Did the early church worship on Sabbath?

[SabbathBlessings]

Not true - Colossians 2:16.

Jesus Christ, who is God, did things on the Sabbath that had been assumed to be prohibited, and what is more, He told us how to remember Him - through partaking of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

This does not preclude worship on the Sabbath, which is why the Orthodox Church continues to have more liturgies on the Sabbath than any other day of the week except Sunday. All Coptic Orthodox churches for example will serve the Divine Liturgy on both Saturday and Sunday, and the Eastern Orthodox will do so where the resources exist - in particular I would note that practically every Sabbath from just prior to the start of the Great Lent through Bright Saturday, and again on the Saturday before Pentecost Sunday, has a worship service, including Soul Saturdays for the remembrance of our departed loved ones, the Raising of Lazarus on the day before Palm Sunday, Holy Saturday, on the day our Lord was entombed (the Vesperal Divine Liturgy is held on the morning of this day, and until 1955, the Paschal Vigil Mass in the Western tradition was held at that time), and the Saturday before St. Thomas Sunday or Antipascha (the Sunday following Pascha, also known as Low Sunday, or as we jokingly called it, Low Attendance Sunday, since in the Western churches there is a fall-off in attendance for that Sunday and Christmas Sunday which I find extremely frustrating, but it is much less pronounced in the Eastern churches where the core group of pious people can be counted on to be there most Sundays of the year.

You seemed to have missed the context for Colossians 2:16 which starts in Col 2:14 and ends in Col 2:17 which points to Heb 9:10 Heb 10, not Creation, which can't be a shadow of anything because it was perfect.

There is more than one Sabbath in the scriptures and Paul was so careful to be sure we knew the context because he was not countermanding Christ's promise Psa 89:34 Mat 5:18-19 and countermanding Christ's own Words that the Sabbath would not end at the Cross but would be kept faithfully decades after the Cross by His faithful Mat 24:20 and for eternity Isa 66:23

I guess that's why we have this stern warning about what people do with Paul's writings that people should take more serious 2 Peter 3:16

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

The weekly Sabbath is a commandment Exo 34:28 Exo 20:6 thus saith the Lord, not an ordinance like the yearly sabbath(s) and yearly holy days are the context of this passage
The weekly Sabbath is holy and blessed by God, not the definition of contrary or against Only God can reverse His blessing and you can search high and low and will not find He did that with His Sabbath.
The weekly Sabbath was finger-written by God Exo 31:18, not handwritten by Moses like he did with the annual sabbath(s) the context of this passage, food, drink, holy days, sabbath(s) plural that has nothing to do with the weekly Sabbath commandment. These came after the fall of man, the weekly Sabbath started at Creation Exo 20:11 Gen 2:1-3 God's perfect plan before the fall. Clearly Col 2:14-17 is not referring to any of God's Ten Commandments that all man will be Judged by James 2:10-12 Ecc 12:13-14 Mat 5:19-30 Rev 22:14-15 and I would not want to remove anything that is covered under His mercy seat when we confess, repent and forsake.

Not even Paul or the apostles followed the way people try to force this out of context verse , as they faithfully kept every Sabbath decades after the cross Acts 18:4 Acts13:44 because God's people keep God's commandments, His version Rev 14:12 . The context doesn't fit, yet so many people don't seem to care, and I don't think that's going to be a good option if we are to believe Jesus Mat 7:21-23 because its not God's will we profane His Sabbath commandment, He said when we do that what are we really profaning, He tells us in His own Words but do we believe Him Eze 22:26

I'm going to have to agree with Wesley on this matter which matches with what God said Psa 89:34 Mat 5:18-19

This 'handwriting of ordinances' our Lord did blot out, take away, and nail to His cross. (Colossians 2: 14.) But the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away.... The moral law stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law. ...Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in all ages.
—JOHN WESLEY, Sermons on Several Occasions, 2-Vol. Edition, Vol. I, pages 221, 222.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

We do remember the Sabbath, as I explained earlier - the fact that our remembrance of it differs from what Second Temple Judaism in the First Century thought that remembrance should be is a good thing, since our Lord also clearly differed with Second Temple Judaism in his observation of the Sabbath.

Any time we partake of the Body and Blood of our Lord, we remember His saving work on the cross, His resurrection, and, importantly as far as the Sabbath is concerned, His resting in the tomb on the Sabbath (which is really the only time we can assert that God rested, from His perspective, on the seventh day - we can assert from the ending of Luke that Genesis 1 was both a summary of the initial creative acts of God, and a Christological prophecy speaking about Jesus Christ, and the two meanings are tightly integrated, in that Christ our True God re-created man on the Sixth Day on the Cross, and rested in the tomb on the Seventh, before rising from the dead, trampling down death by death on the First Day, which aludes to our own resurrection on the Eighth Day, which reveals that there is a third, Eschatological layer to Genesis 1, since it is also speaking of the birth, death and resurrection of those who are saved by Christ Jesus.

Again, our defintions mean nothing.

God's however it what we are told to live by. Mat 4:4 Exo 20:8-11. For me I am going to stick with what He said, but we are given free will.

 

[The Liturgist]

Again, our defintions mean nothing.

God's however it what we are told to live by. Mat 4:4 Exo 20:8-11. For me I am going to stick with what He said, but we are given free will.

Whose definitions? Are you denying that Colossians 2:16 is an inspired Scripture?

The fact is that our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ told us how to remember Him - via the Eucharist. He did not tell us to continue celebrating the Sabbath in the exact manner that Second Temple Judaism celebrated it, but rather, reproached the Pharisees and Scribes of that era for the extreme approach they took to the Sabbath, just as he reproached them in Mark 7:13 for the entire Oral Torah concept, which would later be written down and would become the Mishnah, the basis for the Talmud and the Sulchan Aruch, which are a codification of the Torah as understood by Judaism.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Whose definitions? Are you denying that Colossians 2:16 is an inspired Scripture?

The fact is that our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ told us how to remember Him - via the Eucharist. He did not tell us to continue celebrating the Sabbath in the exact manner that Second Temple Judaism celebrated it, but rather, reproached the Pharisees and Scribes of that era for the extreme approach they took to the Sabbath, just as he reproached them in Mark 7:13 for the entire Oral Torah concept, which would later be written down and would become the Mishnah, the basis for the Talmud and the Sulchan Aruch, which are a codification of the Torah as understood by Judaism.

Did you read what I wrote? There is no doubt Paul's writings are inspired, but they came with a very stern warning that many twist out of context. 2 Peter 3:16

Can you please tell me where Paul said we can profane Christ? Where is Paul authority to countermand the teachings of Christ. Christ said He has all Authority Mat 28:18 Christ did not say we can disobey any one of the commandments- He said not to break or teach others to break the least of these which also came with a stern warning that I would seriously consider Mat 5:19

You claim Paul is saying the weekly Sabbath ended at the Cross, yet Jesus in His own Words said the Sabbath would be kept by His faithful decades after His Cross Mat 24:20 and for eternity Isa 66:23 so either Paul got it totally wrong and is not a servant of Christ or people are twisting His words out of context just like the scripture tells us they would. I believe the later, especially when one carefully examines all the context will clearly see what Paul is referring to, which was never about the weekly Sabbath that is a commandment, holy and blessed by God written by God's own finger which there is no greater Authority.

 

[The Liturgist]

You seemed to have missed the context for Colossians 2:16 which starts in Col 2:14 and ends in Col 2:17 which points to Heb 9:10 Heb 10, not Creation, which can't be a shadow of anything because it was perfect.

[/quote]

No, I was referring to it in the context of Hebrews 10 and related scriptures. I did not say that Creation is a shadow of anything, nor did I connect Colossians 2:18 with Creation.

