Try to find SDA view of Sabbath vs Sunday in the Early Church Fathers with links to quotes

Concord1968 · Oct 30, 2019

Daniel Marsh said:
Oh, I was using the wrong word, sorry. I am often tired and did not catch the mistake of the spell check.

irrelevant
adjective
US /ɪˈrel·ə·vənt/

not related to what is being discussed or considered:
These documents(Bible Quotes) are totally irrelevant to the investigation or in this case discussion.
IRRELEVANT | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Your approach is out of line with the OP asking for historical proof outside the Bible.

The ECF were taught by the Apostles making their writings relevant.

I just thought it rather odd. Not defending the SDA on any level, I just thought your word usage didn't make sense. Carry on!

Daniel Marsh · Oct 30, 2019

BobRyan said:
NT writers are historical sources that demonstrate how the Early Church understand the Bible and were taught directly by the Apostles.. and as Paul points out in Acts 20 - they are far more reliable, far more to be trusted than sources coming along 100's of years later.

the Point remains.

No it does not because proof from historical sources outside the Bible was asked for. The NT as we have it was not compiled as a cannon until arounds 400 AD. The NT only shows in places how the OT Hebrew Scriptures were poorly handled. Not all Churches had all the books of the NT that we have today. In fact, some had books that we do not have in our NT. But, those books do exist within the church fathers.

2 Thessalonians 2:15So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.

2 Thessalonians 3:6Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received of us.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 American Standard Version (ASV)
6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received of us.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Good News Translation (GNT)
15 So then, our friends, stand firm and hold on to those truths which we taught you, both in our preaching and in our letter.

The NT as we have it is at best part of the picture. The Early church was also verbally taught by the Apostles. Not even everything that Jesus taught was written down in the Gospels. It would make sense that the Apostles did not write down everything they taught. Most of the NT is Paul's Letters correcting errors in churches.

John 21:25 Now, there are many other things that Jesus did. If they were all written down one by one, I suppose that the whole world could not hold the books that would be written.

Daniel Marsh · Oct 30, 2019

The Orthodox Russian and other branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church have a New Testament identical with the Catholic. In Syria the Nestorians possess a Canon almost identical with the final one of the ancient East Syrians; they exclude the four smaller Catholic Epistles and Apocalypse. The Monophysites receive all the book. The Armenians have one apocryphal letter to the Corinthians and two from the same. The Coptic-Arabic Church include with the canonical Scriptures the Apostolic Constitutions and the Clementine Epistles. The Ethiopic New Testament also contains the so-called "Apostolic Constitutions".
Biblical canon - Wikipedia

Ancient Canon Lists

A few of the shorter Epistles (e.g. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude) and the Revelation were much longer in being accepted in some parts than in others; while elsewhere books which we do not now include in the New Testament were received as canonical. Thus the Codex Sinaiticus included the 'Epistle of Barnabas' and the Shepherd of Hermas, a Roman work of about AD 110 or earlier, while the Codex Alexandrinus included the writings known as the First and Second Epistles of Clement; and the inclusion of these works alongside the biblical writings probably indicates that they were accorded some degree of canonical status.
The Canon of the New Testament, by F.F. Bruce

What's In Your Bible — Bible Study Magazine ..

BobRyan · Oct 30, 2019

BobRyan said:
I am pretty good at dismissing "ignore your Bible when vetting doctrine" challenges

I mentioned your no-Bible-just-ECF for doctrine idea to some of your fellow ECF-ers and they could not believe anyone was actually doing such a thing. Thankfully we have your threads here to demonstrate the reality of it.

Daniel Marsh said:
ECF are historical sources that demonstrates how the Early Church understand the Bible and were taught directly by the Apostles

NT writers are historical sources that demonstrate how the Early Church understand the Bible and were taught directly by the Apostles.. and as Paul points out in Acts 20 - they are far more reliable, far more to be trusted than sources coming along 100's of years later.

BobRyan said:
Acts 20
29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

No wonder Christ demonstrated the way to "hammer" supposedly holy-tradition of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai -- via "sola scriptura"

the Point remains.

Daniel Marsh said:
No it does not

yes... it does.

