Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Azenilto Brito]

40 QUESTIONS FOR SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, ANSWERED AND RETRIBUTED

1st. Question: Why do you keep only one of the ceremonial Jewish Sabbath ordered by God? Every seven years, the seventh year, the Sabbatical year, also the year of the Jubilee, was a Sabbath (Lev. 25:1-22). Why do you keep only one Sabbath and leave the others out?
 
ANSWER:  Because they were not all in the tables of stone on which God wrote with His own finger when He uttered the 10 Commandments to the ears of the people, and it was said “and he added no more”.  Nothing is said about keeping the other Sabbaths (Deu.5:22). These other belong to that law called by the Christians over the centuries (such as the Baptists, in their Confession of Faith of 1689, the Presbyterians in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647, and before them the Catholics and Orthodox) ceremonial law. The moral law is known as the Ten Commandments by these same Christians and also is so mentioned in the different denominational confessional documents.

Questions for retribution: Why do you want to add all types of laws to that one that God pronounced audibly, as if they are all equal, when it is clearly said that after uttering the Ten Commandments (which were later written by God on tables of stone), “He added no more” (Deu. 5:22)? Aren’t you going against what God did when seeking to add to the “Moral law” other principles that are not part of the divine code, going beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6)?

2nd. Question: Why do you base your religion so much on the Sabbath, when we know that the Lord taught that both the law and the prophets are based on love, not on keeping the law? (Mat. 22:34-40, Rom. 13:8-10)?

ANSWER: The basis of our religion is Christ, and Him crucified. We are justified fully by faith, not by works, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:8, 9. This text is accompanied by another that many “forget” to mention with these two: Ephesians 2:10.

The Sabbath is part of God’s commandments about which Paul, the great champion of the message of salvation only by faith, said: “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God” (1 Cor 7:19). Obedience to the commandments of God does not enter in the field of justification, but in that of sanctification, which the Calvinists call “perseverance of the saints”.

Questions for retribution: How come Paul didn’t reveal any knowledge on the freedom of Christians to disobey the commandments of the Decalogue, as he recommends naturally and objectively the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th commandments to the GENTILES of Ephesus and Rome (Eph. 6:1-3; 4:25-31; Rom. 13:8-10)?

3rd. Question: How do you lit a fire on the seventh day despite that being forbidden in the Levitical law (Exo. 35:3)? As you do that, certainly break the Sabbath.

Note: The breaking of the Sabbath was punished with the death penalty to the transgressor. That is part of the Sabbath law, which cannot be separated. Thus, if you want to keep the law, obey it completely, beginning to stone to death those who break the Sabbath. (Exo. 31:15, Jas. 2:10) (See question 13).

ANSWER: Lighting a fire at that time was a very complicated matter, not to compare to what we have today, when just pressing a button, or rubbing a match stick against a strip of chemical material produces the flame. The custom of that time was to leave a fire constantly lit during the Sabbath hours so that on that day there was no need for all the big task of producing a wood fire. The penalty of breaking the Sabbath commandment was not different from related penalties for breaking other commandments, like blasphemy. Even a very rebel child was supposed to be sent to the elders for condemning him to death (Deu. 21:18-21), which is not attached to the moral law as uttered by God. That was part of a “penal law”.

Now , when Paul recommended the 5th commandment to the Ephesians (Eph. 6:1-3), they were not supposed to follow that rule anymore, why?

Questions for retribution: Why, instead of creating excuses like this to escape from keeping the commandment of the Sabbath, don’t you observe the day without lighting fires in the home? If that is the problem, if it is considered wrong to lit a fire in such a fast and practical way on any day, do not judge those who do so because that does not change the nature of the principle. If you prefer to follow a Sabbath keeping “a la Pharisees”, so be it . . . Keep it without lighting any fires, but observe the day, because, I repeat, this is not a valid excuse to break the validity of the commandment.

4th. Question: Tell me, when and where in the Bible did the Lord Jesus tell His Apostles that they should keep the Ten Commandments? I shall be content with the chapter and verse.

Note: The Lord Jesus Christ, instead, broke the Mosaic law of Sabbath keeping. This is categorically stated as one of the reasons why the Jews hated the Lord Jesus Christ (John 5:18).

ANSWER:  Jesus told ALL His followers to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves when there was NO Gentile present. Did He say that only for Jews? By the reasoning of the opponents, the “golden rule” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles. . . So with many of his recommendations as the Lord’s Prayer, not to worry about tomorrow, not to hoard treasures on the Earth, not judge by appearances. . .

These are universal principles, as well as ALL of the 10 Commandments, including the Sabbath, which is recognized by the three great heroes of the Protestant Movement--Luther, Calvin and Wesley. They all recognized that the Sabbath principle stems from the creation of the world, and is applicable to all men everywhere, even though interpreting it as applying to Sunday (an error of interpretation, but that does not change the ideological basis of the question). Jesus did not violate the Sabbath as the Jews accused Him of doing. (See Mat 12: 10-12).

Questions for retribution: This type of “argument from silence” is the weakest way to defend or combat an idea. There is no clear, specific, verbatim commandment of Christ to Jews or Gentiles that meets the 3rd commandment (not to take God's name in vain), to not use sculpted images of the Church's saints, and nothing prohibiting communication with the dead. By the reasoning of this 4th question, could a Gentile (or Jew) Christian: a) take God’s name in vain; b) worship sculpted images of the Church's saints; c) communicate with the dead. . .? 

5th. Question: Can I get some text in the Bible where it orders Gentiles converted to Christianity in the New Testament, to observe the Sabbath commandment in accordance with the law given to Israel in the Old Testament? Again, just give me the chapter and the verse.

ANSWER:  Again, the methodology of that weak “argument from silence.” As already mentioned in the previous question, there are many principles that Christians heed universally, but are not defined in the New Testament so objectively, specifically and clearly. Where is there ever any commandment to the Gentiles not to consult the dead? However, Jesus said that “the Sabbath was established because of man” without defining that it referred only to the Jewish man. It is the same man-anthropos that leaves his father and mother to cling to his wife (Matt. 19:5, 6).

Question for retribution: Since Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, and it is understood that it applies only to the Jewish man, does that mean that marriage is meant only to the Jews?

6th. Question: You state, without proving it, that the Sabbath was kept before the law was given to Moses at Mount Sinai. The law of circumcision was also given before Moses (Gen. 17:10). Thus, why don’t you practice circumcision, being that one of the clearest commandments of the Levitical law? Remember that the Gentiles only could keep the ceremonial law, which included the Sabbath, as you profess to keep, after being circumcised (Acts  11:2-3; 15:2) Once more I ask: Why do you keep a commandment, but despise the other? (Jas. 2:10).

ANSWER: Because circumcision was a common costume of that time, as well as polygamy, afterwards incorporated in the law for Israel, which took into account many things of cultural character, along with moral principles. What defines the law of MORAL and UNIVERSAL character is what God uttered on Sinai to the ears of the people.

Christians ALWAYS understood that the 10 Commandments are a special law, which deals with these universal principles, and were in force BEFORE Sinai, and keep on being valid and in force AFTER it, such as “thou shalt not kill”, “thou shalt not commit adultery”, “honor thy father and thy mother”. It is not a ceremonial precept.

And the Sabbath stems from the creation of the world (Gen. 2:2, 3), as we already mentioned, which is recognized historically by the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, as one can read in their confessions of faith, creeds, catechisms and their works of religious instruction, Bible commentaries, etc.

Questions for retribution: Where is it said that the Sabbath WAS NOT observed before Sinai? Where is it said specifically that before Sinai men should not steal, lie, covet other people’s things and to honor father and mother?

7th. Question: The apostle Paul writes in Galatians 3:19 that the law was given because of the transgressions. You teach that the part of the law that refers to the Sabbath commandment was given to man immediately after his creation, however the Scriptures say that it was after the Fall. Can’t you see that the Adventist theory that the law was given in two occasions doesn’t agree with the facts?

ANSWER: The problem is the tremendous ignorance that prevails among modern Evangelicals, especially among those who follow this line of false teachings of the neo-antinomians dispensationalists. NOT ONLY THE ADVENTISTS teach that God granted men His law at creation, which was written in their hearts. How about reproducing the 1689 Baptist Confession of faith, which indicates the sentiments and teachings of Christendom since past centuries?:

The Law of God

1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.