So either you did not understand my post, or this is a strawman. I don’t know if you are understanding what I am writing or not, because you keep making claims about my posts which are inaccurate, and some users do have difficulty reading my posts because of the literary style in which write.

There is more than one Sabbath in the scriptures and Paul was so careful to be sure we knew the context because he was not countermanding Christ's promise Psa 89:34 Mat 5:18-19 and countermanding Christ's own Words that the Sabbath would not end at the Cross but would be kept faithfully decades after the Cross by His faithful Mat 24:20 and for eternity Isa 66:23

Likewise, there is more than one Sabbath, or Holy Day, in Christianity. The Adventist position that Sunday cannot be a holy day becomes untenable for the very reason you said. After all, not only is it the day of the Resurrection, but the day when the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles.

I guess that's why we have this stern warning about what people do with Paul's writings that people should take more serious 2 Peter 3:16

2 Peter 3:16 is not a license to invalidate all of the epistles of St. Paul just because they are difficult to read. Nor is it a license to invalidate the interpretation of these scriptures held by Early Church Fathers, the Orthodox, and certain churches whose theology is closely related to the Orthodox, such as the Anglicans and Lutherans.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Indeed, this in no respect contradicts my point in Colossians 2:16, but rather confirms that Christ has made it possible for us to be saved, since the Law, while providing a standard of morality, is something that was routinely violated owing to original sins. This is why St. Paul warns us of the dangers of adhering to the Law rather than to the grace of the Gospel. See Galatians 3:3 , which is directly contrary to the Adventist position. Indeed Galatians feels like a book unread by Adventists.

This is one area where Adventists really ought to study the theology of Martin Luther, who was as opposed to the excesses of Roman Catholicism as anyone else, but given that SDAs regard themselves based on The Great Controvery as the Protestant church par excellence (as opposed to a Restorationist church, like the Stone-Campbell movement, the Plymouth Brethren, and others, which has been used to describe the SDAs and other Adventists and is generally used with regards to 19th century churches that claimed to be restoring the original worship of the New Testament era, usually in a manner that was highly inconsistent with that of other churches, except for the Stone/Campbell movement, whose liturgy looks remarkably like that of the Early Church and the Orthodox aside from the opposition to the use of creeds, and the iconoclasm (one might say it probably most closely resembles the Church in Constantinople during the Iconoclast period).

At any rate, Luther’s emphasis on differentiating between the Law and the Gospel I think is something that Adventists would find extremely helpful.

The weekly Sabbath is a commandment Exo 34:28 Exo 20:6 thus saith the Lord, not an ordinance like the yearly sabbath(s) and yearly holy days are the context of this passage

The Weekly Sabbath is observed through the celebration of the Eucharist, whether on Saturday or on Sunday, because it is a memorial of Christ our God reposing in the tomb after dying on the cross and in so doing remaking humanity in His own image on Friday, and rising from the dead on Sunday, trampling down death by death.

The weekly Sabbath is holy and blessed by God, not the definition of contrary or against Only God can reverse His blessing and you can search high and low and will not find He did that with His Sabbath.
The weekly Sabbath was finger-written by God Exo 31:18, not handwritten by Moses like he did with the annual sabbath(s) the context of this passage, food, drink, holy days, sabbath(s) plural that has nothing to do with the weekly Sabbath commandment. These came after the fall of man, the weekly Sabbath started at Creation Exo 20:11 Gen 2:1-3 God's perfect plan before the fall. Clearly Col 2:14-17 is not referring to any of God's Ten Commandments that all man will be Judged by James 2:10-12 Ecc 12:13-14 Mat 5:19-30 Rev 22:14-15 and I would not want to remove anything that is covered under His mercy seat when we confess, repent and forsake.

Not even Paul or the apostles followed the way people try to force this out of context verse , as they faithfully kept every Sabbath decades after the cross Acts 18:4 Acts13:44 because God's people keep God's commandments, His version Rev 14:12 . The context doesn't fit, yet so many people don't seem to care, and I don't think that's going to be a good option if we are to believe Jesus Mat 7:21-23 because its not God's will we profane His Sabbath commandment, He said when we do that what are we really profaning, He tells us in His own Words but do we believe Him Eze 22:26

I'm going to have to agree with Wesley on this matter which matches with what God said Psa 89:34 Mat 5:18-19

This 'handwriting of ordinances' our Lord did blot out, take away, and nail to His cross. (Colossians 2: 14.) But the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away.... The moral law stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law. ...Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in all ages.
—JOHN WESLEY, Sermons on Several Occasions, 2-Vol. Edition, Vol. I, pages 221, 222.

This is all a red herring or a strawman, because it presumes that I regard the Sabbath as deprecated, when in fact I regard it as being correctly observed through partaking of the Eucharist and through the observation of the Vesperal Divine Liturgy or Paschal Vigil on Holy Saturday.

And also, since John Wesley did not worship on Sunday, you are eisegetically cherrypicking from what he taught - it is fundamentally misleading to use Wesley in support of Sabbatarianism when John Wesley did not teach this, but rather, stressed the importance of partaking of the Eucharist every Sunday, and fasting on Wednesday and Friday according to the tradition of the Early Church. Indeed John Wesley was secretly consecrated as a bishop by the Greek Orthodox bishop Erasmus of Arcadia in 1763, and so, like Martin Luther and the High Church Anglicans of the 17th century and the 19th century Oxford Movement in Anglicanism, and likewise the Utraquist movement in the Czech Church, from whom the Moravians are descended, were simply seeking to reclaim a vernacular liturgy and communion in both kinds, which had been lost when Czechia and Slovakia were conquered by Austria in the 13th century and converted to Roman Catholicism (albeit with a remnant remaining under Orthodox influence, which has always remained, in the form of Carpatho-Rusyns, who one also finds in Hungary and right across Eastern Europe).

 

[SabbathBlessings]

No, I was referring to it in the context of Hebrews 10 and related scriptures. I did not say that Creation is a shadow of anything, nor did I connect Colossians 2:18 with Creation.

So either you did not understand my post, or this is a strawman. I don’t know if you are understanding what I am writing or not, because you keep making claims about my posts which are inaccurate, and some users do have difficulty reading my posts because of the literary style in which write.

When one claims Col 2:16 is referring to the weekly Sabbath, one by default is trying to change Creation week. Its impossible for the weekly Sabbath to be a shadow of anything which Col 2:17 is saying the laws Paul is referring to is a shadow. Shadow laws came after the fall of man. Creation, when the weekly Sabbath started there was no fall of man, this was God's perfect plan so no need for a plan of salvation and the Sabbath points us back to Creation - Remember the Sabbath day Exodus 20:8-11- because it happened at Creation when everything was perfect, God points us back there because He never wants us to forget where we came from or who created us and why the Sabbath is a memorial to creation and no human can reverse God's blessing. Why Paul was so careful to give the context of Col 2:14-17- ordinances, handwritten, contrary and against. That certainly does not fit the context of the Sabbath commandment- that is holy and blessed and written by the finger of God. Nor does this interpretation work in harmony with what Jesus taught in His own words that the Sabbath would not end at the cross but would be kept faithfully decades after Mat 24:20 which is why we see the apostles keeping every Sabbath Acts 18:4 because God's people keep God's commandments- His version and continues for eternity thus saith the Lord Isa 66:23

We can come up with all creative ways not to obey something God said, but I don't beleive its in our best interest.

