Why do Christians worship on Sunday?
I was just speaking to a Seventh Day Adventist about why we celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday. A longer answer could be given, but I thought I’d just post here the quotation I just shared with him from St. Justin Martyr:
We hold our assembly on Sunday because it is the first day [of the week], on which God brought forth the world from darkness and matter. On the same day, Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before [Saturday]; and on the day of the Sun [Sunday[ he appeared to His apostles and disciples and taught them these things, which we have submitted to you for your consideration.
– St. Justin Martyr, First Apology (c. AD 150)
If you would like to read a larger extract from St. Justin where he describes Christian worship in Rome during the Second Century, please see the Patristics Section of this website.
Brother!
I too recently encountered a 7th Day Adventist & tried explaining this, but St Justin Martyr says it far more eloquent than I!
Thank you!
You’re welcome man 🙂
Hi Pilgrim.
As a 7th Day Adventist (albeit a recent convert), I would much rather look to the word of God for my answers than the words of St Justin Martyr.
We believe in Sola Scripture and the word of God clearly teaches that the only day God ever blessed and sanctified was the Sabbath, which is the 7th day of the week. (what we know today as Saturday)
Nothing in the New Testament changed that.
God bless you all
David
Hey David,
Welcome to Restless Pilgrim and thanks for your comment! Out of interest, from what did you convert?
I’ve never had the opportunity to directly interact with a 7th Day Adventist on this subject, so I would appreciate it if you would consider the following questions:
1. Can you name anybody in the Early Church who opposed Sunday worship? If not, why do you think that is the case? Was Jesus such a terrible teacher? What caused the Apostles to so completely fail in their mission to accurately pass on the Faith? Why did God wait over a millennia before raising up a group of people to reestablish Sabbath observance? It doesn’t really speak very highly to God’s sovereignty or His provision.
2. If you think that the Early Church got such a fundamental doctrine wrong, how can you trust anything that comes to us from the Early Church? Could such a Church be trusted to accurately preserve the Sacred Scriptures, as well as set the canon of the Bible? If all those in the Early Church held to Sunday worship, it also places you in the awkward position of having to say that all the Christian martyrs of those Roman persecutions where, in fact, heretics.
3. Why do you hold to Sola Scriptura? I would invite you to read my series on this subject to see why I would assert that Sola Scriptura is logically problematic, unhistorical and even without basis in Scripture itself. I’d be interested in reading your comments on that series.
Thanks,
David.
Hi again. I will give it a go. 🙂 I am not a theologian by any means, but have a general understanding on many topics.
1 – No I cannot. However, can I ask you to name 1 instance of there being Sunday worship in the New Testament? I know I can’t find any instance at all. So it obviously wasn’t an issue until many years after!
So that answers the rest of the questions in section 1.
2 – It depends who you refer to as the ‘Early Church’ I guess. If you mean the Early Church of the New Testament, then I don’t believe they got such doctrines wrong. If you mean the Early Church of the 2nd, 3rd centuries etc, then that’s a different question.
3 – I read your article and it was an enjoyable read. I totally understand your frustration with the many interpretations within protestantism. I share those frustrations. But Praise God that he has raised up a movement that can share the truth of the Bible with the whole world, and in my studies so far, the Seventh Day Adventist church’s message is the most consistent with the entire Bible and through prophecy, we can see why there are so many different denominations.
As for Peter being the rock of your Church, well, what can I see? That is a massive understanding of what is actually going on in Matthew 16.
I look forward to your reply.
David
Thanks for your reply. I’ve broken up my responses to separate out the different topics at hand…
1. If we assume the traditional authorship dates, we have the New Testament being completed by AD 100. However, history provides us with the following early witnesses to Sunday worship:
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)
These documents were written either about the same time, or shortly after the New Testament, not many years after.
Sorry for the delay, I needed sleep. 🙂
(I am in England)
1 – If these writings are so important, why were they not included in the Bible? Maybe because there are inconsistencies within them?
(am only guessing though, have never really read them)
Also, as far as I know (please correct me if I am wrong), the only book written after 70AD is Revelation, which was obviously a vision of the future and includes many warnings about worship (and false worship).
Ah, Blighty… I miss it 🙁
They are immensely important, but the Church didn’t declare them to be Scripture and so they are therefore not in the canon. During the early years, some of these works were, in fact, read at the Sunday liturgy.
Nope, they are respected, orthodox works. I’ve recorded all of Ignatius of Antioch‘s works onto MP3 here:
https://restlesspilgrim.net/blog/notes/patristics/
Well, that depends on which scholar you ask. Many will give the Pastoral Epistles rather late dates.
With regards to the Book of Revelation, it is not exclusively about events in the distant future, but yes, you’re right, it speaks a lot about worship – it’s about the Mass. I have an (incomplete) blog series here:
https://restlesspilgrim.net/blog/tag/coming-soon/?order=asc
I think it would strengthen your case considerably if you could point to early Christians who objected to worship on Sunday.
If you can’t give any examples, then I think an explanation for the absence of Christian opposition needs to be provided, since it reflects terribly on Jesus, the Apostles and God’s provision in general.
From my own research, I don’t think you’ll find any opposition to Sunday worship until well over a millennia and a half of Christian history. The really important question to ask then is…why does it take this long?
Again, who do you mean by Early chistians?
Those of the Bible, or those post-bible?
I’m talking about the successors to the Apostles: Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Papias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Rome, …
That’s not a very helpful division, because do you mean authorship (First Century) or canonization (c. Fourth Century)?
For what it’s worth, the “Clement” mentioned by Paul is said to be the same “Clement of Rome” mentioned above.
Now, you asked if I could name any instances of Sunday worship in the New Testament. I can to a degree, but before we get to that, I have to prefix my answer by pointing out something concerning the New Testament. It is not a book of systematic theology. It is a collection of Gospels and a collection of incidental letters sent by Christian leaders to deal with specific problems found in certain congregations.
Given this, we should recognized that it is quite likely that certain doctrines and practices of the apostolic Christians will not be found explicitly recorded within its pages. As John’s Gospel points out, if everything that Jesus said and did was written down, there wouldn’t be enough books in the world to contain it (John 21:25).
It was preaching, not writing, which was the primary means of spreading the faith in the early centuries. It is because of this that Paul could tell the Thessalonians (2 Thes 2:15) to stand firm to everything he communicated to them either through writing (Sacred Scripture) or orally (Sacred Tradition). The Sacred Tradition of the Church has been unanimous down the ages that Christians come together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sundays because that is the day when the Lord rose from the dead.
So, returning to the New Testament, we do find examples of Sunday worship:
(a) In Acts 20:7 we are told that they came together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday.
(b) In 1 Corinthians 16:2, Paul instructs the Corinthians to gather donations on Sunday (i.e. at their gatherings)
(c) In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul tells us that the Sabbath was a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ.
(d) Not only that, but in Hebrews 7:12 we are told that with a change of priesthood there is a change of law.
(e) If you read the post-Resurrection appearances of Christ, you’ll find that we can identify many of them as Sundays. For example, in Matthew 28:1-9, the women fall at Jesus’ feet and worship Him…on a Sunday.
(f) Finally, on what day does John witness the worship in Heaven?
Sunday (Revelation 1:10).
I knew you would come at me with Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2 and Colossians 2:16-17.
Now, to use those 2 texts as ‘proof’ of Sunday observance is weak in the extreme.
Are you really saying, that against the weight of the rest of the Bible, that these 3 texts prove that
a: the sabbath is no longer valid (ie colossians) and
b: the early church gathered specifically on the 1st day of the week?
I could go into detail of all 3 of those texts if needed. Up to you if you want me to go there though.
As for Revelation 1:10. Where oh where in the Bible do we find that the Lords Day refers to the 1st day of the week?
That’s right, no where.
if we look to the Bible to see what the Lord’s day was, we can look at Isiah 58:13, which is VERY clear on what day was the Lord’s day. Or maybe Matthew 12:8.
Or even the 4th commandment itself.
So here we have the problem. I look to what the Bible says, you look to Church Tradition. (have had a very similar discussion with a Greek orthodox recently).
So I guess the real argument is about Sola Scripture being valid or not.
You will have your arguments for it, I will have mine against it.
All I am here to do is to defend what my church believes and teaches, from the Bible alone.
Well, a significant portion of the Bible is the Old Testament which, if you’re just weighing evidence by counting verses, would provide a very strong case that Christians should still be circumcised…
Sure, go for it.
All the surrounding historical literature of the time identifies “The Lord’s Day” as Sunday. This makes a lot of sense when you consider that Sunday is the day the Lord rose from the dead, gave the Holy Spirit etc. Today it’s even baked into the name “Sunday” in most languages (e.g. “Domingo”).
If you wish to assert that when John speaks about “the Lord’s Day” he’s referring to the Sabbath, there’s a problem. In all his Gospel and in his epistles, John calls Saturday “the Sabbath”. Why then, in the Book of Revelation, does he suddenly change his mind and call it “the Lord’s Day”?
Not really, what’s happening is that you’re trying to interpret the Bible from outside of the historical context in which it was written. Again, however, we come back to a problem that you really need to explain:
1. Why is it that I can name early Christian leaders and martyrs who interpreted Scripture in the way I do?
2. Why is it that you find no support for your position in history? Which is more likely:
(a) All ancient Christians, those who knew and succeeded the Apostles, misunderstood the Apostolic Faith.
(b) The interpretations of Scripture by a newly-founded Nineteenth century Christian group are wrong.
It’s a sizable part of it, yes, since you’re coming to the text with some presuppositions, such as assuming that the New Testament is going to articulate exhaustively every Christian doctrine clearly.
2 – I’m talking specifically about from the Second Century onwards. If you are willing to discard the Early Church witness, then you have to:
(a) Explain how the Scriptures can be preserved by by an (effectively) apostate Church. After all, it wasn’t Seventh Day Adventist monks who copied the New Testament through the centuries.
(b) Explain how you arrive at the canon of the New Testament. This was discerned over the course of those early centuries by Catholic bishops and councils.
(c) Dismiss all Christian martyrs of the early centuries as heretics.
a:. I have read about how the scriptures came to be, but what I read escapes me. I need to read up on it again, but I remember being sufficiently swayed that there was no reason why God couldn’t maintain a faithful group all through history.
b See a.
c: I am not dismissing all martyrs.
Here’s a potted history:
Catholic bishops gathered in Catholic councils and identified what was and what was not Scripture. Catholic scholars and monks down through the ages preserved the Sacred Scriptures.
If that’s the case, then they must have left a mark in history. I would like to see what that mark was because, when I read history, I only find Catholics. They believed in apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence, …
Sorry, you’re going to have to explain to me how you justify the canon. I’d say it’s probably one of the most compelling argument against any newly-formed Christian groups. If you like, have a go at asking my canon questions
But you pretty much have to, unless you can demonstrate that they believed as you do, which is difficult to do when all the early Christians look like Catholics.
3 – You don’t really explain why you think that the Seventh Day Adventists have a correct interpretation. I’d like to hear that explanation. For example, is that denomination promised any divine protection from error? Was it granted any special authority?
Also, if the Seventh Day Adventists are the authoritative interpreters of God’s Word, why did God leave the world without this organization for 1,800 years following the Ascension?
3 – As I have said before, I am not a historian, nor am I a theologian. However on my journey, I first looked into whether I believe that God exists. For me, over time, the weight of evidence was that he does exist.
So then I had to ask myself, which religion is the correct religion (as there are so many). In brief, I discovered that Christianity was the correct religion.
So then the question of which church should I join came into my mind, so I started studying the differences between all of the denominations.
Then, I went to the Bible on certain subjects, like state of the dead, Hell, the sabbath.
I looked at what most christians believed, then I came across what 7th day adventists believed.
And I was shocked, how little Bible evidence there was for many of these subjects when it comes to most Christian denominations. Most of them don’t even know why they believe certain things!
So then, I looked at prophetic interpretations, like the 70 weeks of Daniel and was blown away how accurate it has been through history, compared to how many other denominations have so many other interpretations of it and they are trying to make it fit, whereas the SDA interpretation of it can be proven through the Bible and history.
So that, in brief, was my journey.
I see many things in Catholicism that don’t fit well with the Bible. I see also many things in mainstream evengelical protestantism that don’t fit well with the Bible.
So for me, at this moment in time, the SDA church is the closest there is (as far as I know) to actually believing in Sola Scripture.
So what was the question?
Oh yeah, I think from what the Church teaches, where Daniel and Revelation are concerned, make far more sense (and are supported by the Bible and history) than any other version I have come across.
Also I believe that there have always been a group of true believers right through history. God would never have allowed a time when there was a group who didn’t have the truth.
But why believe in the Bible? You need some way of saying what is and is not Scripture, and you can’t do that without an authoritative Church.
But this presupposes Sola Scripture to be true, which as I think I demonstrate in my series has serious problems.
Do you happen to know the Catholic interpretation of the Book of Revelation? If not, I’ll send you my favourite book on the subject.
What makes you believe this? Where was this group of “true believers”? Where do we find them in history? Where in the Second Century? Third? Fourth?
With regards to Matthew 16, I’ve written about this before in some detail. The important aspect of that passage is the “keys of the Kingdom”. Given your understanding, what is Jesus referring to when He speaks of these keys?
I am not sure the ‘keys to the Kingdom’ is the most important aspect. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.
The key though is discovering what Jesus means.
For me, he is talking about the faith that Peter shows when Jesus asks him who he thinks he is.
So on that FAITH Jesus will build his church.
Anyways, Jesus is the rock. Why would he build his church on a weak human being like Peter?
That would be foolish in the extreme!
Faith is what gets us through the day. Faith is what we all need to believe in God almighty.
Faith is what the church is built upon. Not a sinful man like Peter.
Hmm…you didn’t really answer my question. What are these keys? If they involve binding and loosing things in Heaven and earth, then they must be rather important!
Wait, which is it? Jesus or faith?
Why would Jesus use a weak, sinful human being like Peter to author Sacred Scripture? Why did Jesus send out these weak, sinful human beings to go convert the world? It’s because that’s the way God works – we hold treasure in clay pots.
The problem with Sola Scriptura isn’t just that it leads to conflicting interpretation. Scripture itself doesn’t even make the claim to Sola Scriptura. It is also unsupported by history, only appearing at the Reformation, 1,500 years after Pentecost.
No, I don’t agree. (shock horror eh?)
Sola Scriptura isn’t the problem.
MAN is the problem.
Man has twisted the Bible. Man has created all the divides throughout the church.
Sola Scriptuta is not the problem my friend.
To which point?
(a) Scripture doesn’t make the claim for itself
(b) It’s unsupported by history
If Sola Scriptura is true, then Jesus set up the most unworkable system possible. One only has to look at the Protestant world to see that in the clearest terms.
If Sola Scriptura is true, then Jesus left no possible way to definitively resolve doctrinal conflict. If you have two pastors, each educated and godly men, who disagree over the interpretation of a passage, how is the deadlock resolved? Under Sola Scriptura, there is no resolution, just deadlock and conflicting interpretations of Scripture.
Brother Pilgrim sir.
I am enjoying our discussion and I would love to continue answering each point.
However time is such that, with work and family, this could go on….and on….and on.
So I will go back to the original question.
Why do Christians Worship on a Sunday?
Your answer tells us a lot, in that you have to use early church martyrs for your answer and not the Bible.
So based on that, the real question is about Sola Scripture.
I will continue to use the Bible to defend my beliefs, you will use church history.
Obviously you know a lot more about church history than I do, but I don’t for a second believe it was the Catholic system who gave us the Bible. That just doesn’t sit right with EVERYTHING that has happend throughout history, with the dark ages etc etc.
Just stumbled across this page. Am sure you will tear it to shreds, but hey.
http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Catholic.html
I do wish you well brother and I congratulate you on your ministry and your passion.
If I do find time sometime soon, I will try to answer all of the individual questions you have asked.
But as I have already mentioned, you will come back with answers from Church history, which I don’t accept as authoritative.
All the best
True 🙂
Not quite. I use the witness of Christians for nearly two millennia of Christianity. The earliest extra-Biblical writers speak about worship on Sunday and don’t even blink as they talk about it. The Early Church was not without its conflict, but we don’t find the slightest objection to Sunday worship.
Now, I can use the Bible to defend this change. I think the Bible gives enough indications that, like the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant, things changed with the coming of Christ. However, I think the witness of history is more a convincing argument.
Again, not quite. If you look around this blog, you’ll see I use Scripture again and again to defend Church teaching. The difference is that I don’t rely exclusively on Scripture. Those who gave their blood for Christ and those early theologians who converted the Roman Empire are important witnesses to consider.
That can be remedied. If you click on this link, I have assembled a collection of free MP3s, as well as some book recommendations.
Don’t you think it’s strange that you’re so certain of a historical fact when you can’t back it up and have no alternative explanation, having admitted you don’t know history very well?
It was absolutely the Catholic Church. You are welcome to try and offer any evidence to the contrary, but I can guarantee you that you won’t find any. If you read anything about the formation of the canon you’ll start reading about Pope Damasus, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, …
I’m not exactly sure what that argument is trying to say, but if you ever decide to resume this conversation, we can talk about that.
Yeah, not impressed. All of this is easily defensible, not least of which my catalogue of Christian belief prior to the rise of constantine.
St. Paul held to non-written authoritative Tradition (2 Thes 2:15).
Great, I’ll do one more comment which will aggregate the outstanding questions which I think have remained unanswered. By all means, take them to your leadership and see what answers they can muster.
9The offer to send you my favourite book concerning the Book of Revelation still stands, by the way. Just send me a private email with your address)
Okay, this is a summary of the questions which I’ve asked over the course of our discussion, which I’d invite you to research and show to your leadership.
History
1. Please name some Christians of the early centuries who believed as you do about the Sabbath.
2. Please explain why we find absolutely no opposition to Justin and the others concerning Christian worship on Sunday. Who is at fault? Jesus for choosing the Apostles? The Apostles for failing to teach the Faith?
3. Why did God wait so long until He restored Sabbath worship and real Christian orthodoxy?
Scripture
4. Could an apostate Church who has abandoned the Sabbath be trusted with the preservation of Scripture down through the centuries?
5. How do you justify the canon of the New Testament? Are you sure you have only the right books, none of the wrong ones and none are omitted? What guarantee do you have of this? You may also try answering my canon questions post.
If you’re going to follow Sola Scriptura, you’re going to have to be absolutely certain what you’re reading is Scriptura…
6 .What makes you think that the New Testament is going to contain explicitly every doctrine and practice of the Early Christians? The majority of the documents are incidental letters dealing with issues in particular congregations during a fairly narrow period of time.
7. Do you know the Catholic interpretation of the Book of Revelation?
8. Is the “rock” in Matthew 16 Jesus or faith? You seem to say one and then the other.
9. What do the “keys” refer to in Matthew 16? What is the Old Testament background for this?
Sola Scriptura
10. Do you believe that something has to be written down in Scripture to be authoritative? If so, please explain 2 Thessalonians 2:15
11. If you have two pastors, each educated and godly men, who disagree over the interpretation of a passage, how is the deadlock resolved using Sola Scriptura?
12. How did the Apostles decide on the issue of circumcision? Through Sola Scriptura? Or an authoritative Church Council (Acts 15)?
Sabbath and Sunday
13. Why did Paul tell the Corinthians to gather the donations on Sunday? Wouldn’t it only really make sense if that was the day when Christians met?
14. Please explain why Acts 20:7 speaks about the Christians celebrating the Eucharist on Sunday.
13. In Matthew 28, do the women worship Jesus on a Sunday?
14. If you think John in Revelation 1:10 is talking about the Sabbath, why does he call it “the Lord’s Day” while everywhere else in his Gospel and epistles, he always calls Saturday “the Sabbath”?
Thanks for your summary. It won’t let me reply to the actual summary, which is why I am replying here.
>History
>1. Please name some Christians of the early centuries >who believed as you do about the Sabbath.
>2. Please explain why we find absolutely no opposition >to Justin and the others concerning Christian worship >on Sunday. Who is at fault? Jesus for choosing the >Apostles? The Apostles for failing to teach the Faith?
>3. Why did God wait so long until He restored Sabbath >worship and real Christian orthodoxy?
In answer to those 3 questions, please check this website and please do tell me what you think. http://www.cogwriter.com/sabbath.htm
Scripture
4. Could an apostate Church who has abandoned the Sabbath be trusted with the preservation of Scripture down through the centuries?
Answer – I don’t believe that the Catholic Church gave us the Scriptures. For one, there was no Catholic church when the Old Testament was written!
5. How do you justify the canon of the New Testament? Are you sure you have only the right books, none of the wrong ones and none are omitted? What guarantee do you have of this? You may also try answering my canon questions post.
Answer – I believe God, in all his power and wisdom, would have found a way to give the world his Word.
A word that does not contradict. A word which is complete. That, my friend, appears to be the Bible (without apocrypha books)
6 .What makes you think that the New Testament is going to contain explicitly every doctrine and practice of the Early Christians? The majority of the documents are incidental letters dealing with issues in particular congregations during a fairly narrow period of time.
Answer – Same as answer to 5. Because of my Faith in the God.
7. Do you know the Catholic interpretation of the Book of Revelation?
Answer – No, not yet read it. But yes, feel free to send me the book. dwells1972@hotmail.co.uk
8. Is the “rock” in Matthew 16 Jesus or faith? You seem to say one and then the other.
Answer – Faith in the rock that is Jesus Christ. Simple to understand really.
9. What do the “keys” refer to in Matthew 16? What is the Old Testament background for this?
Answer – Man you love these keys don’t you? hehe
I believe (btw…these are my thoughts and not some official sda words) that the keys are like permission, to go and spread the Gospel to the world.
Sola Scriptura
10. Do you believe that something has to be written down in Scripture to be authoritative? If so, please explain 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Answer – I don’t have a problem with that text.
Some people have been handed down truth through reading the word, others by hearing the word. Somewhat akin to Romans 10:17
11. If you have two pastors, each educated and godly men, who disagree over the interpretation of a passage, how is the deadlock resolved using Sola Scriptura?
Answer – Because the Bible has every answer that we need. Any part of theology that is worth arguing over will be spoken about numerous times in the Bible. If they are arguing over 1 text, relating to a subject so small, that is not convered anywhere else in the Bible, then so be it. That’s people for you!
12. How did the Apostles decide on the issue of circumcision? Through Sola Scriptura? Or an authoritative Church Council (Acts 15)?
Answer – Verse 15 sums it up. They were looking for an ‘It Is Written’.
Sabbath and Sunday
13. Why did Paul tell the Corinthians to gather the donations on Sunday? Wouldn’t it only really make sense if that was the day when Christians met?
Answer – I believe it would make MUCH more sense if that was the day that they were paid their wages! When you set aside money, do you do it just before pay-day, or just after? The sensible thing to do would be to do it just after, otherwise if you left it til just before, you might not have any money to give!
14. Please explain why Acts 20:7 speaks about the Christians celebrating the Eucharist on Sunday.
Answer – Does it?
a: ACTS 2:46 shows they broke bread daily, so were they really doing anything different to the norm in Acts 20?
b: In Bible times, the 1st day of the week begins at Sunset on Sabbath. So there is no reason why 1st day of the week couldn’t be referring to Saturday evening.
Which would make more sense, as he then continued preaching til midnight….and even on til day break.
Otherwise you would have to assume that they met Sunday morning, and Paul preached almost a full 24 hours. Possible? But unlikely.
Acts 20 is in no way confirming a new day of worship. The story itself is based around the death and awakening of Eutychus.
15. In Matthew 28, do the women worship Jesus on a Sunday?
Answer – Is that a serious question? For one it is the end of the Sabbath. Why are the women there at that time?
Because they had left the body of Jesus, so that they could honour the Sabbath day. Then they returned and of course they were full of joy and worship to see him alive! To indicate that ‘worship’ had now transferred to the 1st day of the week is pretty poor.
16. If you think John in Revelation 1:10 is talking about the Sabbath, why does he call it “the Lord’s Day” while everywhere else in his Gospel and epistles, he always calls Saturday “the Sabbath”?
Answer – Come on…that is not even an issue. It’s only an issue to you because you can’t find 1 quote in the entire Bible which refers to the 1st day as the Lord’s Day. In Isaiah 58:13 it is called the ‘Sabbath’ and ‘God Holy Day’ in the same sentence. So it’s clear what the ‘Lord’s Day’ refers to anyways.
Although I have heard an interesting theory that, as John was in vision, the Lord’s day refers to the 2nd coming, as in the Day of the Lord. Food for thought, even if I don’t believe that to be true myself.
I think I have answered what I can.
I will check tomorrow to see if you have replied, but I can’t guarantee I will have the time to reply.
I am enjoying this though, as it is getting me to search the scriptures, which, is recommended for us to do.
Not to search tradition, but the scriptures. John 5:39 and Acts 17:11.
Enjoy your day. David
This doesn’t really answer those questions, but this is the most thorough attempt I’ve seen for SDA using history (albeit with extremely cherry-picked quotations). I’ll endevour to do a proper post critiquing this article at some point.
As a general point though, I would encourage you to dig into history. See what the successors to the Apostles believed.
This is an assertion to a belief without an alternative explanation provided.
Your point about the Old Testament is also problematic, not least because there was no fixed canon of the Old Testament – the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes and Jews in Alexandria all had different canons.
This also rather a non-answer. You believe God would have found a way, but can’t tell me how that happened, although you know for certain that it wasn’t through the Catholic Church, even though you can’t say why.
If you can’t explain the construction of the Bible then I’d suggest that your belief in Sola Scriptura is founded on a big unknown.
I’m afraid this sounds like a blind faith unsupported by reason.
So you can’t even provide a passage of Scripture which proclaims this to be true? If every doctrine is meant to be in Scripture, yet that very doctrine can’t be found in Scripture…you have an immediate internal contradiction.
I sent you an email – I’ll need a postal address.
So you’re actually doubling up the meaning of the rock. This is actually compatible with the Catholic interpretation, although we would add Peter into that mix because of the flow of the passage. After all, it would be a bit of Jesus to say “You are rock and on this rock I’ll build my Church” and him not to be referring to Peter, at least in part.
I love these keys because they’re typically ignored by non-Catholics, despite their central importance in this passage. The trouble with your interpretation is:
(a) It’s not based in the passage – what leads you to conclude that it’s “permission”?
(b) It doesn’t explain why Jesus gives these keys solely to Peter
(c) It doesn’t make sense of Jesus’ later giving power to “bind and loose” to all the Apostles
This passage makes much more sense when viewed within the overall theme of Matthew’s Gospel (restoration of the Davidic Kingdom) and from within Isaiah 22 (the office of Prime Minister within the Davidic Kingdom. You can read more about this here.
If that’s how you feel then you’re going to have to reject Sola Scriptura since you’re acknowledging binding Sacred Tradition in addition to Sacred Scripture.
There are a bunch of assumptions you make here, but primarily, you’re assuming that if something isn’t mentioned many times in the Bible then it can’t be important. Why would you assume that?
Also, there are subjects which come up again and again in Scripture, such as Baptism, yet most denominations can’t agree (a) whether to baptize infants (b) whether baptism washes away sin (c) the mode of baptism…
As I said before, just look at the Protestant world – if the Bible were that easy to understand, there wouldn’t be thousands of denominations.
Are you seriously suggesting that one could read Amos 9:11–12 and think “Well, obviously, Gentiles don’t need to be circumcised!”? If it was that obvious, why was there a Judaizing party and why did Paul have such problems with them?
The point was that it wasn’t clear whether or not Gentiles should still obey the Mosaic Law. It took an authoritative council of the Church to settle the matter.
You’re suggesting that all workers got paid once a week on Saturday? That sounds like an anachronism to me (Mt 20:8).
It accords with the following generation of Christians who would sometimes celebrate the Eucharist during the week where possible, but whose principal day of Eucharistic worship was Sunday.
Either way, it shows us that the old order was being disturbed.
Nope, the text simply says that “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread”. What did they do? Celebrate the Eucharist. When did they do it? The first day of the week – Sunday.
The chapter begins “Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week”. So, as soon as the women could get to the tomb (Sunday morning), they went there.
I wasn’t trying to prove my entire case. I simply asked a question – did the women worship Jesus on Sunday? The simple answer is “Yes”. This was a foreshadowing of what would happen in the Church now that the Messiah had completed His Sabbath rest.
Oh, I think it is. At the very least, you have to explain why John uses a phrase to indicate Saturday that he never uses in the rest of his corpus of work. Doesn’t it seem to indicate that he’s not actually referring to Sunday?
Does that mean he’s talking about the same thing though? In Acts 2:20, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 1:14, 1 Thessalonians 5:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:2 the “day of the Lord” is also mentioned, but it’s not talking about Saturdays…
Nah, that doesn’t make sense. He’s talking about when he had the vision, not describing what he saw.
Thanks again for your concise answers.
Again, I will admit that you have greater knowledge than I on ‘Catholic Church’ history etc.
And I will go away and study church history more to gain a better understanding myself. So I will refrain from having a back and forth argument on that subject, until I am better read on the subject.
I am happy to continue to answer questions relating to the Sabbath from a bible standpoint alone though. (and yes, I do need to study more the subject of Sola Scripture also)
So anyways….from question 14 onwards…my answers are as follows:-
14: A It accords with the following generation of Christians who would sometimes celebrate the Eucharist during the week where possible, but whose principal day of Eucharistic worship was Sunday.
Either way, it shows us that the old order was being disturbed.
Answer – Where does the Bible state that the primary day for ‘eucharist worship’ was the 1st day of the week?
b: Nope, the text simply says that “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread”. What did they do? Celebrate the Eucharist. When did they do it? The first day of the week – Sunday.
Answer – Just as they did most days.
15. I wasn’t trying to prove my entire case. I simply asked a question – did the women worship Jesus on Sunday? The simple answer is “Yes”. This was a foreshadowing of what would happen in the Church now that the Messiah had completed His Sabbath rest.
Answer – You have no biblical basis for such an assumption. They were there on the Sunday because they had kept the Sabbath day…and of course they worshipped him……they were so happy to see him!
Anyways, we are to worship God everyday.
The Sabbath isn’t purely about worshipping God.
> 16. Oh, I think it is. At the very least, you have to explain why John uses a phrase to indicate Saturday that he never uses in the rest of his corpus of work. Doesn’t it seem to indicate that he’s not actually referring to Sunday?
Answer – I agree with your ending statement, although I assume you meant to say Saturday?
I don’t know why he chose to use the term the ‘Lord’s Day’. I wasn’t there to ask him. However, the ‘Lord’s Day’ or the ‘Day of The Lord’ can only mean1 of 2 things.
The Sabbath (as in Isaiah) or the 2nd coming (as in the other texts you mentioned)
Nowhere in the bible does the ‘Lord’s day’ refer to the 1st day of the week.
You’re welcome – I try not to ramble 😉
This is really commendable, good job. If you check back to the earlier link I gave you, you’ll find loads of free MP3s on Church history that should take you through the first few centuries in quite a bit of detail.
It’s also really important to any argument that anyone puts forward from Scripture on pretty much any subject. Please allow me a moment to ramble a little and give an illustration… 😉
There’s a Sherlock Holmes story called “Silver Blaze” where a pivotal clue to solving the case was the fact that, on the night when the race horse was removed from the stable, the dog did not bark. This led Sherlock to conclude that the person who took the horse must have been well-known by the dog.
In a similar fashion, when trying to assert that certain beliefs were held by the Early Church, we might have to explain why the “dog” didn’t “bark”. For example, I would assert that the Early Church believed in baptismal regeneration, the idea that baptism is not just a symbol, but actually washes away sin. We find absolutely no opposition to this belief in the Early Church. The Fathers just take it as a given. Therefore, if a modern evangelical wishes to argue that Scripture should be interpreted in such a way as to reduce baptism to mere symbolic ritual, he has to explain why the “dog” didn’t “bark”. Where were the “real” Christians in the early centuries, objecting to this superstitious notion that baptism actually did something?!
Now, it is sometimes argued that the “real” Christians were persecuted by the Catholics and that’s why we have no record. However, such an assertion has real problems. To see why, we have to ask ourselves how we know so much about Docetism, Gnosticism, Modalism, … We know about these heresies because Catholic apologists of the time argued against them, explaining why they were false. For example, St. Irenaeus of Lyons’ most famous work, “Against the Heresies”, is a series of books debunking Gnosticism. Therefore, arguments about suppression and persecution don’t really fly, particularly since one would hope that the “real” followers of Jesus would be tenacious enough to leave some mark on history.
Cool. A nice introduction would be John Martinoni’s presentation on the subject. My friend Brandon just completed a debate – I’d invite you to check it out. Called To Communion also have a rather technical article about it.
Where does Jesus say the words “I am God. Worship me?”. The exact words don’t need to be explicitly present for Scripture to teach something. Remember, the authors of Scripture did not write Scripture for the purposes of Catholic/Protestant debate. As I pointed out above, the New Testament is not meant to be a book of systematic theology or an instruction manual. If you want something like that, then the Didache is closer to it:
Foreshadowed in the feedings of the multitude, Jesus instituted the Eucharist as the sign for the New Covenant, establishing it as a memorial to be repeated by his followers. Like Catholics today, this memorial is celebrated every day, but with particular emphasis on the day of Resurrection, Sunday. Again, because of the limited data found in Scripture, we turn to history and find that this Sunday observance was universal from the earliest times.
When did the disciples on the road to Emmaus recognize Jesus? On Sunday, in the breaking of bread.
Just like Catholics today.
There’s no assumption here, just a statement of fact that the women worshipped Christ on Sunday. You asked me for an example of Sunday worship and that’s one.
Yup.
So we at least agree that a phrase can have more than one meaning? This means that the Isaiah text isn’t such a simple win for your case. Particularly given the very different contexts, one can’t simply assume that Isaiah and John are talking about the same thing. Remember, we have extra-biblical Christian literature which is contemporaneous with the Book of Revelation that refers to “the Lord’s Day” as Sunday.
But again, we come back to history and find in the Didache, Ignatius, Justin and other prominent Christians using that phrase to refer to Sunday. Just from those I’ve mentioned we have evidence that, within a generation, from Syria all the way to Europe, the association of “the Lord’s day” with Sunday. Whoever spread this idea certainly did an amazing job in an incredibly short space of time. Could it be that this idea was transported together with the Gospel?
Oh yes, and one other thing I’ve meant to bring up. You speak about Sola Scriptura, but as a Seventh Day Adventist, aren’t you also bound to assert that Ellen G. White is prophet, whose writings are authoritative?
[The gift of prophecy] is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White. As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction – SDA Website
If that’s the case, then surely you can’t hold to Sola Scriptura?
If you do hold her to be a prophet, then I think we’ve covered the necessary material in our discussion to disprove that claim, since in “The Great Controversy”, she asserted that “In the first centuries the true Sabbath had been kept by all Christians”. The Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius and Justin all prove that to be false, thus making any claim to prophethood extremely dubious. I know modern SDA scholars admit that she was wrong on this point, but I wondered what you thought about the status of her writings.
pilgrim
November 5, 2014 at 3:15 pm
Oh yes, and one other thing I’ve meant to bring up. You speak about Sola Scriptura, but as a Seventh Day Adventist, aren’t you also bound to assert that Ellen G. White is prophet, whose writings are authoritative?
[The gift of prophecy] is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White. As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction – SDA Website
If that’s the case, then surely you can’t hold to Sola Scriptura?
If you do hold her to be a prophet, then I think we’ve covered the necessary material in our discussion to disprove that claim, since in “The Great Controversy”, she asserted that “In the first centuries the true Sabbath had been kept by all Christians”. The Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius and Justin all prove that to be false, thus making any claim to prophethood extremely dubious. I know modern SDA scholars admit that she was wrong on this point, but I wondered what you thought about the status of her writings.
Answer – I am not bound to anyone, so no, I don’t agree with that comment.
I trust that, as far as I know, Ellen G White is a prophetess, I have no problem with that, but then again I have not read much of her work so cannot comment on what you said. I will look into it though.
From what I have read though, her work always points us back to the Bible and Jesus Christ.
I am not a baptised member of the SDA church, but I am doing baptismal studies.
At this moment time, I believe the SDA church to have the truth that is closest to what was taught by Jesus and his apostles.
As for your arguments for Sunday worship in the Bible, I find them weak and frankly a little childish.
So there is no point in debating those points any more sir. 🙂
But if you became part of the SDA Church, you would be, right? Since
, I would imagine they’d be binding.
That would be a good idea, particularly if you’re going to ascribe to her the title of “prophet”, and especially given her factually incorrect pronouncements concerning the Sabbath in the Early Church.
As before, I’d again point you to the Early Church Fathers. If you can’t SDA doctrine in those early centuries, before you can affirm SDA interpretation of Scripture, you must first explain why all those in the Early Church sound Catholic/Eastern Orthodox.
You can claim that, but I think I’ve responded to all your questions in a mature fashion and I didn’t even go to the stronger verses such as Hebrews 4.
Well, you’ve got some research to do anyway: the Early Church and the foundations of Sola Scriptura.
Shalom.
But if you became part of the SDA Church, you would be, right? Since “her writings are…[an] authoritative source of truth”, I would imagine they’d be binding.
Answer – As I said before, most of what I have read of hers is powerful, beautiful, poetic…and ALWAYS pointing to Jesus Christ. Until I read something of her’s that opposes what the Bible teaches, then yes, I am happy to enjoy her writings and learn from them.
As before, I’d again point you to the Early Church Fathers. If you can’t SDA doctrine in those early centuries, before you can affirm SDA interpretation of Scripture, you must first explain why all those in the Early Church sound Catholic/Eastern Orthodox.
Answer – Why would I want to explain the early church inaccuracies with scripture? Many of their teachings contradict Scripture, so they are of no use to me.
Moses in Exodus experienced people turning away from the faith in a short space of time, when he went up to collect the Commandments and came down to find them worshipping a calf.
Paul in the NT sets up churches then has to appeal to them again with a further letter as the churches are teaching all sorts of rubbish.
So, the bible shows that MAN fails very quickly after truth is given. Which goes to show that it can happen in the so-called ‘Early church’ also.
You can claim that, but I think I’ve responded to all your questions in a mature fashion and I didn’t even go to the stronger verses such as Hebrews 4.
Answer – You responded maturely. No problem with that. But the theology was weak in the extreme. Flaky, very flaky. Any sane and reasonable person would be able to see that. Sadly, logic and reason are left at the door when most people study the Bible.
Just look at those who believe God will torture lost souls for Billions upon trillions of years!!! Sad, very sad.
Powerful and beautiful do not a prophet make. A prophetess needs to be infallible in her pronouncements, not make basic mistakes in history.
(If you want powerful and beautiful, read St. John Chrysostom, St. Clement, …)
I think you’re taking too lightly what is claimed of her (at least officially) by the SDA. There are lots of Christian writers I enjoy, but I’d never give them the title of “Prophet”.
I’ll leave you to google some of her stranger teachings. The Evangelical Walter Martin had a great debate with some SDA leaders on the subject of her prophethood that would also be good for you to watch.
…according to your interpretation. For example, my guess is that you don’t believe Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. The Scriptural evidence is there (“…this is my body…my flesh is real food and drink..” etc), but you interpret it differently, in a way we don’t find anybody doing for 1,500 years. You can’t just claim that something “contradict[s] Scripture” as though there’s only one, obvious interpretation – the doctrinal chaos of the Protestant world demonstrates that.
I still don’t think you realize the full extent of what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that everybody fell away and not a single Christian had the guts to stand up for truth. There’s not a peep out of them, not at all…for over a millennia and a half…
And this is the Church which is “the pillar and foundation of the truth”, the Church which Christ said would prevail against “the gates of Hell”… It sounds to me like you’re saying that Church ceased being the pillar and foundation of the truth and that the gates of Hell prevailed. Despite this, somehow this apostate Church perfectly discerned the canon of the New Testament and successfully preserved the manuscripts until “real” Christians could re-emerge.
It’s not enough to explain it away by saying that man is flawed. You have to explain why Jesus and the Apostles utterly failed in their mission, how “real” Christianity disappeared off the face of the earth within one generation without the slightest protest and didn’t return until over a thousand years later.
As you said, you need to do more research in this area to answer these questions, so I’ll leave it at that. Feel free to come back when you think you’ve found robust answers to these questions.
God bless,
David.
I appreciate your thoughts and those of the commenters, but part of me feels like it’s much ado about nothing.
Our church has services on Friday night and Sunday morning. I’m not as concerned about when Christians choose to gather as long as they do. As Jesus said, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
If we place so many restrictions around what it means to practice Sabbath, then we lose the meaning of the Sabbath.
I love gathering for our worship services on Friday and Sunday. However, they’re not very restful for me; I don’t really experience Sabbath then. I’ve had to carve out a different day for rest and Sabbath, one that isn’t connected with being at church where I work.
Hey Scott 🙂
I meant to comment on one of your last posts to say that I’ve sent my girlfriend a list of all the release dates for Marvel movies for the next few years. She says she’s busy… :-/
Well, it is and it isn’t… Seventh Day Adventists have historically had some pretty harsh things to say about those who worship on Sundays:
Those are some pretty hefty charges!
As a Catholic, I think it is an important issue because it raises the question of Church Authority and Sacred Tradition. If one can discard the entire Christian witness of history for a theological novelty based on a private interpretation of Scripture, then I would suggest it has serious implications for every other historic doctrine of Christianity.
Ah, but what is the meaning of the Sabbath though? I’d suggest that, particularly in light of Hebrews 4 and the historic Christian understanding of the Sabbath, it is something far larger than simply one day of the week. It was foreshadowing Christ, fulfilled by Him and it is His “rest” into which we are invited.
Speaking as a former music leader, I can definitely agree with that statement! However, for the founder of Seventh Day Adventism it’s a sign of Papal corruption:
As a Protestant, I’d imagine you’d disagree 😉
Based upon what you’ve shared about 7th Day Adventist beliefs, I would very much disagree.
From my Protestant tradition, the Sabbath has been less about rest and more about doing more. In the past year and a half I’ve really been trying to understand what it means to rest, to take the fourth commandment seriously.
If I refuse to murder someone then I should also refuse to live a life without rest and Sabbath.
More than anything, rhythms of rest and Sabbath keep us in a place of meeting with God and trusting that the world will still spin even if I’m not working.
And yes, that list of Marvel movies is daunting. Especially when I think that I could potentially have kids when they’re coming out.
Well, hopefully you will view it as part of your parental responsibility to raise your children in the Marvel Faith. If left unchecked, they could end up converting to DC! :-O
Thanks for your comments Pilgrim.
I am under no illusion I have a lot to learn.
I will end with a few points however.
1 – The initial question was ‘Why Do Christians Worship On a Sunday’?
I think a more accurate question would have been ‘Why do Catholics worship on a Sunday?’
As obviously you use Early church writings – post Bible- to generate a case for it.
However, if the question was ‘Why Do Protestant Christians Worship on a Sunday?’ …..I believe it is clear that the answers are NOT in the Bible, and they too have to look to church history to backup their case.
(however, most Protestant’s support Sola Scripture, so not sure how they can argue from the Bible and the Bible alone)
2 – Ellen G White never claimed to be infallible.
I sincerely thank you for this discussion, as I have learnt from it. I trust that you too, will surrender to God’s will and continue to search for the truth. (that’s not a judgement to say you HAVE the truth, but I believe we should ALL be open and allow the Holy Spirit to work in us, in spirit and in truth)
Amen.
Well, the Fathers tell us that this was the practice of the Apostles:
However, the case is not made solely on the testimony of the Fathers. For example:
I’m not suggesting we debate this passage now. I only mention it to show that there is more Biblical data available than just what we’ve discussed. In our discussion I restricted my answers to only the specific questions you raised.
Following this discussion I might do a post after Christmas where I lay out the case for Sunday worship using Sola Scriptura presuppositions.
Although I think a good case can be made from the Bible, you are right in that it demonstrates that Protestants owe far more to the Catholic Church than they are typically willing to admit (Sunday worship, nature of Christ, the Trinity, the canon of the New Testament, …).
I’ve heard non-Catholics attempt to justify this by distinguishing between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura, although I think this is really a non-distinction.
One would have to ask: what’s the use of a prophet who can make mistakes? What use is a pronouncement that
, when what follows might not actually be correct?
I would invite you to read more of Mrs. White’s works because, although she never claimed infallibility for herself, she did claim it for her testimonies and books, saying that they were equal with that of the prophets and apostles. This is extremely problematic given her historical errors (e.g. Constantine changed the Sabbath) and many failed prophesies (e.g. the American Civil War). What was the test of a prophet in the Old Testament? (Deut 18:20-22)
I’ll sign off with a collection of some of Mrs. White’s testimony concerning her writings and quotations from SDA leaders about them. These are some pretty big claims…
Mrs. White’s Claims
“Yet, now when I send you a testimony of warning and reproof, many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You thereby insulted the Spirit of God.” – Testimonies 5, p.64.
“In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne.” – Testimonies 5, p. 67.
“If you seek to turn aside the counsel of God to suit yourselves, if you lessen the confidence of God’s people in the testimonies He has sent them, you are rebelling against God as were Korah, Dathan, and Abriam.” – Testimonies 5, p. 66.
“In my books, the truth is stated, barricaded by a ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ The Holy Spirit traced these truths upon my heart and mind as indelibly as the law was traced by the finger of God upon the tables of stone.” – Letter 90, 1906.
“In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles [c.f. Hebrews 1]. In these days He speaks to them by the testimonies of His Spirit. There never was a time when God instructed His people more earnestly then He instructs them now concerning His will and the course that He would have them pursue.” – Testimonies 4, p. 147 and in Testimonies 5, p. 661 (1876).
At that time [after the 1844 disappointment] one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error – Selected Messages, Book 3, page 31, 32, paragraph 4, Chapter Title: “The Primacy of the Word”.
I testify the things which I have seen, the things which I have heard, the things which my hands have handled of the Word of life. And this testimony I know to be of the Father and the Son. We have seen and do testify that the power of the Holy Ghost has accompanied the presentation of the truth, warning with pen and voice, and giving the messages in their order. To deny this work would be to deny the Holy Ghost, and would place us in that company who have departed from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits – Selected Messages, Book 2, page 388.
Statements from Adventist leaders
“Her (Ellen White’s) abundant literary production includes tens of thousands of Biblical texts, coupled often with detailed expositions. Careful study has shown that her writings are consistent, accurate, and in full agreement with the Scriptures.” – Seventh-day Adventist Believe, A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1988, pp. 224,225.
“The Bible and the writings of Ellen White are inerrant” – Sabbath School-Quarterly; Feb. 11, 1978, Teacher’s Edition, p. 112.
“There is hope for every remnant believer today who sometimes feels confused at all the differing views taken by different scholars and commentaries. We have that was given for the purpose of settling the disagreements among the uninspired commentaries. What do you do when the scholars disagree? Do you have to become a better scholar than the best in order to settle the disagreement in your own mind? No, let me repeat. God has given to our church an inspired commentary to settle the disagreements among the uninspired commentaries. And we can still be thankful for that today.” – Morris Venden, The Pillars, p. 30.
“We believe the revelation and inspiration of both the Bible and Ellen White’s writings to be of equal quality. The superintendence of the Holy Spirit was just as careful and thorough in one case as in the other.” – Ministry, October 1981.
“Shall we accept the view that a Seventh-day Adventist theologian is more dependable than a Seventh-day Adventist prophet? I highly respect many of our Seventh-day Adventist theologians. I have sat at their feet and been taught by them. I admire and respect them highly. I would like to remind you, however, that you can search the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and you will not find a single text marking out theologians as having the gift of the Holy Sprit. The Scriptures indicate however, that prophets have a gift of the Holy Spirit. Ellen White had that gift and she was canonical insofar as doctrinal interpretation is concerned” – Letter from D. A. Delafield trustee of the EGW Estate, to P. C. Drewer, June 24, 1981.