Seventh-Day Adventist Topical Videos

Here are some interesting videos on Seventh-Day Adventism:

Topical Video 1

Topical Video 2

Truly, the distinctive doctrines of Seventh-Day Adventists are heretical indeed!

A rebuttal to Walter Veith's presentation on the SDA doctrine of the Sabbath (part 2)

[continued from here and here]

The presentation by Walter Veith suffers from many serious flaws in exegesis, argumentation and documentation, which we shall now look at.

FLAWS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

Eisegesis

As it can be seen from the previous point-by-point rebuttal, Veith commits atrocious eisegesis. About 3½ minutes into the video, and also 36+ minutes into the video, Veith quotes Dan. 7:25 to 'show' that the mark of the beast involves the changing of the times, and then leap from that to say that since the Saturday to Sunday change is a changing of the times, therefore worshipping on Sunday is the sign of the beast. First of all, it is eisegesis to say that Dan. 7:25 teaches that the mark of the beast involves the changing of the times. Dan. 7:25 actually teaches that the beast will think to change the times, but it does not say that that such an action is its mark. In point of fact, it can be easily seen that no mention of any mark or sign is made in the entire chapter of Dan. 7 at all, which goes to show that to say that the idea that Dan. 7:25 talks about the mark of the beast is something not supported by the text in any manner whatsoever. We will look further at the argumentation used by Veith on this passage later under its own section, but suffice it is to say now that it is totally fallacious.

Just over 22 minutes into the video, Veith 'finds' an 'astonishing insight' into the passage in the Decalogue regarding the Sabbath in Ex. 20:8-11. According to his eisegesis of the phrase "the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is", this phrase shows that this make the Law binding on all Mankind and therefore "Without the Sabbath, without that signature, the whole law becomes just another document with rules"!? Honestly, just writing that 'interpretation' down should be enough to show how utterly inane it is! That phrase is meant to show that the Sabbath commanded here is based on the type of the seventh day rest of the Creation week, and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Law is binding on anyone at all! One could very well likewise say that since the introduction to the Decalogue started off by saying that God is the one who had saved His people Israel from Egypt and bondage in Egypt, therefore the Decalogue is only binding on (former) slaves and only slaves from Egypt at that!

Further into the video at about the 1 hour 4 minutes mark, Veith tackles one of the problem text for Seventh-day sabbatarians: 1 Cor. 16:2, which is one of the proof-texts used to prove the Lord's Day being on the first day of the week. In an attempt to evade the clear teaching of this verse, he makes the amazing interpretation that such a collection was for each believer to store their gifts at their individual homes on Sunday since they can't do so on the Saturday Sabbath. Since 1 Cor. 16:2b states that such a collection is supposed to result in a collection being made when Paul arrived, and a consolidated collection is required later from each believer's homes if Veith's interpretation is indeed correct, Veith's interpretation would result in a direct contradiction in the texts of Scripture and is therefore invalidated. It is totally an exercise in futility to say that the consolidation happens on the Sabbath itself since such is not found in the text, goes against the clear meaning of the words in that verse and hence is eisegesis, not to mention that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to ask believers to consolidate their own gifts in their homes. And we do know that the believers in Corinth do not live in communes but have their own houses. Veith's attempt of evading the clear teaching of 1 Cor. 16:2 is thus shown to be futile.

At 1 hour 3 minutes, the phrase 'breaking bread' in Acts 2:46 was explained away in an attempt to evade the clear teaching of the passage in Acts 20:7-11 which shows that Holy Communion was partaken by Paul, from the phrase 'had broken bread' in Acts 20:11. In Veith's 'interpretation', Acts 2:46 shows that the breaking of bread is actually supper, since it occurs daily. This is plainly ridiculous and without any basis at all, since there is nothing in the Scriptures against daily Holy Communion. In fact, the phrase 'breaking bread' and its derivatives are linked to the Lord's Supper since that very phrase is used to describe what happened at the first Lord's Supper instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ before He died (eg. Mt. 26:26 and especially 1 Cor. 10:16), so this makes Veith's eisegesis here totally inexcusable.

As a conclusion to this section, let us look at a less horrific twisting of Scripture, which many Sabbatarians use: Col. 2:16. Veith here puts forth the classic Sabbatarian interpretation, at the 1 hour 13 minutes mark, that Col. 2:16 refers only to the ceremonial Sabbaths, which in his reasoning is true since the other aspects of the Law placed in that passage are ceremonial aspects of the Law like eating, drinking and new moons. Firstly, however, this approach suffers from eisegesis in assuming that the Jews split the Law into three sections, which they do not. Such differentiation of the Law only applies when seen from a New Covenantal perspective, not from a rabbinic Judaist Old Covenant perspective, which I have mentioned more in detail in my article on the Christian Sabbath here, and therefore it is not applicable here. Secondly, the Greek term used here is sabbaton (σαββατων), which is the same plural Greek word used in passages such as Mt. 28:1, Lk. 416 to refer to A Sabbath day so there is no lexical reason for making it not refer also to normal weekly Sabbaths.

Hermeneutical principle:

Veith, as a Seventh Day Adventist, thinks like a Seventh Day Adventist, as they read the New Testament through Old Testament glasses. A cursory look will show that Seventh-Day Adventists use an essentially rabbinic Judaist interpretation of the Old Testament as a framework to interpret the teachings of the New Testament especially on their particular pet doctrines, instead of the orthodox method of interpreting the Old Testament in light of the full revelation of the New Covenant. This particular error permeates the entire presentation of Walter Veith, of which one notable example can be seen 46 minutes into the video, in which Veith uses Is. 58:13 in the Old Testament in an attempt to interpret what Rev. 1:10 means by the Lord's Day. This is of course also eisegesis, since the meaning of a particular phrase must be determined by the context, NOT by how other areas of the Bible utilize that particular word or phrase. [Even then, this error is particularly bad, since the phrases are not even the same — 'God's holy day' versus 'the Lord's day'.]

The error of interpreting the New Testament through rabbinic glasses can be particularly seen in their defence of their pet doctrines like the Seventh-Day Sabbath. Most definitely, they do not consistently use the same "logic" on the doctrine of Christ (Christology) like the Jews who deny the deity of Christ because they cannot fathom the idea of three persons in one God. This inconsistency is a sign therefore that the Seventh-Day Adventists are basing their pet doctrines on tradition, or to put it more bluntly, in an all-out bid to save the orthodox and prophetess status of Ellen G. White and fellow founder William Miller.

ARGUMENTATION ERRORS

Anti-Catholic bashing

Note: 'Anti-Catholic' and 'Anti-CatholISM' are two different things

This entire video is choked full of anti-Roman Catholic bashing, of which the definition of the term is that the organization and its people are attacked personally instead of criticism being based on facts. Certainly, we should be no friend of Roman Catholism since she preaches a false 'gospel', but Veith's attack on Roman Catholic and the Romanist Church borders on character assassination and the absurd, as if everything Rome does is calculated to destroy Christianity, maybe even to the extent that if the Pope call on governments to stop abortion it is also wrong because it is the Pope that is stating it!

