There are two major distinctive claims of Seventh Day Adventism, which separate it from the rest of Christianity:
- 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.
- 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
CJ: “As Adventists have become increasingly fond of saying, the only doctrine that is UNIQUE to the SDA church is the Investigative Judgement (aka 2300 day prophecy/Sanctuary Doctrine).”
Fill us in on what this Investigative Judgment 2300 day doctrine is. Smells like the JW 1914AD house of cards.
Here is what I found on the SDA’s official webpage under the Ariticle of FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS (i.e. Trinity, Sabbath, Bible, etc)
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html
“24. Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary:
There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent. (Heb. 8:1-5; 4:14-16; 9:11-28; 10:19-22; 1:3; 2:16, 17; Dan. 7:9-27; 8:13, 14; 9:24-27; Num. 14:34; Eze. 4:6; Lev. 16; Rev. 14:6, 7; 20:12; 14:12; 22:12.)”
Honestly, I’m not sure what they are saying. It must be a big deal though. It seems as if they’ve ‘correctly predicted’ a Date from “Bible Prophecy” and thus been awarded with a special status.
And what is the big deal with revealing to “heavenly intelligences” (what?) who is a genuine Christian? This is obviously big, but also quite cryptic.
Nick,
The Investigative Judgement (IJ) is the doctrine that was used to explain away the Millerite disappointment when Jesus didn’t return on October 22, 1844 as Miller predicted.
The prophecy in Daniel 8:14 says “unto 2300 days, and then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” To make a long story short, using the so called day/year principle, Miller came up 2300 years from the time the temple was rebuilt until the sanctuary would be cleansed. They all assumed this would mean Christ purifying the world by fire at his return. The day came and went and nothing happened. Most of the Millerites gave up their belief in his interpretations, but a small group didn’t. An Adventist named Hiram Edson had a vision in his cornfield that explained that it was the sanctuary in heaven that would be cleansed.
Again, this is very condensed, but in 1844, Jesus moved into the Most Holy Place in the heavenly temple to begin a heavenly day of atonement. This consists of going through the names of every human being to determine whether they’re fer God or agin ‘Im. The SDA church sees itself as God’s vehicle for declaring that this judgment has begun. Once Jesus comes to your name your fate is sealed according to whether you are in Christ or not. It’s also sealed when you die if he hasn’t gotten to your name already.
EGW declared that God doesn’t answer the prayers of those who don’t accept this doctrine because the prayers are directed to the wrong apartment in heaven.
The bit about heavenly intelligences is part of the overarching theme of Adventist theology, The Great Controversy. Basically, Satan declared God to be an unjust tyrant in the course of his rebellion, so God has to demonstrate that He is just to all His creatures, on earth, in heaven, and on alien planets that haven’t sinned. He accomplishes this by examining each case in detail for the angels and “unfallen worlds” to see. Humans will be able to go over the books during the millennium for the same purpose.
Thursday, 9-15-2011
Hi all,
It will take quite a while to respond to all your comments and questions and give explanations as I have a lot to do here. Give me time. In the mean time, it is well to read the biography from Ellen White’s worst enemy, Marvin Dudley Canright, who wrote 3 books against the Adventists and Ellen G. White. Also, to know what is just ahead with the Christianity Islam situation and what is going to happen next will be of interest to all. I’ll give those references again, below. Try to get through at least the first two of the presentations by Tim.
For the Truth,
Cyril
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/canright/index.htm
http://www.sealingtime.com/media/productions/evangelistic/Tim-Roosenberg/Islam-and-Christianity-in-Bible-Prophecy/index.html
Okay, for comments to responders.
CJ,
What you say sounds a little more like you are putting Seventh-day Advenstists in the position of Joseph Smith, Jr. who claimed that the truth was totally lost and no followers were present so that it all had to be restored. Therefore the Book of Mormon was needed from the golden plates, (that are nowhere to be found now). Certainly his statement I will fully agree with, “Take away the Book of Mormon and where is our religion? We have none.” This is not the situation of Seventh-day Adventists who claim that there have been faithful people throughout history including the 1260 years of the dark ages. And, this can be historically proved. If only we knew the real history of the past, we wouldn’t be in this discussion! For instance, you see many people wearing green on St. Patrick’s Day, March 17 in honor of him. In fact, he got the title of Saint from those who saint people. We had a church school teacher at Monument Valley by the name of Virginia Rose, a lady of Irish descent who brought to our attention that not everybody wears green on St. Patrick’s Day. In Ireland, both the Protestants and the Catholics claim St. Patrick as their spiritual father, but the Protestants wear orange on that day. So I have followed that custom. But, what is the truth about St. Patrick and why was he sainted? I am blessed to have a father who had his degree in church history and who shared some facts about St. Patrick. He lived toward the end of the 4th century and would have nothing to do with Rome. In a communication with an Irishman in recent years, St. Patrick’s beliefs and teachings and practices were spelled out. They are documented in history. This sabbatarian’s beliefs and practices most closely resembled those of Seventh-day Adventists today. I could list his if you are interested. So, what would you think would be the reason that Patrick was sainted by those whose teachings were radically different?
For the truth,
Cyril
(to be continued)
(continued)
What you have to face is that it is not SDA’s that present a widespread departing from the truth in the Christian church, but a Bible teaching. 2 Thess. 2:1-12 spells this out along with many other verses. The disciples asked Jesus about the numbers. Our mind set is that the majority is right. But, is that what Jesus said? Luke 13:23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? A parallel passage gives the direct answer: 13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. We need to be sure that we are not departing from the faith once delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3) 1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. . .
So, if one finds himself in a majority Christian church, should he not ask, “Are we following the original and right way?”
Joe,
I’m not sure what I am agreeing to. For one thing, the Sabbath is NEVER referred to as Jewish in the Bible. It is the Sabbath of the Lord [Jesus Christ], (Ex. 20:8-11; Mark 2:27, 28). That is because He is the Creator, (John 1:1-3,14). I ask you to compare the statements about the Sabbath in “Deis Domini” with Ex. 20:8-11 and see what you think. To me, you can’t eliminate or change a memorial such as your birthday, the 4th of July or the Sabbath because all three are historical memorial events. Yes, the Bible says prophetically that someone would try–Dan. 7:25. I think I should do as it says in Jude 1:3 which CJ quoted: Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Joe,
I was hoping that someone in the group would come up with the answer of the Bible trivia question as to the name of the building our Savior is now in. This system will probably cut me off if I give the evidence, saying I have exceeded 4016 characters, but for now, by interpretation from the Bible it is “The Temple of The Ten Commandments.”
Sorry to say, but CJ has not given a totally factual report but mixed in ridicule and bias on the Investigative Judgment, which is a biblical teaching. To get the facts straight, I would advise the reading of “1844 Made Simple” by Clifford Goldstein, formerly an atheistic Jew. Psalms 77:13 Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary. . . .
For the Truth,
Cyril
Cyril,
(1) You claimed earlier that Bacchiocchi’s “doctoral thesis received the imprimatur of the Pope of which I have a copy here, but now they, (the university), are trying to deny that he even attended the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome!”
