I'm not under Moses, I'm under the Law of Christ

[Romans922]

Typical response, have you ever heard that?

You ask the question: What do you think about the command, "Remember/Observe the Sabbath Day to keep it holy, six days...."?

Should we still observe this command?



And the response comes back, "No. I do not observe the Sabbath. Why? Because I am not under of Moses, but the law of Christ."

And how do you respond?

 

[Prufrock]

...By observing the sabbath, and inviting them to do it with me.

More fundamentally, by demonstrating that the sabbath is not of the Mosaic Law: Torah indeed gave rules for its observation, but this is not the origin or source of the sabbath.

Also, by demonstrating that the 10 commandments in Exodus or Deuteronomy, though presented there in a Mosaic form, are something above and beyond the Mosaic Law -- they are a part of the natural law of God revealing his will for holiness: a part of that justice which Jesus fulfilled, and in which we are to follow.

 

[Romans922]

I'd say, "That's funny (ridiculous). The Law of Christ is the Law that Christ the Lawgiver gave to Moses. It's also the Law written on the hearts of men. It didn't begin at Sinai. Oh, and it's also the Law that the Psalmist calls 'perfect.' Oh, and ..."

No no Joshua (playing wrong answer advocate), the law was abrogated (Hebrews 8?) fulfilled by Christ (Matthew 5)

 

[Scott1]

Colossians 2:16
16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

This is one of the chief texts used to support the notion that "We are under 'grace' but somehow not under the fourth commandment.

If you study the context carefully, and go back to Numbers 28, one will see there were various ceremonies performed on certain sabbath days. Certain things were commanded to be sacraficed every fourth sabbath, when there was a new moon, etc. These ceremonial laws were abrogated because they are fulfilled in Christ's sacrifice. All ten commandments remain.

In fact, the Sabbath Day is even an ordinance of Creation, pre-dating the Mosaic law (there are threads on this so I won't go into that here).

The reason we pick out Commandment four from among the ten and say it (alone) does not apply is because it is inconvenient for us self-centered sinners to keep. It is hard to keep, like all the others, impossible in fact, but God gives faith and grace and blessing for those who seek to obey.

 

[toddpedlar]

The reason we pick out Commandment four from among the ten and say it (alone) does not apply is because it is inconvenient for us self-centered sinners to keep. It is hard to keep, like all the others, impossible in fact, but God gives faith and grace and blessing for those who seek to obey.

I'm sure Satan regards the fact that the NT does not repeat the 4th commandment as a happy means of tempting people to sin. What a convenient thing, since we are so selfish and self-centered by nature.

The primary reason this fact is a problem is that there is an widespread attitude (that amounts to an inherent dispensationalism) that says commands must be repeated in the NT for them to be valid. This of course is false - but it holds sway with MANY people, who unwittingly are following a Scofieldian reading of the Bible.

 

[Jon Lake]

I try to show grace, many think that it includes dietary laws and a number of other things, I point people to Christ who told us: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength. Love your neighbors as yourself, on these hang the Law and Prophets. For many people (even if they have read this many times) it is if a light flicks on. Blessings.

 

[Christusregnat]

Typical response, have you ever heard that?

You ask the question: What do you think about the command, "Remember/Observe the Sabbath Day to keep it holy, six days...."?

Should we still observe this command?



And the response comes back, "No. I do not observe the Sabbath. Why? Because I am not under of Moses, but the law of Christ."

And how do you respond?

As a more generic response, I would remind the person (I hope) that those that practice lawlessness are none of Christ's, and that the carnal mind is hostile to the law of God, and will not submit to it. Thus, if you find yourself bucking at God's law, as delivered by Moses, then you may not safely assume that you have been freed from a carnal mind.

Christ didn't come to set aside Moses or the Prophets, but to show us how to properly interpret and obey them.

Cheers,

 

[Romans922]

Another response in from my question above: This person says, "it is the only commandment not mentioned by Jesus"

 

[toddpedlar]

Another response in from my question above: This person says, "it is the only commandment not mentioned by Jesus"

Does this person believe that homosexuality is legitimate based on the fact that Jesus never once mentions it? Sounds like you have a "red letter Christian" on your hands.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Matthew Henry Comm. is apt on this (Matt. 24:20).

Secondly, That it might not be on the sabbath day; not on the Jewish sabbath, because travelling then would give offence to them who were angry with the disciples for plucking the ears of corn on the day; not on the Christian sabbath, because being forced to travel on the day would be a grief to themselves. This intimates Christ's design, that a weekly sabbath should be observed in his church after the preaching of the gospel to all the world. We read not of any of the ordinances of the Jewish church, which were purely ceremonial, that Christ ever expressed any care about, because they were all to vanish; but for the sabbath he often showed a concern. It intimates likewise that the sabbath is ordinarily to be observed as a day of rest from travel and worldly labour; but that, according to his own explication of the fourth commandment, works of necessity were lawful on the sabbath day, as this of fleeing from an enemy to save our lives: had it not been lawful, he would have said, "Whatever becomes of you, do not flee on the sabbath day, but abide by it, though you die by it." For we must not commit the least sin, to escape the greatest trouble. But it intimates, likewise, that it is very uneasy and uncomfortable to a good man, to be taken off by any work of necessity from the solemn service and worship of God on the sabbath day. We should pray that we may have quiet undisturbed sabbaths, and may have no other work than sabbath work to do on sabbath days; that we may attend upon the Lord without distraction. It was desirable, that, if they must flee, they might have the benefit and comfort of one sabbath more to help to bear their charges. To flee in the winter is uncomfortable to the body; but to flee on the sabbath day is so to the soul, and the more so when it remembers former sabbaths, as Psalms 42:4.
​

 

[Christusregnat]

Another response in from my question above: This person says, "it is the only commandment not mentioned by Jesus"

Not mentioned by Jesus? Is he serious?

BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Matthew 12:1-14;

BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Mark 2:23 - 28;

BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Mark 3:1 - 6;

BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Luke 6:1-11;

BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Luke 13:10-17;

BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Luke 14:1-6;

BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: John 7:19-24;

By implication, Christ also covers the Sabbath here:

BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Matthew 5:17-20;

If your adversary says that Jesus didn't teach on the sabbath, I can only conclude that he is sunk in a deep abyss of ignorance, or is willfully ignorant of the gospels.

However, as Todd said, God does not need to repeat everything He said in the OT for it to remain binding. Rather, we would expect Him to repeal if we were to practice something else.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[fredtgreco]

Another response in from my question above: This person says, "it is the only commandment not mentioned by Jesus"

Andrew,

I sometimes ask, "If the 4th commandment is no longer binding, why didn't Jesus just end all those Sabbath controversies in the NT by saying so?"

 

[A5pointer]

Another response in from my question above: This person says, "it is the only commandment not mentioned by Jesus"

Andrew,

I sometimes ask, "If the 4th commandment is no longer binding, why didn't Jesus just end all those Sabbath controversies in the NT by saying so?"

They would say he hadn't finished his work yet brining in the NC with his death. Making the Sabboth still appropriate during his life.

 

[fredtgreco]

Another response in from my question above: This person says, "it is the only commandment not mentioned by Jesus"

Andrew,

I sometimes ask, "If the 4th commandment is no longer binding, why didn't Jesus just end all those Sabbath controversies in the NT by saying so?"

They would say he hadn't finished his work yet brining in the NC with his death. Making the Sabboth still appropriate during his life.

Two edged sword. If that is the case, then why repeat commands for an era that they were not yet applicable to?

 

[Prufrock]

I think our lack of sabbath-observing is quite telling regarding our motivations for keeping the other commandments.

i.e. "I mean, we're good people, right? We don't kill, we're modest in sexuality, we are kind to one another (as long as they're around, anyway), we don't lie, or cheat or steal, or make idols (but who would make an idol today anyway), and we're certainly not gay. But that's just the thing: these are things that the common moral man preaches anyway, whether Christ is involved or not. The Sabbath on the other hand, gee, that's something that I don't really want to do; that takes away from what seems good/pleasing to me. Surely that can't still be binding on me like all these other things I'm perfectly happy to do or to keep myself from."

I think our lack of sabbath keeping shows nakedly our true motives from keeping other commandments: those are what we want to do anyway, what we think is good and right. Conveniently, it's God's law as well, but even if it weren't, we'd probably still obey them.

I suppose I can't really speak for other's motivations, but in my own past lack of sabbath observation (and sometimes present), I think I see this shining through.

 

[Thomas2007]

The problem is a misinterpretation of the Scripture about not being under law but under grace. I would try to open a discourse and explain that Paul's polemics against the law are not against the law as law, but against the law as mediator. Hence, their anti-nomianism is a misinterpretation of the Scripture, and Paul's polemics is a correction of Judaism not a negation of God's word. I try to teach the individual that the proper understanding of this is that through Christ we are no longer under the penalty of the law, not that the law is negated. Romans 2 or 3, last verse or thereabouts, says plainly that through faith we establish the law, so I would use that. I would try to show them, in a very gentle and kind way, that their position is internally inconsistent.

Anyway, that is how I try to explain it to people that have this particular anti-nomian interpretation, but generally I find them to be quite radical in their presuppositions and often they don't have ears to hear with. I pray will you have good success witnessing to this fellow.

 

[Romans922]

Oh now I've received a new message:

""Let no one judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration, or the Sabbath day." (Col. 2:16)

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Heb. 8:13)

You should just follow all 613 commandments found in the OT then."

Haha. That's funny.

So if someone says the Old Covenant is out (which to them means #4 commandment is out), to be consistent don't they have to say that 1-3, 5-10 is out too? In which case it is alright to have other gods, murder, etc.

But that is obviously not true, they will say that Jesus has commanded the other 9 commandments, and yes even #4 as well. So Heb. 8 means something else, especially given the context --> sacrifices I believe is in that context isn't it?

 

[Jon Lake]

I again point to charity here....I live in an area with a LOT of 7th Day Adventist, they spread so much confusion in these parts, I am CAREFUL when I speak of "the law", the Adventist have made a lot of people ...reactionary, this is why I am (or try to be) careful to show Grace does not demean the law but allows it to be upheld in a true sense that is liberating. (This may sound confusing, but those here have dealt with Adventist know where I am coming from.) Blessings.

 

[Romans922]

These are my good friends. Nothing to worry about.

 

[Jon Lake]

These are my good friends. Nothing to worry about.

Lol, not worried you seem nice enough. Blessings.

 

[Matthias]

Just thought I would add the opinions of two great theologians into the fray


Luther criticized the Sabbatarian Carlstadt and certain Anabaptists for their Judiazing of Sunday: "that if Sunday were anywhere made holy merely for the day's sake or its observance set on a Jewish foundation, 'then I order you to walk on it, to ride on it, to dance on it, to feast on it, to do anything that shall remove this encroachment on Christian Liberty'

Calvin "regarded the external observance of the Sabbath rest as a Jewish ceremonial ordinance and no longer binding on Christians." He said of Sabbatarians that they "surpass the Jews three times over in a crass and carnal Sabbatarian superstition"

For very practical reasons, Calvin wished to retain a stated rest day for rest and worship. "When Spirituals taunted Protestant as Judaizers for still keeping Sunday, Calvin replied that they celebrated it not scrupulously but 'as a remedy needed to keep order in the church.' " Solberg notes also that "in Calvin's Geneva, citizens were free to amuse themselves after Sunday worship, and they did so with military drill and bowling. Calvin himself bowled on Sunday and was buried on a Lord's Day afternoon"

 

[Romans922]

Just thought I would add the opinions of two great theologians into the fray


Luther criticized the Sabbatarian Carlstadt and certain Anabaptists for their Judiazing of Sunday: "that if Sunday were anywhere made holy merely for the day's sake or its observance set on a Jewish foundation, 'then I order you to walk on it, to ride on it, to dance on it, to feast on it, to do anything that shall remove this encroachment on Christian Liberty'

Calvin "regarded the external observance of the Sabbath rest as a Jewish ceremonial ordinance and no longer binding on Christians." He said of Sabbatarians that they "surpass the Jews three times over in a crass and carnal Sabbatarian superstition"

For very practical reasons, Calvin wished to retain a stated rest day for rest and worship. "When Spirituals taunted Protestant as Judaizers for still keeping Sunday, Calvin replied that they celebrated it not scrupulously but 'as a remedy needed to keep order in the church.' " Solberg notes also that "in Calvin's Geneva, citizens were free to amuse themselves after Sunday worship, and they did so with military drill and bowling. Calvin himself bowled on Sunday and was buried on a Lord's Day afternoon"

Um, I suggest you go read Calvin yourself. The source you provide does not seem correct on him.

 

[Matthias]

Um, I suggest you go read Calvin yourself. The source you provide does not seem correct on him.

I suggest you do not make assumptions that I have not read Calvin. I have read every work of Calvin's that I have been able to lay my hands on. I did not write the article, and I merely posted it to show different views of the subject.

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 05:41:29 EST-----

The "source" is REDEEM THE TIME – THE PURITAN SABBATH IN EARLY AMERICA by Winton Solberg.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Providentially, I read this portion of Calvin today. After beautifully explaining the first two uses of the Law, Calvin notes the below. I find it fascinating that he calls this the "principal" use of the Law as it is the proper end of the Law compared to how sinful man twists its purpose:

12. The third use of the Law (being also the principal use, and more
closely connected with its proper end) has respect to believers in
whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns. For
although the Law is written and engraven on their hearts by the finger
of God, that is, although they are so influenced and actuated by the
Spirit, that they desire to obey God, there are two ways in which they
still profit in the Law. For it is the best instrument for enabling
them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of
the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this
knowledge; just as a servant who desires with all his soul to approve
himself to his master, must still observe, and be careful to ascertain
his master's dispositions, that he may comport himself in accommodation
to them. Let none of us deem ourselves exempt from this necessity, for
none have as yet attained to such a degree of wisdom, as that they may
not, by the daily instruction of the Law, advance to a purer knowledge
of the Divine will. Then, because we need not doctrine merely, but
exhortation also, the servant of God will derive this further advantage
from the Law: by frequently meditating upon it, he will be excited to
obedience, and confirmed in it, and so drawn away from the slippery
paths of sin. In this way must the saints press onward, since, however
great the alacrity with which, under the Spirit, they hasten toward
righteousness, they are retarded by the sluggishness of the flesh, and
make less progress than they ought. The Law acts like a whip to the
flesh, urging it on as men do a lazy sluggish ass. Even in the case of
a spiritual man, inasmuch as he is still burdened with the weight of
the flesh, the Law is a constant stimulus, pricking him forward when he
would indulge in sloth. David had this use in view when he pronounced
this high eulogium on the Law, "The law of the Lord is perfect,
converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the
simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the
commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes," (Ps. 19:7, 8).
Again, "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path,"
(Ps. 119:105). The whole psalm abounds in passages to the same effect.
Such passages are not inconsistent with those of Paul, which show not
the utility of the law to the regenerate, but what it is able of itself
to bestow. The object of the Psalmist is to celebrate the advantages
which the Lord, by means of his law, bestows on those whom he inwardly
inspires with a love of obedience. And he adverts not to the mere
precepts, but also to the promise annexed to them, which alone makes
that sweet which in itself is bitter. For what is less attractive than
the law, when, by its demands and threatening, it overawes the soul,
and fills it with terror? David specially shows that in the law he saw
the Mediator, without whom it gives no pleasure or delight.

13. Some unskilful persons, from not attending to this, boldly discard
the whole law of Moses, and do away with both its Tables, imagining it
unchristian to adhere to a doctrine which contains the ministration of
death. Far from our thoughts be this profane notion. Moses has
admirably shown that the Law, which can produce nothing but death in
sinners, ought to have a better and more excellent effect upon the
righteous. When about to die, he thus addressed the people, "Set your
hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye
shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this
law. For it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life,"
(Deut. 32:46, 47). If it cannot be denied that it contains a perfect
pattern of righteousness, then, unless we ought not to have any proper
rule of life, it must be impious to discard it. There are not various
rules of life, but one perpetual and inflexible rule; and, therefore,
when David describes the righteous as spending their whole lives in
meditating on the Law (Psalm 1:2), we must not confine to a single age,
an employment which is most appropriate to all ages, even to the end of
the world. Nor are we to be deterred or to shun its instructions,
because the holiness which it prescribes is stricter than we are able
to render, so long as we bear about the prison of the body. It does not
now perform toward us the part of a hard taskmaster, who will not be
satisfied without full payment; but, in the perfection to which it
exhorts us, points out the goal at which, during the whole course of
our lives, it is not less our interest than our duty to aim. It is well
if we thus press onward. Our whole life is a race, and after we have
finished our course, the Lord will enable us to reach that goal to
which, at present, we can only aspire in wish.

14. Since, in regard to believers, the law has the force of
exhortation, not to bind their consciences with a curse, but by urging
them, from time to time, to shake off sluggishness and chastise
imperfection,--many, when they would express this exemption from the
curse, say, that in regard to believers the Law (I still mean the Moral
Law) is abrogated: not that the things which it enjoins are no longer
right to be observed, but only that it is not to believers what it
formerly was; in other words, that it does not, by terrifying and
confounding their consciences, condemn and destroy. It is certainly
true that Paul shows, in clear terms, that there is such an abrogation
of the Law. And that the same was preached by our Lord appears from
this, that he would not have refuted the opinion of his destroying the
Law, if it had not been prevalent among the Jews. Since such an opinion
could not have arisen at random without some pretext, there is reason
to presume that it originated in a false interpretation of his
doctrine, in the same way in which all errors generally arise from a
perversion of the truth. But lest we should stumble against the same
stone, let us distinguish accurately between what has been abrogated in
the Law, and what still remains in force. When the Lord declares, that
he came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil (Mt. 5:17); that until
heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or little shall remain
unfulfilled; he shows that his advent was not to derogate, in any
degree, from the observance of the Law. And justly, since the very end
of his coming was to remedy the transgression of the Law. Therefore,
the doctrine of the Law has not been infringed by Christ, but remains,
that, by teaching, admonishing, rebuking, and correcting, it may fit
and prepare us for every good work.

15. What Paul says, as to the abrogation of the Law, evidently applies
not to the Law itself, but merely to its power of constraining the
conscience. For the Law not only teaches, but also imperiously demands.
If obedience is not yielded, nay, if it is omitted in any degree, it
thunders forth its curse. For this reason, the Apostle says, that "as
many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is
written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which
are written in the book of the law to do them," (Gal. 3:10; Deut.
27:26). Those he describes as under the works of the Law, who do not
place righteousness in that forgiveness of sins by which we are freed
from the rigour of the Law. He therefore shows, that we must be freed
from the fetters of the Law, if we would not perish miserably under
them. But what fetters? Those of rigid and austere exaction, which
remits not one iota of the demand, and leaves no transgression
unpunished. To redeem us from this curse, Christ was made a curse for
us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree
(Deut. 21:23, compared with Gal. 3:13, 4:4). In the following chapter,
indeed, he says, that "Christ was made under the law, in order that he
might redeem those who are under the law;" but the meaning is the same.
For he immediately adds, "That we might receive the adoption of sons."
What does this mean? That we might not be, all our lifetime, subject to
bondage, having our consciences oppressed with the fear of death.
Meanwhile, it must ever remain an indubitable truth, that the Law has
lost none of its authority, but must always receive from us the same
respect and obedience.

16. The case of ceremonies is different, these having been abrogated
not in effect but in use only. Though Christ by his advent put an end
to their use, so far is this from derogating from their sacredness,
that it rather commends and illustrates it. For as these ceremonies
would have given nothing to God's ancient people but empty show, if the
power of Christ's death and resurrection had not been prefigured by
them,--so, if the use of them had not ceased, it would, in the present
day, be impossible to understand for what purpose they were instituted.
Accordingly, Paul, in order to prove that the observance of them was
not only superfluous, but pernicious also, says that they "are a shadow
of things to come; but the body is of Christ," (Col. 2:17). We see,
therefore, that the truth is made clearer by their abolition than if
Christ, who has been openly manifested, were still figured by them as
at a distance, and as under a veil. By the death of Christ, the veil of
the temple was rent in vain, the living and express image of heavenly
things, which had begun to be dimly shadowed forth, being now brought
fully into view, as is described by the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews (Heb. 10:1). To the same effect, our Saviour declares, that
"the law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom
of God is preached, and every man presseth into it," (Luke 16:16); not
that the holy fathers were left without the preaching of the hope of
salvation and eternal life, but because they only saw at a distance,
and under a shadow, what we now behold in full light. Why it behaved
the Church to ascend higher than these elements, is explained by John
the Baptist, when he says, "The law was given by Moses, but grace and
truth came by Jesus Christ," (John 1:17). For though it is true that
expiation was promised in the ancient sacrifices, and the ark of the
covenant was a sure pledge of the paternal favour of God, the whole
would have been delusory had it not been founded on the grace of
Christ, wherein true and eternal stability is found. It must be held as
a fixed point, that though legal rites ceased to be observed, their end
serves to show more clearly how great their utility was before the
advent of Christ, who, while he abolished the use, sealed their force
and effect by his death.

 

[Christusregnat]

Um, I suggest you go read Calvin yourself. The source you provide does not seem correct on him.

I suggest you do not make assumptions that I have not read Calvin. I have read every work of Calvin's that I have been able to lay my hands on. I did not write the article, and I merely posted it to show different views of the subject.

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 05:41:29 EST-----

The "source" is REDEEM THE TIME – THE PURITAN SABBATH IN EARLY AMERICA by Winton Solberg.

Jeff,

I think the question may have been more along the lines of "please provide a citation of Calvin's own words", not an historian who may have read another, who read another, that heard some time that Calvin's brother Antwon said something about Calvin calling down sabbaterians, and was quoted by in article. Not disputing the claim, just suspending judgment until you provide a direct source.

Cheers,

 

[Matthias]

Um, I suggest you go read Calvin yourself. The source you provide does not seem correct on him.

I suggest you do not make assumptions that I have not read Calvin. I have read every work of Calvin's that I have been able to lay my hands on. I did not write the article, and I merely posted it to show different views of the subject.

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 05:41:29 EST-----

The "source" is REDEEM THE TIME – THE PURITAN SABBATH IN EARLY AMERICA by Winton Solberg.

Jeff,

I think the question may have been more along the lines of "please provide a citation of Calvin's own words", not an historian who may have read another, who read another, that heard some time that Calvin's brother Antwon said something about Calvin calling down sabbaterians, and was quoted by in article. Not disputing the claim, just suspending judgment until you provide a direct source.

Cheers,

There was no question directed at me. Only a blanket statement, that was insulting. As you can see from my signature, I subscribe to the LBC 1689.. so it should be obvious what my postion is in regards to the sabbath. I posted that excerpt because it voices opinions of another camp. My intention was to start up discussion. (discussion with somecharity would have been nice) It is rediculous that it was assumed I support the views held in that excerpt simply because I posted it. That would be contrary to my confession, which in turn would be contrary to the rules of this forum.

As for providing a direct source, I cant. My source of that article was the book I listed. I have no idea what the author claims as his sources. I do not own the book. It was not me who made the claims. If the authenticity of the statements are in question, I suggest taking it up with the author who made them.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Concerning the tired and unproven assertion of Calvin bowling on the Lord's Day, see this:

http://www.naphtali.com/pdf/calvinbw.pdf

Also available here in blog article form. If Calvin did indeed bowl on the Lord's day, it doesn't inform us as to what he believed, it simply means he was a hypocrite because what he believed on such matters is clear from his sermons on Deuteronomy.

 

[Christusregnat]

There was no question directed at me. Only a blanket statement, that was insulting. As you can see from my signature, I subscribe to the LBC 1689.. so it should be obvious what my postion is in regards to the sabbath. I posted that excerpt because it voices opinions of another camp. My intention was to start up discussion. (discussion with somecharity would have been nice) It is rediculous that it was assumed I support the views held in that excerpt simply because I posted it. That would be contrary to my confession, which in turn would be contrary to the rules of this forum.

As for providing a direct source, I cant. My source of that article was the book I listed. I have no idea what the author claims as his sources. I do not own the book. It was not me who made the claims. If the authenticity of the statements are in question, I suggest taking it up with the author who made them.

Jeff,

I would suggest that if you are uncertain about the authenticity of a quotation, you may want to say as much, or refrain from citation. You said that Calvin said such and such, and Luther said such and such. You may have wanted to say, "A historian I read said that Calvin said such and such". You didn't. Don't be upset if you are challenged for shoddy scholarship/poor choice of words. These are your words:

Just thought I would add the opinions of two great theologians into the fray


Luther criticized the Sabbatarian Carlstadt and certain Anabaptists for their Judiazing of Sunday: "that if Sunday were anywhere made holy merely for the day's sake or its observance set on a Jewish foundation, 'then I order you to walk on it, to ride on it, to dance on it, to feast on it, to do anything that shall remove this encroachment on Christian Liberty'

Calvin "regarded the external observance of the Sabbath rest as a Jewish ceremonial ordinance and no longer binding on Christians." He said of Sabbatarians that they "surpass the Jews three times over in a crass and carnal Sabbatarian superstition"

You are a man, and should be able to handle criticism with as much grace as you demand of your critics.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Matthias]

There was no question directed at me. Only a blanket statement, that was insulting. As you can see from my signature, I subscribe to the LBC 1689.. so it should be obvious what my postion is in regards to the sabbath. I posted that excerpt because it voices opinions of another camp. My intention was to start up discussion. (discussion with somecharity would have been nice) It is rediculous that it was assumed I support the views held in that excerpt simply because I posted it. That would be contrary to my confession, which in turn would be contrary to the rules of this forum.

As for providing a direct source, I cant. My source of that article was the book I listed. I have no idea what the author claims as his sources. I do not own the book. It was not me who made the claims. If the authenticity of the statements are in question, I suggest taking it up with the author who made them.

Jeff,

I would suggest that if you are uncertain about the authenticity of a quotation, you may want to say as much, or refrain from citation. You said that Calvin said such and such, and Luther said such and such. You may have wanted to say, "A historian I read said that Calvin said such and such". You didn't. Don't be upset if you are challenged for shoddy scholarship/poor choice of words. These are your words:

Just thought I would add the opinions of two great theologians into the fray


Luther criticized the Sabbatarian Carlstadt and certain Anabaptists for their Judiazing of Sunday: "that if Sunday were anywhere made holy merely for the day's sake or its observance set on a Jewish foundation, 'then I order you to walk on it, to ride on it, to dance on it, to feast on it, to do anything that shall remove this encroachment on Christian Liberty'

Calvin "regarded the external observance of the Sabbath rest as a Jewish ceremonial ordinance and no longer binding on Christians." He said of Sabbatarians that they "surpass the Jews three times over in a crass and carnal Sabbatarian superstition"

You are a man, and should be able to handle criticism with as much grace as you demand of your critics.

Cheers,

Adam

So far you are the only one to have critized me, and I can handle that. This is the kind of discussion I was hoping for. It is undue insults that I take issue with. Simple as that.

 

[Mayflower]

Johannes Cocceius (1603 -1669)

In one of his essays he contends that the observance of the Sabbath, though expedient, is not binding upon Christians, since it was a Jewish institution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Cocceius

Books:

Sabbath in Christ by Dale Ratzlaff
Sabbath in Christ

The Sabbath and the Lord's Day by H.M. Riggle
The Sabbath and the Lord's Day