Argument X
|
A t one point in their defense of dining out on the Sabbath, the United Church of God requests that those who refuse to engage in this practice keep their views to themselves. They contend that to speak out on this issue is divisive. Here is how they express their point, followed by our response.
United Church of God:
Our Response:
The UCG is correct when they assert that, "whether one eats out on the Sabbath or does not eat out is a personal choice." However, the same can be said about whether one chooses to keep the Sabbath at all. In truth, everything we do involves choices. With that said, God's people must understand that when it comes to obeying the TRUE GOD, there is more. The issue is not only what one chooses, but what God commands. Although the UCG insists that He is silent on this subject, they couldn't be more wrong. The scriptures declare that labor performed at a restaurant on HOLY TIME is an act of defiance against God Himself. Despite this fact, the UCG teaches that purchasing the fruit of this evil is "a wonderful way to spend a portion of the Sabbath" (See Argument VIII). Can you imagine making such a claim?
When God gave His Sabbath law to ancient Israel, its prohibition against labor was clear and unwavering. What takes place in restaurants today would have been a capital crime under that law. No one could do such a thing and live. To teach that God's people may now pay for this sin, with their Savior's blessing no less, is the height of arrogance. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the UCG does. Slaves to Sin Those who labor in restaurants every Sabbath are slaves to sin (Ro. 6:16) and the great slave master, Satan the devil (2 Cor. 4:4). Equally true is the fact that God's people were once slaves to sin as well. But we were mercifully delivered from this bondage.
Now for the question of the day:
Why would anyone believe that God would condone His people going back into spiritual Egypt and purchasing the fruit of the same bondage that once enslaved them? To believe such a thing is utter madness. This is why the Almighty commanded His people to not compel servants to work on the Sabbath.
These words are so clear it is remarkable that any of God's people would debate them. Sadly, the UCG argues that although one should not compel their personal servants to work, they may go back into spiritual Egypt and let its slaves labor on their behalf. What an insult to GOD and His Sabbath! The bottom line is this: what takes place in restaurants every seventh day is a perfect example of bondage. On the other hand, God's Sabbath is a perfect picture of FREEDOM and deliverance from bondage. There is nothing compatible between these two practices, regardless of what the UCG claims. Causing Division With respect to causing division, this is not the first time such an accusation has been leveled against those who bare the truth. Peter and John were given "cease and desist" orders from the religious leaders of their day too. Furthermore, when the Worldwide Church of God started preaching heresy, they tried to silence the truth with threats that to preach such things was also divisive. Here is a news flash for the United Church of God. It is not TRUTH that divides God's people, it is LIES. For them to advance their position on this critical end-time issue and then demand that those who oppose them remain silent is typical of leaders today. If these men are genuinely committed to unity in the Church, they should be anxious to publicly debate this issue. Additionally, the UCG only requests that those who refuse to dine out on the Sabbath keep their opinion to themselves, not the other way around. Today there are scores of UCG brethren who have been pressured to give up their belief on this issue. Even pastors have exerted pressure on them.
Here is a thought for all the leaders in God's Church to ponder: silence doesn't foster unity, open and honest dialogue does. This lesson is made graphically clear in the scriptures. In Acts 15, the church openly addressed an issue that divided God's people in the first century. We strongly suggest that the UCG follow that example and do it again. However, in the interest of fairness it should be done with genuine advocates on both sides presenting their case. For obvious reasons, our suggestion is not likely to be acted on. One only has to honestly consider the two positions being advanced to see why the UCG wants to silence its critics. Quite frankly, the alternative would be too embarrassing for them.
A Note from Blow the Trumpet
Counter Argument
United Church of God Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Dear Mr. Fischer,
Blow the Trumpet says:
There are a number of significant differences between the example above and the Blow the Trumpet paper. Peter and John were commissioned and sent forth by Christ to do a certain work (Matthew 28:19-20). Their audience was nonmembers, not other baptized members of God's Church (Acts 3). They were not teaching anything contrary to the established doctrine in the Church where they attended. Their message did not cause other leaders in God's Church to provide a written response in order to address related problems. They were not disrespecting the Church or its leadership. The truth that Peter and John taught was primarily objective among the Church members. Sincerely, Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer Note: from Blow the Trumpet
Dear UCG Advisory Committee for Doctrine, I realize that you would like to dismiss our work and those who are a part of it. This is understandable in light of the fact we are so so critical of your position on this issue. With this said, I would like to address the points you raise concerning what you think are "significant differences" between the work of Blow the Trumpet and that done by Jesus' disciples.
# I
The implication here is that you believe we have no such calling. By the way, we are confident that you believe you do. Here is how history will play this one out. The day will come when you will suffer greatly for the sin you practice and teach, unless you repent. I personally believe the consequences will be the Great Tribulation. This is what is implied by Nehemiah when he rebuked the nobles of Judah (Neh. 13:17-18). Because God is a merciful Father, He has commissioned us, that's right, US, to warn His people to turn from the terrible sin you promote. You may reject this now, but that won't always be the case. We are very comfortable with your lack of faith in us, it is your lack of faith in God's word on this issue that has us concerned.
# II
This assertion is simply not true. Peter and John were speaking to God's people of their day. They went directly into the Temple and proclaimed the gospel of Christ. Peter even called his audience "brethren" (Acts 3:17) as well as "children of the covenant" (verse 25). For you to imply that these people were outsiders is false. It is true that Peter exhorted them to repent and be converted (verse 19), but that is exactly what we are exhorting you to do in this issue.
# III
On the contrary, this is exactly what they were doing. These men spoke boldly about the greatest contrary teaching in the history of religion. Furthermore, it was their regular practice to enter the synagogue on the Sabbath and proclaim their message. Even Paul was a part of synagogue life, much to the frustration of the religious leaders of his day. Personally, I think these men would be shocked to hear your assessment of their message.
# IV
This sounds more like whining to me than a biblical argument. Furthermore, Blow the Trumpet didn't cause you to write your counter letter to me anymore than you caused us to write our rebuttal to your totally unbiblical study paper. Personally, I believe you responded to Blow the Trumpet as a courtesy to Mr. Dennis Luker, and he asked you to respond as a courtesy to me. Additionally, I think your case would have better been served by not writing at all, as opposed to producing the nonsense you presented in your letter.
# VI
John the Baptist called the religious leaders of his time a "generation of vipers" (Mt. 3:7). Jesus excoriated church leaders with a mountain of insults because of their contempt for God and his word (Mt. 23). And I am sure that the religious leaders during the early years of God's Church thought Peter and John weren't showing them the respect they deserved either. Here is something for you to think about. The real leader of the Church is Jesus Christ. He also happens to be the Lord of the Sabbath. It is your position on this issue that shows disrespect to Him. At every turn you have clung to a practice that disgraces what He made holy. It gives me no pleasure to say this. On the contrary, it grieves me to do so. But you have no idea the peril you are bringing on both yourselves and God's people.
# VI
If you are suggesting that our position regarding dining out in restaurants on the Sabbath is "subjective," you are simply in denial of the Biblical facts pertaining to this issue. Throughout your paper, as well as your letter, you reject both God's Sabbath law and its enduring moral principles. We, on the other hand, take God's word to mean what it says. It is my personal belief that if the Almighty announced that the salvation of His people rested on this issue, you wouldn't go close to a restaurant on the Sabbath or the holy days.
Respectfully, Dennis Fischer
Counter Argument continued
United Church of God Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Dear Mr. Fischer,
We appreciate your assessment,
However, we feel that some of your "mocking" is inappropriate and contradictory to this conclusion. We consider the following statements from your paper to be both inaccurate and contrary to scriptural principles:
How do these scurrilous remarks jibe with your later statement, "This is NOT to suggest that we think the United Church of God's doctrinal committee doesn't sincerely want to obey their Creator, for indeed they do. It is just that they, like all us, have gaps in their understanding"? We would certainly acknowledge that we all have gaps in our understanding. Even Paul said, "We know in part..." (1 Corinthians 13:9). After Christ returns, we will find out for sure who was right on the subject of eating out on the Sabbath. In the meantime, God holds us accountable for living our lives according to our own faith and understanding (Romans 14:22-23) and to refrain from condemning each other over differences of belief and practice. However, we should. avoid ad hominem attacks or imputed evil motives. We would appreciate if you would refrain from these condemning statements in any future dialogue with us or others on this topic.
Sincerely, Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear UCG Advisory Committee for Doctrine,
I realize that some of our words have a sharp edge to them. However, your approach to this issue is so insulting to God's word, we are compelled to speak out with force. If you could just step back for a moment and see what you are advancing in this debate, I am convinced you would be embarrassed beyond words. To illustrate this point consider one of the examples you cite as a "scurrilous remark." Here is what we said.
This comment was in response to your argument that because it may be necessary for some of God's people to stay in a hospital or nursing home, where people labor and food is served on the Sabbath, you are now justified in dining out in a fine restaurant and enjoy a nice meal. Furthermore, you intimated that we believed that God's law makes no provisions for hospital or nursing home stays. Here is what you said.
Personally, I think Blow the Trumpet's criticism of your point is rather tame. I would characterize it more like this. What you have done in this particular argument is an act of cowardice. Furthermore, I don't believe for one minute you would utter them in a public debate. You should be ashamed of yourself for offering such utter nonsense in defense of your SIN.
You may resent that this debate has become personal, but you are the ones that made it that way. For you to hide behind a genuine need in an attempt to excuse your genuine pleasure is reprehensible. It mocks God's mercy. And make no mistake about it, it will come with a GREAT price. Respectfully, Dennis Fischer PS I would encourage everyone reading my response to read Argument IX. There is where you will find a detailed description of the UCG arguments that prompted this response. Again I say, PLEASE READ IT!
|