I wanted to ask you about this before, but didn’t. Can you back this claim up? With all due respect, it doesn’t make any sense to me.
An imprimatur is given when a Catholic bishop approves of the publication of a book found to be free from errors (that earlier finding is called a nihil obstat).
I know of no cases in which an imprimatur has ever been given to a doctrinal thesis (and I can’t think of why it ever would be, unless the thesis was being sold as a book). And as far as I know, it’s impossible to grant it to a non-Catholic author. It makes no sense to grant it to a non-Catholic author, in any case: why would the author even seek permission from the Catholic Church to have his book published?
So I think your facts are confused here. The company publishing Dr. Bacchiocchi’s work claims only that “was awarded a gold medal by Pope Paul VI” for graduating summa cum laude. That’s a very different thing. It doesn’t mean that his work is somehow approved by the Catholic Church, or the pope personally: just that he was a good student. And I’ve never seen anything other than Bacchiocchi’s own claims to support this (I have no idea whether or not it’s true that the University denies that he went, but I suppose it’d be easy enough to discover whether he did or did not graduate summa cum laude).
(2) Where are you deducing this Temple of the Ten Commandments name? And is it your belief that Catholics and other non-Adventist Christians are against the Ten Commandments?
(3) Today’s post is on the topic of the Sabbath and Adventism, and what Scripture says. Feel free to check it out, and let me know what you think.
In Christ,
Joe
Yo… another Catholic friend of yours said that their was nine commandments not ten…
Cyril,
Yes, I am aware that SDA’s claim that there have been faithful people through history that share their beliefs. However, I believe this claim is false. Generally, they just point to Sabbath keepers to establish this, but as I’ve said before, it takes more than Sabbath keeping to be an SDA. Ethiopian Orthodox Christians keep the Sabbath and have since Ethiopia became a Christian nation in the early fourth century. They also don’t eat pork, shellfish, etc. But they have also believed that Mary and the other saints are in heaven and can pray for them. Have they been keeping the truth for the past 1700 years? Let me put it this way: An Ethiopian Orthodox Christian from 2011 could hop into a time machine, attend a church from 400 AD and not have an issue with a single doctrine being taught. Could an SDA do the same thing? If so, which church would it be? It has nothing to do with being in the majority. It’s a matter of historical evidence. In that vein, please provide a link or reference to your information about St. Patrick.
Also, while I will admit to a certain amount of sarcasm, as well as condensing things for a comment box, I don’t think I said anything inaccurate about SDA doctrine. If I have, please point out anything specific that was incorrect and I will own up to it and make sure I have my facts straight in the future.
CJ,
I know that you mean well, but I’m suggesting that it is better that you only be factual in your explanation about the investigative judgment, which is a Biblical teaching, and not inject into your explanation that a false teaching was used to excuse the disappointment, which the Bible also predicted was going to occur with Daniel’s prophecy. (Revelation 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.) I trust that all in the group here will study the matters presented and investigate and not just blow off steam. Proverbs 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing, [interpreting], the word of truth.
I keep referring to things that contain truth fulled material. Have you read “1844 Made Simple” by Clifford Goldstein?
For the documentation about St. Patrick, I will have to do that in a separate post because I’ll get this message that I have exceeded 4096 characters. 🙁
For the Facts,
Cyril 🙂
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. . .
Okay Joe,
For answering your number (1), I refer you to Bacchiocchi’s website, (www.BiblicalPerspectives.com) and also my witness of having heard him in person say that things I claim, plus the “End Time Issues” that are online at his website. He tells about these encounters with the Pontifical Gregorian University in recent years.
The reason for publishing his book is its value for all Christians to know exactly how Sunday observance came into being. It’s value for the Catholic Church is that it verifys what the catechism/s that I have quoted claimed, that the change from Sabbath to Sunday was something that the Catholic Church did, specifically at the Council of Laodicea, (336. . .364 AD). So, the book verifies that the Catholic Church spokesmen have told the truth in this matter.
(2) Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
Revelation 15:5 And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened. . . Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God. Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Non-Adventist Christians give verbal support, as the late John Paul did in “Deis Domini” to The Ten Commandments but violate what it specifically says in Ex. 20:8-11.
(3) I’m not clear on where this post is. Clue me in.
For the Truth,
Cyril
Okay CJ,
Here is a start on documentation about St. Patrick and I will give more later.
SAINT PATRICK A SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH OBSERVER?
In Patrick’s writings “will be found no . . . veneration for, or adoration of relics, no consecrated staffs” (Irish Antiquarian Researches, William Betham, Vol. 1, pp. 268-270).
His Celtic Church opposed celibacy: Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, Vol. 3, p. 53; James Henthorn Todd, St. Patrick, Apostle to Ireland, pp. 377, 390).
He was not subservient to Rome: He “never mentions either Rome or the pope or hints that he was in any way connected with the ecclesiastical capital of Italy. He recognizes no other authority but that of the word of God” (W. D. Killen, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland, Vol. 1, p.p. 12-15; The Old Catholic Church, p. 200).
The sabbath: “The Celts used a Latin Bible unlike the Vulgate, and kept Saturday as a day of rest, with special religious observances on Sunday” (A. C. Flick, The Rise of the Medieval Church, p. 237).
“The Scots had perhaps kept up the traditional usage of the ancient Irish Church which observed Saturday instead of Sunday as the day of rest” (T. Ratcliffe Barnett, Margaret of Scotland: Queen and Saint, p. 97). ” . .
The traditional practice of the ancient monastic Church of Ireland, which observed Saturday rather than Sunday as a day of rest” (Alphons Bellesheim, History of the Catholic Church of Scotland, Vol. 1, pp. 86, 249, 250).
“They worked on Sunday, but kept Saturday in a sabbatical manner” (Andrew Lang, A History of Scotland, Vol. 1, p. 96); Willam F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, Vol 2, p. 349.
“They obeyed the fourth commandment literally upon the seventh day of the week” (James C. Moffatt, The Church in Scotland, p.140).
The sabbath observed until 1115 A. D. (A. H. Lewis, Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America, Vol. 1, p. 29).
About 450 A.D. “almost all churches throughout the world” kept seventh-day sabbath except “Alexandria and at Rome” (Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History , bk. 5, ch. 22).
Sources can be found in Truth Triumphant by B. G. Wilkinson, reprint available from Leaves of Autumn, Box 440, Peyson AR 85547; also see SDA Bible Students’ Source Book, pp. 892-895, 881. Bible evidence: Daniel 7:21, 25; Revelation 12:6, 14-17.
Cyril,
I haven’t read Goldstein’s book, but I did study the Sabbath School lesson he wrote on the IJ.
Also, your admonition to me to be only factual works both ways. You say that you are recommending books filled with “truth,” but that’s a subjective evaluation of their contents. It’s not as if Goldstein’s conclusions are self evident or uncontroversial. To be strictly factual, you would simply say that they are books that present official SDA doctrine.
This blind spot also applies to your biblical interpretations, such as claiming that Revelation 10:10 equals the Great Disappointment. There is a huge leap from reading those words to 1) identifying the little book as Daniel; 2) equating eating it with the SDA interpretation of Daniel 8:14, 3) the sweetness being the anticipation of Christ’s return, and 4) that the bitterness in the belly is the Great Disappointment of 1844. It’s “obvious” to anyone in an SDA bubble, but it actually requires lots of assumptions about the methodology of interpretation and the intent and timing of Revelation.
Thanks for providing the info on St. Patrick. But it’s the same thing I’ve been saying: you established that the Celtic church 1) didn’t venerate relics; 2) used the Bible alone; 3) kept the Sabbath; and 4) had no regard for Rome. Based on those factors, St. Patrick could be SDA, COG7, or Seventh-Day Baptist. I don’t mean to be a broken record, but there is more to Adventism than the Sabbath. Can you take the 27/28 fundamental beliefs (minus the ones specifcally about EGW since she hadn’t been born yet) and find any body of believers that has kept them from apostolic times till now?
Even if the Celtic church was proto-Adventist, it goes to my second point about church history. Your own quote says that they kept the Sabbath until 115 AD. That means that less than 2 decades after the death of the last apostle, they had abandoned this important truth without a whimper. That’s an epic fail on the part of the apostles and the Lord who chose them.
Dear Cyril:
The books you site on Celtic Christianity are hopelessly out-of-date.
For a more recent study Saturday observance in the Irish Church, see Michael W. Herren & Shirley Ann Brown, Christ in Celtic Christianity, p109 and onward. The early Irish Christians were not proto-adventists, however.
Dia is Muire duit.
I meant to add a link. You can preview that book: http://books.google.com/books?id=zDT-4fTqbgAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false
Also, ironically, the chapter you half-cite from Socrates’s Ecclesiastical History, begins with the following observations:
It appears to me that neither the ancients nor moderns who have affected to follow the Jews, have had any rational foundation for contending so obstinately about it. For they have not taken into consideration the fact that when Judaism was changed into Christianity, the obligation to observe the Mosaic law and the ceremonial types ceased. And the proof of the matter is plain; for no law of Christ permits Christians to imitate the Jews. On the contrary the apostle expressly forbids it; not only rejecting circumcision, but also deprecating contention about festival days. In his epistle to the Galatians [Galatians 4:21] he writes, ‘Tell me ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law.’ And continuing his train of argument, he demonstrates that the Jews were in bondage as servants, but that those who have come to Christ are ‘called into the liberty of sons.’ [Galatians 5:13] Moreover he exhorts them in no way to regard ‘days, and months, and years.’ [Galatians 4:10] Again in his epistle to the Colossians [Colossians 2:16-17] he distinctly declares, that such observances are merely shadows: wherefore he says, ‘Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of any holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath-days; which are a shadow of things to come.’
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26015.htm
Simple question Cyril: If the Ten Commandments are the greatest commandments, why does Christ say the Two Greatest commandments are from two separate general prescriptions from Leviticus (not the Decalogue)?
Because, the Ten Commandments are divided into two categories, Love God and follow him, and Love your neighbor as much as you love himself… man… just read the Bible, Jesus explains it, it’s not like it’s in pig Latin…
You can download and read “Truth Triumphant” by B. G. Wilkinson at this location below. Read there about St. Patrick and his disciple Columba in connection with Sabbath observance and which day is “The Lord’s Day.” All these these things are extra-Biblical and there are those who have written history that never occurred. So the bottom line for all true believers is “What saith the Bible to me. . . ?” You can read more about this in a Roman Catholic publication at this site, (and if you look around, you can download a pdf file of it. It was published both by RC’s and SDA’s. The SDA’s published it under the title of “Rome’s Challenge” also available in pdf file on the internet.): http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Christian_Sabbath_%28Catholic_Mirror%29
The Truth shall make you free,
Cyril
PS: I see we have others joining in and I say “Welcome!” I have to gather wood like the peasant in the Christmas carole: “Good King Wenceslas looked out, on the Feast of Stephen. . . when a poor man came in sight, gath’ring winter fuel. . .” So, there may a little delay in responding to all posts.
Nick,
The first four commandments have to do with our love to God and the last six are our love to man. Christ’s statement is a summation of the Ten.
The importance of the Ten are seen to be emphasized in many ways which I could list if you are unfamiliar with them–Also emphasized by Pope John Paul in Deis Domini.
Cyril
Cyril,
You are following the script I laid out in my first post. You supported your argument with quotes from Socrates, historical info about St. Patrick, and allusions to the Donation of Constantine. Yet when someone posts historical evidence that counters your position (from your own sources!) you imply that history is unreliable. It’s “heads I win tails you lose”.
Cyril,
Sorry for the belated response. You’d raised a few points above. I’ll start there:
(1) You suggested I read Bacchiocchi’s own website to prove that he received an imprimatur. But his website doesn’t say that. It says he received a gold medal from the pope for academic achievement (and it sounds like something given to everyone who’d done well). Read for yourself:
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=27
In support of #1, you suggested that the Vatican had something to gain by promoting the idea that they were the ones who changed the primary day of Christian worship from the Sabbath to Sunday. You quote from “The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine,” by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R. as saying, “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.”
Nick has already been pointed out that simply taking the writing of a random Catholic priest from anytime in the last two thousand years isn’t the same way as quoting from actual Church teachings. But there’s a more fundamental problem: that quote is a fraud. I looked up the book, and it actually says, “We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” In other words, the claim that it happened at the Council of Laodicea (instead of during Apostolic times) doesn’t exist in the book. You can read the Google Book for yourself online, it’s available here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6GokT0Qzo0wC&pg=PA114&dq=%22The+Convert's+Catechism+of+Catholic+Doctrine,%22&hl=en&ei=o1p2TtO6IuLX0QH31-XiDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=1910&f=false
And given that the book wasn’t published until 1930, I don’t see how the claim that it got an “apostolic blessing” from Pope Pius X in 1910 can be true, either. It seems that someone sold you a bill of goods.
In any case, the important thing isn’t what Fr. Geiermann said in 1930. It’s what’s true. And in the post above, I showed quite plainly that Sunday worship existed in the first century without any apparent protest from the Apostles or their students. Even if all of your quotes were authentic (and so far, that hasn’t been the case), it wouldn’t matter. There’s indisputable evidence of first century Sunday worship, so this idea that it didn’t happen until the fourth century is obviously false.
If I were you, I’d stick to actual Catholic sources, instead of Adventist websites pulling quotes from what they claim are Catholic sources. Because if you actually research them, you’ll quickly find a goodly number of false. If you don’t believe me, do the research.
(continued)
Bud, same thing about Sabbath to Sunday…
Except, it’s saying that a man held power is powerful enough shift Sabbath to Sunday, showing that God is at the level of man… in what you said.
(2) The Law foreshadows Christ. The Temple in Heaven isn’t literally the Temple in Jerusalem. Instead, the Temple in Jerusalem was to given an earthly taste of the Heavenly reality. Same thing here. If God wanted us to know that the House of the LORD was the Temple of the Ten Commandments, it wouldn’t take stringing four passages together to try and make that point. Instead, Christ is the fulfillment of the Law (Matthew 5:17). The Ten Commandments point towards Christ, and the two great Commandments.
