I am more than a bit confused by the column entitled, 'Christ born to die', by Peter Espeut who is identified as a Roman Catholic deacon with a first class honours degree in theology. I had a difficult time deciding if he were for or against Christmas - but that is not why I am writing.

I am a Seventh-day Adventist layperson, and since Mr. Espeut made several mistaken statements about Seventh-day Adventists, I would like to suggest that he do a little research and then perhaps he would agree that an apology would be in order.

First of all, our 'main focus' is shown in our very name, with Adventist referring to the Second Coming of Christ as he foretold in the New Testament. Thus we are Christ-centred, not law-centred, though we do believe that God's commandments are still the principles by which God expects us to order our lives.

As for believing that Christ is fully God and that he was "born to die that we might live," please see the website which I manage, http://sdanet.org/atissue, where we have the official statement of Seventh-day Adventist doctrinal beliefs at http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/doctrines/gc28.htm. Please notice our clear statements about Jesus Christ being "Forever God" and the importance of his incarnation — His birth, His live, and His death.

- Bille Burdick, burdick6@bellsouth.net, Ooltewah, Tennessee, Via Go-Jamaica

In his zeal to defend Christmas, Peter Espeut let himself get carried away ('Christ born to die,' Dec. 27). While I cannot speak for Rastafarians or Jehovah's Witnesses, I have to take exception with his characterisation of Seventh-day Adventists as "critics of traditional Christianity" who are "still focused on the Old Covenant law."

To the extent that there are elements in Christianity which are based solely on traditions that have been institutionalised by the church over time, Mr. Espeut has a point. Seventh-day Adventist theology strives to be completely biblical in its development, even where it goes against the grain of "traditional Christianity." However he chooses to define it. This is why we observe a Saturday Sabbath: there is no mandate in the New Testament for the transference of solemnity from the Sabbath of Christ's time to another.

As important as the Resurrection of Jesus was (something in which Seventh-day Adventists also believe), nowhere is it explicitly stated in the Bible that this justified the abrogation of the seventh-day Sabbath.

As for the "Old Covenant law," St. Paul makes it abundantly clear in the Epistle to the Romans that the Law is holy and just and good and has not been abolished by Jesus. Can Seventh-day Adventists be blamed for taking the words of the apostle at face value?

Mr. Espeut's zeal might be commendable, but not when he gets the facts wrong.

- Daniel J. Drazen, drazen@andrews.edu, Editor, SDA Periodical Index, Andrews University,

Berrien Springs, Michigan,

Via Go-Jamaica