XXXIII - 10(00)

“Watchman,

what of the night?”

"The hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!"          Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)

Re-Writing History 

 

 

Editor's Preface

 

 

In the previous issue of WWN, we quoted at length from a paper prepared by Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, author of the Baptist Manual. He indicated that he had studied the Sabbath-Sunday question "for many years. From his viewpoint the lack of "scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the Seventh to the First day of the week" was in his judgment "the gravest and most perplexing question connected with Christian institutions" at that time. In this issue of WWN, we have sought to rediscover some of the evidence from which Dr. Hiscox drew his conclusions. While such documentation can be found, it is also important to note that the Papacy which was so bold with their assertions during the time of Dr. Hiscox's study have now taken a different approach to the whole question. Besides this, they have added a new dimension by tying one of the key sacraments of the Roman Church to the observance of Sunday.

This new approach began with Vatican II, and has become basic in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter, Dies Domini. enlarges on the position taken in the Catechism. However in so doing. this new position separates more distinctly God's intent for the Sabbath in contrast to the new intent of Rome for Sunday. Clearly the call is as echoed in the First Angel's Message. "Worship Him who made ..." (Rev. 14:6).

There is an interesting use of the Greek tenses in the Three Angels' Messages of Revelation 14, to which little consideration has been given to date. The first two messages are written in the Aorist, or Greek past tense, while the third message is in the present tense. What is the significance of this difference? This study of the change in Roman Catholic teaching on Sunday has given us a basis for some reflection which we shall continue to pursue, and will share after further study. Your thinking will also be appreciated. Basically it gives new meaning to the significance of the prophetic symbolism - the Mark of the Beast - as to time and nature.

Page 2

Review Continues:

Re-Writing History

In the previous issue of WWN, we quoted at length from a paper presented by Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, author of the Baptist Manual, before a meeting of Baptist ministers in Saratoga, New York, August 20, 1893. Three key sentences read:

Of course I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history as a religious day, as we learn from the Christian Fathers and other sources. But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of Paganism, and Christened with the name of the Sun-god. Then adopted and sanctified by the Papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism, and the Christian world, just as Easter. ...

In six months, a publication of "the Papal apostasy" would corroborate the findings of Dr. Hiscox. The Catholic World, a monthly magazine of General Literature and Science in its March issue of 1894 attested:

The church took the pagan philosophy and made it the buckler of faith against the heathen. She took the pagan, Roman Pantheon, temple of all the gods, and made it sacred to all the martyrs; so it stands to this day. She took the pagan Sunday and made it the Christian Sunday. She took the pagan Easter and made it the feast we celebrate during this season.

Sunday and Easter day are, if we consider their derivation, much the same. In truth all Sundays are Sundays only because they are a weekly, partial recurrence of Easter day. The pagan Sunday was, in a manner, an unconscious preparation for Easter day. The sun was the foremost god of heathendom. ... There is, in truth, something royal, kingly about the sun, making it a fit emblem of Jesus, the Sun of Justice. Hence the church in these countries would seem to have said, "keep that old, pagan name. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified." And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder [by the Scandinavians), became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus. (p. 809)

Other cultures worshipped the sun under different names. For example, the Persian Sun-god was named Mithras. At first perceived as an angel of light or a genius which attended the Sun, the distinction soon disappeared, and they became one and the same god. Strabo, writing in the reign of Augustus Ceasar, stated of the Persians: "They also worship Helius (the Sun), whom they call Mithras." (Quoted in Sunday in Roman Paganism, p.136)

A Portuguese writer, A. Paiva, in his book, O Mitraismo, stated:

The first day of the week, Sunday, was consecrated to Mithra since times remote, as several authors affirm. Because the Sun was god, the Lord par excellence, Sunday came to be called the Lord's day, as later was done by Christianity (p.3).

Gilbert Murray in an essay in Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge, declared of the influence of Mirthaism:

It had so much acceptance that it was able to impose its own Sun-Day in place of the Sabbath, its Sun's birthday, 25th December, as the birthday of Jesus. ("Religion and Philosophy," pp.73-74).

Dr. Augustus Neander, known as "the prince of Church historians" further confirms the findings of Dr. Hiscox. In his book, The History of the Christian Religion and Church during the Three First Centuries, he wrote:

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 at that time to have considered labouring on Sunday as a sin. ...

The Jewish Christian Churches, {i.e. Churches consisting of Jewish converts,} although they received the festival of Sunday, retained also that of the Sabbath; and from them the custom spread abroad in the Oriental Church, of distinguishing this day, as well as the Sunday, by not fasting and by praying in an erect posture; in the Western Churches, particularly the Roman, where opposition to Judaism was the prevailing tendency, this very opposition produced the custom of celebrating the Saturday in particular as a fast day. (Vol. I, p.186)

In the Foundation Library, we have a number of Roman Catholic Catechisms, while several suggest what has now become a re-write of history in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, two sustain in a specific way the findings of Dr. Hiscox. One, A Doctrinal Catechism, by Rev. Stephen Keenan was published first as the Edinburgh Edition in 1846 with the official Scottish approbations. It was released in the United States in 1876 with the imprimatur of the

Page 3

then Archbishop of New York, Cardinal McCloskey. The catechism reads:

Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?

A. 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.174)

The other catechism, The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine by Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R., with the official Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat was published by B. Herder Book Co., of St. Louis, Missouri, in 1909. In 1910 it received the Apostolic Blessing of the reigning pontiff. By 1944 it had gone through sixteen editions. From this 16th edition, we note the following question and answer on page 50:

Q. Which is the Sabbath day?

A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.

Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?

A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.

During the last two decades of the 19th century, and iInto the early 20th century, there was considerable agitation over the Sabbath question as to which day was the Sabbath, and the origin of worship on Sunday. Spanning this time period an interesting series of statements and challenges came from T. Enright of the Redemptorist Fathers of the Catholic Church.

The Saga of Father Enright

Enright's entry into the contention is found in The Industrial American, published in Harlan, Iowa, on December 19,1889. He wrote:

The Bible says: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy," but the Catholic Church says: "No, keep the first day of the week," and the whole world bows in obedience.

A decade later he wrote on a small piece of note paper from Kansas City, Missouri, on June 16, 1899, the challenge:  "I hereby offer $1000, to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone, that I am bound, under pain of grievous sin, to keep Sunday holy," and signed his name.

By 1902, he had been transferred to the Mission Church of the Most Holy Redeemer in Detroit, Michigan. From there, he wrote on April 26 to an unknown inquirer: (All letters and notes are handwritten)

Your note was forwarded to me here where I reside at present. I have never met Mr. Gamble, never read a line from any one of that name. The assertion that I have withdrawn the offer is utterly false: I still offer $1,000 to any one who can prove to me, from the Bible alone, that I am bound under pain of grievous sin to keep Sunday holy. We keep Sunday in obedience to the law of the Catholic Church. The Church made this law long after the Bible was written; hence the law is not in the Bible. The Catholic Church abolished, not only the Sabbath, but all the Jewish Festivals. Those who deny the authority of the Catholic Church and obey only the Bible must answer correctly the following: 1. Where does the Bible teach that we must keep Sunday holy; 2. Where does it teach that we must keep Sunday once a week and not once a year like Christmas; 3. Where does it teach that we must keep Easter always on the 1st Sunday after the full moon of the Vernal Equinox; 4. In Lev 23 you find 7 holy days binding as strictly as the Sabbath. Where does the Bible say that they are abolished; 5. Protestants have rejected 7 books of the Old Test. Where does the Bible say they are not the word of God; 6. How can you prove without the infallible authority of the Cath (sic) Church that the writings of S. Luke and S. Mark are inspired. They were no way the 12 Apostles. Why should their writings be inspired any more that those of S. Clement (sic) S. Barnabas or S. Dionysius; 7. Read Numbers 5 & 6. Where does the Bible say that this clear law of God has been abolished; 8. Why do you follow the current date when you write a letter etc! Here also you obey the Catholic Church and not the Bible.

Who was this Mr. Gamble alluded to in this letter? Mr. S. W. Gamble was a Methodist writer who sought to establish Sunday as the Sabbath from linguistics. He interpreted the phrase μίαν σαββάτων in Matt. 28:1, and Mark 16:2 as meaning, "first of the (new) Sabbaths" rather than the "first (day) of the week" as in the KJV. It was his own Methodist brethren who challenged his linguistics. Dr. Wilbur Fletcher Steele in the Methodist Review of May, 1899 wrote:

This widely heralded Klondike discovery as to mian Sabbaton turns out to be only the glitter of fool's gold. It rests upon the profoundest ignoring or ignorance of a law of syntax fundamental to inflected speech, and especially of the usage and influence of the Aramaic tongue, which was

Page 4

the vernacular of Jesus and His apostles. Must syntax die that the Sabbath [Sunday] may live?

Dr Steele concluded his review and exposure of Mr. Gamble's theory with these words:

As a vital or corroboratory part of any argument for the sanctifying of the Lord's day, this travestied exegesis instead of being a monumental discovery, is but a monumental blunder. Thereby our foes will have us in derision.

Tell it not in Gath,

Publish it not in the streets of Battle Creek,

Lest the daughters of the Sabbatarians rejoice,

Lest the daughters of the Saturdarians triumph.

We can only assume that the one to whom Father Enright addressed his letter in 1902 had called his attention to Mr. Gamble's theory. It also can be assumed that either Mr. Gamble or someone supporting that theory, when asked if he had collected the $1,000 from Enright, replied to cover his negative response, that the offer had been withdrawn.

By 1905, Enright had been transferred to the St. Alphonsus' (Rock) Church in St. Louis, Missouri. From there in June, he wrote a "Dear Friend" letter:

I have offered & still offer $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone, that I am bound, under grievous sin to keep Sunday holy.

It was the Catholic Church which made the law oblinging (sic) [obligating (?)] us to keep Sunday holy. The Church made this law long after the Bible was written. Hence said law is not in the Bible.

Christ our Lord empowered his church to make laws binding in conscience. He said to his apostles their lawful successors in the priesthood: "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be binding in heaven" Matt. 16:19. Matt. 18:17. Luke 16:19 The Cath. Church abolished not only the Sabbath, but all the other Jewish festivals.

Pray & study. I shall be always glad to help you as long as you honestly seek the truth.

Respectfully T. Enright CSSR

{A copy of this handwritten letter on his official stationary may be obtained by sending a #10 self-addressed stamped envelope to "Enright Letter," P.O. Box 69, Ozone, AR 72854) (This service is no longer available.)

The Re-Write

Moving from the position that the Church changed the day of worship commanded by God as evidence of her power to institute festivals of precept declaring that "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" (Doctrinal Catechism, p.174); she began to assign in her catechetical literature a reason for the change other than just her sole authority. In the book, The Faith of Millions, written by Dr. John A. O'Brien of Notre Dame University in 1938, the following explanation is given:

The word "Sabbath" means rest, and is Saturday, the seventh day of the week.

Why then do Christians observe Sunday instead of the day mentioned in the Bible? In order to make clear to the Jews that they are no longer under the Old Law of Moses, with its requirements of circumcision, abstinence from certain meats and the scrupulous observance of the Jewish sacrifice on the Sabbath, but under the New Law of Christ, the infant Church changed the day to be kept holy from Saturday to Sunday. All the ceremonial laws of the Jews ended with the coming of Christ; but since their ceremonies and practices were enshrined in Jewish tradition for two thousand years, the early Christian Church thought that the most effective way to drive home to them the arrival of the New Law of Christ was to transfer the traditional day of public worship to the Sunday. (p.472)

Certain New Testament Scriptures begin to appear to justify the change, such as Acts 20:7, and I Corinthians 16:2. Neander, in his history of the Church in the first three centuries of the Christian era, cites these texts and the opposition to Judaism in his discussion of the change in the day of worship. He writes:

Opposition to Judaism introduced the particular festival of Sunday very early, indeed, into the place of the Sabbath; the first trace of this custom is in the Acts xx.7, where we find the Church assembled together on the first day of the week. (Neander, op.cit.)

The translator of Neander's history from the German, Henry John Rose, adds a footnote to the above. It explained:

Page 5

The passage is not entirely convincing, because the impending departure of the apostle may have united the little Church in a brotherly parting meal, on occasion of which the apostle delivered his last address, although there was no particular celebration of a Sunday in the case. The passage from I Cor. xvi. 2, is still less convincing; for all may be quite completely explained, if we only consider the passage as referring to the beginning of the civil week. (ibid.)

In 1994, the new Catechism of the Catholic Church was released. The Ten Commandments are discussed as a subsection of "Life In Christ." Article 3 is concerning the Fourth Commandment, to the Catholics, the Third Commandment, inasmuch as they have deleted the Second. Section l is captioned - "The Sabbath." It sets forth the Sabbath in the Old Testament as   1) "The seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord" (Ex. 31:15 RSV);   2) A memorial of Creation quoting Ex. 20:11;  3) "A memorial of Israel's liberation from bondage in Egypt quoting Deut 5:15;"   4) "A sign of an irrevocable covenant" entrusted to Israel to keep (Ex. 31:16);   5) A model for human action inasmuch as God "rested and was refreshed;" and   6) A day of Ihe Lord of mercies and a day to honor God. The section is concluded by quoting Mark 2:28 - "The Son of man is lord even of the sabbath." (par. 2168-2173)

Section II is captioned, "The Lord's Day." This section begins by quoting Ps. 118:24 - "This is the day the Lord hath made; let us rejoice and be glad in it." However, there is no way that this can be construed as referring to Sunday. The first paragraph presents the resurrection as "the new creation" and thus to Christians the day of the resurrection, "the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's day" citing, not Scripture, but Justin Martyr as authority.

The second paragraph declares that Sunday is the "fulfilment of the Sabbath" and "its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath," and announces man's eternal rest In God." It closes again by citing, not Scripture, but Ignatius of Antioch. The final paragraph declares that "Sunday worship fulfils the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people." (par. 2174-2176)

Gone is any suggestion that the Church by the plenitude of its divine power altered the Sabbath.

Interestingly, however, there is no Scripture cited to justify the observance of Sunday. While the enlarged 2nd Edition of the Catechism released this year by the United States Catholic Conference leaves unaltered this section, John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter, Dies Domini (May 31, 1998) sought to supply this lack. By analogy and philosophical reasoning he sought to establish a justification for Sunday observance. He stated:

In the Creator's plan, there is both a distinction and a close link between the order of creation and the order of salvation. This is emphasized in the Old Testament when it links the shabbat commandment not only with God's mysterious rest after the days of creation (cf. Ex. 20:8-11), but also with the salvation which He offers to Israel in the liberation from the slavery of Egypt (cf. Dt. 5:12-15). (par. 12)

Using this theme, the pope concluded, "The Sabbath precept, which in the first covenant prepares for the Sunday of the new and eternal covenant, is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan" (par. 13). Then without warrant, he declares - "In the first place, therefore, Sunday is the day of rest because it is the day blessed by God and made holy by Him, set apart from the other days to be, among all of them, the Lord's day." (par. 14).

In the final paragraph of Chapter I of the Letter, the pope seeks to establish the why of the change from the Sabbath to Sunday. He wrote:

Because the Third Commandment [Fourth] depends upon the remembrance of God's saving works and because Christians saw the definite time inaugurated by Christ as a new beginning, they made the first day after the Sabbath a festive day, for that was the day on which the Lord arose from the dead. The Paschal Mystery of Christ is the full revelation of the mystery of the world's origin, the climax of the history of salvation and the anticipation of the eschatological fulfilment of the world. ... In the light of this mystery, the meaning of the Old Testament precept concerning the Lord's Day is recovered, perfected and fully revealed in the glory of the Risen Christ (cf. 2 Cor 4:6). We move from the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath," from the seventh to the first day: the dies Domini becomes the dies Christi! (par. 18).

{In the phrase, "the first day after the Sabbath" is an echo of Mr. Gamble's theory noted above. The Greek is not "the first day after the Sabbath" but rather, "the first day of the week" - a new week. Christ's work as Redeemer was "finished" on Friday (John 19:30); He

Page 6

rested in the Tomb on the Sabbath, and arose to a new work (Heb. 10:19-21) on the first day.}

In Chapter II of the Encyclical, the Pope seeks to establish Sunday as the Dies Christi of the Early Church by citing not only the resurrection on the first day of the week, but also the descent of the Holy Spirit on that day. The final paragraph (#30) notes Sunday as "An indispensable day!" After seeking to establish in the previous paragraphs of the chapter the observance of Sunday from Apostolic times, he admits that not until the beginning of the 3rd century was it a general practice. He wrote:

An Eastern writer of the beginning of the third century recounts that as early as then the faithful in every region were keeping Sunday holy on a regular basis. What began as a spontaneous practice [no Divine command] later became a juridical sanctioned norm [by Church and State authority]. The Lord's Day has structured the history of the Church through two thousand years: how could we think that it will not continue to shape her future? ... Given its many meanings and aspects, and its link to the very foundations of the faith, the celebration of the Christian Sunday remains, an indispensable element of our Christian identity.

An Added Emphasis

Into this re-write of History, a new emphasis has been added. In the earlier catechisms cited above, while the proper observance of Sunday included attendance at the Mass, this was not the central emphasis that is now being taken in the new Catholic catechism, nor the emphasis placed by John Paul II in his encyclical.

In the new Catechism, immediately following the paragraphs on the Sabbath and its change to Sunday are two sections on the Eucharist. From these note the following emphasis:

The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life (par. 2177).

The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice (par. 2181).

Participation in the communal celebration of the Sunday Eucharist is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church (par. 2182).

In his Apostolic Letter, observe also the pope's emphasis:

(32) The Eucharist is not only a particular intense expression of the reality of the Church's life, but also in a sense its "foundation." The Eucharist feeds and forms the Church: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (I Cor 10:17). Because of this vital link with the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, the mystery of the Church is savored, proclaimed, and lived supremely in the Eucharist.

(36) The Sunday assembly is the privileged place of unity: it is the setting for the celebration of the sacramentum unitatis which profoundly marks the Church as a people gathered "by" and "in" the unity of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

(42) ... The Mass in fact truly makes present the sacrifice of the Cross. Under the species of bread and wine, upon which has been invoked the outpouring of the Spirit who works with so absolutely unique power in the words of consecration. Christ offers himself to the Father in the same act of sacrifice by which He offered himself on the Cross. "In this divine sacrifice which is accomplished in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once and for all in a bloody manner on the altar of the Cross is contained and is offered in unbloody manner."

This whole emphasis of linking the Eucharist with Sunday is incongruous. It was the evening before the crucifixion that Christ instituted the Communion Service as a memorial of a greater Passover. It was the next day that He was Crucified. Then came the day of the Resurrection. They are not the same, nor linked together. This same incongruity is seen in the reverence paid by Rome to the crucifix - an emblem of a dead Christ. As stated by the angel at the sepulchre, "He is not here, but is risen" (Luke 24:6). We serve a risen Lord. There is a deeper factor involved than meets the eye.

You will observe that the Pope, in the last of the above references from his Apostolic Letter, declared that Christ is offered at each Mass as He was offered on the Cross, except in an "unbloody manner." He modified the historic position of the Church by indicating that this "unbloody" sacrifice was accomplished "with the absolutely unique power" of the working of the Spirit "in the words of consecration." However, the sainted Doctor of the Church, Alphonsus de Liguori, in his book, Dignity and Duties of the Priest, wrote:

St. Bernardine of Siena has written: "Holy Virgin, excuse me, for I speak not against thee: the Lord has raised the

Page 7

priesthood above thee." The saint assigns the reason of the superiority of the priesthood over Mary; she conceived Jesus Christ only once; but by consecrating the Eucharist, the priest, as it were, conceives him as often as he wishes, so that if the person of the Redeemer had not as yet been in the world, the priest, by pronouncing the words of consecration, would produce this great person of a Man-God. ... Hence priests are called the parents of Jesus Christ: such is the title St. Bernard gives them, for they are the active cause by which he is made to exist really in the consecrated Host.

Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator, since by saying the words of consecration, he creates as it were, Jesus in the sacrament, by giving him a sacramental existence, and produces him as a victim to be offered to the Eternal Father. As in creating the world it was sufficient for God to have said, Let it be made, and it was created He spoke and they were made - so it is sufficient for the priest to say, "Hoc est corpus meum," and behold the bread is no longer bread, but the body of Jesus Christ. "The power of the priest," says St. Bernardine of Sienna, "is the power of the divine person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world." And St. Augustine has written, "0 venerable sanctity of the hands! 0 happy function of the priest! He that created (if I may say so) gave me the power to create him; and he that created me without me is himself created by me!" (pp.32-33)

Here the line is clearly drawn between the Sabbath of the Lord our God, and the day substituted by Rome. The Sabbath stands as a memorial of the creative power of God, a day for us to enter into "His rest." Rome by manipulation of fact has chosen to emphasize the blasphemous celebration of the Mass on the day they have substituted for the Sabbath without Biblical precedent or authorization. Thus the one day - the Sabbath - stands for the Creative power of God, and Sunday stands as an emblem for the blasphemous presumption of man, that he can create even God.

This is clearly the contending issue which marks the difference between the Seal of God, and the Mark of the beast. Even as the number of the beast "is the number of a man" (Rev. 13:18) so also the mark is the mark of a man. Do we worship the true Christ, the risen Lord, or do we worship a piece of bread made by man, and declared by man to be that Christ? This is the true meaning of Antichrist. In the Greek, anti means, "in place of" rather than as in English, "against." The last warning of God before the close of all human probation given in Revelation concerns this very element of worship. The Third Angel declares:

If any man worship thd beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation. (Rev. 14:9-10)

In the Handbook for Today's Catholic, a section gives instruction on "How to Receive Communion." Compare the warning in Revelation with how it may be received. Also note that it is the "door" into the Roman Church. The Handbook reads:

"Holy Communion may be received on the tongue or in the hand and may be given under the form of bread alone or under both species ...

"When the minister raises the eucharistic bread or wine, this is an invitation for the communicant to make an Act of Faith, to express his or her belief in the Eucharist, to manifest a need and desire for the Lord, to accept the good news of Jesus' paschal mystery.

"A clear meaningful 'Amen' is your response to this invitation. In this way you profess belief in the presence of Christ in the eucharistic bread and wine as well as in his Body, the Church." (p.42)

#

"But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and the table of devils." (I Cor. 10:20-21)

 

 

WEBSITE

Adventistlaymen.com

E-MAIL
webmaster@adventistlaymen.com