Adventism refuted by Orthodoxy

[BobRyan]

1. Sola Scriptura - in the Bible
Acts 17:11 "They searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things were so"
2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine"
Luke 24:27 "Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."
Mark 7:6-13 Magisterium of the one true nation Church of Christ's day started by God at Sinai - hammered "sola scriptura" -- where nation-church tradition and nation-church commandments condemned "sola scriptura"

Nice try. Utterly false.

On the contrary -- all of those texts true.

next

Do you not particularly enjoy Mark 7:6-13

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That was done - pure "Sola Scriptura" and the magisterium itself is getting hammered in that example

So it is not just a case of these examples of it -

1. Sola Scriptura - in the Bible
Acts 17:11 "They searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things were so"
2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine"
Luke 24:27 "Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."


.

Therefore, you must have an infallible interpreter of the Scriptures. And the Scriptures themselves say this about that interpreter:

.

1. The Holy Spirit is the author of scripture 2 Peter 1:21 and is the interpreter according to 1 John 2 and John 16.
2. Who "else' do you propose as the "interpreter" for the non-Christians of Acts 17:11 testing the Apostle Paul - sola scripture - testing to "SEE IF" those things "are so"??

 

[BobRyan]

The fact that you can't find any mentioned in Church history before 250 of infant baptism refutes your tradition. Sure, we can find images, references, etc. to child baptism but not infant baptism.

Plus it states "as many as believe and are baptized" -- there are no "believing" infants.

 

[BobRyan]

2. Believer's Baptism -
Acts 2:41 "As many as BELIEVED where baptized"
Mark 16:16 "Whoever BELIEVES AND is baptized shall be saved"

The fact that it only mentions the actions of adults who make a conscious decision does not indicate that infant children are left out of the equation. In the Old Covenant, which is an inferior covenant to the New, infant males were circumcised without having to make a "decision for Jehovah, God of Israel."

Baptism is the covenant-making ritual which has replaced circumcision

1. There is not one Bible text that says "baptism replaced circumcision" in all of scripture.
2. in fact Baptism was being practiced BEFORE the cross - and applies to both men and women - Circumcision never did.
3. Romans 2 says that the new BIRTH is what replaces circumcision. And no infant is "born-again".
4. no text in the OT or NT says that in the OT when male babies were circumcised they were 'saved' and that the women were never saved at all because it did not apply to them. All that sort of wild inference instead-of-text is not Bible based doctrine.

Surely we can agree to these basic points.

 

[Light of the East]

The fact that you can't find any mentioned in Church history before 250 of infant baptism refutes your tradition. Sure, we can find images, references, etc. to child baptism but not infant baptism. It wasn't until baptism was viewed as having some sort of magic involved did it because the' Tradition.

And don't get me started on Ariel Toll Houses! lol

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Ariel Toll Houses are a recent invention and they have nothing to do with the Covenant of God. Baptism, on the other hand, has replaced circumcision as "the circumcision made without hands" (Col. 2:11) as the ritual of covenant entrance.

If you studied and knew covenant and how covenant works, you would know that there must be a ritual of covenant making which takes place when a covenant is "cut" between two parties. In the Old Covenant, this ritual was circumcision. In circumcision, the ritual made one truly a member of the covenant congregation. In other words, it accomplished something, it was not just a nasty and painful procedure.

When the New Covenant was established, circumcision was done away with because it belonged to the Old Covenant, which had passed away. Therefore, there had to be a new ritual which spoke to the death, burial, and glorious Resurrection of our Lord. Baptism is the perfect covenant making ritual for in it we see the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. (Which is why Roman sprinkling is all wrong).

Now in the Old Covenant, certain principles were established which are covenant principles. We see that the infant male did not have to make a "decision for Jehovah" in order to be circumcised. He did not have to wait for some mythological "age of reason" (Roman Scholasticism) but was admitted to the covenant kingdom once circumcised.

This same principle has carried over to the New Covenant, just as many other things have carried over from Old to New Covenant.

If you want a better overview of how this works, get the book THE DANCE OF ISAIAH by Patrick Seamus O'Hara. He does a pretty decent job of explaining the covenant.

 

[Light of the East]

There is not one Bible text that says "baptism replaced circumcision" in all of scripture.

Colossians 2: 11

2. in fact Baptism was being practiced BEFORE the cross - and applies to both men and women - Circumcision never did.

That's because circumcision was what is called "an enacted prophecy." It is pointing forward to the coming Messiah, and therefore women could not be circumcised. The coming Messiah would be MALE (thus eliminating females), He would be cut off from His people as the foreskin was cut off, and He would shed His blood as blood is shed during circumcision. You apparently do not know how to do types and shadows in the OT.

3. Romans 2 says that the new BIRTH is what replaces circumcision. And no infant is "born-again".

Romans 2 says nothing of the sort. You are dreaming (and have provided no verse that says such a thing). Romans 2 is Paul warning the Jews of that day that their trust in their works of the Law and circumcision in particular, was of no avail unto salvation. The ritual of covenant making and how it is done is not even mentioned.

In making a covenant, the body is involved. It is semi-gnosticism to infer that the body is somehow not a part of the whole covenant making process. Circumcision involved the body. So does baptism. It is about making covenant with Christ unto God. Learn covenant and you won't make these egregious mistakes.

And "born again" is another Protestant mistranslation. It is "born from above" (the Holy Spirit's work, not ours).

4. no text in the OT or NT says that in the OT when male babies were circumcised they were 'saved' and that the women were never saved at all because it did not apply to them. All that sort of wild inference instead-of-text is not Bible based doctrine.

Salvation is corporate - that means that you are saved by becoming part of the Covenant Kingdom. This strange idea of "me and Jesus" salvation as started by the heretic Charles Grandison Finney has no place in Scripture. Salvation is being made part of the Kingdom of God, the Covenant Kingdom, by a ritual of entrance into the Kingdom.

If you knew covenant, which you clearly do not, you would know that the Second Covenant Principle is that of hierarchy. Hierarchy is the principle that the covenant head over a covenant group or congregation, acts and speaks for the whole nation. The most clear example of this is found in the Passion Narrative where the high priest condemns Jesus. In doing so, because he was covenant head, all of Israel condemned Jesus and in so doing, condemned themselves to bring the curses of the covenant (Deut. 28) squarely down upon their heads in AD 70 when Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans.

Surely we can agree to these basic points.

Agree? Of course not. You DO NOT KNOW covenant, therefore you err. You also err in the fact that you do not understand shadows and types from OT to NT and you take a very literalist view of the Scriptures, insisting that everything we are to believe must be stated word for word.

 

[Light of the East]

Diarmaid MacCulloch calls this rub of Hebrew and Greek culture the “fault line” for the old covenant forbids images of God in any sense while Greek paganism encouraged it.

Greek Christianity is not Greek paganism.

From my reading on the subject it seems Leo (III) the Isaurian, Byzantine Emperor (717 – 741), saw a growing devotion and power ascribed to religious images.

In the 8th century, the religion of Islam supplied one of the major forces in favor of iconoclasm. A notable example of this pressure came from the caliph Iezid II (720-724), who “ordered the destruction of all pictures in Christian churches within his dominions” (Edward James Martin, A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy, p. 23). Considering the warring relations consistently endured by nations bordering the Muslims, it is not difficult to imagine why an unscrupulous state official (such as the Emperor) might think it advantageous to proactively destroy certain elements likely to cause friction with neighboring aggressors.

A second source of iconoclastic heresy was of Monophysite origin. As early as the 5thcentury, a Monophysite bishop of Hierapolis had forbidden his diocese to have images of either saints or angels. And in the late 6th century, the case of Serenus of Marseilles provided examples of icon-destruction which fueled the controversy-to-come over a century later.

A third bastion of pre-Leo iconoclasm was the Nestorian church, though their relative exclusion from the Roman (Byzantine) Empire make them unlikely candidates for influencing Leo.

Perhaps one of the strongest sources of Leo’s iconoclasm was the Paulician sect, a strongly iconoclastic group which flourished “in the very region of South-Eastern Asia Minor from which Leo’s family sprung” (Martin, p. 24).

In other words-the opposition to icons came from Muslims and heretics. Not the kind of company with which I want to be associated!!




Ultimately it wasn’t the Bible that settled the issue for the church but two Empresses backing the Iconophiles.

No, it was the Bible. The Bible calls Jesus the "eikon of the Father"

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image (eikon) of God, should shine unto them.


The understanding of the council is that if God has deigned to represent Himself by an icon, then we have approval to use icons as part of worship. We do not make icons of the unseen God, however. We make icons of the saints and of Christ, but the unseen God can only be made an icon by seeing Christ, who is His icon.

The idea that you could reach God through images is foreign to scripture.

He rightly calls Empress Irene “a wicked Proserpine named Irene” in his French edition.

Well, by all means, let me return the favor: John Calvin was a wicked man, a rebel against the Church, and a heretic.

 

[BobRyan]

2. Believer's Baptism -
Acts 2:41 "As many as BELIEVED where baptized"
Mark 16:16 "Whoever BELIEVES AND is baptized shall be saved"

The fact that it only mentions the actions of adults who make a conscious decision does not indicate that infant children are left out of the equation. In the Old Covenant, which is an inferior covenant to the New, infant males were circumcised without having to make a "decision for Jehovah, God of Israel."

Baptism is the covenant-making ritual which has replaced circumcision

1. There is not one Bible text that says "baptism replaced circumcision" in all of scripture.
2. in fact Baptism was being practiced BEFORE the cross - and applies to both men and women - Circumcision never did.
3. Romans 2 says that the new BIRTH is what replaces circumcision. And no infant is "born-again".
4. no text in the OT or NT says that in the OT when male babies were circumcised they were 'saved' and that the women were never saved at all because it did not apply to them. All that sort of wild inference instead-of-text is not Bible based doctrine.

Surely we can agree to these basic points.

Colossians 2: 11

That is a good example of a text that does not say that Baptism replaces circumcision. Rather it argues the same point as Romans 2 -- that the new birth - the change in the born-again believer is the spiritual form of it. Water baptism mentioned nowhere in that text

Col 2
11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;

Rom 2:
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Water baptism not mentioned at all in either of those places.

As noted before - Baptism was being practiced BEFORE the cross - and applies to both men and women - Circumcision never did.

That's because circumcision was what is called "an enacted prophecy." It is pointing forward to the coming Messiah,

Acts 16 - Paul has Timothy circumcised
Acts 21 - Paul 'proves' that he is not telling Jews to stop circumcising their children.


3. Romans 2 says that the new BIRTH is what replaces circumcision. And no infant is "born-again".

Romans 2 says nothing of the sort. You are dreaming

Are you saying that "by faith alone" having not yet read the text??

Rom 2:
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.


4. no text in the OT or NT says that in the OT when male babies were circumcised they were 'saved' and that the women were never saved at all because it did not apply to them. All that sort of wild inference instead-of-text is not Bible based doctrine.

Salvation is corporate - that means that you are saved by becoming part of the Covenant Kingdom.

Not according to the actual Bible -- in the Bible

Ezek 14:14 "even if these three men--Noah, Daniel and Job--were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign LORD."

John 1:11-12
11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

Romans 11
13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them


Surely we can agree to these basic Bible facts.

 

[BobRyan]

Ariel Toll Houses are a recent invention and they have nothing to do with the Covenant of God. Baptism, on the other hand, has replaced circumcision as "the circumcision made without hands" (Col. 2:11) as the ritual of covenant entrance.

Col 2:11 is a great example of a text that makes no mention of baptism at all much less saying "Baptism, on the other hand, has replaced circumcision"

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Indeed - another great example of something that never worked. See the 3-pope schism that resulted in papal armies fighting papal armies. And then of course there is Pope Clement XIV who abolished "Forever" the Jesuit order in the late 1700's. Another wonderful example of what is "not supposed to happen" if Apostolic succession were valid.

BTW in the actual Bible there is only one example of Apostolic Succession -- and it was not "the successor of Peter".

Apostolic succession has always worked brilliantly in the Orthodox church, so again, kudos to you for validating the OP.

Also, apostolic succession is not exclusively from St. Peter.

 

[Light of the East]

Col 2:11 is a great example of a text that makes no mention of baptism at all much less saying "Baptism, on the other hand, has replaced circumcision"

For all your batting around of verses of the Bible, one simple fact remains -- believer's baptism did not start until some 18 centuries after Christ and the Apostles. The 7th Day Adventist Assembly did not start until 18 centuries after the Apostles. You should sit down and ask yourself this question "If what I believe is true, why did it take 18 centuries for it to be discovered?"

 

[Monk Brendan]

CCC 958 "Communion with the DEAD"

Here is CCC958 958: Communion with the dead. "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and 'because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them.

Which means that unlike the Adventist Church, Both Catholic AND Orthodox believe that once a person's body dies, his soul will still be alive, and that we are still able to have some influence (neither CCC nor Orthodox say how much) on the final outcome of the soul's journey after death.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Sola scriptura as an idea dates from the 16th century; in the event Adventists do not really subscribe to it, or rather, the Adventists tend regard as basically infallible the prophecies and doctrinal positions of EGW.

And how many time has SHE been wrong?

Here is just one:
Yet another inaccuracy is found in chapter 25 of The Great Controversy. Ellen White claims that the change of the Sabbath to Sunday was accomplished by the Pope with the "power of the state":

"It was on behalf of Sunday that popery first asserted its arrogant claims; and its first resort to the power of the state was to compel the observance of Sunday as 'the Lord's Day.'" (page 447) She makes another similar statement later in the book: "Royal edicts, general councils, and church ordinances sustained by secular power were the steps by which the pagan festival [day of the Sun] attained its position of honor in the Christian world." (page 574) Before we read Dr. Bacchoicchi's assessment of these quotes, let me remind the reader that Dr. Bacchiocchi is still widely regarded as the SDA theologian who was the most knowledgeable person in the entire sect on church history pertaining to Sabbath-Sunday issues. There was simply no one in the church more qualified to assess Ellen White's statements than Dr. Bacchiocchi. Here is his assessment: "Both statements just cited are inaccurate, because the secular power of the state did not influence or compel Christians to adopt Sunday during the second and third centuries. At that time the Roman emperors were rather hostile toward Christianity. They were more interested to suppress Christianity than to support church leaders in their promotion of Sunday worship. The bishop of Rome could not have resorted to 'the power of the state to compel the observance of Sunday as the Lord's Day.' Eventually, beginning with the fourth century, some Roman emperors actively supported the agenda of the church, but this was long after the establishment of Sunday observance.
"In my dissertation FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY I have shown that the Bishop of Rome did indeed pioneer the change in the day of worship, but he did it without the help of the Roman government. What precipitated the need to change the Sabbath to Sunday, was the anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath legislation promulgated in 135 by the Emperor Hadrian.

"After suppressing the Second Jewish revolt, known as the Barkokoba revolt (132-135), which caused many casualties, the Emperor Hadrian decided to deal with the Jewish problem in a radical way by suppressing the Jewish religion. Hitler was determined to liquidate the Jews as a people and Hadrian was committed to suppress Judaism as a religion. To accomplish this objective Hadrian outlawed in 135 the Jewish religion in general and Sabbathkeeping in particular.

"It was at this critical moment that the Bishop of Rome took the initiative to change the Sabbath to Sunday in order to show to the Roman government the Christians' separation from the Jews and their identification with the cycles of the Roman society. But, at this time the Bishop of Rome could not call upon 'the power of the state to compel the observance of Sunday as the Lord's Day,' because in the eyes of the Romans Christianity was still a suspect religion to be suppressed, rather than to be supported."

It is clear from Dr. Bacchiochi's assessment that the pope did not resort to the power of the state, as Mrs. White wrote. Rather, the Roman Bishop instituted Sunday worship without any assistance from the state.

While Dr. Bacchiochi is wrong about some of the statements HE made, it is clear--just from this--that EGW was NOT a prophet

What is supposed to happen to false prophets? Deut 18:20 KJV “But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.”

 

[Monk Brendan]

Do you say that because they call themselves EO? Or because they should be called EO??

Most of them called themselves (nationality) hyphen Orthodox

 

[Monk Brendan]

1. Sola Scriptura - in the Bible
Acts 17:11 "They searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things were so"

But just searching the Bible will not find "computer" or "light bulb." If they are not there, then why are you using them?

Searching the Scriptures is a good thing. But you cannot justify your whole life in the Bible. You must step outside it, unless you are a farmer that uses no electricity, nor anything produced using electricity, etc. No cars, no buildings over two or perhaps three stories tall, and so on.

 

[Monk Brendan]

2. in fact Baptism was being practiced BEFORE the cross - and applies to both men and women - Circumcision never did.

The mikvah offers the individual, the community and the nation of Israel the remarkable gift of purity and holiness. No other religious establishment, structure or rite can affect the Jew in this way and, indeed, on such an essential level. Its extraordinary power, however, is contingent on its construction in accordance with the numerous and complex specifications as outlined in Halachah, Jewish law. (from Chabad.org)

 

[BobRyan]

The mikvah offers the individual, the community and the nation of Israel the remarkable gift of purity and holiness. No other religious establishment, structure or rite can affect the Jew in this way and, indeed, on such an essential level. Its extraordinary power, however, is contingent on its construction in accordance with the numerous and complex specifications as outlined in Halachah, Jewish law. (from Chabad.org)

Does not appear to apply to 'The Jordon River" -- will any river do as "Mikvah"??

And can we assume that any use of the Mikvah is always what Christians today call "Baptism"? It does not appear that this is what it was for.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is CCC958 958: Communion with the dead. "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and 'because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them.

Which means that unlike the Adventist Church, Both Catholic AND Orthodox believe that once a person's body dies, his soul will still be alive, and that we are still able to have some influence (neither CCC nor Orthodox say how much) on the final outcome of the soul's journey after death.

Certainly it is true that the Catholic and Orthodox churches believe in that "Communion with the Dead" idea - as if it were "a good thing" -- and the Adventist church does not.

But pretty much every other non-Catholic church would also agree that "Communion with the Dead" is not a good idea.

Adventists believe in the 1Thess 4 existence of the soul in the state that Paul refers to as "sleep" in 1 Thess 4 and most other churches reject it. But that does not mean that most other denominations think "Communion with the Dead" is a good thing. In fact they think it is not good.

 

[BobRyan]

Neither is "Sola Scriptura," "believer's baptism," and "the Rapture of the Church."

1. Sola Scriptura - in the Bible
Acts 17:11 "They searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things were so"
2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine"
Luke 24:27 "Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."
Mark 7:6-13 Magisterium of the one true nation Church of Christ's day started by God at Sinai - hammered "sola scriptura" -- where nation-church tradition and nation-church commandments condemned "sola scriptura"

Nice try. Utterly false.

On the contrary -- all of those texts true.

next

Do you not particularly enjoy Mark 7:6-13?

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That was done - pure "Sola Scriptura" and the magisterium itself is getting hammered in that example

But just searching the Bible will not find "computer" or "light bulb." If they are not there, then why are you using them?

Indeed - so if some wild doctrine gets started about "Paul saying all Christians need to be a computer" - well that is going to be a pretty difficult doctrine to defend from the Bible "sola scriptura".

In fact a careful study of the Bible will reveal that Paul very likely never taught such a thing.

Searching the Scriptures is a good thing. But you cannot justify your whole life in the Bible.

True ... but "justify your whole life" is not the subject. The subject is the "Sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and tradition. We have some excellent examples of it - one being in Acts 17:11 and the other in Mark 7:6-13.

So far in your response you appear to reference the details - in neither of them.

Let's take Mark 7 as a great example

 

[BobRyan]

And how many time has SHE been wrong?

Here is just one:
Yet another inaccuracy is found in chapter 25 of The Great Controversy. Ellen White claims that the change of the Sabbath to Sunday was accomplished by the Pope with the "power of the state":

"It was on behalf of Sunday that popery first asserted its arrogant claims; and its first resort to the power of the state was to compel the observance of Sunday as 'the Lord's Day.'" (page 447) She makes another similar statement later in the book: "Royal edicts, general councils, and church ordinances sustained by secular power were the steps by which the pagan festival [day of the Sun] attained its position of honor in the Christian world." (page 574) Before we read Dr. Bacchoicchi's assessment of these quotes, let me remind the reader that Dr. Bacchiocchi is still widely regarded as the SDA theologian who was the most knowledgeable person in the entire sect on church history pertaining to Sabbath-Sunday issues. There was simply no one in the church more qualified to assess Ellen White's statements than Dr. Bacchiocchi. Here is his assessment: "Both statements just cited are inaccurate, because the secular power of the state did not influence or compel Christians to adopt Sunday during the second and third centuries. At that time the Roman emperors were rather hostile toward Christianity. They were more interested to suppress Christianity than to support church leaders in their promotion of Sunday worship. The bishop of Rome could not have resorted to 'the power of the state to compel the observance of Sunday as the Lord's Day.' Eventually, beginning with the fourth century, some Roman emperors actively supported the agenda of the church, but this was long after the establishment of Sunday observance.
"In my dissertation FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY I have shown that the Bishop of Rome did indeed pioneer the change in the day of worship, but he did it without the help of the Roman government. What precipitated the need to change the Sabbath to Sunday, was the anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath legislation promulgated in 135 by the Emperor Hadrian.

"After suppressing the Second Jewish revolt, known as the Barkokoba revolt (132-135), which caused many casualties, the Emperor Hadrian decided to deal with the Jewish problem in a radical way by suppressing the Jewish religion. Hitler was determined to liquidate the Jews as a people and Hadrian was committed to suppress Judaism as a religion. To accomplish this objective Hadrian outlawed in 135 the Jewish religion in general and Sabbathkeeping in particular.

"It was at this critical moment that the Bishop of Rome took the initiative to change the Sabbath to Sunday in order to show to the Roman government the Christians' separation from the Jews and their identification with the cycles of the Roman society. But, at this time the Bishop of Rome could not call upon 'the power of the state to compel the observance of Sunday as the Lord's Day,' because in the eyes of the Romans Christianity was still a suspect religion to be suppressed, rather than to be supported."

1. That is not a prophecy - not by Bacchiocchi and not by Ellen White. it is a review of known history.
2. You "invent a rule" that the test of a prophet is supposed to be the accuracy in which documented history is summarized - and that presumably everything they say at breakfast or in a letter or in a talk or a sermon comes directly from heaven and must be infallible. What it the Bible text you use for that new rule?
3. The text of your post does not support your position.

Your tiny quote of the book "Great Controversy" from page 447 - is from this larger text which shows TWO events not ONE.

The TWO events are:
1. It was in behalf of the Sunday that popery first asserted its arrogant claims
2. its first resort to the power of the state was to compel the observance of Sunday as “the Lord’s day.”

Two different events - at two different times. Bacchiocchi "merely assumes" Ellen White meant to say they are one - but no one is claiming prophetic insight for Bacchiocchi - nor even first-hand knowledge of what Ellen White "meant to say".

Here is the full paragraph from which you give only a tiny snippet -- for evidence

While the worshipers of God will be especially distinguished by their regard for the fourth commandment,—since this is the sign of His creative power and the witness to His claim upon man’s reverence and homage,—the worshipers of the beast will be distinguished by their efforts to tear down the Creator’s memorial, to exalt the institution of Rome. It was in behalf of the Sunday that popery first asserted its arrogant claims (see Appendix); and its first resort to the power of the state was to compel the observance of Sunday as “the Lord’s day.” But the Bible points to the seventh day, and not to the first, as the Lord’s day. Said Christ: “The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” The fourth commandment declares: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.” And by the prophet Isaiah the Lord designates it: “My holy day.” Mark 2:28; Isaiah 58:13. {GC 446.3}

A not-so-subtle detail key to your accusation in this example.

================================================ a more full quote for context

While the worshipers of God will be especially distinguished by their regard for the fourth commandment,—since this is the sign of His creative power and the witness to His claim upon man’s reverence and homage,—the worshipers of the beast will be distinguished by their efforts to tear down the Creator’s memorial, to exalt the institution of Rome. It was in behalf of the Sunday that popery first asserted its arrogant claims (see Appendix); and its first resort to the power of the state was to compel the observance of Sunday as “the Lord’s day.” But the Bible points to the seventh day, and not to the first, as the Lord’s day. Said Christ: “The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” The fourth commandment declares: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.” And by the prophet Isaiah the Lord designates it: “My holy day.” Mark 2:28; Isaiah 58:13. {GC 446.3}

The claim so often put forth that Christ changed the Sabbath is disproved by His own words. In His Sermon on the Mount He said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven,” Matthew 5:17-19. {GC 447.1}

.... plainly stated in publications issued by the American Tract Society and the American Sunday School Union. One of these works acknowledges “the complete silence of the New Testament so far as any explicit command for the Sabbath [Sunday, the first day of the week] or definite rules for its observance are concerned.”—George Elliott, The Abiding Sabbath, page 184. {GC 447.2}

Another says: “Up to the time of Christ’s death, no change had been made in the day;” and, “so far as the record shows, they [the apostles] did not ... give any explicit command enjoining the abandonment of the seventh-day Sabbath, and its observance on the first day of the week.”—A. E. Waffle, The Lord’s Day, pages 186-188. {GC 447.3}

Roman Catholics acknowledge that the change of the Sabbath was made by their church, and declare that Protestants by observing the Sunday are recognizing her power. In the Catholic Catechism of Christian Religion, in answer to a question as to the day to be observed in obedience to the fourth commandment, this statement is made: “During the old law, Saturday was the day sanctified; but the church, instructed by Jesus Christ, and directed by the Spirit of God, has substituted Sunday for Saturday; so now we sanctify the first, not the seventh day. Sunday means, and now is, the day of the Lord.” {GC 447.4}

As the sign of the authority of the Catholic Church, papist writers cite “the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; ... because by keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin.”—Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine, page 58. What then is the change of the Sabbath, but the sign, or mark, of the authority of the Roman Church—“the mark of the beast”? {GC 448.1}

====================== end quote

 

[BobRyan]

And how many time has SHE been wrong?

Here is just one:
Yet another inaccuracy is found in chapter 25 of The Great Controversy. Ellen White claims that the change of the Sabbath to Sunday was accomplished by the Pope with the "power of the state":

But she does not say that the first efforts of the Bishop of Rome for Sunday worship - were delayed until they had the power of the state to suggest it.

BTW thank you for quoting from the book "Great Controversy" for me -- it is only fair that I quote from your documents as well.

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

"The Faith Explained" - The Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II - argues the SAME two points.

1965 -- first published 1959

(from "The Faith Explained" page 243

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

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

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