Historicity of the change of the Sabbath Commandment

[BobRyan]

Here is what you posted -

1. we never take instruction on the Sabbath from those who reject it.
2. The Adventists begin as a "sunday keeping" group but are lead to the Bible Sabbath through Bible study and through the witness of a Seventh-day Baptist by the name of Rachel Oaks who asked one of the Adventist pastors some very pointed questions about the "Bible details" on the TEN Commandments and the Bible Sabbath.

I do not see anywhere that you said "we read the Bible".

I see - so then did the red "highlighting" help??

Can you tell us exactly what you do different on Saturdays that other, conservative Protestant denominations do not do on Sunday? Thank you.

Read Ex 20:8-11 - that is how we keep the Sabbath - as a 24 hour day of worship and rest. If conservative Protestants are also doing that just as Ex 20 says - on the 7th day of the week - I am not aware of it.

 

[Meowzltov]

1. we never take instruction on the Sabbath from those who reject it.
2. The Adventists begin as a "sunday keeping" group but are lead to the Bible Sabbath through Bible study and through the witness of a Seventh-day Baptist by the name of Rachel Oaks who asked one of the Adventist pastors some very pointed questions about the "Bible details" on the TEN Commandments and the Bible Sabbath.

You can't deny that Adventists have their beginnings in the 1800s. They are a split off from the Protestants who are a splitoff of the Catholics.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You can't deny that Adventists have their beginnings in the 1800s. They are a split off from the Protestants who are a splitoff of the Catholics.

And the Catholics are a splitoff of the Eastern Orthodox, who are a splitoff of the Oriental Orthodox. Christians have a notorious history of splitting.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I see - so then did the red "highlighting" help??



Read Ex 20:8-11 - that is how we keep the Sabbath - as a 24 hour day of worship and rest. If conservative Protestants are also doing that just as Ex 20 says - on the 7th day of the week - I am not aware of it.

Well, you certainly ignore most of the Sabbath commandments. If all God had to say about the Sabbath was in Exodus 20:8-11 then the Bible would be a considerably smaller book. As it is, the things you do or don't do on Saturdays are not markedly different than the things that conservative Protestants do or don't do on Sundays.

 

[Meowzltov]

And the Catholics are a splitoff of the Eastern Orthodox, who are a splitoff of the Oriental Orthodox. Christians have a notorious history of splitting.

No, I wouldn't put it that way at all. In the beginning, there was one Church that was Catholic, EO, and OO. Then the first schism happened and the OO left. The remaining Church was Catholic and EO. Then it too split in two.

I'm actually being very generous. In the early church, the Bishop of Rome was first over all other Bishoprics, which is why Clement could write his letter to the Church at Corinth. It's the same thing behind the whole Church accepting the authority of Leo the Great's Tome. When the OO and EO went on their own tracts, they left that central componant behind. In that sense, you COULD very well argue (and Catholic theologians DO argue) that it was therefore Catholicism that stayed true to the original Church, and the others that split off.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, I wouldn't put it that way at all. In the beginning, there was one Church that was Catholic, EO, and OO. Then the first schism happened and the OO left. The remaining Church was Catholic and EO. Then it too split in two.

I'm actually being very generous. In the early church, the Bishop of Rome was first over all other Bishoprics, which is why Clement could write his letter to the Church at Corinth. It's the same thing behind the whole Church accepting the authority of Leo the Great's Tome. When the OO and EO went on their own tracts, they left that central componant behind. In that sense, you COULD very well argue (and Catholic theologians DO argue) that it was therefore Catholicism that stayed true to the original Church, and the others that split off.

As I don't have a horse in this race, it doesn't make a lot of difference to me. Suffice it to say that the EO and OO versions of what happened during those turbulent days are considerably different than the Roman Catholic version.

 

[Meowzltov]

As I don't have a horse in this race, it doesn't make a lot of difference to me. Suffice it to say that the EO and OO versions of what happened during those turbulent days are considerably different than the Roman Catholic version.

I think the Catholic Version is that the Catholic Church existed all along and the schism churches that broke off became the OO and EO. I'm just trying to be a little more historically accurate. Although I do think there is something to be said for the Catholic version due to the primacy of the bishop of Rome going all the way back, and the OO and EO essenntially leaving that behind. But again, that's what we all argue over, isn't it?

 

[BobRyan]

As I don't have a horse in this race, it doesn't make a lot of difference to me. Suffice it to say that the EO and OO versions of what happened during those turbulent days are considerably different than the Roman Catholic version.

What is interesting is that both the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and the "Baptist Confession of Faith" seem to agree at least to an extent with the RCC that a "Change was made" to the Sabbath commandment as given by God in Eden to mankind - sometime after the cross.

History tells us -- it was not in the first century.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You can't deny that Adventists have their beginnings in the 1800s. They are a split off from the Protestants who are a splitoff of the Catholics.

Adventists are Christians and Christianity had its beginning in the first century -

We use sola scriptura based testing of all faith and doctrine -- and scripture was completed in the first century.

There is no Bible record in the first century of indulgences, prayers to the dead, purgatory, the assumption of mary, images in worship, infant baptism, "confecting the body soul and divinity of Christ" etc - or weekly sunday "observances".

That means that if you strip all of that away from the RCC today -- you have a result that looks a lot more like Seventh-day Adventist teaching that many have stopped to consider.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And the Catholics are a splitoff of the Eastern Orthodox, who are a splitoff of the Oriental Orthodox. Christians have a notorious history of splitting.

That is true -- but by going back to the Bible and basing our teaching on sola scriptura testing - we can repoint to a first century origin rather than trying leap frog from tradition to tradition down through the centuries.

It is only in that hop-scotch like skipping from stone to stone that we get to changes in the TEN Commandments.

 

[BobRyan]

Which opens us up to the truth of what Leo Trese said in his book "the Faith Explained" on that tradition of change vs the actual Bible.

One Catholic Author - of a commentary on the Baltimore Catechism - after Vatican II describes it this way

=====================================================

Leo Trese in his book "The Faith Explained" -- commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II -

The Faith Explained (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that
Which is how this statement in the OP comes in

====================begin short summary
changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name".

page 243

"Nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

====================================== begin expanded quote
. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church
================================================

One Catholic poster on this section of the board describes it this way.



And how does the Bible define the "Solemnity" - the blessed, sanctified and binding obligation of the Sabbath -- in actual scripture.

Gen 2
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Ex 20: 8, 11
8 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

So how is that the Law of God is up for "edit" for change? For taking one of the Commandments - and "repointing it" so that now "another day" is blessed, sanctified, and made holy??



Indeed the RCC claims to have the authority to do that.

Possibly one more reason why the "sola scriptura" model of Acts 17:11 and Mark 7:6-13 gets some push back on certain threads by those who agree with the RCC's right to do such things.

 

[Meowzltov]

Adventists are Christians and Christianity had its beginning in the first century -

We use sola scriptura based testing of all faith and doctrine -- and scripture was completed in the first century.

There is no Bible record in the first century of indulgences, prayers to the dead, purgatory, the assumption of mary, images in worship, infant baptism, "confecting the body soul and divinity of Christ" etc - or weekly sunday "observances".

That means that if you strip all of that away from the RCC today -- you have a result that looks a lot more like Seventh-day Adventist teaching that many have stopped to consider.

In Christ,

Bob

The nature of the forum is that we usually talk about facts, often so quite frankly. I'm a people loving person, and sometimes this makes me uncomfortable because I know it can hurt people's feelings. I'm going to discuss some facts now, but please know that you matter to me as a person, and that I value you as a Christian brother in Christ and as a fellow human being and a friend on CF.

SDA's are indeed Christians, but they are Christians DESPITE their church, which is heretical. Sola Scriptura is just one example of its heresies.

There was no New Testament in the first century. The existence of the documents is a far cry from having a scripture. The formation of a canon was a GRADUAL thing over the next several centuries that culminated with the bishops authorizing its canonicity in the fourth century. It is absurd to think that what we had in the fourth century was what we had in the first. What we had in the first century was the Septuagint and the authority of the apostles and presbyters/bishops. (AKA the authority of the church.)

You find in the Bible a Church that had sacraments in proto form: baptism, ordination, eucharist, confirmation (baptism in the holy spirit), anointing of the sick, marriage, confession. You have a structured teaching ordained church: deacons, presbyters, and bishops, with Peter at its head. You had salvific baptism and real presence in Eucharist. That's not the SDA church. That's Catholicism.

 

[BobRyan]

SDA's are indeed Christians, but they are Christians DESPITE their church, which is heretical.

That is not what Walter Martin concluded about the SDA church -- and he was no SDA. Rather he wrote the book "Kingdom of the Cults" and in the appendix he included the SDA church explaining in great detail why what you just said about it - is totally false. You might enjoy reading that book.

Christianity Today pointed out in January of this year that the SDA church is the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world - with the RCC being the largest.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...ts-can-ben-carson-church-stay-separatist.html

Sola Scriptura is just one example of its heresies.

Well of course Christianity Today is likely to oppose your view of that subject as well so you may not fully appreciate their statement above.

Ok - and with that statement you have just condemned the entire Protestant Reformation -- and "again" you will find that many on this section of the board - do not hold to your opinion that "sola scriptura" is a heresy.

But as I have often said - everyone has free will - you can choose as you wish.

There was no New Testament in the first century. The existence of the documents is a far cry from having a scripture. The formation of a canon was a GRADUAL thing over the next several centuries

Irrelevant since at the time of Christ they "already had" the OT canon -- and also during the first century nobody was "waiting to read the writings of Paul and until a number of centuries had passed and some council said to read Paul as scripture".

Peter admits to that fact right off the bat.

that culminated with the bishops authorizing its canonicity in the fourth century.

And as we all know - nobody in the first century was waiting until the fourth century to read what Paul said as scripture. Peter admits to this right off the bat.

They tested Paul - right then and there - -"they studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things (spoken to them by the Apostle Paul) were SO" Acts 17:11

The text does not say 'they waited until the fourth century to SEE IF those things were so". As I think we can all agree - both Catholics and non-Catholics.

It is absurd to think that what we had in the fourth century was what we had in the first.

The entire test of both OT and NT scripture was completed before the 2nd century.

What we had in the first century was the Septuagint

Which was NOT what the Acts 15 NT Jerusalem council was using. The Septuagint was for the illiterate Jews living outside of Israel in the 2nd and 3rd centuries B.C. and its apocryphal text was rejected by Jewish scholarship in Jerusalem that read Hebrew.

You find in the Bible a Church that had sacraments in proto form: baptism, ordination, eucharist, confirmation (baptism in the holy spirit), anointing of the sick, marriage, confession.

Just as you do in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
But that form that you see there is not the form that you see in the RCC -- as I point out in my earlier post.

You have a structured teaching ordained church: deacons, presbyters, and bishops, with Peter at its head.

There is no indication in the NT that Peter was the head of the church - rather in Acts 15 - in the council is James that "renders his judgment" after all have spoken -- not Peter.

You had salvific baptism and real presence in Eucharist. That's not the SDA church.

In the NT you have "believer's baptism" only - and that is what you find in the SDA church - not the RCC.

In the NT you have communion service as a 'memorial' not an "ongoing sacrifice" where the 'body soul and divinity of Christ is confected" each week as in the RCC. That memorial rather than ogoing sacrifice that you see in the NT is the SDA model (actually the Protestant and Evangelical model as well as SDA) not the RC model.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The nature of the forum is that we usually talk about facts, often so quite frankly. I'm a people loving person, and sometimes this makes me uncomfortable because I know it can hurt people's feelings. I'm going to discuss some facts now, but please know that you matter to me as a person, and that I value you as a Christian brother in Christ and as a fellow human being and a friend on CF.

SDA's are indeed Christians, but they are Christians DESPITE their church, which is heretical. .

I don't take that as an intent to offend - I think you are being honest about your view and I do not mind your stating it a bit.

As I pointed out in my prior post --

Christianity Today pointed out in January of this year that the SDA church is the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world - with the RCC being the largest.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...ts-can-ben-carson-church-stay-separatist.html


But as you point out in your post, you view "sola scriptura" to be heretical and agree that this "Sola Scriptura" doctrine is one that the SDA church is promoting as well as other churches doing the same, and of course Christianity Today promotes "Sola Scriptura" as well.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Meowzltov]

That is not what Walter Martin concluded about the SDA church -- and he was no SDA.

Walter Martin was not right about everything. For example, Walter Martin was sola scriptura, which is a heresy. Yes, I have read Kingdom of the Cults; I have even talked to Walter Martin over the phone on his radio show. Yes, I am saying the entire Protestant Reformation is a heresy (that doesn't mean Protestants are heretics). I enjoy reading Christianity Today; Catholicism and Evangelicalism share a lot in common. However, I do always keep in mind that sola scriptura is a heresy, as is faith alone, so I read the Magazine with a grain of salt.

 

[Meowzltov]

Christianity Today pointed out in January of this year that the SDA church is the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world - with the RCC being the largest.

Yes, I remember this. We've discussed this before. I personally don't divide groups up into their little subgroups. For example, I don't divide Baptists up into North American Baptists, Independent Baptists, Southern Baptists, etc. If you do like I do, SDA's are way down the list. And in terms of raw number of members, they are insignificant no matter which way you slice it.

 

[BobRyan]

Open Heart said: ↑
SDA's are indeed Christians, but they are Christians DESPITE their church, which is heretical. Sola Scriptura is just one example of its heresies.

I don't take that as an intent to offend - I think you are being honest about your view and I do not mind your stating it a bit.

As I pointed out in my prior post --
Christianity Today pointed out in January of this year that the SDA church is the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world - with the RCC being the largest.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...ts-can-ben-carson-church-stay-separatist.html

But as you point out in your post, you view "sola scriptura" to be heretical

Yes, I remember this. We've discussed this before. I personally don't divide groups up into their little subgroups.

So then you personally just lump all Christian denominations into one large group of heretics so long as they believe in the Bible teaching of "sola scriptura"??

For example, I don't divide Baptists up into North American Baptists, Independent Baptists, Southern Baptists, etc. If you do like I do, SDA's are way down the list.

Until you notice that they are entirely different groups both doctrinally, administratively, organizationally, so much so that many of them will not even share communion with the others.


By Contrast for organizations like "Christianity Today" --- "details matter"

But as i said - you have free will and you can chose your own path.

 

[BobRyan]

Walter Martin was not right about everything. For example, Walter Martin was sola scriptura, which is a heresy. .

Well that is a large group of Christianity - by every measure.

"As of 2010, Christianity was by far the world's largest religion, with an estimated 2.2 billion adherents, nearly a third (31 percent) of all 6.9 billion people on Earth,"

Of which - some say - the Catholic population was 1.1 billion

Of course Catholic population 'estimates' vs reality is somewhat of an if-y business.

The Vatican Publishing House publishes a “Statistical Yearbook of the Church”, which includes Catholic population estimates. Pew Research’s census- and survey-based estimates for 2010 may vary from numbers reported in the “Statistical Yearbook.” For example, the “Statistical Yearbook” has a higher total Catholic population (1.196 billion) and higher estimates of the Catholic populations of Brazil (163,269,000) and Mexico (99,635,000). By contrast, Pew Research analysis of 2010 census data suggests there are 126,750,000 Catholics in Brazil and 96,450,000 Catholics in Mexico.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-population/

RCC estimates Catholic populations of Brazil (163,269,000) and Mexico (99,635,000). By contrast, Pew Research analysis of 2010 census data suggests there are 126,750,000 Catholics in Brazil and 96,450,000 Catholics in Mexico

"Estimates for the number of Catholics in this report also include members of some relatively small Catholic groups (such as the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church) that are not in communion with the bishop of Rome."

 

[Meowzltov]

Well that is a large group of Christianity - by every measure.

If I remember my reading of history, at one point in time, Arians outnumbered Orthodox Christians.

 

[BobRyan]

If I remember my reading of history, at one point in time, Arians outnumbered Orthodox Christians.

If you have a documented fact on that point please share it with us - I would be interested.