(3) The post is here:
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-arent-christians-bound-by-saturday.html
Enjoy!
(4) The notion that St. Patrick was a proto-Adventist is false. And the list of references are just a list of people claiming that he was (or more precisely, that he might have been). None of them provided any reason to believe it as true, other than their own assertion. That’s not enough. Everything else in that list you provide is based on a bad argument from silence. For example, the idea that unless Patrick specifically cites to the pope by name, he must reject papal authority is a ridiculous argument. Hugo Mendez did a good job answering this before:
http://sda2rc.blogspot.com/2007/03/real-real-st-patrick.html
Unlike the lists you provide, he actually cites to specific chapters of St. Patrick’s own Confessio showing Catholic doctrines that he clearly teaches and that Adventists deny.
Hope that helps. I believe that you’re striving for the Truth, and in this, we’re brothers. God bless you,
Joe
I hope my interjections are neither rude nor off point, but
Wilkinson’s sins are not merely those of omission. Opening randomly to p.188, for example:
“Columbanus and Dinooth of Wales had expressed Christian courtesy to the Catholic leaders, but they had refused to be brought into subjection.” (Wilkinson, p.188 – incidentally his footnote for this is a dud.)
But, Columbanus in his own words (not some history written for him) in his letter to Pope Boniface IV says:
“To the Holy Lord and Father in Christ, the fairest Ornament of the Roman Church, as it were a most honoured Flower of all Europe in her decay, to the distinguished Bishop, who is skilled in the Meditation of divine Eloquence, I, Bar-Jonah (a poor Dove), send Greeting in Christ.”
and
“For we, as I have said before, are bound to St. Peter’s chair; for though Rome be great and famous, among us it is only on that chair that her greatness and her fame depend.”
and
“Rome is the head of the Churches of the world”
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T201054/index.html (letter 5)
Also, even in the best circumstances, something written as long ago as Wilkinson’s Truth Triumphant would be now very antiquated. But Wilkinson’s sources were generally quite out of date even when he was writing; the first two sources you refer to, from William Betham and Neander were written in the 1820s, when scholars had access to considerably less sources on the Celtic Church. Incidentally, Todd’s St. Patrick, apostle of Ireland does not mention celibacy, even though Wilkinson claims it does. Flick actually says, “The Celts used a Latin Bible unlike the Vulgate, and kept Saturday as a day of rest, with special religious services on Sunday. Notwithstanding these variances, which do not seem to be at all on the fundamentals, there were many doctrinal and constitutional resemblances.” The citations from Bellesheim, likewise cut out mention of Sunday observance. Most Wilkinson sources do not support his arguments. Many of the references are complete duds, to real books, but ones that don’t say anything whatsoever to do with what Wilkinson says they say.
PS: Sorry for the deleted comments, having trouble with ye olde cut-and-paste.
Christian brothers,
If we cannot agree on the reliability of historical records, I guess we will just have to go by the Bible. Here is a little more on St. Patrick by an Irishman:
In their Emerald Newsletter for the 1st Quarter of 2004, on page 1, they enumerate St. Patrick’s reported beliefs, as follows:
The Bible, the Only Rule of Faith
Jesus Christ, the only Mediator
Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church
Man does not inherit guilt
Man can keep God’s law, by God’s indwelling spirit
The Trinity
Literal creation in six days
The dead sleep in the gave until the resurrection
Observance of the Seventh-day Sabbath
Baptism by immersion
Second coming of Jesus–soon!
Foot-washing, followed by the Lord’s Supper
The Holy Spirit gives the “New Birth,” which leads to baptism
No adoration of the saint of Mary
No penance or sacraments
No celibacy of the priesthood
No belief in transubstantiation
No priestly tonsure
These items were collected by Dr. Robert Burgess (and have been incorporated into a brochure, distributed by Emerald Foundation. . .
Comment number 3 above by “Brock Talks” gives a quote about activities on “The Lord’s Day”. Going to the Bible to find out which day this is, we find the following:
Exodus 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God. . .
Isaiah 58:13 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, honourable. . .
Mark 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Therefore, when John speaks of “The Lord’s Day,” it has to be the above day in Revelation 1:10 “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day. . . ” Otherwise we would have a contradiction or substitution.
For the truth,
Cyril
Cyril,
The problem is that you keep citing a bunch of lists you’re pulling from somewhere on the Internet. Both D.A. Gerulus and I have dismantled specific claims and shown them to be certifiably false. That doesn’t disprove “history.” That disproves wherever you’re getting your information.
Your solution appears to be to pull another list, this time of what St. Patrick supposed believes, instead of (as I suggested) actually reading St. Patrick’s Confessio. As long as you keep relying on second- and third-hand accounts, you’re going to keep getting duped.
For example, show me where in St. Patrick’s writings he ever denies transubstantiation, or original sin, or says anything about Saturday worship, or denies the Sacraments. I can go ahead and tell you now that you won’t be able to do it, because those things are all false.
Again, that’s not a problem with history, but with SDA apologists making up facts. If you don’t believe me, check the actual historical record. St. Patrick’s writings are freely available, in English, online, and they’re short. Here, for example is the full text of St. Patrick’s Confessio:
http://www.robotwisdom.com/jaj/patrick.html
As for the Lord’s Day, can you find any places where the Sabbath is ever described as the Lord’s Day, either in the Bible or in early Church writings?
I’ve already quoted you from Ignatius and others in which the Lord’s Day is described as Sunday. It’s called that because it’s the day that the Lord was Resurrected. Ignatius was a student of the same John who wrote Revelation, and he’s the clearest in explaining that it means Sunday, not Saturday. If Seventh-day Adventism is what the early Christians believed, why can’t you find early Christians whose writings actually support this?
God bless,
Joe
The Bible isn’t no list bud… or else leave Christianity… I wouldn’t want to follow my Grocery list for life…
Joe,
Here is what I read on Dr. Bacchiocchi’s website about his book:
“From Sabbath to Sunday” has the distinction of being the first book written by a non-Catholic ever to be published by a Pontifical press with the Catholic imprimatur (approval). The book has already been reprinted fourteen times in English and has been translated in several languages. Hundreds of scholars of different persuasions have praised this book as a definitive treatment of the early history of the Lord’s Day.
Hope this helps your understanding. As stated before, I have the book in hand with the imprimatur on it.
For the truth,
Cyril
Joe,
How do you think that SDA’s can live with themselves if they are making up facts in view of the text in Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death?
For the truth,
Cyril
PS: Bacchiocchi’s book addresses when the terminology “The Lord’s Day” was first applied to Sunday.
Cyril,
You and I both agree that making up false information is sinful. But can you deny that a number of the facts you’ve quoted here have been proven false? I’m not suggesting that you’re making them up, but somebody certainly is.
As for the imprimatur, I saw a PDF version claiming to have an imprimatur by Herve Carrier, the rector at Gregorian (not, as you’d originally said, the pope). I still can’t understand why a non-Catholic author would have an imprimatur, though. Bacchiocchi claims to be the only non-Catholic to have ever done this. What’s the point from an SDA perspective?
In Christ,
Joe
Bro… you haven’t fought back logically to even say such hypothetical things… a man on the street could understand everything…
Bro… you haven’t fought back logically to even say such hypothetical things… a man on the street could understand everything…
Another duplicate???????
Tell me if this is a duplicate!
Bro… you haven’t fought back logically to even say such hypothetical things… a man on the street could understand everything…
Another duplicate???????
Tell me if this is a duplicate!
Uhhh… sorry again about the random texts I make at the bottom… this website hates me…
Dear Cyril:
The link to Herren and Brown’s Christ in Celtic Christianity, pp.109-110, which I mentioned above provides a useful overview of the Sabbath-keeping in the early Celtic church with some good points on dates.
And we can rely on the historical records. We can, for instance, read what St. Patrick actually wrote and compare it with what others claim he wrote. But as has been pointed out, however, the statements you provided on St. Patrick’s purported beliefs are built not on what he says but on what he doesn’t say. St. Patrick in his does not mention devotion to the Saints-but his contemporaries do, and Patrick nowhere objects to what was, at his time a wide-spread and well documented practice. St. Patrick’s biographer Tírechán even claims that St. Patrick gave the bishop Sachellus some Roman relics that were in Armagh, which seems to point to devotion to the Saints. But even if you want to dismiss Tírechán, you are still far off from showing that St. Patrick did not believe in the adoration of Saints as Dr. Burgess claims, because there is still no positive evidence that St. Patrick held differed from his contemporaries in regard to this belief.
Incidentally, you say they we should return to the Bible, but you previously quoted from Socrates of Constantinople (Scholasticus) to make a point about observing the Sabbath, but did not reply when I showed that the in exact same passage you quoted from, Socrates himself uses the Bible to argue directly against what you are saying.
David
PS: I apologise if anything I have said has suggested I think you or any of the sources you cite are guilt of lying. I don’t think such is the case, I merely disagree about their (and your) points on the early Irish church, a point of albeit secondary importance.
Cyril,
I don’t want to pile on, but I’ve been where you are and I want to share whatever insight I’ve gained so you can see how deep the problems run for Adventism.
The SDA church cannot survive without a strong basis in history. This is because it relies on the historicist method of prophetic interpretation. In his inauguration speech, the new GC president explicitly named historicism as a necessary component of Adventism. For example, it is SDA doctrine that the 1260 day prophecy of Daniel 7:25 was fulfilled by the papacy destroying 3 barbarian kingdoms by 538 AD, beginning a reign of supremacy that lasted until Napoleon’s general took the pope captive in 1798. If these events did not occur, then the doctrine is false. When we go back to the Bible, the prophecy will still be there, but we will still need to look for its fulfillment . . . in history. So it will not do to simply say, “we disagree on history, so let’s look at the Bible.” The SDA church has backed itself into a corner by proposing a system of prophetic fulfillment throughout history that culminates in its own founding. If history is unreliable, so is the prophetic system that relies on it for interpretation.
If you throw out historicism, you can be a Sabbatarian, a vegetarian, and a believer in conditional immortality, but you cannot be a Seventh-day Adventist.
Okay CJ, I agree with you about historicism and I agree with historicism. I do not agree that we are in a corner but rather a light on a hill. For Joe, the point is that with the imprimatur, Catholics don’t have a ban on reading the book as many other books are banned such as the revealing “Fox’s Book of Martyrs”. It is a verified book by Catholic authorities as being true.
You all might find my letter to my grandson this morning of interest regarding being truthful and I quote:
Stephen,
Say! Have you heard of the story of Pope Stephen, II? He is the one who forged the “Donation of Constantine” and crossed the Alps in winter, even in ailing health, to get the French king to come to his rescue. This was in the mid-700’s. The Donation was claimed to be a document written by the Apostle Peter and personally delivered by Peter to Pope Stephen. And, get this, Pope Stephen was of such great ability that he was able to verify that it was Peter’s signature!!!
But, the real significance is that the said donation gave the Pope, by Peter’s authority, rulership over the whole world. And, this document was used for well over 1000 years to establish and foster papal supremacy. So much for Pope Stephen. Perhaps he needed get better acquainted with his Bible and read Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. He also needed to read Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing. . .
Further, the Donation of Constantine has the title in it for the pope of Vicarius Filii Dei which in Roman numerals, adds up to 666. This title has been used hundreds of times by many authors in many languages, so that the current attempt to deny it as a title for the pope is falacious. Even several prominent SDA’s have been sucked into this denial. (“The Truth About 666” tells it all.)
Getting down to further evidence that this is a forgery is that the forger claimed that a certain priest baptized Constantine, however that priest was already dead 2 years before the baptism. And, we know who baptized him. And, the claim is that Constantine had leprosy which was cured just before he was baptized. False! He never had leprosy.
Love,
Grandpa
Cyril,
There’s not an Index of Prohibited Books in place. We can read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs if we want, but anyone reading it should be aware that it’s full of exaggerations, half-truths and outright lies… as any credible historian will attest. It was a piece of propaganda, not history.
Your letter to your grandson is full of more misinformation. While the Donation of Constantine was a forgery, it wasn’t Pope Stephen II who forged it. And Vicarius Filii Dei was never a papal title. It was never used — this is another instance in which anti-Catholics fabricated history.* If you don’t believe me, find a credible (non-Adventist) site supporting your claim. The papal title in question is Vicar of Christ, not Vicar of the Son of God.
Latin also doesn’t have the numerology that Hebrew does, so the idea that you can simply add up the Latin letters is wrong. That’s just not a Biblical approach towards 666. For that matter, take the name ELLEN GOULD WHITE.
Remember that U’s and V’s are the same letter in Latin.
“eLLen” = L+L=100,
“goULD” = U+L+D=555,
“WhIte” = V+V + I =11.
Add those use, and we have (wait for it), 100 + 555 + 11 = 666.
So the same absurd math could be used to prove that Ellen White was the Antichrist. Only Ellen Gould White is at least her real name, while Vicarius Filii Dei is a papal title simply made up by Adventists.
On a more serious note, my concern is that you’re very credulous when it comes to information you want to be true. You seem ready to believe any bad thing about the Catholic Church (no matter how unreliable the source), and ready to ignore any facts to the contrary. You’ve still yet to address the Early Church Fathers laid out in the original post.
You can cite as many proof-texted, forged, third-hand, or otherwise unreliable sources as you want, claiming that Sunday worship was a creation of the Catholic Church in 380, but none of that will change the fact that there’s clear, unambiguous evidence that it was being celebrated on Sunday in the first century.
You’ve simply been glossing over the countless corrections you’ve received here, and haven’t even admitted to being wrong yet. Every time we disprove one of your claims, you simply rattle off five more. That’s not going to work as an approach to dialogue. If you’re really concerned about the truth, and not just scoring cheap points against the Catholic Church, let’s tackle any of these claims seriously.
God bless,
Joe
* I don’t deny that it was in the Donation of Constantine, but that was (as you’ve pointed out) a forgery. Surely, Adventists aren’t claiming that the pope is the Antichrist simply because someone other than the pope called him something that added up to 666?
