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

I said no such thing! I said that SDA sources say that Constantine was the first to "CHANGE" Saturday to Sunday worship not that he was the first to come up with the "idea" of Sunday worship." Very subtle and very deceptive Bob!

 

What a purely deceptive lie of the devil! I have placed in front of your face numerous times the historical and Biblical use of "kuriakos" in Rev. 1:10 where it is the ONLY New Testament reference to "the Lord's day" we have and the use of "kuriakos" by Paul in 1 Cor. 11:20! YOU CANNOT OVERTURN THE EVIDENCE and so you deceive and lie! Every Jew and every Christian and every Roman citizen reading Revelation 1:10 would instantly recognize John is referring to "Sunday" and all you can do is cause diversion from the facts as this is the obvious New Testament reference that all those 2nd century quotes are referring to.

 

I am trying to find a post where Walter was able to answer the points raised.

still looking...

oh WAIT -- we have 1Cor 11 as Walter's "answer" for the much needed "week day 1 is the Lord's Day" or maybe "the Day of Christ's Resurrection is called the Lord's Day"...

1Cor 11
19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.
20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper,



ahhh -- so sad for that wild rabbit trail idea of Walters. Another dud - trying to find in 1Cor 11:20 "Week day 1 is the Lord's Day" or possibly "Sunday is the Lord's day" or even "the day after Sabbath is the Lord's Day", or how about "the day after the 7th day is the Lord's Day" or even "The week day of Christ's Resurrection is remembered each week as the Lord's Day" (obviously we would not want to confuse weekly with an annual celebration like easter).


Walter's list of excellent examples of how one DOES say "Sunday is the Lord's Day" or at least "The day of Christ's resurrection is the Lord's Day".

But sadly - they are all post-first century - extra-biblical man-made tradition.

Yet notice how "distinctly" (the extra-biblical post-first century sources) make the claim that Sunday is the Lord's Day -- and that each weekly Sunday is to be celebrated in honor of Christ's resurrection.

THAT is the kind of explicit and affirming language that you use when you are trying to introduce something like a holy day.

HINT: "Remember the Sabbath day to KEEP IT HOLY.. God blessed the Seventh-day and Made IT Holy" -- and so the man-made tradition above appeals to very much the same language for Sunday.

How deafening the silence of SCRIPTURE by contrast to the actions of man when man-made tradition is trying to establish its own sanctified day of worship.


No Wonder Christ said in Mark 7 --

7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

And this begs the question of how it is that error could have come into the Christian church by so soon a time as the middle of the 2nd century A.D. -


in Christ,

Bob

 

Your observation is clearly beyond dispute.

However there are some instructive points being raised here for our Catholic friends.

1. The thread opens with quotes of Spurgeon making some rather negative observations about the Catholic Church when it comes to doctrine and tradition.

2. GE then immediately turns the point - asking if Protestantism is not endorsing the very practice they claim to condemn regarding tradition vs "Sola scriptura" testing of doctrine -- when it comes to the 4th commandment. This point was not totally lost on Catholic sources in the past --

3. The resulting discussion actually has many non-Catholics arguing the very same "tradition over the Bible" claims in favor of Sunday as Spurgeon was complaining about. That is more than a little helpful to the Catholic POV if you ask me. Even the vitriol used on this thread is not totally unlike what we see said against "heretics and Jews" in places like Lateran IV -- so even that part of the dark ages is in some sense being affirmed here.

4. When you combine this with the virtual affirmation that they are making on this thread for the very same arguments Catholics make from John 6 regarding the literal flesh and blood eating that is being taken as the true meaning during the Lord's Table -- in the same way as the literal "rise kill and eat" (the literal rat-roast idea in Acts 15) no matter the focus on "call no man unclean" in the actual text of scripture --
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1650988&postcount=136


Conclusion: While a surface reading may simply see "so much whining" going on in these subjects -- in fact what is happening is that the two foundational points of Catholicism are being defended.

1. Tradition plus scripture -- the defense of week-day-1 as the "Lord's Day" based solely on post first century ECF sources after finding in close review of scripture that NO text of scripture (no not one) states that the Lord's Day is the day of Christ's resurrection, or is Week-day 1.
2. The idea of "flesh and blood" in John 6, being affirmed in the Acts 10 argument for eating unclean foods - where the same idea is used for taking a symbolic action literally instead of just applying the spiritual principle.


Thus You have a more complete picture of the Catholic-affirming arguments that are brought to the surface (being made in spite of themselves) in these debates. And the affirmation is at the level of foundational first-principles that establish Catholicism.

And interestingly enough - the non-Catholics making these arguments are inclined to do so all of their own accord with very little if any Catholic debate on the subjects in question. (You're welcome)

in Christ,

Bob

 

Still ignores the universal recognition of "kuriakos" during the first century. Revelation 1:10 and the Greek phrase "en ta kuriaka hamera" was recognized by every citizen in the Roman Empire in the first century to be SUNDAY, that was set apart for the observance of worship of the god/man. The Second century writers use the same phrase translated "The Lord's Day" which they explicitly define as "Sunday" or "the first day of the week" or "the eighth day" and all equally the "resurrection" day of Christ.

 

Dr. Walter
Quote:
............
Still ignores the universal recognition of "kuriakos" during the first century. Revelation 1:10 and the Greek phrase "en ta kuriaka hamera" was recognized by every citizen in the Roman Empire in the first century to be SUNDAY, that was set apart for the observance of worship of the god/man. The Second century writers use the same phrase translated "The Lord's Day" which they explicitly define as "Sunday" or "the first day of the week" or "the eighth day" and all equally the "resurrection" day of Christ.

GE:

Dr Walter makes this conclusion from the ASSUMPTION : 'kuriakeh hehmera' was the name for the 'Day of the emperor'. Which is a plainly, INCORRECT assumption, the 'Day of the Emperor' having been derived from ‘basilikos / 'basileukos' - 'boss', 'king' etc. and NOT from 'kurios'. [As I have shown before but was arrogantly waved!]

'Kuriakeh' is an absolutely New Testament, Christian, term, INTRODUCED into the Greek vocabulary by Christians. Therefore every Jew and every Christian and every Roman citizen hearing or reading the word 'basilikos' or derivatives like (perhaps) 'basileukeh hehmera' would instantly recognize the Emperor's Day of worship— the “Day of the Lord Sun” (literally so inscribed on sarcophagus), whereas CHRISTIANS, reading Revelation 1:10 would instantly recognize John is referring to the day which the Christian’s Lord our Lord Jesus declared, He, "the Son of Man, is Lord"!

 

1. Still appeals to the pagan doctrine rather than the bible doctrine on Mark 2:27 where Jesus is "Lord of the Sabbath" with absolutely NO indication at all in scritpure that "week-day 1" (as scripture calls it ) is actually "The Lord's Day".

2. That would be like taking the term for "propitiation" in 1John 2:1 and applying it ONLY as would pagans in the first century - using only paganism as your "sola scriptura" test of doctrine.

How sad that our Protestant friends find it so difficult to test their doctrines "sola scriptura".

That would make it "appeasing the angry and fickle deity" -- a complete destruction of "God so love the World that HE GAVE".

Indeed Walter has unwittingly exposed the utter lack of Bible support in his argument saying that we must establish Sunday worship on two pillars.

1. The view and testimony of pagans in the first century - NOT Christians.
2. The mid to late 2nd century "man made traditions" that crept into the church slowly.

The "elephant in Walter's living room" in that case is that WHEN an author WANTS to establish Sunday as the Lord's day- they SAY IT! (As his man made traditions do in fact say it). Thus the Bible silence on that point is deafening particularly when you consider how often the NT makes reference to Sunday as merely "week day one" instead of "Lord's Day" and that not ONCE do we see "Lord's Day" defined in the Bible as "The resurrection day" or as "week day 1"!!

Very instructive for the unbiased objective Bible student.

in Christ,

Bob

 

A few years ago Bob Ryan and I somehow 'clicked' on the interpretation of Galatians 4:10, that it speaks of the Galatians converts RETURNING TO PAGANISM in that they "observed days" etc..

I at one stage asked Bob what his Church says about his viewpoint, and he answered they do in fact oppose him with regard to it.

But Bob Ryan I remember, did not clearly conclude that Sunday worship was the thing involved under "observation" of “days, months, seasons years", primarily and pertinently.

I wonder, dear Bob Ryan, what your viewpoint now-a-days is ….

 

GE:

Dear Bob, Dr Walter's elephant has gone blue-rotten. He disregarded the Galatians' FIRST century pagan idolatry, and said it was Seventh Day Sabbath-keeping. The 'lord' sun's', very own "day" : "YE (first century "back-falling" 'Christians',) SUPERSTITIOUSLY DIVINED" = 'paratehreisthe'. Dr Walter calls ‘seventhdayism’.

 

GE:

True : “NO text of scripture (no not one) states that the Lord's Day… is Week-day 1.”

UNTRUE : “NO text of scripture (no not one) states that the Lord's Day is the day of Christ's resurrection.”

“Thou art My Son, THIS DAY have I begotten Thee, as concerning that He RAISED Him from the dead

Back a.s.a.p. D.v. ….

 

“God hath FULFILLED GLAD TIDINGS IN THAT He hath RAISED UP JESUS again : AS IT IS WRITTEN : also in the Second Psalm, Thou art MY son THIS DAY I have begotten Thee ... THIS DAY even as concerning THAT HE RAISED HIM UP from the dead no more to return to corruption … BUT : WHOM God RAISED again, saw no corruption … be it known THEREFORE : that through THIS MAN is preached forgiveness of sins … and BY HIM all that believe are justified … FOR I WORK A WORK … preached … Sabbath … For SO hath the LORD commanded : I SET THEE TO BE A LIGHT THAT THOU SHOULDEST BE FOR SALVATION …”
Acts 13. “That ye may know WHAT, is the EXCEEDING GREATNESS of His Power : TO US-WARD who believe : according to His MIGHTY POWER WHICH GOD WROUGHT IN CHRIST WHEN HE RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD : AND SET HIM at his own right hand in heavenly LORDSHIP FAR ABOVE all PRINCIPALITY and POWER and MIGHT and DOMINION and EVERY NAME that is named not only in this world but also in that which is to come : and hath PUT ALL thing UNDER his feet, and gave Him to be HEAD over all things TO THE CHURCH … ENTITLED : The all in all fulfilling _FULLNESS-OF-GOD_.”

Here is the definition and obtainment of Christ’s LORDSHIP … “that I should preach the unsearchable RICHES OF CHRIST … and make all see WHAT is the FELLOWSHIP-OF-THE-MYSTERY WHICH from the BEGINNING of the world HATH BEEN HID in God who CREATED all things by Jesus Christ TO THE INTENT that NOW unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God ACCORDING TO THE ETERNAL PURPOSE which He purposed in Christ Jesus our : _LORD_ … for THIS CAUSE (Christ resurrected) I bow my knees unto the Father of our : _LORD_ : Jesus Christ … unto _HIM-THAT-IS-ABLE-TO-DO exceedingly abundantly ABOVE ALL that we ask or think … unto HIM BE GLORY in the Church— by Christ Jesus” … RESURRECTED … throughout all ages world without end. THEREFORE ….” IS Christ, “Lord”. .

Paul never spoke word OTHER THAN to the glory of Christ’s LORDSHIP based on the fact and living truth of his RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD. So every other author of the Glad Tidings

“We declare unto you Glad Tidings, how that THE PROMISE WHICH …” of the Lord Jesus Christ “… was made unto the fathers GOD HATH FULFILLED THE SAME unto us …”— “He would RAISE UP CHRIST TO SIT ON HIS THRONE” … “I foresaw THE LORD : always BEFORE MY FACE FOR HE IS ON MY RIGHT HAND.” “The LORD said unto my Lord, SIT THOU on My Right Hand … THEREFORE : know assuredly that God hath MADE the same Jesus WHOM ye have CRUCIFIED : BOTH LORD AND CHRIST!”

“Being MADE PERFECT” Christ through RESURRECTION from the dead, “became AUTHOR” and “Lord” “of eternal salvation”. Hb5:9 “Salvation belongeth to the _Lord_” Ps3:8. “O God the Lord, Strength of my salvation, thou hast COVERED MY HEAD IN THE DAY OF BATTLE”— with glory and Lordship… Ps140:7. “The Stone which the builders refused (and crucified) is BECOME THE HEAD STONE of the corner : THIS IS THE LORD’S AVAILING … THIS IS THE DAY THE LORD HATH MADE … Save now O LORD O LORD!”

There is no doubt for “them who believe” “that the Lord's Day is the day of Christ's resurrection.”!

 

LORD'S DAY
(he kuriake hemera):

1. Linguistic:

Formerly it was supposed that the adjective kuriakos (translated "the Lord's") was a purely Christian word, but recent discoveries have proved that it was in fairly common use in the Roman Empire before Christian influence had been felt. In secular use it signified "imperial," "belonging to the lord"--the emperor--and so its adoption by Christianity in the sense "belonging to the Lord"--to Christ--was perfectly easy. Indeed, there is reason to suppose that in the days of Domitian, when the issue had been sharply defined as "Who is Lord? Caesar or Christ?" the use of the adjective by the church was a part of the protest against Caesar-worship (see LORD; THE LORD ). And it is even possible that the full phrase, "the Lord's day," was coined as a contrast to the phrase, "the Augustean day" he sebaste hemera), a term that seems to have been used in some parts of the Empire to denote days especially dedicated in honor of Caesar-worship.

2. Post-Apostolic:

"Lord's day" in the New Testament occurs only in Revelation 1:10, but in the post-apostolic literature we have the following references: Ignatius, Ad Mag., ix.1, "No longer keeping the Sabbath but living according to the Lord's day, on which also our Light arose"; Ev. Pet., verse 35, "The Lord's day began to dawn" (compare Matthew 28:1); verse 50, "early on the Lord's day" (compare Luke 24:1); Barn 15 9, "We keep the eighth day with gladness," on which Jesus arose from the dead." I.e. Sunday, as the day of Christ's resurrection, was kept as a Christian feast and called "the Lord's day," a title fixed so definitely as to be introduced by the author of Ev. Pet. into phrases from the canonical Gospels. Its appropriateness in Revelation 1:10 is obvious, as John received his vision of the exalted Lord when all Christians had their minds directed toward His entrance into glory through the resurrection. - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Second Century Ante-Nicene writers used "kuriakos" for the resurrection day and it was well known to be the day when Ceasar was to be acknowledged as "Lord" and therefore it was also a test of faith for Christians whether they would acknowledge Ceasar or Christ as "Lord."

What you fail to understand that it was not called the "imperial" day but the "Lord's" day because the Emperor required the confession of faith that he was "Lord" as the god/man. He did not require a confession that he was "Emperor" as none denied that. Hence, the use of "kuriakos" reflected the confession called for on that day.

 

GE:

What do argue for?

I say ‘kuriakos’ is an original CHRISTIAN word and concept; you counter with a denial, “Formerly it was supposed that the adjective kuriakos (translated "the Lord's") was a purely Christian word, but recent discoveries have proved that it was in fairly common use in the Roman Empire before Christian influence had been felt”— that TOTALLY concludes ‘kuriakos’ is an original CHRISTIAN word and concept?!

You aver, “In secular use it signified "imperial," "belonging to the lord"--the emperor--and so its adoption by Christianity in the sense "belonging to the Lord"--to Christ--was perfectly easy” but FAIL to give a single incidence of such supposedly “secular use”!

The only example of “common use in the Roman Empire before Christian influence” you do mention, “in the days of Domitian, when the issue had been sharply defined as "Who is Lord? Caesar or Christ?"” IS : “Post-Apostolic”?!

My dear Dr Walter, your logic surpasses my feeble understanding.

Those “recent discoveries” ONLY EXIST in the imagination of the bad scholars who wrote ‘International Standard Bible Encyclopedia’. I would be ASHAMED if I were one of them.

 

Ceasar worship existed during the apostles times. Indeed Augustus claimed to be "the Son of god" and "Lord" of the empire and demanded to be acknowledged that way in the imperial cult. The Jews were excepted from this acknowledgement and at first so were the Christians because they were considered at first to be offshoot of the Jews. However, by the time the apostle John was Pastor at Ephesus the Christians were viewed distinct from the Jews and were required to confess that "Ceasar is Lord." John was exiled because he refused to acknowledge Ceasar as Lord. His example was repeated over and over again for the next two hundred years in stadiums where that refusal met a horrible death by animals or gladiators.

1. It is on the imperial day that this confession was required and that is precisely why it was known as the "kuriakos" day because Ceasar required that day to be observed with the words "Ceasar is Lord."

2. Post-apostolic Christianity was well aware that "the Lord's day" was "Sunday" and said so in a number of ways distinguishing it from the Jewish day of worship.

3. If you take the position it was a Christian invention then it obviously had its root in the New Testament usage (2 Cor. 11:20; Rev. 1:10) and identified by post-apostolic writings as Sunday.

 

GE:

Your International Standard Bible Encyclopedia gives the correct Greek word for ""the Lord's day"" which in fact was, "Sunday"— GRANTED! That ‘Greek’, though, was, quote, “the phrase, "the Augustean day" he sebaste hemera” AND NOT, “the "kuriakos" day”.

And granted, Christianity ‘adopted’ the phrase ‘kuriakeh hehmera’ in contrast with and in opposition to “heh sebasthe hehmera”; would it not be ironic denoted both expressions the same day, Sunday?!

 

Formerly it was supposed that the adjective kuriakos (translated "the Lord's") was a purely Christian word, but recent discoveries have proved that it was in fairly common use in the Roman Empire before Christian influence had been felt. In secular use it signified "imperial," "belonging to the lord"--the emperor--and so its adoption by Christianity in the sense "belonging to the Lord"--to Christ--was perfectly easy. Indeed, there is reason to suppose that in the days of Domitian, when the issue had been sharply defined as "Who is Lord? Caesar or Christ?" the use of the adjective by the church was a part of the protest against Caesar-worship (see LORD; THE LORD ). And it is even possible that the full phrase, "the Lord's day," was coined as a contrast to the phrase, "the Augustean day" he sebaste hemera), a term that seems to have been used in some parts of the Empire to denote days especially dedicated in honor of Caesar-worship. -ISBE

Be honest with the quote.

1. The writer states clearly that the "adjective kuriakos"....signified 'imperial'" before the Christians adopted it.

2. That early Christians used the adjective "kuriakos" to "protest against Caesar-worship" which would be a meaningless protest if that term was not employed in Ceasar Worship.

3. The writer says it was used in contrast to "he sebaste hermera" not synonomous as you want to suggest.

Both Paul's and John's use of this adjective was well known to all these Christians and will you argue that John used it in Revelation 1;10 to signify ceasar worship or his devotion to Caesar??????? Don't think so, and neither would those Christians who followed John use the term for Ceasar worship as is quite evident by the context in which they did use it! They knew exactly how John used it, to honor the resurrection day of Christ, as John was no doubt exiled for his refusal to acknowledge "Ceasar is Lord" on the very day dedicated to profess "Caesar is Lord" - Sunday instead of the day of Saturn worship!

 

GE:

I am honest with the quote.

You saying “The writer states clearly that the "adjective kuriakos"....signified 'imperial'" before the Christians adopted it”, is not being honest with the quote, but the very opposite of what the quote says: “…recent discoveries have proved that it was in fairly common use in the Roman Empire before Christian influence had been felt.” Emphasis mine to show you, that you allege “the "adjective kuriakos"” came TO Christians, and that they then, “adopted it”— whereas the ‘quote’ states the stupid anomaly “that it was in fairly common use in the Roman Empire before Christian influence had been felt” implying “Christian influence” brought “the "adjective kuriakos"” TO “the Roman Empire” and “secular use” which then ‘adopted it FROM Christianity.

And again, the ‘quote’ giving NO instance of “formerly … common use in the Roman Empire before Christian influence” … because there WAS NONE. I told you the dictionary or whatever is bad workmanship. Throw it in your trash bin.

 

GE:

Please, Dr Walter.... PLEASE! What I 'wanted to suggest', I clearly and unambiguously, WROTE. And that was, that the two expressions, 'heh basilikeh hehmera' and 'heh kuriakeh hehmera' are opposite in meaning - that is - are antonyms, the former indicating the lord emperor's day, and the latter the Lord Jesus' Day.

It is YOU who goes from the presupposition they are synonymous, insisting both expressions refer to Sunday.

 

GE:

Re: “Both Paul's and John's use of this adjective was well known to all these Christians and will you argue that John used it in Revelation 1;10 to signify ceasar worship or his devotion to Caesar???????”

Answer:

No, Dr Walter, you first tell me WHICH OF THE TWO PHRASES you refer to?

Then you tell me what in what I have said, makes you think – or rather say – that I, “argue that John used it (‘tehi kuriakehi hemerai’) in Revelation 1;10 to signify ceasar worship or his devotion to Caesar???????” ? (Using hundred question mark won’t remove your FALSE insinuation.) But on the other hand it is certainly inducible John’s use of ‘tehi kuriakehi hemerai’ in Revelation 1:10 raised the idea or even ‘signified’ the non-Christian use of Caesar-worship with the phrase ‘heh basilikeh hehmera’ BY WAY OF CONTRAST— yes! Different descriptions depicting different lords and different days of worship, but with similar linguistic construct and appeal.

Re: “Don't think so, and neither would those Christians who followed John use the term for Ceasar worship as is quite evident by the context in which they did use it!”

Reply:
Christians did not “use the term for Ceasar worship” – ‘heh basilikeh hehmera’! As is quite evident by the context in Revelation 1:10. Thanks.

Re: “John was no doubt exiled for his refusal to acknowledge "Ceasar is Lord" on the very day dedicated to profess "Caesar is Lord" - Sunday instead of the day of Saturn worship!”

Reply:
John was no doubt exiled for his refusal to acknowledge "Ceasar is Lord"; sure. It does not mean “John was exiled … on the very day dedicated to profess "Caesar is Lord" – Sunday.”

Now from where do you raise the thought “… instead of the day of Saturn worship!”? From chapter one of Revelation? No sir!

 

Formerly it was supposed that the adjective kuriakos (translated "the Lord's") was a purely Christian word, but recent discoveries have proved that it was in fairly common use in the Roman Empire before Christian influence had been felt. In secular use it signified "imperial," "belonging to the lord"--the emperor--and so its adoption by Christianity in the sense "belonging to the Lord"--to Christ--was perfectly easy. Indeed, there is reason to suppose that in the days of Domitian, when the issue had been sharply defined as "Who is Lord? Caesar or Christ?" the use of the adjective by the church was a part of the protest against Caesar-worship (see LORD; THE LORD ). And it is even possible that the full phrase, "the Lord's day," was coined as a contrast to the phrase, "the Augustean day" he sebaste hemera), a term that seems to have been used in some parts of the Empire to denote days especially dedicated in honor of Caesar-worship. -ISBE

1. He states that the former supposition that it was a word invented by Christians is wrong as he denies is true because of recent discoveries. It is not a purely Christian word! It was "in fairly common use in the Roman Empire BEFORE" Christian influence had been felt.

2. "It" refers to kuriakos" and it is "kuriakos" that SIGNIFIED "imperial,' belonging to the lord." He does not say "sebaste" SIGNIFIED this but "kuriakos" signified this! HE DID NOT SIGNIFY THE JEWISH SABBATH or THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT! Christians took and applied it to Sunday as you admit!

3. He does not say that the Secular use was borrowed from the Christian use but the Christian borrowed it from the secular and the secular use "signified" imperial, "belonging to the Lord." The Christians borrowed it and applied it to Christ and Sunday!