SABBATH OBSERVANCE.

Southland Times, Issue 20523, 27 June 1928, Page 9

SABBATH OBSERVANCE.

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR PASCOE. To the Editor. Sir, —Mr Pascoe says that no “ism” enters into the present discussion, yet Sabbath Observance where Sabbath receives it strict force of “seventh”) is the most apparent tenet of Seventh Day Advent—“ism.” Seventh day observance is one of the direct fruits of S.D.A.ism. How is it possible to mention the, fruit without reference to the j tree? The cross-examination so far has revealed one error of S.D.A.ism, namely, “that the church of the N.T. includes the saints of the 0.T.” There is not a single passage in the O.T. where the “Ecclesia” (church i of the N.T. is referred to as including the O.T. saints. The “ecclesia” of the N.T. bears a distinct relationship to Christ from which relationship the O.T. saints are excluded. The O.T. saints have a relationship to God who in His revelation as Jehovah “called out” Israel for a particular purpose. The “ecclesia” of the O.T. is absolutely distinct from the “ecclesia” of the N.T. If the word “Ecclesia” (called ! out) was used instead of the word “church” much confusion would be avoided. Readers can begin to see now why Mr Pascoe fights shy of “dispensational” teaching. This teaching does not bring Enoch into the N.T. “ecclesia,” but leaves him in his proper place, prophecying matters of importance, it is true, but not about the N.T. “ecclesia,” as it concerns this present age. Dispensational teaching shows that Abel is in his proper place—where Christ places him—at the head of a line of prophets which ends with Zecharias. Mr Pascoe is guilty of a logical fallacy when he says that because God put prophecy in the church and Enoch prophesied therefore Enoch is in the same church as the N.T. prophets. The term “church” must first be exactly defined, before any logical conclusion can be reached, and then the logical conclusion will be that Enoch is outside the N.T. church. Christ says in Matt. XVI, 18, that He will builo His church and points to the foundation as being the fact of Himself (crucified*. Paul •ays that he (Paul) lays this foundation (through the preaching of Jesus Christ and Him crucified and risen*, and that no other foundation than Christ can be laid (I Cor. 111., 10-11). Paul speaks about the “foundation of the apostles and prophets.” (Eph. 11. 20). This is again the foundation of the fact of Christ ministered by the Spirit by means of the apostles and prophets of the N.T. “ecclesia.” This “mystery” of the N. “ecclesia” was “hid” in God “from the beginning of the world” until “now” (the time when Paul was speaking) Eph. 111.. 9-10); it “hath been hid from ages andfrom generations (which include all the O. prophets', but now (the time when Paul is speaking* is manifest to his saints (certainly not the O.T. prophets) Col. 1., 26. How can a thing be hidden and at the same time partially revealed ? S.D.A.ism claims to know. But S.D.A.ism flatly contradicts Christ and Paul. Mr Pascoe says I have not given the quotation from Eph. 111. sufficiently and therefore he supplies what I left out, namely “which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men as. (to the same extent as—Mr Pascoes translation) it is now revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets. Mr Pascoe claims that the '‘prophets” in the phrase “holy apostles and prophets” includes the O.T. prophets, so that his translation on free lines is as follows: “which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men (O.T. prophets) to the same extent as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles l .?’ T ; anfl P ro Phets.” But why should the O.T. prophets be coupled with the apostles seeing that the revelation is pven _ \ n ? w ’Un Paul’s time). According S.D.Ajsm the O.T. prophets are “asleep.” Who has waked them up? There might have seemed to be some justification for Mr Pascoes translation if the apostles had • l or associated only with NT. Prophets, but these O.T. prophets are an inconvenient company, a band of intruders. I want to know how Mr Pascoe has arranged to rouse them from sleep to receive the revelation which he claims they received. Paul says they certainly did not L7 e tn e J.i- ,n ? T n day r Which teacher we to believe ' But the Greek construction ° f ‘ h *‘ Se n , T e u Khic J h Mr Pascoe «»<>«» removes all doubt and settles the question By no manner of twisting or wresting of w ° rthe . COMtrucli on of the sentence and the translation of the particular word “ ade ,o me “ “'o the same extent as. I hope it will not be necessary to Prove this matter of translation in a struggle like the one I had over the Greek in r r^l d YYTrT nti . t . he ? !acin B °f 'he comma well k r 43 - Mr Pascoe quotes the well-known prophecy of Isa 53. That prophecy IS about the Man Christ Jesus and » n, sin> not a single word about the X T ? therefore “k “gain: Will Mr Pascoe quote any passage out of the O.T. a revelation as to the formation of the N.T. Church’— I am , etc, xu - FRANK SAMPSON.