Cyril,
This is my last post here simply because the discussion seems to be going nowhere. Nobody here is accusing you of lying, but you are certainly engaging in a common but very dubious form of discussion known as “cut and pasting,” where you blindly cut and paste any quote that gives the impression of being ‘damning’ to Catholicism and paste it and leave others to pick up the mess and do the homework debunking it.
It’s not the level of discussion or research I care to participate it, nor would such an approach fly in any any research paper or report at any grade-level in school. When one cites a source, it should mean they have personally verified it for accuracy and context, not simply cutting and pasting and leaving a teacher or colleague left having to spend all kinds of time tracking it down to (a) see if it even really exists, and (b) see if it really says what you claim it says. Clearly, such an approach has no academic merit because it’s essentially a ‘hit and run’ approach to the situation.
This applies to Catholics and SDAs, neither should be cutting and pasting. The mark of solid apologetics sites are ones that don’t rely on this method, and most of us Catholics around here can easily spot when someone comes in and starts that up. You certainly would be turned off or offended if a Catholic here began “quoting” unverified news reports and articles making all sorts of off the wall claims about SDAs or White, so please return the favor.
The only final point I will make is in response to your last comments to me where you said:
“The first four commandments have to do with our love to God and the last six are our love to man. Christ’s statement is a summation of the Ten.”
This is not a claim I believe has exegetical warrant. When Jesus said the Two Greatest Commandments, He was neither quoting two of the Decalogue, nor was He summarizing the Decalogue. Rather, He was summarizing the entire Mosaic Law.
Thus, the fundamental difficulty has not been alleviated, which is that the TWO are given a more prominent position than the TEN, yet SDAs claim the absolute transcendance of the TEN beyond anything else. The point/lesson to be taken from this is that the Mosaic Law cannot be ‘butchered’ into various chunks, with us deciding to keep this or that aspect and ignore the rest.
Minor points but: the Donation of Constantine actually claims (as its title suggests) that Emperor Constantine gave authority over the Western Roman Empire (not the whole world) over to Pope Sylvester. It neither claims to have been written by St. Peter nor is it addressed to Pope Stephen II. And was not used for a ‘1000 years’. Furthermore, it does not refer to Pope Sylvester as Vicarius filii dei but to St.Peter; so if your interpretation is correct you are calling the Apostle Peter the anti-Christ.
Notably, the first four scholars to discredit the Donation of Constantine were a Catholic Priest, a Bishop, a Cardinal and a Pope! The priest Lorenzo Valla, Bishop Reginald Pecocke, Cardinal Nicholas Cusanus, and Pope Pius II.
Wasn’t the statue of St. Peter a name change from Zeus and Jupiter to Peter… and why do Catholics worship Mary??? After all they do what the definition of worship in English is.
I’d agree that this thread seems to be winding down. I’d only add that I’ve been in Cyril’s shoes. So many of these claims get passed around in a SDA echo chamber and are taken as fact. It never occurs to anyone to check the sources. It’s a closed system. My mother in law won’t read non-SDA religious material to avoid being led astray. It’s a very difficult mindset to break out of.
Sorry guys, all your last four posts contain many things that are just not true and this can be documented by non-Adventist sources. Our disagreements are over what history says, but some have created their own history such as the Donation of Constantine. For instance, 3 popes used the title of “Vicarius Filii Dei. And as for figuring up the 666 on someone’s particular name, the person has to fulfill all the other 16 points that identify the actions of the antichrist in order to be that person.
How many scholars in the group have listened to the references that I have given such as Tim Roosenburg’s http://www.sealingtime.org on Christianity and Islam and what is going to happen next. The first two presentations there should help.
As for listening to no one else, that is not me.
As for being where CJ used to be, I would say, in my estimation, that my foundation is quite different.
For the truth,
Cyril
Dear Cyril:
If there is something inaccurate in my previous post, please post it out.
You keep saying ‘some have created their own history’. But you also said, ‘”The Donation was claimed to be a document written by the Apostle Peter”. This would be an example of creating a false history. It is 1) absurd; the text is the Donation of Constantine, not the Donation of Peter. 2) Easy to show is false, you can look it up for yourself, anywhere you like. My best guess is you are confusing the Donation of Constantine with the pseudo-Clementine literature.
In any case, it has been shown numerous times that your historical sources are widely inaccurate. But you never acknowledge making any mistakes, you just move on picking quotes from another website.
Perhaps it is better you stick to the Bible as you have not answered Joe’s point above:
“(3) You claim that Seventh-day Adventism is based on the Bible, not Ellen White. But the Bible includes passages like Romans 14:5-6 and Colossians 2:16-17, which explicitly denounce what your church teaches. Specifically, Romans 14:5-6 establishes that no one day of the week is inherently better than any other, and Colossians 2:16-17 does something very similar (although Nick already pointed this passage out to you).”
Constantine of Constantinople also makes a similar point, a I pointed out.
For the truth,
David
*Socrates of Constantinople, not Constantine of Constantinople.
Here is a correction and apology for my inaccuracy to my grandson of yesterday. I’ll get to David’s comments and very familiar passages and D. A. Gerulus’es by tomorrow morning, I hope.
Grandson Stephen,
In answer to why we got into this subject, we got into talking about Pope Stephen, II (III) because of the similarity with your name, although you might want to identify with the Stephen who helped the eunuch from Ethiopia, instead. And, of course, my current study of the circumstances about his giving the Donation of Constantine to King Pepin of the Franks around 753 AD. Also, some Christian brothers who one of my Bibleinfo.com questioners brought my attention to, have been convinced of the activities of various popes although they admit now that the Donation of Constantine is fraudulent. They have also brought to my attention some inaccuracies in what I wrote you yesterday. So, let me get the story straighter, apologizing for inaccuracy, albeit it got the point across.
The story of the fancy golden lettered document “written by Peter” and delivered to Pope, is not in the Donation of Constantine, but was presented to King Pepin right after the Donation of Constantine was presented to be sure he would comply with their request for military help. Here is a quote from that letter with documentation:
“Peter, elected Apostle by Jesus Christ, to our favorite Son, the King Pepin, to his whole army, to all the bishops, abbesses, monks, and to the whole people.” The document was, or so the spokesman assured his astonished audience, in its author’s own handwriting. He even personally vouched for Peter’s signature!
Now the Franks, though limited in formal education, were no fools and asked some pointed questions. Pepin wanted to know exactly how the letter had found its way from heaven to earth. But the papal spokesman had a ready answer for the king and his entourage: “The Blessed Peter in person had come down from Heaven and given the letter to his successor, the pope of Rome.”–Avro Manhattan, The Vatican Billions: Two Thousand Years of Wealth Accumulation from Caesar to the Space Age (Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1983), pp. 29, 30
It’s hard to be wrong as it wounds our pride which applies to both me and my Christian brothers as we discuss, but this should not be about promoting churches but rather what is the truth and what saith the Bible to me. Proverbs 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
By the way, I know something about deception and hope my past is not being too prominent in my descendants, and if so that they will seek for grace and climb Peter’s ladder. (2 Peter 1:5-11 and stay away from the unbiblical concept “Peter’s successor.”)