Now see? wasn't that easy -- we reduce the difference to a very fine point. I find that very useful for future reference.

Daniel Marsh said:
because proof from historical sources outside the Bible was asked for.

But in fact proof for historical Biblical sources is necessary and normative. In fact as Christ points out - it has authority OVER the attempts to "ignore the Bible and just go with whatever tradition one prefers".

See that Mark 7 point that Christ makes.

Daniel Marsh said:
The NT as we have it was not compiled as a cannon until arounds 400 AD.

1. It was all written long before 400 A.D. and before 100. A.D,

2. That did not stop Christ from making his point about scripture passing judgment on church tradition as we saw in Mark 7.

Those details matter.

My point is not that "tradition does not exist" or that "tradition must always be in error" -- my point is that scripture is the judge of it.

Daniel Marsh · Oct 30, 2019

There were various canons floating around back then. It is from the Church Fathers and councils that we know today what books belong. Most teaching was done by word of mouth back then. Most people could not read. None of the local Churches back then did not have all books of the NT and depended on verbal teaching by those taught by the Apostles or by someone else taught by them. It was not until around 400 CE that a canon was compiled. The printing press did not even exist. Everything was hand written and thus expensive.

BobRyan · Oct 31, 2019

BobRyan said:
I am pretty good at dismissing "ignore your Bible when vetting doctrine" challenges

I mentioned your no-Bible-just-ECF for doctrine idea to some of your fellow ECF-ers and they could not believe anyone was actually doing such a thing. Thankfully we have your threads here to demonstrate the reality of it.

Daniel Marsh said:
ECF are historical sources that demonstrates how the Early Church understand the Bible and were taught directly by the Apostles

NT writers are historical sources that demonstrate how the Early Church understand the Bible and were taught directly by the Apostles.. and as Paul points out in Acts 20 - they are far more reliable, far more to be trusted than sources coming along 100's of years later.

BobRyan said:
Acts 20
29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

No wonder Christ demonstrated the way to "hammer" supposedly holy-tradition of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai -- via "sola scriptura"

the Point remains.

Daniel Marsh said:
No it does not because proof from historical sources outside the Bible was asked for.

By contrast the Bible shows that the NT saints demanded sola scriptura "proof".

We are not sola-ecf Christians rather we are sola-scriptura Christians.

Enjoy your thread.

BobRyan · Oct 31, 2019

Daniel Marsh said:
There were various canons floating around back then. It is from the Church Fathers and councils that we know today what books belong. Most teaching was done by word of mouth back then. Most people could not read.

Which is not what we see in the NT text. There we see evangelism of both Jew and Gentile happening in the synagogues Acts 18:4 and "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11

I prefer the Bible.

Mark 7
5 The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” 6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

ViaCrucis · Nov 4, 2019

Dave-W said:
You won't. The writings of the ECFs that were retained are mostly post-Bar Kochba, when Rome cracked down hard on anything that looked Jewish. So the church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. Writings that advocated for a continued Saturday Sabbath were not retained. Indeed, Eusubius, writing circa 300 ad, listed sabbath keepers like the Nazoreans and Ebionites as heretics.

Ignatius, who had learned at the feet of the Apostles personally and who had been hand-picked by Peter to succeed Evodius after the latter's death, writes:

"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death — whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master" - St. Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, c. 107 AD

From a Lutheran perspective we'd describe the above as a kind of in statu confessionis, being in a state of confession. Under ordinary circumstances the observation of the Sabbath for Jewish Christians wouldn't be a problem; but given the heresies of the various Judaizing sects, it would be necessary to make a stand of faith against false teaching. Ignatius, following in the footsteps of the Apostles, calls for Christians to be bold in their faith, and not be lured into the false religion of the Judaizing heretics.

The Church never "changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday". We see, as the witness of both the Apostles and the Fathers demonstrates, that Christians have always gathered together and worshiped on the first day of the week. The earliest Christians, being Jews, did continue to come together to the synagogue on the Sabbath; this was fine until it was no longer feasible to do so. And so the traditional liturgy of the synagogue, Christianized, was assumed into the Christian Lord's Day celebration of the Eucharist, thus giving rise to the two halves of the Liturgy: The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Altar; all now being done on the first day of the week.

The myth of changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday has no basis in the historical record. The usual claim is made that Constantine accomplished this, however from the Corpus Juris of Justinian we know that the only thing Constantine did was make the first day of the week a civil holiday (with an exemption for those who work the fields in rural areas). The first day of the week was never made the Sabbath; but it has always been the Kyriake hemera, the Lord's Day.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Nov 4, 2019

BobRyan said:
We are not sola-ecf Christians rather we are sola-scriptura Christians.

Is this a disavowing of Ellen White as a divinely inspired prophetess?

-CryptoLutheran

Dave-W · Nov 4, 2019

ViaCrucis said:
Christians have always gathered together and worshiped on the first day of the week.

That was a havdalah service at and just after sundown Saturday evening.

ViaCrucis · Nov 4, 2019

Dave-W said:
That was a havdalah service at and just after sundown Saturday evening.

Perhaps, and yet we have the testimony of both Christians and their opponents speaking of the gathering early in the morning on the first day of the week.

"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food." - Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan

"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn; and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration." - St. Justin, First Apology, ch. 66

-CryptoLutheran

Dave-W · Nov 4, 2019

And what were the dates of those writings?

BobRyan · Nov 4, 2019

Daniel Marsh said:
No it does not because proof from historical sources outside the Bible was asked for.

By contrast the Bible shows that the NT saints demanded sola scriptura "proof".

We are not sola-ecf Christians rather we are sola-scriptura Christians.

Enjoy your thread.

ViaCrucis said:
Is this a disavowing of Ellen White as a divinely inspired

Did Paul reject scripture the moment he heard Agabus in Acts 21 predict his imprisonment in Jerusalem.??

It is hard to follow the logic in your statement.

Meanwhile - ECF-and-No-Bible agenda on this thread is fine as an example of where this goes. Far be it from me to hinder that progress.

ViaCrucis · Nov 4, 2019

Dave-W said:
And what were the dates of those writings?

Trajan was emperor between 98 and 117 AD, so Pliny's letter was written somewhere within that window.

St. Justin wrote his apology sometime in the 150's, possibly in response to Polycarp's martyrdom (c. 155 AD).

I simply doubt that the time frame between Bar Kochba's rebellion and Justin's writing is sufficient to completely and radically restructure the entire apostolic religion.

The letters of Ignatius and Pliny's writings, predating Bar Kochba, also make such a theory less tenable.

-CryptoLutheran

Daniel Marsh · Nov 4, 2019

BobRyan said:
NT writers are historical sources that demonstrate how the Early Church understand the Bible and were taught directly by the Apostles.. and as Paul points out in Acts 20 - they are far more reliable, far more to be trusted than sources coming along 100's of years later.

the Point remains.

By contrast the Bible shows that the NT saints demanded sola scriptura "proof".

We are not sola-ecf Christians rather we are sola-scriptura Christians.

Enjoy your thread.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Daniel Marsh · Nov 4, 2019

BobRyan said:
Which is not what we see in the NT text. There we see evangelism of both Jew and Gentile happening in the synagogues Acts 18:4 and "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11

I prefer the Bible.

2 Thessalonians 2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Daniel Marsh · Nov 4, 2019

ViaCrucis said:
Ignatius, who had learned at the feet of the Apostles personally and who had been hand-picked by Peter to succeed Evodius after the latter's death, writes:

"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death — whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master" - St. Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, c. 107 AD

From a Lutheran perspective we'd describe the above as a kind of in statu confessionis, being in a state of confession. Under ordinary circumstances the observation of the Sabbath for Jewish Christians wouldn't be a problem; but given the heresies of the various Judaizing sects, it would be necessary to make a stand of faith against false teaching. Ignatius, following in the footsteps of the Apostles, calls for Christians to be bold in their faith, and not be lured into the false religion of the Judaizing heretics.

The Church never "changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday". We see, as the witness of both the Apostles and the Fathers demonstrates, that Christians have always gathered together and worshiped on the first day of the week. The earliest Christians, being Jews, did continue to come together to the synagogue on the Sabbath; this was fine until it was no longer feasible to do so. And so the traditional liturgy of the synagogue, Christianized, was assumed into the Christian Lord's Day celebration of the Eucharist, thus giving rise to the two halves of the Liturgy: The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Altar; all now being done on the first day of the week.

The myth of changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday has no basis in the historical record. The usual claim is made that Constantine accomplished this, however from the Corpus Juris of Justinian we know that the only thing Constantine did was make the first day of the week a civil holiday (with an exemption for those who work the fields in rural areas). The first day of the week was never made the Sabbath; but it has always been the Kyriake hemera, the Lord's Day.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank You friend for this outstanding informative post.
Daniel

Daniel Marsh · Nov 4, 2019

Dave-W said:
That was a havdalah service at and just after sundown Saturday evening.

What is your ECF quotes that prove what you wrote? Friend

Daniel Marsh · Nov 4, 2019

Dave-W said:
And what were the dates of those writings?

Yes, you need only have to google that.

Apostolic Fathers
The earliest Church Fathers, (within two generations of the Apostles of Christ) are usually called the Apostolic Fathers. Important Apostolic Fathers include Clement of Rome,[3] Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. In addition, the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas are usually placed among the writings of the Apostolic Fathers although their authors are unknown; like the works of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, they were first written in Greek.

Apostolic Fathers - Wikipedia

Clement of Rome
1 AD - 96 AD
Link

Ignatius of Antioch
35 AD - 110 AD
Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia

Polycarp of Smyrna
69 AD - 155 AD
Link

Justin Martyr
103 - 165
Justin Martyr - Wikipedia

Greek Fathers
Those who wrote in Greek are called the Greek (Church) Fathers. Famous Greek Fathers include: Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Peter of Sebaste & Gregory of Nyssa), Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus.

Irenaeus of Lyons
100 AD - 200 AD
Link

Clement of Alexandria
150 AD - 216 AD
Link

Origen of Alexandria
185 AD - 254 AD
Link

Eusebius of Cesarea
263 - 339
Eusebius - Wikipedia

Athanasius of Alexandria
293 AD - 373 AD
Link

Cyril of Jerusalem
313 - 386
Cyril of Jerusalem - Wikipedia

John Chrysostom
347 AD - 407 AD
Link

Cyril of Alexandria
378 AD - 444 AD
Link

John of Damascus 676-749
676 - 749
John of Damascus - Wikipedia

Latin Fathers
Those fathers who wrote in Latin are called the Latin (Church) Fathers. Famous Latin Fathers include Tertullian (who later in life converted to Montanism), Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory the Great, Augustine of Hippo, Ambrose of Milan, and Jerome.

Tertullian
160 AD - 225 AD
Link

Hippolytus of Rome
170 - 235
Hippolytus of Rome - Wikipedia

Cyprian of Carthage
200 AD - 258 AD
Link

Ambrose of Milan
338 AD - 397 AD
Link

Jerome of Stridonium
347 AD - 420 AD
Link

Augustine of Hippo
354 AD - 430 AD
Link

Pope Leo the Great
391 - 461
Pope Leo I - Wikipedia

Gregory the Great
540 AD - 604 AD
Link

Writings and Canon
Didache 100
100 AD
Didache - Wikipedia

Diatesseron ca. 160-175
160
Diatessaron - Wikipedia

Muratorian Canon ca. 170
170
Muratorian fragment - Wikipedia

NT Canon by Origen ca. 210
210
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_cano
Church Fathers 50 - 750 A.D. Timeline | Preceden

Daniel Marsh · Nov 4, 2019

BobRyan said:
By contrast the Bible shows that the NT saints demanded sola scriptura "proof".

We are not sola-ecf Christians rather we are sola-scriptura Christians.

Enjoy your thread.

Did Paul reject scripture the moment he heard Agabus in Acts 21 predict his impridonment in Jerusalem.??

It is hard to follow the logic in your statement.

Meanwhile - ECF-and-No-Bible agenda on this thread is fine as an example of where this goes. Far be it from me to hinder that progress.

2 Thessalonians 2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Try to find SDA view of Sabbath vs Sunday in the Early Church Fathers with links to quotes

LCMS Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Confessional Lutheran

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Junior Member

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads