The Christian Sabbath is the First Day of the Week.

By Richard Bacon

 

[The following  is edited from some email exchanges from November 1994, between Pastor Bacon and some Seventh Day Adventists. They first appeared on the Blue Banner Bulletin Board, the precursor to the FPCR web site.]


11-01-94 To Mr. S.

Mr. S wrote "Show me 1 example Sunday was ordained to be the day of worship."

I'll be more than happy to discuss the issue with you from Scripture, but first you must tell me what you understand "ordained" to mean. I understand that we derive worship practices from Scripture in three ways: first, by direct and explicit command; second, by approved example; and third by good and necessary consequence.

So, when you ask for an example, I am a little puzzled. I gave you one already and you quoted it in your reply to me; viz. John 20:19. However, for a second example, read just a few verses later in John 20:26 -- note that it was the eighth day after the day mentioned in verse 19 -- making it once again the first day of the week. Here is a very probable list of Christophanies and other gatherings for worship and prayer between the resurrection and Pentecost.

 

Appearance       Day                       To Whom                Scripture

1st                      1 (resurrection)       To 10 disciples         John 20:19f

2nd                     8 (7 x 1) + 1           To 11 disciples         John 20:26

3rd?                    15 (7 x 2) + 1          To 7 disciples           John 21:1-14

4th                      22 (7 x 3) + 1          To 500 disciples        1 Cor. 15:6

5th                      29 (7 x 4) + 1          To all the apostles     1 Cor. 15:7

6th                      36 (7 x 1) + 1          To 11 disciples         Matt. 28:16

                          40                          Ascension                Acts 1:2-9

7th                      43 (7 x 6) + 1          120 disciples            Acts 1:14-15

8th                      50 (7 x 7) + 1          Pentecost                Acts 2:1ff

If these recorded appearances of Christ and other gatherings for worship did, in fact, occur on the first day of the week in every instance (as they surely did in the first two and in the eighth), then we have a very strong recurring apostolic example, as well as Christological example of the resurrected (on the first day of the week) Christ. This would go a long way toward explaining why 25 years later the disciples of Christ were still meeting on the first day of the week -- as indicated by Acts 20:6-7 and 1 Cor. 16:1-2. So much by way of approved example.

As far as good and necessary consequence, one should note that Christ entered into his glory on the first day of the week (Luke 24:1 cp. v. 26). So James thus even refers to him as the Lord of glory (Jas. 2:1). Thus, Scripture associates the Lord's glory with his resurrection and the resurrection took place on the first day of the week. The implication is clear that the Lord has a special propriety in the first day of the week as the day on which he entered into his glory.

Also, just as the seventh-day Sabbath commemorated the first creation (Exodus 20:11), so the first-day (actually I would even go so far as to call it eighth-day) Sabbath commemorates the new creation (2 Cor. 5:17 cp. Heb. 8:13).

Finally, what do we learn from 1 Cor. 16:1-4? First, the collection for the saints was part of the work of the Lord. Paul "gave order" to the churches in Galatia and to the Corinthian church to practice this collection ("gave order" is aorist tense of "diatassoo" -- make a precise arrangement or prescribe, direct, command, charge, ordain, etc.). Second, the collection was to be accumulated over a period of time by laying aside regular personal contributions bit by bit on the first day of the week. It is indisputable that Paul enjoined (commanded, prescribed) that these contributions were to be made on no other day but on the first day of the week. Note, Paul does not say to lay these contributions aside on any day of the week other than the Sabbath, but specifically denotes one day and one day only for the laying aside of these contributions -- the very day on which the Lord rose from the dead and entered into his glory and the very day on which at least many of his post-resurrection appearances were made to his gathered disciples.

Hopefully that will count as the one example that you asked for and more.

Richard Bacon


 

From: Mr. SDA

TO: Richard Bacon

Richard Bacon wrote: "I think you'll find numerous examples of Sunday worship in the New Testament, starting with the very first resurrection Sunday"

Richard, I'm sending you this message by Compuserve because Mr. H does not allow Sabbath subjects on his BBS.

[Resurrection Sunday] John 20:19 "On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, WITH THE DOORS LOCKED FOR FEAR OF THE JEWS ..." [They were not worshiping]

Richard, the New Covenant started at the cross. In order for Sunday worship to be part of the New Covenant, Jesus would have to have set it up before the cross. He never did. In Matt.5:17, He made it very clear that He would never change the 10 Commandments.

Let us see what was happening in the early church.

Jude 4: "For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men…"

Paul also makes it clear that false doctrine was coming into the church when he was alive. Let us see what Paul thought of the Ten Commandments. Rom.3:31 "Do we, then, nullify the Law by this faith? NOT AT ALL! RATHER, WE UPHOLD THE LAW." [i.e. Ten Commandments]

Let us see what Daniel says about false doctrine coming into the Church. Dan.7:25: "He will speak against the Most High and oppress His saints and TRY TO CHANGE THE SET TIMES AND THE LAWS" [Ten Commandments].

Satan does care how he gets you to break the Ten Commandments as long as he gets you to do it.

By the way, only through God can we do what is right. But we do what is right because it is the right thing to do, not because we want to be saved. Do have a good day in the Lord...

Mr. SDA


 

TO: Mr. SDA

Mr. SDA:

Well, I've already sent a response to Mr. S on Sabbath vs. the first day of the week. If Mr. H is upset, I'll just have to apologize publicly.

If he does not cancel my post, please take a look at it and you will find my take on NT worship. What information do you have that indicates that there was a special reason to fear the Jews on the first day of the week that there was not on other days? How about because they were keeping the first day instead of the Sabbath! Why else would the first day pose any greater threat to them than any other day of the week?

Further, there were numerous changes going on regarding the manner of worship throughout the book of Acts. For you to maintain that all the changes must have taken place precisely at the cross is rather out of keeping with the gradualistic nature of the book of Acts, in my honest opinion -- especially given the fact that Christ did not enter into his glory until 3 days after the cross (Luke 24:36).

Anyway, I welcome further interchange with you on the subject. Unlike Mr. H, I do not back away from any biblical doctrine. If I end up having to change my view -- well, it wouldn't be the first time I've been corrected by Scripture (and hopefully not the last).

For what it is worth, I very much admire the SDA insistence upon keeping the Sabbath, even though I believe the Sabbath has been changed. Most Sunday-keepers are not at all lovers of God's law as was the apostle Paul (Rom. 7:22), but are very much against keeping God's commandments. Yet Jesus said, "he that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me..." (John 14:21).

Richard Bacon


 

Mr. SDA to Richard Bacon

RB wrote: "please take a look at it and you will find..."

Sorry, I'm not able to.

RB wrote: "What information do you have that indicates that there was a special reason to fear the Jews on the first day of the week"

Let us look at it again.

John 20:19 "On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, WITH THE DOORS LOCKED FOR FEAR OF THE JEWS…"

Where does it state that they were there to worship? I don't see it. The verse already states why the door was locked.

RB wrote: "How about because they were keeping the first day instead of Sabbath."

The verse doesn't support that belief. You are starting to do what evolutionists do. If you look at the Bible you will only find one day that is called the Lord’s Holy Day. I believe God has the right to tell me what day He wants to be worshipped on. He is my Creator and I am the created.

Many believe Sunday is the Lord's Day, yet they will not find it in the Bible. Many believe Sunday is Holy, yet they can not find it in the Bible. Shouldn't the Bible be our foundation?

RB wrote: "there were numerous changes going on..."

There is a big difference between the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Laws. Keep in mind, the Sabbath was set up before sin entered the world [Creation Week, before there was a Jew] and in the New Heaven and Earth the saints will again worship the Lord.

Isaiah 66:22-23 "As the New Heavens and the New Earth that I make will endure before Me," declares the Lord," so will your name and descendants endure. For one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the Lord."

Some people say you can't find the fourth in the NT, but it is there. Hebrews. 4:9- "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work [work week], JUST AS GOD DID FROM HIS [Creation Week]. Let us therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience."

The prophet Daniel said this. Daniel 7:25 "He will speak against the Most High and oppress His saints and try to change the set times [time of day] and the Laws [Ten Commandments]. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time."

The Lord's Holy Day [the Sabbath] has been changed by man to Sunday and the RCC has changed the 10 Commandments in their Catechism book.

RB wrote: "[New Covenant]"

Let us look at the Bible to see what the NC is.

Heb.8:7- "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt,.. v10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my Laws [Ten Commandments] in their minds and write them on their hearts I will be their God, and they will be my people."

Let us see if the NC can be changed.

Heb.9:15- "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant,... v16 In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. "

Gal.3:14- He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as NO ONE CAN SET ASIDE OR ADD TO A HUMAN COVENANT THAT HAS BEEN DULY ESTABLISHED, SO IT IS IN THIS CASE."

RB wrote: "If I end up having to change my view--well, it wouldn't be the first time..."

I understand that. My parents went to the Science of Mind Church. Most of my life I thought evolution was true. It was not easy to change, but I couldn't see living in a lie. After that, my wife and I studied world religions and then Christian Religions over a period of about a year.

RB wrote: "are not at all lovers of God's law as was the apostle Paul"

Let us see what Paul did. Acts 17:2- "As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them... [keep in mind it was his custom]

Keep in mind, I know that God has his people in all the churches, but eventually Rev.14 will occur. Do have a good day in the Lord...

Mr. SDA


 

Richard Bacon to Mr. SDA:

You quote John 20:19, "On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, WITH THE DOORS LOCKED FOR FEAR OF THE JEWS …" Then you ask: "Where does it state that they were there to worship? I don't see it. The verse already states why the door was locked."

I answer: You missed the point entirely. Please answer my question and you will be, in my opinion, much closer to understanding the truth of what was going on in the passage. Why were they afraid of the Jews? And why were they only afraid of the Jews on the first day of the week and were not afraid of the Jews on any other day of the week? You are ignoring this vital question! Also, if you would like documentation, I will be happy to supply it (it is not close at hand), but the term "upper room" or ALIYYAH in Hebrew was regularly used for a Rabbinic synagogue in the first century and continued to be even as late as the writing of the Talmud (about 4th century AD). There is therefore reason for us to suppose that because of the upper room or ALIYYAH of the Rabbinic synagogue plus the fact that the Lord held his final Passover (and first Lord's Supper) in an ALIYYAH that the disciples would have continued the practice. Note also that the verse does not say that they were present for fear of the Jews, but that they had the door locked for fear of the Jews.

Here is what you should answer: Why did they gather when it would have been much safer simply to stay at home and not draw the attention of the Jews if the upper room were merely a "hiding place?" Why did they only hide on the first day of the week and not on the other days as well? If you are not prepared to answer those questions, then your theory that they were simply using the ALIYYAH as a "hiding place" is rather weak, in my honest opinion.

You then go on: "The verse doesn't support that belief. You are starting to do what evolutionists do. If you look at the Bible you will only find one day that is called the Lord’s Holy Day. I believe God has the right to tell me what day He wants to be worshipped on. He is my Creator and I am the created."

Mr. SDA, whether I do or do not believe the teachings of evolutionists is totally beside the point (as it happens, I do not believe them). Look at what is going on objectively if you will. I have offered an explanation as to why they are gathering for fear of the Jews on one day and one day only out of seven. If you have a different theory, then by all means advance it. But simply claiming that I am somehow similar to evolutionists because I disagree with you is hardly fair or convincing.

You claim: "Many believe Sunday is the Lord's Day, yet they will not find it in the Bible. Many believe Sunday is Holy, yet they can not find it in the Bible. Shouldn't the Bible be our foundation?"

I offered you significant reasons for worshipping on the first day of the week. Rather than answering those reasons you simply chose to ignore them. I am perfectly willing to discuss this issue, Mr. SDA, but a discussion does not consist of one of us ignoring the other, does it?!

You say: "There is a big difference between the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Laws. Keep in mind, the Sabbath was set up before sin entered the world [Creation Week, before there was a Jew] and in the New Heaven and Earth the saints will again worship the Lord. Isaiah 66:22-23: ‘As the New Heavens and the New Earth that I make will endure before Me, declares the Lord, so will your name and descendants endure. For one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the Lord.’"

First, I never claimed (either in my post to you or otherwise) that the fourth commandment is part of the ceremonial law. However, the manner in which that commandment was kept was most obviously a part of the ceremonial law. My observation was that many things were changing. I also demonstrated from the NT that the disciples were meeting regularly on the first day of the week. Therefore it is not a leap in logic to infer that the manner of the keeping of the fourth commandment may have changed with respect to the fact that Christ rose on the first day of the week.

You assert: "Some people say you can't find the 4th in the NT, but it is there. Hebrews. 4:9- ‘There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work [work week], JUST AS GOD DID FROM HIS [Creation Week]. Let us therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.’"

What "some people" say is beside the point. You have still neglected to deal with what I have said in my previous post(s).

You point out: "The prophet Daniel said this. Daniel 7:25 ‘He will speak against the Most High and oppress His saints and try to change the set times [time of day] and the Laws [Ten Commandments]. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.’ The Lord's Holy Day [the Sabbath] has been changed by man to Sunday and the RCC has changed the 10 Commandments in their Catechism book."

Yes, I realize that you believe that. However, I number the commandments the same way you do. Not only that, but I keep all ten as God gives me grace. Unlike many with whom you have had this discussion, I do not maintain that the fourth commandment has been abrogated.

Regarding the [New Covenant] I think you completely ignored the force of my argumentation from Hebrews. I understand that you want to get your view across and I welcome your view. However, in order for this to be a discussion you must also respond to my posts.

You explain: "I understand that. My parents went to the Science of Mind Church. Most of my life I thought evolution was true. It was not easy to change, but I couldn't see living in a lie. After that, my wife and I studied world religions and then Christian Religions over a period of about a year."

I too have been a student of religion (particularly the Christian religion) for many years. While it may come as a surprise to you, I have also very seriously considered the merits of the seventh-day position.

You explain: "Let us see what Paul did. Acts 17:2: ‘As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them...’ Keep in mind it was his custom. Keep in mind, I know that God has his people in all the churches, but eventually Rev.14 will occur."

I explain yet further: Acts 17:1 clearly states that he entered a synagogue of the Jews (they continue to this day to meet on the 7th day, don't they?). When else would Paul enter a Jewish synagogue but on the 7th day? His purpose for being in the synagogues was to dispute with the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. However, when he disputed with the Epicureans and Stoics in Acts 17:18ff, there is absolutely no evidence that it took place on the 7th day, is there? When he had an opportunity to speak to a specifically Christian assembly, it was on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

By the way, Messianic Jews (i.e. Jewish believers in Jesus as Christ) continue to meet on the 7th day and I fully understand why in light of their Jewish customs and desire to appear to be a synagogue.

Richard Bacon


 

Mr. SDA to Richard Bacon:

DOES THE PAPACY ACKNOWLEDGE CHANGING THE SABBATH? It does. Note - The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day.'"

Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p.345. The same, in slightly different wording, is in the McHugh and Callan translation (1937 ed.), p.402. "Ques.-How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holidays? Ans.-By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church."

Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p.58 (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed, by Daniel Ferris (1916 ed.), p.67.) "Ques.-Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? Ans.-Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."

Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3d ed.), p.174. "The Catholic Church … by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday." The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept.23,1893. . DO CATHOLIC AUTHORITIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS NO COMMAND IN THE BIBLE FOR THE SANCTIFICATION OF SUNDAY?-They do.

Note. "You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."-James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 ed),pp.72,73.


 

Richard Bacon to Mr. SDA:

If you mean for this Roman Catholic Church (RCC) post to be in response to my carefully worded and well-researched and, in my opinion, biblical discussion, then I am greatly disappointed. Please answer the points I brought up in that post and then we can continue on to other topics.

I will be happy to discuss the RCC with you. I am one of the few people who are MORE anti-RCC than you are. But let's deal with one thing at a time.

You asked for a Scripture that taught the practice of worshipping on the first day of the week. I gave you considerable effort -- and you did not even acknowledge it.

You may not agree with everything -- you may express very different opinions -- you may even have overwhelming scriptural evidence. But simply ignoring my post is not very conducive to further discussion, is it?

Richard Bacon


 

Mr. SDA to Richard Bacon:

I never saw your first post. Will look at both of the posts off line. Do have a good day in the Lord.

Mr. SDA


 

From Richard Bacon to Mr. SDA:

If you are unable to find it offline, I will happily re-upload it for you.

Richard Bacon


 

Mr. SDA to Richard Bacon:

"Why were they afraid of the Jews?" Jesus was just crucified a few days earlier, to their knowledge He had not even been resurrected yet! They were afraid of being subjected to the same fate as Jesus … crucifixion. "And why were they only afraid of the Jews on the FIRST day of the week…" The verses do not state they were only afraid of the Jews on the first day of the week. You are adding words that are not there. and were not afraid of the Jews on any other day of the week?" Now, you are going to have to prove that statement. We know they were afraid of the Jews from Thursday night to Friday. Nothing is stated about the Sabbath. And then on Sunday we are told they were still afraid of the Jews. "You are ignoring this vital question!" You are ignoring the whole Bible. What day is the Lord's Day according to the Bible? "upper room ...was regularly used for a Rabinic synagogue." No where in John 20:19 does it say they were in a 'upper room'. You are adding words that are not there. "There is therefore reason for us to suppose..." This is the type of stuff evolutionists come up with to prove what they want not what is there. The only thing that you have proven is that you base what you believe on 'ifs' and 'maybes'. You seem to forget Jesus says He is the same yesterday [Jesus created the Sabbath], today [Jesus wrote the Ten Commandments] and forever [in the New Earth we will worship Him from Sabbath to Sabbath].

"I offered you significant reasons for worshipping on the first day of the week." You have done a good job fooling yourself, but you will not fool God.

"that the disciples were meeting regularly on the first day of the week."

You seem to forget they broke bread may times daily. Acts 2:46: Every day they continued to meet together in temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts…

If you are thinking of Acts 20:7... The meeting took place on Saturday night. On Sunday Paul was walking to Assos.

If you are thinking of 1 Cor.16:2 … There is nothing in the text to indicate that Sunday was a meeting day, or that it was holy in any way. Let us look at the Greek... v.2 "...each of you BY HIM LET PUT, TREASURING UP WHATEVER HE MAY BE PROSPERED IN…"

The Spanish translation of this verse says, "Let every one of you lay in store AT HOME..."

"but I keep all ten as God gives me grace.... I do NOT maintain that the fourth commandment has been abrogated."

If you say Sunday is now the Sabbath, you are guilty of the same thing.

"[New Covenant] I think you completely ignored the force of my argumentation from Hebrews."

Keep in mind I was not raised in a Christian home. It did not matter to me which day I worshipped. In fact, from the standpoint of the 'flesh' I would have preferred Sunday. The only thing supporting you is the 'tradition of men' and not the Bible.

"I understand that you want to get your view across..."

It is not my view... it is what the Bible teaches. Again, what day is the Lord's Holy Day according to the Bible and the Bible only? Please, stop playing games and answer the question. .... more later.

Mr. SDA


 

Richard Bacon to Mr. SDA:

You quote me: "And why were they only afraid of the Jews on the FIRST day of the week..." Then ask: "The verses do not state they were only afraid of the Jews on the first day of the week. You are adding words that are not there."

I'm really not. Verse 9 states that they went home. They were not assembled for fear of the Jews. They had the door locked for fear of the Jews. That is something altogether different, isn't it? The point is this -- they first went home, which indicates that they were not assembled for fear of the Jews. They simply had the door shut (locked) for fear of the Jews. They were assembled for worship on the first day of the week.

Note also that Jesus came and stood in the midst of them. If Jesus were to come into your assembly would you worship him or not? The response of Thomas (on the subsequent first day of the week, when they were again assembled) was "my Lord and my God." Thomas was confronted by the risen Christ in an assembly on the first day of the week and addressed him as "my Lord and my God." That surely appears to be worship. Can you show a single instance in which Christ appeared to his disciples after the resurrection that was clearly any day other than the first day of the week?

You make this challenge: "Now, you are going to have to prove that statement. We know they were afraid of the Jews from Thursday night to Friday. Nothing is stated about the Sabbath. And then on Sunday we are told they were still afraid of the Jews."

I proved it above by demonstrating that they went home in verse 9. If they were assembled due to their fear, please explain the absence of an assembly on Thursday, Friday, and the lack of mention of an assembly on the Sabbath day. You claim that they assembled because of fear of the Jews. I claim that they assembled because it was the first day of the week. Yet you must admit that there is no mention of an assembly at any other time due to fear, and in verse 9 they actually went home before assembling. You must also admit, I would think, that it is at least somewhat intriguing that from the time of the assembly in John 20:19 to the assembly in John 20:26, there is no mention of any other assembly and the subsequent assembly was on the eighth day following (i.e. again on the first day of the week).

You charge: "You are ignoring the whole Bible. What day is the Lord's Day according to the Bible?"

Mr. SDA, that is a silly accusation. I have already cited numerous passages of Scripture in both my posts to you and my posts to Mr. S. Your accusation of ignoring the whole Bible simply falls to the ground. However, it is interesting to me that you simply used what might appear to many as a dodge to conceal the fact that you still have not dealt with my arguments. As far as what day is the Lord's day according to the Bible, that is precisely the subject at hand.

You point out: "No where in John 20:19 does it say they were in a 'upper room'. You are adding words that are not there.

You are correct. The fact that they were meeting in an Aliyyah for the Lord's Supper a few days earlier and were continuing to meet in one in Acts chapter one as they awaited the Holy Spirit is not absolute proof that they were in an upper room in John 20:19. It is merely the most obvious implication -- but you are correct to say "the words are not there."

You misdirect the conversation with: "This is the type of stuff evolutionists come up with to prove what they want not what is there. The only thing that you have proven is that you base what you believe on 'ifs' and 'maybes'. You seem to forget Jesus says He is the same yesterday [Jesus created the Sabbath], today [Jesus wrote the Ten Commandments] and forever [in the New Earth we will worship Him from Sabbath to Sabbath].

This is the second time you have brought this evolution stuff into your posts. The first time was merely strange. This second time is rude. I have already told you 1) evolution is beside the point and 2) I am not an evolutionist. As a matter of fact, I was busily refuting the arguments of evolutionists in the 1950's (which I suspect was before you were born).

You again quote me: "I offered you significant reasons for worshipping on the first day of the week." Then say: "You have done a good job fooling yourself, but you will not fool God."

Again, Mr. SDA, rudeness is no substitute for discussion. I have no intention of fooling either God or myself. However, if you are unable to deal with my arguments and the Scriptures that I propose, then please simply say so. If you are able to deal with them, then please do so.

Again from you: "‘that the disciples were meeting regularly on the first day of the week.’ You seem to forget they broke bread many times daily. Acts 2:46- Every day they continued to meet together in temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts…"

On which day of the week other than the first day of the week did Jesus join them?

I have no problem with you getting together with your friends on any day of the week to break bread (including even Saturday). That has little if anything to do with the purpose at hand unless you can demonstrate that these were stated worship assemblies.

You claim: "If you are thinking of Acts 20:7... The meeting took place on Saturday night. On Sunday Paul was walking to Assos."

Even if that were true (which you have asserted, but not proven) by your own SDA reckoning, Saturday evening would be the beginning of Sunday since you believe that days begin at sundown...so it is still (as Luke clearly tells us) the first day of the week regardless of your reckoning.

You also note: "If you are thinking of 1 Cor.16:2... There is nothing in the text to indicate that Sunday was a meeting day, or that it was holy in any way. Let us look at the Greek... v.2 "...each of you BY HIM LET PUT, TREASURING UP WHATEVER HE MAY BE PROSPERED IN…"

I rather suspect I am more familiar with the Greek of the passage than are you. You have not addressed my question -- if this is to be done at home, then why only on the first day of the week? Why does Paul not say that they are to do this on whatever day they choose to do it? What is the significance of the first day of the week? Why is the first day of the week mentioned repeatedly after the resurrection? By the way, when are you going to deal with my exegesis of 1 Cor. 16:1-4?

You note: "The Spanish translation of this verse says, "Let every one of you lay in store AT HOME..."

So much the worse for the Spanish translation. It is incorrect. Paul does use the phrase "at home" in 1 Corinthians 14:35. Had he intended to say "at home" in 1 Cor. 16, he could have done so (the phrase "en oikoo" does not appear in 1 Cor. 16:2 -- the phrase which in Greek means "at home").

You again quote me: "but I keep all ten as God gives me grace.... I do NOT maintain that the fourth commandment has been abrogated." And say: "If you say Sunday is now the Sabbath, you are guilty of the same thing."

Get yourself a good dictionary and look up the word abrogated. To say that the Lord of the Sabbath is not necessarily limited to your understanding of it is not the same as saying that the Sabbath is abrogated.

You say: "Keep in mind I was not raised in a Christian home. It did not matter to me which day I worshipped. In fact, from the standpoint of the 'flesh' I would have preferred Sunday. The only thing supporting you is the 'tradition of men' and not the Bible."

I have not offered you "the tradition of men" to support my position. I have offered you numerous scriptural arguments. Instead of dealing with Scripture, you have chosen instead to bring up stuff about evolution and other off-the-point comments (such as the one above). It does not matter to me what day you would have preferred -- or whether you were brought up in a Christian home. I trust that the Lord of glory has indeed done a work in your heart. But that has nothing at all to do with our discussion. Please limit your remarks to that which is germane to the subject.

You assert: "It is not my view... it is what the Bible teaches. Again, what day is the Lord's Holy Day according to the Bible and the Bible only? Please, stop playing games and answer the question. .... more later."

Mr. SDA, I don't know how to point this out except to say it. You have been very rude in your last couple of posts. I am not playing games. I have repeatedly offered scriptural arguments. I believe the Bible fully supports my position. You also believe that the Bible fully supports your position. But there is no need for you to be so rude about it. Paul, as he traveled on his missionary journeys would shake the dust from his feet when people refused to deal with the Scripture. I do not think you want for me to "shake the dust" from my email feet. I really believe if you will take a couple of breaths and realize that I am not threatening you, you will be able to deal with my posts in a more civil way. Please at least consider it, OK? You must realize that posts of this length are costing me money. I do not intend to continue spending the money only to receive insults in return. Is that fair enough?

Richard Bacon


 

[The conversation ended after Mr. SDA refused to engage the material offered by Mr. Bacon after several requests to do so.]

Page Last Updated: 01/10/08 11:42:35 AM