2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the ten commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

Question for retribution: Why is there such a profound ignorance about these historical data on the official doctrines taught for centuries by Evangelicals/Protestants, and even before them, by the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, regarding the nature of the original law given to man since his creation?

8th. Question: Why is it that in the commandments given to our first parents in Eden, and in those given to the patriarchs Noah, Abraham and others, there is not a single reference on the duty to keep the Sabbath? Why the word Sabbath is not mentioned but after two thousand years had elapsed since man’s creation? If the Adventists theories were right—shouldn’t references to Sabbath keeping occur many times before Exodus 16?

Note: Not even Abraham received any order to keep the Sabbath, which was given only to Moses. Could the Adventists show us any text that proves that the patriarchs kept the Sabbath as they advocate?

ANSWER: Again, the weakest “argument from silence”. But besides what we said in the previous question, how about this important commentary of a scholar from the Moody Bible Institute, which is not an Adventist institution?:

“As presented to us in Scriptures the Sabbath was not the invention of any religious founder. It was not at first part of any system of religion, but an entirely independent institution. Very definitely it is presented in Genesis as the very first institution, inaugurated by the Creator himself. It was purely religious, wholly moral, wholly spiritual. It had no prescribed ceremonies, no sacramentarian significance. It required no priest, no liturgy. It was for man as God’s creature, steward and friend”. -- W. O. Carver, Sabbath Observance, p. 41, Produced by the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.

“The week, with its Sabbath, is an artificial device. The reason for it is found only in the Old Testament Scriptures. Here it is always associated with revelation from God. . . .

“Religious ideas and practices among all peoples, in varying degrees have been associated with all the time divisions which men have adopted. But in connection only with the week is religion obviously the explanation of its origin, and the week only is uniformly attributed to command of God. The week exists because of the Sabbath. It is historically and scientifically true that the Sabbath was made by God”.  Idem, pp. 34, 35.—Highlight Added.

Question for retribution: Since nothing is said that BEFORE Sinai there were specific commandments against stealing, lying, coveting the things and wife of the neighbor, not to take God’s name in vain, not to worship sculpted images, would that lead one to conclude that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob could lie, steal, take God’s name in vain and worship sculpted images, etc.? If not, why not?

9th. Question: Where do we find in the Scriptures that God had given any commandment on Sabbath keeping before the people of Israel was delivered from the Egyptian bondage? Remember to mention the chapter and verse in each case, without making any reference to Genesis 2:1-3, for there is no commandment there on that either.

Note:  The seventh day was sanctified only in God’s mind. We see that the Bible mentions only that which God communicated verbally to man; there appears only the words “. . . and He said to them. . .

ANSWER: Again, the poor resource of the “argument from silence”. In Exodus 16, when the Sabbath is mentioned all indications are that it was a pre-existent institution. In vs. 4 it is indicated that the mannah would be granted in six days, with the exception of the seventh day, so that it served as a test on the people’s obedience to the divine law WHICH ALREADY EXISTED. As additionally says the Bible Commentary:

“Contrary to what some think, there is nothing in the text or its context that indicate that the Sabbath was given then to the Israelites by the first time. Actually, it is implied that they knew the Sabbath already, however had become negligent as to its observance (chap. 16: 4).  Thus, the Sabbath commandment was renewed, and its observance reinforced as the day of worship”.

Question for retribution: Can you  prove that when it is said that Abraham obeyed God’s commandments, statutes and laws, in Genesis 26:5, that applied only to those principles corresponding to NINE out of TEN commandments, the principle of Sabbath keeping being excluded, but not any other of the nine?

10th. Question: If the commandment was given to Adam on the creation day, how could God have mistaken the date? Adam was created on the sixth day, and the seventh day, to which Genesis makes reference, was the second of Adam’s existence. If Adam had to work six day, then rest on the seventh, he would be mistaken for five days in his calculation. The Sabbath would not be the seventh day because he would have worked only one day. Adam’s Sabbath would have been a Sabbath of the second day.

Note: It’s interesting that the Adventists also make a great confusion in the calculation of days, caused by their Pharisaical zeal in attempting to keep the Levitical law given to the people of Israel, and not to us, Christians among the Gentiles. In Exo. 20:9 we read clearly that one should work six days. It is an order and part of the law to be fulfilled. But the Adventists work only five days, for they take advantage of the “Sabbath” of the Gentile Christians, observed on the 1st day of the week (Revelation 1:10) and have an extra day off, generally going to the beach or strolls. So, they break the law they so much attempt to fulfill, being reproved even before the end of the first sentence in the commandment.

ANSWER: There is no problem, at all. This is pure sophistry as one more excuse of those who want to escape from a Bible precept that seems quite “inconvenient” to them. When God invited the foreigners to accept the pact He had set with Israel, in Isa. 56:2-7, it is not said that they should do it at sunset of the Sabbath day so that they could fulfill the “quota” of six days of work before observing their first Sabbath. If a Christian is baptized on a Wednesday, he or she certainly will have a shorter first week as a believer, which makes no difference before God.

Also the commandment says that in six day, “all your work” should be executed, which involves any other secular activities, such as business, sports practice, home tasks, recreation. The working six days doesn’t apply exclusively to a job in a factory, office, shop or farm.

Questions for retribution: Can you prove that Adam worked as a gardener in the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:15) during ALL the seven days of the week, just pausing at night to rest, without dedicating any day to God? Also, can you prove that the first Sabbath was a holiday only to the Creator, not to the creature?   

11th. Question: Haven’t you read Nehemiah 9:12-14 where it is clearly said that the Sabbath was given to Israel at the Sinai mount? Since the Sabbath was given only to Israel, why do you insist to have others observing it?

ANSWER: Anti-Sabbatarians wish that Nehemiah have adopted their same agenda to denigrate the Sabbath, when there was no climate for that at his time. Even after that, God indicated the importance of the Sabbath through Ezekiel and Isaiah (Eze. 20:12, 20 and Isa. 58:13, 14). Nehemiah is presenting a historical review of how God was favorable to the people, and among the different episodes of Israel’s history he recalls them their privilege of having the Sabbath, which is the only one of the commandments mentioned.

This is no indication that the origin of the Sabbath was at Sinai. If that was so we would have a contradiction to many other data that indicate the origin of the Sabbath from Eden. As the SDA Bible Commentary puts it:


edited at poster's request

[Azenilto Brito]

“The words used here mean that the Sabbath had existed before the law was enacted, which agrees with Gen. 2: 2, 3 and Exo. 16: 23. Note that Nehemiah felt that the commandment of the Sabbath would have special importance because it is the only commandment of the Decalogue specifically mentioned. He states that it was granted by God as a benefit for the Israelites because they hadn’t shared the rest of God on that day.”

Question for retribution: If the Sabbath was just given to Israel, why did God decide to extend the principle to foreigners, according to His ideal that His “house” became “an house of prayer for all peoples” (Isa. 56:2-7)?

12th. Question: Why do you put the Gentiles under the Sabbath obligation, when it was never thus intended? The law says: “A sign between me and the children of Israel for ever” (Exo. 31:16, 17). It makes no mention of the Gentiles. Read also Ezekiel 20:10-12.

ANSWER: The Sabbath was given to Israel at the Sinai mountain solemnly along with all the other commandments. The universal character of the Sabbath has always been recognized by Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans in their confessions of faith, creeds and doctrinal statements. The National Baptist Convention in Brazil indicates in their Doctrinal Statement that the Sabbath is the sign between God and His people in its 15th paragraph, applying it to Sunday. This makes sense, because atheists, materialists and relapse Christian can’t be characterized as those willing to spend a whole 24-hour day devoted to spiritual activities every week.

Questions for retribution: Why did God say that the Sabbath was a sign between Him and His people of Israel, not between Him and the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Ethiopians? Whoever knows how to answer this question will be half way through to understand the whole issue. . .

13th. Question: The Jewish Sabbath law that you, 7th-day Adventists, profess to keep says clearly: “Six days shall work be done, but in the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death” (Exo. 35:2). See also 31:14. If the first part of the legislation is obligatory to the Christians, the second should be so also. How are you able to obey the law that stipulates death condemnation for those who work on the Sabbath day?

ANSWER: One can notice the clear prejudice and discrimination against the Sabbath commandment, as it is forgotten that not only the Sabbath entailed condemnation to death of violators. Also blasphemy, adultery, and the very rebel children were brought before the elders and judges and stoned to death (Deut. 21:18-21).

Christians accept the principles against blasphemy, adultery and that of honoring the parents without stoning to death their violators, which indicates their real motivation of slipping away from the “inconvenient” Sabbath commandment only.

Questions for retribution: Why don’t you condemn to death the blasphemers, adulterers and rebellious children, as the law of condemnation for these violators also applied to those guilty of breaking commandments of the divine law that you accept naturally?

14th. Question: Why do you eat food prepared with fire lit on the Sabbath day? Don’t you know that it infringes the law, since you put your eternal salvation on Sabbath keeping? (Exo. 16:23-30 and 35: 1-3)

ANSWER: This has been fully explained in Question # 3 where the basic facts about the subject are shown. Now, the statement that Adventists base eternal salvation on the Sabbath law is a gross distortion, a giving of false testimony against the neighbor, for which those who allege that will have to give account to God one day (Mat. 12:36). Now, that is what constitutes and infringement of God’s law, can’t you see it?

Questions for retribution: Why do you give false witness about the Sabbath-observing Christians regarding their real sentiments and teachings on what they understand as the basis of salvation? Would it be because you learn from false teachers who say pleasant things to your ears, like the law having been “abolished”, and, consequently, the ninth commandment, “thou shalt not give false witness against your neighbor” came to an end?

15th. Question: Why don’t you fulfill the whole law of the Sabbath, offering the sacrifices of the law required in Leviticus? They are an essential part of the Sabbath law, according to Numbers 28:9,10. But you don’t comply with everything involved in the commandment, thus infringing said law.

ANSWER: Because the sacrifices were clearly typological rites that pointed to the future “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”, while the Sabbath is a memorial of a past fact and principle of universal character, as recognized for centuries by Christians in their confessions of faith, creeds and catechisms, as well as taught for centuries by biblical commentators and even the three big names among the founders of the Protestant Movement--Luther, Calvin and Wesley. The ignorance of these facts among many who claim to be among those who carry out the work of these pioneer Christians is simply shocking.

Let’s take some of the statements of these men who have always deserved the greatest respect in the Christian community, commenting on the text of Genesis 2:2, 3:

Martin Luther:

“Hence you can see that the Sabbath was before the law of Moses came, and has existed from the beginning of the world. Especially have the devout, who have preserved the true faith, met together and called upon God on this day”lated from Auslegung des Alten Testaments (Commentary on the Old Testament), in Sämmtliche Schriften (Collected Writings), edited by J. G. Walch, Vol. 3, col. 950.

John Calvin:

First, therefore, God rested; then he blessed this rest, that in all ages it might be held sacred among men: or he dedicated every seventh day to rest, that his own example might be a perpetual rule. The design of the institution [the Sabbath] must be always kept in memory: for God did not command men simply to keep holiday every seventh day, as if he delighted in their indolence; but rather that they, being released from all other business, might the more readily apply their minds to the Creator of the world. . . .. For God cannot either more gently allure, or more effectually incite us to obedience, than by inviting and exhorting us to the imitation of himself. Besides, we must know, that this is to be the common employment not of one age or people only, but of the whole human race.

Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.viii.i.html (Christian Classics Ethereal Library).

John Wesley:

“‘Six days shall thou do all manner of work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.’ It is not thine, but God’s day. He claims it for his own. He always did claim it for this own, even from the beginning of the world. ‘In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed it.’ He hallowed it, that is, he made it holy; he reserved it for his own service. He appointed, that as long as the sun or the moon, the heavens and the earth, should endure, the children of men should spend this day in the worship of him who ‘gave them life and breath and all things.’”ord to a Sabbath-Breaker”, in Works, Vol. 11 (1830 ed. ), pp. 164-166.

Questions for retribution: Inasmuch as you practice 9 of the commandments of the moral law, why don’t you practice 90% of the law of sacrifices of the Levitical law?

16th. Question: If the commandments of the law refer only to the Ten Commandments as you Adventists say, how is it that the Lord Jesus Christ answered about the law citing only two commandments, which are not among the ten (see Mat. 22:35-40)? He cited one commandment that is in Leviticus 19:18 and another in Deuteronomy 6:5. Did Jesus make a mistake? Only one of the alternatives may be correct: either the Adventists are right and the Lord Jesus Christ wrong, or the Lord Jesus Christ is right and the Adventists wrong. What do you Adventists say about that?

ANSWER: What a tremendous ignorance, again! First, we have the false insinuation that Adventists believe that the word “commandments” only applies to the Ten Commandments, ignoring that the word includes all such orders by God or Jesus, as “Go, preach the gospel to all nations.” Moreover, we have shown that Jesus cites the SUMMARY of the law in His “golden rule”. To say that this is not part of the Ten shows how you ignore that the “golden rule” is not part of the Decalogue--IT IS THE DECALOGUE ITSELF, in synthesis. The first four commandments regard our responsibility to God,while the last six, the same to the neighbor. This explanation is in the historical confessional documents of the Lutherans, Baptists and Presbyterians, and even before them, always represented the official teaching of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Questions for retribution: Why did Jesus repeat the commandment to love the neighbor along with the several comandments of the Decalogue as being of the same category (see Mat. 19:18, 19)?

17th. Question: The Apostle Paul described the law as a ministry of death written on stone (2 Cor. 3:1-18; Exo. 20:1-17, 31:18, 2:15, 16; 34:1-28). He also tells us that this ministry would perish, and was transitional (2 Cor. 3:7-11). Can you contradict Paul and, especially, the Word of God as you says that the ministry of death is back to life, supplanting the New Covenant of grace that has been brought by Christ (Heb. 12:24)?

ANSWER: That text is a tremendous “shot” that backfires on those who use it against the Sabbath principle. Paul employs a metaphor that was first used by Ezekiel (Eze. 11:19, 20 and 36:26, 27) in which he applies the idea of “tables of flesh of the heart”, clearly implying that these tables would bring the entire contents of the tables of stone.

The text as used by Paul is clearly a contrast between those who have the law only as written in letters on cold stones rather than on their hearts, what would put them under a ministry of death, because in that case the law would only be a source of condemnation to them. And, of course, when Paul utilizes this illustration, he had in mind the entire contents of tables of stone transferred to the tables of flesh—their hearts! This is the promise of the New Covenant, as we read in Hebrews 8:8-10 and 10:16. If he thought differently, that only NINE out of TEN of the commandments are transferred to the “tables of flesh”, his use the metaphor itself would make no sense. . .

Questions for retribution: If what was on the tables of stone meant DEATH, how could God grant His people, solemnly gathered, a law that would result in DEATH? What kind of God would that be who makes discrimination among people, reserving the law of love and justice only for Christians, while Israel was to receive a law of DEATH? Isn’t God the one who is no respecter of people?

18. Question: In Galatians 3:19 we read that the law was given until the seed came, thus being clear that the law would not be perpetual, but would serve for a limited time. The seed, Christ, has redeemed us from the law. (Gal. 3:13) so that, according to the Scriptures, He ended the period for which the law was given. Now we are free from it (Rom. 7:1-6). Why don’t you accept the Word of God in this sense?

ANSWER: If the law was not perpetual, then the Christians are now free to kill, steal, lie, commit adultery. . . Oh, they say, but all these principles were later confirmed in the New Testament, except the Sabbath. If that is so, we have an incredible situation that we described in our study “10 Dilemmas of Those Who Deny the Validity of the 10 Commandments as Christian Norm”:

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

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

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

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

Questions for retribution: If the law was valid only until Christ, how is it that John saw in a vision the ark of the covenant in heaven (Rev. 11:19), within which were the original Ten Commandments of the earthly copy, as we read in Deu. 10:1-5? Thus, the original is still there, with all God’s law, which serves as the basis to judge everyone, as James makes clear calling it the “real law” and “law of liberty”(Jas. 2:8-12)?

