{"id":256,"date":"2013-05-01T07:54:11","date_gmt":"2013-05-01T07:54:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.cestaviry.cz\/?p=256"},"modified":"2013-05-01T08:11:36","modified_gmt":"2013-05-01T08:11:36","slug":"odoved-teologickemu-seminari-casd","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.cestaviry.cz\/?p=256","title":{"rendered":"Odpov\u011b\u010f Teologick\u00e9mu semin\u00e1\u0159i CASD"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

\n

Odpov\u011b\u010f na reakci Teologick\u00e9ho semin\u00e1\u0159e<\/b><\/p>\n

20. 2. 2013<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Teologick\u00fd semin\u00e1\u0159 uve\u0159ejnil na str\u00e1nk\u00e1ch \u010cesk\u00e9ho sdru\u017een\u00ed CASD koment\u00e1\u0159<\/a>1<\/sup> k na\u0161emu ve\u0159ejn\u00e9mu dopisu, ve kter\u00e9m uv\u00e1d\u00edme sv\u00e9 d\u016fvody pro odchod z C\u00edrkve adventist\u016f s. d. Vzhledem k tomu, \u017ee koment\u00e1\u0159 byl seps\u00e1n autorem, kter\u00fd m\u00e1 teologick\u00e9 vzd\u011bl\u00e1n\u00ed, po\u017e\u00e1dali jsme o reakci z na\u0161\u00ed strany P. \u0160kodu, autora str\u00e1nek biblickestudie.cz<\/a>. S n\u00ed\u017ee uveden\u00fdm vyj\u00e1d\u0159en\u00edm pln\u011b souhlas\u00edme.\u00a0P\u0159edev\u0161\u00edm bychom zde r\u00e1di ocenili p\u0159\u00edstup, s jak\u00fdm se Teologick\u00fd semin\u00e1\u0159 sv\u00e9 odpov\u011bdi zhostil. Z textu je vid\u011bt up\u0159\u00edmnost, otev\u0159enost a ochota prezentovat n\u00e1zorov\u00e9ho rozd\u00edly pokojnou a p\u0159\u00e1telskou cestou.<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Ani tato na\u0161e reakce nechce v \u017e\u00e1dn\u00e9m p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b zavdat p\u0159\u00ed\u010dinu k eskalaci vlekl\u00e9 diskuze. Dovol\u00edme si zde pouze upozornit na n\u011bkter\u00e9 argumenty a vyj\u00e1d\u0159it v l\u00e1sce a pokoji v \u010dem a pro\u010d se na\u0161e ch\u00e1p\u00e1n\u00ed odli\u0161uje. R\u00e1di bychom s C\u00edrkv\u00ed adventist\u016f z\u016fstali v p\u0159\u00e1telsk\u00e9m a bratrsk\u00e9m vztahu. I p\u0159es r\u016fznost n\u00e1zor\u016f vn\u00edm\u00e1me, \u017ee na\u0161\u00edm spole\u010dn\u00fdm Spasitelem je Je\u017e\u00ed\u0161 Kristus. Jen On s\u00e1m zn\u00e1 plnou pravdu, a proto se z\u0159\u00edk\u00e1me jak\u00e9hokoli si n\u00e1rokov\u00e1n\u00ed, \u017ee tuto pravdu n\u011bjak\u00fdm zp\u016fsobem vlastn\u00edme \u010di zn\u00e1me. Pokud v budoucnu rozpozn\u00e1me, \u017ee je t\u0159eba na\u0161e postoje a n\u00e1zory korigovat, jsme ochotni tak u\u010dinit.<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Vy\u0161et\u0159uj\u00edc\u00ed soud<\/b><\/p>\n

Pln\u011b souhlas\u00edme s vyj\u00e1d\u0159en\u00edm, \u017ee \u201eapokalyptika p\u0159edstavuje v P\u00edsmu interpreta\u010dn\u011b nejn\u00e1ro\u010dn\u011bj\u0161\u00ed texty, jejich\u017e detailn\u00ed slo\u017eitost, nar\u00e1\u017eky na jin\u00e9 texty, metaforick\u00e1 poezie a \u201astrategie zahalen\u00ed\u2018 se jev\u00ed jako z\u00e1m\u011brn\u00e9\u201c<\/i>. Tato skute\u010dnost je ale podle na\u0161eho n\u00e1zoru pr\u00e1v\u011b jedn\u00edm z v\u00e1\u017en\u00fdch d\u016fvod\u016f proti p\u0159ijet\u00ed tak v\u00fdrazn\u00e9 \u00fapravy evangelijn\u00ed zv\u011bsti o spasen\u00ed pouze milost\u00ed skrze v\u00edru, jakou je p\u0159id\u00e1n\u00ed p\u0159edadventn\u00edho vy\u0161et\u0159ovac\u00edho soudu. Z\u00e1kladn\u00ed teologick\u00e9 pravdy jsou v\u017edy v P\u00edsmu potvrzeny na \u0159ad\u011b m\u00edst a jsou jasn\u011b a z\u0159eteln\u011b p\u0159edstaveny \u010dten\u00e1\u0159\u016fm Nov\u00e9ho z\u00e1kona. V p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b p\u0159edaventn\u00edho soudu je v\u0161ak situace zcela opa\u010dn\u00e1. Cel\u00e1 tato teologick\u00e1 konstrukce je postavena na nejednozna\u010dn\u00fdch apokalyptick\u00fdch textech a neprokazateln\u00fdch historick\u00fdch ud\u00e1lostech.2<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

