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 doing so, and those who don’t also honour God by not doing so, if the Sabbath were indeed as important as Adventists claim it is.
Apr 11 2004
Apr 11 2004
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.
Apr 11 2004
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 Sunday visits by Jesus. But the Bible again proves the Adventist position wrong.
Apr 11 2004
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 Sabbath.
Apr 11 2004
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 at all. So, surprise! The text used to prove that Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath, actually helps prove that Christians do NOT need to do that!!!
Apr 11 2004
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 presenting two points (the false dichotomy) – the Sabbath was made for man, or the Sabbath was made for Jews. But in context, the actual dichotomy is between the legalist/Pharisee perspective (the Sabbath was more important than those keeping it) and Jesus’ perspective (the Sabbath was made to serve those keeping it.)
Dec 31 2003
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 indeed because their observance is commanded by Moses, but because they are in conformity with nature which dictates obedience to them
Dec 27 2003
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 a lot.
Nov 27 2003
I know people who, because of a few comments in Ellen White’s book The Great Controversy, have a great fondness for the Albigensians (or Cathars), who were also considered heretics. Many were killed for their faith. These Cathars were very different from the Waldensians. They believed that Jesus was an angel, denied Jesus was really a man who died and was resurrected, and believed the Old Testament came from Satan. They discouraged marriage. They were in their day what David Koresh’s Branch Davidians are in ours. Were they heretics or martyrs? Could they be both?
Nov 27 2003
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 Acts 13 itself demonstrates that Paul is NOT observing the Sabbath. The assumption that his presence in the synagogues on the Sabbath means his observance of it as a holy day is a mistake Sabbatarians make because they want to find texts where the Apostles keep the Sabbath. In fact, there are NO such texts in the entire Bible!
Nov 27 2003
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.
Nov 27 2003
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 else but the weekly day of worship? What better day to collect such donations than the day on which the Christians came together as a group? If they kept the Sabbath, then this would have been the Sabbath. But it was Sunday Paul chose, which indicates that Sunday was an easier day to collect things into one place than the Sabbath was.
Oct 08 2003
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?
Nov 05 2001
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.
Dec 10 1999
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, Waldenses, and other heretical sects to try to find a “true church” outside of Catholicism, but always in existence. If they can’t find such a church, they must either accept Catholicism, or consider Jesus to be a liar.
Apr 25 1999
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.
Sep 14 1998
In what follows, I would like to try to prove two things – a) the three tribes were NOT defeated by the papacy, and were NOT the only three tribes to be defeated like they were, and b) the most essential part of this SDA prophetic scenario will be debunked when it is shown that the neither the Western Roman Empire, nor the nations of Western Europe, fit into the “10 horn” image of Daniel/Revelation. Because there were NOT 10 “horns” or kingdoms in this area at this time, it is totally ridiculous to say that these 15-20 nations represent a 10-horned beast !!! Without that, none of the SDA’s claims can be applied to the papacy, simply because they have found the papacy in entirely the wrong place, and have grossly misunderstood what the Bible, specifically the book of Daniel, is saying. It is obvious to me from the study I have made into the SDA theory that the SDA Church simply has no clue about what the facts really are.
Jul 19 1998
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 Sabbath, because it is part of the Ten Commandments, is part of the moral law, and not part of the ceremonial law. Are they right ? I had a debate on IRC with several Adventists defending their views, and managed to get nothing out of them except the claim that the Sabbath was moral law because it was part of the 10 Commandments. But they were totally unable to explain WHY.