Picking up from yesterday as we endeavor to understand more fully the Mark of the Beast--
From yesterday-
'But the prophet beholds greater acts of presumption than these. He sees it endeavor to do what it was not able to do, but could only think to do; he sees it attempt an act which no man, nor any combination of men, can ever accomplish; and that is, to change the law of the Most High. Bear this in mind while we look at the testimony of another sacred writer on this very point.'
Taken from- 'Daniel and Revelation by Uriah Smith, written in 1897'
Continuing…
'The apostle Paul speaks of the same power in 2 Thessalonians 2; and he describes it, in the person of the pope, as "the man of sin," and as "sitting as God in the temple of God" (that is, the church), and as exalting himself "above all that is called God, or that is worshiped." According to this, the pope sets himself up as the one for all the church to look to for authority, in the place of God.'
(((Interjection- If this is totally confusing, or even preposterous to you, please either take the time to go back and read the book- 'Daniel and Revelation' up to the point we are at (page 598) or continue on and hopefully gain understanding. The declaration that 'the man of sin is in the person of the pope' is NOT made lightly without ample Biblical and historical proof. You can find the book in its entirety at the following links- http://www.adventistalert.com/seven-dr/dr-a.htm or here https://sites.google.com/site/whostosaywereright2/Home/daniel-chapter-eight-a/daniel---revelation-uriah-smith))))
'And now we ask the reader to ponder carefully the question how he can exalt himself above God. Search through the whole range of human devices, go to the extent of human effort; by what plan, by what move, by what claim, could this usurper exalt himself above God? He might institute any number of ceremonies, he might prescribe any form of worship, he might exhibit any degree of power; but so long as God had requirements which
p 599 -- the people felt bound to regard in preference to his own, so long he would not be above God. He might enact a law, and teach the people that they were under as great obligations to that as to the law of God; then he would only make himself equal with God. But he is to do more than this; he is to attempt to raise himself above him. Then he must promulgate a law which conflicts with the law of God, and demand obedience to his own law in preference to God's law. There is no other possible way in which he could place himself in the position assigned in the prophecy. But this is simply to change the law of God; and if he can cause this change to be adopted by the people in the place of the original enactment, then he, the law-changer, is above God, the law-maker. And this is the very work that Daniel said he should think to do.
Such a work as this, then, the papacy must accomplish according to the prophecy; and the prophecy cannot fail. And when this is done, what do the people of the world have? - They have two laws demanding obedience, - one, the law of God as originally enacted by him, an embodiment of his will, and expressing his claims upon his creatures; the other, a revised edition of that law, emanating from the pope of Rome and expressing his will. And how is it to be determined which of these powers the people honor and worship?
- It is determined by the law which they keep. If they keep the law of God as given by him, they worship and obey God. If they keep the law as changed by the papacy, they worship that power. But further: the prophecy does not say, that the little horn, the papacy, should set aside the law of God, and give one entirely different. This would not be to change the law, but simply to give a new one. He was only to attempt a change, so that the law that comes from God, and the law that comes from the papacy, are precisely alike, excepting the CHANGE which the papacy has made in the former. They have many points in common. But none of the precepts which they contain in common can distinguish a person as the worshiper of either power in preference to the other. If God's law says, "Thou shalt not kill," and the law as given by the papacy says the same, no one can tell by a person's observance of that
p 600 -- precept whether he designs to obey God rather than the pope, or the pope rather than God. But when a precept that has been changed is the subject of action, then whoever observes that precept as originally given by God, is thereby distinguished as a worshiper of God; and he who keeps it as changed is thereby marked as a follower of the power that made the change. In no other way can the two classes of worshipers be distinguished. From this conclusion, no candid mind can dissent; but in this conclusion we have a general answer to the question, "What constitutes the mark of the beast?" and that answer is simply this:
The mark of the beast is the change which the beast has attempted to make in the law of God.
We now inquire what that change is. By the law of God, we mean the moral law, the only law in the universe of immutable and perpetual obligation, - the law of which Webster says, defining the term according to the sense in which it is almost universally used in Christendom, "The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai."
If now the reader will compare the ten commandments as found in Roman Catholic catechisms with those commandments as found in the Bible, he will see in the catechisms - we mean those portions specially devoted to instruction - that the second commandment is left out, that the tenth is divided into two to make up the lack caused by leaving out the second, and keep good the number ten, and that the fourth commandment (called the third in their enumeration) is made to enjoin the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath, and prescribe that the day shall be spent in hearing mass devoutly, attending vespers, and reading moral and pious books. Here are several variations from the decalogue as found in the Bible. Which of them, if any, constitutes the change of the law intended in the prophecy? or are they all included in that change? Let it be borne in mind, that, according to the prophecy, he was to think to change times and laws. This plainly conveys the idea of intention and design, and makes these qualities essential to the change in question. But respecting the omission of the
p 601 -- second commandment, Catholics argue that it is included in the first, and hence should not be numbered as a separate commandment; and on the tenth they claim that there is so plain a distinction of ideas as to require two commandments - so they make the coveting of a neighbor's wife the ninth command, and the coveting of his goods the tenth.
In all this they claim that they are giving the commandments exactly as God intended to have them understood; so, while we may regard them as errors in their interpretation of the commandments, we cannot set them down as professedly intentional changes. Not so, however, with the fourth commandment.
Respecting this commandment, they do not claim that their version is like that given by God. They expressly claim a change here, and also that the change has been made by the church. A few quotations from standard Catholic works will make this matter plain. In a work entitled, Treatise of Thirty Controversies, we find these words:
"The word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath of our Lord, and to be kept holy; you [Protestants], without any precept of Scripture, change it to the first day of the week, only authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans oppose, against this point, that the observation of the first day is proved out of Scripture, where it is said, the first day of the week. Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10. Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting these places? If we should produce no better for purgatory and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the like, they might have good cause indeed to laugh us to scorn, for where was it written that these were Sabbath days in which those meetings were kept? or where is it ordained they should be always observed? or, which is the sum of all, where is it decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate, or abolish, the sanctifying of the seventh day, which God commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? Not one of these is expressed in the written word of God."
In the Catechism of the Christian Religion, by Stephen Keenan (Boston, Patrick Donahue, 1857), p. 206, on the
p 602 -- subject of the third (fourth) commandment, we find these questions and answers:
"Ques.- What does God ordain by this commandment?
"Ans.- He ordains that we sanctify, in a special manner, this day on which he rested from the labor of creation.
"Q.- What is this day of rest?
"A.- The seventh day of the week, or Saturday; for he employed six days in creation, and rested on the seventh. Gen. 2:2 ; Heb. 4:1; etc.
"Q.- Is it, then, Saturday we should sanctify, in order to obey the ordinance of God?
-A.- During the old law, Saturday was the day sanctified; but the church, instructed by Jesus Christ, and directed by the Spirit of God, has substituted Sunday for Saturday; so now we sanctify the first not the seventh day. Sunday means, and now is, the day of the Lord."
In the Catholic Christian Instructed (J. P. Kenedy, New York, 1884), p. 202, we read:
"Ques.- What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday preferable to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?
"Ans.- We have for it the authority of the Catholic Church, and apostolic tradition.
"Q.- Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?
"A.- The Scripture commands us to hear the church (Matt. 18:17; Luke 10:16), and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles. 2 Thess. 2:15. But the Scriptures do not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath."
In the Doctrinal Catechism (Kenedy, New York), p. 174, we find further testimony to the same point:
" 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."
p 603 -- In Abridgment of Christian Doctrine (Kenedy, New York), p. 58, we find this testimony:
"Ques.- How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days?
"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.
"Q.- How prove you that?
"A.- Because by keeping Sunday they acknowledge the church's power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin."
And finally, W. Lockhart, late B. A. of Oxford, in the Toronto (Catholic) Mirror, offered the following "challenge" to all the Protestants of Ireland, - a challenge as well calculated for this locality as that. He says: " I do therefore solemnly challenge the Protestants of Ireland to prove, by plain texts of Scripture, these questions concerning the obligations of the Christian Sabbath: (1) That Christians may work on Saturday, the old seventh day; (2) that they are bound to keep holy the first day, namely, Sunday; (3) that they are not bound to keep holy the seventh day also."
This is what the papal power claims to have done respecting the fourth commandment. Catholics plainly acknowledge that there is no Scriptural authority for the change they have made, but that it rests wholly upon the authority of the church; and they claim it as a token, or mark, of the authority of that church; the "very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday" being set forth as proof of its power in this respect. For further testimony on this point, the reader is referred to a book entitled, The Change of the Sabbath, in which are also extracts from Catholic writers refuting the arguments usually relied upon to prove the Sunday-sabbath, and showing that its only authority is the Catholic Church.