V odpov\u011bdi je argumentov\u00e1no t\u00edm, \u017ee proroctv\u00ed o mal\u00e9m rohu nelze vy\u010derpat Antiochem IV. Epifanem. V tom jist\u011b souhlas\u00edme. V\u017edy\u0165 i Desmond Ford ve sv\u00e9 pr\u00e1ci3<\/sup> , v n\u00ed\u017e p\u0159edlo\u017eil z\u00e1va\u017en\u00e9 d\u016fkazy o tom, \u017ee u\u010den\u00ed o p\u0159edadventn\u00edm soudu nen\u00ed biblick\u00e9, a kterou v r. 1980 p\u0159ednesl vedouc\u00edm CASD v Glacier View, navrhl br\u00e1t v \u00favahu tzv. apotelesmatick\u00fd princip, kter\u00fd vede k p\u0159ijet\u00ed mo\u017enosti v\u00edcen\u00e1sobn\u00e9ho napln\u011bn\u00ed prorock\u00fdch p\u0159edpov\u011bd\u00ed. Mysl\u00edme si v\u0161ak, \u017ee samotn\u00fd tento fakt nelze pou\u017e\u00edt k odm\u00edtnut\u00ed Antiocha IV. Epifana jako prim\u00e1rn\u00edho a legitimn\u00edho napln\u011bn\u00ed proroctv\u00ed z knihy Daniel. A naopak historicistn\u00ed v\u00fdklad sm\u011b\u0159uj\u00edc\u00ed k r. 1844 \u017eel p\u0159in\u00e1\u0161\u00ed p\u0159\u00edli\u0161 velk\u00e9 otazn\u00edky a nepodlo\u017een\u00e9 spekulace na to, aby ho bylo mo\u017en\u00e9 pova\u017eovat za v\u00fdklad jednozna\u010dn\u011b hodnov\u011brn\u00fd.4<\/sup><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Z\u00e1kon<\/b><\/p>\n

Ot\u00e1zka p\u0159eva\u017euj\u00edc\u00ed kontinuity \u010di diskontinuity mezi starou a novou smlouvou je bezpochyby st\u00e1le nedo\u0159e\u0161en\u00fdm velk\u00fdm t\u00e9matem P\u00edsma.5<\/sup> A jedn\u00e1 se o t\u00e9ma velmi d\u016fle\u017eit\u00e9, proto\u017ee z jeho pochopen\u00ed plyne dal\u0161\u00ed sm\u011br v\u00fdkladu pro \u0159adu t\u00e9mat Nov\u00e9ho z\u00e1kona. Se zna\u010dnou m\u00edrou zjednodu\u0161en\u00ed lze \u0159\u00edci, \u017ee CASD spolu s reformovan\u00fdm proudem protestantismu (kalvinismus) zast\u00e1v\u00e1 postoj p\u0159eva\u017euj\u00edc\u00ed kontinuity mezi smlouvami. Naopak luter\u00e1nsk\u00e9 pojet\u00ed spolu s dispenzacionalismem a teologi\u00ed nov\u00e9 smlouvy se p\u0159ikl\u00e1n\u00ed k p\u0159eva\u017euj\u00edc\u00ed diskontinuit\u011b mezi starou a novou smlouvou. Ka\u017ed\u00fd z obou zm\u00edn\u011bn\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f pak \u0159e\u0161\u00ed jin\u00fdm zp\u016fsobem konfliktn\u00ed v\u00fdroky o z\u00e1konu v Pavlov\u00fdch spisech. \u0158e\u0161en\u00ed prvn\u00ed skupiny spo\u010d\u00edv\u00e1 v zu\u017eovan\u00ed v\u00fdrazu \u201ez\u00e1kon\u201c (nomos) v Pavlov\u00fdch textech bu\u010f pouze na ceremoni\u00e1ln\u00ed aspekt z\u00e1kona, \u010di na legalismus. Druh\u00e1 skupina pak ch\u00e1pe \u201enomos\u201c p\u0159irozen\u011bji jako \u0159eck\u00e9 vyj\u00e1d\u0159en\u00ed hebrejsk\u00e9ho term\u00ednu T\u00f3ra s d\u016frazem na jej\u00ed legislativn\u00ed aspekt a \u0159e\u0161en\u00ed rozpor\u016f mezi Pavlov\u00fdmi v\u00fdroky proto vid\u00ed p\u0159edev\u0161\u00edm v historick\u00e9m posunu od star\u00e9 smlouvy k nov\u00e9.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Oba v\u00fd\u0161e uveden\u00e9 p\u0159\u00edstupy maj\u00ed sv\u00e9 siln\u011bj\u0161\u00ed a slab\u0161\u00ed str\u00e1nky. P\u0159esto se n\u00e1m, po zv\u00e1\u017een\u00ed argument\u016f obou stran, zd\u00e1, \u017ee v\u00edce d\u016fkaz\u016f sv\u011bd\u010d\u00ed pro druh\u00fd z obou p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f. O Desateru je na \u0159ad\u011b m\u00edst Pentateuchu \u0159e\u010deno, \u017ee se jedn\u00e1 o slova smlouvy (Ex 34,28; Dt 4,13 aj.). V Nov\u00e9m z\u00e1kon\u011b pak o t\u00e9to smlouv\u011b \u010dteme, \u017ee pom\u00edj\u00ed (2 Kor 3,11), \u017ee je zastaral\u00e1 a bl\u00ed\u017e\u00ed se z\u00e1niku (\u017dd 8,3), \u010di v alegorii, kde je sinajsk\u00e1 smlouva p\u0159irovn\u00e1v\u00e1na k otrokyni Hagar, \u010dteme, \u017ee ji m\u00e1me vyhnat, tj. zbavit se j\u00ed (Ga 4,24-31). Co se t\u00fdk\u00e1 pojmu \u201ez\u00e1kon\u201c, tak se u Pavla nap\u0159\u00edklad do\u010dteme, \u017ee on s\u00e1m ji\u017e nen\u00ed pod z\u00e1konem (sinajsk\u00fdm) [hypo nomon], ale v z\u00e1kon\u011b Kristov\u011b [ennomos christou] (1 Kor 9,20,21). Tento \u201ez\u00e1kon Krist\u016fv\u201c, jak vypl\u00fdv\u00e1 z kontextu, nen\u00ed toto\u017en\u00fd s v\u00fdrazem \u201eb\u00fdt pod z\u00e1konem\u201c a nen\u00ed tedy zalo\u017een na Desateru p\u0159ik\u00e1z\u00e1n\u00ed, ale na Kristu samotn\u00e9m (Ga 6,2; 1 J 3,23).6<\/sup><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

