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 Catechism, 1910, 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!

Revelation Today--SDA Pastor John Bradshaw's Series

Ah, this ongoing series brings back so many childhood memories--as this is exactly the same Revelation Seminars the SDA church has always put on. I  thought something would be new, something other than the newest world tragedies. 

This is the exact same program format and topics, the same its-so-obvious-and-Biblical--no-question-about-it-delivery as has been done all over the SDA world for the last fifty years. Same world-toppling scare tactics, same bogey-man. The only thing missing is the Seventh-day Adventist name. But, interestingly, the name of the church sponsoring on the program has been missing for several of the last Revelation seminars. 

I will spare you all the observations I had about the down-undah enthusiastic Pastor John Bradshaw, (they were all good) and Yves Monnier the host at the Las Vegas Cashman Center (I’m sure he is a nice guy). 

Let’s be honest. The whole thing is about the Sabbath in these seminars, all else is just the golden halo around it. The Sabbath doctrine, if wrong, is where Adventism stands or falls. For them it is the cornerstone of their theology. Without it all their raison d’etre would be crying “Jesus is coming again, soon” along with every other denomination out there.

Why not just tackle that subject and be done with it.

You see, Adventists very subtly set up false premises then prove the false premises wrong and shout victory. For those not educated in scripture and who don’t ponder what is being taught, it is all shivers and good bumps awaiting the end of time when Adventists become top billing in the cosmic horror show, Armageddon.

Yet if we examine what is taught, seeing where a little is added here and there to scripture, a slight shift in the direction, a tiny misinterpretation--we will see how that shift can lead you completely off the road into a theological ditch. And a dark scary one too!

Watch how it is done:

1st wrong premise: The Church claim is that the “Everlasting gospel” of the Third Angel’s Message in Revelation is a different gospel, a different end time message than that of Christ and the Apostles.

Wrong: The Greek word agonies (everlasting) means “since the beginning, without beginning and end” so this is not something new. The word for gospel is eujaggevlion and is the exact same word used throughout the New Testament for the gospel proclaimed by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. This isn’t anything different. It means The Messiah is God and came as a human to suffer, die and be resurrected for our sins. Nothing anywhere at all about Sabbath in that. 

This new and everlasting gospel (different from what the Apostles passed on) was given to the Seventh-day Adventists alone. They claim that in the last days there will be a divide between those who worship God the Creator and those who worship the creation. Well enough, okay on the idea that Christians and non-Christians will divide on how creation occurred. But then they add something outside of anything in scripture. 

2nd wrong premise: Then the church links this true and false worship of the creation back to the story of Genesis claiming that on the seventh day God gave us a day rest as an eternal commandment. 

There is nothing in the Genesis story that says the 7th day was a literal day. Please go back and read a fascinating fact. All the other days had an evening and morning. Not so with the seventh day as it was supposed to be an eternal day of rest. The idea of the day being a weekly day of rest is an addition to the text. 

Little shifts, little shifts set them on a totally wrong course!

3rd wrong premise: Then Pastor Bradshaw jumps to the Ten Commandments. And claims that because they were written on stone means it is an eternal covenant for all time.

Another false assumption. If you do a word search you will find that throughout the Old Testament, many times, stone and rock symbolize God himself, not an eternal covenant. 

Also if they writing them on a stone was supposed to mean how eternal they were, why would Moses smash them after leaving the presence of God? God wasn't upset with him for doing it either. I would think if the stones had that kind of symbolism, God would have mentioned to Moses to care for them a little better.

4th wrong premise: The weekly Sabbath was an eternal sign. (Bradshaw uses Ezekiel 20: 12 for proof.)

Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

But please note that the sabbaths are a sign--the high annuals sabbaths as well as the weekly sabbaths. (See Deu. 6: 1, 8; 11: 18; 28: 46)

These sabbath signs for Israel absolutely including Passover: 

Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, and in the seventh day shall be a feast to Jehovah.... And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the law of Jehovah may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath Jehovah brought thee out of Egypt. Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in its season from year to year. Ex. 13: 6-10

So if the sabbaths are a sign for everyone, then we should be keeping all the sabbaths, the annual, monthly and weekly. 

5th wrong premise: That the Sabbath was not just for Israel alone, but all of us, even today. Again, the Bible would disagree with the SDA church on this claim.

Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily ye shall keep my sabbaths: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am Jehovah who sanctifieth you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to Jehovah: whosoever doeth any work on the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.  Ex. 31: 13-17

There are some important things to note about this. Though God reckons the Sabbath back to creation, He also does not include anyone else in the sabbath requirement making it between God and the children of Israel forever.

