Waldensian History

[prodromos]

Eusebius of Caesarea
The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine
Book IV. Chapter XVIII

HE ordained, too, that one day should be regarded as a special occasion for prayer: I mean that which is truly the first and chief of all, the day of our Lord and Saviour. The entire care of his household was entrusted to deacons and other ministers consecrated to the service of God, and distinguished by gravity of life and every other virtue: while his trusty body guard, strong in affection and fidelity to his person, found in their emperor an instructor in the practice of piety, and like him held the Lord's salutary day in honor and performed on that day the devotions which he loved. The same observance was recommended by this blessed prince to all classes of his subjects: his earnest desire being gradually to lead all mankind to the worship of God. Accordingly he enjoined on all the subjects of the Roman empire to observe the Lord's day, as a day of rest, and also to honor the day which precedes the Sabbath; in memory, I suppose, of what the Saviour of mankind is recorded to have achieved on that day. (1) And since his desire was to teach his whole army zealously to honor the Saviour's day (which derives its name from light, and from the sun), (2) he freely granted to those among them who were partakers of the divine faith, leisure for attendance on the services of the Church of God, in order that they might be able, without impediment, to perform their religious worship.​

There are a number of letters written by Emperor Constantine that are extant, and in each one he is clearly devoted to the Christian faith.

@Deade you promised to reveal your sources if I gave you mine, so where are they?

 

[Deade]

@Deade you promised to reveal your sources if I gave you mine, so where are they?

Roman Catholic and Protestant Confessions about Sunday

The vast majority of Christian churches today teach the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, as a time for rest and worship. Yet it is generally known and freely admitted that the early Christians observed the seventh day as the Sabbath. How did this change come about?

History reveals that it was decades after the death of the apostles that a politico-religious system repudiated the Sabbath of Scripture and substituted the observance of the first day of the week. The following quotations, all from Roman Catholic sources, freely acknowledge that there is no Biblical authority for the observance of Sunday, that it was the Roman Church that changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week.

In the second portion of this booklet are quotations from Protestants. Undoubtedly all of these noted clergymen, scholars, and writers kept Sunday, but they all frankly admit that there is no Biblical authority for a first-day sabbath.


Roman Catholic Confessions

James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89.

"But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."

Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism 3rd ed., p. 174.

"Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?

"Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her-she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."

John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies (1 936), vol. 1, P. 51.

"Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days."

Daniel Ferres, ed., Manual of Christian Doctrine (1916), p.67.

"Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holy days?

"Answer. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of, and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.'

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), in a signed letter.

"Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day -Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes. Did Christ change the day'? I answer no!

"Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons"

The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.

"The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."

Catholic Virginian Oct. 3, 1947, p. 9, art. "To Tell You the Truth."

"For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible."

Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957), p. 50.

"Question: Which is the Sabbath day?

"Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.

"Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?

"Answer. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."

Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About (1927), p. 136.

"Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday .... Now the Church ... instituted, by God's authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday."

Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Society (1975), Chicago, Illinois.

"Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:

"1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.

"2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws.

"It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible."

T. Enright, C.S.S.R., in a lecture at Hartford, Kansas, Feb. 18,1884.

"I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' The Catholic Church says: 'No. By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week.' And lo! The entire civilized world bows down in a reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church."


Protestant Confessions
Protestant theologians and preachers from a wide spectrum of denominations have been quite candid in admitting that there is no Biblical authority for observing Sunday as a sabbath.

Anglican/Episcopal
Isaac Williams, Plain Sermons on the Catechism, vol. 1, pp. 334, 336.

"And where are we told in the Scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day .... The reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the church has enjoined it."

Canon Eyton, The Ten Commandments, pp. 52, 63, 65.

"There is no word, no hint, in the New Testament about abstaining from work on Sunday .... into the rest of Sunday no divine law enters.... The observance of Ash Wednesday or Lent stands exactly on the same footing as the observance of Sunday."

Bishop Seymour, Why We Keep Sunday.

We have made the change from the seventh day to the first day, from Saturday to Sunday, on the authority of the one holy Catholic Church."

Baptist
Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, a paper read before a New York ministers' conference, Nov. 13, 1893, reported in New York Examiner, Nov.16, 1893.

"There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week .... Where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament absolutely not.

"To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years' intercourse with His disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath question . . . never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that during forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated.

"Of course, I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history . . . . But what a pity it comes branded with the mark of paganism, and christened with the name of the sun god, adopted and sanctioned by the papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism!"

William Owen Carver, The Lord's Day in Our Day, p. 49.

"There was never any formal or authoritative change from the Jewish seventh-day Sabbath to the Christian first-day observance."

Congregationalist
Dr. R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments (New York: Eaton &Mains), p. 127-129.

" . . . it is quite clear that however rigidly or devotedly we may spend Sunday, we are not keeping the Sabbath - . . 'Me Sabbath was founded on a specific Divine command. We can plead no such command for the obligation to observe Sunday .... There is not a single sentence in the New Testament to suggest that we incur any penalty by violating the supposed sanctity of Sunday."

Timothy Dwight, Theology: Explained and Defended (1823), Ser. 107, vol. 3, p. 258.

" . . . the Christian Sabbath [Sunday] is not in the Scriptures, and was not by the primitive Church called the Sabbath."

Disciples of Christ
Alexander Campbell, The Christian Baptist, Feb. 2, 1824, vol. 1. no. 7, p. 164.

"'But,' say some, 'it was changed from the seventh to the first day.' Where? when? and by whom? No man can tell. No; it never was changed, nor could it be, unless creation was to be gone through again: for the reason assigned must be changed before the observance, or respect to the reason, can be changed! It is all old wives' fables to talk of the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day. If it be changed, it was that august personage changed it who changes times and laws ex officio - I think his name is Doctor Antichrist.'

First Day Observance, pp. 17, 19.

"The first day of the week is commonly called the Sabbath. This is a mistake. The Sabbath of the Bible was the day just preceding the first day of the week. The first day of the week is never called the Sabbath anywhere in the entire Scriptures. It is also an error to talk about the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. There is not in any place in the Bible any intimation of such a change."

Lutheran
The Sunday Problem, a study book of the United Lutheran Church (1923), p. 36.

"We have seen how gradually the impression of the Jewish sabbath faded from the mind of the Christian Church, and how completely the newer thought underlying the observance of the first day took possession of the church. We have seen that the Christians of the first three centuries never confused one with the other, but for a time celebrated both."

Augsburg Confession of Faith art. 28; written by Melanchthon, approved by Martin Luther, 1530; as published in The Book of Concord of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Henry Jacobs, ed. (1 91 1), p. 63.

"They [Roman Catholics] refer to the Sabbath Day, a shaving been changed into the Lord's Day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it seems. Neither is there any example whereof they make more than concerning the changing of the Sabbath Day. Great, say they, is the power of the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments!"

Dr. Augustus Neander, The History of the Christian Religion and Church Henry John Rose, tr. (1843), p. 186.

"The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a Divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic Church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday."

John Theodore Mueller, Sabbath or Sunday, pp. 15, 16.

"But they err in teaching that Sunday has taken the place of the Old Testament Sabbath and therefore must be kept as the seventh day had to be kept by the children of Israel .... These churches err in their teaching, for Scripture has in no way ordained the first day of the week in place of the Sabbath. There is simply no law in the New Testament to that effect."

Methodist
Harris Franklin Rall, Christian Advocate, July 2, 1942, p.26.

"Take the matter of Sunday. There are indications in the New Testament as to how the church came to keep the first day of the week as its day of worship, but there is no passage telling Christians to keep that day, or to transfer the Jewish Sabbath to that day."

John Wesley, The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., John Emory, ed. (New York: Eaton & Mains), Sermon 25, vol. 1, p. 221.

"But, the moral law contained in the ten commandments, and enforced by the prophets, he [Christ] did not take away. It was not the design of his coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken .... Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind, and in all ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other circumstances liable to change, but on the nature of God and the nature of man, and their unchangeable relation to each other."

Dwight L. Moody
D. L. Moody, Weighed and Wanting (Fleming H. Revell Co.: New York), pp. 47, 48.

The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word 'remember,' showing that the Sabbath already existed when God Wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?"

Presbyterian
T. C. Blake, D.D., Theology Condensed, pp.474, 475.

"The Sabbath is a part of the decalogue - the Ten Commandments. This alone forever settles the question as to the perpetuity of the institution . . . . Until, therefore, it can be shown that the whole moral law has been repealed, the Sabbath will stand . . . . The teaching of Christ confirms the perpetuity of the Sabbath."

 

[Concord1968]

So if I understand the thread: The Waldensians are being used as a ploy to advertise the OP's book of revisionist history?

Neato.

-Cryptolutheran

Pretty obvious, really. Plugging his book and promoting SDA doctrine.

 

[prodromos]

Roman Catholic and Protestant Confessions about Sunday

The vast majority of Christian churches today teach the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, as a time for rest and worship. Yet it is generally known and freely admitted that the early Christians observed the seventh day as the Sabbath. How did this change come about?

History reveals that it was decades after the death of the apostles that a politico-religious system repudiated the Sabbath of Scripture and substituted the observance of the first day of the week. The following quotations, all from Roman Catholic sources, freely acknowledge that there is no Biblical authority for the observance of Sunday, that it was the Roman Church that changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week.

In the second portion of this booklet are quotations from Protestants. Undoubtedly all of these noted clergymen, scholars, and writers kept Sunday, but they all frankly admit that there is no Biblical authority for a first-day sabbath.


Roman Catholic Confessions

James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89.

"But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."

Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism 3rd ed., p. 174.

"Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?

"Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her-she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."

John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies (1 936), vol. 1, P. 51.

"Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days."

Daniel Ferres, ed., Manual of Christian Doctrine (1916), p.67.

"Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holy days?

"Answer. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of, and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.'

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), in a signed letter.

"Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day -Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes. Did Christ change the day'? I answer no!

"Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons"

The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.

"The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."

Catholic Virginian Oct. 3, 1947, p. 9, art. "To Tell You the Truth."

"For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible."

Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957), p. 50.

"Question: Which is the Sabbath day?

"Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.

"Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?

"Answer. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."

Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About (1927), p. 136.

"Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday .... Now the Church ... instituted, by God's authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday."

Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Society (1975), Chicago, Illinois.

"Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:

"1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.

"2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws.

"It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible."

T. Enright, C.S.S.R., in a lecture at Hartford, Kansas, Feb. 18,1884.

"I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' The Catholic Church says: 'No. By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week.' And lo! The entire civilized world bows down in a reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church."


Protestant Confessions
Protestant theologians and preachers from a wide spectrum of denominations have been quite candid in admitting that there is no Biblical authority for observing Sunday as a sabbath.

Anglican/Episcopal
Isaac Williams, Plain Sermons on the Catechism, vol. 1, pp. 334, 336.

"And where are we told in the Scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day .... The reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the church has enjoined it."

Canon Eyton, The Ten Commandments, pp. 52, 63, 65.

"There is no word, no hint, in the New Testament about abstaining from work on Sunday .... into the rest of Sunday no divine law enters.... The observance of Ash Wednesday or Lent stands exactly on the same footing as the observance of Sunday."

Bishop Seymour, Why We Keep Sunday.

We have made the change from the seventh day to the first day, from Saturday to Sunday, on the authority of the one holy Catholic Church."

Baptist
Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, a paper read before a New York ministers' conference, Nov. 13, 1893, reported in New York Examiner, Nov.16, 1893.

"There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week .... Where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament absolutely not.

"To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years' intercourse with His disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath question . . . never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that during forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated.

"Of course, I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history . . . . But what a pity it comes branded with the mark of paganism, and christened with the name of the sun god, adopted and sanctioned by the papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism!"

William Owen Carver, The Lord's Day in Our Day, p. 49.

"There was never any formal or authoritative change from the Jewish seventh-day Sabbath to the Christian first-day observance."

Congregationalist
Dr. R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments (New York: Eaton &Mains), p. 127-129.

" . . . it is quite clear that however rigidly or devotedly we may spend Sunday, we are not keeping the Sabbath - . . 'Me Sabbath was founded on a specific Divine command. We can plead no such command for the obligation to observe Sunday .... There is not a single sentence in the New Testament to suggest that we incur any penalty by violating the supposed sanctity of Sunday."

Timothy Dwight, Theology: Explained and Defended (1823), Ser. 107, vol. 3, p. 258.

" . . . the Christian Sabbath [Sunday] is not in the Scriptures, and was not by the primitive Church called the Sabbath."

Disciples of Christ
Alexander Campbell, The Christian Baptist, Feb. 2, 1824, vol. 1. no. 7, p. 164.

"'But,' say some, 'it was changed from the seventh to the first day.' Where? when? and by whom? No man can tell. No; it never was changed, nor could it be, unless creation was to be gone through again: for the reason assigned must be changed before the observance, or respect to the reason, can be changed! It is all old wives' fables to talk of the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day. If it be changed, it was that august personage changed it who changes times and laws ex officio - I think his name is Doctor Antichrist.'

First Day Observance, pp. 17, 19.

"The first day of the week is commonly called the Sabbath. This is a mistake. The Sabbath of the Bible was the day just preceding the first day of the week. The first day of the week is never called the Sabbath anywhere in the entire Scriptures. It is also an error to talk about the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. There is not in any place in the Bible any intimation of such a change."

Lutheran
The Sunday Problem, a study book of the United Lutheran Church (1923), p. 36.

"We have seen how gradually the impression of the Jewish sabbath faded from the mind of the Christian Church, and how completely the newer thought underlying the observance of the first day took possession of the church. We have seen that the Christians of the first three centuries never confused one with the other, but for a time celebrated both."

Augsburg Confession of Faith art. 28; written by Melanchthon, approved by Martin Luther, 1530; as published in The Book of Concord of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Henry Jacobs, ed. (1 91 1), p. 63.

"They [Roman Catholics] refer to the Sabbath Day, a shaving been changed into the Lord's Day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it seems. Neither is there any example whereof they make more than concerning the changing of the Sabbath Day. Great, say they, is the power of the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments!"

Dr. Augustus Neander, The History of the Christian Religion and Church Henry John Rose, tr. (1843), p. 186.

"The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a Divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic Church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday."

John Theodore Mueller, Sabbath or Sunday, pp. 15, 16.

"But they err in teaching that Sunday has taken the place of the Old Testament Sabbath and therefore must be kept as the seventh day had to be kept by the children of Israel .... These churches err in their teaching, for Scripture has in no way ordained the first day of the week in place of the Sabbath. There is simply no law in the New Testament to that effect."

Methodist
Harris Franklin Rall, Christian Advocate, July 2, 1942, p.26.

"Take the matter of Sunday. There are indications in the New Testament as to how the church came to keep the first day of the week as its day of worship, but there is no passage telling Christians to keep that day, or to transfer the Jewish Sabbath to that day."

John Wesley, The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., John Emory, ed. (New York: Eaton & Mains), Sermon 25, vol. 1, p. 221.

"But, the moral law contained in the ten commandments, and enforced by the prophets, he [Christ] did not take away. It was not the design of his coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken .... Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind, and in all ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other circumstances liable to change, but on the nature of God and the nature of man, and their unchangeable relation to each other."

Dwight L. Moody
D. L. Moody, Weighed and Wanting (Fleming H. Revell Co.: New York), pp. 47, 48.

The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word 'remember,' showing that the Sabbath already existed when God Wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?"

Presbyterian
T. C. Blake, D.D., Theology Condensed, pp.474, 475.

"The Sabbath is a part of the decalogue - the Ten Commandments. This alone forever settles the question as to the perpetuity of the institution . . . . Until, therefore, it can be shown that the whole moral law has been repealed, the Sabbath will stand . . . . The teaching of Christ confirms the perpetuity of the Sabbath."

Seriously? This is your source? It looks to me like you have nothing so you've done a quick google search and copy/pasted the entire web page. Am I wrong?

Firstly, there is absolutely nothing there about Constantine and his motives for making Sunday a day of rest, something you made specific claims regarding but without any reference. That is what I have been asking you to provide.
Secondly, nothing in the web page you posted (bibletools.org) has any quotes from primary sources. You claimed intimate knowledge of Constantine's motives and that can only come from primary sources.

You've made bold claims in this thread yet you've given nothing to back them up. That is all I am asking you to do, to back up your claims if you can. If you can't back them up then as a Christian you should really re-evaluate your position.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Augsburg Confession of Faith art. 28; written by Melanchthon, approved by Martin Luther, 1530; as published in The Book of Concord of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Henry Jacobs, ed. (1 91 1), p. 63.

"They [Roman Catholics] refer to the Sabbath Day, a shaving been changed into the Lord's Day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it seems. Neither is there any example whereof they make more than concerning the changing of the Sabbath Day. Great, say they, is the power of the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments!"

Have you read these sources yourself, or are you merely copy-pasting?

I'm only going to address what the Augsburg Confession states, and if any of the other quotes are of similar "quality" then it goes a long way to demonstrating the impotence of the argument being made.

"29] If they have any other power or jurisdiction, in hearing and judging certain cases, as of matrimony or of tithes, etc., they have it by human right, in which matters princes are bound, even against their will, when the ordinaries fail, to dispense justice to their subjects for the maintenance of peace. 30] Moreover, it is disputed whether bishops or pastors have the right to introduce ceremonies in the Church, and to make laws concerning meats, holy-days and grades, that is, orders of ministers, etc. 31] They that give this right to the bishops refer to this testimony John 16:12-13: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth. 32] They also refer to the example of the Apostles, who commanded to abstain from blood and from things strangled, Acts 15:29. 33] They refer to the Sabbath-day as having been changed into the Lord's Day, contrary to the Decalog, as it seems. Neither is there any example whereof they make more than concerning the changing of the Sabbath-day. Great, say they, is the power of the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments!"

Later in Article XXVIII we read:

"53] What, then, are we to think of the Sunday and like rites in the house of God? To this we answer that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the Church, not that thereby we should merit grace or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services, and to think that it is a sin to break them 54] without offense to others. So Paul ordains, 1 Cor. 11:5, that women should cover their heads in the congregation, 1 Cor. 14:30, that interpreters be heard in order in the church, etc.

55] It is proper that the churches should keep such ordinances for the sake of love and tranquillity, so far that one do not offend another, that all things be done in the churches in order, and without confusion, 1 Cor. 14:40; comp. Phil. 2:14 . 56] but so that consciences be not burdened to think that they are necessary to salvation, or to judge that they sin when they break them without offense to others; as no one will say that a woman sins who goes out in public with her head uncovered provided only that no offense be given.

57] Of this kind is the observance of the Lord's Day, Easter, Pentecost, and like holy-days and 58] rites. For those who judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord's Day instead of the Sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, 59] do greatly err. Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel has been revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted. And 60] yet, because it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the Church designated the Lord's Day for this purpose; and this day seems to have been chosen all the more for this additional reason, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping neither of the Sabbath nor of any other day is necessary."

The entire article can be found online here: Augsburg Confession - Book of Concord

So what is the Augsburg Confession actually talking about here?

It's pretty simple: What is being discussed are certain claims of ecclesiastical power, namely that bishops have not been granted the power by which to institute rules, laws, commandments, or rites regarded as necessary. Therefore no bishop has the authority by which to impose new commandments or rules upon the Faithful and then to regard these with the same authority as God's own commandments. Indeed, what is being criticized here is a kind of new Levitical system whereby the old rites under the Torah must have a new expression under the New Covenant. The holy days and observances of the Church are not mandates from God, but free expressions of Christian liberty and conscience.

The Church does not observe the Lord's Day as a substitute or replacement for the ancient Sabbath; because the Sabbath has been done away with altogether with the coming of Christ who is its fulfillment. Rather, the Lord's Day has been the freely chosen day of worship and observance since the beginning. It is not a "New Sabbath", it is something altogether different from the Sabbath. Thus it is error to claim that Sunday has replaced Saturday as the Sabbath; not because Christians are beholden to the Sabbath, but because the Church is under no obligation to the Sabbath whatsoever. And so freely chooses to worship on the first day of the week, honoring it as the Lord's Day, not out of obligation to a divine command from God, but out of a free choice and good and godly order.

Therefore the powers of the Church and her officers are restricted; not to speak more than what God has spoken and command more than what God has commanded; and where the institution of rites and observances occur, these are out of good and godly service and order, not as matters of obligation. The celebration of the Holy Nativity of Christ, for example, is not by command from God, but by the joyous expression of free Christian worship and service to God.

Again, if the other copy-pasted quotes are of a similar quality, then there's a problem. This is clearly a hack job without any care or concern for what the sources themselves actually are saying.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Deade]

Pretty obvious, really. Plugging his book and promoting SDA doctrine.

Matt. 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

 

[Within Reason]

Matt. 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

I really enjoyed that someone produced such an series:

 

[prodromos]

I really enjoyed that someone produced such an series:

I'd prefer it if they presented facts rather than fiction.

 

[Within Reason]

I'd prefer it if they presented facts rather than fiction.

You watched the series to make such an comment, and are able to identify at individual time indexes those areas in each video which you proclaim (evidenceless at the moment) are "fiction", and are able to produce in their place the "facts" with cited links?

 

[prodromos]

You watched the series to make such an comment, and are able to identify at individual time indexes those areas in each video which you proclaim (evidenceless at the moment) are "fiction", and are able to produce in their place the "facts" with cited links?

If you bothered to read through the thread, you would know that we have been discussing a couple of 'facts' from the series about Constantine. Perhaps you might like to add something to the discussion?

 

[prodromos]

Also, in case you didn't know, if you follow the youtube video back to the home website: Lineage
you will immediately discover the series is produced by the Seventh Day Adventists. The primary source of their 'historical facts' is Ellen G. White's "The Great Controversy".

 

[ViaCrucis]

I really enjoyed that someone produced such an series:

Lies are like yeast, a little bit leavens the whole dough; as the best lies are often those sprinkled with a little bit of truth.

There are some factual statements made in the video, Constantine defeated Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, and--initially--was co-emperor with Licinius, and so the story goes had a vision which he attributed to God and so converted to Christianity. And, yes, historians are unsure whether or not Constantine's conversion was sincere or if it was a shrewd political move--ultimately that's not something any of us can know, and is known to God alone.

But then the video sprinkles in those little lies of leaven, saying things like "going from Pagan to Papal", and that doctrines and practices which never existed before Constantine entered into the Church.

Because the point of the video isn't history but propaganda.

Many charges have been placed at Constantine's feet, some go so far as to say that Constantine literally invented Jesus and wrote the Bible, creating a brand new religion by blending Judaism and Paganism. What virtually all such ridiculous claims have in common is that they are historically indefensible.

Things Constantine didn't do:

1) Create Christianity.
2) Turn the human Jesus into a deity.
3) Decide what's in the Bible.
4) Create the papacy.
5) Become the head of the Church.
6) Make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.
7) Introduce Pagan ideas into Christianity.
8) Create the Catholic Church.
9) Change the Sabbath.
10) Have any authority in the Church whatsoever.
11) Choose what the Council of Nicea affirmed and agreed upon concerning the nature of Christ.
12) Force "true Christians" underground.
13) Create Christmas, Easter, Pentecost or any other Christian holy day.

And so on and so forth.

Here is what Constantine did do:

1) Ended the state-sponsored persecutions of Christians.
2) Made Christianity legally allowed to be practiced openly.
3) Sponsored the building of churches.
4) Summoned bishops to meet at Nicea to decide for themselves on the matter of the Arian controversy.
5) Had Eusebius of Caesarea produce fifty copies of the Scriptures for the churches he had built in the new capital of Constantinople.
6) Gave the same rights to Christian clergy which had been afforded only to Pagan priests previously.
7) Made the first day of the week a civil holiday within the Roman Empire.
8) Gave preferential treatment to the Arians following the advice and encouragement of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and thus had St. Athanasius banished from Alexandria.
9) Avoided being baptized until he was on his death bed, and then had Eusebius of Nicomedia baptize him.
10) Engaged in several rather unscrupulous and horrible things, such as having his eldest son Crispus and his second wife Fausta killed.

There are plenty of good reasons to be critical of Constantine, there are plenty of things that could be said about the comfortable relationship between the Roman Empire and Christianity which began under Constantine, and which seems a bit like a double-edged sword. However much that could be said here isn't so much of Constantine himself or anything he himself did, but rather to future rulers, Roman or otherwise.

Going further, this whole "Constantine changed Christianity" theory, beyond all this, fails for one simple and easy reason: It doesn't acknowledge the fact that Christianity was not limited to the confines of the Roman Empire. Christianity had spread well outside the borders of the Roman Empire long before Constantine, long before Constantine's great, great grandfathers. Christianity had been spreading outside the confines of Rome since the time of the Apostles.

So how does the Constantine theory explain Christianity that has existed outside of the Roman Empire? How does it explain the Christians living in Persia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and as far as India? We are talking fully established Christian communities, churches nearly just as old and just as strong as the churches within the Roman Empire.

How did Constantine manage to convince the Christians living in India to abandon their historic practices and follow the new things he was introducing?

If you think those churches simply denied all they believed because some distant bishops told them to, then you'd be mistaken. The schisms of 431 and 451 are plenty evidence of that.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Deade]

Lies are like yeast, a little bit leavens the whole dough; as the best lies are often those sprinkled with a little bit of truth.

There are some factual statements made in the video, Constantine defeated Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, and--initially--was co-emperor with Licinius, and so the story goes had a vision which he attributed to God and so converted to Christianity. And, yes, historians are unsure whether or not Constantine's conversion was sincere or if it was a shrewd political move--ultimately that's not something any of us can know, and is known to God alone.

But then the video sprinkles in those little lies of leaven, saying things like "going from Pagan to Papal", and that doctrines and practices which never existed before Constantine entered into the Church.

Because the point of the video isn't history but propaganda.

Many charges have been placed at Constantine's feet, some go so far as to say that Constantine literally invented Jesus and wrote the Bible, creating a brand new religion by blending Judaism and Paganism. What virtually all such ridiculous claims have in common is that they are historically indefensible.

Things Constantine didn't do:

1) Create Christianity.
2) Turn the human Jesus into a deity.
3) Decide what's in the Bible.
4) Create the papacy.
5) Become the head of the Church.
6) Make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.
7) Introduce Pagan ideas into Christianity.
8) Create the Catholic Church.
9) Change the Sabbath.
10) Have any authority in the Church whatsoever.
11) Choose what the Council of Nicea affirmed and agreed upon concerning the nature of Christ.
12) Force "true Christians" underground.
13) Create Christmas, Easter, Pentecost or any other Christian holy day.

And so on and so forth.

Here is what Constantine did do:

1) Ended the state-sponsored persecutions of Christians.
2) Made Christianity legally allowed to be practiced openly.
3) Sponsored the building of churches.
4) Summoned bishops to meet at Nicea to decide for themselves on the matter of the Arian controversy.
5) Had Eusebius of Caesarea produce fifty copies of the Scriptures for the churches he had built in the new capital of Constantinople.
6) Gave the same rights to Christian clergy which had been afforded only to Pagan priests previously.
7) Made the first day of the week a civil holiday within the Roman Empire.
8) Gave preferential treatment to the Arians following the advice and encouragement of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and thus had St. Athanasius banished from Alexandria.
9) Avoided being baptized until he was on his death bed, and then had Eusebius of Nicomedia baptize him.
10) Engaged in several rather unscrupulous and horrible things, such as having his eldest son Crispus and his second wife Fausta killed.

There are plenty of good reasons to be critical of Constantine, there are plenty of things that could be said about the comfortable relationship between the Roman Empire and Christianity which began under Constantine, and which seems a bit like a double-edged sword. However much that could be said here isn't so much of Constantine himself or anything he himself did, but rather to future rulers, Roman or otherwise.

Going further, this whole "Constantine changed Christianity" theory, beyond all this, fails for one simple and easy reason: It doesn't acknowledge the fact that Christianity was not limited to the confines of the Roman Empire. Christianity had spread well outside the borders of the Roman Empire long before Constantine, long before Constantine's great, great grandfathers. Christianity had been spreading outside the confines of Rome since the time of the Apostles.

So how does the Constantine theory explain Christianity that has existed outside of the Roman Empire? How does it explain the Christians living in Persia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and as far as India? We are talking fully established Christian communities, churches nearly just as old and just as strong as the churches within the Roman Empire.

How did Constantine manage to convince the Christians living in India to abandon their historic practices and follow the new things he was introducing?

If you think those churches simply denied all they believed because some distant bishops told them to, then you'd be mistaken. The schisms of 431 and 451 are plenty evidence of that.

-CryptoLutheran

It wasn't just Constantine that hijacked Christianity. It was methodically done over the first four centuries; steered by Satan (spirit of antichrist) creating a false religion for us to follow.

Let me ask you this question: If Christianity had not gotten off-track through Catholicism why did we need a Protestant movement? And don't tell me you Eastern Orthodox didn't get off track. The East/West Schism was healed:

"In 552, Justinian sent General Narses to Italy. Totila was defeated the same year, and by 554, the Goths were completely defeated. The “mortal wound” of AD 476 was healed, and both legs of the Roman Empire were joined again. History called this the Imperial Restoration."

"A schism between the Western (Roman) and Eastern (Orthodox) churches, had existed for centuries; but had lately became worse. During Henry III’s reign, in 1054, it became formal. That was when the pope at Rome and the Patriarch at Constantinople, excommunicated each other."

Those were excerpts from my second book. They mixed doctrine until that second date (1054). It's history.

 

[prodromos]

It wasn't just Constantine that hijacked Christianity. It was methodically done over the first four centuries; steered by Satan (spirit of antichrist) creating a false religion for us to follow.

Let me ask you this question: If Christianity had not gotten off-track through Catholicism why did we need a Protestant movement? And don't tell me you Eastern Orthodox didn't get off track. The East/West Schism was healed:

"In 552, Justinian sent General Narses to Italy. Totila was defeated the same year, and by 554, the Goths were completely defeated. The “mortal wound” of AD 476 was healed, and both legs of the Roman Empire were joined again. History called this the Imperial Restoration."

"A schism between the Western (Roman) and Eastern (Orthodox) churches, had existed for centuries; but had lately became worse. During Henry III’s reign, in 1054, it became formal. That was when the pope at Rome and the Patriarch at Constantinople, excommunicated each other."

Those were excerpts from my second book. They mixed doctrine until that second date (1054). It's history.

More evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about.
The Pope and Patriarch did not excommunicate each other. Cardinal Humbert and the other two legates (one of whom would later become pope) excommunicated Patriarch Michael and all who agreed with him. A synod of bishops in Constantinople subsequently excommunicated Cardinal Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine and Peter of Almafi. That is history.
Also, since you asked, Eastern Orthodoxy has never had a Protestant movement.

 

[prodromos]

It wasn't just Constantine that hijacked Christianity.

You keep claiming this yet you have not substantiated it. All you seem to be doing is repeating someone else's claims without having checked the facts yourself. That seems to be the extent of your 'research'. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It wasn't just Constantine that hijacked Christianity. It was methodically done over the first four centuries; steered by Satan (spirit of antichrist) creating a false religion for us to follow.

Let me ask you this question: If Christianity had not gotten off-track through Catholicism why did we need a Protestant movement? And don't tell me you Eastern Orthodox didn't get off track. The East/West Schism was healed:

"In 552, Justinian sent General Narses to Italy. Totila was defeated the same year, and by 554, the Goths were completely defeated. The “mortal wound” of AD 476 was healed, and both legs of the Roman Empire were joined again. History called this the Imperial Restoration."

"A schism between the Western (Roman) and Eastern (Orthodox) churches, had existed for centuries; but had lately became worse. During Henry III’s reign, in 1054, it became formal. That was when the pope at Rome and the Patriarch at Constantinople, excommunicated each other."

Those were excerpts from my second book. They mixed doctrine until that second date (1054). It's history.

It would appear that your ignorance of Christian history isn't limited to antiquity, but also extends to the Reformation as well.

Let's play a game, how about you describe what you think the Protestant Reformation was about. Hint: It wasn't a rejection of Catholicism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Deade]

It would appear that your ignorance of Christian history isn't limited to antiquity, but also extends to the Reformation as well.

Let's play a game, how about you describe what you think the Protestant Reformation was about. Hint: It wasn't a rejection of Catholicism.

-CryptoLutheran

I could care less what is was about. Nor any of the other pseudo-movements. I am not part of them.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I could care less what is was about.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, says it all.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[prodromos]

I could care less what is was about. Nor any of the other pseudo-movements. I am not part of them. View attachment 272414

Precisely. You could care less about historical accuracy.

 

[prodromos]

You watched the series to make such an comment, and are able to identify at individual time indexes those areas in each video which you proclaim (evidenceless at the moment) are "fiction", and are able to produce in their place the "facts" with cited links?

I now see you posting similar propaganda over in the Sabbath and the Law forum. Why is it you are unwilling to respond to the questions we've asked here?