 

[The Liturgist]

Did you read what I wrote? There is no doubt Paul's writings are inspired, but they came with a very stern warning that many twist out of context. 2 Peter 3:16

Yes I did, and I replied to it. 2 Peter 3:16 is not a license to invalidate the Orthodox interpretation of the Pauline writings, which is at least an interpretation of them. I have yet to see an Adventist interpretation that can consistently reconcile Adventist teachings to Pauline writings such as Galatians, Romans et cetera, rather, I simply see Adventists using 2 Peter 3:16 as means of shutting down the invocation of St. Paul, by saying that they are inspired but difficult to read and thus easy to twist out of context. But this is not unique to the writings of St. Paul, and furthermore, the misinterpretation of Scripture was a major theme of 2 Peter (for example, in 2 Peter 2:15 he talks about the fact that no prophecy is of any private interpretation (or, translated another way, that no prophecy is an exposition of itself). The point St. Peter was making in that verse is that there is a correct understanding of prophecy, and of the writings of St. Paul, and that is if they are read consistently and in accordance with the traditions of the Church.

But using Peter 2:16 to try to invalidate a non-Adventist interpretation of the Pauline Epistles is completely unacceptable.

Also I would note the only reason 2 Peter is in our Bibles is because of St. Athanasius, the critically important fourth century Church Father who at the Council of Nicaea defended Christianity and the doctrine of the Incarnation against Arianism (which was the view of many early Adventists, but not Ellen G. White, who did, to her credit, propagate the doctrine of the Trinity, but that does not mean that all of her writing is free from error - for example, she mischaracterized what happened at the Council of Nicaea and in its aftermath and appeared to be unaware either that the Eastern churches existed, or that they were not simply Roman Catholics).

Can you please tell me where Paul said we can profane Christ? Where is Paul authority to countermand the teachings of Christ. Christ said He has all Authority Mat 28:18 Christ did not say we can disobey any one of the commandments- He said not to break or teach others to break the least of these which also came with a stern warning that I would seriously consider Mat 5:19

.

No, because I have not profaned Christ and I have not declared any commandment invalid or taught anyone to break it.

Rather, I have defended how the Western Church observes the commandments from unwarranted criticism made by you since this thread was inadvertently reacticated after a period of dormancy. Just because we observe the Sabbath differently than you do does not mean that we have invalidated it.

You claim Paul is saying the weekly Sabbath ended at the Cross, yet Jesus in His own Words said the Sabbath would be kept by His faithful decades after His Cross Mat 24:20 and for eternity Isa 66:23 so either Paul got it totally wrong and is not a servant of Christ or people are twisting His words out of context just like the scripture tells us they would. I believe the later, especially when one carefully examines all the context will clearly see what Paul is referring to, which was never about the weekly Sabbath that is a commandment, holy and blessed by God written by God's own finger which there is no greater Authority.

No, I do not claim that. I claim that the New Testament as taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles, particularly St. Paul, clearly contradicts the Pharisaical approach to Sabbath observance. Rather, it is made clear that the Sabbath, as a perpetual memorial of our creation and recreation by Christ our True God, and His repose on the Sabbath, and his resurrection on the First Day, is properly kept by the Orthodox and other traditional Christians, through partaking of the Eucharist and through the liturgies we celebrate on Saturday, including the weekly Vigils and the frequent Saturday morning Eucharists.

You continue to apply false meanings and false implications to my words.

The real issue is this: traditional Christians would not be opposed to Sabbatarians worshipping whenever, but SDAs insist on attacking and criticizing Western Christians because your church believes that Sunday worship and laws which protect the sanctity of Sunday, which are still in force in some parts of Europe and in some American states, particularly in the South, are the mark of the Beast, which is a totally unsupported exegesis, on a par with the belief in the Investigative Judgement, which also contradicts Scripture, namely those numerous verses which make it clear that God is not subject to time, and all persons of the Trinity including Jesus Christ are unchanging and immutable.

Likewise, the idea that the celebration of the Eucharist on Sunday, in addition to on Saturday, is somehow wrong, is contradicted not just by virtue of the fact that it was on the First Day that the Light of the World began to shine upon it from the moment of its creation, by which I mean Jesus Christ, and it was on the First Day that the Light rose from the Dead, and it was on the First Day that He sent the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, to descend upon the eleven remaining disciples and St. Matthias the Apostle, who had been ordained to replace Judas Iscariot and also received the Holy Spirit at that time, and which subsequently was passed on to other Christians through Baptism and Chrismation, which are the very important means of grace, which should be provided for young children, but Adventists, due to credobaptism, don’t do that either (my friend @Ain't Zwinglian has written some excellent posts debunking Credobaptism.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Yes I did, and I replied to it. 2 Peter 3:16 is not a license to invalidate the Orthodox interpretation of the Pauline writings, which is at least an interpretation of them. I have yet to see an Adventist interpretation that can consistently reconcile Adventist teachings to Pauline writings such as Galatians, Romans et cetera, rather, I simply see Adventists using 2 Peter 3:16 as means of shutting down the invocation of St. Paul, by saying that they are inspired but difficult to read and thus easy to twist out of context. But this is not unique to the writings of St. Paul, and furthermore, the misinterpretation of Scripture was a major theme of 2 Peter (for example, in 2 Peter 2:15 he talks about the fact that no prophecy is of any private interpretation (or, translated another way, that no prophecy is an exposition of itself). The point St. Peter was making in that verse is that there is a correct understanding of prophecy, and of the writings of St. Paul, and that is if they are read consistently and in accordance with the traditions of the Church.

But using Peter 2:16 to try to invalidate a non-Adventist interpretation of the Pauline Epistles is completely unacceptable.

Also I would note the only reason 2 Peter is in our Bibles is because of St. Athanasius, the critically important fourth century Church Father who at the Council of Nicaea defended Christianity and the doctrine of the Incarnation against Arianism (which was the view of many early Adventists, but not Ellen G. White, who did, to her credit, propagate the doctrine of the Trinity, but that does not mean that all of her writing is free from error - for example, she mischaracterized what happened at the Council of Nicaea and in its aftermath and appeared to be unaware either that the Eastern churches existed, or that they were not simply Roman Catholics).


.

No, because I have not profaned Christ and I have not declared any commandment invalid or taught anyone to break it.

Rather, I have defended how the Western Church observes the commandments from unwarranted criticism made by you since this thread was inadvertently reacticated after a period of dormancy. Just because we observe the Sabbath differently than you do does not mean that we have invalidated it.



No, I do not claim that. I claim that the New Testament as taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles, particularly St. Paul, clearly contradicts the Pharisaical approach to Sabbath observance. Rather, it is made clear that the Sabbath, as a perpetual memorial of our creation and recreation by Christ our True God, and His repose on the Sabbath, and his resurrection on the First Day, is properly kept by the Orthodox and other traditional Christians, through partaking of the Eucharist and through the liturgies we celebrate on Saturday, including the weekly Vigils and the frequent Saturday morning Eucharists.

You continue to apply false meanings and false implications to my words.

The real issue is this: traditional Christians would not be opposed to Sabbatarians worshipping whenever, but SDAs insist on attacking and criticizing Western Christians because your church believes that Sunday worship and laws which protect the sanctity of Sunday, which are still in force in some parts of Europe and in some American states, particularly in the South, are the mark of the Beast, which is a totally unsupported exegesis, on a par with the belief in the Investigative Judgement, which also contradicts Scripture, namely those numerous verses which make it clear that God is not subject to time, and all persons of the Trinity including Jesus Christ are unchanging and immutable.

Likewise, the idea that the celebration of the Eucharist on Sunday, in addition to on Saturday, is somehow wrong, is contradicted not just by virtue of the fact that it was on the First Day that the Light of the World began to shine upon it from the moment of its creation, by which I mean Jesus Christ, and it was on the First Day that the Light rose from the Dead, and it was on the First Day that He sent the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, to descend upon the eleven remaining disciples and St. Matthias the Apostle, who had been ordained to replace Judas Iscariot and also received the Holy Spirit at that time, and which subsequently was passed on to other Christians through Baptism and Chrismation, which are the very important means of grace, which should be provided for young children, but Adventists, due to credobaptism, don’t do that either (my friend @Ain't Zwinglian has written some excellent posts debunking Credobaptism.

Saying you disagree with the context of the scriptures is not a good argument. Jesus said the Sabbath would be kept after the cross Mat 24:20 Isa 66:23 so how exactly did it end if Jesus in His own Words said it wouldn't. You claim Paul teaches it ended, but that means he contradicted Jesus. How did a commandment of God turn into an ordinance. Something written by the finger of God turn into handwritten by Moses. Holy and blessed turned into contrary and against. The context doesn't match, but sad how many people don't care so they can support their own doctrine. I am pretty sure Paul would never teach against what Christ taught, and I am sure he would be horrified what people have done to his teachings 2 Peter 3:16. I guess all will get sorted out soon enough.

 

[The Liturgist]

When one claims Col 2:16 is referring to the weekly Sabbath, one by default is trying to change Creation week. Its impossible for the weekly Sabbath to be a shadow of anything which Col 2:17 is saying the laws Paul is referring to is a shadow. Shadow laws came after the fall of man. Creation, when the weekly Sabbath started there was no fall of man, this was God's perfect plan so no need for a plan of salvation and the Sabbath points us back to Creation - Remember the Sabbath day Exodus 20:8-11- because it happened at Creation when everything was perfect, God points us back there because He never wants us to forget where we came from or who created us and why the Sabbath is a memorial to creation and no human can reverse God's blessing. Why Paul was so careful to give the context of Col 2:14-17- ordinances, handwritten, contrary and against. That certainly does not fit the context of the Sabbath commandment- that is holy and blessed and written by the finger of God. Nor does this interpretation work in harmony with what Jesus taught in His own words that the Sabbath would not end at the cross but would be kept faithfully decades after Mat 24:20 which is why we see the apostles keeping every Sabbath Acts 18:4 because God's people keep God's commandments- His version and continues for eternity thus saith the Lord Isa 66:23

That’s not true, I did not claim any of the things you say I claimed. Regarding Colossians 2:16, I am saying it applied only to the interpretation that controlled how the Weekly Sabbath was observed by most Jews under the Torah.

We can come up with all creative ways not to obey something God said, but I don't beleive its in our best interest.

Indeed, but I haven’t done that. I am merely defending the traditional Christians, such as the Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and indeed the Roman Catholics, against false accusations from Adventists, which are made by a minority of Adventists, since most Adventists do not spend time attacking and criticizing other Christians online.

However there is a minority, including yourself, who spend much time attacking traditional Christians and saying we do not properly keep the Sabbath, and implying, in a subtle way, that we are risking seriously adverse outcomes in the Eschaton, and this is based on certain writings in your denomination that link Sunday worship with the Mark of the Beast, which is simply wrong.

(Particularly since the Mark of the Beast is described as being on the forehead and on the hand)

And it should be stressed - if it were not for St. Athanasius, who defended the doctrine of the Trinity against Arianism at the Council of Nicaea, and subsequently endured great persecution, for contrary to what many in your denomination think, the Roman Emperors throughout most of the fourth century were not Catholic, but rather every one from Constantius until Valens was an Arian, or in the case of Julian, a Neo-Platonist Pagan.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

That’s not true, I did not claim any of the things you say I claimed. Regarding Colossians 2:16, I am saying it applied only to the interpretation that controlled how the Weekly Sabbath was observed by most Jews under the Torah.

There is only one weekly Sabbath commandment- it wasn't meant to be observed differently by different people or changed later in the NT its still a commandment the way God said Luke 23:56. Col 2:16 is not about the weekly Sabbath at all if one were to care to look at the surrounding context which Paul very meticulously explains nor does this interpretation work with the teachings of Jesus about His Sabbath..

Indeed, but I haven’t done that. I am merely defending the traditional Christians, such as the Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and indeed the Roman Catholics, against false accusations from Adventists, which are made by a minority of Adventists, since most Adventists do not spend time attacking and criticizing other Christians online.

Hmmm, defending one of God's commandments is not "attacking" anyone. But I would consider your own posts that has a lot to say about Adventists a lot of the time.

However there is a minority, including yourself, who spend much time attacking traditional Christians and saying we do not properly keep the Sabbath, and implying, in a subtle way, that we are risking seriously adverse outcomes in the Eschaton, and this is based on certain writings in your denomination that link Sunday worship with the Mark of the Beast, which is simply wrong.

No one attacked anyone, again quoting something from someone verbatim admitting they change God's Sabbath commandment not based on scripture is not an attack, its sharing information and hopefully a warning to be careful who and what we are following, because following someone over obeying God has some consequences Mat 15:3-14 Mat 5:19-30 Heb 10:26-30 which is why I imagine Jesus commissioned us to teach each other the commandments Mat 5:19 Sadly, just like in scripture, not everyone wants to turn from their popular traditions and be in line with God's commandments and there is only so much one can do but will keep everyone in my prayers.


The mark of the beast is not here yet, and you brought this up, no one has it right now as we have the freedom to decide to obey God the way He asks or follow the popular traditions of man. One day soon we probably won't have that freedom and that's when everything will change - we will either accept the mark by our hand (actions- deceived like Eve) or forehead (our decision- making not deceived like Adam) both with the same result Rev 14:11 but the antidote is being faithful to God the way God asks, even if its not popular Rev 14:12 . Much like in prophetic book of Daniel when there was a decree to force one to disobey one of God's commandments. Until then no one has the mark of the beast, but we are accountable to God based on our actions 2 Cor 5:10 Rom 3:20 Ecc 12:13-14 Rev 22:14-15

Nice chatting, you take care.

 

[The Liturgist]

No one attacked anyone, again quoting something from someone verbatim admitting they change God's Sabbath commandment not based on scripture is not an attack its sharing information,

What the Roman Catholic church claims it did, and I am not sure if they made that claim in an official manner or not - I will ask @chevyontheriver for his input, because it seems a strange and unnecessary claim to make, but whatever Rome claimed, it has no bearing on the Orthodox churches or the Assyrian Church of the East, which were never part of the Roman Catholic Church, and which decided on their own, in the first century, while the Apostles were still alive, as is evinced in the New Testament and in other first century writings, to worship on Sunday in addition to worshipping on Saturday.

If you object to the word “Attack”, then at a minimum a minority of Adventists such as yourself criticize those churches which adhere to the apostolic tradition concerning the celebration of the Eucharist on Sunday as opposed to worshipping primarily or exclusively on Saturday.

In other words, whatever Rome claims, is specific to the Roman Catholic church. You cannot use their claim as the basis for a criticism of other churches including both other ancient churches from antiquity, which do exist and have always been independent of the Roman Catholic Church, even if Ellen G. White did not write about them or said otherwise, and likewise, in the case of the majority of Protestant churches that do worship on Sundays, we can say that they did so based on their own analysis of sacred scripture, particularly since many of them are not just Sola Scriptura but Nuda Scriptura. Karl Barth, for example, did not rely on or use Church Tradition when writing his massive eight volume work of systematic theology known as Church Dogmatics - rather, he determined from his own analysis that worship on Sunday is scriptural.

