Three Questions Seventh-day Adventists Can’t Answer About the Claim: “The Pope Changed the Sabbath to Sunday”!

QUESTION #1:

Who EXACTLY was the Pope between 538 AD and 1798 AD who changed the Sabbath to Sunday?

This is the most basic question that should be answerable if the claim is true. Yet after six years of engaging with SDA pastors, elders, debaters, and missionaries, a clear pattern emerged: there’s no consistent answer. Some say it was Constantine, but he wasn’t a Pope, and his decree was in 321 AD, which falls outside the prophetic timeframe. Others point to Pope Sylvester I, but again, he’s outside the 538–1798 window. Still others claim it was “symbolic,” a “collective papacy,” or an “unknown Pope.” But if a real Sabbath-to-Sunday change happened within the 1260 years, why can’t anyone name the Pope who did it?

Even official SDA sources like The Great Controversy, the SDA Bible Commentary, and the Handbook of SDA Theology fail to name a single Pope responsible [1]. William Branson, in In Defense of the Faith, openly admits he can’t provide a decree, only “probabilities”[2]. In other words: guesswork. But historical claims shouldn’t rest on speculation. If there’s no name, no Pope, no decree, how can the claim be true?

QUESTION #2:

What was the EXACT Month, Day, and Year between 538–1798 when the Sabbath was changed to Sunday?

If a real “change” occurred, there should be documentation. A date. A decree. A council record. Some kind of official proclamation. But in the entire 1260-year period, no one can provide a specific date. Most responses? “We don’t know.” How do you defend a doctrine with no event date? It’s like claiming your car was stolen during the Dark Ages, but you don’t know who did it, when, or where. That’s not evidence. That’s vibes.

Even Ellen White, who confidently claimed the papacy changed the Sabbath, never provided a date, decree, or documentation [3]. If prophetic fulfillment is the basis, there should be a historical timestamp. But if there isn’t one, how can you say it actually happened?

QUESTION #3:

Which Ecumenical Church Council, between 538–1798, officially declared: “From now on, Sunday is the official Christian day of worship”?

This is the ultimate test because church councils are documented. Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon all have records. But between 538–1798, not a single council declared Sunday as the official Christian day of worship. Zero. None.

So why do SDA interpretations still rely on Daniel 7:25? Because it’s not a historical claim, it’s an interpretation. And if interpretation is the only basis, anyone can be accused of anything. That’s called eisegesis, circular reasoning, conspiracy hermeneutics, and post hoc fallacy [4]. It’s not solid theology; it’s theological speculation dressed up as history.

Even SDA History Admits the Weakness

In the 1919 Bible Conference Minutes (pp. 88–90, 146–150), SDA leaders themselves admitted they had no solid historical proof for a papal Sabbath change [5]. Ellen White repeatedly asserted in The Great Controversy that the papacy changed the Sabbath, but she never provided documentation, dates, papal names, or council records.

Additional Apologetic Debunks

Sunday worship existed long before any Pope ever lived. It’s documented in early Christian writings like the Didache, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and the Didascalia[6].

Conclusion:

If SDA theology cannot answer these three basic historical questions:

• Who was the Pope?
• What was the exact date?
• Which council made the declaration?

Then there’s only one honest conclusion: the claim that “the Pope changed the Sabbath to Sunday” is a myth. And if the foundation is mythical, then the entire Sunday Law / Mark of the Beast framework built on it is also speculative. You cannot build prophecy on a foundation with no historical substance.

If we want to be honest with Scripture and history, we must face the uncomfortable truth:

There was no Sabbath-to-Sunday change made by any Pope between 538 and 1798. Period.

---

Notes

1. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1911); Francis D. Nichol, ed., Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1955); Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000); General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines (Silver Spring, MD: Ministerial Association, 2005); William H. Branson, In Defense of the Faith (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1933), 184–186.

2. Branson, In Defense of the Faith, 184–186.

3. White, The Great Controversy, multiple references throughout; no specific decree or date cited.

4. See Richard R. Rice, The Reign of God: An Introduction to Christian Theology from a Seventh-day Adventist Perspective, 2nd ed. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1997), for discussion on interpretive fallacies, including eisegesis and circular reasoning.

5. 1919 Bible Conference Minutes, General Conference Archives, pp. 88–90, 146–150.

6. Didache, c. late 1st century; Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, c. 110 AD; Justin Martyr, First Apology, c. 150 AD; Didascalia Apostolorum, 3rd century, all affirm Sunday worship before papal supremacy.

Former Adventists Philippines

“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph