Adventism refuted by Orthodoxy

[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)

And again - since you are kind enough to quote from "The Great Controversy" page 574 -- perhaps the entire paragraph for context would be more helpful.

Here is the book -- Online Books: The Great Controversy

Here is the section of the book around page 574 where the very "progression" your false accusation denies that she makes -- is found.

==========================================
If the reader would understand the agencies to be employed in the soon-coming contest, he has but to trace the record of the means which Rome employed for the same object in ages past. If he would know how papists and Protestants united will deal with those who reject their dogmas, let him see the spirit which Rome manifested toward the Sabbath and its defenders. {GC 573.2}

Royal edicts, general councils, and church ordinances sustained by secular power were the steps by which the pagan festival attained its position of honor in the Christian world. The first public measure enforcing Sunday observance was the law enacted by Constantine. (A.D. 321; see Appendix note for page 53.) This edict required townspeople to rest on “the venerable day of the sun,” but permitted countrymen to continue their agricultural pursuits. Though virtually a heathen statute, it was enforced by the emperor after his nominal acceptance of Christianity. {GC 574.1}

The royal mandate not proving a sufficient substitute for divine authority, Eusebius, a bishop who sought the favor of princes, and who was the special friend and flatterer of Constantine, advanced the claim that Christ had transferred the Sabbath to Sunday. Not a single testimony of the Scriptures was produced in proof of the new doctrine. Eusebius himself unwittingly acknowledges its falsity and points to the real authors of the change. “All things,” he says, “whatever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s Day.”—Robert Cox, Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties, page 538. But the Sunday argument, groundless as it was, served to embolden men in trampling upon the Sabbath of the Lord. All who desired to be honored by the world accepted the popular festival. {GC 574.2}

As the papacy became firmly established, the work of Sunday exaltation was continued. For a time the people engaged in agricultural labor when not attending church, and the seventh day was still regarded as the Sabbath. But steadily a change was effected. Those in holy office were forbidden to pass judgment in any civil controversy on the Sunday. Soon after, all persons, of whatever rank, were commanded to refrain from common labor on pain of a fine for freemen and stripes in the case of servants. Later it was decreed that rich men should be punished with the loss of half of their estates; and finally, that if still obstinate they should be made slaves. The lower classes were to suffer perpetual banishment. {GC 574.3}

Miracles also were called into requisition. Among other wonders it was reported that as a husbandman who was about to plow his field on Sunday cleaned his plow with an iron, the iron stuck fast in his hand, and for two years he carried it about with him, “to his exceeding great pain and shame.”—Francis West, Historical and Practical Discourse on the Lord’s Day, page 174. {GC 575.1}

Later the pope gave directions that the parish priest should admonish the violators of Sunday and wish them to go to church and say their prayers, lest they bring some great calamity on themselves and neighbors. An ecclesiastical council brought forward the argument, since so widely employed, even by Protestants, that because persons had been struck by lightning while laboring on Sunday, it must be the Sabbath. “It is apparent,” said the prelates, “how high the displeasure of God was upon their neglect of this day.” An appeal was then made that priests and ministers, kings and princes, and all faithful people “use their utmost endeavors and care that the day be restored to its honor, and, for the credit of Christianity, more devoutly observed for the time to come.”—Thomas Morer, Discourse in Six Dialogues on the Name, Notion, and Observation of the Lord’s Day, page 271. {GC 575.2}

The decrees of councils proving insufficient, the secular authorities were besought to issue an edict that would strike terror to the hearts of the people and force them to refrain from labor on the Sunday. At a synod held in Rome, all previous decisions were reaffirmed with greater force and solemnity. They were also incorporated into the ecclesiastical law and enforced by the civil authorities throughout nearly all Christendom. (See Heylyn, History of the Sabbath, pt. 2, ch. 5, sec. 7.) {GC 575.3}

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

It is always presented as a graduating sequence of steps - not as one giant shift

 

[Paul Yohannan]

And again - since you are kind enough to quote from "The Great Controversy" page 574 -- perhaps the entire paragraph for context would be more helpful.

Here is the book -- Online Books: The Great Controversy

Here is the section of the book around page 574 where the very "progression" your false accusation denies that she makes -- is found.

==========================================
If the reader would understand the agencies to be employed in the soon-coming contest, he has but to trace the record of the means which Rome employed for the same object in ages past. If he would know how papists and Protestants united will deal with those who reject their dogmas, let him see the spirit which Rome manifested toward the Sabbath and its defenders. {GC 573.2}

Royal edicts, general councils, and church ordinances sustained by secular power were the steps by which the pagan festival attained its position of honor in the Christian world. The first public measure enforcing Sunday observance was the law enacted by Constantine. (A.D. 321; see Appendix note for page 53.) This edict required townspeople to rest on “the venerable day of the sun,” but permitted countrymen to continue their agricultural pursuits. Though virtually a heathen statute, it was enforced by the emperor after his nominal acceptance of Christianity. {GC 574.1}

The royal mandate not proving a sufficient substitute for divine authority, Eusebius, a bishop who sought the favor of princes, and who was the special friend and flatterer of Constantine, advanced the claim that Christ had transferred the Sabbath to Sunday. Not a single testimony of the Scriptures was produced in proof of the new doctrine. Eusebius himself unwittingly acknowledges its falsity and points to the real authors of the change. “All things,” he says, “whatever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s Day.”—Robert Cox, Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties, page 538. But the Sunday argument, groundless as it was, served to embolden men in trampling upon the Sabbath of the Lord. All who desired to be honored by the world accepted the popular festival. {GC 574.2}

As the papacy became firmly established, the work of Sunday exaltation was continued. For a time the people engaged in agricultural labor when not attending church, and the seventh day was still regarded as the Sabbath. But steadily a change was effected. Those in holy office were forbidden to pass judgment in any civil controversy on the Sunday. Soon after, all persons, of whatever rank, were commanded to refrain from common labor on pain of a fine for freemen and stripes in the case of servants. Later it was decreed that rich men should be punished with the loss of half of their estates; and finally, that if still obstinate they should be made slaves. The lower classes were to suffer perpetual banishment. {GC 574.3}

Miracles also were called into requisition. Among other wonders it was reported that as a husbandman who was about to plow his field on Sunday cleaned his plow with an iron, the iron stuck fast in his hand, and for two years he carried it about with him, “to his exceeding great pain and shame.”—Francis West, Historical and Practical Discourse on the Lord’s Day, page 174. {GC 575.1}

Later the pope gave directions that the parish priest should admonish the violators of Sunday and wish them to go to church and say their prayers, lest they bring some great calamity on themselves and neighbors. An ecclesiastical council brought forward the argument, since so widely employed, even by Protestants, that because persons had been struck by lightning while laboring on Sunday, it must be the Sabbath. “It is apparent,” said the prelates, “how high the displeasure of God was upon their neglect of this day.” An appeal was then made that priests and ministers, kings and princes, and all faithful people “use their utmost endeavors and care that the day be restored to its honor, and, for the credit of Christianity, more devoutly observed for the time to come.”—Thomas Morer, Discourse in Six Dialogues on the Name, Notion, and Observation of the Lord’s Day, page 271. {GC 575.2}

The decrees of councils proving insufficient, the secular authorities were besought to issue an edict that would strike terror to the hearts of the people and force them to refrain from labor on the Sunday. At a synod held in Rome, all previous decisions were reaffirmed with greater force and solemnity. They were also incorporated into the ecclesiastical law and enforced by the civil authorities throughout nearly all Christendom. (See Heylyn, History of the Sabbath, pt. 2, ch. 5, sec. 7.) {GC 575.3}

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

It is always presented as a graduating sequence of steps - not as one giant shift

This of course does not change the fact that it is inaccurate.

 

[BobRyan]

Since Bacchiocchi is of such interest to some on this thread

From Sabbath to Sunday pg 270 "In Chapter III we already showed that no indication can be foun in the apostolic record of efforts made to institute a weekly or yearly commemoration of the resurrection on Sunday. Nevertheless it is a fact that the resurrection did BECOME the dominant reason for Sunday observance. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) perhaps provides the most explicit enunciation of the resurrection as the reason for the origin of Sunday..."

From Sabbath to Sunday pg 163 "This historical data which we have briefly considered discredit any attempt to make the Jerusalem Church, prior to A.D 135, the champion of liturgical innovation such as Sunday worship. We have found that of all the Christian Churches, this was seemingly both racially and theologically the one closest and most loyal to Jewish religious traditions. AFTer A.D. 135 when Jerusalem was rebuilt as a PAGAN Roman colony - renamed-as-Aelia Capitolina -- it LOST its political AND religious prestige for BOTH the Jews AND the Christians. It would be vain therefore after that time to probe further inito the origin of Sunday observance among the small new Gentile Church in the city, of which NOTHING is known for the second century with the exception of a few uncertain names of bishops"

Thus the very arguments about Hadrian and his focus on wiping out the worship of the one true God in Jerusalem, no longer applies to either Jews or Christians after 135 when both groups leave Jerusalem.

more second century events -

From Sabbath to Sunday pg 173 "The INTRODUCTION of Sunday worship in place of "Jewish" Sabbath-keeping - latter being particularly derided by several ROMAN writers of the time - could well represent a measure taken by leaders of the CHURCH of Rome to evidence their severance from Judaism and thereby also avoid the payment of the discriminatory tax"

 

[BobRyan]

This of course does not change the fact that it is inaccurate.

Until you "notice the details" that it is two events referenced not "just one" as Bacchiocchi had assumed.

1. Introduction of Sunday
2. Enforcement by civil authorities.

Ellen White never argues that they both happened at the same instant in time. And in fact describes a gradual progression toward civil intolerance of the Bible Sabbath - not a sudden leap across the fence.

She states that it was a gradual change over time -

=================================
The detector of error having been removed, Satan worked according to his will. Prophecy had declared that the papacy was to “think to change times and laws.” Daniel 7:25. This work it was not slow to attempt. To afford converts from heathenism a substitute for the worship of idols, and thus to promote their nominal acceptance of Christianity, the adoration of images and relics was gradually introduced into the Christian worship. The decree of a general council (see Appendix) finally established this system of idolatry. To complete the sacrilegious work, Rome presumed to expunge from the law of God the second commandment, forbidding image worship, and to divide the tenth commandment, in order to preserve the number. {GC 51.4}

The spirit of concession to paganism opened the way for a still further disregard of Heaven’s authority. Satan, working through unconsecrated leaders of the church, tampered with the fourth commandment also, and essayed to set aside the ancient Sabbath, the day which God had blessed and sanctified (Genesis 2:2, 3), and in its stead to exalt the festival observed by the heathen as “the venerable day of the sun.” This change was not at first attempted openly. In the first centuries the true Sabbath had been kept by all Christians. They were jealous for the honor of God, and, believing that His law is immutable, they zealously guarded the sacredness of its precepts. But with great subtlety Satan worked through his agents to bring about his object. That the attention of the people might be called to the Sunday, it was made a festival in honor of the resurrection of Christ. Religious services were held upon it; yet it was regarded as a day of recreation, the Sabbath being still sacredly observed. {GC 52.1}

To prepare the way for the work which he designed to accomplish, Satan had led the Jews, before the advent of Christ, to load down the Sabbath with the most rigorous exactions, making its observance a burden. Now, taking advantage of the false light in which he had thus caused it to be regarded, he cast contempt upon it as a Jewish institution. While Christians generally continued to observe the Sunday as a joyous festival, he led them, in order to show their hatred of Judaism, to make the Sabbath a fast, a day of sadness and gloom. {GC 52.2}

In the early part of the fourth century the emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a public festival throughout the Roman Empire. (See Appendix.) The day of the sun was reverenced by his pagan subjects and was honored by Christians; it was the emperor’s policy to unite the conflicting interests of heathenism and Christianity. He was urged to do this by the bishops of the church, who, inspired by ambition and thirst for power, perceived that if the same day was observed by both Christians and heathen, it would promote the nominal acceptance of Christianity by pagans and thus advance the power and glory of the church. But while many God-fearing Christians were gradually led to regard Sunday as possessing a degree of sacredness, they still held the true Sabbath as the holy of the Lord and observed it in obedience to the fourth commandment. {GC 53.1}

The archdeceiver had not completed his work. He was resolved to gather the Christian world under his banner and to exercise his power through his vicegerent, the proud pontiff who claimed to be the representative of Christ. Through half-converted pagans, ambitious prelates, and world-loving churchmen he accomplished his purpose. Vast councils were held from time to time, in which the dignitaries of the church were convened from all the world. In nearly every council the Sabbath which God had instituted was pressed down a little lower, while the Sunday was correspondingly exalted. Thus the pagan festival came finally to be honored as a divine institution, while the Bible Sabbath was pronounced a relic of Judaism, and its observers were declared to be accursed. {GC 53.2}

The great apostate had succeeded in exalting himself “above all that is called God, or that is worshiped.” 2 Thessalonians 2:4. He had dared to change the only precept of the divine law that unmistakably points all mankind to the true and living God. In the fourth commandment, God is revealed as the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and is thereby distinguished from all false gods. It was as a memorial of the work of creation that the seventh day was sanctified as a rest day for man. It was designed to keep the living God ever before the minds of men as the source of being and the object of reverence and worship. Satan strives to turn men from their allegiance to God, and from rendering obedience to His law; therefore he directs his efforts especially against that commandment which points to God as the Creator. {GC 53.3}

Protestants now urge that the resurrection of Christ on Sunday made it the Christian Sabbath. But Scripture evidence is lacking. No such honor was given to the day by Christ or His apostles. The observance of Sunday as a Christian institution had its origin in that “mystery of lawlessness” (2 Thessalonians 2:7, R.V.) which, even in Paul’s day, had begun its work. Where and when did the Lord adopt this child of the papacy? What valid reason can be given for a change which the Scriptures do not sanction? {GC 54.1}

In the sixth century the papacy had become firmly established. Its seat of power was fixed in the imperial city, and the bishop of Rome was declared to be the head over the entire church.... {GC 54.2}

 

[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"

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.

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.

Having absolutely NO example of infant Baptism -

AND

HAVING only the BELIEVERS baptism texts in actual scripture

you then "quote yourself" as the "source" for "one simple fact remains -- believer's baptism did not start until some 18 centuries after Christ "

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"????

 

[ViaCrucis]

The fact that you can't find any mentioned in Church history before 250 of infant baptism refutes your tradition.

Explicit mention, though in the negative, can be found in Tertullian's On Baptism, around 200 AD. Tertullian's argument against the practice of infant baptism assumes that the practice is widely practiced in the Church, and doesn't reject the meaning and efficacy of Baptism. On the contrary, Tertullian's argument against the baptism of infants hinges on the efficacy of Baptism; but what Tertullian argues is that because sins are cleaned in the waters of Baptism then to sin after baptism is to put your soul into serious jeopardy, thus to baptize an infant--he thinks--is to risk them having a lifetime to sin and therefore damn themselves to destruction.

It's not surprising, then, of the relationship between Tertullian and Novatianism, and later Donatism. Tertullian himself abandoned orthodoxy to embrace the Montanist sect and it is unclear if he ever returned to orthodoxy; but North Africa, in the area around Carthage, arose Novatianism and later Donatism, as well as those who were called "Tertullianists".

C.f. Tertullian, On Baptism, ch. 18

Further, St. Hippolytus writing between 200 and 215 writes,

"The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family." - St. Hippolytus, Apostolic Traditions, 21:4

As far as what is meant by "children who cannot answer for themselves", we have a name for such children, we call them infants.

And Origen speaks of it as having apostolic pedigree,

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." - Origen, commentary on Romans, 5;9

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.

No magic. Just the express teaching of Christ and the Apostles that Baptism is what it is and does what it does, what is taught explicitly in the New Testament, and by the earliest fathers, and down through the centuries until recent times with the rise of the Anabaptists and Sacramentarians in the 16th century who came to reject Christian teaching on Holy Baptism, denying the Scriptures.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

Not in so many words, and yet St. Paul writes,

"In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross." - Colossians 2:11-14

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

Ritual washing--baptism--took upon itself a significantly new meaning for Christians, which is why in Acts 19 St. Paul asks which baptism the group of "disciples" had received, they say they had received John's baptism, to which Paul then administers Christian baptism to them. John's baptism was "for repentance", that is, in anticipation and preparation of the coming of the Messiah. It is clear that Christian baptism is a distinct thing than the ordinary washings--tevilah--of Judaism, or the baptism of St. John the Baptist; this was something distinctively Christian as this baptism was in Christ, by which we are buried with Christ, having died with Christ, raised with Christ, clothed with Christ, received the Holy Spirit, have forgiveness of sins, and new birth.

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

Baptism is the new birth, John 3:5 and Titus 3:5

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.

But circumcision did bring the male child into the covenant community of Israel, and made them heirs of all the promises of the covenant which God made with their fathers and mothers at Mt. Horeb. By which they were His people, and He was their God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mmksparbud]

I do not understand why Orthodoxy feels slighted by SDA prophecy. Were they ever a world power? Were they ever able to make every king in the known world bow to them? Where they ever able to make the King of Germany come to them humbled on his knees? Did they ever scourge the whole world with their inquisition? Did they ever have their own recognized state? Since the biblical prophecies are about world powers, why would the orthodox church be mentioned???

 

[ViaCrucis]

I do not understand why Orthodoxy feels slighted by SDA prophecy. Were they ever a world power? Were they ever able to make every king in the known world bow to them? Where they ever able to make the King of Germany come to them humbled on his knees? Did they ever scourge the whole world with their inquisition? Did they ever have their own recognized state? Since the biblical prophecies are about world powers, why would the orthodox church be mentioned???

Well, a lot of those things don't apply to Catholicism either. The Roman Catholic Church has never been a "world power", and even at its greatest extent the Papal States wouldn't qualify much as a "world power". At no point did they "scourge the whole world with ... inquisition".

The problem is that it's been popular to have a completely skewed perspective on the middle ages. Yes, the Inquisition was real, and yes it was awful, but it wasn't what popular imagination thinks it is. If one were to believe some claims on the internet the Inquisition murdered more people than the Black Death, a plague that wiped out as much as one half of the entire population of Europe. Which is to say, if such claims were to be believed, then it's a marvel that Europe wasn't an uninhibited wilderness by the end of the Renaissance.

So the problems with Adventist claims are, among others, the following:

1. A fundamental failure at comprehending real history, and instead substituting it with revisionist myth and legend.

2. The claim of an all powerful "Roman Catholic Church" both before and after the Great Schism, and a failure at recognizing the existence of the Eastern Churches which were never under the authority of the Roman patriarchate.

3. Following this, the false claims in regard to Constantine (e.g. that he changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, and that Christians never worshiped on Sunday prior--both demonstrably false claims), and that Constantine is somehow responsible for the "Roman Catholic Church"--and yet there remain the Eastern Churches. And while one may point to those Eastern Churches which were within the boundaries of the Roman Empire, what to do with those Churches which exist in areas, and have always been self-governing, which have never been under the political power of Rome--and yet affirm much of the central ideas which are rejected by Adventists as some kind of Roman perversion. In other words, even if we pretend that Constantine changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday (he didn't), why would that matter to Christians living in Persia, Armenia, or India? And yet they gather for worship on the first day of the week, saying that they have always gathered on the first day of the week, and at no point were they ever under Roman political jurisdiction, so Roman law never applied to them. Are we to believe, perhaps, that Zoroastrian and Hindu political authorities forced Christians to worship on the first day of the week in order to honor a Roman solar deity?

This particular house of cards isn't hard to topple.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I do not understand why Orthodoxy feels slighted by SDA prophecy. Were they ever a world power? Were they ever able to make every king in the known world bow to them? Where they ever able to make the King of Germany come to them humbled on his knees? Did they ever scourge the whole world with their inquisition? Did they ever have their own recognized state? Since the biblical prophecies are about world powers, why would the orthodox church be mentioned???

No, but neither did the Catholics, as witnessed by the remarkable lack of Inquisitors or genuflection in Czarist Russia, the Ottoman Empire, where most of the non-Russian Orthodox lived, the Persian Empire, the Mogul Empire, or Imperial Ethiopia.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well, a lot of those things don't apply to Catholicism either. The Roman Catholic Church has never been a "world power", and even at its greatest extent the Papal States wouldn't qualify much as a "world power". At no point did they "scourge the whole world with ... inquisition".

The problem is that it's been popular to have a completely skewed perspective on the middle ages. Yes, the Inquisition was real, and yes it was awful, but it wasn't what popular imagination thinks it is. If one were to believe some claims on the internet the Inquisition murdered more people than the Black Death, a plague that wiped out as much as one half of the entire population of Europe. Which is to say, if such claims were to be believed, then it's a marvel that Europe wasn't an uninhibited wilderness by the end of the Renaissance.

So the problems with Adventist claims are, among others, the following:

1. A fundamental failure at comprehending real history, and instead substituting it with revisionist myth and legend.

2. The claim of an all powerful "Roman Catholic Church" both before and after the Great Schism, and a failure at recognizing the existence of the Eastern Churches which were never under the authority of the Roman patriarchate.

3. Following this, the false claims in regard to Constantine (e.g. that he changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, and that Christians never worshiped on Sunday prior--both demonstrably false claims), and that Constantine is somehow responsible for the "Roman Catholic Church"--and yet there remain the Eastern Churches. And while one may point to those Eastern Churches which were within the boundaries of the Roman Empire, what to do with those Churches which exist in areas, and have always been self-governing, which have never been under the political power of Rome--and yet affirm much of the central ideas which are rejected by Adventists as some kind of Roman perversion. In other words, even if we pretend that Constantine changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday (he didn't), why would that matter to Christians living in Persia, Armenia, or India? And yet they gather for worship on the first day of the week, saying that they have always gathered on the first day of the week, and at no point were they ever under Roman political jurisdiction, so Roman law never applied to them. Are we to believe, perhaps, that Zoroastrian and Hindu political authorities forced Christians to worship on the first day of the week in order to honor a Roman solar deity?

This particular house of cards isn't hard to topple.

-CryptoLutheran

History totally refutes your statement.

The Roman Catholic Church has never been a "world power",

They certainly were a world power, they dominated every king in the known world
and were still a presence in the parts of the world were they did not have control of their leaders. They had power over all of Europe. You simply can not deny that, it's ludicrous to even try. Orthodoxy had no power to control the kings of France, Germany, Spain, England, Portugal, Denmark, Ireland, Wales, Sweden

Not a world power??!!! You got to be kidding, open up any history book, you obviously need to get a broader education.

history of Roman Catholicism

"Christian missionaries led by Francis Xavier entered Japan in 1549, only six years after the first Portuguese traders, and over the next century converted hundreds of thousands of Japanese—perhaps half a million—to Christianity. The influence of the Jesuits, and later, Franciscans, was enormous, and the growth of the new sect raised political fears that helped fuel Japan’s decision to exclude all foreign traders but the Dutch, the Chinese, and the Koreans.

Oda Nobunaga (1534–82) had taken his first step toward uniting Japan as the first missionaries landed, and as his power increased he encouraged the growing Kirishitan movement as a means of subverting the great political strength of Buddhism. Oppressed peasants welcomed the gospel of salvation, but merchants and trade-conscious daimyos saw Christianity as an important link with valuable European trade. Oda’s successor, Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1537–98), was much cooler toward the alien religion. The Japanese were becoming aware of competition between the Jesuits and the Franciscans and between Spanish and Portuguese trading interests."


"In 1569 the Union of Lublin between Lithuania and Poland gave Kiev and the Ukrainian lands to Poland. Kiev became one of the centres of Orthodox opposition to the expansion of Polish Roman Catholic influence, spearheaded by vigorous proselytization by the Jesuits. In the 17th century a religious Ukrainian brotherhood was established in Kiev, as in other Ukrainian towns, to further this opposition and encourage Ukrainian nationalism. Peter Mogila (Petro Mohyla), a major theologian and metropolitan of Kiev from 1633 to 1646, founded there the Collegium (later the Kievan Mohyla Academy) as a major Orthodox centre of learning in the East Slavic world."
The period of Portuguese influence was marked by intense Roman Catholic missionary activity. Franciscans established centres in the country from 1543 onward. Jesuits were active in the north. Toward the end of the century, Dominicans and Augustinians arrived. With the conversion of Dharmapala, many members of the Sinhalese nobility followed suit. Dharmapala endowed missionary orders lavishly, often from the properties of Buddhist and Hindu temples. After the Portuguese secured control of Sri Lanka, they used their extensive powers of patronage and preference in appointments to promote Christianity. Members of the landed aristocracy embraced Christianity and took Portuguese surnames at baptism. Many coastal communities underwent mass conversion, particularly Jaffna, Mannar, and the fishing communities north of Colombo. Catholic churches with schools attached to them served Catholic communities all over the country. The Portuguese language spread extensively, and the upper classes quickly gained proficiency in it.

Through stern acts passed by the Diet at Västerås in 1527, he was able to confiscate all the properties of the Roman Catholic Church. The church at that time held 21 percent of Sweden’s land, as opposed to only 6 percent held by the crown.


Byzantine Christianity was established among the Ukrainians in 988 by St. Vladimir (Volodimir) and followed Constantinople in the Great Schism of 1054. Temporary reunion with Rome was effected in the mid-15th century, and a definitive union was achieved at Brest-Litovsk in 1596
The partition of Poland at the end of the 18th century brought all Ukrainians, except those in the province of Galicia, under Russian control; and by 1839 the tsarist government had forcibly returned the Ukrainian Catholics to Orthodoxy

 

[mmksparbud]

No, but neither did the Catholics, as witnessed by the remarkable lack of Inquisitors or genuflection in Czarist Russia, the Ottoman Empire, where most of the non-Russian Orthodox lived, the Persian Empire, the Mogul Empire, or Imperial Ethiopia.

Throughout the Inquisition's history, it was rivaled by local ecclesiastical and secular jurisdictions. No matter how determined, no pope succeeded in establishing complete control of the institution. Medieval kings, princes, bishops, and civil auth orities wavered between acceptance and resistance of the Inquisition. The institution reached its apex in the second half of the 13th century. During this period, the tribunals were almost entirely free from any authority, including that of the pope. T herefore, it was almost impossible to eradicate abuse.

A second variety of the Inquisition was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478. Pope Sixtus tried to establish harmony between the inquisitors and the ordinaries, but was unable to maintain control of the desires of Ki ng Ferdinand V and Queen Isablella. Sixtus agreed to recognize the independence of the Spanish Inquisition. This institution survived to the beginning of the 19th century, and was permanently suppressed by a decree on July 15, 1834.


A third variety of the Inquisition was the Roman Inquisition. Alarmed by the spread of Protestantism and especially by its penetration into Italy, Pope Paul III in 1542 established in Rome the Congregation of the Inquisition. This institution was al so known as the Roman Inquisition and the Holy Office. Six cardinals including Carafa constituted the original inquisition whose powers extended to the whole Church. The "Holy Office" was really a new institution related to the Medieval Inquisition only by vague precedents. More free from episcopal control than its predecessor, it also conceived of its function differently

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Why are you arguing regarding the Sabbath and Orthodoxy. That has never changed. The 7th day has always been the Sabbath and continues to be so. In Orthodoxy, Sunday is not the Sabbath day and never was. I do not know what the RCC or Protestants adhere to.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Throughout the Inquisition's history, it was rivaled by local ecclesiastical and secular jurisdictions. No matter how determined, no pope succeeded in establishing complete control of the institution. Medieval kings, princes, bishops, and civil auth orities wavered between acceptance and resistance of the Inquisition. The institution reached its apex in the second half of the 13th century. During this period, the tribunals were almost entirely free from any authority, including that of the pope. T herefore, it was almost impossible to eradicate abuse.

A second variety of the Inquisition was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478. Pope Sixtus tried to establish harmony between the inquisitors and the ordinaries, but was unable to maintain control of the desires of Ki ng Ferdinand V and Queen Isablella. Sixtus agreed to recognize the independence of the Spanish Inquisition. This institution survived to the beginning of the 19th century, and was permanently suppressed by a decree on July 15, 1834.


A third variety of the Inquisition was the Roman Inquisition. Alarmed by the spread of Protestantism and especially by its penetration into Italy, Pope Paul III in 1542 established in Rome the Congregation of the Inquisition. This institution was al so known as the Roman Inquisition and the Holy Office. Six cardinals including Carafa constituted the original inquisition whose powers extended to the whole Church. The "Holy Office" was really a new institution related to the Medieval Inquisition only by vague precedents. More free from episcopal control than its predecessor, it also conceived of its function differently

None of which happened in the Orthodox lands. There was no inquisition in Russia, Greece, Roumelia, Syria, Egypt, Armenia, Ethiopia or India.

 

[mmksparbud]

None of which happened in the Orthodox lands. There was no inquisition in Russia, Greece, Roumelia, Syria, Egypt, Armenia, Ethiopia or India.

No, and? The topic was that the Catholic church was not a world power, which is utter baloney. No other church could even try to instigate an inquisition of that magnitude. The church most certainly did rule the world and orthodoxy never even came close, so again-- Biblical prophecies are dealing with world powers and since orthodoxy was not a world power, there was no need for them to be mentioned.

 

[JM]

Ariel Toll Houses are a recent invention and they have nothing to do with the Covenant of God.

Light of the East, you do not represent Orthodoxy very well. Ariel Toll Houses are considered "orthodox" to members of the Eastern Orthodox denomination.

According to Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky Orthodox Dogmatic Theology it is dogma. That means it must be believed. I only point this out to show how corrupt "Tradition" can become.

Addendum On the question of the “Toll-Houses”

• Our war is not against flesh and blood.
• Here we approach the subject of the toll-houses.
• The signs of the Second Coming of the Lord
• The second coming of the Son of Man.
• The resurrection of the dead

There is no evidence for Ariel Toll Houses in the earliest, historical and divinely inspired writings - I refer to scripture.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

Explicit mention, though in the negative, can be found in Tertullian's On Baptism, around 200 AD. Tertullian's argument against the practice of infant baptism assumes that the practice is widely practiced in the Church...

Exactly, Tertullian wrote against the practice especially the magical element of baptismal regeneration.

Reading Comprehension and Applying Proper Exegesis to Tertullian’s Writings on Baptism

Tertullian, Baptismal Regeneration, and the Danger of Presuppositions
https://christianreformedtheology.com/2016/05/06/tertullian-rejects-baptismal-regeneration/
Tertullian Rejects Baptismal Regeneration

Ambrosiaster on Baptism, Penitence, and Sacraments

Origen and Irenaeus on Infant Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration…Again

If I wasn't Reformed I'd probably be a Lutheran (WELS or LCMS). I have a great deal of respect for Lutheranism but disagree with the teaching of infant baptism. It is a latter tradition based on the idea of baptismal regeneration. I recommend the title pictured below. The authors are paedobaptists but have concluded after looking at the early church writings that paedobaptism was a late develop. It's very difficult to disagree with their conclusions - but they still remain infant baptists!

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Light of the East, you do not represent Orthodoxy very well. Ariel Toll Houses are considered "orthodox" to members of the Eastern Orthodox denomination.

According to Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky Orthodox Dogmatic Theology it is dogma. That means it must be believed. I only point this out to show how corrupt "Tradition" can become.

Addendum On the question of the “Toll-Houses”

• Our war is not against flesh and blood.
• Here we approach the subject of the toll-houses.
• The signs of the Second Coming of the Lord
• The second coming of the Son of Man.
• The resurrection of the dead

There is no evidence for Ariel Toll Houses in the earliest, historical and divinely inspired writings - I refer to scripture.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Toll houses are a subject of discussion within Orthodoxy and among the different Orthodox jurisdictions. Belief or non-belief in them does not have anything to do with our Salvation...

 

[BobRyan]

disagree with the teaching of infant baptism. It is a latter tradition based on the idea of baptismal regeneration.

Infant Baptism requires holy orders and "powers" of the priest to mark the soul - change the soul of an unbelieving infant who is totally NOT making any decision at all, no repentance, no turning to God - no seeking after God no "Appeal to God for a clean conscience"

 

[BobRyan]

Toll houses are a subject of discussion within Orthodoxy and among the different Orthodox jurisdictions. Belief or non-belief in them does not have anything to do with our Salvation...

Whether or not an infant is baptized - has nothing to do with its salvation either.