My Response to Tom Nash Part 3

Irenaeus of Lyons

The primary thing Tom Nash did not do in his response to my article, was to explain anything. He completely relied on the mindset of Catholics to interpret excerpts from Irenaeus as they have been conditioned to do. In contrast I have provided context and explanations which I think are preferred by reasonable people.

Let’s start with a quote from Irenaeus that Mr. Nash considered to stand on its own in support of Catholic real presence:

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?”

To properly expound on this quote we need to take in context. However, not a lot of context is required in order to understand the point Irenaeus is trying to make. Just going back to the beginning of the paragraph (5.2.2) where the quote was taken helps a great deal. It starts with this sentence:

“But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption.”

The heretics to whom he was referring were those who believed that the material world was evil including the flesh and blood of man. They saw the world as imperfect, flawed, and evil, not because of the fall of Adam and Eve, but because they believed it was created that way. They could not reconcile a perfect God creating an imperfect world. Their view of Jesus was that He was a mere man who became divine as a result of His spiritual virtue. They believed He became the manifestation of Christ at the moment of His baptism.

A response to Catholic Apologist Tom Nash of Catholic Answers Part 2

In part one of my response to Tom Nash, I answered to his claims regarding Ignatius of Antioch. Here, in part two, I will address his claims regarding Justin Martyr.

In my article, “Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence,” I give context and some background on Justin Martyr’s two apologies. It is by no means comprehensive, but it does help to better understand why Justin wrote these works. But as for squashing the claim that his works affirm the notion of real presence, well, that can be done with a single phrase from Justin: “Deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced.”

Here is the context…

Rome and Preeminent Authority in the Ante-Nicene Church

Preeminent – the word garners attention whenever it is used, suggesting to the reader or hearer that something or someone is held in the highest regard. And when the word is used by a respected early church father with regard to the church, its meaning demands attention. And when the word is used in connection to a specific church, the church in Rome, attention it will get. Such is the case regarding a certain passage from the works of a beloved second century bishop named, Irenaeus.

Any Roman Catholic that has heard of Irenaeus will tell you that in his works against heresies, he explicitly referred to the church in Rome as being preeminent. “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [the church in Rome], on account of its pre- eminent authority.” For Roman Catholics, this statement is proof positive that the second century church regarded the church in Rome as preeminent to all the others. The problem for Roman Catholics, however, is that the “proof” falls apart when the quote is reunited with its context.

If you are considering Catholicism, consider this first.

“If anyone comes and tells me they’re the church and I know that they’re not teaching the same thing as the church of 2000 years ago then I know it’s false.” (Dr. Sungenis)

The above quote is the philosophy of Catholic apologist Dr. Robert Sungenis who made this comment during a debate with Evangelical apologist, Matt Slick this past July.

Apparently Dr. Sungenis never applied his philosophy to his own beliefs, because if he did he would find his own church to be false. This is because none of the “oral [T]raditions” of the Catholic Church that Catholics are required to believe were known in the ancient church nearly 2000 years ago. And what are Catholics required to believe? Dr. Sungenis answers that for us:

“Any oral teaching inspired by the Holy Spirit to the apostles is our Oral Tradition that we must be obedient to.” (ibid)

So for anyone that might be considering joining the Catholic faith, here is a non-comprehensive list of doctrines Catholics are required to believe that did not exist in the apostolic and Ante-Nicene church; doctrines that according to Dr. Sungenis, were received by the apostles from the Holy Spirit and passed down to the church by oral tradition.

1. The Immaculate Conception
2. The assumption of Mary
3. Transubstantiation
4. Confessing sins to priests
5. Holy days of obligation
6. And the requirement to believe that the Roman bishop is infallible in regards to his proclamations concerning faith and morals.

I would love to hear from Catholics on this, especially apologists. Is Dr. Sungenis wrong, or is the Catholic Church teaching false doctrine?

The Truth behind Catholic Answers Early Church Quotes: Irenaeus on Apostolic Tradition

This is the second post in a series on Catholic Answers apologetics tracts. This week’s post continues in the topic of “Apostolic Tradition.” The second early church quote from Catholic Answers Apostolic Tradition track is from the second century bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus. The quote appears as follows.

