National Sunday Law

Status
Not open for further replies.

If worship on Saturday, & not on Sunday, is of such over-riding importance to them as to make them vandalise the property of others, then something is wrong with their priorities 😦

Do these words ring a bell ? 🙂
  • Mat 12:8 “…for the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.”
  • Mar 2:27 …And he said to them, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath;
    See the contexts for all the details.
The Person of Christ is more important than the OT - so it can’t be interpreted by Christians as though He had not come. That’s why Christians cannot be bound to the commands of the OT - for a Christian is not a pre-Christian Jew, but a new man in Christ.

Hope that helps.
The entire Old Testament foretold of Christ coming and set the table for him to enter and cleanse the world that he created but yielded to sin.

We don’t keep God’s commandments to obtain salvation, but we’re to keep them to show our love for him (John 14:15).
 
The earliest Christians worshiped on Sunday:
It’s interesting that none of that comes from the Bible.

Matthew 15: 1-9:

Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.”

Jesus replied, “And why do you, by your traditions, violate the direct commandments of God? For instance, God says, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and ‘Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, ‘Sorry, I can’t help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I would have given to you.’ In this way, you say they don’t need to honor their parents.[c] And so you cancel the word of God for the sake of your own tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote,

‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.”

Bear in mind that the earliest Christians were the ones converted by Paul and the other apostles; they worshiped on the seventh-day Sabbath and not on the first day of the week according to the book of Acts. Throughout the time when Sunday worship was first (falsely) instituted, Christians worshiped on both days until seventh-day worship was cast aside as prophesied in the Bible.
 
Please show us where in the New Testament Jesus explicitly commands us to keep the seventh-day sabbath.

And again…

No one is denying we worship on a different day than Seventh-day Adventists, or Jews, or Moslems for that matter.

The problems is Adventists make assumptions about why we worship on a different day. We strongly disagree with their assumptions about the theology and history of Sunday. Adventists seem to think that we are “keeping” the sabbath on teh wrong day. We are saying that Sunday is distinct from the sabbath. All that was transferred (transferred, replaced, changed, pick your word, there are hundreds of languages) was the principle of regular rest and worship as a moral precept that is spiritually beneficial.

Why not talk about why you keep sabbath and we will tell you about why we keep sunday. That seems more productive. All you seem to be able to say is that we are wrong for worshiping on Sunday. In the old covenant, the sabbath was about much more than attending a worship service. As I’ve pointed out, the actual commandment says nothing about assembly. Sunday is about much more than a rest day. I quit clinging to the empty shadow of the sabbath when I saw the beauty of the 8th day symbolism in Sunday. As Christians, the Eucharist and the Resurrection are our focus, not the old covenant or tables of law.

I once had an Adventist relative upset with me. She was so angry she was shaking. She pointed her finger right in my face, jabbing at me to make her point. She said “You are profaning the very LAW OF GOD that he WROTE IN STONE with HIS OWN FINGER!!!” Having had this accusation made to me many times, though not so dramatically, I knew what to answer. I am a Christian and his law is written on our hearts, not on dead stones."

It would seem the Bible supports my view, not my relative’s…

2 Corinthians 3:6-8
6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7But if the ministration of death,** written and engraven in stones**, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

What law did Jesus give us? Love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves. That is the sum of all the law. Jesus drove away all the old shadows that didn’t have life. I always see Adventists quoting that nothing will pass away from the law…
I wonder why they ignore the second part of the statement, … till all be fulfilled. Jesus FULFILLED all the old requirements and we are free. Why take on that burden again when he took it on himself? JESUS is our sabbath rest.

God Bless,
MarysRoses
For a more clear understanding of the context, include verse 3 of that same chapter and book (NLT): “Clearly, you are a letter from Christ showing the result of our ministry among you. This “letter” is written not with pen and ink, but with the Spirit of the living God. It is carved not on tablets of stone, but on human hearts.”

Add this with Hebrews 8:8-10: But when God found fault with the people, he said: “The day is coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand and led them out of the land of Egypt.
They did not remain faithful to my covenant, so I turned my back on them, says the Lord. But this is the new covenant I will make
with the people of Israel on that day, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts.

The point is people were errantly trying to keep the letter of the laws (both God’s and Mosaic) to achieve salvation and failed at it, which is what God “found fault” with. We’re now called to, ourselves, be that “letter” from Christ to the rest of the world; we’re to represent him by doing his will.

In Mark 12:30-31 (“And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.”) I believe Jesus is talking about keeping the Spirit of the Ten Commandment laws, where the first four talk about our love for God and the last six talk about our love for each other. Of course, I don’t expect you to see it this way because you don’t want to be “bound” to any laws.

I just have to ask…why is it not acceptable to kill someone? How do you know it’s not right if not by the Moral Law of God (Ten Commandments)? Why do away with one law and claim to keep the rest.

When James talks about the “perfect” law of God in James 1:25, what law is he talking about?

Jesus references the Sabbath in Matthew 24 when talking about the end times (maybe you’ve seen my other post on this question), which he prophesied would be well into the future beyond the time he said it. If there wasn’t meant to be a Sabbath (the same Sabbath that he kept), he wouldn’t have referenced it. More to the point of your question is the fact that Jesus didn’t reiterate the command to keep the Sabbath because there was never any change to it and by no means did he indicate there’d be a change after his death. To add to the passage about him fulfilling the law (which I’m not the one ignoring…), he did say the following: Matthew 5:19: “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” I urge you to search your heart for the truth in this matter as it’s more than you’re taking it to be.

As a Bible believer, I keep the Sabbath because God sanctified it and set it apart as holy and that specific law identifies him as the Creator of the universe. I don’t have to have you tell me why you keep Sunday because I already know…you’ve accepted the teachings and traditions of men. We’re called to seek the Kingdom of God first, above all else (Matthew 6:33) and not the traditions of men (Mark 7:9).

Regarding your relative, I will just say this categorically although I’m not casting judgment on her individually: I don’t believe that all Seventh-day Adventists will be saved, nor do I believe that all members of any individual religion or faith will be saved. I also don’t believe you have to be a “Seventh-day Adventist” TO be saved. I believe as the Bible stresses that those who love God will be identified as the ones that have the Holy Spirit abiding in them (Galatians 5:22) and keep his commandments and it’s those believers that will be saved in the end (Revelations 22…and basically the rest of the Bible).

God bless…
 
It’s okay, I wasn’t being obnoxiously aggressive. The Lord is not restricted while working to draw all people to Himself.

I simply do not believe anymore that E. G. White had the authority to interpret Holy Scripture or lay down laws of faith. The old covenant points to the new. The old sabbath to the new. It is a matter of implementing an interpretation. She doesn’t pass the test of a prophet of the Living God. Her interpretation and doctrines are therefore suspect.

The lineage of authority in the Catholic Church has been proven over and over again, even if not to you personally. I humbly accept the God given authority of the Magesterium.

I would rather tell you about the amazing Graces that I have experienced since coming home to the Church. It’s unlike anything I’ve ever experienced prior. I would rather talk about the great things that the Lord has done in my life and in yours. His power to change lives and overcome impossibilities is amazing!

No one can ever convince you to come home. It isn’t a matter of arguments, it’s a matter of complete openness to the will of the Lord. If you are completely open to him, you may find yourself eventually crossing the Tiber…and maybe not. Who can say? I have no clue what the Lord has in store for you. I’ll bow out of this perpetual argument now. God be with you and grant you grace, truth, and peace.
I appreciate your sincerity. After submitting my last post to you yesterday, I did some research and spoke with my pastor about the issue. He and I are going to discuss it further however nothing changes from what I initially wrote. The Bible is the ultimate authority and none of us should base our faith in the works of any other men beyond what’s in the Scriptures although I do believe there are other inspired people since the time they were written. I will say that I was able to discount some of the points in the link you’re referenced but again, more research is needed there.

You didn’t mention this specifically, but as a Catholic, I believe your beliefs are rooted in the fact that the apostle Peter was the first pope. According to papal laws (or decrees…I’m not sure of the verbiage) the pope is to be worshiped. In reading Acts 10:25-26, there’s an entirely different message; "As Peter entered his home, Cornelius fell at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter pulled him up and said, “Stand up! I’m a human being just like you!” I think that’s an important point to consider.

When the early apostles spread throughout Gentile territory, they set up churches in Christ’s name. We are all, individually, the Temple of God and are to have Christ living in us through the power of the Holy Spirit. Church is not an institutionalized establishment as many are taught to believe but is the collective body of Christ put here to build each other’s faith and spread the Gospel “to all nations”.

God bless…
 
And not once does this specifically state that the Lord’s Day is Saturday.

And you are obviously overlooking the fact that on some calendars the seventh day is Sunday and the first day is Monday.
I think you’re letting the man-made title “The Lord’s Day” confuse your understanding. The only time it’s used is Revelations 1:10 and doesn’t identify what day of the week it is. With that said, why not apply it (the day the Lord sanctified) to the day it IS written to be connected to…the seventh day of the week? To the contrary, those who have tried to associate it (“The Lord’s Day”) with Sunday as a holy day have come up with, again, man-made ideas, concoctions and traditions as to why there’s been a change of holy day observance instead of just staying (remembering…) the written word.

It doesn’t matter how calendars are written; I could write a calendar that starts with Wednesday as the first day of the week. The fact remains that the same seventh day of the week today is the same Jesus (and his apostles) kept 2000 years ago. I’m a follower of Christ, which is what a Christian is, and I follow his example out of my love and respect for him.

With all sincerity and love I ask, who have you chosen to follow?

God bless…
 
According to papal laws (or decrees…I’m not sure of the verbiage) the pope is to be worshiped.
That is a lie, and I’m calling you out on it. I challenge you to cite an official Catholic source that says the pope is to be worshiped.

Where do you people get these lies? If your ministers are telling you these lies, then they are lying to you about everything else as well. Don’t believe them, they are just trying to control your mind like all cults do.
 
I think you’re letting the man-made title “The Lord’s Day” confuse your understanding. The only time it’s used is Revelations 1:10 and doesn’t identify what day of the week it is. With that said, why not apply it (the day the Lord sanctified) to the day it IS written to be connected to…the seventh day of the week? To the contrary, those who have tried to associate it (“The Lord’s Day”) with Sunday as a holy day have come up with, again, man-made ideas, concoctions and traditions as to why there’s been a change of holy day observance instead of just staying (remembering…) the written word.

It doesn’t matter how calendars are written; I could write a calendar that starts with Wednesday as the first day of the week. The fact remains that the same seventh day of the week today is the same Jesus (and his apostles) kept 2000 years ago. I’m a follower of Christ, which is what a Christian is, and I follow his example out of my love and respect for him.

With all sincerity and love I ask, who have you chosen to follow?

God bless…
The point of this thread is that Adventists believe that there will be a law passed, required all to honor Sunday as the sabbath, and those refusing, including Adventists, will be persecuted. Adventists believe that this ‘test’ will be a test of loyalty that will determine their salvation, at least at the time of the Sunday law.

In order for that to be true, a couple of things would need to be in place. It would seem logical that Jesus and the apostles would have emphasized the importance of the Sabbath for Christians. Please show us where in the NT Christians are explicitly told they must observe the seventh-day sabbath.

First, this “change” to which you are referring…

No one has denied a change in the day of worship. Catholics believe the Church has existed continuously since the Apostles, and that YES! they and those they appointed to continue in their place were specifically given the authority to change a great many things! We are not Jews. We do not keep the Jewish feasts. We do not circumcise our children. We do not sacrifice animals at a temple. We do not do a great many things that Jesus and the Apostles, as Jews, did before the establishment of the Church. Did the apostles continue to offer sacrifices at the temple before it was destroyed? Why would they, Jesus is our much better sacrifice. Those were shadows. Christ is the fulfillment. We do not circumcise, we baptize our children into Christ. In Acts, the question was brought to the apostles as far as what gentile Christians should be required to follow in regards to Jewish Law. The Sabbath is not mentioned.

NO the Catholic Church did not “Change” a commandment or “Change” the sabbath as an improper rebellion against God’s law as Adventists claim.

but YES! and thankfully YES! The Church through her ministry and lawful authority, which began with the apostles, has removed from us the burden of the old laws, including the sabbath. This is documented in Acts 15:19-21.

Secondly, if the Sabbath is that critical (I think I have shown that it is not), it must be that the Bible clearly tells us when and how to keep the sabbath. If its not clear, how can we be sure we are doing what is right?

I have asked before, what does “sabbath keeping” boil down to for Adventists? Practices vary widely from going out to eat, to not doing so, and even cooking everything the day before so as not to ‘work’. Some think a nature walk is appropriate, some do not allow their children to go to the park. Some swim, some do not. Some allow wading but not swimming… or swimming in a lake but not a man made pool… etc. HOW one keeps it depends very much on where one lives and the local customs. The only thing that seems consistent as to ‘how’ is that Adventists worship on that day. Funny thing is, the commandment says nothing about going out to worship, but commands one to stay home and ‘rest’.

“When” to keep the sabbath isn’t any easier. Adventists think that the sabbath is the seventh day, which must be saturday.
So, according to Adventists, it matters WHEN you keep the sabbath. It must be on Saturday, and not on Sunday. You can’t “change” a day if it doesn’t matter which one it is, to say otherwise would make the entire issue illogical. This is not a minor matter in their theology. It is in their name. It is the centerpiece of their seminars and last day prophecy explanations. They do teach, explicitly, that the sabbath is the “seal” of God’s Law, and that those who reject the sabbath and keep Sunday will be lost. So then, when one “keeps” the sabbath, never mind there is little agreement on how to keep it, matters a great deal to Adventists.

It is apparent though, that WHEN to keep the sabbath is just as culturally dependent as HOW one keeps it. Consider the international dateline.

If God intended we keep a specific day of the week as the sabbath, and it was so important that to worship on the wrong day would cost us our salvation, don’t you think He not only would have been explicit in His direction to do so, (there is NO explicit command for Christians to keep sabbath in the NT), but also have made it easy to identify which day was the sabbath?

Which day is the “seventh-day" or Saturday according to Adventists, is entirely dependent on where one lives and in what society. This is easily demonstrated by looking at the international date line. The date line is an entirely man made artifact, arbitrary and of entirely human invention.

Why does this matter? When Adventists are rushing around on Samoa on Friday evening, finishing their work for the week and preparing to begin their sabbath, at the very same time, watching the same setting sun, Adventists on Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand are watching Saturday evening pass away, and with it their sabbath. Whether its Friday or Saturday, depends on where you live in relation to the dateline. The sun sets in Tonga only a few minutes after Samoa, but because of the dateline, its an entirely different day.

worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/dateline.htm

Adventists on Hawaii and Kiribati (another South Pacific Island) have an even stranger problem. Kiribati, by an act of their government, moved the dateline so that all the islands in their country would be on the same side, and have the same dates.

Kiribati is south of Hawaii, would be in the same time zone, except for the date. So, on Saturday, while Adventists are going to church in Hawaii, Christians in Kiribati are going to Church at the very same time, on SUNDAY! Adventists in Kiribati would be going around doing their secular work and recreation on Sunday, while its Sabbath in Hawaii.

Who’s keeping the ‘real’ sabbath? How can we know?

Where does the biblical sabbath begin in relation to the dateline?

Does it seem reasonable that Kiribati can ‘change’ the sabbath by moving the dateline by a simple act of parliament without any protest (that I know of) from Adventists?

I’ve asked these questions of Adventists, the best answers I’ve gotten are 'we keep sabbath where we are" , " You do the best you can in figuring out which day is right".

Neither answer addresses the fact they allow a secular, man made abstraction to dictate which day they will observe as sabbath.

Adventists in the far north have difficulties in determining when sunset is and when sabbath begins. As ‘sunset’ can occur so early in the winter as to interfere with school and work, one local northern SDA conference has seriously discussed returning to an earlier decision to observe ‘sunset’ at 6 p.m. year round. Early Adventists did similar until switching to actual sunset several years afterward.

So…

(Cont. next post… )
 
(cont. from previous post… )

SOO…

Does sabbath begin at sundown, a specific time of day, or later in the evening? One Jewish commentary identifies the time as when three stars are visible. That would be later than the ‘sunset’ Adventists typically use. Should that even be a factor, should sabbath be when Jerusalem experiences it, no matter where you are?

Adventists accept the day as beginning at the international date line. Adventists in Australia and China observe sabbath even before the middle east does.

The biblical commandment says ‘seventh day’. This term is not a proper noun,and it is not the name of a day. Its a designation for any day that follows a group of six. The grammar is the same as describing the ‘seventh apple’ or the ‘seventh house on the right’

‘seventh’ is determined by where someone would start counting, not an inherent quality of the item described.

There is nothing wrong if a person wants to observe a sabbath on Saturday, that is a personal decision. Where I disagree with Adventists is their insistence that other Christians MUST keep sabbath and make it an issue on which their salvation will be determined, if not now then in the future at some time.

Yes, this IS a matter of salvation to Adventists, regardless of what they often tell new members:

adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

St. Paul clearly said differently: ( Colossians 2:16-17)

16
Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath. 8
17
These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ.

and in Romans 14:

4
Who are you to pass judgment on someone else’s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5
(For) one person considers one day more important than another, while another person considers all days alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. 2
6
Whoever observes the day, observes it for the Lord. Also whoever eats, eats for the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while whoever abstains, abstains for the Lord and gives thanks to God.

As Christians, we are free of the old law and its observances. Our sabbath rest is in Christ, not in a day of the week. Sunday is not the sabbath on another day, as Adventists claim.
(Hebrews Chapter 4)

9
Therefore, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God.
10
And whoever enters into God’s rest, rests from his own works as God did from his.
11
Therefore, let us strive to enter into that rest, so that no one may fall after the same example of disobedience.
12
Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart.

Remember that the ‘Word’ of God is Jesus, not a book 

and from the Catechism:
usccb.org/catechism/text/…2chpt1art3.htm

“2175
Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ’s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man’s eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:107”

As Catholic Christians, we gather to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, as the FIRST day, celebrating the resurrection of Jesus, and as the EIGHTH day, as it surpasses the old sabbath which was a memorial of the old creation, and becomes the memorial of the NEW Creation in Christ.

usccb.org/catechism/text/…2chpt1art3.htm

"2174

Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week.“104 Because it is the “first day,” the day of Christ’s Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the “eighth day” following the sabbath,105 it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ’s Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord’s Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica)—Sunday”

Through her ministry and lawful authority, the Church has established Sunday and other feasts which provide for us opportunities for rest and worship and for our spiritual well being. There is flexibility. No one has to worry about a dateline change or what day is Sunday on the international space station. If there is a question, the local bishop can clarify. This has happened in the South Pacific. Adventists then often worship on the day BEFORE the Catholics. There is something amusing in that, they are recognizing the bishop’s authority while claiming he does not have it!

Jesus is our perfect and eternal rest…

MarysRoses
 
Bear in mind that the earliest Christians were the ones converted by Paul and the other apostles;
The first Christians were converted by Peter, long before Paul was ever a Christian.
40.png
BibleTruth:
they worshiped on the seventh-day Sabbath and not on the first day of the week according to the book of Acts.
Not true:
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
  • Acts 20:7
 
It’s interesting that none of that comes from the Bible.
It comes from the Christians who lived during the first century after the bible-times. It is very instructive to show how these church leaders, who learned from the apostles themselves, understood the practices and beliefs taught by the apostles and what the early Christian Church taught and practiced as a result of what they learned from the apostles.

Do you think that you, 2000 years after the fact, can understand the teachings of the apostles better than the men who sat at their feet and learned from them?
 
I appreciate your sincerity.
And I yours. =)
The Bible is the ultimate authority and none of us should base our faith in the works of any other men beyond what’s in the Scriptures although I do believe there are other inspired people since the time they were written.
This is one important point on which we differ. Sola Scriptura is a new doctrine not present in all of Christian history prior to the reformation. It doesn’t exist! It never has… Sola Scriptura is a tradition of man as opposed to the Holy Traditions of God. It was invented by the reformers. Look at the divisions that this doctrine has caused in the protestant churches. Look at the divisions that it has caused in the Adventist church, even! The Reformed Seventh Day Adventist church? That one is new to me, heh.

Our Lord is not a God of division.

The Magesterium, The Holy Traditions of God, and Holy Scripture are the three legs that the stool of faith must rest upon, otherwise schism runs rampant. Faith becomes watered down. The lowest common denominator becomes the norm. Many graces are lost.

I was excstatic to find out the the world still had the writings of Ignatious, the disciple of Polycarpe, who was the disciple of John the Beloved. Ignatious wrote in the year 110AD, just a short while after John the Beloved’s body passed away. You should read his writings, if only once in your life. Search the earliest writings of the Church fathers to find evidence of SDA doctrine. Approach it with intellectual honesty and an open heart before God. Look and see what you will discover. There should be nothing to fear in searching the earliest times.
I will say that I was able to discount some of the points in the link you’re referenced but again, more research is needed there.
There are certainly some points on that page that I would personally be more charitable about; however, there are several that speak volumes about Mrs. White’s failure to meet the test. I recall some of them from when I was an Adventist.

I hope your search goes well.
You didn’t mention this specifically, but as a Catholic, I believe your beliefs are rooted in the fact that the apostle Peter was the first pope. According to papal laws (or decrees…I’m not sure of the verbiage) the pope is to be worshiped.
I’m sorry, my friend, but this is not true. Whoever told you this is a liar of the worst sort. It would be a mortal sin to offer worship to the Pope, or for that matter to offer the worship that is meant for God to anyone except God alone.
In reading Acts 10:25-26, there’s an entirely different message; "As Peter entered his home, Cornelius fell at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter pulled him up and said, “Stand up! I’m a human being just like you!” I think that’s an important point to consider.
This is exactly what I would expect anyone to do who is mistakenly being given worship that is meant for the Lord.
I believe that you have a very large misundertanding regarding the papacy. It’s okay, I did too when I was in your shoes.

The best thing that you can do is go to the Catholic Church itself for knowledge of what is really taught, if only to make you more capable of debating with Catholics about faith. Working from the teachings of any protestant group with regard to what the Catholic Church is can lead to horrible, horrible errors. Go to the horses mouth, so to speak. Then judge for yourself with the eyes of your heart on the Lord. Without first hand knowledge, you cannot really communicate effectively on the teachings of the Church. Catholics have to go back and correct the basic misunderstandings about the teachings and then proceed from there.
When the early apostles spread throughout Gentile territory, they set up churches in Christ’s name. We are all, individually, the Temple of God and are to have Christ living in us through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Church is not an institutionalized establishment as many are taught to believe but is the collective body of Christ put here to build each other’s faith and spread the Gospel “to all nations”.
Holy Scripture disagrees with this view point.

What is the pillar and foundation of truth? The Church (1 Tim. 3:15).

Lord Jesus said, “…If he refuses to listen to them, report the matter to the church; and he will not listen even to the church, you must then treat him as you would a pagan or a tax-gatherer. I tell you this: whatever you forbid on earth shall be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you allow on earth shall be allowed in heaven.” (Mt 18:15-18)

How would you report him to the Church if the Church is not an organized body?

This should speak to the protestant churches as well. If one protestant church excommunicates a man, he can just walk down the street to the next church. No real repercussions there. But the Lord seems to think that the Church has enormous power in the life of the individual believer. The Lord really seems to think so… It must be so, then.

There are many, many more verses in Holy Scripture which support an actual organization, an actual “Body” which christians must belong to.

The power to bind and loose on earth and in Heaven…surely no average christian claims to have this God-given power in and of themselves. This is given to the leadership of the Church and to their successors.

In all of the Old Testament the world was able to point to a place and say, “Those are Gods people over there.” The same with the New Testament. The world can point to the Church and say, “There they are.”

My friend, you have been very kind in your response to me. I appreciate that, and I have tried to respond with like kindness. We can reason together without being angry or hateful toward one another. I believe with all my heart, and the Church teaches this as well, that the Lord God works powerfully in the hearts of those that love Him.

I certainly don’t mean to sound condescending, and I apologize if I do. I’m no better than you or anyone else here. I’ve just tried to be straight forward without being rude (at no point have I wanted to be rude anyway, lol)

The Catholic Church is not what you think it is. It does not teach what you think it does.
 
That is a lie, and I’m calling you out on it. I challenge you to cite an official Catholic source that says the pope is to be worshiped.

Where do you people get these lies? If your ministers are telling you these lies, then they are lying to you about everything else as well. Don’t believe them, they are just trying to control your mind like all cults do.
Associating yourself with God would indicate a call for worship. I have other quotes that aren’t with me right now that specifically called for papal worship, but these should be enough for starters:

“Lord God the Pope.” Title found within a gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, title 14, chapter 4, Declaramus. (In an Antwerp edition of the Extravagantes, the words, “Dominum Deum Nostrum Papam” (“Our Lord God the Pope”) can be found in column 153. In a Paris edition, they are found in column 140).

“(The Roman Pontiff is) the vicegerent upon earth, not a mere man, but a very God…” Decretales Domini Gregorii Translatione Episcoporum, (on the transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Decretales, col. 205, while Innocent III was Pope.

“[W]e hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." Pope Leo XIII, The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, p. 304, Benziger Brothers (1903).

“The Roman Pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one. We declare, assert, define and pronounce: to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every human creature necessary for salvation that which was spoken of Christ ‘thou has subdued all things under his feet’ may well seem verified in me…I have the authority of the King of Kings. I am all in all and above all, so that God himself and I, the vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do all that God can do.” The Bull Unam Sanctam, Issued by Pope Boniface VIII.

“The doctrines of the Catholic Church are entirely independent of Holy Scripture.” Familiar Explanation of Catholic Doctrine, Rev. M. Mullers, p.151.

“If we must choose between the Holy Scriptures of God, and the old errors of the church, we should reject the former.” Johann Faber (defender of the Papacy) cited in History of The Reformation, by J. H. Merle d’Aubigne, book 11, Ch. 5, Par. 9.

“Like two sacred rivers flowing from paradise, the Bible and divine tradition contain the word of God, the precious gems of revealed truths. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still of the two, tradition is to us more clear and safe.” Catholic Belief, Joseph Faa di Bruno, p. 45.

Jesus saw this outright blasphemy coming:

Mark 7:6-13 (NLT): Jesus replied, “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote, ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.’ For you ignore God’s law and substitute your own tradition.” Then he said, “You skillfully sidestep God’s law in order to hold on to your own tradition. For instance, Moses gave you this law from God: ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and ‘Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, ‘Sorry, I can’t help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I would have given to you.’ In this way, you let them disregard their needy parents. And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition. And this is only one example among many others.”

Also, cults call for worship of a person and their beliefs are contrary to Scripture. My belief calls for the worship of God, alone, through Jesus Christ.
 
I don’t know why I used to be concerned about the Pope. It is not a frightening thing to know that God Himself has entrusted Peter with the keys to the kingdom and as the rock of the Church. It is not a frightening thing to trust that the Holy Spirit guides His Family. Types and shadows of Eternal realities can be used in great ways by the Lord in bringing further understanding to His Family.

I can’t speak to the authenticity of the quotes provided by you. I don’t have any of those books, or indeed anyway to find where the text is presented. I personally don’t know of any authentic Catholic documents that describe the Pope as “Lord God”. I have seen, however, many forgeries used as proofs. Whether or not these fall into that category is beyond me. A full-time apologist or theologian my be required in order to give complete insight into what you have quoted.

However, I can link these quotes from the CCC. Certainly we can use the Catechism itself as a source of charitable debate rather than whatever it is that you have quoted.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (CD 2).
100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.
1369 The whole Church is united with the offering and intercession of Christ. Since he has the ministry of Peter in the Church, the Pope is associated with every celebration of the Eucharist, wherein he is named as the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church. The bishop of the place is always responsible for the Eucharist, even when a priest presides; the bishop’s name is mentioned to signify his presidency over the particular Church, in the midst of his presbyterium and with the assistance of deacons. The community intercedes also for all ministers who, for it and with it, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice:
Code:
Let only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated under [the presidency of] the bishop or him to whom he has entrusted it.
Code:
Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests' hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.
Certainly there is enough here to get any protestant’s ire up!
 
I don’t know why I used to be concerned about the Pope. It is not a frightening thing to know that God Himself has entrusted Peter with the keys to the kingdom and as the rock of the Church. It is not a frightening thing to trust that the Holy Spirit guides His Family. Types and shadows of Eternal realities can be used in great ways by the Lord in bringing further understanding to His Family.

I can’t speak to the authenticity of the quotes provided by you. I don’t have any of those books, or indeed anyway to find where the text is presented. I personally don’t know of any authentic Catholic documents that describe the Pope as “Lord God”. I have seen, however, many forgeries used as proofs. Whether or not these fall into that category is beyond me. A full-time apologist or theologian my be required in order to give complete insight into what you have quoted.

However, I can link these quotes from the CCC. Certainly we can use the Catechism itself as a source of charitable debate rather than whatever it is that you have quoted.

Certainly there is enough here to get any protestant’s ire up!
Most of those writings/books can be found on amazon.com. I, personally, will stick with the Bible.

2 Timothy 3:16-17: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If the Catholic church wanted its writings in the Holy Scriptures, I think they should have included them when they had the chance.
 
Most of those writings/books can be found on amazon.com. I, personally, will stick with the Bible.

2 Timothy 3:16-17: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If the Catholic church wanted its writings in the Holy Scriptures, I think they should have included them when they had the chance.
Hmm, you quoted outside of the Holy Scriptures, so did I. And all Scripture is profitable; however, that verse does not say that Scripture is the sole rule of faith. It was the Catholic Church that decided the canon of Holy Scripture…

Anywho, Sola Scriptura is a new invention in the history of Christianity, as pointed out in one of my previous posts on this page.
 
The first Christians were converted by Peter, long before Paul was ever a Christian.

Not true:
Paul, in biblical terms, was preaching on a Saturday night as “evenings and mornings” were the next day…the Sabbath hours had closed. After he completed his sermon, he went on a journey “at dawn”, which was much longer than a standard Sabbath’s day journey in those times.

Having the Lord’s Supper or “breaking bread” doesn’t give cause for the change in Sabbath observance.
 
And I yours. =)

This is one important point on which we differ. Sola Scriptura is a new doctrine not present in all of Christian history prior to the reformation. It doesn’t exist! It never has… Sola Scriptura is a tradition of man as opposed to the Holy Traditions of God. It was invented by the reformers. Look at the divisions that this doctrine has caused in the protestant churches. Look at the divisions that it has caused in the Adventist church, even! The Reformed Seventh Day Adventist church? That one is new to me, heh.

Our Lord is not a God of division.

The Magesterium, The Holy Traditions of God, and Holy Scripture are the three legs that the stool of faith must rest upon, otherwise schism runs rampant. Faith becomes watered down. The lowest common denominator becomes the norm. Many graces are lost.

I was excstatic to find out the the world still had the writings of Ignatious, the disciple of Polycarpe, who was the disciple of John the Beloved. Ignatious wrote in the year 110AD, just a short while after John the Beloved’s body passed away. You should read his writings, if only once in your life. Search the earliest writings of the Church fathers to find evidence of SDA doctrine. Approach it with intellectual honesty and an open heart before God. Look and see what you will discover. There should be nothing to fear in searching the earliest times.

There are certainly some points on that page that I would personally be more charitable about; however, there are several that speak volumes about Mrs. White’s failure to meet the test. I recall some of them from when I was an Adventist.

I hope your search goes well.

I’m sorry, my friend, but this is not true. Whoever told you this is a liar of the worst sort. It would be a mortal sin to offer worship to the Pope, or for that matter to offer the worship that is meant for God to anyone except God alone.

This is exactly what I would expect anyone to do who is mistakenly being given worship that is meant for the Lord.
I believe that you have a very large misundertanding regarding the papacy. It’s okay, I did too when I was in your shoes.

The best thing that you can do is go to the Catholic Church itself for knowledge of what is really taught, if only to make you more capable of debating with Catholics about faith. Working from the teachings of any protestant group with regard to what the Catholic Church is can lead to horrible, horrible errors. Go to the horses mouth, so to speak. Then judge for yourself with the eyes of your heart on the Lord. Without first hand knowledge, you cannot really communicate effectively on the teachings of the Church. Catholics have to go back and correct the basic misunderstandings about the teachings and then proceed from there.

Holy Scripture disagrees with this view point.

What is the pillar and foundation of truth? The Church (1 Tim. 3:15).

Lord Jesus said, “…If he refuses to listen to them, report the matter to the church; and he will not listen even to the church, you must then treat him as you would a pagan or a tax-gatherer. I tell you this: whatever you forbid on earth shall be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you allow on earth shall be allowed in heaven.” (Mt 18:15-18)

How would you report him to the Church if the Church is not an organized body?

This should speak to the protestant churches as well. If one protestant church excommunicates a man, he can just walk down the street to the next church. No real repercussions there. But the Lord seems to think that the Church has enormous power in the life of the individual believer. The Lord really seems to think so… It must be so, then.

There are many, many more verses in Holy Scripture which support an actual organization, an actual “Body” which christians must belong to.

The power to bind and loose on earth and in Heaven…surely no average christian claims to have this God-given power in and of themselves. This is given to the leadership of the Church and to their successors.

In all of the Old Testament the world was able to point to a place and say, “Those are Gods people over there.” The same with the New Testament. The world can point to the Church and say, “There they are.”

My friend, you have been very kind in your response to me. I appreciate that, and I have tried to respond with like kindness. We can reason together without being angry or hateful toward one another. I believe with all my heart, and the Church teaches this as well, that the Lord God works powerfully in the hearts of those that love Him.

I certainly don’t mean to sound condescending, and I apologize if I do. I’m no better than you or anyone else here. I’ve just tried to be straight forward without being rude (at no point have I wanted to be rude anyway, lol)

The Catholic Church is not what you think it is. It does not teach what you think it does.
You’re not condescending at all…I wish we could all have sincere, thoughtful and meaningful conversations such as this one. It must come with the name that we share. 🙂

I’ll have to respond to most of what you wrote later, but I have a question.

Is Peter considered to be the first pope by Catholics? If so, is the pope considered by Catholics to be infallible?

If the answer to both is yes, please help with me this Scripture as written by Paul:

Galatians 2:11-13: But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. As a result, other Jewish Christians followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

Additionally, how do you rationalize this one with respects to Peter’s position in the early church and the papacy (if the answer to the questions above is “yes”)?

Galatians 2: 6-8: And the leaders of the church had nothing to add to what I was preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites.) Instead, they saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews. For the same God who worked through Peter as the apostle to the Jews also worked through me as the apostle to the Gentiles.

With regards to the “church”, I think my comment was taken out of context. I didn’t mean to suggest there’d be no building, place to fellowship or anything like that. My point is that we’re all a collective body of Christ with elders (“bishops”) as the local leadership…this is how churches were initially established during Paul’s (et al) missionary trips. There’s nothing in Scripture pertaining to leadership above that, specifically not of the deification of a man or system…only God in heaven through Christ. Anything else is man-made and hence, a tradition of men.

Galatians 2:9-10: In fact, James, Peter, and John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued their work with the Jews. Their only suggestion was that we keep on helping the poor, which I have always been eager to do.

In Old Testament times, the word was first for the Jews as Christ was to come through their lineage. In reading the Scriptures above, in context with Jesus’ point to Peter about building His church up him (the “rock”), the same concept applies…the message was first for the Jews and then the Gentiles (you and me).

God bless you and our search and understanding of truth, my brother.
 
Most of those writings/books can be found on amazon.com.
You can find volumes that contain those quotes. That is very different from accessing original documents and evaluating them in context for authenticity.

here is a link that provides extensive documentation regarding the phrase “Lord God the Pope” that shows the phrase did not appear until 350 years after the original was written.

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/forgeries/zenzelinus.html

Other quotations are similarly misquoted and/or misrepresented if you take the time to find original sources.

One thing to keep in mind, calling someone Lord does not necessarily attribute divinity to them. In Spanish, and in many other languages, including the latin from which spanish came, the usual honorific for a male is also the same word used for Lord when refering to God. In Spanish Senor means Lord. When we sing Lord Jesus Christ, we sing, Senor Jesu Christo. When I’m addressing one of our ushers at church as “Senor Garcia” no one thinks I’m attributing deity to poor Mr. Garcia!

It is very problematic to take garbled translations made over several hundred years and make claims from them that are contrary to what is clearly taught in the Catechism and relevant documents. Any historian will tell you that to be credible, one needs to get their information from original primary sources.
I, personally, will stick with the Bible.

2 Timothy 3:16-17: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Profitable… Look all you want, the word you will never find in those passages is Sufficient. Of course scripture is worthy of our time and reverence. It is indeed VERY profitable to study…
That doesn’t make it sufficient. I sell crafts, its very profitable, however, the income is not SUFFICIENT to provide our living, we need other sources of income.

Scripture is profitable, but it by itself is not sufficient. It does not define itself or propagate itself. It requires human beings to copy and print it and share it, it requires human intellect to read it and apply its teachings.

You missed this quote also written by Paul to Timothy:
**
14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
**

Paul does tell Timothy to study because it will be profitable, but what does he tell Timothy is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

Its not a book.
If the Catholic church wanted its writings in the Holy Scriptures, I think they should have included them when they had the chance.
You make an excellent point. The Catholic church had the “chance” as you word it, to have an enormous amount of influence on the content of scripture. There is no inspired list of books that should be included. How do you know the 27 books chosen to be included in the NT out of the dozens in circulation were the right ones? How do you know they weren’t tampered with? You have no choice but to trust the judgment of the Church in this matter. It is true that God could have transmitted scripture some other way, but he didn’t. That itself speaks to the authority of the Church.

God Bless,
MarysRoses
 
I’m going to say something, an observation I’ve made over the years, as someone without ‘a dog in this fight’ (being neither Catholic, Protestant or SDA):

Years before my husband converted to Orthodox Judaism, he had been a 7th Day Adventist for a number of years. Orthodox Jews and SDAs often work together on church-state separation legal issues (such as working to insure legal protection for people who keep the 7th day Sabbath and need time off), and it was in this work that he met and befriended a number of Orthodox Jews, hence, his interest in Judaism.

Anyway, over the years he has introduced me to friends of his from that church, and I have always found them to be very humble, kind, loving people. They never forced their beliefs on me even though they knew I was not Christian, and they have always had a very humble, quiet spirit about them. In fact we patronize their businesses (there is an SDA-owned family farm not far from us, and we buy our produce there…we like to support other 7th day Sabbath keepers, even if they are not Jewish!)

Regardless of what they may or may not be saying about the RCC, I found them to have more of a kind spirit than many Catholics OR Jews I’ve met in my life. Because of how unassuming and peaceful they are, and not forceful with their beliefs, its interested me in reading some of their works, which I have (my husband had enough of his old SDA books still lying around, so it made that easy to do). I’d never convert to it or any Christian religion, but reading their works enabled me to understand their belief system better. They are also very health-conscious, and are against smoking (so am I), vegetarian (so am I), and they believe in natural health remedies (so do I.)

That’s all.
 
You’re not condescending at all…I wish we could all have sincere, thoughtful and meaningful conversations such as this one. It must come with the name that we share. 🙂
Heh, too true. Too true.
I’ll have to respond to most of what you wrote later, but I have a question.
Certainly. No rush at all.
Is Peter considered to be the first pope by Catholics? If so, is the pope considered by Catholics to be infallible?
Yes and yes.
Galatians 2:11-13: But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. As a result, other Jewish Christians followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
This is not a matter of Infallability. Papal infallability is limited solely to matters of faith which are proclaimed as binding upon all believers. There has been more than one horribly sinful Pope, unfortunately; however, due to the nature of infallability those Popes were unable to change the binding matters of faith…and as far as I’m aware, the four that I’m aware of didn’t even attempt to speak on binding matters.

The Popes are totally human. John Paul II, who no one can condemn, went to confession on a regular basis. Infallability simply means that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church through the Pope on matters that are binding for all believers. The Pope’s personal behavior and personal writings do not fall under Papal infallability.
Additionally, how do you rationalize this one with respects to Peter’s position in the early church and the papacy (if the answer to the questions above is “yes”)?
Galatians 2: 6-8: And the leaders of the church had nothing to add to what I was preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites.) Instead, they saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews. For the same God who worked through Peter as the apostle to the Jews also worked through me as the apostle to the Gentiles
I see no issue here.

Something to consider further are the examples of Peter “standing up” so to speak, and deciding issues for the rest of the Church, healing the sick, raising the dead. Interesting that it is Peter who is spoken of most here.
Look at Peter’s authority in these passages. Look how he reflects the image of the Lord. The God given authority is evident:

[warning! Lots of quotes follow, lol]

Beginning at Acts 1:15
At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said, 16 “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 “For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.” 18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. 19 And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’;
and,
‘LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’
21 “Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
And Acts 2:14
But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words
Acts 3
But Peter said, “I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene—walk!”
Acts 4
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health.
[Continued in next post]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top