19th. Question: If the Christians are obliged to keep the Sabbath, why wasn’t that included in the very important letter sent to the churches by the apostles and elders in the event of the Jerusalem council that met to consider the questions of the Gentiles and their obligation to fulfill the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1-29)?

ANSWER: What we have here is another incredible interpretive “shot” that backfires, for the council’s decision dealt with certain themes that caused doubts and difficulties among the Christians. Notice that the four rules that were defined there are NOT ABOUT THINGS TO FULFILL, as if they were a “tetralogue” that replaced the Decalogue, as some misunderstand. Rather, the four rules are about things the Gentile Christians should ABSTAIN from, i.e., not to practice. And the Sabbath IS NOT IN THE LIST. This is a very embarrassing situation for the anti-Sabbatarians. If the Jerusalem council defined the non-keeping of the Sabbath, as they allege, then the apostles “forgot” to include Sabbath keeping among the rules of the law they SHOULD NOT take into account, which shows how our opponents are confused regarding that question (and others too. . .).

Acts 15:21 says that each Sabbath Moses was read in the synagogues. Did you know that the early Christians went regularly to the synagogues to hear the reading of the Torah, since they couldn’t have copies of the Bible in abundance at an accessible price, as we do today? If they went there any other day that was not the Sabbath, either they would find the doors closed, or there would be no reading of the Torah. Read in Acts 9:2 how Paul had orders to persecute Christians found in the synagogues, which is confirmed in Acts 22:19 e 26:10 e 11.

Questions for retribution: Does the fact that Christ and Paul never recommend specifically the obedience of certain commandments (as against taking God’s name in vain, do not consult the dead nor worship images) mean that Christians are free to take God’s name in vain, use sculpted images in their acts of worship, and consult the dead?

20th. Question: If the Christians should keep the Sabbath, how is it that the Lord Jesus Christ makes no mention of the topic, as He enumerates the commandments to the rich young man in Matthew 19:16-22? Also, how does the apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, never treats in his various epistles the supposed importance of keeping the Sabbath?

ANSWER: Again, the disappointing “argument from silence” that proves nothing. Jesus did not mention ANY of the commandments of the “first table”. He made no mention of not using sculpted images or of not taking God’s name in vain. Paul also never mentioned the “importance” of these commandments.

Questions for retribution: Does the fact that Christ and Paul NEVER recommend specifically the obedience to certain commandments (such as the rule against misusing God’s name, not communicating with the dead nor manufacturing sculpted images) mean that Christians are free to misuse God’s name, use sculpted images in their acts of worship and communicate with the dead?

21st. Question: In chapters 2 and 3 of the book of Revelation we find the seven letters to local Asian churches. They are the last messages given directly to the churches on Earth. If it were truth what the Adventists emphasize regarding the importance of the Sabbath commandment, shouldn’t it be recorded in some of these letters?

ANSWER: What a childish argument! And, again, the poor resource of the “argument from silence”. And, as always, the clear discrimination against the Sabbath only, among the 10 Commandments. If the criterion of what should be taken as a rule of Christian living is what appears or not in these letters, then John omitted muuuuuch on his instructions to those Christians. . .

Questions for retribution: Where in these letters to the seven churches is there any mention to the other precepts of the Decalogue, or about communication with the dead, for example? Does that mean that the Christians of more than those seven churches are free to not respect the rules of conduct that are not clearly defined in the seven letters?

22nd. Question: You say that Sunday began with Constantine in the fourth century. How, then, explain that the Church Fathers, who wrote during the first three centuries after Christ, speak of the first day of the week as the one when there were meetings of the Christian believers?  

ANSWER: What we say is that Constantine instituted officially and legally the practice of pagan origin to have a general rest on the dies solis, or Sun day, from which was derived the name of the day in English, Sunday. The influence of pagan practices, including Sunday keeping, on the Christian community has long been attested and it began much earlier, since the beginning of the 2nd Century AD, especially after Emperor Adrian started a fierce persecution campaign against the Jews as a reaction to their BarKocheba rebellion in 135 AD.


Minor numerical edit at request of poster

[Azenilto Brito]

Questions for retribution: Why do you resort to the Church Fathers as “proof” that Christians adopted Sunday keeping since ancient times, without first presenting evidence that this has biblical support? If that were true, it would be clearly reflected in the Holy Writ. Are you not acting exactly as the Roman Catholics, who for lack of biblical evidence for many of theirs teachings, also go after such evidence in their “holy tradition”?

If there are documents that mention Sunday as practiced by the Christians, this indicates the fulfillment of prophecies recorded in Acts 20:29, 30, 2 Peter 2:1-3 and Revelation, chapters 2 and 3, which indicate a deviation from the original Christian teachings through false ideas, what was confirmed later on along the Middle Ages, when apostasy was prevalent throughout Christendom.

Moreover, there are documents that confirm that Christians observed the seventh-day Sabbath, as the testimony by Epiphanius by the middle of the 4th Century AD, commenting on those who belonged to the mother church of Jerusalem and fled the city before its destruction in 70 AD, taking refuge in the region of Pela. They settled there and were known as the “Nazarenes”. Epiphanius says that these Christians had still “Jewish” practices as the Sabbath keeping, and criticizes them for that, arguing that they should not be considered Christians. However, they were called “Nazarenes” not “Mosesenes”.

23rd. Question: Why do you say that one of the popes changed the day of rest from the seventh day to the first? There is sufficient historical evidence that Christians observed the first day for centuries before there was a pope! How do you explain this?
 
ANSWER: We have a wonderful book that discusses in detail and was highly praised by Catholic and Protestant scholars, where all these theories are clarified. It shows clearly the pagan origins of the Sunday practice. The book is From Sabbath to Sunday, by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi. To ignore this book and pretend that this matter has been proved on the line of what interest your views only demonstrates an intention to maintain untouched the “myths” of always. . .

Questions for retribution: Have you read the book by Dr. Bacchiocchi? If you have, what do you have to say about it? Are there errors in his research? If yes, what are they?

24th. Question: If you must keep the seventh day, how come the apostles and early Christians celebrated the most important meetings, such as the Lord’s Supper, on the first day instead of the seventh?

ANSWER: There is no proof of this, and the proofs submitted on that respect are more interpretative “shots” that backfire. The text of Acts 20:7, for example, does not say anything that it was a Lord’s Supper, but that one Saturday night Paul bid farewell to the believers in Troas, who gathered to “break bread”, which is only a common meal they practiced every day (Acts 2:46) from house to house. . . Would they hold the Lord’s Supper every day in the homes?

Additionally it is said that Paul, at a certain point (after resolving an emergency situation), went back to the hall where they met (vs. 11). There isn’t the least hint of a Lord’s Supper celebration there. The type of language used doesn’t confirm it, but to the contrary—it indicates a common meal. In the sequence it is described a long journey that Paul took ON FOOT to another city, still on the “first day of the week”, for it was just the part of the day that completed the 24-hour period, since the day began at sunset (the time count is Jewish, as can be seen by the name of the day in the Greek, mia twn sabbatwn-the first day since the Sabbath).

So, instead of remaining with the Troas brethren for the Sunday School, or equivalent, the Apostle left in that long journey, which shows that he had no special scruples as to sanctifying the day. So, to employ that text to counter Sabbath keeping is one more interpretive “shot” that backfires.

Questions for retribution: Did you know that in the original Greek the expression for “break bread” is klasai arton-a generic language applied to any food on any day of the week (Acts 2:46)? However, what is NOT mentioned in Acts 20:7 is the kind of specific language in Greek that Christians use for the Lord’s Supper: “Kuriakon Deipnon”(see 1 Cor 11:20)? Can you also explain how, if Paul participated and even conducted Lord’s Supper in Acts 20, there is no mention of wine, which is an integral part of such ceremonies?

25th. Question: How do you know that you really keep the seventh day? Can you be sure that there were no errors in the reckoning of time since the day when God rested? You have to take into account changes made in the calendar in the year 46 BC, when it was agreed that the year would have only 345 days, to correct errors that had accumulated. You should also think about the law in the year 1751, when to “correct the calendar,” which stipulated the removal of 11 days in September. With these and other changes how can you be sure that you know to count the days since the creation in an absolutely correct manner?

ANSWER: First, God is not incompetent as a legislator, establishing a “memorial of creation” in the first Sabbath (Gen. 2:2, 3) and when He restores it to His chosen people, later on, He establishes a seventh day that had nothing to do with the original, of which the Sabbath in the Decalogue is the memorial (Exo. 20:8-11). Jesus observed the Sabbath (Luc. 4:16) not only for being a Jew, but for being the author of the principle, as creator that He is (John 1:3,14; Heb. 1:2). He called Himself “Lord of the Sabbath” and it would be amazing that he kept the wrong day, supposedly lost along history, disconnected from its historical significance, as the “memorial of creation.”

On the change of calendars, from the Julian to the Gregorian, the date when that occurred was 1582, and we have good data on what happened then--10 days were taken off in the reckoning of days, without affecting the sequence of the days of the week. Thus, October 4, 1582, Thursday, was followed by October 15, Friday.

Moreover, the Jews have their calendar of nearly 6,000 years, independent from the Christian calendars, and the seventh day of their calendar is exactly the same as that of the Christians! The day that the religious Jews go to their synagogues is the same on which the Seventh-day Adventist, Messianic Jews, Seventh-day Baptists meet in their congregations.

Questions for retribution: How can you engage in such attacks against the Sabbath observers, when ignoring facts so easy to check, being sufficient to simply carry out a not too complex research on the change of calendars and their relationship with the sequence of days, or simply ask a Jew on what day he goes to worship in the synagogue? Doesn’t that show that you didn’t accomplish your “home work” before launching this kind of silly criticism, which only reveals incompetence on your part, not only in biblical matters but also in historical ones?

26th. Question: Have you by any chance read Colossians 2:14-17, which shows that the “handwritten of ordinances” was cancelled and taken “out of the way”, meaning that the ceremonial rituals of the Mosaic law (including Sabbath keeping, which you advocate) were nailed to the cross?

ANSWER: The text of Colossians 2:14-17 seems like an “one-note anti-Sabbatarian samba” for the enemies of the Sabbath commandment. Unfortunately many do not know how to interpret the Bible as it is, taking only one or two texts that have a language seemingly “favorable” to some idea, neglecting to read the entire context and other texts that address the same subject. So the Catholics are set on Matthew 16:18, 19 to “prove” the primacy of Peter, the Mormons utilize 1 Corinthians 15:29 to “prove” the baptism for the dead and the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” use John 14:19 to deny that Christ will come again visibly.

The fact is that in the entire epistle of Paul to the Colossians the word “law” never appears. The theme of the epistle is NOT abolition of laws. It is now well known that the cheirographon, was the written document that recorded the accusations attributed to a culprit in a court. What Paul says is that those who were forgiven by Christ have their guilt eliminated. After speaking of baptism and death to sin (vs. 12) in the vs. 13 he says: “having forgiving you all trespasses”. Then he refers to the elimination of the decrees, which is not the manner for forgiving sins. These are not eliminated through the abolition of the law that point to them (see Rom. 7:7, 8). Thus, what was nailed to the cross was not the law, but the record of guilt.

The entire tenor of the chapter shows that Paul, beside these reflections, discusses a local problem. He has no intention to establish rules of universal character. There were extremists in Colossae who wished to impose their understanding, full of ideas of how to practice religion. In vs. 18 Paul clearly indicates what was his real preoccupation, as he says: “Let no man beguile you of your reward” (KJV), but with many international translations having it as, “Let no man act as an arbiter against you” (Portuguese Ferreira de Almeida’s translation), or “Let no man disqualify you” (Revised Standard Version, American Bible Society).

Questions for retribution:  If in Colossians 2:14-17 Paul is teaching the end of the Sabbath commandment, what did he leave in its place? Nothing is indicated that he thinks in terms of Sunday replacing the seventh-day. So, would Paul be contradicting Jesus, who said that “the Sabbath was made because of man”, acting on his own to end the principle of a day of rest to be dedicated to the Lord?

27th. Question: In verses 16 and 17 of the same chapter, we see that certain things required under the law of Moses, including the observance of the Sabbath, are not but mere shadow of the future--the spiritual body of Christ. To keep the Sabbath is clinging to a shadow.

ANSWER: As it would be expected, anti-Sabbatarian invest heavily on a text whose language seems favorable to them, ignoring its logic context. The weekly Sabbath is not a ceremonial precept, and regarding this we have the study “10 Reasons Why the Sabbath IS NOT a Ceremonial Precept”, which anti-Sabbatarian never refuted point by point. To facilitate the search of said study, this is the link that leads directly to it:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=96903&page=1

Even though the Sabbath is in a sense a symbol of the future eternal rest of salvation, as the scholarly commentary by the Baptists Jamieson, Fausset and Brown exposes, the symbol disappears only when the reality it anticipates is met. Since we haven’t reached the eternal Sabbath, the weekly Sabbath that points typologically to it remains in full force. And these scholars says more specifically on the text of Colossians 2:16:

“SABBATHS” of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Lev. 23:32, Lev. 23:37-39). (not “the sabbaths”) The weekly sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days. Lev. 23:38 expressly distinguished “the sabbath of the Lord” from the other sabbaths. A positive precept is right because it is commanded, and ceases to be obligatory when abrogated; a moral precept is commanded eternally, because it is eternally right. If we could keep a perpetual sabbath, as we shall hereafter, the positive precept of the sabbath, one in each week, would not be needed. Heb. 4:9, “rests,” Greek, “keeping of sabbath” (Isa. 6:23). But we cannot, since even Adam, in innocence, needed one amidst his earthly employments; therefore the sabbath is still needed and is therefore still linked with the other nine commandments, as obligatory in the spirit, though the letter of the law has been superseded by that higher spirit of love which is the essence of law and Gospel alike (Rom.13:8-10). – Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown.  

Questions for retribution:  How would Jesus refer to the Sabbath as “made because of man” if it was only a shadow amidst others from the Jewish religion, which would cease at some time, without further serving man to grant him physical, mental and spiritual benefits?

28th. Question: Have you ever read Romans 14:5, 6 that show that some make a difference between day and day, but others judge all days the same? It is said: “Each one is safe in your own mind.” Why didn’t the Apostle Paul insist that those who think all days are equal should estimate the seventh day as superior to all the other days and “sanctify” it, as advocated by the Adventists?
 
ANSWER: Again the opponents of the Sabbath commandment don’t take into account the full context and complete tenor of the biblical teaching. Paul only discusses another local problem regarding those who still thought it was necessary to celebrate special dates in Israel, as the Feast of Trumpets, the Feast of the Tabernacle, the Purim Feast, etc. As they were Christians ethnically and nationally Jews, they imagined that they were still under such obligation, but Paul tells them that even though they had freedom to celebrate them (and for the Jews these were national holidays) they should not impose such rules on all.

Questions for retribution: Since it is clear that the Christian community had not decided that the Sabbath should be replaced either by Sunday, or by the nodayism/anydayism/everydayism notion soon after the death of Christ on the cross, what day did they observe in the meantime--the Sabbath, Sunday or no day at all? What Biblical evidence is there, be it for one thing or the other?

29th. Question: The main theme in Adventism is the keeping of the law, especially the Sabbath law. Now, in the New Testament we find 50 times mention to preach the gospel, 17 times to preach the Word, 23 times to preach Christ, and 8 times to preach the Kingdom. Not one single time anything is said about preaching the Sabbath law, as you folks so much defend. How do you explain that?

ANSWER: Here again the fallacious “argument from silence” which is worth a zero on the left side. It doesn’t prove anything on nothing. There is no order to preach against taking the name of God in vain, or about not manufacturing sculpted images, or the prohibition of communicating with the dead, while Jesus recommended Sabbath keeping: in Mat. 23:1-3 He recommended His hearers, disciples and the multitude, that they obeyed ALL that their religious chiefs taught in harmony with the divine law, only not being hypocrites as they were, in their do-what-I-say-but-not-what-I-do attitude.