The fact that God sanctified a day at creation doesn’t mean it was meant to be universal. And keep in mind that anyone who profanes the day is to be put to death. If Adventists really believed that the sabbath requirement was for Christians today, they would then have to impose the death penalty. 

Bradshaw quipped that “they weren’t Ten suggestions.” Well Pastor Bradshaw, we have to be honest with the text, the commandment to put to death anyone who profanes the sabbath is not a suggestion. It is a direct command.

6th wrong premise: Then Pastor Bradshaw jumped to the New Testament and reminded us that Jesus didn’t come to destroy the law, but fulfill it.

And that is exactly what He did at the cross.

For the SDAs to teach that we are still required to keep Sabbath is saying that Jesus didn’t fulfill the law at the Cross. Hebrews tells us that the Sabbath was a shadow fulfilled in Christ. 

But, he asks, “Are we now allowed to kill? Steal?  Jesus didn’t do away with the Ten Commandment law.

Right, and wrong.

Jesus expanded the Old Covenant at the same time He fulfilled it. 

The Temple sacrifice--with all its rituals and ordinations--wasn't done away with, but replaced by a much better, in fact, perfect one-time sacrifice of God's only Son. God didn't get rid of them, He fulfilled them. The Ten Commandments were, like the sacrifices, pointing to a permanent, eternal Covenant with a new and better set of laws.

Look at Jesus’ words. “You have heard it said” These are not the words of someone reiterating the gravity of the law--Jesus didn’t even source it as God’s! He just spoke, “You have heard it said, ‘you shall not...’ But I SAY.” This is Jesus taking authority over His Ten Commandments and changing them, reforming them, making them into the more perfect law of the New Covenant. They are better--expanded. But different. 

How did Jesus expand the fourth? Adventist might claim that He didn’t say anything about that one. Yet he didn’t say anything about stealing either, but it was expanded. Now we are to give rather than receive. Now we are to give our cloak instead of our shirt when someone tried to rob us of what is rightfully ours. Later Jesus will say “come all ye who are weary and I will give you rest. 

Hebrews tells us that the sabbath shadow was fulfilled in Christ. Sabbath hasn’t disappeared but our Sabbath rest is Christ, the day has expanded to a forever day--an eternal day of rest from the Creation account itself. The curse has been lifted and the original creation plan of an eternal rest with a 7th day without an "evening and morning” has finally been fulfilled in Christ.

It isn’t wrong to keep a day that is a rest once a week. That is fine. In fact Paul says:

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days. Col 2:16

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. Rom. 14: 5

7th wrong premise: Then Pastor Bradshaw makes the false assumption that since the Apostles went to the synagogue, they were keeping sabbath. This is just full of erroneous assumptions. 

The Apostles worshipped everyday and preached daily. Being in a synagogue on Sabbath isn’t keeping the Sabbath commandment to rest. It is showing up where Jews will be. 

Adventists draw a direct line between a Sabbath rest and someone going to a synagogue on Sabbath (as if worshipping and resting are one in the same). This is a non-sequitor. 

There is not one shred of evidence in the Bible post resurrection that the Apostles rested on Sabbath or commanded anyone to rest on Sabbath. The 4th commandment is a requirement for Israel to rest.

8th wrong premise: The pastor claims that Jesus' warning to pray that the Hebrew’s flight out of Jerusalem in the last days not be in winter or the sabbath (Matt.24:20) is a slam dunk for proving sabbatarianism post-Cross. Yet, this is hardly proof. Christ knew that His followers would be preaching in the Temple every day (Acts 2:46). The slaughter the Romans could acheive would be most devastating on Sabbath because so many Jews would be there too. It is a prayer for Jews because it would be especially hard for them to flee if caught inside the Temple on Sabbath, in winter or if they were pregnant.

It isn’t calling on his disciples to keep the sabbath as a perpetual sign. We know the Apostles were in the temple daily! So the warning wasn’t pray to keep from being attacked on an obligatory sabbath service, but as intercession for their brother Israel. 

End of Part I-

The GREAT DEBATE: Worshiping on Sunday: the first 3 Centuries

I would like to invite Seventh-day Adventists or any Christian to enter this debate.


CALLING ADVENTIST APOLOGISTS! Come and post your evidence for this important topic. It is silly for me to be arguing your side. We want to be fair to you....! Since Doug Batchelor just wrote a book having a debate with himself, I thought we would invite him here to debate another person. 


If it is not against God's will for us to worship on Sunday today, what scriptural evidence can you bring to the debate that backs up your prophecy that one day worshipping on Sunday will be against God? 

That is your claim. Defend it Biblically.

The topic/proposition being debated is:

Christians worshipped on Sunday for the first three hundred years of Christianity before the time of Emperor Constantine

To avoid confusion, two generic names will head each side:

Non-SDA Christian Apologist 

The Proposition/Positive side (Non-SDA) should attempt to prove this statement.

vs. 

Adventist Apologist 

The Opposition/Negative side (Adventist) should attempt to disprove this statement.

*******************************************
RULES:
Sources that will be accepted are:

•  The Bible: (Catholic and Protestant) mainstream translations such as ASV, KJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, etc. No paraphrases.
• Primary sources: Sacred and secular writings of the first three hundred years. 
• Secondary sources: Generally accepted ecclesiastical histories such as written by Eusebius, Bede, Schaff, etc.

Only sources accepted by mainstream Christian churches will be allowed. Sources, when possible, should be easily available for referencing. Internet links are encouraged.

All comments will be reviewed before posting and those with clear, logical arguments will be posted. Sarcasm, insults or rude comments or comments that are deemed irrelevant or illogical will not be posted. Please be clear and concise, keeping all comments related to the topic. Editors may cut your comments if too wordy or redundant and correct spelling and grammatical errors.

We will attempt to give equal time (space in this case) for both sides.
********************************
 All are welcome to post in the debate. Questions will come at the end, so as you watch the debate be thinking of questions you wish to ask of either side.
_____________________________________

OPENING STATEMENTS

Non SDA Christian Apologist:
The proposition of the debate is to prove that the early Christians worshipped on Sunday. 

Why is this debate important? Because the Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches that the only day of corporate worship that God approves of is the seventh day, Saturday. Their last-day prophecies include a test of Christianity based upon what day you worship God. They predict a law will be passed that forces everyone to go to church on Sunday. Those who attend church on Sunday will receive the Mark of the Beast and will not be saved. Seventh-day Adventist who remain true to God's appointed Sabbath will be imprisoned, tortured and even killed by those who go to church on Sunday.

This elitist doctrine that teaches Sunday is the wrong day to worship wounds us all, permanently cleaving the Body of Christ in direct disobedience to Christ's command that we unite as Christians. 

The proposition is not about a sabbath rest day. It is a debate to prove that Sunday has always been a day of worship for Christians. There is no Biblical evidence, no prophecy, that worshipping on Sunday was, is or ever will be wrong.

We will be looking at historical evidence to prove that indeed, the early Christians from the time of the Apostles up until the time of Constantine worshipped corporately as a body of Christ on Sunday.

If the early church worshipped on Sunday before the time of Constantine then:

• Worshipping on Sunday will never be a sign of disobedience to God’s laws nor will those who worship on Sunday receive the Mark of the Beast. 
• The SDA Sunday law prophecy is not from God and causes a unchristian elitism and disunity in the Body of Christ. 

Again, we remind those reading that this is not a debate about Sabbath, so please keep all comments within the structure of the debate topic. This is about worshipping on Sunday. Thank you.
__________________

Adventist Apologist:

Since there have been no counter introductory statements, I will attempt to write one for the SDA side. I will happily remove mine and insert an Adventist Apologist side when I receive one.

This is indeed, for the Adventist, a very important subject. And since you have narrowed the field of debate considerably, I feel we cannot get at the heart of the matter. For, as an Adventist, the heart is a rejection of the Sabbath, not worshipping on Sunday. No Adventist believes it is wrong to worship on Sunday or any day of the week. 

There are differing opinions within Adventism about when Christians began to worship on Sunday, and there are differing opinions about how trustworthy primary sources are when using historical accounts outside of scripture. 

So, defending the SDA position, I will point rather to scripture instead of early Christian writings. What man wrote just doesn't really matter, it is what God thinks that is important. Just because the early church practiced something, doesn't give it positive proof that it was of God.

The SDA side will attempt to prove that there are two faulty lines that you have drawn:

1. You presume, Teresa, that even if the early church celebrated the Lord's Day on Sunday, that they did so in obedience to God. It is very possible they worshipped on Sunday to avoid persecution or as a concession to Rome.

2. You also presume that if the early church did worship on Sunday that it somehow negates an end-time scenario where a day of worship is the test for Christians. Your assumption is a non-sequitor.

As an Adventist Apologist, I will attempt to prove that:

• First, there is no definitive Biblical proof that the early church worshipped on Sunday. That interpretations of certain texts that may give that impression are debated even among non-SDA theologians. 
• Secondly, there is Biblical proof that a rejection of the Sabbath commandment (the 4th commandment) as a last day test of Christian fidelity to Christ is firmly rooted in scripture. 

Thank you and we are looking forward to a vigorous, logical and Christian debate.

[We will be keeping this Opening Statement available for an authentic Adventist Apologist.]

_________________________________

SECTION ONE: Presenting of the Evidence

Non-SDA Christian Apologist:

Mr. Adventist Apologist, I think you have made two very good points and one of them I must address in my evidence. I agree that I should prove that the early church went to church on Sunday, not out of fear, not out of coercion or compromise, but as a part of following the Apostle's directive. I think we can do that. And I think I can do that with scripture alone, even if I will add to that evidence plenty of primary sources of individual Christian historical accounts.

Your second point, that it is a non-sequitor to assume just because the early church attended church on Sunday does not automatically negate an end-time prophecy pivoting upon a day of worship. Good catch.. you are correct. 

But then I must point out to you that it will be your responsibility to prove that the scriptures do indeed specifically indicate a day of worship as a last day test. You cannot base such a monumental and divisive doctrine on a whim--you will have to prove such a test with direct biblical evidence.

Okay to begin, I must start with the Old Testament because it builds a foundation of worshipping God on Sunday that is used by the Apostles when they meet for worship. Remember at that time the early church was mainly Hebrew. They carried forth a lot of the elements of worship into Christianity. Even worship on Sunday.

The Hebrews in Jerusalem did not have one day a week they worshipped corporately. They worshipped daily at the temple. We know this not only from Old Testament sources, but new. The writer of the book of Hebrews recorded: 

Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship. Hebrews 9: 6 

Please note that divine worship is happening daily! (See also Heb. 7:27 and 10:11) 

Every Sunday there was worship going on. All day long people would be coming to worship and give offerings and sacrifices. Everyday worship occurred. Every Sunday worship was going on in the Temple.  Once in the Promised Land, only three times a year was there a mandatory holy assembly for all Israel at the Temple and they would often fall on Sunday.  (Lev. 23 convocation on the weekly Sabbath is debatable, many Hebrew scholars says that this particular command for a weekly Sabbath was only during the Tabernacle period in the wilderness, for travel logistic reasons.)

Exodus 12 and Leviticus 23 record the Feast of the Unleavened Bread (Passover) and specifically called a “memorial” and a holy assembly. It is commanded to be kept as a permanent ordinance. On the first day is a “holy assembly, and another holy assembly on the seventh day; no work at all shall be done on them, except what must be eaten by every person, that alone may be prepared by you.” (v. 47)  “All the congregation of Israel are to celebrate this.” 

Leviticus records the seriousness of this, “any person who does any work on this same day, that person I will destroy from among his people.” The holy convocation of Passover can occur on Sunday. The last one being 2008.

And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord for you to be accepted; on the day after the sabbath [Sunday] the priest shall wave it. Lev. 23:11

The day of Pentecost, another holy assembly can occur on Sunday. Leviticus 23 requires  

On exactly the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the crops of the land, you shall celebrate the feast of the LORD for seven days, with a rest on the first day and a rest on the eighth day. 

You shall also count for yourselves from the day after the sabbath [Sunday], from the day when you brought in the sheaf of the wave offering; there shall be seven complete sabbaths. You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh sabbath [Sunday]; then you shall present a new grain offering to the Lord.

Sundays as well as Saturdays were considered holy assemblies. One was not pitted against the other. See also Number 28:18. 

This year, in 2012, the Jews will celebrate the two holy convocations of Pentecost on Sunday. 

There has never been a time that worshipping on Sunday would be considered going against the commandments of God. God would not have required His holy assemblies of all Israel to occur on Sunday if this were wrong. 

There is no indication anywhere within the pages of scripture that would suggest that any day is a wrong day to worship God. Or that there would be a last day test on a day.

Now we go to the New Testament.  Does the New Testament specify a day, and only one day we should worship God? No!

Where is He who has been born King of the Jews ? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him. Matt. 2: 2

This does not specify a day. Would Joseph have sent them away if they arrived on a Sunday? 

Nothing Christ did can be dismissed as accidental. Everything He did and when He did it was significant. Jesus went to the Temple daily to teach. (Mark 14: 49). If worshipping on Sunday were somehow wrong, wouldn’t Jesus have cleansed the Temple specifically on that day and explained to everyone that Sunday was the wrong day to worship God? 

On Sunday, Jesus conquered death by rising and showed Himself to His followers as the Divine God! (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; John 20:19) On Sunday, Thomas worshipped Him! (John 20:27-28). That evening, on Sunday, Jesus worshipped with them at the Communion meal (Luke 22:19; Luke 24:31) and gave them His Holy Spirit and His peace then commissioned them to be the leaders of His Kingdom by forgiving sins (John 20).

The church was born on a Sunday at Pentecost. (Acts 2: 41)

And if this isn’t enough, these two text alone should wrap up this subject:

Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, Acts 2: 26 

And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ. Acts 5: 42. 

Every single day the disciples came together to worship, including Sundays. How do you think there were souls being added to their number, being baptized daily? (Acts 2: 4, 47) These early Christians were very Jewish in their rituals and worship of God would be included in all of these baptismal rites. They worshipped every single day including Sunday. There is no evidence anywhere that they avoided worship on Sunday if it were wrong.

Paul worshipped God by having a communion service and preaching on Sunday. (Acts. 20:7)

Then we go to early historical accounts by Christians: 

In the early part of the second century, maybe as early as the lifetime of the Apostle John (c.100-130), a Alexandrian Christian leader named Barnabas wrote a letter to an unknown audience. Although the letter was not considered inspired; it was widely read among Alexandrian Christians as authoritative and historically accurate. In this letter, the presbyter acknowledges that, “we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead.” This letter shows how early the church was celebrating the Lord’s Day, Sunday. 

Scholars are confident about dating Ignatius’ letter to AD 107. As the third bishop of Antioch who was taught by the Apostles, he was held in great respect for his courageous martyrdom. He clearly shows the early church’s ideas about worshipping on the day of “new hope,” Sunday:

 ...living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him...let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]" "Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians," 

Justin Martyr was a second generation Christian and one of the earliest known Christian apologists. He wrote, in the mid second century less than fifty years after the death of the last apostle (First Apology, ch. 67):

And on the day called Sunday all who live in cities or in the country gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read....But Sunday is the day on which we all hold a common assembly, because it is the first day of the week on which God...made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.

The Apostolic Constitutions, dated sometime in the second century commands that “On the day of the resurrection of the Lord--that is, the Lord's Day--assemble yourself together without fail, giving thanks to God and praising Him for those mercies God has bestowed upon you through Christ.”

Bishop of Lyon, also a mid 2nd century Christian leader, also tells us that the church worshipped on Sunday--all the way in Gaul, “The Mystery of the Lord's Resurrection may not be celebrated on any other day than the Lord's Day, and on this alone should we observe the breaking off of the Paschal Feast.”

Going down south to Greece, we find the Bishop Dionysius writing in AD170 to the church in Corinth that they pass Sunday, “this holy Lord's Day, in which we read your letter, from the constant reading of which we shall be able to draw admonition.” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Bk. 4, Ch. 23

At the end of the 2nd century, we travel farther south to Egypt where Clement, the Bishop of Alexandria, records that the Christian, “keeps the Lord's day.”  Bk 7, Ch. 12. And Bishop of Africa, Tertullian records this in his Apology, “We solemnize the day after Saturday in contradistinction to those who call this day their Sabbath.” He even refutes the pagan claim that the early church worshipped the sun, because they worshipped on Sunday, “[It is supposed] that the sun is the god of the Christian, because it is a well- known fact that we pray towards the east, or because we make Sunday a day of festivity.” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, p. 123.

All you have to do is type in the person into google and you can easily find the original source. 

Israel was called by God to corporately worship on Sunday. The early church met to "break bread" or hold communion worship services on Sunday--in fact every singe day. There is no indication anywhere in any writings that they were compromising their beliefs. There is no evidence anywhere, no cry from a prophet or pastor that condemns Christians for worshipping on Sunday. 

Therefore I cannot find a shred of evidence anywhere that God would, all of a sudden, 1800 after the dawn of Christianity suddenly give a new reading of scripture and a new vision of Christianity to a small group of Seventh-day Adventists condemning worshipping on Sunday. 
_____________________________
First presentation of evidence for Adventist Apologists is open for anyone now....please send in your position comments now.