Adventist view on the Sabbath as the final test of loyalty

reddogs · 2026-06-07T06:08:06-0500

From the Catholic Mirror of Sept. 16, 1893.]
...Having proved to a demonstration that the Redeemer, in no instance, had, during the period of His life, deviated from the faithful observance of the Sabbath (Saturday), referred to by the four evangelists fifty-one times, although He had designated Himself "Lord of the Sabbath," He never having once, by command or practice, hinted at a desire on His part to change the day by the substitution of another and having called special attention to the conduct of the apostles and the holy women, the very evening of His death, securing beforehand spices and ointments to be used in embalming His body the morning after the Sabbath (Saturday), as St. Luke so clearly informs us (Luke 24:1), thereby placing beyond peradventure, the divine action and will of the Son of God during life by keeping the Sabbath steadfastly; and having called attention to the action of His living representatives after his death, as proved by St. Luke; having also placed before our readers the indisputable fact that the apostles for the following thirty years (Acts) never deviated from the practice of their divine Master in this particular, as St. Luke (Acts 18:4) assures us: "And he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogues every Sabbath [Saturday], and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." The Gentile converts were, as we see from the text, equally instructed with the Jews, to keep the Saturday, having been converted to Christianity on that day, "the Jews and the Greeks" collectively.
Having also called attention to the texts of the Acts bearing on the exclusive use of the Sabbath by the Jews and Christians for thirty years after the death of the Saviour as the only day of the week observed by Christ and His apostles, which period exhausts the inspired record, we now proceed to supplement our proofs that the Sabbath (Saturday) enjoyed this exclusive privilege, by calling attention to every instance wherein the sacred record refers to the first day of the week.
The first reference to Sunday after the resurrection of Christ is to be found in St. Luke's Gospel, chapter 24, verses 33-40, and St. John 20:19.
The above texts themselves refer to the sole motive of this gathering of the part of the apostles. It took place on the day of the resurrection (Easter Sunday), not for the purpose of inaugurating "the new departure" from the old Sabbath (Saturday) by keeping "holy" the new day, for there is not a hint given of prayer, exhortation, or the reading of the Scriptures, but it indicates the utter demoralization of the apostles by informing mankind that they were huddled together in that room in Jerusalem "for fear of the Jews," as St. John, quoted above, plainly informs us.
The second reference to Sunday is to be found in St. John's Gospel, 20th chapter, 26th to 29th verses: And after eight days, the disciples were again within, and Thomas with them." The resurrected Redeemer availed Himself of this meeting of all the apostles to confound the incredulity of Thomas, who had been absent from the gathering on Easter Sunday evening. This would have furnished a golden opportunity to the Redeemer to change the day in the presence of all His apostles, but we state the simple fact that, on this occasion, as on Easter day, not a word is said of prayer, praise, or reading of the Scriptures.
The third instance on record, wherein the apostles were assembled on Sunday, is to be found in Acts 2:1: "The apostles were all of one accord in one place." (Feast of Pentecost -- Sunday.) Now, will this text afford to our Biblical Christian brethren a vestige of hope that Sunday substitutes, at length, Saturday? For when we inform them that the Jews had been keeping this Sunday for 1500 years, and have been keeping it for eighteen centuries after the establishment of Christianity, at the same time keeping the weekly Sabbath, there is not to be found either consolation or comfort in this text. Pentecost is the fiftieth day after the Passover, (4) which was called the Sabbath of weeks, consisting of seven times seven days; and the day after the completion of the seventh weekly Sabbath day, was the chief day of the entire festival, necessarily Sunday. What Israelite would not pity the cause that would seek to discover the origin of the keeping of the first day of the week in his festival of Pentecost, that has been kept by him yearly for over 3,000 years? Who but the Biblical Christian, driven to the wall for a pretext to excuse his sacrilegious desecration of the Sabbath, always kept by Christ and His apostles, would have resorted to the Jewish festival of Pentecost for his act of rebellion against his God and his teacher, the Bible?
Once more, the Biblical apologists for the change of day call our attention to the Acts, chapter 20, verses 6 and 7: "and upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread," etc. To all appearances, the above text should furnish some consolation to our disgruntled Biblical friends, but being Marplot, we cannot allow them even this crumb of comfort. We reply by the axiom: "Quod probat nimis, probat nihil" -- "What proves too much, proves nothing." Let us call attention to the same Acts 2:46: "And they, continuing daily in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house," etc. Who does not see at a glance that the text produced to prove the exclusive prerogative of Sunday, vanishes into thin air -- an ignis fatuus -- when placed in juxtaposition with the 46th verse of the same chapter? What Biblical Christian claims by this text for Sunday alone the same authority, St. Luke, informs us was common to every day of the week:
And they continued daily in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house.
(4) The Passover was always the fourteenth day of the first month, without any reference whatever to any particular day of the week, and therefore it was impossible that the Pentecost should always be "necessarily Sunday," as stated. This note is inserted merely in the interests of accuracy, and not with the intention that it should have any bearing on the controversy in the text. -- ED.
One text more presents itself, apparently leaning toward a substitution of Sunday for Saturday. It is taken from St. Paul, 1 Cor. 16:1,2: "Now concerning the collection for the saints," "On the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store," etc. Presuming that the request of St. Paul had been strictly attended to, let us call attention to what had been done each Saturday during the Saviour's life and continued for thirty years after, as the book of Acts informs us.
The followers of the Master met "every Sabbath" to hear the word of God; the Scriptures were read "every Sabbath day." "And Paul, as his manner was to reason in the synagogue every Sabbath, interposing the same of the Lord Jesus Christ," etc. Acts 18:4. What more absurd conclusion that to infer that reading of the Scriptures, prayer, exhortation, and preaching, which formed the routine duties of every Saturday, as had been abundantly proved, were overslaughed by a request to take up a collection on another day of the week?
In order to appreciate fully the value of this text now under consideration, it is only needful to recall the action of the apostles and holy women on Good Friday before sundown. They brought spices and ointments after He was taken down from the cross; they suspended all action until the Sabbath "holy to the Lord" had passed, and then took steps on Sunday morning to complete the process of embalming the sacred body of Jesus.
Why, may we ask, did they not proceed to complete the work of embalming on Saturday? -- Because they knew well that the embalming of the sacred body of their Master would interfere with the strict observance of the Sabbath, the keeping of which was paramount; and until it can be shown that the Sabbath day immediately preceding the Sunday of our text had not been kept (which would be false, inasmuch as every Sabbath had been kept), the request of St. Paul to make the collection on Sunday remains to be classified with the work of the embalming of Christ's body, which could not be effected on the Sabbath, and was consequently deferred to the next convenient day; viz., Sunday, or the first day of the week.
Having disposed of every text to be found in the New Testament referring to the Sabbath (Saturday), and to the first day of the week (Sunday); and having shown conclusively from these texts, that, so far, not a shadow of pretext can be found in the Sacred Volume for the Biblical substitution of Sunday for Saturday....

reddogs · 2026-06-07T06:08:28-0500

Conclusion

....The Bible and the Sabbath constitute the watchword of Protestantism; but we have demonstrated that it is the Bible against their Sabbath. We have shown that no greater contradiction ever existed than their theory and practice. We have proved that neither the Biblical ancestors nor themselves have ever kept one Sabbath day in their lives.
The Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists are witnesses of their weekly desecration of the day named by God so repeatedly, and whilst [Protestant Bible Christians] have ignored and condemned their teacher, the Bible, they have adopted a day kept by the Catholic Church. What Protestant can, after perusing these articles, with a clear conscience, continue to disobey the command of God, enjoining Saturday to be kept, which command his teacher, the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, records as the will of God?
...God's written word enjoins His worship to be observed on Saturday absolutely, repeatedly, and most emphatically, with a most positive threat of death to him who disobeys. All the Biblical sects occupy the same self-stultifying position which no explanation can modify, much less justify.
How truly do the words of the Holy Spirit apply to this deplorable situation! "Iniquitas mentita est sibi" -- "Iniquity hath lied to itself." Proposing to follow the Bible only as teacher, yet before the world, the sole teacher is ignominiously thrust aside, and the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church -- "the mother of abomination," when it suits their purpose so to designate her -- adopted, despite the most terrible threats pronounced by God Himself against those who disobey the command, "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath."
.... The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday. We say by virtue of her divine mission, because He who called Himself the "Lord of the Sabbath," endowed her with His own power to teach, "he that heareth you, heareth Me;" commanded all who believe in Him to hear her, under penalty of being placed with "heathen and publican;" and promised to be with her to the end of the world. She holds her charter as teacher from Him -- a charter as infallible as perpetual. The Protestant world at its birth found the Christian Sabbath too strongly entrenched to run counter to its existence; it was therefore placed under the necessity of acquiescing in the arrangement, thus implying the Church's right to change the day, for over three hundred years. The Christian Sabbath is therefore to this day, the acknowledged offspring of the Catholic Church as spouse of the Holy Ghost, without a word of remonstrance from the Protestant world.
Let us now, however, take a glance at our second proposition, with the Bible alone as the teacher and guide in faith and morals. This teacher most emphatically forbids any change in the day for paramount reasons. The command calls for a "perpetual covenant." The day commanded to be kept by the teacher has never once been kept, thereby developing an apostasy from an assumedly fixed principle, as self-contradictory, self-stultifying, and consequently as suicidal as it is within the power of language to express.
Nor are the limits of demoralization yet reached. Far from it. Their pretense for leaving the bosom of the Catholic Church was for apostasy from the truth as taught in the written word. They adopted the written word as their sole teacher, which they had no sooner done than they abandoned it promptly, as these articles have abundantly proved; and by a perversity as willful as erroneous, they accept the teaching of the Catholic Church in direct opposition to the plain, unvaried, and constant teaching of their sole teacher in the most essential doctrine of their religion...

reddogs · 2026-06-07T06:09:56-0500

NOTE. -- It was upon this very point that the Reformation was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Reformers had constantly charged, as here stated, that the Catholic Church had "apostatized from the truth as contained in the written word. "The written word," "The Bible and the Bible only," "Thus saith the Lord," these were their constant watchwords; and "the Scripture, as in the written word, the sole standard of appeal," this was the proclaimed platform of the Reformation and of Protestantism. "The Scripture and tradition." The Bible as interpreted by the Church and according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers," this was the position and claim of the Catholic Church. This was the main issue in the Council of Trent, which was called especially to consider the questions that had been raised and forced upon the attention of Europe by the Reformers. The very first question concerning faith that was considered by the council was the question involved in this issue. There was a strong party even of the Catholics within the council who were in favor of abandoning tradition and adopting the Scriptures only, as the standard of authority. This view was so decidedly held in the debates in the council that the pope's legates actually wrote to him that there was "a strong tendency to set aside tradition altogether and to make Scripture the sole standard of appeal." But to do this would manifestly be to go a long way toward justifying the claims of the Protestants. By this crisis there was developed upon the ultra-Catholic portion of the council the task of convincing the others that "Scripture and tradition" were the only sure ground to stand upon. If this could be done, the council could be carried to issue a decree condemning the Reformation, otherwise not. The question was debated day after day, until the council was fairly brought to a standstill. Finally, after a long and intensive mental strain, the Archbishop of Reggio came into the council with substantially the following argument to the party who held for Scripture alone:
"The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestants claim, that they stand upon the written word only, is not true. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false. PROOF: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of 'Scripture alone as the standard,' fails; and the doctrine of 'Scripture and tradition' as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges."
[Archbishop Reggio made his speech at the last opening session of Trent, on the 18th of January, 1562. -- J. H. Holtzman, Canon and Tradition, published in Ludwigsburg, Germany, in 1859, page 263.]
There was no getting around this, for the Protestants' own statement of faith -- the Augsburg Confession, 1530 -- had clearly admitted that "the observation of the Lord's day" had been appointed by "the Church" only.
The argument was hailed in the council as of Inspiration only; the party for "Scripture alone," surrendered; and the council at once unanimously condemned Protestantism and the whole Reformation as only an unwarranted revolt from the communion and authority of the Catholic Church; and proceeded, April 8, 1546, "to the promulgation of two decrees, the first of which, enacts under anathema, that Scripture and tradition are to be received and venerated equally, and that the deutero-canonical [the apocryphal] books are part of the canon of Scripture. The second decree declares the Vulgate to be the sole authentic and standard Latin version, and gives it such authority as to supersede the original texts; forbids the interpretation of Scripture contrary to the sense received by the Church, 'or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers,'" etc.
This was the inconsistency of the Protestant practice with the Protestant profession that gave to the Catholic Church her long-sought and anxiously desired ground upon which to condemn Protestantism and the whole Reformation movement as only a selfishly ambitious rebellion against the Church authority. And in this vital controversy the key, the chiefest and culminative expression, of the Protestant inconsistency was in the rejection of the Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, enjoined in the Scriptures, and the adoption and observance of the Sunday as enjoined by the Catholic Church.
And this is today the position of the respective parties to this controversy. Today, as this document shows, this is the vital issue upon which the Catholic Church arraigns Protestantism, and upon which she condemns the course of popular Protestantism as being "indefensible"....

SabbathBlessings · 2026-06-07T06:18:43-0500

Reluctant Theologian said:
You're misrepresenting my words - I never said Paul is teaching Gentiles to steal, lie or murder - I've just pointed at the instructions in Acts 15 omitting the Ten Commandments and by extension omitting Sabbath observance; that's not a belief or opinion, that's a fact. Now whether or not the Jerusalem leadership implicitly expected Gentile believers to observe the full Ten Commandments is another matter .. and that issue requires arguments.

I'm with you in regards to having a preference for Sabbath rest but I'm not certain on whether the Apostles universally expected Gentile believers to keep the Sabbath. E.g. the Apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome - and the church in Rome famously from very early on did not have Sabbath gatherings/worship - that fact needs an explanation, and that explanation may have a bearing on the issue whether the Apostles had that universal expectation from Gentile believers.