And one of the things they taught in harmony with the law was the faithful observance of the Sabbath (Luke 13:14). Therefore, we have Christ recommending the Sabbath, along with all the other rules of the law! The fact that there were only Jews present in the occasion is no excuse, because there were also only Jews when He preached the principles of the Sermon on the Mountain, and even when He transmitted the “golden rule” of love to God and to the neighbor. These things were said only to Jews. . . So, by the reasoning of these opponents, these principles also would just apply to the Jews!. . .
 
Questions for retribution: Have you read topics 9, 10 and 18 of the 28 topics of the SDA confessional document? If you did, then you are just giving false witness against your neighbor as you allege: “The main theme in Adventism is the keeping of the law, especially the Sabbath law.” In case you haven’t read it, please, do so that you don’t engage in saying things that are untrue, because that is an act of intellectual dishonesty.

Even the church’s name, “Adventist”, highlights that the Second Advent of Jesus is one of the chief preoccupations of the Adventist preaching, which is an essentially Christ-centered subject. In order to speak about the second coming of Christ it is necessary to explain what happened in His first coming, and the reason why He is supposed to return. Isn’t that the basic theme of the gospel?  

30th. Question: In the New Testament the word ‘Sabbath’ is found 70 times. You folks admit that in every case, but for one, reference is made to the Sabbath day according to the Jewish ceremonial principles, with no problem. However, in this sole case, i. e., the Colossians 2:16 verse, where the word is the same in the Greek texts, you try to lead us to believe that is has a different meaning. Why? Wouldn’t it be because you are aware that Colossians 2:16, 17 topples down your doctrinal arguments that we Christians are bound to keep the ceremonial Mosaic law, of which the Sabbath commandment is a part?

ANSWER: We have demonstrated through the answers to questions 26 and 27 how this “one-note anti-Sabbatarian samba”, as the text of Colossians 2:16 is used, only shows the exegetical incapacity of those who capitalize so much on a text that brings a language that seems favorable to their presuppositions, ignoring the context and the whole tenor of the Biblical teaching regarding the theme of God’s law and the rest day. All that has been very well explained in the answers to the questions indicated.

Questions for retribution: If the Sabbath is a ceremonial precept that later would be abolished (which would be reflected in Col. 2:16), why does the author of Hebrews dedicate to the Sabbath a very special treatment in chaps. 3 and 4, instead of dealing with the Sabbath question in chaps. 7 through 10, dedicated to a discussion of the Jewish ceremonies and their meaning? Now, since the Sabbath keeping was so rooted in the religious, even secular, life of the Jews, isn’t strange that, being the Sabbath a Jewish ceremonial institution, it was not the object of a detailed discussion on its typological role, as was the case with so many of the other features of the ritual law?

31st. Question: Haven’t you guys read Galatians 3:22-25 where it says that the law was given as a schoolmaster (mentor) to lead us to Christ, but, with the coming of the faith, we are no more under this schoolmaster? Thus, we aren’t under the law. Shall we disregard the Bible teaching in that part?

ANSWER: The law was and will always continue acting as a schoolmaster to lead sinners to Christ. It acts as a mirror, showing the stain, but has no condition to clean it up, as John Calvin illustrated in his Institutes. Luther used to say that a Christian is simul iustus et peccator--at the same time a sinner and a saint. Paul declared that he learned about sin through the commandment “ye shall not covet” (Rom. 7:7, 8). And that was exactly that same law he said he served with his mind (Rom. 7:25), of which he recommended naturally the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th commandments to the GENTILES of Ephesus and Rome (Eph. 6:1-3; 4:25-31; Rom. 13:8-10). Moreover, the same Paul who said the words highlighted by the opponent in the question, also affirmed that faith DIDN’T CANCEL the law, but, to the contrary, CONFIRMED it (Rom. 3:31).

There are two basic problems among Evangelicals in general regarding their studies on the theme of the law and the Sabbath:

a) they don’t understand the tenor of Christ’s debates on the Sabbath;



Minor edit at request of poster

[Azenilto Brito]

b) they don’t understand the tenor of Paul’s debates on the law.

About the first problem, it suffices to know that Christ did not discuss with the Jewish leadership IF they should observe the Sabbath, nor WHEN do so, but HOW to keep the day in its right spirit.

To understand Paul’s discussions on the law, the text of Romans 9:30-32 fully illuminates the issue:

“What shall we say then? That the Gentiles , which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone”.

Questions for retribution: In Hebrews 9:15 the author makes clear that with the death of a testator no change can be applied to a will. Thus, how could, with the death of the divine Testator, any change occur, either that of the Sabbath to Sunday, or the Sabbath to the Nodayism/Anydayism/Everydayism notion?

32nd. Question: There is a warning in the New Testament against each moral sin (not about ceremonial ones), mentioned in each one of the 10 commandments, but for the fourth. Actually, there is no mention in the entire New Testament of the obligation to keep the Sabbath as a moral requirement for the Christian. Notice how the Scriptures quote each commandment of Exodus 20 (as morally obligatory), with its corresponding mention in the New Testament:

a. Thou shalt have no other gods before me (Exo. 20:3; I Cor. 8:4-6; Acts 17:23-31);

b. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (Exo. 20:4-5, I John 5:21);

c. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain (Exo. 20:7; Jas.5:12)

d. Remember the Sabbath day to make it holy (Exo. 20:8 – THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO IT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT);

e. Honor thy father and they mother (Exo. 20:12; Eph. 6:1-3);

f. Thou shalt not kill (Exo. 20:13; Rom. 13:9);

g. Thou shalt not commit adultery (Exo. 20:14; Rom. 13:9; I Cor. 6:9; Eph. 5:3)

h. Thou shalt not steal (Exo. 20:15; Eph. 4:28)

i. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour (Exo. 20:16; Col. 3:9; Jas. 4:11)

j. Thou shalt not covet. (Exo. 20:17; Eph. 5:3).

Now, if it were a sin not to keep the Sabbath, as was the case for the Jews, how come throughout the New Testament such warning never appears, especially when all the other nine commandments are shown in that part of the Bible?

ANSWER: This is an allegation now totally demoralized, with no logic. First, the New Testament’s goal is not to repeat commandments of the Old Testament to revalidate them. Moreover, there is no ipsis literis repetition of certain commandments, such as the one prohibiting to manufacture sculpted images, or even to utilize those that bring the Church’s saints in acts of worship (the New Testament speaks against “idols”, but that refers ONLY to the Divinity or pagan gods, since at that time of the early Church there was no use of any sculpted images, as the Catholic and Orthodox Christians do today). There is no reference, either directly or indirectly, to the precept of not taking God’s name in vain. And no mention to a clear, direct, objective prohibition to communicate with the dead as established in no uncertain terms in Deu. 18:9-12 and Isa. 8:19, 20.

On the Sabbath commandment, Jesus not only confirmed its establishment at the world’s creation, thus confirming its universal character (Mar. 2:27), as this is, for the big disappointment of anti-Sabbatarian, recognized by the three great names of the Protestant Movement--Calvin, Luther, Wesley--and by the most representative confessions of faith, creeds, doctrinal statement of the historical churches of Protestantism. The fact that they reinterpret them to mistakenly apply to Sunday doesn’t change the ideological basis of the question.

Questions for retribution: Does the fact that there is no clear, objective, specific, prohibition in the New Testament against manufacturing sculpted images, nor using those of Church saints, nor to take God’s name in vain, nor to communicate with the dead, mean that Christians can practice all these unlawful things mentioned?

33rd. Question: The Sabbath is part of the Jewish law, therefore, why do you put yourself under the obligation to keep the Sabbath as the Jews are under the law? In Galatians 3:10 we are told that all those under the law are under curse. How can you so much wish to be under the curse of God?
 
ANSWER:  The Jewish law is not only the Sabbath, but includes “thou shalt not kill”, “honor thy father and thy mother”, “thou shalt not commit adultery”, “thou shalt not covet”. So to argue in terms of being put “under the law” ONLY regarding the Sabbath commandment is a clear demonstration of discrimination against that commandment.

Let’s, then, engage in a brief reasoning about this matter: since the Sabbatarian Christians give due respect to the Sabbath commandment, along with the other NINE of the Decalogue, then they would be “under the law” in a 100% proportion. The anti-Sabbatarians admit that NINE commandments of the Decalogue should be obeyed, thus they put themselves under 90% of the law as well. So, one can see that the difference is not so big, after all. . .

