Our friend herald, last year, in a post titled "The Denominations Speak: The Sabbath," posted several quotations ostensibly supporting or saying there is nothing in Scripture that is against, Saturday Sabbath observance, by several noted Christian priests, pastors and theologians, including Methodist pastor Amos Binney. Below is a re-post of the material I posted to herald last year. I would hope our SDA friends, in the name of intellectual honesty and integrity would urge these sites to either post the full quotations, unedited (which they arent likely to do because none of the quotations actually supports Saturday Sabbath observance), or remove them from the sites altogether.
Here's the link to the original thread:
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php/topic,26628.0.htmlHere's the quote by Binney herald posted:
Methodist: "It is true there is no command for infant baptism...Nor is there any for keeping holy the first day of the week." - Rev. Amos Binney, Theological Compend, pp 180, 182, 1902 ed.
But what Binney actualy says, is this:
h. It is true there is no positive command for infant baptism, nor is there any against it, as there should have been if Christ intended to abridge the rights of Jewish parents under the Abrahamic covenant. Nor is there any for keeping holy the first day of the week, or for family devotion, or for women to receive the Lord's Supper. The reasons are obvious; there was no controversy in either case that called for it.So Rev. Binney argues that there was no command for infant baptism
because there would have been a command against it had Christ intended to "abridge the rights of Jewish parents under the Abrahamic covenant" and because infant baptism was simply taken for granted by the New Testament authors.But if that isn't proof enough, earlier in section D Rev. Binney writes:
d. That infants are to be received into the Church, and as such baptized, is also inferred from the following Scriptures: Isa. 44:3; 59:21; Joel 2:28; Matt. 18:1-4; 19:13-14; Acts 2:38-39; I Cor. 7:14.
e. The practice of the Apostles is further proof, as appears from the record of their baptisms-not less than four households or families are recorded as baptized: that of Cornelius, of Lydia, of the Jailer, and of Stephanas. When we consider that old people are not easily converted, there is a strong probability that those we have enumerated were comparatively young, and that there were infants in their families. Acts 16:15, 33; I Cor. 1:16.
f. All ancient writers of distinction refer to its practice by the apostles; nor was it denied or controverted by any till the twelfth century after Christ, when the sect called Waldenses denied the rite to infants, on the belief that all such were damned-a doctrine not of Christ surely, Luke xviii, 15-17, but of devils, I Tim. iv, 1; 2 Pet. ii, 1.
g. Only one hundred and fifty years after the death of St. John, a council of sixty-six bishops unanimously decided that "the baptism of infants was not to be delayed to the eighth day after the birth, as circumcision had been, but might be given them at any time before." The question they decided was, not whether infants should be baptized, but whether they should be baptized before they were eight days old. (Binney,
Theological Compend, Part IV, D, "The Sacraments," p. 168)
Now, I'm no proponent of infant baptism, however I am DEFINITELY a proponent of intellectual integrity, which includes quoting a historical or other source
accurately, and not manipulating it in order to make it say what I want it to. I'm not a big fan of Rev. Binney being made to deny infant baptism or defend the Saturday sabbath when he obviously doesn't. In the above quote he says that there is no command in Scripture to observe Sunday as the Lord's Day because it was a non-issue which nobody questioned, hence there was no need to command something everybody already took for granted and was doing. But we weren't shown that part of the quote.
What the SDA has done in the above Binney quote posted by herald is to combine parts of two different sentences of Binney's together to form one quote, but this, too, is misleading. I haven't yet located the second part of the Binney quote about Sunday, but the Rev. did believe that Sunday was the New Covenant sabbath:
Rev. Binney says regarding the sabbath in Part IV section B:
5. Jesus, after his resurrection, changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week; thus showing his authority as Lord even of the Sabbath, Matt. 12:8; not to abrogate or break it, but to preside over and modify, or give new form to it, so as to have it commemorate his resurrection, when he ceased from his redeeming work as God did from his creation work. Heb.4:10.
When Jesus gave instructions for this change we are not told, but very likely during the time when he spake to his apostles of the things pertaining to his kingdom. Acts 1:3. This is probably one of the many unrecorded things which Jesus did. John 20:30; 21:25.
6. That the Sabbath was actually changed from the seventh to the first day of the week appears from the example of the apostles, who, after the resurrection of Christ, celebrated the first day as a Sabbath . John 20:19, 26; Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2. Hence this is called The Lord's day. Rev. 1:10.
On this day Jesus appeared to his apostles a week from his resurrection.
The Holy Spirit was given on this day at the Feast of Pentecost. The Lord's Supper was celebrated on this day. I Cor. 11:20; 16:1-2; Acts 20:6-11. (160. Where and why did he change the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week? What other evidences?)
In Col. 2:16-17, Paul plainly declares that the disciples of Jesus are not under obligation to observe the seventh day, or Jewish Sabbath. Yet this did not release them from keeping a Sabbath, since this is a divine institution given to the human race in the persons of Adam and Eve. The Lord's day is the only holy day of the early Christian Church.
7. We are nowhere told what time of the day the Sabbath shall commence, for the obvious reason that the same day does not commence at the same time in all parts of the earth. Under such circumstances it is safe and expedient for us to conform our reckoning of the days to that which prevails in the country where we live. Rom. 14:5-6. (Part IV B, "The Sabbath")
Here's a link to an online version of Binney's book:
http://www.imarc.cc/br/binney's.html#yI already showed how the SDA misquotes and misinterprets what Alexander Campbell wrote about the attempt by Christian moral societys to enforce sabbath laws on the basis that Sunday was the new covenant sabbath. Here's another one from Campbell they misquote on an SDA site (
http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0104/0104cc.html):
Disciples of Christ
Alexander Campbell, The Christian Baptist, Feb. 2, 1824,vol. 1. no.
7, p. 164.
"'But,' say some, 'it was changed from the seventh to the first day.'
Where? when? and by whom? No man can tell. No; it never was changed,
nor could it be, unless creation was to be gone through again: for
the reason assigned must be changed before the observance, or respect
to the reason, can be changed! It is all old wives' fables to talk of
the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day. If it be
changed, it was that august personage changed it who changes times
and laws ex officio - I think his name is Doctor Antichrist.'
However, if one reads this article from beginning to end and pays attention, one will see:
Again: Let me ask, Was there ever a law published relaxing that rigid observance of rest enjoined upon the Sabbath! Was there a law published, saying, You must or you may observe the sabbath with less care, with less respect; you may now speak your own words, kindle fire to your houses, and prepare victuals! &c. &c. I say, Was there ever such a law published! No, indeed--either the law remains in all its force, to the utmost extent of its literal requirements, or it is passed away with the Jewish ceremonies. If it yet exist, let us observe it according to law. And if it does not exist, let us abandon a mock observance of another day for it. "But," say some, "it was changed from the seventh to the first day." Where! when! And by whom! No man can tell. No, it never was changed, nor could it be, unless creation was to be gone through again: for the reason assigned must be changed before the observance, or respect to the reason, can be changed!! It is all old wives' fables to talk of the change of the sabbath from the seventh to the first day. If it be changed, it was that august personage changed it who changes times and laws ex officio--I think his name is DOCTOR ANTICHRIST.The
bold portion is the part the SDA leaves out, which obviously changes the whole tone of the quote. Because Campbell is rhetorically asking his Protestant friends who think Sunday is the new sabbath whether or not there was ever any scriptural law which negated sabbath observance. To which Campbell says, no, there wasn't. So either all of the Law of Moses is in force or none of it is in force. If you're going to obey part of it, you must obey
all of it, precisely as stipulated by YHWH in the Law. In the snippet the SDA quotes, Campbell acknowledges a popular objection that the sabbath was moved from Saturday to Sunday. To which he asks, who moved it? No man can say because it isn't in the Bible he says.
Then Campbell continues:
But was not the sabbath given to the Jews only! And again, Was it not a shadow or type! This deserves attention.
The preface to the law, of which it was a part, says, "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; therefore, remember the sabbath day," &c. The preface to this law, as the inscription or address upon a letter, ascertains whose property it was. It was the property of the Jews. But Moses tells them this, not leaving it to an inference, Deut. v. 15. "Remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out thence, through a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm; therefore, the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day" Ezekiel says the same, or rather the Lord by the prophet says, chap. xx. 12. "Moreover, also, I gave them my Sabbath, to be a sign between me and them" Yes, said the Lord by Moses, "The sabbath is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever." Ex. xxxi. 17. It is worthy of note in this place, that of all the sins in the long black catalogue of sins specified against the gentiles, in all the New Testament, the sin of sabbath-breaking is never once preferred against them!! We conclude, then, that the sabbath day was as exclusively the property of the Jews as circumcision. . .
The sabbath was, by the Lord of the sabbath, set aside, as well as every other part of the law of Moses, as stated in our last address. The learned Macknight is with us also in this instance. His words on Col. ii. 14. "It is evident," says he, "that the law of Moses, in all its parts, is now abolished and taken away. Consequently, that Christians are under no obligation to obey even the moral precepts of that law, on account of their being delivered by Moses to the Jews. For if the obligations of the moral precepts of his law are still continued, mankind are still under its curse." I would just observe, on this item, that the Lord Jesus Christ observed the last sabbath that was obligatory on any of the human race, by lying in the grave from evening to evening. In the silence of death and the grave he celebrated it literally, "not going out of his place," until the sabbath was past. Then, very early in the morning, when the sabbath was past, the Jewish religion being consummated, he rises and becomes the beginning of the new creation.So what Campbell is arguing is that there is no scriptural evidence for saying that the sabbath observance was continued in Christianity, but with Saturday being changed to Sunday. He instead argues that the sabbath belonged as exclusively to the Jews as circumcision. Under Christianity, Christians observe Sunday, the first day of the week, the Lord's Day, not the Jewish sabbath.
I'd like to believe the SDA just didn't pay careful attention to the quotes they used. In their defense they at least usually provide the references so people can look them up. But are thay banking on the fact that most people won't? I've looked at several SDA sites and they all have portions of Campbell's February, 1824
Address to the Readers of the Christian Baptist No. III and the various different sites selectively quote from it in order to make Campbell a proponent of the sabbath day. But have any of them ever actually read the article? I can't imagine that of the dozens of SDA sites that quote this article
no one has read it carefully. So I can only conclude that they know that it doesn't teach what they claim it does and are just hoping that no one bothers to read the piece for themselves.
If I had time today I'd look up the other quotes herald provided, however these two quotes that SDA sites routinely use should be enough to cause any objective person interested in the truth and intellectual integrity to pause for a moment.
By very selectively quoting Rev. Binney, the SDA makes him appear to be denying infant baptism and the observance of Sunday. But this is nothing but spin and propaganda. And by doing the same thing with Campbell the SDA makes him appear to support Saturday sabbath observance, when in fact he argued just the opposite.
If the SDA-and I'm accusing the SDA leaders of being dishonest, not herald himself-have misquoted, misinterpreted, and simply twisted these references in an attempt to prove a point, why should we trust anything they say?
I hope our friend herald will read the sources he's quoted more carefully and give this some serious thought.
Pax.
Author