If you listen to what Adventists say about the sabbath, and replace the word "sabbath" with "Jesus", you hear the truth. If you don't replace it, you hear false teaching about a day of the week. This has often been pointed out to me, and I've found it works a lot of the time. But not alway as clearly as this post on the "Jesus is a Zebra" blog.
Acts 13:42-44 (KJV) - And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Acts 13:14 (KJV) – But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.Act 13:42 – And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.Acts 13:44 – And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. Further information:Acts 13 – do Christians keep the Sabbath in Acts?Acts 13…
Adventists claim that there are biblical examples of Christian sabbath observance in the book of Acts.
If Paul observed Sunday and wasn't keeping the sabbath by preaching in the synagogues on the sabbath, why didn't he just tell the people to come to his sermon the next day ...
God does not change. The Bible tells us this. Adventists need to stop using those verses as proof texts that the sabbath doesn't change. Those passages refer to God, and, unless Adventists think the sabbath is God, those passages do not refer to the sabbath.
If Adventists are right, even remotely right, there must be some biblical instruction in the Old Testament that the sabbath is God's decreed day of worship. But there isn't ...
The Catholic Church simply doesn't have the influence in modern society to get such a law right, even if it wanted to. It will never happen anyway, but if it did, the world would have to change a LOT. It would be an extreme law, requiring a situation much different to that of today.
It is worth pointing out that in John 7:19-23, Jesus points out that circumcision takes priority over the sabbath, and lists the sabbath as an example of the law of Moses.
In Part 1 we looked at a striking and honest Adventist acknowledgement of the type of dishonesty that forms part of Adventist culture. Here we'll look at specific common examples of how dishonest Adventists spread fake facts and fake history.
Adventist Today: "We have in this denomination nurtured a class of people who have little regard for verifiable truth. Some lie intentionally and boldly, such as those who altered that article and passed on the letter as factual. Of the rest, it is unclear to me whether they lack the ability to distinguish a spurious story from a true one, or just prefer to believe any bit of mythology that feeds their hunger for novelty, and affirms their fears. ... They preferred titillating myths ..."
Some Adventists and sabbatarians like to claim that the reformers knew that keeping the sabbath was biblical, but they kept Sunday instead because the Holy Spirit hadn't led them to that light yet. Other dishonest Adventists and sabbatarians like to quote Protestant "admissions" that there is no reason to observe Sunday and that the Bible teaches that we should be keeping the Saturday sabbath.
This is a useful summary of the biblical evidence against sabbath observance and for Sunday observance.
Some Christians don't like to celebrate the events in Jesus' life, and they follow a pseudo-Jewish calendar that includes passover and the other Jewish holy days.
Three times the Bible refers to Passover as the Passover of the Jews. John 2:13, John 6:4, John 11:55.
Did Jesus die on a Friday and rise from the dead on a Sunday? Or did he die on a Wednesday or Thursday? And did he rise from the dead on a Saturday?
With no weekly 7th day sabbath under the New Covenant, Christians chose the most important day of the week to hold as special - Sunday, the day Jesus rose from the dead.
Adventists like to distinguish between the law of God and the law of Moses, between a moral law and a ceremonial law.
Matthew 5 says not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until all is fulfilled and until the heavens and earth pass away. Adventists claim, then, that the sabbath law is still in effect.
Adventists quote selectively to make it look like many Christians assembled on the sabbath, every sabbath. It's clear from the source documents that they fasted on the sabbath, in memory of Jesus being in the tomb - it wasn't a sabbath observance like the Jews and the Adventists have.
St Patrick is imagined to be a Sabbath keeper by many Adventists. The two writings we have of his, the Confession of St Patrick and his Letter to Coroticus, say nothing about the Sabbath.
The section Adventists quote is about the 10 commandments, and amongst the 10 commandments is the commandment about keeping the sabbath. The document is not instructing Christians to keep the sabbath. It's citing the 10 commandments. That's not honest quoting on the part of Adventists.
Several times in the Old Testament, and twice in the New Testament, we see Israel's holy days listed in various time-based sequences, usually from frequent to infrequent (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, multi-annual). Not every list covers all 5 frequencies, but you see that they are listed in a logical order.
Col 2:16 is therefore best interpreted as: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an [annual] holyday, or of the new moon, or of the [weekly] sabbath days" ... thus following a time-line of annual, monthly, weekly.
Today, leading up to the centenary of Ellen White's death, we pray for Adventism, which teaches rest on the 7th day, and objects when we celebrate Christ's resurrection on the 8th day. We pray that they may discover that their rest is in Christ, that we are not bound by days that were signs of the Old Covenant, that they may commemorate the new creation in Christ, instead of the old creation in Adam, and that they may celebrate our exodus from sin and not…
Seventh-day Adventists think that in the end times, they will be persecuted by Sunday-keeping Christians, and by Catholics in particular. Why? Because they think observing the weekly sabbath according to some, but not all, of the Old Testament sabbath laws, will be the test commandment, the test that shows they are the true followers of God.
Exodus 16 is the very first time in the Bible when anyone is told to keep the Sabbath. What has just happened is that Israel has come out of Egypt. If we compare Exodus 20 to Deut 5, we get two things that the Sabbath represents. 1 - creation (in the Exodus text). 2 - coming out of Egypt (in the Deuteronomy text). God's intention must have been to have a dual symbolism there.
The short answer, no, but that won't satisfy Adventists and other anti-Catholics. Over at Almost Not Catholic, Brent has a good article debunking Adventist claims - Myth Buster: Constantine Founded the Catholic Church.
Here we look at Catholic explanations, showing that this concept of the 10 Commandments being part of the Old Covenant legal code, and therefore not the legal code in effect today, is indeed believed by Catholics and supported by Catholic teaching.
In the first part of this series, we saw that the Sabbath commandment is one of the 10 Commandments, that the 10 Commandments are the words of the Old Covenant, and that the Sabbath was the sign of the Old Covenant. In Part 2 we looked at the New Covenant's legal code, and saw that the 10 Commandments are no longer binding as a legal code under the New Covenant. Now we'll look at how the 10 Commandments still apply to Christians.
In the first part of this series, we saw that the Sabbath commandment is one of the 10 Commandments, that the 10 Commandments are the words of the Old Covenant, and that the Sabbath was the sign of the Old Covenant. Now we'll look at what the New Covenant's legal code is, and what the 10 Commandments are under the New Covenant.
If you ask the average Christian, "Should we obey the 10 Commandments?" they will likely say "Yes." Enter the Adventist, who then asks why the average Christian doesn't keep the 4th commandment, which states that we should keep the Sabbath. ... The Decalogue was the actual set of words making up the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was replaced with the New. Even Paul acknowledges that the law written on stone has been replaced.
St John Chrysostom makes a very interest point: 9 of the 10 Commandments were part of natural law, known to man before the 10 Commandments, and therefore not in need of any explanation. The Sabbath commandment was not like this - it needed to be revealed, and that is why it did not remain binding when the Mosaic Law came to an end - it was not part of natural law.
Catholics (and most other Christians) believe Sunday is a special day to be celebrated, because it is the day Jesus rose from the dead. The Jews kept the Sabbath on Saturday, and this is reflected in the 10 Commandments. However, only the moral code of the Old Testament is applicable to Christians - we don't need to sacrifice animals, keep Passover, Yom Kippur, or the Sabbath, and we are free from the dietary restrictions as well.
The late Adventist scholar Samuele Bacchiocchi was influenced by the teachings of Herbert Armstrong, and promoted the observance of Jewish holy days instead of Christian holy days. In his Endtime Issues #43 he rearranges the historical evidence to form a revised version of history to support his arguments. He beautifully provides us with a typical example of how historical evidence is misapplied.
Something I wanted to develop for sometime, because it is only partly dealt with in my post on Matthew 5, is whether or not the law has been fulfilled, and whether the heavens and earth have passed away. Teresa Beem goes further in her blog post The Sabbath, It is Finished. She also points to "I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matt 26:29)…
A controversy arise, initiated by me, disputing his claims. The Gregorian University initially disputed all of the above. Later they were shown to be wrong on some important points, but several matters still remain unresolved, and unfortunately are perpetuated in Adventist / Sabbatarian circles, and in copies of his book.
Over at Answering Catholicism, Erol is making some interesting claims about the Catholic Church. Apart from subscribing to the long discredited Vicarius Filii Dei = papal title myth, he has a number of less unreasonable articles about Catholicism, to which he objects.
Hi I am curious and am searching on why should we keep the Sunday worship. That is the only question I want to know can you please tell me the answer. I'm not good with the computer So please can you explain.
On some issues, Bergami was wrong. On the rest, it seems that Bacchiocchi will let them go. In light of this, I apologise to Samuele Bacchiocchi for the trouble my inquiries have caused him. My questions were justified, and brought greater clarity as to the relationship between his thesis, his promotors, and the Catholic Church. But I never wished for someone to provide misleading information the way Barbara Bergami did. What her motivations were, and how well she investigated the matter, are not known. How…
One of the comments there is worth highlighting. It's a wonderful example of how the Sabbath gets read into the New Testament Christian life without biblical support. "Sure, Korsman is right about there being no command in the New Testament to keep the Sabbath, and no clear cases where the New Testament Christians kept it ..." Stark admission. But that's where it ends.
Adventists tell us that the Bible commands Sabbath keeping for Christians. All the verses mentioning the Sabbath in the New Testament (apart from the Gospels) are discussed [link]. Not one commands Sabbath observance, and not one gives an example of Christians keeping the Sabbath.
On the XCG blog, Jared has compiled an extremely detailed analysis of Bacchiocchi's two responses to the Gregorian Controversy. What interests me the most is the Imprimi Potest. There is a detailed discussion of the Imprimatur/Imprimi Potest at XCG, comment 91. How did it turn into an Imprimatur?
If Gregorian has been telling the truth about the Bacchiocchi issue, then the outcome is clear - Bacchiocchi will be put in perspective, and Gregorian retains respect. On the other hand, if Gregorian has NOT been telling the truth ... what then?
Bacchiocchi says his submission to Gregorian and Bishop Murray will be ready in about 10 days.
Michael Schiefler has been trying to squeeze more water out of a stone on his anti-Catholic website. I commented on it before. He seems to think he has the name of the Pope that changed the Sabbath to Sunday nailed down - Pope Sylvester I. Scheifler is basing his claims on second-hand information based on what are probably spurious documents.
Bacchiocchi's Response to False Allegations Pt 2 has been posted on-line by Bacchiocchi. One has to wade through a lot of information, such as recommendations for his book, that really do nothing to prove his side of the story. If you cut it down to the necessary facts, does he really provide solid evidence? He provides a good case. But a lot of it remains unverified. His explanation of the process of publishing his thesis is convincing. Does anyone out there have a copy of…
Obviously, then, the challenge to the Catholic comes on several fronts; first, we must examine the argument that the seventh-day Sabbath was truly "given as a sign forever, and a perpetual covenant"; next, we must show from Scripture that the apostles did, in fact, worship on Sunday; finally, we have to answer the accusation that it was a pope (or council) who imposed the change, and that this was not done until (at the earliest) the mid-to-late 4th century.
Today Bacchiocchi published the first part of his response to their allegations in his Endtime Issues newsletter number 159, which can be found on his website. In the next, I hope to see his explanation of a) the imprimatur, b) the continued use of the imprimatur on an edition for which it was not obtained, c) the use of the name of Gregorian University Press on newer editions in a way that looks official, and d) evidence of the initial publication by them.
Samuele Bacchiocchi has said that he will be posting scanned images of his certificates on his website as part of a statement against the allegations made by Gregorian University regarding his credentials and claims about his PhD and his dissertation. We all hope to see that statement soon, but while we wait, here are a few scanned images he sent me a while back.
Which chapter of his full dissertation did Samuele Bacchiocchi publish for the purposes of obtaining his PhD? I.e. the Tesina, published in 1975. He claims that one chapter was published. He claims that three chapters were published. He claims that the published chapter was chapter 5. He claims that the published chapter was chapter 7. He claims that the published chapter was in fact three chapters - the first three chapters. He claims that the Tesina was 117 pages long. He claims that the Tesina…
Two other blogs have taken up the topic of Samuele Bacchiocchi's credentials and the allegations that they are not what he says they are. Gregorian University apparently denies that he got his PhD summa cum laude, that he received any medals, that his book was given an imprimatur, and that they printed it.
It looks like the controversy surrounding Adventist scholar Samuele Bacchiocchi's claims regarding his credentials and his thesis have once again sparked discussion. So, finally, after more than 2 years, Bacchiocchi is going to make a formal statement. It will certainly be interesting. Will he be able to provide verification for any claims he makes in his statement, any images he produces? Will the authenticity of any documentation he produces remain in question, or be resolved? Will Gregorian respond, or will they relegate him to the…
As for snide remarks, Kissell and Bacchiocchi seem to have much in common. Not the same denomination, but birds of a feather.
There are two well-known quote from Socrates' Ecclesiastical History. I am sure most Adventists and those who have come across what they teach are familiar with them. By taking away context, they hide the truth that these were not Sabbath keepers, but Sunday keepers who had retained the Sabbath as a custom.
He chopped out the word "commandments" in Exodus 16:28, and replaced it with "Sabbaths" - he may well be quoting from the Clear Word Bible, but I am not sure of that. The Clear Word Bible is an Adventist composition that makes tremendous changes to the actual text in order to support Adventist teachings.
Adventists often make the claim that Catholicism claims to have changed the Sabbath. They then cite their proof - unofficial texts, usually newspaper quotes, statements that disagree with the official Catholic position. This is a classic Adventist ploy. I've discussed it further here. Without that, Adventism can't pinpoint which pope they claim changed the Sabbath.
If people are not willing to be civil, to engage in reasonable discussion, I'm not interested. I have no time for rhetoric and misguided propaganda. How can they claim to be answering Catholicism when they aren't able to even represent its teachings properly when they disagree with them? They can serve as an example ... that's all such a discussion can do. So here it is.
In summary, this seems to be a denomination on the very fringe of Christianity, even further out than the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, who also have a peculiar set of beliefs. They appear to be Oneness Pentecostals ... who, in my experience, are not good at honesty when it comes to Catholicism and others they disagree with.
On AllExperts, there are two useful articles on the Sabbath and soul sleep, by a Catholic responding to Adventist questions.
Samuele Bacchiocchi's book "From Sabbath to Sunday" attempts to discredit the claims of Protestants and Catholics that Sunday observance is an Apostolic institution, and promotes the idea that it was a later Catholic development. In his latest newsletter, Bacchiocchi mentions that his alma mater, the Gregorian University, has negated several of his claims about his credentials.
This is the passage that Adventists follow in their sunset to sunset idea of the Sabbath. Most of them don't realise that this is part of the Mosaic law that they consider abolished, because it does not refer to the Sabbath, but to the Day of Atonement. The author cleverly conceals this fact with "..." and then lies about what the passage is describing.
If we use the meaning of the Hebrew to translate it "Recognise the Sabbath day," that destroys the Adventist position that God was telling them to look into the past.
Often one sees Adventists quoting Catholic sources to show that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday. Usually these quotes are either from sources that are not real sources of Catholic teaching (e.g. newspapers) while others are taken out of context.
"From one week to another, and from one month to another..." NOT thinking of the Jew's weekly feasts or monthly feasts, but simply of the continual passing of times of continual worship to YHWH.
Sunday, not Saturday, is the Christian Sabbath. To continue to observe the fourth commandment on the last day of the week is to deny, by implication, the coming of Christ and his once and for all redemptive work. On the other hand, observing Sunday testifies to the fact that Christ has conquered sin and death so that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
I find it odd, as a frequently used argument by Adventists is that the offerings on the first day of the week mentioned in 1 Cor 16:2 were put aside on the first day because collecting them on the Sabbath would have been breaking the Sabbath. Are Adventists today breaking the Sabbath by taking up such collections? Or is it just a bad argument?
These verses point out that the Sabbath was a sign between GOD and ISRAEL, that it was given as a sign of the OLD COVENANT, and that this covenant was NOT made with their fathers. Scripture speaks of God giving ISRAEL the Sabbath, not MAN, and NOT anyone before the time of Moses. It was to the people at the time of Moses that God first made known his Sabbath. With these verses, and a total lack of any text in the Bible that indicates…
Matt 5:17-19 is actually a key verse for refuting the Adventist position. Jesus says that not one jot or tittle will pass from the law UNTIL all is fulfilled. This implies that a point WILL come when ALL IS fulfilled. Let’s look at texts like Heb 7:12, 2 Cor 3:6-14; Heb 7:12; John 19:28-3, and Acts 15 (where a law given directly by God to Abraham, and called a perpetual law for ALL Abraham’s generations, is abolished by a council of the Church.) Here we…
Adventists will tell you that this passage, particularly verse 23, shows that in the Kingdom of God, we will be keeping the Sabbath. That is a typical Sabbatarian twisting of that text. The text says that people worshipped FROM one Sabbath TO the next. It does NOT say that people worshipped ON one sabbath AND the next. If you understood Hebrew and/or English grammar, you would realise that this refers to continuous worship on Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday and again the…
Sabbatarians often use this text to show the importance of the Sabbath, and even that Adam kept the Sabbath. But the words "Adam knew about the Sabbath" are not in the text. The text does NOT say that Adam rested. It says that GOD rested.
Yes, 72 Sabbaths spent preaching to unbelievers in a service organised by unbelievers. That was not a Christian worship service. In fact, every single such Sabbath gathering mentioned in Acts is of the same type - a NON-Christian service that some Christians were also attending to witness to those who had not yet accepted Christ. If your local Adventist pastor spent 72 Sundays preaching to Sunday-keepers in a Sunday-keeping church hall, would he be keeping Sunday? No ... by the same logic, these texts are…
Adventists state that it was Paul's manner to witness in the synagogue on the Sabbath, and from that they conclude that he worshipped there too at the same time. The text does not use the word "worship" and the word "manner" does not imply worship either.
Acts 16:13 is different to the other references to the Sabbath in Acts, but nothing in this text suggests this was a Christian worship service. Yes, it was the Sabbath, but that is simply the day of the week on which it occurred. Just like at times other days of the week are named, there is NOTHING in this text that implies that this was a Sabbath service. Christians can and do worship on ANY day of the week - this was nothing special.
Acts 20:7 refers to a Christian worship service that was held on the first day of the week. According to the text, the service began AFTER the sunset which signaled the start of the first day, so it wasn't even a continuation of a service that began the day before. A look at the grammar of the text in a reliable English translation, and better still, the original Greek, will prove wrong the claims by some Sabbatarian groups that this was a Sabbath service that…
Hebrews goes through a list of OLD Covenant signs and compares them to the NEW Covenant reality. If Hebrews is to be consistent in its treatment of these Old Covenant signs, the Sabbath must be treated the same was as circumcision, lambicide, and priests. Adventists claim that the Sabbath is different in this case, that it continues for Christians today, based on Heb 4:9.
Paul was writing to Gentile Christians who had converted from paganism and adopted a strict Jewish way of life - going from one pointless extreme to another. They were keeping Jewish law strictly, so the days they kept were not pagan holy days. If we read the preceding chapters, we will see that Paul is talking here of the same ritualistic trappings, only this time in Judaism. He mentions circumcision in chapter 2 and he mentions the observance of days in chapter 4. The Gentiles…
The important phrase is "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." If Christians were expected to observe the Sabbath, Paul would be encouraging them to keep the Sabbath, trying to convince them of a certain point of view, not giving them freedom to do what they feel is right. He would not say that both those who ate meat and those who did not eat meat both gave thanks to God, right alongside saying those who keep the day honour God by…
Paul starts by mentioning that the law is nailed to the cross, and he goes on to mention a few laws as examples. One law that he mentions is the Sabbath. Sabbatarians try to argue that this word does not mean the 7th day Sabbath in this context. That argument is unscriptural and illogical for two main reasons.
Some Adventists try to avoid accepting that Jesus appeared on the Sunday of his resurrection, and the Sunday after that. But Luke 24:29 is pretty explicit that this was STILL Sunday. Look at the wording. In my RSV, it says that "it is TOWARD evening and the day is far spent." This says that the day is NEARLY over, but still the same day ... not yet Monday, sunset has not yet passed. This is a desperate attempt to defuse the evidence by destroying ANY…
God also refers to circumcision as a perpetual covenant in Genesis 17:11-13, to incense as one in Exod 30:8, to the Levitical priesthood as one in Exod 29:9. All these so-called perpetual covenants have been done away with at the cross. Just because they are called perpetual covenants does not mean that their purpose will never come to an end. Circumcision was for ALL Abraham's generations, yet although we are part of that people, circumcision if not necessary for Christians. The same goes for the…
Any Sabbath observance that Jesus did would have to explained to people who did not keep the Sabbath and who were unfamiliar with it. And therefore, when we see that Jesus' Sabbath visit to the synagogue was actually explained, we need to ask WHY it needed to be explained. And, if we look at what the Bible and history show about first century Gentile Christians, we see that Luke needed to explain Jesus' Sabbath customs because the Christian Gentiles were not familiar with the Sabbath…
Adventists claim that these passages show that the Sabbath is still in effect, and Christians are obliged to keep it. They claim that Mark 2:27, in saying that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath, proves that the Sabbath was not given to Israel alone, but to all mankind. ... By removing the verse from its context, Sabbath keepers turn the meaning around. This is a well-documented logical fallacy, called the false dichotomy. The verse, out of context, is presented as…
The Sabbath command is the only one of the Ten Commandments which can be altered in any way, because only it is a part of the ceremonial law. This is taught by the Roman Catechism issued after the Council of Trent: "The other commandments of the Decalogue are precepts of the natural law, obligatory at all times [and for all people] and unalterable. Hence, after the abrogation of the Law of Moses, all the Commandments contained in the two tables are observed by Christians, not…
The decision of the Apostles was that the Old Covenant laws did not apply to Christians except for "meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." No mention of the Sabbath. This is a far stronger argument than Adventism's argument from silence. This is a list if things that Gentile Christians were told to do. If they had to keep the Sabbath, then it would have to have been included in this list. It was not included. That says…
Yes, Acts 13 is referring to a Sabbath service, but look where the service is! Is this a Christian service, organised by Christians, for Christian worship? Or is this a Jewish service, organised by Jews, for the usual synagogue service that had been going on in the synagogues for decades prior to Christ's lifetime? ... Where does Acts 13 use the word "worship" in relation to the actions of Paul? Nowhere - not one of the words used indicates worship by Paul. The text of…
Many Adventists continue the principle of the Pharisees that dictates how far one may walk on the sabbath before one is considered to have "worked." Apart from places where the term "sabbath day's journey" is used, they have no support for this in the Bible.
1 Cor 16:2 is quite good evidence for regular Sunday observance. It shows that every week - regularly, weekly - on a certain day, the people collected money for mission work done by Paul. This day was the first day of the week. The passage does not directly state that there are worship services on the first day of the week, but one can deduce from the context that this had to be so. The money was brought together weekly to one place - when…
To walk too far on the Sabbath was to break the Sabbath, and Christians should pray not to break the Sabbath by having to flee Jerusalem on that day. ... He, who permitted the saving of a sheep's life on the Sabbath by pulling it from a pit, who told the paralysed man to get up and carry away his bed on the Sabbath, said we should pray not to have to break the Sabbath by saving our own lives?
If I understand the Catholic position correctly, they say the Pope did not change the Seventh Day Sabbath to Sunday. They contend this was done by the Apostolic Church and there is no record of a "Pope" making the change, but it was done on authority of the Catholic Church.
If Jesus preserved his Church at all times, and did in fact remain with it at all times as he promised, then the inescapable conclusion is that the Catholic Church of the first, second, third, and later centuries is the Church to which he made these promises. Such a conclusion is unacceptable to the carnal mind, and so several Christians who choose not to accept the biblical authority of the Church have tried to find a way around this. They usually turn to the Albigensians,…
Prof Samuele Bacchiocchi is one of the Adventist Church's leading scholars. Recently he has written a response to the papal encyclical Dies Domini (The Day of the Lord). In this essay I have responded briefly to some of his claims. I have not done an exhaustive study on the matter, as time does not permit that. Perhaps that will come in time.
Seventh-day Adventists teach that the moral law laid down by God through Moses is still intact today, and must be kept (though they, unlike their founder Ellen White, do admit that salvation does not come through the keeping of these commandments.) They also teach that the ceremonial laws laid down by God through Moses are no longer in effect today - we need no longer observe ritual purification like the ancient Israelites did, nor need we sacrifice lambs at Passover. However, they teach that the…
Apostolic Letter Dies Domini of the Holy Father John Paul II to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Catholic Church on keeping the Lord's Day holy
@CatholicAndSDA
Recent comments