Slave to the Law

[brakelite]

I am aware that Sunday began to be observed very early in NT history. However, I would make a few points which I believe are pertinent to this discussion.

1. The apostles never gave up observing the 4th commandment. Sunday for them was simply the first day of the week, as can be noted by the writers of the gospels when touching on the passion week. The gospels were written some time after the event, yet we see absolutely no hint of any change.
2. If there had been a change; if the apostles had taught that Sunday was now the day of rest in honour of the resurrection, the legalist Jews would have kicked up such a fuss the controversy would have decimated the church. Yet there is not a vestige of trouble recorded until the Roman church began to exalt Sunday in the 4th and 5th centuries.

3.The ‘rest’ you speak of in Christ is certainly a valid priciple, but not in any sense can it be taken to be a replacement for the Sabbath, on the contrary, resting on the ‘day’ is a physical real-time demonstration that indeed one is actually spiritually at rest in Christ.
As a corollary to this, can we observe any commandment without ceasing from our own works? Does not death to self and the infilling of the Holy Spirit create in us the image of Christ? Is this not called sanctification? And because we are transformed into the image of Christ, would it also not be in conformity to the law that Christ wrote on the tables of stone, and which He now writes on the tables of our hearts? We can’t accomplish this without surrender ; without ceasing from our own works. Sanctification is simply that. The changing of the life to make it conformable to God’s standards of righteousness. And Ezekiel tells us that by observing the Sabbath, the day, we are acknowledging that it is God Who is doing the sanctifying, and not we ourselves. So by keeping the Sabbath, it is actually a sign we have indeed ceased from our own works, and trusting in Christ’s working in us His righteousness.

1. The council of Laodicea, about 360ad, passed laws denouncing the observance of the Sabbath. Proof itself that the Sabbath was still being observed into the 4th century, by enough numbers to be of concern to the then burgeoning Roman church.

5.It was through such councils that Sunday was slowly but inexorably exalted and made a day of joyful fellowship and called the ‘Lord’s Day’, whilst the Sabbath was , just as inexorably, made a day of fasting and a day to be abhorred. Thus one day was promoted, the other demoted. This took many years to accomplish.

6.Milan, center of northern Italy, as well as all the Eastern churches,was sanctifying the seventh-day Sabbath, while Rome was requiring its followers to fast on that day in an effort to discredit it. Interesting pictures of the conflict are given by an eminent scholar and writer, Dr. Peter Heylyn. Ambrose, the celebrated bishop of Milan, and Augustine, the more celebrated bishop of Africa, both contemporaries of Vigilantins, described the interesting situation. Ambrose said that when he was in Milan he observed Saturday, but when in Rome he fasted on Saturday and observed Sunday. This gave rise to the proverb, “When you are in Rome, do as Rome does.” Augustine deplored the fact that in two neighboring churches in Africa, one observed the seventh-day Sabbath, another fasted
on it.

1. “The ancient Christians were very careful in the observance of Saturday, or the seventh day…It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival…Athanasius likewise tells us that they held religious assembles on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, Epiphanius says the same.” “Antiquities of the Christian Church,” Vol.II Book XX, chap. 3, sec.1, 66. 1137,1138.
2. Rome was not the only Christian church around. The apostles and early disciples spread the gospel from Britain to China before the end of the 2nd century. The far greater part of Christianity lay not in within the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, but were quite independent and had their own bishops overseeing mission work and the life of the church. Examples are Dinooth, Patrick, Aiden, Columba and Columbanus of Britain. Lucian in Syria, Vigilantius in Italy,Papas of Assyria, Aba in Persia, Timothy in Bagdad, the St. Thomas Christians in India, as well as other well established churches all along the silk road as far as China, Japan, and the Philipines. And they all observed the 7th day Sabbath, some up to the 18th century before succumbing to Protestant teaching.

 

[fhansen]

I am aware that Sunday began to be observed very early in NT history. However, I would make a few points which I believe are pertinent to this discussion.

1. The apostles never gave up observing the 4th commandment. Sunday for them was simply the first day of the week, as can be noted by the writers of the gospels when touching on the passion week. The gospels were written some time after the event, yet we see absolutely no hint of any change.
2. If there had been a change; if the apostles had taught that Sunday was now the day of rest in honour of the resurrection, the legalist Jews would have kicked up such a fuss the controversy would have decimated the church. Yet there is not a vestige of trouble recorded until the Roman church began to exalt Sunday in the 4th and 5th centuries.

3.The ‘rest’ you speak of in Christ is certainly a valid priciple, but not in any sense can it be taken to be a replacement for the Sabbath, on the contrary, resting on the ‘day’ is a physical real-time demonstration that indeed one is actually spiritually at rest in Christ.
As a corollary to this, can we observe any commandment without ceasing from our own works? Does not death to self and the infilling of the Holy Spirit create in us the image of Christ? Is this not called sanctification? And because we are transformed into the image of Christ, would it also not be in conformity to the law that Christ wrote on the tables of stone, and which He now writes on the tables of our hearts? We can’t accomplish this without surrender ; without ceasing from our own works. Sanctification is simply that. The changing of the life to make it conformable to God’s standards of righteousness. And Ezekiel tells us that by observing the Sabbath, the day, we are acknowledging that it is God Who is doing the sanctifying, and not we ourselves. So by keeping the Sabbath, it is actually a sign we have indeed ceased from our own works, and trusting in Christ’s working in us His righteousness.

1. The council of Laodicea, about 360ad, passed laws denouncing the observance of the Sabbath. Proof itself that the Sabbath was still being observed into the 4th century, by enough numbers to be of concern to the then burgeoning Roman church.

5.It was through such councils that Sunday was slowly but inexorably exalted and made a day of joyful fellowship and called the ‘Lord’s Day’, whilst the Sabbath was , just as inexorably, made a day of fasting and a day to be abhorred. Thus one day was promoted, the other demoted. This took many years to accomplish.