V odpov\u011bdi je zm\u00edn\u011bn\u00fd text \u0158 10,4. Tento ver\u0161 bezpochyby ukazuje sm\u011brem od z\u00e1kona ke Kristu. M\u016f\u017eeme se v\u0161ak opr\u00e1vn\u011bn\u011b pt\u00e1t, v jak\u00e9m smyslu? Dle kontextu se zd\u00e1, \u017ee v tomto Pavlov\u011b vyj\u00e1d\u0159en\u00ed je jist\u011b zahrnut z\u00e1kon ve smyslu soteriologick\u00e9m (kon\u010d\u00ed schopnost z\u00e1kona jako zdroje spravedlnosti \u2013 viz v. 5). Ot\u00e1zkou je, zda zde m\u016f\u017eeme vid\u011bt i konec z\u00e1kona ve smyslu legislativn\u00edm \u010di smluvn\u00edm. Dle Expositor\u2019s Bible Commentary7<\/sup> se v\u011bt\u0161ina vyklada\u010d\u016f klon\u00ed k p\u0159ekladu v\u00fdrazu \u201etelos\u201c jako „konec“ (nap\u0159. K\u00e4semann, Dodd, Michel, Sanday and Headlam, Nygren, Stuhlmacher, Schreiner), a t\u00edm p\u0159itak\u00e1vaj\u00ed v\u00fdkladu, \u017ee zde Pavel mluv\u00ed i o ukon\u010den\u00ed platnosti z\u00e1kona jako celku.8<\/sup> Zd\u00e1 se ale, \u017ee jistou v\u00e1hu m\u00e1 i druh\u00e1 mo\u017enost p\u0159ekladu \u201etelos\u201c ve smyslu \u201e\u00fa\u010del\u201c \u010di \u201ec\u00edl\u201c (viz Mt 5,17), proto\u017ee \u201e(1) Kristus s\u00e1m je c\u00edlem z\u00e1kona jako jeho napln\u011bn\u00ed a (2) Kristus nep\u0159ivedl z\u00e1kon ke konci, ale sp\u00ed\u0161e ke sv\u00e9mu c\u00edli (viz nap\u0159. Barth, Cranfield, Fitzmyer, Byrne, Badenas).\u201c9<\/sup> C\u00edlem z\u00e1kona je v\u0161ak p\u0159in\u00e9st spravedlnost a Pavel v \u0158 8,4 \u0159\u00edk\u00e1, \u017ee takovou spravedlnost, kterou po\u017eaduje z\u00e1kon, produkuj\u00ed k\u0159es\u0165an\u00e9. Pak ale m\u016f\u017eeme \u0159\u00edci, \u017ee z\u00e1kon v Kristu do\u0161el sv\u00e9ho c\u00edle, ani\u017e bychom trvali na jeho pokra\u010duj\u00edc\u00ed z\u00e1vaznosti. Ztoto\u017e\u0148ujeme se tedy s n\u00e1zorem, \u017ee v tomto pojet\u00ed mohou oba p\u0159eklady \u201eukon\u010den\u00ed\u201c i \u201ec\u00edl\u201c platit z\u00e1rove\u0148 (tak nap\u0159. Barrett, Bruce, Achtemeier, Dunn, Moo, Edwards).<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Co se t\u00fdk\u00e1 Sandersova smluvn\u00edho nomismu a nov\u00e9 perspektivy, pak lze konstatovat, \u017ee po obdob\u00ed nad\u0161en\u00e9ho p\u0159ij\u00edm\u00e1n\u00ed Sandersova pojet\u00ed z\u00e1kona, kter\u00e9 prezentoval ve sv\u00e9 knize Paul and Palestiniam Judaism (1977) a kter\u00e9 trvalo cca dv\u011b desetilet\u00ed, se nyn\u00ed za\u010d\u00edn\u00e1 objevovat st\u00e1le v\u00edce hlas\u016f, kter\u00e9 Sanders\u016fv p\u0159\u00edstup zpochyb\u0148uj\u00ed. Minim\u00e1ln\u011b je z\u0159ejm\u00e9, \u017ee smluvn\u00ed nomismus nebyl jedin\u00fdch prvkem judaismu prvn\u00edho stolet\u00ed a je z\u0159ejm\u00e9, \u017ee jeho ned\u00edlnou sou\u010d\u00e1st\u00ed bylo i spasen\u00ed na z\u00e1klad\u011b skutk\u016f.10<\/sup><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

