Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Doctors Bacchiocchi, MacCarty, & du Preez Wreak Havoc With The Sabbath and Ellen White - Second Edition

Doctors Bacchiocchi, MacCarty, & du Preez Wreak Havoc With The Sabbath and Ellen White - Second Edition

Ratings:

3.33

(1)
|Views: 2,296|Likes:
Published by AMAZING LIES
Now, as a companion to the author's other book, LYING FOR GOD, this work explores in detail the attempts of three Seventh-day Adventist theologians to explain away the anti-Sabbatarian implications of several statements of St. Paul, including Colossians 2:14-17. Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi proposed a shocking theory of Colossians 2:14-17 that Judaized Christianity to the point of absurdity and contradicted Ellen White. Dr. Skip MacCarty attempted to frame Dr. Bacchiocchi's iconoclastic ideas in a more attractive package. Then Dr. Ronald du Preez tacitly refuted the theories of Bachciocchi and MacCarty so that Colossians 2:14-17 could be re-interpreted through the utilization of his own radical theory of the passage in such a way as not to contradict the "inspired" writings of Seventh-day Adventist church prophetess, Ellen G. White.
Now, as a companion to the author's other book, LYING FOR GOD, this work explores in detail the attempts of three Seventh-day Adventist theologians to explain away the anti-Sabbatarian implications of several statements of St. Paul, including Colossians 2:14-17. Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi proposed a shocking theory of Colossians 2:14-17 that Judaized Christianity to the point of absurdity and contradicted Ellen White. Dr. Skip MacCarty attempted to frame Dr. Bacchiocchi's iconoclastic ideas in a more attractive package. Then Dr. Ronald du Preez tacitly refuted the theories of Bachciocchi and MacCarty so that Colossians 2:14-17 could be re-interpreted through the utilization of his own radical theory of the passage in such a way as not to contradict the "inspired" writings of Seventh-day Adventist church prophetess, Ellen G. White.

More info:

Published by: AMAZING LIES on Jul 29, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/11/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
DOCTORS BACCHIOCCHI, MACCARTY, AND
 
DU PREEZ WREAK HAVOC WITH THE SABBATH AND ELLEN WHITE
 
By
 
KERRY B. WYNNE
 
B. A. English & History, Pacific Union College (1970,1972)
 
M.A., educational administration, Andrews University (1978)
WILLIAM H. HOHMANN
 
B. A., theology, Ambassador College (1979)
 
Robert K. Sanders
 
Founder, Truth Or Fables Website
 
SECOND EDITION
 
July 2014
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION
 
This book is for those who wish to study the anti-Sabbatarian content of the New Testament as a supplement to our other three books, including
VERDICT: No Sabbath in Genesis
, and
LYING FOR GOD: What Adventists Knew And When They Knew It 
.
LYING FOR GOD
 incorporates the book,
VERDICT,
as Part I, but adds a second book,
Ellen G. White And Her Enablers
, for a more complete analysis of the problems of Adventism. It is impossible to separate the Sabbath from Ellen White since she claimed that God showed her in vision that Sabbath-keeping was required of Christians. Finally,
Ellen White and the Chicago Buildings Vision Fiasco
 is a shorter work which explores how this prophetic blunder at the turn of the century eventually forced the 1919 Bible Conference to examine the problems of the fraudulent claims of Ellen White. These books are widely ava
ilable on the Internet. If you can’t find them
anywhere else, they are posted at SCRIBD.COM. No study of Sabbath-Sunday Question and the problems of Adventism would be complete without a deep analysis of New Testament considerations in general and the anti-Sabbatarian content of the writings of St. Paul in particular. We have seldom seen such theological inconsistency elsewhere in the writings of Sabbatarian apologists. Together we have forged a treatment of these topics that will demonstrate that the content of the New Testament is decidedly anti-Sabbatarian and that St. Paul went out of his way to explain why Sabbath-keeping is not a requirement for Christians. Our work has been strengthened by other theologians, both Sabbatarian and anti-Sabbatarian, who have reviewed our work and challenged us to research deeper and think more clearly. Many thousands of hours have been spent by all of those who have contributed to this work, intentionally or inadvertently. The three Seventh-day Adventist authors we challenge were associated, at the time they wrote, in some way or another with Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan
the home of the Seventh-day Adventist seminary. A brief summation of their work is that Dr. Bacchiocchi explained Colossians 2:14-17 in such a way that he Judaized Christianity to the point of absurdity and contradicted the Church prophetess, Ellen White, in several ways. Dr. MacCar 
ty tried to cover Dr. Bacchiocchi’s “wolves clothing” with
 sheep skin, and Dr. du Preez attempted to bridge
some elements of Bacchiocchi’s work with an approa
ch to Colossians 2:14-17 that he hoped would be more in accordance with traditional SDA thought. Robert K. Sanders, William H. Hohmann, and myself strongly advise our readers that the minimum prerequisite for embarking on a study of this material is the reading of our book,
VERDICT: No Sabbath In Genesis! 
 This New Testament material may not be fully comprehendible without a proper understanding of the biblical and historical impossibilities of the teaching that Christians must keep the Jewish Sabbath. Furthermore, the fullest comprehension of what St. Paul said about the Sabbath in Colossians 2:14-17 is only possible if one understands the historical fact that the Jews kept the Sabbath according to the lunar calendar and the four phases of the Moon until the time the second temple was built in Israel. These subjects are fully covered in
VERDICT 
. ------------- Kerry Wynne
 
CHAPTER ONE
 
Dr. Ronald du Preez Tries To Fix Dr. Bacchiocchi
 
We have touched on the fact within his 1977 book,
From Sabbath to Sunday 
,
Dr. Bacchiocchi
 taught that the last of the three sabbaths mentioned in Colossians 2:14-17 was a reference to the weekly Sabbath of the Decalogue, and that it could not possibly be a reference to anything else. We noted that by 1995, with the publication of his book
,
The Sabbath in the New Testament 
, he appeared to open up to the possibility that it was a reference to a ceremonial sabbath-- perhaps an annual sabbath (
See Tom Warner's essay, “Confessions of A Former Sabbath Keeper” at his website, Joyfully Growing In Grac
e.) We also observed that with the publication of his 1998 book,
Sabbath under Crossfire
, it could be a reference to some kind of weekly ceremonial event. To Dr. Bacchiocchi, the question of this reference was virtually irrelevant to the Sabbath-Sunday issue because he believed that the
“shadows” that Paul said Christians should not judge o
thers by were not the observance of the ordinances as listed by Paul, but rather the man-made sets of rules and regulations invented by the Judaizers to regulate these ordinances. However, even many Seventh-day Adventist biblical scholars and theologians found it difficult to accept
Dr. Bacchiocchi's “shadow” theory because of the impossible theological baggage that comes with it.
Stepping up to attempt to bridge Dr. Bacchiocchi's original position on the Sabbath reference in Colossians 2:14-17 with that of traditional SDA thinking is Dr. Ronald du Preez, an SDA theologian, who would like very much to demonstrate that the third Sabbath in this passage is merely a reference to annual sabbath feast day. The stakes are high for Dr. du Preez. If he fails to demonstrate that this sabbath of the three is merely an annual feast day, he is forced into a dilemma. Either Paul meant that Christians were not to force other Christians to keep the Jewish
Sabbath “shadow,” or Christians must keep the Jewish dietary l
aws, annual sabbath feast days, monthly feast days, as well as the weekly Sabbath. If du Preez succeeds in demonstrating that the Sabbath in the third position is merely an annual feast day, he creates the following difficulties for himself:
 
 
Paul is made to appear to teach that Christians should not judge each other on the basis of whether or not they sacrifice animals to the Lord when this is a practice that Paul would condemn in no uncertain terms. He would remind his readers that the sacrifice on the Cross did away with the need for any animal sacrifices. To suggest that St. Paul would have passed over the issue of Christians offering animal sacrifices in the way Dr. du Preez implies does a great injustice to Paul.
 
 
Dr. Du Perez is almost certainly in error because the Jewish system did not provide for animal sacrificing to be done anywhere but in the temple at Jerusalem.
DR. DU PREEZ IN A NUTSHELL
 
We have already touched on the concept that in Hebrew thought and writing, Bible writers used a particular structure when discussing the festivals required by the Torah
annual, monthly, and weekly. This phrase had special meaning
to the Jews, its mention creating a picture in the reader’s mind of one integrated set of sacred days throughout the
year. Later we will explore why du Preez thinks Colossians 2:14-17 should be an exception to this rule. For the moment, du Preez asks us to believe, in this case, that another Jewish linguistic convention, called CHIASM, should take precedence here to allow the third entry in the set of obsolete shadows to mirror the first one in the list for a structure like this:
 
 ANNUAL---MONTHLY—ANNUAL
 
Instead of:
 

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
AMAZING LIES liked this
AMAZING LIES liked this
AMAZING LIES liked this
AMAZING LIES liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->