Objection:
There are many authentic statements from early Christian writers that demonstrate the continuous observance of the first day of the week as a day of Divine worship, beginning with the resurrection of the Savior and continuing through the early centuries of the present dispensation. However, Seventh-day Adventists claim, based on what they describe as ‘inspiration,’ that this change occurred with Constantine, the first so-called ‘Christian emperor’ of Rome, in the early part of the fourth century (see The Great Controversy, p. 53). Ironically, they also assert that ‘the Pope changed [the Sabbath] from the seventh day to the first day of the week’ (see Early Writings of Mrs. White, p. 33, 1916 edition), which appears to contradict their earlier claim.
Answer:
We have already discovered that no passage of Scripture can be found to support the claim that Christians kept Sunday. The primitive Christian authors, beyond the apostles, provide no undebatable proof of veneration for Sunday earlier thanthe second century. (See “HOW SUNDAY OBSERVANCE BEGAN, PART ONE,” “PART TWO,” and “PART THREE” for historical proof.) It is generally held that virtually all the apostles had gone to martyrs’ graves by AD 70. But we must wait at least forty or fifty years beyond this date before we find written evidence worthy of any serious consideration that Christians were giving any special regard to Sunday. And even some of the evidence would be seriously challenged by church historians as highly doubtful in regard to authorship and date and possible exact meaning.
What the average reader often overlooks, and what the Sabbath objector is eager to forget, is that in the years immediately following the death of the apostles, many pagan ideas and customs began to permeate the church. In a message to the elders of the church at Ephesus around AD 60, Paul issued a warning: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:28-30)
A few years earlier, he had written to the church in Thessalonica about a “falling away” from the faith that was expectedto occur. This apostasy would lead to the exaltation of the “man of sin.” He referred to this as the “mystery of iniquity,” noting that it was already at work (2 Thessalonians 2:3-7).
Throughout the centuries, most Protestant theologians have interpreted this as a prophecy concerning the rise of the Papacy, the significant power of the Roman Catholic Church.
In his commentary on this prophetic passage in 2 Thessalonians, the Bible commentator Adam Clarke, despite being uncertain about various details, adds the following insights:
“The general run of Protestant writers understand the whole as referring to the popes and Church of Rome, or the whole system of the papacy.”
Then he summarizes at length the comments of Bishop Newton, one of the most eminent of Anglican writers on prophecy, remarking that “The principal part of modern commentators follow his steps. He applies the whole to the Romish Church: the apostasy, its defection from the pure doctrines of Christianity; and the man of sin, etc. the general succession of the popes of Rome.” And here is what Barnes, quoting Newton, says in part:
“The seeds of corruption were sown [in Paul’s day], but they were not yet grown up to any maturity.” “Dr. Newton maintains that the foundations of popery were laid in the apostle’s days.”
Protestant historians generally agree that the roots of Roman Catholicism date back to at least the second century. The eminent church historian Philip Schaff declares:
“The first example of the exercise of a sort of papal authority is found towards the close of the first century in the letter of the Roman bishop Clement (d. 102) to the bereaved and distracted church of Corinth.”. (History of the Christian Church (8th ed., 1903), vol. 2, p. 157)
“He [Clement] speaks in a tone of authority to a sister church of apostolic foundation, and thus reveals the easy and as yet innocent beginning of the papacy.” (Ibid., p. 646)
Paul died as a martyr in Rome around AD 68. Clement, the bishop of Rome, was a disciple of Paul and died in AD 102. According to Schaff, the period between Clement and Paul represents a transition “from the apostolic to the apocryphal, from faith to superstition.” (Ibid.)
The Sabbath objector speaks highly of “primitive Christian authors,” who are said to have provided compelling evidence for Sunday observance in the early church. However, the early development of the Papacy raises significant doubts about the reliability of these “authors.” Clement, the bishop of Rome, was one of the earliest figures, although he did not address the issue of Sunday observance in his writings. Regarding the so-called Church Fathers who lived in the two centuries immediately following the apostles, Schaff says:
“We seek in vain among them for the evangelical doctrines of the exclusive authority of the Scriptures, justification by faith alone, the universal priesthood of the laity; and we find instead as early as the second century a high estimate of ecclesiastical traditions, meritorious and even over-meritorious works, and strong sacerdotal, sacramentarian, ritualistic, and ascetic tendencies, which gradually matured in the Greek and Roman types of catholicity.” (Ibid., p. 628)
We have learned, in response to the objection that “THE LORD’S DAY PROVES THE SABBATH IS ABOLISHED,” that we cannot be certain that we are reading the genuine words of the so-called apostolic fathers—those early Christian authors—rather than alterations or fabrications introduced by later forgers.
Schaff cites a “distinguished writer” who states that transitioning from the inspired writings of the New Testament to the uninspired writings of the Church Fathers is like moving, “by a single step,” from the lush surroundings of “an Eastern city in the desert” into a “barren waste.” (Ibid., p. 636)
The Sabbath objector suggests that we should look to this “barren waste” as proof of Sunday keeping. However, even if we accept what the early church fathers said on the subject, we must ask: what value is their testimony regarding a church that, according to their limited understanding, was already practicing Sunday keeping? The church historians mentioned reveal that the origins of various false teachings, including all of Roman Catholicism, trace back to the time of those early fathers.
Due to various false teachings and practices that were solidified over centuries, these errors ultimately culminated in the Papacy. It is thus understandable to attribute these different errors to the Christian church brought in by Rome, which means they were brought in by the popes. We have established that observing Sunday is neither apostolic nor scriptural; thus, it is one of the unscriptural teachings that emerged later, which contributed to the formation of the Roman Catholic system of doctrine. Therefore, Mrs. E. G. White, representing the Seventh-day Adventists, made no historical error in stating that the Pope changed the day of worship. Furthermore, there is no conflict between that statement and her assertion that Constantine “issued a decree making Sunday a public festival throughout the Roman Empire.” Mrs. White does not claim that the transition from Sabbath to Sunday “occurred with Constantine,” as some Sabbath objectors suggest. Instead, she simply states that he enacted a certain Sunday law, which is a matter of historical fact.
It is true that all the church historians we have quoted—who are all Sunday keepers—believe that Sunday has the sanction of apostolic custom, even if it is not explicitly commanded in the Scriptures. The main argument they put forward, despite the lack of Scriptural evidence or proof of an apostolic tradition regarding Sunday worship, is this: Surely, we would not find such widespread veneration of Sunday in the second century unless it had apostolic approval.
What these historians overlook is that they have just described numerous false doctrines and practices that were prevalent in the second century, supported by the writings of the church fathers. Did all these erroneous teachings have apostolic backing? Furthermore, they fail to recognize that the same convincing argument they use to establish apostolic origins for Sunday worship is employed by Rome to assert apostolic authority for many of her un-Biblical teachings and practices. The argument holds the same weight in both cases and, ultimately, is worthless in either instance.
In the “barren wastes” of post-Biblical times and writings, we cannot find solid ground for our beliefs. If we want to walk in the path of truth, we must adhere strictly to the Scriptures, remaining steadfast with our Lord and His holy apostles.
If it seems incredible to any reader that such a significant apostasy could occur within a mere fifty years—from the late first century to the early second century—consider the modern parallel. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, most Christian ministers could be described as Fundamentalists in belief. However, subtle teachings of evolution were beginning to receive a sympathetic audience among some. By the end of the first quarter of the twentieth century, a revolutionary shift in religious belief, known as Modernism, had taken hold in the major branches of Christianity. Fundamental concepts such as the deity of Christ, the atonement of Christ, and the inspiration of Scripture had drastically changed in meaning.
It would be unjust for a future church historian to assume that because church leaders early in the twentieth century embraced Modernist beliefs, those views must have also been held in the nineteenth century, and that the prominent church leaders of the nineteenth century must have taught these beliefs to their followers. The evidence we have concerning the beliefs of the first and second centuries suggests that historians should similarly refrain from concluding that because certain beliefs were held in the second century, they must have also been held and promoted by the apostles in the first century. Why tarnish the reputation of those holy men?
