A Critique of E.G. White's Book The Great Controversy (1888) and other matters related to her teachings and the claims of Seventh Day Adventists Assumptions of E.G. White & Seventh Day Adventists There are several assumptions made which are taken to be true and proven, which how- ever bear closer scrutiny. Some of these are unspoken, but if challenged are denied, although they can be heard in the background of many Adventist arguments. 1. Worship of God on Sunday instead of on the Sabbath was instituted by the Roman Cath- olic Church. They also changed the Sabbath from the 7th day to the 1st day. 2. Christians in the Apostolic and post-Apostolic Church did not worship on Sunday. 3. "All extant records [of early Church worship practices] are by Sunday-keepers." i.e. The Roman church destroyed most of the references to Sabbath keeping Christians or of instructions by Church Fathers to Christians to keep the Sabbath. 4. No one can find a single verse in the Bible which shows God commanded worship on Sunday. [a straw-man assertion...] 5. Old Testament commands concerning the Sabbath are not binding on Jews only, but also on Christians. 6. The Patriarchs (Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc.) kept the Sabbath. 7. Biblical and extra-Biblical references to "the Lord's [day]" are references to the Sabbath. 8. The Holy Spirit is still distributing gifts, such as prophecy and healing, in our present time. 9. The Law, as spoken of in the Bible consists of several parts: the Law of God is the Ten Commandments; the Law of Moses and the Ceremonial Law are no longer binding on Christians. 10. Jesus has not yet fulfilled "the Law and the Prophets" (Mt 5:17). 11. "Roman persecution of the Jews eventually caused Christians to distance themselves by keeping Sunday. They couldn't be mistaken for Jews if they worshipped on Sunday." (What historical or Biblical evidence is there for this?) 12. The meaning of the term "the Lord's [day]" was shifted "deliberately from the Sab- bath (Rev 1:10) to Sunday (as in Clement, Origen, Tertullian)." 13. Rules of conduct and belief for Christians are to be limited to those found in the Bible. Preface For the record, the writer of this critique freely acknowledges that there have been Christians from the time of the Apostles until now who have worshipped God on the Sabbath (the 7th day of the week, i.e. between sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday.) This fact does not add to or subtract from either the arguments of White et. al. or of the writer. It simply demonstrates the belief of some that the Sabbath should continue to be observed in some manner. It does NOT demonstrate, or prove, that worship by believers on the day after the Sabbath was not instituted by Christ or His Apostles. Nor is it proof that such worship was instituted by the Church (Roman Catholic or otherwise), either during or after the Apostles. The writer also freely acknowledges that there are no Biblical instances commanding Christians to worship on Sunday. However, part of the following discussion will also examine equally, whether or not there are any Biblical instances commanding Christians to worship on the Sabbath. It is also affirmed that there is no Biblical warrant for changing Sunday into a "Christian Sabbath". But that is not the same thing as having no Biblical justification for worshipping God on Sunday. Introductory Comments It is regrettable that many Seventh Day Adventists are so willing to allow White and themselves to quote from early Church authorities and references outside the Bible to support their arguments, but to mockingly label any such quotes used by others as ap- peals to tradition and to warn of the dangers of Roman Catholic attitudes. This writer feels that "what is sauce for the goose ought to also be sauce for the gander," as the saying goes. Just because a writing by Tertullian or Justyn Martyr (for example) is quoted does not indicate a dependence on "Traditions" of the Church. The Gospels are every bit as much traditions of the Church, as are the Apostolic writings found in the canon of the New Testament! (A case in point: Luther was unwilling to acknowledge James & II Peter as Apostolic because of their content.) When quoting a comment by such as Tertullian, when he is making an historical observation of the contemporary state or belief of the Church, can hardly be considered an appeal to "tradition". To label certain (narrative) passages of scripture as historical, while labeling similar passages of the early Church Fathers "tradition" is to be intellectually dishonest and unacceptably close-minded. It also ignores the attitude of the Church as a whole that lived at the time these men wrote: the writings and teachings of the earliest bishops (generally those who had been taught by the Apostles or been taught by the bishops who had been so taught) were considered just as inspired as the Apostles--unless there was good reason to think otherwise. And the Church then was a lot closer in time to the Apostles then we are today, and thus in a better place to judge whether a teaching agreed or disagreed with the Apostles' teaching. (Consider, too, that Mark and Luke were not Apostles, yet their writings are found in the Bible. But NOT all of Paul's letters are contained in the Bible.) Finally, the assertion by Adventists that references to "the Lord's [day]" are actual- ly references to the [7th day] Sabbath because Jesus said He was, "Lord of the Sabbath" or because He Himself "kept" the Sabbath, is unlikely to be true. First, it is hardly surprising that Jesus kept the Sabbath. He was after all, born a Jew, sent to the Jews, lived among and tried to minister to and convert the Jews. Also, such visits to the synagogue occurred BEFORE His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. Secondly, it was Jewish custom to refer to the 7th day or the Sabbath by either of those two terms: the seventh day or, the Sabbath. The phrase "the Lord's [day]" only occurs once in the Bible: in John's "Revelation" (1:10). If this is a reference to the Sabbath, it is a stunning exception to normal Jewish practice. The Early Witnesses An examination of the following passages should establish that references to the first day of the week are references to the day following the Sabbath, and not to the Sab- bath itself or to any portion of the Sabbath. Mt 28:1; Mk 16:2,9; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1;19; (See also Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2) Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord... => => Fifty [7 * 7 + 1] days after the Passover Sabbath, Pentecost was celebrated. This would have been on the first day of the week (Sunday)! Similarly, the Year of Jubilee occurred every 7 * 7 + 1 years, i.e. on the year after the seven Sabbath years. A study should also be made of Old Testament references to worship on the eighth day as precursors to what God would do through Christ on the first day. Following are five quotations written very early in the Church's history to offer instruction to believers and explanation & description of Church practice to unbeliev- ing questioners. Quotations C-E are taken from the ten volume set: The AnteNicene Fathers. A. Pliny (the Younger) to Trajan concerning Christians in Bithynia - dated 112 a.d. 7. ...they declared that the sum of their guilt or error had amounted only to this, that on an appointed day they had been accustomed to meet before daybreak, and to recite a hymn antiphonally to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by a sacrament...to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery and breach of faith, and not to deny a deposit when it was claimed. After the conclusion of this ceremony it was their custom to depart and meet again to take food; B. Ignatius to the Magnesians (9:1) C. Teaching of the Twelve (Apostles) - dated to about 120 a.d. and considered to be one of the earliest, non-Biblical, Church documents in existence: 2. The apostles further appointed: On the first [day] of the week let there be ser- vice, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [i.e. Communion]: because on the first day of the week our lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will ap- pear at last with the angels of heaven. 4. The apostles further appointed: On the evening [of the Sabbath], at the ninth hour, let there be service: because that which had been spoken on the fourth day of the week about the suffering of the Savior was brought to pass on the [same] evening [i.e. the evening of the Sabbath--before sundown on Friday]; the worlds and creatures trembling, and the luminaries in the heavens being darkened. D. The First Apology of Justin (Martyr) - dated at about 150 a.d. Chapter 67 - And on the day called Sun's day (translated literally from the Greek), ALL who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, accord- ing to his ability, and the people assent, saying: Amen... E. [Tertullian] To the Nations - dated at about 190 a.d. Others...suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is a well- known fact that we pray towards the east, or because we make Sunday a day of cele- bration. ...For the JEWISH feasts are the Sabbath and "the Purification," and Jewish also are the ceremonies of the lamps [Hanukah], and the fasts of unleavened bread...Wherefore, that I may return from this digression, you who reproach us with the sun and Sunday should consider your proximity to us [i.e. in practice]. We are not far off from your Saturn and your days of rest. F. Constantine to Elpidius, Codex Justinianus, III, xii, 3 - dated 7th March 321 a.d. All judges, city-people and craftsmen shall rest on the venerable day of the sun. But countrymen may without hindrance attend to agriculture, since it often happens that this is the most suitable day for sowing grain or planting vines, so that the opportunity afforded by divine providence may not be lost, for the right season is of short duration. Comment on the Witnesses If it be doubted that there are any New Testament passages that demonstrate that Christians met on the first day of the week (Sunday), the Bible passages above are offered as evidence. It was very early on the first week day that Jesus arose from the dead. It was the evening of the first day of the week when Jesus first appeared to the disciples together. It was the first day of the week when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the believers and the Church was instituted. * Even if the 1 Corinthian 16 passage should be interpreted to mean that the believers were to each week, privately collect a portion of their earnings so that when Paul came they would all be ready to deliver to him what they had put aside, (as contrasted to a weekly, public collection), such an interpretation could NOT explain why Paul empha- sized the first day of the week on which to make the collection. Since the custom of that time was to pay wages daily, the reference to the FIRST day could not have been to a weekly pay-day. On the other hand, if Christians of that time were accustomed to regard the first day as special in commemoration and honor of the Creator (Jn 3:3) who died for our sins and arose to give us life (Rom 5:10) on the FIRST day of the week, Paul's reference is easily understood. * Note that all of the extra-Biblical references clearly describe the rule and practice of the early Church concerning worship as occurring on Sunday. This is NOT an "erro- neous conclusion" for it merely summarizes what the writers said. Note also that they are all dated well before Constantine, let alone before Rome and its bishop gained the preeminence in the Western Church. * In Pliny's letter to Trajan (both of whom persecuted the Church) is recorded a descrip- tion by Christians of their worship practice. True, it MAY have occurred before sun- rise on Saturday morning, but if so, it was no normal Sabbath observance. There is absolutely NO record of any Israelite at any time worshipping on the Sabbath in such a manner as is recorded in Pliny's letter! This letter also makes abundantly clear that Christians did NOT "distance themselves" from the Jews "by keeping Sunday" in order to avoid persecution. It is clear from the first part of the letter (unquoted), that the true Christians in no way sought to avoid being killed for their beliefs by compromis- ing them in ANY way! * Now, note that, even though a Sabbath service is enjoined in the 4th statement of the Didache, the reason given has nothing remotely to do with any statement in the Law, or as concerning God's resting on the first Sabbath of the Creation! Just as the omitted 3rd statement enjoins a service on the 4th day (Thursday) because Jesus then revealed his impending death on that day. On the other hand, the service enjoined on the first of the week honors the Creator by commemorating His victory on that (first) day of the week. * The first edict of Constantine concerning resting on Sunday says absolutely nothing about the Sabbath! There can be found no word of protest nor of prohibition regarding observing the Sabbath. So also with edicts that followed. To pass a law to enforce a rest on Sunday in no way abrogates Sabbath keeping for those who wish to do so. Secondly, it is highly unlikely Constantine--even with the Roman bishop's blessing-- could have gotten away with passing such a law from scratch, without some prior basis of related activity already in practice. To have tried such a novelty--as some emper- ors before him had tried--would have produced enough protest that there would be some indication in history. If the Church from Apostolic days had only met on the Sabbath, then for the emperor and/or Roman bishop to even attempt such an innovation would have brought protest across the empire from dedicated Christians. But we find silence in- stead. Rather we find celebration that the emperor would agree to pass an edict that was thought to be so favorable to the Church. Certainly, Rome could have destroyed some evidence of such a protest, but then, if she could be so thorough as to destroy it completely, why not also eradicate all references to any Christians keeping the Sabbath? Since a multitude of such references exist, either Rome was very efficient on the one hand and peculiarly inept on the other, or the record as it exists repre- sents historical reality. * Paul's little discussion in Romans 14:5ff presents a Biblical view of the whole Sabbath vs Sunday issue. Those of weaker faith, says Paul, hold that some one day is sacred to God; those of stronger faith consider each day alike--whether all or none--to be sacred. In both cases, Paul says, the believer believes according to his measure of faith and so, conforms his behavior to glorify God. If neither side judges the other, then there can be that peace and unity envisioned by Christ. Christians in the early years of the Church did not need to be commanded to worship Christ, (either on the Sabbath or) on Sunday. They did so willingly, joyfully, and voluntarily from a grateful heart! As Tertullian so graphically describes: on Sunday, they celebrated. Except for the Pass- over Sabbath, when does the Bible describe a Sabbath service as a "celebration"? (even though there are extra-Biblical Jewish sources which do describe Jews as celebrating and being joyful on the Sabbath) * Another point that is difficult to explain if the Roman Catholic Church is to take credit for "changing the Sabbath to Sunday" is the historical and present fact that the Greek and Russian Orthodox, Coptic and Syriac churches, not to mention many others, from ancient times until now worship on Sunday, not Friday or Saturday. These other churches never have given any allegiance to Rome or the Pope, or to each other for that matter. Why then do they worship on Sunday? If they did not receive the practice from Rome, where did they get it, and when? The Critique 1. The claim is made several times that Christians have searched the scriptures to find when the change from a 7th day Sabbath to a Sabbath on the 1st day of the week was made or authorized. It is rightly asserted that the scriptures are silent on this issue. Therefore, it is concluded that other claims related to this issue are also correct. However, it should be noted that the scriptures are silent on this issue because the early Church never thought of the worship/celebration services held on the 1st day as being a Sabbath. Such a conceptual shift only occurred after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and after the union of the Roman Empire with the European Church under the Roman Bishop and Roman Emperor was initiated. There is very little if any historical evidence that such a conceptual shift took place in any of the Eastern churches, such as at Antioch, Syria, Egypt, Carthage, Asia, etc. 2. E.G. White quotes many writers from both Roman Catholic and Protestant sources, as well as from encyclopedias, who claim that it was the Pope and the Roman Church who made and authorized such a change (from worshipping God on the 7th day to worshipping on the 1st day). Her presentation--and theirs--is made in such an unquestioned and dogmatic manner as to make the reader think such claims MUST be true. But an exami- nation of the earliest historical documents reveals that all these writers are mis- taken, and at best ignorant of the truth. And anyone who has used encyclopedias ex- tensively will know and acknowledge that the accuracy of articles found in them is severely dependent on the degree of bias and total knowledge both of the writer and of the editor. In short, especially on religious subjects, the trustworthiness of en- cyclopedias is very questionable. 3. E.G. White only quotes from those sources which support her thesis. A specific case in point is her quotation from Eusebius (pg. 648), as though he were the earliest wit- ness. She seems to have either been unaccountably ignorant or deliberately selective in her sources. There are at least five sources much earlier than Eusebius, four of which were commonly known at the time her book was written. Ignatius lived from 30 to 107 a.d. (or maybe 116) when he was martyred. He was taught directly by John the apo- stle and taught Polycarp and Irenaeus in turn. The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve (Apostles) has been dated to about 120 a.d. (but was not published in translation until 1883). Justyn (Martyr) wrote at about 150 a.d. Tertullian wrote between 180 and 200 a.d. Victorinus was martyred in 307 a.d. Since E.G. White felt justified in quoting from traditional sources to substantiate her claims, I shall be equally justified to do likewise. All five of the sources mentioned establish unequivocally that the earliest Church met on the first day of the week. Such a practice in fact had given mockers cause to accuse Christians of being Sun worshippers. Such an accusation could NOT have been made if the Church in fact only met for worship on the Sabbath. There were also sources of quotations from her own century that she failed to relate, that give other reasons for meeting on Sunday, the 1st day of the week. These sources are to be found among the writings of what was then known as the Restoration Movement. Begun essentially in 1804, this movement was, and is, neither Roman Catholic nor Pro- testant. Their simple call was to reform the practice and structure of the Church to that of New Testament times. They opposed both the Papal system of Rome and the hier- archical systems of Protestants, not to mention their beliefs and practices concern- ing baptism. Unlike White and her followers, and her quoted sources, they WERE able to find scrip- tural evidence for an Apostolically sanctioned change for worship on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7 and its surrounding story is one such case. 1 Cor 16:2 is one other. If the observation be made that these are only two scriptures and neither one represent a command to worship on the 1st day, the response will be offered: So what? If there is only ONE scripture which clearly represents God's will, none other is ne- cessary. There are NO New Testament examples of Christians being COMMANDED to worship on the Sabbath. It may be argued that Christians are commanded to obey Christ's commandments, which are also God's, and that these commands include the 4th of the Decalogue given to Moses and the Israelites. Such is only conjecture, for there is no specific instance in the whole Bible where Christians are commanded to keep the Sabbath! To be intellectually honest--which White is not--it must be acknowledged that there is likewise no command to "keep" the 1st day, either. Likewise, there are Biblical examples of the Apostles meeting in synagogues on the Sabbath, but there is absolutely NO clear statement that it was for the purpose of worship, as we now think of that activity. A more plausible speculation, and one that is sustained by the record of the Acts, is that they were there and at that time, because that is where and when the Jews were gathered, presenting the perfect opportunity to preach the gospel--and not to worship with the Jews. This assertion is even more clearly sustained when we consider that after Paul determines to no longer wrestle with the Jews (Acts 18:6) there is absolutely NO further mention of any meeting on a Sabbath or in a synagogue. On the other hand, the two Biblical references to the 1st day already mentioned DO specifically mention activities of worship as we now think of that term. There was preaching and teaching, there was "breaking of bread", there was praise, there was a gathering of offerings. The only specific activity mentioned in connection with the synagogue meetings was the proclamation of the gospel and the exposition of scriptures to demonstrate the truth of that proclamation. Where in those accounts is the exhortation to holy living? The warning to persevere in the face of the com- ing persecutions? The sharing of the Eucharist? The collection of offerings? However, the Acts 20 episode has been explained as merely a "going away" supper meet- ing for Paul and his companions. It was certainly at least that, but was it more? Paul and his companions had been there for seven days, including the Sabbath. Why is there no mention of a meeting on any of those days, especially on the Sabbath. Why is specific mention made of "the first day"? Appeal has also been made to Acts 2:46 to explain the "breaking of bread" as (perhaps) just a common meal. Perhaps. But in that case, if this was to be a "going away" supper, why did the people wait "until midnight" to share the food? The admittedly brief picture given by the two scriptures, however, is exactly dupli- cated and expanded in descriptions by the five early accounts mentioned above. It is therefore remarkable that such a diligent search of scriptures as White pre- sents us with as taking place, should fail to notice this evidence. The obvious ex- planation is that the searchers were not looking to discover what the truth actually was, but to see if they could discover their own view of things represented there. As is usually the case when someone brings a point of view to the scriptures to prove it so, they were successful--but at the expense of the truth. In this, they are in the good company of such large names as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, not to mention Graf, Welhausen, Witgenstein, Bultmann, Walvoord, and others. 4. It was mentioned above that White was not intellectually honest. What is the evidence for such a claim? She claimed that, "The seal of God's law is found in the fourth commandment. This only, of all the ten, brings to view both the name and the title of the Lawgiver. It shows Him to be the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and thus shows His claim to reverence and worship above all others. Aside from this pre- cept, there is nothing in the Decalogue to show by whose authority the law is given." (pg. 516) Yet, on page 518 she presents the Decalogue as found in Ex 20:3-17. There she fails to include Ex 20:2 which emphatically introduces the Giver of the Decalogue. But no matter, for its author is also given in the 2nd, the 3rd, and the 5th commands, as well as the 4th! White also states dogmatically, as if proven, that "the Sabbath was kept by Adam in his innocence in holy Eden...It was kept by all the patriarchs, from Abel to right- eous Noah, to Abraham, to Jacob." Now this is indeed a matter that one may search the scriptures in vain to discover any evidence for. The editors, in the index of at least of the 1939 edition of her book, even refer to each of these holy men as keep- ing the Sabbath! She does not offer this statement as being a probability, but as an established fact. Nor does she offer any scriptural or extra-Biblical support for her contention. Where in the Bible does it say that these men "kept the Sabbath"? Adventists claim to obtain their beliefs ONLY from the Bible; maybe they consider White's writings as Biblical??? White follows in the footsteps of so many others who wish to establish their new ideas as being bonafide, when she only partially quotes certain scriptures. She does indeed quote accurately, the parts she includes. It is what she omits that is a danger to her position and that of her followers (especially those who read her books more than they read the Bible for themselves, and deceive themselves that they are studying God's word). On pgs 515-516 she quotes Isa 56:1,2,6,7 and then dogmatically states that, "These words apply in the Christian age, as shown by the context...Thus the OBLIGATION of the fourth commandment extends past the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ..." But she leaves off the last part of verse 7, which says, "...their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all people." According to White, then, and strictly according to the context of the WHOLE passage, burnt offerings and sacri- fices "apply in the Christian age." Whose burnt offerings and sacrifices shall be acceptable? "The sons of the stranger that join themselves to Yahveh...every one that keeps the Sabbath from polluting it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil, and takes hold of my covenant." (Isa 56:2,6) If White is correct about "the obligation of the fourth commandment" then Adventists better be finding themselves a proper altar to offer the also obligated burnt offerings and sacrifices! [Oh! But those are PART of the (whole) Ceremonial Law (like circumcision - cf Gal 5:3) which has passed away!] In like manner she continues on page 516, interpreting Isa 8:16 & 20. "The seal of God's law" she says, "is found in the fourth commandment." (Where is THAT found in the Bible?) After quoting verse 20, she jumps clear over to Isa 58. But before we travel with her there, let us back up to Isa 8. What is the "this word" mentioned by the prophet? Who are the "they" who if they "speak not according to this word, there is no light in them"? White would have us believe the word is concerning keeping the Sabbath and "they" are Christians. But a look at Isa 8, starting from verse 1 will show that the "testimony" concerned Isaiah's son and the coming attack by Assyria. The words of vs 16 are Isaiah's, not God's, although what Isaiah commands is accord- ing to God's wishes. The disciples of vs 16 are the prophet's. Verse 20 is a contin- uation of Isaiah's question begun in verse 19: "...should not a people seek...?" This is the "word" by which if the people (of both houses of Israel - vs 14) do not speak, they have no light. On page 517, concerning Isa 58:1-2, White writes, "The prophet thus points out the ordinance which has been forsaken: (jumping suddenly to vs 12b) 'Thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, ... If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath...' This prophecy also ap- plies in our time. The breach was made in the law of God when the Sabbath was changed by the Roman power." But the whole of Isa 58:1-12 is concerning the uncaring injus- tice of the house of Jacob! They fasted and considered such a holy act as acceptable to God. Meanwhile, there were fellow Israelites in their neighborhood in oppressed by unrighteous judges and the rich (cf Jeremiah); some were hungry, some were naked, some were homeless and destitute. Verse 10 describes who it is who shall be called "the repairer of the breach, the restorer of paths to dwell in," NOT verse 13! Those who keep the Sabbath have their own, separate promise of blessing, found in verse 14. Critique of Assumptions 1. Worship of God on Sunday instead of on the Sabbath was instituted by the Roman Cath- olic Church. They also changed the Sabbath from the 7th day to the 1st day. The first point is conclusively shown to be false to any open-minded reader by the historical quotations from the early Church Fathers. The second contention, that the Roman Church lacks the authority or power to accomplish, in actuality--no matter what they or others claim--they have done so effectively by doctrinally reinterpret- ing the 1st Day festival to be a day of non-servile rest and concentration on devoted activities. 2. Christians in the Apostolic and post-Apostolic Church did not worship on Sunday. Depending, of course, on how you choose to define worship, it seems pretty clear from reading the description in Acts 20 that there was some worshipping going on and that it occurred on Sunday. But, of course that may not indicate what the norm was. No matter, John's direct disciple, Ignatius, more than adequately informs us what was normative. And of course Justin rather strongly reinforces Ignatius. 3. "All extant records [of early Church worship practices] are by Sunday-keepers." i.e. The Roman church destroyed most of the references to Sabbath keeping Christians or of instructions by Church Fathers to Christians to keep the Sabbath. The apparent ineptness of the Roman church in their censorship has already been commented on. 4. No one can find a single verse in the Bible which shows that God commanded worship on Sunday. [a straw-man assertion..] Likewise, no one can find a single verse in the Bible which shows God commanded wor- ship on the Sabbath by Christians (or by Adam, Noah or other Patriarchs!). This requirement has to be derived from specific definitions of what constitutes the law or commandments of Christ. 5. Old Testament commands concerning the Sabbath are not binding on Jews only, but also on Christians. Read Galatians 3 through 5, and Romans 7. 6. The Patriarchs (Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc.) kept the Sabbath. Again, if the Adventist position is, "the Bible, and only the Bible" then they absolutely MUST relinquish this claim. They cannot even rely on the traditions of the Church Fathers. They do, however, rely on the traditions of Ellen G. White. 7. Biblical and extra-Biblical references to "the Lord's [day]" are references to the Sabbath. Even a cursor examination of the Church Fathers quoted above will show that the term "the Lord's [day]" was almost always used to contrast the Sabbath, not to iden- tify it. Review also the comments above concerning Rev 1:10 and the gospel passages relating the Lord's resurrection. 8. The Holy Spirit is still distributing gifts, such as prophecy and healing, in our present time. Such has been the claim of splinter groups throughout the post-Apostolic Church age, usually to legitimate unorthodox doctrines. It is significant that the first on record to do so was Montanus, who was rejected as heretical by everyone but his small band of followers. Tertullian, in one of his discourses, makes an aside observation that in that day it was widely acknowledged by the Church entire, based on simple ob- servation and experience (or rather, lack of it) that with the death of those on whom the apostles had laid their hands (Acts 8), the manifestation of Spiritual (power) gifts had ceased. This does not mean that God does not still answer prayers in mira- culous fashion, nor that He will not occasionally give special insight to one of His people. But such insight will NEVER contradict the clear teaching of His scriptures. 9. The Law, as spoken of in the Bible, consists of several parts: the Law of God is the Ten Commandments; the Law of Moses and the Ceremonial Law are no longer binding on Christians. This is a major plank in the foundation of the SDA's hermeneutic. It is answered in the Biblical Apology section above. 10. Jesus has not yet fulfilled "the Law and the Prophets" (Mt 5:17). See also the Biblical Apology (and John 17:4). 11. "Roman persecution of the Jews eventually caused Christians to distance themselves by keeping Sunday. They could not be mistaken for Jews if they worshipped on Sunday." (What historical or Biblical evidence is there for this?) Review Pliny's letter to Trajan and its associated comment. 12. The meaning of the term "the Lord's [day]" was shifted "deliberately from the Sab- bath (Rev 1:10) to Sunday (as in Clement, Origen, Tertullian)." This is pure conjecture (read: wishful thinking) without a single shred of Biblical, historical, documentary, or other objective evidence. Again, since the early wit- nesses contrast "the Lord's day" with "the Sabbath" and later (Syriac) witnesses parallel them, how can it be said that the meaning was "shifted"? 13. Rules of conduct and belief for Christians are to be limited to those found in the Bible. As a primary operating principle, this is great! But if we take it to the extreme, as some "holiness" groups do, then Christians cannot operate cars, use electrical apli- ances, etc. Neither can we at all accept any information delivered through ecsta- tic utterance or vision outside the Bible. However, Tertullian's comments on tradi- tion, custom and law are very wise. Better to hold the Bible as the primary standard, and use it to decide what can be added and what should be rejected. Certainly, the content of ecstatic visions should be judged critically by the Bible's teachings. When dealing with subjective, spiritual experiences, it is best to remember that the most clever of Satan's deceits are 99% true. The 15th Century monk, Spain's "patron saint," John of the Cross, had some extremely wise advice to those who experienced visions. The intellectually honest reader will easily discover what that advice was. Conclusion It is clear from reading Ellen G. White's Testimonies for the Church, volume 1, that the major tenets of the SDA belief which are peculiar to them were derived, not from study of the Bible, but from ecstatic visions. It is equally clear that she and her followers were sincere and devout believers, honestly seeking God's will and rightly looking for the final return of Jesus. It is just as clear that she and her followers accepted the visions as being from God and, therefore, accepted the interpretations deliv- ered through the visions as being from Him and true. It is truly lamentable that no one of her time was knowledgeable enough in both history (natural, human, and Christian) and the Bible to refute the errors of the Adventist interpretations of Daniel & Revelation, and contemporary events. By her own testimony, some did try to refute her viewpoint from Scriptures, but unsuccessfully. There is more than a hint in even Volume One of her Testimonies, that those who did rationally (as contrasted with vituperatively) oppose her views were branded as unrepentant hardheads. The power of her ecstatic experiences fully persuaded her that hers was the right interpretation and that those who did not agree were inevitably in the wrong. That is not to say she did not worry about whether or not she was right; she did. But ultimately, experience won out over knowledge and reason, as it did with Augustine and Calvin, and as it has in our day with the Existentialists and Charismatics. to be sure, she was not in her time, and is not in ours, alone in the use of questionable Biblical hermeneutics to derive a plausible, hoped for interpretation of Scripture. But Paul did not without cause say, "I do not allow a woman to teach." And in another place, "It is not permitted for your women to speak in the church." Of course he himself excepted the teaching of younger women by older women, and praying or prophecy- ing under the influence of a spirit. By her own testimony, White and her followers ignored his warning mandate. Though the SDA's will undoubtedly accuse this writer of "nitpicking," there is at least one reference in Volume One of her Testimonies, pg. 107 ("The Death of My Husband") where she relates that, "We had an appointment to attend a tent meeting at Charlotte, Sabbath and Sunday, July 23 and 24." She goes on to relate the keeping of that appointment, on both days. Quite aside from the snobbery evidenced by calling Saturday, "Sabbath" and then calling First Day, "Sunday" (as she does most other places), is the fact that her holding a meeting on Sunday--which no doubt included what God Himself would label worship --violates the very principles she taught concerning the message of the third angel of Rev 14. Did she not, by her own standards, which she repeatedly proclaims in the Great Controversy, by attending that meeting, confirm the Pope's and Roman church's claim of authority to "change times and laws"? And if she did not, then how is it that she agrees with the Roman church's claim that Protestants, by meeting for worship on Sunday give tacit acknowledgment to the Pope's and Roman church's claim of such authority? If meet- ing on Sunday after receiving the third angel's message is "the Mark of the Beast" how can it be said she (and those who met with her) now lacks that mark? The whole matter is essentially a "straw-man argument" anyway. A man of straw would be an easy fellow to knock down. He is put forward merely for the sake of having something there. The whole Roman-Church-&-Pope-changing-the-Sabbath-to-Sunday issue is such. White and her colleagues and all the sources she and they quote miss one very important point. Such is usually the case with complicated deceptions. What point? Why, merely that all the laws so far passed mandating resting and/or worship on Sunday say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about prohibiting observance of the Sabbath! All believers, or nonbelievers, everywhere, and in every time have always been free to assemble for worship on the Sabbath! Nor does White anywhere indicate that the Beast's future mandate concerning Sunday observance will prohibit Sabbath observance. Praise God that He always provides at least one glaring hole in the fabric of Satan's lies, to warn us when someone is being led too far astray. It is true that the Adventists of the 19th and 20th centuries have been one of the sources of additional repentance and reform among believers. Ellen G. White and her followers have performed the world a service in demonstrating the connections between health and the foods we eat. But nothing of positive value and truth that have come from her efforts are lacking in the Bible. That is, we could study the Bible ourselves and arrive at the same conclusions regarding food & health and moral reform in the Church. It is equally true that White and her followers have been one of the sources of additional doctrinal error concerning the return of Christ. Not in turning again the attention of believers to the expectation, but in redefining what God is supposedly doing in heaven and what is God's will for believers. Unwittingly, they have contradicted the Bible in its message of what Christ has ALREADY accomplished. This is a more serious matter than merely mis- leading people as to when Jesus will return. Much, much more could be written showing the errors of this system of belief, but if the foundation pillars are shown to be insubstantial, what chance have the walls of standing? The Adventist and non-Adventist alike are admonished and exhorted to study the Bible still more and rely on visions and supposedly Divine prophetic pronouncements still less. Along with the bible, study History and the Creation. In the one you shall discover the errors already made and discovered in the past; in the other you shall discover what may be known of the God who created (Rom 1:19-20). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For replies or for more information, you may contact: David L. Mohn 149 Java Road, Rm #223 North Point, Hong Kong phone/fax: (852) 2561-8459 email: mohnfong@hkstandard.com