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority [import] of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

Just as in their previous quote from Papias, there is nothing here to indicate what the tradition is, just that there is vitally important tradition occupied and guarded by the church. The presupposition of a Catholic will automatically trigger thoughts of ‘sacred tradition,” tradition that according to the Catholic Church was handed down from the apostles orally to church leaders. After all, that is the message Catholic Answers is trying to send. Sacred tradition refers to doctrine that is either not found in written Scripture or is not easily deduced from it. It is considered to be equal in authority to Scripture. But as much as reading this quote from Irenaeus might go a long way in promoting sacred tradition for those who are presupposed to believe it, it is isolated; and it fails to show anything of substance. But if we go and read the quote in context we find that Irenaeus does not fail to explain what the tradition is. In the paragraph just prior to the one Catholic Answers posted on their website, he said this.

Previous paragraph to C.A. quote:

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickedness,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. (Against Heresies 1:10:1)

He continues with what we find on the Catholic Answers website.

As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same.

When brought into context it is easy to see that the tradition of which Irenaeus was referring was pure basic Christian doctrine. No mention or hint of any doctrine not fully and easily supported by the written word.

Here is another quote from Irenaeus that appears on the Catholic Answers Apostolic Tradition page.

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).

What Catholic Answers does not provide is what Irenaeus said next…

“To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendor, shall come in glory, the Savior of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent.” (3:4:2)

Sound familiar? Irenaeus continues:

“Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom…Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.” (ibid. 3:4:2)

Irenaeus is teaching that in the absence of written Scripture, the faith of the church is preserved in tradition, which was handed down from the apostles and carefully guarded. This tradition literally mirrored the written Scriptures because it essentially was the written Scriptures.

The next Irenaeus quote on Catholic Answers is this:

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.” (ibid. 3:3:1)

Now that we know what the tradition is we can sympathize with Irenaeus’ sentiments concerning doctrines that were never taught by the apostles, or those approved men to whom they charged with the care of the faith.

Here is one more interesting quote taken from Book 3 of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies:

“When, however, they [heretics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: [word of mouth].” (ibid. 3:2:1)

Irenaeus’ description of the heretics is not at all unlike that of the Post-Nicene Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church places tradition on equal ground with Scripture. “Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (82).

However, this would not be such a big deal if only the tradition they were referring to was what Irenaeus presented; tradition that actually did equal Scripture. But unfortunately, the traditions the catechism is referring to is more akin to what the heretics preached; false doctrines that are unascertainable from Scripture.

There is one additional quote from Irenaeus that appears on the Catholic Answers Apostolic Tradition page, but it lends itself better to the topic of the papacy. And since the quote appears in that topic as well, I will leave it for a future post.

The Truth behind Catholic Answers Early Church Quotes: Papias on Apostolic Tradition

The following is a first in a series of posts aimed at exposing the severe lack of credibility at one of Catholicism’s most popular apologetics websites, Catholic Answers. Over the years I have been inundated with quotes taken from Catholic Answers and used by Catholics as proof that the early church taught and believed all the “Sacred Traditions” of the Catholic Church. What I have found from reading those quotes over the years is that they are highly selective, unfairly edited, and deliberately misleading. If there is one admirable thing I can say about Catholic Answers it is that they provide references, which makes their culpability for fairness equally shared with those readers who fail to validate their claims. To understand what I am talking about, I am going to begin this series by examining a single quote from Papias, the first and oldest reference that appears on Catholic Answers in defense of “Apostolic Tradition.”

The early church quote from which Papias’ is the first, are prefaced by this following statement on the (Catholic Answers Apostolic Tradition page:

“The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show.”

The Papias quote is taken from Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and appears on the Catholic Answers website as follows:

“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).” Catholic Answers; Apostolic Tradition) (Emphasis mine)

Now read the same quote from Ecclesiastical History:

“And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.
But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.”

Where Eusebius says Papius mentions Aristion and John by name, and gives their traditions in writings, Catholic Answers inserted “concerning Jesus.” Eusebius didn’t say or even imply that the traditions Papias recorded were from Jesus,” something Catholic Answers dubiously added. By doing that, they created the premise that Papius’ writings revealed unwritten teachings of Christ.

The only thing one can ascertain from the quote is that Papias recorded some sort of tradition dating back to apostolic times. But what that tradition is Catholic Answers does not say. So it’s up to the reader to find out.

When read in context from Ecclesiastical History, one can see that Eusebius never mentions any so-called Sacred Tradition. He does, however, talk about a particular belief that Papias claims came from unwritten tradition. This is found in paragraphs 11-13.

“11 The same writer [Papius] gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Savior, and some other more mythical things.

12 To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.

13 For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Iranaeus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.”

Papius claims to have received unwritten tradition from Aristion and John that proclaims a 1000-year reign of Christ on Earth after the resurrection. But Catholic doctrine expressly rejects this view. Even on Catholic Answers own website one can find the evidence that they disagree with Papius:

“As far as the millennium goes, we tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. The Catholic position has thus historically been ‘amillennial‘” (Catholic Answers; The Rapture)

The apostolic tradition Papias actually recorded, according to Eusebius, contradicts Catholic teaching, yet Catholic Answers passes it off as support for Catholic tradition. I wonder how many times people have pulled this quote from Catholic Answers to defend Catholic Tradition in discussions on forums, blogs, and emails, not knowing that it actually supports doctrine they oppose?

In light of Papias’ support of millennialism, let me once again share Catholic Answers preface to his quote:

“The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show.”

Mary Ever Virgin: Why the doctrine should not be believed

The cousin argument

In order for anyone to believe that Mary remained a virgin, they first have to believe the Bible doesn’t really say what it appears to say. The apostles called Jesus’ relatives brothers and sisters, but they really meant cousins? Then why didn’t they say cousins? Luke, a Greek speaking gentile, referred to Elizabeth as Mary’s cousin (syggenēs); why did he not call her Mary’s sister (adelphē)? The cousin exegesis makes Luke out to be inconsistent.

The Mary at the cross argument

They also propose the idea that Jesus had no brothers because on the cross He gave His mother to John. Someone has told you that it would have been customary for Jesus to place His mother’s care in the hands of His brother, and since He did not do that He must not have had a brother. Sounds logical, but there is one major problem; had Jesus given His mother to one of His brothers, His actions would have contradicted His teachings.

Jesus said, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” I think you would agree that there is enough evidence from the Gospels to conclude that Mary believed in Jesus, but we know with certainty that His brothers did not (John 7:5). So if Jesus were to give His mother to His brothers He would have contradicted His own teaching.

What about the obvious conclusion just from reading the Bible?

I am sure most would agree that if a person who never heard the Gospel read them for the first time, they would believe that Mary had other children based simply on the text. It would take someone to come in and tell them that what they read isn’t as it appears. That means the burden of proof lies with those who dispute the obvious conclusion drawn from the text.

The evidence that the doctrine of Mary remaining in her virginity perpetually is not orthodox

“For the one and the same Spirit of God, who proclaimed by the prophets what and of what sort the advent of the Lord should be, did by these elders give a just interpretation of what had been truly prophesied; and He did Himself, by the apostles, announce that the fullness of the times of the adoption had arrived, that the kingdom of heaven had drawn near, and that He was dwelling within those that believe in Him who was born Emmanuel of the Virgin. To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” (Against Heresies; 3:4)

“And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end.” (Origen; Commentary on Matthew; 17)

“Thus is the temptation about His birth unsuitable, for it might have been contrived without any mention of either His mother or His brethren. It is clearly more credible that, being certain that He had both a mother and brothers, they tested His divinity rather than His nativity, whether, when within, He knew what was without; being tried by the untrue announcement of the presence of persons who were not present.” (Tertullian; On The Flesh of Christ; 7)

How and when did the doctrine take hold?

The belief that Mary remained a virgin seems to have developed out of the Christology debates of the mid to late fourth century. A very large schism occurred over the notion of whether or not Mary was the mother of God, i.e. Jesus’ divinity and humanity, or merely the mother of His’ humanity. The idea that Mary remained in her virginity blossomed out of that controversy. The only group I have come across from the ante-Nicene period that believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Mary-worshiping Callyridians. And in my personal opinion, they are the catalyst for the Marian doctrines that developed in the fourth and fifth centuries.

So the evidence really is stacked against the belief that Mary remained a virgin. Historically it’s a no-brainer. But no amount of evidence will ever persuade people who just choose to believe the doctrine. But this evidence does matter to people who are willing to let go of ideology and seek truth.

The Source of Sacred Tradition

The Roman Catholic Church indelibly asserts that their “sacred tradition” was truly transmitted by the apostles and preserved through the ages by the “teaching Authority.” The assertion is clearly stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia under “Tradition and Living Magisterium.”

“The Council [of Trent], as is evident, held that there are Divine traditions not contained in Holy Scripture, revelations made to the Apostles either orally by Jesus Christ or by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and transmitted by the Apostles to the Church.”

Yet when put those traditions to the test, nothing from ante-Nicene history can be found to support them but sketchy out-of-context evidence. And that’s for only a few of the doctrines, for most no evidence can be found at all. The Catholic Church, however, is not ignorant of this fact; in fact they justify the discrepancies in the same article.

“The designation of unwritten Divine traditions was not always given all the clearness desirable especially in early times… The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–she judges them more than she is judged by them.”

In other words, the truth does not exist within the historical evidence, according the Catholic Church it resides in the mind, or present thought of the “teaching authority.” But it stands to reason that if the apostles passed on those doctrines, history must support it. It is not reasonable that present thought should contradict traditional thought and still be regard as truth. Why would the Holy Spirit lead early church leaders to believe something contrary to what He leads current leaders to believe?

The truth of history makes no difference to the Catholic hierarchy because they believe that they alone are the keepers of truth. They decide what is true or untrue regardless of the evidence. Since they alone are the true interpreters of the Bible, guided by divine assistance, according to them, they interpret Mathew 28:20 as applying to them. And in their ostentatious minds, they like to imagine that God has granted them infallibility. One might logically ask, as if logic has anything to do with it, why the Bible is not expanding with time. But I suppose that even the most pretentious have their limits.

Don’t Drink the Water – Unless You Know Where to Drink

What would you do if someone asked you to dip your hand into the Mississippi River in New Orleans and take a big drink? Would you do it? Not only would you not drink the water, you would probably think the person who asked you to drink it was crazy or just plain mean. In a spiritual sense, this is exactly what Catholic theologians are asking people to do.

In the Catholic Church, Scripture and Sacred Tradition go hand in hand. The Catholic Church teaches that both Scripture and Tradition are of apostolic origin and, therefore, equal in authority. To make their case, Catholic theologians and apologists will direct folks to a time in church history when there were no written doctrines or accounts of Christ’s life and teachings, only oral testimony, i.e., tradition. The logic derived from this is that since oral tradition was authoritative in the ancient church, and the written apostolic source (the New Testament) cannot possibly contain all that the apostles taught, it stands to reason that oral tradition remain authoritative for Christians.

The problem is they never get specific about the traditions. What exactly did the apostles teach orally that we cannot glean from Scripture? Did they teach that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin her entire life, or that the blessed bread of communion transubstantiates into the glorified body of Christ when blessed by a priest? These and a host of other so-called “Sacred Traditions” of the Catholic Church are the spiritual equivalent of what makes the Mississippi River undrinkable.

Hundreds of years of developing doctrines have flowed into the once pure stream of Christian truth poisoning it and leaving it non potable. But like a river, the pollution of false doctrine only occurs downstream from its source. And having the ability to return to the source and drink the pure doctrine found there, enables us to know what the doctrine should look like. So it is for us to recognize from the word of God, our source of pure doctrine, what is truth and what is not truth, thus permitting us to filter out the impurities of false doctrine in our own time.

History of the Sabbath: A Critical Response

I read a few chapters of J. N. Andrews’ book, History of the Sabbath and the First Day of the Week. The chapters I read were on Christian history. I wanted to understand how a Christian Sabbath-keeper viewed this history in light of the evidence supporting Sunday assembly.

Andrews, who lived in the nineteenth century, was an intelligent well-educated man and probably the most prominent forefather of the Adventist movement. Had that not been the case, I would have dismissed his entire book on the basis of his derogatory opinions concerning the early ecclesiastical writers. But because of his credentials, I knew it was imperative that Andrews address these writing as representing Christian belief, lest he offer defeat of his theological opinion to his critics on a silver platter.

It soon becomes apparent while reading Andrews’ book that he did not write it with the intention of pleasing scholarly critics. His intentions were to persuade the less informed to follow after what he had undoubtedly accepted as absolute truth. A good example of this is found on page 127 where he presents quotes from two different historians and pits them against one another in an effort to discredit the known history of our faith. If Andrews can show his readers that historians cannot agree on the facts of history, he will have scored a victory for his efforts to persuade their minds.

One historian, Johann Mosheim, an eighteenth century scholar, was quoted by Andrews as saying this about early Christian assembly:

“All Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week, on which the triumphant Saviour arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship. This pious custom, which was derived from the example of the church of Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles, who consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose, and was observed universally throughout the Christian churches, as appears from the united testimonies of the most credible writers.”

No doubt this is a damaging statement to adherents of Christian Sabbath keepers, especially coming from a prominent historian, and one worthy of Andrews’ discrediting if at all possible. Andrews then proceeds to present another quote, this one from the nineteenth century historian, August Neander. Andrews prefaces Neander’s quote with this: “Now let us read what Neander, the most distinguished of church historians, says of this apostolic authority for Sunday observance.” He then presents the quote as follows:

“The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.”

Andrews asks the question: “How shall we determine which of these historians is in the right?” It was immediately obvious to me, and I suspect to anyone familiar with ecclesiastical history, that the two historians were referring to two completely different things. Andrews, who must have understood the difference, apparently wanted to convey to his readers that Neander’s opinion is superior to that of Mosheim’s and thus proceeds in his effort to disingenuously persuade his readers to his opinion by launching his argument off the apparent contradiction. But there is no contradiction between the historians and surly Andrews must have understood that.

Mosheim was merely referring to Sunday worship not Sunday Sabbath or Feasterville. There is no record of Christians observing a Sunday Sabbath in the first two centuries of church history. In fact the churches in the region of Asia Minor distinguished quite clearly between the seventh day Sabbath and Sunday worship. Keeping the seventh day Sabbath was encouraged in the Syrian churches, but was clearly inferior to Sunday worship as illustrated in the third century compilation of Christian instruction called, The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles. In this work we find the following instruction:

“Assemble yourselves together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord’s house: in the morning saying the sixty-second Psalm, and in the evening the hundred and fortieth, but principally on the Sabbath-day. And on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection, on which we pray thrice standing in memory of Him who arose in three days, in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the Gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food?” (2:59)

This is not only sufficient to show proof of Sunday worship in the third century, but it also supplies credence to Neander’s claim that the day Sunday was becoming something much more than a day of Christian worship and assembly; it was becoming an obligatory requirement from which a type of Christian Sabbath immerged later (officially) in the fourth century (Council of Laodicea, 364).

We can also verify Mosheim’s claim that Christians assembled on Sundays from Justin Martyr’s first apology in which he described a typical Christian assembly during his time in the mid second century.

“On the day called Sunday, 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 [Bishop] 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, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.” (First Apology, 67)

Beyond Justin we can draw from the first century bishop of the church in Antioch, Ignatius (80 – 110 A.D.) Ignatius undoubtedly knew some of the apostles personally. In all likelihood he knew to some extent Peter, Paul and John. On his way to martyrdom Ignatius wrote letters to various churches in the region of Syria, one to the church in Rome where he was being taken, and one to his good friend Polycarp, the bishop of the church in Smyrna. In one of those letters, the one written to the church in Magnesians, Ignatius exhorts Jewish converts to the unity of Christian worship.

“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death–whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master–how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead.” (To the Magnesians, chapter 9)

Nothing could be more devastating to Andrews’ theology than a credible refutation of it by a well respected and highly admired first century bishop of the Christian church. It was therefore, imperative that Andrews discredit the Ignatius quote as thoroughly as possible. He began his argument by attacking the authenticity of the letter. Andrew draws primarily from nineteenth century scholar Dr. Killen for information to support his claim that this letter was not authentic. Dr. Killen struggled to admit any part of the Ignatius letters were genuine, but admits that four of them, in their shorter versions, were accepted by many as genuine, and of those four Magnesians was not listed. However, the fourth century historian, Eusebius, listed seven letters as genuine and Magnesians was among them (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:36:5). Those same seven letters, again in their shorter form, are widely accepted as genuine by scholars today.

There is probably no stronger historical evidence that directly denies the Sabbath-keepers doctrine than that of Ignatius’ letter to the Magnesians; but we must accept the fact that the evidence can rightly be dismissed on the bases of uncertainty of its authenticity. But those who wish to dismiss the evidence are burdened with reconciling the undisputed historical evidence against them with the absence of evidence in support of their view.

If the Sabbath-keepers doctrine were true, how did the entire universal church mutate into a Sunday worshiping church within the forty or so years between the death of the Apostle John and the writings of Justin Martyr? My argument is from silence though not of a single source, but of an entire period of history from which some evidence, if the Sabbatarian doctrine is true, must be produced.