Answering Seventh Day Adventism

There are two major distinctive claims of Seventh Day Adventism, which separate it from the rest of Christianity:

  1. First, that Christians are supposed to keep Saturday, the Sabbath, holy.  They oppose worshiping on Sunday, arguing that it’s against the Ten Commandments and generally anti-Scriptural.
  2. Second, that the founder of Seventh Day Adventism, Ellen G. White, was a prophet.

The official Seventh Day Adventist website declares:

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.

But as we’ll quickly see, White was no prophet, and her works are riddled with errors. Let’s look at two of her major claims about the Sabbath, both from her supposedly-inspired book, The Great Controversy.

I. When Did Sunday Worship Begin?

The first of the claims I want to look at is White’s assertion  that all of the early Christians kept the true Sabbath for the first centuries of Christianity:

In the first centuries the true Sabbath had been kept by all Christians. They were jealous for the honor of God, and believing that His law is immutable, they zealously guarded the sacredness of its precepts.

(Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 52).

So that means that at a bare minimum, we should see every single Christian worshiping on Saturday for at least two centuries (since “first centuries” must mean at least two). Now read what St. Justin Martyr wrote in 150 A.D., in his First Apology:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings [the Greek word here is Eucharist], according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. 

But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn [That is, the day before Saturday]; and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

So well within the first centuries of Christianity, Sunday worship was practiced.  And notice that Justin doesn’t describe this as some innovation, either. He’s explaining to non-Christians what basic Christian practices look like, and Sunday worship is already the norm for “all” in 150.  For someone alleged to be a prophet, White’s unable to present the truth on even this basic fact about the Sabbath.

Surprisingly, Seventh Day Adventist scholars admit that she’s wrong on this. Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, perhaps the best Adventist scholar, wrote:

The earliest documents mentioning Sunday worship go back to Barnabas in 135 and Justin Martyr in 150. Thus, it is evident that Sunday worship was already established by the middle of the second century. This means that to be historically accurate the term “centuries” should be changed to the singular “century.” This simple correction would enhance the credibility of The Great Controversy, because it is relatively easy to defend general Sabbath observance during the first century, but it is impossible to do it for the second century.

In other words, the alleged prophet’s words are true, if you change the words.  This sounds like a polite way of conceding that Ellen White was a false prophetess.

But what about Bacchiocchi’s claim that while Sunday worship existed in the second century, it didn’t exist in the first?  He’s making an argument from silence.  This is a common tactic I’ve seen used by Protestants in defending their views.  If you show that Ignatius believed that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ in 107 A.D., they’ll respond that the Church must have taken a symbolic view until 106.  Of course, this sort of argumentation is ridiculous.  If you’re going to make an argument from silence, the strongest argument is that no change in doctrine or practice happened — because if a change of doctrine had happened, we’d see evidence.  If Christians suddenly (globally) started worshiping on Sunday instead of Saturday, wouldn’t someone have mentioned that somewhere?

II. Who Moved the Sabbath to Sunday?

White’s second claim is that it was the emperor Constantine who changed Christian worship from Saturday to Sunday.  This is from p. 53 of the book I just quoted, The Great Controversy:

In the early part of the fourth century the emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a public festival throughout the Roman Empire. (See Appendix). The day of the sun was reverenced by his pagan subjects and was honored by Christians; it was the emperor’s policy to unite the conflicting interests of heathenism and Christianity. He was urged to do this by the bishops of the church, who, inspired by ambition and thirst for power, perceived that if the same day was observed by both Christians and heathens, it would promote the nominal acceptance of Christianity by pagans and thus advance the power and glory of the church.

We already know that this is false: that Christians were already worshiping on Sunday well before Constantine.  But what’s interesting is that White had a second and contradictory prophesy.  You see, she also claimed that it was the big, bad pope, not Constantine, who changed the date from Saturday to Sunday.  So, for example, in Early Writings of Ellen Gould White, we read her description of an vision she claims to have had in 1850:

The pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to the first day. He has thought to change the very commandment that was given to cause man to remember his Creator. He has thought to change the greatest commandment in the decalogue and thus make himself equal with God, or even exalt himself above God.

From this, she learns that the pope is the Antichrist.  In an earlier “vision” from 1847, she recounts:

I saw that the Sabbath was not nailed to the cross. If it was, the other nine commandments were; and we are at liberty to go forth and break them all, as well as to break the fourth. I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the Pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws.