An excellent example of such irrational hatred can be seen at 1 hour 11 minutes into the video, where Veith attacks Pope Gregory for changing the calendar during his reign (1582). Veith further states that the Pope decided to change the calendar because "it bothered him that the pasch [Passover] was not 100% aligned with the pagan feast of Istar", thus insinuating that the reason why Pope Gregory changed the calendar was because he wanted to celebrate a pagan feast! Such an insinuation is wicked and without any basis whatsoever. Pope Gregory changed the calendar because the stated year was drifting further and further away from the true yearly cycle such that days were lost as the years go by (The earth does not rotate around the sun in exactly 365.25 days btw). Such a change thus was for astronomical reasons as well as economic reasons. After all, a wrong date for sowing and harvesting of crops based on a faulty calendar may decrease or ruin the harvest.

Such character assassination is prevalent throughout Veith's presentation, and I suspect probably Seventh-Day Adventist literature as well. Such does not aid their case at all and in fact will backfire since there are no substantiation of these charges, which are based on the logical fallacy of Guilt by Association, which we shall discuss below. And everyone can notice such blatant ad-hominem when they see one even if they do not know the term for it, and would thus be turned off by it.

Fallacy of Guilt by association

Closely linked to the above fallacy of character assassination is the fallacy of Guilt by association. Just because a wicked person or organization says anything does not make it correct or wrong! For example, Hitler believed that 2+2=4, so does that mean that 2+2≠4, since Hitler believed that 2+2=4? Of course not! Yet such arguments are stated over and over in Veith's presentation, as if just because Roman Catholicism believes something means that thing must be wrong, and that only because Roman Catholicism is wrong.

A hilarious example is found 34 minutes into the video, whereby Veith attacks Sunday worship because Sunday is named after the Sun God. Judging by that same standard, Saturday worship should also be condemned because Saturday is named after Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture! Not to mention that Japanese SDAs would be guilty of worshipping the earth too since Saturday in Japanese is named after the soil/earth (土曜日)!

Fallacy of non-sequitur

This fallacy is repeated many times in Veith's presentation; the conclusions made by Veith just do not follow from his evidences. We can see this in his eisegesis of Dan. 7:25, in which it does not follow that just because the beast thinks to change the times mean that such a change is the mark of the beast. Also, even if that were so, that does not mean that worshiping on Sundays and not on Saturdays is a mark of the beast, for the text does not say that and he cannot know it is this change that God have in mind and not another change.

Another non-sequitur occurs 15 minutes into the video whereby Veith triumphantly states that the Sabbath is a sign for God's people (Ex. 31:17) and uses the Strong's Concordance of the Hebrew word for sign to show that this means that God's mark is the Sabbath and thus to 'change the Sabbath cf Dan. 7:25' is to remove God's mark in a sense. Veith here rips the entire verse out of context, takes out one word — 'sign', and then comes out with a theory based upon the Concordance's meaning of the term as it superimposes itself on the text of Scripture. He might as well just use the classic Greek lexicon BAGD while he's at it! It is pure eisegesis, not to mention that it does not follow at all that just because the Sabbath is a sign means it is THE sign.

Conspiracy theory/ Fear-mongering

Conspiracy theories are prevalent in the video, as we are told of Rome planning to subvert everyone to worship Ishtar among other such yarns. Other videos by Walter Veith have even more wild stories it seems. I guess we just need the Da Vinci Code gang to spice things up a bit more, together with the Illuminati of course.

Inconsistency

The first inconsistency is Veith's trusting of Roman Catholic (RC) sources as being truthful in what it say about Rome shifting the Sabbath to Sunday, while all the time attacking Roman Catholics and Roman Catholicism as evil, probably Satan Incarnate too. That surely reveals that he has an agenda in using such sources as being authoritative. For why would you utilize sources from a group that you are convinced as being wrong in a way that you depend on the truthfulness of such sources? For example, Veith's constant assertion that Rome changed the Sabbath to Sunday because of her inherent authority is taken to be true by Veith, yet why should do this since he thinks they are not only wrong but positively evil? If you think Roman Catholicism cannot be trusted, then why do you treat what she says as being authoritative?

The second inconsistency is with Veith selective obedience of the Law. He, along with the SDAs, seem to major on their pet topic only. Yet if they truly revere the Decalogue at the level they claim to revere it, then why did Veith violate the Second Commandment by showing pictures of Jesus Christ in the flesh about 33 minutes into the video? Is the Fourth Commandment only to be obeyed at all cost but not the others?

The most serious inconsistency with Veith and all those who claim that (Seventh-Day) Sabbath-keeping is a sign is that if that is true, then that shows their selective keeping of the Scriptures on this topic. Circumcision is considered a sign too (Gen. 17:11), and it was instituted even earlier than the Mosaic era during the time of Abraham. So why aren't Veith and the Seventh-Day Adventists (SDAs) not circumcising all their male children on the 8th day after birth? In fact, they do not even practice infant baptism! So using the same Sabbath-as-sign 'logic' that they use, Veith and the SDAs have already thrown away God's mark (of circumcision) since their inception, and have thus taken on the mark of the beast (since 'according' to Dan. 7:25, the changing from circumcision to baptism or perhaps to something else is a changing of the law)

DOCUMENTATION ERRORS

Veith cites many sources, of which many of them are hard to verify like the Catechismus Romanus. However, Veith attempts to stray into Protestant territory proper and once there he discredits himself because there it will be possible for me to verify his quotes.

About 51 minutes into the video, Veith makes a major blunder as he 'quotes' the Ausberg Confession of Faith through secondary sources in a bid to state that the Lutherans likewise believe that there is no reason that the Lord's Day (Sunday) be kept except by the Church's authority, as he has started his attempts to show that Protestants believe also that Sunday observance is not scriptural but ordained by the Church's authority. However, Veith makes his greatest blunder here and discredited whatever impression has has of being credible and objective. Here is what Veith quotes:

The observance of the Lord’s Day (Sunday) is founded not on any command of God, but on the authority of the church
– The Ausberg Confession, as quoted in Catholic Sabbath Manual, part 2, chapter 10, and then quoted by Walter Veith

And here is what the Ausberg Confession actually teaches:

For those who judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord's Day instead of the Sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel has been revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted. And yet, because it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the Church designated the Lord's Day for this purpose; and this day seems to have been chosen all the more for this additional reason, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping neither of the Sabbath nor of any other day is necessary.
— The Ausberg Confession, Article XXVIII: Of Ecclesiastical Power, Paragraph 18

As it can be seen, Veith misquotes the Ausberg Confession, and his quote is at best a partial truth. Such an error casts a shadow over the quality of the other sources he quotes which I cannot check, especially since the Ausberg Confession is so readily available even online. Since he is supposed to a scholar, such an error (which is not even allowed in undergraduate courses) is clearly unforgiveable.

