David C. Pack
vs
A Sabbath Test
Thirty Deceptions
"The Fifth set of Five Lies"
The Twenty First RCG Deception:
God tells His people to rejoice at the Feast of Tabernacles—even including the high Holy Day. For the critics, it becomes somewhat of a “catch-22” to pretend that, although God commands His people to rejoice, His people are warned not to experience any personal enjoyment or pleasure on the Sabbath. When one keeps God’s command to rejoice, it will be pleasurable.
Response from Dennis Fischer:
Here, the RCG is arguing that because God commands His people to rejoice at the feast, they may persue their own personal pleasure on the Sabbath in order to do so. They then accuse Mr. Braidic and myself of being caught between a rock and a hard place by refusing to seek out Sabbath breakers to work for us on holy time because without them it is impossible to rejoice as God desires.
This is the official position of Mr. Braidic and myself with respect to the RCG’s “catch 22.”
If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shall honor him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words: (Isa. 58:13)
Although the RCG writers may find these words a threat to their Sabbath enjoyment, we don’t.
The Twenty-second RCG Deception
Much like the Pharisees, these one-issue critics seek to make the Sabbath a burden—something that Christ condemned. Notice again the double standard of those willing to burden others: “Then spoke Jesus to the multitude, and to His disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not you after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers” (Matt. 23:1-4).
Response from Dennis Fischer:
There are actually three deceptions woven in this brief paragraph. They are as follows:
1) We are “one-issue critics.” This is not true. See my answer to Deception 5 for the proof.
2) We make the Sabbath “a burden—something Christ condemned.” Actually, they are the ones who make it a burden. See my answer to Deception 30 for proof.
3) We don’t practice what we preach. This is a total fabrication based on what the RCG wants you to believe. The fact of the matter is that neither my co-author nor I dine out on the Sabbath or the holy days. Furthermore, we both make it a habit to include others when we eat at home or church, at these special times. The idea that a Christian would make such an accusation goes contrary to everything Christ taught. It is a lie, nothing else.
The Twenty-Third RCG Deception:
“During the Millennium, throngs of people will come to the temple complex on Mount Zion and offer sacrifices, especially on the weekly Sabbaths and annual Holy Day.
Yet, the writers of the previously quoted book make this blanket statement: “In the millennium there will be no restaurants [implying dining facilities in general] operating on the Sabbath” (p. 10).”
Response from Dennis Fischer:
Here, these RCG writers are redefining the term “restaurants” as "dining facilities" and attributing this new definition to me and my co-author. However this is NOT our definition; it is theirs, disguised as ours. According to the RCG essay, “restaurants” are now broadly defined as any place where food is served. They have crafted it this way because they know food will be served in the temple during the Millennium.
Furthermore, by referring to the temple as a “dining facility” (aka restaurant), they were able to discredit our claim that no restaurants would be open on God’s Sabbath when His Kingdom is established. Unfortunately, this will not work because their contention that great Sabbath meals will be served from the temple during the millennium is not true. God's people will never be served a meal on the weekly Sabbath. The assertion by the RCG claiming such a thing is TOTALLY FALSE! Understand however, that they had to resort to deception to do this.
However, there is an even greater objective to this deception. By making no distinction between a “restaurant” and a “dining facility” such as a church kitchen or a set of picnic tables in a park, These RCG writers have intentionally blurred the line between what is appropriate holy day dining and inappropriate holy day dining. According to them there is no distinction between having a “pot luck” after services and going out into a God rejecting world and patronize one of its “dining facilities.” Furthermore, they do not want you to make that distinction either. This is because they want you to believe that because you can do one, you can also do the other. What they never admit is that the “other” will not be open on the Sabbath or the holy day in God’s kingdom.
The Twenty-Fourth RCG Deception:
Ezekiel’s vision of the future temple gives us a glimpse into how God will conduct things in the world to come. From this, we can readily discern that feeding large congregations on the Sabbath will entail a degree of real labor. If God can make—and always has made—allowances for His priests when they worked on the Sabbath, is it not possible for Him to make allowances for others who serve God’s people?
Those who condemn brethren for dining out on the Sabbath do not think so. Nevertheless, the glimpse that God inspired Ezekiel to record, along with many other scriptures, shows us a more realistic picture.
Response from Dennis Fischer:
The first paragraph above makes a claim so strikingly outrageous that Blow the Trumpet wrote an entire article in response. Here, these COG leaders are suggesting that those who serve God’s people in restaurants on the Sabbath are actually performing a Levitical duty. Following that stream of logic, I suppose you could say that a restaurant is a type of temple. It is madness to advance such an argument. But this is exactly what they claim as a “Biblical fact.” To read the REAL TRUTH from the scriptures see: Restaurants in the Millennium & Millennial Sacrifices.
With respect to the second paragraph, this statement by the RCG is categorically false. We condemn no one. This is just another example of distorting our approach in A Sabbath Test. However, here is what they don’t want you to read. It appears in an introductory letter in our book.
A Sabbath Test
As you proceed through each point, it is important to understand that the authors are not trying to judge God’s people. This booklet is not an attempt to condemn the wonderful community of believers who are called according to His purpose. Instead, it is written with the profound hope that these believers will carefully examine their approach to a day God Himself calls “HOLY.”
The Twenty-Fifth RCG Deception:
The authors were very careful to stop short of an official explicit statement—that the mark of the beast is defined as eating at restaurants on the Sabbath. Yet their implication comes across quite loud and clear.
Consider what their point of view means: If eating out on the Sabbath is the mark of the Beast, exactly how will it be enforced during the coming captivity? Are those hoping to endure to the end going to be forced to eat and pay for a meal in a restaurant, thereby violating their conscience?
This is simply ludicrous!
Response from Dennis Fischer:
Once again the RCG writers proclaim that they have just proven that my co-author and I think that the Mark of the Beast is dining out on the Sabbath. This despite that fact that we made no such declaration—which by the way they also admitted. Here are their words:
“The authors were very careful to stop short of an official explicit statement—that the Mark of the Beast is defined as eating at restaurants on the Sabbath. Yet their implication comes across quite loud and clear.”
It is only clear to them because they want it to be that way. The irony to all of this is that when quoting us, the RCG actually provided our definition of this mark. Once again, here it is.
A Sabbath Test
“God’s church has rightly understood this mark to be a rejection of the true Sabbath and holy days and the embracing of false religious customs and festivals.”
Although the RCG writers believe they have a clear understanding of our beliefs, I thought I would provide a little clarity.
RCG: Consider what their point of view means: If eating out on the Sabbath is the Mark of the Beast, exactly how will it be enforced during the coming captivity?
The REAL TRUTH is that neither I nor Art Braidic believe dining out on the Sabbath is THE Mark of the Beast. We do however, believe it is symptomatic of the Mark in that it is an act that profanes God’s Sabbath. Profaning the Sabbath is the mark—at least in part.
RCG: Are those hoping to endure to the end going to be forced to eat and pay for a meal in a restaurant, thereby violating their conscience?
No that’s silly, which is what I believe you were trying to be. Personally, I believe the scriptures suggest that those who reject the Sabbath and embrace the festivals of the mother church will be permitted to engage in commerce—which is so essential in today’s world. On the other hand, those who stay true to honoring God’s Sabbath and holy days will be prohibited from engaging in commerce.
It is interesting that this type of action was taken on enemies of the Catholic Church before. In 1163, Pope Alexander issued an edict at the Council of Tours regarding the treatment of those considered to be heretics by the church at Rome.
“Whereas a damnable heresy has for some time lifted its head in the parts about Toulouse, and already spread infection through Gascony and other provinces, concealing itself like a serpent in its folds; as soon as its followers shall have been discovered, let no man afford them refuge on his estates; neither let there be any communication with them in buying and selling; so that, being deprived of the solace of human conversation they may be compelled to return from error to wisdom.” (History of the Christian Church, 1879, Mosheim)
By the way, if the RCG genuinely wanted to know what my co-author and I really believe on this issue, they could have read another work we wrote. It is called The Mark of the Beast. Or, they could have watched a telecast I made by the same title. They both appear on this site.
RELATED LINKS
