The Divine Manual For the Operation of the Human Machine
A past spring a bought a bicycle, and the manual of how to assemble and operate it in safety was almost as thick of that of an automobile. That is because the maker wants the user to have his equipment in the most efficient and durable application.
God, man’s Creator, wouldn’t act differently from any maker of human equipment, leaving the “machine” He created without being accompanied by its due “manual”. Thus, He established laws so that man put into operation the “machine” of his body for the best performance possible. The health laws of the Bible regulate the best for human feeding, with its hygienic features as clear preventive measures to preserve the good health of His creatures.
Actually, the advocates of the “eat-it-all” freedom mentality regarding these rules admit that the reason why God gave these detailed laws on foods was exactly to grant man defense mechanisms in the face of the underdeveloped conditions, at a time when there were no hospitals, clinics, laboratories, medicines and the modern means of treatment. That is true, but with that they can’t justify why these laws had to end overnight (when Christ died), since the conditions that could be detrimental to men kept on justifying such divine care, both in the land of Judah and in the other lands where the gospel would be proclaimed.
The Bible dietary rules practically define what should constitute food for man. Otherwise, he would ignore what would be best for him and consume every type of animal, whose ecological role is another, which involves land, air and water beings. Some time ago a read in the Readers’ Digest magazine about someone asking to a dweller in the seashore region why they didn’t hunt the fowls that flew over the beaches to eat. The experienced man explained that a brick put to cook in an oven would end up being smoother than a seagull and other birds typical of the coastal areas.
Ignoring such dietary rules has been the cause of many plagues and diseases that have affected human beings, such as AIDS, ebola fever and afflictions such as the bubonic plague of the Middle Ages that have been attributed to the consumption and manipulation by men of animals prohibited by God.
The Sabbath commandment has its health aspects also. If God hadn’t established a day for man to interrupt his activities, his tendency would be to work more and more, without stop, causing himself great physical and mental harm. God wisely associated a day for his rest with a special time for worship, thus setting necessary limits for man and a time for his spiritual refreshment. Jesus demonstrated an interest for the best health of His disciples caring for their physical rest, when He urged them once: “Come with Me by yourself to a quiet place and get some rest” – Mark 6:31 (NIV).
Even the tithe question has its beneficial logic. God doesn’t need man’s money, but He created norms for the maintenance of the ministry so that there was participation of His children. Otherwise man’s tendency would be to gather selfishly more and more to himself, not thinking about the responsibility for God’s Work that man has the assignment of concluding on this planet—the mission of preaching the gospel to every people, thus promoting Christ’s message until the end of all things (Matt. 28:19, 20 and 24:14).
The December 2005 issue of the National Geographic Magazine brought a special news story confirming what had been found in previous researches—the greater longevity of the Seventh-day Adventists and the health advantages of this religious group in comparison with Americans in general. Jesus declared: “By their fruits ye shall know” if a tree is good or bad. The fruitage of the Adventist’s (and Jewish) care for the biblical dietary laws could only result in benefit for those who follow them.
And if these rules are good for the Seventh-day Adventists, why wouldn’t they be equally good for other Christians and the general population as well?
Little insight:
A snippet of an interview with Franklin Graham, son of the famous evangelist Billy Graham, in the last issue of Time magazine:
Answering the question, if it would be a sin not to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle (one of Graham Jr.’s passions) he, who as the father is a Baptist pastor, answered:
“. . . You know the Bible says our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. And if we do something to hurt the bodies that we have, eating too much, eating the wrong foods, drinking too much, we are hurting this body God gave us and I think putting your body at risk when you don’t need to put it at risk, like riding a motorcycle without a helmet, I just don’t think it makes sense. I think God gave us a brain. He expects us to use it”.—(“10 Questions for Franklin Graham”, Op. Cit., May 29, 2006. p. 8).
10 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Eat Unclean Meats
1 - Because the division of clean and unclean animals comes from BEFORE the mosaic legislation, since the time of the Flood, when God ordered Noah: “Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate” (Gen. 7:2). Thus, it is made very clear that it was not a rule limited to the people of Israel, attached to the mosaic law.
2 - Because the objectives of the divine prohibitions aimed at the best health of the chosen people. He said: “If you listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, who heals you” (Exo. 15:26). In Deuteronomy God connects the sanctity of life with the dietary restrictions imposed to His people: “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured possession. Do not eat any detestable thing” (Deu. 14:2, 3).
The unclean animals, such as pigs, snakes, lizards, ravens, rats, have their role to play in the ecology, but they are bearers of sickness factors, besides other problems that make them unsafe for human feeding, as medical authorities have found.
3 - Because prophet Isaiah speaks of condemnation on the part of God to consumers of pig and rat, that are associated with pagan rites, calling all that ABOMINATION: “Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following the one in the midst of those who eat the flesh of pigs and rats and other abominable things, they will meet their end together,” declares the LORD” (Isa. 66:17). To Ezekiel the Lord also condemned such types of food, and the prophet expressed his repulse to them (see Eze. 4:13, 14).
4 - Because we have a Bible example of a faith hero who preferred death to eat pig meat, as quoted in 2 Maccabees 6:18-31: Eleazar chose death rather than consuming prohibited meats, “leaving behind, by his death, not only to the young people, but to the majority of the nation, an example of noble courage and a memorial of virtue” (vs. 31--Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible).
5 - Because the hygiene and health laws had no prefigurative character. They were not “ceremonial” laws and they did not point to Christ’s atonement on the cross. The Christ’s debates on what enters the mouth, so often misunderstood, have to do with rules of ceremonial impurities, and not discussions on freedom for oneself feeding on unclean foods. Nor are they recommendations about eating “without washing the hands”, which would not be an appropriate measure, through a medical viewpoint.
6 - Because in the vision of the sheet, Acts 10, Peter declared that he would in no way consume unclean animals, as were shown to him in the vision, symbolizing the gentiles, who were despised as “common or unclean” by the Jews (see Acts 10:10-16, 28 and 34). Thus, he demonstrates that he had not learned with Jesus or his apostolic companions to feed on those animals.
7 - Because among the four rules decided by the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), regarding things the gentiles should ABSTAIN from, even though consumption of blood and food offered to idols is quoted, no rule is set regarding things for which there was no need of clarification. All already knew that the unclean meats were not valid foods for a Christian’s consumption. Paul didn’t discuss that question when addressing the problem of “food sacrificed to idols” (1 Cor. 8’). If he intended to indicate the end of these dietary restriction laws he would profit from the occasion to discuss it, and never did. What he said is that there would be no preoccupation with that type of meat for having been sacrificed to idols because “an idol is nothing at all “. The pagan priests used to sell parts of the meats from their sacrifices for public consumption. Even though they also sacrificed such animals as pigs, rats, snakes, the Christians would know how to sort out and select what he considered real edible “foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving “ (see 1 Tim. 4:3), excluding those things that God’s Word prohibits.
8 - Because, being the Christian’s body the “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 2 Cor. 6:16), he should not contaminate it with whatever is harmful, since we are supposed to offer our bodies “as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God--this is your spiritual act of worship” (Rom. 12:1). Paul also recommended to Christians: “you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body”. (1 Cor. 6:20).
9 - Because both Christ and Peter presented comparisions and illustrations involving pigs, in a scornful way, as when Jesus speaks of “throw your pearls to pigs”, as when he mentions pigs in the story of the prodigal son, stressing the lowest level he reached in his experience, and when He expelled demons making them to incorporate in a herd of pigs; Peter speaks of the sow that, once washed, returns to the mud (see Mat. 7.6; 8:30-32; Luke 15:15, 16; 2 Ped. 2:22).
10 - Because scientific data confirm the harmful character of those animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, as the “sea food”, pigs, fish not having scales, indicating the superiority of the mosaic legislation: Rudolph Virchow, known as the ‘father of modern pathology’, said:
“Moses was the greatest hygienist the world has even known. Depending on revealed knowledge and lacking scientific equipment, Moses taught, in its essentials, almost all the principles of hygiene put into practice today. Among them we find the prevention of diseases, disinfection through fire and water, epidemic control through reporting and isolation of those bearing communicable diseases, followed by the complete disinfection of all objects possibly contaminated. The personal cleanliness was imposed and the sewage system was obligatory, so that the camp of the Israelites was as clean as are modern cities. Even though physical exercise was provided, frequent periods of rest and relaxation, to avoid excessive work, was also imposed”.—Dr. Owen S. Parrett, Diseases of Food Animals, p. 7 (Southern Publishing Assn., Nashville, Tenn., 1939).—
___________
* The Bible texts are from the New International Version (c)
First of all, in order to engage profitably in the discussion of the dietary rules in the Bible these four questions should be answered (and that was not done. we just had a shoot out of texts out of context).
Here are the questions, again:
1 – Why did God establish these food restriction laws, to begin with? Did He simply decide arbitrarily that certain types of meat were not to be eaten, without any justifiable reason, and that was it?
2 – In what aspects were these dietary rules abolished on the cross, since they had no ceremonial character? In what ways did they point to the atoning sacrifice of Christ?
Note.: Somebody suggested that they would symbolize separation between Jews and Gentiles. But if it is so, would God be including is His law some negative element of man’s idiossincracies, since He is no respecter of people?
3 – How was the shed blood of Christ efficacious to purify the meat of pigs, rats, ravens, snakes, lizards? Could it have accomplished some change in the structural composition of said meats, making them fit for human consumption?
4—Where is it said that God changed His mind from considering “abomination” the eating of these meats (Deut. 14:3), for until the final day, when all “nations and languages” are gathered for their reckoning time, those who eat pork, rat and practice idolatry will be jointly destroyed (Isa. 66:16-18)?
Anyway, let’s see how these texts are totally misunderstood in this
Assessment of the Arguments Presented By the Adherents of “Total Freedom” From the Bible’s Dietary Laws:
* 1. Allegation: Christ in Mark 7:1-23 says that: whatever enter the mouth won’t contaminate man, which shows that He is freeing His followers of following the dietary rules of the Bible:
1. Difficulties in that interpretation:
A – The context clearly indicates that the discussion was not regarding the contents of the dietary laws in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, rather the contrast between what God has stipulated and what the “tradition of the elders” established regarding ceremonial purifying ablutions (Mat. 15:2). That He Himself confirmed in vs. 20.
B – If Jesus were “purifying” supposed unclean foods in that meal, His act would have been good for nothing, because that was a Jewish meal, where no unclean meat would be found.
C – If Jesus were abolishing the dietary laws for good, He would be abolishing the law of food restrictions AHEAD OF TIME, for these dietary rules were not abolished on the cross? Besides being ahead of time, the supposed prefigurative sense would be absent, for only at Christ’s atonement the types meet the antitype, the shadow is substituted by the Reality!
D – Christ would be teaching something contrary to the divine law “still” in force, thus He Himself had to be considered “the least in the kingdom of heaven” on the light of His own words in Matthew 5:19.
* 2. Allegation: The Jerusalem Council, of Acts 15, shows that the gentile Christians were set free from all the limitations of the “Jewish law”, especially in regard to keeping the Sabbath and following the dietary laws.
2. Difficulties in that interpretation:
A – To attempt using the expression “law of Moses” (vs. 5) only to some items that don’t seem convenient to the Bible student is a dishonest attitude (food laws and the Sabbath). This expression is much more comprehensive and includes the ceremonial precepts, as well as the moral ones, such as “ye shall not kill”, “ye shall not steal”, “honor thy father and thy mother”, “ye shall not say the name of the Lord thy God in vain”. . . This discriminatory use of the expression is totally suspicious.
B – What was determined during the Council is expressed in the four items of things the gentile Christians should ABSTAIN from (Acts 15:20, 29). These were not a list of things they should, then, put into practice, as if it were a sort of “Tetralogue”, replacing the Decalogue, as some could think.
C – Of the four rules set, three deal with . . . food restrictions! Thus, instead of the Jerusalem Council confirming “total freedom” regarding the dietary laws, it instituted some rules reiterating ancient restrictions, by the way, things of the law that had been supposedly abolished, like the prohibition to eat blood (Lev. 17:10-14). How would they repeat norms of an abolished code?!
D – Among the reiterations of ancient norms there is a recommendation against “sexual immorality”, which was something very well known as a divine law, expressed in the seventh commandment, “ye shall not commit adultery”. However, the apostles deemed it necessary to reiterate such a principle, probably due to the cultic prostitution of pagan religions, and the law of which this rule is quoted had not been abolished.
* 3. Allegation: The episode of Peter’s vision of the sheet, narrated in Act 10, when a sheet appears to him coming from heaven with all sorts of unclean animals, accompanied by the order, “kill them and eat” is seen by many as proof of a divine granting of “total freedom” on the dietary laws:
3. Difficulties in that interpretation:
A – Peter’s resistance to the order “kill and eat” shows that he had not learned with either Jesus or his apostolic companions that there had been a “total freedom” regarding the dietary laws.
B – Peter did not understand the vision at all, for he kept wondering what was its meaning (vs. 17). That the meaning was entirely symbolic can be realized through the simple fact that it would be impossible for the Apostle to kill and eat something he saw in a vision. It would be the same as to try eating an ice cream seen on the TV’s screen.
C – When he finally understood the vision’s meaning, he didn’t interpret it as having to do with freedom to eat everything, rather that the gentiles, which the Jews had no permission to even “get close to”, should be contacted with the gospel message (see vs. 28).
D – In the following chapter, 11, he says that he could not resist the vision (vs. 17), but that resistance was not related to license to eat unclean meats, but to contact the gentiles. In his speech before the Jerusalem Council he mentioned his experience indirectly, and he speaks of “purification”, but not of unclean meats, rather of the hearts of the converted gentiles (see Acts 15:7-9).
That he overcame such resistance is made clear in Galatians 2:11, where it is said that he ate with the gentiles, even though receiving a rebuke by Paul for attempting to disguise these contacts of his, without justification.
* 4. Allegation: The laws of dietary restriction were ceremonial, as the allegation goes, symbolizing the separation between Jews and Gentiles. They all ended with the atoning death of Christ:
4. Difficulties in that interpretation:
A – The adherents of the “total freedom” of the dietary laws theory cannot define the reasons why God established them, to start with. If they aimed at protecting the people’s health, why such a preoccupation would disappear overnight with the death of Christ, since the hygiene of both men and animals would remain the same of centuries, not only in the land of Judah, as throughout the world where the Gospel would be proclaimed?
B – There is no way to justify that overnight meats such as that of rats, ravens, snakes and lizards began to be consumed when the Temple’s veil was rent from top to bottom, and the eat-it-all advocates can’t explain how the death of Christ altered the composition of these unclean meats, and why such food so harmful to health became apt for human consumption when Christ uttered His “It’s finished” and expired.
C – There isn’t the least evidence that a diet of all kinds of foods became a common practice of Christ’s followers in the early years of Christianity, be it in Judah or throughout the world.
D – Although those who allege that those laws were prefigurations of the separation between Jews and gentiles, the fact is that God wouldn’t maintain in His law such a negative aspect of human sentiments (racial prejudice, xenophobia), for He is “no respecter of people”. Besides, that would represent to shift the focus from Christ and His perfect sacrifice to men’s deficiencies.
* 5. Allegation: In Romans 14, argue many people, Paul deals with the “weak” in conflict with the “strong” ones in the faith, regarding certain foods, that being a debate surrounding the permission to utilize meats that were unclean before, which is also the case in 1 Tim. 4:1-3.
5. Difficulties in that interpretation:
A – There isn’t the least evidence that the debates there surpassed the question of food sacrificed to idols as Paul dissented from the Jerusalem Council’s decision regarding the consumption of such food. By the way, these were not limited to meats, but to any kind of food (Greek broma). He said that “the idol is nothing in itself”, allowing their consumption, while recommending respect for those brethren too scrupulously delicate, so that they were not shocked with their license to use these food articles.
B – Paul’s emphasis regarding our body being “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:15) doesn’t favor the notion that the believer can feed himself with pig, rat, ravens, snakes and lizards, since the same Paul said: “Whatever you eat or drink, or do any other thing, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). That shows that the Christian should be careful with the kinds of food he takes, rather than being indifferent regarding that.
C– The text of the parallel discussion in 1 Timothy 4 refers to “abstinence of foods that God created for being received with thankfulness” (1 Tim. 4:3). The context refers to those who prohibited marriages, in a reference to a specific group of people. Specialists identified these as the Gnostics, an ascetic sect. Thus, he was not setting a general rule, and also we have to face the fact that the “all that God created is good” (vs. 4) should include snakes, lizard, cockroaches, spiders. . . Besides, it would exclude those foods of the “dietary restrictions” of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:20, 29), which makes the “all” not being possible to be interpreted in an absolute way.
D – In Tim. 4:5 Paul speaks of using foods as a “metaphor”, that God created and that they are good “because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer”. Since God’s Word is referred to as basis for a decision on foods, and it establishes the dietary rules (and the early Christians got their Bible instruction in large extent by hearing the reading of the Torah on the Sabbaths in the synagogues—see Acts 15:21) it is extremely difficult that the Apostle is giving a “blank check” for the consumption of cockroaches, snakes and lizard as created by God for human, miraculously transformed into food apt for consumption just because of saying grace (as some people imply).
1. Allegation: Christ in Mark 7:1-23 says that: whatever enter the mouth won’t contaminate man, which shows that He is freeing His followers of following the dietary rules of the Bible:
1. Difficulties in that interpretation:
A – The context clearly indicates that the discussion was not regarding the contents of the dietary laws in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, rather the contrast between what God has stipulated and what the “tradition of the elders” established regarding ceremonial purifying ablutions (Mat. 15:2). That He Himself confirmed in vs. 20.
B – If Jesus were “purifying” supposed unclean foods in that meal, His act would have been good for nothing, because that was a Jewish meal, where no unclean meat would be found.
C – If Jesus were abolishing the dietary laws for good, He would be abolishing the law of food restrictions AHEAD OF TIME, for these dietary rules were not abolished on the cross? Besides being ahead of time, the supposed prefigurative sense would be absent, for only at Christ’s atonement the types meet the antitype, the shadow is substituted by the Reality!
D – Christ would be teaching something contrary to the divine law “still” in force, thus He Himself had to be considered “the least in the kingdom of heaven” on the light of His own words in Matthew 5:19.
For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.")—Mark 7:19
Azenilto Brito who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If Azenilto Brito comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. 2John 9-11
But the Adventist 1844 wasn’t really about foods, was it? That bunch of people were busy not having God, displayed by running ahead and not staying in the doctrine of Jesus. I believe Acts 1:7 are His very words, and are doctrine.
Those such as yourself who do not love truth are promised strong delusion, did you know that? You are not able to overcome the strong delusion sent to you by God, on your own power! It is good to warn onlookers of your deceitfulness and lack of credibility, in spiritual matters.
Excellent points Larry. We know from Scripture that no one can understand its inerrant Truth without the Holy Spirit’s leading:
Matthew 19:26 NIV: Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Mark 10:27 NIV: Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
Luke 1:37 NIV: For nothing is impossible with God.”
Luke 18:27 NIV: Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”
Heavenly Father, Please guide us in our conversations here. We humbly ask for your revelation and truth. Only your will Father, not mine shall prevail. In the Name of your loving Son, Jesus Christ, Amen
What a beautiful prayer. I just hope it is a sincere one.
Now, how about start answering my 4 basic questions,. which nobody so far showed the least interest in doing?! And how about someone preparing a competing study like “10 Reasons Why Christians SHOULD Eat Unclean Meats”?
Also, see how I already discussed partly these points with the Ratzlaff folks, addressing again questions that they never answered:
What a beautiful prayer. I just hope it is a sincere one.
I will forgive your insult. However, it does reveal a great deal to us about your desperation. You can link to other sites and “cut and paste” all the errant interpretations or out-of-context snippets you want to. And I’m sure that you’ll ignore this entreaty as you have the others.
So, let’s set aside the clean/unclean debate for the moment and discuss the consumption of meat alone if you please. The truth is best revealed and most amplified in the simplest of statements and questions. So:
Statement of fact: I am (we are) under the New Covenant law of Christ as revealed to us by His Apostles in the New Testament. I am (we are) subject to no other rules or regulations whatsoever! For us Gentiles, the Mosaic law simply and starkly highlights our complete inability to fully comply with God’s law and our incredibly desperate need for a savior to reconcile us to the Law Giver!
Question: When the new Gentile Christians came into the faith, what guidelines and limitations were they given? What did Paul suggest and the council decide?
Statement of fact: During the Exodus God quieted the grumbling by providing a meat supplement to the diet of His chosen people.
Question: In doing this, did God aid and abet sin?
There is no attack on the SDA church in this line of reasoning. If you see any vitriol in this simple presentation of questions and answers then how can we have a dialog?
There is no attack on the SDA church in this line of reasoning. If you see any vitriol in this simple presentation of questions and answers then how can we have a dialog?
In Christ,
You are too generous with the heretics Dan.
I bet St. Paul woulda handled it similar to this:
Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, ”You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? Acts 13
Elymas was an unregenerate sorcerer, utterlly no more or less offensive to God than an unregenerate Mormon, Jehovah Twitless, SDA, or VooDoo heretic. Doesn’t matter.
There lot is the same as those who add sabbath and subtract truth from the Book of Revelation—they get the plagues and their names removed from the book of life.
Show us where an anti-meat agenda occurred before the rise of Adventism in 1844.
Explain why anyone in their right mind needs to accept the word of a deceived people (which is believing things that are not true). You still teach a totally foreign Jesus, and you use forbidden private interpretations of scripture to get the job done.
You are without authority. All you have displayed is “vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers” 1 Peter 1:18
Finally, is the kingdom a matter of food and drink? Yes or no, please.
Sorry friends, but I will not be trapped into your sophistries and anti-SDA bashing. Let’s go to the facts, remembering that NOBODY ANSWERED my 4 basic questions necessary to be answered to delve into the analysis of these dietary laws.
Yes, we are under a New Covenant, as recorded in Heb. 8:6-10. Now, did you notice that in that important text, which is the one that even explains why we have a Bible divided into two segments--Old Testament/New Testament--it NEVER says anything that when God writes His laws on the minds and hearts of those who accept the provisions of this New Covenant [New Testament] He LEAVES out His Moral and/or Dietary laws? That includes the Sabbath commandment, my friends, for there is no information that He decided to write these laws of His transferring the sanctifiy of the 7th day to the 1st day of the week nor of exchanging the Sabbath principle to a more “user friendly” practice of anydayism/nodayism/everydayism. . . Nothing like that is recorded in Heb. 8:6-10.
By the way, according to the neo-antinomian dispensationalist (or semi-dispensationalist) theology that “new alliancers” adopt, what the text should say is that God writes on these hearts and minds the Law of Christ, or the Law of the Spirit, or the Law of Love, or the Law of Faith, however it just says, “My laws” [God’s], which, of course, encompasses all that.
And being the text just a reproduction of Jer. 31:31-33, it denotes that these are THE SAME LAWS that were in force in Jeremiah’s time. Of course the symbolic features of these laws would be left out, since when Hebrews was written the Temple’s veil had already been rent from top to bottom, and the author of the epistle, as well as his primary readers, were aware of the fact.
Now, that is one of the questions that I addressed the Ratzlaff folks and got no answer, even though I insisted about it:
Where, in the passage from the Old to the New Alliance, it is said that when God writes what is called “My laws” on the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of His New Alliance [New Testament], in that process He
a) leaves out the 4th commandment completely;
b) maintains the 4th commandment, but transferring the sanctity of the seventh-day Sabbath to Sunday;
OR
c) leaves the question of the day of rest as a vague, voluntary and variable practice to be set individually, according to the conveniences of the believer (or his/her employer)?
But let’s see how John Calvin gives as an excellent exegesis of Heb. 8:10, making the due connection with 2 Cor 3:3:
In vain then does God proclaim his Law by the voice of man, unless he writes it by his Spirit on our hearts, that is, unless he forms and prepares us for obedience. It hence appears of what avail is freewill and the uprightness of nature before God regenerates us. We will indeed and choose freely; but our will is carried away by a sort of insane impulse to resist God. Thus it comes that the Law is ruinous and fatal to us as long as it remains written only on tables of stone, as Paul also teaches us. (2 Corinthians 3:3.).
In short, we then only obediently embrace what God commands, when by his Spirit he changes and corrects the natural pravity of our hearts; otherwise he finds nothing in us but corrupt affections and a heart wholly given up to evil. The declaration indeed is clear, that a new covenant is made according to which God engraves his laws on our hearts, for otherwise it would be in vain and of no effect.
Where, in the passage from the Old to the New Alliance, it is said that when God writes what is called “My laws” on the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of His New Alliance [New Testament], in that process He
a) leaves out the 4th commandment completely;
b) maintains the 4th commandment, but transferring the sanctity of the seventh-day Sabbath to Sunday;
OR
c) leaves the question of the day of rest as a vague, voluntary and variable practice to be set individually, according to the conveniences of the believer (or his/her employer)?
Hey hypocrite,
In another thread you were complaining that we were off topic.
Jesus said something specific about His kingdom, food, and drink. You refuse to answer directly with a Jesus-spoken scripture. And you consider it sophistry and SDA-bashing when somebody intends to stay in the doctrine of Christ. I think that about sums it up about adventism! Yes it does!
9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.
11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.
I will ask you again: What did Jesus say about kingdom, food and drink?
Do you really find it hard to stay in the doctrine of Christ?
I forgot, when reproducing my challenging question (that in another forum a Roman Catholic said it is impossible to be answered only with the Bible) to add the following point, which I did mention at the beginning of my comments:
OR
Leave out the dietary laws, which had not ceremonial character, but were principles of universal nature, as we can see through Gen. 7:1, 2 (God setting rules about clean/unclean animals millenia before Sinai).
As I would expect, NO ANSWERS are given to my questions, only angry remarks of those who just think that by finding ways of bashing the SDA Church they are justified before God for their rebellion against certain “inconvenient truths” and “inconvenient” rules promoted by that Church.
As to the personal attacks, these words by which some think they demonstrate strength, as a matter of fact just show weakness. Personal attacks in a discussion of ideas were always considered “the tools of the incompetent”.
Azenilto, I have lurked here for a long time, but never posted. This forum has a long tradition of people posting with Christian civility, even though they may disagree. Why not continue in this hallowed tradition?
I forgot, when reproducing my challenging question (that in another forum a Roman Catholic said it is impossible to be answered only with the Bible) to add the following point, which I did mention at the beginning of my comments:
OR
Leave out the dietary laws, which had not ceremonial character, but were principles of universal nature, as we can see through Gen. 7:1, 2 (God setting rules about clean/unclean animals millenia before Sinai).
As I would expect, NO ANSWERS are given to my questions, only angry remarks of those who just think that by finding ways of bashing the SDA Church they are justified before God for their rebellion against certain “inconvenient truths” and “inconvenient” rules promoted by that Church.
As to the personal attacks, these words by which some think they demonstrate strength, as a matter of fact just show weakness. Personal attacks in a discussion of ideas were always considered “the tools of the incompetent”.
One the best reminders Greg Koukl gives every week on his radio show Stand to Reason is not to read a Bible verse, but to read the surrounding paragraph, chapter, or however much more you need to read to gain context.
For instance, keep reading on in the narrative of Noah and the flood:
20Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. 22While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.” Genesis 8:20-22
We see now that the reason God designated clean and unclean animals in the ark. For after the conclusion of the voyage God will have made provision for a burnt offering as an act of worship in response to God’s covenant faithfulness in sparing Noah and his family.
Further, if this were about diet, the passage from the continuation of the narrative in the next chapter would seem odd:
1And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 2The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. 3Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. 4But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Genesis 9:1-4
So it seems to me that it would be a bit strange to declare something unclean, meaning eating it is forbidden, to then turn around and say that every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. But given the context provided from chapter 8 it sheds much light on those designations of clean and unclean. They would be used for worship and as a tool of glorifying the One who sovereignly keeps His promises just as He promised Adam and Eve in Gen 3:15 that He would provide for their seed a Savior. He would show Himself faithful to that promise by providing an ark of safety in the days of Noah that would be provided by Himself through grace (just as would Christ) and the assurance that their seed would continue on. God’s faithfulness is incredible isn’t it?! Is the God we serve not amazing?!
Azenilto, I have lurked here for a long time, but never posted. This forum has a long tradition of people posting with Christian civility, even though they may disagree. Why not continue in this hallowed tradition?
Doug, does this fit with your idea of Christian civility:
9Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, 10"You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?
You may be confusing Brito with a Christian.
Anyone who teaches that Jesus blood dirtied heaven is definiitely not Christian! In fact, they do not have God.
