denied its power NOW...we had no spirit that could become alive. Bskillet, unfortunately I have have seen Keller embracing ideas of spiritual formation and spiritual disciplines. His Sabbath-endorsement is, as you pointed out, not the typical Reformed "Lord's Day" observance (which I have a problem with, but that's "old news"  ). Rather, when people teach Sabbath as a spiritual discipline, it stresses the spiritual benefits, the subjective blessings and spiritual feelings, if you will, that the observance provides. It's spoken of as an almost mystical benefit, a "bigger than words" sacred rite or wordless blessing that enhances one's life and experience with God. Ultimately, the spiritual disciplines attach to ideas of contemplation and mystical spirituality, and even though it's very subtle and incremental, these things ultimately lead away from the power and radical reality of the gospel. They take people back to contributing to their own spiritual progress by embracing lovely practices that become fond habits...and they blur our total dependence upon the Lord Jesus and His finished work. Ultimately, we are sanctified exactly the same way we are justified: by the Lord Jesus. Yes, we have to do the next right thing at any given moment, but those acts of obedience are "as we live", submitting our emotions and decisions to the Lord Jesus as we realize what Scripture says we are to do. For example, if something rightly causes me alarm or fear or anger, I have to submit myself to Jesus at that moment, and allow His word to guide me...i.e., "be anxious for nothing" because I must trust that He is truly the one who fights for me and keeps His promises, etc. And He does give me His wisdom, but I have to submit my own impulses to Him. Keller's leaning towards spiritual disciplines as he writes about Sabbath is that "thing" that makes you uncomfortable, Bskillet, because it really is a subjective response, not a trust in Jesus. Colleen | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 145 Registered: 4-2014 |
I was just struck by something...... Nobody witnessed the "First" Creation. The Israelites were compelled to "Remember" the Sabbath Ordinance to remind them of God's Sovereignty, and because He is the Creator. The Sabbath is therefore an important - albeit artificially- constructed memorial to an event nobody saw. The Sabbath is a Law, because nobody saw the event it commemorates. There were over 500 live eyewitnesses to "The Second Creation" prior to Christ's Ascension. The Lord's Supper was given in Remembrance to an event that nobody who saw it could possibly forget. Skeeter is right: The Lord's Supper is something we actively and intimately participate in, since humanity was active, intimately-involved and present at the "Second Creation." It is NOT a mere Law that we merely "remember" something by. The Sabbath is passive, since humanity was passive in the First Creation. The Lord' Supper is active, since we physically-participate in the Resurrection. You can keep the Sabbath perfectly by snoring off a big potluck dinner in your Lazy-Boy recliner. In order to keep the Lord's Supper, you must "take up this Cross and Follow Me." | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 14874 Registered: 12-2003 |
Very well-said. Colleen | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 153 Registered: 4-2014 |
This subject is SO disturbing to ex-Adventists, given the "Trojan Horse" "virus" of the "Great Controversy." And yet the answer to this riddle is very logical and obvious when you strip each of the assertions down to their bare minimum: 1). Jesus willfully broke the Sabbath. Not only did he repeatedly violate it himself, he encouraged his disciples to break it too. Under the law, this is known as "aiding and abetting." Telling the man to take up his bed and walk was "work" under ANY reasonable interpretation of the 4th Commandment. And so was picking grain to eat on the Sabbath, which was a matter of convenience, not necessity. (how hard could it have been to pick the grain on Friday and set it aside? Did not the Son of God have the wherewithal to plan one-day ahead?). These actions had nothing to do with violating the "picky" Pharisaic "man made traditions." Work is work. And make no mistake, Jesus and his disciples "worked on the Sabbath" by any reasonable interpretation of the word. Obviously, the Sabbath was NOT a moral or permanent law. It was a mere commemoration of National independence for the Israilite captives newly-freed from Egyptian bondage. The Sabbath is no more "moral" than our tradition of lighting fireworks on the 4th of July. (I have not lately condemned my Canadian in-laws for their adamant refusal to fire off some bottle rockets on the 4th of July). 2). The Apostles viewed and analyzed this behavior of Jesus's correctly. Only an Adventist can declare that Colossians 2:13-18 does not mean what it says. Which is why the Apostles immediately adopted the "Lord's Day" tradition of venerating the Resurrection. And then made it formal with the AD 50 Decree of Jerusalem. The Apostles did NOT apostatize 17 years after the Resurrection: By the clear example of Jesus, the Sabbath was a non-issue. They followed Jesus's clear example when they instructed Gentiles not to keep the Sabbath, because it was NOT a moral law and breaking it was NOT a sin. The Apostles, however, painstakingly spelled out behavior that WAS a sin, and Sabbath breaking is notable by its absence. 3). No later than the "Second Generation" of Christianity, Sabbath Keeping had evolved into a noxious heresy, the keeping of which indicated a lack of receiving Grace. Not accepting Grace and denigrating the Resurrection were excommunicable offenses. And persistent Sabbath Keeping was powerful direct evidence of failure to comprehend the Resurrection and receiving Grace. To argue otherwise is to argue that St. Ignatius - a direct disciple of Peter, John and Paul - disregarded their instructions within a few years following their death. And then openly encouraged Christians under his supervision to break the Sabbath - while he was in chains and on his way to be devoured by Lions in the Roman Coliseum. The man did nothing out of sheer convenience. No follower of Christ after 33 AD thought Sabbath Breaking was a sin. The Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church were nowhere in sight. There was no convoluted centuries-long conspiracy of the Papacy to "pull the wool" over the eyes of the Protestant Reformers on the Sabbath issue. Sunday veneration of the Resurrection commenced within minutes after the discovery of the empty tomb. (Message edited by Resjudicata on July 09, 2014) (Message edited by Resjudicata on July 09, 2014) | ||
| Leifl Registered user Username: Leifl Post Number: 44 Registered: 3-2014  |
The Continental Reformers had a different view of the Sabbath than the English Reformation. Compare the Augsburg Confession with the Westminster Confession. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 14883 Registered: 12-2003 |
Leifl, you are right. The Augsburg Confession does not retain the Sabbath requirement; Westminster does. Covenant theology (as opposed to New Covenant or Dispensational theology) retains the Mosaic covenant in part for today. They don't say we're under it, but they retain the Law as having some authority for Christians, especially the "third use of the law". The problem with covenant theology is that it sees "covenants" as the central theme of Scripture instead of seeing "covenants" as introducing the REAL central theme: the Lord Jesus. I realize I'm over-simplifying, but covenant theology leaves us with serious problems. If the Ten Commandments are for Christians, then Adventists actually have the best argument; they don't try to change the day. Colleen | ||
| Leifl Registered user Username: Leifl Post Number: 45 Registered: 3-2014 |
I think Calvin tried to correct a certain (actual or perceived) tendency toward antinomianism in Luther's theology. John Calvin's Covenant Theology was adopted by John Knox and formed the hermeneutical backbone of Puratinism and a major force in the English Reformation. Despite their tendency toward legalism, the Puritan writers (John Owen, etc.) produced some of the greatest Christ-centered gospel writings of all time, IMO. However, there were abuses, look at some of the American Puratinism. It sought to use whatever power it had to bring the new world into subjection to Puritan Christianity. Thank God for the Baptists, to whom we owe our modern principles of religious liberty. I think the great lesson we can learn from the history we have the benefit of knowing from our vantage point is to realize that any construct that we apply to the gospel is insufficient. I tend to draw my worldview from Luther's Evangelicalism, Calvinism, and baptistic thought which all have positive points. Following any particular line of thought to its extreme, to the exclusion of all others, is a recipe for disaster. | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 211 Registered: 4-2014 |
I hope I do not get reprimanded for being so "anal" in my insistence on the following, but it is so CLEAR to me that Christians are unnecessarily suffering under the Yoke of the Law, and missing so much of the joy of Christianity based solely on legal malpractice. If you read my prior version of this rant, please bear with me and read this drastically-expanded version. Even leaving aside the obvious arguments for and against the sharp distinctions between the Old and New Testament covenants; the argument that Christians are bound by the Ten Commandments rests on an egregiously-false and misleading view of the Old Testament Law. I have substantially rewritten a post that I previously posted on another thread, but I must insist on repeating it for the above reasons. In a court situation, it has long been recognized that a false view of the law is perilous to the Court's basic functioning. It is a crime against Justice. If a decision is based on an incorrect legal basis, the whole justice system is brought into disrepute. So attorneys have an AFFIRMATIVE duty to disclose legal authority that is 100 percent contrary and harmful to their client's case! It is a mandatory exception to the attorney's duty of attorney/client confidentiality and duty of ONLY zealously representing your client's interests. You MUST disclose legal authority that may well cause your client to "lose" their case, and the other side "win!" As an "officer of the court," your duty of insuring that the Court has the most honest version of the law overrules your client's interest in "winning" the case. Nobody "wins" if the Court makes its decision on a faulty view of the law. The indisputable centrality of the Sabbath in history and theology defines Seventh Day Adventism. The world and history revolve around the Sabbath, according to EGW. The existence of the Noahide Laws plainly refutes the argument that the Sabbath was a creation ordinance, or that the Mosaic law had any application to Gentiles, Christian or not. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli - all having legal backgrounds - also either overlooked the existence of the Noahide laws, or did not understand their function and structure. The Noahide Laws sharply refutes EGW's hysterical declaration that without the Ten Commandments, the world would be engulfed in anarchy, murder, theft, adultery and dishonesty. They also refute the Reformer's muddled and faulty negligent legal analysis that did not draw a sharp distinction between the Old and New Covenants. The Reformation view that the Sabbath was a continuing ordinance for Christian, Sunday instead of Saturday, is based entirely on an obvious ignorance of Jewish Legal history. All of the “major” sins prohibited in the Ten Commandments were also prohibited and harshly punished by the Noahide laws and were enforced via an amazingly modern court system that long predated the Ten Commandments and Sinai. Furthermore, the Noahide Laws continued to be enforced as the prevailing law against resident Gentiles living in the Lands of the Children of Israel, up to the Destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. Plainly, ancient Judaea had an "apartheid" system of law: One set of laws applied to Jews, another set applied to Gentiles. This apartheid system of law was clearly the basis of the Council of Jerusalem's decision in AD 50 (Acts 15) that Gentile Christian converts would NOT be bound by the Mosaic Law. Gentiles would NOT be required to convert to Judaism as part of their conversion to Christianity. By willfully withholding the existence of the Noahide Laws (Ellen White), or probably being negligent in not knowing about them (Reformers); Adventists can make a plausible, but egregiously-deceptive argument that the Antioch Christians were already observing the Sabbath, and did not need to be told to do so. And the Reformers could understandably make an erroneous theology of a continuing Sabbath ordinance binding Protestant Christians. Yet even a superficial understanding of the Noahide legal system proves that nothing could be further from the truth. The argument that Gentile Christian converts must be circumcised is an argument that Christians must concurrently convert to Judaism. You cannot keep the Sabbath without converting to Judaism. That legal history is crystal clear: A Gentile keeping the Sabbath without full conversion to Judaism is subject to the Death Penalty. The rationale behind this harsh outcome was the indisputable fact that Gentiles already had their "own" set of laws: The 7 Noahide Mitzvot. Additionally, a Gentile that solemnly declared they were bound by and subject to the Noahide Laws, in front of three Rabbis, had ALL of the benefits of full conversion to Judaism, including the "afterlife." Now why would any Gentile even consider the cringe-inducing meeting with the grinning Rabbi,the dull circumcision knife, and no local anesthesia? The Reformers also neglected this obvious outcome of their tragically-flawed legal analysis. Without disclosing the existence of the Noahide Laws, Ellen White prevented Adventists from having any suspicion that she was being dishonest about her wildly-hysterical, Sabbath-centric declarations and her absurdly dishonest rendition of history. And the Reformers erroneously revived an argument that had long been settled by Christianity: That Christians were NOT bound by the Ten Commandments or the Sabbath. Any attorney that made such a willful and blatant misrepresentation of the law would be subject to disbarment. Fortunately, I have no doubt the Reformers made their mistake out of sheer ignorance and/or negligence. That is also clearly not the case with Ellen White. White, while massively plagiarizing from Edersheim, made a calculated decision to withhold the Noahide laws from Adventist membership. She perpetuated a really unbelievable and massive intentional deception. And here we are, inching towards the 200th year anniversary of the 1844 false prophecy and Ellen White continues to have an absolutely uncontested role as Adventism's sole prophet. It truly is an amazing, jaw-dropping outcome. And Protestant Christians continue to have a muddled attitude towards the Old and New covenants that really should be razor sharp, clear cut and bright line. There is NO credible argument that Christians are in any way bound by the Ten Commandments. It is only due to faulty legal reasoning or lack of information (The case of the Protestant Reformers); or deliberate misrepresentation of the Noahide Laws (Ellen White and Adventism) that Christians are left with even the slightest lingering doubt that Sabbath observance may apply to them. And here's the rub: The First and Second and Third Century Christian leaders harshly denounced Sabbath Keeping as a heresy and a sin. This clear history was either overlooked, or unavailable to the Reformers. Why would the early Christians have taken such position that was NOT adopted by the Reformers? My personal theory is that the Early Christians were closer in time proximity to the Apostles, particularly ex-Pharisee legal whiz kid St. Paul. Early Christians were taught at the knee of the Apostles, who were much more familiar with the Jewish Legal regime. They lived in it for many years before they met Christ, and followed it during his ministry. I also believe that the Apostles and Second Generation Christians took such a harsh anti-Sabbath attitude because of their association with Jesus and his constant willful Sabbath Breaking. When I read Luther's and Calvin's description of their Sabbath theology, it is clear that their thinking on the subject stems from many different misconceptions and probable ignorance about the structure of the Mosaic Law, and most importantly the existence and continuing vitality of the Noahide laws until the AD 70 Destruction of the Second Temple. Lesson Learned: Theologians and Bible Scholars probably should not pretend to be legal scholars, especially given the fact that the Old Testament is essentially a pale “Cliff Notes” version of the Mosaic Law. It contains perhaps 5 percent of the total Jewish law as outlined in the Mishnah Torah, which itself has only about 20 percent of the Law as outlined in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. Which themselves have less than 1 percent of the Diaspora legal analysis of the collected Responsa writings, which the Israeli Government is presently unsuccessfully-struggling in the monumental task of digitizing all 30,000 bound volumes. In a word, Christians need to stay away from the Mosaic Law at all costs. It is a deathtrap for Christian Joy. It is a complex and intricate thicket that is far beyond their comprehension. There is just no gray area here: The Law and Grace cannot and do not mix. |
