Izzy wrote: > Of course it is slanted; it was written with great > contempt by the Catholic church, poking insults > at Protestants. Why? Because the very folks who > left the CC to cling to "scripture only" have never > lived by "scripture only" when it comes to obeying > the Sabbath commandment.
For the sake of accuracy, I must point out that the article at http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/chalng.htm was NOT written by the Catholic church. It was written by Seventh Day Adventists and re-published in a Catholic periodical. The fact that you mistakenly thought that the Catholic church wrote it reveals just how slanted the article was. My guess is that the Roman Catholics probably published it to show how foolish the Protestants are to follow sola scriptura and to laugh at the Protestant infighting. Perhaps they also just wanted to present the other side. The best way to find out is to examine the original documents, which I have not done. There is an assumption by the article that Christians who worship on Sunday do so because the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. Clearly, the Bible does not indicate any such change, so that is easy to prove. Nevertheless, this argument does not satisfy the matter because early church history shows that the change to Sunday was done not because the Sabbath was changed, but because the law of the Sabbath was nailed to the cross and done away with. Christians like Michael Douglas or myself might assemble on Sunday simply because we recognize no commandment against it. I have at times assembled on Saturday instead of Sunday, but I didn't do it because there was a commandment that I needed to do that. Consider the following passage which was quoted often by Christians of the second century for why they met together on Sunday: "When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isa 1:12-18) Izzy wrote: > The reason all of Christendom worships on Sunday is simply > because the CC decided, a century later, that it should be on > Sunday-the CC that believes Tradition overrules Scripture. This is what the Seventh Day Adventists who wrote the article have led you to believe, but this is not the truth. I realize that my view of history is not readily received by many who have been under Protestant and Roman Catholic history, but in my opion, Roman Catholicism did not exist during the second century. Izzy wrote: > The article goes thru every mention of worship in the NT > to point out that in each and every instance it shows that > the early Believers honored the Sabbath. It refers to > "that pious fraud, the Bible Sabbath." The New Testament believers did by far and large observe the Sabbath. It was there culture to do so. I suspect that if we lived in Israel today, most of us would readily worship the Lord on the Sabbath also. I only hope that it would not be because the letter of the law demands it. Izzy wrote: > If Michael D. would read this article he would notice that > Acts 2:46 states, "And they, continuing daily in the temple, > and breaking bread from house to house.", explains why > they were "breaking bread" on the first day of the week. > They did it every day! This happened scores of years earlier and in a different city than the "Lord's Day" verse it is being compared with (Acts 20:7). I don't think the believers in Troas met "daily in the temple" because the temple was not in Troas. Nevertheless, the passage indicates that Paul and his team abode in Troas for seven days. It would be ridiculous to think that saints waited until this last day to meet with him and his team. Surely they must have had week long revival meetings every day. Izzy wrote: > It also points out that at no time was Sunday referred > to as the Lord's Day or the Sabbath-it was only > called "the first day of the week". Arguing from silence is not proof. I believe that the "Lord's Day" was Sunday because our earliest historical records clearly tie the phrase "Lord's Day" to Sunday. The article's approach to "the day of the Lord" being connected with "the Lord's day" and thereby being what John referred to in Revelation was absolutely ridiculous. I had serious problems with the article as a whole with regard to scholarship. Izzy wrote: > So again I say, you should not criticize and insult Believers > who differ with you on this (ie: "you need counseling"), as > this is a very unloving way to treat your brethren in Christ. I agree whole heartedly with you on this point. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
