Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Answer to SDA Video about Catholic Bishop's Confession




See yesterday's post.


Adventists have always misunderstood both Christian history and Catholic doctrine. They continue to re-circulate ancient quotes as if they are authoritative for Catholics and often without any understanding of what the Catholic writers even mean.


I would like to take the quotes read from this Seventh-day Adventist actor playing the part of a Catholic bishop and analyze them one by one.


Before we do, let's look at the transcript right before the beginning of this clip. SDA televangelist John Carter claims: 


46:06 And my friend who is here today is going to come and he's going to read Mr. Vincent Morton he's going to come and read from the official writings of the as they call it the holy Roman Catholic Church. Listen to this, these are the unadulterated statements from Popes and other Roman Catholic leaders.

This is patently false as you will see. None of the quotes that follow (which are on the clip) are "official" in the sense that they represent the understanding of the magisterium of the Catholic Church and Christian history. 


The Five Quotes in the Clip


Two quotes are by Catholic Redemptorist (that's what the CSSR is) Thomas Enright : 

48:03 I have repeatedly offered $1000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible, it is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. The Catholic Church says no by my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week. And lo the entire civilized world bows down in a reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church. T. Enright C.S.S.R. in an electorate Harford Kansas,  February 18th, 1884. 
51:25 I have repeatedly offered one thousand dollars to anyone who will prove by the Bible alone that Sunday IS the day we are bound to keep, and no one has called for the money. It was the holy Catholic Church that changed the day of rest from Saturday, the seventh day, to Sunday, the first day of the week, T. Enright, C. S. S. R., in a lecture delivered in 1893.

(3ABN, Carter Report, The Priest's Confession, Part 2, Program transcript. Series code: CR, Program code: CR001105)


Note the similarities in the two quotes. The transcript gives very little information to track down the source. When I googled them, I discovered the quotes in anti-catholic sites but with differing sources. I tracked them down to the earliest SDA publication that I could find. The Signs of the Times, August 5, 1907, p. 489:


Papal Claims 
"...I will give $1000 to any man who will prove by the Bible alone that Sunday is the day we are bound to keep. . . . The observance of Sunday is "The Pope's will stands for reason. He can dispense solely a law of the Catholic Church. . . . The church changed the Sabbath to Sunday, and all the world bows down and worships upon that day, in silent obedience to the mandates of the Catholic Church."— "Father" Enright, of the College of Redemptorist Fathers, Kansas City, Mo., in Hartford (Mo.) Weekly Call, Feb. 22, 1884.

"The Catholic Church says, No! By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day, and command you to keep holy the first day of the week. And, lo, the entire civilised world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church !"—'Father" T. Enright, C.S.S.R., of Redemptorist College, Kansas City, Mo., in American Sentinel, June 1, 1893.
Please note the sources are different in the video and in Signs of the Times (Hartford, Mo. vs. Hartford, Ks). Even the wording has changed somewhat. Yet the Signs of the Times gives additional information that make it easier to verify the authenticity of the quote.

Therefore, after investigation we can dismiss the quotes because: 

  • There was no record of a Redemptorist named Thomas Enright at that time. (The Catholics keep records.) [NOTE: update--someone sent me a link of a obituary of a Redemptorist Timothy Enright that may the guy.]
  • The Signs of the Times second quote sources the American Sentinel which is problematic because the Philadelphia newspaper shut down in 1840.  

[* UPDATE: A man sent me a link with a scan of two letters where this man "Father Enright" challenged that he would pay anyone who could find a proof-text for Sunday. However, the scan of the letter never indicated that it was in a lecture. ("Lecture" must have been a typo) So, the guy may be a legitimate priest, we however are not sure about the context of the personal letter.]

Let's deal with the other three quotes as a group because they are all legitimate Catholic writers in legitimate Catholic periodicals. 

49:03 The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant by virtue of her divine mission changed the day from Saturday to Sunday the Catholic Mirror, Sep. 23rd, 1893. 
49:22 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 336A.D. transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday. Peter Giermann, Converts Catechism1910, page 50. 
50:01 Question, have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept? Answer, has she not such power she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her. She could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week for the observance of Saturday the seventh day. The change for which there is no scriptural authority. Stephen Keenan, 'A Doctrinal Catechism' page 174, [1846]

These three publications, even with the nil obstat  or imprimatur in no way gives them the authority of the Catholic Church. It just means that there is no heresy that the bishop could find in the book. These labels are not infallible and never were thought to be. Catholic books with the thumbs up from bishops can and do have these "thumbs ups" removed. Samuele Bacchiocci's book was eventually stripped of its imprimatur. 


Think about this, a hundred years from now someone trying to prove the SDA church hates science and no members can believed in evolution may publish this quote to prove it:

"As long as you stick to the Bible (and Ellen White's books and articles) you will not go wrong. For those among us who have already decided--despite the Bible and Ellen White--on evolution, there are plenty of other churches for you. Ours isn't one." Cliff Goldstein, Adventist Review July 24, 2003

Cliff Goldstein is a bona fide leader of the SDA church. He is an employee of the General Conference and speaks for the church. The Adventist Review is a church publication, right?

Actually, Cliff is expressing his opinion, even in this church publication. Catholic priests can do that and do so all the time. The above quotes are just that. The quotes in the clip are from individual Catholics giving their opinions even in Catholic periodicals. But they cannot be used to prove Catholic doctrine. 


Let me explain just a bit more. The Sabbatarian Sabbath was really not an issue for a thousand years. Sixteenth-century puritans began arguing among each other about a Sunday Sabbath or a Saturday Sabbath. Even priests in America and Great Britain were drug into the argument without being educated, because frankly, sabbatarianism wasn't high on their priority list. 


So, if you truly want to know what the Catholics believe, don't go back any further than Pope John Paul II's encyclical, Dies Domini. He dealt thoroughly with this subject and this is the official,  (as John Carter said earlier) "unadulterated" Catholic doctrines. Use this to form your understanding about Catholic beliefs on the Sabbath. 


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini_en.html
Those quotes are simply not relevant to the subject. 

The bishop is fictional. 

The authority given these quotes is fictional. 

If you want truth... what Catholics really believe? To the current Catechism and Magisterium you go! Ask the Vatican!





44 comments:

Arik said...

Don't go back any further than Dies Domini? So you have just wiped out the official Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), where it states "the Church of God has in her wisdom ordained that the celebration of the Sabbath should be transferred to the Lord's Day" pg 267. This is not new, it echos Eusebius' similar sentiments; "all that was prescribed for the Sabbath, we have transferred to the Lord's Day..."

I am sorry Teresa but writing these quotes off as not "official church teaching" or "just their opinion" does not mean they are not true. It just means the church today is not as eager to admit what it was so bold to proclaim not so long ago and beyond. Besides the evidence that the Catholic Church changed the 4th commandment Sabbath to the 3rd commandment Sunday is hardly dependant on Catholic quotes. We can read the Decalogue in Scripture, we can see there is not a 3rd commandment to keep Sunday as a holy day, and we see no act in the OT or NT that repeals the 4th commandment to keep the Seventh Day Sabbath holy. Where did your 3rd commandment come from? When did it become incorporated into the Decalogue?

Curious that in your book pg 213 you say "Although the RCC claims they have the right to change it [Sabbath]; no dogma, no ex-cathedra or general magisterium document has ever been brought forth proving that the Catholics indeed changed the Sabbath to Sunday. The SDA church's proof are quotes from individual popes, bishops or priests that have no authority to speak for the universal church." Now this is a hoot-the church claims it can change the Sabbath law (but didn't) and any Pope, bishop, or priest who admits the church changed the law is just too stupid to understand its own history. Too bad they weren't around for history to "officially" begin in 1998 with Dies Domini!

Stephen Korsman said...

Catechism of the Council of Trent:

"Apostles therefore resolved to consecrate the first day of the week to the divine worship, and called it the Lord's day."

http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcomm03.htm

Stephen Korsman said...

One needs to understand statements like "The Church changed the Sabbath" in the context that Catholics might mean them. The Catholic Church is already clear that we believe the Apostles began Sunday observance. However, the Catholic Church also believes that the Apostles were Catholic. So "The Apostles began Sunday observance" and "The Church began Sunday observance", to Catholics, are synonymous phrases. Even if one disagrees that the Apostles were Catholic, one is still obliged to acknowledge that the Catholic Church believes this, and therefore, in the Catholic context, these mean the same thing, and are not two contradicting claims.

Teresa Beem said...

Arik,

There is no official document anywhere that says, "We as the Roman Catholic Church herefore and hereafter change the Sabbath to Sunday." Such a document doesn't exist because it never happened. What you are reading is commentary about what the Apostles did. And even that isn't really right, because the Catholic Church doesn't believe nor officially ever believed that Sunday was a "Sabbath." May scholars use that word as short-cut colloquial theology because it's easier and faster than going through the actual church doctrine and history. (Or they just simply don't know the history and doctrine of the Sabbath. You have to understand the doctrine of the Sabbath isn't on the radar for Catholics. It's a non-issue so they don't really teach it to seminarians.)

Here's where the mistake in logic occurs:

Sabbath was holy. Now Sunday is holy. But that does not mean Sabbath = Sunday in Catholic terms, it's just easy to make the mistake and assume they are the same. That is why you need to read Dies Domini. It explains how Saturday was fulfilled in Christ and now the Apostles (Catholics, according to Catholics as Stephen K. explained) see Sunday as a holy day because it is when Christ rose from the dead. It fulfills the first/eighth day prophecy in the OT, not the seventh day commandment.

Sabbath was holy for the Jews because it was a prophecy of Christ's death and burial in the final "Sabbath" of the Old Covenant. It's highly-charged theological meaning pointed to a Savior and the New Covenant of Grace. It was a holy day of rest because it pointed to resting in Christ. It was the sign of the Old Covenant, the sign that pointed to the New Covenant.

Sunday is holy for the Christian because it is the day Christ rose from the dead and inaugurated a NEW Covenant. A NEW heaven and a new earth with a new law, a new priesthood and a Church! Sunday isn't a sabbath in the Jewish 4th commandment sense.

Catholics have never, ever had a "day of worship." That is a Protestant idea. Catholics have worship services every day and always have since the beginning. (Act. 2: 46). This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Adventists. They assume there is a "day" of the week we are supposed to worship on. That is not biblical nor historical. The Temple was always at worship seven days a week. Israel was to rest one day of the week, not worship one day of the week. If Adventists could understand this they would be more on track with mainstream history. Catholics have always had daily mass. But the Church finally began obliging Catholics to go to church at least on day a week, preferably Sunday --NOT because it is a Sabbath--but because it is a celebration of Christ's resurrection. Most Protestant denominations only are open to worship and have services once a week. That is where this whole "day" of worship got started.

Teresa Beem said...

Arik,
You mistrust Catholics. You think we are trying to pull something over on you so you won't accept any answers we give because you think they are tinged with misinformation and some type of trickery. We aren't. Dies Domini is a good explanation of the Catholic past understanding of Sunday.

When the Catholic Church leaders say, "The church changed the day of holiness to Sunday" what they mean is exactly what Stephen and I wrote. They are saying, "The Apostles, by their authority in Christ, proclaimed the first day of the week as the day we celebrate the Resurrection." It is wholly unconnected to Sabbath and the early church absolutely understood this. In the eastern part of Christendom they rested on Sabbath and attended church daily as well as especially attended it on Sunday as a celebration of the Resurrection. IF the church saw Sunday as the new Sabbath why would it continue keeping Saturday as a day of rest? We get our weekends today because of this tradition. There was no mix up at all. Today when you go to Rome, you will hear Saturday called "Sabbath" in Italian or Latin. The Catholic church has never equated the two. The Cross is the clear dividing line between them. Christ is our Sabbath, He fulfilled it and brought in a new system for this new epoch.

Arik said...

OK let's try this again, and please do not write off my comments as "not trusting Catholics."

Every attribute given to the 7th Day Sabbath has been given to Sunday. Dies Domini, as I previously quoted from proves this. Sunday ..."precisely why it is also the day of rest...the interuption of the oppressive rythym of work", Sunday is "blessed by God", Sunday is "made holy by him", Sunday is "inseperable...from the plan of God in the Creation of the world", Sunday is "defining and indelible expression of our relationship with God", Sunday "demands times of explicit prayer", "Human rest on the Lord's Day is when man enters the depths of God's "rest."

I could go one, but I hope my point is clear. Does the Pope need to "officially" pronounce that the Sabbath was changed from the 7th Day to the first day for it to be true? Every single attribute given to the Sabbath in Scripture is given to Sunday. The Pope in Dies Domini is echoing all the statements of past bishops and cardinals, and archbishops and even Popes. Eusebius was correct "And all things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day."

On more thing, Dies Domini also recognizes that Sunday sacredness is also part of the Decalogue (just like the Sabbath). I have done what you asked, I have went to the official teaching of the Catholic Church, and my question still remains, when did the command to keep Sunday holy become part of the Decalogue?




Teresa Beem said...

Arik,

Israel had many types of sabbaths. The weekly sabbaths, the monthly sabbaths and the yearly sabbaths. They were all sabbaths but only the weekly one fell on Saturday. The monthly new moons sabbaths fell on random days as did a few of the yearly sabbaths.

These non-4th commandment sabbaths had the same rest features and were holy days in similar ways that the weekly sabbath but they were not weekly sabbaths.

God gave these "sabbaths" holiness, and "rest" expectations, but God did command other things included that the weekly sabbaths didn't. For the yearly sabbaths there was the command of coming to Jerusalem for corporate worships, there were special offerings and liturgy.

Both were sabbaths but they were not alike.

So, Sunday has its roots in the High Sabbath of the Feast of the Tabernacles. It was an eighth-day Sabbath. So it has some sabbath-type similarities but they don't trace back to the weekly sabbaths but the Annual feasts.

However, as I said, through the centuries, the complexities of this have been lost on most priests and Catholic theologians who simply are not giving a thorough explanation. For convenience sake they conflate the weekly Sunday with the weekly Saturday Sabbath, because it is so much easier!

If you read the complete Dies Domini you will see how the pope tries to explain this.

The Jewish Sabbath on Saturday flanks the cross with the Christian day of celebration. One ends with the cross, one begins with the cross, one is the holy day of the Old Covenant one is the holy day of the New Covenant, but they are not equal to each other, just as a child born of parents may look similar to another child, but they are not the same child. They go back to the parents DNA but their DNA are not equal to each other.

The idea of Sunday taking on 4th commandment sabbath holiness was a very, very long process. It was unknown in early centuries. The idea of Sunday holiness grew and grew and its roots in the Jewish festivals was slowly figured out. The idea of Sunday being a weekly Sabbath of the 4th commandment is a modern idea.

There are similarities in the sacredness of Sunday and Sabbath, there is holiness and in the last few centuries the church has started asking people to "rest" on Sunday because they see its roots in the feast of the Tabernacle and even in the shadows of the 4th commandment. But Sunday isn't a Christian "Sabbath."

Of course to you it looks that way. Because the church hasn't done a clear job of showing it because nobody really cared. Nobody but a small group who call themselves SDAs.

The Vatican doesn't understand Adventists problem with this. They don't get the nuances that are keeping Adventists skeptical.

It seems easy to the Catholics: God explained to the Apostles that He is the Sabbath. His rest at the Cross fulfilled the Sabbath. Now there is a new holy day to celebrate His resurrection. By their authority (or perhaps Christ told them, we don't know), the Apostles decided to make it weekly celebration. Immediately the early Christians found the eighth day significance of new holy day. Many great and awesome discoveries of the day Christ rose from the dead were understood from scripture. And the Apostles began getting the layering of importance.

Over the centuries Catholic scholars have seen similarities in the Sunday holy day and the Saturday Sabbath and pointed them out. The distinctions of a weekly or an annual sabbath have blurred and confused a lot of people. It was the Puritans who came out and claimed Sunday was a Christian Sabbath.

Dies Domini clearly says it is not. Sunday isn't a sabbath even though has taken on the appearance lately. There are biblical reasons for this. But they are time consuming to explain.

If that doesn't clear it up for you I am not certain what will. (Read the post about Jesus keeping a Sunday Sabbath and that may be easier to understand.) I am willing to keep battling to make this clear if you are truly interested.


God bless!

Teresa Beem said...

One more note of explanation:

I think what you are wanting is a proof-text because you have the Bible as your sole authority.

Even though Catholics have the Bible as an authority, it is only part of God's revelation to man. The Word of God was said to the Apostles, Jesus didn't write anything down. The Apostles wrote some of what Christ told them, but not all.

We can see in Acts 2 that Christ instructed the eleven Apostles for forty days after His resurrection about the Kingdom of God. No where in scripture do we find out what Christ told them in those days. It wasn't written. Catholics do not dismiss God's Word simply because it was never written. It is still God's infallible holy word and we are going to follow it.

Christ started a church with His authority to preach what He taught them. The leaders of this church eventually wrote down some of what Christ taught, but not all. They were not leaving writings for people to follow, they were leaving writings for the CHURCH! Scripture clearly tells us to submit to the church for it is the pillar and foundation of truth, the CHURCH is the final arbiter in disputes.

The Catholic Church find the scriptures precious for they are the written word of God, but just as precious is the spoken that were never written. The Church MUST be faithful to all of God's Holy Word.

We go back to the very words of Christ after the resurrection that explains how the Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ. Those were Christ's words spoken into the ears of the Apostles.

If you believe all we have is the Bible and you don't believe the Catholic Church is God's church, then there is no reason ever to believe anything in the New Testament. Because the Catholic Church wrote it, assembled the books, disseminated it, translated and copied and preserved it.

This seems to be the crux of our problem. You want the Bride to provide written evidence of what her Husband told her in scripture alone. There is some good evidence both in scripture and in the early church writings, but not enough for you. You believe the Bride to be the Whore. That puts a little, impassible bridge between us.

Arik said...

Well Teresa, while I appreciate your eisegesis on the Sabbath, I would rather you just answer my clear and specific question. At least I thought I was clear, but I will say it another way, and I promise that I will only use "official" Catholic sources.

Regarding the Ten Commandments the Catechism is explicitly clear: 2053- the law has not been abolished, 2068-The Ten Commandments are obligatory and still binding. Now surely you do not suggest that this is a new discovery centuries later by the church? Note: 2054 that Jesus acknowledged the Ten Commandments and He unfolded all the demands of the commandments. So clearly the Ten Commandments were still in effect before, during and after Christ. This agrees very much with Scripture and with Adventism. In fact I like how the Catechism puts it: 2055- The Decalogue must be interpreted in light of this twofold yet single commandment of love [Matthew 22:37-40] the fulness of the law. Hebrews 8:10 goes on to clarify that this law is part of the New Covenant law that is put in our mind and written in our heart. Paul quotes from them (Romans 7:7) and James calls the Ten Commandment a "law of liberty" (James 1:25, 2:10-12). So it does not sound like anyone in Scripture is confused as to the place and function of the Ten Commandments. Now in Scripture there is absolutely no command to keep Sunday holy as the New Covenant law, nor is there any repeal of the Sabbath commandment. As far as Scripture is concerned all ten of the still binding, still obligatory law of love includes the 4th commandment to keep Sabbath holy. You were an SDA so you know this. In the Catechism it has as the 3rd commandment of the Decalogue to keep Sunday holy. So when did the Catholic Church change the Decalogue to reflect the command to keep Sunday as a holy Day? Please note I am not confining you to Scripture, for we know that Scripture does not record the change. The only impassible bridge that I see is your refusal to answer my simple and explicit question with a simple and explicit answer.

Anonymous said...

Teresea,
You must understand when using the name John Paul II with an SDA and going as far to hope they read something he wrote is not something they want to hear or read or believe. Several year's ago an SDA by the name of Melanie Hess claimed she had a vision. In this vision, JPII is resurrected and rules as the 'anti-christ'. Many Adventist's believe this vision to be valid. So, chances of them reading something he wrote? Not high.
I have concluded there is only one thing we can do, and this is pray for them. Not to sound like a cliche' but..."give it to God".

Teresa Beem said...

If you will read the whole section of the Catechism on this you will find that the church is:

1) Showing that Jesus when He was encountering the young lawyer was clearly taking authority over it. He added a commandment, "go and sell your possessions." HE, JESUS, added to the law.

2) He was showing that it was the SPIRIT of the law that was important, not the letter. It was all about loving your neighbor.

Catholics believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law. Jesus didn't abolish it but was its purpose and goal. That doesn't mean we are free to sin.

This can be very confusing!! How can the Old commandments be fulfilled and yet we cannot then sin? How do we even know what sin is without the law? I can heartily understand why Adventists could think other Christians don't "get" it.

Because the Old Covenant commandments were only a part of an eternal law. They were not the original law, but the first part of it. Like when a person is not to have sexual relations before marriage. That is a good law but it is part of the whole law of God's sexuality. When you are married the law changed. Does that mean the law before marriage was wrong? No! It was a part of a much greater understanding of marriage and how marriage represents God Himself.

The Ten Commandments, part of the whole Torah, were the Old Covenant (a premarital law). But it was the first step in an even greater law that it was pulled from. It is just one step in the fulfillment of a greater law of the Spirit.




Teresa Beem said...

2070 The Ten Commandments belong to God’s revelation. At the same time they teach us the true humanity of man. They bring to light the essential duties, and therefore, indirectly, the fundamental rights inherent in the nature of the human person. The Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law: (1955)

What Catholicism teaches is that the Ten Commandments are part of the whole revelation of God. Specifically, the Ten Commandments stem from the Natural Law which is morals that are apparent to anyone who is looking for truth. All mankind from all times can understand, if they wish, that murder is destructive. And that stealing and sexual immorality is destructive. This is Natural Law. The Ten do not complete the Natural but are part of it and drawn from it.

The Ten Commandments, part of the Natural Law, are only a small part of God's entire Revelation. Since Christ is the complete Revelation of God and the fulfillment of the the Old Covenant, He alone can expand and explain the Ten Commandments. This doesn't get rid of them, but gives them their fullest meaning.

Jesus said, "You have heard it said, 'Thou shalt not kill.' " Then Christ goes on to tell us not even to hate. This doesn't mean that we can now kill just not hate. It means God is showing us the fullness of the commandment. We now understand the meaning of the law--the SPIRIT, rather than the letter. The Spirit of the commandment is to love our brothers and do unto them as we would like to be done to us. The New Commandment is the maturity of the Old.

So, when Catholics say we are obligated to keep the Ten Commandments, it simply is saying that with New Covenant, God didn't say, "Woopsie, made a huge blunder there. Now we have to start over with a new set of commandments." God is saying Jesus IS the law. Don't look to Moses anymore. Don't look to the law and the prophets. Look to My Son. He IS the law.

Let's now directly look at the Sabbath issue. By saying we no longer keep a "day" as Sabbath is not saying--we got RID of the Sabbath commandment but that the fullest expression of the Sabbath IS Christ. Within Christ IS our Sabbath rest. The commandment went from a physical "day" to a rest in Christ. He showed us the fullest truth of the Sabbath like He showed us the fullest sense of "Thou shalt not kill." We do not, as Christians, go around saying to ourselves as we meet others, "Can't kill him... Can't kill him... Can't kill him." No we think no such thing! Are we then ignoring the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill?" Absolutely not. We live in the New Commandment about LOVING our neighbor. Instead we focus on, "How can I love my neighbor?"

When we now keep our Sabbath rest IN CHRIST, are we breaking the commandment about Sabbath rest? No! Absolutely not. We are now thinking about how can I more fully rest in Christ. How can I more fully love Christ.

This is important. Vitally important. The first few commandments explain how we LOVE GOD!! It is God who sets the rules on how we love Him. So when God Himself shows us a more fully developed way of worshipping Him and loving Him, we are not to object. We are to obey. And when God Himself says, "I am Your Sabbath rest." Catholics do not see that as changing the fourth commandment at all. It is now understanding the fulfillment of it. WE ARE keeping the Sabbath commandment by keeping the Sabbath in Christ.

The letter is the beginning, the Spirit is the BEST way of keeping the Commandment. Does that better explain WHY the Catholics can claim they both keep the Sabbath Commandment and then don't have a Sabbath day?

Arik said...

God Himself did not say "I am Your Sabbath rest" Teresa, He said He gives rest, and incidently He gives the exact same rest He promised to give to Israel (Hebrews 4) if they would have obeyed Him. The law of God is spiritual, it has always been spiritual. There seems to be a huge disconnect with you between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. They both contain the Gospel. Listen to Jesus Himself: Matthew 22:37-40: Love the Lord with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself, On these two commandments HANG ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS. This is not a new concept, Jesus is quoting the OT (Deut 6:5, and Lev 19:18). This is the spirit of the law, it has always been the spirit of the law. Look at when God gave the Ten Commandments to Israel "Oh that they had such a heart in them that they would fear me and keep my commandments" Deut 5:29. "And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart" Deut 6:6. Sounds spiritual to me! What you vitally miss is that the Old Covenant was given for Israel as a means to have the New Covenant experience, the writing of the law (of love) on their heart and mind (Hebrews 8). When the Old Covenant was done away with, the Ten Commandments remained, even the Catechism is clear on this point. Why? Because the Ten Commandments are moral law, they define and convict us of sin, show us we need a Saviour. They are a law of love reflecting the character of God Himself. You would have Jesus saying "I come not to abolish the law but to fulfill, and by fulfilling the law I abolished it." No, Jesus fulfilled it by keeping it perfectly, by showing us what it means to have the law of love written in our heart and mind (the New Covenant experience)Love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:10). Having Jesus in our heart and mind keeps us in harmony with the law, not under its condemnation.

Your Catechism is explicitly clear that the Ten Commandments are separate from the laws written by Moses (2056), so you mentioning these other sabbaths have no bearing on the moral obligation and permanence of the Ten Commandments. And I'd be careful with this "natural law" hocus pocus, in Scripture it is not taken as far as the Catholic Church takes it. Natural law didn't fare so well with Eve now did it?, natural law showed her the "tree was good for food, was pleasent to the eyes, and desireable to to make one wise" (Gen. 3:6).

"Go and sell your possessions" is hardly a new commandment. Jesus was pointing out that selfishness is contrary to the law of love. The young ruler was breaking the law. "Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."(Catechism 1850). And when I got married the law of premarital sex did not change at all, all sexual sin is against the Ten Commandments, married or single all sexual sin fall under the sixth commandment. Listen to the Catechism :
The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality (2336). Lust, fornication, maturbation, pornography, prostitution, rape, homosexuality, infidelity (as listed in the Catechism) fall under the transgression of the sixth commandment. The law is complete!

Arik said...

continued,

I agree with you and take it a step further "The Spirit is the ONLY way of keeping the Commandments." All of the commandments explain how we love God and love each other. Including the Sabbath. None of them were repealed but by the life of Christ we were shown what the law demands, and what it means to have its principle of love written in our heart and mind.

I do not know how you possibly can say "we no longer keep a day as Sabbath", you most certainly do. As I pointed out every single attribute given in Scripture to the Sabbath is given to Sunday (have you read Dies Domini?). It is your sabbath whether the church wants to explicitly admit it or not. The Sabbath is a symbol that links us back to the rest of God at Creation.
Why can you not bring yourself to answer my question? When did the Catholic Church change the Ten Commandments to reflect keeping Sunday as a holy day? Is it because the minute you admit the Catholic Church changed them, the quotes from Catholic priests, bishops, archbishops and Popes admitting it would be true? Have some integrity, stand on the authority of the Church that you proclaim can change the very laws of God, for it is exactly what she did. 2172 God's action is the model for human action. If God "rested and was refreshed" on the seventh day, man too ought to "rest" and should let others, especially the poor, "be refreshed." The sabbath brings everyday work to a halt and provides a respite. It is a day of protest against the servitude of work and the worship of money." The 7th day Sabbath is the Sabbath that Jesus kept! He nor the apostles kept Sunday as a day of rest. This change happened much later in history.

Teresa Beem said...

I think we both have presented our arguments. If we have not convinced you that is quite okay. The Holy Spirit is the only one who can guide us. God bless you Arik.

Lasse Bech said...

Thank you for addressing this problem. A am annoyed myself by the poor quallity in the quoting and referencing.

You mention American Sentinel. It was an adventist periodical addressing religious liberty issues. The source you are looking for can be found in the adventist archives website. Here is a link:
http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/AmSn/AmSn18930601-V08-22__B.pdf#view=fit

Apparent it is a letter from this Enright to the author of an article.

Teresa Beem said...

So evidently the SDA publication either made up the personal letter or someone wrote the letter under a bogus name because there was no Father Enright at the Redemptorist College at that time.

Even if the Catholic records were wrong and there was, this man would in no way speak for the Catholic Church, nor would a quote from him have any weight or authority.

Lasse Bech said...

Personally I don't think anyone made it up - however I agree the quote cannot be used the way some adventist apologetics do, and keep doing.

Michael Scheifler said...

Theresa,
The Hartford Weeky Call and Enright are both absolutely genuine, your research was, to say the least, woefully inadequate. You will find the documentation on Enright from Catholic sources at http://biblelight.net/Sources.htm#Fr.%20Enright There are also a lot of other documented sources that are available there, that Catholics have likely never heard from the Catholic apologists.

Teresa Beem said...

Michael,
Good find! I appreciate your time. Some of the confusion is that the Adventist sources I read said the priest's name was Thomas Enright, not Timothy Enright. Therefore doing research pulled up nothing.

And Father Timothy Enright was in the vicinity of the source at the time because he lived in Kansas City from 1884-1901. However at that time the Redemptorists (who were missionaries) allowed him to remain within the mission for prayer and study. So it doesn't look like he was out doing preaching or teaching.

And we still have the problem of the quote itself. Even IF the the SDA source got his first name wrong and IF he did indeed live in the area, that in no way proves he made such a statement. We would have to have some record of the statement itself.

Too much of the SDA source is simply incorrect. So I don't find it trustworthy.

However, I shall reiterate, even if a Catholic Priest HAD made that statement it makes no difference. Catholic priest don't speak for the Vatican anymore than Doug Batchelor speaks for the GC.

To be considered an authentic Catholic teaching it needs to come from the Magisterium and be found in official Vatican documents.

Michael Scheifler said...

Teresa,

Yes, Catholics keep records, so Why didn't YOU find Hoffmann's or Sadliers' directories for Kansas City, which both list Enright on the staff there, when I found them rather easily.

Hartford Kansas is only about 100 miles from Kansas city, and The Hartford Weeky Call published his lecture on their front page on February 18th, 1884. Do you really think that could happen without Enright ever knowing about it? He also boasted about the The Power and Authority of the Catholic Church in Harlan, Iowa, on December 19, 1889. That is about 200 miles from Kansas city. There are even copies of several letters in his own hand on the same topic that are easily found. He was clearly widely known for and even reveling in the $1000 challenge he was famous for.

Yet, you proclaimed on your blog with an air of authority that Enright and the Hartford Weekly Call were both nothing but Adventist frauds. However, I have had scans of that newspaper on my site for several years, but you could not find them? To conclude He was fictional, as you so confidently did, you would have to have had your head in the sand. Now you have to concede not only that you didn't know what you were talking about, but also claim that neither did Enright.

Sadly, Catholics are among the most ignorant and deceived professing Christians. There are still Catholics citing Patrick Madrid's Pope Fiction as authoritative, and claiming vicarius filii Dei has never ever been used by a Pope! They research about as effectively as you did.

Michael

A Brazilian friend said...

Dear Teresa,
This morning, I shared this post to a well-known SDA pastor in Brazil. He has shared the supposed "catholic bishop's confession" in his Facebook page with the description (in Portuguese), translated in English in something like: "Impressive what this Catholic Cardinal is reporting about the sabbath. Let's spread it over the Internet, folks. It's awesome!". He has more than 3,000 shares. I saw it in my news feed through a SDA relative of mine. What impresses me, first of all, is the inaccuracy of the statement. Second, how some people fall into anything that is on the Internet without any critical thought.
Well, even though I have seen many good Brazilian apologetic websites answering SDA doctrines, I wish your blog was available in other languages, such as Portuguese and Spanish.
Thank you so much for your testimony and work!
God bless you!

Teresa Beem said...

Michael, 



In my researching the SDA sources for the quote, some recorded T. Enright (which wasn't helpful) other SDA sources recorded Thomas Enright. So, I was looking for Thomas Enright to little avail. Catholic sources have no redemptorist at that time named Thomas Enright. I found Timothy, but assumed that was a wrong as it was a different name and there was little proof that Timothy could have made such statements at that time because he was secluded as a monk with prayer and study.

You wrote:

“Hartford Kansas is only about 100 miles from Kansas city, and The Hartford Weeky Call published his lecture on their front page on February 18th, 1884?”



The link you sent me was of Timothy Enright's obituary--not the Hartford Weekly Call front page. Could you please link to the Hartford Weekly Call so that I might actually see the quote from the lecture in the transcript itself? You have to be able to see the quote itself. 

If you have another source for finding these newspaper quotes I would be most grateful for that link. But it has to be the microfiche scanned document.

Michael, you make much ado about things that Catholics think little of. Remember Catholic bishops and priests can and do write there own opinions all the time. Their words are not official teaching anymore than Doug Batchelor's sermons are SDA fundamentals. To find a million quotes from SDA pastors and union leaders and say they are the official SDA beliefs would be a parallel situation. If a person wanted to know SDA beliefs they would go to the website and look under 28 Fundamental Beliefs or even the book of that name.... not a Cliff Goldstein article in Adventist Review.

Your misunderstanding is that anything with the name "Catechism" is official. That is the same as believing anyone who publishes a book with the name SDA on it is official. That is simply not true. Also the nihil obstat and imprimatur doesn't mean it is official Catholic doctrine. It means there is nothing within the text of the book that is going to lead one into hell. It is "okay" to read. It doesn't mean it is official doctrine. This is an example of one:

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials 
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. 
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004 
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted. 
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004



Often these imprimaturs and nihil obstats are revoked after later examination by other Catholic official readers. They are certainly not infallible. A science book, like that of Copernicus, can and do get these labels but they are NOT Catholic doctrine. It just means they are not heretical. But don't worry, that is a very common mistake among Protestants. (Even a NOVEL can get a stamp of approval and everyone knows it's fiction.)

If you are truly wanting official Catholic dogma and doctrine I would go to Vatican sources. Some of the sources you use to prove Catholic beliefs are not official nor are they correct.



Teresa Beem said...

Brazilian Friend,
Feel free to translate it!

Teresa Beem said...

Michael,
Upon further consideration, I think this is what happened:

What it looks like to me is that a SDA or Sunday-keeping Protestant wrote to the Redemptorist and asked him about Sunday as Sabbath. We don’t know the context but it is an easy guess. Someone was challenging Sunday and the challenger didn’t understand that the Catholics do not see Sunday is a Sabbath. (It is possible that the Redemptorist didn’t either... not all Catholics are Christian history experts and would know this.)



So the Redemptorist priest was simply replying that it there is no text to prove Catholics must go to mass on Sunday. Catholics believe that Peter and His successors have the right to bind and loose. So even though all Christians always worshipped on Sunday, it wasn't considered at first an obligation. (They worshipped daily). The Catholic Church believed FOR CATHOLICS (not anyone outside of the church like (later) Protestants, muslims, Jews etc) it was important not to miss mass.

So by church authority it made Sunday (because it was the day of resurrection --not to fulfill the Jewish seventh-day rest) a holy day of obligation. No one was tortured or imprisoned for not going to church that day. It was simply a day God wants you to come and partake of His fellowship.

The Protestants in America actually did have Sunday police that would forcibly take you to church or else you would be punished by fine or put in the stocks. 

Many, many Protestants believe Sunday is a Sabbath, but Catholics don’t. American Catholics often just conflate the two... not because they are being deceptive but because when talking to a Protestant it is just easier to use language they understand.

Until the Adventists or Seventh-day Baptists came along, it was really of no importance to anyone if Sunday were technically a Sabbath or not. It is not a doctrine at ALL for Catholics, we have just become lazy with cultural terms.

So now back to what I think happened. Some Protestant wrote and demanded a proof-text for worshipping on Sunday, misunderstanding that Catholics do not think of Sunday as a Jewish Sabbath. The priest then simply wrote back that there is no such text.... he was SO sure the Catholic CHURCH by her authority made Sunday an obligation of Catholics, that he offered the money as a reward--but it looks as if this were in writing (as it doesn't seem he was out preaching at that time--according to his obituary.)



So when one researches SDA sources, I think that is where the confusion lay. The SDA sources were not consistent. It may be that the newspaper printed the men’s correspondence and it was reprinted so that each different newspaper was then sourced. And then the letter turned into “lecture” and Timothy was misreported as Thomas.... 



Unless one has a great deal of time dedicated to this type of research, it simply comes up nil. 

But I want to stress, whatever Father Enright wrote or didn’t write, whatever he publicly said or didn’t say has no relevance to Catholic doctrine and cannot be used as evidence for Catholic history or belief.

Michael Scheifler said...

Teresa,

Here is the Hartford Weekly Call: http://biblelight.net/Sources.htm#Hartford_Weekly_Call

You will also find other newspaper scans regarding Enright and letters by him there too.

Michael Scheifler said...

Teresa and also Stephen Korsman,

Here are two audio programs that make it quite clear from the Bible that it is simply impossible for Sunday keeping to be considered a part of the New Covenant:

http://www.biblelight.info/crews-2-covenants.mp3

http://biblelight.info/When_Sunday_was_Three_Days_Late.mp3

Teresa Beem said...

Will listen when I have some time. But Christians do not "keep" Sunday. We worship every day. Sunday isn't our "day of worship" and never has been.

Teresa Beem said...

This pastor is obviously on the very edges of orthodox Adventists. He says some really odd things such as his claim that the Old Covenant is represented by disobedience of the law and the New Covenant is represented by obedience to the law. His point it that the law is the same and the old and new covenant is how you keep it. Completely unbiblical. The Bible clearly says that with a new covenant comes a new priesthood and a new law. It is the law that has changed, not how we keep it. That was totally an example of how Adventists need to be educated outside of their own perspective.

Michael Scheifler said...

Teresa,

I quote you:


"So, if you truly want to know what the Catholics believe, don't go back any further than Pope John Paul II's encyclical, Dies Domini. He dealt thoroughly with this subject and this is the official, (as John Carter said earlier) "unadulterated" Catholic doctrines. Use this to form your understanding about Catholic beliefs on the Sabbath."

Now this is from Dies Domini:

4. Until quite recently, it was easier in traditionally Christian countries to keep Sunday holy because it was an almost universal practice and because, even in the organization of civil society, Sunday rest was considered a fixed part of the work schedule.

7. The duty to keep Sunday holy, especially by sharing in the Eucharist and by relaxing in a spirit of Christian joy and fraternity, is easily understood if we consider the many different aspects of this day upon which the present Letter will focus our attention.

So, you ARE a "Sunday keeper".

Teresa Beem said...

I just heard the second audio you posted.

He said that all things--rites, theology etc--didn't come before Christ's death they were not under the blood and part of the New Covenant. He says the idea of worshipping on Sunday came three days too late.

Well, first off the Jews were worshipping on Sunday and Christ worshipped on Sunday. There was no "day of worship." Jewish worship occurred daily at the temple. So that alone could tell you it was appropriate to worship on Sunday after the Cross. However the premise itself is very flawed because the New Covenant rites and theology developed post Cross.

If Sunday came three days too late. Then the full divinity of Christ came too late. The doctrine of the trinity came too late and worst of all --THE BIBLE ITSELF was never commanded by God for He commanded his disciples to go and PREACH, not go and write. So there are numerous flaws with this premise.

Then we go to Jesus Himself. According to the first chapter of Acts, Jesus talked about the Kingdom of Heaven for forty days before His ascension into heaven. This included many explanations of the New Covenant. We would have to ignore all He told them after the Cross if all MUST BE said before the death. Then there is the commission of the disciples.

This commission to go and preach was given AFTER His death.

So, as sincere as the pastor is--Lyle--I think he said, he is profoundly mistaken. There are only hand full of theologians or Bible scholars that would in any way agree with him. Because, frankly, God nor the Bible agrees with him. That doesn't mean I think he is bound for hell or annihilation--he's just mistaken in his theology.

Teresa Beem said...

Michael,
Did you read all of Dies Domini. It will explain it but you have to read it all.... It's not that long. Don't pull little quotes, that will give the wrong understanding of it.

Teresa Beem said...

Sunday being "holy" does NOT draw from the Sabbath (7th day) it draws its holiness from the fact that Jesus chose to rise from sin and conquer death. Christians do not sabbatize.

I know how this can confuse Adventists.

Think of it this way...

Circumcision is the entrance to the Old Covenant.
Baptism is the entrance to the New Covenant. Does that mean that Circumcision IS the SAME as Baptism? No! They are related in some ways but obviously different in others. Circumcision was replaced by Baptism.

Same with Sabbath and the Lord's Day. They both are holy days, but they are not based upon the same covenant. Sunday may FULFILL the Sabbath but it is NOT a Sabbath.

Michael Scheifler said...

Teresa,

Joe Crews was completely orthodox as an Adventist. He was the speaker for Amazing facts for many many years. The other speaker is Lyle Albrecht. Without doubt, those are two of the most biblical studies you will ever hear on the two covenants.

Galations 4:22-31 says clearly that Hagar and her son represent the Old Covenant, it was of the flesh, not of God. Did Abraham obey God by having a son through Hagar? No, it was not done in obedience to God, it was done in disobedience, a substitute of human will in direct opposition to the will of God.

The New Covenant is God's 10 commandment law written on the heart by God - Heb 8:10. Where does God in the Bible say that Sunday is a day to remember, to keep it holy? Keeping Sunday holy never was part of the Old Covenant and is not part of the New Covenant. Sunday is a common work day, not a holy day declared by God. Sunday keeping is like Hagar and her son Ishmael, a work of the flesh, a substitute of the tradition of men, not of God. But remembering the 7th day sabbath to keep it holy was in the Old Covenant, and remains so in the New Covenant.

Teresa Beem said...

Well, if you wish to believe the two talks are scripturally sound, all the best to you. I do not think they are biblically sound by any stretch.

At this point I think your questions have been answered, the problem is you reject them. I reject your arguments. Rehashing them over again will get us no further. So we are going to have to part ways on this and wish each other the best. And I do wish you blessings and prosperity in Christ.

Rachel said...

The fact that you don't admit Catholics keep Sunday is preposterous. I was Catholic for 18 years and while mass was held every day to make sure everyone could get in for worship it was always made clear that Sunday was God's day and God's day of rest. The Catholic church freely admits transferring the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday while holding no scriptural soundness. Why is it ok that man made a day holy. OH Because it isn't!! Only God can make a day holy. The excuse well we go to church every day does not excuse not keeping the Sabbath. Which you as an ex adventist should be aware that Sabbath is a total 24 hours of rest and worship to our Creator in heaven. Going to church for a couple hours then out to breakfast and watching the game on TV does not a Sabbath make. The ten commandments are the moral law. Written on our hearts. When the law was hung on the cross you know full well the law and ordinances kept by the Jews is what he was talking about. We will be keeping Sabbath in heaven too! You also know full well the Pope is considered Jesus on earth. I left that church specifically because of these reasons, but you went right into the lion's den. You will have a chance to leave again and I pray you do.

Teresa Beem said...

Rachel,
I think we are not communicating. Catholic doctrine says that Sunday is a holy day because that is the day Christ rose from the dead. There is no direct correlation between Israel's Sabbath and Christian's Lord's Day. Yes, they are similar… one fulfills the other, but Catholics do not go to church on Sunday as a weekly Sabbath like the Jews had.

Sunday is holy, not because of the Jewish Sabbath, but because Christ rose and ascended to the Heaven's to atone for our sins on that day. It was the fulfillment of ALL the holy days up until then.

Christ made the day holy. Christians have always seen Sunday as holy because of that and have always gone to church on Sunday. However, much later the church decided to make it a day of obligation. That is what Adventists don't understand. They assume when it became a holy day of obligation that they made the day itself holy. Not so. The Apostles themselves taught that Sunday was holy because of the Resurrection.

Okay, a bit more: Why would Sunday have a "rest" aspect to Christians, wouldn't that mean it was the Sabbath?

Well, not exactly. ALL the Sabbaths in the Old Testament were not on Saturday or once a week. Their were high holy Sabbaths that occurred once a year. These often times came on Sunday, not Saturday. These rests were even more holy.

Sunday fulfilled ALL of these and in Catholic theology the Sunday mass fulfills more the yearly Pasch or Passover. Though Catholic theologians see similarities in Sunday and all the Sabbaths, if there is a direct correlation it would be to the yearly Sabbath of Passover rather than the weekly Sabbath. But again, don't take that too literally as Sunday is first and foremost about the Resurrection and the fulfillment of the first/eighth day than any other day.

Catholic draw from the well of Jewish rituals and rites and holy days, but being Christians we are in a New Covenant with Christ. And that had a new priesthood, a new law and new holy days.

Anonymous said...

Hi Teresa,

Thanks for being so thorough in your response in the above dialogue. Though I am a bit late to join, I'd like to say that I appreciate your respectful demeanor and your content. You have convinced me that the RCC did not actually change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, they have essentially and for all practical purposes replaced Sabbath with The Lord's Day, Sunday, which I agree is technically different. The RCC acknowledges that Sunday is not the Sabbath, it merely functions like a sabbath in the way that they encourage others to observe it. Is that a correct way to summarize your position?

Where I disagree, and where I may be of some help to you, is in your general perspective on the place of the Mosaic Law in the live of the Christian. I think the passage that is most helpful in this regard is Matt 5:17-19, esp vs 19. I think if you will study that passage carefully you may see what I am saying. I have written an ariticle on the topic that you might find helpful: http://www.ableever.net/Doctrine/Keep_My_Commandments/keep_my_commandments.html. I would love to get your feedback on this if you care to provide it.

Respectfully,
Tim Hayes

Teresa Beem said...

Dear Mr. Hayes,
Blessings! I appreciate your taking the time to read and respond.

I tried the link and it, for some reason, comes back and error message. However I googled your name and the title of the paper. I looked around on the page and couldn't find out what church you belong to--I tend not to read someone's work I don't know until I understand their worldview first. I don't want to waste both of our time as I am a Catholic. Catholics do not hold either to sola scriptura or sola fide. I find that this creates an authority issue on most theological points with Protestants. If your theology requires either of these protestant foundations, they we might as well shake hands and leave the discussion with our best regards and godspeed.

Anonymous said...

Daniel 7:25
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Anonymous said...

Matt 5:19 "Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
Sabbath today is the least among commandments as other considered it..

Teresa Beem said...

How about "thou shalt not kill?" We can say that ISN'T the least of the commandments. So if a church doesn't teach NOT to kill I would think that trumps the least commandment. So a church who not only doesn't take a stand against abortion but has hospitals that perform abortions and honors one of the world most notorious abortionists--that church would be BREAKING one of the biggest commandments. So that church could hardly say they are the remnant--because the remnant not only preaches the ten but KEEPS them.

So according to your own scenario, the Adventist church doesn't even come CLOSE to keeping nor teaching the ten commandments. From what I see the SDA church really ONLY pushes keeping one out of ten--the Sabbath. I see no worldwide conferences on worshipping God or not taking His name in vain. The SDA church doesn't spend millions and go house to house with pamphlets telling their neighbors to come to the Revelation series on not committing adultery or not stealing or not slandering or not coveting. Nope... their entire focus in on ONE commandment to the exclusion of all others. So if you are telling me you are keeping the least commandment.... well, then I say you will BE the least in the kingdom of God. Your church should be teaching them all.

Teresa Beem said...

Have you ever studied that text understanding what the early Christians believed about it? This was fulfilled at the time of Christ....

If you are truly interested in keeping the Jewish Sabbath go back to the times when Israel was keeping it according to the commandment. It was a lunar sabbath tied to the moon phases. It was later when the ROMAN pagans created a weekly cycle torn from the heavenly calendar of God that Sabbath became the last day of the pagan week. If you want to say anyone changed times and laws--I would go back to Julius Caesar.... No one after him changed times unless you want to point to the Gregorian calendar change, but that was much, much later than Adventists believe to which this text is referring .

Dennis said...

Michael and my other brothers

When a person hardens his /her own heart, no amount of light from scripture can help. Remember Christ himself reasoning with the Pharisees. No amount of exposition changed their heart. It only left Christ crying over them as he watched the sink into deeper and deeper darkness.

Remember Saul? When the Spirit of God leaves a man, no amount of effort can rescue that person. It only calls from individual's personal effort.

This lady Teresa is both evasive and obviously canning. She is determined.

That's a sorry and sympathetic condition.
What can we say?

Of course none of us has already apprehend, yet to deny light so great is a bit unfortunate.