Questions for retribution:  When in Galatians 5:16-21 Paul contrasts those who are under the law with those who are guided by the Spirit, indicating that the first are the ones who practice all the sins listed in vs. 19-21, the latter are those who produce the fruit of the Spirit (vs. 22), is he by that saying that “under the law” in this case means to obey it, or to violate it?

34th. Question: Galatians 5:4 tells us that “separated from Christ” are those who go back to put themselves under the obligation of keeping the law, thus “falling from grace.” How do you explain this? Or do you, rather, reject the clear teaching of Scripture?

ANSWER:  It an interesting fact that this allegation contradicts completely the teaching that a person who is saved will never lose his/her salvation. Whoever falls from somewhere is because was firmly placed there before. The issue here, however, first of all is the practice of false judgment, in contradiction to what Christ made clear in Matthew 7:1: “Judge not that ye be not judged.”

Let’s see the last dilemma of our article “10 Dilemmas of Those Who Deny the Validity of the 10 Commandments as a Christian Norm”:

The tenth dilemma of those who preach the end of the Decalogue on the cross is that they need to resort to pure and simple lie to promote the false equation: “Observance of the seventh-day Sabbath = justification by works”. That is, they imply insistently that whoever desires to observe the seventh-day Sabbath is trying to obtain salvation through the works of the law!

Although the OFFICIAL POSITIONS of the churches that observe the seventh-day Sabbath on salvation by grace, never by works, have been presented to them variously, these “Christian apologists” overlook such facts duly documented to engage themselves in the unjust and false allegation that all those Christians who teach and practice the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath preach salvation by works of the law, being, thus mere legalists.

There are, however, two simple reasons by which we demonstrate this to be a slandering falsehood:

1st. – It is unbiblical: To believe in salvation even partially by works and to teach this goes against all the tenor of what the Holy Scriptures teach, Seventh-day Adventists and other seventh-day Sabbath observing Christian know very well their Bibles to not incur into such an elementary error. We know what Paul says in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and we would never oppose his clear expositions. Moreover, in the examination of the Eph. 2:8 and 9, texts, so often cited in evangelical circles, we cannot overlook the v. 10 that follows them. . . .

2nd. – It is unnecessary: There is no sine qua non condition for someone who observe the Sabbath commandment to believe in salvation by works, for his practice of keeping the Biblical “Lord’s day”. In other words, we do not need to resort to this unbiblical position of salvation by works to defend the validity of the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath in the same measure that as the other Christians don’t receive any merit for not venerating images, for example. Thus, if the Evangelicals respect the terms of the commandment against the use of sculpted images, do they by any chance with that become legalists and show to be trying to obtain salvation for fulfilling such work? Of course, not. The same reasoning applies to the question of the seventh-day Sabbath and all the others commandments of the divine law.

Since they have been perfectly informed of the facts, if they insist with such slandering allegations, what they are practicing is sheer “false testimony against the neighbor”. As, however, they stubbornly teach that the Ten Commandments are no more the Christian behavior norm, having been entirely abolished, and, as one of them remembers, “To abolish means: ‘To abrogate, to annul, to extinguish, to suppress’”, it becomes easy to understand the reason for such attitudes. What they do is to throw out the baby with the bath water!

If the Decalogue was revoked, annulled, extinct, suppressed, then logically the 9th commandment was discarded along with the others: “ye shall not give false witness against thy neighbor” (Exo. 20:9).

Now it makes perfect sense! These deplorable attitudes of certain “Christian apologists” is understood. The problem for this people is what we find in Revelation 21:8 that says “. . . all the liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death”.

Be God merciful towards them so that they wake up to reality (and truth) before it is too late.

Questions for retribution: Where is there in the Bible any commandment, or even clear suggestion, that Sunday should be kept to honor the Lord?

35th. Question: If Romans 7:4 teaches us that the believer in Christ is dead to the law, why does the Adventist doctrine present to their “believers” the notion of being alive to the law? How to explain this serious contradiction to God’s Word?

ANSWER: Those who composed this questionnaire are not only ignorant of what the Bible teaches, but also of what is exposed by important Protestant theologians, for they attribute falsely to Seventh-day Adventists a certain idea which is not a unique interpretation of the Adventists.

Let us see what other important servants of God, dedicated scholars of the Bible, teach about the text, but not before reminding that this conclusion to be drawn from this argument: if the believers are dead to the law in the sense that they are no more bound to it, then there is only one situation possible--not to observe it, which will result in ethical and moral chaos! They could do all that is prohibited by law, and not have to observe the Sabbath commandment (of course the one that is aimed at by that reasoning . . .). So they can kill, steal, lie, falsify, blaspheme against God, since there is now this “freedom from the law”. . .

Now, what do important Protestant scholars have said regarding this clearly misunderstood text of Rom. 7:4, which anti-Sabbatarians distort so evidently, something very dangerous on the light of 2 Pet. 3:15-17:

Albert Barnes:

“Ye also are become dead to the law”. . . The connection between us and the Law is dissolved, so far as the scope of the apostle’s argument is concerned. He does not say that we are dead to it, or released from it as a rule of duty, or as a matter of obligation to obey it; for there neither is, nor can be, any such release, but we are dead to it as a way of justification and sanctification. In the great matter of acceptance with God, we have ceased to rely on the Law, having become dead to it, and having embraced another plan”.

John Gill:

“{The law} only has dominion over a man as long as be lives the law is dead to them; it has no power over them, to threaten and terrify them into obedience to it; nor even rigorously to exact it, or command it in a compulsory way; nor is there any need of all this, since believers delight in it after the inward man, and serve it with their minds freely and willingly”.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown:

“that being dead wherein we were held”— . . . the death spoken of, as we have seen, is not the law’s, but ours, through union with the crucified Savior.. . .
“and not in the oldness of the letter”— not in our old way of literal, mechanical obedience to the divine law, as a set of external rules of conduct, and without any reference to the state of our hearts; but in that new way of spiritual obedience which, through union to the risen Savior.

Source: Anthology of Bible commentaries of the site e-Sword.net.

John Calvin:

“. . . the word law is not mentioned here in every part in the same sense: for in one place it means the bond of marriage; in another, the authority of a husband over his wife; and in another, the law of Moses: but we must remember, that Paul refers here only to that office of the law which was peculiar to the dispensation of Moses; for as far as God has in the ten commandments taught what is just and right, and given directions for guiding our life, no abrogation of the law is to be dreamt of; for the will of God must stand the same forever. We ought carefully to remember that this is not a release from the righteousness which is taught in the law, but from its rigid requirements, and from the curse which thence follows. The law, then, as a rule of life, is not abrogated; but what belongs to it as opposed to the liberty obtained through Christ, that is, as it requires absolute perfection: for as we render not this perfection, it binds us under the sentence of eternal death”.

Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.xi.i.html

Questions for retribution: How do you explain that the same Paul, who said that Christians are “dead to the law” in same chapter, further down, says that he serves God’s law with his mind, which is the one that brings the commandment “ye shall not covet” (vs. 25, cf. 7 and 8)? Does it make sense for him to serve a law, which he believes that Christians are freed from, dead to its precepts?

36th. Question: The Ten Commandments written in “letters of stone” are a ministry of death, according to 2 Corinthians 3:7. This ministry of death would perish (2 Cor. 3:11). However, it is not certain that you Adventists, when quoting the commandments, often leave out these introductory words? Would it be because this text shows that the commandments were given only to Israel (no matter how much they show to us, Gentiles, the holiness of God), and are unable to understand that the Adventist doctrine is wrong?
 
ANSWER: It is amazing how something so meaningless could be said on this text, presenting God to us as a terrible executioner who delivers to His chosen people a law of death! Let us see how we have discussed this text, revealing that those who resort to that argument don’t realize they are engaged in a shot that backfires:

Some imagine that in 2 Corinthians 3 Paul is discarding the Decalogue, to replace it for another set of rules for the Christian community. But what the Apostle is really doing is contrasting the ministry of the old covenant with the new covenant. As he applies the qualification of “ministry of death” by mentioning the “tables of stones”, some Bible interpreters mistake his language to mean that the contents of these tables of stones represented a “ministry of death”. Then, we have something very strange—God, who presented Himself to Israel as “longsuffering, merciful, good, forgiving” actually prepared a terrible trap to that people at Sinai: He offered them there a legal code that would result inescapably in death! He reserved the “law of love and grace” only to the New Testament folks! Is that the God Who is no respecter of people?

