James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) (05/30/91)
In article <May.26.02.25.18.1991.14009@athos.rutgers.edu>, davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) writes: > History bears out that the conversion to Sunday came > later during a time when many new innovations came into the church - > many of these rejected by the Protestant Reformation. Here are some historical facts BEFORE the papacy became a power in the Christian church: (from A.A Hoekema's "The Four Major Cults") Rev 1:10 "I was in the spirit on the Lord's Day" (written about A.D. 95, by John. The expression "the Lord's Day" has been understood universally to refer to the Sunday [via standard lexicons and commentators]. To forestall replies based on SDA doctrine on this verse I will treat it here: SDAs contend that the expression "the Lord's Day" refers here to Saturday, saying: "the earliest authentic instance, in the early church writings, of the first day of the week being called 'Lord's Day' was by Clement of Alexandria, near the close of the second century". That this statement is quite contrary to fact will be evident from the following quotations: From the epistle of Ignatius "To the Magnesians", Section 9: "If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newnwess of hope, no longer observing sabbaths, but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through him..." (written about A.D. 107. Text from J.B. Lightfoot's "The Apostolic Fathers", p.71) From the "Didachee", or "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles", Section 14: "And on the Lord's day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks..." (written during the last part of the first century, or the beginning of the second.) (Though the following two quotations do not use the expression, "the Lord's Day," they do give further evidence for the early observance of the first day of the week as the day of worship.) From the "Epistle of Barnabas", Section 15: "Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended into the heavens" (written some time between 70 and 130 A.D. Text from Lightfoot, op. cit. p.152) From Justin Martyr's First Apology, Chapter 67: "But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead." (written about 155 A.D. Text from "The Ante-Nicene Fathers" I, p.186. SDAs contend that what Justin speaks of here was a "festival of the resurrection" which began to be observed alongside of the seventh-day Sabbath from the middle of the second century (Questions on Doctrine, p.152). This however, seems very unlikely. The service held on this day, as described in the earlier part of the chapter, includes Scripture reading, a brief homily, prayer, thanksgiving, the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and an offering for the needy. This certainly appears to be a description of a regular Sunday worship service. If this were a festival service held alongside of Sabbath worship, one would expect some reference to this fact in the Chapter. No such reference is found, however; instead, Justin says: "Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly..." Further, in the "Dialogue with Trypho", written some time after the "First Apology", Justin clearly affirms that the Gentile Christians of his day did not observe the Sabbath: "But Gentiles, who have believed on Him [Christ] ... they shall receive the inheritance ... even although they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts" (Chapter 26; text from "The Ante-Nicene Fathers", I, p.207). The statements quoted above, plus the New Testament evidence [omitted here, but still quite relevant !], make it quite evident that the change from the seventh day to the first day was not brought about by "the Papacy," as SDAism contends, but came about long before the Papacy arose as a strong ecclesiastical institution. (For a further treatment of the SDA doctrine on the sabbath, and the sabbath itself, the reader is referred to Bird's "Theology of Seventh-Day Adventism" pp 93-118; Douty's "Another Look at Seventh-Day Adventism," pp 80-91; and Martin's "The Truth About Seventh-Day Adventism," pp. 140-173. Older but very thorough is D.M. Cainright's "The Lord's Day from Neither Catholics Nor Pagans" subtitled "An Answer to Seventh-Day Adventists on this Subject" (New York: Revell, 1915) [Cainright was an SDA who left the group after having extensive experience with the group and their prophet Ellen G. White] ). From G. Lewis's "The Bible, the Christian and Seventh-Day Adventists", p.25: "The change in the day of worship was not made, as Adventists claim, centuries after New Testament times by the Pope. It was already in the New Testament and it was recognized by writers shortly thereafter. References to first-day worship may be found in the writings of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch A.D. 110; Justin Martyr, A.D. 100-165; Barnabas, A.D. 200; Origen, A.D. 225; Cyprian, A.D. 200-258; Peter of Alexandria, A.D. 300; and Eusebius, A.D. 315." > In Luke it is made especially clear that Jesus > "rested" over the Sabbath day, clearly establishing that this be an > established part of the New Covenant. And we see the women waiting > until after the Sabbath before they come to annoint Him with their > potions. Again making clear that nothing has changed with regards to > the Sabbath over the week-end. The New Covenant is established with > the Sabbath intact. Jesus rested on the sabbath because he was bound to under the old laws, at that time. As far as Paul is concerned, he went to Jewish synagogues on the seventh- day because he wished to witness to Jews, whom he could find there on that day. Did the women understand the importance of the resurrection ? Did the women know of the resurrection ? The fact that they went on the Sunday means nothing, what they found means LOTS ! > There are far too many NT examples of Paul worshiping > with the gentiles on the Sabbath, not Sunday, to establish that Paul > was not proposing that anyday, Sabbath vs Sunday, will do. I'd like to have some concrete references, please ! (I've never seen any verses like this, ever !) Jim.
davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) (06/03/91)
In article <May.30.00.16.42.1991.15081@athos.rutgers.edu>, James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) writes: > In article <May.26.02.25.18.1991.14009@athos.rutgers.edu>, > davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) writes: > > History bears out that the conversion to Sunday came > > later during a time when many new innovations came into the church - > > many of these rejected by the Protestant Reformation. > > Here are some historical facts BEFORE the papacy became a power in the > Christian church: (from A.A Hoekema's "The Four Major Cults") > > Rev 1:10 "I was in the spirit on the Lord's Day" (written about A.D. 95, by > John. The expression "the Lord's Day" has been understood universally to refer > to the Sunday [via standard lexicons and commentators]. To forestall replies >based on SDA doctrine on this verse I will treat it here: SDAs contend that the > expression "the Lord's Day" refers here to Saturday, saying: "the earliest > authentic instance, in the early church writings, of the first day of the week > being called 'Lord's Day' was by Clement of Alexandria, near the close of the > second century". That this statement is quite contrary to fact will be > evident from the following quotations: > . . . . . . . . . . . . Let me address myself to the question of the Lord's Day. My study has shown that the earliest authentic statement associating the Lord's Day to Sunday comes in 200 AD. There are numerous supposed quotations attributed earlier than this date that turn out to have their problems. For example, later early fathers claiming that earlier early fathers made such statements, but on closer research it turns out they said no such thing, or the document drawn from turns out to be an accepted fraud, shown to be a fraud by Sunday advocates who could not accept the other threads of early origin of things rejected by the Protestant Reformation. Another fraud that more honest Sunday advocates have documented to be incorrect is where the purported translation of "Lord's Day" should have been "Lord's Supper", where the lineage of documentation should have been offered in support of an early tradition of the Mass instead of Sunday. It is possible that in Revelation John was speaking of the Lord's Supper as the Lord's Day? There is of course no proof of this. He could have been speaking of visions in the context of the Day of the Lord - the Day of Judgement. It is generally understood that John wrote the book of John after writing the book of Revelation. In the book of John he uses the words "on the first day", instead of "Lord's Day". If John was trying to establish a connection between "Lord's Day" = Sunday he would have used such terminology in his later writings. I think it is best to leave this text in Revelation alone in terms of being a proof text for Lord's Day = Sunday. The only proof for this thesis coming from history in the context of other theologies adamantly rejected by the Protestant Reformation. If early church history is to be taken as proof then annul the Protestant Reformation. In 2 Th 2 we read about apostacy already becoming apparant to Paul. The influx of paganisms was especially a problem around Rome. A friend of mine, recently died in a plane crash, was traveling the world with his video camera documenting that when the gospel exploded out to the world, that the Sabbath went with it. Then along came the crusades to stamp out all those who did not subscribe to the traditions of Rome and they stamped out a lot of Sabatarians - the best documentation of these extincted peoples being from their enemies. The following is drawn from many such quotations, but with a focus on just the Waldenses - there are plenty of quotes from their enemies to show that more distant from Rome the Sabbath was more the accepted norm: ------ This time I'll skip references to churches in Scotland, Ireland, Constan- tinople, Greece, Spain, Norway, Bohemia, France, India, England, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Holland, Germany, etc. I'll just focus on the Wal- denses. Well, on second thought, I'll include one non-Waldensian example: "There is much evidence that the Sabbath prevailed in Wales univer- sally until A.D. 1115, when the first Roman bishop was seated at St. David's. The old Welsh Sabbath-keeping churches did not even then altogether bow the knee to Rome, but fled to their hiding places." (Lewis, "Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America, Vol. 1, p. 29) J. F. Coltart writes - Roman Catholic writers try to evade the apostolic origin of the Waldenses, so as to make it appear that the Roman is the only apostolic church, and that all others are later novelties. And for this reason they try to make out that the Waldenses originated with Peter Waldo of the twelth century. Dr. Peter Allix says: "Some Protestants, on this occasion, have fallen into the snare that