Sundays in Scripture
Seventh Day Adventists (SDAs) believe that Christians shouldn’t worship on Sundays and that the Saturday Sabbath is still in effect. In recent weeks I’ve been having a discussion in a Seventh Day Adventist in response to my post Why do Christians worship on Sundays? The exchange has been good and I think it’s well worth a read and I’d invite you to check it out.
I haven’t had much interaction with SDAs before and I hope to do some posts looking at their more interesting doctrinal positions, of which there are quite a few. However, in preparation for this, today I would simply like to do a post where I catalogue all the places in the New Testament where Sunday is mentioned:
1. The Resurrection
All the Gospels record the Resurrection taking place on Sunday (Matthew 28:1-7; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1).
2. Resurrection Appearances
Jesus appears to His disciples on Sundays (John 20:19, John 20:26).
3. Pentecost
The original Pentecost took place on a Sunday (Lev. 23:16) and therefore so did Pentecost in the New Testament (Acts 2:1). On this day the first sermon is preached, three thousand convert and are baptized.
4. Preaching and celebrating the Eucharist
In Paul’s travels, it is recorded that the Christian community came together to hear Paul preach and break bread (Acts 20:7).
5. Gathered collections
Paul instructed the Corinthians to gather their charitable donations on Sunday (1 Corinthians 16:2).
6. Vision of Heavenly Worship
Jesus gave the apostle John the vision of Revelation on the first day of the week (Revelation 1:10).
Hi again my friend. Popped back on to see what you had been up to. Came across this article. Nice.
I so want to get into another debate, as I believe at least a few of those points are very lame, however I really don’t have time at the moment.
Just wanted to say Hi and I enjoy checking out your site from time to time.
However, none of those 6 points mentioned above say anything about changing the Sabbath from the 7th day to the 1st day.
None of them.
I still believe the 10 commandments are God’s perfect law as they reflect his character.
We should love God (the 1st 4 commandments) and love our neighbours (the other 6 commandments)
Nothing in the New testament tells us to ignore any of those commandments.
Bless you brother and God bless your ministry.
David
Hey David, welcome back 🙂
As I said in the article, it’s simply a cataloguing of the places in the New Testament where Sunday is mentioned, it’s not an argument for anything – it’s simply a concordance.
You’re right, none of these passages talk about the Sabbath moving. As I said in our previous exchange, neither I nor the Early Church hold to Sola Scriptura so the requirement of an explicit command in Scripture is not required. However, the above passages do point to a growing shift in focus in the Early Church away from Sabbath and towards the Lord’s Day and we find this fully realized by the end of the First Century:
c. AD 70: The Didache (Chapter 14)
c. AD 74: The Epistle of Barnabas (Chapter 15)
c. AD 110: The Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Magnesians (Chapter 8)
c. AD 155: Justin Martyr’s First Apology (Chapter 67)
If one is going to dismiss the witness of the earliest Christians, then it must be explained why they went off-base so far, so quickly. Not only that, it must be explained why we find absolutely no dissenting voices in the Early Centuries, with “true” Christians saying that Christians should stop worshipping on the Lord’s Day and do it on the Sabbath. Why do those voices not appear until 1,800 years later? We must additionally explain how it is that we ignore the Early Church when it comes to worship, but yet trust their testimony when it comes to which books should and should not be in the Bible.
BTW, did you ever get a chance to look into the claims that were made of Mrs. White or come to an explanation as to how the Bible came to be?
Hi again. Sorry for the delay and hope you are well.
I don’t accept that those texts point to a growing shift in Sabbath observance.
Lets consider the evidence in Acts.
Acts 13: 14, 15
14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down. 15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 13:42 & 44
42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.
44 And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Acts 16:13
13 And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.
Acts 18:4&11
4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
11 So Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God. (how many Sabbaths in a year and a half eh?)
So as we can see, there are many (potentially over 80) recordings of the Sabbath being observed in the book of Acts.
I won’t even start on how many times Sabbath is mentioned in the gospels. Time would not allow as there are so many.
Another point to make is that there was a lot of contention flying around about circumcision, however breaking the Sabbath was never brought up. See the following in Acts 23 and 25. Surely if Paul had been breaking the Sabbath, the Jews would have been hot on it? Yet in Acts 25 they even say ‘We find NO evil in this man’
Acts 23:9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man:
Acts 25 8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.
With the evidence of Sabbath keeping and how the Jews saw Paul, I fail to see how you can say that the New Testament leads us to believe in a growing shift away from the sabbath.
Lastly, and whilst I am in no way versed on early church writings, I did find the following quotes regarding the Sabbath.
“The primitive Christians did keep the Sabbath of the Jews;.therefore the Christians for a long time together, did keep their conventions on the Sabbath, in which some portion of the Law were read: and this continued till the time of the Laodicean council.” The Whole Works of Jeremey Taylor, Vol. IX, p416 (R. Heber’s Edition, Vol.XII, p.416)
“The ancient Christians were very careful in the observation 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 assemblies on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship [Yahushua], the [Master] of the Sabbath, Epiphanius says the same.” Antiquities of the Christian Church, Vol. II, Book XX, chap. 3, Sec. 1, 66.1137, 1138
“Ambrose, the celebrated bishop of Milan, said that when he was in Milan he observed Saturday, but when in Rome observed Sunday. This gave rise to the proverb ‘When you are in Rome, do as Rome does,’ ” Heylyn, The History of the Sabbath, 1613
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
As for the EGW statements you mentioned, no I haven’t had time. That’s another huge subject which I intend to address at some point, if things settle down in my work/home/church life.
All the best. David.
Hey David,
Well, if that’s not the case then you need to explain why Sunday observance appears out of nowhere prior to the end of the First Century and becomes the norm. Why didn’t the real Christians kick up a fuss?
All of these quotations refer to the missionary work of Paul. So, what was Paul’s mission? It was to preach the Gospel “first to the Jew, and then the Gentile”. So, if that was your mission, where would you go to preach to the Jews? At the main Jewish building in town, the synagogue. Okay, so when would the synagogue be most populated? On the Sabbath.
Paul went to the synagogues on the Sabbath because it was the pattern of Judaism and he knew it would be a target rich audience to hear the Good News.
But we do see it raised elsewhere, such as in Colossians 2:16.
All that would have needed to happen is for Paul to not work on Sabbath. That’s not hard.
In case you’re misunderstanding, I’m not saying that suddenly all Jewish traditions were abandoned the day after the Ascension. For example, you agree that we don’t need the Jewish Temple any more, yes? Yet we find Peter and John going up there to pray at the beginning of Acts…
The problem with these quotations is that none of them include references to primary sources. If you want to know what the Early Church believed, you really need to read their own words, not simply one historian’s interpretation of history. So when you see a historian say something:
1. Find the citation
2. Read the text to see what is actually written
3. Read the surrounding text to gather the context
This has elements of truth in it. Like I said earlier, there was a gradual fading away of Jewish tradition during Early Church history. It is also worth remembering that Christian practice wasn’t strictly uniform across the Empire, particularly since it was still an underground, persecuted religion.
After the legalization of Christianity, uniformity was easier to establish. One of the points of the Council of Laodicea (Canon 29) was to give a formal shift away from the Sabbath, which had been gradually falling away anyway.
The important point to note here is that Athansius did not consider the Sabbath to be binding upon Christians. If your author actually quoted him, you’d read “With the ancients the sabbath was held in estimation, but the Lord hath transferred the sabbath day into the Lord’s day. We do not derogate from the sabbath by our own authority; it is the prophet who hath rejected it…” and then he quotes Isaiah.
Likewise, if Epiphanius had been quoted, you’d see that all he says is “In some places religious assemblies were held on the sabbath days”. He’s not attesting to universal practice or that it replaced Sunday, just the fact that some Christians happened to gather on Saturdays. To give a modern day example, it is common in Protestant circles to have Wednesday Night Bible Study…however, that doesn’t mean that focus is taken away from Sunday.
It first important to note that Ambrose constantly references the Lord’s Day in his writings, speaking of it as a day of religious observance, “the eighth day”, new creation etc.
Next, we must note that this author gets the context and the details of Ambrose incorrect. He wasn’t talking about which day you go to church, but about regional fasting practices. If he had quoted Ambrose, this would have been easy to see…
You see, when St. Augustine arrived in Milan he observed that the Church in Milan didn’t fast on Saturdays which was the common practice in Rome. Confused, he asked his priest, St. Ambrose what he should do, to which Ambrose responded: “When I am at Rome, I fast on Saturday; when I am at Milan I do not. Follow the custom of the Church where you are.”
As you can hopefully see, citation and context can make a real difference.
Hope this helps,
David.
Hiya. A quicker than usual reply this time as got some free time today. Busy all weekend though, so don’t expect same timeframe to next reply. 🙂
So…to answer a few points:
“Well, if that’s not the case then you need to explain why Sunday observance appears out of nowhere prior to the end of the First Century and becomes the norm”
No I don’t need to explain it. The bible is full of instances of individuals, groups, nations getting it completely wrong.
For example, when Moses went to get the 10 commandments and came back to see them worshipping a calf!
Didn’t take them long to lose the plot.
Judas waled with Jesus, yet got it wrong. Peter denied Christ. Paul had to write 2nd Epistles to some of his churches as they were getting it wrong soon after he departed. So of course, there is no reason why the same thing wouldn’t happen in the early centuries. (could have used many more examples)
As Paul said in 2 Thess 2:7 ‘For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work.’
“All of these quotations refer to the missionary work of Paul. So, what was Paul’s mission? It was to preach the Gospel “first to the Jew, and then the Gentile”. So, if that was your mission, where would you go to preach to the Jews? At the main Jewish building in town, the synagogue. Okay, so when would the synagogue be most populated? On the Sabbath”
I hear what you are saying and in some way that makes sense. However, consider the words of Acts 13
42 So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God
Here Paul has an excellent opportunity to tell the Gentiles that they needn’t wait until the following Sabbath.
He could have preached to them ANY day…….and if the early chuch had already begun to meet on the 1st day of the week, he definitely would have said to them that he could preach to them the next day. But he didn’t. Instead the WHOLE city met to hear his words the following Sabbath.
How do you explain that?
As for your comments on the other quotes from the early centuries……..I admit that I am not well enough versed to argue with you on that. all I am suggesting is that there are some writings which talk about sabbath observance.
Have a great day my friend.
David
Two thoughts spring to mind:
1. Is the New Covenant no better than the Old?
Christ has come, died, resurrected, ascended, sent the Holy Spirit and now the Gospel is preached to all nations…and gets completely derailed within a generation? That doesn’t speak very highly to either God’s providence or His sovereignty.
2. When people went wrong in the past, there was someone to call them back
In all the instances you give, when people went wrong, there was a prophet, apostle, judge or someone to call out the mistake. However, when it comes to the Sabbath, you are saying that not only did the Church go awry before the end of the First Century, but that it took until the Twentieth Century, nearly 2,000 years later, for a dissenting voice to appear. Where were the true Christians, taught by the Apostles, castigating others for abandoning the Sabbath? Why do we have no record of anyone doing this within that generation or within the subsequent generations? What you’re arguing is not just that some Christians went astray, but that all of them did.
Put simply, they’re all still Jews and Proselytes. Aside from the fact that Sunday worship was a closed-door affair in the Early Church, there hasn’t yet been a Church founded in Antioch.
Paul and Barnabas want to reach as many Jews as possible, so they keep going back to the synagogue on the Sabbath until they’re no longer welcome. Now, this doesn’t mean that they didn’t speak about Jesus to anyone between Saturdays – one could hardly imagine Paul keeping quiet about Jesus on any day of the week! In fact, there’s a hint in the text that the catechesis continued after the synagogue preaching (“Many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas who spoke to them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.”). Luke’s purpose in this passage is to show that he kept reaching out to the Jews until he was finally rejected.
Sure thing, but please take to heart my points about checking out sources and contexts. It should be pretty easy for you to validate what I said about St. Ambrose and the “When in Rome…” comment to demonstrate that historian quoted did a shoddy job. Be wary of sites who would publish such poor scholarship…
Happy Friday 🙂
Happy Tuesday to you brother Pilgrim. Hope you had a blessed weekend.
1 – ‘Is the New Covenant No Better Than The Old?’
Well His true message didn’t get completely derailed, but anyways it doesn’t say anything bad about God’s providence or His sovereignty. It just shows how foolish, weak, selfish etc we all are as human beings.
2 -‘It took until the Twentieth Century, nearly 2,000 years later, for a dissenting voice to appear?’
As for it taking 2000 years for this ‘truth’ to re-appear, I guess you would have to (and am sure would love to) take the same argument with ALL Protestants then, as the Sabbath truth was only 1 of 10’s (if not 100’s) of truths that were kept from us during the dark ages. So I don’t have a problem with the ‘Sabbath truth’ taking so long to re-appear, just as I have no issue with truth about justification, salvation etc etc resurfacing until the 1500’s onwards.
3 – ‘What you’re arguing is not just that some Christians went astray, but that all of them did?’
I am not saying that ALL Christians went away from the truth. Most of them, perhaps. All of them, certainly not.
There ARE writings about the early centuries and Sabbath-keeping. Take this one as example.
The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the Apostles themselves, as appears by several scriptures to the purpose.” “Dialogues on the Lord’s Day,” p. 189. London: 1701, By Dr. T.H. Morer
There are many others, should you wish to investigate further.
4 – ‘Put simply, they’re all still Jews and Proselytes. Aside from the fact that Sunday worship was a closed-door affair in the Early Church, there hasn’t yet been a Church founded in Antioch. Paul and Barnabas want to reach as many Jews as possible, so they keep going back to the synagogue on the Sabbath until they’re no longer welcome.’
If that is true (especially the bit about going to the synagogue UNTIL they are no longer welcome), there would surely be a bible record of them making that eventual transition from Sabbath to Sunday. But yet the Bible is silent on such a matter.
Unless you can tell me otherwise?
With regards to Acts 13, 42&44. The inspired word of God, through Luke, could easily have referred to it as the Jewish Sabbath, or the sabbath that passed away after jesus’s death. But no….it calls it ‘THE NEXT SABBATH’
Not once in the entire Bible is this day referred to as ‘The Jewish Sabbath’. It’s only ever called ‘The Sabbath’, or ‘The Sabbath of the Lord thy God’, or ‘His Holy Day’. It’s not man’s day, but God’s Day. Or ‘The Lord’s Day’
Malachi 3:6 ‘For I am the LORD, I change not’
This I believe.
Have a blessed day.
David
I did, thanks, I spent the weekend at a Benedictine monastery on retreat 🙂
Oh, I disagree! For years and years people have waiting for the Messiah and after He finally turns up an inaugurates the new era of savlation history, the Church, which He had promised to protect and which would be the pillar and foundation of the truth, falls at the first hurdle. It’s like the Obamacare website all over again!
We’re not talking about the “dark ages” (which, by the way, historians know is badly named since they were far from “dark”), we’re talking about the first few hundred years of the Church. You might like to keep track of all the things you think the Early Church was wrong about (beware, that list will get long very quickly)
Why did it take until the 16th Century for (some of) the Reformers to discover the “truth” about justification? Why didn’t they also see the “truth” about the Sabbath as well? Why did we have to wait several more centuries before that “truth” was discovered? Weren’t they reading the same Bible?
David…you’re doing it again… You’re quoting from someone who isn’t citing primary sources. I thought the “When in Rome…” quotation had proved beyond all doubt the problem with this.
Also, do you know anything about Dr. T.H. Morer? Have you read this book of his which you cite? Or did you get this from quote mining?
I don’t think that really is hard to demonstrate as we see that pattern again and again in Acts. Paul preaches in the synagogue until either they kick him out or run him out of town.
Why? Not only does this presuppose Sola Scriptura, it places a tremendous burden on Scripture. Consider the endless list of things which Scripture doesn’t tell us, or doesn’t tell us about in the kind of detail that we’d like. Why would you expect Scripture to record this, particularly given the era of the text, when Christians don’t see themselves as distinct from Jews, they’re still going to the Temple, still circumcising, …
Sabbath denotes the day of the week. I don’t know why you think Luke would refer to it as “The Jewish Sabbath” or what that would prove.
The exact same argument could be made for continued practice of circumcision.
Morning sir. Sorry for delay. Bizarrely I get more time to respond to this post when I am AT work. Have been off for a few days so am now back in work and able to reply.
1 – Why did it take until the 16th Century for (some of) the Reformers to discover the “truth” about justification? Why didn’t they also see the “truth” about the Sabbath as well? Why did we have to wait several more centuries before that “truth” was discovered? Weren’t they reading the same Bible?
Well, I would imagine the introduction of the printing press had a big part to play. Before then the common man could not easily get hold of a Bible. They would only hear what the priests were teaching them each week. And we all know how selective many people (catholic and protestant) can be when teaching the bible! You might ask why none of these priests discovered the ‘truth’ way before then. I wouldn’t be able to answer that properly. But indoctrination is a powerful thing. We see it in any forms all the world over, each and every day. So I don’t have an issue with it taking so long to come out.
That indoctrination answers the 2nd and 3rd part of your questions also.
2 – Also, do you know anything about Dr. T.H. Morer? Have you read this book of his which you cite? Or did you get this from quote mining?
No I don’t. No I haven’t. Yes I did. I am just showing that there are other sides to the stories.
I have said time and time again…..I am not anything like an expert on the early centuries of the church and chances are I never will be. I have read some other blogs of yours and your knowledge on the subject far surpasses mine. So I am in no position to argue with you on such matters.
If we go back to the start of this blog though, my argument is over your position that the few times that the first day of the week is mentioned, is significant enough to justify MAN changing the day of worship from the Sabbath to the 1st day.
It plainly isn’t, from the Bible and the bible alone. (which, at the present, I still believe is all I need to understand the creation, the fall of man and subsequently God’s plan of salvation)
3 – I stated ‘There would surely be a bible record of them making that eventual transition from Sabbath to Sunday’
You replied with ‘Why?’.
I tell you why. Because the 7th day Sabbath was part of God’s perfect law, (Psalm 19:7) that’s why. If God was to change such a perfect law, then I am pretty sure He would take the time to mention it at least once.
4 – Sabbath denotes the day of the week. I don’t know why you think Luke would refer to it as “The Jewish Sabbath” or what that would prove.
I am not saying Luke should refer to it as the Jewish Sabbath, as it was never the jewish sabbath. The sabbath came along way before any Jew ever did. The Sabbath was made for MAN, not MAN for the Sabbath. Man…not JEW.
I am saying that nowhere in the Bible is it called the Jewish Sabbath. Nowhere in the Bible does God tell us NOT to keep the Sabbath day Holy. Yet you use 6 flimsy texts to try to tell me there was a change in God’s perfect command?
Rant over. Have a blessed day.
Look forward to your reply.
David
Morning!
The printing press helped the spread of ideas, for sure, but it’s not like theologians hadn’t been studying Scripture for the previous 1,500 years. How did they miss something so basic and apparently obvious?
Anyone who could read could have access to a Bible. If you couldn’t read, you’d still hear substantial portions of Scripture at every liturgy.
When I was a Protestant, I experienced my pastor repeatedly preaching on his favourite texts. However, unlike most Protestants, the Catholic Church uses a Lectionary which prescribes the passages of Scripture to be read at each service. This covers a wide range of both Old and New Testament which would provide the listener with a solid overview of the Scriptural landscape.
Why indeed, particularly since it’s not like the Church was without rebels! Over the centuries, various priests had taught heresy (Arianism, Modalism, …).
So, various clergy members had no problem rebelling against Church teaching. However, what’s significant is that there’s no heresy within the first 1,500 years of the Church which looks like Protestantism. That was something brand new. This then begs that question – why did this take so long to appear if this is the truth of the Gospel?