Veith continues on trying to prove his case: that the Protestants testify that it is the Church that founded the keeping of Sunday while abrogating the Sabbath. This he does through quoting of sources from a Presbyterian, a Congregationalist, a Baptist, a Methodist, and even an Anglican. I will let the Anglican and the Methodist pass, because the Anglican position historically is the path of the via media and thus they did not take an official view on various topics, of which the issue of the Sabbath and the Lord's Day was one of them. Methodism arose from within Anglicanism so they similarly did not take a position on this issue. Nevertheless, for the remaining groups, why did Veith not quote their official position but instead the writings of one minister (assuming he had quoted them correctly), as if the views of that person represented the denomination he is in? Furthermore, all of these people he quoted are not very well-known theologians in their particular denominations either. If he wants to quote a person, why can't he quote for example John Owen's view of the Sabbath and the Lord's Day to represent the Puritans (Presbyterians/ Congregationalist), or even Walter Chantry for Presbyterianism?

Regardless, let us look at the official doctrinal positions of the Presbyterians, Congregationalist and the Baptists on this particular issue of the Sabbath and the Lord's Day.

For the Presbyterians,

As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath
— WCF, Chapter XXI: On Religious worship and the Sabbath-day, paragraph 7

For the Congregationalists,

As it is of the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time by God's appointment be set apart for the worship of God; so by his Word in a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath to be kept holy unto him; which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished
— The Savoy Declaration, Chapter 22: On Religious worship and the Sabbath-day, paragraph 7

For the Baptists,

As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he has particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's Day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished
— 1689 LBCF, Chapter 22, Of Religious worship and the Sabbath Day, paragraph 7

As it can be seen, the creeds show the official doctrinal position of three Protestant historic denominations on the issue of the Sabbath and the Lord's Day, and all of them directly refute Veith's thesis regarding the so-called "Protestant Testimony".

It gets worse. At 53 minutes into the video, Veith trys to quote Eusebius Church Histoy / Ecclesiastical History from the Nicene Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF) to show that the Sunday Sabbath is from the pagan religions. Since the entire material is online, I decided to verify the source and .... I cannot find this quote or anything like it at that particular book (5) and chapter (22), which in fact have as its title "The Bishops that were well known at this Time". I tried using the search engiene to scan for the words "ancient tradition" over the entire book but there is simply no record of such a passage being in Eusebius' Church History. It is therefore highly suspected that Veith gets this quote from a secondary source without checking. But regardless, the attempt to link Sunday worship with the pagan religions via Rome and Alexandra fails. Not to mention that such identification would still fall under the logical fallacy of Guilt by Association even if correct.

We can thus see that Veith's documentation is utterly horrendous and totally destroy his credability as a scholar. Not only does he misquotes and misrepresents the Ausberg Confession, he falsely attributes a statement to Eusebius' Church History. Also, he selectively quotes sources, with regards to the issue of the Protestant testimony, to prop up his thesis and therefore mislead others since the truth actually is contrary to his avowed thesis.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it can be seen there are many serious scriptural, argumentation and documentaton errors in Walter Veith's 1½ hour presentation defending the SDA doctrine of the Seventh-Day Sabbath. The errors are in fact so serious and the argumentaton full of holes that the entire presentation has value only in showing us the typical arguments SDAs use to support their views.

And therefore to people who may be swayed by such presentation, I urge you to please not get caught up in the empty rhetoric by Walter Veith and other SDA apologists but instead logically analyze what they say and claim according to Scripture and proper documentation. Veith's presentation has been wighed and has been found wanting. In point of fact, his serious documentation errors has destroyed whatever credability he has with anyone who is serious in knowing the Truth.

A rebuttal to Walter Veith's presentation on the SDA doctrine of the Sabbath (part 1)

[continued from here]

As I have finished the foundational presentation of what the Scriptures say about the Law and about the Sabbath in light of the fullness of Christ's revelation, it is time to tackle head-on Seventh Day Adventist and Creationist Walter Veith's presentation on the Sabbath, which at about 1½ hours long is embedded in my friend Isaiah's post which precipitated this entire discussion in the first place. The video it seems is part of the Total Onslaught series made by the SDA-affiliated Amazing Discoveries, and can be found here:

It can be seen that Walter Veith makes many claims and quotes in this 1½ hour presentation of his, and therefore we would analyze the various things he has said according to Scripture (for the Bible quotes) and according to historical theology and documentation (for the literature sources).

Since the video covers a lot of ground, I think it would be good if a brief point-by-point rebuttal of some of the things claimed by Veith in this video is put forth first, before systematically address the various errors in it, and thus in Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine regarding the Sabbath.

---

Brief rebuttal of Walter Veith's message

02:02 The Beast is a political entity? Probably, but not proven

03:30 Where in Dan. 7:25 is the Sabbath mentioned?

04:54 Evolution theory denies 6 days because otherwise they would be in trouble with violating the Sabbath?!

09:58 “The devil was angry that He [God] created Man?” Really? Where is that stated in Scripture? Since after 6 days, the Lord pronounces His creation to be very good, doesn’t this not mean that either Satan was not created after 6 days, or that he hadn’t fell yet?

12:26 Sabbaths were given as a sign to Israel (Eze. 20:12,20) of the Old Covenant. In Heb. 4, we can see the ceremonial [ie sign] of the Sabbath has been fulfilled in the eternal rest bought by our Lord Jesus Christ for us who believe.

13:35 Ex. 31:13, 16 is talking about the Sabbath as a sign of the Old Covenant with Israel.

15:15 “God’s mark is the Sabbath”? Classic case of eisegesis; of importing concepts anachronistically from other parts of the Scriptures instead of reading and interpreting the texts in context

15:56 “God has a sign, and it is the Sabbath”. Being circumcised also is called a sign (Gen. 17:11), so why aren’t you using the same logic on circumcision? SDAs do not practice circumcision, nor do they baptize their babies, so why the inconsistency of selectively obeying the Law? (See their belief statement here http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html)

22:25 [Using Ex. 20:8-11] “Without the Sabbath, without that signature, the whole law becomes just another document with rules”? Why should we adopt such an obvious eisegesis which discard the entire context and reads contemporary concepts into this passage?

33:03 For someone who talks so much about keeping God’s law, violating the second commandment sure does come easy.

34:40 Sunday is so called because this day is dedicated to the Sun, and this is supposed to mean something? This is just mere nomenclature, not that Sunday was chosen because it was dedicated to the sun. In the same way, in Japanese, every day is named after an element, and Saturday is named after the earth (土曜日) so does this imply that since the Jewish Sabbath is on a Saturday, therefore it is dedicated as a day of venerating the earth?

36:20 Where in Dan. 7:25 is mention made of the Sabbath?

41:24 Just because RCism claim to be the one transferring the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday does not make it so. RCism lies about many things, so why do you trust them on this one?

43:15 “Satan has attacked the Sabbath because it is the Seal of God” Ipse dixit! Petitio principii!

44:35 Just because the RC claim to have the power to change the Sabbath does not make it so, nor does it mean that history happens as she claims it to be.

45:25 As an aside, how are we supposed to validate the wild claims by SDA apologists like this one? Where can one get a copy of the Catechismus Romanus?

46:00 Anachronistic eisegesis! Reading of Is. 58:13 into Rev. 1:10!

47:06- 47:21 Again, why should we care what the RCs claim? And they say in error that Scripture does not so state. True, Scripture is not explicit on the shift, but it does state it as a matter of fact.

49:20 Who cares what the Roman heretics say? Let us look to Scripture for guidance instead.

51:08 Great mistake of Walter Veith! Never venture into our territory! According to him, the Lutheran Ausberg Confession states that

The observance of the Lord’s Day (Sunday) is founded not on any command of God, but on the authority of the church

– The Ausberg Confession, as quoted in Catholic Sabbath Manual, part 2, chapter 10, and then quoted by Walter Veith

Well, this is actually what the Ausberg Confession says about the Sabbath:

For those who judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord's Day instead of the Sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel has been revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted. And yet, because it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the Church designated the Lord's Day for this purpose; and this day seems to have been chosen all the more for this additional reason, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping neither of the Sabbath nor of any other day is necessary.

(The Ausberg Confession, Article XXVIII: Of Ecclesiastical Power, Paragraph 18)

Walter Veith has here misquoted the Ausberg Confession to make it say what it does not say!

51:26 Why does Veith not quote from the Westminster Standards instead rather than the writing of an ordinary Presbyterian minister? Is it rather because their stand does not actually prove his position?

This is what the Westminster Confession of Faith says about the Sabbath

As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath (WCF, Chapter XXI: On Religious worship and the Sabbath-day, paragraph 7)

Again, this contradicts his (mis)representation of their teachings

52:05 Again, why not look at their [the Congregationalists] confessional standards instead, which is the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order of 1658? It is stated

As it is of the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time by God's appointment be set apart for the worship of God; so by his Word in a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath to be kept holy unto him; which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished (The Savoy Declaration, Chapter 22: On Religious worship and the Sabbath-day, paragraph 7)

This thus contradicts his (mis)representation of their teachings.

52:44 Is this an Anabaptist minister? This is what the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, similar to the Westminster Confession of Faith, says:

As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he has particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's Day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished (LBCF, Chapter 22, Of Religious worship and the Sabbath Day, paragraph 7)

53:41 Assuming this is a correct quotation, it is still a reading into the ancient texts what the word ‘Sabbath’ refers to, so all the rest about Alexandria and Rome are just plain speculation.

58:45 The women did not know of the change, but of course, since Christianity has not yet started then.

1:03:00 So he admitted that it was after the Sabbath that the Christians gathered to have Communion? Doesn’t this undercut the entire argument he is advancing of Sabbath being the day to worship God? And so what even if he was traveling on Sunday, the Christian Sabbath? Most certainly, he is not chained to a legalistic observance of it!

1:03:20 Acts 2:46 tell us about the special custom of the early Jerusalem church which is not normative for believers, so to interpret this is mere supper together is wrong. They were in actual fact having daily communion.

1:04:14 Why does he like to use obscure Bible renderings such as the NEB and the Weymoth translation, unless he is choosing those translations because they support his thesis [like Rick Warren]?

1:04:42 If they store them at home, then there still needs to be a collection, unless Paul himself goes house to house to collect them, so such is an eisegesis of the text.

1:11:12 The Pope changed the calendar because of astronomical reasons, NOT for doctrinal reasons!

1:11:37 – 1:12-10 “… not aligned with the pagan feast of Istar” Mere speculation! And bearing false witness too. There was war because of the change in calendar? Which war? Even if there was a war, how do you know that it is truly because of the change in calendar and not for some other political reason?

1:13:24 And how does he know that Col. 2:16 refers only to the ceremonial Sabbaths? In context, the meaning is plain enough! The Greek similarly supports the traditional exegesis of the passage.

1:15:27 According to Veith, ceremonial sabbaths are linked to the sanctuary service (!), which is a distinctly SDA heretical doctrine.

1:17:00-25 The reason why Paul did so is because he was ministering to Jews and therefore need to do so on a Jewish Sabbath! And the reason why the whole city came to hear Paul on a Sabbath is not because they were hallowing the Sabbath so to speak, but because they know Paul was preaching in a synagogue, and synagogues are only active on Saturdays!

1:17-50- 1:18:00 Promoting salvation by obedience?

1:20:10 There will be something [ie new moon celebration] that will be kept in heaven as well?!!! Eisegesis!

---

With this done, let us look systematically at the major errors of Veith's presentation.

Weekly Meditations: Is. 9 -10

The Lord has sent a word against Jacob, and it will fall on Israel; and all the people will know, Ephraim and the inhabitants of Samaria, who say in pride and in arrogance of heart: “The bricks have fallen, but we will build with dressed stones; the sycamores have been cut down, but we will put cedars in their place.” But the Lord raises the adversaries of Rezin against him, and stirs up his enemies. The Syrians on the east and the Philistines on the west devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still.

The people did not turn to him who struck them, nor inquire of the Lord of hosts. So the Lord cut off from Israel head and tail, palm branch and reed in one day— the elder and honored man is the head, and the prophet who teaches lies is the tail; for those who guide this people have been leading them astray, and those who are guided by them are swallowed up. Therefore the Lord does not rejoice over their young men, and has no compassion on their fatherless and widows; for everyone is godless and an evildoer, and every mouth speaks folly. For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still.

For wickedness burns like a fire; it consumes briers and thorns; it kindles the thickets of the forest, and they roll upward in a column of smoke. Through the wrath of the Lord of hosts the land is scorched, and the people are like fuel for the fire; no one spares another. They slice meat on the right, but are still hungry, and they devour on the left, but are not satisfied; each devours the flesh of his own arm, Manasseh devours Ephraim, and Ephraim devours Manasseh; together they are against Judah. For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still. (Is. 9: 8-21)

Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the ruin that will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help,and where will you leave your wealth? Nothing remains but to crouch among the prisoners or fall among the slain. For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still. (Is. 10:1-4)

The LORD speaks forth prophetic judgments against Ephraim, the northern Kingdom of Israel. After previously prophesying with regards to the hope of the people of God which is the coming Messiah, and consoling the remnant that their hope is in fearing God and obeying Him, Isaiah spoke forth the terrifying prophecy against the northern Kingdom of Israel, for being so wicked as to ally with a pagan nation (Syria) against their Jewish brothers. Their wicked action in rising against their brothers will be severely punished by God, as this passage shows.

Verse 8 starts the prophecy of Isaiah against the northern kingdom, and the judgment of God will be such that the people will know God is against them (v.9a). In their pride and arrogance of heart (v. 9b), they not only rely on their strength, but they boast of even greater strength after being punished previously for their many errors. "No bricks? Use stronger and more expensive dressed stones. The symacores have been cut down? We would plant stronger cedar trees in their place", thought the Israelites (v. 10). But God in His wrath would not allow that to happen. He would stir up the enemies of Israel (the adversaries of Israel's then king Rezin) (v. 11), leading the Syrians on the East and Philistines on the West to attack them and conquer and devastate their land (v. 12).

We can here notice that Syria who will attack Israel had previously allied themselves with them, all of which probably happened just before the march of the Assyrians. What irony! Those who attack the people of God will be paid back in full, even more when it is Covenant breakers who commit such treachery. Since Israel wanted to be like the nations, she will suffer like them also.