It’s tempting to leave it there: she’s clearly a false prophetess.  Seventh Day Adventists believe in the Saturday Sabbath because of White’s scholarship and prophecies.  Both are demonstrably false. She had no idea what the history of the Sabbath actually was, and changed her story as she went along.  
What I found shocking is that, once against, Adventist scholars are aware that White was wrong both in her scholarly work, and in her prophesies, yet they gloss over it.  This is Bacchiocchi again:

Surprisingly even some of our leading evangelists believe, on the basis of Ellen White’s statements, that Sundaykeeping began in the early part of the fourth when church leaders urged Constantine to promulgate in 321 the famous Sunday Law. 

This popular view has exposed our Church to much undesirable criticism. Non-SDA scholars and church leaders like Dr. James Kennedy, accuse our church of plain ignorance, by teaching that Sundaykeeping began in the fourth century, when there are irrefutable historical evidences that place its origin two centuries earlier. 

I have spent countless hours explaining to Dr. James Kennedy and to professors who viewed the recent NET satellite programs, that this popular Adventist view is not reflective of Adventist scholarship. No Adventist scholar has ever taught or written that Sunday observance began in the fourth century with Constantine. A compelling proof is the symposium The Sabbath in Scripture and History, produced by 22 Adventist scholars and published by the Review and Herald in 1982. None of the Adventist scholars who contributed to this symposium ever suggest that Sundaykeeping began in the fourth century.

So, once they examine the evidence, even Adventist scholars realize that White is full of it.  Obvious question: if that’s the case, why remain Adventist?

The entire Seventh Day Adventist church is discredited, because it:

  • (a) declares Ellen White a prophetess, when she was clearly not; 
  • (b) declares her writings as an authoritative source of truth, when they clearly are not; and 
  • (c) continues, as its distinctive mission, is to celebrate the Sabbath on the Seventh Day, Saturday.  Even the church’s name is based on this mission… yet the mission is founded on junk history, false prophesies, and bad Scriptural exegesis.
It’s not as is White was wrong on some minor details.  She got the basic facts about the core doctrine of Adventism all wrong, and obviously so.  It’s long past time for Adventists to ditch Ellen White and come home to orthodox Christianity.

——————————————————————————

UPDATE: Check out Brent Stubbs’ post on Constantine and the Catholic Church.  He quotes St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing between about 107-110, who said:

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death— whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master— how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher?

So by the first decade of the second century, Sunday worship was already a way of signalling that the Christians believed in Jesus as the Messiah, and in His Resurrection. So even Bacchiocchi’s claim that Christian Saturday worship existed for the first hundred years of Christianity is false.   And it’s incredibly unlikely that this practice was new at the time of Ignatius.  Since the Apostle John died around 100 A.D., one would think that he would have spoken out against Sunday worship, if it truly was a violation of the Gospel.  Unless, of course, he’s part of the massive Constantine/papal conspiracy. Of course, we also see Sunday worship in places like Acts 20:7, so there’s no reason to see this as anything other than of Apostolic origin.

UPDATE 2: Brock, in the comments, quotes from the Didache, which was probably written in the mid- to late- first century… that is, at the same time as the New Testament.  This closes the case on the idea that the early Christians were Saturday worshippers:

“But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving [Eucharist] after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. “

Good catch, Brock!  I might add that the whole bit about the necessity of confession, the Eucharistic Liturgy being a Sacrifice, etc. — all incredibly Catholic.

129 Comments

  1. Joe,

    I am convinced that you are sincere that you are right in what you say. However, I find problems with what you say. Let me just go for two points. Please explain Col. 2:17 and how that fits into your explanation. Secondly, please explain how if the Lord calls the Sabbath “My holy day” in Isaiah 58:13, 14, that it is not the Lord’s day. Similarly, explain how when Christ says He is Lord of the Sabbath, that the Sabbath is not the Lord’s day. And again, similarly why, when it says that the seventh day is “the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” in Exodus 20:10, that it cannot rightly be concluded that the seventh-day is the Lord’s special holy day?

    Do I need to quote catechisms stating that the Sabbath is Saturday?

    What authority would you give for someone who would say that God made Sunday a holy day?

    For the truth,
    Cyril

  2. PS: Again and again, as a volunteer responder for http://www.Bibleinfo.com I have to urge people to take all the Bible texts on a subject and weigh the evidence before coming to a conclusion. There are 84 Sabbath gatherings for religious worship in the book of Acts to only two Sunday meetings. What occurs on a particular day is not what makes it holy. It is what God says that makes it holy. I urge a scholarly approach to this subject with “Judging The Sabbath–Discovering What Can’t Be Found in Colossians 2:16” by Ron du Preez. (Andrews University Press) Also, SabbathTruth.com has extensive documentation by Catholic writers and others, stating that there is no Biblical support for a change from Sabbath to Sunday.

    “Question. Which is the Sabbath day?
    “Answer. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
    “Question. -Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
    “Answer. -We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of
    Laodicea (A.D. 336–exact date uncertain), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.’!–“The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine,” by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R., page 50, third edition, 1913, a work which
    received the “apostolic blessing” of Pope Pius X, January 25, 1910.

    Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

    This is about authority and worship–the final showdown.

    “Though these two divine streams [the Bible and tradition] are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still, of the two, tradition is to us more clear and safe.” –
    “Catholic Belief,” Rev. Joseph Faa Di Bruno, D.D. (Roman Catholic), page 45.

    The decision at the Council of Trent around 1563 AD was that tradition was above scripture. I say, REALLY??

    WWJD? (and say?)

    Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

    For the truth,
    Cyril

  3. Cyril,

    Your second comment repeats the same pattern of misinformation. You once again cited to: “The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine,” by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R., page 50, third edition, 1913, a work which
    received the “apostolic blessing” of Pope Pius X, January 25, 1910.

    You quoted that above, and I already showed that the quotation is false. And the book (as far as I can tell) appears to have been first published in 1930, long after St. Pius X was dead.

    Are you not reading these corrections, or do you not care about getting these things right? The first time, I wrote it off as a simple mistake. But you’ve yet to admit to any mistake, even when it’s been shown to you that the claims you’re making are untrue. And then you go and repeat the already-disproved “evidence.”

    The same with your latest claim: “The decision at the Council of Trent around 1563 AD was that tradition was above scripture. I say, REALLY??”

    Really, no. Trent never said that. You can find the canons of the Council of Trent online. Show me anywhere that Trent makes this claim — because in fact, The Council rejects this view.

    You say “for the truth.” This is the time to live up to that — examine your own evidence, and make corrections as necessary. Then we can get back to the topic at hand.

    God bless,

    Joe

  4. Joe,

    It is with some discomfiture that read about my alleged errors. I am not convinced yet that this is the case. Have you heard of more than one edition of “The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine?” I see one here for 1946. I think that is where the problem lies in thinking that it has been misquoted. My source states that the phrase with the word “Laodicea” has been omitted in later editions.

    So, let me admit my error. It was the 18th of January, 1562, not 1563.

    Where is that studious looking D.A. Gerulus to comment?

    Okay, the evaluation of documents is very hard to evaluate as to reliability due to conflict of interest, (Donation of Constantine is an example). But, for the Council of Trent, here is a sample, from a Catholic historical report, I believe, (please confirm), of the same and the man that gave the concluding speech regarding which has the highest authority, (tradition or scripture), Gaspere de Fosso, Archbishop of Reggio. I suspect you can find Catholic apologists who have tried to say it is a fraud, too!

    Because of fraudulent history writers is why I have suggested just keeping our source of spiritual instruction and discussion to the Bible only.

    1444. Sabbath, Change of—Cited in Council of Trent as Proof that Tradition Is Above Scripture
    Source: Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Kanon und Tradition (“Canon and Tradition”) (Ludwigsburg: Druck and Verlag von Ferd. Riehm, 1859), p. 263. German. [FRS No. 72.]
    The Council [of Trent] agreed fully with Ambrosius Pelargus, that under no condition should the Protestants be allowed to triumph by saying that the council had condemned the doctrine of the ancient church. But this practice caused untold difficulty without being able to guarantee certainty. For this business, indeed, ‘well-nigh divine prudence’ was requisite—which the Spanish ambassador acknowledged as belonging to the council on the sixteenth of March, 1562. Indeed, thus far they had not been able to orient themselves to the interchanging, crisscrossing, labyrinthine, twisting passages of an older and newer concept of tradition. But even in this they were to succeed. Finally, at the last opening [see editors’ note] on the eighteenth of January, 1562, all hesitation was set aside: [Gaspar de Fosso] the Archbishop of Reggio made a speech [see No. 1443] in which he openly declared that tradition stood above Scripture. The authority of the church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the church had changed circumcision into baptism, Sabbath into Sunday, not by the command of Christ, but by its own authority. With this, to be sure, the last illusion was destroyed, and it was declared that tradition does not signify antiquity, but continual inspiration.
    [Editors’ note: This “last opening” of the Council of Trent was not the last day, but the opening of the 17th session, the first meeting of the last series of sessions that was opened, after a lapse of time, under a new pope. The council was in session for longer or shorter periods over a series of years.]

