# Thomas Watson on the Sabbath



## scottmaciver (Nov 30, 2012)

I came across this Thomas Watson quote on the Sabbath:
'People who cannot abide the Lord's Day, cannot abide the Lord.'

Would you agree/disagree? What would be your response?


----------



## joejohnston3 (Nov 30, 2012)

Well, Exodus 20:8 states “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." straight from God's Word to his people. If it is a statute then it seems pretty non-negotiable!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 30, 2012)

Well, it is _*HIS*_ day, after all ... y'know, "Lord of the Sabbath," and all that (Mk.2:28; Rev.1:10).


----------



## Zach (Nov 30, 2012)

I think it's hard to know what he is saying here. Do I think people who aren't strict Sabbatarians due to ignorance or different perspectives on what "keeping the day holy," looks like are not Christians and have failed to accept Jesus as the Christ? No. If he is talking of people being convinced of a biblical definition of Sabbath keeping and deciding that they would unrepentantly break the Sabbath anyway, then that is another matter. 

Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. *And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.* (Romans 14:4 ESV)


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 30, 2012)

Zach said:


> I think it's hard to know what he is saying here. Do I think people who aren't strict Sabbatarians due to ignorance or different perspectives on what "keeping the day holy," looks like are not Christians and have failed to accept Jesus as the Christ? No. If he is talking of people being convinced of a biblical definition of Sabbath keeping and deciding that they would unrepentantly break the Sabbath anyway, then that is another matter.
> 
> Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. *And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.* (Romans 14:4 ESV)



Add to that Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5-6. Sabbath keeping is not a universal belief in the church, not even by the Reformed, as Calvin himself did not adhere to it in the manner prescribed by the Puritans. There are some very good Christians, Reformed and otherwise, who have eloquently pointed out that Scripture does not teach that the Sabbath is binding upon New Testament Christians, and they use Scripture itself to point this out. 

And I agree: Watson comes dangerously close to teaching "Salvation by Sabbath" rather than "Salvation by Christ" in that statement.


----------



## Zach (Nov 30, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's hard to know what he is saying here. Do I think people who aren't strict Sabbatarians due to ignorance or different perspectives on what "keeping the day holy," looks like are not Christians and have failed to accept Jesus as the Christ? No. If he is talking of people being convinced of a biblical definition of Sabbath keeping and deciding that they would unrepentantly break the Sabbath anyway, then that is another matter.
> ...



Mr. Dean, I was not trying to question the validity of Sabbath keeping. I hold to the Confessional definition of Sabbath keeping (for that is the Puritan definition of Sabbath keeping) and I think that those who teach that the Sabbath is not binding upon New Testament Christians are wrong. That being said, despite all of our sin, in the area of the Fourth Commandment and all others, the Lord Jesus Christ is able to make his servants stand before him free from the stains of their sin. I do not believe Watson is close to saying "Salvation by Sabbath". He is saying that those who know the truth and willfully reject it and subsequently fail to turn to Christ in repentance and faith in his finished work, longing that he will change their hearts and enable them to keep his law have reason to doubt whether or not they can abide with the Lord.



> Mr. Watson has a few choice quotations on the subject of the sabbath day. I also like the way Robert M'Cheyne relates it:
> [W]_e love the Lord’s day, because it is his. Every hour of it is dear to us - sweeter than honey, more precious than gold. It is the day He rose for our justification. It reminds us of His love, and His finished work, and His rest. And we may boldly say that that man does not love the Lord Jesus Christ who does not love the entire Lord’s day._​
> Now, a few obvious qualifications should be made. Christianity is a path. It is a way. It is a journey. We will not necessarily know every turn on the way before we get to it. So, for example, a newly regenerate man is likely not to know most of what there is to know of the sabbath day. Further, a man may somewhat know it and, due to poor teaching concerning it, have some wrong ideas about it. However, ultimately, when a man is met with its truth, abiding validity, etc. and still does not desire to love and keep the sabbath day, then he may very well want to examine himself in light of the Scriptures and whether he desires, truly, to love the Lord, Who has given us the sabbath day.
> 
> What a glorious day it is. Wholly to partake of God's appointed means of communicating Himself to us in the preaching of the Word, coming to His Table, praying to the Father by the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and singing His beautiful praises! His dainties are provided to us, especially on this, His holy day, and how precious they are. Christ, in His work, has procured these benefits for us that we might boldly approach the Father in this alien righteousness with a holy confidence. On this day we cast aside the normal work of other days and take up the joyful labors which befit His people on the sabbath day, for this "yoke is easy," and this "burden is light," (Matthew 11). In fact, they are labors of eternal benefit and immeasurable payment, even communion with the thrice Holy God of Scripture.



A much better statement of what I was trying to say and a beautiful testimony to the joys of the Sabbath for Christians. Your writings on the glories of the day convicted me of how little I enjoy the day, Josh, and how sinful of me that it is. What a blessing from God to his people.


----------



## Fly Caster (Nov 30, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Watson comes dangerously close to teaching "Salvation by Sabbath" rather than "Salvation by Christ" in that statement.



No more than our Lord did when He said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 30, 2012)

Pointing to Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5-6 seem to be the thing to do today in Reformed circles to get out of the clear commands of the 2nd and 4th Commandments.


----------



## Tim (Nov 30, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Pointing to Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5-6 seem to be the thing to do today in Reformed circles to get out of the clear commands of the 2nd and 4th Commandments.



Exactly. And I think that one of the things Thomas Watson is getting at is that with the mature Christian, desire gradually shifts to delight in those Biblical commands that were previously seen as overly strict.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Zach (Nov 30, 2012)

Tim said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Pointing to Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5-6 seem to be the thing to do today in Reformed circles to get out of the clear commands of the 2nd and 4th Commandments.
> ...



Agreed. That was what was so convicting about the Watson quote, Josh's post, and the Scripture that Timothy shared: too often we don't delight (or even obey!) the easy and light yoke of Jesus. That is why I rejoice at the promise that the Lord will make me stand in Romans 14:4 because of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 30, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Add to that Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5-6. Sabbath keeping is not a universal belief in the church, not even by the Reformed, as Calvin himself did not adhere to it in the manner prescribed by the Puritans.



I'd challenge you on believing that Calvin himself did not adhere in a similar/same manner prescribed by the Puritans. Gaffin had a book on this in which he states pretty much your view, but that was written prior to Calvin's sermons on Genesis being published. Have you read Calvin's Genesis sermons (particularly ch. 2:1-6)? You may be slightly surprised to find out much of what he states lines up exactly with the Puritan view, or to be more accurate the Puritan view lines up with Calvin and the Bible.

Here are some quotes from his Genesis 2:1-6 sermon, 

"That then is where spiritual rest begins: we abandon all our claim to rights; our wishes and all our appetites are put to death; and, at the same time, our feet, our hands, our eyes, and our tongues are under restraint, and everything is captive to obedience to God. When that condition exists, we will be governed by God's Spirit to rest from our works, that is to say, we are not to take the liberty of doing what seems good to us, of pursuing our appetites of whatever sort. That is what the day of rest means."

"Here, then, in brief is what we have to remember concerning the day of rest. In the first place, we must withdraw from all other occupations, business dealings, and cares which distance us from God, and we must apply all our effort to considering how limitless God's power and goodness and wisdom are so we will be encouraged to give and dedicate ourselves completely to Him."


"And then they chose the day on which Jesus Christ was raised because they wanted to show that He broke all of the restraints of the Law and that we are no longer bound by that simplistic teaching, but that we have reached the age of maturity *[I disagree with him here, it is because of Christ and the Spirit]*. That, in short, is why the day of rest was changed. Even so, we must adhere to that policy among ourselves, for we are not more capable or more fervent in the worship of God than the Jews were. But let us acknowledge our indifference and our coldness. Each of us must be convinced that that is our condition and that we need help. Now our Lord has willed and provided that one day of the week be set apart, not that we may be under a servile bondage as under the Law, but that, whatever the situation, that day must be set forth, as before our eyes."


"It now remains for us to think carefully about ourselves. When it is said that God sanctified the day of rest, it is certain that if we are ungodly we are fighting against God and that that sacrilege will not and cannot remain unpunished. So let us learn to sanctify the day of rest in order to bring ourselves into conformity with our God's example and preserve the order which He established to be inviolable till the end. That is, so we will apply all our efforts to the day He dedicated for us to think about His works, to hear His word, to come and confess our faith, to call upon His name, to praise Him, and give thanks. Let us utilize that day to serve and adore Him."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 30, 2012)

It's been said before, and I won't belabor the issue (hint, search the archives).

But, anyone who thinks Calvin's position on the Sabbath is a serious step away from the "Puritan" view, or that there is a clear-cut distinction between a "continental" view of the Sabbath and an "isles" view, is only reinforcing present-day prejudices and ideas mainly constructed to validate personal preferences. He hasn't read original sources.

--Read the traditional Dutch Church Order (still in use today after 400 years) along with their Confessional documents. They go together.

--Read Calvin's sermons on Dt.5:6-21 (the Ten Commandments) http://www.amazon.com/John-Calvins-Sermons-Ten-Commandments/dp/0801063531 , especially the two on the 4th Commandment. He doesn't sound entirely like the English Puritans of a hundred years later, but anyone who cannot see they are his lineal descendants are simply sticking their heads in the sand. Anyone who thinks the 16th century Geneva Consistory would sanction even 10% of the nonsense of what passes today for "Christian liberty" respecting the Lord's Day, is fantasizing.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 30, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Pointing to Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5-6 seem to be the thing to do today in Reformed circles to get out of the clear commands of the 2nd and 4th Commandments.



I posted this on Facebook as well, but I was struck recently while listening to a sermon on the Sabbath (text taken from Nehemiah) on how the primary reasons for the Exile were because of the people's idolatry and neglect of the Sabbath. In other words, breaking the 2nd and 4th commandments. In other words, two major sins of the American church today. Is it any wonder we are in the shape we are in?


----------



## Tim (Nov 30, 2012)

Marrow Man said:


> I posted this on Facebook as well, but I was struck recently while listening to a sermon on the Sabbath (text taken from Nehemiah) on how the primary reasons for the Exile were because of the people's idolatry and neglect of the Sabbath. In other words, breaking the 2nd and 4th commandments. In other words, two major sins of the American church today. Is it any wonder we are in the shape we are in?



Indeed. The Sabbath is one of the great tests of the spiritual health of the church and of the nation.


----------



## Wayne (Nov 30, 2012)

> ... listening to a sermon on the Sabbath (text taken from Nehemiah)...



Link, please?


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 30, 2012)

This is from RBCBob's church, and one of the best sermons on the subject I've heard: Arguments Against the Sabbath Refuted - SermonAudio.com

Bob himself teaches on the Sabbath here (I think this is a morning SS class): Delighting InThe Lord & His Sabbath - SermonAudio.com


----------



## MW (Nov 30, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Watson comes dangerously close to teaching "Salvation by Sabbath" rather than "Salvation by Christ" in that statement.



The Gnostics and Antinomians were known to create such a dichotomy. The orthodox, in response, insisted that Christ is not an Idea. He is a Person. As a Person, He is to be loved as well as believed. A part of loving a person is loving what they love and following the values they hold dear. Christ loved the Sabbath; He teaches that it was made for man; He proclaimed Himself Lord of it; and He came to bring His own into Sabbath rest. It is impossible to make salvation by Christ antithetical to loving the Sabbath for the simple reason that the Sabbath and its rest is the goal of that salvation which Christ gives His people.


----------



## Tyrese (Nov 30, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Pointing to Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5-6 seem to be the thing to do today in Reformed circles to get out of the clear commands of the 2nd and 4th Commandments.



No I think the issue is that many Christians don't find any solid Biblical warrant for the Sunday Sabbath. Not saying I don't think we should observe the Sabbath, but its really not as simple as some Reformed Christians try and make it seem.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 30, 2012)

Tyrese said:


> its really not as simple as some Reformed Christians try and make it seem



Could not one say the same thing about the doctrine of the Trinity, or the hypostatic union, or the impassibility of Christ, or the Regulative Principle of worship, etc., etc. We don't excuse these things just because the water is a little deeper to wade through. Not saying you are suggesting that, of course. 

Part of the problem with this is that we have had many of the weightier doctrines hammered out over the centuries. We benefit from those who have gone before us and wrestled with these things. There is a disconnect -- for whatever reasons -- with history, historical theology, etc. in the church today. Many think they are discovering these things for the first time and do not go back and look at what those before them have said. Others are more influenced by the world than by Scripture. And there may be other reasons beside. The difficulty of the doctrine is not the deciding factor, but what we confess that the Scriptures teach.


----------



## Tyrese (Nov 30, 2012)

Marrow Man said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > its really not as simple as some Reformed Christians try and make it seem
> ...



No it's not the same. I could easily prove the Trinity and other major doctrines in the Bible. But I cannot easily prove why Sunday is the Sabbath. I could prove it the Lords Day but not the Sabbath. It takes a lot more dancing around Scripture to prove that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath. I don't wanna get of topic with the OP. It does kind of sound like he equates salvation with Sabbath keeping. It only sounds that way.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 30, 2012)

Tyrese said:


> No it's not the same. I could easily prove the Trinity and other major doctrines in the Bible. But I cannot easily prove why Sunday is the Sabbath.



That may be your personal experience, but I don't think that holds true across the board. Let me recommend this little book for you as a great help on this issue: Lord of the Sabbath


----------



## Tyrese (Nov 30, 2012)

Marrow Man said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > No it's not the same. I could easily prove the Trinity and other major doctrines in the Bible. But I cannot easily prove why Sunday is the Sabbath.
> ...



Thanks I will go ahead and get this book.


----------



## Randy in Tulsa (Nov 30, 2012)

As Josh said, Thomas Watson had many wonderful things to say about the Sabbath, including this: 

"What great cause do we have to thankfully remember this day! As the benefit of Israel’s deliverance from the Babylonish captivity was so great that it drowned the remembrance of their deliverance from Egypt, Jer. xvi. 14: so the benefit of our deliverance from Satan’s captivity and the rising of Christ after finishing the glorious work of our redemption are so famous, that in respect of his other benefits, receive as it were in diminution. Great was the work of creation; but greater the work of redemption. It cost more to redeem us than to make us. In the one, there was only the speaking a word, Psalm cxlviii. 5: in the other, the shedding of blood, Heb. ix. 22. The creation was the work of God’s fingers, Psalm viii. 3: the redemption, the work of his arm, Luke i. 51. In creation God gave us ourselves; in redemption he gives us himself. So that the Sabbath, putting us in mind of our redemption, ought to be observed with the highest devotion." Amen.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 30, 2012)

scottmaciver said:


> I came across this Thomas Watson quote on the Sabbath:
> 'People who cannot abide the Lord's Day, cannot abide the Lord.'
> 
> Would you agree/disagree? What would be your response?



It's a succinct and very pointed way of restating Amos 8:5. It is not really different from saying, "If you despise the Lord's table, you despise the Lord." Or, "If you hate the Lord's people, you hate the Lord." On that last one, of course, we have explicit Biblical warrant in 1 John 4:20. As a statement of fact, it is unobjectionable. Any idea that it tends to undermine salvation by grace not only unjustly ignores the overall body of Thomas Watson's work, it also runs afoul of express statements of Scripture. You can't say Watson's remark undermines salvation by grace without involving the inspired Apostle John in the same reproach.

A concise remark like that is rather like a nail - under the proper conditions it can push a long way into a hard surface and stick fast. Such statements then are very useful, and often just the thing you need; but not always. There are some qualifications that can be made, and if someone with a tender conscience just had a miserable Sunday that he was glad to have come to an end, it might well be necessary to make those qualifications. But the whole world is not composed of tender consciences with an unpleasant Lord's day uppermost in their mind. 

And for the record, Thomas Watson is quite wonderful: from his _Body of Divinity_:



> We glorify God by working out our own salvation. God has twisted together his glory and our good. We glorify him by promoting our own salvation. It is a glory to God to have multitudes of converts; now, his design of free grace takes, and God has the glory of his mercy; so that, while we are endeavouring our salvation, we are honouring God. What an encouragement is this to the service of God, to think, while I am hearing and praying, I am glorifying God; while I am furthering my own glory in heaven, I am increasing God’s glory. Would it not be an encouragement to a subject, to hear his prince say to him, You will honour and please me very much, if you will go to yonder mine of gold, and dig as much gold for yourself as you can carry away? So, for God to say, Go to the ordinances, get as much grace as you can, dig out as much salvation as you can; and the more happiness you have, the more I shall count myself glorified.


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 30, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Calvin himself did not adhere to it in the manner prescribed by the Puritans.



This ought not to be stated as an indisputable fact. While there are certainly places where Calvin may be quoted in isolation, and seemingly staunchly opposing any obligatory observance of the day, there are other curious places in which he seems to argue a divine command for Sabbath keeping.

In the 1860's the Reverend James Gilfillan, in a 600 page book The Sabbath Viewed in the Light of Reason, Revelation, and History with Sketches of its Literature, shows the perplexing inconsistencies of the Reformers when writing on the subject.

Thus the legacy of their writings perhaps presents an incongruous whole, however honesty and charity requires that they may have held to the abiding validity of the Day Kept as the later Westminster Divines articulated much more consistently.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 30, 2012)

I believe that Patrick Fairbairn, in an appendix to volume two of his _Typology of the Old Testament_ does rather well in showing that the inconsistencies are not so many nor so perplexing as they have sometimes been presented to be. There was variation in the manner of statement, the emphasis, the reasons given for this or that: but I have not seen Fairbairn's thesis, that the Reformers, and their most eminent successors for about 100 years after the Reformation, were sound upon the doctrine of the Sabbath, _with regard to the obligation and practice of Christians_.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 1, 2012)

The response I get at my Church when I mention Sabbath-keeping:


----------



## Wayne (Dec 1, 2012)

Thus the relevance of this, Brad : 

Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines: Or Did Calvin Bowl on the Sabbath? | Naphtali Press

the conclusion of which is:



> As shown already, Stanley was relying on Hessey (see above), who was relying on Disraeli. Thus the chain Hay Fleming first traced in Mathieson, stretches now well into the 20th century — Disraeli (1828) to Hessey (1860) to Stanley (1872) to Campbell (1902) to Solberg (1977) to the Internet (1998). *The problem of course is that everyone from Stanley forward has obscured the clear fact that Disraeli calls the tale a tradition.* What Hay Fleming wrote regarding Knox can be applied to Calvin, “Thus it is that history is falsified and good men slandered.”


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 1, 2012)

Amen, Wayne.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 1, 2012)

Let us not let facts get in the way of a good story.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 1, 2012)

scottmaciver said:


> I came across this Thomas Watson quote on the Sabbath:
> 'People who cannot abide the Lord's Day, cannot abide the Lord.'
> 
> Would you agree/disagree? What would be your response?



I'm paraphrasing J.C. Ryle, but if you can't stand one whole day with the Lord, how are you going to stand all of eternity with Him?


----------



## KaphLamedh (Dec 6, 2012)

Fly Caster said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> > Watson comes dangerously close to teaching "Salvation by Sabbath" rather than "Salvation by Christ" in that statement.
> ...


----------