Verse 13 shows the hardened state of the Israelites in the northern kingdom, that they would not seek God when disaster strikes. And therefore the LORD would cut off the rulers of society: the elder and honored being the head, and the [false] prophet who teaches lies being the tail (v. 14-15). The leaders are the ones who lead the people astray to their ruin (swallowed up) (v. 16), such that apostasy is endemic to the entire nation, manifesting in that 'everyone is godless and evildoer and every mouth speaks folly' (v. 17b) and therefore God will have no joy or compassion over all of them, whether young or old, not even the poor, the fatherless and the widow because they too are wicked (v. 17a). [Btw, those who are poor and helpless, and at the bottom of society can be wicked as well, contra Liberation "Theology"]

The pervasive and awful wickedness of the Israelites here is portrayed as like a fire (v.18) which destroys things around it and throwing up smoke that is offensive to God (as opposed to the sweet smell of incense offered by a clean heart). The wrath of the LORD of host will thus cleanse the land by scorching it in His wrath and spending them on the Israelites who will be as fuel for the fire of God's wrath (v. 19). An appalling vision is described, as the Israelites are driven to treachery against each other and cannibalism in their desperation, eating of others (on their right and left) and even themselves in their impoverishment (v. 20). And yet, though they attack and devour each other, they remain steadfast in their hatred of Judah (v. 21), thus showing forth their depravity in which even the severe judgments of God did not bring them to repentance.

Is. 10 starts off with pronouncing judgment against those who are the people causing the most injustice and calamity in society by their godlessness. Those who twist the law of the land as putty to legally approve sin are detestable to God and woe is pronounced on them (v. 1). The same is pronounced on all who oppress the powerless people of society in order to gain advantage at their expense (v. 2), most definitely whether it is legally correct or not. God calls upon them to consider as all their petty benefits they have gain through all of this would not help them one bit when judgment comes through the destruction of their nation (v. 3), with the only two options given to them is either to be a prisoner or to die (v. 4a), of which all that they have materially etc will not be able to avail them in the day of judgment against Israel.

"For all this His anger has not turned away, and His hand is stretched out still". This phrase occurs in Is. 9:12b, 17c, 21b and 10:4; a total of 4 times. We can see here the wrath of God against unrepentant Israel who steadfastly refuses to repent of their gross wickedness. God has continued to pour out His wrath upon them, and yet even after all these horrid calamities, God's justice and wrath is not yet satisfied — so great is their wickedness. In the end, Israel as a nation would be destroyed and people deported among pagan nations, as Israel drank the judgment of God down to its very dregs.

On the Mosaic Law in light of the fullness of the revelation of the Gospel

Here is an article on the Mosaic Law, expounding more upon it in relation to the viewpoint of rabbinic Judaism, and how it interacts with the Gospel of grace through faith alone, as well as the dynamics between the coming of the New Covenant as the Old Covenant is phased out.

Also, with regards to the previous article on the Sabbath, I have added something which had slipped my mind then, which is very pertinent for our discussion on the Sabbath. The verse I overlooked in haste is

And he [Jesus] said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mk. 2:27)

This should put to an end to all forms of legalism with regards to the Sabbath, but sadly it doesn't.

The beginning of Ebionitism?

In The Church History of Eusebius, NPNF2-01 Bk. III, Chapter XXVII: The heresy of the Ebionites (available online at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxvii.html). Footnotes 824 states:

The Ebionites were not originally heretics. Their characteristic was the more or less strict insistence upon the observance of the Jewish law; a matter of cultus, therefore, not of theology, separated them from Gentile Christians. Among the early Jewish Christians existed all shades of opinion, in regard to the relation of the law and the Gospel, from the freest recognition of the uncircumcised Gentile Christian to the bitterest insistence upon the necessity for salvation of full observance of the Jewish law by Gentile as well as by Jewish Christians. With the latter Paul himself had to contend, and as time went on, and Christianity spread more and more among the Gentiles, the breach only became wider. In the time of Justin there were two opposite tendencies among such Christians as still observed the Jewish law: some wished to impose it upon all Christians; others confined it to themselves. Upon the latter Justin looks with charity; but the former he condemns as schismatics (see Dial. c. Trypho. 47). For Justin the distinguishing mark of such schismatics is not a doctrinal heresy, but an anti-Christian principle of life. But the natural result of these Judaizing tendencies and of the involved hostility to the apostle of the Gentiles was the ever more tenacious clinging to the Jewish idea of the Messiah; and as the Church, in its strife with Gnosticism, laid an ever-increasing stress upon Christology, the difference in this respect between itself and these Jewish Christians became ever more apparent until finally left far behind by the Church in its rapid development, they were looked upon as heretics. And so in Irenæus (I. 26. 2) we find a definite heretical sect called Ebionites, whose Christology is like that of Cerinthus and Carpocrates, who reject the apostle Paul, use the Gospel of Matthew only, and still cling to the observance of the Jewish law; but the distinction which Justin draws between the milder and stricter class is no longer drawn: all are classed together in the ranks of heretics, because of their heretical Christology (cf. ibid. III. 21. 1; IV. 33. 4; V. 1. 3). In Tertullian and Hippolytus their deviation from the orthodox Christology is still more clearly emphasized, and their relation to the Jewish law drops still further into the background (cf. Hippolytus, Phil. VII. 22; X. 18; and Tertullian, De Carne Christi, 14, 18, &c.). So Origen is acquainted with the Ebionites as an heretical sect, but, with a more exact knowledge of them than was possessed by Irenæus who lived far away from their chief centre, he distinguishes two classes; but the distinction is made upon Christological lines, and is very different from that drawn by Justin. This distinction of Origen’s between those Ebionites who accepted and those who denied the supernatural birth of Christ is drawn also by Eusebius (see below, §3). Epiphanius (Hær. XXIX. sqq.) is the first to make two distinct heretical sects—the Ebionites and the Nazarenes. It has been the custom of historians to carry this distinction back into apostolic times, and to trace down to the time of Epiphanius the continuous existence of a milder party—the Nazarenes—and of a stricter party—the Ebionites; but this distinction Nitzsch (Dogmengesch. p. 37 sqq.) has shown to be entirely groundless. The division which Epiphanius makes is different from that of Justin, as well as from that of Origen and Eusebius; in fact, it is doubtful if he himself had any clear knowledge of a distinction, his reports are so contradictory. The Ebionites known to him were most pronounced heretics; but he had heard of others who were said to be less heretical, and the conclusion that they formed another sect was most natural. Jerome’s use of the two words is fluctuating; but it is clear enough that they were not looked upon by him as two distinct sects. The word “Nazarenes” was, in fact, in the beginning a general name given to the Christians of Palestine by the Jews (cf. Acts xxiv. 5), and as such synonymous with “Ebionites.” Upon the later syncretistic Ebionism, see Bk. VI. chap. 38, note 1. Upon the general subject of Ebionism, see especially Nitzsch, ibid., and Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 226 sqq.

Thus, it can be seen that the Ebionites came from the Jerusalem Church which had apostatized as they cave in under Jewish pressure, plus the fact that the Church there refuses to mature into the fullness of the Christian faith (especially with regards to Christology it seems) but continue to identify Christianity as a Jewish faith, failing to differentiate between the true Abrahamic and Mosaic Judaism as compared to the distorted rabbinic Judaism of their time.

Spurgeon: Election and assurance of salvation

July 17

Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God' - 1 Thessalonians 1:4

Many persons want to know their election before they look to Christ, but they cannot learn it thus, it is only to be discovered by 'looking unto Jesus'. If you desire to ascertain your own election; after the following manner, shall you assure your heart before God. Do you feel yourself to be a lost, guilty sinner? Go straightway to the cross of Christ, and tell Jesus so, and tell Him that you have read in the Bible, 'Him that cometh unto me, I will in no way case out'. Tell Him that He has said, 'This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners'. Look to Jesus and believe on Him, and you shall make proof of your election directly, for so surely thou believest, thou art elect. If you will give yourself wholly up to Christ and trust Him, then you are one of God's chosen ones; but if you stop and say, 'I want to know first whether I am elect', you ask you know not what. Go to Jesus, be you never so guilty, just as you are. Leave all curious enquiry about election alone. Go stright to Christ and hide in His wounds, and you shall know your election. The assurance of the Holy Spirit shall be given to you, so that you shall be able to say, 'I know whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to Him'. Christ was at the everlasting council: He can tel you whether you were chosen or not, but you cannot find it out in any other way. Go and put your trust in Him, and His answer will be - "I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee'. There will be no doubt about His having chosen you, when you have chosen Him.

'Sons we are through God's election,
Who in Jesus Christ believe.'

[Charles Spurgeon, Morning and Evenings: Daily readings by Charles Spurgeon (Christian Focus Publications, Ross-shire, Scotland, Great Britain, 1994)]

Reply to Isaiah on the topic of the Sabbath (part 1)

I have just finished this article on the Christian Sabbath as it is based on the Fourth Commandment in the Decalogue. I am neither a Dispensationalist nor a New Covenantal Theologian but a Covenantal Theologian, so the issue of the Law must be faced head-on instead of just dismissing it as being of no consequence like most modern Christians nowadays who superficially and derisively claim that "we are under Grace, not Law".

This was done mainly as a partial answer to my brother-in-Christ Isaiah who is grappling with the issue due to hearing messages from the Seventh-Day Adventists, the most prominent cult today which practices Saturday Sabbath, of which the most recent one can be seen here. His blog is more well-read than mine, and as such, like it or not, he has more responsibility for whatever he blogs than me since more people will be influenced by whatever he says, and therefore I have felt a burdern to proclaim the Word of God on this matter. This matter is not in fact just a preference issue, but has become something of an obedience issue, and may probably degenerate into a test of orthopraxy (right living) just like adultery. It therefore has serious ramifications when taken to its logical conclusions, of which the Seventh Day Adventists have done so already.

As Paul addresses the Galatian Christians two millenia ago, I hope to address Isaiah and his friends: Not out of condemnation (that is reserved for those who are attempting to lead them astray), but out of love for them As Paul states in his epistle to the Galatian Christians:

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.”

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

(Gal. 4:21-31. Bold added)

This is part one of my reply to the issue of Sabbatarianism, and more specifically the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath as a requirement of the Law of God. I will be posting the second reply which will be a rebuttal of Walter Veith's message on the Sabbath, based upon the foundation of the true doctrine of the Law as I have exposited from Scripture.

[Just FYI, there will be no Weekly Meditations this week due to the intensive effort required to fight this fire. Sorry. Hey, at least I get to re-read through Deuteronomy, Romans, Galatians and Hebrews and parts of Leviticus, and that consecutively while seeking understanding of the Law.]

Satire: St Hinn the Rich

The folks over at Team Tominthebox New Network have came up with this. Absolutely hilarious!

In an exclusive report, TBNN has learned that Benny Hinn has been recently granted the first official "sainthood" by Health, Wealth and Prosperity Gospel leaders. TBNN learned that a group of HWPG pastors, which included big names like Creflo Dollar, Leroy Thompson, Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copeland, met in Atlanta, Georgia last week to discuss the prospect of "sainthood" for those who had contributed much to the HWPG cause. During the meeting the group discussed possible choices for the first ever "sainthood" amongst HWPG advocates. Over the course of the meetings Hinn's name repeatedly came up.

[continue]

Now, whenever the Faith adherents desire more money, they can pray to Saint Hinn, the patron saint of Money. Don't expect any treasury of merit to be avaliable to you though, until probably he passes on in life.

Answering the abominable heresy of the (Neo-)Ebionites

The weekly meditation that I have posted last week on Is. 9 and the Messianic implications it has seems to have attracted the attention of a Swedish (Neo)-Ebionite Anders Branderud, who calls himself a Netzarim. Since there has been a lot of interest in all things Jewish in recent times, I think that this issue should be addressed in a bid to head off Judaizing influences which have the potential to place deluded people under the anathema of God (Gal. 1:8-9)

Historically, the emergence of the Ebionite heresy is rather hard to trace. What we can know however with the aid of Scripture is that it must have came from the Judaizing party first reproved in the Council of Jerusalem (Act 15: 1-29) which had tried to press the observance of the Law according to the Judaist understanding of the Law. Later on, when they prove recalcitrant, the Apostle Paul rebuked and condemned them and their teachings in the entire epistle to the Galatians, nothing that the Judaizing party ought to emasculate (castrate) themselves since they boast so much in their flesh and in circumcision (Gal. 5:12), noting that 'for freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery' (Gal. 5:1). The Judaizers probably still persist as a group historically as the Ebionites, and slander and attack Paul as an apostate plus reject his writings as Scripture because it did not square with their unbiblical understanding of the Law plus the fact that Paul was their most outspoken critic.

As a historical movement, the Ebionites have been virtually eliminated from the word scene due to persecution from both Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles detest them since they were Jews, Christians rightly denounce them as heretics, and the non-Christian Jews detest them because they claim to follow Jesus whom they regarded as a false prophet. In other words, their position placed them in no-man's land, as being similar to an 'almost Christian" — hated by the World, rejected by God and excommunicated from the Church. As such, they have mostly gone extinct. Their initial persistence however have caused a backlash as the Church then denounced all things Jewish, of which the harsh rhetoric used would unwittingly provide fuel for future anti-Semitism which is always prevalent in the hearts of the Gentiles.

The recent interest in all things Jewish have however resurrected the Ebionite heresy from the grave. Similar to the ancient Ebionites, these Neo-Ebionites claim to follow "Rabbi Yeshua" while rejecting Christianity. One such group is the "Netzarim", who are self-styled "Restored Nazerene Jews of Israel". They most certainly are Jews, but they create an ahistorical "Yeshua" of their own making and claim to follow him. In reality, they follow a mere figment of their imagination and are totally deluded. Let's face it, either you be a unbelieving Jew who denies Jesus, of you follow Jesus as your Messiah. Such a "half-way" position is totally untenable historically, not to mention logically and scripturally.

As stated, one way to address such nonsense is to read up on the facts of history. The texts of the New Testament are historically beyond refute as to their credibility and reliability, having have superior manuscript evidence as proof. In fact, one of the earliest manuscript papyri were dated to around the turn of the second century AD [Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Zondervan Publishers, 1998, Grand Rapids, MI), p. 61-62], far too little time for the NT texts to be corrupted. Therefore, it is simply impossible to claim to believe in "Rabbi Jesus" while rejecting all the evidences of Jesus Christ and of the Christian faith based upon Him based upon the facts of history. You can disagree with the New Testament if you so wish, but don't claim to follow Jesus when you actually don't!

This Neo-Ebionite site has manged to distort historical documentation even by misquoting the words of Eusebius, an early Church father. In his work The Church History of Eusebius, which is found in the collation NPNF (Nicene Post-Nicene Fathers) (available online on CCEL here). From here, we can compare the distortions of the Neo-Ebionites with the truth.

The Neo-Ebionites first claim that the charge of the Jerusalem church was given to James the Just, giving EH II, XXIII.4 as their reference. What of course it didn't say was that James confessed Christ as the Messiah.

12. The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: ‘Thou just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.’

13. And he answered with a loud voice, ‘Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven. (Eusebius, Church History of Eusebius, Book II, Chapter XXIII: The Matyrdom of James, who was called the brother of the Lord, NPNF2-01, source)

Next, they claim that the original disciples of Jesus called the Netzarim excised Saul, thereafter referred exclusively as Paul, and judged him as an apostate, quoting EH, III, xxvii, 4. Checking with the original source shows that Eusebius was talking about the Ebionite heretics here, and therefore the "Netzarim" showed themselves to be Neo-Ebionites in fact. The footnotes in this text (made by the editors) sure looks interesting.

4. These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law;⁸³⁰ and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews⁸³¹ and made small account of the rest.

830 This is mentioned by Irenæus (I. 26. 2) and by Origen (Cont. Cels. V. 65 and Hom. in Jer. XVIII. 12). It was a general characteristic of the sect of the Ebionites as known to the Fathers, from the time of Origen on, and but a continuation of the enmity to Paul shown by the Judaizers during his lifetime. But their relations to Paul and to the Jewish law fell more and more into the background, as remarked above, as their Christological heresy came into greater prominence over against the developed Christology of the Catholic Church (cf. e.g. the accounts of Tertullian and of Hippolytus with that of Irenæus). The “these” (οὗτοι δὲ) here would seem to refer only to the second class of Ebionites; but we know from the very nature of the case, as well as from the accounts of others, that this conduct was true as well of the first, and Eusebius, although he may have been referring only to the second, cannot have intended to exclude the first class in making the statement.

831 Eusebius is the first to tell us that the Ebionites used the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Irenæus (Adv. Hær. I. 26. 2, III. 11. 7) says that they used the Gospel of Matthew, and the fact that he mentions no difference between it and the canonical Matthew shows that, so far as he knew, they were the same. But according to Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius the Gospel according to the Hebrews was used by the Ebionites, and, as seen above (chap. 25, note 18), this Gospel cannot have been identical with the canonical Matthew. Either, therefore, the Gospel used by the Ebionites in the time of Irenæus, and called by him simply the Gospel of Matthew, was something different from the canonical Matthew, or else the Ebionites had given up the Gospel of Matthew for another and a different gospel (for the Gospel of the Hebrews cannot have been an outgrowth of the canonical Matthew, as has been already seen, chap. 25, note 24). The former is much more probable, and the difficulty may be most simply explained by supposing that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is identical with the so-called Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (see chap. 24, note 5), or at least that it passed among the earliest Jewish Christians under Matthew’s name, and that Irenæus, who was personally acquainted with the sect, simply hearing that they used a Gospel of Matthew, naturally supposed it to be identical with the canonical Gospel. In the time of Jerome a Hebrew “Gospel according to the Hebrews” was used by the “Nazarenes and Ebionites” as the Gospel of Matthew (cf. in Matt. XII. 13; Contra Pelag. III. 2). Jerome refrains from expressing his own judgment as to its authorship, but that he did not consider it in its existing form identical with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is clear from his words in de vir. ill. chap. 3, taken in connection with the fact that he himself translated it into Greek and Latin, as he states in chap. 2. Epiphanius (Hær. XXIX. 9) says that the Nazarenes still preserved the original Hebrew Matthew in full, while the Ebionites (XXX. 13) had a Gospel of Matthew “not complete, but spurious and mutilated”; and elsewhere (XXX. 3) he says that the Ebionites used the Gospel of Matthew and called it the “Gospel according to the Hebrews.” It is thus evident that he meant to distinguish the Gospel of the Ebionites from that of the Nazarenes, i.e. the Gospel according to the Hebrews from the original Hebrew Matthew. So, likewise. Eusebius’ treatment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew clearly indicates that he considered them two different gospels (cf. e.g. his mention of the former in chap. 25 and in Bk. IV. chap. 22, and his mention of the latter in chap. 24, and in Bk. IV. chap. 10). Of course he knew that the former was not identical with the canonical Matthew, and hence, naturally supposing that the Hebrew Matthew agreed with the canonical Matthew, he could not do otherwise than make a distinction between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Hebrew Matthew, and he must therefore make the change which he did in Irenæus’ statement in mentioning the Gospel used by the Ebionites, as he knew them. Moreover, as we learn from Bk. VI. chap. 17, the Ebionite Symmachus had written against the Gospel of Matthew (of course the canonical Gospel), and this fact would only confirm Eusebius in his opinion that Irenæus was mistaken, and that the Ebionites did not use the Gospel of Matthew. But none of these facts militate against the assumption that the Gospel of the Hebrews in its original form was identical with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, or at least passed originally under his name among Jewish Christians. For it is by no means certain that the original Hebrew Matthew agreed with the canonical Matthew, and, therefore, lack of resemblance between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the canonical Matthew is no argument against its identity with the Hebrew Matthew. Moreover, it is quite conceivable that, in the course of time, the original Gospel according to the Hebrews underwent alterations, especially since it was in the hands of a sect which was growing constantly more heretical, and that, therefore, its resemblance to the canonical Matthew may have been even less in the time of Eusebius and Jerome than at the beginning. It is possible that the Gospel of Matthew, which Jerome claims to have seen in the library at Cæsarea (de vir. ill. chap. 3), may have been an earlier, and hence less corrupt, copy of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Since the writing of this note, Handmann’s work on the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Das Hebräer-Evangelium, von Rudolf Handmann. Von Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 3) has come into my hands, and I find that he denies that that Gospel is to be in any way identified with the traditional Hebrew Matthew, or that it bore the name of Matthew. The reasons which he gives, however, are practically the same as those referred to in this note, and, as already shown, do not prove that the two were not originally identical. Handmann holds that the Gospel among the Jewish Christians was called simply “the Gospel,” or some general name of the kind, and that it received from others the name “Gospel according to the Hebrews,” because it was used by them. This may well be, but does not militate at all against the existence of a tradition among the Jewish Christians that Matthew was the author of their only gospel. Handmann makes the Gospel according to the Hebrews a second independent source of the Synoptic Gospels alongside of the “Ur-Marcus,” (a theory which, if accepted, would go far to establish its identity with the Hebrew Matthew), and even goes so far as to suggest that it is to be identified with the λόγια of Papias (cf. the writer’s notice of Handmann’s book, in the Presbyterian Review, July, 1889). For the literature on this Gospel, see chap. 25, note 24. I find that Resch in his Agrapha emphasizes the apocryphal character of the Gospel in its original form, and makes it later than and in part dependent upon our Matthew, but I am unable to agree with him.

This immediately alerts us to the subjectivity of these "Netzarim", since it is a fact that the Ebionites were thrown out of the Church early in its history and as such have no legitimate claim to historical continuity with the teachings of Jesus, being opposed by all the Apostle even and anathemized by God Himself through His Word (Gal. 1:8-9).

Historical revisionism sure runs rampant in such circles, with even the destruction of Jerusalem and the expulsion of the Jews from that area being used as "proof" of Christianity being a Hellenic and thus false religion. Nevermind the historical fact that the Jews had rebelled against Roman rule under the leadership of the false messiah Bar-Cocheba (Eusebius, Church History of Eusebius, Book IV, Chapter VI: The Last Siege of the Jews under Adrian, NPNF2-01, source), and therefore they get what they justly deserve (As if the Roman Empire was going to lie down and allow one of its own provinces to revolt!). It is a fact that the Jews were a rebellious people, and although they have a reason to be, the suppression and expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem was done for political reasons rather than any religious consideration. Noting that Christians everywhere were being persecuted during that period, the Neo-Ebionites showed themselves long on assertion but short on logical rational thinking, as if the Roman Empire was going to do the bidding of Christians who they were actively persecuting! Sheer idiocy!

On the Law

Theologically, the entire thrust of the argument against Christianity by these Neo-Ebionites is that Christianity is "anti-Torah". Such shows their Legalistic slant, and proves once for all that they do not even understand their own Scriptures, distorting the teachings of the Old Testament to be one of legalistic law-keeping, whereas it was never meant to teach such a perversion. We can of course look at the New Testament to see the correct understanding between Law and grace, of which the best presentation is found in Romans and Galatians. However, a quick glance of the Old Testament would show that to be the case also.

For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; You will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise (Ps. 51:16-17)

Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith (Hab. 2:4)

Besides these two overt texts, we can see the grace of God apart from the Law in the narrative episodes of Israel's history. When Israel was saved from Egypt in the Exodus, was it because they were righteous? No, for it is written:

Know, therefore, that the Lord your God is not giving you [Israel] this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stubborn people (Deut. 9:6)

Therefore, Israel's salvation from Egypt was totally of grace. Even in the giving of the Law, we can see that the way of salvation is still by grace. For in Deut. 27-28, God had through symbolisms showed forth the Law and its attendent blessings and curses as both sides of the same coin through half of Israel pronouncing the blessings on Mount Gerazim and the other half proclaim the curses opposite them on Mount Ebal (Deut. 11:29). The symmetrical nature of these two can be seen when comparing the first and second part of Deut. 28. Yet, God has pronounced that they will experience both and after their destruction and dispersal among the nations, they will be saved again (Deut. 30:5). Such salvation would be by grace and that alone, for we can see that God will work to change them (Deut. 30:6) so that they will turn to Him. Also, in Ez 36:22-27, this new heart is given by God alone and it is based on grace not on Law, for as verse 22 says

It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. (Ez. 36:22b)

From all of this therefore, we can see that salvation even in the Old Testament is by grace not by Law at any point in history. The Law was given only to Israel after they were saved (from Egypt). And therefore, the Law was to serve not unto salvation but as a rule for the people of God, and is therefore to be evaluated accordingly. The rabbinic Jews from before Jesus' time up till now have therefore distorted the message in their own Torah and as such are living everyday under the wrath of YHWH whom they claim to follow. The Neo-Ebionites therefore, having follow the Legalistic works-righteousness of rabbinic Judaism, are similarly distorting the true message of the Torah and are thus under the condemnation of God for it.

Christianity therefore is the true message of God and an extension of Abrahamic Jewish religion. Far from Christianity being "anti-Torah", it is the Judaism that rejects Christ and believes in works-righteousness that is in actual fact "anti-Torah"! For they substituted the commands of God for the traditions of Man (Mk. 7:9), as the fathers the Pharisees did before them.

In conclusion, to unbelieving Jews and the Neo-Ebionites, hear the Word of YHWH:

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (Jn. 8:42-47)

Repent therefore, and believe in the true Messiah, Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God, for the forgiveness of sins. Repent of your wickedness in blaspheming God and of thinking that your works and the observance of the Law can earn you merit in the eyes of God, while God Himself has said that your righteous acts are as polluted garment (Is. 64:6). All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), Jews and Greeks alike (Rom. 3:9), and are therefore under the fiery wrath of God. Only God can save you now, and in this He has provided a way through belief in Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior (Rom. 10:9-13). Repent therefore of your sins and receive Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and Lord, such that you will be imputed the righteousness of God and saved by Him. Amen.

Quotable quote: Theology Matters

The reason why there is so little depth, so little intelligence, so little grasp of the fundamental verities of Christianity, is because so few believers have been established in the faith, through hearing expounded and through their own personal study of the doctrines of grace. While the soul is unestablished in the doctrine of the Divine Inspiration of the Scripture — their full and verbal inspiration — there can be no firm foundation for faith to rest upon. While the soul is ignorant of the doctrine of Justification there can be no real and intelligent assurance of its acceptance in the Beloved. While the soul is un-acquainted with the teaching of the Word of God upon Sanctification it is open to receive all the crudities and errors of the Perfectionists or "Holiness" people. While the soul kows not what Scripture has to say upon the doctrine of the New Birth there can be no proper grasp of the two natures in the believer, and ignorance here inevitably results in loss of peace and joy. And so we might go on right through the list of Christian doctrine. It is ignorance of doctrine that has rendered the professing church helpless to cope with the rising tide of infidelity. It is ignorance of doctrine which is mainly responsible for thousands of professing Christians being captivated by the numerous false isms of the day.

- Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Baker Book, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 1984), p. 214

Passion KL (& Jarkarta)

My brother-in-Christ Huaizhi (whom I have met once in less-than-ideal circumstances) has posted a blog post on this event quite some time ago, and after thinking about it, I thought this should be an interesting event which should be much, much better than those very shallow and somewhat questionably-orthodox conferences like the Festival of Praise with Hillsongs and other such bands.

What I am talking about is the Passion conference, which according to Colin Hansen in his book Young, Restless and Reformed is at the heart of the New Calvinist movement sociologically. It seems that it is going worldwide now, and that seems to be an interesting opportunity to look at it first-hand. The conferences closest to Singapore will be held at KL, Malaysia on the 3rd August, followed by at Jakarta on the 5th August 2008. I will not say that I am for it, but I am neutrally positive towards the event. After all, I would place myself in the Reformed wing of the New Calvinist movement sociologically. [On such a scale, Piper would be centrist and Driscoll and Keller would be on the Progressive/Pseudo-Emerging side].