| Author | Message | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 235 Registered: 5-2004 |
Yes, I had marked all those quotes, and even included several of them in my last reply to my family member. And I love that this was written around 135? which makes it several years prior to the "sunday law" of Constantine and Justin is so obviously and passionately refuting the notion that the law is still binding and that Christians were ìdisregardingî the Sabbath even then. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 728 Registered: 10-2004  |
And EGW says that for the first few centuries (plural) after Christ, the entire Christian church kept the Sabbath and did not keep Sunday. Constantine's law was in 321 AD. But Justin Martyr describes the Christian church and it's beliefs/activities (including Sunday worship) in several of his writings, perhaps less than 50 years after the Apostle John died. Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on June 06, 2005) | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 372 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, I know I had read somewhere that Bishop Polycarp, who was taught by the Apostle John, also very early referred to the Lord's day as Sunday, as in Rev. 1:10. I can't remember where I saw this, have you seen any reference to that? Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 729 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan, I know I heard somewhere that someone taught by the Apostle John wrote about Sunday, but I don't remember the details. Jeremy | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 821 Registered: 7-2003  |
| ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 913 Registered: 7-2003  |
Chris, do you think the early Christians "observed" the first day in the same way as the Jews did the sabbath? While I see how the jewish Christians may have continued observing the sabbaths (all kinds of them) "just cuz" they always did, I don't see where any gentile convert to Christianity was ever instructed regarding sabbath observance either day of the week, either scripturally or in any other literature I've come across. As has been pointed out, it seems all early writings go against any holy day for worship or any other observance. Given that, I'm always struck about the reference to "observing" a day. I've never considered going to church as observing a day. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 823 Registered: 7-2003 |
I agree with you Melissa. I provided the references above mainly for the analysis of the term "kuriakei hemurai". SDAs say this term must mean "Seventh-day Sabbath", but the earliest documents available to us contradict that assertion. It seems to be a technical term for the day of the resurrection in much the same way that "Lord's Supper" was a technical term for the distinctly Christian practice of taking the bread and the wine in rememberance of Christ's sacrifice. The scholarly book, "From Sabbath to Lord's Day" edited by D.A. Carson suggests that early Jewish Christians continued to go to synagog on the Sabbath (up until the time they were kicked out for their beliefs), but also gathered in the evening after work on Sunday, The Lord's Day, for a distinctly Christian gathering that included the Lord's Supper. For the most part, the gentiles never observed the Jewish Sabbath because they were never under the Law. They gathered with the Jewish Christians on the Lord's Day for a distinctly Christian gathering. As more and more gentiles came into the Church, as Jewish Christians were kicked out of the synagogs, and finally when the the temple was destroyed and the Jewish Church in Jerusalem was dispersed in AD 70 Sabbath observance within the Church faded away along with the rest of the Jewish rituals that had already been fulfilled in Christ. There is no evidence that the early Christians thought the Lord's Day was a new "Sabbath". Rather it was a day of special significance to the Church, but they understood the various Sabbaths to have been fulfilled in Christ. It seems that Sunday Sabbatarianism only crept into the Church much later. As far as I'm concerned, Sunday Sabbatarianism is as much a form of Galationism as is Saturday Sabbatarianism. It's a shame that it's still so prevalent in traditions that are heavily influenced by Puritain thought. Chris | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 1 Registered: 1-2004  |
Hi, I'm new here... I've been reading the forum for several years and lurking for several months. I have been enjoying the talk about the early Christians. I do have a comment about them, however. Based on my having read at least half of everything written before 150 AD by Christians, I see a rather great difference between what Christians believed back then compared to what Evangelicals in general seem to believe now. A case in point would be eternal security or OSAS. In my opinion, to honestly look at the evidence from the writings of early Christians would make it necessary to conclude that either there was major apostasy by no later than 100 AD, or one should start gaining a real appreciation for the beliefs of the original churches; the Greek Orthodox and Catholics. If there was a major apostasy by 100 AD, then there goes much of the evidence that Christians have always seen Sunday as special, and never required Sabbath observance. This is how things look to me at the moment. In any case, I love reading the writings of these early Christians! They had alot of faith. Jeremiah | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 375 Registered: 3-2005 |
Welcome Jeremiah to FAF. I agree with you about the faith of early Christians. They were willing to put their very lives on the line for what they believed. Stan | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 824 Registered: 7-2003 |
You're right Jeremiah. There were some things written by the early church fathers that appear down right heretical today. There were a number of items that different early writers took different stands on as well. They weren't completely unified on all points, nor were they infallible, nor were they inspired writers. It's interesting to read their thoughts on various topics (divergent as they may be at times) and we can also learn something about church history as well. But at the end of the day, the yardstick for judging truth is the Bible. There are things in the writings of some church fathers that I would reject bibically. I would reject much of the exegesis of some like Origen who would attempt to allegorize large portions of the OT. So on an issue like Sabbath observance we cannot rely on the church fathers to tell us proper practice for Christians, we must go to the scripture for that. The church fathers do however shed interesting historical light and help us understand how a term like "Lord's Day" was used at that point in history. Finally, I would point out that a person's stance on eternal security is NOT a test of orthodoxy. Both Armenianism and Calvinism (as well as many gradiations in between) are within the pale of orthodoxy. Whether you believe that believers are eternally secure or instead believe that they can lose their salvation, you are not in apostacy. It's an in-house debate within the church that goes on today. Chris | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 825 Registered: 7-2003 |
I believe I neglected to say "Welcome Jeremiah"! Chris | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 915 Registered: 7-2003 |
Thanks, Chris. I was just wondering if you had run across something I had missed. Welcome, Jeremiah. I have also read a lot of the church fathers, and would question whether anyone thought "Sunday special". The only thing that makes the first day of the week memorable is that it is the day the resurrection took place. Therefore, it is the EVENT, not the day, that is "special". Unlike all other religions who find their leaders dead in a grave, Christianity has an empty tomb...a resurrected savior. It is the event that gives us hope as the Bible says, for without a resurrection, we are still dead in our sins. So, Christians memorialized the resurrection, not "Sunday". It just happens the Bible is very specific that Jesus was raised on the first day of the week, and somewhere in time someone named the first day of the week Sunday. Romans 14 is clear that holy day observance is a pesonal conviction, not a moral mandate. It is interesting to see how some traditions developed as Christianity grew, but as Chris said, it is ultimately scripture that should guide our beliefs. The resurrection is the differentiating factor in our faith, and holds our future hope according to the Bible. I personally find great assurance in the awesomeness of the resurrection. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 827 Registered: 7-2003 |
Wow! Well said! Well said, indeed! In fact, the more I think about your quote, the more I like it. Please forgive me if you catch me quoting you unawares in the future. I have a feeling that phrase will stick with me for long time. I love it when the the light bulb goes on! Thank you Melissa! Chris | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 917 Registered: 7-2003 |
quote away as you like.... If you think about it, though we mark time by days and weeks and a calendar, the only thing we are ever concerned about is events.... 9/11 is memorable because of the event on that day. Dec 7 ... pearl harbor. July 4 ... Independence Day. December 25... "I" was born....and you thought I was going to say "Christmas"  . We celebrate birthdays, not because the day is special but because it marks an event that is special. Really, nothing has changed in that regard except that someone tried to skew that particular memorial to be about a day because it served a purpose to "negate" or taint worship on that day, as though it is ever the "wrong" day to worship God. Scripture never supports that. | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 2 Registered: 1-2004 |
I like your point about the EVENT being what was special. I agree totally. But we never find them celebrating the resurrection on say, Saturday, unless that is what the celebration of the Lord's Supper is, in which case Catholics would be celebrating the resurrection any day of the week. To quote Justin here; "But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead." To me there is still a "specialness" being associated with a "day of the week" here, because otherwise why would they just happen to pick Sunday? And Sunday is not a day to "refrain from work" but to gather together in the sense of "forsake not the assembling of yourselves together" found in Hebrews. I don't think the pagans observed Sunday or any "weekday" for that matter. In this time period they were just getting used to having a 7 day week, borrowed from the Egyptians, if what I've read elsewhere is correct. So there seems to be a "specialness" but it is because of an EVENT. And a Christian event, not a pagan event. Jeremiah | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 3 Registered: 1-2004 |
That's an interesting comment on the doctrine of eternal security not being a test of Orthodoxy, Chris. I would have to agree based on that doctrine apparently being absent from most of Christian history. Maybe having "assurance of salvation" isn't all that closely connected to believing in "eternal security". To me though, it would be very easy to go from not believing OSAS to believing that good works play a big part in our salvation, thus getting that equation "faith + works = salvation". Because if a person thinks that they could be lost, then there must be something they could DO to make them lost, and perhaps something they could FAIL to DO, that could make them lose salvation. Jeremiah | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 828 Registered: 7-2003 |
I agree Jeremiah. There is a real risk for Armenians and Wesleyians that they will slip into theology that is semi-plegian or even outright plegianism. I think this is what happened with SDAs. Although most SDAs would affirm that salvation is by faith alone, some paradoxically believe that ceasing to hold to certain SDA "truths", such as Sabbath observance, can result in losing your salvation. Chris | ||
| Pheeki Registered user Username: Pheeki Post Number: 583 Registered: 1-2003 |
Jeremiah. Are you currently SDA or a former? | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 376 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremiah and Chris, This in-house debate you speak of regarding Arminianism vs. Calvinism gets more interesting to me as I continue to marvel at the Sovereignty of God in electing us unconditionally to salvation, and his grace in preserving us and insuring that we persevere in the faith. All of us who came out of Adventism, may be more interested in this debate than others. Adventism is a supreme example of where Arminianism logically leads IF you take it to its logical conclusion. Since my wife and I attend a church that leans Arminian (Calvary Chapel), I have to be careful, but in no way am I implying that a lot of good Arminian folk are not grace based in their theology. However, SDA and Catholicism have gone into semi-pelagianism, and some may rightfully argue that the doctrine of the I.J. is outright Pelagian. But we see many other Pentecostal and Fundamentalist churches who have gone back into more extreme Arminianism, and Galatianism (a lot of man made rules that you MUST follow to keep your salvation). So I believe there is a point in the Arminian spectrum, which does go beyond the pale of orthodoxy. One of the most famous and influential American evangelist was Charles Finney. It is really scary to read what he believed about the salvation process, and he was definitely Pelagian in his views. He believed you could whip up an audience to accept Christ by setting the right mood, with music, lighting etc. He even said with the right kind of psychological manipulation you could get people saved. He believed salvation was completely an act of the will, just like Ellen White stated on page 47 of Steps to Christ, (a quote Ric posted I believe on another thread). So much of American evangelicalism is historically Arminian, and much of it works oriented. It seems like that Arminianism logically leads to at least questioning the all sufficiency of the grace of God, and we must keep it in mind as we journey out of Adventism and into a full understanding and appreciation of God's sovereign grace. To God be the glory! Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 730 Registered: 10-2004 |
Melissa, Ignatius does use the word "observance" in connection with Sunday:
And he supposedly died in AD 108. Jeremiah, Welcome to the forum! We're glad you've joined us. I agree with what you said about faith + works, etc. Chris, You wrote, "Although most SDAs would affirm that salvation is by faith alone,..." Would most really affirm that? I know that those in the "traditional Adventism" camp such as those on the revivalsermons.org site, would never affirm such, at least not without changing the definition of faith to include works ("it's a 'working' faith, which keeps the commandments"). And a lot of them say things like "faith without works is dead," or "we have to have the two oars of faith and works," etc. Jeremy |
