CONTINUED: Thus the Lord's Day is the Christian's day—Rev.1:10.

ANSWER: Wrong again.  This is bad logic and bad theology. The Lord's Day may be the current Christian's day, but this fact is not based on the preceding passages or the Bible.  The Revelation passage does not and never has identified the Lord's Day as Sunday.

CONTINUED: We are warned against law-teachers, -Gal.5:1-4; 6:12,13, but the Sabbath is never commanded to Christians.  How do you account for this?

ANSWER: No one is warned "against law teachers." That is a damnable lie.  A verse was cleverly left off in the citation above.  Why was the next verse, Gal.5:6, not quoted? "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love" (v.6).  The reason it was left off is because the subject is named: it not the law as is said by the pamphlet writer, but circumcision!  DECEIT! Same thing in the next citation; it is another dishonest presentation.  Gal.6:15 is omitted but verses 12 & 13 are cited. Why?  "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation" (v.15).  Because verse 15 defines the subject again, and that subject is not the law, but circumcision.  Clearly, in question10, honesty has taken a holiday.  I do not know why professing Christian writers feel a need to be deceitful in his arguments, but it happens all the time.

PAMPHLET WRITER'S REMARKS WITH FPH RESPONSES IN BRACKETS:

"Reader, the Sabbath observers are all astray on the law question. It was given to Israel, not to Gentiles-God using Israel as a sample of mankind, to show that no man can be justified before God by the law--Gal. 3:10,11."          [FPH: Sabbath keeping is not an attempt to be justified by the law, but to be obedient to God, just like presumably, Sunday keeping is not such an attempt.  Nowhere in the pages of the Bible is this "sample to mankind" thing presented.  Here, the writer cites only part of the applicable Scripture as he did in question 10.  He did not cite: "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us" (Gal.3:13). If the law itself were done away with, the passage would have said "the cursed law," not "the curse of the law."]

"The law demanded righteousness [FPH: it still does], but did not give life.  [FPH: correct.]  It cursed the sinner [FPH: the lawbreaker], but could not save him.  [FPH: correct.]  It effectually closed the mouth of boasters by convicting them of sin and transgression, bringing man in as "guilty" before God-Rom.3:19."  [FPH: correct.  What are "sin" and "transgressions"?  "Sin is lawlessness" (1Jn.3:4).  Notice the word "guilty."  Guilty of what?  Guilty of sin, of breaking God's law!  This is NT stuff.] "Thus it was designed to teach man his absolute need of Christ--Gal.3:24; so the sacrifices appointed under the law constantly pointed to Him that was to come."  [FPH: correct.  The OT bloody animal sacrifices pointed to Christ.  When Christ died and was resurrected, all animal sacrifices were canceled.]  Having come [been born], he voluntarily offered himself as sin bearer upon the cross, that we might be justified [made right before God] by faith in him-Gal.3:6,7,13.  [FPH: correct.]  "Now the believer is no more under law, but under Christ."  [FPH: Close.  But when the phrase "under the law" is not explained, as it seldom is by Sunday-keeping teachers in their writings, one is supposed to assume their definition: that the law has been done away with, which is dead wrong.  The phrase should continue "…under the penalty of the law."  What does "under Christ" mean?]

FPH REMARKS: Notice how difficult it is for the Sunday-keeping teachers to provide an honest response to this: Where is first day (Sunday) theology found in the Bible?  There is no text in the Bible that supports any level of Sunday theology.  It naturally follows that if Sunday theology did not come from the Bible, then it must have come from somewhere else.  And of a truth, it did.  Sunday or first day observance in place of last day (seventh-day) worship came about at the hands of man, from the Roman Church.  But the seventh-day Sabbath was made for all mankind (Mk.2:27-28).

Yes, proponents of Sunday observance point to several first day passages in the New Testament upon which something of note happened, yet, none of the passages offer a shred of evidence that makes Sunday the Christian replacement day of worship.  There would be no argument if these presumed knowledgeable church and ministry spokespersons would simply ignore tradition, read the plain words of the Bible, and admit the facts of Scripture as they are.  Could they really be so deceived on this point?  They should understand and admit that Sunday worship came about gradually from a Seventh-day Sabbath, to a two-tier system of both Sabbath and Sunday, to the final Roman Church product of mandated Sunday observance only.

Oh, reader, do not close your eyes to this truth.  Your sincerity does not replace truth and accuracy in biblical exegesis or interpretation.  Your good heart does not make void your faulty doctrine.  Please be brutally candid with yourself at least.  That is what it will take if you truly want to grow in grace and knowledge.  Adopt the Berean attitude of Acts 17:10-11.  You won't be sorry.  Those who read the Bible know better—we cannot be fooled by a false teacher’s cleverly posed questions, imprecise declarations, out of context views, and fuzzy logic.  Admit the truth of the Bible. After all, truth is what Christianity is all about.  What possible reason do you have to continue to accept mistaken opinions after you read the truth for yourself?  The answer, sad to say, commonly involves (a) vested interests, (b) fear, (c) money, (d) power, (e) politics, (e) racism, or (f) just plain laziness.  One of these categories may apply to you, my friend, as you stubbornly resist the scripture and God's Sabbath.  Now is the day of salvation.  Do not receive the grace of God in vain (2Cor.6:1-2).  F. Paul Haney  (END)