    The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Students’ Source Book; The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 9. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1962; 2002, S. 888

    I am glad to hear you stand up for scripture as being above tradition. You are on the right track–keep it up!

    Hope this is helpful.

    For the truth, (2 Cor. 13:8)
    Cyril

  5. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Heinrich Julius Holtzmann (May 7, 1832 – 1910), German Protestant theologian, son of Karl Julius Holtzmann (1804-1877), was born at Karlsruhe, where his father ultimately became prelate and counsellor to the supreme consistory.

  6. Dr. Johann Maier von Eck (November 13, 1486 – February 13, 1543) was a German Scholastic theologian and defender of Catholicism during the Protestant Reformation. It was Eck who argued that the beliefs of Martin Luther and Jan Hus were similar.

    1445. Sabbath, Change of—Eck’s Argument for the Church’s Superiority Over Scripture
    Source: Johann Eck, Enchiridion Locorum Communion … Adversus Lutheranos (“Handbook of Common Places Against the Lutherans”) (Venice: Ioan. Antonius & Frates de Sabio, 1533), fols. 4v, 5r, 42v. Latin. Trans. by Frank H. Yost. Used by permission of Mrs. Frank H. Yost. [FRS No. 127.]
    [fol. 4v] The Scripture teaches “Remember that you sanctify the day of the Sabbath; six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God,” etc. But the Church has changed the Sabbath into the Lord’s (day) by its own author- [fol. 5r] ity, concerning which you have no scripture.
    Christ said to his disciples in the mount, “I have not come to dissolve the law but to fulfill it”; and yet the church of the Apostles in the first council has boldly spoken out concerning the cessation of legal things…
    The Scripture decrees in the [apostolic] council … that you abstain from … blood and from a strangled thing; a matter so clearly defined and expressed the Church has changed by her own authority, for she uses both blood and things strangled. See the power of the church over Scripture.
    [fol. 42v] The Sabbath is commanded many times by God; neither in the Gospels nor in Paul is it declared that the Sabbath has ceased; nevertheless the Church has instituted the Lord’s day through the tradition of the Apostles without Scripture.

    The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Students’ Source Book; The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 9. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1962; 2002, S. 888

  7. Cyril,

    Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to track down each and every one of the passages quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Students’ Source Book to see if it’s accurate or not.

    Of the sources that I have checked out, what you’ve quoted hasn’t matched with the originals: the controversial parts have been added in by apparently some unscrupulous editor or anti-Catholic apologist. So there’s good reason to believe that you’re using inaccurate sources.

    My general suggestion is this: if you think that a particular quotation is really important, look it up online and see if you can find any Catholic or neutral sources that quote it. I try to do the same thing in reverse: I try not to rely only on anti-LDS or anti-Adventism or anti-whatever websites, because I find that they’re more likely to stretch the truth in order to win an argument. I’m just asking for the same thing in return. If there’s something that you want to know about Catholicism, try reading something written by Catholics on that point, rather than something written by people who don’t even practice the faith.

    Hope that helps, and God bless,

    Joe

    P.S. For the relationship between Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, you can read the Catechism starting here (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#80). Or you can just read 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

    Short answer: man-made traditions are inferior to Scripture. Apostolic Tradition is the Deposit of Faith and includes (but isn’t limited to) Scripture. So asking if Scripture is superior or inferior to Apostolic Tradition doesn’t make sense from a Catholic perspective: Scripture is part of that Tradition.

  8. October 7, 2011
    Brothers & Sister,

    By the way, we are not against Catholics as a people–just the organization. Ellen White gives much better opinion of Catholics than the other way around, (as seen in the Jesuit oath). Quoting her: “. . .there are now true Christians in every church, not excepting the Roman Catholic communion. . .”–“The Great Controversy” page 449. What do those do who are in error and don’t want to admit it? Check out more recent history and Cain and Abel of old.

    I see us sort of dragging in this conversation. Let me address some by name.

    I keep seeing Theresa Beam as the first commentor. I did a critique of one of her write-ups in Former Adventists or ex-Adventists website, I believe it was, but had no way to send it to her. I see superficiality in her comment suggesting that they were celebrating the Eucharist daily with the intimation that therefore no day is now sacred and holy. Theresa is reading into the text more than is there. That won’t fly in the face of “Deis Domini” in which John Paul, II states that God blessed Sunday and made it holy. Further he calls for civil legislation in this matter, (a direct fulfillment of Rev. 13, when done). To that civil legislation idea, Benjamin Franklin says such religion is bad. (Full quote given previously.) I don’t think it takes “a rocket scientist” to see that John Paul, II’s statement is in direct opposition to Genesis 2:1-3 and Ex. 20:8-11 in which it states that the 7th day of the week was blessed and made holy. Then he goes on to try to apply Ex. 20:8-11 to Sunday–a fatal mistake!

    For David and Joe I have to say that Ron du Preez has done a masterful job on Col. 2:16. “Judging The Sabbath–Discovering What Can’t Be Found In Colossians 2:16.” Superficially, one might come to quick conclusions about this text, but in going deep, much much more is involved. To try to wipe out any holy day with this text would also fly in the face of John Paul, II, who is claiming holiness for Sunday. Ron du Preez is a doctoral student and will be receiving his doctorate on the basis of his research on this very text. You can purchase his book online from Andrews University Press. (http://universitypress.andrews.edu/catalog.php?key=195) Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 (Douay)

    Joe

    To try to claim that all Catholic writings including the Bible are tradition won’t fly in the face of Christ’s statements in which He makes a difference. This reasoning is just clouding an issue that is clear. Matthew 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Matthew 15:9 And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.
    (Douay)

    For Nick and the article that started this discussion, I have clearly shown that it is not a sign of a false prophet to be unaware of some historical facts.

    For Gary who sent me to this website: Is it more clear now as to what the problem is?

    With that, I am going to bow out of this discussion and honor Nick’s request to close down discussion. I will not be reading more, but will be available for questions at http://www.Bibleinfo.com. Just preface your questions with “Please have Cyril answer.”

    For the truth,
    Cyril
    PS: And, as for that handsome couple you see by my messages, that’s me alright, but 56 years ago when I was dating Charlotte at age 21–we’ve been married 53+ years now. Time has not improved my appearance, but looking forward with you all to Philippians 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body. . . 🙂

  9. Cyril,

    Not to beat a dead horse, but you keep bringing up false information. The most recent example is the so-called “Jesuit oath.” It’s not real. That’s not to say that the Jesuits don’t take vows, but it is to say that their vows are nothing like what you’re referring to.

    As for Christ and Tradition, this one’s easy. What Christ condemns is not Apostolic Tradition (what St. Paul refers to as “the Traditions we passed on to you”), but the traditions of men, and specifically, of the Pharisees. Apostolic Tradition isn’t of men: it’s of God. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says,

    “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”

    Tradition by letter, then, is Scripture. Tradition by word of mouth is extra-Scriptural Tradition. Catholics are the ones following the Bible here.

    You can’t nullify the word of God in Scripture to say that St. Paul was wrong, and that Scripture isn’t Tradition, or that the only Tradition that matter is Scripture.

    Hopefully, I caught you before you bowed out of the conversation completely. In any case, go in the peace of Christ. God bless,

    Joe

  10. WOW!!

    I was just sent this link of this blog, and read about a third of all these comments…

    There are many comments against SDAs, for whatever reason, and I do see a lot of Scriptural discussion going on…

    I know that it is almost a year later, but I wonder if there were any concrete answers shared on the view of the SDAs, and EGW… ??

  11. From my understanding, the above article on “Answering Seventh-Day Adventism” only talks about and rebut views of Ellen G. White. None is mentioned by the author about the Holy Bible and where Catholicism fits in. Sabbath as a day of worship was mentioned in the Bible of which I belief Ellen G White agrees and that’s where the Seventh-Day Adventist faith was based on. I am an Adventist and that’s where we stand, now, what about the Catholics? Where do you stand in the bible. Remember! most of the quotes as mentioned in the above article regarding Sunday Worship where quoted in the New Testament and has no specific wordings which reads “Sunday” in it. You can worship him any day of the week, however, God has made one out of all the Days unique and Special, and that is none other that the Sabbath Day!

    Let Jesus be the Judge when he returns!

    See you in that Glorious Day!

    Maiwas

    1. Maiwas, Catholics fit in quite well since they were the ones who delivered scripture (the same scripture you hold so dear) intact over 14 centuries until the Protestant Reformation. Not sure why Protestants always seem to forget that is was the Catholic Church who placed the cannon together long before any other denominations came about.

