Dr Samuel Bacchiocchi

[reddogs]

I am going to see Dr Samuel Bacchiocchi, at the Avon Park SDA church in Avon Park, tommorrow for the Sabbath seminar.(Subject:How to keep the Sabbath and gain the greatest blessing out of it)

I have to say that I beleive that Dr Samuel Bacchiocchi is a solid Christian and faithful Adventist, and is also an old classmate and friend of my fathers. However he is a scholar, and I have read many of his books and articles and I know he has directed his studies into probing areas of sensitivity to most Adventist. Although, I do not agree with all his conclusions, I feel he comes about them in a orderly, systematic study of the issues, with no malice or bad intent on his part. Just normal intellectual and scholarly research in a quest for answers on many difficult or doctrinal issues such as the Sabbath.

I know he means well, but when man tries to draw conclusions where God has not made clear or unveiled, there comes a point were a choice between having faith or digging for a answer no matter the consequences becomes apparent.

In my opinion, Dr Bacchiocchi has gone for the answers, but in some cases it might have been in areas where there was not enough evidence to have a clear unambigious answer or maybe even a question that needed to be answered, and left many frustrated. What are your thoughts?

 

[OntheDL]

I have to say that I beleive that Dr Samuel Bacchiocchi is a solid Christian and faithful Adventist, and is also an old classmate and friend of my fathers. However he is a scholar, and I have read many of his books and articles and I know he has directed his studies into probing areas of sensitivity to most Adventist. Although, I do not agree with all his conclusions, I feel he comes about them in a orderly, systematic study of the issues, with no malice or bad intent on his part. Just normal intellectual and scholarly research in a quest for answers on many difficult or doctrinal issues such as the Sabbath.

I know he means well, but when man tries to draw conclusions where God has not made clear or unveiled, there comes a point were a choice between having faith or digging for a answer no matter the consequences becomes apparent.

In my opinion, Dr Bacchiocchi has gone for the answers, but in some cases it might have been in areas where there was not enough evidence to have a clear unambigious answer or maybe even a question that needed to be answered, and left many frustrated. What are your thoughts?

I disagree. Have you followed the thread on this? Dr. B has challenged the inspired interpretation of the mark of the beast. He said this traditional interpretation the most adventists "prefer to hold on to" is lacking in both historic and exegetic records.

His theory is utterly false. If it's an area like you said that's lacking in evidence, I would not mind discussing the possibilities. But on the MOB, Ellen White who Dr. B apparently accepts as a prophet of God had given clear understanding. A bible scholar has to follow biblical principles. No prophecy is for any private interpretations.

Red, please follow the thread and exam the arguments carefully.

 

[reddogs]

I disagree. Have you followed the thread on this? Dr. B has challenged the inspired interpretation of the mark of the beast. He said this traditional interpretation the most adventists "prefer to hold on to" is lacking in both historic and exegetic records.

His theory is utterly false. If it's an area like you said that's lacking in evidence, I would not mind discussing the possibilities. But on the MOB, Ellen White who Dr. B apparently accepts as a prophet of God had given clear understanding. A bible scholar has to follow biblical principles. No prophecy is for any private interpretations.

Red, please follow the thread and exam the arguments carefully.

I think he went off on his scholarly expedition with a little bit of a chip on on his shoulder, with all the accolades for his work on the Sabbath, and was surprised on the Adventist reaction on some of the other issues. But personally he is trying to do what he feels is just solid scholarly research, but some things we dont have any hard evidence except for the Spirit of Prophecy, and thats were he is stuck between the deep blue sea of faith and the crushing rocks of heresy, in a tiny boat with a giant storm brewing.........:o

 

[OntheDL]

I think he went off on his scholarly expedition with a little bit of a chip on on his shoulder, with all the accolades for his work on the Sabbath, and was surprised on the Adventist reaction on some of the other issues. But personally he is trying to do what he feels is just solid scholarly research, but some things we dont have any hard evidence except for the Spirit of Prophecy, and thats were he is stuck between the deep blue sea of faith and the crushing rocks of heresy, in a tiny boat with a giant storm brewing.........:o

Red,

The way to destruction is paved with good intentions. The bible says there is a way that seems right to man, but the end is the way of death, Prov 14:12.

If Dr. B is a faith adventist like you said and if he truly believes EGW was a prophet, why would he introduce a new theory that undermines a fundemental endtime issue?

Do you believe the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus? SOP only confirms what the bible teaches. There is nothing that SOP stands on its own without the support of the scriptures. If the bible says there was a great flood, I don't need the scientific evidence to believe it. By the same token, SOP does not come under the scrutiny of historic evidence. Besides, there are abundant (even himself admits in ETI 139) proves that Vicarius Filii Dei was indeed used for papacy.

Red, an enemy who does not come to you with knives and guns is the most dangerous. We are in a battle of the mind. We are either for or against Him. There is no in-between. We can't rely on our own feelings but inspired revelation. Dr. B's 'new' theory discredits the specific message God commissioned His endtime people to proclaim: the Three Angels Message.

Participate in the other thread. Lets ask some questions.

 

[reddogs]

Red,

The way to destruction is paved with good intentions. The bible says there is a way that seems right to man, but the end is the way of death, Prov 14:12.

If Dr. B is a faith adventist like you said and if he truly believes EGW was a prophet, why would he introduce a new theory that undermines a fundemental endtime issue?

Do you believe the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus? SOP only confirms what the bible teaches. There is nothing that SOP stands on its own without the support of the scriptures. If the bible says there was a great flood, I don't need the scientific evidence to believe it. By the same token, SOP does not come under the scrutiny of historic evidence. Besides, there are abundant (even himself admits in ETI 139) proves that Vicarius Filii Dei was indeed used for papacy.

Red, an enemy who does not come to you with knives and guns is the most dangerous. We are in a battle of the mind. We are either for or against Him. There is no in-between. We can't rely on our own feelings but inspired revelation. Dr. B's 'new' theory discredits the specific message God commissioned His endtime people to proclaim: the Three Angels Message.

Participate in the other thread. Lets ask some questions.

I consinder him a friend of the family, so will stick by him personally but not necersarily all his work. Just like if you have a uncle who you love but works in chemical warfare making anthrax to use in war which you personally disagree with.

The spiritual is hidden from us, so mans 'wisdom and logic' even in scholarly research may not account for that dimension and they are blind to it unless the Bible has solid evidence they can put together, or God chooses to unveil it like the dead sea scrolls. I think this may be one reason why God may have allowed his work to be cut short by health issues, but it is a hard lesson....

 

[Cliff2]

Red,

The way to destruction is paved with good intentions. The bible says there is a way that seems right to man, but the end is the way of death, Prov 14:12.

If Dr. B is a faith adventist like you said and if he truly believes EGW was a prophet, why would he introduce a new theory that undermines a fundemental endtime issue?

Do you believe the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus? SOP only confirms what the bible teaches. There is nothing that SOP stands on its own without the support of the scriptures. If the bible says there was a great flood, I don't need the scientific evidence to believe it. By the same token, SOP does not come under the scrutiny of historic evidence. Besides, there are abundant (even himself admits in ETI 139) proves that Vicarius Filii Dei was indeed used for papacy.

Red, an enemy who does not come to you with knives and guns is the most dangerous. We are in a battle of the mind. We are either for or against Him. There is no in-between. We can't rely on our own feelings but inspired revelation. Dr. B's 'new' theory discredits the specific message God commissioned His endtime people to proclaim: the Three Angels Message.

Participate in the other thread. Lets ask some questions.

He has been out here a number of times and preached to large crowds within and outside of the Church.

There are a few problems that we as a Church will not address. Take the issue of the papal crown and 666 adding up to the mark of the beast. This crown that we see and say that the Pope of the Catholic Church wares when he is crowned cannot be found. Dr B. has proff beyond doubt that it is an addition that was painted on one of the pictures by an Adventist artist. In fact the GC said not to use that nearly 60 years ago yet we continue to use it as though it is gospel.

We all see problems with it now but still blindly keep using it.

So what do you want him to do?

Say that what we say is right when we all know it is wrong and dishonest.

 

[OntheDL]

He has been out here a number of times and preached to large crowds within and outside of the Church.

There are a few problems that we as a Church will not address. Take the issue of the papal crown and 666 adding up to the mark of the beast. This crown that we see and say that the Pope of the Catholic Church wares when he is crowned cannot be found. Dr B. has proff beyond doubt that it is an addition that was painted on one of the pictures by an Adventist artist. In fact the GC said not to use that nearly 60 years ago yet we continue to use it as though it is gospel.

We all see problems with it now but still blindly keep using it.

So what do you want him to do?

Say that what we say is right when we all know it is wrong and dishonest.

You might not find a picture of the incription on a papal tiara. However many historic document has proven and Dr. B admits in his letter 139 that the title has been applied to the pope throughout history.

If you want to defend his position, please address the specific issues in the other thread.

 

[reddogs]

I was able to be there, and talk with him and also many others who I know who have read his new controversial research. I went over it with them and will write a thread to address it.

They had a friday night program where he outlined how his parents were very faithful Catholics who were shown the Sabbath by Waldensians. They impressed upon him that he must always stand up for the truth as he went to Catholic school and the priest would tell everyone that he was a 'herectic' and not to associate with him. The Saturday sermon was fantastic on how the Sabbath is being accepted by many churches as they begin to focus on it. Then in the afternoon he had a presentation on the following which he gave me express permission to post online:

THE SABBATH UNDER CROSSFIRE
A LOOK AT RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.,
Retired Professor of Theology, Andrews University

Few Biblical doctrines has been under the constant crossfire of
controversy during Christian history like that of the Sabbath. In his two
volumes bibliographic survey of the Sabbath/Sunday literature produced
between the Reformation and 1860, J. A. Hessey lists about one thousand
treatises for that period.1 Since last century an even greater number of studies
dealing with the Sabbath/Sunday question have been published. Truly it can
be said that the Sabbath has had no rest.
In recent times the controversy has been rekindled by at least three
significant developments: (1) Numerous doctoral dissertations and articles
written by Sundaykeeping scholars who argue for the abrogation of the
Sabbath in the New Testament and the apostolic origin of Sunday; (2) The
abandonment of the Sabbath by former Sabbatarian organizations like the
Worldwide Church of God and other religious groups; (3) The newly released
Pastoral Letter Dies Domini of Pope John Paul II that calls for a revival of
Sunday observance. This historical document is of enormous significance
because the Pope grounds the moral obligation of Sunday observance in the
Sabbath Commandment itself and call for Sunday legislation to facilitate the
compliance with such obligation.
This article looks at these recent developments within the larger
historical context of the origin and development of the anti-Sabbath theology.
An understanding of how the abrogation view of the Sabbath began and
developed through the centuries, is essential for comprehending why the
Sabbath is still under crossfire today.​

THE ORIGIN OF THE ANTI-SABBATH THEOLOGY
The origin of the anti-Sabbath theology can be traced back to the time
of the Roman Emperor Hadrian who promulgated in 135 a most repressive
anti-Judaic legislation, prohibiting categorically the practice of Judaism in
general and of Sabbathkeeping in particular. The aim of the Hadrianic
legislation was to liquidate Judaism as a religion at a time when the Jews were
experiencing resurgent Messianic expectations that exploded in violent
uprising in various parts of the empire, especially Palestine.2
At that critical time a whole body of anti-semitic literature was
produced by Roman authors attacking the Jews ethnically and religiously.3
Christian authors joined the fray by producing a whole literature “Against the
Jews—Adversos Judaeos” condemining the Jews as a people and Judaism as
a religion.4 For example, the author of The Epistle of Barnabas (generally
dated between 130 and 138) defames the Jews as “wretched men” (16:1) who
were abandoned by God because of the ancient idolatry (5:14). He empties
their religious practices like Sabbathkeeping of any historical validity (15:1-8).
At about the same time Justin Martyr (about 150) further develops the
“Christian” theology of contempt for the Jews and their Sabbath by making
the latter a temporary Mosaic ordinance imposed solely on the Jews as “a
mark to single them out for punishment they so well deserve for their
infedelities”5 It is hard to believe that a church leader like Justin, who died
as a martyr, would reduce the Sabbath to a sign of Jewish depravity. Justin
argues that the New Covenant demands not “refraining from work on one day
of the week” but “observing a perpetual Sabbath” by abstaining from sin.6
Justin’s anti-Sabbath theology has been reproposed in different ways
throughout the centuries. In our times Dispensationalists and New Covenant
authors maintain essentially the same view that the Sabbath is a temporary
Mosaic ordinance meant for the Jews and no longer binding upon New
Covenant Christians who observe the day spiritually by accepting the rest of
salvation, rather than physically by desisting from work on the seventh day.
To give concrete expression to their contempt for the Sabbath,
Christians were urged to spend the day fasting rather than feasting. Such a
practice seems to have been first introduced by the Gnostic Marcion (about
150), well-known for his anti-Judaic and anti-Sabbath teachings.7 Sabbath
fasting was promoted by papal decretals in order to show, as Pope Sylvester
A. D. 314-335) puts it, separation from and “contempt for the Jews—
exacratione Judaeorum.”8 The practice was enforced by the Church of Rome
for centuries as indicated by the attempt of Pope Leo IX in the eleven century
to impose Sabbath fasting on the Eastern Greek churches. Their refusal to
accept Sabbath fasting contributed to the historical break of A. D. 1054
between the Roman (Latin) church and the Eastern (Greek) church.9​

 

[reddogs]

THE SABBATH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
AND THE REFORMATION
The Sabbath in the Middle Ages
A new development occurred following the Constantinian Sunday
Law of A. D. 321. The absence of any command of Christ or the Apostles to
observe Sunday made it necessary for church leaders to defend its observance
by appealing to the Fourth Commandment. This was done by arbitrarily and
artificially differentiating between the moral and the ceremonial aspects of
the Sabbath commandment. The moral aspect was understood to be the
creation ordinance to observe one-day-in-seven while the ceremonial was
interpreted to be the Mosaic specification of the seventh-day. Thus, the
Sabbath as the principle of one-day-seven was binding upon Christians, but
the Sabbath as the specification of the seventh-day was abolished by Christ
because allegedly it was designed to aid the Jews in commemorating creation
and in experiencing spiritual rest.

To contend that the specification of the seventh day is a ceremonial
element of the Sabbath, because it was designed to aid the Jews in commemo-rating
creation and in experiencing spiritual rest, means to be blind to the fact
that Christians need such an aid just as much as the Jews; it means to leave
Christians confused as to the reasons for devoting one day to the worship of
God.