Some Adventists like to claim that their denomination’s interpretation of certain verses is the only one which makes sense, and that their denomination is not just Sola Scriptura but Solo Scriptura, rejecting all tradition or extra-Biblical sources of doctrine, but these claims are unsupportable. Indeed, there appears to be a certain amount of circular reasoning, in that Ellen G. White’s writings which you regard to be prophetic are not thought of as being an extra-Biblical source of doctrine, because you believe that what she wrote is consistent with the only correct interpretation of Scripture, but the problem with that is that no one before the SDA denomination or Ellen G. White taught the majority of these specific doctrines. I do of course give Ellen G. White a lot of credit for introducing the Holy Trinity to the SDA, but it is not the case that her interpretations of scripture are undisputed.

As a result, from the perspective of an outsider, given that SDA members regard her writings to be inspired prophecy, frankly, it doesn’t look good when you criticize Roman Catholics for following a tradition or magisterium, particularly since the scriptural traditions you regard as incontrovertible and use as the basis for claiming that EGW does not represent an extra-Biblical source of doctrine, are highly controversial and are generally not accepted outside the SDA.

but following it over obeying God has some consequences Mat 15:3-14 Mat 5:19-30 Heb 10:26-30 which is why Jesus wanted us to teach each other the commandments Mat 5:19 Sadly, just like in scripture, not everyone wants to turn from their popular traditions and be in line with God's commandments and there is only so much one can do but will keep everyone in my prayers.

You deny attacking us, but then engage in this kind of post which I regard as eschatologically threatening - your sentence could be rephrased as “if you don’t repent, and adopt our doctrine, you will have to face the consequences.” This is even more the case for the following paragraph:

The mark of the beast is not here yet, so no one has that right now as we have the freedom to decide to obey God the way He asks or follow the popular traditions of man. One day soon we probably won't have that freedom and that's when everything will change.

Asserting that the manner in which non-Adventists worship is “the Popular Tradition of Men” and which exposes us to receiving the Mark of the Beast is grossly offensive.

I would note that I have never said anything about the SDA denomination that suggests that Adventists are headed down such a path. And most Adventists do not say that, but the minority that do, absolutely come across as attacking Roman Catholics, and also, in particular, other churches which do not agree with Roman Catholics on many issues, but which happen to worship on Sunday, albeit for different reasons in many cases. The effect comes across as “holier than Thou” and is not an effective way of causing people to convert to your denomination.

And furthermore, I maintain Adventists should not be looking to convert other Christians anyway. It is not beneficial to convert people from one authentically Nicene Christian church to another. Most Adventist missionaries at present, as far as I am aware, are not seeking to convert other Christians.

 

[The Liturgist]

Hmmm, defending one of God's commandments is not "attacking" anyone. But I would consider your own posts that has a lot to say about Adventists a lot of the time.

My only criticism of SDAs is in response to their criticisms of the Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and other denominations that worship on Sunday as well as Saturday, and also by the false dichotomy between Catholicism and Protestantism (exemplified by the SDA) present in the writings of EGW, which is dismissive of non-Adventist Protestants like Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Methodists, etc, and which ignores Orthodoxy altogether, as if Ellen G. White were unaware that we existed (which is quite possible, as most Americans of the time were not extremely knowledgeable about the Orthodox Church, and even today, we are something of a mystery for most people).

And likewise, by the use of arguments attributed to Roman Catholics as if they reflect the doctrine of our church regarding Sunday, or somehow explain why we worship on Sunday. I know that not to be the case in the Orthodox Church, and with regards to Lutherans, I expect @MarkRohfrietsch or @Ain't Zwinglian can explain why Martin Luther determined Sunday worship to be appropriate, and the answer will differ from the answer you ascribe to the Roman Catholics, which I asked our Roman Catholic friend @chevyontheriver to verify.

In short, I would have no criticism of the SDA if the SDAs did not criticize my denomination and warn of dire eschatological consequences if we do not adopt the SDA view on how worship on the Sabbath ought to be conducted, and stop worshipping on Sundays, which is unacceptable, because even the Jews have synagogue services on Sunday, and the idea that we should not worship on the day Christ our True God rose from the dead and the Holy Spirit descended on the Twelve Apostles in the Upper Rome of the House of St. Mark in Jerusalem, is akin to saying that Jews should not celebrate Hanukkah or Purim, when their people were delivered from destruction by Antiochius and by Haman respectively, through God answering the prays of the Maccabees and St. Esther’s father Mordecai, since the celebration of these feasts is not scripturally mandated.

I would note also there are other Sabbatarian churches on CF.com which I have never had the occasion to disagree with, for example, our Messianic Jewish community, because they do not engage in the kind of criticism of the Orthodox Church or the Lutheran church or others that we see in this thread. Indeed I have a friend on the forum in that community, whose posts in the politics forum I greatly admire. I have never made a post criticizing Messianic Judaism - I don’t care that they worship on Saturdays, because my church worships on Saturdays, but apparently worshipping on Saturday is not even remotely enough to avert SDA criticism.

Thus if SDAs would refrain from criticizing us, and instead focus on developing friendship and fellowship with us, I would be elated, and I would have no cause for criticizing the SDA denomination. In the case of non-Trinitarian Adventists, I would still criticize them, because non-Trinitarianism is a very serious problem.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

My only criticism of SDAs is in response to their criticisms of the Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and other denominations that worship on Sunday as well as Saturday, and also by the false dichotomy between Catholicism and Protestantism (exemplified by the SDA) present in the writings of EGW, which is dismissive of non-Adventist Protestants like Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Methodists, etc, and which ignores Orthodoxy altogether, as if Ellen G. White were unaware that we existed (which is quite possible, as most Americans of the time were not extremely knowledgeable about the Orthodox Church, and even today, we are something of a mystery for most people).

And likewise, by the use of arguments attributed to Roman Catholics as if they reflect the doctrine of our church regarding Sunday, or somehow explain why we worship on Sunday. I know that not to be the case in the Orthodox Church, and with regards to Lutherans, I expect @MarkRohfrietsch or @Ain't Zwinglian can explain why Martin Luther determined Sunday worship to be appropriate, and the answer will differ from the answer you ascribe to the Roman Catholics, which I asked our Roman Catholic friend @chevyontheriver to verify.

In short, I would have no criticism of the SDA if the SDAs did not criticize my denomination and warn of dire eschatological consequences if we do not adopt the SDA view on how worship on the Sabbath ought to be conducted, and stop worshipping on Sundays, which is unacceptable, because even the Jews have synagogue services on Sunday, and the idea that we should not worship on the day Christ our True God rose from the dead and the Holy Spirit descended on the Twelve Apostles in the Upper Rome of the House of St. Mark in Jerusalem, is akin to saying that Jews should not celebrate Hanukkah or Purim, when their people were delivered from destruction by Antiochius and by Haman respectively, through God answering the prays of the Maccabees and St. Esther’s father Mordecai, since the celebration of these feasts is not scripturally mandated.

I would note also there are other Sabbatarian churches on CF.com which I have never had the occasion to disagree with, for example, our Messianic Jewish community, because they do not engage in the kind of criticism of the Orthodox Church or the Lutheran church or others that we see in this thread. Indeed I have a friend on the forum in that community, whose posts in the politics forum I greatly admire. I have never made a post criticizing Messianic Judaism - I don’t care that they worship on Saturdays, because my church worships on Saturdays, but apparently worshipping on Saturday is not even remotely enough to avert SDA criticism.

Thus if SDAs would refrain from criticizing us, and instead focus on developing friendship and fellowship with us, I would be elated, and I would have no cause for criticizing the SDA denomination. In the case of non-Trinitarian Adventists, I would still criticize them, because non-Trinitarianism is a very serious problem.

It’s not about critiquing a denomination, it’s about following God’s Word. You seem to take the personal route when really we should be discussing scripture. I have not brought anyone’s denomination into these discussions, you are the one who has and frequently do, I try to keep it about scripture. I provided prophecy about God’s times and laws being changed and by the group who openly admits they did so that most the world follows, strangely that was offensive to you, not what was being shared, the act of changing one of God’s commandments, but because it was being shared as if thats is not supposed to be for some reason when they openly admit to it, they actually seem proud of it.

I’m not interested in other peoples opinions about their views of my church because it doesn’t impact me one way or the other. What I care about is following God’s Word and do believe we should obey God the way God commands, because He is our Creator and He knows what’s best for us, its when we go off that path I believe there is real danger Mat 15:3-14 Isa 8:20 Mat 5:19 but for some reason most the world doesn’t see it that way and its amazing how history keeps repeating itself.

Anyway, we are getting way off topic and I do not think we will come to any agreement and thats ok, so I’m going to just end it with agree to disagree, but I do wish you well.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What the Roman Catholic church claims it did, and I am not sure if they made that claim in an official manner or not - I will ask @chevyontheriver for his input, because it seems a strange and unnecessary claim to make, but whatever Rome claimed, it has no bearing on ....

I have been through this so many times and I no longer care to play Whack-a-Mole any longer. Some Catholic one hundred and eleventy years ago said "We changed the Sabbath." and the SDA got all excited about it and keep trotting it out as if it was from some Council or some infallible statement of some pope. It's silliness. It's irrelevant. But they think it's the perfect gotcha. It's about as relevant as reducing the name 'Ellen Gould White' to Roman numerals and getting a particular beastly number. I don't play those games with the SDA folks, so many of whom are devoted anti-Catholics. They aren't going to change. They are deathly afraid that the Catholic Church will enact laws to force them to worship on Sunday. It's silly. I'm not going to waste time on such delusionalists. Sorry. Moving on.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have been through this so many times and I no longer care to play Whack-a-Mole any longer. Some Catholic one hundred and eleventy years ago said "We changed the Sabbath." and the SDA got all excited about it and keep trotting it out as if it was from some Council or some infallible statement of some pope. It's silliness. It's irrelevant. But they think it's the perfect gotcha. It's about as relevant as reducing the name 'Ellen Gould White' to Roman numerals and getting a particular beastly number. I don't play those games with the SDA folks, so many of whom are devoted anti-Catholics. They aren't going to change. They are deathly afraid that the Catholic Church will enact laws to force them to worship on Sunday. It's silly. I'm not going to waste time on such delusionalists. Sorry. Moving on.

Ah, that was what I wanted to know. I had feared as much - that your church was being misquoted, and it distresses me that they would do that.

God bless you my friend!

 

[chevyontheriver]

Ah, that was what I wanted to know. I had feared as much - that your church was being misquoted, and it distresses me that they would do that.

God bless you my friend!

No. There is a quote. It's from some defunct Catholic magazine that ran an article where the author said "We changed the Sabbath". Or at least that's the SDA claim. Since the magazine has been defunct so long I don't know how to even see a copy of it from a non-SDA source. But even if it was actually in an article published in a real Catholic magazine it's just some guy saying something. It's almost like using the 'Wicked Bible', the one edition of the KJV that was published as saying 'Thou shalt commit adultery' as anything but a typesetting error.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The Sabbath was changed just as predicted and no one is forcing us not to keep the Sabbath commandment in lieu of tradition. God has good people in every church but asks us to come out of our false teachings handed down over the centuries and get back to His Word Rev 18:4 Mat 15:3-14 John 4:23-24. Jesus is coming soon!

So these sources from Catholic publications are "unreliable" all claiming the same thing over the centuries?

It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church.
—Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, NJ ‘News’ on March 18, 1903.



Of course these two old quotations are exactly correct. The Catholic Church designated Sunday as the day for corporate worship and gets full credit – or blame – for the change.
—This Rock, The Magazine of Catholic Apologetics and Evangelization, p.8, June 1997



Q. Have you any other proofs that they(Protestants) are not guided by the Scripture?
A. Yes; so many, that we cannot admit more than a mere specimen into this small work. They reject much that is clearly contained in Scripture, and profess more that is nowhere discoverable in that Divine Book.
Q. Give some examples of both?
A. They should, if the Scripture were their only rule, wash the feet of one another, according to the command of Christ, in the 13th chap. of St. John; —they should keep, not the Sunday, but the Saturday, according to the commandment, "Remember thou keep holy the SABBATH-day;" for this commandment has not, in Scripture, been changed or abrogated;...
—Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 101 Imprimatuer



Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; —she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.
—Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 174

A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan

Q. In what manner can we show a Protestant, that he speaks unreasonably against fasts and abstinences?
A. Ask him why he keeps Sunday, and not Saturday, as his day of rest, since he is unwilling either to fast or to abstain. If he reply, that the Scripture orders him to keep the Sunday, but says nothing as to fasting and abstinence, tell him the Scripture speaks of Saturday or the Sabbath, but gives no command anywhere regarding Sunday or the first day of the week.
If, then he neglects Saturday as a day of rest and holiness, and substitutes Sunday in its place, and this merely because such was the usage of the ancient Church, should he not, if he wishes to act consistently, observe fasting and abstinence, because the ancient Church so ordained?
—Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 181


Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.
—Rev. Peter Geiermann C.SS.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50


Q. Must not a sensible Protestant doubt seriously, when he finds that even the Bible is not followed as a rule by his co-religionists?
A. Surely, when he sees them baptize infants, abrogate the Jewish Sabbath, and observe Sunday for which [pg. 7] there is no Scriptural authority; when he finds them neglect to wash one another's feet, which is expressly commanded, and eat blood and things strangled, which are expressly prohibited in Scripture. He must doubt, if he think at all. ...
Q. Should not the Protestant doubt when he finds that he himself holds tradition as a guide?
A. Yes, if he would but reflect that he has nothing but Catholic Tradition for keeping the Sunday holy; ...
—Controversial Catechism by Stephen Keenan, New Edition, revised by Rev. George Cormack, published in London by Burns & Oates, Limited - New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: Benzinger Brothers, 1896, pages 6, 7.



The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians.
—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Commandments of God, Volume IV, © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition © 1999 by Kevin Knight,
Nihil Obstat - Remy Lafort, Censor Imprimatur - +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 153.



The [Roman Catholic] Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant.
—The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4.

All of us believe many things in regard to religion that we do not find in the Bible. For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the Church outside the Bible.
—The Catholic Virginian, To Tell You The Truth,” Vol. 22, No. 49 (Oct. 3, 1947).


... you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.
—The Faith of Our Fathers, by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 88th edition, page 89. Originally published in 1876, republished and Copyright 1980 by TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., pages 72-73.


Deny the authority of the Church and you have no adequate or reasonable explanation or justification for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday in the Third - Protestant Fourth - Commandment of God... The Church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.'
—Catholic Record, September 1, 1923.




Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday. "The Day of the Lord" (dies Dominica) was chosen, not from any directions noted in the Scriptures, but from the Church's sense of its own power. The day of resurrection, the day of Pentecost, fifty days later, came on the first day of the week. So this would be the new Sabbath. People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy.
—Sentinel, Pastor's page, Saint Catherine Catholic Church, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 199\

If Protestants would follow the Bible, they would worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church.
—Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the Cardinal, in a letter dated February 10, 1920.


The observance of Sunday by the Protestants is homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] Church.
—Monsignor Louis Segur, ‘Plain Talk about the Protestantism of Today’, p. 213.


What Important Question Does the Papacy Ask Protestants?
Protestants have repeatedly asked the papacy, "How could you dare to change God's law?" But the question posed to Protestants by the Catholic church is even more penetrating.

Here it is officially: You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! but by whom? Who has authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day, who shall dare to say, Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day; but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead?

This is a most important question, which I know not how you can answer. You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded.

The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the ten commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding; who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered.
—Library of Christian Doctrine: Why Don't You Keep Holy the Sabbath-Day? (London: Burns and Oates, Ltd.), pp. 3, 4.



Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act. And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters.
—C. F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons, in answer to a letter regarding the change of the Sabbath, November 11, 1895.


Tradition, not Scripture, is the rock on which the church of Jesus Christ is built.
—Adrien Nampon, Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent, p. 157


The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine law". The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts a vicegerent of God upon earth
—Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, art. Papa, II, Vol. VI, p. 29.

The leader of the Catholic church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who "takes the place" of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity.
—John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 3, 1994


...pastoral intuition suggested to the Church the christianization of the notion of Sunday as "the day of the sun", which was the Roman name for the day and which is retained in some modern languages.(29) This was in order to draw the faithful away from the seduction of cults which worshipped the sun, and to direct the celebration of the day to Christ, humanity's true 'sun'.
—John Paul II, Dies Domini, 27. The day of Christ-Light, 1998 (Prominent protestant leaders agree with this statement - <a href=/sabbath-history/denominational-statements-on-the-sabbath/id/baptist>See here for a statement by Dr. E. T. Hiscox, author of the ‘Baptist Manual’</a>)


The Sun was a foremost god with heathen-dom…The sun has worshippers at this hour in Persia and other lands…. There is, in truth, something royal, kingly about the sun, making it a fit emblem of Jesus, the Sun of Justice. Hence the church in these countries would seem to have said, to 'Keep that old pagan name [Sunday]. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified.' And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus.
—William Gildea, Doctor of Divinity, The Catholic World, March, 1894, p. 809




When St. Paul repudiated the works of the law, he was not thinking of the Ten Commandments, which are as unchangeable as God Himself is, which God could not change and still remain the infinitely holy God.
—Our Sunday Visitor, Oct. 7, I951.

Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays?

Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.
—Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p.58 (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris [1916 ed.], p.67)


Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the NEW LAW, that he himself has explicitly substituted Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as holy days. The church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days.
—Vincent J. Kelly, Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, Studies in Sacred Theology, No. 70.,1943, p. 2.


If we consulted the Bible only, we should still have to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is, Saturday, with the Jews, instead of Sunday; ...
—A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, by Rev. John Laux M.A., Benzinger Brothers, 1936 edition, Part 1.
Sunday is a Catholic institution, and... can be defended only on Catholic principles.... From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first.
—Catholic Press, Aug. 25, 1900

The Sabbath was Saturday, not Sunday. The Church altered the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of Sunday. Protestants must be rather puzzled by the keeping of Sunday when God distinctly said, 'Keep holy the Sabbath Day.' The word Sunday does not come anywhere in the Bible, so, without knowing it they are obeying the authority of the Catholic Church.
—Canon Cafferata, The Catechism Explained, p. 89.

Reason and sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible.
—John Cardinal Gibbons, The Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893.

 

[The Liturgist]

So are you claiming these sources from Catholic publications are "unreliable" sources all claiming the same thing over the centuries?

the Sabbath was changed just as predicted and no one is forcing us not to keep the Sabbath commandment in lieu of tradition. God has people in every church but asks us to come out of our false teachings handed down over the centuries and get back to His Word Rev 18:4 Mat 15:3-14 John 4:23-24. Jesus is coming soon!

It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church.
—Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, NJ ‘News’ on March 18, 1903.



Of course these two old quotations are exactly correct. The Catholic Church designated Sunday as the day for corporate worship and gets full credit – or blame – for the change.
—This Rock, The Magazine of Catholic Apologetics and Evangelization, p.8, June 1997



Q. Have you any other proofs that they(Protestants) are not guided by the Scripture?
A. Yes; so many, that we cannot admit more than a mere specimen into this small work. They reject much that is clearly contained in Scripture, and profess more that is nowhere discoverable in that Divine Book.
Q. Give some examples of both?
A. They should, if the Scripture were their only rule, wash the feet of one another, according to the command of Christ, in the 13th chap. of St. John; —they should keep, not the Sunday, but the Saturday, according to the commandment, "Remember thou keep holy the SABBATH-day;" for this commandment has not, in Scripture, been changed or abrogated;...
—Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 101 Imprimatuer



Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; —she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.
—Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 174


Q. In what manner can we show a Protestant, that he speaks unreasonably against fasts and abstinences?
A. Ask him why he keeps Sunday, and not Saturday, as his day of rest, since he is unwilling either to fast or to abstain. If he reply, that the Scripture orders him to keep the Sunday, but says nothing as to fasting and abstinence, tell him the Scripture speaks of Saturday or the Sabbath, but gives no command anywhere regarding Sunday or the first day of the week.
If, then he neglects Saturday as a day of rest and holiness, and substitutes Sunday in its place, and this merely because such was the usage of the ancient Church, should he not, if he wishes to act consistently, observe fasting and abstinence, because the ancient Church so ordained?
—Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 181


Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.
—Rev. Peter Geiermann C.SS.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50


Q. Must not a sensible Protestant doubt seriously, when he finds that even the Bible is not followed as a rule by his co-religionists?
A. Surely, when he sees them baptize infants, abrogate the Jewish Sabbath, and observe Sunday for which [pg. 7] there is no Scriptural authority; when he finds them neglect to wash one another's feet, which is expressly commanded, and eat blood and things strangled, which are expressly prohibited in Scripture. He must doubt, if he think at all. ...
Q. Should not the Protestant doubt when he finds that he himself holds tradition as a guide?
A. Yes, if he would but reflect that he has nothing but Catholic Tradition for keeping the Sunday holy; ...
—Controversial Catechism by Stephen Keenan, New Edition, revised by Rev. George Cormack, published in London by Burns & Oates, Limited - New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: Benzinger Brothers, 1896, pages 6, 7.



The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians.
—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Commandments of God, Volume IV, © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition © 1999 by Kevin Knight,
Nihil Obstat - Remy Lafort, Censor Imprimatur - +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 153.



The [Roman Catholic] Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant.
—The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4.

All of us believe many things in regard to religion that we do not find in the Bible. For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the Church outside the Bible.
—The Catholic Virginian, To Tell You The Truth,” Vol. 22, No. 49 (Oct. 3, 1947).


... you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.
—The Faith of Our Fathers, by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 88th edition, page 89. Originally published in 1876, republished and Copyright 1980 by TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., pages 72-73.


Deny the authority of the Church and you have no adequate or reasonable explanation or justification for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday in the Third - Protestant Fourth - Commandment of God... The Church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.'
—Catholic Record, September 1, 1923.




Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday. "The Day of the Lord" (dies Dominica) was chosen, not from any directions noted in the Scriptures, but from the Church's sense of its own power. The day of resurrection, the day of Pentecost, fifty days later, came on the first day of the week. So this would be the new Sabbath. People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy.
—Sentinel, Pastor's page, Saint Catherine Catholic Church, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 199\

If Protestants would follow the Bible, they would worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church.
—Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the Cardinal, in a letter dated February 10, 1920.


The observance of Sunday by the Protestants is homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] Church.
—Monsignor Louis Segur, ‘Plain Talk about the Protestantism of Today’, p. 213.


What Important Question Does the Papacy Ask Protestants?
Protestants have repeatedly asked the papacy, "How could you dare to change God's law?" But the question posed to Protestants by the Catholic church is even more penetrating.

Here it is officially: You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! but by whom? Who has authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day, who shall dare to say, Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day; but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead?

This is a most important question, which I know not how you can answer. You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded.

The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the ten commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding; who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered.
—Library of Christian Doctrine: Why Don't You Keep Holy the Sabbath-Day? (London: Burns and Oates, Ltd.), pp. 3, 4.



Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act. And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters.
—C. F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons, in answer to a letter regarding the change of the Sabbath, November 11, 1895.


Tradition, not Scripture, is the rock on which the church of Jesus Christ is built.
—Adrien Nampon, Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent, p. 157


The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine law". The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts a vicegerent of God upon earth
—Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, art. Papa, II, Vol. VI, p. 29.

The leader of the Catholic church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who "takes the place" of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity.
—John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 3, 1994


...pastoral intuition suggested to the Church the christianization of the notion of Sunday as "the day of the sun", which was the Roman name for the day and which is retained in some modern languages.(29) This was in order to draw the faithful away from the seduction of cults which worshipped the sun, and to direct the celebration of the day to Christ, humanity's true 'sun'.
—John Paul II, Dies Domini, 27. The day of Christ-Light, 1998 (Prominent protestant leaders agree with this statement - <a href=/sabbath-history/denominational-statements-on-the-sabbath/id/baptist>See here for a statement by Dr. E. T. Hiscox, author of the ‘Baptist Manual’</a>)


The Sun was a foremost god with heathen-dom…The sun has worshippers at this hour in Persia and other lands…. There is, in truth, something royal, kingly about the sun, making it a fit emblem of Jesus, the Sun of Justice. Hence the church in these countries would seem to have said, to 'Keep that old pagan name [Sunday]. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified.' And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus.
—William Gildea, Doctor of Divinity, The Catholic World, March, 1894, p. 809




When St. Paul repudiated the works of the law, he was not thinking of the Ten Commandments, which are as unchangeable as God Himself is, which God could not change and still remain the infinitely holy God.
—Our Sunday Visitor, Oct. 7, I951.

Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays?

Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.
—Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p.58 (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris [1916 ed.], p.67)


Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the NEW LAW, that he himself has explicitly substituted Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as holy days. The church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days.
—Vincent J. Kelly, Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, Studies in Sacred Theology, No. 70.,1943, p. 2.


If we consulted the Bible only, we should still have to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is, Saturday, with the Jews, instead of Sunday; ...
—A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, by Rev. John Laux M.A., Benzinger Brothers, 1936 edition, Part 1.
Sunday is a Catholic institution, and... can be defended only on Catholic principles.... From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first.
—Catholic Press, Aug. 25, 1900

The Sabbath was Saturday, not Sunday. The Church altered the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of Sunday. Protestants must be rather puzzled by the keeping of Sunday when God distinctly said, 'Keep holy the Sabbath Day.' The word Sunday does not come anywhere in the Bible, so, without knowing it they are obeying the authority of the Catholic Church.
—Canon Cafferata, The Catechism Explained, p. 89.

Reason and sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible.
—John Cardinal Gibbons, The Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893.

Frankly, we have no idea of knowing if your quotations of them are accurate, but it hardly matters, since none of those publications are official. And individual clergy and laity, even bishops, sometimes make erroneous statements. Additionally all of these quotes are extremely brief and lacking in context,

The only official sources with any standing are on vatican.va and would include the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Thus basically the criticism you have levelled at non-Sabbatarians, as I repeatedly said, is without merit - it was baseless to start because you cited the Roman Catholic Church in the context of a discussion of other churches which have totally distinct histories and reasons for doing things, and you cannot criticize a decision for church A based on the rationale used by church B to make the same decision, when church A might have a completely different understanding.

But not that it emerges that you weren’t even quoting anything approaching an official, or even verifiable, Roman Catholic source, it frankly comes across as unwarranted criticism of Roman Catholics, and this is broadly unacceptable, and is extremely counter-productive on your end, since you cannot hope to convert people to your church (and as I have said repeatedly, you shouldn’t even be trying to convert other Nicene Christians, when the world is filled with J?ws, Mormons and other heretics, as well as Muslims and Pagans who are much more spiritually at-risk) when you say such things about their own churches.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Frankly, we have no idea of knowing if your quotations of them are accurate, but it hardly matters, since none of those publications are official. And individual clergy and laity, even bishops, sometimes make erroneous statements. Additionally all of these quotes are extremely brief and lacking in context,

The only official sources with any standing are on vatican.va and would include the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Thus basically the criticism you have levelled at non-Sabbatarians, as I repeatedly said, is without merit - it was baseless to start because you cited the Roman Catholic Church in the context of a discussion of other churches which have totally distinct histories and reasons for doing things, and you cannot criticize a decision for church A based on the rationale used by church B to make the same decision, when church A might have a completely different understanding.

But not that it emerges that you weren’t even quoting anything approaching an official, or even verifiable, Roman Catholic source, it frankly comes across as unwarranted criticism of Roman Catholics, and this is broadly unacceptable, and is extremely counter-productive on your end, since you cannot hope to convert people to your church (and as I have said repeatedly, you shouldn’t even be trying to convert other Nicene Christians, when the world is filled with J?ws, Mormons and other heretics, as well as Muslims and Pagans who are much more spiritually at-risk) when you say such things about their own churches.

A Doctrinal Catechism, The Catholic Encyclopedia, various Catholic priests and Catholic publications all saying the same thing are misquoting their own church?

Putting aside their own quotes claiming the change of the Sabbath did not come from the bible, we can search the bible from cover to cover and will not find the Sabbath commandment abrogated in the scriptures. Not by teaching, not by what Jesus and the apostles kept faithfully. There is no commandment to keep Sunday holy, there is no blessing from God on the first day, not sanctified by God, but there is for the Sabbath. God is who created us and who we should follow. God personally wrote His commandments, and man does not have the authority to re-define, edit or change any of them because man is not above God. The Sabbath does not point us to Christ tomb, Christ kept the Sabbath even in death but God points the Sabbath back to Creation Exo 20:11 because He is our Creator the only God who has power to sanctify Eze 20:12 and keeping faithfully shows He is our God, Eze 20:20 thus saith the Lord. I think its best we obey God over following popular traditions of man, at least this is what Jesus taught Mat 15:3-14 Mark 7:7-13 but we each will have to make our own decisions and one day soon this will all get sorted out.

 

[The Liturgist]

It’s not about critiquing a denomination, it’s about following God’s Word. You seem to take the personal route when really we should be discussing scripture. I have not brought anyone’s denomination into these discussions, you are the one who has and frequently do, I try to keep it about scripture.

That’s simply not true. When I provided you with a list of Scriptures contrary to certain SDA doctrines, you responded with an irrelevant criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, which is how we wound up here. And every other post I have used, where I cited scripture, you have either ignored, or tried to avoid answering by using 2 Peter 3:16 as a catch-all to invalidate anything said by St. Paul, which is a transparent eisegetical move.

And as far as “following God’s Word”* is concerned, nothing in Sacred Scripture instructs you to criticize other Christian churches on the basis of statements they deny having made, or reject, in the case of the Roman church or which were not made by them at all, in the case of the Orthodox or Lutheran or Anglican churches. But there is much in scripture that could be used to argue such negative proselytism is wrong and should be avoided.

* And since following God’s Word can be used to refer to following Jesus Christ, based on John 1:1-18, the Golden Rule also applies with regards to Christian churches, and there is also the issue that the Great Apostasy doctrine your denomination relies on directly contradicts Matthew 16:18, et cetera.