Rome's Challenge - Why Do Protestants Keep Sunday?

[mikew]

Sabbath Truth Presented, But Rejected by Luther

Almost unknown to most Christian literature is the name of Andreas Rudolph B. Carlstadt, the great apostle of the seventh day Sabbath. He was born in Carlstadt, Bavaria, in 1480 and died in Basel, Switzerland, on December 25, 1541, at the age of 61 years. Carlstadt was a personal friend and co-worker with Martin Luther but strenuously opposed him on the Sabbath issue. Carlstadt observed the seventh day Sabbath and taught its observance. D'Aubigne says that Luther himself admitted that Carlstadt was his superior in learning (Fifield's History. Reference book ten, page 315).

The rejection of the Sabbath at the Council of Trent at once crippled the advance of the Reformation. Protestants and Protestant reformers will be held responsible on Judgment Day for their unfaithfulness at a time when the entire Roman Church pivoted toward discarding all tradition.

Ok. This is too much drivel (*) but it shows that some sort of question arose on Sunday and Sabbath with Luther. Still the fact that Luther's doctrine wasn't perfect is not a surprise. I haven't met anyone with perfect doctrine.

Now the quote of the article above shows an obvious violation of New Testament teaching in that the author appears to be a judge of the Law. The author of your article has made a judgment on God's servants. How did he get that special privilege?

Who are you who judge another’s servant? To his own lord he stands or falls. Yes, he will be made to stand, for God has power to make him stand.

I think you need to reconsider your general viewpoint.

Note: (*) --the original basketball term located here was replaced with a word meaning "nonsense"

[RND]

First. The speed laws only apply to people in commercial activity. Though there is a common law element that if you cause a collision cause you were traveling out of control, you are guilty.

Yeah right! Ever see anyone successful at this? I haven't. UCC and a way we go. Straight to jail. I know a guy that fought the law like this for 20 years. 1 year in jail and fines up the wazoo and now the guy in living in the remotes of the Mojave Desert awaiting the collapse of the grid.

Second. The quotes you provided were not out of scripture but only showed some people's ideas about practices of the early Church groups. So how does that compare to Paidion's quotes?

Same. Neither are canonical. I simply offered mine as a contrast to his. Justin Martyr says one thing the truth says another.

Are you simply saying that the Law of Moses confirms certain aspects of morality -- and this is why people still should "follow the Law"?

Oh, there's certainly that aspect sure. The fact that the Covenant was kept in the Ark and the book on the outside is another. That's why the book was considered a "witness" against the COI for all they said they would do.

Deu 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

I don't quite get your concept on still being under the Law of Moses. It seems you still segment the Law in such a manner that there is no actual adherence to the Law of Moses. For example, once the laws of sacrifice are not followed by God's people, then God's people have truly failed to follow His Law.

The last sacrifice has been offered and the fact that no one sacrifices anything anymore proves that the scripture has been fulfilled. Since Jesus came the sacrifices and oblations are ceased, they mean nothing.

Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Now, that doesn't mean we can't "observe" the passing of these dates such as Passover, Pentecost, Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Tabernacles....we most certainly can.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:

But make no mistake, bestiality is still wrong and the health and civil laws of the Mosaic law are still just and good for instruction.

[RND]

Ok. This is too much dribble but it shows that some sort of question arose on Sunday and Sabbath with Luther. Still the fact that Luther's doctrine wasn't perfect is not a surprise. I haven't met anyone with perfect doctrine.

If a man is shown the truth and he rejects it that truth his own blood is on his head.

Eze 33:4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.

Now the quote of the article above shows an obvious violation of New Testament teaching in that the author appears to be a judge of the Law. The author of your article has made a judgment on God's servants. How did he get that special privilege?

Who are you who judge another’s servant? To his own lord he stands or falls. Yes, he will be made to stand, for God has power to make him stand.

See the above from Ezekiel. Luther was given a servant from God to lead him into all truth and he rejected it. Tell me Mike, you consider yourself a "Protestant" I suppose. What are you "protesting?"

I think you need to reconsider your general viewpoint.

And my your lack of addressing the good Cardinal leads me to believe you should reconsider yours.

[mikew]

That is a good question to ask why Protestants think they have to keep a Sabbath.

I would offer in speculation that the idea of Sunday as a Sabbath was not being questioned as a major problem of the Catholic doctrine when Luther raised his issues. It certainly couldn't be expected that Luther by simply finding some significant truths of scripture then knew all truth perfectly.

Why Lutheran Claim Was Not True

"Their profession of holding the Scriptures alone as the standard of faith is false. Proof: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they truly hold the Scriptures alone as the standard, they would be observing the seventh day as it is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath as enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted, and do practice, the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the (Catholic) Church."

"Consequently, the claim of Scripture alone as the standard fails and the doctrine of 'Scripture and tradition as essential' is fully established, the Protestants themselves being Judges." See The Proceedings of the Council of Trent, Augsburg confession and Encyclopedia Britannica, article "Trent, Council of." At this argument, the party that had stood for the Scripture alone surrendered, and the Council at once unanimously condemned Protestantism, and the whole Reformation. It at once proceeded to enact stringent decrees to arrest its progress.

Ok. You can become a Roman Catholic if that is your conviction.
So you are saying that since the early Protestants didn't perfectly discover all truth from scripture that we should just give up?
Or are you saying that tradition is more important than what Christ said?

It still is a good question "Why do the Protestants keep Sunday?" -- since we have been freed and not under the Law of Moses.

The sabbath was kept before Sinai, Exodus 5 and 16.

Ok. So if our leaders are going up against Pharoah and ask for a feast then we might get a special day of rest.
You have not answered the question.

People have a hard time getting away from a works mentality. But it would seem by now that we ought to realize that the Sabbath rest was completely fulfilled in Christ Jesus. So people ought to recognize the freedom in Christ.

Hebrews 3 and 4?

Hbr 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

Yes that was true. The Jews still needed to come to Christ to get that rest. This passage was about the Jews not yet accepting Christ. Do you wish to live in that condition too?

I think some of these ideas will go away as the blinders are dropped off peoples' eyes.

I wouldn't make a bet on that. Since God said "remember...." it's unlikely He forgot.
[/quotes]
You have a dim view of mankind that you expect them to be blind forevermore.

There still seems to be significance to the general need of people to have physical rest too. Interestingly I recognized this need in college before I became a Christian when I realized it was useless trying to study through the whole day every day.

Isn't remarkable that God knew this as well. He even set aside such a day which was blessed and sanctified. The seventh-day, the sabbath. Sunday wasn't blessed or sanctified.

Yes. It was nice for the Jews. And I like a day off too. Even two days a week. But I really lost this by preparing for and going to Church meetings. This doesn't establish any doctrine that we ought to be subject again to the Law --the righteousness now that was fulfilled through Christ Jesus.

[mikew]

First. The speed laws only apply to people in commercial activity. Though there is a common law element that if you cause a collision cause you were traveling out of control, you are guilty.

Yeah right! Ever see anyone successful at this? I haven't. UCC and a way we go. Straight to jail. I know a guy that fought the law like this for 20 years. 1 year in jail and fines up the wazoo and now the guy in living in the remotes of the Mojave Desert awaiting the collapse of the grid.

Yes. I know some people who have defended themselves. But skip the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) cause that doesn't apply to us either. So you mock the freedom of America and glorify the statute laws. There is a common thread between your view on American Government and your view on Christianity, this commonality is shown in your desire for bondage.

...snip...

I don't quite get your concept on still being under the Law of Moses. It seems you still segment the Law in such a manner that there is no actual adherence to the Law of Moses. For example, once the laws of sacrifice are not followed by God's people, then God's people have truly failed to follow His Law.

The last sacrifice has been offered and the fact that no one sacrifices anything anymore proves that the scripture has been fulfilled. Since Jesus came the sacrifices and oblations are ceased, they mean nothing.

Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The Law still isn't being followed on sacrifices. The quote doesn't justify an end to the sacrifices but just that they were stopped.

Now, that doesn't mean we can't "observe" the passing of these dates such as Passover, Pentecost, Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Tabernacles....we most certainly can.

Sure. There's a freedom in Christ. I don't complain if someone sees some meaning in the feasts and even enjoys a celebration of that sort.

But make no mistake, bestiality is still wrong and the health and civil laws of the Mosaic law are still just and good for instruction.

The question hasn't been whether there is useful teaching from the Laws of Moses. The question has been whether a Christian is obligated to follow the Law of Moses by the letter.
You again have left me confused on your viewpoint since you talk merely of learning about the Laws of Moses.

[mikew]

Ok. This is too much dribble but it shows that some sort of question arose on Sunday and Sabbath with Luther. Still the fact that Luther's doctrine wasn't perfect is not a surprise. I haven't met anyone with perfect doctrine.

If a man is shown the truth and he rejects it that truth his own blood is on his head.

Eze 33:4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.

Ok. So if I demand you to repent and accept what I have shown in scripture and you resist, does that mean you are not saved?

Now the quote of the article above shows an obvious violation of New Testament teaching in that the author appears to be a judge of the Law. The author of your article has made a judgment on God's servants. How did he get that special privilege?

Who are you who judge another’s servant? To his own lord he stands or falls. Yes, he will be made to stand, for God has power to make him stand.

See the above from Ezekiel. Luther was given a servant from God to lead him into all truth and he rejected it. Tell me Mike, you consider yourself a "Protestant" I suppose. What are you "protesting?"

Hmm. How did you become the judge on what was truth? Is your doctrine perfect then? You too are now acting as a judge of the law rather than a doer. All you really are qualified to say is that you think this "servant from God" was right, but your opinion is not the proper resolution of the matter.
So what point are you trying to make by asking "what are your protesting"?

I think you need to reconsider your general viewpoint.

And my your lack of addressing the good Cardinal leads me to believe you should reconsider yours.

So you think that Rom 14:4 is in insufficient reason to resist judging God's servant named Martin Luther? I was basically showing how you became a judge of Luther and hence violated a concept of scripture. But you appear to treat that lightly -- is your reasoning that this is merely a quote of Paul in the New Testament instead of what you would see as the weightier topic of Moses' Law?

If you like the Cardinal, you can live as a Roman Catholic. The choice is up to you.

[RND]

Ok. So if I demand you to repent and accept what I have shown in scripture and you resist, does that mean you are not saved?

No one suggested anyone was or was not saved. Their blood is on their own hands. Meaning they will answer to God when He questions them.

Hmm. How did you become the judge on what was truth? Is your doctrine perfect then?

I understand asking "what are you 'protesting" hits a little close to home.

You too are now acting as a judge of the law rather than a doer.

By asking a question?

All you really are qualified to say is that you think this "servant from God" was right, but your opinion is not the proper resolution of the matter.

Based on scripture? Nothing says that the sabbath was changed to sunday. Nothing.

So what point are you trying to make by asking "what are your protesting"?

Getting to the heart of the matter. If you have no legitimate reason or understanding of what you are "protesting" then Cardinal Gibbons was right. You pay homage to Rome and you don't even know it.

If you like the Cardinal, you can live as a Roman Catholic. The choice is up to you.

The Cardinal speaks the truth about the sabbath. By keeping Sunday holy you are in agreement with him - you just don't know it, or won't admit it. Either way, truth still wins out.

[RND]

You know, I have to say, if you feel compelled to argue, argue the merits of the OP. Question Cardinal Gibbons and what he wrote, not me.

To me it is quite telling that the Cardinal's straight truth is ignored and dismissed in favor of arguments outside the scope of the OP. BTW, make sure to click the link. There are a lot more pages from the Catholic Mirror to read.

[mikew]

Ok. So if I demand you to repent and accept what I have shown in scripture and you resist, does that mean you are not saved?

No one suggested anyone was or was not saved. Their blood is on their own hands. Meaning they will answer to God when He questions them.

You suggest that there is blood on Luther's hands. You have endorsed a judgment against Luther in that such statement. What do you think of Jesus' words that those who believe upon Him pass from judgment into eternal life? (John 5:24 paraphrased)

Hmm. How did you become the judge on what was truth? Is your doctrine perfect then?

I understand asking "what are you 'protesting" hits a little close to home.

hmm. Not exactly.
I didn't understand what your were talking about. Now I have seen that you explain your thought a little further into your response -- so after seeing that explanation I have edited this answer.

You too are now acting as a judge of the law rather than a doer.

By asking a question?

I assume that you are confused on the statement about you being a judge -- the confusion probably occurs from the problems we encounter in textual discussions.
I was saying that you were condemning Luther based on your opinion of the Sunday or Sabbath concept. You gave preferential treatment to the opponent of Luther because that opponent had your view. Are you advocating that doctrine is now established by democracy?
Your attempt to condemn Luther on this shows your interest in condemnation (an attribute of those who follow the Law of Moses) rather than on proper dialogue

All you really are qualified to say is that you think this "servant from God" was right, but your opinion is not the proper resolution of the matter.

Based on scripture? Nothing says that the sabbath was changed to sunday. Nothing.

Ok. Finally something we can agree upon. But now also notethat Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath rest. There is no further action we could do to fulfill the Sabbath any further beyond complete fulfillment.
But if you need to relax some, you have the freedom in Christ to do that.
There is no change of what the Sabbath meant or when it was. The Sabbath was a requirement upon Israelites. Christians never were obligated to Sabbath or Sunday.

So what point are you trying to make by asking "what are your protesting"?

Getting to the heart of the matter. If you have no legitimate reason or understanding of what you are "protesting" then Cardinal Gibbons was right. You pay homage to Rome and you don't even know it.

I must have slept through that wonderful statement.
So if scripture shows no basis for believers to follow Sunday or Sabbath how does that make me a follower of the Cardinal? Are you saying that anyone who doesn't have perfect doctrine is paying homage to Rome?
This is not very convincing to me that your view on Sabbath is correct.

If you like the Cardinal, you can live as a Roman Catholic. The choice is up to you.

The Cardinal speaks the truth about the sabbath. By keeping Sunday holy you are in agreement with him - you just don't know it, or won't admit it. Either way, truth still wins out.

If you like the Cardinal and his ilk. You can join the Catholics.
I see your view and the Cardinal's and Luther's view as incongruent with scripture. So where does that leave you if you and the Cardinal and Luther were all wrong?

This discussion isn't quite bringing us to a similar viewpoint.

[mikew]

You know, I have to say, if you feel compelled to argue, argue the merits of the OP. Question Cardinal Gibbons and what he wrote, not me.

To me it is quite telling that the Cardinal's straight truth is ignored and dismissed in favor of arguments outside the scope of the OP. BTW, make sure to click the link. There are a lot more pages from the Catholic Mirror to read.

I'm sorry. I thought you posted this article as the Goliath for your perspective rather than just some article of curiosity. So It seemed reasonable to discuss the topic with you.

I have all ready said that I don't think there is merit for keeping Sundays. There also was no argument to say why believers should keep Saturdays either.

The Roman Catholic debaters won that argument tactically. This does not make the SDA true in what it says.

Now you are asking that I read more drivel. Though it may not be so much nonsense to those who enjoy seeing the debates between Roman Catholics and Protestants. What other significance could be found in that article?

The main point you highlighted earlier was that if someone isn't perfect in understanding of scripture then he must reject scripture and become a Catholic. You just expressed this in the idea that if you hold to Sunday then you are following what the Catholics said instead of scripture so that you do homage to Rome. This argument I guess is more persuasive to you than to me.