Going back to the scenery of where God’s law was solemnly proclaimed to the people we can read in Exodus 19:10ff God’s order that Israel purified and even abstained from sexual activity (vs. 15) for an integral dedication to Him in preparation to the utterance of the law. Limits were set around the mount so that not even animals should roam across the area. Finally the Ten Commandments were audibly pronounced before being recorded on the tables of stones. Now, all this preparation, expectation and remarkable solemnity for the deliverance of a . . . “law of death”! That’s incredible! Any one would feel cheated!

Notwithstanding, that is the bottom line of the exegesis that can be read in the writings of certain interpreters of a neo-antinomian orientation, who are unable to realize that “the law of the Lord is perfect and restores the soul” (Psalm 19:7). Truly, David has in mind the entire law (Torah), but that means the inclusion, not the exclusion, of the Decalogue.

Anyway, something went wrong in that agreement, turning its ministry into a death-producing factor. Why? Where was the problem? Was the law of such a tenor—generator of death? Then it couldn’t be “perfect”.

What some people can’t understand is that the problem was not with the law, but with the people who, even before knowing fully what would be proclaimed, precipitously declared regarding the Sinai proclamation: “we will do everything the Lord had said” (Exo. 19:8). But that was a stiff-necked people, so often condemned for their stumbling. Thus, it’s easier to understand: the problem was not in the law, but in the people. That is made very clear in the promise of the New Covenant at Ezekiel’s time— “I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (Eze. 36:26).

The ones who had the wrong heart were the people, then the necessity of this people to change their attitude allowing God to perform a serious change—their stony heart removed and replaced by one of flesh.

[Azenilto Brito]

And the important detail is that as Paul utilizes the “tables of stone/tables of flesh” metaphor it is implied that he intends to include ALL the commandments belonging to the “tables of stone”, as now transferred to the “flesh stones”. Otherwise, the use of the comparison wouldn’t make sense and he would have to employ a different and more appropriate language in vs. 3:3, something like “being manifested as letter of Christ, ministered for us, and written, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in tables of flesh of the heart, i.e., only nine commandments of the tables of stones, excluded that of the Sabbath day. . .” But that was not Paul’s language. Consequently, the Sabbath commandment SHOULD BE INCLUDED on the tables of flesh.

Conclusion: In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul doesn’t say that the law is of death, but the ministry of the old covenant came to be like that. The Pauline illustration of “tables of stone/tables of flesh” deals with the old divine promise to Israel in Ezekiel 36:26, 27 that by the action of the Spirit the stony heart would be removed from them so that a more malleable fleshy heart were granted. On the heart of flesh the complete God’s moral law would be written, as promised in the New Covenant (Heb. 8:6-10).

As Paul employs the “tables of stone/tables of flesh” allegory, which is about the same used by Ezekiel (see 11:19, 20 and 36:26, 27), he certainly wouldn’t think of excluding any part of the “tables of stone”, as Ezekiel wouldn’t either. Otherwise the Apostle would have to explain that the Christian would be a letter written, not in tables of stones, but in tables of flesh, excluding the Sabbath commandment, or something on this line.

Paul’s intention is to show that for the Christians renewed by the Spirit, the terms of the divine moral law leave the cold tables of stone to be recorded on their hearts warmed by God’s grace (see Rom. 8: 3, 4). That makes the semi-antinomian interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3:3ff another interpretative “shot” that backfires.

Questions for retribution: How could Paul argue in his defense: “Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, not yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.” (Acts 25:8) if he were not a faithful observer of the Sabbath? Wouldn’t those Jewish leaders who accused him certainly find reason to condemn him if he was a violator of this so much important commandment for them?

37th. Question: Have you noticed that the Ten Commandments begin with: “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage”(Exodus 20:2)? Can’t you folks see again the clear indication that these ordinances are specifically given to Israel?
 
ANSWER: If the 10 Commandments law applies only to the Jews, that seems very strange, because then its principles of not killing, not stealing, honoring the parents, etc., would not apply to the Christians, as well! Paul mentions the “law of Christ” in 1 Corinthians 9: 21 without giving a definition of what was that. He doesn’t mention any of its precepts, but in Galatians 6:2 he talks about the “law of Christ”, in terms of carrying one another’s burdens. That is nothing more than half of the “Golden Rule” of love to the neighbor. Thus, nothing changes in the fact that these commandments apply to the Christians and to all servants of God at all times.

Questions for retribution: If these ordinances were given specifically to Israel, how could God always condemn the heathen nations for their practice of idolatry? Also, if His law didn’t apply universally, how come He invited the foreigners to join the pact that He established with Israel, starting with the keeping of the Sabbath (Isa. 56:2-7)?

38th. Question: The Ten Commandments are repeated in Deuteronomy 5 and there we find the words: “And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day” (Deu. 5:15). Again we see clearly that the Sabbath ordinance was given to a people that had left Egypt. Can’t you folks see that this does not fit with the Adventist doctrine that alleges that the Gentile Christians in the New Testament are required to keep the Jewish Sabbath?
 
ANSWER: This argument can’t adjust to the Scriptures, being one of these nonsensical novelty theories of the dispensationalist neo-antinomianism. If things were as you allege, first of all, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and other descendants of those who left Egypt would not have to observe the Sabbath. Moreover, we have seen in the previous question that the Sabbath was applicable to any foreigner (who at Isaiah’s time had not exited Egypt), if they accepted the divine covenant with Israel.

The name “Deuteronomy” means repetition of the law, and Moses is simply reminding the people that they had the privilege to observe a day of rest and dedication to God, which they could not enjoy as slaves in Egypt. Thus, we see how the Sabbath is not only a memorial of creation, but also of redemption. Those who were redeemed from the slavery of the Egypt of sin gratefully dedicate to the Lord a whole 24-hour day once a week, in obedience to His law.

Questions for retribution: What is more important--the solemn proclamation of the whole law of God to the ears of the people, or the particular review of Moses on a detail of the law?

39th. Question: The adherents of Adventism teach that there are two laws: (1) the Ten Commandments, that they call “law of God”, and (2) the ceremonial law, which is called “law of Moses”. Could you folks give me, please, just one chapter and verse (in the Old or New Testament) where this distinction is made?
 
ANSWER: Once again we see the shocking ignorance regarding facts in the Evangelical/Protestant religious field. Those who drafted the questionnaire should first do their “homework” because they come here only to give demonstration of their total theological lack or preparation. They ignore that this “distinction of laws” is not an exclusive teaching of Seventh-day Adventists. Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, and before them, Catholics and Orthodox taught (and teach) exactly that. They should have checked the confessional documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England (Art. VII), the Baptist Confessions of Faith, of 1689, revised in 1855 by Charles Spurgeon, as well as several statements by Luther, Calvin, Wesley and other Bible commentators, preachers, and many other Christian scholars of different Protestant faiths on this subject.

Questions for retribution: If a particular interpretation of doctrine can only be validated if there is specific and appropriate terminology for defining it, where is there any verse in the Bible bringing such words as Trinity, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, theocracy, millennium?

40th. Question: Let’s consider Nehemiah 8:1-3, 8:14, 9:3. When talking about a single book that was read these texts refer to (1) Law of Moses, (2) law of God, (3) the book of the law, (4) the law of the Lord your God. The words are used interchangeably because they refer to only one book, one law. Or do you despise one more biblical truth?
 
ANSWER: The Bible is not concerned with certain “technical” elaborations, like the terminology and classifications that were used later. I know an atheist, who is very critical of the Bible and makes fun of the Bible text as lacking scientific basis because in Leviticus 11, for example, bats are classified as poultry, which is not biologically correct. However, was Moses concerned with the classification of animals as was defined by Linnaeus in the 19th Century?

Questions for retribution: Where is there any clear list of requirements of the “law of Christ” by which one can perceive that they are different from those in the “law of God”?