was set for them . . . It is absolutely false, that these churches were ever founded by Peter Waldo . . . It is a pure forgery." (Ancient Church of Piedmont," pp. 192. Oxford: 1821.) "It is not true, that Waldo gave this name to the inhabitants of the valleys: they were called Waldenses, or Vaudes, before his time, from the valleys in which they dwelt." (Id., p. 182) And he "was called Valdus, or Waldo, because he received his religious notions from the inhabitants of the valleys." (History of the Christian Church," William Jones, Vol. II, p.2) Waldenses - 4th Century: It is a point of further interest to note that in north-eastern Spain near the city of Barcelona is a city called Sabadell, in a district originally inhabited. By a people called both "Valdenses" and "Sabba- tati." Waldenses - 10th Century: "And because they observed no other day of rest but the Sabbath dayes, they called them Insabathas, as much as to say, as they observed no Sabbath." (Luther's "Fore-Runners," pp. 7,8) Waldenses - 12th Century "Robinson gives an account of some of the Waldenses of the Alps, who were called Sabbati, Sabbatati, Insabbatati, but more frequently Inzabbatati. 'One says they were so named from the Hebrew word Sab- bath, because they kept the Saturday for the Lord's day.'" (General History of the Baptist Denomination," Vol. II, p. 413) Waldenses in France - 13th Century "To destroy completely these heretics Pope Innocent III sent Dominican inquisitors into France, and also crusaders, promising "a plenary rem- ission of all sins, to those who took on them the crusade . . . against the Albigenses." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, art. "Ray- mond VI," p. 670) "The inquisitors . . . [declare] that the sign of a Vaudois, deemed worthy of death, was that they followed Christ and sought to obey the commandments of God." (History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages," H. C. Len, Vol. 1,) "Thousands of God's people were tortured to death by the Inquisition, buried alive, burned to death, or hacked to pieces by the crusaders. While devastating the city of Biterre the soldiers asked the Catholic leaders how they should know who were heretics; Arnold, Abbot of Cisteaux, answered: "Slay them all, for the Lord knows who is His." ("History of the Inquisition," pp. 98,) "The heresy of the Vaudois, or poor people of Lyons, is of great anti- quity, for some say that it has been continued down ever since the time of Pope Sylvester; and others, ever since that of the apostles," (The Roman Inquisitor, Reinerus Sacho, writing about 1230) "The Paulicians, Petrobusians, Passaginians, Waldenses, Insabbatati were great Sabbath-keeping bodies of Europe down to 1250 A.D." Waldensis - 14th Century "That we are to worship one only God, who is able to help us, and not the Saints departed; that we ought to keep holy the Sabbath day," ("Luther's Fore-runners," p. 38) ""For centuries evangelical bodies, especially the Waldenses, were called Insabbati because of Sabbath-keeping." (Gui, Manuel d' Inquisiteur.) "In 1310, two hundred years before Luther's theses, the Bohemian brethren constituted one-fourth of the population of Bohemia, and that they were in touch with the Waldenses who abounded in Austria, Lom- bardy, Bohemia, north Germany, Thuringia, Brandenburg, and Moravia. Erasmus pointed out how strictly Bohemian Waldenses kept the seventh day Sabbath." (Armitage, "A History of the Baptists," p. 318; Cox, "The Literature of the Sabbath Question," vol. 2, pp. 201-2) Waldenses - 15th Century "Louis XII, King of France (1498-1515), being informed by the enemies of the Waldenses inhabiting a part of the province of Province, that several heinous crimes were laid to their account, sent the master of Requests, and a certain doctor of the Sorbonne, to make inquiry into this matter. On their return they reported that they had visited all the parishes but could not discover any traces of those crimes with which they were charged. On the contrary, they kept the Sabbath day, observed the ordinance of Baptism, according the the primitive church, instructed their children in the articles of the Christian faith, and the commandments of God. The King having heard the report of his com- missioners, said with an oath that they were better men than himself or his people." ("History of the Christian Church," Vol. II, pp. 71, 72 3'd edition. London: 1818) Revelation "When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach. Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war agaisnt the rest of her offspring--those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus." (Rev. 12:13- 17) "Here is the patience of the saints: Here are they that keep the com- mandments of God." (Rev. 14:12) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life. (Rev. 22:14) Dave (David E. Buxton)
st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) (06/03/91)
A few points on James Quilty's lengthy treatise on the history of the Sabbath change: He quotes Justin Martyr as one of the more prominent sources in the mid 100's AD pointing out that Sunday observance had already commenced by that time. Scholarly SDA sources such as Bacchiochi _From Sabbath To Sunday_ also detail the sources (though Bacchiocchi's claim is that this is indeed when the change began to occur). The two days, as I understand it, were kept in parallel for some time, and by early 300's AD most people had moved to Sunday. Adventists do claim that "the Lord's Day" is Saturday, mainly because Jesus said "The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath", thus claiming it as his day. Adventist scholars such as Bacchiocchi, however realize that this use of the term "Lord's Day" is similar to usages of 2nd century church fathers who meant Sunday thereby. He suggests that this reference may refer to "the day of the Lord" and the end-times, certainly apropos to the vision he received. In the second century, it's clear that there was indeed no "papacy" as we know it today (though there certainly was a Bishop of Rome.) The claims which Rome makes to have changed the Sabbath derive not from any actions they may have done in the second century but that denominations which claim to be Protestant and follow the Bible and Bible only instead keep Sunday only out of tradition. As to Gentiles worshipping on Sabbath in the New Testament, I offer the following: Acts 13:42 "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath." Acts 13:44 "And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Also Acts 16:13,14. If people wish to learn about SDA belief, they are welcome to ask questions on SDAnet, and I will be glad to send the Fundamental Beliefs to anyone who asks. If anyone wishes to bash SDA belief, it would seem appropriate to consult more recent sources and not push dated private interpretations as official and exclusive SDA theology. Steve Timm P.S. You don't disagree with us as much as you think you do. [Your comments on Acts 13 don't match any translation I can find. RSV and TEV both say that they were preaching in a synagogue to Jews and God-fearers (presumably Gentiles who admired Judaism and participated in the Jewish community peripherally, although they were not circumcized). Not surprisingly, this synagogue service was on the Sabbath. They were invited back to speak on the next Sabbath. 13:42-43 say (in NRSV) "As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people urged them to speak about these things again the next sabbath. When the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed ..." The difference between this and your translation appears to be textual, i.e. mention of Jews and Gentiles occurs in 13:42 in manuscripts that are not normally considered as good. (Neither NRSV nor TEV think the alternative is even worth a footnote.) --clh]
rvp@softserver.canberra.edu.au (Rey Paulo) (06/03/91)
In article <May.30.00.16.42.1991.15081@athos.rutgers.edu> James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) writes: > > Rev 1:10 "I was in the spirit on the Lord's Day" (written about A.D. 95, by >John. The expression "the Lord's Day" has been understood universally to refer >to the Sunday [via standard lexicons and commentators]. And then? Does this override GOD's 4th commandment? > From the epistle of Ignatius "To the Magnesians", Section 9: >"If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newnwess of >hope, no longer observing sabbaths, but fashioning their lives after the >Lord's day, on which our life also arose through him..." >(written about A.D. 107. Text from J.B. Lightfoot's "The Apostolic Fathers", >p.71) > And again, does this override GOD's 4th commandment? > > From the "Didachee", or "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles", Section 14: >"And on the Lord's day gather yourselves together and break bread and give >thanks..." (written during the last part of the first century, or the beginning >of the second.) > And again, does this override GOD's 4th commandment? > From the "Epistle of Barnabas", Section 15: "Wherefore also we keep the >eighth day for rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead, and >having been manifested ascended into the heavens" (written some time between >70 and 130 A.D. Text from Lightfoot, op. cit. p.152) > And again, does this override GOD's 4th commandment? > From Justin Martyr's First Apology, Chapter 67: "But Sunday is the day on >which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the day on which God, >having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus >Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead." (written about 155 A.D. And again, does this override GOD's 4th commandment? > >however; instead, Justin says: "Sunday is the day on which we all hold our >common assembly..." So if they held their assembly on Sunday, does this mean they were right? And again, did their assembly override GOD's 4th commandment? > > Further, in the "Dialogue with Trypho", written some time after the "First >Apology", Justin clearly affirms that the Gentile Christians of his day did >not observe the Sabbath: "But Gentiles, who have believed on Him [Christ] ... >they shall receive the inheritance ... even although they neither keep the >Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts" (Chapter 26; text from >"The Ante-Nicene Fathers", I, p.207). According to Justin! But according to GOD, doubtful! GOD commanded the 4th commandment, didn't HE? > >not brought about by "the Papacy," as SDAism contends, but came about long >before the Papacy arose as a strong ecclesiastical institution. Is that institution consistent with the scriptures? What did GOD say in HIS 4th commandment? > >"The change in the day of worship was not made, as Adventists claim, centuries >after New Testament times by the Pope. It was already in the New Testament and >it was recognized by writers shortly thereafter. References to first-day >worship may be found in the writings of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch A.D. 110; >Justin Martyr, A.D. 100-165; Barnabas, A.D. 200; Origen, A.D. 225; Cyprian, >A.D. 200-258; Peter of Alexandria, A.D. 300; and Eusebius, A.D. 315." > And so what? Do the writings of the above authors during 100th, 200th, etc., etc. centuries make void the 4th commandment of GOD? Tell me, who from among the mentioned authors has more authority than GOD? > > Jesus rested on the sabbath because he was bound to under the old laws, at Old law? You mean the Ten Commandments is now an obsolete piece of divine legislation? You mean idol-worhip, adultery, honoring our parents, thief, etc. in the Ten Commandments are now obsolete? >that time. As far as Paul is concerned, he went to Jewish synagogues on the >seventh- day because he wished to witness to Jews, whom he could find there on >that day. > Why don't you say instead that Paul went to the Jewish synagogue to observe the Sabbath which is more likely considering that Paul was a Jew himself rather than postulating that Paul went there so that he could meet fellow Jews? Such a postulate doesn't quite make sense. Does it? The truth of the matter is that there is no one on earth (not even one of the apostles or saints or what have you) whatever authority he may have religious or otherwise is authorized to make void any of GOD's commandments? This is plain and simple. If you believe otherwise, that's another story. And one more. There is no problem with the fact that christians assemble on Sunday fo worship. It certainly brings glory to the LORD. The problem is when Sunday assembly is made substitute for the real Sabbath as is often the case with most christians. Sunday-keeping is perfectly alright. However, Sunday-keeping-as-replacement-of-the-Sabbath is the problem. I believed if early christians did assemble on Sunday, they did it as celebration of Jesus's resurrection. Because keeping Saturday and Sunday for secular purposes is, I think, humanly too-much and probably due to Jewish prejudice, tradition evolved into gradually ignoring the Sabbath and upholding Sunday as day of worship. Man did it anyway with his own free will and GOD is just there to see who can discern the real truth. -- Rey V. Paulo | Internet: rvp@csc.canberra.edu.au University of Canberra | I am not bound to please thee with my answer. AUSTRALIA | -Shylock, in "The Merchant of Venice" ------------------------------+----------------------------------------------
davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) (06/04/91)
While the earliest authentic observance of Sunday can be traced no earlier
than 140 AD, the bishops of Rome claim their Papal lineage back all the way
to Peter. The earliest claims for these bishops are rather benign and then
on through history more and more powers are acclaimed to these Bishops/Pope.
And so it is with Sunday. Not until many years later is any sacredness
attributed to Sunday. Here is what the earliest of writters had to say
about Sunday:
None of them claimed any divine authority for their observance of Sun-
day.
Nothing said about a change, or that it was the new Sabbath. Rather it
was a weekly festival to be observed quite independent of the Sabbath
question.
There was no early connotation of sinning if work was performed on Sun-
day. Primarily the idea of spending some time in worship on that day.
Generally simply an assembly - for Bible reading, Lord's Supper cele-
bration, collecting money.
To be a day of rejoicing, while the Sabbath was increasingly inflicted
with rules about fasting and somber solemnity.
The knew was not to be bent in prayer on that day - standing prayers.
[I believe he means "knee" --clh]
Many of the early Fathers can be quoted both ways - Tertullian, for example:
Insists that Sabbath keeping started at creation and elsewhere insists
the patriarchs did not keep it.
He claims that Christ broke the Sabbath and elsewhere proves that Jesus
did not break the Sabbath.
He states that the law was abolished and elsewhere teaches its eternal
nature and authority.
He insists that Christ abrogated the Sabbath and elsewhere that "Christ
did not rescind the Sabbath . . . . an additional sanctity". Tertul-
lian also states that Christ "furnished to this day [Sabbath] divine
safeguards, -- a course which his adversary [Satan] would have pursued
for some other days, to avoid honoring the Creator's Sabbath
This last statement is remarkable and makes clear that what ever was going
on relative to Sunday in Tertullian's day was not seen to be of divine ordi-
nation, rather an admission that Jesus' adversary is the one pursuing some
other day.
"Kitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature" states that Tertullian in 200AD,
is the first writer to attaches the meaning of Christ's resurrection to
"Lord's Day".
"We, however, only on the Lord's day of the resurrection ought to
guard, not only againts kneeling, but every posture and office of soli-
citude; deferring even our business, lest we give any place to the
devil. Similarly, too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we des-
tinguish by the same solemnity of exultation." (Tertullian on Prayer,
"Testimony of the Fathers", p. 67)
Another quote from Tertullian:
"As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the
dead as birth-day honors. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on
the Lord's day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also
from Easter to Whitsunday [Pentecost]. We feel pained should any wine
or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every for-
ward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our
clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light
the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily
life, we trace upon the forhead the sign [of the cross].
"If for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive
Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth
to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and
faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and cus-
tom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some
one who has. (De Corona, "Testimony of the Fathers, pp. 68,69)
Baptist -- 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."
Baptist -- Dr. Edward. T. Hiscox, author of "The Baptist Manual", in a paper
read before the New York minister's conference held Nov. 13, 1893:
"Of course, I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early
Christian history as a religious day, as we learn from the Christian
Fathers and other sources. But what a pity that it comes branded with
the mark of paganism, and christened with the name of the sun god, when
adopted and sanctioned by the papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a
sacred legacy to Protestantism!"
Congregationalist -- Dr. Lyman Abbott, "Christian Union", Jan 19, 1882
"The current notion that Christ and His apostles authoritatively sub-
stituted the first day for the seventh, is absolutel without any
authority in the New Testament."
Episcopal -- Sir William Domville, "Examination Of The Six Texts, P. 6,7:
"Not any ecclesiastical writer of the first three centuries attributed
the origin of Sunday observance either to Christ or to His apostles."
Episcopal -- Issac Williams, D.D., "Plain Sermons On The Cathechism, Vol 1,
pp. 334-336:
"Where are we told in Scripture 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."
Episcopal -- Phillip Carrington, "Toronto Daily Star", Oct 26, 1949:
"The Bible commandment says on the seventh day thou shalt rest. That
is Saturday. Nowhere in the Bible is it laid down that worship should
be done on Sunday."
Martin Luther, "Spiritual Antichirst", pp. 71,72:
"I wonder exceedingly how it came to be imputed to me that I should
reject the law of the Ten Commandments . . . . Whosoever abrogates the
law must of necessity abrogate sin also."
Lutherin - "Augsburg Confession Of Faith":
"The observation of the Lord's day is founded not on any command of
God. But on the authority of the church."
Moody Bible Institute -- D. L. Moody, "Weighted and Wanting", p. 47:
"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 bind-
ing?"
Noorman C. Deck, "Moody Bible Institute Monthly", Nov 1936, p. 138:
"We have abundant evidence both in the New Testament and in the early
history of the church to prove that gradually Sunday came to be
observed instead of the Jewish Sabbath, apart from any specific com-
mandment."
Presbyterian -- T.C. Blake, D.D., "Theology Condensed", p. 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 institu-
tion repealed, the Sabbath will stand . . . . The teaching of Christ
confirms the perpetuity of the Sabbath."
Dave (David E. Buxton)conan@jif.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (06/04/91)
Some random comments on this thread: In article <Jun.2.23.50.04.1991.24963@athos.rutgers.edu> davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) writes: >If early church history is >to be taken as proof then annul the Protestant Reformation. Which would be fine by me :-) [A number of quotes deleted] I cannot comment directly on the sources David Buxton quotes since I have not read any of them. However, Many of them are quite old and seem to be quite sectarian in nature--this is not sufficient reason to disregard them, but it certainly means that I would not accept them uncritically. I would also like to point out another source which is relevant to this discussion: the Letters of Pliny the Younger. Pliny was a Roman governor in Asia Minor (Bithynia?) under the emperor Trajan (circa 100-110). Pliny, a pagan, wrote to the emperor asking for advice on how to deal with a new and possibly subversive cult which had recently come to his attention--Christianity. To the best of my memory, the letter clearly indicates that these early Christians (who were far from Rome and its "influence") met on Sundays. I would be interested in a discussion on this passage, or at least a correction if I remembered it incorrectly. Yours in Christ,
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/04/91)
In article <Jun.2.23.50.04.1991.24963@athos.rutgers.edu> davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) writes:
+
+Waldenses in France - 13th Century
+
+ "To destroy completely these heretics Pope Innocent III sent Dominican
+ inquisitors into France, and also crusaders, promising "a plenary rem-
+ ission of all sins, to those who took on them the crusade . . .
+ against the Albigenses." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, art. "Ray-
+ mond VI," p. 670)
Weren't these people also called 'Cathars'. I recall that the group
was the subject of the only intra-western euorpean crusade. The
Cathars had a number of beliefs which put them on the wrong side of
the papal fence. However, the day of worship I don't recall as being
one.
There are a number of inovations which are attributed to the
Catholic Church by various protestent groups. If one subscribes to a
protestent 'theology' then any number of points of protest may be
raised. However, just because the Roman Church declared some beliefs
heresy, does not imply that those beliefs were representative of
'true' Christianity. The standard anti-Catholic party line seems to
always attribute the revival or introduction of
non-absolutely-derivable-from-Jewish-antecedents to the evil one and
hence implicates that church which has had the most history of such
introductions.
This yet another reason why one should not become a Christian since
one could join the wrong group and end up in eternal damnation just
as if one had never joined at all.
As for SDA's open view of questioning fundamentals, does anyone have
the story as to why Kellog went his way around the turn of the
century. The story I heard was that Kellog questioned E. G. White's
abilities and was, after some debate, dismissed from the the church,
or left on a strong invitation to do so.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edujclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/04/91)
In article <Jun.3.03.00.40.1991.3815@athos.rutgers.edu> rvp@softserver.canberra.edu.au (Rey Paulo) writes:
+And then? Does this override GOD's 4th commandment?
There are a number of commands which ar to be found in Bible. Such
things as stoning adulterers, killing 'witches(poisoner)', killing
'unruly' childern. Do you practice or advocate these practices now?
Don't hide behind 'that was for sanctuary worship, all washed away
now' type arguements. If it was 'illegal' then it's still illegal
now.
And if it was so special, why is there no record of it's observance
from the 7th day of creation to Mount Sinai? (Approx. 3 thousand
years by the 6K year old earth, 2K before the flood type, 1K to Moses
type reconing). The mention of any ritual in Genisis is sparse to
say the least, a few burnt offerings, a few idols, a prostitute,
that's about it.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edurvp@softserver.canberra.edu.au (Rey Paulo) (06/05/91)
In article <Jun.4.00.00.40.1991.11658@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: > >And if it was so special, why is there no record of it's observance >from the 7th day of creation to Mount Sinai? (Approx. 3 thousand >years by the 6K year old earth, 2K before the flood type, 1K to Moses >type reconing). The mention of any ritual in Genisis is sparse to >say the least, a few burnt offerings, a few idols, a prostitute, >that's about it. >-- > Hi John, your article implies that the Sabbath had not been practiced until the time of Moses. I believe you really have not understood the meaning why the Sabbath is so special to the LORD. Well here it is. Genesis 2:1-3 (Time: Creation) "And the whole universe was completed. By the seventh day GOD finished what he had been doing and stopped working. HE blessed the SEVENTH DAY and set it APART AS A SPECIAL DAY, because by that day HE had completed HIS creation and stopped working." See the reason why it is so special? And then, 3000 years later. Exodus 20:8 (Moses' time: The Ten Commandments) "Observe the Sabbath and keep it holy. You have six days in which you have to do your work, but the SEVENTH DAY is a day of rest dedicated to ME. On that day no one is to work - neither you, your children, your slaves, your animals, nor the foreigners who live in your country. In six days, I, the LORD, made the earth, the sky, the seas, and everything in them, but on the SEVENTH DAY I rested. That is why I, the LORD, blessed the SABBATH and made it holy. See why the Sabbath is special to the LORD? It is so special not because the Jews were a special people but because GOD completed HIS work on that day. HE said, HE blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. And this blessing occured thousands of years before there was any Jew. Now, to the laws like stoning an adulterer, etc., etc. These CIVIL laws were specifically given to the Jews for the obvious reason that they needed strict laws to govern their daily living during their exodus from Egypt. It was a tough life. Wasn't it? Fourty years wandering in the desert and fighting both from within and without and settling. They also had laws concerning the treatement of contagious diseases such as leprosy. The need of these sort of laws is very evident or the Jews would surely perish without them. Any contemporary society can still adopt and practice these laws if it wants to. Present islamic states do practice them. You can if you want to. No harm. They are just quite strict because they were intended for people who would have to undergo a tough life such as the exodus. I bet these laws especially the ones on sanitation are very appropriate to the recent plight of the Kurds. See the appropriateness and see how GOD could see which and which is not appropriate for us? Praise GOD for HIS infinite wisdom indeed. -- Rey V. Paulo | Internet: rvp@csc.canberra.edu.au University of Canberra | I am not bound to please thee with my answer. AUSTRALIA | -Shylock, in "The Merchant of Venice" ------------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Steve.Hix@eng.sun.com (Steve Hix) (06/06/91)
In article <Jun.3.23.49.59.1991.11213@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: > >As for SDA's open view of questioning fundamentals, does anyone have >the story as to why Kellog went his way around the turn of the >century. The story I heard was that Kellog questioned E. G. White's >abilities and was, after some debate, dismissed from the the church, >or left on a strong invitation to do so. As I recall the situation, Kellogg (Dr. John Harvey, brother of Will K. of corn flakes fame) left the SDAs because of his latter-life enthusiastic espousal of pantheism. This was pretty significant deviation from mainstream (not to mention SDA) Christian theology, ending in himself and the SDAs parting company. -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/07/91)
In article <Jun.5.00.26.28.1991.21730@athos.rutgers.edu> rvp@softserver.canberra.edu.au (Rey Paulo) writes: +Hi John, your article implies that the Sabbath had not been practiced +until the time of Moses. I believe you really have not understood the +meaning why the Sabbath is so special to the LORD. Well here it is. My post was to imply nothing could be concluded about the practice of keeping THE 7-th Day in any way from the Creation to Moses. Further that it was given to a particular people which were in the process of creating a 'separate' identity. The later iterations of 'the Laws' typically have the social interactions(kill,adultery,steal) the omnipresence/omnipotence of the Deity. But the day of worship is somewhat absent and must exprapoated by much exegesis or it would have been obvious the NT writers "thou SHALT come to gether for worship on THE 7-day". The fact that it is no given and in fact there are statements that indicate some of the 'old' law was void indicates there is some question in the matter. One could conclude as you have 1) 7-Day is still required by the 'true' believers 2) it is not required as the non-7th-day keepers conclude 3) it is required but since it was so basic the the Jewish experience that it was a forgone conclusion and hence not mentioned in the text. For example, the reason such things as 'nakedness' are mention in the NT is because the typic was a 'hot' topic of the time. The Jews of the time where being influenced by 'Greek' culture which called for naked exercise in the gym. This cause the Jews to debate the issue of 'no-nakedness' as demanded by the OT laws. Similarly for 'Temple' based worship practices, after the distruction of Jerusalem there was a great amount of debate in Jewish circles as to how to handle the 'absence' of the Temple but still be under the 'Law'. +Now, to the laws like stoning an adulterer, etc., etc. +These CIVIL laws were specifically given to the Jews for the +obvious reason that they needed strict laws to govern their daily +living during their exodus from Egypt. It was a tough life. Wasn't For years we have heard about the 'evil' of pork and why it was so 'legislated' against in the Bible. Yet, sheep have as many diseases which are even more deadly than the infamous 'Trychtinosis(sp)' of pork. It would appear that some of the 'laws' of the Bible go further than just 'health' but to directly segregate 'Hebrews' from the others. >treatement of contagious diseases such as leprosy. The need of these >sort of laws is very evident or the Jews would surely perish without >them. Do you think that non-Hebrews welcomed lepers into their towns? Do you think some of these laws were 'news'? -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu
jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (06/07/91)
Hmmm. As I recall, there is another injunction regarding graven images. May I ask, do SDA's use dollar bills at all?