This artificial distinction, articulated especially by Thomas Aquinas
(about 1225-1274), became the standard rationale for defending the Church’s
right to introduce and regulate the observance of Sunday and holy days. This
resulted in an elaborate legalistic system of Sunday keeping akin to that of the
rabbinical Sabbath.10


The Reformers and the Sabbath
The sixteenth-century reformers reproposed with new qualifications
the distinctions between the moral (creational) and ceremonial (Mosaic)
aspects of the Sabbath. Their position was influenced especially by their
understanding of the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments.
Luther upheld a radical distinction between the Old and New Cov-enants.
Like Marcion and Justin, he attacked the Sabbath as a Mosaic
institution “specifically given to the Jewish people.”11
In the Large Cat-echism(1529) Luther explains that the Sabbath “is altogether an external
matter, like other ordinances of the Old Testament, which were attached to
particular customs, persons, and places, and now have been made free
through Christ.”12

The Lutheran radical distinction between the Old and New Cov-enants,
or the Law and the Gospel, has been adopted and developed by many
modern antinomian denominations, including the Worldwide Church of God
and other former Sabbatarian groups. These churches generally claim that the
Sabbath is a Mosaic institution which Christ fulfilled and abolished. Conse-quently
New Covenant Chrsitians are free from the observance of any day.
Calvin rejected Luther’s antithesis between Law and Gospel. In his
effort to maintain the basic unity of the Old and New Testaments, Calvin
Christianized the Law, spiritualizing, at least in part, the Sabbath command-ment.
He accepted the Sabbath as a creation ordinance for mankind while at
the same time maintaining that with “the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
ceremonial part of the commandment was abolished”?13

Calvin’s view has been adopted by churches in the Reformed tradition, such as the Presbyteri-ans,Congregationalists, Methodists, and Baptists.
The unresolved contradiction between the moral and ceremonial
aspects of the Fourth Commandment has given rise to two main opposing
views over the relationship between Sunday and the Sabbath commandment.
On the one hand, the Catholic and Lutheran traditions emphasize the alleged
ceremonial aspect of the Fourth Commandment which was supposedly
abolished by Christ. Consequently, they largely divorce Sundaykeeping
from the Sabbath commandment, treating Sunday as an ecclesiastical institu-tion
ordained primarily to enable the laity to attend weekly the church service.
On the other hand, the churches of the Reformed tradition give
prominence to the moral aspect of the Sabbath commandment, viewing the
observance of a day of rest and worship as a creation ordinance for mankind.
Consequently, they promote Sundaykeeping as the legitimate substitution
and continuation of the Old Testament Sabbath.

THE SABBATH IN RECENT RESEARCH
These two views are reflected in recent publications. The Lutheran
abrogation view of the Sabbath is espoused in the symposium edited by
Donald Carson, From Sabbath to Lord’s Day (1982) and in Willy Rordorf,
Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries
of the Christian Church (1968). Both of these studies defend the thesis that
seventh-day Sabbathkeeping is not a creation ordinance binding upon Christians, but a Mosaic institution annulled by Christ. Consequently Sunday is not
the Christian Sabbath, but a Christian creation, introduced to commemorate
Christ’s resurrection through the Lord’s Supper celebration.
By severing all ties with the Sabbath commandment, the Catholic/
Lutheran tradition reduces Sunday to an hour of worship which an increasing
number of Catholic and Protestant churches are anticipating to Saturday
night. This trend could prove to be the deathblow to Sunday observance 14
since in time even the hour of worship could readily be squeezed out of the
hectic schedule of modern life.

Recently the abrogation view of the Sabbath has been adopted with
some modifications by the Worldwide Church of God (WCG), whose leaders
early in 1995 declared the Sabbath to be a Mosaic, Old Covenant institution
that terminated at the Cross. The same view is presented in a rather simplistic
way in the book The Sabbath in Crisis, authored by Dale Ratzlaff, a former
Seventh-day Adventist pastor. Both the WCG and Ratzlaff believe that the
New Covenant does not mandate the observance of any day, because the
Sabbath has been fulfilled in Christ who offers us daily His salvation rest.
The Reformed tradition which views Sunday as the Christian Sabbath
is reflected in the study by Roger T. Beckwith and William Stott, This is the
Day: The Biblical Doctrine of the Christian Sunday (1978). The authors
argue that Apostles used the Sabbath to frame Sunday as their new day of rest
and worship .15 Consequently they conclude that “in the light of the New
Testament as a whole, the Lord’s Day can be clearly seen to be a Christian
Sabbath—a New Testament fulfillment to which the Old Testament Sabbath
points forward.”16 The practical implication of their conclusions is that
Sunday should be observed, not merely as an hour of worship, but as “a whole
day, set apart to be a holy festival . . . for worship, rest and works of mercy.”17
The Lord’s Day Alliance actively promotes this view through its official
magazine, Sunday, and its various agencies.

 

[reddogs]

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE POPE’S
PASTORAL LETTER DIES DOMINI
The preceding survey of the Sabbath/Sunday controversy, offers us a
historical perspective for analyzing Pope John Paul II’s Pastoral Letter Dies
Domini.21 This document has enormous historical significance since it
addresses the crisis of Sunday observance at “the threshold of the Great
Jubilee of the Year 2000” (#3). The “strikingly low” attendance to the Sunday
liturgy reflects in the Pope’s view the fact that “faith is weak” and “dimin-ishing”
(# 5). If this trend is not reversed it can threaten the future of the
Catholic Church as it stand at the threshold of the third millennium (#30).
Two significant aspects of this document are (1) the theological
connection between Sabbath and Sunday and (2) the call for Sunday Rest
legislation to facilitate Sunday observance

(1) The Theological Connection between Sabbath and Sunday
A surprising aspect of the Pastoral Letter is way the Pope develops the
theological foundation of Sunday observance by appealing to the continuity
Sabbath commandment, rather than to the traditional distinction between the
moral and ceremonial aspects of the commandment. The Pope correctly notes
the theological development of the Sabbath from the rest of creation (Gen 2:1-
3; Ex 20:8-11) to the rest of redemption (Deut 5:12-15). He goes as far as
describing the Sabbath as a “ kind of ‘sacred architecture’ of time which marks
biblical revelation. It recalls that the universe and history belong to God; and
without constant awareness of that truth, man cannot serve in the world as a
co-worker of the Creator” (#15).

Contrary to Dispensationalists who emphasize the termination of the
Sabbath at the Cross, the Pope affirms the continuity of the Sabbath in the
observance of Sunday, which embodies and preserves theology and practice
of the Sabbath. The Pope states: “More than a ‘replacement’ of the Sabbath,
therefore, Sunday is its fulfilment, and in a certain sense its extension and full
expression in the ordered unfolding of the history of salvation, which reaches
its culmination in Christ” (# 59).

The Pope maintains that New Testament Christians “made the first
day after the Sabbath a festive day” because they discovered that the creative
and redemptive accomplishments celebrated by the Sabbath, found their
“fullest expression in Christ’s Death and Resurrection, though its definitive
fulfillment will not come until the Parousia, when Christ returns in glory” (#18).
Evaluation. The Pope’s attempt to make Sunday the legitimate
fulfilment and “full expression” of the creative and redemptive meanings of
the Sabbath, is very ingenious, but unfortunately lacks Biblical and historical
support. From a Biblical perspective, there are no indications that New
Testament Christians ever interpreted the day of Christ’s Resurrection as
representing the fulfilment and “full expression” of the Sabbath. In fact, the
New Testament attributes no liturgical significance to the day of Christ’s
Resurrection, simply because the Resurrection was seen as an existential
reality experienced by living victoriously by the power of the Risen Savior,
and not a liturgical practice, associated with Sunday worship.
Had Jesus wanted to memorialize the day of His resurrection, He
would have capitalized on the day of His resurrection to make such a day the
fitting memorial of that event. But, none of the utterances of the risen Savior
reveal an intent to memorialize the day of His Resurrection by making it the
new Christian day of rest and worship. Biblical institutions such as the
Sabbath, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, all trace their origin to a divine act
that established them. But there is no such divine act to sanction a weekly
Sunday or annual Easter Sunday memorial of the Resurrection.

From a historical perspective, the Pope’s claim that the celebration of
Christ’s Resurrection on a weekly Sunday and annual Easter-Sunday
“evolved from the early years after the Lord’s Resurrection”(#19) is discred-ited
by compelling historical facts. For example, for at least a century
Passover was still observed by the date of Nisan 14 (irrespective of the day
of the week), and not on Easter-Sunday. When in the latter part of the second
century Bishop Victor (189-198) attempted to imposed Easter-Sunday on the
churches of Asia, he was met with a strong opposition.

Indications such as these discredit the Pope’s attempt to invest Sunday
with the theological meaning and eschatological function of the Sabbath.
Moreover, such an attempt breaks the continuity and cosmic scope of the
Sabbath which embraces and unites creation, redemption and final restora-tion;
the past, the present and the future; man, nature and God; this world and
the world to come.

(2) The Legislation Needed to Facilitate Sunday Observance
In his Pastoral Letter Dies Domini, Pope John Paul II devotes one of
the five chapters (chapter 4) to emphasize both the moral obligation of Sunday
observance and the legislation needed to facilitate the compliance with such
obligation.

Moral Obligation.
The Pope finds “the underlying reasons for
keeping ‘the Lord’s Day’ holy inscribed solemnly in the Ten Command-ments”
(# 62). He appeals to the Sabbath commandment, rather than to
Conciliar decisions, to justify the moral obligation of Sunday observance,
because he recognizes that the Fourth Commandment provides the strongest
moral conviction that Christians need for sanctifying the Lord’s Day.
The problem in grounding the moral obligation of Sunday observance
in the Sabbath commandment lies in the simple fact that Sunday is not the
Sabbath. The two days differ not only in their names or numbers, but also in
their origin, meaning, and experience.
In terms of experience, for example, the essence of Sabbathkeeping
is the consecration of time to the Lord by giving priority to Him in one’s
thinking and living during the 24 hours of the Sabbath. By contrast, the
essence of Sundaykeeping is attending the church service. Sunday originated
as an early hour of worship (Justin, Apology 67) which was followed by
regular secular activities and in spite of the efforts later made by Constantine
( 321 Sunday Law), church councils, and Puritans, to make Sunday into a
Holy Day, Sunday has largely remained the Hour of Worship and not the Day
of Rest and Worship. The recognition of this historical reality has made it
possible in recent times to anticipate the Sunday worship obligation to
Saturday evening, a practice that is becoming increasingly popular not only
among Catholics but even among Protestants.

Sunday Legislation.
To facilitate compliance with the moral obliga-tion
to observe Sunday, the Pope calls upon Christians “to ensure that civil
legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy” (#67). The Pope builds
his case for the need of a Sunday Rest legislation by appealing to two
historical precedents: (1) The providential protection that the Constantinian
Sunday Law provided for Christians to observe Sunday “without hinder-ance”(#
64); (2) The historical insistence of the Church, “even after the fall
of the Empire,” that civil governments uphold Sunday Rest laws to facilitate
Sunday observance (#64). The Pope concludes that Sunday legislation is
especially needed today in view of the physical, social, and ecological
problems created by our technological and industrial advancements: “There-fore,
in the particular circumstances of our time, Christians will naturally strive
to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy” (#67).

Evaluation.
In evaluating Pope John Paul II’s call for a Sunday Rest
legislation, it is important to distinguish between his legitimate concern for
the social, cultural, ecological, and religious wellbeing of our society, and the
hardship such legislation causes to minorities who for religious or personal
reasons choose to rest and worship on Saturday or on other days of the week.
To call upon Christians to “strive to ensure that civil legislation
respects their duty to keep Sunday holy” (# 67), means to ignore that we live
today in a pluralistic society where there are, for example, Jews and some
Christians who to keep their seventh day Sabbath Holy, and Moslems who
may wish to observe their Friday.

To be fair to the various religious and non-religious groups, the State
would have to pass legislation guaranteeing special days of rest for different
people. Such a legislation is inconceivable because it would disrupt our
socio-economic structure.

The Pope’s call for Sunday Rest legislation ignores two important
facts. First, historically Sunday Laws have not fostered church attendance.
In Western Europe Sunday Laws have been in effect for many years now, yet
church attendance is considerably lower than in the USA, running at less than
10% of the Christian population. In Italy, where I come from, it is estimated
that 95% of the Catholics go to church three times in their lives, when they are
hatched, matched, and dispatched.

Second, Sunday legislation is superfluous today because the short-working
week already makes it possible for most people to observe their
Sabbath or Sunday. Problems do still exists, especially when an employer is
unwilling to accommodate the religious convictions of a worker. The
solution to such problems is to be sought not through a Sunday or Saturday
Law, but rather in such legislation as the pending Religious Freedom in the
Workplace Act, which is designed to encourage employers to accommodate
the religious convictions of their workers, when these do not cause undue
hardship to their company.

The solution to the crisis of declining church attendance must be
sought, not by calling upon the State to legislate on the day of rest and
worship, but by calling upon Christian to live according to the moral
principles of the Ten Commandments. The Fourth Commandment specifi-cally
calls upon Christians today to “Remember” what many have forgotten,
namely, that the seventh day is holy unto the Lord our God (Ex 20:8-11).
An important factor which has caused many Christians to forget the
observance of the Sabbath, is the anti-Sabbath theology which has deprived
Christians of the moral conviction needed for remembering the Sabbath day
to keep it holy.

The Sabbath is still under crossfire today, but the crossfire is victim-izing
mankind for whom the day was made, rather than the day itself. The
crossfire is depriving countless Christians of the physical, mental, and
spiritual renewal the Sabbath is designed to provide them. At a time when
many are seeking for rest and release for their tension-filled lives, the Sabbath
still invites us to stop our daily work, in order to experience more fully and
freely the presence, peace, and rest of Christ in our lives (Heb 4:10).

FOOTNOTES
1. J. A. Hessey, Sunday, Its Origin, History and Present Obligation
(London: Murray Publishing Company, 1860).
2. For a documentation and discussion of the Hadrianic legislation,
see Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday. A Historical Investiga-tion
of the rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome, The
Pontifical Gregorian University, 1977), pp. 178-182. To order a copy, send
$15.00, postpaid, to Biblical Perspectives, 4990 Appian Way, Berrien
Springs, MI 49103.
3. See From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 175-175.
4. The following list of significant authors and/or writings which
defamed the Jews to a lesser or greater degree may serve to make the reader
aware of the existence and intensity of the problem: The Preaching of Peter,
The Epistle of Barnabas, Quadratus’ lost Apology, Aristides’ Apology, The
Disputation between Jason and Papiscus concerning Christ, Justin’s Dia-logue
with Trypho, Miltiades’ Against the Jews ‘(unfortunately lost),
Apollinarius’ Against the Jews (also perished), Melito’s On the Passover, The
Epistle to Diognetus, The Gospel of Peter, Tertullian’s Against the Jews,
Origen’s Against Celsus.
5. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 23, The Writings of Justin
Martyr, T. B. Falls, trans., (New York: Christian Heritage, 1948), p. 182. See
also chapter 29, 16, 21.
6. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 12, Falls, The Writings of
Justin Martyr, p. 166.
7. For texts and discussion regarding Marcion, see From Sabbath to
Sunday, pp. 186-187. Epiphanius informs us that Marcion ordered his
followers “to fast on Saturday justifying it in this way: Because it is the rest
of the God of the Jews... we fast in that day in order not to accomplish on that
day what was ordained by the God of the Jews”(Adversus haereses 42, 3, 4,
Patrologie Graeca, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris, Garnier Fratres, 1857).
8. S. R. E. Humbert. Adversus Graecorum calumnias 6, Patrologie
Latina, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris, Garnier Fratres, 1844), 143, 937.
9. For a discussion and texts regarding Sabbath fasting, see From
Sabbath to Sunday, pp.187-198.
Article MenuഊThe Sabbath Under Crossfire 11
10. See L. L. McReavy, “ ‘Servile Work:’ The Evolution of the
Present Sunday Law,” Clergy Review 9 (1935), pp. 279f. A brief survey of
the development of Sunday laws and casuistry is provided by Paul K. Jewett,
The Lord’s Day (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1972), pp. 128-169. A good
example of the adoption of Aquinas’ moral-ceremonial distinction can be
found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
11. Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, Luther’s Works (1958)
40: 93. A valuable study of Luther’s views regarding the Sabbath is to be
found in Richard Muller, Adventisten-Sabbat-Reformation, (Studia
Theologica Lundensia: Lund, 1979), pp. 32-60.
12. Concordia or Book of Concord, The Symbols of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1957), p. 1974.
13. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry
Beveridge (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1972), vol. 1, p. 341.
14. This concern is expressed by Roger T. Beckwith and W. Stott, This
is the Day: The Biblical Doctrine of the Christian Sunday (London: Marshall,
Morgan & Scott, 1978), p. ix.
15. Ibid., p. 26; cf. pp. 2-12.
16. Ibid., pp. 45-46.
17. Ibid., p. 141.
18. The English text of the Pastoral Letter Dies Domini was down-loaded
from the Vatican web site: http://www.vatican.org. Since the document is
divided in 87 paragraphs, the references in parenthesis are to the number of
the paragraph.
Article Menu

 

[Cliff2]

You might not find a picture of the incription on a papal tiara. However many historic document has proven and Dr. B admits in his letter 139 that the title has been applied to the pope throughout history.

If you want to defend his position, please address the specific issues in the other thread.

What thread are you talking about?

 

[Cliff2]

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_146.htm

"A Fraudulent Adventist Tiara

One of the stunning pictures of the papal tiara sent by Everson to the General Conference, was modified by an Adventist artist who added the words Vicarius Filii Dei to the picture. The Southern Publishing Association used this “doctored” picture of the tiara in the revised edition of Uriah Smith’s Daniel and the Revelation. When Prof. Prescott received the book and noted the plate with the fraudulent tiara, he immediately presented to the General Conference the incriminating evidence. The GC Committee took immediate action to stop the printing of the book until the manipulated picture was removed.

Prof. Prescott, our leading Adventist educator, had a passion for truth that did not dim to the end of his career. Twice he presented to the GC committee the facts about the application of 666 to the pope’s title Vicarius Filii Dei. The first time was shortly after 1910 and the second time on April 16, 1936, after the editor of Our Sunday Visitor challenged Francis D. Nichol to prove what he published in Present Truth regarding the application of 666 to the pope’s title Vicarius Filii Dei. We shall return to this episode shortly.

Prescott labelled as completely false the claim that Vicarius Filii Dei was inscribed in the papal tiara. He argued that the Adventist claim was just as much fraud and forgery as anything the Catholic church had done. He added: “When we are driven to such a conduct as this to prove some of our theology, we had better stop” (A full transcript of Prescott’s presentation was made. See “Meeting with Elder W. W. Prescott,” April 16, 1936, RG p. 14. Correspondence Prescott Fld 1936 II, GCar).

Most leaders of the General Conference acknowledge the weight of the evidence, but they decided to shelve the matter for further study. In the meantime, they recommended that “the interpretation should not be repeated.” Apparently the recommendation was largely ignored because until his retirement Prescott had to deal with persistent claims that 666 applied to the title in the pope’s tiara. (See, Gilbert Valentine’s dissertation, “William Warren Prescott: Seventh-day Adventist Educator,” Andrews University, 1982, vol 2, p. 602)

William W. Prescott’s Intervention

Prof. Prescott, our leading Adventist educator who served as president of four colleges, including Battle Creek, had a passion for truth that did not dim to the end of his career. His unwillingness to compromise truth, sometimes resulted in criticism and loss of support from some church leaders. He serves as a worthy example for all of us to follow. An Australian scholar, Gilbert Valentine has captured the spirit of Prescott in a masterful 650 pages doctoral dissertation presented at Andrews University (1982) on “William Warren Prescott: Seventh-day Adventist Educator.”

The Review and Herald recently published Valentine’s abbreviated version of his dissertation, under the title W. W. Prescott: Forgotten Giant of Adventism’s Second Generation. Reading this book has been of great encouragement to me, because it has reassured me that our Adventist church has been blessed by men like Prescott who have suffered for daring to expose some of the doctrinal problems of our church.

Twice Prescott presented to the GC committee the facts about the application of 666 to the pope’s title Vicarius Filii Dei, allegedly inscribed in the papal tiara. The first time was shortly after 1910 and the second time on April 16, 1936, after the editor of Our Sunday Visitor challenged Francis D. Nichol to document what he published in Present Truth regarding the application of 666 to the pope’s title Vicarius Filii Dei. We shall return to this shortly.

Prescott labeled as completely false the claim that Vicarius Filii Dei was inscribed in the papal tiara. He argued before the GC brethren that the Adventist claim was just as much fraud and forgery as anything the Catholic church had done. He added: “When we are driven to such a conduct as this to prove some of our theology, we had better stop” (A full transcript of Prescott’s presentation was made. See “Meeting with Elder W. W. Prescott,” April 16, 1936, RG p. 14. Correspondence Prescott Fld 1936 II, GCar).

Most leaders of the General Conference acknowledged the weight of Prescott’s evidences and recommended that “the interpretation should not be repeated.” But the recommendation was largely ignored and “right up to his last days Prescott was still corresponding with authors who advocated it” (Gilbert Valentine, W. W. Prescott: Forgotten Giant of Adventism’s Second Generation, p. 319).

Valentine notes that the GC Brethren “wished that Prescott would not respond so vigorously to such problems.” But Prescott did not share their viewpoint. “As he saw it, if no one spoke up, the denomination would go backward, and he could not allow his church to do that, even if it was on a minor point of prophetic interpretation” (Ibid. p. 319). Personally, I share Prescott’s conviction, because over the years I have felt the same burden to help our Adventist church strengthen its teachings.

LeRoy Froom’s Investigation

The second man sent to Rome by the GC to investigate the use of the pope’s title Vicarius Filii Dei on tiaras, was LeRoy Froom, who served for several years as Editor of Ministry. What precipitated Froom’s investigative trip to Rome, was an article published in 1935 by Francis Nichols, editor of Present Truth. Nichols was a leading Adventist apologist, author of several books including Ellen G. White and Her Critics. He served also as the Editor of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary.

In his article published in Present Truth, he repeats the popular Adventist application of 666 to the pope’s title Vicarius Filii Dei inscribed in the tiara. No sooner the article appeared, that the Editor of the popular Catholic magazine, Our Sunday Visitor, challenged Nichols to produce the evidence for his claim or to stop using biased and dishonest anti-Catholic sources.

The challenge took Nichol by surprise, because he believed that Uriah Smith’s interpretation was based on reliable sources. To respond to the challenge, he appealed for help to Adventist scholars around the world, asking them to provide him any information they could find to substantiate the Adventist claim. But no information was ever provided. Prof. Prescott informed Nichols that he had conducted a thorough investigation and found no evidence that Vicarius Filii Dei was ever inscribed on papal tiaras.

Eventually a special study group was set up by the General Conference chaired by Elder Howell, hoping to find reliable information on the use of the pope’s title Vicarius Filii Dei. LeRoy Edwin Froom, a respected church historian and Editor of Ministry, was sent on a special research assignment to the Vatican to seek information on the use of the pope’s title Vicarius Filii Dei, especially on tiaras, but he found nothing of significance.

The investigation led LeRoy Froom to issue a strong warning in Ministry against the use of fraudulently inscribed tiaras in evangelistic meetings. He wrote: “In the name of truth and honesty this journal protests any such use by any member of the Ministerial Association of Seventh-day Adventist denomination (our worker body), of which The Ministry is the official organ. Truth does not need fabrication to aid or suppress it. Its very nature precludes any manipulation or duplicity. We cannot afford to be party to any fraud.” (The Ministry, November 1948, p. 35).

The warnings given over the years by the General Conference, Ministry, and more recent by the Sabbath School Lesson (June 1-7, 2002), have not stopped the application of the number 666 to Vicarius Filii Dei, claimed to be inscribed in the pope’s tiara. The reason it has been hard to abandon this interpretation is because it fits too neatly to Revelation 13:18.

The repeated warning mentioned above, should dispel the myth that the application of 666 to the pope’s title Vicarius Filii Dei of the papal tiara, has been the official Adventist teaching, which is being challenged today for the first time by “liberal scholars.” The fact is that during this past century, several times our Church leaders have disapproved this interpretation, even by means of the recent Sabbath School Lesson of June 1-7, 2002. But the success has been limited, partly because legends that capture popular imagination do not easily die."