Well, not really, because it still doesn’t answer what was so special about the 19th Century that allowed a new group of people to see things clearly. If you’re going to call it “indoctrination”, then what makes you think that all the indoctrination has been done away with, even in the SDA? For example, in another 1,000 years might we realize that Christians should still be maintaining the Jewish festivals?
Of course, I’m assuming the Protestant/SDA narrative here. Personally, I think the Catholic/Orthodox/Coptic viewpoint makes much more sense:
Over a millennia after the death of the Apostles, a group of Christians thought that they were smarter than all the Christians who had gone before them and concluded that the Church had got the Gospel fundamentally wrong. They then started interpreting the Bible in a way that it had never been interpreted before and they founded their new congregations based on these novel interpretations. Over the subsequent years, as each Christian interpreted the Bible for himself, he reached different conclusions from those around him and thus split away and founded his own church based upon his novel interpretation over some issue. This has continually repeated itself until this day, giving rise to thousands of churches, all with different (and contradictory) doctrine.
I thought so. I’d suggest you stop doing that then. It suggests that you’re not so much looking for truth, but rather just someone who agrees with you, even though you know nothing about that person. When you quote something like this all it means is that I have to go find the book, dig out the footnotes (assuming that some are even provided) and show how the author is butchering the primary text.
To give a comparison…I often have Mythicists on my blog, quoting books which are basically work of conspiracy theorists, which have been critically panned by scholars and, in some cases, even recanted by their author. Despite this, these quotations keep on appearing because those posting them simply copy and paste from other websites after a Google quote-mining session. This is not a convincing mode of argument.
In that case you should probably stop trying to argue from history and just concede the point that history is not on your side. As Cardinal Newman, a former Anglican, said “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”.
I think you misunderstand the Catholic position. It’s not like a group of guys picked up a New Testament and decided on the basis of the contents that they should start worshipping on Sunday. The Church long pre-dated Scripture. Sunday worship long predates the completion of the New Testament and centuries before the New Testament was assembled and canonized as it is today. The Early Church didn’t operate under Sola Scriptura since it predated Scriptura.
Consider circumcision, if someone wanted to become a Christian AD 60, would they demand Scriptural proof that they shouldn’t be circumcised? If so, they’d be out of luck since most of the New Testament which addressed that issue had most likely not yet been written, let alone canonized and distributed throughout the Empire. No, this is one of the things they would learn (Sacred Tradition) during catechesis prior to baptism.
As for Sola Scriptura, I’d refer you again to my Canon Questions post. I’ve referred a lot of Protestants to this post but I have have yet to have anyone try and answer the questions presented there. These are questions which need solid answers if Sola Scriptura is to stand up to scrutiny. Likewise, my Sola Scriptura series deserves a rebuttal.
If you applied that rule consistently, I think you’d be in trouble.
Example #1: If the passing away of circumcision was so important, why didn’t Jesus teach it during His earthly ministry? During Acts there’s actually discussion as to whether or not Christians need to be circumcised – the answer was not clear, as seen by the debate! If the Apostles had been using Sola Scriptura, they would have had to come down in favour of circumcision because of the weight of Scriptural evidence.
Example #2 If God is going to completely revolutionize our understanding of the Godhead, why didn’t He record more explicit explanations in the Bible? I mean, “Trinity” is never mentioned, there’s no talk of “substance”, “nature” and “person”… If I was following Sola Scriptura, it’s entirely possible that I conclude that God isn’t a Trinity and I’d end up as a Unitarian, a Jehovah’s Witness or a Oneness Pentecostal…all groups which follow Sola Scriptura and deny the Trinity because they don’t think Scripture clearly teaches it.
This just seems to be a repeat of your point 3, your presupposition that all crucial Christian doctrines must be spelt out explicitly in Scripture to your satisfaction. I just say that’s an unsupported presupposition.
Hi again. Only me. 🙂
You seem hung up on circumcision! I don’t see how you can link that and the Sabbath together!
It was discussed at length in the NT because the Jews believed it was of huge importance, but clearly those teaching the Gospel were saying it was no longer a requirement. I don’t recall them ever saying THE Sabbath was no longer required.
Anyways…this whole discussion is very interesting, but let me tell you where I am.
To me, it makes no sense whatsoever to do away with a day (The Sabbath) that was a huge part of Creation.
I believe that the Genesis account is a literal account and that God created everything in 6 days and then created a rest day.
All throughout the Bible this day has been of great importance to all who believed. So why would something so wonderful, so perfect, something God calls ‘His Holy Day’, all of a sudden be done away with after Jesus came?
That does not make any sense whatsoever. The Bible doesn’t support it either.
I am limited to the amount of time I can dedicate to study, so whilst I respect your knowledge of the early church, I might not ever be in a position to study it to a great level. Do I feel I need to? A little maybe, but not as a priority.
It’s not just the Sabbath which brings me into believing what SDA’s teach, but things like the state of the dead, the punishment in Hell, to name just a few.
I don’t know what the majority of Christians believed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but going on the Bible, there is no way God would punish people in Hell for millions upon millions of years. That’s just a ridiculous teaching and one that is inconsistent with the God of the whole bible.
So as they are no other groups (that I know of) out there that teach such things, then I see no need to switch to any other group of people.
Let me leave you with a few texts.
Psalm 119:142 Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, And Your law is truth.
1 John 2:4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him’
God’s law (His commandments) is truth. Those who do not keep His commands (the truth) is a liar and the truth is not in him.
Seems like God still wants us to follow His commands, which includes the Sabbath.
By the way – I am studying the so called ‘Trinity’ at the moment and whilst the SDA church teaches it, I don’t believe it.
But am still studying it.
Blessings brother.
David
Howdy 🙂
The link is that they were both central elements of the Mosaic Law which foreshadowed the good things that were to come with Christ. However, when Christ came, he brought a New Law and the New Covenant. Circumcision passed away to be replaced with Baptism and focussed shifted from the Sabbath to the Lord’s Day. We’re just fortunate that the issue of circumcision caused a ruckus early on in the Church to have it recorded in Scripture.
But think about the argument that could be made for circumcision. There is a whole ton of verses in the Old Testament which speak of the fundamental importance circumcision and about its continuing nature….
For example, consider Genesis 17:13… “Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant”. The text says “…everlasting…”, yet it passed away… Therefore, simply producing texts which speak of the importance of the Sabbath isn’t enough to secure its perpetual observance.
The Judaizers had a point. Jesus isn’t recorded as ever having spoken on the issue and the Old Testament texts on circumcision don’t clearly indicate its future cessation. It took a Council of the Church to settle the matter (Acts 15). Then for years there was no New Testament for new Christians to confirm this. Instead an authoritative Church orally taught them Sacred Tradition, which included the doing away of the observances of the Mosaic Law.
Yes, it was, for several reasons including the covenant making between God and humanity and the marriage covenant between Adam and Eve. In addition, it pointed forward to something else, the “rest” of Christ.
I’d again refer you to my Canon Questions post and Sola Scriptura series. These speak to your Sola Scriptura presupposition which must first be proved if your conclusions stand a chance of holding water.
One could make exactly the same argument for circumcision and the other parts of the Mosaic Law.
I would make the case that you should read because it will drive home how out-of-place your particular doctrinal matrix is in relation to historic Christianity. If you email me a mailing address I’ll send you some of my favourite (and extremely readable) history books for free. If time is short you can listen to free audio resources listed in this post.
I would also just reiterate the point from my previous post. The Church was not without its rebels throughout the centuries. However, nothing like Protestantism exists until 16th Century and nothing like SDA Sabbath observance appears until even more centuries after that. Who during that time was holding onto “the faith delivered once for all to the saints” (Jude 3)?
Whenever you ask the question, the answer is easy – they believed what the Catholic Church teaches. To pick the earliest quotation I can think of, in AD 110 St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote this to the Ephesians (16:1-2):
“Such an one becoming defiled [in this way], shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him.”
That’s not a very accurate description, since Heaven and Hell are outside of time and therefore the word “year” would have no meaning, but as to Biblical evidence, a place of eternal punishment is spoken of many times. To pick just one example, after speaking about the Final Judgement, Jesus says that “Then [the unrighteous] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew 25:46).
If you want to talk about Hell I can put together a post in the next few weeks for us to discuss that there.
Again, exactly the same argument could be made for circumcision. When the Psalmist speaks of the Law, he no doubt thought of the entire Law of Moses, which would have included circumcision.
As for John’s quotation, he’s not talking about the totality of the Mosaic Law, but the New Law of Christ that comes with the long promised New Covenant.
I think this is a significant statement as it is a demonstration of the fruit of Sola Scriptura.
In interpreting the Bible for yourself, you first rejected historic Christianity, concluding that the historic Church got Christianity fundamentally wrong. Instead, you adopted the newly-created doctrines of the Reformation, putting yourself in opposition against 1,500 years of Christianity, automatically placing yourself within a minority in Christianity.
Next, by interpreting the Bible for yourself, you rejected the Scriptural interpretation of the mainline Protestant groups in favour of the SDA. This put you into an even smaller minority, adopting a theological system that’s been in existence for only about a hundred and fifty years.
Finally, by denying the Trinity, you place yourself in an even smaller niche within Christianity. Not only do you think the historic Church got Christianity wrong, not only do you think the Reformers missed the apparent obvious truth about the Sabbath, but even the SDA bungled the very nature of the Godhead!
This then begs the same set of questions I spoke about before. Why did the SDA get the understanding of the nature of God so wrong? Do we chalk that up to “indoctrination” as well? Why have you been able to see the flaw? What advantage do you have over the SDA? Does this mean that other doctrines will be thrown out in the future?
All this leaves you with a Faith which is, to say the least, unique. I can’t imagine that there are too many Sabbath-observing, Trinity-denying Christians in the world. What this means is that you are ultimately saying that the billions of Christians in the world today, as well as the billions throughout history, got Christianity wrong on pretty much every single conceivable doctrinal point… :-/ This is the essential problem with Sola Scriptura. Each person defines orthodoxy for himself, thus creating new doctrines and generating fuel for congregation schism, as demonstrated by the thousands of Protestant denominations.
When I returned to the Catholic Church, I felt a sense of great relief. I no longer had to assemble my own theology from scratch. During my period of questioning, I had found that the Church was right again and again as I challenged her on different issues. She demonstrated herself to right, again and again. I finally recognized her for what she was, the Church Jesus founded and to whom He made many great promises. Now that I’m Catholic, I don’t just turn my brain off. I continue to question and search for understanding, but the difference is that now I know I can trust the Church which Jesus founded. I no longer have to be my own Pope, which is great because I don’t think I look very good in a white zucchetto… 🙂
Hi again. The weekend has passed and I am here at work again. So time to reply to Mr Pilgrim. 🙂
1 – The link is that they were both central elements of the Mosaic Law which foreshadowed the good things that were to come with Christ. However, when Christ came, he brought a New Law and the New Covenant. Circumcision passed away to be replaced with Baptism and focussed shifted from the Sabbath to the Lord’s Day.
Not true. How can the Sabbath, which was part of a perfect creation, be a shadow?
Shadows only came into place AFTER man had sinned. The Sabbath came BEFORE man had sinned.
So the Sabbath itself cannot be a shadow. If man had not sinned, then would the sabbath have someday stopped? No of course not.
2 – One could make exactly the same argument for circumcision and the other parts of the Mosaic Law.
We both have different ideas on the law I guess. I see the 10 commandments, written by the finger of God and placed INSIDE the ark of the covenant, as being different to the other 613 commands, which were written by Moses’s hand and placed OUTSIDE the ark of the covenant. There is obviously a difference between the 2. So I don’t link the law of circumcision to the perfect law of God (10 commandments)
3 – Whenever you ask the question, the answer is easy – they believed what the Catholic Church teaches. To pick the earliest quotation I can think of, in AD 110 St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote this to the Ephesians (16:1-2):
“Such an one becoming defiled [in this way], shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him.”
What does that prove? In Jude 1:7 it quotes ‘Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.’
Is Sodom and Gomorrha still burning today? No they are not. So was the fire ETERNAL or the results eternal?
4 – Finally, by denying the Trinity, you place yourself in an even smaller niche within Christianity. Not only do you think the historic Church got Christianity wrong, not only do you think the Reformers missed the apparent obvious truth about the Sabbath, but even the SDA bungled the very nature of the Godhead!
I don’t believe the SDA founders bungled on the nature of the Godhead because there is sufficient evidence to say they rejected such a teaching. But outside influences have come into our church over the years, which has brought with it doctrines like the Trinity. You should see our current hymnal compared to older versions! You would have thought it was a Catholic hymn book!
For now (as time is short) I will leave you with a few texts to ponder. Matthew 7: 13-14
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
There are only a few that will find the narrow path which leads to life.
John 4:24 – God calls us to worship in spirit and in truth. Which means that are lot of people are NOT worshiping Him how he would want us to.
Matthew 15:9. Many are worshiping God in vain, following the commandments of men instead of the commandments of God.
Thanks for listening. Chat soon.
David
And time for my Monday afternoon cup of tea…
I’m not sure how one could say that without making the assumption that God never knew that the Fall was going to happen. Not only that, it assumes that the Garden was as good as it gets, yet there are things better than than our Creation, namely our Redemption, Sanctification and Glorification!
“O happy fault,
O necessary sin of Adam
which gained for us
so great a Redeemer!” – Felix Culpa
In the beginning, Satan had access to the Garden and Adam could die, yet at the end of time we will be in Heaven where no evil shall dwell and where there death will be no more. The best is still yet to come.
The question is, did the Israelites? When they referred to “the Law” were they only referring to the Decalogue? For example, when the Psalmist speaks of “the Law” does he only mean the Ten Commandments? I think you’d be hard-pressed to prove that.
I think it’s rather dangerous to simply assume that because the word “eternal” is not used in a literal sense in one context, that it’s never used in a literal context.
You had asked what the position was on the Early Church concerning Hell, so I just pulled out the earliest reference I could think of as a simple demonstration. I could have quoted many more, some which are more explicit. All of these would have shown a theological understanding of Hell recognizable by most Christians. For example:
Standing before [Christ’s] judgment… To those who have done well, everlasting enjoyment shall be given; while to the lovers of evil shall be given eternal punishment. The unquenchable and unending fire awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which does not die and which does not waste the body but continually bursts forth from the body with unceasing pain. No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment; no appeal of interceding friends will profit them – Hippolytus, Against the Greeks 3 (AD 212)
I could quote many, many more.
Whether or not they did, I think the point still stands. In fact, if you want to follow that narrative, I think it’s made even more poignant. Was the truth lost so easily? Assuming that the SDA teachers discovered that the Trinity was false, were they such poor teachers that that they failed to pass on this clear understanding of this to their disciples?
Your quotations about the “narrow way” are great, but could be used by every heretic in the history of the Church. The Arians, the Modalists, the Antinomians… Simply being in the minority does not make one right, but being in the 0.000000000000000000001% should give one serious pause for thought…
I’ve written before about the audacious nature of your position, since it makes heretics of virtually all Christians who have come before, but I think another dimension is worth considering…
If we assume that (1) Sola Scriptura is true and that (2) your positions concerning the Sabbath and Trinity are correct, I can’t help but conclude that (3) God set things up in the worst way possible.
* The New Testament took a generation to write and the setting of the canon took centuries to be conclusively defined. If Christians were meant to follow Sola Scriptura, what did God expect people to do in the meantime until the Scripture was written and conclusively identified?
* Literacy in the First Century was poor and books were fragile, as well as expensive and time-consuming to make. Why would God then have a book to be the primary means of determining the truth?
* Even after (comparatively) increased literacy, the invention of the printing press and the casting off of historic Christianity, the vast, vast, vast majority of Christians who read the Bible completely missed the truths about the Sabbath and the Trinity. There’s no recognizable group that I know of in the Church’s history to whom I could point. The Scriptures can’t be very easy to understand if so many people could read them and not see these obvious truths.
* Following the Reformation, the cacophony of voices increased dramatically, meaning that there were hundreds of competing theologies which now every single Christian had to investigate on his own, despite having no training in theology or the original Biblical languages.
If that was the system that God set up, it’s a pretty crummy one and begs the question: did God really make the truth this hard to find?
Back again. Got a quiet 10 mins so here goes.
1 – I’m not sure how one could say that without making the assumption that God never knew that the Fall was going to happen. Not only that, it assumes that the Garden was as good as it gets, yet there are things better than than our Creation, namely our Redemption, Sanctification and Glorification! In the beginning, Satan had access to the Garden and Adam could die, yet at the end of time we will be in Heaven where no evil shall dwell and where there death will be no more. The best is still yet to come.
Of course God knew the fall would happen. I am in no way doubting the sovereignty of God.
So I am not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that God planned for Adam and Eve to fail?
Adam only died because of sin! Adam was created to live forever, was he not? Surely only perfect conditions on the earth could produce such a possibility. So why not believe that all that he created was perfect? Ok, the words used in genesis are Good and Very Good and the word perfect isn’t used, but surely there is enough evidence to suggest that conditions were indeed perfect? So anyways, Adam’s very first full day on this earth was The Sabbath. This was well before he sinned.
So how on earth could that 7th day be a shadow?
2 – The question is, did the Israelites? When they referred to “the Law” were they only referring to the Decalogue? For example, when the Psalmist speaks of “the Law” does he only mean the Ten Commandments? I think you’d be hard-pressed to prove that.
I hear what you are saying, but in some instances for sure you can tell which ones are being referred to.
For example, Colossians 2:16 is used very often by our Sunday friends to tell us that the sabbath is done away with.
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Yet if you really look at what was being said in Colossians 2……esp verse 16, there is no reference to anything to do with the 10 commandments. You will not find meat, drink, new moons etc in any of the 10 commandments.
So we can safely assume that the SABBATH DAYS mentioned are the ones that form part of the mosaic law of Moses (as those laws also contain laws to do with meat, drink etc)
So it’s all about looking at the context for each reference of the Law.
3 – I think it’s rather dangerous to simply assume that because the word “eternal” is not used in a literal sense in one context, that it’s never used in a literal context.
But aren’t you then assuming that once something is mentioned that is literal…..any other instance HAS to be literal??
Surely that is a lot more dangerous! Again, it’s all about looking at each text in context.
4 – If that was the system that God set up, it’s a pretty crummy one and begs the question: did God really make the truth this hard to find?
No I don’t think he did make it too hard. He does want us to seek Him though.
Man is the one responsible for making it harder to understand by such indoctrination’s throughout the centuries.
Listen, if a learned man was to pick up a Bible tomorrow with NO baggage whatsoever, there is very little chance he would come to the conclusion that the Lord’s day was the first day of the week. He would have read all through the Bible that the Sabbath was the 7th day of the week. There would be very little thought in his head that it was anything different.
So why is it that most of Christianity today miss it? Because they have been taught by their parents or church or state or whatever that Sunday is a Holy Day. So of course it’s going to be easily missed by the majority, because people study the bible with already preconceived ideas.
Satan’s plan from the very beginning was to deflame the character of God, and through many teachings, he has done a fantastic job. The 10 Commandments are a reflection of God’s character. So of course Satan is going to use those commands and twist them in order to succeed in his mission.
Those are my humble thoughts anyways.
Have a nice day
David
Something can be good and yet still be a shadow. This is the foundational assumption of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
I could talk about the ancient conception of Adam’s mortality (Genesis 3:22) and the understanding that Adam’s sin involved his failure to offer his life battling the serpent in order to protect his bride (something recapitulated by Christ), but I think that’ll take us too far afield.
I’ll simply ask: will Heaven be better than the Garden? Is redemption better than creation? Is the New Adam better than the Old Adam? In the Garden was the means of Adam’s death, but will there be any such means in Heaven or the possibility of a fall? Satan had access to the Garden, but will he have access to Heaven?
God saves the best until last.
You didn’t address the question of the Psalm which speaks about “the Law”. It seems that you’re forced to just make a big assumption concerning all these references to “the Law” in order to make it fit into your theology.
What reference to the Ten Commandments could Paul possibly make here if he had actually wanted to refer to the Saturday Sabbath? After all, nobody doubts that murder, adultery and covetousness are still sinful under the New Covenant. He’s hardly going to tell people that those are okay.
Colossians 2 highlights the most obvious aspects of the Mosaic Law: circumcision, kosher laws, sabbath observance and the festival cycle. It seems very strange to me to try to say that “Sabbath days” don’t refer to, well, the Sabbath. There isn’t even scope to claim that these Sabbaths were just special Sabbaths through the year since the text identifies the three different cycles: yearly (“festivals”), monthly (“new moon”) and weekly (“sabbath”). I don’t see any way out of it.
You have to assume that words have their literal sense unless the context or linguistic style indicates that they are meant in another sense (hyperbolic, figurative, …). It is the default position and that is what you do in ever single other case when you read Scripture.
I’d invite you to go live a 24-hour period assuming that everything that is said to you is non-literal. See how that goes… 🙂
Really? From your point of view, God chose to reveal Himself primarily in a book, during a period of time when few could read and books were insanely expensive to produce. This would remain the status quo for centuries. If God meant for us to follow Sola Scriptura, that was a terrible choice!
Well, why didn’t that happen for nearly 2,000 years? You say the SDA founders originally didn’t believe in the Trinity. Why were they so unable to purge their followers of these notions? After all, they had been freed from the baggage they had…
Also, if some dude was given the Bible and told to read it, the questions which he would ask would immediately betray Sola Scriptura: “Who wrote this?”, “Who choses these books?”, “How can we be sure?”, “Is this all there is?”, “What are these ‘traditions’ that Paul speaks about in 2 Thessalonians?”, … He might even ask the question of the Ethiopian: “How can I understand unless someone interpret it for me?”
Finally, this scenario is what I described in my previous comment. Sola Scriptura demands that every Christian sit down and read the entire Bible for himself and interpret it for himself, regardless of his reading level, theological training or familiarity with the original languages. That’s a pretty terrible system for God to setup…
But the problem is that people have overturned preconceived ideas before. I’ve already pointed out that this happened in the Early Church (Arians, Modalists, Nestorians, …). It certainly happened at the Reformation (Lutherans, Calvinists, …). Rebellion against the status quo has happened many times before…but the question of the Sabbath was not raised…
Hiya. Will squeeze in a quick reply before the sabbath begins. 🙂
Just enjoyed an almost total eclipse of the sun here in the UK. (am in Northampton) Things like that always makes me marvel at God’s creation.
1 – I’ll simply ask: will Heaven be better than the Garden? Is redemption better than creation? Is the New Adam better than the Old Adam? In the Garden was the means of Adam’s death, but will there be any such means in Heaven or the possibility of a fall? Satan had access to the Garden, but will he have access to Heaven?
Some very good thought-provoking questions there. I like a lot!
When you say ‘Heaven’, do you mean the new earth that is created and where we will dwell for eternity?
We wouldn’t have needed redemption if sin hadn’t entered. So I don’t see that as being a valid question.
The New Adam is better in the sense that Jesus showed how man should live (and could live). So He was better in the sense that He accomplished where Adam failed. However, if Adam hadn’t have failed, then God wouldn’t have needed to send the ‘New Adam’.
I believe that we will still have free-will in Heaven. We won’t suddenly become robots. However, those who enter the Kingdom will have seen what sin had done to the world and will love the Lord with all their hearts, with all their strength and all their souls.
Which is why I fear for people who teach and believe a cheap version of grace, where they believed they are once-saved always-saved and so still continue in their carnal ways. I don’t believe such people will enter the kingdom.
Of course Satan won’t have access to Heaven. He will be destroyed in the fires of Hell. (destroyed being the key word)
2 – You didn’t address the question of the Psalm which speaks about “the Law”. It seems that you’re forced to just make a big assumption concerning all these references to “the Law” in order to make it fit into your theology.
No, I don’t believe we need to make big assumptions. We just need to study each instance of when it is mentioned to see what law they are talking about. You see, Psalms refer to a ‘perfect law’. Now, if the 613 laws were perfect, why would they need to be done away with? Why do away with perfection? Where is the logic? However the 10 commandments ARE pure, perfect, truth. I can’t see how anyone would argue against that.
3 – Colossians 2 highlights the most obvious aspects of the Mosaic Law: circumcision, kosher laws, sabbath observance and the festival cycle. It seems very strange to me to try to say that “Sabbath days” don’t refer to, well, the Sabbath. There isn’t even scope to claim that these Sabbaths were just special Sabbaths through the year since the text identifies the three different cycles: yearly (“festivals”), monthly (“new moon”) and weekly (“sabbath”). I don’t see any way out of it.
I’m afraid you are making a link that just isn’t there. As stated many times before, the 7th Day Sabbath was part of creation. Creation came before Adam sinned. Shadows came about as a result of Sin. So the weekly Sabbath can in no way be a shadow!
The Sabbath was made for MAN. Yet you read that to say ‘Sabbath was made for the Jew’. It simply wasn’t.
4 – If God meant for us to follow Sola Scriptura, that was a terrible choice!
I disagree. Do you believe that the people who wrote the books of the bible were inspired? Guided by the Holy Spirit maybe?
5 – Also, if some dude was given the Bible and told to read it, the questions which he would ask would immediately betray Sola Scriptura: “Who wrote this?”, “Who choses these books?”, “How can we be sure?”, “Is this all there is?”, “What are these ‘traditions’ that Paul speaks about in 2 Thessalonians?”, … He might even ask the question of the Ethiopian: “How can I understand unless someone interpret it for me?”
Poor argument to be fair sir. We are in 2015, with all the knowledge at our fingertips, with excellent Biblical scholars all around the world sharing their thoughts. Yet we all still seem to have more questions than answers. And don’t tell me that is exclusive to Protestantism. I run (not lead) a small bible class where I work and we have 3 or 4 catholics recently join us who are more confused than anyone! A few of them even thought the recent Noah film was a true biblical account!
Now I am not blaming their catholic upbringing on that, as I know most catholics are just raised as catholics but never devote their lives to God or to study. I am just saying that to illustrate the point about having questions regardless of your academic level.
I think that’s me done for today.
Am still enjoying our discussion brother. It’s refreshing to have an online debate with someone who doesn’t just attack for the sake of attacking, but tries to use reason, logic, understanding etc.
Most of the time all I hear is ‘Ellen white was a witch….I am a heretic……I am going to hell etc etc’
To me, that’s not a discussion. That’s just childish nonsense.
Have a blessed weekend.
David
That’s fortunate – most of my friends said it was too cloudy to see. I remember the eclipse back in 1999 was like that too :-/
I’m glad. I hadn’t given these things any consideration to these things until about ten years ago when I had my ears open during the Easter Vigil and for the first time actually paid attention to the ancient hymn “Felix Culpa” (Here’s a modern interpretation of it)
I think we’re bumping against SDA eschatology here, but to avoid a distraction, let’s just simply say that Heaven is the enjoyment of God for eternity.
Ah, but sin did enter…and God knew so beforehand. Prototypes are not the final product.
That seems to be downplaying the drama of salvation just a tad! The New Adam is better than the Old Adam in every single way (not least to mention that He’s God incarnate!)
Agreed.
If all it takes is seeing what sin has done to the world, then why aren’t humans perfect now?
Well, faith without works is dead and Scripture teaches very clearly that salvation can be lost.
Then it’s confirmed. Heaven is better than the Garden. Heaven is the pinnacle. Therefore there is no problem in referring to any of these things as “shadows”.
BTW, you might enjoy the series I wrote on creation.
Here we bump up again against the idea that something could be good but still pass away when something better comes along. A sketch by Da Vinci is still a masterpiece, but doesn’t compare to a fully-completed fresco!
When Jews spoke about the Law, they were referring to the entire Law of Moses and not simply the Ten Commandments. I seriously doubt you’d be able to find any Jewish commentary (Talmudic or otherwise) which would interpret that verse to only refer to the Decalogue. If you can produce one, I’d love to see it.
You’re interpreting “the Law” to mean he Ten Commandments because you need to it to. You’re interpreting the word “perfect” here in its most absolute literalistic sense. This is particularly interesting because of our previous discussion concerning literalistic interpretation. Unfortunately, it ignores the fact that Psalms are belong to the poetry genre and are therefore not without hyperbole.
The Jews regarded the Mosaic Law as “perfect”. They saw the giving of the Law of Moses as the greatest possible privilege and clung to it dearly, many of them even hanging onto it even after something better came along, as noted by the presence of Judaizers in the early Christian communities. However, the truly “perfect” Law came with Christ, who commanded us to love God with everything we have and our neighbour as ourselves, since “…all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments”.
Speaking of not making links – did you respond to my comments about Colossians at all? I don’t see anything, you’re just repeating your arguments from (1).
Sure they were, but as in (3) you haven’t addressed any of the arguments I presented at all.
Nope, it’s a perfectly good argument (even if I say so myself!). Here’s why…
Firstly, you cite that we’re in 2015, but one of my arguments against Sola Scriptura was that it would been utterly unworkable prior to high levels of literacy and the invention of the printing press, so the fact that you have to begin by pointing to the current year doesn’t do much in favour of Sola Scriptura‘s historic applicability.
Next, as soon as you appeal to “Biblical Scholars”, you’ve moved away from the Bible, saying that he needs to consult authorities outside of the Bible. What happened to the “Bible Alone”?
This then begs the next question: which scholars? After all, you keep saying that most people are indoctrinated. You say that there are scholars “All around the world sharing their thoughts”, but the problem is that many of these thoughts are contradictory! You now end up with a chicken and egg situation – the man needs to consult scholars to understand the Bible, but how will he know which scholars to consult unless he understands the Bible?
Here is the argument you’re presenting:
1. You know some ignorant Catholics.
2. Therefore Catholicism doesn’t have answers
Poorly catechized Catholics are not an argument against Catholicism. I could produce poorly taught Lutherans, Methodists, SDAs, Jews, Muslims etc. However, none of these would be arguments against their respective faiths.
Having questions isn’t the point, it’s whether or not their Faith can provide reasonable answers. I wandered into Protestantism when I had lots of questions about Catholicism…but I didn’t look for answers. It was only when I looked for answers than I returned.
My point in this area is that if you hand someone a Bible, they’ll immediately ask questions which undermine Sola Scriptura. They’ll ask questions which only an authoritative, historic Church can answer. For example, I keep referring you to my Canon Questions post because I believe that Protestantism cannot answer these questions well. Catholicism, on the other hand, can.
Thanks 🙂
As a Catholic, I receive my fair share of name-calling. Thats not my MO 🙂
Hi there. Sorry for delay. Just not had opportunity to reply. But here I am.
1 – I don’t have time to go into every single detail…..but on the point of shadows and new heaven etc etc……..can I ask 1 question. Do you believe we are the only planet in the entire universe that is inhabited?
Also, btw, I don’t see how believing in a new heaven and a new earth (Rev 21) is SDA eschatology!
2 – When Jews spoke about the Law, they were referring to the entire Law of Moses and not simply the Ten Commandments.
Take the rich young ruler, when God told him to keep the commandments, of which he emphasised some of the 10 commandments. He didn’t rattle off a load of commands that were soon to be nailed to the cross, as that would just be silly of him.
So, he told him to keep the commands that are important. All those commands he told him were about loving your fellow man.
Which leads me nicely onto point 3….:-)
3 – However, the truly “perfect” Law came with Christ, who commanded us to love God with everything we have and our neighbour as ourselves, since “…all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments”.
You sum up the 10 commandments perfectly! The first 4 commands are about our love and obedience to God, and the remaining 6 commands are all about loving out neighbour. As your put it….’the truly perfect laws’. I thank you. 🙂
4 – On the topic of sola scripture etc – Are you saying that the catholic church has ALL the answers?
Blessings dear brother. Must fly. Hope to hear from you soon.
Sorry for the brief nature of the email. I would love to get in-depth but just don’t have the time at the moment.
David
That’s fine, the main point is that Heaven is better than the Garden, therefore there’s no problem with the Garden being sign.
I don’t have a particularly strong opinion on that question. Statistically-speaking, the Drake equation points to intelligent life on other planets. It certainly would raise interesting questions concerning the Fall and salvation, but I don’t think they’re necessarily insurmountable.
The phrase is Scriptural, but what exactly those terms mean is a separate issue. Mormonism and the Jehovah Witnesses, in particular, use the terms in rather particular ways. I’m not too familiar with SDA eschatology, but since the SDA have similar roots to the JWs, I thought it best to steer clear.
There are a few problems with this argument:
1. This man had no idea that the cross was coming, or what it would mean.
2. It would have taken too long for him to rattle off the 613 commands of the Old Testament, so he just hit the high points…
3. …one of which didn’t even come from the Decalogue, but from Leviticus 19:18 (“Love your neighbour”)
4. Your argument proves too much. Of all the commandments to omit, why did he leave out “Honour the Sabbath and keep it holy…”?
No problem with any of that.