N\u00e1\u0161 p\u0159\u00edklon k tzv. teologii nov\u00e9 smlouvy,11<\/sup> kterou zast\u00e1v\u00e1 \u0159ada mezin\u00e1rodn\u011b respektovan\u00fdch evangelik\u00e1ln\u00edch teolog\u016f,12<\/sup> je proto z na\u0161eho pohledu jednou z validn\u00edch mo\u017enost\u00ed, jak ch\u00e1pat P\u00edsmo. Uzn\u00e1v\u00e1me v\u0161ak, \u017ee ot\u00e1zka z\u00e1vaznosti z\u00e1kona vydan\u00e9ho na Sinaji je \u0161irok\u00e1 a neexistuje jednozna\u010dn\u00e9 \u0159e\u0161en\u00ed. Je tedy pouze na ka\u017ed\u00e9m \u010dlov\u011bku osobn\u011b, aby se rozhodl pro takov\u00fd sm\u011br v\u00fdkladu, kter\u00fd mu d\u00e1v\u00e1 nejv\u00edce odpov\u011bd\u00ed, a kter\u00fd se mu jev\u00ed jako pravd\u011bpodobn\u011bj\u0161\u00ed a v\u00edce se bl\u00ed\u017e\u00edc\u00ed p\u016fvodn\u00edmu z\u00e1m\u011bru autor\u016f biblick\u00fdch text\u016f.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Sobota<\/b><\/p>\n

Souhlas\u00edme, \u017ee se jedn\u00e1 o rozs\u00e1hl\u00e9 t\u00e9ma a \u017ee p\u0159\u00edstup k sobot\u011b je v\u00fdrazn\u011b ovlivn\u011bn ch\u00e1p\u00e1n\u00edm z\u00e1kona a smluv v P\u00edsmu.13<\/sup>
\nCo se t\u00fdk\u00e1 zm\u00edn\u011bn\u00e9 pr\u00e1ce Samuelle Bacchiocchiho, dovol\u00edme si zde jako p\u0159\u00edklad pouk\u00e1zat na jistou nekonzistentnost p\u0159\u00edstupu CASD k jeho v\u00fdkladu jednoho z kl\u00ed\u010dov\u00fdch text\u016f Nov\u00e9ho z\u00e1kona k ot\u00e1zce soboty – Kol 2,16.17. D\u016fle\u017eit\u00e9 je to zejm\u00e9na proto, \u017ee Bacchiocchiho v\u00fdklad je v CASD, zd\u00e1 se, p\u0159ij\u00edm\u00e1n jako ofici\u00e1ln\u00ed a tedy z\u00e1vazn\u00fd:
\nS. Bacchiocchi p\u0159edev\u0161\u00edm nesouhlas\u00ed s v\u00fdkladem koment\u00e1\u0159e CASD (SDA Commentary), kter\u00fd tvrd\u00ed, \u017ee se v Kol 2.16.17 jedn\u00e1 o ceremoni\u00e1ln\u00ed soboty . Bacchiocchi naopak zast\u00e1v\u00e1 n\u00e1zor, \u017ee se zde jedn\u00e1 o t\u00fddenn\u00ed soboty a text ch\u00e1pe tak, \u017ee Pavel zde protestuje mimo jin\u00e9 proti nespr\u00e1vn\u00e9mu pojet\u00ed sobot (tzv. kolosk\u00e1 hereze), ne v\u0161ak proti sobot\u011b samotn\u00e9. T\u00edm se dost\u00e1v\u00e1 k z\u00e1v\u011bru, \u017ee Pavel v uveden\u00e9m textu podporuje zachov\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed t\u00fddenn\u00edch sobot. Z toho v\u0161ak tak\u00e9 plyne nevyhnuteln\u00fd d\u016fsledek, a sice ten, \u017ee z\u00e1vazn\u00e9 jsou v nov\u00e9 smlouv\u011b nejen soboty, ale tak\u00e9 novolun\u00ed a ro\u010dn\u00ed \u017eidovsk\u00e9 sv\u00e1tky. Na tomto p\u0159\u00edkladu vid\u00edme z na\u0161eho pohledu jistou ned\u016fslednost ve vztahu k v\u00fdkladu S. Bacchiocchiho, kdy CASD na jedn\u00e9 stran\u011b trv\u00e1 na zachov\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed z\u00e1vaznosti t\u00fddenn\u00edch sobot, ale z\u00e1rove\u0148 dle toho sam\u00e9ho v\u00fdkladu ignoruje z\u00e1vaznost zachov\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed novolun\u00ed a dal\u0161\u00edch \u017eidovsk\u00fdch sv\u00e1tk\u016f, kter\u00e9 jsou ve zm\u00edn\u011bn\u00e9m textu neodd\u011bliteln\u011b spojeny se sobotou (viz sekvence odkazuj\u00edc\u00ed na t\u00fddenn\u00ed-m\u011bs\u00ed\u010dn\u00ed-ro\u010dn\u00ed slavnosti – nap\u0159. Oz 2,13).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

E. G. Whiteov\u00e1<\/b><\/p>\n

Souhlas\u00edme s t\u00edm, \u017ee v p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b EGW, jej\u00edch d\u011bl a jej\u00edho vlivu na CASD se jedn\u00e1 o obrovsk\u00e9 mno\u017estv\u00ed materi\u00e1lu. Rozhodn\u011b si ne\u010din\u00edme n\u00e1rok na to b\u00fdt kvalifikov\u00e1ni spolehliv\u011b a jednozna\u010dn\u011b posoudit jej\u00ed \u017eivot, jej\u00ed vliv a jej\u00ed prorock\u00e9 pov\u011b\u0159en\u00ed. P\u0159esto je zde \u0159ada otazn\u00edk\u016f a to takov\u00fdch, kter\u00e9 n\u00e1m nedok\u00e1zali zodpov\u011bd\u011bt ani auto\u0159i jako Knight \u010di Thomson. Tito pisatel\u00e9, i p\u0159es jistou snahu o otev\u0159enost v t\u00e9to ot\u00e1zce, jako \u010dlenov\u00e9 CASD nebyli, zd\u00e1 se, schopni \u010di ochotni pro svoj\u00ed v\u011bdomou \u201epozitivn\u00ed\u201c zaujatost k osob\u011b EGW ve sv\u00fdch d\u00edlech tuto \u017eenu skute\u010dn\u011b pln\u011b objektivn\u011b a kriticky hodnotit.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Kdy\u017e Dr. Veltman, teolog pov\u011b\u0159en\u00fd GK CASD, zpracoval projekt \u201eDesire of Ages\u201c,15<\/sup> v n\u011bm\u017e zkoumal pomoc\u00ed metod textov\u00e9 kritiky knihu Touha V\u011bk\u016f, o n\u00ed\u017e CASD p\u0159edpokl\u00e1dala, \u017ee se jedn\u00e1 o nejautenti\u010dt\u011bj\u0161\u00ed d\u00edlo EGW, dosp\u011bl k n\u00e1sleduj\u00edc\u00edm z\u00e1v\u011br\u016fm, citujeme:<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201e…p\u0159evzala liter\u00e1rn\u00ed v\u00fdrazy (kop\u00edrovala) z prac\u00ed jin\u00fdch autor\u016f, ani\u017e by citovala zdroj (plagi\u00e1torstv\u00ed). Za druh\u00e9 mus\u00edme p\u0159ipustit, \u017ee Ellen Whiteov\u00e1 pou\u017e\u00edvala spisy jin\u00fdch v\u011bdom\u011b a z\u00e1m\u011brn\u011b… Implicitn\u011b i explicitn\u011b, sama Ellen Whiteov\u00e1 i ti, kte\u0159\u00ed hovo\u0159\u00ed v jej\u00ed prosp\u011bch, nep\u0159ipou\u0161t\u00ed a dokonce pop\u00edraj\u00ed tuto jej\u00ed z\u00e1vislost na ciz\u00edch liter\u00e1rn\u00edch zdroj\u00edch.“<\/i>16<\/sup><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Kdy\u017e byl Dr. Veltman dot\u00e1z\u00e1n, jak jsou uveden\u00e1 zji\u0161t\u011bn\u00ed v souladu s jej\u00edmi opakovan\u00fdmi tvrzen\u00edmi, \u017ee psala pouze to, co j\u00ed uk\u00e1zal B\u016fh, otev\u0159en\u011b odpov\u00edd\u00e1:<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201eMus\u00edm hned na za\u010d\u00e1tku p\u0159ipustit, \u017ee dle m\u00e9ho soudu se jedn\u00e1 o nejz\u00e1va\u017en\u011bj\u0161\u00ed probl\u00e9m, se kter\u00fdm se st\u0159et\u00e1v\u00e1me v souvislosti s probl\u00e9mem kop\u00edrov\u00e1n\u00ed v d\u00edlech Ellen Whiteov\u00e9. Zasahuje p\u0159\u00edmo do srdce jej\u00ed \u010destnosti, jej\u00ed integrity, a proto tak\u00e9 i jej\u00ed v\u011brohodnosti.“<\/i>17<\/sup><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Ot\u00e1zka \u201einerantn\u00ed\u201c inspirace je jist\u011b nam\u00edst\u011b a rozhodn\u011b nechceme tvrdit, \u017ee by jak\u00fdkoli prorok m\u011bl n\u00e1rok na neomylnost. Nicm\u00e9n\u011b, vy\u0159kne-li \u010dlov\u011bk, ozna\u010duj\u00edc\u00ed s\u00e1m sebe jako \u201eMessenger of the Lord\u201c18<\/sup> v\u00fdrok, kter\u00fd uvozuje slovy \u201evid\u011bla jsem\u201c, je zde v\u00e1\u017en\u00fd d\u016fvod p\u0159edpokl\u00e1dat, \u017ee tento \u010dlov\u011bk chce sd\u011blit n\u011bco, co pokl\u00e1d\u00e1 za Bohem dan\u00e9 poselstv\u00ed. Pokud n\u00e1s objektivn\u011b zji\u0161t\u011bn\u00e9 skute\u010dnosti vedou k z\u00e1v\u011bru, \u017ee vy\u0159\u010den\u00e1 slova nebyla pravdiv\u00e1, je nutn\u00e9 z toho vyvodit d\u016fsledky. Novoz\u00e1konn\u00ed pojet\u00ed proroka vede k tomu, aby c\u00edrkev vy\u0159\u010den\u00e1 proroctv\u00ed v\u017edy posuzovala a rozhodovala o tom, zda jsou \u010di nejsou spr\u00e1vn\u00e1 (1 Kor 14,29). Je smutn\u00e9, \u017ee CASD tento biblick\u00fd princip opom\u00edj\u00ed a st\u00e1le nekriticky p\u0159ij\u00edm\u00e1 EGW a v\u0161echny jej\u00ed spisy.<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

K ot\u00e1zce vid\u011bn\u00ed v Camdenu: souhlas\u00edme s t\u00edm, \u017ee explicitn\u011b nelze existenci tohoto vid\u011bn\u00ed dok\u00e1zat. Sekund\u00e1rn\u00ed d\u016fkazy v\u0161ak jeho existenci, zd\u00e1 se, prokazuj\u00ed (J. Loughborough a U. Smith na n\u011b p\u00edsemn\u011b reaguj\u00ed). I kdybychom v\u0161ak nakonec dosp\u011bli k p\u0159esv\u011bd\u010den\u00ed, \u017ee vid\u011bn\u00ed v Camdenu je podvr\u017een\u00e9, st\u00e1le je zde cel\u00e1 \u0159ada d\u016fkaz\u016f o tom, \u017ee EGW zast\u00e1vala spolu s ostatn\u00edm \u010dleny adventn\u00edho hnut\u00ed od r. 1844 a\u017e do r. 1851, tedy cel\u00fd sedm let, u\u010den\u00ed o zav\u0159en\u00fdch dve\u0159\u00edch. EGW nap\u0159\u00edklad znala obsah v\u0161ech nov\u011b vyti\u0161t\u011bn\u00fdch \u010d\u00edsel \u010dasopisu Present Truth a spolu se sv\u00fdm man\u017eelem se nad nimi v\u017edy modlila, ne\u017e je p\u0159edali k distribuci. V tomto periodiku byly \u010dl\u00e1nky jednozna\u010dn\u011b a siln\u011b propaguj\u00edc\u00ed u\u010den\u00ed o zav\u0159en\u00fdch dve\u0159\u00edch. Je mo\u017en\u00e9, \u017ee by EGW s u\u010den\u00edm nesouhlasila a p\u0159esto souhlasila se zve\u0159ej\u0148ov\u00e1n\u00edm takov\u00fdch \u010dl\u00e1nk\u016f a podporovala jejich roz\u0161i\u0159ov\u00e1n\u00ed mezi adventisty?19<\/sup><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

J\u00e1dro probl\u00e9mu s EGW se nach\u00e1z\u00ed p\u0159edev\u0161\u00edm v jeho zna\u010dn\u00e9 \u0161\u00ed\u0159i. Nejedn\u00e1 se o jeden izolovan\u00fd konflikt, ale o celou \u0161k\u00e1lu \u201eprobl\u00e9m\u016f\u201c. Nejde zde tedy \u201ejen\u201c o plagi\u00e1torstv\u00ed, ale tak\u00e9 o nespln\u011bn\u00e1 proroctv\u00ed, nepravdiv\u00e1 tvrzen\u00ed, nerozumn\u00e9 rady t\u00fdkaj\u00edc\u00ed se financov\u00e1n\u00ed c\u00edrkve, vz\u00e1jemn\u011b si proti\u0159e\u010d\u00edc\u00ed tvrzen\u00ed v jej\u00edch spisech, teologick\u00e9 omyly jako jsou nap\u0159. ari\u00e1nstv\u00ed \u010di semipelagianismus a v neposledn\u00ed \u0159ad\u011b i o jej\u00ed zdravotn\u00ed stav (pravd\u011bpodobn\u00e1 diagn\u00f3za epilepsie sp\u00e1nkov\u00e9ho laloku jako d\u016fsledek zran\u011bn\u00ed z d\u011btstv\u00ed). Poj\u00edm\u00e1me-li \u201efenom\u00e9n\u201c EGW takto komplexn\u011b, jev\u00ed se n\u00e1m jako pravd\u011bpodobn\u011bj\u0161\u00ed varianta, \u017ee tato \u017eena, a\u0165 mo\u017en\u00e1 jakkoli up\u0159\u00edmn\u00e1 \u010di zbo\u017en\u00e1, nebyla prav\u00fdm Bo\u017e\u00edm prorokem.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

\u010cist\u00e9 a ne\u010dist\u00e9<\/b><\/p>\n

Hlavn\u00ed argumenty od J. Moskaly ve prosp\u011bch z\u00e1vaznosti rozli\u0161ov\u00e1n\u00ed \u010dist\u00e9ho a ne\u010dist\u00e9ho v nov\u00e9 smlouv\u011b byly uve\u0159ejn\u011bny v \u010dasopisu Advent 7\/1997. Jeho d\u016fvody se n\u00e1m \u017eel jev\u00ed jako \u201e\u00fa\u010delov\u00e9\u201c a nem\u016f\u017eeme s nimi proto souhlasit.20<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Des\u00e1tky<\/b><\/p>\n

Praktick\u00e9 a dobr\u00e9 \u0159e\u0161en\u00ed zaji\u0161\u0165uj\u00edc\u00ed samofinancov\u00e1n\u00ed c\u00edrkve a jej\u00ed odluku od st\u00e1tu. Nelze ho v\u0161ak obh\u00e1jit a vynucovat na biblick\u00e9m z\u00e1klad\u011b jako z\u00e1vazn\u00e9 pro v\u011bk nov\u00e9 smlouvy.21<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Co se t\u00fdk\u00e1 kontextov\u00fdch jev\u016f a projev\u016f adventismu, nemysl\u00edme si, \u017ee jin\u00e1 spole\u010denstv\u00ed k\u0159es\u0165an\u016f podobn\u00fdm trend\u016fm \u010di tlak\u016fm nepodl\u00e9haj\u00ed. V\u0161e z\u00e1vis\u00ed v\u017edy na tom, kde se ve sv\u00e9m \u017eivotn\u00edm cyklu dan\u00e9 spole\u010denstv\u00ed nach\u00e1z\u00ed, na soci\u00e1ln\u00edch vazb\u00e1ch uvnit\u0159 i vn\u011b spole\u010denstv\u00ed, na aktu\u00e1ln\u00edm ch\u00e1p\u00e1n\u00ed vlastn\u00ed teologie a na mnoha dal\u0161\u00edch v\u011bcech. Jsme v\u0161ichni pouze lid\u00e9 a to lid\u00e9 h\u0159\u00ed\u0161n\u00ed, kte\u0159\u00ed opakovan\u011b pot\u0159ebuj\u00ed Bo\u017e\u00ed odpou\u0161t\u011bn\u00ed.<\/div>\n
\n

P\u0159ejeme C\u00edrkvi adventist\u016f a zejm\u00e9na \u010cesk\u00e9mu sdru\u017een\u00ed CASD s\u00edlu se s podobn\u00fdmi jevy \u00fasp\u011b\u0161n\u011b vyrovn\u00e1vat a \u010delit jim s nad\u011bj\u00ed a odvahou. I p\u0159es n\u00e1\u0161 rozchod s CASD vn\u00edm\u00e1me jistou nad\u011bji ve v\u00fdvoji adventismu v \u010cesk\u00e9 republice.<\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n
\n

Pozn\u00e1mky:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Http:\/\/ceskesdruzeni.cz\/2013\/02\/i-kdyz-jsme-na-ceste-stale-verime<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. Roky 457, 408 p\u0159. n. l. a 27, 31 a 34 n. l. jako ud\u00e1losti z proroctv\u00ed Dan 9. kap dan\u00e9 do souvislosti s 2300 \u00fadajn\u00fdmi roky z Dan 8,14. Podobn\u011b tak\u00e9 roky 538 a 1798 n. l. jako \u00fadob\u00ed 1260 dn\u00ed.<\/li>\n
  3. D. Ford, Dan 8:14 and investigative judgement<\/i>, (1980).<\/li>\n
  4. P. \u0160koda, Rok 1844 a p\u0159edadventn\u00ed vy\u0161et\u0159uj\u00edc\u00ed soud<\/i>. Viz http:\/\/biblickestudie.cz\/studie\/rok_1844.pdf<\/a>.<\/li>\n
  5. Viz nap\u0159\u00edklad Continuity and discontinuity: Perspectives on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments<\/i> (J. S. Feinberg, Ed.).<\/li>\n
  6. Nap\u0159\u00edklad D. Moo, A Modified Lutheran View<\/i>, sborn\u00edk Five Views on Law and Gospel<\/i> (ed. S. N. Gundry).<\/li>\n
  7. Harrison, E. F., & Hagner, D. A. (2008). Romans. In T. Longman, III & Garland, David E. (Ed.), The Expositor\u2019s Bible Commentary, Volume 11: Romans\u2013Galatians (Revised Edition)<\/i>, p. 159.<\/li>\n
  8. Ibid., p.159<\/i>: \u201eRozhoduj\u00edc\u00edm faktorem, kter\u00fd vede k up\u0159ednostn\u011bn\u00ed p\u0159ekladu [telos] jako \u201eukon\u010den\u00ed\u201c nam\u00edsto \u201e\u00fa\u010del\u201c jako hlavn\u00ed my\u0161lenky, je kontrast ve 9,30-32 mezi z\u00e1konem a Bo\u017e\u00ed spravedlnost\u00ed (srov. 10,5-6)\u201c\u2026 K tomuto z\u00e1v\u011bru vede tak\u00e9 skute\u010dnost, \u017ee z\u00e1kon m\u011bl jistou \u00falohu v dopln\u011bn\u00ed Bo\u017e\u00ed ekonomie (viz zejm\u00e9na Ga 3,19-25 srov. Lk 16,16) a nyn\u00ed s p\u0159\u00edchodem Krista z\u00e1kon svoj\u00ed pr\u00e1ci dokon\u010dil a do\u0161el tak sv\u00e9mu konci. Z\u00e1kon byl ukon\u010den jak ve smyslu spasiteln\u011b\u2013historick\u00e9m, tak ve smyslu soteriologick\u00e9m (srov. 3,21).\u201c<\/li>\n
  9. Ibid., p.159.<\/i><\/li>\n
  10. Podrobn\u011b k ot\u00e1zce smluvn\u00edho nomismu viz D. A. Carson & D. Moo, \u00davod do Nov\u00e9ho z\u00e1kona<\/i> (N\u00e1vrat, 2008), str.326-335.<\/li>\n
  11. Viz stru\u010dn\u00e9 srovn\u00e1n\u00ed zde: http:\/\/zod.reformace.cz\/zaklady-tri-hlavnich-teologii-cislo-74<\/a>.<\/li>\n
  12. Nap\u0159\u00edklad: D. A. Carson, D. Moo, C. Bloomberg, J. Fainberg a dal\u0161\u00ed.<\/li>\n
  13. Na\u0161e ch\u00e1pan\u00ed soboty v nov\u00e9 smlouv\u011b koresponduje se z\u00e1v\u011bry teologick\u00e9ho sborn\u00edku ed. D. A. Carson, From Sabbath to Lord\u2019s Day<\/i> (1982) a D. Ratzlaff, Sabbath in Christ<\/i>.<\/li>\n
  14. S. Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday<\/i>, 339: \u201eThe cited commentary rests its interpretation, however, not on the grammatical and linguistic use of the word \u201csabbaton\u201d but rather on a theological interpretation of the Sabbath as related to „shadow“ in Colossians 2:17\u2026 To determine the meaning of a word exclusively by theological assumptions, rather than by linguistic or contextual evidences, is against the canons of Biblical hermeneutics. Moreover even the theological interpretation which the Adventist commentary gives to the Sabbath is hard to justify, since we have seen that the Sabbath can legitimately be regarded as the \u201cshadow\u201d or fitting symbol of the present and future blessing of salvation.\u201c<\/li>\n
  15. Projekt \u201eDesire of Ages\u201c<\/i> vznikl jako reakce CASD na knihu Waltera Rea \u201eWhite Lie\u201c<\/i> (1980).<\/li>\n
  16. Ministry<\/i>, December 1990, p. 11.<\/li>\n
  17. Ibid<\/i>. p. 14.<\/li>\n
  18. \u201ePosel P\u00e1n\u011b\u201c je titul, jak\u00fdm sama sebe ozna\u010dovala EGW.<\/li>\n
  19. V\u00edce viz D. M. Canright, Zav\u0159en\u00e9 dve\u0159e, aneb konec zku\u0161ebn\u00ed doby pro h\u0159\u00ed\u0161n\u00edky 22. \u0159\u00edjna 1844<\/i>. P\u0159eklad zde: http:\/\/biblickestudie.cz\/preklady\/t_zavrene_dvere.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n
  20. Podrobn\u00e9 argumenty: P. \u0160koda, \u010cist\u00e9 a ne\u010dist\u00e9<\/i>, str. 15. Viz http:\/\/biblickestudie.cz\/studie\/ciste_neciste.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n
  21. V\u00edce viz P. \u0160koda, Jsou des\u00e1tky z platu z\u00e1vazn\u00e9 pro Kristovy n\u00e1sledovn\u00edky?<\/i> Viz http:\/\/biblickestudie.cz\/studie\/desatky.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n

    <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Odpov\u011b\u010f na reakci Teologick\u00e9ho semin\u00e1\u0159e 20. 2. 2013 Teologick\u00fd semin\u00e1\u0159 uve\u0159ejnil na str\u00e1nk\u00e1ch \u010cesk\u00e9ho sdru\u017een\u00ed CASD koment\u00e1\u01591 k na\u0161emu ve\u0159ejn\u00e9mu dopisu, ve kter\u00e9m uv\u00e1d\u00edme sv\u00e9 d\u016fvody pro odchod z C\u00edrkve adventist\u016f s. d. Vzhledem k tomu, \u017ee koment\u00e1\u0159 byl … Cel\u00fd p\u0159\u00edsp\u011bvek →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[8],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.cestaviry.cz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.cestaviry.cz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.cestaviry.cz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.cestaviry.cz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.cestaviry.cz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=256"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"http:\/\/www.cestaviry.cz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":270,"href":"http:\/\/www.cestaviry.cz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256\/revisions\/270"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.cestaviry.cz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=256"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.cestaviry.cz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=256"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.cestaviry.cz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=256"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}