Thursday, September 1, 2011

Answering Seventh Day Adventism

There are two major distinctive claims of Seventh Day Adventism, which separate it from the rest of Christianity:
  1. First, that Christians are supposed to keep Saturday, the Sabbath, holy.  They oppose worshiping on Sunday, arguing that it's against the Ten Commandments and generally anti-Scriptural.
  2. Second, that the founder of Seventh Day Adventism, Ellen G. White, was a prophet.
The official Seventh Day Adventist website declares:
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.
But as we'll quickly see, White was no prophet, and her works are riddled with errors. Let's look at two of her major claims about the Sabbath, both from her supposedly-inspired book, The Great Controversy.

I. When Did Sunday Worship Begin?


The first of the claims I want to look at is White's assertion  that all of the early Christians kept the true Sabbath for the first centuries of Christianity:
In the first centuries the true Sabbath had been kept by all Christians. They were jealous for the honor of God, and believing that His law is immutable, they zealously guarded the sacredness of its precepts.
(Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 52).

So that means that at a bare minimum, we should see every single Christian worshiping on Saturday for at least two centuries (since “first centuries” must mean at least two). Now read what St. Justin Martyr wrote in 150 A.D., in his First Apology:
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings [the Greek word here is Eucharist], according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. 
But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first 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. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn [That is, the day before Saturday]; and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.
So well within the first centuries of Christianity, Sunday worship was practiced.  And notice that Justin doesn't describe this as some innovation, either. He's explaining to non-Christians what basic Christian practices look like, and Sunday worship is already the norm for “all” in 150.  For someone alleged to be a prophet, White's unable to present the truth on even this basic fact about the Sabbath.

Surprisingly, Seventh Day Adventist scholars admit that she's wrong on this. Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, perhaps the best Adventist scholar, wrote:
The earliest documents mentioning Sunday worship go back to Barnabas in 135 and Justin Martyr in 150. Thus, it is evident that Sunday worship was already established by the middle of the second century. This means that to be historically accurate the term “centuries” should be changed to the singular “century.” This simple correction would enhance the credibility of The Great Controversy, because it is relatively easy to defend general Sabbath observance during the first century, but it is impossible to do it for the second century.
In other words, the alleged prophet's words are true, if you change the words.  This sounds like a polite way of conceding that Ellen White was a false prophetess.

But what about Bacchiocchi's claim that while Sunday worship existed in the second century, it didn't exist in the first?  He's making an argument from silence.  This is a common tactic I've seen used by Protestants in defending their views.  If you show that Ignatius believed that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ in 107 A.D., they'll respond that the Church must have taken a symbolic view until 106.  Of course, this sort of argumentation is ridiculous.  If you're going to make an argument from silence, the strongest argument is that no change in doctrine or practice happened -- because if a change of doctrine had happened, we'd see evidence.  If Christians suddenly (globally) started worshiping on Sunday instead of Saturday, wouldn't someone have mentioned that somewhere?


II. Who Moved the Sabbath to Sunday?

White's second claim is that it was the emperor Constantine who changed Christian worship from Saturday to Sunday.  This is from p. 53 of the book I just quoted, The Great Controversy:
In the early part of the fourth century the emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a public festival throughout the Roman Empire. (See Appendix). The day of the sun was reverenced by his pagan subjects and was honored by Christians; it was the emperor's policy to unite the conflicting interests of heathenism and Christianity. He was urged to do this by the bishops of the church, who, inspired by ambition and thirst for power, perceived that if the same day was observed by both Christians and heathens, it would promote the nominal acceptance of Christianity by pagans and thus advance the power and glory of the church.
We already know that this is false: that Christians were already worshiping on Sunday well before Constantine.  But what's interesting is that White had a second and contradictory prophesy.  You see, she also claimed that it was the big, bad pope, not Constantine, who changed the date from Saturday to Sunday.  So, for example, in Early Writings of Ellen Gould White, we read her description of an vision she claims to have had in 1850:
The pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to the first day. He has thought to change the very commandment that was given to cause man to remember his Creator. He has thought to change the greatest commandment in the decalogue and thus make himself equal with God, or even exalt himself above God.
From this, she learns that the pope is the Antichrist.  In an earlier “vision” from 1847, she recounts:
I saw that the Sabbath was not nailed to the cross. If it was, the other nine commandments were; and we are at liberty to go forth and break them all, as well as to break the fourth. I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the Pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws.
It's tempting to leave it there: she's clearly a false prophetess.  Seventh Day Adventists believe in the Saturday Sabbath because of White's scholarship and prophecies.  Both are demonstrably false. She had no idea what the history of the Sabbath actually was, and changed her story as she went along.  

What I found shocking is that, once against, Adventist scholars are aware that White was wrong both in her scholarly work, and in her prophesies, yet they gloss over it.  This is Bacchiocchi again:
Surprisingly even some of our leading evangelists believe, on the basis of Ellen White's statements, that Sundaykeeping began in the early part of the fourth when church leaders urged Constantine to promulgate in 321 the famous Sunday Law. 
This popular view has exposed our Church to much undesirable criticism. Non-SDA scholars and church leaders like Dr. James Kennedy, accuse our church of plain ignorance, by teaching that Sundaykeeping began in the fourth century, when there are irrefutable historical evidences that place its origin two centuries earlier. 
I have spent countless hours explaining to Dr. James Kennedy and to professors who viewed the recent NET satellite programs, that this popular Adventist view is not reflective of Adventist scholarship. No Adventist scholar has ever taught or written that Sunday observance began in the fourth century with Constantine. A compelling proof is the symposium The Sabbath in Scripture and History, produced by 22 Adventist scholars and published by the Review and Herald in 1982. None of the Adventist scholars who contributed to this symposium ever suggest that Sundaykeeping began in the fourth century.
So, once they examine the evidence, even Adventist scholars realize that White is full of it.  Obvious question: if that's the case, why remain Adventist?

The entire Seventh Day Adventist church is discredited, because it:
  • (a) declares Ellen White a prophetess, when she was clearly not; 
  • (b) declares her writings as an authoritative source of truth, when they clearly are not; and 
  • (c) continues, as its distinctive mission, is to celebrate the Sabbath on the Seventh Day, Saturday.  Even the church's name is based on this mission... yet the mission is founded on junk history, false prophesies, and bad Scriptural exegesis.
It's not as is White was wrong on some minor details.  She got the basic facts about the core doctrine of Adventism all wrong, and obviously so.  It's long past time for Adventists to ditch Ellen White and come home to orthodox Christianity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: Check out Brent Stubbs' post on Constantine and the Catholic Church.  He quotes St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing between about 107-110, who said:
If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death— whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master— how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher?
So by the first decade of the second century, Sunday worship was already a way of signalling that the Christians believed in Jesus as the Messiah, and in His Resurrection. So even Bacchiocchi's claim that Christian Saturday worship existed for the first hundred years of Christianity is false.   And it's incredibly unlikely that this practice was new at the time of Ignatius.  Since the Apostle John died around 100 A.D., one would think that he would have spoken out against Sunday worship, if it truly was a violation of the Gospel.  Unless, of course, he's part of the massive Constantine/papal conspiracy. Of course, we also see Sunday worship in places like Acts 20:7, so there's no reason to see this as anything other than of Apostolic origin.

UPDATE 2: Brock, in the comments, quotes from the Didache, which was probably written in the mid- to late- first century... that is, at the same time as the New Testament.  This closes the case on the idea that the early Christians were Saturday worshippers:
"But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving [Eucharist] after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. "
Good catch, Brock!  I might add that the whole bit about the necessity of confession, the Eucharistic Liturgy being a Sacrifice, etc. -- all incredibly Catholic.

118 comments:

  1. Many of us former SDAs are coming home to the Catholic church! You'd be surprised how many....

    You are aware, I am sure, of the Ellen White prophecy found in the book, Great Controversy, in which she claims an angel told her that in the last days the Catholic church will be behind a worldwide Sunday Law that will require everyone to worship on Sunday. They will spear head a movement to persecute and even murder Seventh-day Adventists.

    Lest you think this crazy idea a forgotten doctrine of the church swept away by liberal SDAs today.... The General Conference of SDAs are about to launch a project attempting to get The Great Controversy into millions of homes via a mail blitzkrieg. This anti-catholicism is alive and well and being taught daily in SDA elementary, secondary and university levels.

    To teach that it is wrong to worship on Sunday (as their prophesy contains the warning that all Christians worshipping on Sunday will eventually get the mark of the Beast) is easily refuted.

    The Hebrews worshipped daily in the Temple sacrificing all day long to Him. Early Christians worshipped daily in the temple and also "broke bread" ( a worship service) daily. Acts 2:46.

    To teach that worshipping God on Sunday is a mark of evil is well, as ignorant as you can get. The Bible makes clear that the early church worshipped every day--including Sunday!


    Pray for SDAs! My whole family and most of my friends are SDA. They think I have left Christianity and my sanity to become Catholic! God bless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? So you worship stones and carved images? What a pity..

      Did Christ or Paul, or any new testament mandate gave us a command to worship on sunday and treat The Sabbath day not holy?

      Should I become a roman-catholic, a church loaded with many monstrous doctrines borrowed from pagan philosophies?

      The Seventh-day Adventist church is still the true church. Logically, the Roman-catholic institution fits the Biblical description of Revelation and Daniel.

      Delete
    2. Are you saying that the Seventh-day Adventist church was around in the 2nd Century? 3rd? 4th?

      Delete
    3. Wow, lol! She just broke the 9th commandment in her reply by saying we worship statues. Not only that, but what Christ said was most important of ALL the commandments, to love one another as yourself. Uhh-ohh. And don't forget Luke 6:37- do not judge and you won't be judged. Looks like someone has some repenting to do. ntntnt.
      Seriously folks, with 20,000 children dying daily from the lack of clean water and food on the same planet we share, what do you think the Lord thinks when we argue over such nonsense. So so so sad. Truly.
      Give, share, love... show some compassion.

      Delete
  2. Teresa,

    So thankful that you're Catholic now! And yes, I'm aware that the Adventists are doubling down on the anti-Catholic conspiracy theories. They were a lot more plausible in the nineteenth century, when Americans didn't know any real life Catholics.

    On a related note, I mentioned here that breaking bread is how the Scriptures often identify Eucharistic celebrations, since the Eucharist uses unleaven bread (that is, the only kind of bread that breaks). So yes, that was definitely Sunday worship.

    Also, Brent's most recent post on the subject is good: check it out!

    God bless you, and prayers for your family and friends,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  3. Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day

    "But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. "

    The Didache, Cerca 100AD

    Brock

    ReplyDelete
  4. Of course! The Didache's probably even earlier than 100, actually. If I may steal a quote from Wikipedia:

    The 2005 edition of the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church comments: "Although in the past many English and American scholars tended to assign it to the late second century, most scholars now place at some point during the mid to late first century."

    It was probably written contemporaneously with the New Testament, in other words. And we can trust it as an authentic representation of Apostolic thought, as it was quickly accepted by the very earliest Christians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. will you please read the Ten Commandments. Exodo 20:1-17 and Mateo 5:17 Acts 10:25-26

      Delete
  5. Also, an interesting observation that Scott Hahn makes is that Adam and Eve's first full day on Earth was the Sabbath. Although it was the seventh day of God's week, it was the first full day of Man's life. Man has not done much work by the point it experiences the first Sabbath. They got rest before they began their work week.

    Their first full day was given to God. This is similar to the first the flock, money, etc that we Jews and Christians are to tithe.

    He says it follows that Christ re-establishes the first day of Man's week as the day of the Sabbath.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Agreed, I like the argument that it was before the destruction of the Temple. I can't remember all of the reasons they believed it was written then, but there are several compelling ones!

    Also, I'm not as familiar with the various liturgies as I should be. Is there something in the liturgy of James that would express Sunday as the proper day?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Out of interest, what is the reason such people give for remaining an SDA when their founder's claims are so clearly refuted?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah, piggybacking on Restless Pilgrim's question, is the day-of-worship the *primary* thing that separates SDA from, say, Catholics?

    Or is it also the typical smograsbord of issues--papal authority, the sacraments, justification, etc?

    Basically I'm wondering if I convince a SDA friend that worshiping on Sunday is not wrong (and maybe even that it's God-ordained), what would then be the biggest doctrinal obstacle to him becoming Catholic?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Restless Pilgrim,

    I'm a little befuddled by this one myself -- if you're an Adventist, and openly acknowledge that your founder was wrong on things which were supposed to be inspired and prophetic, why are you an Adventist? But for most people, it's a matter of ignorance. Even Bacchiocchi acknowledged that most SDAs, including church leaders, seem to have no idea that they're parroting easily-disproven claims.


    Brandon,

    If such a person were to realize that Sunday worship is proper, they'd have to cease to be Adventist... but that's different from automatically becoming Catholic, of course. Ellen White taught that the pope was the Antichrist, and a lot of SDAs still believe it. There's a lot of baggage to overcome. Of course, getting them reading the Fathers is a good way to hack through that baggage, also.

    Institute of Catholic Culture gave a great talk back in July on Seventh Day Adventism -- it's the July 19 talk here (
    http://instituteofcatholicculture.org/media.htm#cults). Deacon Sabatino Carnazzo, MA, & Subdeacon Sebastian Carnazzo, PhD each present, followed by a convert giving his conversion story.

    (Apologies in advance to anyone upset by the "Cults" title -- I didn't choose it, and they explained in one of the talks what they meant by it).

    God bless,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  10. What do Adventists mean when they say she was a prophet? Do they see her writings as public revelation, on par with that of Isaiah and Jeremiah?

    I have to ask because it seems that at any given time there are several Catholic "prophets" claiming to have inner locutions or visions of the Virgin Mary. When they make a prediction that, for example, either the world will repent or there will be a Great Chastisement by the year 2000, and the year 2000 comes and goes with neither obvious repentance nor chastisement, we are told that sometimes the visionaries misunderstand what they have been shown. This sounds to me like a cop-out, but if we allow it for our own, we should allow it for them, too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Howard,

    Best as I can understand, they view it as something akin to Isaiah and Jeremiah. It's used to support SDA doctrines, and the church called her writings "a continuing and authoritative source of truth." That sounds like public revelation to me.

    In contrast, the Catholic Church doesn't endorse would-be visionaries and prophets. Let time tell if they're right. As far as the cop-out, that sort of mentality is incredibly dangerous. If a "prophet" predicts something, and it's not true, they're a false prophet.

    Joe

    P.S. Brock, I'm not sure on the Liturgies, but I doubt it, since worship wasn't just on Sunday. Forgot to respond earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "P.S. Brock, I'm not sure on the Liturgies, but I doubt it, since worship wasn't just on Sunday"

    Not that really much more proof is needed given the Didache, Ignatius and Justin.

    ...and, of course, it's not to say that the New Testament is without its clues... Is it any wonder that St. John saw that great vision of heavenly worship on the Lord's Day?

    ReplyDelete
  13. (Only just realised that today is the feast of the prophetess Anna. How appropriate!)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Knew a health nut, body builder, trainer in a gym. He followed a strict and very healthy diet, and I figured out that he was an SDA because of his language on sabbath and diet. So, I told him of verses from Acts about Pete's vision to "take and eat," as well as Gospel, "not what goes into a man that makes him impure but what comes out." (sauerkraut?) He looked at the verses as if he had never seen them in his life. It was troubling to him. But, in the name of Jeeheeesuhs and the guy with the funny hat in Rome, someone has to eat bottom feeders without scales.

    ReplyDelete
  15. For anyone wanting to know.... Whether cultural Adventist (grew up in church and very liberal) or traditional "I-believe-all-the-church-teaches" SDA, it ALL comes down to the Sabbath issue.

    I know a ton of Adventists who don't believe Ellen White is a true prophetess, they don't agree with hardly any of the SDA doctrines but they would be martyrs for the Sabbath.

    It is about the Ten Commandments to them. They are going to stick with Adventism to the death because in their eyes if you don't keep God's commandments you don't love Him. You are a fake or deceived Christian. And the 3rd commandment says remember the Sabbath day. They assume false Christians will forget it and they alone of all Christendom will NEVER forget it--even at the point of torture and death.....

    Know that about Adventists before you go in trying to convince them of anything. You can convince them their prophetess is a liar, but they will cling to the church because of the Sabbath.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks for the extra info on the Sunday/Sabbath controversy, Joe! I believe I'll be referencing it when I make my next addition to my "Apologetics toolbox" series.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Messianic Jews will typically worship on the Sabbath instead of on Sunday.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I would say that up there next to the sabbath on the most distinctive doctrine list is their belief that the human soul ceases to exist upon death. they are pure materialists, and believe that in the end times, next to the sunday law, there will be a massive deception about immortality of the soul (but of course their prophet lived in the 19th century, so much of the hysteria is presented in form of seances and table rapping).

    one of the standard ways of introducing this doctrine is to talk about adam and eve in the garden. the claim of the seerpent was "you will not die", so, see? Immorality of the soul is the original deception of the devil.

    ReplyDelete
  19. There is also evidence for Christians worshiping on Sunday that predates St. Justin Martyr.

    Acts 20:7:

    "And on the first day of the week (ie: The day named after that bright-yellow-circle-thingy in the sky), when we were assembled to break bread...(AKA: Communion, Eucharist, that thing Catholics have been doing for going on 2000 years now)"

    Acts was written circa 80-85, just after the Gospel of Luke, but before Luke was most likely martyred. (Acts is almost certainly unfinished, and something must have interrupted Luke's writing of The Book of Acts.)

    It's been my experience that many SDA are extremely anti-Catholic. This one chick told me that the Church was the "Evil Empire..."

    They probably use it cover up the lack of foundation of their own belief system...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Living in Brazil, therefore speaking Portuguese, we call Sunday "Domingo", which we inherited from the Latin expression "dies Dominicus", translated as "O Dia do Senhor" and, in English, "The Lord's Day".
    So, it's easy to understand that this notion of worshiping Sunday is something special and comes from the Apostolic Tradition itself as we see in the Scriptures.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hmm. Rob, your passage may be some evidence, but only some. You see, it would be perfectly intelligible in Greek, as in English, to use that construction both for something unique and for something habitual. You wouldn't think that if someone told you when his family had gathered for dinner Thursday, that they necessarily didn't eat dinner together all other nights, and so with that.

    There is other Scriptural evidence pointing to a Sunday gathering.

    ReplyDelete
  22. As a 4th generation (former) Adventist I have to say I think many still cling to the "Shut Door" policies of the church. If you KNOW the truth (the Sabbath) and leave it, you are lost FOREVER. Most of my family are Adventist and I have shown them false teaching in their own publications but they cannot get beyond the "what if" factor. I still struggle with that sometimes too so these blogs are so very helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Tiger Fan,

    Do you have any tips (perhaps from your own conversion) regarding helpful and productive ways of reaching out to Adventists?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm an SDA seriously considering leaving the church.

    As someone mentioned, the teaching that a person ceases to exist upon death ("the state of the dead")is right up there with the Sabbath as an SDA distinctive. EGW teaches that immortality of the soul will be Satan's greatest deception just before the end times. The proof text of all proof texts is Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 "the living know that they shall die but the dead know not anything." Thus, veneration of saints and the Theotokos is right out the window.

    I think you need a two-pronged attack to change SDA minds.

    First, you need to show them texts they've never seen before. For example, on the state of the dead, later in Ecclesiastes it says a man goes to his eternal reward while the mourners are still in the street. Since SDA's believe in the resurrection of the body, this will make them question the utility of using Ecclesiastes for doctrinal purposes. Or on the issue of food, I believe Mark's gospel mentions that Christ declared all foods clean. Once open to a different possibility, you can establish a better foundation for doctrine.

    Second, you need to have a firm grasp of history. SDA's adhere to the historicist method of interpreting scripture, meaning that they look at history from Bible times till now to find fulfillments of different passages. So with this reliance on history, you will be able to force them into an intellectual corner: if they're willing to accept the testimony of history to show that Napoleon imprisoning the pope is the "deadly wound" in Revelation, then they can't discount history when it shows that Christians worshipped on Sunday way before Constantine and even during apostolic times.

    One point of caution on the Sabbath when dealing with scholars or sophisticated SDAs: EGW does admit that Christians worshipped on both days. Her real "beef" with Sunday is that it replaced Saturday as "the Sabbath" (that's the point of bringing up Constantine's decree requiring rest on the venerable day of the sun). This requires a more nuanced argument showing that Sabbath worship wasn't "Sabbath keeping" as SDA's understand it, and it was never considered a law for Gentile Christians. That said, for the run-of-the-mill SDA, the fact that Christians worshipped on Sunday would be a bombshell by itself.

    ReplyDelete
  25. CJ,

    This was... incredibly helpful.

    The Institute of Catholic Culture talk I went to pointed to the following passages showing that the SDA notion of soul sleep is false:

    (1) 1 Samuel 28, the witch of Endor. Verses 12, 14, and 15 specify that it actually is Samuel who is conjured by the witch. And Samuel is aware of what's been going on since his death (see v. 16-19), which he wouldn't have been if he were sleeping.

    (2) Luke 16:19-31, the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Lazarus is seen being comforted in the bosom of Abraham after death. The rich man and Abraham have an extended discussion. None of this is possible if they're all asleep.

    (3) 2 Corinthians 5:8 is the famous "absent from the body, home with the Lord" passage. The passage only makes sense if Paul is going to enjoy Heaven now. Otherwise, he's telling the Corinthians he'd rather be asleep than ministering to them (which, besides being rude, would defeat his whole point).

    (4) Hebrews 12:1, the great cloud of witnesses. In Hebrews 11, Paul talks about our forerunners in the faith, from Abel on down through the rest of the Old Testament (including the Deuterocanon -see Heb. 11:35). In 12:1, he declares these men and women a "great cloud of witnesses" to the journey of faith each of us is running in this life. Obviously, if they're asleep, they're not witnesses.

    I think that there were more passages, but those are the ones I'm recalling off-hand. If I get a chance, I'll go back to that talk, and flesh this out into a full length post later this week.


    I have to ask, though: why are you still Adventist? You seem to be quite clear-eyed about the problems with the religion's fundamental tenets. You seem to recognize that everything that is distinctively "Adventist" about it is also distinctively wrong.

    And given your help, what can I do for you in return? You didn't specify what you're considering leaving Adventism for, so let me just ask: what are your remaining issues with Catholicism? I don't want to just tear down your old faith without showing you the fullness of the faith Christ entrusted once for all to the Apostles (Jude 1:3).

    God bless,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  26. Joe,

    Glad my post was helpful, and I appreciate your offer of help.

    Why am I still SDA? There are a few reasons. I am a 4th generation SDA. I attended SDA elementary schools and college. I am as thoroughly steeped in this stuff as can be. I can see all the problems as clear as day now, but then I can hear a sermon at church or listen to some SDA apologist and think "hmm . . maybe they're not all wrong." Adventism is still my "first language" so to speak. St. James would say I'm double-minded :-(

    The other (and bigger reason) is fear. All of my family (except my dad) are SDA. So are in-laws and 90% of my close friends. Leaving would place a huge strain on my marriage and every important human relationship I have. My wife is NOT on board and while she knows I'm questioning, she doens't know the depth of my alienation from Adventism. And finally, to be honest, there's a small remnant of doubt that I'm wrong and I'll go wandering after the Beast if I leave the Adventism.

    So the best thing you can do for me is to pray for me to receive clarity and *ahem* intestinal fortitude. I would definitely appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. CJ,

    You've got it. You might also want to get in touch with Tiger Fan (above), another 4th generational Adventist who left for Catholicism. If there's anything else you need, don't hestitate to ask.

    God bless,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  28. Oh, you asked where I would go if I leave.

    Well, paraphrasing Cardinal Newman, once I started reading history, Protestantism seemed less and less viable. That leaves Catholicism and Orthodoxy. So far, I believe the Orthodox have the better side of every issue where they disagree with Rome, so Orthodoxy would be my most likely destination. I do enjoy Catholic media, as it is easier to find and usually better produced.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Probably last post from me today, but I wanted you to know that Bacchiochi is not always well-regarded by rank-and-file SDA's. After he questioned EGW, rumors started flying that he was a Jesuit infiltrator used by Rome to undermine the SDA church. I wish I was making this up.

    It would probably be better to present the evidence from primary sources and leave him out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. CJ,

    Wow. Now that you mention it, I recall watching an Adventist-produced video about how the Jesuits are infiltrating Protestant denominations. Would that the Jesuits were still an overpowering force for Catholicism and the Gospel!

    I'd love to address issues relating to Catholicism and Orthodoxy if any come up, whenever you get to that point in your journey. I won't rush you, though.

    Prayers for you and your wife, and God bless,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  31. Joe,

    Thank you for your post! People need to see that EGW was downright wrong in her claims. I didn't know about those quotes until now!

    Two points I'd like to add:

    (1) The SDA church officially supports abortion, just as the LDS church officially supports abortion. That alone is sufficient reason to know they are on the wrong track.
    Check out this official teaching:
    http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main-guide1.html

    "The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church. Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation. She should be aided in her decision by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

    This is somethign many SDAs do not know, and when they find out they are as shocked at Mormons. The sad thing is many people (incl SDAs) think SDAs are strongly pro-life, but that's obviously false. In light of this, the SDAs who will talk with me end up saying abortion is a minor issue, all in the midst of their cognitive dissonance.

    (2) From an exegetical standpoint, there are Bible texts that absolutely demolish the SDAs, particularly the famous Colossians 2:16. SDAs are well aware of this verse, but they are totally unaware of the fact it demolishes their claim. Here is a brief article I wrote on that verse.

    And on top of that, the Bible is clear the Sabbath wasn't instituted until Moses, yet the SDAs parrot the claim the Sabbath was kept since the beginning, and that it "must have been kept by Abel" since he was obviously Godly. But all you have to do is stick to the point there is no record of Sabbath keeping until Exodus 20 when the Mosaic Law established it. The SDAs are technically a form of Judaizers.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This is a test to see if I have mastered the system to post a comment. The last two statements by Nick can easily be shown to be mistaken according to the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Cyril,

    Your comment successfully posted. I'm curious as to what you're saying Nick was mistaken about, and why. Please, continue! God bless,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  34. Okay, looks like I have made it in. I suggest that Nick read Exodus 16 and Exodus 5:5 to see that Sabbath observance preceded Exodus 20. Further, from the New Testament, Mark 2:27, 28 strongly indicate that Sabbath keeping started on the 7th day of Creation week. Other comments I tried to post last night were:

    Wow! Seems the above writers are sure of themselves. Somebody who wrote into Bibleinfo.com, brought to my attention this website and suggested I read, and I did. I'm not very favorably impressed with many statements made because many are not true. Many writers are not even able to spell the name of the church they are against correctly: "Seventh-day Adventist." The Seventh-day Adventist Church's foundation is not Ellen White, but the Bible. You are going to have to change history and what the Bible says in order to win a faithful, knowledgeable Seventh-day Adventist to Catholicism. Let me give you just one, (that supports what I just said and I have more), quote from Catholic sources: "The Catholic Mirror" Sept. 9, 1893: "Hence the conclusion is inevitable: viz,. that of those who follow the Bible as their guide,
    the Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists have the exclusive weight of evidence on their
    side, whilst the Biblical Protestant has not a word in self-defense for his substitution of Sunday for Saturday."

    Read the whole articles on this from either "The Christian Sabbath" produced by The Catholic Church or "Rome's Challenge" which gives the same articles in a pamphlet produced and still available at bookstores. You can easily download these from the internet in PDF format

    Further, documented Catholic sources state that the Catholic Church substituted Sunday for the Sabbath.

    And for CJ, have you read "Ellen G. White and Her Critics" that has been out for over 50 years? And, have you read a book that I personally typed for the internet and also arranged to have re-published of the autobiography of Carrie Johnson and biography of Ellen White's worst enemy, Marvin Dudley Canright? ("I Was Canright's Secretary") You can read it online at http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/canright/index.htm or buy a hard copy through www.lnfbooks.com

    Taking the view of the writer of the above article, he is going to also have to trash the Bible because there are errors in it too!

    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  35. Cyril,

    There's no contradiction between saying that switch in liturgical practice to worshiping on Sundays was (a) done by the Catholic Church, and (b) done during the time of the Apostles. They're the first Catholics.

    Exodus 5:5 doesn't help your case, because it's not about the Sabbath -- it's about a three-day journey into the wilderness to offer sacrifices to God. Exodus 5:3 says as much. Exodus 16 does, though, in that it shows the Israelites practicing the Sabbath before Exodus 20. It's still Mosaic, which I think was what Nick was trying to say.

    As for Mark 2:27-28, it's Jesus' rebuke to those Pharisees who tried to use the Sabbath as a tool against the Christians. He says that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. But the SDA church has Adventists afraid that if they don't celebrate Saturday worship, they'll go to hell. You tell me whether that sounds more like the approach of Jesus or the Pharisees.

    What say you about the content of the original post? Do you have anything more substantive than that people didn't put a dash between Seventh and Day?

    In Christ,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hello Cyril,

    Joe has pretty much said what I was going to respond with. First of all, I originally intended to say Exodus 16, I just wasn't thinking when I said Exodus 20. My mistake. The point was that it was instituted by Moses and they had no command to celebrate it prior (as their puzzlement in Ex 16 clearly indicates).

    Now unless you mistyped yourself, I would say your appeal to Exodus 5:5 is they typical question-begging I've encountered repeatedly before by SDAs who appeal to texts prior to Ex 16 which don't actually say anything about Sabbath keeping (as Ex 5:5 does not). As for Mark 2:27-28, they are still speaking within the framework of the Mosaic rules and regulations.

    Other than that Cyril, you seem to have utterly ignored the case I made via Col 2:16f and conceded the official semi-pro-abortion stance of the SDAs as perfectly acceptable.

    One final point to be made that often causes a lot of confusion and seems to give the SDA side some credence is the claim Christians "substituted" or "transferred" the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. That's totally false. The Saturday Sabbath and Sunday Worship are two different things liturgically speaking. Christians celebrate Christ's Resurrection on Sunday, while Saturday Sabbath has nothing to do with this and is instead a Mosaic regulated end of the week break.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Unfortunately, your claim about the apostles and the first

    Catholics being the same and switching God's specific

    directions in The Ten Commandments, is not born up by

    documented claims by Catholic's published writings which I

    hereby document. Evidently you are not aware of these

    things which I now quote from a Catholic source: “The

    Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed

    the day from Saturday to Sunday."--
    Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons,

    September 23, 1893.

    "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, in the Council of
    Laodicea [A.D. 336--exact date uncertain], transferred the

    solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.'!--"The Convert's

    Catechism of
    Catholic Doctrine," by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R.,

    page 50, third edition, 1913, a work which
    received the "apostolic blessing" of Pope Pius X, January 25,

    1910.

    I agree with you that Exodus 5:5 may not be about the

    seventh-day Sabbath, but that is a possibility because it

    contains the word "rest" which is the meaning of "Sabbath."

    Further evidence that Moses was having the Israelites

    observe this Sabbath rest is that Pharaoh increased their

    work and provided no straw any more. Because the

    Sabbath commandment in Exodus 20:11 gives the reasons

    for observing the day and since the day was made Holy at

    Creation AND the reasons for its observance existed at

    Creation, I have yet to hear or see a reasonable explanation

    as to why God would not have all His intelligent creatures

    enjoy the delights of this day beginning with Creation week.
    In the first place, the Bible does not describe anyone

    going to hell, but that is another topic for another time. I

    agree that the origin of Sabbath keeping is not the purpose

    of the context of Mark 2:27, 28. However, if we do not agree

    with what is said, we are in trouble. Let me give a little of

    what I shared with a recent questioner of Bibleinfo.com, but I will have to do that in a separate post because a message came up saying that I had exceeded 4,096 characters, just as though I was counting them!

    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  38. Why Mark 2:27 & 28 is so significant:

    It has been claimed that Mark 2:27, 28 has been taken out of context to support Sabbath observance commencing and being instituted at Creation. I admit the charge of being out of direct context, but hasten to say that we must not say that the words are not true, otherwise we have The Lord of the Sabbath speaking an untruth which none of us would agree to that being the case. Let's look at the story and the verses.

    The disciples came to a corn field, (probably wheat or barley field), and rubbed off the outsides and ate the meat. To this activity the Pharisees ascribed Sabbath breaking by extra rules they had set up for Sabbath keeping. Calling Jesus attention to this "bad behavior" they asked why. Jesus referred to David's unlawful conduct and then in a humorous or ridiculous presentation of whether man had been created so that the Sabbath could be kept by somebody or whether the Sabbath was created for the benefit of man, made the often quoted verses, setting the record straight. And, I quote: Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. Mark 2:27 Contemporary English Version 27Jesus finished by saying, "People were not made for the good of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for the good of people.

    If we take the position that Jesus should have said or meant that the Sabbath was made for the Jews, (in 1450 BC), we find ourselves in the camp of those who are trying to correct our Divine Creator. We have to take the statement just as it reads, that the Sabbath was made at Creation and the only man alive was Adam and his wife Eve. Hence, it was made for their benefit and enjoyment and also the pre-incarnate Christ's benefit.

    Yes, out of direct context, but never-the-less, TRUE! For God said it. Jesus carried them back, in His answer, to the foundation of the Sabbath, the origin of man and His authority. And, you notice, that ended the discussion. (One of their wise choices!)

    We could also go into why Jesus said He is the Lord of the Sabbath. That also takes us back to Creation Week, when Christ Created, not only the World, but an extra Holy Day, the seventh day of the week. So, on two counts, this text carries our minds back to the time when the Sabbath was Created--the seventh day of Creation week. Our minds are carried back to the creation of mankind and the creation of the Sabbath in Christ's response to the Sabbath-breaking charge.

    Walking as He walked, (1 John 2:6)
    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  39. Cyril,

    (1) My point was that the practice of keeping Sunday as the primary day of rest and worship throughout the week predates the Council of Laodicea by at least 300 years. Laodicea created a Church-wide rule to prevent those Judaizers who insisted that the Mosaic Law had to still be followed. And yes, the Sabbath is of Mosaic origin. It's no coincidence it's never mentioned prior to Moses.

    (2) I believe that your exegesis of Mark 2:27-28 misses the mark. The contrast Jesus was drawing was between God and man, not between Jews and Gentiles. His point was that an unhealthy obsession over Sabbatarian legalism was defeating the whole point of the Sabbath -- which was to relax, and rest in the goodness of God. My point is that the Adventists today are doing the same thing.

    (3) You claim that Seventh-day Adventism is based on the Bible, not Ellen White. But the Bible includes passages like Romans 14:5-6 and Colossians 2:16-17, which explicitly denounce what your church teaches. Specifically, Romans 14:5-6 establishes that no one day of the week is inherently better than any other, and Colossians 2:16-17 does something very similar (although Nick already pointed this passage out to you).

    (4) Whether you like to admit it or not, your church was founded by a woman who was demonstrably a false prophet. Christ warns us against false prophets in Matthew 7:15-17, and warns us that no good fruit will come from their bad seed. Adventism is the fruit of Ellen G. White -- that's just a basic historic fact. So if she's a false prophet steer clear of her false church. And I think that there's great reason to conclude she got basic historical facts wrong, contradicted her own prophesies, and bore all the marks of a false prophet.

    (5) Finally, the alternative is to believe that the earliest Christians -- as far back as the Didache -- were engaged in something sinful (Sunday worship), and in response, the Apostles did nothing to stop their sinfulness? They didn't speak out once against the Sabbath-breakers, but said things like what we heard in Romans 14:5-6 and Colossians 2:16-17? If you're right, it would seem that the Apostles intentionally mislead their flock. And St. John, in his Revelation, specified that it occurred on a Sunday, which he calls "the Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10). If the day of the week dedicated to the Lord is actually Saturday, how can you account for the Apostles' actions?

    God bless you,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  40. Joe,

    I wonder if you agree with these Catholic statements of which I will give a couple of samples? I do agree with the conclusion of the second one by the Catholic priest there in Michigan.

    http://www.sabbathtruth.com/sabbath-history/denominational-statements-on-the-sabbath/articletype/articleview/articleid/982/catholic.aspx

    “Tradition, not Scripture, is the rock on which the church of Jesus Christ is built.” Adrien Nampon, Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent, p. 157

    Would Jesus say to that: Matthew 15:3 Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

    "Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday. "The Day of the Lord" (dies Dominica) was chosen, not from any directions noted in the Scriptures, but from the Church's sense of its own power. The day of resurrection, the day of Pentecost, fifty days later, came on the first day of the week. So this would be the new Sabbath. People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy." Sentinel, Pastor's page, Saint Catherine Catholic Church, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 1995

    2 Peter 1:12 . . .be established in the present truth.

    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  41. By the way, just because I don't answer a question does not mean that I agree with what has been said or presented. In contrast to Roman Catholicism, The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not have a human dictator at its head and so, regarding issues such as abortion, there is no "official" position that I am aware of. People such as Dr. Bacchiocchi as some who have contributed here have stated, is not regarded as an authority for the church and certainly lacks scholarship in some areas such as what has been presented above. I have met him personally and had difficulty in having my ideas even listened to. I have to assume he did the best he could with what he had gleaned from his investigation, even though he missed the boat in some areas. His doctoral thesis received the imprimatur of the Pope of which I have a copy here, but now they, (the university), are trying to deny that he even attended the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome! Deception is not going to impress anybody who has a conscience and discovers it! (Rev. 21:8)

    For the truth,
    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  42. Cyril,

    You quoting random Catholic newspapers and such is not going to get us very far in discussion. For one, it sends the discussion down a rabbit trail of defending someone else's words, especially if the words are inaccurate or poorly chosen. Please quote only official Church documents.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church is one such official source you should be consulting - here is some of what it says on the issue of the sabbath:

    "2174 Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week. Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath, it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:

    [St Justin in 150 AD said] 'We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.'

    2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:

    [St Ignatius in 150 AD said:] Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death."

    So from an official teaching source, we see the Catholic Church teaches (a) Christians worship on Sunday in commemoration of the Resurrection, NOT to 'transfer the sabbath to Sunday', (b) that "Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath," and (c) early Christians as far back as 150AD testify that Christians worship on Sunday - calling it the Lord's Day - and that the sabbath is an expired Mosaic regulation.

    Given that, any Catholic newspaper or priest that you quote that says otherwise is either (a) confused, (b) wrong, or (c) saying something other than what you're thinking it's saying.

    You also said something that I'd like to comment upon:
    "The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not have a human dictator at its head and so, regarding issues such as abortion, there is no official position that I am aware of."

    Well, Cyril, you need to follow the link I gave earlier which takes you directly to the official SDA webage and gives the official SDA position on abortion, which is that it's allowed at times.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Cyril,

    I have had not intention of misrepresenting SDAs - I know from years of apologetics that misrepresentation is the worst thing when it comes to getting anywhere. We all make mistakes, though, and *if* I have, I will retract. But you've not shown where I misrepresented the SDAs.

    The SDAs expressly permit abortion under various circumstances - and it's largely irrelevant if they forbid abortion for 'non-serious' reasons. The point is, either the child is a human or it is not. If it is, then the sanctity of life overrides any 'inconveniences', because taking innocent life is murder by definition and thus never acceptable. The idea that there can be "exceptions," that is times when murder is OK, is plainly absurd.

    To the Catholic mind, it's that kind of consistency that is easy for us to spot and point out; and on the flip-side it often becomes a scandal and often the occasion of cognitive-dissonance.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Okay, we are all trying to do the right thing. To me, your comment in the article does not rightly represent what I read on the Adventist website. If you read there carefully, abortion is NOT being advocated. And, that is what I understood from what was said in the article, (SDA Church supports abortion.") Would it not be better to say, SDA Church discourages abortion. What I see is that you have mislead your readers because you think the church is wrong it other areas. Has it come to your attention what the penalty of causing an abortion in the days of the Old Testament was?

    Let's take another example in which it is stated that Ellen White is the founder of The Seventh-day Adventist Church. This is 67% inaccurate because she is only considered one of three. Baptist preacher William Miller is really responsible for bringing to the Christian World's attention that an important event was to take place in 1844. His problem was that he was mistaken in what the event was. At that time, Ellen Harmon was only 17. When she started having visions of the future, she came into association with an Adventist preacher by the name of James White. After almost 2 years, they decided on marriage--she was 19, soon to be 20--he 26. The truth of the Sabbath came to their attention by another Adventist, Joseph Bates in that same year and they accepted this. So, it was really the three that spearheaded the movement. Official organization and naming did not occur for another 17 years. James White was president twice. Ellen White never held an office nor did she want or relish the job of being the Lord's messenger.

    More later.

    For the truth,
    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  45. Cyril and Nick,

    Perhaps the two of you could agree on some neutral language like: "The SDA Church permits abortions in certain cases"?

    That doesn't overstate the point, but still makes it clear where we Catholics (and all pro-lifers) see a serious problem. If abortion is the killing of an innocent human child, then the SDA church's stance is contrary to the Decalogue, and to basic morality.

    Cyril,

    As for the roles of Miller and James White, Miller was never a Seventh-day Adventist (I've talked about him previously on the site), and the criticisms of Ellen also apply to James, since he made similar "prophesies" that the pope had changed the Sabbath to Sunday, from what I've read (correct me if I'm wrong).

    God bless,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  46. Joe,

    Giving historical events does not constitute "prophecy." But, let's get down to the practicality of all this and what really matters now and that is whether the Papacy is currently pushing Sunday sacredness and worship. I don't think either of us would disagree on this. Check on the late John Paul's "Deis Domini" on that and Pope Benedict, XVI's stance and statements.

    You see, this is extra-biblical and to me, unbiblical, seeing as how the Sabbath is God's flag, sign of authority. Some have altered history and created history that never happened such as "The Donation of Constantine." You just can't change or eliminate the 7th-day Sabbath any more than you can eliminate or change the 4th of July or your own birthday, for that matter, because all three are memorials of history.

    Take down Ellen, James and Joseph Bates, but it will not change the Bible nor take down The Seventh-day Adventist Church because its foundation is Jesus Christ who authored the Bible.

    And for a little truthful Bible trivia, Can you tell me the name of the building that Jesus is in right now?

    For the truth,
    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  47. Cyril,

    Glad to know you missed me. :-) As for the books, yes I have read EGW and Her Critics. As for Canright, I started doubting EGW long before I'd ever heard of him, so I'm not sure what good would come of reading a bio about him.

    My doubts about Adventism go beyond EGW or this or that doctrine. Adventism presents itself as the culmination of the Protestant Reformation: Luther & co. got off to a great start, but they didn't go far enough because they didn't jettison Sunday and immortality of the soul.

    But what happens if the Reformation itself was mistaken? The culmination of a mistake is just a bigger mistake. That's where I am with Adventism.

    What Adventism has in common with Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, and even Islam is that it must teach that The Truth was lost along the way and had to be re-discovered by EGW/Watchtower/Joseph Smith/Muhammad.

    This "rediscovery of the truth" idea is necessary because when you look at the actual history of Christianity, you don't find anything that looks like Adventism. To this day, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church keeps the Sabbath and dietary laws, but they believe in the real presence off Christ in the Eucharist, venerate Mary and the saints, and use alcoholic wine for communion. There were groups that denied the immortality of the soul, but they didn't keep the Sabbath, etc.

    So what you're left with is believing that Jesus was so inept a teacher that He chose disciples who couldn't reliably pass on the truth two generations after His resurrection, and that he left His church (which He promised never to leave or forsake) to wander in darkness for 1500 years before giving partial light, and then waited another 300 years to finish the job.

    Scripture says that the faith was given once and for all (Jude 1:3). Instead, we have it given, lost for 1800 years, and then rediscovered. This has hell prevailing against the gates of the church, not the other way around. It's a feature that's common to any false religion that wants to preserve some kind of respect for Christianity while introducing novel doctrines and claiming them to be the authentic teaching of Christ and the apostles.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Cyril,

    The Sabbath itself is not enough to preserve the SDA church. If all you have is the Sabbath, you could be Seventh-Day Baptist, Church of God 7th Day, Messianic Jewish, or Ethiopian Orthodox.

    As Adventists have become increasingly fond of saying, the only doctrine that is UNIQUE to the SDA church is the Investigative Judgement (aka 2300 day prophecy/Sanctuary Doctrine).

    ReplyDelete
  49. Cyril,

    (1) Are you suggesting it's a sin to set aside Sunday to worship and honor God? Or just that it's a sin not to keep the Jewish Sabbath in addition?

    (2) And for a little truthful Bible trivia, Can you tell me the name of the building that Jesus is in right now?
    I'm not sure what you're asking exactly, but I just encountered Jesus in the Eucharist at the Catholic Information Center this afternoon, so that's at least one answer to your question. What theologians refer to as His "local" presence, of course, is in Heaven, which He calls His Father's House.

    (3) Let's do some fundamental exegesis. 2 Chronicles 2:4 says that the Jewish Temple sacrificial schedule consisted of sacrifices "on the Sabbaths, at the New Moons and at the appointed festivals of the LORD our God."

    So there are religious observances celebrated weekly (the Sabbath), monthly (New Moon), and annually (appointed festivals). Do we agree so far?

    God bless,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  50. CJ: "As Adventists have become increasingly fond of saying, the only doctrine that is UNIQUE to the SDA church is the Investigative Judgement (aka 2300 day prophecy/Sanctuary Doctrine)."

    Fill us in on what this Investigative Judgment 2300 day doctrine is. Smells like the JW 1914AD house of cards.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Here is what I found on the SDA's official webpage under the Ariticle of FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS (i.e. Trinity, Sabbath, Bible, etc)
    http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

    "24. Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary:
    There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent. (Heb. 8:1-5; 4:14-16; 9:11-28; 10:19-22; 1:3; 2:16, 17; Dan. 7:9-27; 8:13, 14; 9:24-27; Num. 14:34; Eze. 4:6; Lev. 16; Rev. 14:6, 7; 20:12; 14:12; 22:12.)"


    Honestly, I'm not sure what they are saying. It must be a big deal though. It seems as if they've 'correctly predicted' a Date from "Bible Prophecy" and thus been awarded with a special status.
    And what is the big deal with revealing to "heavenly intelligences" (what?) who is a genuine Christian? This is obviously big, but also quite cryptic.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Nick,

    The Investigative Judgement (IJ) is the doctrine that was used to explain away the Millerite disappointment when Jesus didn't return on October 22, 1844 as Miller predicted.

    The prophecy in Daniel 8:14 says "unto 2300 days, and then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." To make a long story short, using the so called day/year principle, Miller came up 2300 years from the time the temple was rebuilt until the sanctuary would be cleansed. They all assumed this would mean Christ purifying the world by fire at his return. The day came and went and nothing happened. Most of the Millerites gave up their belief in his interpretations, but a small group didn't. An Adventist named Hiram Edson had a vision in his cornfield that explained that it was the sanctuary in heaven that would be cleansed.

    Again, this is very condensed, but in 1844, Jesus moved into the Most Holy Place in the heavenly temple to begin a heavenly day of atonement. This consists of going through the names of every human being to determine whether they're fer God or agin 'Im. The SDA church sees itself as God's vehicle for declaring that this judgment has begun. Once Jesus comes to your name your fate is sealed according to whether you are in Christ or not. It's also sealed when you die if he hasn't gotten to your name already.

    EGW declared that God doesn't answer the prayers of those who don't accept this doctrine because the prayers are directed to the wrong apartment in heaven.

    The bit about heavenly intelligences is part of the overarching theme of Adventist theology, The Great Controversy. Basically, Satan declared God to be an unjust tyrant in the course of his rebellion, so God has to demonstrate that He is just to all His creatures, on earth, in heaven, and on alien planets that haven't sinned. He accomplishes this by examining each case in detail for the angels and "unfallen worlds" to see. Humans will be able to go over the books during the millennium for the same purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Thursday, 9-15-2011
    Hi all,

    It will take quite a while to respond to all your comments and questions and give explanations as I have a lot to do here. Give me time. In the mean time, it is well to read the biography from Ellen White's worst enemy, Marvin Dudley Canright, who wrote 3 books against the Adventists and Ellen G. White. Also, to know what is just ahead with the Christianity Islam situation and what is going to happen next will be of interest to all. I'll give those references again, below. Try to get through at least the first two of the presentations by Tim.

    For the Truth,
    Cyril

    http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/canright/index.htm

    http://www.sealingtime.com/media/productions/evangelistic/Tim-Roosenberg/Islam-and-Christianity-in-Bible-Prophecy/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  54. Okay, for comments to responders.

    CJ,

    What you say sounds a little more like you are putting Seventh-day Advenstists in the position of Joseph Smith, Jr. who claimed that the truth was totally lost and no followers were present so that it all had to be restored. Therefore the Book of Mormon was needed from the golden plates, (that are nowhere to be found now). Certainly his statement I will fully agree with, "Take away the Book of Mormon and where is our religion? We have none." This is not the situation of Seventh-day Adventists who claim that there have been faithful people throughout history including the 1260 years of the dark ages. And, this can be historically proved. If only we knew the real history of the past, we wouldn't be in this discussion! For instance, you see many people wearing green on St. Patrick's Day, March 17 in honor of him. In fact, he got the title of Saint from those who saint people. We had a church school teacher at Monument Valley by the name of Virginia Rose, a lady of Irish descent who brought to our attention that not everybody wears green on St. Patrick's Day. In Ireland, both the Protestants and the Catholics claim St. Patrick as their spiritual father, but the Protestants wear orange on that day. So I have followed that custom. But, what is the truth about St. Patrick and why was he sainted? I am blessed to have a father who had his degree in church history and who shared some facts about St. Patrick. He lived toward the end of the 4th century and would have nothing to do with Rome. In a communication with an Irishman in recent years, St. Patrick's beliefs and teachings and practices were spelled out. They are documented in history. This sabbatarian's beliefs and practices most closely resembled those of Seventh-day Adventists today. I could list his if you are interested. So, what would you think would be the reason that Patrick was sainted by those whose teachings were radically different?

    For the truth,
    Cyril
    (to be continued)

    ReplyDelete
  55. (continued)

    What you have to face is that it is not SDA's that present a widespread departing from the truth in the Christian church, but a Bible teaching. 2 Thess. 2:1-12 spells this out along with many other verses. The disciples asked Jesus about the numbers. Our mind set is that the majority is right. But, is that what Jesus said? Luke 13:23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? A parallel passage gives the direct answer: 13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. We need to be sure that we are not departing from the faith once delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3) 1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. . .

    So, if one finds himself in a majority Christian church, should he not ask, "Are we following the original and right way?"


    Joe,

    I'm not sure what I am agreeing to. For one thing, the Sabbath is NEVER referred to as Jewish in the Bible. It is the Sabbath of the Lord [Jesus Christ], (Ex. 20:8-11; Mark 2:27, 28). That is because He is the Creator, (John 1:1-3,14). I ask you to compare the statements about the Sabbath in "Deis Domini" with Ex. 20:8-11 and see what you think. To me, you can't eliminate or change a memorial such as your birthday, the 4th of July or the Sabbath because all three are historical memorial events. Yes, the Bible says prophetically that someone would try--Dan. 7:25. I think I should do as it says in Jude 1:3 which CJ quoted: Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.


    Joe,

    I was hoping that someone in the group would come up with the answer of the Bible trivia question as to the name of the building our Savior is now in. This system will probably cut me off if I give the evidence, saying I have exceeded 4016 characters, but for now, by interpretation from the Bible it is "The Temple of The Ten Commandments."


    Sorry to say, but CJ has not given a totally factual report but mixed in ridicule and bias on the Investigative Judgment, which is a biblical teaching. To get the facts straight, I would advise the reading of "1844 Made Simple" by Clifford Goldstein, formerly an atheistic Jew. Psalms 77:13 Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary. . . .

    For the Truth,
    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  56. Cyril,

    (1) You claimed earlier that Bacchiocchi's "doctoral thesis received the imprimatur of the Pope of which I have a copy here, but now they, (the university), are trying to deny that he even attended the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome!"

    I wanted to ask you about this before, but didn't. Can you back this claim up? With all due respect, it doesn't make any sense to me.

    An imprimatur is given when a Catholic bishop approves of the publication of a book found to be free from errors (that earlier finding is called a nihil obstat).

    I know of no cases in which an imprimatur has ever been given to a doctrinal thesis (and I can't think of why it ever would be, unless the thesis was being sold as a book). And as far as I know, it's impossible to grant it to a non-Catholic author. It makes no sense to grant it to a non-Catholic author, in any case: why would the author even seek permission from the Catholic Church to have his book published?

    So I think your facts are confused here. The company publishing Dr. Bacchiocchi's work claims only that "was awarded a gold medal by Pope Paul VI" for graduating summa cum laude. That's a very different thing. It doesn't mean that his work is somehow approved by the Catholic Church, or the pope personally: just that he was a good student. And I've never seen anything other than Bacchiocchi's own claims to support this (I have no idea whether or not it's true that the University denies that he went, but I suppose it'd be easy enough to discover whether he did or did not graduate summa cum laude).

    (2) Where are you deducing this Temple of the Ten Commandments name? And is it your belief that Catholics and other non-Adventist Christians are against the Ten Commandments?

    (3) Today's post is on the topic of the Sabbath and Adventism, and what Scripture says. Feel free to check it out, and let me know what you think.

    In Christ,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  57. Cyril,

    Yes, I am aware that SDA's claim that there have been faithful people through history that share their beliefs. However, I believe this claim is false. Generally, they just point to Sabbath keepers to establish this, but as I've said before, it takes more than Sabbath keeping to be an SDA. Ethiopian Orthodox Christians keep the Sabbath and have since Ethiopia became a Christian nation in the early fourth century. They also don't eat pork, shellfish, etc. But they have also believed that Mary and the other saints are in heaven and can pray for them. Have they been keeping the truth for the past 1700 years? Let me put it this way: An Ethiopian Orthodox Christian from 2011 could hop into a time machine, attend a church from 400 AD and not have an issue with a single doctrine being taught. Could an SDA do the same thing? If so, which church would it be? It has nothing to do with being in the majority. It's a matter of historical evidence. In that vein, please provide a link or reference to your information about St. Patrick.

    Also, while I will admit to a certain amount of sarcasm, as well as condensing things for a comment box, I don't think I said anything inaccurate about SDA doctrine. If I have, please point out anything specific that was incorrect and I will own up to it and make sure I have my facts straight in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  58. CJ,

    I know that you mean well, but I'm suggesting that it is better that you only be factual in your explanation about the investigative judgment, which is a Biblical teaching, and not inject into your explanation that a false teaching was used to excuse the disappointment, which the Bible also predicted was going to occur with Daniel's prophecy. (Revelation 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.) I trust that all in the group here will study the matters presented and investigate and not just blow off steam. Proverbs 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing, [interpreting], the word of truth.

    I keep referring to things that contain truth fulled material. Have you read "1844 Made Simple" by Clifford Goldstein?

    For the documentation about St. Patrick, I will have to do that in a separate post because I'll get this message that I have exceeded 4096 characters. :(

    For the Facts,
    Cyril :)
    Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. . .

    ReplyDelete
  59. Okay Joe,

    For answering your number (1), I refer you to Bacchiocchi's website, (www.BiblicalPerspectives.com) and also my witness of having heard him in person say that things I claim, plus the "End Time Issues" that are online at his website. He tells about these encounters with the Pontifical Gregorian University in recent years.

    The reason for publishing his book is its value for all Christians to know exactly how Sunday observance came into being. It's value for the Catholic Church is that it verifys what the catechism/s that I have quoted claimed, that the change from Sabbath to Sunday was something that the Catholic Church did, specifically at the Council of Laodicea, (336. . .364 AD). So, the book verifies that the Catholic Church spokesmen have told the truth in this matter.

    (2) Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
    Revelation 15:5 And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened. . . Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God. Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

    Non-Adventist Christians give verbal support, as the late John Paul did in "Deis Domini" to The Ten Commandments but violate what it specifically says in Ex. 20:8-11.

    (3) I'm not clear on where this post is. Clue me in.

    For the Truth,
    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  60. Okay CJ,

    Here is a start on documentation about St. Patrick and I will give more later.

    SAINT PATRICK A SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH OBSERVER?
    In Patrick's writings "will be found no . . . veneration for, or adoration of relics, no consecrated staffs" (Irish Antiquarian Researches, William Betham, Vol. 1, pp. 268-270).

    His Celtic Church opposed celibacy: Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, Vol. 3, p. 53; James Henthorn Todd, St. Patrick, Apostle to Ireland, pp. 377, 390).

    He was not subservient to Rome: He "never mentions either Rome or the pope or hints that he was in any way connected with the ecclesiastical capital of Italy. He recognizes no other authority but that of the word of God" (W. D. Killen, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland, Vol. 1, p.p. 12-15; The Old Catholic Church, p. 200).

    The sabbath: "The Celts used a Latin Bible unlike the Vulgate, and kept Saturday as a day of rest, with special religious observances on Sunday" (A. C. Flick, The Rise of the Medieval Church, p. 237).

    "The Scots had perhaps kept up the traditional usage of the ancient Irish Church which observed Saturday instead of Sunday as the day of rest" (T. Ratcliffe Barnett, Margaret of Scotland: Queen and Saint, p. 97). " . .

    The traditional practice of the ancient monastic Church of Ireland, which observed Saturday rather than Sunday as a day of rest" (Alphons Bellesheim, History of the Catholic Church of Scotland, Vol. 1, pp. 86, 249, 250).

    "They worked on Sunday, but kept Saturday in a sabbatical manner" (Andrew Lang, A History of Scotland, Vol. 1, p. 96); Willam F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, Vol 2, p. 349.

    "They obeyed the fourth commandment literally upon the seventh day of the week" (James C. Moffatt, The Church in Scotland, p.140).

    The sabbath observed until 1115 A. D. (A. H. Lewis, Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America, Vol. 1, p. 29).

    About 450 A.D. "almost all churches throughout the world" kept seventh-day sabbath except "Alexandria and at Rome" (Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History , bk. 5, ch. 22).

    Sources can be found in Truth Triumphant by B. G. Wilkinson, reprint available from Leaves of Autumn, Box 440, Peyson AR 85547; also see SDA Bible Students' Source Book, pp. 892-895, 881. Bible evidence: Daniel 7:21, 25; Revelation 12:6, 14-17.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Cyril,

    I haven't read Goldstein's book, but I did study the Sabbath School lesson he wrote on the IJ.

    Also, your admonition to me to be only factual works both ways. You say that you are recommending books filled with "truth," but that's a subjective evaluation of their contents. It's not as if Goldstein's conclusions are self evident or uncontroversial. To be strictly factual, you would simply say that they are books that present official SDA doctrine.

    This blind spot also applies to your biblical interpretations, such as claiming that Revelation 10:10 equals the Great Disappointment. There is a huge leap from reading those words to 1) identifying the little book as Daniel; 2) equating eating it with the SDA interpretation of Daniel 8:14, 3) the sweetness being the anticipation of Christ's return, and 4) that the bitterness in the belly is the Great Disappointment of 1844. It's "obvious" to anyone in an SDA bubble, but it actually requires lots of assumptions about the methodology of interpretation and the intent and timing of Revelation.

    Thanks for providing the info on St. Patrick. But it's the same thing I've been saying: you established that the Celtic church 1) didn't venerate relics; 2) used the Bible alone; 3) kept the Sabbath; and 4) had no regard for Rome. Based on those factors, St. Patrick could be SDA, COG7, or Seventh-Day Baptist. I don't mean to be a broken record, but there is more to Adventism than the Sabbath. Can you take the 27/28 fundamental beliefs (minus the ones specifcally about EGW since she hadn't been born yet) and find any body of believers that has kept them from apostolic times till now?

    Even if the Celtic church was proto-Adventist, it goes to my second point about church history. Your own quote says that they kept the Sabbath until 115 AD. That means that less than 2 decades after the death of the last apostle, they had abandoned this important truth without a whimper. That's an epic fail on the part of the apostles and the Lord who chose them.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Dear Cyril:

    The books you site on Celtic Christianity are hopelessly out-of-date.

    For a more recent study Saturday observance in the Irish Church, see Michael W. Herren & Shirley Ann Brown, Christ in Celtic Christianity, p109 and onward. The early Irish Christians were not proto-adventists, however.

    Dia is Muire duit.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I meant to add a link. You can preview that book: http://books.google.com/books?id=zDT-4fTqbgAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

    ReplyDelete
  64. Also, ironically, the chapter you half-cite from Socrates's Ecclesiastical History, begins with the following observations:

    It appears to me that neither the ancients nor moderns who have affected to follow the Jews, have had any rational foundation for contending so obstinately about it. For they have not taken into consideration the fact that when Judaism was changed into Christianity, the obligation to observe the Mosaic law and the ceremonial types ceased. And the proof of the matter is plain; for no law of Christ permits Christians to imitate the Jews. On the contrary the apostle expressly forbids it; not only rejecting circumcision, but also deprecating contention about festival days. In his epistle to the Galatians [Galatians 4:21] he writes, 'Tell me ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law.' And continuing his train of argument, he demonstrates that the Jews were in bondage as servants, but that those who have come to Christ are 'called into the liberty of sons.' [Galatians 5:13] Moreover he exhorts them in no way to regard 'days, and months, and years.' [Galatians 4:10] Again in his epistle to the Colossians [Colossians 2:16-17] he distinctly declares, that such observances are merely shadows: wherefore he says, 'Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of any holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath-days; which are a shadow of things to come.'

    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26015.htm

    ReplyDelete
  65. Simple question Cyril: If the Ten Commandments are the greatest commandments, why does Christ say the Two Greatest commandments are from two separate general prescriptions from Leviticus (not the Decalogue)?

    ReplyDelete
  66. You can download and read "Truth Triumphant" by B. G. Wilkinson at this location below. Read there about St. Patrick and his disciple Columba in connection with Sabbath observance and which day is "The Lord's Day." All these these things are extra-Biblical and there are those who have written history that never occurred. So the bottom line for all true believers is "What saith the Bible to me. . . ?" You can read more about this in a Roman Catholic publication at this site, (and if you look around, you can download a pdf file of it. It was published both by RC's and SDA's. The SDA's published it under the title of "Rome's Challenge" also available in pdf file on the internet.): http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Christian_Sabbath_%28Catholic_Mirror%29

    The Truth shall make you free,
    Cyril
    PS: I see we have others joining in and I say "Welcome!" I have to gather wood like the peasant in the Christmas carole: "Good King Wenceslas looked out, on the Feast of Stephen. . . when a poor man came in sight, gath'ring winter fuel. . ." So, there may a little delay in responding to all posts.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Nick,

    The first four commandments have to do with our love to God and the last six are our love to man. Christ's statement is a summation of the Ten.

    The importance of the Ten are seen to be emphasized in many ways which I could list if you are unfamiliar with them--Also emphasized by Pope John Paul in Deis Domini.

    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  68. Cyril,

    You are following the script I laid out in my first post. You supported your argument with quotes from Socrates, historical info about St. Patrick, and allusions to the Donation of Constantine. Yet when someone posts historical evidence that counters your position (from your own sources!) you imply that history is unreliable. It's "heads I win tails you lose".

    ReplyDelete
  69. Cyril,

    Sorry for the belated response. You'd raised a few points above. I'll start there:

    (1) You suggested I read Bacchiocchi's own website to prove that he received an imprimatur. But his website doesn't say that. It says he received a gold medal from the pope for academic achievement (and it sounds like something given to everyone who'd done well). Read for yourself:
    http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=27

    In support of #1, you suggested that the Vatican had something to gain by promoting the idea that they were the ones who changed the primary day of Christian worship from the Sabbath to Sunday. You quote from “The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine,” by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R. as saying, “We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea [A.D. 336--exact date uncertain], transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.”

    Nick has already been pointed out that simply taking the writing of a random Catholic priest from anytime in the last two thousand years isn't the same way as quoting from actual Church teachings. But there's a more fundamental problem: that quote is a fraud. I looked up the book, and it actually says, “We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” In other words, the claim that it happened at the Council of Laodicea (instead of during Apostolic times) doesn't exist in the book.  You can read the Google Book for yourself online, it's available here:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=6GokT0Qzo0wC&pg=PA114&dq=%22The+Convert's+Catechism+of+Catholic+Doctrine,%22&hl=en&ei=o1p2TtO6IuLX0QH31-XiDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=1910&f=false

    And given that the book wasn't published until 1930, I don't see how the claim that it got an “apostolic blessing” from Pope Pius X in 1910 can be true, either. It seems that someone sold you a bill of goods.

    In any case, the important thing isn't what Fr. Geiermann said in 1930.  It's what's true.  And in the post above, I showed quite plainly that Sunday worship existed in the first century without any apparent protest from the Apostles or their students.  Even if all of your quotes were authentic (and so far, that hasn't been the case), it wouldn't matter.  There's indisputable evidence of first century Sunday worship, so this idea that it didn't happen until the fourth century is obviously false.

    If I were you, I'd stick to actual Catholic sources, instead of Adventist websites pulling quotes from what they claim are Catholic sources.  Because if you actually research them, you'll quickly find a goodly number of false.  If you don't believe me, do the research.

    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  70. (2) The Law foreshadows Christ.  The Temple in Heaven isn't literally the Temple in Jerusalem.  Instead, the Temple in Jerusalem was to given an earthly taste of the Heavenly reality.  Same thing here.  If God wanted us to know that the House of the LORD was the Temple of the Ten Commandments, it wouldn't take stringing four passages together to try and make that point.  Instead, Christ is the fulfillment of the Law (Matthew 5:17).  The Ten Commandments point towards Christ, and the two great Commandments.

    (3) The post is here:
    http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-arent-christians-bound-by-saturday.html
    Enjoy!

    (4) The notion that St. Patrick was a proto-Adventist is false.  And the list of references are just a list of people claiming that he was (or more precisely, that he might have been).  None of them provided any reason to believe it as true, other than their own assertion. That's not enough.   Everything else in that list you provide is based on a bad argument from silence.  For example, the idea that unless Patrick specifically cites to the pope by name, he must reject papal authority is a ridiculous argument. Hugo Mendez did a good job answering this before:
    http://sda2rc.blogspot.com/2007/03/real-real-st-patrick.html
    Unlike the lists you provide, he actually cites to specific chapters of St. Patrick's own Confessio showing Catholic doctrines that he clearly teaches and that Adventists deny.

    Hope that helps.  I believe that you're striving for the Truth, and in this, we're brothers.  God bless you,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  71. I hope my interjections are neither rude nor off point, but
    Wilkinson’s sins are not merely those of omission. Opening randomly to p.188, for example:
    "Columbanus and Dinooth of Wales had expressed Christian courtesy to the Catholic leaders, but they had refused to be brought into subjection." (Wilkinson, p.188 – incidentally his footnote for this is a dud.)

    But, Columbanus in his own words (not some history written for him) in his letter to Pope Boniface IV says:
    "To the Holy Lord and Father in Christ, the fairest Ornament of the Roman Church, as it were a most honoured Flower of all Europe in her decay, to the distinguished Bishop, who is skilled in the Meditation of divine Eloquence, I, Bar-Jonah (a poor Dove), send Greeting in Christ."

    and

    “For we, as I have said before, are bound to St. Peter's chair; for though Rome be great and famous, among us it is only on that chair that her greatness and her fame depend.”

    and

    “Rome is the head of the Churches of the world"

    http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T201054/index.html (letter 5)

    Also, even in the best circumstances, something written as long ago as Wilkinson’s Truth Triumphant would be now very antiquated. But Wilkinson’s sources were generally quite out of date even when he was writing; the first two sources you refer to, from William Betham and Neander were written in the 1820s, when scholars had access to considerably less sources on the Celtic Church. Incidentally, Todd’s St. Patrick, apostle of Ireland does not mention celibacy, even though Wilkinson claims it does. Flick actually says, "The Celts used a Latin Bible unlike the Vulgate, and kept Saturday as a day of rest, with special religious services on Sunday. Notwithstanding these variances, which do not seem to be at all on the fundamentals, there were many doctrinal and constitutional resemblances." The citations from Bellesheim, likewise cut out mention of Sunday observance. Most Wilkinson sources do not support his arguments. Many of the references are complete duds, to real books, but ones that don’t say anything whatsoever to do with what Wilkinson says they say.

    PS: Sorry for the deleted comments, having trouble with ye olde cut-and-paste.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Christian brothers,

    If we cannot agree on the reliability of historical records, I guess we will just have to go by the Bible. Here is a little more on St. Patrick by an Irishman:

    In their Emerald Newsletter for the 1st Quarter of 2004, on page 1, they enumerate St. Patrick's reported beliefs, as follows:

    The Bible, the Only Rule of Faith
    Jesus Christ, the only Mediator
    Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church
    Man does not inherit guilt
    Man can keep God's law, by God's indwelling spirit
    The Trinity
    Literal creation in six days
    The dead sleep in the gave until the resurrection
    Observance of the Seventh-day Sabbath
    Baptism by immersion
    Second coming of Jesus--soon!
    Foot-washing, followed by the Lord's Supper
    The Holy Spirit gives the "New Birth," which leads to baptism
    No adoration of the saint of Mary
    No penance or sacraments
    No celibacy of the priesthood
    No belief in transubstantiation
    No priestly tonsure
    These items were collected by Dr. Robert Burgess (and have been incorporated into a brochure, distributed by Emerald Foundation. . .

    Comment number 3 above by "Brock Talks" gives a quote about activities on "The Lord's Day". Going to the Bible to find out which day this is, we find the following:

    Exodus 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God. . .

    Isaiah 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on MY HOLY DAY; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable. . .

    Mark 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

    Therefore, when John speaks of "The Lord's Day," it has to be the above day in Revelation 1:10 "I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day. . . " Otherwise we would have a contradiction or substitution.

    For the truth,
    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  73. Cyril,

    The problem is that you keep citing a bunch of lists you're pulling from somewhere on the Internet. Both D.A. Gerulus and I have dismantled specific claims and shown them to be certifiably false. That doesn't disprove "history." That disproves wherever you're getting your information.

    Your solution appears to be to pull another list, this time of what St. Patrick supposed believes, instead of (as I suggested) actually reading St. Patrick's Confessio. As long as you keep relying on second- and third-hand accounts, you're going to keep getting duped.

    For example, show me where in St. Patrick's writings he ever denies transubstantiation, or original sin, or says anything about Saturday worship, or denies the Sacraments. I can go ahead and tell you now that you won't be able to do it, because those things are all false.

    Again, that's not a problem with history, but with SDA apologists making up facts. If you don't believe me, check the actual historical record. St. Patrick's writings are freely available, in English, online, and they're short. Here, for example is the full text of St. Patrick's Confessio:

    http://www.robotwisdom.com/jaj/patrick.html

    As for the Lord's Day, can you find any places where the Sabbath is ever described as the Lord's Day, either in the Bible or in early Church writings?

    I've already quoted you from Ignatius and others in which the Lord's Day is described as Sunday. It's called that because it's the day that the Lord was Resurrected. Ignatius was a student of the same John who wrote Revelation, and he's the clearest in explaining that it means Sunday, not Saturday. If Seventh-day Adventism is what the early Christians believed, why can't you find early Christians whose writings actually support this?

    God bless,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  74. Joe,

    Here is what I read on Dr. Bacchiocchi's website about his book:

    "From Sabbath to Sunday" has the distinction of being the first book written by a non-Catholic ever to be published by a Pontifical press with the Catholic imprimatur (approval). The book has already been reprinted fourteen times in English and has been translated in several languages. Hundreds of scholars of different persuasions have praised this book as a definitive treatment of the early history of the Lord’s Day.

    Hope this helps your understanding. As stated before, I have the book in hand with the imprimatur on it.

    For the truth,
    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  75. Joe,

    How do you think that SDA's can live with themselves if they are making up facts in view of the text in Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death?

    For the truth,
    Cyril
    PS: Bacchiocchi's book addresses when the terminology "The Lord's Day" was first applied to Sunday.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Cyril,

    You and I both agree that making up false information is sinful. But can you deny that a number of the facts you've quoted here have been proven false? I'm not suggesting that you're making them up, but somebody certainly is.


    As for the imprimatur, I saw a PDF version claiming to have an imprimatur by Herve Carrier, the rector at Gregorian (not, as you'd originally said, the pope). I still can't understand why a non-Catholic author would have an imprimatur, though. Bacchiocchi claims to be the only non-Catholic to have ever done this. What's the point from an SDA perspective?

    In Christ,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  77. Dear Cyril:

    The link to Herren and Brown's Christ in Celtic Christianity, pp.109-110, which I mentioned above provides a useful overview of the Sabbath-keeping in the early Celtic church with some good points on dates.

    And we can rely on the historical records. We can, for instance, read what St. Patrick actually wrote and compare it with what others claim he wrote. But as has been pointed out, however, the statements you provided on St. Patrick’s purported beliefs are built not on what he says but on what he doesn’t say. St. Patrick in his does not mention devotion to the Saints-but his contemporaries do, and Patrick nowhere objects to what was, at his time a wide-spread and well documented practice. St. Patrick’s biographer Tírechán even claims that St. Patrick gave the bishop Sachellus some Roman relics that were in Armagh, which seems to point to devotion to the Saints. But even if you want to dismiss Tírechán, you are still far off from showing that St. Patrick did not believe in the adoration of Saints as Dr. Burgess claims, because there is still no positive evidence that St. Patrick held differed from his contemporaries in regard to this belief.

    Incidentally, you say they we should return to the Bible, but you previously quoted from Socrates of Constantinople (Scholasticus) to make a point about observing the Sabbath, but did not reply when I showed that the in exact same passage you quoted from, Socrates himself uses the Bible to argue directly against what you are saying.

    David

    PS: I apologise if anything I have said has suggested I think you or any of the sources you cite are guilt of lying. I don’t think such is the case, I merely disagree about their (and your) points on the early Irish church, a point of albeit secondary importance.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Cyril,

    I don't want to pile on, but I've been where you are and I want to share whatever insight I've gained so you can see how deep the problems run for Adventism.

    The SDA church cannot survive without a strong basis in history. This is because it relies on the historicist method of prophetic interpretation. In his inauguration speech, the new GC president explicitly named historicism as a necessary component of Adventism. For example, it is SDA doctrine that the 1260 day prophecy of Daniel 7:25 was fulfilled by the papacy destroying 3 barbarian kingdoms by 538 AD, beginning a reign of supremacy that lasted until Napoleon's general took the pope captive in 1798. If these events did not occur, then the doctrine is false. When we go back to the Bible, the prophecy will still be there, but we will still need to look for its fulfillment . . . in history. So it will not do to simply say, "we disagree on history, so let's look at the Bible." The SDA church has backed itself into a corner by proposing a system of prophetic fulfillment throughout history that culminates in its own founding. If history is unreliable, so is the prophetic system that relies on it for interpretation.

    If you throw out historicism, you can be a Sabbatarian, a vegetarian, and a believer in conditional immortality, but you cannot be a Seventh-day Adventist.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Okay CJ, I agree with you about historicism and I agree with historicism. I do not agree that we are in a corner but rather a light on a hill. For Joe, the point is that with the imprimatur, Catholics don't have a ban on reading the book as many other books are banned such as the revealing "Fox's Book of Martyrs". It is a verified book by Catholic authorities as being true.

    You all might find my letter to my grandson this morning of interest regarding being truthful and I quote:

    Stephen,

    Say! Have you heard of the story of Pope Stephen, II? He is the one who forged the "Donation of Constantine" and crossed the Alps in winter, even in ailing health, to get the French king to come to his rescue. This was in the mid-700's. The Donation was claimed to be a document written by the Apostle Peter and personally delivered by Peter to Pope Stephen. And, get this, Pope Stephen was of such great ability that he was able to verify that it was Peter's signature!!!

    But, the real significance is that the said donation gave the Pope, by Peter's authority, rulership over the whole world. And, this document was used for well over 1000 years to establish and foster papal supremacy. So much for Pope Stephen. Perhaps he needed get better acquainted with his Bible and read Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. He also needed to read Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing. . .

    Further, the Donation of Constantine has the title in it for the pope of Vicarius Filii Dei which in Roman numerals, adds up to 666. This title has been used hundreds of times by many authors in many languages, so that the current attempt to deny it as a title for the pope is falacious. Even several prominent SDA's have been sucked into this denial. ("The Truth About 666" tells it all.)

    Getting down to further evidence that this is a forgery is that the forger claimed that a certain priest baptized Constantine, however that priest was already dead 2 years before the baptism. And, we know who baptized him. And, the claim is that Constantine had leprosy which was cured just before he was baptized. False! He never had leprosy.

    Love,
    Grandpa

    ReplyDelete
  80. Cyril,

    There's not an Index of Prohibited Books in place. We can read Foxe's Book of Martyrs if we want, but anyone reading it should be aware that it's full of exaggerations, half-truths and outright lies... as any credible historian will attest. It was a piece of propaganda, not history.

    Your letter to your grandson is full of more misinformation. While the Donation of Constantine was a forgery, it wasn't Pope Stephen II who forged it. And Vicarius Filii Dei was never a papal title. It was never used -- this is another instance in which anti-Catholics fabricated history.* If you don't believe me, find a credible (non-Adventist) site supporting your claim. The papal title in question is Vicar of Christ, not Vicar of the Son of God.

    Latin also doesn't have the numerology that Hebrew does, so the idea that you can simply add up the Latin letters is wrong. That's just not a Biblical approach towards 666. For that matter, take the name ELLEN GOULD WHITE.

    Remember that U's and V's are the same letter in Latin.
    "eLLen" = L+L=100,
    "goULD" = U+L+D=555,
    "WhIte" = V+V + I =11.

    Add those use, and we have (wait for it), 100 + 555 + 11 = 666.

    So the same absurd math could be used to prove that Ellen White was the Antichrist. Only Ellen Gould White is at least her real name, while Vicarius Filii Dei is a papal title simply made up by Adventists.


    On a more serious note, my concern is that you're very credulous when it comes to information you want to be true. You seem ready to believe any bad thing about the Catholic Church (no matter how unreliable the source), and ready to ignore any facts to the contrary. You've still yet to address the Early Church Fathers laid out in the original post.

    You can cite as many proof-texted, forged, third-hand, or otherwise unreliable sources as you want, claiming that Sunday worship was a creation of the Catholic Church in 380, but none of that will change the fact that there's clear, unambiguous evidence that it was being celebrated on Sunday in the first century.

    You've simply been glossing over the countless corrections you've received here, and haven't even admitted to being wrong yet. Every time we disprove one of your claims, you simply rattle off five more. That's not going to work as an approach to dialogue. If you're really concerned about the truth, and not just scoring cheap points against the Catholic Church, let's tackle any of these claims seriously.

    God bless,

    Joe


    * I don't deny that it was in the Donation of Constantine, but that was (as you've pointed out) a forgery. Surely, Adventists aren't claiming that the pope is the Antichrist simply because someone other than the pope called him something that added up to 666?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Cyril,

    This is my last post here simply because the discussion seems to be going nowhere. Nobody here is accusing you of lying, but you are certainly engaging in a common but very dubious form of discussion known as "cut and pasting," where you blindly cut and paste any quote that gives the impression of being 'damning' to Catholicism and paste it and leave others to pick up the mess and do the homework debunking it.

    It's not the level of discussion or research I care to participate it, nor would such an approach fly in any any research paper or report at any grade-level in school. When one cites a source, it should mean they have personally verified it for accuracy and context, not simply cutting and pasting and leaving a teacher or colleague left having to spend all kinds of time tracking it down to (a) see if it even really exists, and (b) see if it really says what you claim it says. Clearly, such an approach has no academic merit because it's essentially a 'hit and run' approach to the situation.

    This applies to Catholics and SDAs, neither should be cutting and pasting. The mark of solid apologetics sites are ones that don't rely on this method, and most of us Catholics around here can easily spot when someone comes in and starts that up. You certainly would be turned off or offended if a Catholic here began "quoting" unverified news reports and articles making all sorts of off the wall claims about SDAs or White, so please return the favor.


    The only final point I will make is in response to your last comments to me where you said:

    "The first four commandments have to do with our love to God and the last six are our love to man. Christ's statement is a summation of the Ten."

    This is not a claim I believe has exegetical warrant. When Jesus said the Two Greatest Commandments, He was neither quoting two of the Decalogue, nor was He summarizing the Decalogue. Rather, He was summarizing the entire Mosaic Law.

    Thus, the fundamental difficulty has not been alleviated, which is that the TWO are given a more prominent position than the TEN, yet SDAs claim the absolute transcendance of the TEN beyond anything else. The point/lesson to be taken from this is that the Mosaic Law cannot be 'butchered' into various chunks, with us deciding to keep this or that aspect and ignore the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Minor points but: the Donation of Constantine actually claims (as its title suggests) that Emperor Constantine gave authority over the Western Roman Empire (not the whole world) over to Pope Sylvester. It neither claims to have been written by St. Peter nor is it addressed to Pope Stephen II. And was not used for a '1000 years'. Furthermore, it does not refer to Pope Sylvester as Vicarius filii dei but to St.Peter; so if your interpretation is correct you are calling the Apostle Peter the anti-Christ.

    Notably, the first four scholars to discredit the Donation of Constantine were a Catholic Priest, a Bishop, a Cardinal and a Pope! The priest Lorenzo Valla, Bishop Reginald Pecocke, Cardinal Nicholas Cusanus, and Pope Pius II.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I'd agree that this thread seems to be winding down. I'd only add that I've been in Cyril's shoes. So many of these claims get passed around in a SDA echo chamber and are taken as fact. It never occurs to anyone to check the sources. It's a closed system. My mother in law won't read non-SDA religious material to avoid being led astray. It's a very difficult mindset to break out of.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Sorry guys, all your last four posts contain many things that are just not true and this can be documented by non-Adventist sources. Our disagreements are over what history says, but some have created their own history such as the Donation of Constantine. For instance, 3 popes used the title of "Vicarius Filii Dei. And as for figuring up the 666 on someone's particular name, the person has to fulfill all the other 16 points that identify the actions of the antichrist in order to be that person.

    How many scholars in the group have listened to the references that I have given such as Tim Roosenburg's www.sealingtime.org on Christianity and Islam and what is going to happen next. The first two presentations there should help.

    As for listening to no one else, that is not me.

    As for being where CJ used to be, I would say, in my estimation, that my foundation is quite different.

    For the truth,
    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  85. Dear Cyril:

    If there is something inaccurate in my previous post, please post it out.

    You keep saying 'some have created their own history'. But you also said, '"The Donation was claimed to be a document written by the Apostle Peter". This would be an example of creating a false history. It is 1) absurd; the text is the Donation of Constantine, not the Donation of Peter. 2) Easy to show is false, you can look it up for yourself, anywhere you like. My best guess is you are confusing the Donation of Constantine with the pseudo-Clementine literature.
    In any case, it has been shown numerous times that your historical sources are widely inaccurate. But you never acknowledge making any mistakes, you just move on picking quotes from another website.
    Perhaps it is better you stick to the Bible as you have not answered Joe's point above:

    "(3) You claim that Seventh-day Adventism is based on the Bible, not Ellen White. But the Bible includes passages like Romans 14:5-6 and Colossians 2:16-17, which explicitly denounce what your church teaches. Specifically, Romans 14:5-6 establishes that no one day of the week is inherently better than any other, and Colossians 2:16-17 does something very similar (although Nick already pointed this passage out to you)."
    Constantine of Constantinople also makes a similar point, a I pointed out.

    For the truth,
    David

    ReplyDelete
  86. *Socrates of Constantinople, not Constantine of Constantinople.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Here is a correction and apology for my inaccuracy to my grandson of yesterday. I'll get to David's comments and very familiar passages and D. A. Gerulus'es by tomorrow morning, I hope.

    Grandson Stephen,

    In answer to why we got into this subject, we got into talking about Pope Stephen, II (III) because of the similarity with your name, although you might want to identify with the Stephen who helped the eunuch from Ethiopia, instead. And, of course, my current study of the circumstances about his giving the Donation of Constantine to King Pepin of the Franks around 753 AD. Also, some Christian brothers who one of my Bibleinfo.com questioners brought my attention to, have been convinced of the activities of various popes although they admit now that the Donation of Constantine is fraudulent. They have also brought to my attention some inaccuracies in what I wrote you yesterday. So, let me get the story straighter, apologizing for inaccuracy, albeit it got the point across.

    The story of the fancy golden lettered document "written by Peter" and delivered to Pope, is not in the Donation of Constantine, but was presented to King Pepin right after the Donation of Constantine was presented to be sure he would comply with their request for military help. Here is a quote from that letter with documentation:

    “Peter, elected Apostle by Jesus Christ, to our favorite Son, the King Pepin, to his whole army, to all the bishops, abbesses, monks, and to the whole people.” The document was, or so the spokesman assured his astonished audience, in its author’s own handwriting. He even personally vouched for Peter’s signature!

    Now the Franks, though limited in formal education, were no fools and asked some pointed questions. Pepin wanted to know exactly how the letter had found its way from heaven to earth. But the papal spokesman had a ready answer for the king and his entourage: “The Blessed Peter in person had come down from Heaven and given the letter to his successor, the pope of Rome.”--Avro Manhattan, The Vatican Billions: Two Thousand Years of Wealth Accumulation from Caesar to the Space Age (Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1983), pp. 29, 30


    It's hard to be wrong as it wounds our pride which applies to both me and my Christian brothers as we discuss, but this should not be about promoting churches but rather what is the truth and what saith the Bible to me. Proverbs 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

    By the way, I know something about deception and hope my past is not being too prominent in my descendants, and if so that they will seek for grace and climb Peter's ladder. (2 Peter 1:5-11 and stay away from the unbiblical concept "Peter's successor.")

    Love,
    Grandpa
    PS: Trivia question: 16-year-old gals are referred to as "sweet sixteen," What should we call 16-year-old guys? [Stephen, my grandson, is 16.]

    ReplyDelete
  88. Sorry, said I was done, but I keep getting updates...

    ...anyway...Cyril, you did NOT just quote Jack Chick as a source!!!

    ReplyDelete
  89. Cyril,

    I'm moved by your humility in admitting error, and it pains me a bit to have to say this, but your correction is also wrong.

    Avro Manhattan is an unreliable source, as is anything by Chick Publications. Jack Chick is a paranoid recluse, and despite countless hours spent correcting his errors, he continues spouting them off.

    The Donation of Pepin is nothing like what you described. First of all, it's a real document, not a forgery. Second, it's not from the pope (or St. Peter) to Pepin. Pepin the Short donated the lands that became the Papal States. Hence, the Donation of Pepin.

    It's also true that Pepin donated the lands to St. Peter and his successors, meaning the papacy. That doesn't literally mean Pepin thought that the Apostle Peter was still alive.

    You can find all of this in encyclopedias. The New International Encyclopedia entry on the subject is available here.

    The idea that Avro Manhattan raises is just ridiculous. Do you really think that Catholics are so stupid that they would think that St. Peter had descended from Heaven, handwritten a note to Pepin the Short, that the pope somehow authenticated the signature, and all the Catholics just fell for it?

    The fact that Avro Manhattan just made this up can be easily confirmed with a Google search. Search for the phrase “Peter, elected Apostle by Jesus Christ, to our favorite Son, the King Pepin, to his whole army, to all the bishops, abbesses, monks, and to the whole people.” It brings up exactly four results from dubious websites all quoting... you guessed it, Avro Manhattan. No other person on Earth seems to have "discovered" this incredible historical document. No Catholic seems to have ever quoted it. Neither Pepin nor his successors ever pointed to this to establish their legitimacy.

    You raised the Donation of Constantine earlier, and rightly criticized those in the Church who were duped into falling for an obvious forgery. Yet this entire time, you've been quoting from obvious forgeries yourself. And in the age of the Internet, where facts can be quickly checked, this sort of sloppiness is less excusable. How can you point out the speck in some Medieval pope's eye (for getting tricked into believing in the Donation of Constantine) while you've got the plank of all of the canards you've cited so far?

    God bless,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  90. You refer to Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5. Let's look at that carefully in the Catholic version, (Douay). 16 ¶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of a festival day or of the new moon or of the sabbaths, [comma] 17 Which are a shadow of things to come: but the body is of Christ. Notice that "sabbaths" is in the pleural and not capitalized. There were 7 of these yearly sabbaths. Verse 17 clarifies which sabbaths it is referring to: ones that were prophetic of Christ's bodily sacrifice. And this the yearly sabbaths did such as the Passover, for instance. That the Memorial of Creation is not intended here and cannot be is because it is not prophetic as originally made. It could not be because it would then be predicting the entrance of sin. In the text is the meat and drink offerings which were connected with the yearly sabbaths.

    Romans 14. What is this talking about. It starts out in verse 1 saying that it is dealing with "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." (KJV) Is there anything doubtful about what Exodus 20:8-11 says? You and I have to answer, "NO!" I like the Weymouth rendition of this text also: "Receive as a friend a man whose faith is weak, but not for the purpose of deciding mere matters of opinion. 2 One man’s faith allows him to eat anything, while a man of weaker faith eats nothing but vegetables."

    Oh! So, we are considering what is eaten! A similar passage, but more revealing as to what specifically the matter is, is seen in 1 Cor. 8 which was written in the same year, which had to do with things offered to idols and Paul's advice on what to do about it. As for the reference to "day" in Romans14, this could either be personally chosen fast days or the 7 yearly sabbaths. It doesn't say. It helps to see what Paul's attitude is to The Ten Commandments earlier in Romans 3:31 Do we then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid! But we establish the law. (Douay)

    We need to heed the counsel of Peter who warned and told what some are doing with Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:13-18.

    There was the question of choosing our own way of worshipping and whether that is sin. Was the way Cain chose to come before God in worship, sin? What was his problem? He was trying to be saved by the works of his own choosing. And, he spoiled the symbolism of acknowledging the need of a Savior. His brother's good example and pleading to follow the right way he tried to drown out by killing him. How and who we worship is seen as the final showdown just before Jesus returns as seen in Rev. 14:14. Read Revelation 13 & 14 and you see the final issue is WORSHIP.

    Hope this is helpful. If you want to get scholarly on Colossian 2:16, 17, just get from Andrews University Press, "Judging The Sabbath--Discovering What Can't be Found in Colossians 2:16" by Ron du Preez.

    Don't miss reading "1844 Made Simple" by Clifford Goldstein, CJ. A light will go ON!

    For the truth,
    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  91. Cyril,

    I'm glad to be onto the topic of Scripture. Under your interpretation of both Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5, you suggest that this refers to the seven yearly Sabbaths. Are you referring to the annual religious festivals, like the Passover?

    Also, I don't understand what your argument is for why God couldn't foreshadow the Fall and Redemption ahead of time?

    And for what it's worth, the Douay never capitalizes "Sabbath."

    God bless,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  92. Lol, couldn't resist posting again:

    It seems to me that the SDAs like to make the argument the argument Cyril made:

    "That the Memorial of Creation is not intended here and cannot be is because it is not prophetic as originally made. It could not be because it would then be predicting the entrance of sin."

    In other words, prophecy only pertains to undoing the damage sin caused, and thus it makes no sense to apply prophecy or fulfillment in something that is taught prior to the fall.

    There is in fact a 'slam-dunk' proof against this very claim in Scripture:

    "Ephesians 5:31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[Gen 2:24] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church."

    Here Paul says Genesis 2:24 - talking about marriage - is actually a super-prophetic foreshadowing of Christ being united to His Church.(This text even could suggest Christ would have become Incarnate even without the Fall.) Thus, this actually would strengthen the idea Col 2:16f has the Sabbath Day fulfillment in Christ.


    Lastly, the bond of Christ and His Church is utterly unbreakable, and thus refutes the idea of a Great Apostasy as well as refuting the idea Christian Marriage can be severed by divorce. (<a href="http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/09/what-therefore-god-has-joined-together-divorce-and-the-sacrament-of-marriage/>Hat Tip to Bryan Cross' newest Article for this last bit</a>)

    ReplyDelete
  93. Cyril,

    As I said before, I studied Goldstein's Sabbath School lesson on the IJ. If he couldn't convince me in 12 weeks of daily lessons (on top of 30+ years of exposure to SDA teaching) one more book isn't going to make a difference.

    It's popular among SDA's to say "nobody leaves because of doctrine" but that's exactly why I'm of a mind to leave. And It's not because I don't understand but because I do.

    ReplyDelete
  94. For Nick & CJ,

    I have a few more pertinent things to say, but am feeling a bit inhibited with Nick's wanting to close down. Actually we are just getting started and I haven't really addressed the main problem with the article that started the discussion. We are just getting started!

    For CJ, let me say that nobody can convince you of something if you don't want to be convinced. This may be something you have not thought through on a psychological basis. When I give a reference to a good coverage of a subject, it is because I have found it to be of value not only to me, but to those who want to look at the subject and learn.

    Again, we are not agreeing on extra-biblical history and I haven't seen anyone else in this group emphasizing that history that didn't occur was concocted for an agenda. I want to thank you for admitting the Donation of Constantine was a forgery. Whether written by the Pope that submitted it to King Pepin or not, he was at least an accomplice to the deception. How do I know that many other popes have not followed the same pattern? Is there evidence of this?

    I am trying to get an idea of how you Catholic Christian brothers are reasoning. Let me give three quotes and ask if the third one is accurate.

    Genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
    Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    From Deis Domini, papal encyclical of May 31, 1998 we read:

    “. . . .Sunday is the day of rest because it is the day ‘blessed’ by God and ‘made holy’ by him, set apart from the other days to be, among all of them, ‘the Lord’s Day.’ ”—Page 6, section 14.

    For the truth,
    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  95. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Cyril,

    There's no evidence that any popes were accomplices to the deception. The evidence suggests that a handful of popes were tricked by the Donation -- not that they knew it to be fake, and used it anyway.

    Their problem was that they were gullible: they wanted it to be true, and so they overlooked evidence to the contrary. But my point above was: that's the same thing you're doing. You're allowing yourself to be duped by Avro Manhattan and by lists you're finding on the Internet. Why? Because you want them to be true.

    For example, if those lists on the Internet were seeking to discredit Ellen White instead of the papacy, you wouldn't just parrot whatever you found. You'd look things up for yourself to see if the claims were true. But when it's nasty things about Catholics, you're ready to just assume that they're true because somebody on the Internet said so.

    If we could, though, I'd like to get back to Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5. These are certainly the most important passages, since they're New Testament passages that appear to be on point. Here are my questions:

    (1) If we conclude that St. Paul is talking about the weekly Sabbath, does this debunk Seventh-day Adventism? Note: I'm not asking you conclude that this is what Paul is talking about. I'm just wondering whether you'd allow your Sabbatarianism to be falsified by Scripture.

    (2) Which are the seven yearly Sabbaths you're referring to? Are you referring to the annual religious festivals?

    God bless,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  97. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  98. All,

    I thought I had taken care of Romans 14:5 when I pointed out that it is connected with uncertainty with food and fasting and most likely is better explained in 1 Cor 8. It does not mention worship or the Sabbath. There is nothing uncertain or doubtful about Ex. 20:8-11.

    And, yes Joe, if Colossians 2:16 was about the weekly Sabbath, Sabbatarians should have pause to consider the matter. But, the problem is that the evidence is too strong that it is not about the weekly Holy memorial of Creation. For the list of yearly sabbaths, that you ask about, see my article at http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/should-christians-observe-israelite-festivals

    Let me list a few things that don't match Col 2:16 being the weekly Sabbath besides Col. 2:17:

    1. Paul is writing this around 64 AD. Where is there a record of a change in the day of worship for 33 years when Christ returned to heaven? What were Christains to do in the mean time?
    2. Since John Paul, II, upholds the Ten Commandments as reason to keep the Sabbath holy in Deis Domini, how can any Catholic try to eliminate the Seventh-day Sabbath's holiness by using Colossians 2:16?
    3. Where are those who are heeding and being careful about Paul's writings as stated in 2 Peter 3:15-18? Before coming to Paul's writings, the rest of the Bible is clear on the course Christians should follow in this matter. I don't need Paul's writings to prove that the Sabbath is eternal or establishing any other doctrine that I hold, hence I cannot be accused of misinterpreting him.
    4. When the word "law" is used in Romans, it mainly about The Ten Commandments. (See Romans 7:7, 13:9, etc.) And, here is what Paul says in Romans 3:31 Do we then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid! But we establish the law. (Douay)

    The main problem with the write-up that started this discussion is an unspoken premise that a prophet cannot be inaccurate because a prophet has verbal inspiration--every word used is dictated by the Holy Spirit so there is no error. If this is true, then we have to label Luke and Paul as false prophets because they also didn't get historical facts right either. There is a VAST difference between the "crime"/"sin" of getting historical facts innacurate and lying about and creating history! (Rev. 21:8) Is that not so?

    Let me point out just one deception that is evident. "The Lord's Day" is stated in the Bible to be the Seventh-day Sabbath, (Ex. 20:11; Isa. 58:13, 14; Mark 2:27, 28). Now we see the claim that it is Sunday. Is this not a direct contradition of Scripture?

    Finally, Dr. Bacchiocchi is used as some sort of authority above, but dare anyone mention some of the things he found in his scholarly investigation in the Vatican library such as that Epiphanius says that the original church at Jerusalem was still keeping the Seventh-day Sabbath in 350 AD? Check out Bacchiocchi's book that has the imprimatur. (From Sabbath to Sunday.)

    Hope this is helpful.

    For the Truth,
    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  99. Cyril,

    You say that “if Colossians 2:16 was about the weekly Sabbath, Sabbatarians should have pause to consider the matter. ” That seems a bit mild, frankly. If Colossians 2:16 is about the weekly Sabbath, then Sabbatarianism is directly denied by Scripture.

    The reason that's important is that it's easy to show that Paul doesn't mean the seven yearly Sabbaths.

    In 2 Chronicles 2:4, in a letter to Hiram, the king of Tyre, Solomon writes:

    "Now I am about to build a temple for the Name of the LORD my God and to dedicate it to him for burning fragrant incense before him, for setting out the consecrated bread regularly, and for making burnt offerings every morning and evening and on the Sabbaths, at the New Moons and at the appointed festivals of the LORD our God. This is a lasting ordinance for Israel."

    So those are the three important days on the caledar: the weekly Sabbath, the monthly New Moon, and the annual religious festivals. Yes, it's true that these festivals are also Sabbaths, but they're not usually called that -- in order to distinguish them from the weekly Sabbath. They're called "festivals" instead.

    Now look at Colossians 2:16,

    "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day."

    St. Paul lists the exact same three sets of liturgical feasts: the annual festivals (the seven Sabbaths of the year), the monthly New Moon celebration, and the weekly Sabbath.

    There's no ambiguity here. Paul means the same thing that Solomon meant. Two more things to notice about this:

    (1) Paul couldn't have meant the seven annual Sabbaths, since he already addressed those: the religious festivals.

    (2) Paul couldn't have meant the seven annual Sabbaths, since he refers to the Sabbath day. The religious festivals weren't "a Sabbath day." They were part of a much longer religious festival (for example, the Feast of Tabernacles is 8 days long).

    I'll hold off on addressing everything else, but suffice it to say that none of the passage you cited refer to Saturday as "the LORD's Day," and that every single historical reference, including from the first century, and including from the Book of Revelation, uses that term to mean Sunday.

    God bless,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  100. Joe,

    I am convinced that you are sincere that you are right in what you say. However, I find problems with what you say. Let me just go for two points. Please explain Col. 2:17 and how that fits into your explanation. Secondly, please explain how if the Lord calls the Sabbath "My holy day" in Isaiah 58:13, 14, that it is not the Lord's day. Similarly, explain how when Christ says He is Lord of the Sabbath, that the Sabbath is not the Lord's day. And again, similarly why, when it says that the seventh day is "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," in Exodus 20:10, that it cannot rightly be concluded that the seventh-day is the Lord's special holy day?

    Do I need to quote catechisms stating that the Sabbath is Saturday?

    What authority would you give for someone who would say that God made Sunday a holy day?

    For the truth,
    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  101. PS: Again and again, as a volunteer responder for www.Bibleinfo.com I have to urge people to take all the Bible texts on a subject and weigh the evidence before coming to a conclusion. There are 84 Sabbath gatherings for religious worship in the book of Acts to only two Sunday meetings. What occurs on a particular day is not what makes it holy. It is what God says that makes it holy. I urge a scholarly approach to this subject with "Judging The Sabbath--Discovering What Can't Be Found in Colossians 2:16" by Ron du Preez. (Andrews University Press) Also, SabbathTruth.com has extensive documentation by Catholic writers and others, stating that there is no Biblical support for a change from Sabbath to Sunday.

    "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, in the Council of
    Laodicea (A.D. 336--exact date uncertain), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.'!--"The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine," by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R., page 50, third edition, 1913, a work which
    received the "apostolic blessing" of Pope Pius X, January 25, 1910.

    Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

    This is about authority and worship--the final showdown.

    "Though these two divine streams [the Bible and tradition] are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still, of the two, tradition is to us more clear and safe." –
    “Catholic Belief," Rev. Joseph Faa Di Bruno, D.D. (Roman Catholic), page 45.

    The decision at the Council of Trent around 1563 AD was that tradition was above scripture. I say, REALLY??

    WWJD? (and say?)

    Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

    For the truth,
    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  102. Cyril,

    Your second comment repeats the same pattern of misinformation. You once again cited to: "The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine," by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R., page 50, third edition, 1913, a work which
    received the "apostolic blessing" of Pope Pius X, January 25, 1910.


    You quoted that above, and I already showed that the quotation is false. And the book (as far as I can tell) appears to have been first published in 1930, long after St. Pius X was dead.

    Are you not reading these corrections, or do you not care about getting these things right? The first time, I wrote it off as a simple mistake. But you've yet to admit to any mistake, even when it's been shown to you that the claims you're making are untrue. And then you go and repeat the already-disproved "evidence."

    The same with your latest claim: "The decision at the Council of Trent around 1563 AD was that tradition was above scripture. I say, REALLY??"

    Really, no. Trent never said that. You can find the canons of the Council of Trent online. Show me anywhere that Trent makes this claim -- because in fact, The Council rejects this view.

    You say "for the truth." This is the time to live up to that -- examine your own evidence, and make corrections as necessary. Then we can get back to the topic at hand.

    God bless,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  103. Joe,

    It is with some discomfiture that read about my alleged errors. I am not convinced yet that this is the case. Have you heard of more than one edition of "The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine?" I see one here for 1946. I think that is where the problem lies in thinking that it has been misquoted. My source states that the phrase with the word "Laodicea" has been omitted in later editions.

    So, let me admit my error. It was the 18th of January, 1562, not 1563.

    Where is that studious looking D.A. Gerulus to comment?

    Okay, the evaluation of documents is very hard to evaluate as to reliability due to conflict of interest, (Donation of Constantine is an example). But, for the Council of Trent, here is a sample, from a Catholic historical report, I believe, (please confirm), of the same and the man that gave the concluding speech regarding which has the highest authority, (tradition or scripture), Gaspere de Fosso, Archbishop of Reggio. I suspect you can find Catholic apologists who have tried to say it is a fraud, too!

    Because of fraudulent history writers is why I have suggested just keeping our source of spiritual instruction and discussion to the Bible only.

    1444. Sabbath, Change of—Cited in Council of Trent as Proof that Tradition Is Above Scripture
    Source: Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Kanon und Tradition (“Canon and Tradition”) (Ludwigsburg: Druck and Verlag von Ferd. Riehm, 1859), p. 263. German. [FRS No. 72.]
    The Council [of Trent] agreed fully with Ambrosius Pelargus, that under no condition should the Protestants be allowed to triumph by saying that the council had condemned the doctrine of the ancient church. But this practice caused untold difficulty without being able to guarantee certainty. For this business, indeed, ‘well-nigh divine prudence’ was requisite—which the Spanish ambassador acknowledged as belonging to the council on the sixteenth of March, 1562. Indeed, thus far they had not been able to orient themselves to the interchanging, crisscrossing, labyrinthine, twisting passages of an older and newer concept of tradition. But even in this they were to succeed. Finally, at the last opening [see editors’ note] on the eighteenth of January, 1562, all hesitation was set aside: [Gaspar de Fosso] the Archbishop of Reggio made a speech [see No. 1443] in which he openly declared that tradition stood above Scripture. The authority of the church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the church had changed circumcision into baptism, Sabbath into Sunday, not by the command of Christ, but by its own authority. With this, to be sure, the last illusion was destroyed, and it was declared that tradition does not signify antiquity, but continual inspiration.
    [Editors’ note: This “last opening” of the Council of Trent was not the last day, but the opening of the 17th session, the first meeting of the last series of sessions that was opened, after a lapse of time, under a new pope. The council was in session for longer or shorter periods over a series of years.]

    The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Students' Source Book; The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 9. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1962; 2002, S. 888

    I am glad to hear you stand up for scripture as being above tradition. You are on the right track--keep it up!

    Hope this is helpful.

    For the truth, (2 Cor. 13:8)
    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  104. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Heinrich Julius Holtzmann (May 7, 1832 - 1910), German Protestant theologian, son of Karl Julius Holtzmann (1804-1877), was born at Karlsruhe, where his father ultimately became prelate and counsellor to the supreme consistory.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Dr. Johann Maier von Eck (November 13, 1486 – February 13, 1543) was a German Scholastic theologian and defender of Catholicism during the Protestant Reformation. It was Eck who argued that the beliefs of Martin Luther and Jan Hus were similar.

    1445. Sabbath, Change of—Eck’s Argument for the Church’s Superiority Over Scripture
    Source: Johann Eck, Enchiridion Locorum Communion … Adversus Lutheranos (“Handbook of Common Places Against the Lutherans”) (Venice: Ioan. Antonius & Frates de Sabio, 1533), fols. 4v, 5r, 42v. Latin. Trans. by Frank H. Yost. Used by permission of Mrs. Frank H. Yost. [FRS No. 127.]
    [fol. 4v] The Scripture teaches “Remember that you sanctify the day of the Sabbath; six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God,” etc. But the Church has changed the Sabbath into the Lord’s (day) by its own author- [fol. 5r] ity, concerning which you have no scripture.
    Christ said to his disciples in the mount, “I have not come to dissolve the law but to fulfill it”; and yet the church of the Apostles in the first council has boldly spoken out concerning the cessation of legal things…
    The Scripture decrees in the [apostolic] council … that you abstain from … blood and from a strangled thing; a matter so clearly defined and expressed the Church has changed by her own authority, for she uses both blood and things strangled. See the power of the church over Scripture.
    [fol. 42v] The Sabbath is commanded many times by God; neither in the Gospels nor in Paul is it declared that the Sabbath has ceased; nevertheless the Church has instituted the Lord’s day through the tradition of the Apostles without Scripture.

    The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Students' Source Book; The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 9. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1962; 2002, S. 888

    ReplyDelete
  106. Cyril,

    Unfortunately, I don't have the time to track down each and every one of the passages quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Students' Source Book to see if it's accurate or not.

    Of the sources that I have checked out, what you've quoted hasn't matched with the originals: the controversial parts have been added in by apparently some unscrupulous editor or anti-Catholic apologist. So there's good reason to believe that you're using inaccurate sources.

    My general suggestion is this: if you think that a particular quotation is really important, look it up online and see if you can find any Catholic or neutral sources that quote it. I try to do the same thing in reverse: I try not to rely only on anti-LDS or anti-Adventism or anti-whatever websites, because I find that they're more likely to stretch the truth in order to win an argument. I'm just asking for the same thing in return. If there's something that you want to know about Catholicism, try reading something written by Catholics on that point, rather than something written by people who don't even practice the faith.

    Hope that helps, and God bless,

    Joe

    P.S. For the relationship between Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, you can read the Catechism starting here (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#80). Or you can just read 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

    Short answer: man-made traditions are inferior to Scripture. Apostolic Tradition is the Deposit of Faith and includes (but isn't limited to) Scripture. So asking if Scripture is superior or inferior to Apostolic Tradition doesn't make sense from a Catholic perspective: Scripture is part of that Tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  107. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  108. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  109. David,

    Ha! Don't worry - it seems that both Cyril and I very much look forward to your comments.

    In Christ,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  110. Thinking. Thanks David & Joe. Give me some time as I have "a lot on my platter" here.

    Blessings,
    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  111. October 7, 2011
    Brothers & Sister,

    By the way, we are not against Catholics as a people--just the organization. Ellen White gives much better opinion of Catholics than the other way around, (as seen in the Jesuit oath). Quoting her: ". . .there are now true Christians in every church, not excepting the Roman Catholic communion. . ."--"The Great Controversy" page 449. What do those do who are in error and don't want to admit it? Check out more recent history and Cain and Abel of old.

    I see us sort of dragging in this conversation. Let me address some by name.

    I keep seeing Theresa Beam as the first commentor. I did a critique of one of her write-ups in Former Adventists or ex-Adventists website, I believe it was, but had no way to send it to her. I see superficiality in her comment suggesting that they were celebrating the Eucharist daily with the intimation that therefore no day is now sacred and holy. Theresa is reading into the text more than is there. That won't fly in the face of "Deis Domini" in which John Paul, II states that God blessed Sunday and made it holy. Further he calls for civil legislation in this matter, (a direct fulfillment of Rev. 13, when done). To that civil legislation idea, Benjamin Franklin says such religion is bad. (Full quote given previously.) I don't think it takes "a rocket scientist" to see that John Paul, II's statement is in direct opposition to Genesis 2:1-3 and Ex. 20:8-11 in which it states that the 7th day of the week was blessed and made holy. Then he goes on to try to apply Ex. 20:8-11 to Sunday--a fatal mistake!

    For David and Joe I have to say that Ron du Preez has done a masterful job on Col. 2:16. "Judging The Sabbath--Discovering What Can't Be Found In Colossians 2:16." Superficially, one might come to quick conclusions about this text, but in going deep, much much more is involved. To try to wipe out any holy day with this text would also fly in the face of John Paul, II, who is claiming holiness for Sunday. Ron du Preez is a doctoral student and will be receiving his doctorate on the basis of his research on this very text. You can purchase his book online from Andrews University Press. (http://universitypress.andrews.edu/catalog.php?key=195) Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 (Douay)

    Joe

    To try to claim that all Catholic writings including the Bible are tradition won't fly in the face of Christ's statements in which He makes a difference. This reasoning is just clouding an issue that is clear. Matthew 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Matthew 15:9 And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.
    (Douay)

    For Nick and the article that started this discussion, I have clearly shown that it is not a sign of a false prophet to be unaware of some historical facts.

    For Gary who sent me to this website: Is it more clear now as to what the problem is?

    With that, I am going to bow out of this discussion and honor Nick's request to close down discussion. I will not be reading more, but will be available for questions at www.Bibleinfo.com. Just preface your questions with "Please have Cyril answer."

    For the truth,
    Cyril
    PS: And, as for that handsome couple you see by my messages, that's me alright, but 56 years ago when I was dating Charlotte at age 21--we've been married 53+ years now. Time has not improved my appearance, but looking forward with you all to Philippians 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body. . . :)

    ReplyDelete
  112. Cyril,

    Not to beat a dead horse, but you keep bringing up false information. The most recent example is the so-called "Jesuit oath." It's not real. That's not to say that the Jesuits don't take vows, but it is to say that their vows are nothing like what you're referring to.

    As for Christ and Tradition, this one's easy. What Christ condemns is not Apostolic Tradition (what St. Paul refers to as "the Traditions we passed on to you"), but the traditions of men, and specifically, of the Pharisees. Apostolic Tradition isn't of men: it's of God. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says,

    "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

    Tradition by letter, then, is Scripture. Tradition by word of mouth is extra-Scriptural Tradition. Catholics are the ones following the Bible here.

    You can't nullify the word of God in Scripture to say that St. Paul was wrong, and that Scripture isn't Tradition, or that the only Tradition that matter is Scripture.

    Hopefully, I caught you before you bowed out of the conversation completely. In any case, go in the peace of Christ. God bless,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  113. WOW!!

    I was just sent this link of this blog, and read about a third of all these comments...

    There are many comments against SDAs, for whatever reason, and I do see a lot of Scriptural discussion going on...

    I know that it is almost a year later, but I wonder if there were any concrete answers shared on the view of the SDAs, and EGW... ??

    ReplyDelete