6.Milan, center of northern Italy, as well as all the Eastern churches,was sanctifying the seventh-day Sabbath, while Rome was requiring its followers to fast on that day in an effort to discredit it. Interesting pictures of the conflict are given by an eminent scholar and writer, Dr. Peter Heylyn. Ambrose, the celebrated bishop of Milan, and Augustine, the more celebrated bishop of Africa, both contemporaries of Vigilantins, described the interesting situation. Ambrose said that when he was in Milan he observed Saturday, but when in Rome he fasted on Saturday and observed Sunday. This gave rise to the proverb, “When you are in Rome, do as Rome does.” Augustine deplored the fact that in two neighboring churches in Africa, one observed the seventh-day Sabbath, another fasted
on it.

1. “The ancient Christians were very careful in the observance of Saturday, or the seventh day…It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival…Athanasius likewise tells us that they held religious assembles on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, Epiphanius says the same.” “Antiquities of the Christian Church,” Vol.II Book XX, chap. 3, sec.1, 66. 1137,1138.
2. Rome was not the only Christian church around. The apostles and early disciples spread the gospel from Britain to China before the end of the 2nd century. The far greater part of Christianity lay not in within the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, but were quite independent and had their own bishops overseeing mission work and the life of the church. Examples are Dinooth, Patrick, Aiden, Columba and Columbanus of Britain. Lucian in Syria, Vigilantius in Italy,Papas of Assyria, Aba in Persia, Timothy in Bagdad, the St. Thomas Christians in India, as well as other well established churches all along the silk road as far as China, Japan, and the Philipines. And they all observed the 7th day Sabbath, some up to the 18th century before succumbing to Protestant teaching.

Obviously some confusion there. Another reason to stick with Rome.

 

[PLeeD]

1. The apostles never gave up observing the 4th commandment. Sunday for them was simply the first day of the week, as can be noted by the writers of the gospels when touching on the passion week. The gospels were written some time after the event, yet we see absolutely no hint of any change.

How does Romans 14 affect your view of the Sabbath?

 

[Robbinson]

I am aware that Sunday began to be observed very early in NT history. However, I would make a few points which I believe are pertinent to this discussion…

Great post - thanks. A lot of good points. However, my quote from Ignatious (a few posts up) from the 1st centruy shows us that there was a movement away from saturday Sabbath observance, to Lord’s Day observance, within the Church well before (200 years or so before) the time of Constantine and the issueance of the cannon rules forbidding Saturday rest at Lacodea.

That being said - I agree with you that the desire to “stay in the old wine skins” persisted well into the early 4th century. Again, as I noted before, this is why we see the “teaching” even in Galations and Hebrews against Judaizing (because it persisted well after Christ’s death and resurrection).

As to physical rest v. spiritual rest on the Sabbath (saturday) - indeed - this is the interpretive question. For one (the Church) who believes the Sabbath rest was/is “fulfilled” in our eternal rest in Christ, we believe we are continuing to fulfill the Sabbath commandment on Saturday (and every day).

For one (perhaps you from your posts) who believes that “physical rest” continues as a commandment on Saturday irrespective of whether we “rest” spiritually in Christ and irirespective of the teaching in Hebrews (e.g., if you interpret it differently), I certainly understand why you would think the Sabbath commandment continues AND can only be fulflilled by physical rest from work.

With respect (though I understand your persepctive), this is an example of why I’m a firm believer in the teaching authority of the Magesterium - because if we are all our own interpreters of scripture - we will (as evidenced by the Reformation) end up with thousands (actually, 10s of thousands) of different interpretations of scripture - impacting even core doctrines of faith. To me its like Moses - he was given authority (Jesus acknolwedged it by referencing the Chair of Moses). Miriam and Aaron questioned it (and were rebuked by God); Korah questioned it (and was rebuked by God). Peter and the apostles were given authority and its being questioned by other sincere believers . . .

Thanks for the post -it really helped me to understand your perspective better.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[CEM5]

I

1. The apostles never gave up observing the 4th commandment. Sunday for them was simply the first day of the week, as can be noted by the writers of the gospels when touching on the passion week. The gospels were written some time after the event, yet we see absolutely no hint of any change.
2. If there had been a change; if the apostles had taught that Sunday was now the day of rest in honour of the resurrection, the legalist Jews would have kicked up such a fuss the controversy would have decimated the church. Yet there is not a vestige of trouble recorded until the Roman church began to exalt Sunday in the 4th and 5th centuries.

3.The ‘rest’ you speak of in Christ is certainly a valid priciple, but not in any sense can it be taken to be a replacement for the Sabbath, on the contrary, resting on the ‘day’ is a physical real-time demonstration that indeed one is actually spiritually at rest in Christ.
As a corollary to this, can we observe any commandment without ceasing from our own works? Does not death to self and the infilling of the Holy Spirit create in us the image of Christ? Is this not called sanctification? And because we are transformed into the image of Christ, would it also not be in conformity to the law that Christ wrote on the tables of stone, and which He now writes on the tables of our hearts? We can’t accomplish this without surrender ; without ceasing from our own works. Sanctification is simply that. The changing of the life to make it conformable to God’s standards of righteousness. And Ezekiel tells us that by observing the Sabbath, the day, we are acknowledging that it is God Who is doing the sanctifying, and not we ourselves. So by keeping the Sabbath, it is actually a sign we have indeed ceased from our own works, and trusting in Christ’s working in us His righteousness.

1. The council of Laodicea, about 360ad, passed laws denouncing the observance of the Sabbath. Proof itself that the Sabbath was still being observed into the 4th century, by enough numbers to be of concern to the then burgeoning Roman church.

5.It was through such councils that Sunday was slowly but inexorably exalted and made a day of joyful fellowship and called the ‘Lord’s Day’, whilst the Sabbath was , just as inexorably, made a day of fasting and a day to be abhorred. Thus one day was promoted, the other demoted. This took many years to accomplish.

QUOTE]

Hi brakelite,

1. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, there was no more Priestly sacrifice, and no more worship. This was devastating to the Jews. Around 100 AD, a group of rabbis gathered together, and not only started the process of changing the existing Scriptures, but started a school and implimented a new system of worship because of the loss of many Jewish people to Christianity. They had a synogogue to hold their new form of teaching and worship of God, but could no more follow the OLD commandment of the way they used to observe their Temple worship. There is no more Jewish Temple. God saw to that because Jesus is the Temple and we are temples of God now, The Christians got this, and followed their ‘sabbath’ on the Lord’s Day, as is described in the New Testament. Paul spoke against following the Mosaic law, and Peter upheld this.
2. The legalist Jews did kick up a fuss. They persecuted and stoned the Church. Stephen was the first martyr. Early Christians had to meet in secret because not only did the Jews persecute them, but the Roman Empire was viscious in their attacks as well.

3.We do observe the Sabbath (means literally “day of rest”) - God did not institute WHICH day - just specified that we were to work 6 days, and on the seventh, we were to sabbath. (REST). It is clear in the commandments. And we Christians do just that. By the way, the Jews have always observed their Sabbath starting on what we call the 6th day (typically Friday now) and ended on the 7th, Saturday.

1. This “law” of not following the Jewish day of sabbath was passed, if I recall correctly, because JEWISH converts to Christianity were still holding onto their Jewish practices. You are either Christian or not. You cannot be both, just like you cannot serve two masters. You have to be faithful and loyal to one otherwise you are divided.

5.Not so. The Lord’s Day started right from the beginning, as did the Mass (although Mass was a later word given for this celebration. It was simply called 'Breaking of the Bread" or just plain “Thanksgiving” - which is what Eucharist means.

I’ll have to continue another time…I have to head off to work.

have a blessed and wonderful day everyone.

 

[brakelite]

Obviously some confusion there. Another reason to stick with Rome.

But where is that confusion? The whole world observed the Sabbath, *except *Rome. That is, until such time as Rome enforced the observance of Sunday through various councils and using the power of the state to carry out her judgements.

 

[CEM5]

But where is that confusion? The whole world observed the Sabbath, *except *Rome. That is, until such time as Rome enforced the observance of Sunday through various councils and using the power of the state to carry out her judgements.

Sorry brakelite,

The whole world DID NOT observe the Sabbath. Only Jews. Once those people converted to Christianity, they kept the Lord’s Day, as their sabbath. No where in the New Testament will you find any observance of Sabbath by the Apostles, Paul or the christians. No where in the N.T. will you see Jesus telling anyone to keep the Sabbath. Jesus claimed He is the Sabbath. No where will you see Paul attending the Sabbath sacrifices or the Temple worship. Paul went about 84 times to PREACH/teach in the synogogue during the Sabbath, but He did not observe the sabbath as the Jews did.

Rome did not enforce any observance of Sunday. Learn history!

Rome, Italy had no power over the Church and never will. The Roman Empire persecuted Christians.

God bless

 

[CEM5]

6.Milan, center of northern Italy, as well as all the Eastern churches,was sanctifying the seventh-day Sabbath, while Rome was requiring its followers to fast on that day in an effort to discredit it. Interesting pictures of the conflict are given by an eminent scholar and writer, Dr. Peter Heylyn. Ambrose, the celebrated bishop of Milan, and Augustine, the more celebrated bishop of Africa, both contemporaries of Vigilantins, described the interesting situation. Ambrose said that when he was in Milan he observed Saturday, but when in Rome he fasted on Saturday and observed Sunday. This gave rise to the proverb, “When you are in Rome, do as Rome does.” Augustine deplored the fact that in two neighboring churches in Africa, one observed the seventh-day Sabbath, another fasted
on it.

1. “The ancient Christians were very careful in the observance of Saturday, or the seventh day…It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival…Athanasius likewise tells us that they held religious assembles on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, Epiphanius says the same.” “Antiquities of the Christian Church,” Vol.II Book XX, chap. 3, sec.1, 66. 1137,1138.
2. Rome was not the only Christian church around. The apostles and early disciples spread the gospel from Britain to China before the end of the 2nd century. The far greater part of Christianity lay not in within the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, but were quite independent and had their own bishops overseeing mission work and the life of the church. Examples are Dinooth, Patrick, Aiden, Columba and Columbanus of Britain. Lucian in Syria, Vigilantius in Italy,Papas of Assyria, Aba in Persia, Timothy in Bagdad, the St. Thomas Christians in India, as well as other well established churches all along the silk road as far as China, Japan, and the Philipines. And they all observed the 7th day Sabbath, some up to the 18th century before succumbing to Protestant teaching.

brakelite - you misquote and rely on sources that are incorrect #6 is not factual.

here is the history behind the saying “when in Rome do as the Romans do.” AND you got St. Ambrose’s quote wrong as well:

Stories behind Famous Sayings

The Saying: WHEN IN ROME, DO AS THE ROMANS DO.

Who Said It: St. Ambrose

When: 387 A.D.

The Story behind It: When St. Augustine arrived in Milan, he observed that the Church did not fast on Saturday as did the Church at Rome. He consulted St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, who replied: “When I am at Rome, I fast on a Saturday; when I am at Milan, I do not. Follow the custom of the Church where you are.” The comment was changed to “When they are at Rome, they do there as they see done” by Robert Burton in his Anatomy of Melancholy. Eventually it became “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”

as for #7, I again believe you are incorrect and use unreliable sources for your information. Epiphanius of Salamis never wrote any “Antiquities of the Christian Churches”. He wrote Panarion (Greek: Πανάριον, “Medicine Chest”), also known as Adversus Haereses** (Latin: “Against Heresies”), in the 4th century AD. Additionally, Athanasius of Alexandria wrote many works against heresies, and there is not this quote of yours to be found. Which source did you get this from?

The"Antiquities of the Christian Church," Vol.II Book XX, chap. 3, sec.1, 66. 1137,1138. you provide does not exist. Show us the whole book and where to find it all.

Additionally**, #8 **that you wrote is fiction: The churches that were founded by those Apostles and later their ordained bishops/priests were in various parts of the whole, however, they were under the jurisdiciton of the Pope and not independent. Any time any church strayed from truth, they were reprimanded and letters written of correction. Thus the letters against any heresy that popped up. If they did not turn back to the truth of those teachings of Christ and the Apostles, they were excommunicated: “anathema” and all of the Church celebrated the Lord’s Day and the Eucharist, just as Paul and the Apostles did.

God bless

 

[brakelite]

Hi brakelite,

1. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, there was no more Priestly sacrifice, and no more worship. This was devastating to the Jews. Around 100 AD, a group of rabbis gathered together, and not only started the process of changing the existing Scriptures, but started a school and implimented a new system of worship because of the loss of many Jewish people to Christianity. They had a synogogue to hold their new form of teaching and worship of God, but could no more follow the OLD commandment of the way they used to observe their Temple worship. There is no more Jewish Temple. God saw to that because Jesus is the Temple and we are temples of God now, The Christians got this, and followed their ‘sabbath’ on the Lord’s Day, as is described in the New Testament. Paul spoke against following the Mosaic law, and Peter upheld this.

Christian fellowships observed the Sabbath for many centuries after 70ad. The Sabbath was always seen as one of the Ten Commandments by many Christians; they would no more give up the Sabbath 4th commandment than disobey the 6th commandment regarding murder. The Mosaic law dealt with those rituals services which pertained to the temple, true, But the Sabbaths that were associated with the services of the sanctuary were annual Sabbaths. The weekly Sabbath is unique and existed before the services of the temple were instituted.

1. The legalist Jews did kick up a fuss. They persecuted and stoned the Church. Stephen was the first martyr. Early Christians had to meet in secret because not only did the Jews persecute them, but the Roman Empire was viscious in their attacks as well.
   True, but not because they weren’t keeping the Sabbath. The Jews persecuted Christians because they claimed Jesus as the Messiah. Paul was one of the persecutors and agreed with Steven’s stoning. Nothing to do with the Sabbath, at that time there was no thought in the mind of anyone to set aside any other day. The Jewish converts to Christianity had issues with circumcision, and there was much debate over that, but no debate between Jewish converts over the Sabbath. So the apostles observed the Sabbath, the gentile converts did also, and the church continued to do so for centuries until the Roman church forbid them.

3.We do observe the Sabbath (means literally “day of rest”) - God did not institute WHICH day - just specified that we were to work 6 days, and on the seventh, we were to sabbath. (REST). It is clear in the commandments. And we Christians do just that. By the way, the Jews have always observed their Sabbath starting on what we call the 6th day (typically Friday now) and ended on the 7th, Saturday.
Genesis 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
God didn’t bless, sanctify, and make holy just any day. Not any day in seven, nor the seventh day after the third day. No, He blessed the seventh day, because it was on that day He rested. As we know, Jesus is the Creator, so it was Jesus who made the Sabbath, and rested. Which is logical when considering He said “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Noweher are we told in scripture that God unblessed or unsanctified the Sabbath day.

1. This “law” of not following the Jewish day of sabbath was passed, if I recall correctly, because JEWISH converts to Christianity were still holding onto their Jewish practices. You are either Christian or not. You cannot be both, just like you cannot serve two masters. You have to be faithful and loyal to one otherwise you are divided.
   Observing the Sabbath was not just a Jewish practice, for as the scriptures tell us “the Sabbath was made for man.” The Sabbath was made at creation, a very long time before a Jew even existed…it was made at creation for man. So presumably, for Adam and his descendants. Which in quite understandable wehen told that Abraham kept all God’s commandments statutes and laws. S it wasn’t made just for the Jew. As attested to by the fact that the Gentiles also observed the Sabbath after they became converted to Christ.

5.Not so. The Lord’s Day started right from the beginning, as did the Mass (although Mass was a later word given for this celebration. It was simply called 'Breaking of the Bread" or just plain “Thanksgiving” - which is what Eucharist means.
The Lord’s day certainly existed right at the beginning of the NT church. And the scriptures even tell us what day the Lord’s day is. Quote, “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.” Matt 12:8 When the apostle John said he was on the Isle of Patmos and was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, it is obvious he was referring to none other day than the 7th day Sabbath.

I

 

[brakelite]

brakelite - you misquote and rely on sources that are incorrect #6 is not factual.

here is the history behind the saying “when in Rome do as the Romans do.” AND you got St. Ambrose’s quote wrong as well:

Stories behind Famous Sayings

The Saying: WHEN IN ROME, DO AS THE ROMANS DO.

Who Said It: St. Ambrose

When: 387 A.D.

The Story behind It: When St. Augustine arrived in Milan, he observed that the Church did not fast on Saturday as did the Church at Rome. He consulted St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, who replied: “When I am at Rome, I fast on a Saturday; when I am at Milan, I do not. Follow the custom of the Church where you are.” The comment was changed to “When they are at Rome, they do there as they see done” by Robert Burton in his Anatomy of Melancholy. Eventually it became “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”

Really, I see no difference between what I wrote and your paste and copy from wikipedia or wherever.

as for #7, I again believe you are incorrect and use unreliable sources for your information. Epiphanius of Salamis never wrote any “Antiquities of the Christian Churches”. He wrote Panarion (Greek: Πανάριον, “Medicine Chest”), also known as Adversus Haereses** (Latin: “Against Heresies”), in the 4th century AD. Additionally, Athanasius of Alexandria wrote many works against heresies, and there is not this quote of yours to be found. Which source did you get this from?

The"Antiquities of the Christian Church," Vol.II Book XX, chap. 3, sec.1, 66. 1137,1138. you provide does not exist. Show us the whole book and where to find it all.

If you read my post a little more carefully you will notice that I didn’t say Salamis wrote antiquities, only that he agreed with it. The writer of "The Antiquities of the Christian Churches"was Bingham Joseph. The Antiquities of the Christian Church, 2 vols., Published by Henry G. Bohn, London, 1850.

Additionally**, #8 **that you wrote is fiction: The churches that were founded by those Apostles and later their ordained bishops/priests were in various parts of the whole, however, they were under the jurisdiciton of the Pope and not independent. Any time any church strayed from truth, they were reprimanded and letters written of correction. Thus the letters against any heresy that popped up. If they did not turn back to the truth of those teachings of Christ and the Apostles, they were excommunicated: “anathema” and all of the Church celebrated the Lord’s Day and the Eucharist, just as Paul and the Apostles did.

God bless

No. not fiction at all. Allow me to fill you in on a little history. Just one example of how the gospel spread is from Galatia. After founding the church in Syria, Paul went to Galatia. The Galatians were in fact Celtic. They spoke the same language as those in Britain and France, for they were descendants of Celtic immigrants from the 4th century before Christ.
One writer by the name of Gordon who has mede special research into Oriental studies, wrote a book entitled which reveals evidence that the Celtic churches in Ireland received the gospel from Galatian travellers, as traders from Galatia had for centuries been passing to and fro between the two lands through the south of France. The scriptures they used were of the Greek type, not Latin, and they had no connection with Rome until the 4th century. Augustine arrived in Britain and was surprised to find a church there flourishing. He then demanded that they submit to the authority of the Roman bishop, who it was claimed had jurisdiction over all Christianity. As they claimed Jesus as their leader, the Celtic churches saw no need to submit to any foreign power, bishop notwithstanding, and politely refuse. I know it is often told that Patrick was the first Christian to evangelise Ireland, but Patrick’s own writings reveal that his grandfather was a Christian well before Patrick was even 16 years old.
There is abundant evidence of intercommunication between Ireland, France, and Galatia in the three hundred years between Paul and Patrick. That the Celts in France were evangelized by the Celts in Asia Minor is shown by a well-known event in the history of the French church. About seventy years after the death of the apostle John, the churches in southern France suffered a terrible persecution at the hands of the pagans. The
distressed believers in 177 sent a pathetic account of their afflictions, not to Italy or to Africa, but to their brethren in Asia Minor.
“In order to understand the situation, political and ecclesiastical, in southern France, we must bear in mind that the Gauls of the West and the Galatae of the East were of the same stock, and that each branch, though several nations intervened, retained unimpaired its racial characteristics." (Warner, The Albigensian Heresy, vol. 1, p. 19.)
Thus Ireland received the gospel from Asia Minor, by way of the sea and by way of the Celtic believers in southern France; and they, in turn, obtained the light from the Galatians to whom Paul had ministered.

Within the generation following the apostles, if not even before the death of John, the New Testament had been translated into the most common of all Latin texts, the Italic version, often called Itala. For centuries scholars of the Celtic church quoted from the Itala. Thse original manuscripts were considered more reliable than those of Alexandria that Origen and his contempories had translated but compromised with Gnosticism.

 

[CEM5]

hi again brakelite,

You said: Christian fellowships observed the Sabbath for many centuries after 70ad. The Sabbath was always seen as one of the Ten Commandments by many Christians; they would no more give up the Sabbath 4th commandment than disobey the 6th commandment regarding murder. The Mosaic law dealt with those rituals services which pertained to the temple, true, But the Sabbaths that were associated with the services of the sanctuary were annual Sabbaths. The weekly Sabbath is unique and existed before the services of the temple were instituted.

You say this yet do not provide any proof. I have the proof from the Bible, from the Didache which is the teaching of the twelve Apostles, and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers of the Church, which clearly show the Christians had their “day of rest” and worshipped God on the “Lord’s Day”.

you said: Genesis 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
God didn’t bless, sanctify, and make holy just any day. Not any day in seven, nor the seventh day after the third day. No, He blessed the seventh day, because it was on that day He rested. As we know, Jesus is the Creator, so it was Jesus who made the Sabbath, and rested. Which is logical when considering He said “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Noweher are we told in scripture that God unblessed or unsanctified the Sabbath day.

brakelite, it is exaclty as I said so what are you negating and opposing? I said very clearly that God told us to work 6 days and rest on the seventh day. This is what all practicing Christians do: We work 6 days and on our day of rest (our “sabbath” - recall, this is what the word means!!) we REST. God did not say SATURDAY. Saturday did not exist until after Christ had passed - many many years after Christ passed by the way!

you said:True, but not because they weren’t keeping the Sabbath. The Jews persecuted Christians because they claimed Jesus as the Messiah. Paul was one of the persecutors and agreed with Steven’s stoning. Nothing to do with the Sabbath, at that time there was no thought in the mind of anyone to set aside any other day. The Jewish converts to Christianity had issues with circumcision, and there was much debate over that, but no debate between Jewish converts over the Sabbath. So the apostles observed the Sabbath, the gentile converts did also, and the church continued to do so for centuries until the Roman church forbid them.

Yes, that is true, nonetheless, Christians were being persecuted and an obvious give away to knowing who was a Christian was the “Thanksgiving/Breaking of the Bread” (what we call our Mass/Eucharist today), and they had to meet secretly. The Apostles did not observe the Sabbath - you will NOT find any mention of that in the Scriptures: instead you find that they observed the Lord’s Day. Even Jesus did not command His disciples to go to Temple and osberve the animal sacrifice - instead, Jesus broke many of the Sabbath “rules” and told His disciples/Apostles that He introduced a New Covenant and to “do this (the Eucharist) in remembrance of me”. This we do on the Lord’s Day, our 7th day of rest.

to be continued…

 

[CEM5]

continuation:

I said: 4. This “law” of not following the Jewish day of sabbath was passed, if I recall correctly, because JEWISH converts to Christianity were still holding onto their Jewish practices. You are either Christian or not. You cannot be both, just like you cannot serve two masters. You have to be faithful and loyal to one otherwise you are divided.

you said: Observing the Sabbath was not just a Jewish practice, for as the scriptures tell us “the Sabbath was made for man.” The Sabbath was made at creation, a very long time before a Jew even existed…it was made at creation for man. So presumably, for Adam and his descendants. Which in quite understandable wehen told that Abraham kept all God’s commandments statutes and laws. S it wasn’t made just for the Jew. As attested to by the fact that the Gentiles also observed the Sabbath after they became converted to Christ.

my repsonse: brakelite, Abraham had no commandments to make: the commandments did not come into existence UNTIL after Moses went up Mt. Sinai and was given these commandments and laws from God (and the angels as Scripture tells us). Abraham was noted for his obedience to God when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. See, Abraham had faith and from that faith stemmed obedience. There was no “sabbath” nor was there a Temple then.

you said: The Lord’s day certainly existed right at the beginning of the NT church. And the scriptures even tell us what day the Lord’s day is. Quote, “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.” Matt 12:8 When the apostle John said he was on the Isle of Patmos and was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, it is obvious he was referring to none other day than the 7th day Sabbath.

brakelite, what exactly are you saying? Which “day” do you think the Sabbath was? The Jews today celebrate their Sabbath on twilight Friday, till twilight Saturday, attending the Synogogue on Saturday. That is their “day of rest”. They work on Friday ‘day’, but at twilight Friday is the beginning of their “day of rest”, which contiues to Saturday and ends twilight Saturday (evening). They always this 24 hr period. It did not begin on one day only. And for goodness sake: You can’t be serious when you think that John is meaning the Jewish day of their sabbath when he wrote the “Lord’s day”??? That is not so. Every scholar and even non-scholars know this is the “sunday” (what we call and know as the Lord’s Day!) The Lord’s day was the third day when Jesus rose from the dead: Friday, beginning of jewish observance of their Sabbath: day 1. Saturday, the 2nd day, continuing the Sabbath of the Jewish observance (going to Temple), and “sunday” - the 3rd day when Jesus rose (alleluiah!!) is the Lord’s Day. The N.T. is quite clear about this.

blessings.

 

[CEM5]

Really, I see no difference between what I wrote and your paste and copy from wikipedia or wherever.

There is a difference because you misquoted him. What he said is not the same as what you said

[/INDENT]

If you read my post a little more carefully you will notice that I didn’t say Salamis wrote antiquities, only that he agreed with it. The writer of "The Antiquities of the Christian Churches"was Bingham Joseph. The Antiquities of the Christian Church, 2 vols., Published by Henry G. Bohn, London, 1850.

Again, the way you presented it was misleading and not from any Church source. What this man wrote, Bingham Joseph, is not fact, He was deemed a heretic by the Church for his false beliefs. If you want true accounts of Christian antiquities, read the existing original manuscripts written by those who knew and were taught by the Apostles (we calle them the “Apostolic Fathers of the Church” and read the Didache, and other reliabe sources. Not those sources from a heretic who was born in the 17th century and did not know the ancient customs

blessings

 

[CEM5]

No. not fiction at all. Allow me to fill you in on a little history. Just one example of how the gospel spread is from Galatia. After founding the church in Syria, Paul went to Galatia. The Galatians were in fact Celtic. They spoke the same language as those in Britain and France, for they were descendants of Celtic immigrants from the 4th century before Christ.
One writer by the name of Gordon who has mede special research into Oriental studies, wrote a book entitled which reveals evidence that the Celtic churches in Ireland received the gospel from Galatian travellers, as traders from Galatia had for centuries been passing to and fro between the two lands through the south of France. The scriptures they used were of the Greek type, not Latin, and they had no connection with Rome until the 4th century. Augustine arrived in Britain and was surprised to find a church there flourishing. He then demanded that they submit to the authority of the Roman bishop, who it was claimed had jurisdiction over all Christianity. As they claimed Jesus as their leader, the Celtic churches saw no need to submit to any foreign power, bishop notwithstanding, and politely refuse. I know it is often told that Patrick was the first Christian to evangelise Ireland, but Patrick’s own writings reveal that his grandfather was a Christian well before Patrick was even 16 years old.
There is abundant evidence of intercommunication between Ireland, France, and Galatia in the three hundred years between Paul and Patrick. That the Celts in France were evangelized by the Celts in Asia Minor is shown by a well-known event in the history of the French church. About seventy years after the death of the apostle John, the churches in southern France suffered a terrible persecution at the hands of the pagans. The
distressed believers in 177 sent a pathetic account of their afflictions, not to Italy or to Africa, but to their brethren in Asia Minor.
“In order to understand the situation, political and ecclesiastical, in southern France, we must bear in mind that the Gauls of the West and the Galatae of the East were of the same stock, and that each branch, though several nations intervened, retained unimpaired its racial characteristics." (Warner, The Albigensian Heresy, vol. 1, p. 19.)
Thus Ireland received the gospel from Asia Minor, by way of the sea and by way of the Celtic believers in southern France; and they, in turn, obtained the light from the Galatians to whom Paul had ministered.

Within the generation following the apostles, if not even before the death of John, the New Testament had been translated into the most common of all Latin texts, the Italic version, often called Itala. For centuries scholars of the Celtic church quoted from the Itala. Thse original manuscripts were considered more reliable than those of Alexandria that Origen and his contempories had translated but compromised with Gnosticism.

I am aware of the history of the celts, and their migrations (there have been mummies of celts found as far away as China dating about 3,000 yrs ago). My studies have revealed that the Galations came from Gaul (Latin: Gallia), present day France, (hence their name of “galations” associated with Gaul) and they were pagans. Paul helped in the conversion, however they were straying from their conversion and reverting to some pagan practices again, thus Paul’s letters to them where he calls them “Oh foolish Galations…” Ireland’s popluation in 432 when St Patrick went, was mostly pagan and to him belongs the accolades of converting Ireland. St Patick was a slave in Ireland before the introduction of christianity, and shortly preceding him was the bishop Palladius, in 431, so this bishop was there for a very short time, since the pagans opposed Palladuis’ teachings of Christianity. Your source that there were previous christians in Ireland prior to the teachings of Palladius and Patrick are not substantiated.

The Galatian’s language was the same spoken as that in (Germany - where the Celts had also invaded/immigrated) and (France) - not Britain by then. By the time of Paul they were Hellenized just as the Jews were (Greek being the lingua franca even though they still spoke their continental Celtic language which was not the same as the Gaulish language and Britain and Ireland spoke Insular Celtic).

 

[brakelite]

Allow me to make a few points regarding the change from the 7th day Sabbath to the first day.

1.Even though some Early Church Fathers (not the Apostolic Fathers!) admittedly advocated the observance of Sunday in honor of the resurrection, not one of them ever provides any Biblical justification for the practice. They simply state that because Jesus resurrected the first day of the week, it should be the day to honor Him.
2.Emperor Constantine’s famous Sunday law is well known. It was given on
March 7, A. D. 321: “Let all the judges and town people, and the
occupation of all trades, rest on the venerable day of the sun; but let those
who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty attend to the
business of agriculture, because it often happens that no other day is so fit
for sowing corn and planting vines; lest the critical moment being let slip,
men should lose the commodities granted by heaven. Given the seventh
day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls, each of them for the
second time.” Corpus Juris Civilis 2.127, quoted in, Henry Bettenson, ed.,
Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd edition (London: Oxford
University Press, 1963).

It must be remembered that this decree was proclaimed by the civil power. It was not a decree given by the church. However, the church would soon This decree of Constantine is preserved with some slight modifications in the Code of Justinian: “All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable Day of the Sun. Country people, however, may freely attend to the cultivation of the fields, because it frequently happens
that no other days are better adapted for planting grain in the furrows or the vines in trenches. So that the advantage given by heavenly providence may not for the occasion of a short time perish.” Code of Justinian, b. 3, title 12,3; translated in Ayer’s Source Book for Ancient Church History

3.It was at the Council of Laodicea [celebrated sometime between 343 and 381 A. D.], that the Church put itself on the record as enjoining Sunday worship and forbidding Sabbath worship. Canon 29 of this Council reads as follows: “Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [Greek sabbaton, the Sabbath] but shall work on that day, but the Lord’s day [Sunday] they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if
possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ.” (Translated in, Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Christian Councils, vol. 2, translated and edited by H. N. Oxenham [Edinburg: T. and T. Clark, 1896], p. 316).

4.As the centuries passed, the Sabbath was pressed lower and lower and the Sunday was exalted higher and higher. We next present a statement by St. Thomas Aquinas, a theologian unparalleled in the history of the Roman Catholic Church: “In the New Law the keeping of the Sunday supplants that of the Sabbath, not in virtue of the precept of the law, but through determination by the church and the custom of the Christian people.”
(Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, quoted in The Sabbath in
Scripture and History, pp. 205-206). (Bold is mine)

5.Around the year 1400 A. D., Petrus de Ancharano offered the following justification for the modification of God’s Law: “. . . the pope can modify divine law, since his power if not of man, but of God, and he acts in the place of God upon earth, with the fullest power of binding and losing his sheep.” (Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, 8 volumes, vol. 2, article (“Papa”).

to be continued…

 

[brakelite]

1. .When Martin Luther debated John Eck, Luther brought forth the weapons of Scripture whereas Eck brought forth the weapons of tradition. As long as Luther stood on the solid rock of Sola Scriptura, his arguments were unanswerable. However, there was one area where Eck took Luther’s own weapon and turned against him:
   “The Scripture teaches ‘Remember that you sanctify the day of the Sabbath; six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.’, etc. But the Church has changed the Sabbath into the Lord’s [day] by its own authority, concerning which you have no scripture. . . The Sabbath is commanded many times by God; neither in the Gospels nor in Paul is it declared that the Sabbath has ceased; nevertheless the Church has instituted the Lord’s day through the
   tradition of the apostles without Scripture.” (Johann Eck, Enchiridio Locorum Communium . . . Adversus Lutheranos [Handbook of Common Places Against the Lutherans]. Bold is mine.
   Also from Dr. Eck we find the following: “If, however, the church has had power to change the Sabbath of the Bible into Sunday and to command Sunday keeping, why should it not have also this power concerning other days, many of which are based on the Scriptures–such as Christmas, circumcision of the heart, three kings, etc. If you omit the latter, and turn from the church to the Scriptures alone, then you must keep the Sabbath
   with the Jews, which has been kept from the beginning of the world.”
   Johann Eck, Enchiridion Locorum Communium. . . Adversus Lutheranos, pp. 78, 79. [Quoted in Andrews and Conradi, History of the Sabbath, 1912 edition, p. 587].

Chalk one up for doctor Eck! His argument is powerful. Luther, however, tried to get off the hook by claiming that the specific day was ceremonial while the principle of rest on one day in seven was still binding. This unbiblical argument has been picked up by Protestants, but the fact still remains that it is based on human reasoning and not upon the Word of God!!
It is interesting that you have taken the same line as Luther.

7.I now turn to the longest church council in the history of the Roman Catholic Church (1545-1563). It was the avowed purpose of the Council of Trent to stem the phenomenal growth of Protestantism. On January 18, 1562, Gaspare de Fosso, archbishop of Reggio spoke the following words:
“The authority of the church is illustrated most clearly by the Scriptures for while on the one hand she [the church] recommends them, declares them to be divine, [and] offers them to us to be read, . . . on the other hand, the legal precepts in the Scriptures taught by the Lord have ceased by virtue of the same authority [the church]. The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been changed into the Lord’s day. . . These and other similar matters have not ceased by virtue of Christ’s teaching (for He says He has come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it), but they have been changed by the authority of the church.” (Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, 33:529-530).

I would like to include a couple of quotes from Catholic publications that support my contention that there is no Biblical justification for any change from one day to another. The change was accomplished purely by the teaching of the church (RCC) using tradition as her foundation.

“Protestants often deride the authority of Church tradition, and claim to be directed by the Bible only; yet they, too, have been guided by the customs of the ancient Church, which find no warrant in the Bible, but rest on Church tradition only! A striking instance of this is the following: The first positive command in the Decalogue is to ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy’, and this precept was enforced by the Jews for thousands of years. But the Sabbath day, the observance of which God commanded, was our Saturday. Yet who among either Catholics or Protestants, except a sect or two, like the ‘Seventh Day Baptists’, ever keep that commandment now? None. Why is this: The Bible which Protestants claim to obey exclusively, gives no authorization for the substitution of the first day of the week for the seventh. On what authority, therefore, have they done so? Plainly on the authority of that very Catholic Church which they abandoned and whose traditions they condemn.” John L. Stoddard, Rebuilding a Lost Faith
(New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1922), p. 80.

“Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation,
and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we [Catholics] never sanctify.” James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (Baltimore: James Murphy Company, 110th edition revised and enlarged) p. 80.

 

[fhansen]

Whether it be the doctrine of the Trinity, or the canon of scripture, or the day of rest/worship, the Church was given the authority to determine these things. Not by some whimsical fiat or power-trip mentality but by looking to her past, her tradition, her life-as well as scripture-in many cases with much struggle, prayer, discussion, argument, sometimes not. Somebody has to have that authority. Who else claims the right? Can you ask the Bible, as if you were asking a person-as if you were asking God? I think not because in that case Scripture’s led many people astray, by evidence of their different beliefs.

 

[jlhargus]

hi again brakelite,

You said: Christian fellowships observed the Sabbath for many centuries after 70ad. The Sabbath was always seen as one of the Ten Commandments by many Christians; they would no more give up the Sabbath 4th commandment than disobey the 6th commandment regarding murder. The Mosaic law dealt with those rituals services which pertained to the temple, true, But the Sabbaths that were associated with the services of the sanctuary were annual Sabbaths. The weekly Sabbath is unique and existed before the services of the temple were instituted.

You say this yet do not provide any proof. I have the proof from the Bible, from the Didache which is the teaching of the twelve Apostles, and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers of the Church, which clearly show the Christians had their “day of rest” and worshipped God on the “Lord’s Day”.

you said: Genesis 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
God didn’t bless, sanctify, and make holy just any day. Not any day in seven, nor the seventh day after the third day. No, He blessed the seventh day, because it was on that day He rested. As we know, Jesus is the Creator, so it was Jesus who made the Sabbath, and rested. Which is logical when considering He said “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Noweher are we told in scripture that God unblessed or unsanctified the Sabbath day.

brakelite, it is exaclty as I said so what are you negating and opposing? I said very clearly that God told us to work 6 days and rest on the seventh day. This is what all practicing Christians do: We work 6 days and on our day of rest (our “sabbath” - recall, this is what the word means!!) we REST. God did not say SATURDAY. Saturday did not exist until after Christ had passed - many many years after Christ passed by the way!

you said:True, but not because they weren’t keeping the Sabbath. The Jews persecuted Christians because they claimed Jesus as the Messiah. Paul was one of the persecutors and agreed with Steven’s stoning. Nothing to do with the Sabbath, at that time there was no thought in the mind of anyone to set aside any other day. The Jewish converts to Christianity had issues with circumcision, and there was much debate over that, but no debate between Jewish converts over the Sabbath. So the apostles observed the Sabbath, the gentile converts did also, and the church continued to do so for centuries until the Roman church forbid them.

Yes, that is true, nonetheless, Christians were being persecuted and an obvious give away to knowing who was a Christian was the “Thanksgiving/Breaking of the Bread” (what we call our Mass/Eucharist today), and they had to meet secretly. The Apostles did not observe the Sabbath - you will NOT find any mention of that in the Scriptures: instead you find that they observed the Lord’s Day. Even Jesus did not command His disciples to go to Temple and osberve the animal sacrifice - instead, Jesus broke many of the Sabbath “rules” and told His disciples/Apostles that He introduced a New Covenant and to “do this (the Eucharist) in remembrance of me”. This we do on the Lord’s Day, our 7th day of rest. to be continued…

JL: Hello CEM, are you the artist Cem I knew from, Catholic Church Apologetics, some years back? Good to see you. I think Brakelite is from one of the many split offs of Hubert Amstrong’s World Wide Church of God. They teach Britian and the U.S. are Israel among other things. I would guess he belong’s to, the split off group, called The Phillidelphia Church of God.

 

[CEM5]

JL: Hello CEM, are you the artist Cem I knew from, Catholic Church Apologetics, some years back? Good to see you. I think Brakelite is from one of the many split offs of Hubert Amstrong’s World Wide Church of God. They teach Britian and the U.S. are Israel among other things. I would guess he belong’s to, the split off group, called The Phillidelphia Church of God.

Hi jlhargus,

Yes I am the same! Good to see you too, although I don’t believe this was your moniker then?

That explains some of the source of inaccuracies that brakelite is presenting.

Have a good day

God bless

 

[brakelite]

Whether it be the doctrine of the Trinity, or the canon of scripture, or the day of rest/worship, the Church was given the authority to determine these things. Not by some whimsical fiat or power-trip mentality but by looking to her past, her tradition, her life-as well as scripture-in many cases with much struggle, prayer, discussion, argument, sometimes not. Somebody has to have that authority. Who else claims the right? Can you ask the Bible, as if you were asking a person-as if you were asking God? I think not because in that case Scripture’s led many people astray, by evidence of their different beliefs.

That authority is only active to those who choose to submit to it. “To whomsoever ye yield yourselves as servants to obey, his servants ye to whom ye obey”.Romans 6
You are welcome to submit to RCC authority, and the RCC is welcome to rule over you. But no-one is *obliged * to do so. The authority of the RCC is not, or ought not, a dictatorship, where one has no choice but to surrender ones will to the ruling authority. That is the way the Gentiles rule, “but that shall not be so with you” (Mark 10) Even God, though He is most assuredly sovereign, does not rule arbitrarily. He gives to each one of us the power of choice, and He certainly has not established a church that is to be more authoritarian than He is, in as much as removal of religious liberty.
The issue that most Protestants have with papal authority is the historically held position that all Christendom ought submit to her authority. How many 'heretics ’ were killed because they chose to submit to none but Christ and His word?
I choose to submit to the Lord … He has authority over me and if I should go astray He is well able to redirect my paths, using His word to do so.
Isaiah 30:20 And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity, and the water of affliction, yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers:
21 And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.
And if that word I hear behind me, or the teachers I hear before me should teach that which contradicts the word in the Scriptures, it is my duty to go by the scriptures. My eternal soul depends not on my obedience to man, but to God.
That is whyu I choose to keep the 4th commandment as God first intended it to be observed…on the 7th day, the specific 7th day after the first day of creation (not just any day as some propose) because it was that day God blessed, sanctified, and made holy, and it is that day, and that day alone, He asks us to remember to keep holy.
So I have a choice. Either obey God according to His word, (and as your own church’s publications declare, there is no evidence in scripture that God changed His mind) or obey the church according to its word and tradition, which it claims is the sign of her own authority.