Which high day of worship for a Protestant??

[justasking4]

MrStain;3487907]You are correct, IMO. The old Roman Road I know all too well from my Baptist days. However, if you take that “all have sinned” concept to literally mean every person who ever lived then one would also have to believe that Jesus sinned as he was fully man.

Not so. Jesus was the exception to this principle. He was not born of 2 human parents and He was also God.

Also, if one is consistent in this interpretation regarding the word “all” then he/she must also believe that John the Baptist baptized every single person in “the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem” after hearing everyone of their confessions. (Mk 1:5)

Again you fail to read this passage in context. All in this context it is all the people of Judea and Jerusalem.

As to the Luke 1:47 comment, he is saying that Mary must have sinned because she is rejoicing in her savior. The non-Catholic interpretaion is that only sinners need a savior and therefore Mary is a sinner. It seems ok on the surface, but what is needed is a greater understanding of Catholic belief on the topic. Here is a good article from this site that covers this topic: <LINK>

I’m familar with this but it fails the tests of Scripture and is not an exception to those passages in Romans.

 

[MrStain]

Hi,
These were already mentioned( see Acts 20:7, & 1 Corinthians 16:2),
Acts 20:7
7On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.

1 Corinthians 16:2
2On (A)the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that (B)no collections be made when I come.

The first day of the week happens to be Sunday. I believe we are just simply following what the Apostle Paul did. If Paul started worship on Monday then that would be the day we would have worship services. Im not sure there is any deep theological reason behind it.

IMHO–I believe Paul started worship on Sunday because–1. That is the day the Lord arose and 2. He may have wanted to show the Jews that one day was not any holier then another.
3. It was the first day of the week and maybe there was some symbolism to giving first fruits–because they did collect money as well
Just my:twocents:

Yep. I also believe we see evidence of and reason for Sunday worship in Scripture. I tried to share some of these with a SDA coworker of mine awhile back, but it fell on deaf ears. It’s not a catholic friendly site, but CARM has a nice breakdown as follows:

1. 
   *]Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1-7; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1).
   *]Jesus appeared to the disciples on the first day of the week (John 20:19).
   *]Jesus appeared inside the room to the eleven disciples eight days after the first day of the week. The Jewish way of measuring days meant that it was again Sunday
   *](John 20:26).
   *]The Holy Spirit came on Pentecost, the first day of the week (Lev. 23:16; Acts 2:1).
   *]The first sermon was preached by Peter on the first day of the week (Acts 2:14).
   *]Three thousand converts joined the church on the first day of the week (Acts 2:41).
   *]The three thousand were baptized on the first day of the week (Acts 2:41).
   *]The Christians assembled broke bread on the first day of the week.
   *]The Christians also heard a message from Paul on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). Note: the reference is until midnight which is not the Jewish method of measuring days, but the Roman system.
   *]Paul instructed the churches to put aside contributions on the first day of the week
   *](1 Cor. 16:2).
   *]Jesus gave the apostle John the vision of Revelation on the first day of the week
   *](Rev. 1:10).
   
   <Source>

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Protestants can worship on any day
“On the Lord’s Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure;….”

The Sunday tradition was kept by most of our Protestant brothers & sisters, but the Eucharist, confession & other early Christian practices were cast aside.

Hi,
Just thought I would tell you that prot churches did not throw out the breaking of bread or confession! We just dont believe in transubstantiation or confession to a priest(which neither is prove in your passage from the didache BTW ) Our interpretations are different but we still follow what Christ told us to do.

We take very seriously the fact that we have to be pure before we partake of communion. My minister goes through a speech every communion Sunday about who should and shouldnt take communion and why.
One of those reason is if we have any unconfessed sins we had better not receive communion.

Just thought I would set the record straight. I know how you guys dont like it when prots spread misconceptions about the CC–so I thought I would make sure caths dont do the same.

 

[MrStain]

Hi,
Just thought I would tell you that prot churches did not throw out the breaking of bread or confession! We just dont believe in transubstantiation or confession to a priest(which neither is prove in your passage from the didache BTW ) Our interpretations are different but we still follow what Christ told us to do.

We take very seriously the fact that we have to be pure before we partake of communion. My minister goes through a speech every communion Sunday about who should and shouldnt take communion and why.
One of those reason is if we have any unconfessed sins we had better not receive communion.

Just thought I would set the record straight. I know how you guys dont like it when prots spread misconceptions about the CC–so I thought I would make sure caths dont do the same.

oops. I should have been more specific. Please accept my apology. If it counts for anything I thought about it, but I forgot to clarify before I posted. I should have said, “some” cast aside those practices. Growing up Baptist, communion was not every Sunday and there was definitely no need to confess anything before eating the crackers & drinking the grape-juice. It was only a memorial meal which could do you no spiritual harm.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Yep. I also believe we see evidence of and reason for Sunday worship in Scripture. I tried to share some of these with a SDA coworker of mine awhile back, but it fell on deaf ears. It’s not a catholic friendly site, but CARM has a nice breakdown as follows:

1. 
   *]Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1-7; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1).
   *]Jesus appeared to the disciples on the first day of the week (John 20:19).
   *]Jesus appeared inside the room to the eleven disciples eight days after the first day of the week. The Jewish way of measuring days meant that it was again Sunday
   *](John 20:26).
   *]The Holy Spirit came on Pentecost, the first day of the week (Lev. 23:16; Acts 2:1).
   *]The first sermon was preached by Peter on the first day of the week (Acts 2:14).
   *]Three thousand converts joined the church on the first day of the week (Acts 2:41).
   *]The three thousand were baptized on the first day of the week (Acts 2:41).
   *]The Christians assembled broke bread on the first day of the week.
   *]The Christians also heard a message from Paul on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). Note: the reference is until midnight which is not the Jewish method of measuring days, but the Roman system.
   *]Paul instructed the churches to put aside contributions on the first day of the week
   *](1 Cor. 16:2).
   *]Jesus gave the apostle John the vision of Revelation on the first day of the week
   *](Rev. 1:10).
   
   <Source>

1. 
   Thanks:thumbsup: As far as your co-worker–maybe you planted a seed and wont know it took until you see him/her in heaven

 

[MrStain]

Not so. Jesus was the exception to this principle. He was not born of 2 human parents and He was also God.

Well, at least you agree that God can make exceptions.

Again you fail to read this passage in context. All in this context it is all the people of Judea and Jerusalem.

I understand the context. It says all in Judea & Jerusalem. That is quite a large area with a significant amount of people. Do you also believe that John baptized the priests & Levites who questioned him as well? What about Herod who had him executed?

I’m familar with this but it fails the tests of Scripture and is not an exception to those passages in Romans.

Is the “tests of Scripture” a biblical concept? I though for sure the teachings of Christ were passed on by the Apostles, who are the foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20 & Rev 21:14). What is really interesting from the two cited verses is the foundational role of the Apostles is described in both past/earthly & future/heavenly settings. Therefore, if you want to test a belief against anything, a great place to start is the successors of the Apostles. We know that if we accept or reject the words of the Apostles, we are in fact accepting or rejecting the teachings of Christ. (Lk 10:16). Paul later reinforces this teaching of Christ in his letter to the Thessalonians when he says, “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God…” (1 Thess 2:13) This explains why the early Church remained steadfast in the Apostle’s doctrines (Acts 2:42) and is referred to by Paul as the “pillar and ground of truth”. (1 Tim 3:15).

 

[ALLFORHIM]

oops. I should have been more specific. Please accept my apology. If it counts for anything I thought about it, but I forgot to clarify before I posted. I should have said, “some” cast aside those practices. Growing up Baptist, communion was not every Sunday and there was definitely no need to confess anything before eating the crackers & drinking the grape-juice. It was only a memorial meal which could do you no spiritual harm.

Thanks for clarifying. My old baptist church was similar to what you say come to think of it. HMMMM–glad I left

If you heard my minister you would be shocked and happy at the same time. You would be happy how serious he takes confession and who is worthy to take communion and shocked because he does mention that the elements do not confer(right word? ) grace to us by partaking. He never mentions the CC but arent you guys the only ones who believe this?
He didnt always use to say this so Im not sure why he does now.

 

[NDfan]

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

“All” here does not necessarily mean “all” as an absolute. Otherwise “all” would have died in the flood–and you and I would not be here having this discussion. It’s not outside of God’s realm to make it work, again, this does not refute the Marian doctrine.

Same for Romans 5:12

I’m confused as to what Luke 1:47 has to do with it.

KJ with regard to Sola Scripture the things that J4 mentioned are held by reformers as well. At a very high level sola scripture holds that scripture has authority over the church. The church after the council of Trent held that scripture was subordinate to the church and that sacred tradition was equal to scripture. Where this view tends to fall down is when the RCC uses Matthew 16 to assert its authority. Scripture can’t be subordinate to you if you derive authority from it. It would have to be over you. This was my frustration in the 40 years I spent within the RCC.

With regard to Purgatory, the RCC uses various parts of scripture to claim its existence. The problem is the rest of scripture doesn’t confirm this. The Bible tells us that the only acceptable action for the forgiveness of sin before GOD is animal sacrifices. This is why Jesus is always referred to as the Lamb of GOD who takes away the sins of the world. Purgatory is defined as a place on the way to Heaven where one is tormented to pay the price for sins. This is inconsistent with Scripture as the Bible never mentions torment as an acceptable means of payment for sin. It also reduces the work Jesus did at the cross.

The sinless nature of Mary flat out contradicts scripture as the word that is used in Romans 3:32 and 33 is the Greek word “PAS”. PAS literally means everyone. We’re told Jesus saves all (PAS) in verse 32 who believe in HIM. Well if the entire world believed in Jesus then the entire world would be saved. Your implication is that even though it says all, “all” would only mean a subset of everyone. This is inconsistent with the message Paul is trying to give us. Everyone has sinned, and Jesus saves everyone who believes in HIM. This is why Mary rejoices at GOD as her savior. Jesus is GOD. PAS is also the word used in Romans 5:12. If you believe Mary was sinless I think that’s OK. But I don’t agree with creating doctrines that are required belief when scripture says otherwise.

PEACE

 

[justasking4]

MrStain;3488054]Well, at least you agree that God can make exceptions.

On what grounds can we say Jesus is the exception? What is the evidence for it?

I understand the context. It says all in Judea & Jerusalem. That is quite a large area with a significant amount of people. Do you also believe that John baptized the priests & Levites who questioned him as well? What about Herod who had him executed?

In this particular case it would not have to. Sometimes the scriptures use the term to refer to all but not necessarily in a literal sense. If there are to be exceptions as you point out here that would be valid. In the case of Mary, there is no evidence in scripture that she was an exception to being without sin.

Is the “tests of Scripture” a biblical concept? I thought for sure the teachings of Christ were passed on by the Apostles, who are the foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20 & Rev 21:14). What is really interesting from the two cited verses is the foundational role of the Apostles is described in both past/earthly & future/heavenly settings. Therefore, if you want to test a belief against anything, a great place to start is the successors of the Apostles. We know that if we accept or reject the words of the Apostles, we are in fact accepting or rejecting the teachings of Christ. (Lk 10:16). Paul later reinforces this teaching of Christ in his letter to the Thessalonians when he says, “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God…” (1 Thess 2:13) This explains why the early Church remained steadfast in the Apostle’s doctrines (Acts 2:42) and is referred to by Paul as the “pillar and ground of truth”. (1 Tim 3:15).

I agree that if its from an apostle we are to accept it since it has the full authority of Christ. When it comes to many catholic doctrines and practices we run into a number of problems. For one these men are not apostles and their writings are not considered inspired-inerrant. If what they teach does not line up with the greater authority of the scriptures it is not binding and would be false if it contradicts the scriptures.

 

[justasking4]

KJ with regard to Sola Scripture the things that J4 mentioned are held by reformers as well. At a very high level sola scripture holds that scripture has authority over the church. The church after the council of Trent held that scripture was subordinate to the church and that sacred tradition was equal to scripture. Where this view tends to fall down is when the RCC uses Matthew 16 to assert its authority. Scripture can’t be subordinate to you if you derive authority from it. It would have to be over you. This was my frustration in the 40 years I spent within the RCC.

With regard to Purgatory, the RCC uses various parts of scripture to claim its existence. The problem is the rest of scripture doesn’t confirm this. The Bible tells us that the only acceptable action for the forgiveness of sin before GOD is animal sacrifices. This is why Jesus is always referred to as the Lamb of GOD who takes away the sins of the world. Purgatory is defined as a place on the way to Heaven where one is tormented to pay the price for sins. This is inconsistent with Scripture as the Bible never mentions torment as an acceptable means of payment for sin. It also reduces the work Jesus did at the cross.

The sinless nature of Mary flat out contradicts scripture as the word that is used in Romans 3:32 and 33 is the Greek word “PAS”. PAS literally means everyone. We’re told Jesus saves all (PAS) in verse 32 who believe in HIM. Well if the entire world believed in Jesus then the entire world would be saved. Your implication is that even though it says all, “all” would only mean a subset of everyone. This is inconsistent with the message Paul is trying to give us. Everyone has sinned, and Jesus saves everyone who believes in HIM. This is why Mary rejoices at GOD as her savior. Jesus is GOD. PAS is also the word used in Romans 5:12. If you believe Mary was sinless I think that’s OK. But I don’t agree with creating doctrines that are required belief when scripture says otherwise.

PEACE

Good points…

 

[MrStain]

On what grounds can we say Jesus is the exception? What is the evidence for it?

You tell me. You said he was the exception in post #21.

In this particular case it would not have to. Sometimes the scriptures use the term to refer to all but not necessarily in a literal sense. If there are to be exceptions as you point out here that would be valid. In the case of Mary, there is no evidence in scripture that she was an exception to being without sin.

There you go making exceptions again. When “all” is applied to bring Mary in-line with some protestant interpretions it must be the literal “all” with no exceptions, but when used in this other context about the baptizing by John it now does not literally mean “all”.

That’s ok. I’ve been there before. I know these things always come back to who’s interpretation is the correct one and who has the authority to determine what is the true interpretation. As a convert to Catholicism, I’ve been convinced that the authority resides with the Apostles & their successors in union with the See of Peter. Besides, this thread is about Sunday worship. I’m sure there is a Sola Scripture thread out there brewing somewhere.

 

[justasking4]

MrStain;3488126]You tell me. You said he was the exception in post #21.

So we agree that when the reasons are spelled in Scripture for an exception or a further qualifcation for all then we can understand what the word means in context?

There you go making exceptions again. When “all” is applied to bring Mary in-line with some protestant interpretions it must be the literal “all” with no exceptions, but when used in this other context about the baptizing by John it now does not literally mean “all”.

That’s ok. I’ve been there before. I know these things always come back to who’s interpretation is the correct one and who has the authority to determine what is the true interpretation. As a convert to Catholicism, I’ve been convinced that the authority resides with the Apostles & their successors in union with the See of Peter.

I got this from another post that sheds some light on what this word “all” means in Romans—
“The sinless nature of Mary flat out contradicts scripture as the word that is used in Romans 3:32 and 33 is the Greek word “PAS”. PAS literally means everyone.”
There are no qualifcations in the Roman passages that should lead us to think that Mary is an exception to being sinless.

Besides, this thread is about Sunday worship. I’m sure there is a Sola Scripture thread out there brewing somewhere.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I may be mistaken but I believe that the OP was asking for protestants to defend using scripture moving worship to Sunday or continuing Saturday worship it seems that the protestants can not do this as they are trying to turn this into a discussion about purgatory and the Blessed Virgin? Very interesting.

 

[NDfan]

I may be mistaken but I believe that the OP was asking for protestants to defend using scripture moving worship to Sunday or continuing Saturday worship it seems that the protestants can not do this as they are trying to turn this into a discussion about purgatory and the Blessed Virgin? Very interesting.

Let’s not take a cheap shot at Protestants here. A question arose from a Roman Catholic with regard to Sola Scripture and then the conversation went slightly sideways from there. All intentions are good-natured here until of course a rude interjection is made by someone.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Let’s not take a cheap shot at Protestants here. A question arose from a Roman Catholic with regard to Sola Scripture and then the conversation went slightly sideways from there. All intentions are good-natured here until of course a rude interjection is made by someone.

Just making an observation on the way the thread was going. Not being Rude. I would also say it went more that slightly sideways It was heading in the opposite direction.

 

[NDfan]

You tell me. You said he was the exception in post #21.

There you go making exceptions again. When “all” is applied to bring Mary in-line with some protestant interpretions it must be the literal “all” with no exceptions, but when used in this other context about the baptizing by John it now does not literally mean “all”.

That’s ok. I’ve been there before. I know these things always come back to who’s interpretation is the correct one and who has the authority to determine what is the true interpretation. As a convert to Catholicism, I’ve been convinced that the authority resides with the Apostles & their successors in union with the See of Peter. Besides, this thread is about Sunday worship. I’m sure there is a Sola Scripture thread out there brewing somewhere.

Sorry to barge in but I always see Roman Catholics argue over Romans 3 saying, does “all” include Jesus. We obviously know the answer to that because Jesus was GOD incarnate and GOD does not sin. But from a strict scriptural perspective though, Galatians 2:17 clears this up for anyone who says, does the “all” include Jesus:

“But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not!”

I think that pretty much clarifies the answer to that question. Paul may not state this in his letter to the Romans but then again he doesn’t need to because the Romans already understood that Jesus did not commit sin. That was never in question.

I wouldn’t disagree that the word all gets used in places where it literally does not mean everything and everyone. But that can usually be ascertained by just reading the scripture. For instance, in Matthew the word PAS is used to say all generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations. All in this case literally means all. Similarly when Paul says all have sinned, he immediately follows in vs 33 that Jesus would save all who believed. If Paul didn’t literally mean everyone in verse 32 then how could he mean literally everyone in verse 33?? Your implication would suggest that there are others who do not commit sin and therefore do not need saving by Jesus. If you take this view then you are following what the Pelagians preached. I believe they were considered heretics by the RCC.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

Just making an observation on the way the thread was going. Not being Rude. I would also say it went more that slightly sideways It was heading in the opposite direction.

Forgive my implication that you were being rude. Your comment was pointing to Protestants as de-railing the thread which was not the case. If you read through all the posts you will see where it went in the opposite direction as you state. But then again this always happens when Sola Scripture gets discussed. I just get frustrated when a general comment is made against Protestants in an unfair manner. That was my observation.

PEACE

 

[guanophore]

Of course they are denied. Take the immaculate conception of Mary i.e. that she was kept from sin all her life. That is a direct denial of Romans 3:10 and Romans 5:12.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary was kept from sin all her life. But even so, you are interpreting these scriptures our of context.

Secondly there is no evidence about her supposed assumption. Third since you are making the claim these doctrines are true you bear the burden to demonstrate that they with evidence from the scriptures.

According to your own definition of SS, it is not necessary for something to be in scripture to be believed.

This is true. The reason the church worships on Sunday is that this was the day Christ rose from the dead. This event was powerful enough for a Jew to change from worshipping on the Sabath i.e. Saturday to Sunday.

now this is very interesting. You are saying that an event can set aside God’s commandment that the Sabbath be observed on the 7th day?

Of course all means all. In the flood account “all” is a reference to all who were living at the time. All in the Roman passages is a reference to all of mankind.

She acknowledges her Savior which is an acknowledgement of sin on her part. And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.

Luke 1:5-6
5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

All can’t mean “all”. It is not possible to be righteous before God, and blameless, if one is living in sin.

God is the saviour of those who choose not to sin, as well as those who choose to sin.

 

[guanophore]

So we agree that when the reasons are spelled in Scripture for an exception or a further qualifcation for all then we can understand what the word means in context?

Since we know that scripture does not contradict Scripture, and the Sabbath God gave to Israel was never “undone” by Christ, why don’t Christians celebrate the 7th Day Sabbath now?

Jesus honored the Sabbath. The Apostles all kept the Sabbath.

 

[Rightlydivide]

This is a question strictly for Protestant Christians…

If your day of church worship is Sunday, please prove this based on the Bible alone (sola scriptura). Please state where the command is that replaced the seventh day Sabbath command.

Likewise, if your day of church worship is Saturday/Sabbath, please prove from Biblical and Jewish sources, that as a non-Jew (either by birth or conversion) that it is proper to do so… and then, please show Biblically how you are to keep the Sabbath underthe new covenant.

There’s a lot of demands on Catholic’s lately to prove their beliefs by the Bible alone… However, I am flipping the coin, I would like to see Protestant’s prove one of their beliefs Biblically… Then we will go from there!

Thanks for your time!!

Gentile Christians were never under a Sabbath. That is absurd.