If “the Scriptures ENFORCE the religious observance of Saturday” then the observance of Sunday would have to be contrary to Scripture. How could it be otherwise? And who said that the observance of Saturday is no longer required for Christians?
If there are hints or indirect evidence of Sunday observance in Scripture why did Gibbon say “you may search from Genesis to Revelation and you will NOT FIND A SINGLE LINE authorizing the sanctification of Sunday”? And where are these “hints” so that we may examine them? And how great a God you have to just give us hints to change His law which had been there since our creation! And didn’t He say He is the only lawgiver?
I thought someone here said the RCC has never taught anything contrary to Scripture. This is clearly one of them. No honest person can deny that.
You’re right. If I reject tradition and go by Bible only I would have to observe Saturday. In other words, the Sunday tradition is contrary to the teachings in the Bible. But the RCC claims its tradition is never contrary to the Scriptures.
Gibbon is right, there is not a line in scripture authorizing the sanctification of Sunday–and nobody said there was. Gibbon was not talking about hints, he was talking about something explicit, which isn’t there.
Scripture did not authorize Sunday, it was the early church under the direction of the apostles did that did so. How is this proven? You can’t. It is simply tradition, and if traditon is rejected, there is no authorization for Sunday. That is the paradox with Protestant denominations, they don’t recognize the authority of tradition, but nevertheless still continue Sunday worship!
The “hints” are bits of circumstantial evidence of Sunday worhip by the NT Christians. Acts 20:7, “And on the first day of the week when we were gathered together to break bread…” Was this a worship occasion? By tradition, we know breaking bread is the Eucharist, a worship on Sunday. But, without tradtion, what does ‘breaking bread’ mean? It’s possible they were merely having a potluck for Paul before he left.
The other bit of indirect evidence is the reference to collecting contributions on the first day of the week. (Probably in Acts, but I couldn’t find it.) The inference is that the contributions were collected in conjunction with a worship service, as is done today. But, maybe not.
John received his revelation on the “Lord’s Day.” Sunday is traditionally called the Lord’s Day, but, again, if you place no value on tradition…
That the Sabbath is not required for Christians is again an apostolic teaching, which we know from tradtion, and the proper interpretation of scripture in the light of tradition. (You may also ask a Jehovah’s Witness about the sabbath, because from my understanding they don’t recognize one either. I should ask a JW sometime about this for their explanation.)
Catholics say the Catholic Church authorized Sunday worship because Catholics believe the Catholic Church was the church of the Apostles.
For Protestant churches, they don’t think the early church was Catholic, but they do recognize the authority of the early church.
Protestant churches, and Orthodox also teach Sunday, so it is not only the RCC who “teaches contrary to scripture.”
Yes, this is all the logical consequence of “sola scriptura.” If you operate under “bible only,” the assumption that everything the apostles taught is recorded in scripture, it’s hard to justify Sunday worhip, nor many other historical Christian teachings and practices as well.
: “Is the Holy Scripture the final authority in matters of faith and practice?”