The Sabbath is not omitted in Acts 15 not sure where you're getting that from.

Acts 15:21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

Because Gentiles were already keeping the Sabbath just as Jesus indicated Isa 56:6-7

Acts 13:42 [n]So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.

44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.

Which continued on after Acts 15

Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.

Obviously Acts 15 is not addressing everything thing Gentiles needs to keep. The greatest commandments were not listed either but I do not believe anyone is entering into heaven without loving God or man with their whole heart.

What they are addressing is the ceremonial system and it states in the very first verse. Acts 15:1 The Jews were teaching in order to be saved one needed to be circumcised.

Paul addresses this in many chapters and his conclusion:

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

Why the commandments of God are for those who love Him written by God Himself who stated right in His Testimony Exo31:18

Exo 20:6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Which continues for the saints of God

Rev 12:14 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

God only has one people those who are fear God and keep His commandments and have the faith of Jesus Exo20:20 Ecc12:13-14 Rev 14:6-12 neither Jew or Gentile- just a people of faith. Fearing God over fearing men Isa 29:13 Mat15:3-14

SabbathBlessings · 2026-06-07T06:25:00-0500

JSRG said:
Well, given you just provided usual bevy of copy/pasted quotations, most (all?) of them from over a century ago, let's respond with a copy/pasted quotation from Dudley Canright (not a Catholic, incidentally) from over a century ago:

But do not the catechism and Catholic writers, when controverting Protestants, assert that the "Holy Catholic Church" changed the day? Certainly, but they also claim that the Catholic Church began with the apostles who changed the day. Do not Adventists know this? Yes. Why, then, do they not tell the whole facts in the case? Let them answer.

Consider the high Catholic authorities quoted on this subject - the Council of Trent; the papal delegate, Cardinal Gibbons; Archbishop Ireland; the Catholic Encyclopedia; the Catholic Dictionary; written statements of priests; and the teachings of the catechism. All agree that the change in the day was made by the apostles. Beyond dispute, this establishes the doctrine of the Catholic Church on the origin of the Lord's Day. Not a single Catholic authority can be quoted teaching that the change of the Sabbath was made by the Popes or by the Papacy centuries later. That is purely an invention of Seventh-Day Adventists. Here, then, is the testimony of two hundred and fifty million Roman Catholics, all agreeing that the observance of Sunday as the Lord's Day originated with the apostles. Now if Adventists quote the Catholics, then let them abide by their testimony.

Now read "Rome's Challenge," "Father Enright's Challenge," and a lot of other Catholic "challenges," which Adventists gleefully gather up and endorse and peddle the world over as unanswerable. Read them very carefully and notice particularly that not one of these Catholic "challenges" ever locates the time when the "Catholic Church" made the change. In all these "Challenges" they adroitly leave this point out, and presume on the ignorance of the general public, which supposes that the Catholic Church began centuries after Christ. Then Adventists take advantage of this popular idea of the Catholic Church and locate the change about 300 years after Christ. Such deception is unworthy of Christian teachers.

The various bevy of quotes that you see people (usually Adventists) throw out as showing the Roman Catholic Church as claiming to change the Sabbath ignore the larger context that the fuller claim is that (1) the apostles are the Roman Catholic Church, and (2) the apostles made this change, and so therefore in that sense the Roman Catholic Church did it. Now, someone can of course claim that these claims are false. One could say that the Roman Catholic Church is no longer the church of the apostles (indeed, to be a Protestant requires one to deny that). Or they could say that the apostles never made any such change. But if one rejects either of those, then they must inherently reject the claim that the Roman Catholic Church made any such change, because the entire claim rests on the idea that the apostles did this and that the Roman Catholic Church is the same church as them.

Did you not copy and post quotes? Ok for you but not others?

Still doesn;t change what they claim - that it didn't come from the Bible because there is nothing stating in Scripture that the 4th commandment was abrogated- man changed God's times and laws as He predicted - it comes down to do we fear God and keep His commandments or fear men instead.

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

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

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.

Maria Billingsley · 2026-06-07T07:31:47-0500

SabbathBlessings said:
To God.

Sadly we have become a society that fears men over God.

After God spoke His commandments, the Ten Commandments this is what was said:

Exo 20:20 And Moses said to the people, “Do not fear; for God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.”

Why we are told fearing God and keeping His commandments is the whole duty of man

Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:

Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.
14 For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.

And repeated in the Three Angles Message to get people out of Babylon and back to fearing God, why its the everlasting gospel.

Rev 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people— 7 saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”- not a coincidence this is echoing the 4th commandment Exo20:11 the one God said Remember that man teaches to forget.

8 And another angel followed, saying, “Babylon[f] is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.”

9 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

Sadly what most have done is fear men and follow mens commandments over the commandments of God. It’s something Jesus condemned.

Isa 29:13 Therefore the Lord said:

“Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths
And honor Me with their lips,
But have removed their hearts far from Me,
And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,

Mat 15:3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,”[a] 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

8 “‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

So while men today teaches the Sabbath is not one of God’s commandments, the one God made holy and blessed, that applies to us, while claiming the other 9 do, is a teaching of man, fearing men, over fearing God who taught the opposite

Ecc 3:14 I know that whatever God does,
It shall be forever.
Nothing can be added to it,
And nothing taken from it.
God does it, that men should fear before Him.

So will we follow the popular path and fear man or will our loyalty be to God and fear God and keep His commandments the way God personally both wrote and spoke because there is no one we are to place above Him. He is our Creator Exo20:11 and Re-Creator Eze20:12 but sadly many have laid aside God’s blessing for mankind Isa 56:2 for self-sanctification Isa 66:17

I see. Keeping the Saturday Sabbath is the true test of " loyalty " to God but we know now that the Sabbath belongs to Jesus Christ of Nazareth. He stripped away centuries of human traditions to restore its true meaning, giving it ultimate clarity and depth.

"For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

By claiming this title, He pointed to Himself as the ultimate fulfillment of what the Sabbath represents—true spiritual rest. Then invites anyone to join Him in His rest.

"Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

In conclusion, I do not see any scripture that would indicate Sabbath keeping as a test of our loyalty but rather, I see it as a test of our willingness to accept His "gift"of rest in Him.

Maria Billingsley · 2026-06-07T07:48:09-0500

reddogs said:
Hence the conclusion is inevitable; viz., that of those who follow the Bible as their guide, the Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists have exclusive weight of evidence on their side, whilst the Biblical Protestant has not a word in self-defense for his substitution of Sunday for Saturday.

I am surprised by your conclusion. By saying that the Israelites and Adventists have "exclusive weight of evidence" while the Sunday-keeping Protestant has "not a word in self-defense," you are prioritizing a day of the week over the entire reality of the New Covenant. Most disturbing is aligning yourself with Judaism which completely denies Jesus Christ of Nazareth as their Messiah. Something is amiss here. With so much focus on a day in the week it sounds like lost focus on the Savior Himself, trading the grace of the New Covenant for the legalism of the Old.

reddogs · 2026-06-07T08:22:37-0500

Maria Billingsley said:
I see. Keeping the Saturday Sabbath is the true test of " loyalty " to God but we know now that the Sabbath belongs to Jesus Christ of Nazareth. He stripped away centuries of human traditions to restore its true meaning, giving it ultimate clarity and depth.

"For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

By claiming this title, He pointed to Himself as the ultimate fulfillment of what the Sabbath represents—true spiritual rest. Then invites anyone to join Him in His rest.

"Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

In conclusion, I do not see any scripture that would indicate Sabbath keeping as a test of our loyalty but rather, I see it as a test of our willingness to accept His "gift"of rest in Him.

No, He was telling the Pharisees and Jewish leaders that as Lord of the Sabbath their 'traditions of the elders' or oral traditions that had laid impossible heavy burdens on His Sabbath were incorrect, as Creator of the Sabbath He knew what the day was made for and its purpose.

Matthew 15:2
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

Mark 7:3
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

Mark 7:5
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

So what was this tradition well here is a good explanation from scholar Alfred Edersheim, the writer of the
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.. "But evidently these are vague statements, with the object of tracing traditionalism and its observances to primaeval times, even as legend had it, that Adam was born circumcised,
[a Midr. Shochar Tobh on Ps. ix. 6. ed. Warshau, p. 14 b;Abde R. Nath. 2.] and later writers that he had kept all the ordinances.

But other principles apply to the traditions, from Moses downwards. According to the Jewish view,
God had given Moses on Mount Sinai alike the oral and the written Law, that is, the Law with all its
interpretations and applications. From Ex. xx. 1, it was inferred, that God had communicated to Moses
the Bible, the Mishnah, and Talmud, and the Haggadah, even to that which scholars would in latest
times propound. In answer to the somewhat natural objection, why the Bible alone had been written,
it was said that Moses had proposed to write down all the teaching entrusted to him, but the Almighty
had refused, on account of the future subjection of Israel to the nations, who would take from them the written Law.

Then the unwritten traditions would remain to separate between Israel and the Gentiles. Popular exegesis found this indicated even in the
language of prophecy. [b Hos. viii 12;comp. Shem. R. 47.] But traditionalism went further, and placed the oral actually above the written Law. The expression, [a Ex. xxxiv. 27.] 'After the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel,' was explained as meaning, that God's covenant was founded on the spoken, in opposition to the written words. [b Jer. Chag. p. 76 d.] If the written was thus placed below the oral Law, we can scarcely wonder that the reading of the Hagiographa was actually prohibited to the people on the Sabbath, from fear that it might divert attention from the learned discourses of the Rabbis."

In The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfred Edersheim treats oral traditions as a central feature at that time, especially within the context of Rabbinic traditionalism. He shows how these traditions were deeply embedded in the religious and social fabric of the time, shaping both Jewish law and the understanding of Jesus’ ministry.

Edersheim emphasizes the prominence of the scribe (grammatae) in New Testament scenes. These learned men were the authoritative interpreters of the Law, trained through formal ordination, and regarded as the ultimate teachers on matters of faith and practice. Their authority was so great that their sayings were to be believed even if they contradicted literal readings of Scripture. This reflects the oral tradition’s authority—the Talmudic and Mishnaic halakhoth (laws) were not only written but also preserved, interpreted, and applied orally across generations.

The church of Rome has also picked tradition over Gods Word, and here we are...

Hentenza · 2026-06-07T09:38:23-0500

reddogs said:
No, He was telling the Pharisees and Jewish leaders that as Lord of the Sabbath their 'traditions of the elders' or oral traditions that had laid impossible heavy burdens on His Sabbath were incorrect, as Creator of the Sabbath He knew what the day was made for and its purpose.

Matthew 15:2
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

Mark 7:3
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

Mark 7:5
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

Jesus is the Lord of even the sabbath to decry the washing of the hands law? :scratch:

reddogs · 2026-06-07T10:00:08-0500

Hentenza said:
Jesus is the Lord of even the sabbath to decry the washing of the hands law?

No, the Jewish leaders and rabbis 'upsurped' Gods Law with their Oral Tradition on the burdens with the spurious rules they put on the Sabbath claiming their oral tradition superseded Gods Written Word, and Christ told them that they were wrong. So they got furiously angered to be told their laws from traditions were absolutely false and thus they sought to kill Him....

SabbathBlessings · 2026-06-07T10:08:27-0500

Maria Billingsley said:
I see. Keeping the Saturday Sabbath is the true test of " loyalty " to God but we know now that the Sabbath belongs to Jesus Christ of Nazareth. He stripped away centuries of human traditions to restore its true meaning, giving it ultimate clarity and depth.

"For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

By claiming this title, He pointed to Himself as the ultimate fulfillment of what the Sabbath represents—true spiritual rest. Then invites anyone to join Him in His rest.

"Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

In conclusion, I do not see any scripture that would indicate Sabbath keeping as a test of our loyalty but rather, I see it as a test of our willingness to accept His "gift"of rest in Him.

It seems you didn't read the post or Scriptures presented otherwise I do not believe one would use what Jesus said to teach against His Word.

The fear of God is that man does not sin Exo20:20 and keep God's commandments Ecc12:13-14 what God does is forever

Ecc 3:14 I know that whatever God does,
It shall be forever.
Nothing can be added to it,
And nothing taken from it.
God does it, that men should fear before Him.

That's the only response we should have to God is to do what He asks through love and faith- fear of the LORD. What God does is forever nothing can be added to it or subtracted. Who can edit God? Not a servant of the LORD Isa56:6

Jesus was correcting the Jews for adding rules to His Sabbath, sadly what men does today is takes from it.

Notice Jesus saying He is LORD of the Sabbath does not say mankind doesn't have to keep the Sabbath day holy, trying to tear down what Jesus is LORD of doesn't change it, perhaps it just makes someone else their lord. Dan7:25 Man today takes from what God did which is the same result of the Jews- fearing men Isa 29:13 Mat15:3-14 and not God Ecc12:13-14 Rev14:6-12. Jesus said the Sabbath was made for mankind - that is not Him telling anyone to not keep the Sabbath He made for us to keep holy. Exo20:8-11 because God wants to spend time with us to bless us Isa56:2 and sanctify Eze20:12 because we can't do this ourselves Isa66:17

Yes, Jesus gives us rest, but where does He say that replaced the 4th commandment? Rest has several meanings in Scripture and it doesn;t complete with God's commandments.

Those who rest in Christ also rest from their works as God did Heb4:10 on the seventh day Heb4:4 Exo20:8011 because the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God Exo20:8-11 that God commanded us to keep holy Exo20:8-11 because we are made in God's image to follow Him. In God's rest there is no rebellion to Him or His commandments that's unrest Rev14:11-12 Isa 48:18

SabbathBlessings · 2026-06-07T11:21:23-0500

Maria Billingsley said:
I am surprised by your conclusion. By saying that the Israelites and Adventists have "exclusive weight of evidence" while the Sunday-keeping Protestant has "not a word in self-defense," you are prioritizing a day of the week over the entire reality of the New Covenant. Most disturbing is aligning yourself with Judaism which completely denies Jesus Christ of Nazareth as their Messiah. Something is amiss here. With so much focus on a day in the week it sounds like lost focus on the Savior Himself, trading the grace of the New Covenant for the legalism of the Old.

This is not according to the LORD...

This is what the LORD says...

Isa 56:1 Thus says the Lord:

“Keep justice, and do righteousness,
For My salvation is about to come,
And My righteousness to be revealed.

2 Blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who lays hold on it;
Who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And keeps his hand from doing any evil.”

5.Even to them I will give in My house
And within My walls a place and a name
Better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give [a]them an everlasting name
That shall not be cut off.

Isa 56:6 “Also the sons of the foreigner (Gentiles)
Who join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him,
And to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants—
Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And holds fast My covenant—

This is God speaking- Words Jesus who is God told us to live by Mat4:4

1. God blesses the man (the word here means mankind) who keeps the Sabbath
2. He compares keeping the Sabbath as doing what is justice and righteousness - which is the foundation of God's Throne Psa89:14 meaning its everlasting Psa 119:142
3. And says when we profane the Sabbath, its doing evil.
4. God invited everyone to join themselves to Him
5. Love His name
6. Be His servant
7. Keep the Sabbath and hold fast His covenant

There is nothing about Judaism in keeping the Sabbath- this is what the devil wants us to believe but if we actually listen to God's voice, fear Him over our fear from what man teaches Isa 29:13 Mat15:3-14, this is a very special invitation coming from God made to everyone .

People want all of God's blessings but on their terms, not God's Isa 56:2 they want to serve the LORD on their terms not how God asks Isa56:6 which defeats the purpose.

Only the servants of God are sealed....He invited everyone its a matter how we respond to His invitation and whose voice one will subject themselves to.

Rev 7:3 saying, “Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.”

Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.

Why this invitation is so important.

God wants to bless us

2 Blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who lays hold on it;
Who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,

But many reject this- if we don't have God's blessing, we really have nothing

Psa 33:22 For those blessed by Him shall inherit the earth,
But those cursed by Him shall be [c]cut off.

No one can remove what God blesses Num23:20 He blessed the Sabbath day Exo20:11 and blesses that man that keeps the Sabbath day holy Isa56:2 Exo20:8-11 why would anyone want to not accept this when all God is asking is for holy time to spend with Him on the only day He asked Exo20:8-11 blessed and sanctified for holy use. Can you imagine if Adam and Eve never doubted God at His word what things would be like. Instead, well God didn't mean what He said - what's a tree, we can eat from any tree what does one tree matter from another. Sadly this same mindset is still separating ourselves from God. God wants us to join ourselves to the LORD and He told us how. Isa56:6

JSRG · 2026-06-07T23:16:59-0500

reddogs said:
NOTE. -- It was upon this very point that the Reformation was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Reformers had constantly charged, as here stated, that the Catholic Church had "apostatized from the truth as contained in the written word. "The written word," "The Bible and the Bible only," "Thus saith the Lord," these were their constant watchwords; and "the Scripture, as in the written word, the sole standard of appeal," this was the proclaimed platform of the Reformation and of Protestantism. "The Scripture and tradition." The Bible as interpreted by the Church and according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers," this was the position and claim of the Catholic Church. This was the main issue in the Council of Trent, which was called especially to consider the questions that had been raised and forced upon the attention of Europe by the Reformers. The very first question concerning faith that was considered by the council was the question involved in this issue. There was a strong party even of the Catholics within the council who were in favor of abandoning tradition and adopting the Scriptures only, as the standard of authority. This view was so decidedly held in the debates in the council that the pope's legates actually wrote to him that there was "a strong tendency to set aside tradition altogether and to make Scripture the sole standard of appeal." But to do this would manifestly be to go a long way toward justifying the claims of the Protestants. By this crisis there was developed upon the ultra-Catholic portion of the council the task of convincing the others that "Scripture and tradition" were the only sure ground to stand upon. If this could be done, the council could be carried to issue a decree condemning the Reformation, otherwise not. The question was debated day after day, until the council was fairly brought to a standstill. Finally, after a long and intensive mental strain, the Archbishop of Reggio came into the council with substantially the following argument to the party who held for Scripture alone:
"The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestants claim, that they stand upon the written word only, is not true. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false. PROOF: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of 'Scripture alone as the standard,' fails; and the doctrine of 'Scripture and tradition' as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges."
[Archbishop Reggio made his speech at the last opening session of Trent, on the 18th of January, 1562. -- J. H. Holtzman, Canon and Tradition, published in Ludwigsburg, Germany, in 1859, page 263.]

As far as I can tell, this is a misrepresentation. So this claims that this speech was given on 1562 and was necessary to condemn the Reformation. But the timing doesn't match up. By 1562, the Council of Trent had already gone through a whole lot of stuff and condemned a whole lot of beliefs of Protestants. This idea that they needed some specific argument against Sola Scriptura doesn't add up.

The source given for this is page 263 of "J. H. Holtzman, Canon and Tradition." I should note immediately there are errors in this citation. The work is Kanon und Tradition, not Canon and Tradition, and the author is Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, meaning it should say H.J Holtzmann (the initials are reversed and a second N is lacking).

So what does the work say? Well, here's the page. The above synopsis does not seem accurate at all. Here is an (admittedly automated) translation of the German in the page in question:

...Above all, however, the Fathers—despite their otherwise confident avowal of the principle of tradition—had to guard against condemning a tenet that might subsequently find authority in some hitherto overlooked dictum of any given Church Father. The Council fully shared the view of Ambrosius Pelargus that, at all costs, they must not hand the Protestants a triumph by allowing them to claim the Synod had condemned the doctrine of the early Church. Yet this practice caused endless difficulty without ever being able to provide certainty. Indeed, the task required that almost divine wisdom which the Spanish envoys attributed to the Synod on March 16, 1562. In truth, however, they had hitherto been unable to fully orient themselves amidst the crisscrossing and labyrinthine tangles of the older and newer concepts of tradition. Yet this, too, was to come about. Finally, at the last opening session on January 18, 1562, all reservations were cast aside; the Archbishop of Reggio delivered a speech openly declaring that tradition stood above Scripture. He argued that the Church's authority could not be bound by the authority of Scripture, precisely because the Church—acting on its own authority rather than by Christ's ordinance—had transformed circumcision into baptism and the Sabbath into Sunday. With this, the last illusion was shattered, and it was declared that tradition signified not antiquity, but continuous inspiration. *Et potuissent paucis verbis totam rem absolvere*—thus did a keen observer of the Tridentine councilors characterize their true aim—*si tantum in ipso synodi ingressu professi essent se simpliciter praesentem ecclesiae suae statum qualis ille cunque est velle retinere et pertinaciter defendere nec admissuros se ut ex norma scripturae canonicae aliquid quidquid illud sit corrigatur vel emendetur*. And it was indeed upon this tacit premise that they proceeded. During the later period of the synod, it was openly acknowledged that *communio sub utraque* (communion under both kinds) had been instituted by Christ and handed down to the congregations by the Apostles; yet, the authority to make changes in the administration of the sacraments was held to belong to the Church. No longer did they shy away from the widely known passages in Augustine’s writings; instead, they simply pronounced anathema upon infant communion and declared that the early Church Fathers had not deemed it necessary.

There are undoubtedly some errors in this translation due to it being automated and the fact that when you copy stuff from Google Books, it loses all of the punctuation (the last sentence seems off--Trent didn't pronounce an anathema on infant communion, but rather the claim it was necessary). But the overall meaning should still be preserved. If we assume Holtzmann's claims here are right, we can see that it does not match up with the description offered. Contrary to the claim you made (or rather, the claim you copied from someone else), this was not concerning the issue of tradition vs. Sola Scriptura, but concerns about how to approach the general question of tradition. The purpose of this was not, as you claim, to try to find some "zinger" way that Protestants do something outside of Sola Scriptura, but to handle the more murky question of what counts as tradition in Catholicism. It also does not say that this idea was in any way necessary for them to condemn Protestantism (there had been plenty of that beforehand), but just to handle some questions on the sacraments like communion under two kinds or infant communion.

There is a mention of the church transforming the Sabbath into Sunday, but given the fact it is mentioned alongside the change of circumcision to baptism (which the speech actually talks about more), the indication is that this believed by the speaker to have been something done by the church in the first century (this is the more common Catholic explanation, that the implementation of the Lord's Day was done by the apostles in the first century, as was noted in this article--which directly addresses the whole "Catholic Mirror" thing you were posting on before this). Honestly, even Holtzmann's description above seems an exaggeration of the importance of this part of the speech--this mention of Sabbath/Sunday/baptism/circumcision is something like 5% of the entire speech (at least if we go by the number of lines found in it here)--and I do wonder if there might be some bias in his description against Trent, but even accepting Holtzmann's description, what you offer doesn't match up with it, even though it is the only source offered.

Adventist view on the Sabbath as the final test of loyalty

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads