# Is the observance of Sunday a matter of Christian Liberty?



## Semper Fidelis

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Would the sabbatarians kindly refrain from posting in threads they have no interest in nor provocation to assert their assertions, I've seen a number of them hijacked over the past several weeks and find it quite disrespectful to board members who are not convinced of their positions, if you don't desire to watch football then don't, some of us are of clear conscience that Christ is our rest.



Without entering into this debate right now, let me just remind you of Romans 14. This might be an issue of the weak vs. the strong or it could be an issue of using liberty for license.

In the best case scenario, both parties are supposed to be willing to suffer the other for the sake of unity and edification. That said, those who believe they have liberty to watch football on Sundays in the freedom of their consciences ought to be content to do so for the Lord and they do not need to go into a board to participate in open discussions on a topic that others who have personal scruple may be offended by. The "both and" aspect of Romans 14 is that football is not something that is worth tearing your brother down over and the goal from both parties ought to be mutual edification.

Those who feel their liberty allows them freedom to speak of such subjects on the Lord's Day could easily do so privately without tearing down your brothers around you who are bothered by it. The solution Paul offers to the parties in Romans 14 is not that they simply flaunt their liberty and tell the other party to "get over it...."

Hence, I would suggest that these discussions are best participated in on other days out of consideration for those around you who are offended by them as the goal of their edification ought to be greater than your desire to talk about football.

Likewise, in our reminder to others about such things that we have scruples in, we all need to be careful that the goal of our reminder is their edification in these matters. We all have one Master who will judge every intention of the heart.

I did not detect overt malice from either party but I simply want to make sure the goal is noted here.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

I think Rich brings up a good point. So I would like to ask:

Is the observance of Sunday a matter of Christian Liberty?

To those who may say "yes" I would like to ask if the whole of the 10 Commands are subject to Christian Liberty? How then would you justify a person committing Adultery or Perjury or Murder when you say that the 10 Commandments are subject to Christian Liberty?

If you define your Christian Liberty on Sunday as "doing whatever I want" - which directly contradicts the 4th Command - then how can you condemn someone else who violates a different command out of the pretext of "Christian Liberty"?

I believe that the book of James says somewhere that if you violate one of these commands it is as if you violated all of them.

I once heard a preacher say that he wishes his congregation was as excited about worshipping God as they are watching their favorite Football team score a touchdown.

It makes one wonder....

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

BobVigneault said:


> Let's go at this again: In the Pub, we discuss the enjoyment of adult beverages and smoke and we DON'T debate. It the sports forum, sport fans discuss the enjoyment of recreational pastime and we DON'T debate.
> 
> {Moderator rant on} If you wish to debate Christian Liberty then you have the liberty to begin a new thread in the appropriate forum or fora. In fact I recommend it. {Rant off}




Can these posts be shifted to a new thread; the subject of the Sabbath and Christian Liberty would be an interesting one to discuss in more detail. 

In fairness to non-Sabbath people, they would probably argue that the Sabbath command is one that we don't have to keep due to additional revelation in the New Testament. Therefore, they would not say that adultery, idolatry etc are matters of Christian Liberty. While this is not a position I hold, it is important to try to understand precisely where Christians with whom we disagree are coming from.


----------



## BobVigneault

We've discussed this before but now we have some new faces, some young guns, new old curmudgeons and a guy who is pretty good with a bo staff, so let's debate this. I'm moving posts from another thread to kick things off. Blessings, let's have a clean fight and no hitting below the belt. (Sorry, anymore sport's metaphors and I'll have to put this back in the sports forum.)


----------



## KMK

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> I think Rich brings up a good point. So I would like to ask:
> 
> Is the observance of Sunday a matter of Christian Liberty?
> 
> To those who may say "yes" I would like to ask if the whole of the 10 Commands are subject to Christian Liberty? How then would you justify a person committing Adultery or Perjury or Murder when you say that the 10 Commandments are subject to Christian Liberty?
> 
> If you define your Christian Liberty on Sunday as "doing whatever I want" - which directly contradicts the 4th Command - then how can you condemn someone else who violates a different command out of the pretext of "Christian Liberty"?
> 
> I believe that the book of James says somewhere that if you violate one of these commands it is as if you violated all of them.
> 
> I once heard a preacher say that he wishes his congregation was as excited about worshipping God as they are watching their favorite Football team score a touchdown.
> 
> It makes one wonder....
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH



This has been my question also for those who take the 'Christian liberty' route. Some just outright argue that there are now only 9 commandments. I don't agree, but that seems to be a more 'consistent' argument.


----------



## Amazing Grace

BobVigneault said:


> We've discussed this before but now we have some new faces, some young guns, new old curmudgeons and a guy who is *pretty good with a bo staff,* so let's debate this. I'm moving posts from another thread to kick things off. Blessings, let's have a clean fight and no hitting below the belt. (Sorry, anymore sport's metaphors and I'll have to put this back in the sports forum.)



How did you know this about me Bob?


----------



## Pilgrim

KMK said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> I think Rich brings up a good point. So I would like to ask:
> 
> Is the observance of Sunday a matter of Christian Liberty?
> 
> To those who may say "yes" I would like to ask if the whole of the 10 Commands are subject to Christian Liberty? How then would you justify a person committing Adultery or Perjury or Murder when you say that the 10 Commandments are subject to Christian Liberty?
> 
> If you define your Christian Liberty on Sunday as "doing whatever I want" - which directly contradicts the 4th Command - then how can you condemn someone else who violates a different command out of the pretext of "Christian Liberty"?
> 
> I believe that the book of James says somewhere that if you violate one of these commands it is as if you violated all of them.
> 
> I once heard a preacher say that he wishes his congregation was as excited about worshipping God as they are watching their favorite Football team score a touchdown.
> 
> It makes one wonder....
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been my question also for those who take the 'Christian liberty' route. Some just outright argue that there are now only 9 commandments. I don't agree, but that seems to be a more 'consistent' argument.
Click to expand...


My understanding is that the classical dispensational hermeneutic is that the other 9 commandments were reiterated in the NT but that the 4th wasn't.


----------



## cih1355

> In fairness to non-Sabbath people, they would probably argue that the Sabbath command is one that we don't have to keep due to additional revelation in the New Testament. Therefore, they would not say that adultery, idolatry etc are matters of Christian Liberty. While this is not a position I hold, it is important to try to understand precisely where Christians with whom we disagree are coming from.



According to what non-Sabbath people say, where in the New Testament does it teach that we don't have to keep the Sabbath command any longer?


----------



## MrMerlin777

Sorry to say this folks but, "Here we go again." (sigh)


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

cih1355 said:


> In fairness to non-Sabbath people, they would probably argue that the Sabbath command is one that we don't have to keep due to additional revelation in the New Testament. Therefore, they would not say that adultery, idolatry etc are matters of Christian Liberty. While this is not a position I hold, it is important to try to understand precisely where Christians with whom we disagree are coming from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to what non-Sabbath people say, where in the New Testament does it teach that we don't have to keep the Sabbath command any longer?
Click to expand...


They would appeal to passages such as Romans 14 and Colossians 2:16 in support of the idea that the Sabbath is no longer obligatory.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Incidentally, my post was originally attached to another thread where the context was not to promote the idea that all elements of the Christian Sabbath were a matter of Christian liberty. There are certainly some aspects of the Sabbath that are unquestionably not a matter of liberty such as the command to assemble and worship.

I think the more interesting question would be what aspects _are_ a matter of liberty. Surely there is some room for extremely strict Sabbath observance that can be celebrated to the Lord while others may have the liberty not to be so scrupulous. For instance, some may not want to do any cooking or may not even want to turn on an oven while others might not be so scrupulous.

My main concern in the OP was to demonstrate to those that "had a problem" with others view is that neither party has a "right" to judge the other party. If a man is going to have to answer for not obeying the Lord then he'll answer to the Lord and not to us. The goal of either party ought to be the edification of the other. Even strict Sabbatarians ought to be concerned for the edificaiton of those that they feel are using liberty for license and seeking their edification in the tone they use and the desire they have that all might delight in the things of the Lord. Additionally, those that are convinced they are honoring the Sabbath in activities and discussions that others would be stung in conscience by ought not to despise the scrupulous and respect that, they too, obey as unto the Lord.


----------



## KMK

SemperFideles said:


> Incidentally, my post was originally attached to another thread where the context was not to promote the idea that all elements of the Christian Sabbath were a matter of Christian liberty. *There are certainly some aspects of the Sabbath that are unquestionably not a matter of liberty such as the command to assemble and worship.*
> 
> I think the more interesting question would be what aspects _are_ a matter of liberty. Surely there is some room for extremely strict Sabbath observance that can be celebrated to the Lord while others may have the liberty not to be so scrupulous. For instance, some may not want to do any cooking or may not even want to turn on an oven while others might not be so scrupulous.
> 
> My main concern in the OP was to demonstrate to those that "had a problem" with others view is that neither party has a "right" to judge the other party. If a man is going to have to answer for not obeying the Lord then he'll answer to the Lord and not to us. The goal of either party ought to be the edification of the other. Even strict Sabbatarians ought to be concerned for the edificaiton of those that they feel are using liberty for license and seeking their edification in the tone they use and the desire they have that all might delight in the things of the Lord. Additionally, those that are convinced they are honoring the Sabbath in activities and discussions that others would be stung in conscience by ought not to despise the scrupulous and respect that, they too, obey as unto the Lord.



Good points, Rich.

However, couldn't an argument be made that one cannot keep the command to assemble and worship unless he keeps one day in seven holy? In order to regularly assemble and worship, a group of believers, by necessity, must set apart a day in which to do just that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Absolutely. I think the Lord's Day is hallowed. Again, it's not a matter of whether it is holy but I think there can be proper reverance for the Sabbath among two believers while one is more scrupulous about how that reverance is observed. There can also be those that use liberty as an opportunity for license. In the former case, the over-scrupulous should be content to observe the Sabbath as their conscience demands and, if they don't want to use ovens then be content, but don't despise a brother who does not. It can then become very tricky to start stripping away where the scruples end and determining a "line" beyond which a person is not really observing the Sabbath.

I don't think we're supposed to be "measuring" each other this way. If our goal is the maturing of others in all things, including the Sabbath, then it's not to make them "like me" but to ensure that their hearts are ever more tender to the things of God so that any desire they have to make the Sabbath holy flows out of a delight in their heart to do so and not that "so and so" will disapprove of me if I do not.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

We (Westminster/Puritan Sabbatarians*) should not however give folks occasion to stumble, even when _they _think they are not; that is why I try to close NP and CPJ online shopping from Saturday night through Monday AMs.

*Honestly, Westminster/Puritan theology IS Sabbatarianism, it is so prominent.


----------



## KMK

NaphtaliPress said:


> We (Westminster/Puritan Sabbatarians*) should not however give folks occasion to stumble, even when _they _think they are not; that is why I try to close NP and CPJ online shopping from Saturday night through Monday AMs.
> 
> *Honestly, Westminster/Puritan theology IS Sabbatarianism, it is so prominent.



I think it would depend on your definition of 'Sabbatarian' as well. Those who do not keep the 4th tend to refer to 'Sabbatarians' as those that Rich describes who want to conform everyone to their scruples as to *how* one keeps the day holy. (with a negative conotation) While those who hold to the beliefs of the Puritans tend to refer to themselves as 'Sabbatarians' as those who desire a day free of the cares of the world to rest and worship. (with a positive conotation)

In Baker's Theological Dictionary 'Sabbatarianism' is likened to Constantines regulation against Sunday's labor in 321. If that is the definition of 'Sabbatarian', then I am not one. If 'Sabbatarian' is defined as one who loves to rest and worship, then I am one.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The Westminster Confession and Catechisms are my definition; and the boards I think. If not, then maybe I'm in the wrong universe?


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

I would like to know the criteria to a flawless observance of the sabbath, do you control your daydreams, sneak a peak into the upcoming week's schedule, pick up the funnies in a newspaper, write thank you cards, spank your kids for fighting, practice playing catch with your son, potty train the dog, are all of these things sinful on the sabbath? I think not, and since the law stands as an unsatisfiable task that we must rest in Christ to fulfill I don't see how partaking of recreational activities on our designated day of rest is not pleasing to God since it is a day of rest and we can be thankful for little pleasantries such as sports. I'm not saying make an idol of the Dallas Cowboys, I just enjoy watching them and rooting them on, I go to church on Sundays as well.

Corporate worship and a day of rest are satisfied.


----------



## VictorBravo

No Longer A Libertine said:


> I would like to know the criteria to a flawless observance of the sabbath, do you control your daydreams, sneak a peak into the upcoming week's schedule, pick up the funnies in a newspaper, write thank you cards, spank your kids for fighting, practice playing catch with your son, potty train the dog, are all of these things sinful on the sabbath? I think not, and since the law stands as an unsatisfiable task that we must rest in Christ to fulfill I don't see how partaking of recreational activities on our designated day of rest is not pleasing to God since it is a day of rest and we can be thankful for little pleasantries such as sports. I'm not saying make an idol of the Dallas Cowboys, I just enjoy watching them and rooting them on, I go to church on Sundays as well.
> 
> Corporate worship and a day of rest are satisfied.




I always take this to be a problem of approach. If we view the Sabbath as a list of "don'ts", we will have a bad time of it.

But if we focus on the dos, it is much easier. Do worship, do rest, do meditate on God and his creation, do read edifying materials, do enjoy simple pleasures of fellowshipping with God's people, do help those in need, etc. 

If you fill your day with the positives, the negatives are forgotten and not nagging on your conscience. The Puritans were all about discipline, but we often forget that they took pleasure not in self-negation, but in positive action and reflection.

It's sort of like aiming a rifle. If you concentrate on what you are not supposed to shoot at, you'll have a hard time hitting the target.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

victorbravo said:


> No Longer A Libertine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know the criteria to a flawless observance of the sabbath, do you control your daydreams, sneak a peak into the upcoming week's schedule, pick up the funnies in a newspaper, write thank you cards, spank your kids for fighting, practice playing catch with your son, potty train the dog, are all of these things sinful on the sabbath? I think not, and since the law stands as an unsatisfiable task that we must rest in Christ to fulfill I don't see how partaking of recreational activities on our designated day of rest is not pleasing to God since it is a day of rest and we can be thankful for little pleasantries such as sports. I'm not saying make an idol of the Dallas Cowboys, I just enjoy watching them and rooting them on, I go to church on Sundays as well.
> 
> Corporate worship and a day of rest are satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always take this to be a problem of approach. If we view the Sabbath as a list of "don'ts", we will have a bad time of it.
> 
> But if we focus on the dos, it is much easier. Do worship, do rest, do meditate on God and his creation, do read edifying materials, do enjoy simple pleasures of fellowshipping with God's people, do help those in need, etc.
> 
> If you fill your day with the positives, the negatives are forgotten and not nagging on your conscience. The Puritans were all about discipline, but we often forget that they took pleasure not in self-negation, but in positive action and reflection.
> 
> It's sort of like aiming a rifle. If you concentrate on what you are not supposed to shoot at, you'll have a hard time hitting the target.
Click to expand...

I find fellowship and recreation to be synonyms, my primary retreat is good conversation and watching a game together.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

victorbravo said:


> No Longer A Libertine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know the criteria to a flawless observance of the sabbath, do you control your daydreams, sneak a peak into the upcoming week's schedule, pick up the funnies in a newspaper, write thank you cards, spank your kids for fighting, practice playing catch with your son, potty train the dog, are all of these things sinful on the sabbath? I think not, and since the law stands as an unsatisfiable task that we must rest in Christ to fulfill I don't see how partaking of recreational activities on our designated day of rest is not pleasing to God since it is a day of rest and we can be thankful for little pleasantries such as sports. I'm not saying make an idol of the Dallas Cowboys, I just enjoy watching them and rooting them on, I go to church on Sundays as well.
> 
> Corporate worship and a day of rest are satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always take this to be a problem of approach. If we view the Sabbath as a list of "don'ts", we will have a bad time of it.
> 
> But if we focus on the dos, it is much easier. Do worship, do rest, do meditate on God and his creation, do read edifying materials, do enjoy simple pleasures of fellowshipping with God's people, do help those in need, etc.
> 
> If you fill your day with the positives, the negatives are forgotten and not nagging on your conscience. The Puritans were all about discipline, but we often forget that they took pleasure not in self-negation, but in positive action and reflection.
> 
> It's sort of like aiming a rifle. If you concentrate on what you are not supposed to shoot at, you'll have a hard time hitting the target.
Click to expand...


This is exactly right.

Look, sometimes I've come downstairs in the morning and found out that my kids got to some candy we hadn't put on high shelves. Now, _for them_, a good breakfast is candy. The real question is whether their desires are mature.

I agree that a mature understanding of the Sabbath is not going to be asking what I can/cannot do on Sunday and still be within the "Law". It's the same problem I have with people who quote the tithing passages on Malachi. Many want to always ask: What do I _have_ to do. It's approaching God on the basis of Law as acceptance.

Yet we're not supposed to be those that sin all the more so that grace can abound and we're not just supposed to decide _for ourselves_ what pleases God. If God delights in us turning aside from our own way then the question should not be: "But what if I don't delight in it?" The goal should be: "I hope God teaches me to delight in the same things He does."

I'm convinced that there are many things that I find relaxing and fun that are not edifying or spiritual. My refraining from them does not mean that I'm trying to obey God as a taskmaster who will only accept me on the righteous obedience of the Law but if I have no affinity for the things that actually edify then there is a basic "heart check" problem.

Wisdom is not easily achieved. It's not easily achieved by being strict and it's not easily achieved by simply quipping that Christ is our righteousness and our rest and so we can do whatever pleases us.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

SemperFideles said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Longer A Libertine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know the criteria to a flawless observance of the sabbath, do you control your daydreams, sneak a peak into the upcoming week's schedule, pick up the funnies in a newspaper, write thank you cards, spank your kids for fighting, practice playing catch with your son, potty train the dog, are all of these things sinful on the sabbath? I think not, and since the law stands as an unsatisfiable task that we must rest in Christ to fulfill I don't see how partaking of recreational activities on our designated day of rest is not pleasing to God since it is a day of rest and we can be thankful for little pleasantries such as sports. I'm not saying make an idol of the Dallas Cowboys, I just enjoy watching them and rooting them on, I go to church on Sundays as well.
> 
> Corporate worship and a day of rest are satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always take this to be a problem of approach. If we view the Sabbath as a list of "don'ts", we will have a bad time of it.
> 
> But if we focus on the dos, it is much easier. Do worship, do rest, do meditate on God and his creation, do read edifying materials, do enjoy simple pleasures of fellowshipping with God's people, do help those in need, etc.
> 
> If you fill your day with the positives, the negatives are forgotten and not nagging on your conscience. The Puritans were all about discipline, but we often forget that they took pleasure not in self-negation, but in positive action and reflection.
> 
> It's sort of like aiming a rifle. If you concentrate on what you are not supposed to shoot at, you'll have a hard time hitting the target.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly right.
> 
> Look, sometimes I've come downstairs in the morning and found out that my kids got to some candy we hadn't put on high shelves. Now, _for them_, a good breakfast is candy. The real question is whether their desires are mature.
> 
> I agree that a mature understanding of the Sabbath is not going to be asking what I can/cannot do on Sunday and still be within the "Law". It's the same problem I have with people who quote the tithing passages on Malachi. Many want to always ask: What do I _have_ to do. It's approaching God on the basis of Law as acceptance.
> 
> Yet we're not supposed to be those that sin all the more so that grace can abound and we're not just supposed to decide _for ourselves_ what pleases God. If God delights in us turning aside from our own way then the question should not be: "But what if I don't delight in it?" The goal should be: "I hope God teaches me to delight in the same things He does."
> 
> I'm convinced that there are many things that I find relaxing and fun that are not edifying or spiritual. My refraining from them does not mean that I'm trying to obey God as a taskmaster who will only accept me on the righteous obedience of the Law but if I have no affinity for the things that actually edify then there is a basic "heart check" problem.
> 
> Wisdom is not easily achieved. It's not easily achieved by being strict and it's not easily achieved by *simply quipping that Christ is our righteousness and our rest and so we can do whatever pleases us.*
Click to expand...



I don't think any such assertion has been made, not here at least, what has been asked is what does a proper sabbath observation look like and how is good dishonored on a day of proclaimed rest by watching sports?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Westminster/Puritanism on the Sabbath or Lord's Day*

Just so there is no ambiguity or lack of clarity, here is what the Westminster Assembly said on the subject of the Lord's day, or the Christian Sabbath. 

Westminster Confession of Faith 21.¶7-8.
7. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him:k which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week,l which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day,m and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.n
8. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments, and recreations,o but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.p

*k. EXO 20:8,10-11.* Remember the sab*bath day, to keep it holy. *10* But the sev*enth day _is_ the sabbath of the LORD thy God: _in it_ thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that _is_ within thy gates: *11* For _in_ six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them _is_, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. *ISA 56:2,4,6-7.* Blessed _is_ the man _that_ doeth this, and the son of man _that_ layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. *4* For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose _the things_ that please me, and take hold of my covenant; *6* Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; *7* Even them will I bring to my holy moun*tain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices _shall be_ accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 
*l. GEN 2:2-3.* And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. *3* And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. *1CO 16:1-2.* Now concerning the collec*tion for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. *2* Upon the first _day_ of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as _God_ hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. *ACT 20:7.* And upon the first _day_ of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
*m. REV 1:10.* I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet.
*n. EXO 20:8,10. [See 7k].* *With* *MAT 5:17*-18. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. *18* For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 
*o. EXO 20:8. [See 7k].* *EXO 16:23,25-26,29-30.* And he said unto them, This _is that_ which the LORD hath said, To mor*row _is_ the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake _that_ which ye will bake _to day_, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning. *25* And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day _is_ a sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field. *26* Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, _which is_ the sabbath, in it there shall be none. *29* See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. *30* So the people rested on the sev*enth day. *EXO 31:15-17.* Six days may work be done; but in the seventh _is_ the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: who*soever doeth _any_ work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. *16* Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, _for_ a per*petual covenant. *17* It _is_ a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for _in_ six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. *ISA 58:13. [See 8p].* *NEH 13:15-19,21-22.* In those days saw I in Judah _some_ treading wine presses on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all _manner of_ burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the sab*bath day: and I testified _against them_ in the day wherein they sold victuals. *16* There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. *17* Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing _is_ this that ye do, and profane the sabbath day? *18* Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profan*ing the sabbath. *19* And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the sabbath, I com*manded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath: and _some_ of my servants set I at the gates, _that_ there should no burden be brought in on the sabbath day. *21* Then I testified against them, and said unto them, Why lodge ye about the wall? if ye do _so_ again, I will lay hands on you. From that time forth came they no _more_ on the sabbath. *22* And I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and _that_ they should come _and_ keep the gates, to sanc*tify the sabbath day. Remember me, O my God, _concerning_ this also, and spare me according to the greatness of thy mercy. 
*p. ISA 58:13.* If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, _from_ doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honour*able; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking _thine own_ words: *MAT 12:1-13.* 

Westminster Larger Catechism (from my work; the notes are a freebie)
Q.117. How is the Sabbath, or the Lord's day, to be sanctified?
The Sabbath or Lord's day is to be sanctified, by an holy resting all the day, (a) not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; (b) and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy) (c) in the public and private exercises of God's worship; (d) and to that end we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence and moderation to dispose, and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day. (e)
a EXO 20:8, 10
b EXO 16:25-28; NEH 13:15-19; 21-22; JER 17:21-22 [RP: NEH 13:15, to 22. In NEH 13, verse 20 added: MAX—. In MAX and other Rothwell editions, the full scripture reference is given before the iteration of the text, and the individual verse numbers are given throughout the text. Here, verse 20 is not in the first giving of the proof which is correct but verse 20 is added in the text, presumably for context or perhaps in error. It became part of the traditional proof because of its inclusion in the iteration of the text by those editions which carried on into DNLP and L&R, neither of which give a first full citation but rather begin with the first verse and then give subsequent verse numbers through the citation. As noted, RP did not correct this but simply notes “15, to 22.” In the early authoritative editions, the proof is noted as Neh. 13. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22.
c MAT 12:1-13
d ISA 58:13; LUK 4:16; ACT 20:7; 1CO 16:1-2; PSA 92:title; ISA 66:23; LEV 23:3 [RPc: Lev 23:33]
e EXO 20:8; LUK 23:54, 56; EXO 16:22, 25-26, 29; NEH 13:19
Variants:
1)In Q.: “Sabbath or”: RP; L&R; E.Rob.
2)In Q.: “day to”: Maxey; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX; Dunlop; RP; L&R; E.Rob.
3)(1) “The Sabbath, or”: MSS; Maxey; RothB; THIRD; COX; Dunlop. (2) “day, is”: MSS.
4)“sanctified by”: L&R; E.Rob.
5)(1) “recreations, as”: FOURTH; Dunlop; RP; L&Rb. L&Rc has no comma. (2) “as are, on other days,”: MSa. (3) “one other day”: L&Rb.
6)“lawful, and”: Tyler; Maxey; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX; E.Rob.
7)“much of it, as is”: MSb; RP.
8)“necessity, and mercy”: MSb.
9)“public, and private”: MSa.
10)“worship: and”: MSa; Dunlop; L&R. E.Rob has the semi-colon.
11)“and, to that end, we”: MSS; L&R; E.Rob.
12)“diligence, and”: MSS; RPc.
13)“moderation, to”: AM; Tyler; FOURTH; Dunlop; RP; L&R; E.Rob.
14)“free, and”: MSa.

Q.118. Why is the charge of keeping the Sabbath, more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?
The charge of keeping the Sabbath is more specially directed to governors of families and other superiors, because they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge; and because they are prone ofttimes to hinder them by employments of their own. (f)
f EXO 20:10; JOS 24:15; NEH 13:15, 17; JER 17:20-22; EXO 23:12
Variants:
15)In Q.: “Sabbath more”: RP; L&Rc; E.Rob.
16)In Q.: “more especially”: MSa. The early authoritative printed versions use “specially” in both the question and the answer. In A.: “especially directed”: MSb. L&R uses “specially” in both places. (2) “families and”: MSa; RPa; L&Rc; E.Rob. (3) “others”: MSb.
17)“to the governors”: 
18)“families, and”: MSS; FOURTH; Dunlop; L&R.
19)“themselves but”: Tyler2.
20)“and, because”: MSa.
21)“prone, ofttimes, to hinder them,”: MSS.

Q.119. What are the sins forbidden in fourth commandment?
The sins forbidden in the fourth commandment, are, all omissions of the duties required, (g) all careless, negligent, and unprofitable performing of them, and being weary of them, (h) all profaning the day by idleness, and doing that which is in itself sinful, (i) and by all needless works, words, and thoughts about our worldly employments and recreations. (k)
g EZK 22:26
h ACT 20:7, 9; EZK 33:30-32; AMO 8:5; MAL 1:13
i EZK 23:38
k JER 17:24, 27; ISA 58:13

Variants:
22)“commandment are”: L&R; E.Rob.
23)“are all”: Tyler; W1438; Dunlop.
24)“omissions, of”: MSb.
25)“of duties” (“*the*” missing): E.Rob.
26)“required; all”: MSb; AM; Tyler; RPc.
27)“careless negligent”: Maxey; RothB; THIRD.
28)“performing them”: MSS. Both MSS drop the “of.”
29)“them and”: MSa.
30)“them; all”: MSS; AM; Tyler; Dunlop; L&R; E.Rob; RPc.
31)“day, by” ... “is, in”: MSa.
32)“sinful; and”: MSb; Maxey; RothB; THIRD; COX; Dunlop; L&R; E.Rob;* RP. *E.Rob has the semi-colon at the catchword but in the text on the next page uses a comma.
33)“words, works” (reversed order): RPc.
34)“words and”: FOURTH.
35)“thoughts, about”: FOURTH; E.Rob.
36)“employments, and”: MSb.

Q.120. What are the reasons annexed to the fourth commandment, the more to enforce it?
The reasons annexed to the fourth commandment, the more to enforce it, are taken from the equity of it, God allowing us six days of seven for our own affairs, and reserving but one for himself, in these words, _Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work;_ (l) from God's challenging a special propriety in that day, _The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,_ (m) from the example of God, who _in six days made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day;_ and from that blessing which God put upon that day, not only in sanctifying it to be a day for his service, but in ordaining it to be a means of blessing to us in our sanctifying it; _Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it._ (n)
l EXO 20:9
m EXO 20:10
n EXO 20:11
Variants:
37)In Q.: “commandment the”: Maxey; RothB; THIRD; COX.
38)“commandment the”: Dunlop.
39)“taken, from” ... “days, of seven,”: MSb.
40)Dunlop and L&R drop brackets. FOURTH; RPa missing brackets at “[in six … day;”]. E.Rob adds brackets but drops italics.
41)“labour and”: MSb; Dunlop; L&R; E.Rob.
42)(1) “work:] from”: MSa. (2) “work: from”: Dunlop; L&R. (3) “work,] from”: Maxey; RothB;* THIRD;* FOURTH; E.Rob. *RTHb and THIRD drop the closing bracket (“work, from”). COX drops the punctuation but has the closing bracket (“work] from”). (4) “thy works”: RPc.
43)(1) “God;] from”: MSS; AM; Tyler; RP. (2) “God] from”: Maxey; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX. (3) “God: from”: Dunlop; L&R. E.Rob has the comma and closing bracket (“God,] from”).
44)“God; who”: W1438. 
45)“who in [six”: E.Rob. In the authoritative editions through COX, there were no brackets on this quotation but it was set in italic, and the “in” was part of the quotation; thus E.Rob has misplaced the bracket in adding them. L&Rc: “who _in six days”._
46)“who,” ... “days, made”: MSa.
47)“heaven, and”: MSb. 
48)“heaven, earth”: MSa. The “and” is missing in MSa.
49)“day.] and,”: MSa. (2) “day: and”: Dunlop; L&R. (3) “day: ] And”: E.Rob. As noted above, E.Rob added brackets here where they had not been previously.
50)“day, for his service; but,”: MSa.
51)“to us, in”: MSa.
52)“it, [Wherefore”: MSb; FOURTH; RPc.
53)“day and”: Maxey; RothB; THIRD; Dunlop.

Note: use of propriety continued here where changed in WCF 26.

Q.121. Why is the word “Remember” set in the beginning of the fourth commandment?
The word _Remember_ is set in the beginning of the fourth commandment, (o) partly because of the great benefit of remembering it; we being thereby helped in our preparation to keep it, (p) and, in keeping it, better to keep all the rest of the commandments, (q) and to continue a thankful remembrance of the two great benefits of creation, and redemption, which contain a short abridgment of religion: (r) and partly because we are very ready to forget it; (s) for that there is less light of nature for it, (t) and yet it restraineth our natural liberty in things at other times lawful; (u) that it cometh but once in seven days, and many worldly businesses come between, and too often take off our minds from thinking of it, either to prepare for it, or to sanctify it; (w) and that Satan with his instruments much labour to blot out the glory, and even the memory of it, to bring in all irreligion and impiety. (x)
o EXO 20:8
p EXO 16:23; LUK 23:54, 56; With MAR 15:42; NEH 13:19 [Rothwell etc. Compared With. Maxey; EXO 15:23 but text correct]
q PSA 92:title, With 92:13-14; EZK 20:12, 19-20 [added missing With. Rothwell etc: Compared With Verses 13-14]
r GEN 2:2-3; PSA 118:22, 24; With ACT 4:10-11; REV 1:10 [Rothwell etc Compared With] RP has With here.
s EZK 22:26
t NEH 9:14
u EXO 34:21
w DEU 5:14-15; AMO 8:5
x LAM 1:7; JER 17:21-23; NEH 13:15-22 [AM; Tyler; W1428; W3; Maxey; RothB; THIRD; COX. have 15-23 which is clearly incorrect as the passage goes on in 23 to another subject, the Sabbath having been addressed through vs. 22.]
Variants:
54)No brackets in Dunlop; L&R. RPa uses parentheses.
55)In Q.: “Remember, set”: AM; FOURTH.
56)“Remember, set”: FOURTH.
57)“commandment; partly,”: MSb.
58)(1) “it, we”: MSS; Dunlop; L&R; E.Rob. (2) “it,—”: RPc.
59)“keep it; and”: MSa; Dunlop; L&R. The comma is in E.Rob.
60)“and in keeping”: W1438; Maxey; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX; Dunlop.
61)“it better”: Maxey; RothB; THIRD; COX. [FOURTH has the comma]
62)“commandments,— and”: RPc.
63)“creation and”: Tyler; FOURTH; Dunlop; RP; L&R; E.Rob.
64)“religion; and”: MSa; RPc; E.Rob.
65)“and partly, because”: MSb; W1438; RP.
66)“forget it, for”: MSS; Dunlop; RP; L&R; E.Rob.
67)“for it; and yet,”: MSa; Dunlop.
68)“things, at”: MSa.
69)(1) “lawful: that”: MSa. (2) “lawful, that”: FOURTH.
70)(1) “and, that”: MSb. (2) “that, Satan”: MSa. (3) “Satan, with his instruments, much”: MSS; E.Rob.
71)“memory, of it”: MSb.
72)In “x”: NEH 13:15-23. This is in the original editions and remained unchanged in the traditional text; however, contextually the citation should end with verse 22.

 Westminster Shorter Catechism (from reformed.org)
Q. 57. Which is the fourth commandment?
A. The fourth commandment is, Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservent, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.[141]

Q. 58. What is required in the fourth commandment?
A. The fourth commandment requireth the keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his Word; expressly one whole day in seven, to be a holy sabbath to himself.[142]

Q. 59. Which day of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly sabbath?
A. From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly sabbath;[143] and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian sabbath.[144]

Q. 60. How is the sabbath to be sanctified?
A. The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days;[145] and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship,[146] except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.[147]

Q. 61. What is forbidden in the fourth commandment?
A. The fourth commandment forbiddeth the omission, or careless performance, of the duties required, and the profaning the day by idleness, or doing that which is in itself sinful, or by unnecessary thoughts, words, or works, about our worldly employments or recreations.[148]

Q. 62. What are the reasons annexed to the fourth commandment?
A. The reasons annexed to the fourth commandment are, God’s allowing us six days of the week for our own employments,[149] his challenging a special propriety in the seventh, his own example, and his blessing the sabbath day.[150]
[141] Exodus 20:8-11. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Deuteronomy 5:12-15. Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.

[142] Exodus 31:13, 16-17. Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.... Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

[143] Genesis 2:2-3. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Exodus 20:11. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

[144] Mark 2:27-28. And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. Acts 20:7. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. 1 Corinthians 16:2. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. Revelation 1:10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet

[145] Exodus 20:10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: Nehemiah 13:15-22. In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day: and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals. There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the sabbath. And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the sabbath day. So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice. Then I testified against them, and said unto them, Why lodge ye about the wall? if ye do so again, I will lay hands on you. From that time forth came they no more on the sabbath. And I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and that they should come and keep the gates, to sanctify the sabbath day. Remember me, O my God, concerning this also, and spare me according to the greatness of thy mercy. Isaiah 58:13-14. If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

[146] Exodus 20:8. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Leviticus 23:3. Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings. Luke 4:16. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. Acts 20:7. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

[147] Matthew 12:1-13. At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.

[148] Nehemiah 13:15-22. In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day: and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals. There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the sabbath. And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the sabbath day. So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice. Then I testified against them, and said unto them, Why lodge ye about the wall? if ye do so again, I will lay hands on you. From that time forth came they no more on the sabbath. And I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and that they should come and keep the gates, to sanctify the sabbath day. Remember me, O my God, concerning this also, and spare me according to the greatness of thy mercy. Isaiah 58:13-14. If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. Amos 8:4-6. Hear this, O ye that swallow up the needy, even to make the poor of the land to fail, Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit? That we may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes; yea, and sell the refuse of the wheat?

[149] Exodus 20:9. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: Exodus 31:15. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 23:3. Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

[150] Genesis 2:2-3. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Exodus 20:11. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 31:17. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.


----------



## VictorBravo

No Longer A Libertine said:


> I don't think any such assertion has been made, not here at least, what has been asked is watch does a proper sabbath observation look like and how is good dishonored on a day of proclaimed rest by watching sports?



It seems like you want someone to say that watching sports is on the list of “don’ts”. I’m not going to answer that. And there are all sorts of other issues as already mentioned, such as causing others to stumble and contributing to other people violating the Sabbath (as in encouraging a professional to work on Sundays). Chris's summary posted above goes into great detail and is what Confessional observance is all about. 

I’d just add that the point is to do what helps your reflection on God’s glory, his grace to sinners, and his amazing providence in holding the world together and providing for his people. We always fall short, but if you can really say watching professional sports on TV does these things, I can only defer. 

I know that it would be a distraction for me.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Ooops. So bogged down pulling quotes I forgot my snarky post:

In answer to the thread question, _Is the observance of Sunday a matter of Christian Liberty?, _and to summarize the Westminster Assembly,

NO!


----------



## historyb

How much of the Law are we still burdened under, are we not free from the Law? Is not the sabbath made for man and not man made for the sabbath? Is it me or are Reformed more into legalism than other branches?

I'll most likely get beaten down, but these are my thoughts.


----------



## ReformedWretch

I think it's clear that when it come to the Sabbath, amongst many here it is indeed a list of dos and don'ts. I appreciate that none of you seek to make it so, but you can't escape that it is. Saying we must focus on what we can do is a cute way of putting it, but you can't avoid the don'ts. 



> I’d just add that the point is to do what helps your reflection on God’s glory, his grace to sinners, and his amazing providence in holding the world together and providing for his people. We always fall short, but if you can really say watching professional sports on TV does these things, I can only defer.
> 
> I know that it would be a distraction for me.



I strive to do this every single day, no matter what I am engaged in. To take a certain day in order to try and make myself do this more, or better just seems like "works" to me. It seems like I am seeking to act in such a way to please God, or bring myself closer to Him. I thank Christ for everything! Even eating my BBQ chips as I type on the Puritan Board with Bill O'reiley on in the back ground. I thank Him just as much as if I were sitting here quietly with the TV and computer off.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Maybe it's my job Josh- I am forced to focus on God all the time for any kind of success. I just see a very big possibility for danger in all this toward law, I really do.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Well...that's a tough question. Dependence on your obedience to it is.


----------



## MrMerlin777

And again I say...SIGH...... Lotsa heat, very little light here.


----------



## ReformedWretch

It often seems to me that many people depend on keeping the Sabbath in order to please God, in order to seem of feel "holy, or "holier" if you will. That especially seems true when those who do not "keep it" as they do are criticized. What if I honor God more than (whomever) every single day?

God's law is PERFECT, but we are not, thus why we need a "redeemer". We can't keep the law no matter how hard we try. We rest in the Lord and rely on the Holy Spirit every moment of every day. I try and ask Him to guide me more and more completely every moment of every day. We may need a "special day" for cooperate worship, but I don't think we need one in order to try harder to do what we're called to do every day.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Not offended at all! I'm enjoying the discussion because you don't seem offended by my thoughts. I appreciate that. However, I am going to have to think about what you've said here before going on. I don't want to log on in the morning and think "why did I write that as a reply?!" (lol)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

historyb said:


> How much of the Law are we still burdened under, are we not free from the Law? Is not the sabbath made for man and not man made for the sabbath? Is it me or are Reformed more into legalism than other branches?
> 
> I'll most likely get beaten down, but these are my thoughts.





MrMerlin777 said:


> And again I say...SIGH...... Lotsa heat, very little light here.



If after reading everything in this thread that these are your synopses of the discussion then I don't know how any discussion of God's Law would be edifying to you at this point. I think you need to read more carefully above and then read the book of Romans again with particular emphasis on Romans 6, 12, 14, and 15 if these are your conclusions. There is much more than heat being generated and this is a far cry from legalism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

NaphtaliPress said:


> Ooops. So bogged down pulling quotes I forgot my snarky post:
> 
> In answer to the thread question, _Is the observance of Sunday a matter of Christian Liberty?, _and to summarize the Westminster Assembly,
> 
> NO!



I answered the same way by the way in case it's not clear. The 4th Commandment is perpetually binding. I wish I had more time to develop my thoughts.

Thanks, by the way, for posting the Critical Text above. Very cool.

I think the problem that many have is that they can't always distinguish between the motivations for a particular behavior. This is the subtlety of the Law that has taken me several years to understand.

I actually have begun to have a sharper appreciation for what Paul means when he calls the Law a schoolmaster for the Jews. The analogy is very apropos because, for small children, you really do have to give them a list of do's and don'ts. For all intents and purposes, you have to discipline their little bodies and minds to receive negative feedback for the don'ts and positive feedback for the do's.

It really dawned on me when I was teaching Romans 13 what Paul was saying about the love of neighbor being the fulfillment of the Law because love does no harm to a neighbor. It's the reason why, when Christ is asked to sum up the entire Law He summarizes it all in two positive commands: to Love God with our whole heart, soul, and mind and to Love Neighbor as ourselves. Two _positive_ commands to love.

Then why the negative commands? Because of our immaturity. Because of the wickedness of our hearts. We require the Dont's because our hearts would deceive us as to what is actually loving toward our neighbor. We'd be content to cut corners and deceive ourselves that we're doing it just fine. So then we get the Law and our wicked hearts then deceive us because we ask the question: "How much can I do in order to 'pass' the requirements of this Law?" But, by doing so, Christ has shown us that we're not even pursuing righteousness at all because love would never seek a minimal requirement. We would be passionately impelled to give maximal effort to delight in the things that bring our God delight.

It is no mistake that Romans 12-16 follows Romans 1-11 as service and sacrifice to God is the _reasonable_ response of love and gratitude to a Savior. In the beginning of Durham's exposition of the Ten Commandments he even highlights that and then he proceeds to show how negatively and positively each command is supposed to grip us. The pursuit of righteousness becomes a _reasonable_ goal and not one that we're content we've achieved by just assuming that we're comfortable and so we must have really shown God how appreciative we are for our great salvation.

Thus, it's not about _earning_ God's favor but whether or not we are really _grateful_ for our redemption. If we are grateful and we believe we are united to Christ by faith and slaves to righteousness then why do we keep asking how low the bar has to be? 

I would remind all that the Sabbath is one of a very few _positive_ commands in Scripture but isn't it interesting how it's being interpreted here as if God, in telling us to _rest_ in Him and consider Him is really giving us a list of things we're forbidden from doing. It's almost as if we're all pre-conditioned to thinking in those terms rather than delighting in the opportunity to worship, to rest, to consecrate, and to sanctify.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm still being sanctified in my delight of the Sabbath but my goal in sanctification is to continue to pursue the things that God delights in until they become a delight for me as I'm conformed to Christ. So, if people want to know why they ought to celebrate the Lord's Day then I'd ask them to go back and read the Gospels again and ask them what is not delightful about the Lord's Day in light of the Gospels.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

First, an apology to Bob V. for offending him by posting a theological point on the Sports Forum. Sorry Bob.

Second, I think the question is quite clear - and clearly avoided by the "libertines" who wish to watch Football on Sundays:

"Is the observance of Sunday a matter of Christian Liberty?"

I am not asking about "do's" and "don'ts" (by the way the 10 Commands are chock full of "don'ts" i.e. "Thou shalt not...") 

I asked the question as to whether or not observing the Christian Sabbath is a matter of Christian Liberty? I surmise that the "libertines" here who watch football on Sunday consider "Sabbatarians" to be stepping on their Christian Freedom when they are told it is wrong.

The question is: Are their Christian Freedoms being stepped upon?

If this is the case, then how might others act concerning other parts of the Commands? Would a pathological liar consider his Christian Freedom as being stepped upon? Or, a Ted Bundy? Can we now erect a crucifix on the front lawn of the church?

Do you have any example in the Bible of Christians going to the Coliseum after church? Was this the practice of Jesus and His disciples? Can you hear the voice of God in the book of James:



> For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if you commit no adultery, yet if you kill, thou have become a trangressor of the whole law, 2:10,11.


All sin is forgivable, but, do we not presume upon the forgiveness of God when we knowingly transgress the Law? Is observing one day in seven become such an inconvienance to you that you must take away that one day in order to serve your own desires?

Jesus tells us that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. This is generally understood as works of Necessity and Mercy. If I am sitting at home like a bump on a log watching television, then how is this understood as a work of Necessity or Mercy? (No doubt someone will find a cheap joke out of that.) The Sabbath day is an opportunity to get out of yourself and do some good for your neighbor, the sick, the poor, the downtrodden, the fatherless, or the widow. Maybe the television was devised in order to keep the Christian home on the Sabbath so that he/she would not go out doing good?

I find that those who use Christian Liberty to defend their abuse of the Sabbath are thinking more of themselves and their own comforts rather than the good of others. Remember:

"If you have done it unto the least of these, my brothers, then you have done it unto me."

The Law is a burden only to the flesh. To us Christians united to Christ by faith it is, "the perfect law of liberty" James 1:25, where we joyfully keep it through faith in the sanctifying work of the Spirit of God.

What is football then when compared to the Kingdom of God?

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## ReformedWretch

Rich-as I continue to ponder this, so I can get back to Josh I must ask you this-



> Thus, it's not about earning God's favor but whether or not we are really grateful for our redemption. If we are grateful and we believe we are united to Christ by faith and slaves to righteousness then why do we keep asking how low the bar has to be?
> 
> I would remind all that the Sabbath is one of a very few positive commands in Scripture but isn't it interesting how it's being interpreted here as if God, in telling us to rest in Him and consider Him is really giving us a list of things we're forbidden from doing. It's almost as if we're all pre-conditioned to thinking in those terms rather than delighting in the opportunity to worship, to rest, to consecrate, and to sanctify.



If God has not provided a "list" are we not forced to make one? Who is qualified to say what is and what is not permitted when the subject is not clearly spoken of in scripture? Look at the example of the disciples picking wheat on the sabbath, I can honestly see "some" here (if we didn't have this example in scripture) thinking doing that was sin in violation of the sabbath. You couldn't see that?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

houseparent said:


> Rich-as I continue to ponder this, so I can get back to Josh I must ask you this-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, it's not about earning God's favor but whether or not we are really grateful for our redemption. If we are grateful and we believe we are united to Christ by faith and slaves to righteousness then why do we keep asking how low the bar has to be?
> 
> I would remind all that the Sabbath is one of a very few positive commands in Scripture but isn't it interesting how it's being interpreted here as if God, in telling us to rest in Him and consider Him is really giving us a list of things we're forbidden from doing. It's almost as if we're all pre-conditioned to thinking in those terms rather than delighting in the opportunity to worship, to rest, to consecrate, and to sanctify.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God has not provided a "list" are we not forced to make one? Who is qualified to say what is and what is not permitted when the subject is not clearly spoken of in scripture? Look at the example of the disciples picking wheat on the sabbath, I can honestly see "some" here (if we didn't have this example in scripture) thinking doing that was sin in violation of the sabbath. You couldn't see that?
Click to expand...


I really do have to run somewhere. The point is that there have been a list of do's and dont's but given to guide us to maturity so that we don't decieve ourselves to think that we're fulfilling the law of love by doing something that God doesn't love. If God delights in us consecrating one day in seven to Him in worship and resting from our activities then we can either view that as a list of do's and don'ts or we can view that as something that is the reasonable thing to do for the One you love and were redeemed by.

I inherently understand _why_ much of the view is interpreted as a set of rules and I also think that part of the problem is that, just because you grow up a Sabbatarian doesn't mean that you're always doing so because you delight in the Lord. Even the Sabbath can be celebrated hypocritically as something that you're a better person for unlike those other wicked people. I think we ought to strike the concern out of our mind how the concept is packaged at times and reflect more on what our _goal_ is. I'm not saying this as a person who thinks he sanctifies the Day as perfectly as he ought but my happiest days have been the days where sunup to sundown I was in the presence of the people of God either in worship or fellowship talking about the things of the Lord. I can assure you that it did not feel like toil.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Ok, since Rich has to run I'll ask this of any(every) one. 



> Look at the example of the disciples picking wheat on the sabbath, I can honestly see "some" here (if we didn't have this example in scripture) thinking doing that was sin in violation of the sabbath. You couldn't see that?



I've seen women here ask if it's permissible to cook a meal for their family on Sunday. I've seen someone ask if answering the phone is. Again, if we didn't have the biblical example of the followers of Christ picking grain as they walked with him and Christ allowing it, don't you think it's possible that many here would disapprove? 

If I logged in on Sunday and said I just gotten back from a walk with my friends where along the way we picked some vegetables and ate them, I think it's very possible that someone would think (and maybe even say so in a post) that doing so was sin on the sabbath. 

Am I wrong?


----------



## Iconoclast

historyb said:


> How much of the Law are we still burdened under, are we not free from the Law? Is not the sabbath made for man and not man made for the sabbath? Is it me or are Reformed more into legalism than other branches?
> 
> I'll most likely get beaten down, but these are my thoughts.



In Romans 13, we are told love is the fulfilling of the law. In Christ we are free from the penalty of the law as Jesus has paid for our sins against the law of God. The law is good if a man use it lawfully.
Post 18 was very helpful on this.
In the Nt. we are told that God was going to put the law in our heart. I do not think that it means our heart is burdened by law ,or law keeping.
What did the psalmist mean in Psalm 119:

18Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
34Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart. 
113I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love. 

Some try to imply that only 9 commandments were mentioned in the New Covenant.
Were only 9 commandments placed inside the ark of the covenant?
In Romans 2:14-15
14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 

15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another 

What law is going to judge the unsaved gentiles, at the white throne? What law is on their conscience? Do you think it might be the ten commandments/or only 9?

Years ago I asked Pastor Chantry about the law and the gospel. He pointed out that central to the gospel message is the fact that the Lord Jesus kept the law perfectly,delighting to do the Father's will [even the sabbath observance]. It was His sinless life and law keeping that is put to our account, along with the payment in full of our sin debt that provides the necessary propitiation for us. Without any part of it,we do not see heaven.
Law keeping is at the heart of the gospel, and also this from Solomon:

13Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 

14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.



Walter Chantry wrote a book called Call the Sabbath a Delight. It might be helpful to work through.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

houseparent said:


> Ok, since Rich has to run I'll ask this of any(every) one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the example of the disciples picking wheat on the sabbath, I can honestly see "some" here (if we didn't have this example in scripture) thinking doing that was sin in violation of the sabbath. You couldn't see that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen women here ask if it's permissible to cook a meal for their family on Sunday. I've seen someone ask if answering the phone is. Again, if we didn't have the biblical example of the followers of Christ picking grain as they walked with him and Christ allowing it, don't you think it's possible that many here would disapprove?
> 
> If I logged in on Sunday and said I just gotten back from a walk with my friends where along the way we picked some vegetables and ate them, I think it's very possible that someone would think (and maybe even say so in a post) that doing so was sin on the sabbath.
> 
> Am I wrong?
Click to expand...


I think you're wrong to primarily worry about how others will view the way you view the Sabbath. Incidentally, there is a spirit of strict Sabbatarianism that views their role as primarily being Reformed "hall monitors". I think a person's view and observance of the Sabbath and other such issues is best handled in a Pastoral setting because the kinds of concerns you have are meant to be handled in the setting where growth in Grace is primarily supposed to occur.

I don't think that simply because people are strict in their observance of the Sabbath that they will necessarily be mature in how they deal with others who have not come to that conclusion. I'm not arguing that there ought not be a concern but an "obey the Law you sinner!" attitude is not really the way to go here. It reveals that the attitude is more about how the offender is breaching what _they_ expect about them and less about whether they have compassionate concern for those that still need to grow in many ways to include the Sabbath. I would hope that if a new Christian came into one of these Churches that they would want to mature such a man in the Gospel and not immediately hammer them the way they hammer others here and be more forebearing of their immaturity in such areas.

Ideally, those who are seeking to obey the Lord out of their overflowing gratitude and love for Him would be holding out the delight to others that they have. "Come, join us for the Law is our delight...." Should not the person who is demonstrating maturity in this area be humble and servant of all and seeking the edification of the immature? It might reveal in some cases that those that think they are mature in such things still don't realize that things aren't well in the Church just because they are mature if they're not willing to also build up the weak with their good in mind.

I can go around and around on this. The bottom line for me is that the Sabbath is holy. Its proponents are not always so holy because some of them are still themselves learning how to truly delight in everything: not only how they love the Lord in their observance of the Sabbath but how they love their neighbor and bear with his weaknesses, stubbornness, and immaturity. It really does help to be in fellowship with each other where such issues have to be worked out on the ground.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Two points of distinction need to occur in this discussion.

[1] Chris is surely correct: Westminster / Puritan theology *is *Sabbatarian. It was a huge issue for the Puritans ever since Richard Greenham took up the issue, and Nicholas Bownde (his son-in-law) published on it (in the late 16th century). This is surely an undisputed point and should not be questioned.

[2] However, the reformed tradition _generally _cannot be described as Sabbatarian. If we judge the reformed tradition according to all the confessions, we find them coming to different conclusions (as we find various reformed theologians coming to different conclusions on this matter).

Thus, WCF / Puritan Sabbatarianism is a subset of the reformed tradition. One doesn't have to be Sabbatarian to be reformed, but they're strictly not within the Puritan tradition.



SemperFideles said:


> The 4th Commandment is perpetually binding.



The problem I have with this statement, is that the 4th commandment (as given at Sinai) explicitly states that the Sabbath must be on the 7th day, or Saturday. Hence, unless we're 7th-day adventists (or baptists) then we can't affirm that the 4th commandment is perpetually binding because it's undergone some sort of transformation since Christ, even for the WCF / Puritan types (who now believe the Sabbath is on Sunday).

Every blessing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnOwen007 said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 4th Commandment is perpetually binding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I have with this statement, is that the 4th commandment (as given at Sinai) explicitly states that the Sabbath must be on the 7th day, or Saturday. Hence, unless we're 7th-day adventists (or baptists) then we can't affirm that the 4th commandment is perpetually binding because it's undergone some sort of transformation since Christ, even for the WCF / Puritan types (who now believe the Sabbath is on Sunday).
> 
> Every blessing.
Click to expand...


I'm not interesting in debating this point. It's off topic. It is the Confessional view of the Scriptures that the actual day of the Sabbath was not the principle that was perpetual as much as the principle that one day in seven be consecrated. We have Apostolic testimony to the change in this in light of this fact. It is also noted by Puritans that Christ "worked" redemption on the Jewish Sabbath (was still in the grave) and rose again on the Lord's Day for our salvation. 

As I said, however, this is off topic. If you're not even convinced that the Lord's Day needs to be consecrated then it's an interesting opinion but not something I'm interested in discussing in this thread.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Rich,



SemperFideles said:


> I'm not interesting in debating this point. It's off topic. It is the Confessional view of the Scriptures that the actual day of the Sabbath was not the principle that was perpetual as much as the principle that one day in seven be consecrated. [...] As I said, however, this is off topic. If you're not even convinced that the Lord's Day needs to be consecrated then it's an interesting opinion but not something I'm interested in discussing in this thread.



Thanks for your response. I really don't want to be a pain here, but I'm not sure I understand why this is "off topic"--aren't we discussing the liberty of Sabbath keeping? If we are, then how the Sabbath commandment relates to the New Covenant surely is critical to the discussion.

For what it's worth I believe that one day in seven is for rest. However, I don't arrive there from the 4th commandment alone. And again, I'm not sure you appreciate that the fourth commandment isn't teaching the _principle _of one day off in seven, it's teaching that the the _seventh day_ (Saturday) and *not *any other day is a Sabbath for Israel. This may be a subset of a general principle, but that general principle is not articulated in the 4th commandment itself. We must go beyond it. This is *critical* in understanding how the Torah relates to the New Covenant, which is at the heart of our discussion.

Hence, I don't think we can start with the 4th commandment and argue for liberty / non-liberty of the Sabbath. Rather, we start at creation, go through Cain and Abel, onto the command to rest from collecting manna (before the Torah was given), through the 10 words given at Sinai, and into Christ's statement that "the Sabbath was made for humanity (_anthropos _-- not just Israel)" and not _vice-versa_.

Every blessing dear brother,

Marty.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> Ooops. So bogged down pulling quotes I forgot my snarky post:
> 
> In answer to the thread question, _Is the observance of Sunday a matter of Christian Liberty?, _and to summarize the Westminster Assembly,
> 
> NO!




From what I know of the opposite position, those who deny the abiding validity of the Sabbath would (generally) say that attendance at public worship on the Lord's Day - which they would consider as part of observing Sunday - is not a matter of Christian Liberty but is obligatory on all believers.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear Rich,
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interesting in debating this point. It's off topic. It is the Confessional view of the Scriptures that the actual day of the Sabbath was not the principle that was perpetual as much as the principle that one day in seven be consecrated. [...] As I said, however, this is off topic. If you're not even convinced that the Lord's Day needs to be consecrated then it's an interesting opinion but not something I'm interested in discussing in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your response. I really don't want to be a pain here, but I'm not sure I understand why this is "off topic"--aren't we discussing the liberty of Sabbath keeping? If we are, then how the Sabbath commandment relates to the New Covenant surely is critical to the discussion.
> 
> For what it's worth I believe that one day in seven is for rest. However, I don't arrive there from the 4th commandment alone. And again, I'm not sure you appreciate that the fourth commandment isn't teaching the _principle _of one day off in seven, it's teaching that the the _seventh day_ (Saturday) and *not *any other day is a Sabbath for Israel. This may be a subset of a general principle, but that general principle is not articulated in the 4th commandment itself. We must go beyond it. This is *critical* in understanding how the Torah relates to the New Covenant, which is at the heart of our discussion.
> 
> Hence, I don't think we can start with the 4th commandment and argue for liberty / non-liberty of the Sabbath. Rather, we start at creation, go through Cain and Abel, onto the command to rest from collecting manna (before the Torah was given), through the 10 words given at Sinai, and into Christ's statement that "the Sabbath was made for humanity (_anthropos _-- not just Israel)" and not _vice-versa_.
> 
> Every blessing dear brother,
> 
> Marty.
Click to expand...


It's off topic because it's too much for one thread to unpack. Also, I'm not aware of any Reformed Confessions that agree with your view that the Law of God taught that the Sabbath is constricted to Saturday. The command is to labor for six days and to rest on the seventh. Reformed Commmentators, in light of the New Covenant, have seen this as still perpetual but that the 6 days of labor follow the rest we celebrate now on the Lord's Day. Here is what the Heidelberg states:


> Question 103. What does God require in the fourth commandment?
> 
> Answer: First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained; (a) and that I, especially on the sabbath, that is, on the day of rest, diligently frequent the church of God, (b) to hear his word, (c) to use the sacraments, (d) publicly to call upon the Lord, (e) and contribute to the relief of the poor. (f) Secondly, that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by his Holy Spirit in me: and thus begin in this life the eternal sabbath. (g)



I would also note that the Heidelberg in Question 92 also lists the fourth commandment as part of the Law of God. Under What _is_ the Law of God and not what _was_ the Law of God.


----------



## kvanlaan

Dear Brethren,

Is the argument somewhat opaque to this point because we are not agreed on fundamentals? What I mean by that is, should we first not be looking at what "Christian Liberty" consists of and go from there, rather than argue about the color of one another's dogs while some are referring to their cats and some their horses?

Rev. Bacon from the Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed in Texas has an incredibly thorough series on Christian Liberty (a 25-part series!) available on sermonaudio.com Rev. vanderZwaag from the HNRC covers the same in a more basic form (one sermon or so). I don't have the exact link to Rev. v.d. Zwaag's sermon, sorry - it is on sermonaudio.com as well. I do have the link to Rev. Bacon's series, below. I'm not entirely through it yet, but I have the best of intentions (!)...

SermonAudio.com - Search Results 

BTW, they are both of the opinion that it is 'freedom from' certain sinful burdens/worldly conventions, not 'freedom to' do what we please. From the way this discussion has been developing, taking such a viewpoint as the basis for the argument would change the slant of things significantly.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Kevin,

It is a good point. I think part of the point of this thread is to unpack that point a bit. I've been trying to explain what we are set free _from_ in order that we might be free to obey.


----------



## kvanlaan

> I've been trying to explain _what we are set free from_ in order that we might be free to obey.





I think that's a fundamental underpinning to this argument that needs to be fleshed out and come to consensus upon in order to proceed profitably.


----------



## satz

Regarding Christian Liberty,

I think there are actually several kinds of 'christian liberty' mentioned in the bible. There is liberty from the bondage of sin, liberty from keeping the law as a requirement for salvation, and liberty from manmade religious rules.

However, I think the bible also speaks of another kind of christian liberty about which it would not be entirely wrong to say we are free to do 'as we please.' The bible does tell us we are bound only by what God has commanded or forbidden in his word. There is freedom in those other areas that God has not regulated. Hence, in regard to meat offered to idols, Paul told the Corinthians that since God did not consider eating such meat a sin, there were free to do as they pleased with regards to it. Now, that freedom was to be curtailed when it would offend a brother or bring disrepute upon the gospel, but it was a freedom nevertheless.

I think it is this kind of 'liberty' that most non-sabbatarians mean when they evoke the name of christian liberty in regards to the sabbath. From their perspective there is 'liberty' regarding following the Sabbath because the Sabbath laws, as contained in the OT are not binding on the NT church.


----------



## Amazing Grace

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> First, an apology to Bob V. for offending him by posting a theological point on the Sports Forum. Sorry Bob.
> 
> Second, I think the question is quite clear - and clearly avoided by the "libertines" who wish to watch Football on Sundays:
> 
> 
> I asked the question as to whether or not observing the Christian Sabbath is a matter of Christian Liberty? I surmise that the "libertines" here who watch football on Sunday consider "Sabbatarians" to be stepping on their Christian Freedom when they are told it is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> If this is the case, then how might others act concerning other parts of the Commands? Would a pathological liar consider his Christian Freedom as being stepped upon? Or, a Ted Bundy? Can we now erect a crucifix on the front lawn of the church?



CH, the use of the word "libertine" in the context of one who does not observe a WCF prescribed sabbath rest is not proper at all. And to compare one as such to Bundy or this crucifix lawn ornament is inflammatory. I find it problematic that you offer an apology to Bob V for spaming a sports thread, yet continue to use malicious words in the "proper" forum...


----------



## CDM

> Is the observance of Sunday a matter of Christian Liberty?



*NO*

When Christians honored the Sabbath in this land the entire country and Christ's Church was better for it. Christians have lost their testimony to the world because of their neglect of the 4th commandment. It's nonsense to preach to unbelievers that Christians are separate and holy from the world while using the Lord's Day to fulfill worldly pleasures. To my shame, I've been in both positions.



historyb said:


> *How much of the Law are we still burdened under*, are we not free from the Law? Is not the sabbath made for man and not man made for the sabbath? Is it me or are Reformed more into legalism than other branches?
> 
> I'll most likely get beaten down, but these are my thoughts.



No, we are not free from God's commandments. Additionally, God's commandments are not burdensome or grievous to Christians.

I John 5:2-3
2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 
3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.​
******

*Question: What does "...resting in Christ" mean?* I've heard it many times before as a response to Sabbatarians. In fact I used to parrot it as a newborn Christian at your local Evanjelly meeting on the corner. In my mind it meant "We [Christians] are not the Nation of Israel so we are not bound to observe this commandment as it was meant for just them..." I've asked this question to the PB in the past but never received an explanation (it may have been buried under Today's Posts. )

So, "resting in Christ":

-What is this doctrine?
-How or what do we do?
-Was this taught / is this found in early Christian doctrine?
-How does this relate to the Sabbath that was established _before_ the Law? Were those saints resting in Christ?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

A plug or two. Much of this is of course simply stating that there remains a debate over whether the Puritan/Presbyterian tradition is correct on the nature of the fourth commandment; however, in the Reformed tradition going back to Calvin, the observance of the day was for all practical purposes "Puritan" if I can be anachronistic. One only need look at Calvin's sermons on Deuteronomy. I cover much of the literature in my _Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines_ article; also I highly commend/recommend/thumbs up Woody Lauer's entry in the 2007 issue of The Confessional Presbyterian, _John Calvin, the Nascent Sabbatarian: A Reconsideration of Calvin’s View of Two Key Sabbath-Issues_, which was first published in Japanese, and this is the first English printing.

PS. I have much of Bownd's work on the fourth commandment worked up to publish but it has been a back burner project due to difficulties. 



JohnOwen007 said:


> Two points of distinction need to occur in this discussion.
> 
> [1] Chris is surely correct: Westminster / Puritan theology *is *Sabbatarian. It was a huge issue for the Puritans ever since Richard Greenham took up the issue, and Nicholas Bownde (his son-in-law) published on it (in the late 16th century). This is surely an undisputed point and should not be questioned.
> 
> [2] However, the reformed tradition _generally _cannot be described as Sabbatarian. If we judge the reformed tradition according to all the confessions, we find them coming to different conclusions (as we find various reformed theologians coming to different conclusions on this matter).
> 
> Thus, WCF / Puritan Sabbatarianism is a subset of the reformed tradition. One doesn't have to be Sabbatarian to be reformed, but they're strictly not within the Puritan tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 4th Commandment is perpetually binding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I have with this statement, is that the 4th commandment (as given at Sinai) explicitly states that the Sabbath must be on the 7th day, or Saturday. Hence, unless we're 7th-day adventists (or baptists) then we can't affirm that the 4th commandment is perpetually binding because it's undergone some sort of transformation since Christ, even for the WCF / Puritan types (who now believe the Sabbath is on Sunday).
> 
> Every blessing.
Click to expand...


----------



## JohnOwen007

NaphtaliPress said:


> A plug or two.



Thanks for the plugs Chris, I look forward to reading them.

If I can mention several works that helped me understand the reformed Sabbath:

[1] Richard Greenham's originally unpublished work on the Sabbath (on which Bownd derived his ideas) was recently published: _Practical Divinity: The Works and Life of Richard Greenham_, edited by K. L. Parker and E. J. Carlson. Greenham in many ways is the father of Puritan Sabbatarianism.

[2] A great book that recounts the rise of the Puritan Sabbath is John Primus, _Holy Time: Moderate Puritanism and the Sabbath_. It shows the different views that eventually developed into the Sabbath doctrine finally codified in the WCF. I found it fascinating. It augments Kenneth Parker's book, _The English Sabbath_.

[3] Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism on question 103 is an eloquent exposition of a Sabbath doctrine that differs with the WCF, showing the view of certain Continental theologians.

Every blessing,

Marty.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Thanks Marty. I rely on Primus a bit in my Calvin article and also Lauer interacts with Primus (Gaffin and another Japanese writer) whose view of Calvin I think has held sway, at least in recent decades in the literature. I'm not sure how much Bownd is derivative of Greenham; certainly the roots of the Puritan Sabbath reach back beyond both men. Babbington is often singled out as the first published Sabbatarian work in 1583. Works by Greenham and Perkins were both circulating in MSS amongst the Puritans. Bownd certainly has the first full treatment and it made an impression to be sure and sparked the first Sabbath controversy in English Literature. I cover some of the dating of the origins of Sabbatarianism in CPJ 1 in the intro to the first translation of a Latin preface to Bownd, the one by Willet, which I think supports Dennison's contention that:


> ... it should not be concluded that because the sources are not more explicitly strict, Sabbatarianism is nowhere to be found before 1583. Then how did it happen that, in 1583, Gervase Babington penned a statement on the fourth commandment which could have passed for a summary of Nicolas Bownd? In this writer’s opinion the answer is contained in the underground development of Puritanism via prophesyings, lecturings and the universities. One must not neglect to weigh the almost certain effect of the biblical discussions in these Puritan gatherings—discussions which undoubtedly touched on the Sabbath discussion…. Consider the fact that the following men, all of whom later expressed sentiments of a Puritan nature upon the fourth commandment, at one time attended Cambridge University, the “nursery” of Puritanism: John Knewstub, Edward Dering, William Perkins, Richard Greenham, Nicholas Bownd, John Stockwood, Philip Stubbes, Gervase Babington, William Fulke, and Andrew Willet. Furthermore, the Pur-itan lectureships and prophesyings were in full swing in the first decade of Elizabeth’s reign.


_In Translatione._ Andrew Willet’s "To the Pious Reader," from Book One of Nicholas Bownd’s _Sabbathvm veteris et Novi Testamenti, The Confessional Presbyterian 1 _(2005) 166-167.



JohnOwen007 said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> A plug or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the plugs Chris, I look forward to reading them.
> 
> If I can mention several works that helped me understand the reformed Sabbath:
> 
> [1] Richard Greenham's originally unpublished work on the Sabbath (on which Bownd derived his ideas) was recently published: _Practical Divinity: The Works and Life of Richard Greenham_, edited by K. L. Parker and E. J. Carlson. Greenham in many ways is the father of Puritan Sabbatarianism.
> 
> [2] A great book that recounts the rise of the Puritan Sabbath is John Primus, _Holy Time: Moderate Puritanism and the Sabbath_. It shows the different views that eventually developed into the Sabbath doctrine finally codified in the WCF. I found it fascinating. It augments Kenneth Parker's book, _The English Sabbath_.
> 
> [3] Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism on question 103 is an eloquent exposition of a Sabbath doctrine that differs with the WCF, showing the view of certain Continental theologians.
> 
> Every blessing,
> 
> Marty.
Click to expand...


----------



## BJClark

houseparent;



> I've seen women here ask if it's permissible to cook a meal for their family on Sunday.



Well, as a SAHM, if I am cooking on the Sabbath, then I am not getting a 'day of rest', because this is part of my everyday responsibilities...so for me, it would mean, I cook the day before and make sure to put everything in throw away containers, and we use paper plates and plastic ware so that we don't have dishes to wash...so that nobody in the household is doing their worldly 'work' on the sabbath...and everyone can enjoy the day of rest completely.

And I certainly can't go out to dinner after church either as that would be hypocritical of me...or even to have a dinner on the grounds after church...as that to would be hypocritical...as someone would still be required to set up the meal table, requiring them to labor on the Lords Day, even if for fellowship purposes...and if it is not okay for me to labor, how then can it be okay for me to ask someone else to labor?

But I can certainly cook a meal, and it not go against the Sabbath, as even then, I labor in the Lord's work...ensuring my family is cared for..


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

historyb said:


> How much of the Law are we still burdened under, are we not free from the Law? Is not the sabbath made for man and not man made for the sabbath? Is it me or are Reformed more into legalism than other branches?
> 
> I'll most likely get beaten down, but these are my thoughts.



Hopefully no one is going to beat you up. But faithful are the wounds of a brother. 



> (Pro 27:5) Open rebuke is better than secret love.
> 
> (Pro 27:6) Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.



First let me say that obeying God is not burdensome. Those who are burdened by God's will are outside of God's will and are burdened by a human sinful problem of indwelling sin tugging on their affections. The sabbath was created for man because it is good for him. The Sabbath is a time God has set aside for communion with Him. If you find this burdensome then the Sabbath, nor God, are to blame. 



> (1Jn 5:2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
> 
> (1Jn 5:3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.



I admit that I live in a world where I look for things to be active in so I can commune with it. But I also must keep my communion with God as priority. I do fail at this. We tend to justify whatever activity we are involved in. But at the same time, while in this world we need to be careful about how we judge those who might do something similarly like Jesus who walked across a field plucking grains or King David who ate the showbread. The pharisees were condemning Jesus according to tradition. We don't want to be like that. But at the same time we are responsible for meeting with God the way he tells us to. In that we are required to warn others also who are not complying. So when we are challenged or rebuked we should at least listen. Those who are challenging us are doing it from their heart. They are jealous for God and might be showing us that God is jealous because we have stuck something in front of him. If we are convinced that we are not violating God's word and someone who is weaker is trying to force some burden on us that is not in God's heart then we should just bear with those who are out of accord and not be offensive toward them. I think that is the point Rich is trying to express. 

If any of you Baptists or Presbyterians want to read a few good articles on the Sabbath, find someone with the Reformed Baptist Theological Review Volume 3. No, 2. You could also order it and read it. There are two good articles dealing with the Sabbath. One by Rich Barcellos and the other by James Renihan. 

Reformed Baptist Academic Press


> *The Old Testament Theology of the Sabbath -- Creation, Old Covenant and Old Testament Prophecy by Richard C. Barcellos
> 
> *"Bound to Keep the First Day" -- Covenant Theology, the Moral Law, and the Sabbath among the first English Particular Baptists by James M. Renihan



Reformed Baptist Academic Press

Be Encouraged,
Randy


----------



## tcalbrecht

BJClark said:


> houseparent;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen women here ask if it's permissible to cook a meal for their family on Sunday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as a SAHM, if I am cooking on the Sabbath, then I am not getting a 'day of rest', *because this is part of my everyday responsibilities*...so for me, it would mean, I cook the day before and make sure to put everything in throw away containers, and we use paper plates and plastic ware so that we don't have dishes to wash...*so that nobody in the household is doing their worldly 'work' on the sabbath*...and everyone can enjoy the day of rest completely.
> 
> And I certainly can't go out to dinner after church either as that would be hypocritical of me...or even to have a dinner on the grounds after church...as that to would be hypocritical...as someone would still be required to set up the meal table, requiring them to labor on the Lords Day, even if for fellowship purposes...and if it is not okay for me to labor, how then can it be okay for me to ask someone else to labor?
Click to expand...


I’m trying to understand the criteria here. If I work in an office all week, is it OK then to cook for the family on Sunday? Is cooking the food more work than merely setting it out on the table for people to eat? And, do we need to just leave the remains on the table or can we clean up after? Are we to avoid all fellowship (esp. involving a meal) on the Sabbath because anything involves some amount of “work”?

I remember when my father worked as service manager for a car dealer and he often would deliver customer cars on Saturday. He had one Jewish customer that would leave his wallet on a table near the front door so my dad could remove the payment for the service. The customer could not touch the money because he did that the other six days of the week. It was a good example of a hedge around the law.

What does the Bible actually say? Where is cooking a meal on Sunday, for example, spoken of as unnecessary work? And how do we avoid the entanglements of the Pharisees and rabbis?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Amazing Grace said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> First, an apology to Bob V. for offending him by posting a theological point on the Sports Forum. Sorry Bob.
> 
> Second, I think the question is quite clear - and clearly avoided by the "libertines" who wish to watch Football on Sundays:
> 
> 
> I asked the question as to whether or not observing the Christian Sabbath is a matter of Christian Liberty? I surmise that the "libertines" here who watch football on Sunday consider "Sabbatarians" to be stepping on their Christian Freedom when they are told it is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> If this is the case, then how might others act concerning other parts of the Commands? Would a pathological liar consider his Christian Freedom as being stepped upon? Or, a Ted Bundy? Can we now erect a crucifix on the front lawn of the church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CH, the use of the word "libertine" in the context of one who does not observe a WCF prescribed sabbath rest is not proper at all. And to compare one as such to Bundy or this crucifix lawn ornament is inflammatory. I find it problematic that you offer an apology to Bob V for spaming a sports thread, yet continue to use malicious words in the "proper" forum...
Click to expand...


I am sorry that you took it that way. My apology to Bob was over a technical matter and not the question of this thread - so they are not connected.

As I understand it - the Three Forms of Unity agree with the Westminster standards on this particular matter. I used the term "libertine" in quotes to show that I was not utilizing the full force of the term. A person who breaks the Commandment in the name of "Christian Freedom" is technically a "libertine." You would have to explain yourself concerning that this "is not proper at all."

I was not comparing Ted Bundy to a Sabbath breaker, but I was doing something far more subtle that you seemed to have missed. So I will have to explain it more carefully:

If you argue that your "Christian Freedom" allows you to break the Sabbath command and do your own pleasure on the Lord's Day, then how can you enforce any of the other commands? The Bible links the commands together as I showed from the book of James. Jesus links the Commands together with the Command to Love as the fulfillment of the Law. One could simply say that it is a matter of Christian Freedom and claim the Command does not apply.

If you say that such is ridiculous, then that is my point. Why then do you say that watching football on Sunday is legitimate?

All sin is forgivable - even Ted Bundy's - whom I believe was truly repentant for his sins and is now with the Saints in Heaven.

Grace is truly Amazing isn't it?

-CH


----------



## BJClark

tcalbrecht;



> I’m trying to understand the criteria here. If I work in an office all week, is it OK then to cook for the family on Sunday? Is cooking the food more work than merely setting it out on the table for people to eat? And, do we need to just leave the remains on the table or can we clean up after? Are we to avoid all fellowship (esp. involving a meal) on the Sabbath because anything involves some amount of “work”?



That is pretty much what I am getting at..to me it seems silly to say that any type of labor on the Lords day should be avoided, just because it's labor and isn't focusing directly on God. If I am going to be preparing a meal or doing dishes, that is going to be my focus...and not directly on God, as it appears many are saying needs to be done on the Lord's Day..only focusing on God and God alone to the exclusion of anything else.



> What does the Bible actually say? Where is cooking a meal on Sunday, for example, spoken of as unnecessary work? And how do we avoid the entanglements of the Pharisees and rabbis?



I believe this is the gist of the question being asked by many...how do we avoid the entanglements of the Pharisees and Rabbi's; that even in watching a ball game with friends enjoying fellowship with them..should be avoided, because it is not focusing on God.

For me, when I am cooking, I am focused on preparing the meal (so as not to burn it, or miss an ingreident), not on God...Jesus didn't just sit around and do nothing on the Sabbath.

I personally don't care to sit around and watch football or any sport for that matter...I personally enjoy sitting around talking about God and the things God is doing in my life and the lives of others..and I would certainly rather do that than cook a meal, but alas my husband enjoys a hot meal, even on Sundays, so therefore I cook.

Should I stand in the kitchen and grumble because I am cooking? Or should I be thankful I have the food and means to cook a meal for my family? Should I grumble because my husband is spending time with the kids playing a video game and not reading the Bible? Or should I be thankful He is spending time with the kids doing something they all enjoy doing? Should I grumble when he wants to go to the beach after church enjoying the nice weather God has provided as opposed to wanting to sit home and read the bible? Or should I be thankful God has provided a nice day that we can go out and enjoy together as a family relaxing and having fun, not focusing on the weeks work or the bill's that need to be paid?

At what point does it become legalistic and not enjoying what God has provided?


----------



## shackleton

I don't know it this is related, I am sorry if it is not. This is something I have wondered for some time and have not come to a conclusion because there are so many different views on the subject. 

Are we still obligated to fulfill the covenant of works? Did Christ fulfill it for us, or did he make it possible for us to fulfill it, with the help of the Spirit? 

I heard a Baptist seminary professor tell me that Christ fulfilled the Sabbath and our rest comes in heaven. Based on this belief he proceeded to work like a dog on Sunday. He never took any days off and eventually got sick, probably due to exhaustion. 

One of Christ's main beef's with the Pharisees was their strict abservance of the Sabbath. He did many things on the Sabbath just to get under their skin and bring up the subject. Then went on to say that the Sabbath was made for man and not for God. 

Is the Sabbath a day of reflection back to God our creator, or is it simply a day to do nothing? What constitutes work and and how far do we have to go to restrict activity on the Sabbath? 

These are just some things I am wondering, any thoughts?


----------



## Amazing Grace

CalvinandHodges said:


> I am sorry that you took it that way. My apology to Bob was over a technical matter and not the question of this thread - so they are not connected.
> 
> As I understand it - the Three Forms of Unity agree with the Westminster standards on this particular matter. I used the term "libertine" in quotes to show that I was not utilizing the full force of the term. A person who breaks the Commandment in the name of "Christian Freedom" is technically a "libertine." You would have to explain yourself concerning that this "is not proper at all."



It is not proper becasue both parties do nto start with the same premise regarding the perpetual observance of the 4th commandment in the New Covenant. There they are "technically" not breakign a commandment. There is no sin where there is no Law.

HC:
LORD’S DAY 38

Q. 103. What doth God require in the fourth commandment?

A. First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained;1 and that I, especially on the sabbath, that is, on the day of rest,2 diligently frequent the church of God,3 to hear His word, to use the sacraments, publicly to call upon the Lord,4 and contribute to the relief of the poor,5 as becomes a Christian. Secondly, that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by His Holy Spirit in me; and thus begin in this life the eternal sabbath.6

Article 25: Of the abolishing of the Ceremonial Law.

We believe, that the ceremonies and figures of the law ceased at the coming of Christ, and that all the shadows are accomplished; so that the use of them must be abolished amongst Christians; yet the truth and substance of them remain with us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have their completion. In the meantime, we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets, to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honesty, to the glory of God, according to his will

This is all I find in the BC relating to Law...

And Dort mentions nothing.

8. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. WCF

I see a big differnce actually.



CalvinandHodges said:


> If you argue that your "Christian Freedom" allows you to break the Sabbath command and do your own pleasure on the Lord's Day, then how can you enforce any of the other commands? The Bible links the commands together as I showed from the book of James. Jesus links the Commands together with the Command to Love as the fulfillment of the Law. One could simply say that it is a matter of Christian Freedom and claim the Command does not apply.
> 
> If you say that such is ridiculous, then that is my point. Why then do you say that watching football on Sunday is legitimate?
> 
> All sin is forgivable - even Ted Bundy's - whom I believe was truly repentant for his sins and is now with the Saints in Heaven.
> 
> Grace is truly Amazing isn't it?
> 
> -CH





Yes it is amazing. But again you are arguing from a different starting point.

Personally I am inclined, though not convince to start with Hosea 2:11

Hosea 2:11: “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her New Moons, her Sabbaths-- all her appointed feasts.”

DO you know how the Pharisee perverted the sabbath regulation? They actually had a list of over 1500 do's and don'ts for the Sabbath. Some of their Sabbath don'ts: don't rescue a drowning man; don't light a candle (but a Gentile could be hired to do this); don't walk any farther than is absolutely necessary; don't pluck heads of grain; and, what is my personal favorite, don't give birth.


----------



## tdowns

*So...*

just checking...

One can not say they hold to all 10 commandments, being valid today and for eternity, but, the 4th commandment, is upheld, by finding their REST in Christ, everyday, so that, they don't have any particular rules for any one day, other than, making sure, they gather together with the saints for word and Sacrament at some point each week.

It is not in one's Christian Liberty to uphold the above position? Which, although, maybe not worded the best way, seems to be the position of the average Christian in America today.

???


----------



## ReformedWretch

> What does the Bible actually say? Where is cooking a meal on Sunday, for example, spoken of as unnecessary work? And how do we avoid the entanglements of the Pharisees and rabbis?



this is my concern!


----------



## VictorBravo

houseparent said:


> What does the Bible actually say? Where is cooking a meal on Sunday, for example, spoken of as unnecessary work? And how do we avoid the entanglements of the Pharisees and rabbis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is my concern!
Click to expand...


Simplicity brother! Can't we largely avoid the entanglements by remembering that? As for eating, of course we can pick fruit or gather grain or put something in a pot or a microwave so that we can eat. It's just that we shouldn't feel compelled to make a production out of it.

As has been well addressed, the rules (I called them "don'ts") are there to show us when we are running off track. Perhaps another "cute" analogy would be driving down a highway. There are plenty of "don'ts": Don't run off the road, don't hit the oncoming car, don't look at the floor while driving, don't go too fast, don't hit that tree! The don'ts are extremely important, we need them. I trust that nobody thinks I'm discounting that.

But if in our driving we sought *only to avoid *the don'ts, we'd be better off never moving. Then we could claim to be really successful at keeping the law. Of course, that's not the point. When we drive we keep the don'ts in the back of our mind but focus on driving down the road in a safe and prudent manner.

So, on the subject of dining, for example, we can say "don't make a big production of the meal." What's that mean? Well, maybe a list would work: "don't use more than one bowl" or "don't work at it for more than an hour" or "don't cook at all!" It's hardly a formula for rest. Maybe we can acheive the same thing by having a simple meal already prepared, or maybe we snack on fruits and crackers and cheese--maybe we should all walk through a wheat field gathering whatever we need for the day. Whatever. Go ahead and use the stove, whatever is necessary. But keep the goal in mind.


----------



## KMK

shackleton said:


> One of Christ's main beef's with the Pharisees was their *strict* abservance of the Sabbath. He did many things on the Sabbath just to get under their skin and bring up the subject. Then went on to say that the Sabbath was made for man and not for God.



I don't think Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees was that their observance of the Sabbath was too *strict*. He rebuked them because they had actually laid aside the commandments of God and replaced them with the commandments of men. (Mark 7) I don't think anyone on PB desires to lay aside God's commandments in favor of man-made ones. The issue at hand is, "What exactly is God's commandment regarding the Sabbath?"


----------



## KMK

tdowns007 said:


> just checking...
> 
> One can not say they hold to all 10 commandments, being valid today and for eternity, but, the 4th commandment, is upheld, by finding their REST in Christ, everyday, so that, they don't have any particular rules for any one day, other than, making sure, they gather together with the saints for word and Sacrament at some point each week.



But where does the Bible teach this? Most who hold to this position hang their hat on places like Heb 4 and Col 2 which very obscure passages.


----------



## JM

I jog on Sunday after Church, it's my best prayer time of the week.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The mainstream of thought in Puritan Sabbath literature does not say we can't cook something to eat on Lord's days; rather the opposite. This was a big objection by the Anti Sabbs in the 17th century and almost every work I've seen from the Puritan perspective addresses it in some way. Here is what one of the grand daddy of all the Puritan works on the Christian Sabbath had to say at one point (he addresses it from several angles and at different points in his book):


> And whereas the ecclesiastical writers1 make mention of certain heretics among the Jews, called Essau, “who dress their meat the day before, and upon the Sabbath kindle no fire, remove no vessel,_ Nec aluum purgant;_” it seems unto me both that they condemn them for this over great strictness of theirs; and also that this practice in so precise a rest was not common unto all the Jews, but proper to this sect of heretics; who professing a certain kind of holiness above others, even in this point went beyond the law. And therefore whereas the Lord Jesus gives leave not only _to draw the ox and the ass out of the ditch to preserve their lives, but also to lead them to the water _(Luke 13:15), to make their lives more comfortable to them; we permit not only things needful to the life of man, but also such as are convenient to the use and comfort of man, as the dressing of meats, whereby a man may be made more cheerful in the duties of sanctification. So that both in using them we refresh and not oppress ourselves; and in preparing them, we use the time before, after, or between the public exercises. In that therefore the law permitted the leading of the ox to water, we see how things convenient are not at that time unlawful, so that they are not abused or overruled.
> -------------------
> 1. Magdeburg Centuries, Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Nicholas Bownd, _Sabbathvm veteris et Novi Testamenti_ (1606; Naphtali Press, draft edition, 2003) 230.
Click to expand...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

From previous threads:



VirginiaHuguenot said:


> John Willison, _An Example of Plain Catechising Upon the Assembly's Shorter Catechism_, p. 188:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. _How much of the day appointed for the sabbath is to be kept holy to the Lord?
> 
> A._ One whole day in seven; a whole natural day, consisting of twenty-four hours, commencing from midnight to midnight, ought to be dedicated unto the Lord, seeing he claims a seventh part of our time. It is true, time for eating and sleeping must be allowed upon the sabbath as well as on other days, being works of necessity, seeing without these we cannot perform the duties of the sabbath.
Click to expand...




VirginiaHuguenot said:


> On the night of 'fall back' (for those who observe daylight savings time), here is some counsel from William Gouge, _The Sabbath's Sanctification_, p. 11, on the importance of a good night's rest before the Lord's Day:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question 26. What are those particulars which our weak bodies do most need?
> 
> _Ans_. (1.) Sleep, Eccl. 5:12. (2.) Food, Luke 14:1. (3.) Apparel, 2 Sam. 12:20. (4.) All other occasional helps, Mark 2:3, 4.
Click to expand...




> Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
> 
> I agree that true Sabbath-keeping is not a list of do's and don'ts, but is exemplified in Augustine's famous saying, "Love God as do as thou wilt."
> 
> However, we can summarize the Ten Commandments as "Love God and love your neighbor" and still recognize that it is precisely a list of do's and don'ts. We need to think of God's law on both levels (the practical and the abstract).


----------



## tcalbrecht

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
> 
> I agree that true Sabbath-keeping is not a list of do's and don'ts, but is exemplified in Augustine's famous saying, "Love God as do as thou wilt."
> 
> However, we can summarize the Ten Commandments as "Love God and love your neighbor" and still recognize that it is precisely a list of do's and don'ts. We need to think of God's law on both levels (the practical and the abstract).
Click to expand...


The hard part is in determining what are the real do's and don'ts without adding to or subtracting from the Word of God, and giving a place to liberty of conscience. Otherwise all you are left with are burdens such as the Pharisees heaped on folks.

Now, some folks believe the Westminster folks got the list right. However, having been in the PCA and having listened to enough candidates for the gospel ministry take an exception to the Standards in this area (ride my bike, play in the park with my children, take a nap), I wonder sometimes what they don’t just admit the Standards' view is too strict and change it.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> DO you know how the Pharisee perverted the sabbath regulation? They actually had a list of over 1500 do's and don'ts for the Sabbath. Some of their Sabbath don'ts: don't rescue a drowning man; don't light a candle (but a Gentile could be hired to do this); don't walk any farther than is absolutely necessary; don't pluck heads of grain; and, what is my personal favorite, don't give birth.



 How did the Pharisees stop people from giving birth on the Sabbath?


----------



## Amazing Grace

Could a strict sab answer a couple questions for me please? Out of the gate, so there is no decpetion in this post as if I am setting up a bait and switch, I am a non sab. Yet I do not call those who are in question as being pharisees. Even when 'rebuked or admonished" becasue of my stance, I smile and re read Romans 14, Heb 4 and Col 2 in my head. 

I have head that the Sabbath observance is more than the 4th commandment, is this true? That it is some sort of "necessary consequence" deduced form creation ordinance. I honestly do not know what that sophist statement means, but I wont argue.

So this sabbath ordinance prescribed in the 4th commandment, was there more that the Israelites were required to do?

How many sabbaths are included in the 4th commandment? Is this sabbath prescribed in the 4th commandment Law? As equal to the sabbath year? Lev.25:17....Israel is instructed to number seven times seven Sabbath years (49) and the following year is the Jubilee (50th year) which would be observed by no sowing or reaping. All slaves were to be released, and the land they purchased is to be returned to the original owner. All the debts were to be forgiven. 

Are these sabbaths different that the creation ordinance which has been imported to be the 4th commandment?


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> DO you know how the Pharisee perverted the sabbath regulation? They actually had a list of over 1500 do's and don'ts for the Sabbath. Some of their Sabbath don'ts: don't rescue a drowning man; don't light a candle (but a Gentile could be hired to do this); don't walk any farther than is absolutely necessary; don't pluck heads of grain; and, what is my personal favorite, don't give birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the Pharisees stop people from giving birth on the Sabbath?
Click to expand...


I have no clue, they didnt have a pitosin drip then. It is my favorite though!!!!!!

_Ken also stated:He rebuked them because they had actually laid aside the commandments of God and replaced them with the commandments of men._

WOuld not this thought of "preparing ones mind the day before the sabbath be considered a commandment of men then? It is nowhere taught in the writ as far as I can see. Perhaps I am not looking in the right place though


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry that you took it that way. My apology to Bob was over a technical matter and not the question of this thread - so they are not connected.
> 
> As I understand it - the Three Forms of Unity agree with the Westminster standards on this particular matter. I used the term "libertine" in quotes to show that I was not utilizing the full force of the term. A person who breaks the Commandment in the name of "Christian Freedom" is technically a "libertine." You would have to explain yourself concerning that this "is not proper at all."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not proper becasue both parties do not start with the same premise regarding the perpetual observance of the 4th commandment in the New Covenant. There they are "technically" not breaking a commandment. There is no sin where there is no Law.
Click to expand...



I would probably agree with this. Those of us who believe that the Sabbath remains obligatory need to show those who disagree why they are in error, we cannot just accuse them of being Libertines as they are not acting in rebellion to a *KNOWN* command of God. They sincerely believe that this command has been abrogated in the NT, so they cannot be branded as being antinomian.


----------



## VictorBravo

Amazing Grace said:


> Could a strict sab answer a couple questions for me please? Out of the gate, so there is no decpetion in this post as if I am setting up a bait and switch, I am a non sab. Yet I do not call those who are in question as being pharisees. Even when 'rebuked or admonished" becasue of my stance, I smile and re read Romans 14, Heb 4 and Col 2 in my head.
> 
> I have head that the Sabbath observance is more than the 4th commandment, is this true? That it is some sort of "necessary consequence" deduced form creation ordinance. I honestly do not know what that sophist statement means, but I wont argue.
> 
> So this sabbath ordinance prescribed in the 4th commandment, was there more that the Israelites were required to do?
> 
> How many sabbaths are included in the 4th commandment? Is this sabbath prescribed in the 4th commandment Law? As equal to the sabbath year? Lev.25:17....Israel is instructed to number seven times seven Sabbath years (49) and the following year is the Jubilee (50th year) which would be observed by no sowing or reaping. All slaves were to be released, and the land they purchased is to be returned to the original owner. All the debts were to be forgiven.
> 
> Are these sabbaths different that the creation ordinance which has been imported to be the 4th commandment?




The second question is pretty straightforward. The fourth commandment in Ex. 20 explicitly states "the Sabbath day" in Hebrew and ties it directly to the 6 days work of God at creation. It only applies to the one day out of seven, not to any other of the numerous "sabbaths." 

As for the first question, I don't really understand. Are you asking was there more required than what is stated in scripture? If so, no.


----------



## historyb

joshua said:


> historyb said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of the Law are we still burdened under, are we not free from the Law? Is not the sabbath made for man and not man made for the sabbath? Is it me or are Reformed more into legalism than other branches?
> 
> I'll most likely get beaten down, but these are my thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> So _how_ do we determine how "much of the Law" we are no longer bound unto? The Sabbath was _indeed_ made for man. Six days thou shalt labor. Who wouldn't want a Sabbath after six days of work? How is that man being made for the Sabbath and not vice versa? How can you call something which is explicitly God's Law, legalistic? I thought legalism was trying to make commandments and doctrines out of the traditions of men?
Click to expand...


To me legalism is trying to make more out of something than it is. Are we under the law of the OT or the new law of Grace, Paul said forsake not to assembling of yourself together but he didn't say you must do it like the Romans do. Was Christ wrong to have his Apostles pick grain on the Sabbath, is it to be so strict that we no longer get anything out of observing it.

In my view, and this is just me. Since Sabbath doesn't really exist and now we have the Lord's Day and Sunday all those rules are negated, maybe it's just me not being a Sabbathtarian (sic).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

You guys who are quoting the Colosians and Hebrew versess need to know that there are legitimate discussions and commentaries that support a sabbatarian view. I read an article by Robert P. Martin in the Reformed Baptist Theological review that he spoke on these verses. Here is just a quote.


vl. 1.2 A Sabbath Remains.. The Place of Hebrews 4:9 in the New Testament's Witness to the Lord's Day by Robert P. Martin
(Heb 4:9) There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

In it he notes the Word is used here is σαββατισμός and not κατάπαυσις

(rest).
G4520
σαββατισμός
sabbatismos

This is an obscure term evidently that is used in just a few other places outside of the scriptures but used only once in the New Testament. Robert Martin says,



> "I think that it is of interest that "in each of these places the term [σαββατισμός] denotes the observance or celebration of the Sabbath," i.e., not "a Sabbath rest" as a state that is entered into but "a Sabbath-keeping" as a practice that is observed. This, of course, corresponds to the word's morphology, for the suffix -μός indicates an action and not just a state. see A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 151.
> Reformed Baptist Theological Review Vl. 1;2 p.5



Obviously the article consists of the surrounding verses but it is a good read and quotes John Owen who is one of my faves.

And the Colosians verse is tied to an old testament reference. I will write more on this later. As I am going to Church here in a little bit and I am going to have to find the references to it. 

Sorry but I have been hitting the board very sporadically and inconsistent since before Thanksgiving. I am getting stuff done in light of possible surgery that I am possibly going to do. So don't be disappointed if I don't get back to answer this tonight. I will answer this. I even got a baptism thread that needs to be attended to with Calvin and Hobbes. I am such a slacker.


----------



## historyb

> Forgot to address this in my last post. The Law of the Lord is perfect. Jesus is perfect. Thus, Jesus _couldn't_ have been breaking the 4th Commandment. He may have been violating the Pharisees' _poor interpretation_ of the 4th Commandment, but He ceratinly wasn't breaking God's Law. It was a work of _necessity_, the same as pulling an ass or an ox out a ditch. In fact, he even alluded to David's eating the show bread, if I'm not mistaken. This wasn't sin either. So this allusion has no bearing on the validity of Sabbath keeping for New Testament Christians.



Seems to here though, maybe I'm not reformed enough to keep every jot and tittle of the Law.


----------



## historyb

No, but I sure don't follow closely as some here do. Makes me think there is something wrong somewhere.


----------



## Amazing Grace

victorbravo said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could a strict sab answer a couple questions for me please? Out of the gate, so there is no decpetion in this post as if I am setting up a bait and switch, I am a non sab. Yet I do not call those who are in question as being pharisees. Even when 'rebuked or admonished" becasue of my stance, I smile and re read Romans 14, Heb 4 and Col 2 in my head.
> 
> I have head that the Sabbath observance is more than the 4th commandment, is this true? That it is some sort of "necessary consequence" deduced form creation ordinance. I honestly do not know what that sophist statement means, but I wont argue.
> 
> So this sabbath ordinance prescribed in the 4th commandment, was there more that the Israelites were required to do?
> 
> How many sabbaths are included in the 4th commandment? Is this sabbath prescribed in the 4th commandment Law? As equal to the sabbath year? Lev.25:17....Israel is instructed to number seven times seven Sabbath years (49) and the following year is the Jubilee (50th year) which would be observed by no sowing or reaping. All slaves were to be released, and the land they purchased is to be returned to the original owner. All the debts were to be forgiven.
> 
> Are these sabbaths different that the creation ordinance which has been imported to be the 4th commandment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second question is pretty straightforward. The fourth commandment in Ex. 20 explicitly states "the Sabbath day" in Hebrew and ties it directly to the 6 days work of God at creation. It only applies to the one day out of seven, not to any other of the numerous "sabbaths."
> 
> As for the first question, I don't really understand. Are you asking was there more required than what is stated in scripture? If so, no.
Click to expand...



Vic, I am asking what did the Israelites do on the sabbath day and was there a preparing for it the day before.


----------



## ReformedWretch

It seems to me that the "bottom line" is that the Lord need give you this desire, or passion. Now understand when I say what I am about to say I am *NOT* comparing these two things, just the "feeling" I have inside myself about each being similar. 

When I was in charismatic churches I never spoke in tongues (thankfully) but was told that I needed to just "trust God" and it would "just happen". It never did. Back then I thought there must be something wrong with me. I feel the same now about this. I just can't see this strict adherence as something to pursue or seek to have for myself, but if I just believe, and trust God (I know some may wish to say "repent" even) that as a follower of Christ it will just come to me.

If it never does, should I question my salvation the way I was told to do as a charismatic?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Amazing Grace said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry that you took it that way. My apology to Bob was over a technical matter and not the question of this thread - so they are not connected.
> 
> As I understand it - the Three Forms of Unity agree with the Westminster standards on this particular matter. I used the term "libertine" in quotes to show that I was not utilizing the full force of the term. A person who breaks the Commandment in the name of "Christian Freedom" is technically a "libertine." You would have to explain yourself concerning that this "is not proper at all."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not proper becasue both parties do nto start with the same premise regarding the perpetual observance of the 4th commandment in the New Covenant. There they are "technically" not breakign a commandment. There is no sin where there is no Law.
> 
> HC:
> LORD’S DAY 38
> 
> Q. 103. What doth God require in the fourth commandment?
> 
> A. First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained;1 and that I, especially on the sabbath, that is, on the day of rest,2 diligently frequent the church of God,3 to hear His word, to use the sacraments, publicly to call upon the Lord,4 and contribute to the relief of the poor,5 as becomes a Christian. Secondly, that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by His Holy Spirit in me; and thus begin in this life the eternal sabbath.6
> 
> Article 25: Of the abolishing of the Ceremonial Law.
> 
> We believe, that the ceremonies and figures of the law ceased at the coming of Christ, and that all the shadows are accomplished; so that the use of them must be abolished amongst Christians; yet the truth and substance of them remain with us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have their completion. In the meantime, we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets, to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honesty, to the glory of God, according to his will
> 
> This is all I find in the BC relating to Law...
> 
> And Dort mentions nothing.
> 
> 8. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. WCF
> 
> I see a big differnce actually.
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you argue that your "Christian Freedom" allows you to break the Sabbath command and do your own pleasure on the Lord's Day, then how can you enforce any of the other commands? The Bible links the commands together as I showed from the book of James. Jesus links the Commands together with the Command to Love as the fulfillment of the Law. One could simply say that it is a matter of Christian Freedom and claim the Command does not apply.
> 
> If you say that such is ridiculous, then that is my point. Why then do you say that watching football on Sunday is legitimate?
> 
> All sin is forgivable - even Ted Bundy's - whom I believe was truly repentant for his sins and is now with the Saints in Heaven.
> 
> Grace is truly Amazing isn't it?
> 
> -CH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is amazing. But again you are arguing from a different starting point.
> 
> Personally I am inclined, though not convince to start with Hosea 2:11
> 
> Hosea 2:11: “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her New Moons, her Sabbaths-- all her appointed feasts.”
> 
> DO you know how the Pharisee perverted the sabbath regulation? They actually had a list of over 1500 do's and don'ts for the Sabbath. Some of their Sabbath don'ts: don't rescue a drowning man; don't light a candle (but a Gentile could be hired to do this); don't walk any farther than is absolutely necessary; don't pluck heads of grain; and, what is my personal favorite, don't give birth.
Click to expand...


Hi:

I find your post most increddible. From Ursinus' commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism:



> _Keep holy._ To keep holy the Sabbath, is not to spend the day in slothfulness and idleness (watching football?); but to avoid sin, and to perform such works as are holy. God is said to sanctify the Sabbath differently from what men do. God is said to sanctify the Sabbath, because he institutes it for divine worship. Men are said to sanctify it, when they devote it to the purpose for which God instituted it.
> _Six days shalt thou labor._ God allots six days for labor, the seventh he claims for divine worship; not that he would teach that the worship of God and meditation upon divine things is to be omitted on all other days beside the Sabbath, but, 1. That there might not only be a private worship of God on the Sabbath as at other times, but that public worship might also be observed in the church. 2. That all those other works which men ordinarily perform on the other days of the week, might on the Sabbath give place to the private and public worship of God.
> _Thou shalt do no manner of work._ When God forbids us to work on the Sabbath day, he does not forbid every kind of work, but only such works as are servile - such as hinder the worship of God, and the design and use of the ministry of the church. That this is the true sense of this command is evident from what is expressly said in other portions of the Scripture. pg. 558. parenthesis mine.


Apparently, your understanding of the Heidelberg Catechism is radically different from that of the writers of it.

What is really bizarre is what you wrote here:



> It is not proper becasue both parties do nto start with the same premise regarding the perpetual observance of the 4th commandment in the New Covenant.


Because two different parties start with two different premises means that one of them cannot call the other to repentance? Hmmm. Since Jesus had a different premise concerning the Sabbath than the Pharisees, then it was not proper for him to condemn them? Hmmmm. Since you have a different premise concerning Murder than Ted Bundy it is not proper for you to condemn him? Hmmmm.

That one party is in error concerning the observance of the Sabbath means that it is "inappropriate" to rebuke such? Your view of what is proper and not proper is flawed. In fact, it is not proper of you to rebuke me based on your own view of propriety. Your view leaves a vacuum between oposing viewpoints.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

CalvinandHodges said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry that you took it that way. My apology to Bob was over a technical matter and not the question of this thread - so they are not connected.
> 
> As I understand it - the Three Forms of Unity agree with the Westminster standards on this particular matter. I used the term "libertine" in quotes to show that I was not utilizing the full force of the term. A person who breaks the Commandment in the name of "Christian Freedom" is technically a "libertine." You would have to explain yourself concerning that this "is not proper at all."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not proper becasue both parties do nto start with the same premise regarding the perpetual observance of the 4th commandment in the New Covenant. There they are "technically" not breakign a commandment. There is no sin where there is no Law.
> 
> HC:
> LORD’S DAY 38
> 
> Q. 103. What doth God require in the fourth commandment?
> 
> A. First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained;1 and that I, especially on the sabbath, that is, on the day of rest,2 diligently frequent the church of God,3 to hear His word, to use the sacraments, publicly to call upon the Lord,4 and contribute to the relief of the poor,5 as becomes a Christian. Secondly, that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by His Holy Spirit in me; and thus begin in this life the eternal sabbath.6
> 
> Article 25: Of the abolishing of the Ceremonial Law.
> 
> We believe, that the ceremonies and figures of the law ceased at the coming of Christ, and that all the shadows are accomplished; so that the use of them must be abolished amongst Christians; yet the truth and substance of them remain with us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have their completion. In the meantime, we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets, to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honesty, to the glory of God, according to his will
> 
> This is all I find in the BC relating to Law...
> 
> And Dort mentions nothing.
> 
> 8. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. WCF
> 
> I see a big differnce actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is amazing. But again you are arguing from a different starting point.
> 
> Personally I am inclined, though not convince to start with Hosea 2:11
> 
> Hosea 2:11: “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her New Moons, her Sabbaths-- all her appointed feasts.”
> 
> DO you know how the Pharisee perverted the sabbath regulation? They actually had a list of over 1500 do's and don'ts for the Sabbath. Some of their Sabbath don'ts: don't rescue a drowning man; don't light a candle (but a Gentile could be hired to do this); don't walk any farther than is absolutely necessary; don't pluck heads of grain; and, what is my personal favorite, don't give birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> I find your post most increddible. From Ursinus' commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Keep holy._ To keep holy the Sabbath, is not to spend the day in slothfulness and idleness (watching football?); but to avoid sin, and to perform such works as are holy. God is said to sanctify the Sabbath differently from what men do. God is said to sanctify the Sabbath, because he institutes it for divine worship. Men are said to sanctify it, when they devote it to the purpose for which God instituted it.
> _Six days shalt thou labor._ God allots six days for labor, the seventh he claims for divine worship; not that he would teach that the worship of God and meditation upon divine things is to be omitted on all other days beside the Sabbath, but, 1. That there might not only be a private worship of God on the Sabbath as at other times, but that public worship might also be observed in the church. 2. That all those other works which men ordinarily perform on the other days of the week, might on the Sabbath give place to the private and public worship of God.
> _Thou shalt do no manner of work._ When God forbids us to work on the Sabbath day, he does not forbid every kind of work, but only such works as are servile - such as hinder the worship of God, and the design and use of the ministry of the church. That this is the true sense of this command is evident from what is expressly said in other portions of the Scripture. pg. 558. parenthesis mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, your understanding of the Heidelberg Catechism is radically different from that of the writers of it.
> 
> What is really bizarre is what you wrote here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not proper becasue both parties do nto start with the same premise regarding the perpetual observance of the 4th commandment in the New Covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because two different parties start with two different premises means that one of them cannot call the other to repentance? Hmmm. Since Jesus had a different premise concerning the Sabbath than the Pharisees, then it was not proper for him to condemn them? Hmmmm. Since you have a different premise concerning Murder than Ted Bundy it is not proper for you to condemn him? Hmmmm.
> 
> That one party is in error concerning the observance of the Sabbath means that it is "inappropriate" to rebuke such? Your view of what is proper and not proper is flawed. In fact, it is not proper of you to rebuke me based on your own view of propriety. Your view leaves a vacuum between oposing viewpoints.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
Click to expand...

So now we're comparing playing catch with your son or a game of dominoes on Sunday to Ted Bundy? That seems like quite an acrobatic hoop.


----------



## BJClark

houseparent;



> If it never does, should I question my salvation the way I was told to do as a charismatic?



I don't think so no...

Here is a link on the Jewish Observances of the Sabbath...sounds like many of them are just as confused as what is acceptable and what is not..

MyJewishLearning.com - Daily Life: Many Ways to Celebrate Shabbat


----------



## CalvinandHodges

No Longer A Libertine said:


> So now we're comparing playing catch with your son or a game of dominoes on Sunday to Ted Bundy? That seems like quite an acrobatic hoop.



Teaching your child to disobey God on the Sabbath day is a form of spiritual murder. Ted Bundy could only affect the body, but you would be destroying a soul.

Which is worse?

-CH


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

CalvinandHodges said:


> So now we're comparing playing catch with your son or a game of dominoes on Sunday to Ted Bundy? That seems like quite an acrobatic hoop.
> 
> Teaching your child to disobey God on the Sabbath day is a form of spiritual murder. Ted Bundy could only affect the body, but you would be destroying a soul.
> 
> Which is worse?
> 
> -CH


You have failed to prove God is dishonored by bonding with a child on a Sunday, that seems rather fatherly to me actually.

Perhaps you are not personally a task master but I know some of my most edifying conversations have been in the midst of playfulness and other activities that involve community.

Fellowshipping doesn't necessarily involve words, we can glorify God and bond together just by being present and working together in nonverbal ways such as sport or competition.

Declaring someone a murderer because you are unable to wrap your mind around how one could love their child Biblically on a Sunday and play with them is absurd and I'm sorry to say comes across very very smarmy.


----------



## Amazing Grace

CalvinandHodges said:


> I find your post most increddible. From Ursinus' commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Keep holy._ To keep holy the Sabbath, is not to spend the day in slothfulness and idleness (watching football?); but to avoid sin, and to perform such works as are holy. God is said to sanctify the Sabbath differently from what men do. God is said to sanctify the Sabbath, because he institutes it for divine worship. Men are said to sanctify it, when they devote it to the purpose for which God instituted it.
> _Six days shalt thou labor._ God allots six days for labor, the seventh he claims for divine worship; not that he would teach that the worship of God and meditation upon divine things is to be omitted on all other days beside the Sabbath, but, 1. That there might not only be a private worship of God on the Sabbath as at other times, but that public worship might also be observed in the church. 2. That all those other works which men ordinarily perform on the other days of the week, might on the Sabbath give place to the private and public worship of God.
> _Thou shalt do no manner of work._ When God forbids us to work on the Sabbath day, he does not forbid every kind of work, but only such works as are servile - such as hinder the worship of God, and the design and use of the ministry of the church. That this is the true sense of this command is evident from what is expressly said in other portions of the Scripture. pg. 558. parenthesis mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, your understanding of the Heidelberg Catechism is radically different from that of the writers of it.
Click to expand...


Actually he does not speak of the duration, and stresses the fact of worshipping the Lord. Secondly, the work that was spoken by God was what is ORDINARILY done as occupation. Nothing more nothing less



CalvinandHodges said:


> Because two different parties start with two different premises means that one of them cannot call the other to repentance? Hmmm. Since Jesus had a different premise concerning the Sabbath than the Pharisees, then it was not proper for him to condemn them? Hmmmm. Since you have a different premise concerning Murder than Ted Bundy it is not proper for you to condemn him? Hmmmm.



Do you know what Jesus was condemning? I suggest you read some 1st semester rabbinical literature to understand the meaning of shabbat halacha. Jesus was condemning the pharisees becasue they utilyzed the oral law in conjunction with the written law. That is the meaning of Christ's words, "It has been said" vs It has been written.. There is a big big difference. Christ has John the Baptist theology in this respect. 

Ch, this is like arguing the truth of the book a Maccabees with a roman catholic. It cannot be done. It is not in a protty bible, but it is in theirs. So without a level beginning, it is impossible to dialogue correctly. Jesus could do as He pleased, He is God. But He did not condemn for the same reasons you condemn a non sab.




CalvinandHodges said:


> That one party is in error concerning the observance of the Sabbath means that it is "inappropriate" to rebuke such? Your view of what is proper and not proper is flawed. In fact, it is not proper of you to rebuke me based on your own view of propriety. Your view leaves a vacuum between oposing viewpoints.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH




It appears that more emphasis is put on showing the error ina brother vs showing your opine to be right, when in fact they are both Arguements for the sake of Heaven. Christian Liberty proponents should not regard strict sabs to be in error, well at least I do not.

_Where as statements like this:Teaching your child to disobey God on the Sabbath day is a form of spiritual murder. Ted Bundy could only affect the body, but you would be destroying a soul.

Which is worse?_

sound like Moses' first cousin Korach who lead a rebellion against Moses and Aaron described in chapters 16 and 17 of the book of Numbers. While Korach(you CH) claims to be out for the good of the entire community,(upholding the 4th commandment and making it binding and a burden) he is in reality only interested in displacing Moses as the highest human authority. 

You see the connection? Boht the Saducee and Pharisee started with the same root. They both believed in the 7th day. It is just you add the commandments of men, like the pharisee, which is not bad per se', as equally binding as the written Law.

Let me give you another example. A LAw stated that no commerce was to be done on the 7th day. Thats all the saducee would say, then the pharisee added that noone could carry money on the 7th day. Now their goal was to 'add' something to bind the people not as a burden, but only to reinforce the root of no commerce on the sabbath. So being a pharisee is not as bad as people make it to be. Obviously Christ was against them becasue He did not favor the oral law..


----------



## mshingler

They would appeal to passages such as Romans 14 and Colossians 2:16 in support of the idea that the Sabbath is no longer obligatory.[/QUOTE]

Speaking as one who comes from a dispensational background, I would say that it's much more than these passages. The argument is that the 10 commandments were given to Israel and not to the church. Therefore, the only reason the other 9 commandments would be obligatory is because they are specifically repeated in the New Testament, in some form. Hence, the law, as contained in the 10 commandments, is not the rule of life for the Christian. The commands of the New Testament are. 
I don't subscribe to this view. I'm just familiar with it as most of my Christian friends and acquaintances would hold to it.


----------



## mshingler

*Liberty?*

I don't personally think that the Sabbath or "Lord's Day" is a question of liberty, even though sincere believers differ in their views and convictions about it. When I look at Rom. 14 and 1Cor. 8-10 (which I just finished preaching through), I find issues that are clearly acceptable. That is, the issues Paul describes under Christian Liberty are things that Christians undoubtedly are free to do, but some still have a weak conscience about. When it comes to the Sabbath issue, it's a matter of different biblical interpretation - a theological difference. I would say that, in order for it to be a matter of liberty, it has to be something that is clearly allowed - something that is neutral in and of itself. 
I think we are too quick to lump everything that Christians disagree about into the context of "liberty". We can honestly disagree about the Sabbath, but that disagreement falls in a different category than whether 1st Century Christians could eat meat or whether a Christian can have a glass of wine.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

*Hold On!!!*

I'm about to go high and to the right. Both sides of this debate are really starting to make me quite angry. I've banned three users from this thread to try to restore civil dialogue and send people to their corners on this.

There are a number of things that really irk me about responses to some things that ought to be understood and embraced by Christians regardless of scruples on a certain issue. I am honestly sick and tired of it. Some of us may have to agree to disagree if this is going to be a long term modus operandi and part ways and, guess what, as the Admin of this board I'm staying put. I hate to be this blunt but we have to agree on certain fundamentals or we'll just alway butt heads and there is a reason why there are certain Confessional requirements on this board.

1. The attitude that "...well I guess I'll just have to get some divine light to be as Reformed as you guys..." is snide and childish and people who make such comments don't know what Spirit they are a part of. It absolutely floors me that someone could read the Scriptures, understand Pauline theology concerning how the Gospel is an announcement of God's grace to save us from the condemnation of the Law, and then hear Paul's delight for the things of God as redeemed, grateful saints turn back to the God who saved them and ask _eagerly_: "What might we do to serve you."

I've tried carefully, over and over, in this thread to give a mature expression of it. I avoid giving hard and fast do's and don'ts because hard and fast do's and don'ts in terms of how to approach a particular command are for the immature. They are for children. I tell my child when to cross the road and when not to. At some point, he becomes mature enough to do things on his own. Every law begins at the point of do's and don'ts and people are still asking what the do's and don'ts are on a precise basis and when I direct them to the goal of maturity to let their hearts and minds _be transformed and renewed_ (Romans 12:1-2) they look at me as if _I_ made up the idea and I'm talking about some sort of gnostic gift that some have and others don't. None of us have it in perfection but it is our _pursuit_. If it is written off, _a priori_, as something "not for me" then I just simply don't understand that spirit in a Christian man at all. I'm not asking anyone to believe just like Rich on a particular point of the Sabbath observance but I am demanding that each of us live as if we believe the Gospel and the power of God in the Gospel to sanctify His Saints.

On this note, I'm also a bit tired of people who simply will not acknowledge that there is any need for maturity in this or any matter and that when the point comes forward it is offensive to them that anyone would note that. OK, revelation here: I'm immature and I need maturity. Does that make everyone feel better? I assume that when I'm using such terms that people are reading enough Paul, Peter, and James to realize that the Apostles enjoin us all to mature and that we shouldn't be too proud to hear that we're still very much immature and don't love the things of God the way we ought. There is a poisonous attitude among many Christians that somehow saving faith entails that you've gotten to the minimum bar of what God measures your faith against and that everything after that is simply gravy. We always want to ask the question: how much faith does that person need to do so we can determine the lowest common denominator and then let's not be bothered about much beyond that point.

Beloved, this is not Christianity. It's not that our sanctification saves us but a heart that is not desirous of pursuing the things of God and being transformed by the Scriptures is not a heart that has faith. It is a dead faith. It is a faith that says it has faith while others have works. Calvin and Luther and all the Reformers had to rail against the Roman Catholics who would say that all they wanted was a get out of jail free card that gave them every opportunity to sin now because all they had to do was claim faith. Paul, in fact, reports that this is exactly how he was slandered.

But the Gospel is life and it produces fruits, it produces desires. It doesn't look back on itself as I've noted over and over and over again to people struggling with their sin. By fixing its attention upon the work of Christ, thanksgiving gives way to a desire to serve God. It gives way to a desire to put to death the body of sin that dwells within us and not give excuse that we already did our minimum so what's the big deal of sin remains. Put very simply, the Reformed faith is not an excuse for anti-nominianism where we're content to just do whatever we want because we have faith. Faith is the fruit of a heart transformed and transformed hearts hate sin. I don't look at the Law as a way to save me but it does constantly reveal the sin that still remains and so I go CONSTANTLY to the foot of the cross and repent of my sins and thank Jesus that He is delivering me from this body of death. But I also remember that, when I'm tempted to sin, that I'm united to Christ and I am now a slave to Christ and not a slave to sin and I pray for the Grace to hate my sin and to love the things that God loves.

2. The kind of rhetoric that I feared would happen from the strict Sabbatarians here is occurring. One thing I've learned very recently is that technical accuracy does not always build up the Saints that you think you're building up. We are called to be tender-hearted and bear with one another. I'm not honestly willing to grant that every list of do's and don'ts that people have come up with and say: "This honors the Sabbath" does indeed honor the Sabbath. That may be the beginning of honoring the Sabbath but is not the end of it. We simply cannot measure the end of the law in loving our God with our heart, soul, and mind with a "one size fits all" list. I think it's a good starting point to begin teaching the immature how to love Him while one patiently explains how each scruple is an aid to disciplining but when the list becomes the end then the goal of maturity is left behind. This is why I've stated that the kind of growth that I'm talking about is best handled in a pastoral setting. You simply cannot judge a person's heart by the list he keeps and you can't sanctify a man by giving him a list.

I also think that, in a perfect world, the most sanctified Sabbatarians would be attracting others to their conclusions by the witness of their Christian lives. Mature people sometimes have to rebuke a petulant spirit in the immature but when we're obeying as to the Lord then we stop getting so uptight and _personally_ angry about immaturity in others.

Just because people have come to personal convictions in this matter and are in congregations where strictness is observed in this area they ought not to think too highly of themselves as having received an instant "maturity" card. Wisdom is not measured in our ability to know the rules and tell others what the rules are. If you love the Law from a redeemed heart then start expressing that love of the Lord by being as patient and loving to your neighbor and showing him _why_ you delight in these things and not telling him to just get on board.

3. Finally, I am tired of warning about the labels with particular attention to the label of Pharisaism. Everyone needs to be responsible for their own tone and conduct. This is one line that has been clearly drawn. Just as there is a mature understanding of the Law, it takes a bit of maturity to understand what it is that is Pharisaical and what it is that is not. Some people might be immature in how they present things and they might have some need to reflect back on the genesis of their convictions but not every helpful principle that a person doesn't immediately understand or agree with is an addition to the Word of God. Be careful. I'm tired of warning about it.

In conclusion, I woke up this AM and sighed with sadness when I read this thread. I had hoped the discussion would be more irenic with people trying to help others understand why they believe the Sabbath is a delight to God. I understand the inherent impatience but if people can't express the mature goal in mind then maybe they have no business in trying to promote the techniques to get to that goal until they do. I've already expressed my disappointment in those with folded arms that see any expression that we should desire maturity as a goal so I'll leave it here.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

OK, thread bans lifted. Go back to _discussing_ this issue and refraining from turning phrases that immediately inflame and label.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

mshingler said:


> I don't personally think that the Sabbath or "Lord's Day" is a question of liberty, even though sincere believers differ in their views and convictions about it. When I look at Rom. 14 and 1Cor. 8-10 (which I just finished preaching through), I find issues that are clearly acceptable. That is, the issues Paul describes under Christian Liberty are things that Christians undoubtedly are free to do, but some still have a weak conscience about. When it comes to the Sabbath issue, it's a matter of different biblical interpretation - a theological difference. I would say that, in order for it to be a matter of liberty, it has to be something that is clearly allowed - something that is neutral in and of itself.
> I think we are too quick to lump everything that Christians disagree about into the context of "liberty". We can honestly disagree about the Sabbath, but that disagreement falls in a different category than whether 1st Century Christians could eat meat or whether a Christian can have a glass of wine.



 Don't want you to think I was responding to you. My post came after a litany of others and took a long time to type.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Welcome to the club. Nobody, other than Christ is able to keep the Law. Nor are we able to "be perfect" as our Father in heaven is perfect. Nonetheless, we are commanded to be so. Do you cease from trying to be holy, just because your unable to attain it fully? Surely not.



An illustration from a Paul Washer sermon that come to mind when I read this: A child trying to walk in the footsteps of his father through the snow. He can't keep up, or land in the footsteps exactly; Dad's strides are simply too long, but anyone watching can tell that the child is trying.

As for the meals on Sunday, we try to put things in a crock pot so Elizabeth doesn't have to cook. We do use normal dishes and while we pay the kids for doing dishes 6 days of the week, we tell them that on the Sabbath it is a service to their family and not paid. That being said, I don't think that we would have any problem with cooking all day on the Sabbath if it was to bring a meal to a sick friend. It would keep us focused on God and charity to others; I think that Christ's act of healing on the Sabbath sets a great example here. (Sorry, may be a bit off topic now, just touching on some earlier points before all the .)


----------



## ReformedWretch

> I am demanding that each of us live as if we believe the Gospel and the power of God in the Gospel to sanctify His Saints.



Who here doesn't live this way? I think this is part of the issue in regard to this discussion. For example, I don't want to imply that you (or others) have something (a gift maybe as you said) that I don't have, but when statements are made about "maturity" and demanding we (non-sabbatarians) "believe the Gospel and the power of God in the Gospel to sanctify His Saints" as if we don't believe that because..why..because we're not sabbatarians, it's a little frustrating and leads one to start to think that you must have something we don't.

I love the PB, always have, but it's weakness has always been the same. In the pursuit of holiness we can all sound "holier than thou". I trust that no one here is but I know may are impatient. When that happens, it's often insulting to those willing to consider a view they don't currently subscribe to and shuts down much of that willingness.

Rich-I know you're trying here, but I think you need to be even more patient and understanding especially with the view that is the opposite of yours. I don't think those of us who feel "left out" are trying to insult you or others. I know I'm not. I simply speak in regard to my frustration. You've said your self here-



> If it is written off, a priori, as something "not for me" then I just simply don't understand that spirit in a Christian man at all.



There's a mistake there. you assume some are "writing it off" I don't know, maybe someone is, but I am not. Maybe, as you also said, I am very immature. If it helps to say that as you implied, there, I've said it too. However, if it is immaturity that keeps me from grasping this, then shouldn't you and others be more tolerant, patient, and kind? I work with teens for a living and when they don't understand something because of their maturity I can't get frustrated and angry even if their answers seem out of place or unfair. Wouldn't that be the automatic response an immature person would give until they have matured?

I find this same issue with baptism. So few here are willing to tolerate someone who struggles with the paedo baptism. Oh many do for a while, but then it eventually turns into something that at least "sounds like" -"You need to believe it because it's in the bible!" Very few have the patience or desire to walk with someone as long as it takes. That's the case here too.

I don't see ANY of this as butting heads. I see it as a struggle. If those of you are are sabbatarians are right, and "mature" in this area, then, like me as a house parent, you have to remain calm, continue to repeat yourselves, and pray. If the "immature" side speaks "immaturely" you can't be shocked by it and you certainly can't get angry about it. Unless you simply don't want to do this. Then you have to ban everyone who doesn't "get it" after a time that you've set for them to get it.

I hope this post doesn't annoy you further, and that you don't wonder how a Christian man can have this spirit.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

No Adam. It didn't annoy me. There were many other posts in that vein that were irking me.

I've tried over and over to get people to stop thinking about it as something that I want _them_ to do or what _I_ would do. The goal of maturity is for each to become convinced in his own mind.

My concern is that all are seeking maturity and that they aren't merely convinced because they feel they've arrived. I've been critical of both sides so I can hardly be accused of sitting on the strict Sabbatarian side with folded arms and yelling at people who "just don't get it." I've also noted the issue of maturity in both sides in this discussion.

I simply worry about some that have "shut down" an impulse to seek maturity and assume that it is impossible for desires to be changed. I agree that, in general, I need to be patient with men but, after a certain amount of time some attitudes need to be openly rebuked because they simply cannot go on with a "prove that I need to be maturing" attitude. This was not all directed at you.


----------



## tdowns

*Fun = Not Holy*

I've always wondered (I know this is a detail) about the non-having fun aspect to some people's view of the Sabbath...I understand, keeping it Holy, I understand, no work...but to say, playing ball with your kids, or enjoying nature in a fun way, is not HOLY. I thought we were called to live Holy lives everyday, yet, one thing I enjoy about Reformed folk, is the ability, to enjoy life, a glass of wine, a cigar, things of pleasure, for enjoyment sake, if that fits in with a HOLY LIFE, then why not on a HOLY DAY.

So, can HOLY, be RECREATIONAL....on any day? If so, why not the HOLY DAY?

Is there a scripture that clearly states, we should not do recreational things, I know it's in some of the confessions.

Like some posters have mentioned, and I agree, my best prayer, and thoughts on God, come when I'm running or biking, my greatest praise and thanks, when I'm surfing, my greatest humility and cries for grace and mercy when I'm hanging with my kids, and crying out for their salvation.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Thanks Rich

I didn't think your post was "directed" at me, but I know I struggle with this issue as some who have posted here do. I think I keep my frustration in check, but I do feel that if this is something God "gives" you in His grace, I've simply not gotten it yet. If you and others don't feel that's how it's obtained then it's my mistake for saying it that way. 

I can pray and read scripture all day and still not be convinced of paedo baptism or sabbaterianism. I am not saying I never will be, but if it's a maturity issue I must spiritually be 8 or 9 years old I guess.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

houseparent said:


> Thanks Rich
> 
> I didn't think your post was "directed" at me, but I know I struggle with this issue as some who have posted here do. I think I keep my frustration in check, but I do feel that if this is something God "gives" you in His grace, I've simply not gotten it yet. If you and others don't feel that's how it's obtained then it's my mistake for saying it that way.
> 
> I can pray and read scripture all day and still not be convinced of paedo baptism or sabbaterianism. I am not saying I never will be, but if it's a maturity issue I must spiritually be 8 or 9 years old I guess.



Well, don't misunderstand me. I'm not talking about this as if it's some sort of "second blessing" that will suddenly dawn on a man's mind. Sanctification is much more subtle and glacial at times.

There are certain things that cloud our understanding of things. Just recently, I had some major ephiphanies about some things that came about through the massive convergence of many different sad events in my life that revealed tremendous selfishness and sin in my heart. It really opened my eyes to not only my sin but also to what the Scriptures were really teaching me about some things that I thought I had understood previously.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Understood.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

tdowns007 said:


> I've always wondered (I know this is a detail) about the non-having fun aspect to some people's view of the Sabbath...I understand, keeping it Holy, I understand, no work...but to say, playing ball with your kids, or enjoying nature in a fun way, is not HOLY. I thought we were called to live Holy lives everyday, yet, one thing I enjoy about Reformed folk, is the ability, to enjoy life, a glass of wine, a cigar, things of pleasure, for enjoyment sake, if that fits in with a HOLY LIFE, then why not on a HOLY DAY.
> 
> So, can HOLY, be RECREATIONAL....on any day? If so, why not the HOLY DAY?
> 
> Is there a scripture that clearly states, we should not do recreational things, I know it's in some of the confessions.
> 
> Like some posters have mentioned, and I agree, my best prayer, and thoughts on God, come when I'm running or biking, my greatest praise and thanks, when I'm surfing, my greatest humility and cries for grace and mercy when I'm hanging with my kids, and crying out for their salvation.


Great points, what about the joys of the marriage bed as well, anyone who understands the privileges of marital intimacy knows full well it is pleasing to God for married people to consummate their relationship with great frequency and at their discretion, it is an act of worship and it is good in every way and it so happens to be by divine design pleasurable as well as sacred.


----------



## Iconoclast

tdowns007 said:


> I've always wondered (I know this is a detail) about the non-having fun aspect to some people's view of the Sabbath...I understand, keeping it Holy, I understand, no work...but to say, playing ball with your kids, or enjoying nature in a fun way, is not HOLY. I thought we were called to live Holy lives everyday, yet, one thing I enjoy about Reformed folk, is the ability, to enjoy life, a glass of wine, a cigar, things of pleasure, for enjoyment sake, if that fits in with a HOLY LIFE, then why not on a HOLY DAY.
> 
> So, can HOLY, be RECREATIONAL....on any day? If so, why not the HOLY DAY?
> 
> Is there a scripture that clearly states, we should not do recreational things, I know it's in some of the confessions.
> 
> Like some posters have mentioned, and I agree, my best prayer, and thoughts on God, come when I'm running or biking, my greatest praise and thanks, when I'm surfing, my greatest humility and cries for grace and mercy when I'm hanging with my kids, and crying out for their salvation.



I think many can agree that someone walking around with a prune face, and morbid does not bring Glory to God. I had mentioned earlier a small paperback by Walter Chantry, on Calling the sabbath a delight,as per Isa 58:13-14


> 13 “ If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath,
> From doing your pleasure on My holy day,
> And call the Sabbath a delight,
> The holy day of the LORD honorable,
> And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways,
> Nor finding your own pleasure,
> Nor speaking your own words,
> 14 Then you shall delight yourself in the LORD;
> And I will cause you to ride on the high hills of the earth,
> And feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father.
> The mouth of the LORD has spoken.”



Much of the discussion on this thread is answered in that small paperback. Many good discussion questions are addressed in the introduction alone. Some have offered very helpful ideas about dealing with how to keep the Lord's day. [keeping meals simple,crock pots etc., doing necessary work in the other six days, making preparation the night before. The idea of calling it a delight is a positive idea , of actively serving the Lord Jesus Christ. 

You get to set aside extra time for worship and study. You get to open your house up for hospitality to the visitor,or persons in need. You get to visit the sick, or those in prison,or a nursing home. Work schedules and family life during the other six days crowd out many of the good intentions we have. The setting apart or keeping The Lord's Day holy is more of a pre-planned disposition of mind to look for opportunities to do some of the "one anothering" verses we are told to do in scripture. The sabbath police are not coming around to check your list of what is permissible,or not. 

That is not the issue or should I say it should not be of primary concern. Some of the lists some come up with make me nervous, (ie should I cook, clean, think, drive, use toilet paper, laugh, cry?) The issue is what does the scripture indicate is allowed for us in the way of obedience to known commands? Some who say they hold to no sabbath/Lord's day wind up doing in practice what a sabbatarian does anyway. Some who say they hold to the confessional positions mentally,sometimes deny this in practice if the truth be known. 

I am learning that obedience brings blessing. I often come short of some spirituals goals I set. Even with this issue sometimes it seems like the more I try to adjust and prepare , making preparation in advance. It seems as if many obstacles press in - unsaved friends and family members requesting or putting demands upon my time. It is sort of like dieting. You start out well, lose a few pounds, then find the pounds again. Sometimes you have to set some goals that are easily attainable. This usually means advanced planning for the day. Food shopping, clothing choices,car maintenance etc. all done in advance. The more obstacles removed, the more time available to focus more on the spiritual aspects,or ministries available.

Many have referenced Rom 14 already,and here is a key section of it.


> 16Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
> 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
> 18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
> 19Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.



The context of the righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, is serving Christ,and edifying others. We should be doing this daily , but even more on the Lord's day


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Recreations; Sabbath Observance and Recreation*

These were posted on an old thread and I'm repeating them here as well, except for the first, I'm using the text from my online version. 


> *Samuel Miller, The Nature and Effects of the Stage, A Sermon, Delivered January 19, 1812**....*
> *-----------*
> The design of recreation, I mean the design of it in the view of the Christian, or even of the sober minded votary of mere natural religion, is not to kill time; but to refresh the body and mind, and to prepare them for the more vigorous and comfortable performance of duty. It follows, therefore, that recreations are lawful only so far as they are necessary and suitable for this purpose; of course, when they are either carried to such a length as to consume more time than we need to employ in this manner; or when they are of such a nature as to have no tendency to prepare either the body or the mind for the more easy, comfortable, and perfect discharge of the sober duties of life, but the contrary, they become wholly unjustifiable. They are a criminal waste of time; and to indulge in them is utterly unsuitable to the character of rational and accountable beings.


.


> *The Morality of the Fourth Commandment, as Still in Force to Brind Christians  (London: 1641) 242-244; 184. By William Twisse D. D. From An Anthology of Presbyterian & Reformed Literature 3.3 (1988) 79.
> -----------*
> [pp. 242-244] As for recreations, which are here said to serve lawfully to the refreshing of our spirits; this appellation is very ambiguous, neither do I know any difference between the recreating of our spirits, and the refreshing of our spirits. Yet here the refreshing of our spirits is made the end of recreation. Again it were good to distinguish between recreation of the body, and recreation of the mind. I think the refreshing of spirits pertains to the recreation of the body. Men's spirits are natural and material things, and they are apt to be wasted (1) naturally; for as life consists in _calido,_ in hot matter, so heat is apt to spend and waste the matter wherein it is; and spirits thus wasted are recreated, that is, repaired by eating and drinking. And thus provisions of victuals are commonly called recreates.
> 
> (2.) They are wasted also by labor voluntarily undertaken, and these are repaired, as by the former way, so by rest also. And each way we are allowed to recreate our spirits on the Lord's Day; and as to allow such rest to our servants as a work of mercy, so to our own bodies also. But now a-days many courses are called recreations, wherein there is found little rest; and the natural spirits of man are rather wasted, and his nature tired; far more than the one is repaired, or the other eased. And when all comes to all, I doubt the issue will be, to style the pleasures of our senses by the cleanly name of recreations.
> 
> Now the Jews were expressly forbidden _to find their own pleasures on the Lord´s holy day_ (Is. 58:13); yet were they not forbidden all pleasure, that belonged only to such a Sabbath as was a fast; and therein indeed hypocrites are taxed for finding pleasure on that day (Is. 58:3). But the weekly Sabbath was for pleasure and delight, but not for man's own pleasure, nor for the _doing of their own ways._ But to delight in the Lord, which is spiritual pleasure, and the recreating of our souls in the Lord. This is blessed rest, thus to rest unto him; and the Word of God is the best food of the soul. No recreations like unto God's holy ordinances. Of wisdom it is said, that _her ways are the ways of pleasantness_ (Pro. 3:17). I willing confess, that to the natural man, as _the things of God are foolishness, so the word of God is a reproach unto him. He hath no delight in it_ (1 Cor. 2:14; Jer. 6:10. He delights rather in carnal pleasures; and is it fit to humor him in such courses, and that on the Lord's day? Our Savior expressly tells us, that _The pleasures life choke the word, and make it become unfruitful _(Luke 8:14). Therefore it no way fits a man to God's service; and if way is opened to such courses, though not till after evening prayer, as many as are taken with them, will have their minds running upon them, so as to say, _when will the Sabbath be gone, _and the time of divine service over? That so they may come to their sports, as well as covetous persons longed after the like, that they may return to their trading.
> 
> A natural man, before his calling is described unto us in Scripture, to be such a one as _served lusts and diverse pleasures_ (Titus 3:3), and the wicked are said _to spend their days in pleasure _(Job 36:11); and such are they whom the Prophet describes after this manner, _Hear now thou that art given to pleasure _(Is. 47:8). As for the children of God, as they are renewed in their affections generally, so the matter of their delight is much altered. _His delight is in the law of the Lord _(Psa. 1:2); as Christ says, _I delight to do thy will_ (Psa. 40:1), and _I delight myself in thy statutes; thy testimonies are my delight; and I will delight myself in thy commandments _(Psa. 119:16, 24, 47), and _Thy comforts delight my soul _(Psa. 94:19). On the other side, the character of the fool is this, _He hath no delight m understanding _(Ps. 18.2). As for the reformation of such fools, let every wise and sober Christian consider, whether it is a fit course to let the reigns loose upon their neck, and give them liberty to take their courses, and not rather to endeavor to wean them therefrom by representing the vanity of them, witnessed by the experience of King Solomon, who was acquainted _with the delights of the sons of men _(Ecc. 2:8) as much as any, and tells us what fruit and profit he reaped by them, saying _vanity of vanities, all is but vanity; _and that the end of that discourse of his, is to promote this exhortation, _Fear God, and keep his commandments, For this is the whole [duty of] man. _Then on the other side, the blessed, the comfortable and only profitable condition of delighting in the Lord, in the judgment of David, the father of King Solomon, _Delight thou in the Lord, and he shall give thee thy heart's desire _(Ps. 37:4); to meet with the contrary judgment of carnal men, who say, _It profitteth not a man, that he should delight himself with God_ (Job 34:9). If it is said that such sports are tolerated to fit a man for his calling the day following; it is very strange that works of our calling should not _be permitted_ on any part of the Sabbath day, and sports and pastimes should. And shall not the spending of our time in God's service, not public only, but private also, far better fit us to serve God in the works of our calling, and make us more capable of his blessing upon our labors, than the exercising of ourselves in sports and pastimes.
> 
> [pp. 184] Lastly, all recreations are to this end, even to fit us to the works of our calling; either for the works of our particular callings, or the works of our callings, as we are Christians. Such sports, if they fit us for the service of God, were more seasonable in the morning than in the evening. If for the works of our particular calling, then are they inferior works to the works of our calling, the furthering whereof is their end; and the means are always inferior in dignity to the end. Now if the more noble works are forbidden on that day, how much more such as are inferior are forbidden? But it may be said, that men's minds being burdened, and oppressed with the former service of the day, therefore some relaxation is to be granted for the refreshing of our spirits; as much as to say, a part of the Lord's Day is to be allowed for profane sports and pastimes, to refresh us after we have been tired out with serving God. Can this be savory in the ears of a Christian?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Amazing Grace said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find your post most increddible. From Ursinus' commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Keep holy._ To keep holy the Sabbath, is not to spend the day in slothfulness and idleness (watching football?); but to avoid sin, and to perform such works as are holy. God is said to sanctify the Sabbath differently from what men do. God is said to sanctify the Sabbath, because he institutes it for divine worship. Men are said to sanctify it, when they devote it to the purpose for which God instituted it.
> _Six days shalt thou labor._ God allots six days for labor, the seventh he claims for divine worship; not that he would teach that the worship of God and meditation upon divine things is to be omitted on all other days beside the Sabbath, but, 1. That there might not only be a private worship of God on the Sabbath as at other times, but that public worship might also be observed in the church. 2. That all those other works which men ordinarily perform on the other days of the week, might on the Sabbath give place to the private and public worship of God.
> _Thou shalt do no manner of work._ When God forbids us to work on the Sabbath day, he does not forbid every kind of work, but only such works as are servile - such as hinder the worship of God, and the design and use of the ministry of the church. That this is the true sense of this command is evident from what is expressly said in other portions of the Scripture. pg. 558. parenthesis mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, your understanding of the Heidelberg Catechism is radically different from that of the writers of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually he does not speak of the duration, and stresses the fact of worshipping the Lord. Secondly, the work that was spoken by God was what is ORDINARILY done as occupation. Nothing more nothing less
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because two different parties start with two different premises means that one of them cannot call the other to repentance? Hmmm. Since Jesus had a different premise concerning the Sabbath than the Pharisees, then it was not proper for him to condemn them? Hmmmm. Since you have a different premise concerning Murder than Ted Bundy it is not proper for you to condemn him? Hmmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what Jesus was condemning? I suggest you read some 1st semester rabbinical literature to understand the meaning of shabbat halacha. Jesus was condemning the pharisees becasue they utilyzed the oral law in conjunction with the written law. That is the meaning of Christ's words, "It has been said" vs It has been written.. There is a big big difference. Christ has John the Baptist theology in this respect.
> 
> Ch, this is like arguing the truth of the book a Maccabees with a roman catholic. It cannot be done. It is not in a protty bible, but it is in theirs. So without a level beginning, it is impossible to dialogue correctly. Jesus could do as He pleased, He is God. But He did not condemn for the same reasons you condemn a non sab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> That one party is in error concerning the observance of the Sabbath means that it is "inappropriate" to rebuke such? Your view of what is proper and not proper is flawed. In fact, it is not proper of you to rebuke me based on your own view of propriety. Your view leaves a vacuum between oposing viewpoints.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that more emphasis is put on showing the error ina brother vs showing your opine to be right, when in fact they are both Arguements for the sake of Heaven. Christian Liberty proponents should not regard strict sabs to be in error, well at least I do not.
> 
> _Where as statements like this:Teaching your child to disobey God on the Sabbath day is a form of spiritual murder. Ted Bundy could only affect the body, but you would be destroying a soul.
> 
> Which is worse?_
> 
> sound like Moses' first cousin Korach who lead a rebellion against Moses and Aaron described in chapters 16 and 17 of the book of Numbers. While Korach(you CH) claims to be out for the good of the entire community,(upholding the 4th commandment and making it binding and a burden) he is in reality only interested in displacing Moses as the highest human authority.
> 
> You see the connection? Boht the Saducee and Pharisee started with the same root. They both believed in the 7th day. It is just you add the commandments of men, like the pharisee, which is not bad per se', as equally binding as the written Law.
> 
> Let me give you another example. A LAw stated that no commerce was to be done on the 7th day. Thats all the saducee would say, then the pharisee added that noone could carry money on the 7th day. Now their goal was to 'add' something to bind the people not as a burden, but only to reinforce the root of no commerce on the sabbath. So being a pharisee is not as bad as people make it to be. Obviously Christ was against them becasue He did not favor the oral law..
Click to expand...


Hi:

You have skillfully ignored the point, and the question on this thread. As far as the duration of the Sabbath goes it is irrelevant when considering the Sabbath "Holy." Since the Ursinus commentary I quoted does not address the duration of the Sabbath by bringing in this topic you have created a logical fallacy - irrelevant thesis.

The questions that you must answer are: What does it mean to keep the Sabbath Holy? and, Does my Christian Freedom allow me to watch Football on Sundays?

The Oral laws - if there was such a thing - has nothing to do with what I am saying. Again, you bring in an irrelevant thesis in order to avoid answering the question.

Ursinus clearly points out that: "To keep holy the Sabbath, is not to spend the day in slothfulness and idleness (watching football?);" As I pointed out earlier (with parenthesis mine). If you are going to accuse me of Pharisaism, then I stand in good company with John Calvin, Ursinus, and the Puritans, and I would proudly wear such a label with these great men of God.

No Longer A Libertine:

I will commend the many posts of Chris Coldwell to you on this thread as "proof" of the position I hold. It would be rather tautological of me to repeat what he has written.

Blessings all,

-CH


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I changed my postion on the sabbath recently after much study and wrestling on the matter. All I can say is I'm glad I did. It has truly been a wonderful thing for my family and I.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/sabbath-postion-change-22773/


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

mshingler said:


> They would appeal to passages such as Romans 14 and Colossians 2:16 in support of the idea that the Sabbath is no longer obligatory.



Speaking as one who comes from a dispensational background, I would say that it's much more than these passages. The argument is that the 10 commandments were given to Israel and not to the church. Therefore, the only reason the other 9 commandments would be obligatory is because they are specifically repeated in the New Testament, in some form. Hence, the law, as contained in the 10 commandments, is not the rule of life for the Christian. The commands of the New Testament are. 
I don't subscribe to this view. I'm just familiar with it as most of my Christian friends and acquaintances would hold to it.[/QUOTE]

Mike 

Reformed non-Sabbath people would utilize a different hermeneutic from Dispensationalists, in that they would say everything in the Old Testament carries over into the New _except_ for what has been repealed. Consequently, they appeal to the texts in question in an attempt to argue that the Sabbath has been abrogated as it was part of the ceremonial law. While the position may be the same as that reached by Dispensationalists, the rationale ibehind the conclusion is a bit different.


----------



## Bygracealone

I might add to this discussion the fact that the Sabbath was given to man from the time of creation. It was given and observed long before the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai. It's a creation ordinance...

For those interested in hearing a couple sermons preached on this subject from a Reformed perspective, I pray that the following might prove to be helpful. They are two sermons I preached a couple years back. In them, I attempt to answer common objections and to show how this gracious commandment continues to apply to mankind today. Please know that I'm in no way attempting to "toot my own horn" by recommending my own sermon. I just offer it for those who may be interested in studying the subject further. Most of the material has already been shared on this forum, but I find that it sometimes helps to have many of the arguments given together to make a case... 

SermonAudio.com - Remember the Sabbath Day

SermonAudio.com - The Sabbath is the Lord's Day

In His grace,


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

bygracealone said:


> Please know that I'm in no way attempting to "toot my own horn" by recommending my own sermon. I just offer it for those who may be interested in studying the subject further. Most of the material has already been shared on this forum, but I find that it sometimes helps to have many of the arguments given together to make a case...
> 
> SermonAudio.com - Remember the Sabbath Day
> 
> SermonAudio.com - The Sabbath is the Lord's Day
> 
> In His grace,



 Although Steve won't toot his own horn, I will.






http://www.puritanboard.com/f23/steve-bradley-sermons-26655/


----------



## KMK

I totally agree with Rich in that the details of Sabbath keeping should be handled in the 'pastoral' arena. The posts in this thread that I find most edifying are the ones that present 'pastoral theology' as opposed to systematics or history. (Maybe I'm biased) 

Here's a thought from a pastoral perspective. The two tables of the Law are summed up in "Love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind." and "Love your neighbor as yourself." I submit to you that the 10 commandments are all outgrowths of these two 'greatest' commandments. 

What does it look like when a man loves his neighbor as himself? He does not lie, steal, murder, fornicate etc. etc. 

What does it look like when a man loves the Lord with all of his heart, soul, and mind? He has no other gods before Him, he does not carve idols, he does not take the name of the Lord in vain, and *he keeps the Sabbath holy*!

Whatever 'Sabbath keeping' looks like, it should grow out of a love for the Lord with all our hearts, souls and minds.

I love my wife. I have to work 5 days a week to make a living. You can bet that I look forward to my day off when I can spend time with my wife. I do everything I can to get my work finished at work so that it does not distract me on my day off from having a relationship with my wife. What happens to those marraiges in which a husband works 7 days a week? The marraige suffers! What happens to Christians who are not dilligent to get everything done before their day off with the Lord? Their relationship with him suffers!

I believe this is the meaning of "Six days shalt thou labor". Try to get everything you can out of the way so you can spend the day the Lord has given you in relationship with Him!

I think the Divines (who were very pastoral) understood this and that is why they wrote the confession as they did. Not to be 'strict' as some have accused, but to give us a guide to what loving the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind will look like as we mature.


----------



## Bygracealone

Good pastoral points brother Ken. I would add that keeping the Sabbath involves both: loving the Lord AND our neighbor. To continue on with your pastoral points, we show our love toward our neighbor by keeping the Sabbath holy in that we do not cause them to work unnecessarily (i.e. serving us in restaurants, shopping malls, etc...) and by being an example to them in our observance of the Lord's holy day. 

In His grace,


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Here is a question that I would like to see answered by those who prefer a more Continental Sabbath:

If we are commanded to keep the Sabbath Day holy, which we are, then does that not mean that we should abstain from common things (such as recreations) which are lawful on other days, but profane on God's holy day?


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Here is a question that I would like to see answered by those who prefer a more Continental Sabbath:
> 
> If we are commanded to keep the Sabbath Day holy, which we are, then does that not mean that we should abstain from common things (such as recreations) which are lawful on other days, but profane on God's holy day?



Daniel, what is a continental sabbath?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Here is one Continental divine's perspective on Christian Sabbath-keeping as it pertains to the issue of recreation:

Wilhelmus a'Brakel, _The Christian's Reasonable Service_, Vol. 3, p. 144:



> Fourthly, we sin when we make this day into a _day of worldly pleasure_. The sabbath is a delight -- however, when we abuse it by delighting ourselves in worldly things and in the lusts of the flesh. This pertains to sailing, horse-riding, fishing, bird-hunting, playing tennis, playing ball, or to the entertaining of one's self with such things that are lawful at the appropriate time and place, in the appropriate company, and with the appropriate objective. This pertains even more to games of chance, playing cards, and playing with dice (cf. Isa. 58:13-14). However, strolling in the fields or in gardens (be it alone or with others) does not belong to the forbidden sins, if we do so for the purpose of observing the works of God, to glorify Him thereby, and to be refreshed according to soul and body. Even if the world does this in a sinful manner, this cannot prevent the believer from doing it in a spiritual manner.


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel, what is a continental sabbath?



That's a Sabbath where you only have a light breakfast and are hungry by about 10.00am. so that you crave something more. 

Seriously, there is no substantial difference between them from a conservative reformed point of view.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, what is a continental sabbath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a Sabbath where you only have a light breakfast and are hungry by about 10.00am. so that you crave something more.
Click to expand...

Very nice.



armourbearer said:


> Seriously, there is no substantial difference between them from a conservative reformed point of view.


Truly, unless one has redefined continental to mean basically anti Sabbatarian, which seems to be the modern definition.


----------



## VictorBravo

NaphtaliPress said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, what is a continental sabbath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a Sabbath where you only have a light breakfast and are hungry by about 10.00am. so that you crave something more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very nice.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, there is no substantial difference between them from a conservative reformed point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truly, unless one has redefined continental to mean basically anti Sabbatarian, which seems to be the modern definition.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I was all ready to say it had something to do with the Continental Calvin bowling, but Chris has pretty effectively taken the fun out of that myth.  

BTW, Nicholas, I think the "continental view of the sabbath" idea actually has its roots in that myth.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Here is one Continental divine's perspective on Christian Sabbath-keeping as it pertains to the issue of recreation:
> 
> Wilhelmus a'Brakel, _The Christian's Reasonable Service_, Vol. 3, p. 144:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourthly, we sin when we make this day into a _day of worldly pleasure_. The sabbath is a delight -- however, when we abuse it by delighting ourselves in worldly things and in the lusts of the flesh. This pertains to sailing, horse-riding, fishing, bird-hunting, playing tennis, playing ball, or to the entertaining of one's self with such things that are lawful at the appropriate time and place, in the appropriate company, and with the appropriate objective. This pertains even more to games of chance, playing cards, and playing with dice (cf. Isa. 58:13-14). However, strolling in the fields or in gardens (be it alone or with others) does not belong to the forbidden sins, if we do so for the purpose of observing the works of God, to glorify Him thereby, and to be refreshed according to soul and body. Even if the world does this in a sinful manner, this cannot prevent the believer from doing it in a spiritual manner.
Click to expand...


Thanks for this quote; however, I fail to see the difference between playing ball for 10 minutes and strolling in the fields - surely both constitute a form of recreation?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, what is a continental sabbath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a Sabbath where you only have a light breakfast and are hungry by about 10.00am. so that you crave something more.
Click to expand...



The Aussies...they are just too funny


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a question that I would like to see answered by those who prefer a more Continental Sabbath:
> 
> If we are commanded to keep the Sabbath Day holy, which we are, then does that not mean that we should abstain from common things (such as recreations) which are lawful on other days, but profane on God's holy day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, what is a continental sabbath?
Click to expand...


I would consider a continental Sabbath the view that some recreation is legitimate on the Lord's Day (but not professional sports), while the Scottish/Puritan view is that all recreation is forbidden on the Sabbath.

I hold the later because it is hard to reconcile recreation with Isaiah 58:13-14.


----------



## Amazing Grace

CalvinandHodges said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find your post most increddible. From Ursinus' commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism:
> 
> 
> Apparently, your understanding of the Heidelberg Catechism is radically different from that of the writers of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he does not speak of the duration, and stresses the fact of worshipping the Lord. Secondly, the work that was spoken by God was what is ORDINARILY done as occupation. Nothing more nothing less
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what Jesus was condemning? I suggest you read some 1st semester rabbinical literature to understand the meaning of shabbat halacha. Jesus was condemning the pharisees becasue they utilyzed the oral law in conjunction with the written law. That is the meaning of Christ's words, "It has been said" vs It has been written.. There is a big big difference. Christ has John the Baptist theology in this respect.
> 
> Ch, this is like arguing the truth of the book a Maccabees with a roman catholic. It cannot be done. It is not in a protty bible, but it is in theirs. So without a level beginning, it is impossible to dialogue correctly. Jesus could do as He pleased, He is God. But He did not condemn for the same reasons you condemn a non sab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> That one party is in error concerning the observance of the Sabbath means that it is "inappropriate" to rebuke such? Your view of what is proper and not proper is flawed. In fact, it is not proper of you to rebuke me based on your own view of propriety. