Charles spurgeon on roman catholicism: “a vast mountain of rubbish covering the truth

This is funny! First let me quote you again:

"The RCC said --

The Faith Explained (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that

changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name". page 243

Anyone who has read SDA literature that attacks Sunday knows that quotes like above refer are interpreted by SDA writers to refer to Constantine and the law he made! Ellen G. Whites book "the Great Controversy" and every other book, booklet written by SDA Advocates have claimed in writing for decades that Constantine change Sunday from Saturday and in every single one of the these books, booklets and articles produced by the SDA the Catholic claim above is given as their evidence.

So don't give us the runaround Bob! Your playing games and it is really simple for me to take one of many SDA writings I have on by book shelf and show that you are following the same identical argument. With those ignorant of History SDA advocates are still claiming this obselete and false claim but with those who know history SDA advocates take your approach - duplicity, deceptive and hypocritical are the words to describe the SDA history argument.

No bait and switch at all! I could have included the above quotation as well as the words quoted here.

 

As it turns out - they are not "derived at all". They are a case of primary commands from God himself rather than something derived from a primary command - they in fact are primary commands.

For example in Lev 23 the law regarding the Day of Atonement says nothing about a memorial of Creation and it is divinely inspired from God Himself.

God does not "derive" one command from the other - he speaks.

in Christ,

Bob

 

God said
Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Sixdays you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; ...
11 "" For in six days the LORD made theheavens and the earth, the sea and allthat is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

But the "traditions of man" said: Walter " Spurgeon, Moody and Pink interpreted the fourth commandment just as I do. They rejected the idea that it referred to the seventh day "of the week"

(A more catholic argument in this regard could hardly be imagined than is found in Walter's statement above)

God said --
Gen 2 –
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.


But the "traditions of man" said: Walter " Spurgeon, Moody and Pink interpreted the fourth commandment just as I do. They rejected the idea that it referred to the seventh day "of the week"

(A more catholic argument in this regard could hardly be imagined than is found in Walter's statement above --

You would have to "do the math" enough to "show" where I ever misinterpreted Spurgeon. So far you only toss out empty accusations - failing to show even one single detail in support of your wild claims.

As you may recall - this is what I quoted from Spurgeon

 

Here is what Moody said - as you may recall...

The reader is welcome to search until they are "blue in the face" trying to find a spot on this thread where Walter makes these same claims about the 4th commandment - as D.L. Moody makes in those quotes above.

in Christ,

Bob

 

David Lamb (who reminds me of Chris Lamb in some ways) then asks -

And of course as we all know - I then responded with this --

Which results in Walter making this wild claim --

Hmmm -- a review of Walter's posts on this thread is in order so we can see just how closely Walter's posts line up with that statement above by Spurgeon.

Here the trashing of God's Seventh-day that we have come to expect from Walter -

In Walter's model - Sabbath is just for Jews - a "sign between God and Jews".

In Spurgeon's model Sabbath is "edited" to apply to Christians and so Spurgeon argues directly from the language of the 4th commandment itself - as being that thing that he wants to apply to Christians. Notice the actual language Spurgeon argues for his promotion of Sabbath - language utterly missing from Walter's own affirmation and promotion of Sabbath -- in whatever form he may imagine himself doing it. The fact that Walter wants to claim he promotes Sabbath the same way D.L.Moody did - is way out of bounds in terms of the realm of reason and logic.

in Christ,

Bob

 

My response below is to the wild empty claim above about "Constantine the first to change" -

Hint - you are primarily quoting the RC Commentary "The Faith Explained". All you have from me is the statement that the RC Commentary "is the source".

Is that what you dispute -- the fact that the RC Commentary is making the statement? really? Or did you think I authored the RC commentary?


Here is the actuall statement THEY make --

The Faith Explained (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that

changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name". page 243
nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243.))

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church

Historically it is true that Constantine did make a law enforcing Sunday observance - but in the quote I gave - I make no mention of it --

My point is that the RCC itself admits to the lack of Bible support for their own initiative. I make no claim at all that Constantine alone imagined this idea.

Your efforts to conflate many seperate details in history - into a single act by Constantine is a flawed argument on your part. It is not an argument I have made here.

Err! Hold it! What ?? you have "many SDA writings on your bookshelf"??

What is up with that?

in Christ,

Bob

 

My answer to Dr Walter continued...

‘Sabbaton’

States Dr Walter, “…"sabbatou = singular and only used of the fourth commandment Sabbath…”.

“Compare the words used in Mark 16:2 with Mark 16:9! "mia" is used in verse 2 but "proto" in verse 9. The plural "sabbaton" is used in verse 2 but the singular "sabbatou" is used in verse 9.
Mark 16:2 gives the normal reading for the "first day of the week" but the change in verse 9 is intentional. "Mia" is simply the regular ordinal number "first" but "prote" refers to the first in a series. Sabbaton is the regular term used for the day following the Jewish Sabbath when used with "mia" but "Sabbatou" is the normal term used for the fourth commandment Sabbath.
Hence, Jesus arose "proii" early between 3am to 6am on the "first Sabbath of a new series" identified in verse 2 as the "first day of the week."
…
Mark 16:9 literally reads "the first sabbath in a new series" (protos = first in a new series; "sabbatou = singular and only used of the fourth commandment Sabbath) "proii" - 3am to 6am Sunday Morning!”

“Mark 16:9 literally reads "the first sabbath in a new series" (protos = first in a new series; "sabbatou = singular and only used of the fourth commandment Sabbath) "proii" - 3am to 6am Sunday Morning!”

GE:

Really bad grammar, is the only impression, I get. And worse pedagogy. Combined, a nightmare. First one must have something clear to one self, before you can teach someone else. You would have made my task to react on your ‘stuff’, much easier, Dr Walter, if you talked sense, and used at least correct Greek references. So let the learner teach the scholar.

Re: Dr Walter, “"sabbatou = singular and only used of the fourth commandment Sabbath…”

Now, “"sabbatou = singular” is wrong, in that it does not tell halve, or it tells twice as much of what is necessary to know before one may apply “=”. ‘Sabbátou’ is the Singular Genitive, and that makes the world’s difference because “singular … Sabbath” in Greek normally, means it is the Nominative, ‘sábbaton’, not Genitive, ‘sabbátou’— no implications mentioned yet!

Al right then, departing from the assumption you meant ‘sábbaton’ Nominative representing any Case, “= singular and only used of the fourth commandment Sabbath”, you’re again, wrong, and in more than one way, wrong. I’ll now point to the most obvious way in which it is wrong to say ‘sábbaton’, “= singular and only used of the fourth commandment Sabbath”. This is how… ‘sábbaton’, “= singular”, can also occur, the Singular, used for a Plurality of ‘sabbaths’! E.g., in Mark 2:27, “the Sabbath was made for man” // “Sabbaths were made / are, for man’s sake.” Or in Matthew 12:12, “it is proper to do good on a Sabbath” // “it is the proper thing to do good on Sabbaths always”. In these cases the Singular, has a Plural meaning.

 

In another category are those cases where one Gospel uses a Plural where another uses a Singular, e.g., Matthew 12:2, “Your disciples do what is not proper to do on a Sabbath”, ‘en sabbátohi’ // Mark 2:24, “do on the Sabbath, ‘tois sábbasin’, that which is not proper”. So does Luke in 6:1 use the Singular, – “on the Sabbath through the cornfields” – where Matthew 12:1 has a Plural, – “on the Sabbaths through the cornfields”. In these cases the Plural has a Singular, meaning.

In any instance the Dative depends on Context. One must be specific, is the moral of the story. And Dr Walter is totally negligent. One cannot rely on what he so easily states categorically.

Therefore, is it correct what Dr Walter warrants us, “"sabbatou = singular and only used of the fourth commandment Sabbath”? Generally speaking, ‘sabbath’, ‘sábbaton’, yes. 58 times in the Gospels, 10 instances in Acts, and two in Paul’s Letters. But there are in fact exceptions.

Most obvious exception is where it is said the Pharisee fasted “twice a week”, ‘dis tou sabbátou’— twice on a ‘sabbath’, Singular, making no sense.

Then there are all the passages containing references to one certain ‘day-of-the-week’. These are the stories of the visits to the tomb and first appearances.

Visits to the tomb:

The two Marys “intended to go have a look at the tomb, towards, the-First-Day-of-the-week”, ‘eis mian sabbátohn’, Matthew 28:1;

Mary Magdalene comes, sees the stone, runs back, “on-the-First-Day-of-the-week, ‘tehi miai tohn sabbátohn’, while being early darkness still”, John 20:1;

The women “come to the tomb with spices prepared deepest of early morning on-the-first-day-of-the-week, ‘tehi miai tohn sabbátohn’”, Luke 24:1;

“They very early sunrising on-the-First-Day-of-the-week, ‘tehi miai tohn sabbátohn’, re-inspect the stone”, Mark16:2;

Jesus “early on-the-First-Day-of-the-week, ‘proh-i prohtehi sabbátou’, appeared to Mary Magdalene first”, Mark 16:9;


Paul:

The disciples “on-the-First-Day-of-the-week, ‘en tehi miai sabbátohn’, having been assembling still”, Acts 20:7;

“On-the-First-Day-of-the-week, ‘kata mian sabbátou’, each of you put aside by himself”, 1Corinthians 16:2.

What problem can there be with interpreting ‘sabbath’, for ‘week’ in EVERY instance of these combinations of ‘time-structures’ or ‘time-phrases’? Dr Walter has a problem though with his ‘ordinals’ and ‘numerals’. Reckons he, “"Mia" is simply the regular ordinal number "first" but "prote" refers to the first in a series.” No; “"prote"”— ‘protos’> ‘prohtehi’, “first”, in Mark 16:9, is simply the regular ordinal number "first"— not, “"Mia"” > ‘miai’> ‘heis’ in “Mark 16:2”, which “gives the normal reading for the "first day of the week"”… “normal”, in Hellenistic, New Testament Greek, yes. Because here we have to do with Greek idiom.

 

Mentions Blass Debrunner (247.1.) “…das Hebräische, das alle Monatstage durch Kardinalia bezeichnet. …. ”. If therefore Hebrew would have had the same influence in “Mark 16:2”, it also would have read as in Mark 16:9, with ‘prohtehi’ in stead of ‘miai’. BD(247.1.1.), “‘Mia’ = ‘prohteh’ auch z. B. A 20:7, 1C 16:2, Mc 16:2, L 24:1; nur [Mc] 16:9 ‘prohtehi sabbátou’, wofür indes Eusebius ‘tehi miai’ zitiert.”

Mark 16:9’s ‘prohtehi sabbatou’ is therefore ‘simply’ explained by Hebrew influence, and further proves the passage was added and did not have the same author as the primitive ending. But the meaning is just the same: “The First Day of the week.”

And yes, of course, the ordinal, ‘prohtehi’- ‘on the first’— “the first in a series”; and surely, yes, on the first ‘Sabbath’=’week’, “of a new series" identified in verse 2 as the "first day of the week"”, ABSOLUTELY!

So far from, “Mark 16:9 literally reads "the first sabbath in a new series."” Because it does not literally or idiomatically read any of that, for Mark 16:9 literally reads “prohtehi” and not “"Mia"”, while “prohtehi” simply is the regular ordinal number "first" in the Dative Case of Relation, and THEREFORE “refers to the first in a series”— the ‘series’ in English idiom, “of the week”, from the Hellenistic Greek idiom for ‘of the week’, literally, “of the sabbath”- ‘sabbatou’ … Singular Possessive.

 

GE:

Christ is not your or any Christian's 'sabbath'; that is equally robbing both Christ and the Lord's Day Sabbath of their due respect and honour. No, it's more dishonouring to the Lord of the Sabbath than to the Sabbath because Christ is greater than and infinitely incomparable with the Sabbath even the "Holy Day of the LORD". So your sort of worship Christ as Sabbath .... let me have no part in it! Thanks! And He will not approve of or take part in your worship of Him if He must share his Lordship with anything else.

Do you really think you can shrug off the Sabbath just like that?! The Sabbath’s keeping is your duty as Christian; the Sabbath’s Lord, is the Lord Jesus. See that you don’t abuse your privileges.

 

Mark 16:9 and 2:27 and Matthew 12:12 are SINGULAR and in the TR the singular Sabbatou or Sabbaton depending on how they are used in a sentence are the normal reference for the fourth commandment Sabbath.

In Contrast, Mark 16:2 is PLURAL and with the term "mia" and is the normal designation for the "first day of the week."

You response that the singular has a plural meaning does not help your case one iota because the authors had the plural available and could have used the plural if they wanted that idea to be conveyed just as Paul used the plural in Col. 2:16.

 

Your argument is invalid! I never denied the fourth commandment can be referred to in the plural! I never denied the singular can be understood in the abstract generic sense. What I stated was that the singular "sabbatou" (genitive) or singular accusative "sabbaton" is the normal use for the fourth commandment and the wording of Mark 16:9 is peculiar and different from the normal expression for "the first day of the week." It is the distinctive difference along with the normal use of the singular that indicates Mark is talking about the FIRST SABBATH in a NEW SERIES of Sabbaths, etablished on "the first day of the week."

 

"A man ought to turn aside from his ordinary employment one day in seven" - D.L. Moody

"No man should make another work seven days in the week. One day is demanded for rest. A man who has to work the seven days has nothing to look forward to, and life becomes humdrum. Many Christians are guilty in this respect.

SABBATH TRAVELING

Take, for instance, the question of Sabbath traveling. I believe we are breaking God's laws by using the cars on Sunday and depriving conductors and others of their Sabbath." - D.L. Moody

Well, I am not blue in the face yet! Bob just didn't read far enough into Moody's article! Under the heading of how the Sabbath was to be observed and Sabbath traveling we find the above interpretative statements of the fourth commandment! Moody argued that the Christian Sabbath was "Sunday" but argued as well, that there are some whose occupation does not permit them to observe Sunday as their Sabbath and in such cases they ought to pick some other day.


"Businessmen travel on the Sabbath so as to be on hand for business Monday morning. But if they do so God will not prosper them.

Work is good for man and is commanded, "Six days shalt thou labor"; but overwork and work on the Sabbath takes away the best thing he has. " - D.L. Moody


"When I was a boy, the Sabbath lasted from sundown on Saturday to sundown on Sunday," - D.L. Moody


"SABBATH DESECRATION

Men seem to think they have a right to change the holy day into a holiday. The young have more temptations to break the Sabbath than we had forty years ago. There are three great temptations: first the trolley car, that will take you off into the country for a nickel to have a day of recreation; second, the bicycle, which is leading a good many Christian men to give up their Sabbath and spend the day on excursions; and the third, the Sunday newspaper.

Twenty years ago Christian people in Chicago would have been horrified if anyone had prophesied that all the theaters would be open every Sabbath; but that is what has come to pass. If it had been prophesied twenty years ago that Christian men would take a wheel and go off on Sunday morning and be gone all day on an excursion, Christians would have been horrified and would have said it was impossible; but that is what is going on today all over the country.

THE SUNDAY NEWSPAPER

With regard to the Sunday newspaper, I know all the arguments that are brought in its favor- that the work on it is done during the week, that it is the Monday paper that causes Sunday work, and so on. But there are two hundred thousand newsboys selling the paper on Sunday. Would you like to have your boy one of them? Men are kept running trains in order to distribute the papers. Would you like your Sabbath taken away from you? If not, then practice the Golden Rule, and don't touch the papers.

Their contents make them unfit for reading any day, not to say Sunday. Some New York dailies advertise Sunday editions of sixty pages. Many dirty pieces of scandal in this and other countries are raked up and put into them. "Eight pages of fun!"- that is splendid reading for Sunday, isn't it? Even when a so-called sermon is printed, it is completely buried by the fiction and news matter. It is time that ministers went into their pulpits and preached against Sunday newspapers if they haven't done it already.

Put the man in the scales that buys and reads Sunday papers. After reading them for two or three hours he might go and hear the best sermon in the world, but you couldn't preach anything into him. His mind is filled up with what he has read, and there is no room for thoughts of God. I believe that the archangel Gabriel himself could not make an impression on an audience that has its head full of such trash. If you bored a hole into a man's head, you could not inject any thoughts of God and heaven.

I don't believe that the publishers would allow their own children to read them. Why then should they give them to my children and to yours?

A merchant who advertises in Sunday papers is not keeping the Sabbath. - D.L. Moody


All the above quotes were taken from the same article that Bob claims you would have to look to your "blue in the face" to find anywhere Moody interpreted the fourth commandment Sabbath to be Sunday. Well, I am not blue in the face and could quote a whole bunch more of easy reading in the same article.




Spurgeon made the same exact statement as Moody when it came to interpreting how the Sabbath was to be observed. I have quote Spurgeon already on this.

 

I am quoting YOU as YOU are the one who quoted the RC commentary to support YOUR position that the Catholic Church claim responsibility for changing it from Saturday to Sunday! I never quoted the RC commentary to support anything I have ever said about Sunday! That was from YOUR quotation.

It is from YOUR quotation because YOU take the SDA view that Rome changed it from Saturday to Sunday and ALL SDA books and pamphlets repeat Ellen G.White's claim that this change by RC was Constantine's law.

Every SDA publication in print makes this same argument and directly accuse Constantine's law to be RESPONSIBLE for this change from Saturday to Sunday!!!

Historically it is true that Constantine did make a law enforcing Sunday observance - but in the quote I gave - I make no mention of it -- - Bob

I have discussed this subject with SDA pastors and teachers for over 35 years and I have many of Ellen G. White's books (The Great Controversy) as well as many other SDA books and pamphlets. I know what they say and what they have put into print and your denominations prophet and books repeatedly claim that Constantine was the FIRST to change the Sabbath law to Sunday.

BTW I have in my libraray writings from nearly all denominations as I am student of the writings of those I consider to be wrong. I want to know first hand what they are teaching.

 

The vitriol is so well vitriolic it is almost amusing!!!

 

While Walter finds NO first century source claiming that Christians called "week day 1" the Lord's Day -- and NOT even a first century source claiming that Christians met weekly on Sunday -- he does find an excellent list of extra-Biblical late-2nd, 3rd and 4th century sources showing the REAL language that is used when someone wants to introduce and fully designate Sunday as the Lord's Day.

I replied

Walter's "first he and" was totally made up out of thin air. I have never said anything at all about worship on Sunday starting only with the decree by Constantine enforcing Sunday worship.

continued...


in Christ,

Bob

 

Since you wildly imagine that the SDA sources are claiming that Constantine was the first person to come up with the idea of Sunday worship, and I claim that sources (such as "The Great Controversy" -- that you mentioned) say is that Contantine was the first to legislate Sunday Worship as civil law - let us look at one of those sources to see who is right.

This is from the book "The Great Controversy"

An interesting contemporary note regarding that "letter from heaven" idea introduced by the RCC --


WorldNet Daily article: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=250689

short 7 minute Movie trailer clip on Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wstPcJg3PvE


The Letter itself claims to have been written by Jesus.

It is no wonder that finding no support at all for their idea in scripture - they have to invent "A letter from heaven".

in Christ,

Bob