"But," says one, "I supposed that Christ changed the Sabbath." A great many suppose so, and it is natural that
p 604 -- they should; for they have been so taught. And while we have no words of denunciation to utter against any such persons for so believing, we would have them at once understand that it is, in reality, one of the most enormous of errors.
We would therefore remind such persons that, according to the prophecy, the only change ever to be made in the law of God was to be made by the little horn of Daniel 7, the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2; and the only change that has been made in it, is the change of the Sabbath.
Now, if Christ made this change, he filled the office of the blasphemous power spoken of by both Daniel and Paul, - a conclusion sufficiently hideous to drive any Christian from the view which leads thereto.
Why should any one labor to prove that Christ changed the Sabbath? Whoever does this is performing a thankless task. The pope will not thank him; for if it is proved that Christ wrought this change, then the pope is robbed of his badge of authority and power. And no truly enlightened Protestant will thank him; for if he succeeds, he only shows that the papacy has not done the work which it was predicted that it should do, and so that the prophecy has failed, and the Scriptures are unreliable. The matter would better stand as the prophecy has it, and the claim which the pope unwittingly puts forth would better be granted. When a person is charged with any work, and that person steps forth and confesses that he has done the work, that is usually considered sufficient to settle the matter. So, when the prophecy affirms that a certain power shall change the law of God, and in due time that very power arises, does the work foretold, and then openly claims that he has done it, what need have we of further evidence?
The world should not forget that the great apostasy foretold by Paul has taken place; that the man of sin for long ages held almost a monopoly of Christian teaching in the world; that the mystery of iniquity has cast the darkness of its shadow and the errors of its doctrines over almost all Christendom; and that out of this era of error and darkness and corruption, the theology of our day has come. Would it, then, be anything strange if there were yet some relics of popery to be discarded ere the reformation will be
p 605 -- complete? A. Campbell (Baptism, p. 15), speaking of the different Protestant sects, says: "All of them retain in their bosom, - in their ecclesiastical organizations, worship, doctrines, and observances, - various relies of popery.
They are at best a reformation of popery, and only reformations in part. The doctrines and traditions of men yet impair the power and progress of the gospel in their hands."
The nature of the change which the little horn has attempted to effect in the law of God is worthy of notice. True to his purpose to exalt himself above God, he undertakes to change that commandment which, of all others, is the fundamental commandment of the law, the one which makes known who the lawgiver is, and contains his signature of royalty.
The fourth commandment does this; no other one does.
Four others, it is true, contain the word God, and three of them the word Lord, also. But who is this Lord God of whom they speak? Without the fourth commandment, it is impossible to tell; for idolaters of every grade apply these terms to the multitudinous objects of their adoration.
With the fourth commandment to point out the Author of the decalogue, the claims of every false god are annulled at one stroke; for the God who here demands our worship is not any created being, but the One who created all things.
The maker of the earth and sea, the sun and moon, and all the starry host, the upholder and governor of the universe, is the One who claims, and who, from his position, has a right to claim, our supreme regard in preference to every other object.
The commandment which makes known these facts is therefore the very one we might suppose that power which designed to exalt itself above God would undertake to change.
God gave the Sabbath as a memorial of himself, a weekly reminder to the sons of men of his work in creating the heavens and the earth, a great barrier against heathenism and idolatry.
It is the signature and seal against atheism and idolatry.
It is the signature and seal of the law.
This the papacy has torn from its place, and erected in its stead, on its own authority, another institution, designed to serve another purpose.
p 606 -- This change of the fourth commandment must therefore be the change to which the prophecy points, and THE SUNDAY SABBATH MUST BE THE MARK OF THE BEAST!
Some who have long been taught to regard this institution with reverence will perhaps start back with little less than feelings of horror at this conclusion.
We have not space, nor is this, perhaps, the place, to enter into an extended argument on the Sabbath question, and an exposition of the origin and nature of the observance of the first day of the week. Let us submit this one proposition: If the seventh day is still the Sabbath enjoined in the fourth commandment; if the observance of the first day of the week has no foundation whatever in the Scriptures; if this observance has been brought in as a Christian institution, and designedly put in place of the Sabbath of the decalogue by that power which is symbolized by the beast, and placed there as a badge and token of its power to legislate for the church, - is it not inevitably the mark of the beast? The answer must be in the affirmative. But these hypotheses are all certainties.'
*******
Is this shocking to you? Is this the first time you're hearing all this? Do you want to toss it aside as so much garbage? Do you want to stop reading this and call it all lies?
Remember this--
Mat_15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mat_15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Col_2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mar 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mar 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
Mar 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
Mar 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Traditions trumping the Commandments of God? Jesus spoke of it happening. It's not something that is preposterous, it's not something ludicrous, it's reality!
That the man of sin would think to change times and laws is something we must look at. The beast changing times and laws. That it has been done is something we CANNOT ignore!
Or rather we ignore it at our own risk.
The commandments of God are so much more important than any traditions of men.
The Catholic church gives all sorts of supposed good reasons for the change, but none hold real Biblical weight. They twist and turn scripture to suit their purpose and they did this under their OWN authority, not God's!
Doesn't this mean anything?! Isn't this cause for our concern, our eternal concern?
Read this--
Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Worship the beast.
Worship the beast's image.
Receive the beast's mark.
All those who do this will drink the wine of the wrath of God.
All those who do this will be tormented with fire and brimstone.
Worship the beast.
Worship the beast's image.
Receive the mark of the beast's name.
Do you see why it is SO important for us to know what this mark is, if at all possible. As stated earlier in this study God would NOT leave His people clueless, helpless to do anything but receive the mark.
We are given a huge clue-
The PATIENCE of the saint.
Those keeping the commandments of God.
Those keeping the faith of Jesus.
These alone will NOT receive the this mark of the beast.
The clues- Patience, keeping the commandments, keeping the faith.
We can know what the commandments are.
We can know what the faith of Jesus is.
If we do NOT keep these we will be lost!
It makes sense that the beast who would think to change times and laws would be messing with the commandments we are told we must keep!
This makes sense. This is logical!
Please LORD, please SAVIOR open our hearts and minds to YOU and all YOUR TRUTH!
We don't have to like it, but the truth of it is all that matters. Do NOT dismiss this without serious study, please!
By the grace of God we will continue with this tomorrow.
All in HIS LOVE!
From yesterday-
'But the prophet beholds greater acts of presumption than these. He sees it endeavor to do what it was not able to do, but could only think to do; he sees it attempt an act which no man, nor any combination of men, can ever accomplish; and that is, to change the law of the Most High. Bear this in mind while we look at the testimony of another sacred writer on this very point.'
Taken from- 'Daniel and Revelation by Uriah Smith, written in 1897'
Continuing…
'The apostle Paul speaks of the same power in 2 Thessalonians 2; and he describes it, in the person of the pope, as "the man of sin," and as "sitting as God in the temple of God" (that is, the church), and as exalting himself "above all that is called God, or that is worshiped." According to this, the pope sets himself up as the one for all the church to look to for authority, in the place of God.'
(((Interjection- If this is totally confusing, or even preposterous to you, please either take the time to go back and read the book- 'Daniel and Revelation' up to the point we are at (page 598) or continue on and hopefully gain understanding. The declaration that 'the man of sin is in the person of the pope' is NOT made lightly without ample Biblical and historical proof. You can find the book in its entirety at the following links- http://www.adventistalert.com/seven-dr/dr-a.htm or here https://sites.google.com/site/whostosaywereright2/Home/daniel-chapter-eight-a/daniel---revelation-uriah-smith))))
'And now we ask the reader to ponder carefully the question how he can exalt himself above God. Search through the whole range of human devices, go to the extent of human effort; by what plan, by what move, by what claim, could this usurper exalt himself above God? He might institute any number of ceremonies, he might prescribe any form of worship, he might exhibit any degree of power; but so long as God had requirements which
p 599 -- the people felt bound to regard in preference to his own, so long he would not be above God. He might enact a law, and teach the people that they were under as great obligations to that as to the law of God; then he would only make himself equal with God. But he is to do more than this; he is to attempt to raise himself above him. Then he must promulgate a law which conflicts with the law of God, and demand obedience to his own law in preference to God's law. There is no other possible way in which he could place himself in the position assigned in the prophecy. But this is simply to change the law of God; and if he can cause this change to be adopted by the people in the place of the original enactment, then he, the law-changer, is above God, the law-maker. And this is the very work that Daniel said he should think to do.
Such a work as this, then, the papacy must accomplish according to the prophecy; and the prophecy cannot fail. And when this is done, what do the people of the world have? - They have two laws demanding obedience, - one, the law of God as originally enacted by him, an embodiment of his will, and expressing his claims upon his creatures; the other, a revised edition of that law, emanating from the pope of Rome and expressing his will. And how is it to be determined which of these powers the people honor and worship?
- It is determined by the law which they keep. If they keep the law of God as given by him, they worship and obey God. If they keep the law as changed by the papacy, they worship that power. But further: the prophecy does not say, that the little horn, the papacy, should set aside the law of God, and give one entirely different. This would not be to change the law, but simply to give a new one. He was only to attempt a change, so that the law that comes from God, and the law that comes from the papacy, are precisely alike, excepting the CHANGE which the papacy has made in the former. They have many points in common. But none of the precepts which they contain in common can distinguish a person as the worshiper of either power in preference to the other. If God's law says, "Thou shalt not kill," and the law as given by the papacy says the same, no one can tell by a person's observance of that
p 600 -- precept whether he designs to obey God rather than the pope, or the pope rather than God. But when a precept that has been changed is the subject of action, then whoever observes that precept as originally given by God, is thereby distinguished as a worshiper of God; and he who keeps it as changed is thereby marked as a follower of the power that made the change. In no other way can the two classes of worshipers be distinguished. From this conclusion, no candid mind can dissent; but in this conclusion we have a general answer to the question, "What constitutes the mark of the beast?" and that answer is simply this:
The mark of the beast is the change which the beast has attempted to make in the law of God.
We now inquire what that change is. By the law of God, we mean the moral law, the only law in the universe of immutable and perpetual obligation, - the law of which Webster says, defining the term according to the sense in which it is almost universally used in Christendom, "The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai."
If now the reader will compare the ten commandments as found in Roman Catholic catechisms with those commandments as found in the Bible, he will see in the catechisms - we mean those portions specially devoted to instruction - that the second commandment is left out, that the tenth is divided into two to make up the lack caused by leaving out the second, and keep good the number ten, and that the fourth commandment (called the third in their enumeration) is made to enjoin the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath, and prescribe that the day shall be spent in hearing mass devoutly, attending vespers, and reading moral and pious books. Here are several variations from the decalogue as found in the Bible. Which of them, if any, constitutes the change of the law intended in the prophecy? or are they all included in that change? Let it be borne in mind, that, according to the prophecy, he was to think to change times and laws. This plainly conveys the idea of intention and design, and makes these qualities essential to the change in question. But respecting the omission of the
p 601 -- second commandment, Catholics argue that it is included in the first, and hence should not be numbered as a separate commandment; and on the tenth they claim that there is so plain a distinction of ideas as to require two commandments - so they make the coveting of a neighbor's wife the ninth command, and the coveting of his goods the tenth.
In all this they claim that they are giving the commandments exactly as God intended to have them understood; so, while we may regard them as errors in their interpretation of the commandments, we cannot set them down as professedly intentional changes. Not so, however, with the fourth commandment.
Respecting this commandment, they do not claim that their version is like that given by God. They expressly claim a change here, and also that the change has been made by the church. A few quotations from standard Catholic works will make this matter plain. In a work entitled, Treatise of Thirty Controversies, we find these words:
"The word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath of our Lord, and to be kept holy; you [Protestants], without any precept of Scripture, change it to the first day of the week, only authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans oppose, against this point, that the observation of the first day is proved out of Scripture, where it is said, the first day of the week. Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10. Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting these places? If we should produce no better for purgatory and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the like, they might have good cause indeed to laugh us to scorn, for where was it written that these were Sabbath days in which those meetings were kept? or where is it ordained they should be always observed? or, which is the sum of all, where is it decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate, or abolish, the sanctifying of the seventh day, which God commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? Not one of these is expressed in the written word of God."
In the Catechism of the Christian Religion, by Stephen Keenan (Boston, Patrick Donahue, 1857), p. 206, on the
p 602 -- subject of the third (fourth) commandment, we find these questions and answers:
"Ques.- What does God ordain by this commandment?
"Ans.- He ordains that we sanctify, in a special manner, this day on which he rested from the labor of creation.
"Q.- What is this day of rest?
"A.- The seventh day of the week, or Saturday; for he employed six days in creation, and rested on the seventh. Gen. 2:2 ; Heb. 4:1; etc.
"Q.- Is it, then, Saturday we should sanctify, in order to obey the ordinance of God?
-A.- During the old law, Saturday was the day sanctified; but the church, instructed by Jesus Christ, and directed by the Spirit of God, has substituted Sunday for Saturday; so now we sanctify the first not the seventh day. Sunday means, and now is, the day of the Lord."
In the Catholic Christian Instructed (J. P. Kenedy, New York, 1884), p. 202, we read:
"Ques.- What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday preferable to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?
"Ans.- We have for it the authority of the Catholic Church, and apostolic tradition.
"Q.- Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?
"A.- The Scripture commands us to hear the church (Matt. 18:17; Luke 10:16), and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles. 2 Thess. 2:15. But the Scriptures do not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath."
In the Doctrinal Catechism (Kenedy, New York), p. 174, we find further testimony to the same point:
" 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."
p 603 -- In Abridgment of Christian Doctrine (Kenedy, New York), p. 58, we find this testimony:
"Ques.- How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days?
"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.
"Q.- How prove you that?
"A.- Because by keeping Sunday they acknowledge the church's power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin."
And finally, W. Lockhart, late B. A. of Oxford, in the Toronto (Catholic) Mirror, offered the following "challenge" to all the Protestants of Ireland, - a challenge as well calculated for this locality as that. He says: " I do therefore solemnly challenge the Protestants of Ireland to prove, by plain texts of Scripture, these questions concerning the obligations of the Christian Sabbath: (1) That Christians may work on Saturday, the old seventh day; (2) that they are bound to keep holy the first day, namely, Sunday; (3) that they are not bound to keep holy the seventh day also."
This is what the papal power claims to have done respecting the fourth commandment. Catholics plainly acknowledge that there is no Scriptural authority for the change they have made, but that it rests wholly upon the authority of the church; and they claim it as a token, or mark, of the authority of that church; the "very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday" being set forth as proof of its power in this respect. For further testimony on this point, the reader is referred to a book entitled, The Change of the Sabbath, in which are also extracts from Catholic writers refuting the arguments usually relied upon to prove the Sunday-sabbath, and showing that its only authority is the Catholic Church.
"But," says one, "I supposed that Christ changed the Sabbath." A great many suppose so, and it is natural that
p 604 -- they should; for they have been so taught. And while we have no words of denunciation to utter against any such persons for so believing, we would have them at once understand that it is, in reality, one of the most enormous of errors.
We would therefore remind such persons that, according to the prophecy, the only change ever to be made in the law of God was to be made by the little horn of Daniel 7, the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2; and the only change that has been made in it, is the change of the Sabbath.
Now, if Christ made this change, he filled the office of the blasphemous power spoken of by both Daniel and Paul, - a conclusion sufficiently hideous to drive any Christian from the view which leads thereto.
Why should any one labor to prove that Christ changed the Sabbath? Whoever does this is performing a thankless task. The pope will not thank him; for if it is proved that Christ wrought this change, then the pope is robbed of his badge of authority and power. And no truly enlightened Protestant will thank him; for if he succeeds, he only shows that the papacy has not done the work which it was predicted that it should do, and so that the prophecy has failed, and the Scriptures are unreliable. The matter would better stand as the prophecy has it, and the claim which the pope unwittingly puts forth would better be granted. When a person is charged with any work, and that person steps forth and confesses that he has done the work, that is usually considered sufficient to settle the matter. So, when the prophecy affirms that a certain power shall change the law of God, and in due time that very power arises, does the work foretold, and then openly claims that he has done it, what need have we of further evidence?
The world should not forget that the great apostasy foretold by Paul has taken place; that the man of sin for long ages held almost a monopoly of Christian teaching in the world; that the mystery of iniquity has cast the darkness of its shadow and the errors of its doctrines over almost all Christendom; and that out of this era of error and darkness and corruption, the theology of our day has come. Would it, then, be anything strange if there were yet some relics of popery to be discarded ere the reformation will be
p 605 -- complete? A. Campbell (Baptism, p. 15), speaking of the different Protestant sects, says: "All of them retain in their bosom, - in their ecclesiastical organizations, worship, doctrines, and observances, - various relies of popery.
They are at best a reformation of popery, and only reformations in part. The doctrines and traditions of men yet impair the power and progress of the gospel in their hands."
The nature of the change which the little horn has attempted to effect in the law of God is worthy of notice. True to his purpose to exalt himself above God, he undertakes to change that commandment which, of all others, is the fundamental commandment of the law, the one which makes known who the lawgiver is, and contains his signature of royalty.
The fourth commandment does this; no other one does.
Four others, it is true, contain the word God, and three of them the word Lord, also. But who is this Lord God of whom they speak? Without the fourth commandment, it is impossible to tell; for idolaters of every grade apply these terms to the multitudinous objects of their adoration.
With the fourth commandment to point out the Author of the decalogue, the claims of every false god are annulled at one stroke; for the God who here demands our worship is not any created being, but the One who created all things.
The maker of the earth and sea, the sun and moon, and all the starry host, the upholder and governor of the universe, is the One who claims, and who, from his position, has a right to claim, our supreme regard in preference to every other object.
The commandment which makes known these facts is therefore the very one we might suppose that power which designed to exalt itself above God would undertake to change.
God gave the Sabbath as a memorial of himself, a weekly reminder to the sons of men of his work in creating the heavens and the earth, a great barrier against heathenism and idolatry.
It is the signature and seal against atheism and idolatry.
It is the signature and seal of the law.
This the papacy has torn from its place, and erected in its stead, on its own authority, another institution, designed to serve another purpose.
p 606 -- This change of the fourth commandment must therefore be the change to which the prophecy points, and THE SUNDAY SABBATH MUST BE THE MARK OF THE BEAST!
Some who have long been taught to regard this institution with reverence will perhaps start back with little less than feelings of horror at this conclusion.
We have not space, nor is this, perhaps, the place, to enter into an extended argument on the Sabbath question, and an exposition of the origin and nature of the observance of the first day of the week. Let us submit this one proposition: If the seventh day is still the Sabbath enjoined in the fourth commandment; if the observance of the first day of the week has no foundation whatever in the Scriptures; if this observance has been brought in as a Christian institution, and designedly put in place of the Sabbath of the decalogue by that power which is symbolized by the beast, and placed there as a badge and token of its power to legislate for the church, - is it not inevitably the mark of the beast? The answer must be in the affirmative. But these hypotheses are all certainties.'
*******
Is this shocking to you? Is this the first time you're hearing all this? Do you want to toss it aside as so much garbage? Do you want to stop reading this and call it all lies?
Remember this--
Mat_15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mat_15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Col_2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mar 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mar 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
Mar 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
Mar 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Traditions trumping the Commandments of God? Jesus spoke of it happening. It's not something that is preposterous, it's not something ludicrous, it's reality!
That the man of sin would think to change times and laws is something we must look at. The beast changing times and laws. That it has been done is something we CANNOT ignore!
Or rather we ignore it at our own risk.
The commandments of God are so much more important than any traditions of men.
The Catholic church gives all sorts of supposed good reasons for the change, but none hold real Biblical weight. They twist and turn scripture to suit their purpose and they did this under their OWN authority, not God's!
Doesn't this mean anything?! Isn't this cause for our concern, our eternal concern?
Read this--
Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Worship the beast.
Worship the beast's image.
Receive the beast's mark.
All those who do this will drink the wine of the wrath of God.
All those who do this will be tormented with fire and brimstone.
Worship the beast.
Worship the beast's image.
Receive the mark of the beast's name.
Do you see why it is SO important for us to know what this mark is, if at all possible. As stated earlier in this study God would NOT leave His people clueless, helpless to do anything but receive the mark.
We are given a huge clue-
The PATIENCE of the saint.
Those keeping the commandments of God.
Those keeping the faith of Jesus.
These alone will NOT receive the this mark of the beast.
The clues- Patience, keeping the commandments, keeping the faith.
We can know what the commandments are.
We can know what the faith of Jesus is.
If we do NOT keep these we will be lost!
It makes sense that the beast who would think to change times and laws would be messing with the commandments we are told we must keep!
This makes sense. This is logical!
Please LORD, please SAVIOR open our hearts and minds to YOU and all YOUR TRUTH!
We don't have to like it, but the truth of it is all that matters. Do NOT dismiss this without serious study, please!
By the grace of God we will continue with this tomorrow.
All in HIS LOVE!
No comments:
Post a Comment