I have learnt that, last week, Hungary passed a law that bans Sunday shopping – http://www.bne.eu/content/story/hungarian-parliament-passes-sunday-shopping-ban – The reason? As it is stated in the article, it “protects Sunday as a Christian day of rest”. Other article claims this law will “boost family togetherness”.
I am warning you: I am not writing this as the almost shopaholic who likes to dawdle in shopping enclaves on her day off… 🙂 I am just sad this is not possible anymore in Austria, Germany, and, now, Hungary, but not for the sake of shopaholics.
I am being less fashionable as I am writing as a Christian whose day of rest is NOT Sunday. Who says Sunday is the Christian day of rest and even imposes, well, protects it as such? I know for sure it is not God or the Bible who says that. As a Bible-reader Christian I am baffled to see the current extent of one of the biggest deceits ever.
No one has ever found the Bible verse referring to Sunday as the Christian day of rest. It simply is not there. SATURDAY is the holy day of rest the Bible upholds, from the Old Testament to the New: Matthew 15:3-9:
Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? […] You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’”
So, on the one hand, lawmakers are thinking of family togetherness and are “helping” Austrians, Germans, Hungarians to it. On the other hand, they are guardians of the Christian day of rest. How about me and my church who protect Saturday as the Biblical day of rest? Are we breaking laws? Probably, but we must obey God rather than human beings – Acts 5: 17-41:
“Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name’, he said. ‘Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.’ Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than human beings!’”
OK, let lawmakers sustain Sunday as the holy day of rest, this rings a gloomy bell, but there is nothing new. They may even pass a Saturday-worship ban anytime in the future… to boost more family togetherness.
The last book of the Bible, Revelation, speaks about this, so it will happen. Revelation 13:16, 17:
“It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.”
Having the mark on the hand and forehead means accepting a false day of rest, either only practically (you do not believe Sunday is the holy day of rest of God, but you worship on it so as not to become a criminal… :P) or both practically and mentally (Mark 8:18: “Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?”).
Information is power. Don’t believe me, you search for answers! Acts 17:11:
“These Christians were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, to see whether those things were so.”
The Great Controversy is a splendid book that uses history and the Bible to speak the truth about the past, present and the future. Yes, about the future. It was written almost 150 years ago and it spoke about events that have happened and/or are starting to happen as described. You can read it here in English: http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp and here in Romanian: http://www.bibliotecapemobil.ro/content/scoala/pdf/Tragedia%20veacurilor%20-%20Ellen%20G.%20White.pdf
For example, chapter 35, Liberty of Conscience Threatened:
“Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years. In those countries where Catholicism is not in the ascendancy, and the papists are taking a conciliatory course in order to gain influence, there is an increasing indifference concerning the doctrines that separate the reformed churches from the papal hierarchy; the opinion is gaining ground that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed, and that a little concession on our part will bring us into a better understanding with Rome.”
“The papal church will never relinquish her claim to infallibility. All that she has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be presented? Let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed and Rome be reinstated in her former power, and there would speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution.
A well-known writer speaks thus of the attitude of the papal hierarchy as regards freedom of conscience, and of the perils which especially threaten the United States from the success of her policy:
‘There are many who are disposed to attribute any fear of Roman Catholicism in the United States to bigotry or childishness. Such see nothing in the character and attitude of Romanism that is hostile to our free institutions, or find nothing portentous in its growth. Let us, then, first compare some of the fundamental principles of our government with those of the Catholic Church.’
“The Constitution of the United States guarantees liberty of conscience. Nothing is dearer or more fundamental. Pope Pius IX, in his Encyclical Letter of August 15, 1854, said: `The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience are a most pestilential error–a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a state.’ The same pope, in his Encyclical Letter of December 8, 1864, anathematized `those who assert the liberty of conscience and of religious worship,’ also ‘all such as maintain that the church may not employ force.’
“The pacific tone of Rome in the United States does not imply a change of heart. She is tolerant where she is helpless. Says Bishop O’Connor: ‘Religious liberty is merely endured until the opposite can be carried into effect without peril to the Catholic world.’. . . The archbishop of St. Louis once said: ‘Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all the people are Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the law of the land, they are punished as other crimes.’. . .
“Every cardinal, archbishop, and bishop in the Catholic Church takes an oath of allegiance to the pope, in which occur the following words: ‘Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said lord (the pope), or his aforesaid successors, I will to my utmost persecute and oppose.'”–Josiah Strong, Our Country, ch. 5, pars. 2-4. [SEE APPENDIX FOR CORRECTED REFERENCES.]
“The Roman Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christlike garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of the papacy that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. The papacy that Protestants are now so ready to honor is the same that ruled the world in the days of the Reformation, when men of God stood up, at the peril of their lives, to expose her iniquity. She possesses the same pride and arrogant assumption that lorded it over kings and princes, and claimed the prerogatives of God. Her spirit is no less cruel and despotic now than when she crushed out human liberty and slew the saints of the Most High.”
“In the movements now in progress in the United States to secure for the institutions and usages of the church the support of the state, Protestants are following in the steps of papists. Nay, more, they are opening the door for the papacy to regain in Protestant America the supremacy which she has lost in the Old World. And that which gives greater significance to this movement is the fact that the principal object contemplated is the enforcement of Sunday observance–a custom which originated with Rome, and which she claims as the sign of her authority. It is the spirit of the papacy–the spirit of conformity to worldly customs, the veneration for human traditions above the commandments of God–that is permeating the Protestant churches and leading them on to do the same work of Sunday exaltation which the papacy has done before them.
If the reader would understand the agencies to be employed in the soon-coming contest, he has but to trace the record of the means which Rome employed for the same object in ages past. If he would know how papists and Protestants united will deal with those who reject their dogmas, let him see the spirit which Rome manifested toward the Sabbath and its defenders.
Royal edicts, general councils, and church ordinances sustained by secular power were the steps by which the pagan festival attained its position of honor in the Christian world. The first public measure enforcing Sunday observance was the law enacted by Constantine. (A.D. 321; see Appendix note for page 53.) This edict required townspeople to rest on “the venerable day of the sun,” but permitted countrymen to continue their agricultural pursuits. Though virtually a heathen statute, it was enforced by the emperor after his nominal acceptance of Christianity.
The royal mandate not proving a sufficient substitute for divine authority, Eusebius, a bishop who sought the favor of princes, and who was the special friend and flatterer of Constantine, advanced the claim that Christ had transferred the Sabbath to Sunday.
Not a single testimony of the Scriptures was produced in proof of the new doctrine. Eusebius himself unwittingly acknowledges its falsity and points to the real authors of the change. “All things,” he says, “whatever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s Day.”–Robert Cox, Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties, page 538. But the Sunday argument, groundless as it was, served to embolden men in trampling upon the Sabbath of the Lord. All who desired to be honored by the world accepted the popular festival.
As the papacy became firmly established, the work of Sunday exaltation was continued. For a time the people engaged in agricultural labor when not attending church, and the seventh day was still regarded as the Sabbath. But steadily a change was effected. Those in holy office were forbidden to pass judgment in any civil controversy on the Sunday. Soon after, all persons, of whatever rank, were commanded to refrain from common labor on pain of a fine for freemen and stripes in the case of servants. Later it was decreed that rich men should be punished with the loss of half of their estates; and finally, that if still obstinate they should be made slaves. The lower classes were to suffer perpetual banishment.”
…and there is more where that came from. And more to come.
Bishop Tony Palmer and Pope Francis – The Miracle of Unity has Begun: KCM Minister’s Conference 2014 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrS4IDTLavQ
The Pope to Ecumenical Patriarch: “We’re brothers in hope” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YflGTr9irk
I wonder, what will happen when the miracle of unity between Protestants and the Catholic Church is fully achieved? What will happen to those who do not want to be “brothers in hope” with a church that goes blatantly against the Word of God and enforces a false day of rest for all Christians?
Martin Luther said: I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/martin_luther.html)