Love,
Grandpa
PS: Trivia question: 16-year-old gals are referred to as “sweet sixteen,” What should we call 16-year-old guys? [Stephen, my grandson, is 16.]
Sorry, said I was done, but I keep getting updates…
…anyway…Cyril, you did NOT just quote Jack Chick as a source!!!
Cyril,
I’m moved by your humility in admitting error, and it pains me a bit to have to say this, but your correction is also wrong.
Avro Manhattan is an unreliable source, as is anything by Chick Publications. Jack Chick is a paranoid recluse, and despite countless hours spent correcting his errors, he continues spouting them off.
The Donation of Pepin is nothing like what you described. First of all, it’s a real document, not a forgery. Second, it’s not from the pope (or St. Peter) to Pepin. Pepin the Short donated the lands that became the Papal States. Hence, the Donation of Pepin.
It’s also true that Pepin donated the lands to St. Peter and his successors, meaning the papacy. That doesn’t literally mean Pepin thought that the Apostle Peter was still alive.
You can find all of this in encyclopedias. The New International Encyclopedia entry on the subject is available here.
The idea that Avro Manhattan raises is just ridiculous. Do you really think that Catholics are so stupid that they would think that St. Peter had descended from Heaven, handwritten a note to Pepin the Short, that the pope somehow authenticated the signature, and all the Catholics just fell for it?
The fact that Avro Manhattan just made this up can be easily confirmed with a Google search. Search for the phrase “Peter, elected Apostle by Jesus Christ, to our favorite Son, the King Pepin, to his whole army, to all the bishops, abbesses, monks, and to the whole people.” It brings up exactly four results from dubious websites all quoting… you guessed it, Avro Manhattan. No other person on Earth seems to have “discovered” this incredible historical document. No Catholic seems to have ever quoted it. Neither Pepin nor his successors ever pointed to this to establish their legitimacy.
You raised the Donation of Constantine earlier, and rightly criticized those in the Church who were duped into falling for an obvious forgery. Yet this entire time, you’ve been quoting from obvious forgeries yourself. And in the age of the Internet, where facts can be quickly checked, this sort of sloppiness is less excusable. How can you point out the speck in some Medieval pope’s eye (for getting tricked into believing in the Donation of Constantine) while you’ve got the plank of all of the canards you’ve cited so far?
God bless,
Joe
You refer to Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5. Let’s look at that carefully in the Catholic version, (Douay). 16 ¶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of a festival day or of the new moon or of the sabbaths, [comma] 17 Which are a shadow of things to come: but the body is of Christ. Notice that “sabbaths” is in the pleural and not capitalized. There were 7 of these yearly sabbaths. Verse 17 clarifies which sabbaths it is referring to: ones that were prophetic of Christ’s bodily sacrifice. And this the yearly sabbaths did such as the Passover, for instance. That the Memorial of Creation is not intended here and cannot be is because it is not prophetic as originally made. It could not be because it would then be predicting the entrance of sin. In the text is the meat and drink offerings which were connected with the yearly sabbaths.
Romans 14. What is this talking about. It starts out in verse 1 saying that it is dealing with “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” (KJV) Is there anything doubtful about what Exodus 20:8-11 says? You and I have to answer, “NO!” I like the Weymouth rendition of this text also: “Receive as a friend a man whose faith is weak, but not for the purpose of deciding mere matters of opinion. 2 One man’s faith allows him to eat anything, while a man of weaker faith eats nothing but vegetables.”
Oh! So, we are considering what is eaten! A similar passage, but more revealing as to what specifically the matter is, is seen in 1 Cor. 8 which was written in the same year, which had to do with things offered to idols and Paul’s advice on what to do about it. As for the reference to “day” in Romans14, this could either be personally chosen fast days or the 7 yearly sabbaths. It doesn’t say. It helps to see what Paul’s attitude is to The Ten Commandments earlier in Romans 3:31 Do we then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid! But we establish the law. (Douay)
We need to heed the counsel of Peter who warned and told what some are doing with Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3:13-18.
There was the question of choosing our own way of worshipping and whether that is sin. Was the way Cain chose to come before God in worship, sin? What was his problem? He was trying to be saved by the works of his own choosing. And, he spoiled the symbolism of acknowledging the need of a Savior. His brother’s good example and pleading to follow the right way he tried to drown out by killing him. How and who we worship is seen as the final showdown just before Jesus returns as seen in Rev. 14:14. Read Revelation 13 & 14 and you see the final issue is WORSHIP.
Hope this is helpful. If you want to get scholarly on Colossian 2:16, 17, just get from Andrews University Press, “Judging The Sabbath–Discovering What Can’t be Found in Colossians 2:16” by Ron du Preez.
Don’t miss reading “1844 Made Simple” by Clifford Goldstein, CJ. A light will go ON!
For the truth,
Cyril
Cyril,
I’m glad to be onto the topic of Scripture. Under your interpretation of both Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5, you suggest that this refers to the seven yearly Sabbaths. Are you referring to the annual religious festivals, like the Passover?
Also, I don’t understand what your argument is for why God couldn’t foreshadow the Fall and Redemption ahead of time?
And for what it’s worth, the Douay never capitalizes “Sabbath.”
God bless,
Joe
Lol, couldn’t resist posting again:
It seems to me that the SDAs like to make the argument the argument Cyril made:
“That the Memorial of Creation is not intended here and cannot be is because it is not prophetic as originally made. It could not be because it would then be predicting the entrance of sin.”
In other words, prophecy only pertains to undoing the damage sin caused, and thus it makes no sense to apply prophecy or fulfillment in something that is taught prior to the fall.
There is in fact a ‘slam-dunk’ proof against this very claim in Scripture:
“Ephesians 5:31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[Gen 2:24] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.“
Here Paul says Genesis 2:24 – talking about marriage – is actually a super-prophetic foreshadowing of Christ being united to His Church.(This text even could suggest Christ would have become Incarnate even without the Fall.) Thus, this actually would strengthen the idea Col 2:16f has the Sabbath Day fulfillment in Christ.
Lastly, the bond of Christ and His Church is utterly unbreakable, and thus refutes the idea of a Great Apostasy as well as refuting the idea Christian Marriage can be severed by divorce. (<a href=”http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/09/what-therefore-god-has-joined-together-divorce-and-the-sacrament-of-marriage/>Hat Tip to Bryan Cross’ newest Article for this last bit</a>)
Cyril,
As I said before, I studied Goldstein’s Sabbath School lesson on the IJ. If he couldn’t convince me in 12 weeks of daily lessons (on top of 30+ years of exposure to SDA teaching) one more book isn’t going to make a difference.
It’s popular among SDA’s to say “nobody leaves because of doctrine” but that’s exactly why I’m of a mind to leave. And It’s not because I don’t understand but because I do.
For Nick & CJ,
I have a few more pertinent things to say, but am feeling a bit inhibited with Nick’s wanting to close down. Actually we are just getting started and I haven’t really addressed the main problem with the article that started the discussion. We are just getting started!
For CJ, let me say that nobody can convince you of something if you don’t want to be convinced. This may be something you have not thought through on a psychological basis. When I give a reference to a good coverage of a subject, it is because I have found it to be of value not only to me, but to those who want to look at the subject and learn.
Again, we are not agreeing on extra-biblical history and I haven’t seen anyone else in this group emphasizing that history that didn’t occur was concocted for an agenda. I want to thank you for admitting the Donation of Constantine was a forgery. Whether written by the Pope that submitted it to King Pepin or not, he was at least an accomplice to the deception. How do I know that many other popes have not followed the same pattern? Is there evidence of this?
I am trying to get an idea of how you Catholic Christian brothers are reasoning. Let me give three quotes and ask if the third one is accurate.
Genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
From Deis Domini, papal encyclical of May 31, 1998 we read:
“. . . .Sunday is the day of rest because it is the day ‘blessed’ by God and ‘made holy’ by him, set apart from the other days to be, among all of them, ‘the Lord’s Day.’ ”—Page 6, section 14.
For the truth,
Cyril
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wow… you deleted it…
You are afraid!!!
Cyril,
There’s no evidence that any popes were accomplices to the deception. The evidence suggests that a handful of popes were tricked by the Donation — not that they knew it to be fake, and used it anyway.
Their problem was that they were gullible: they wanted it to be true, and so they overlooked evidence to the contrary. But my point above was: that’s the same thing you’re doing. You’re allowing yourself to be duped by Avro Manhattan and by lists you’re finding on the Internet. Why? Because you want them to be true.
For example, if those lists on the Internet were seeking to discredit Ellen White instead of the papacy, you wouldn’t just parrot whatever you found. You’d look things up for yourself to see if the claims were true. But when it’s nasty things about Catholics, you’re ready to just assume that they’re true because somebody on the Internet said so.
If we could, though, I’d like to get back to Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5. These are certainly the most important passages, since they’re New Testament passages that appear to be on point. Here are my questions:
(1) If we conclude that St. Paul is talking about the weekly Sabbath, does this debunk Seventh-day Adventism? Note: I’m not asking you conclude that this is what Paul is talking about. I’m just wondering whether you’d allow your Sabbatarianism to be falsified by Scripture.
(2) Which are the seven yearly Sabbaths you’re referring to? Are you referring to the annual religious festivals?
God bless,
Joe
And your Popes call themselves anti-christs…
Humor!!!!!!
You say they aren’t on a bad agenda!
This comment has been removed by the author.
All,
I thought I had taken care of Romans 14:5 when I pointed out that it is connected with uncertainty with food and fasting and most likely is better explained in 1 Cor 8. It does not mention worship or the Sabbath. There is nothing uncertain or doubtful about Ex. 20:8-11.
And, yes Joe, if Colossians 2:16 was about the weekly Sabbath, Sabbatarians should have pause to consider the matter. But, the problem is that the evidence is too strong that it is not about the weekly Holy memorial of Creation. For the list of yearly sabbaths, that you ask about, see my article at http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/should-christians-observe-israelite-festivals
Let me list a few things that don’t match Col 2:16 being the weekly Sabbath besides Col. 2:17:
1. Paul is writing this around 64 AD. Where is there a record of a change in the day of worship for 33 years when Christ returned to heaven? What were Christains to do in the mean time?
2. Since John Paul, II, upholds the Ten Commandments as reason to keep the Sabbath holy in Deis Domini, how can any Catholic try to eliminate the Seventh-day Sabbath’s holiness by using Colossians 2:16?
3. Where are those who are heeding and being careful about Paul’s writings as stated in 2 Peter 3:15-18? Before coming to Paul’s writings, the rest of the Bible is clear on the course Christians should follow in this matter. I don’t need Paul’s writings to prove that the Sabbath is eternal or establishing any other doctrine that I hold, hence I cannot be accused of misinterpreting him.
4. When the word “law” is used in Romans, it mainly about The Ten Commandments. (See Romans 7:7, 13:9, etc.) And, here is what Paul says in Romans 3:31 Do we then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid! But we establish the law. (Douay)
The main problem with the write-up that started this discussion is an unspoken premise that a prophet cannot be inaccurate because a prophet has verbal inspiration–every word used is dictated by the Holy Spirit so there is no error. If this is true, then we have to label Luke and Paul as false prophets because they also didn’t get historical facts right either. There is a VAST difference between the “crime”/”sin” of getting historical facts innacurate and lying about and creating history! (Rev. 21:8) Is that not so?
Let me point out just one deception that is evident. “The Lord’s Day” is stated in the Bible to be the Seventh-day Sabbath, (Ex. 20:11; Isa. 58:13, 14; Mark 2:27, 28). Now we see the claim that it is Sunday. Is this not a direct contradition of Scripture?
Finally, Dr. Bacchiocchi is used as some sort of authority above, but dare anyone mention some of the things he found in his scholarly investigation in the Vatican library such as that Epiphanius says that the original church at Jerusalem was still keeping the Seventh-day Sabbath in 350 AD? Check out Bacchiocchi’s book that has the imprimatur. (From Sabbath to Sunday.)
Hope this is helpful.
For the Truth,
Cyril
Cyril,
You say that “if Colossians 2:16 was about the weekly Sabbath, Sabbatarians should have pause to consider the matter. ” That seems a bit mild, frankly. If Colossians 2:16 is about the weekly Sabbath, then Sabbatarianism is directly denied by Scripture.
The reason that’s important is that it’s easy to show that Paul doesn’t mean the seven yearly Sabbaths.
In 2 Chronicles 2:4, in a letter to Hiram, the king of Tyre, Solomon writes:
“Now I am about to build a temple for the Name of the LORD my God and to dedicate it to him for burning fragrant incense before him, for setting out the consecrated bread regularly, and for making burnt offerings every morning and evening and on the Sabbaths, at the New Moons and at the appointed festivals of the LORD our God. This is a lasting ordinance for Israel.”
So those are the three important days on the caledar: the weekly Sabbath, the monthly New Moon, and the annual religious festivals. Yes, it’s true that these festivals are also Sabbaths, but they’re not usually called that — in order to distinguish them from the weekly Sabbath. They’re called “festivals” instead.
Now look at Colossians 2:16,
“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.”
St. Paul lists the exact same three sets of liturgical feasts: the annual festivals (the seven Sabbaths of the year), the monthly New Moon celebration, and the weekly Sabbath.
There’s no ambiguity here. Paul means the same thing that Solomon meant. Two more things to notice about this:
(1) Paul couldn’t have meant the seven annual Sabbaths, since he already addressed those: the religious festivals.
(2) Paul couldn’t have meant the seven annual Sabbaths, since he refers to the Sabbath day. The religious festivals weren’t “a Sabbath day.” They were part of a much longer religious festival (for example, the Feast of Tabernacles is 8 days long).
I’ll hold off on addressing everything else, but suffice it to say that none of the passage you cited refer to Saturday as “the LORD’s Day,” and that every single historical reference, including from the first century, and including from the Book of Revelation, uses that term to mean Sunday.
God bless,
Joe
The new moon was a festival in Leviticus, not a Sabbath… Bro… did you even learn to read?