      1. Ma’am,
        catholicism didn’t ‘deliver’ Scripture to us, the Bible says ‘men of God’ did that. if you are saying that catholicism is ‘of God’ then surely your ‘church’ would still keep the Holy Sabbath. but they don’t, i know this because i am a former (35yr) catholic.

        catholicism is in the Bible, however. see Rev 17 and then see its destruction in Rev 18. it is surely not a ‘church’ of God. though there are some who are Christian still in catholicism. prayerfully they will wake up soon!

        God bless, Misti!

  12. Which is more important? The observance of the old sabbath (Saturday), the memorial of creation sanctified by God and made Holy or the Lord’s day (Sunday) which marks the new creation, the Resurrection and triumph of Jesus over sin and death? Whcih one has more weight?

    Helping others vs. Observing the Sabbath:
    In the scriptures God commanded us to help one another [Deut. 15:11; Mat 5:42; John 15:12] and to observe the Sabbath [Ex 20:8-11]. The Pharisees gave more importance to the Sabbath in the process broke his other command to help one another. Jesus reprimanded them [[Mark 3:1-6; Mat 12:1-3; Luke 14:2-4]].

    Giving tithes to God vs. Honoring Father and Mother:
    God commanded us to both Honor our father and mother [Ex 6:2; Ex 20:12; Mat 15:4] and to give tithes to Him (not giving to Him is robbing Him)[Malachi 3:8-10; Deut. 12:5–6; Lev. 27:30–34].

    1. you wrote ‘which is more important’, and proceeded to call God’s everlasting Holy Day the ‘old sabbath’. you then called Sunday the ‘Lords Day’ which is still and always will be the 7th Day, according to Scripture.
      ‘which has more weight’? are Commandments now optional for a Christian?

      you wrote ‘helping others vs observing the Sabbath’.
      why? did Christ not demonstrate that helping others is good to do on the Sabbath (as always)?

      catholicism has totally proved to be anti-Christ in its teachings. as this Sabbath ‘change’ was foretold in Daniel 7:25 and will never be accepted by Christians. the Bible is clear on this!

  13. Hi,

    I’m a little bit more interested(sorry if am I being rude to know about the little horn mentioned in the book of Daniel 7:8 & 8:9. My SDA friend when out to hit my Catholic friend(which is when I decided I’m no longer putting up with him) saying that the little horn in Daniel 7 is the Papacy, while secular history and a study of his reasoning gives a perfect answer as it isn’t the papacy, history meanwhile shows it to be Epiphanes of Antiochus.

    I would be of great help.

    Thank you.
    Joel(for the record I’m an Orthodox- hoping both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches can reunite and live as one like before).

    1. indeed, Sir, the little horn is certainly the papacy! dig into the proof, search here http://amazingdiscoveries.org/268
      while you did say that ‘Antiochus Epiphanes’ was the applied interpretation, that seems true in looking back through history, however, Daniel is for ‘your people’ (jews then, Christians now) ‘in the latter days’ (today!) – Daniel 10:14.

      keep digging Sir, the truth is there for all to have!

      God’s will for you and yours, i do pray!

        1. i believe the dates line up. from what i have they do.

          when we focus on the description that the Word gives us, we see that none other fits like the cult of rome: scarlet and purple. sits on 7 hills. calls its priests ‘father’. forbids priests from marrying. has the blood of the saints on its hands (inquisitions). commits fornication (political and spiritual) with the kings of the earth (none other travels the world, as mr bergoglio does, and has their hands drooled on/plus who just addressed the u.n. and congress last september?). calls itself ‘mother’ so God labels is ‘Mother Babylon’. the information goes on and on and on!

          in understanding Daniel 2 and 7, we know that the only system coming out of pagan rome is papal rome.

          the evidence is overwhelming and clear. the cult of romanism is identified in Scripture and this is not where a Christian should be.

          God bless!

  14. thanks Joe! thanks for erasing my comments/answers/rebuttals to and from others.

    it’s clear from the Bible who this end days entity is that has most of the world blinded.
    Jesus used Scripture repetitively when rebuking satan. this today is what is needed for rebuking catholicism.

    in the end, the Word of God, which is just not compatible with catholicism and its bogus ‘teachings’, wins.

    ‘Peace if possible, truth at all costs’ – martin luther

    God bless, Sir!

  15. Can someone from sda please prove the writter wrong concerning ellen g white prophesy it looks like the writter has clearly shown that mrs white was no prophet after all

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *