Ellen White & the Bible

[phkrause]

6 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

I don't know. I didn't know that there were different classifications and labels.

Unfortunately for many that's all they believe, that everyone belongs in or under a classification or some crazy label!!

[Gustave]

It appears to be established that it would be fair to say that Ellen White did promulgate that there were aliens (some of the aliens being giants) living on Planets other than earth. Ellen did not identify the specific planets  - they could be outside our Solar System but still within the Milky Way Galaxy. These alien cultures were said to have been given the holy law of God with particular emphasis on the Sabbath. 

While I believe that intelligent life other than earth  exists within the Galaxy I don't believe these alien societies have the Sabbath commandment. Moral laws yes but ceremonial laws pertaining to Israel no. 

So, it may come as a shock to some to find out I partially agree with Ellen White here. 

[Gregory Matthews]

*  I believe that it is clear the EGW believed that there was intelligent life on planets outside of our solar system.

*  I am not certain that EGWs knowledge of astronomy had any clear concept of galaxies.  She probably did not know that the Milky Way Galaxy is only one of probably millions, or more, that exist in our Universe.

*  I think that EGW also believed that the intelligent life on those planets was able to worship, get together with and communicate with God.   Probably that differed in some manner from what was given to us on Earth in what has been called the Sabbath.  The Sabbath as we know it on Earth has been adapted to our situation in which the human race has rebelled against God.  It is probably quite different than it would be on a planet where the intelligent life had not rebelled against God.

*  On this basis if I can recognize that moral laws would exit on the planets with intelligent life, I would also include some sort of an establishment of a system to worship and fellowship with God.  In a sense, that system would probably not be given our designation as a Sabbath.

*  Roman Catholics and SDAs, regardless as to how they number them, agree that there are ten (10) Commandments.  We agree that in our system there are several that govern human relationships--we do not lie, steal, murder, etc.  We probably agree that in a perfect world where the intelligent life had not rebelled against God, those same prohibitions would exist, but they might not have to be formally stated.  We would not call them ceremonial.  We would also likely agree that on those planets certain aspects of our relationship with God would exist, even if not formally stated--e.g. worship of God should be limited to the one true God.

*  From this perspective, we SDAs would consider it likely that there would be a statement related to the worship and desired relationships between God and intelligent life.   On our planet that would be what we call the Sabbath Commandment.  On those perfect planets, it might have some other name.   But, in neither should it be called a ceremonial commandment.  

 

[Gustave]

I would add that Catholics believe that all laws written on the heart are "Moral"  because that command to not steal, murder, sleep with your neighbors wife, etc. is indeed written on peoples hearts, universally - as can be seen by literally any ancient culture apart from Judaism and Christianity today. 

Every ancient culture also had a "Moral" command written on it's heart that there was something bigger than man that was due honor in the form of worship ( that part of it is Moral ). Man was not commanded by nature to observe a specific day - for that man needed to be instructed "supernaturally" - this is absolutely ceremonial because man would not know of the Sabbath anymore than he would have known about the Day of Atonement. 

If aliens really do exist God would have created them as well - they would have a moral law written in themselves but would have had to been communicated ceremonial laws to know them. 

The below is pulled from the Catechism of Trent section on the Sabbath

"With regard to the exposition of this Commandment, the faithful are carefully to be taught how it agrees with, and how it differs from the others, in order that they may understand why we observe and keep holy not Saturday but Sunday.

The point of difference is evident. The other Commandments of the Decalogue are precepts of the natural law, obligatory at all times and unalterable. Hence, after the abrogation of the Law of Moses, all the Commandments contained in the two tables are observed by Christians, not indeed because their observance is commanded by Moses, but because they are in conformity with nature which dictates obedience to them.

This Commandment about the observance of the Sabbath, on the other hand, considered as to the time appointed for its fulfilment, is not fixed and unalterable, but susceptible of change, and belongs not to the moral, but the ceremonial law. Neither is it a principle of the natural law; we are not instructed by nature to give external worship to God on that day, rather than on any other. And in fact the Sabbath was kept holy only from the time of the liberation of the people of Israel from the bondage of Pharaoh. The observance of the Sabbath was to be abrogated at the same time as the other Hebrew rites and ceremonies, that is, at the death of Christ. Having been, as it were, images which foreshadowed the light and the truth, these ceremonies were to disappear at the coming of that light and truth, which is Jesus Christ. Hence St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, when reproving the observers of the Mosaic rites, says: You observe days and months and times and years; I am afraid of you lest perhaps I have laboured in vain amongst you. And he writes to the same effect to the Colossians.

So much regarding the difference (between this and the other Commandments) ."

[GHansen]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

"This Commandment about the observance of the Sabbath, on the other hand, considered as to the time appointed for its fulfilment, is not fixed and unalterable, but susceptible of change, and belongs not to the moral, but the ceremonial law. Neither is it a principle of the natural law; we are not instructed by nature to give external worship to God on that day, rather than on any other." Council of Trent

That the Sabbath is not part of the moral law is a baseless assertion. The papacy doesn't get to define morality. Priests having mistresses, bastards and every form of debauchery was "moral" at the time of Trent. Marriage for priests was considered immoral. Burning, drowning, burying alive those who read the Bible, rejected the mass, saw the Lord's Supper as symbolic was moral, while believing in justification by faith was not. Rome has changed its position on the Sabbath through the ages. Last time I checked the Vatican catechism, it said that the NT changed the Sabbath to Sunday, while prior to Vatican 2 they boasted that the Pope had changed it. They would have been better off maintaining the authority  of the Pope to change it. It can't be demonstrated that it was changed in NT times. That its observance was required by Gentiles in NT times is difficult, if not impossible, to prove but the day was never changed.  

[Gregory Matthews]

GHansen:  In arguing  with Gustave, let us show a greater regard for truth.

*  Marriage for priests was debated several times by the ecumenical councils.  I could give you exact examples if you wante me to do so.   The debate was not on the issue of morality.  Rather it was on the issue Church (Catholic) Requirements.  I.E.  Should the Chruch require such.  In the end, the Eastern division decided to allow for priests to be married, and the Western region decided that in general priests should not be married, but that the Bishop of Rome could lawfully suspend that requirement and allow individual priests to be married.  That remains in effect for Roman Catholics to this day.  In actual fact, I have worked with a Roman Catholic priest who was married and received the permission of the Pope to be a married Roman Catholic priest.

*   You mention persecution of Christians who disagreed with doctrinal positions taken by the Roman Catholic Chruch.  In actual fact, Protestant reformers persecuted Christians who disagreed with their positions, both Protestants and Catholics.  There were Protestant reformers who burned and drowned other Protestants who disagreed with them, and also caused Catholic priests to be killed.   

*  Your comments regarding the Sabbath are also not well placed.  If we do not want our critics to cite a 100 year old statement of a long dead SDA, we should not do that for Catholics.  Paragraph 2178 of the official statement of Catholic teachings clearly placed the observance of Sunday to the apostolic age.  It does not equate that change with either the New Testament or the pope.   Further, paragraph 2175 clearly states that the Sabbath remains on the 7th day of the week, which is different from Sunday.  (See also paragraph 345.)

*  I invite you to give study to the official teachings of the Roman Catholic church.  That statement of official teachings is in a book that in my copy is 904 pages in length.  My copy has some 2,865 official statements of belief, plus more than 200 pages of helps to a study of that book.. 

[Gustave]

10 hours ago, GHansen said:

That the Sabbath is not part of the moral law is a baseless assertion. The papacy doesn't get to define morality. Priests having mistresses, bastards and every form of debauchery was "moral" at the time of Trent. Marriage for priests was considered immoral. Burning, drowning, burying alive those who read the Bible, rejected the mass, saw the Lord's Supper as symbolic was moral, while believing in justification by faith was not. Rome has changed its position on the Sabbath through the ages. Last time I checked the Vatican catechism, it said that the NT changed the Sabbath to Sunday, while prior to Vatican 2 they boasted that the Pope had changed it. They would have been better off maintaining the authority  of the Pope to change it. It can't be demonstrated that it was changed in NT times. That its observance was required by Gentiles in NT times is difficult, if not impossible, to prove but the day was never changed.  

It's simply a fact that observing a Gregorian Saturday wasn't / isn't any more written on your heart than celebrating the Day of Atonement was. Moral law is written on every person - this is why you historically see the laws that you do. 

God telling the Israelites NOT to murder didn't separate them from the other nations (because that's a moral commandment), likewise the Israelites being commanded to honor their parents DID NOT separate them from the other nations. Ceremonial law is what separated the Israelites from the other nations.  Stuff like the Day of Atonement, the Sabbath, certain foods not being eaten. 

I realize that to some SDA's this is somewhat a raw nerve - I'm sure it will get better the more thought you put it into it. 

 

[Gustave]

1 minute ago, Gustave said:

It's simply a fact that observing a Gregorian Saturday wasn't / isn't any more written on your heart than celebrating the Day of Atonement was. Moral law is written on every person - this is why you historically see the laws that you do that are part of ancient culture that had no Jewish influence. 

God telling the Israelites NOT to murder didn't separate them from the other nations (because that's a moral commandment), likewise the Israelites being commanded to honor their parents DID NOT separate them from the other nations. Ceremonial law is what separated the Israelites from the other nations.  Stuff like the Day of Atonement, the Sabbath, certain foods not being eaten. These prohibitions require supernatural means to even know about them. 

I realize that to some SDA's this is somewhat a raw nerve - I'm sure it will get better the more thought you put it into it. 

 

 

[GHansen]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

 

Gustave, The term moral law, normally, distinguishes the Decalogue from the ceremonial law; consequently the weekly Sabbath  would be considered a moral law. Some might dispute whether the use of images in Christian worship is a moral issue. Worship of the Creator is the first moral step a man can take; consequently,   idolatry is also a moral issue As I stated before, the papacy doesn't get to define what is moral, at least not for me. The morality of Sabbath observance, since it is somewhat ambiguous in the NT, would better be argued from the NT rather than the declarations of Rome. Rome has no moral authority. They have a long history of immorality including murder, fornication, adultery, blasphemy and every other form of outrageous behavior. That they have cleaned up their act in the last hundred and fifty years or so doesn't undo centuries of war against God.   

[Gustave]

21 minutes ago, GHansen said:

Gustave, The term moral law, normally, distinguishes the Decalogue from the ceremonial law; consequently the weekly Sabbath  would be considered a moral law. Some might dispute whether the use of images in Christian worship is a moral issue. Worship of the Creator is the first moral step a man can take; consequently,   idolatry is also a moral issue As I stated before, the papacy doesn't get to define what is moral, at least not for me. The morality of Sabbath observance, since it is somewhat ambiguous in the NT, would better be argued from the NT rather than the declarations of Rome. Rome has no moral authority. They have a long history of immorality including murder, fornication, adultery, blasphemy and every other form of outrageous behavior. That they have cleaned up their act in the last hundred and fifty years or so doesn't undo centuries of war against God.   

The Decalogue = ONLY the 1st 10 words (Commandments) according to Deuteronomy 5. God simply ceased talking because the Israelites were terrified  - God then continued to give the "rest of the Commandments" to Moses. 

"Go say to them, Get you into your tents again. But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it." Verse 30

God got the 1st 10 out - out of a whole bunch more "Commandments" & "Statues" & "Judgements". There is no such thing as a "10 Commandment Law" - it was ONE Law that contained both moral and ceremonial Commandments / aspects. 

This is about as straightforward as you can get. 

No one is saying that the worship of God isn't a moral commandment - it certainly IS. This is why every culture we have history on dedicated some time to the worship or honor of their god's. THE TIMING this worship takes place however is supernatural or "ceremonial" in nature as it must be "communicated" for an individual to know it. 

As Gregory has already said - Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the direct outgrowth of the Apostolic Church - thus we believe that the Apostolic Church WAS the Catholic Church and therefore any Apostolic Tradition handed down is "Catholic". When the Catholic Church says it "changed the day of worship" this is what it means - simply that the Apostles themselves did it. 

As is well  known a Pope can be a moral reprobate - this isn't germane at all to the protection Catholics claim the Pope is provided when speaking to the world Church on a matter of Faith and Morals. And as I've already shown here whatever the Papacy claims is less spectacular than what Ellen White claimed when she affirmed multiple times that she was given the power to define Doctrinal truth from error. 

I'm sorry, your either ignorant of these facts or simply ignoring them. 

 

[GHansen]

11 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

GHansen:  In arguing  with Gustave, let us show a greater regard for truth.

 

 

11 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

GHansen:  In arguing  with Gustave, let us show a greater regard for truth.

 

Pastor Matthews, Hope you can clarify a few things for me. 1) Do you believe that the papacy is a relevant moral authority for you now or has ever been in the last several hundred years, especially in the 1500's? 2) Are you suggesting that the contemporary positions of the RC church regarding marriage have any bearing on what occurred in the 1500's? I refer to the 1500s because Gustave specifically referred to the Catechism of Trent and its statements that the weekly Sabbath was subject to change and not part of the moral law. 3)Do you agree that the Sabbath is/was subject to change and that its observance is not a moral issue? 4)As for persecution by the Protestants, can you be more specific as to what you are referring? D'Aubigne, who wrote at least 13 volumes on the history of the Reformation, says that 50,000 people were killed in the Netherlands alone, during the reign of Charles V. Citing Germany specifically, D'Aubigne records little bloodshed of any kind in that country. Can you be specific upon what you base your assertion that there was persecution by Protestants in any degree comparable with that of Rome?

[Gustave]

I referred you to the Council of Trent so that you could read the most current Catechism and discover that the Catholic teaching has not changed. Has Adventist Doctrine changed since the death of Ellen White GHansen? 

[GHansen]

10 minutes ago, Gustave said:

The Decalogue = ONLY the 1st 10 words (Commandments) according to Deuteronomy 5. God simply ceased talking because the Israelites were terrified  - God then continued to give the "rest of the Commandments" to Moses. 

"Go say to them, Get you into your tents again. But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it." Verse 30

God got the 1st 10 out - out of a whole bunch more "Commandments" & "Statues" & "Judgements". There is no such thing as a "10 Commandment Law" - it was ONE Law that contained both moral and ceremonial Commandments / aspects. 

This is about as straightforward as you can get. 

No one is saying that the worship of God isn't a moral commandment - it certainly IS. This is why every culture we have history on dedicated some time to the worship or honor of their god's. THE TIMING this worship takes place however is supernatural or "ceremonial" in nature as it must be "communicated" for an individual to know it. 

As Gregory has already said - Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the direct outgrowth of the Apostolic Church - thus we believe that the Apostolic Church WAS the Catholic Church and therefore any Apostolic Tradition handed down is "Catholic". When the Catholic Church says it "changed the day of worship" this is what it means - simply that the Apostles themselves did it. 

As is well  known a Pope can be a moral reprobate - this isn't germane at all to the protection Catholics claim the Pope is provided when speaking to the world Church on a matter of Faith and Morals. And as I've already shown here whatever the Papacy claims is less spectacular than what Ellen White claimed when she affirmed multiple times that she was given the power to define Doctrinal truth from error. 

I'm sorry, your either ignorant of these facts or simply ignoring them. 

 

Gustave, it's true, I'm ignorant of a lot of things; consequently, I appreciate your willingness to dialogue with such a one as myself  The 10 words were recorded in stone, placed in the ark. The other statutes, ordinances, laws, etc, were recorded in a book, placed in the side of the ark. Amazing Facts tracts or HMS Richards Bible helps explain that very clearly. All those writings/ carvings were recorded in the book of the law, commonly known as torah. Often in the NT, the term law refers to not only the torah but the entire corpus of OT writings, including the Psalms and prophets. Your assertion that the timing of worship is ceremonial is a baseless assertion on your part. I assert that no part of the Decalogue is /was ceremonial. Not defiling my neighbor's wife involves no ceremony. The trial by ordeal for so doing, not included in the Decalogue, was a ceremony included in the torah.

"When the Catholic Church says it "changed the day of worship" this is what it means - simply that the Apostles themselves did it. " I'd be very happy for you to demonstrate from the NT that the apostles changed the day of worship

[GHansen]

7 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I referred you to the Council of Trent so that you could read the most current Catechism and discover that the Catholic teaching has not changed. Has Adventist Doctrine changed since the death of Ellen White GHansen? 

EGW is irrelevant to this discussion. She nor the Adventists carried on  a centuries long campaign to keep the Word of God from the people nor murdered others for reading it. 

[GHansen]

Gustave, Please show from the NT that the day of worship was changed from Sabbath as part of the Old covenant to Sunday as part of the New Covenant. That will settle the matter. If it can't be done, then we can both agree Sunday observance has no biblical foundation. 

[Gregory Matthews]

G 'Hansen, you have asked me a series of question.  I shall respond to you below:

1.  Papacy as a moral authority:  I consider the supreme moral authority to be the teachings of Jesus Christ,   I believe that our knowledge of those teachings to be the record as found in what Protestants call the Bible today.  I do not consider any human being, whether a current Pope, or a current General Conference President to be an infallible moral authority.  Yet, either a Pope or a GC President may at times get it right.

I differ with the Catholic Church in an important manner.  It attempts to trace its origin back to the Apostle Peter.  As a Protestant, I do not.  I give the origin of the Catholic Church a later date.  From this perspective, I find the historical records of early Christianity to be of great interest.  I see early congregations, some directly established by the apostles, struggling to find answers to common questions people were asking in that day.  [NOTE:  I once took a class that posited that those early Christian leaders dwelt with the same questions that the pagan philosophers were asking.]  

2.  Roman Catholic position on clerical marriage:  You made a statement that the Roman catholic Chruch considered clerical marriage to be immoral.  I challenged you on that.  My understanding of the Catholic position is not that clerical marriage was considered to be immoral, but, it was that the Chruch could consider clerical marriage to be prohibited with the understanding that the Bishop of Rome could make individual exceptions.  This is what I understand from my reading of the reports of those early church councils.  Perhaps I am wrong, but this is what I addressed.  Clerical marriage is one of the differences that happened when the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity split.  In addition, even in the Western branch, exceptions to the general rule were made.  

3.  Change of the Sabbath:  Church historians, both Adventist (Samuele Bacchiocchi) Protestant and Catholic have advanced their understanding as to how Christians began to hold their worship services on Sunday instead of Saturday.  In any case it is important that one accurately represent what the teaching of the Roman Catholic Chruch actually is.  The official teaching of the Roman Catholic Chruch today is:  a)  The Sabbath remains to this day to be on Saturday.  b)  During the time, after Christ, of the apostles, Christians moved worship from the Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday in honor of the resurrection of Christ.  

4.  Persecution by Protestants:  I can agree that Catholics persecuted, even to death, Protestants.  But, it is also true that in places where Protestants were in power (Think England for one example.) they persecuted Catholics.  In actual fact, the religious wars often had secular interests at heart and not just religious ones.   Secular interests were a part of issues with Martin Luther.  You might say that for every 100 Catholics persecuted by Protestants, 1,000 Protestants  were persecuted by Catholics.  Well, I do not judge morality by numbers.   Whether large or small (Catholic or Protestant) religious persecution was not right.   

 

[GHansen]

7 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

G 'Hansen, you have asked me a series of question.  I shall respond to you below:

1.  Papacy as a moral authority:  I consider the supreme moral authority to be the teachings of Jesus Christ,   I believe that our knowledge of those teachings to be the record as found in what Protestants call the Bible today.  I do not consider any human being, whether a current Pope, or a current General Conference President to be an infallible moral authority.  Yet, either a Pope or a GC President may at times get it right.

I differ with the Catholic Church in an important manner.  It attempts to trace its origin back to the Apostle Peter.  As a Protestant, I do not.  I give the origin of the Catholic Church a later date.  From this perspective, I find the historical records of early Christianity to be of great interest.  I see early congregations, some directly established by the apostles, struggling to find answers to common questions people were asking in that day.  [NOTE:  I once took a class that posited that those early Christian leaders dwelt with the same questions that the pagan philosophers were asking.]  

2.  Roman Catholic position on clerical marriage:  You made a statement that the Roman catholic Chruch considered clerical marriage to be immoral.  I challenged you on that.  My understanding of the Catholic position is not that clerical marriage was considered to be immoral, but, it was that the Chruch could consider clerical marriage to be prohibited with the understanding that the Bishop of Rome could make individual exceptions.  This is what I understand from my reading of the reports of those early church councils.  Perhaps I am wrong, but this is what I addressed.  Clerical marriage is one of the differences that happened when the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity split.  In addition, even in the Western branch, exceptions to the general rule were made.  

3.  Change of the Sabbath:  Church historians, both Adventist (Samuele Bacchiocchi) Protestant and Catholic have advanced their understanding as to how Christians began to hold their worship services on Sunday instead of Saturday.  In any case it is important that one accurately represent what the teaching of the Roman Catholic Chruch actually is.  The official teaching of the Roman Catholic Chruch today is:  a)  The Sabbath remains to this day to be on Saturday.  b)  During the time, after Christ, of the apostles, Christians moved worship from the Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday in honor of the resurrection of Christ.  

4.  Persecution by Protestants:  I can agree that Catholics persecuted, even to death, Protestants.  But, it is also true that in places where Protestants were in power (Think England for one example.) they persecuted Catholics.  In actual fact, the religious wars often had secular interests at heart and not just religious ones.   Secular interests were a part of issues with Martin Luther.  You might say that for every 100 Catholics persecuted by Protestants, 1,000 Protestants  were persecuted by Catholics.  Well, I do not judge morality by numbers.   Whether large or small (Catholic or Protestant) religious persecution was not right.   

 

We're not that far apart, Pastor Matthews. Regarding the issue of clerical marriage, whatever happened in earlier times, by the time of the Reformation, clerical marriage was verboten. If it was allowed in certain cases, it was so rare to be a non issue. D'Aubigne remarks, more than once, that the irregular lives of the clergy disgusted even ordinary citizens and pushed them into the Reformers camp, even though the people in question were not particularly religious. D'Aubigne indicates that it was more or less an unforgivable sin for former RC priests to marry during the Reformation era. Immorality was quite common among the RC priesthood and considered normal but Christian marriage was a sin for the clergy.

Having been employed in a woman's prison, I once observed the RC chaplain kissing a woman in the chapel. I discovered that he had been a married Anglican priest who converted to Roman Catholicism and was allowed to keep his wife who, I assume, he was kissing in the chapel. As he explained it, it was not a common practice and married RC priests, even though they are legitimately so, serve in rolls such as he was rather than more public settings. The RC Code of Canon law allows/did allow for baptism by immersion but how many RCs do you know who have been immersed?

Gustave quoted the Council of Trent catechism which states that the Sabbath was subject to change and its observance not a moral issue. I disagree with that. He or his partisans are welcome to demonstrate from the NT that the Sabbath was replaced by  Sunday. Its importance to the Gentiles in NT times is another issue

As for the issue of persecution, comparing that of Protestants to Catholics in the era of the Reformation would be like comparing the racial disparities in Adventism to the KKK. There is simply no comparison. Anabaptists were the general recipients of persecution from Protestants. It was usually not a death sentence. If it was, it was visited upon recalcitrant individuals who had been previously warned. Chapter 10 of William's Radical Reformation assigns  its origins to the Diet of Speyer in 1529. The ruling was based upon the Code of Theodotion, originally directed against the Donatists who practiced rebaptism around the year 400. Both RC and Protestant/Reformed opposed the Anabaptists but some Protestants, such as Phillip of Hesse, were very sympathetic to their cause and their well being.

I suspect that religious persecution against RC during the reign of Elizabeth was greater than earlier times; however, it must be remembered that to be RC in England at that time,  was tantamount to wanting to overthrow Elizabeth. I doubt that there were many executions based on religious matters alone.  Sedition and treason  were as great a factor as heresy. That goes especially for the priests. I stayed, for a time, on the premises of the Holy Family church in Roseville, CA. My friend, one of the priests there, often lamented the abuse of the priests during the reign of Elizabeth, not mentioning that any one of them would have plunged a dagger into her heart if given the opportunity.

[Gustave]

8 hours ago, GHansen said:

EGW is irrelevant to this discussion. She nor the Adventists carried on  a centuries long campaign to keep the Word of God from the people nor murdered others for reading it. 

That's a gross misrepresentation of history and patently false. 

 

8 hours ago, GHansen said:

Gustave, it's true, I'm ignorant of a lot of things; consequently, I appreciate your willingness to dialogue with such a one as myself  The 10 words were recorded in stone, placed in the ark. The other statutes, ordinances, laws, etc, were recorded in a book, placed in the side of the ark. Amazing Facts tracts or HMS Richards Bible helps explain that very clearly. All those writings/ carvings were recorded in the book of the law, commonly known as torah. Often in the NT, the term law refers to not only the torah but the entire corpus of OT writings, including the Psalms and prophets. Your assertion that the timing of worship is ceremonial is a baseless assertion on your part. I assert that no part of the Decalogue is /was ceremonial. Not defiling my neighbor's wife involves no ceremony. The trial by ordeal for so doing, not included in the Decalogue, was a ceremony included in the torah.

"When the Catholic Church says it "changed the day of worship" this is what it means - simply that the Apostles themselves did it. " I'd be very happy for you to demonstrate from the NT that the apostles changed the day of worship

How well would over 600 Commandments fit into that Ark - you're arguments in this way have served to establish that Judaism's worship was Liturgical - as was the Apostolic Church. Is your worship Liturgical? 

Amazing Facts - I get it now!

As for your point about no part of the Decalogue being ceremonial....

Exodus 16, 23

And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning

Looks like "the Sabbath" was supernaturally communicated to Moses so he could communicate it to Israel. Granted, Walter Veith or Doug Butachlor might be able to find a proto-Jesuit casting spells and sprinkling holy water hiding in plain sight but I disagree with those fantasies.  The Fact was that Moses didn't know what or how to worship God. 

Exodus 10, 23 -25 clearly says Moses had no idea with what or how they would worship the Lord - this is Scripture affirming the Sabbath was unknown prior to it being supernaturally communicated to Moses  in Exodus 16. Now of course if you want to refer to the Sacred Traditions of the SDA Church and claim that Abraham, E.T.'s, etc. all kept the Sabbath I'd like to work my way through those understandings with ya - if possible. 

Here is a little list for you to consider - pertaining to ceremonial commandments that were supernaturally conveyed. 

Passover - unto the Lord - Exodus 12, 42

Exodus 13, 12

Exodus 16, 23 (the Sabbath)

Exodus 29, 18

Leviticus 23, read the 1st two verses and note that the Sabbath is the 1st feast of the Lord mentioned. 

You want to talk about the Sabbath, that's great - let's talk about the Sabbath. 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

GHansen:  Perhaps we may not be far apart.  However, you may find the following of interest:

 

https://www.wayoflife.org/database/protestantpersecutions.html

http://www.christcommunitystudycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Religious-Persecution-During-the-Reformation.pdf

https://www.libertymagazine.org/article/reformation-tolerance-and-persecution

 

[Gustave]

9 hours ago, GHansen said:

Gustave, Please show from the NT that the day of worship was changed from Sabbath as part of the Old covenant to Sunday as part of the New Covenant. That will settle the matter. If it can't be done, then we can both agree Sunday observance has no biblical foundation. 

I can show from the New Testament that Christians are to "assemble themselves" together (Hebrews 10, 25). 

I can show from the New Testament that Christians were "assembling themselves" together on the 1st day of the week (Acts 20,7 - 1 Corinthians 16, 2 - 1 Corinthians 11, 18-29. 

And before you claim this was a common meal realize that ALL the ancient Church's, be they Catholic or Eastern Orthodox all maintain that the term breaking bread referred to the Eucharist. 

1st Corinthians 11, 18 clearly says, "WHEN YE COME TOGETHER IN THE CHURCH" [that sounds like Christians assembling themselves together to me]. The next part of that Scripture says that referenced Christians were abusing the Eucharist - in other words when those Christians were "assembling themselves" they were taking part in the Lord's Supper. 

We know from 1 Corinthians 16, 1 that Paul "ORDERED" all the Churches in Galatia & Corinth to be in one place on the 1st day of the week . Answer this for me GHansen, what day is it that generally ALL SDA's in an SDA Church would see their Pastor or perhaps Bishop out of all days of the week? If you say Saturday I'll say that's because THAT'S when SDA assemble themselves together. According to Scripture the early Christians "assembled themselves together" on the 1st day of the week. 

Therefore when you read somewhere where someone says that the Catholic Church started the practice of assembling on Sunday, celebrating the Eucharist that's correct, Paul and the other Apostles (early Catholic's) did do it. 

Something tells me that you couldn't justify the Investigative Judgement in 1844 as easily as I just showed from the New Testament why the majority of Christians assemble themselves together on the 1st day of the week. 

 

 

[GHansen]

There are three types of texts which concern the breaking of bread 1) Those that are obviously a common meal; 2)those that are obviously the Lord's Supper; t3) those that are ambiguous. The ones obviously referring to the Lord's supper, in every case, mention both the cup and the bread. Those obviously referring to a common meal mention the bread only. In the case of the ambiguous passages, the cup is never mentioned; consequently, we must conclude that a common meal is being described.

Acts 20:7,11 describe a meeting on the first day of the week Jewish time, Saturday evening according to Roman time. The disciples had come together for a meal and Paul preached to them. No mention of the cup.

Acts 2: 42,46 describe common meals, referring to the broken bread with the usual word for food [2:46] No cup mentioned.

Acts 27:35 Common meal in which the broken bread is referred to as food, same as Acts 2:46.

These are all common meals . In two cases, the broken bread is described as food.

1 Corinthians 10:16 is obviously referring to the communion service mentioning both the cup and the bread. The bread is referred to as "the communion of the body of Christ." It's not called "food."

In the gospels, common meals never mention the cup. The three accounts of the communion service in Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention both the cup and the broken bread. The meal at Emmaus included bread only, no cup. It was an ordinary meal, as were all the feedings of large crowds mentioned in the gospels. 

1 Corinthians 16:2 doesn't say anything about anyone assembling together. 1 Corinthians, mentioning both the cup and the bread refers to the day of our Lord but doesn't say which day it is. Very good text to demonstrate that references to the communion include both the cup and the bread.

 

[GHansen]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

see above

 

[GHansen]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

GHansen:  Perhaps we may not be far apart.  However, you may find the following of interest:

 

https://www.wayoflife.org/database/protestantpersecutions.html

http://www.christcommunitystudycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Religious-Persecution-During-the-Reformation.pdf

https://www.libertymagazine.org/article/reformation-tolerance-and-persecution

 

Pastor Matthews, One can always count on Baptists of most stripes to criticize Protestant Reformers. The term "Anabaptist' has a wide range. The Anabaptists of the 1500s were not the Amish and Mennonites of Pennsylvania. Many were revolutionaries and anarchists, involved in insurrection and even murder , which is why Luther wrote so vehemently against them. Luther is faulted for being antiSemitic as well, based on his treatise, "On the Jews and Their Lies." Never hear a reference to "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew" which considers the matter in an entirely different light. "Anabaptists" were, in no small part, given to violent uprising, some to polygamy  and various other irregularities. Many were fascinated by peripheral issues having little to do with the central theme of Reform i.e., justification by faith.   I spent time with an Anabaptist group in Central America. Great people, really. Some were vegetarians. Anabaptist farmers practically fed  the  nation. I agree, theologically, with them in areas where I differ from the magisterial Reformers but considering the excesses to which some were prone in the times of Luther, I understand, at least in part, his views. Generally speaking, SDA are not great friends of the Reformation. Most are entirely uninformed about the theological issues  of those days. Great Controversy provides an introductory narrative history but leaves the theological issues untouched. One SDA scholar posited that few SDA have any idea as to the third use of the law, for example. EGW said that the day of the Augsburg Confession was one of the greatest days in the history of mankind.  Few SDA have any idea what it contains. Lack of information is essential to maintaining the cultic mentality which has permeated Adventism.

[GHansen]

On 7/13/2021 at 8:32 AM, phkrause said:

deleted

 

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, GHansen said:

There are three types of texts which concern the breaking of bread 1) Those that are obviously a common meal; 2)those that are obviously the Lord's Supper; t3) those that are ambiguous. The ones obviously referring to the Lord's supper, in every case, mention both the cup and the bread. Those obviously referring to a common meal mention the bread only. In the case of the ambiguous passages, the cup is never mentioned; consequently, we must conclude that a common meal is being described.

Acts 20:7,11 describe a meeting on the first day of the week Jewish time, Saturday evening according to Roman time. The disciples had come together for a meal and Paul preached to them. No mention of the cup.

Acts 2: 42,46 describe common meals, referring to the broken bread with the usual word for food [2:46] No cup mentioned.

Acts 27:35 Common meal in which the broken bread is referred to as food, same as Acts 2:46.

These are all common meals . In two cases, the broken bread is described as food.

1 Corinthians 10:16 is obviously referring to the communion service mentioning both the cup and the bread. The bread is referred to as "the communion of the body of Christ." It's not called "food."

In the gospels, common meals never mention the cup. The three accounts of the communion service in Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention both the cup and the broken bread. The meal at Emmaus included bread only, no cup. It was an ordinary meal, as were all the feedings of large crowds mentioned in the gospels. 

1 Corinthians 16:2 doesn't say anything about anyone assembling together. 1 Corinthians, mentioning both the cup and the bread refers to the day of our Lord but doesn't say which day it is. Very good text to demonstrate that references to the communion include both the cup and the bread.

 

 

Show me where in the New Testament that you're reading that Christians were celebrating the Eucharist on the Sabbath day. As I have already said, all the Ancient Churches be they Catholic or otherwise affirm that that term Breaking Bread referred to celebration of the Eucharist. This group would even include the Churches who only accept up to the 3rd Council of the Christian Church. 

The practice of starting observance of the Sabbath day on the evening of the 6th day is a Tadmudic Rabbinical invocation. Jewish Scholars admit this as do Christian Scholars. See Matthew 28, 1

"IN the end of the Sabbath, as it BEGAN to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene...."

If BEFORE dawn Sunday it was still part of the Sabbath there goes your "Jewish time" argument. 

The Jewish Religious Authority was well known for ADDING to the Commandments so as to add another layer of protection. In this case the addition was to build a buffer around the actual commandment. 

The Commandment said to honor the Sabbath "DAY" - According to Genesis 1, 5 God call the light DAY and the Dark NIGHT. 

Furthermore in Leviticus 23 when the Sacred Feasts (ceremonial times) of the Lord are described the Day of Atonement stands apart in that - THAT specific Feast Israel was on the 10th Day of the 7th month however the D.O.A. included special instructions that Israel was to start observing that 10th DAY on the evening of the 9th day. 

"Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the Lord your God. For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. And whatsoever soul it be that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people. Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath."

That Sabbath [ the D.O.A.] was to be observed from the evening of the 9th day through to the evening of 10th day. There is zero help here for those appealing to Talmudic Rabbinical 7th day Sabbath worship. 

Prior to discounting this read Exodus 23 paying close attention to verses 23 - 26 and ask yourself when did tomorrow become today apart from Talmudic Rabbinical Tradition? 

Work calls so I'll have to pick up on this discussion later.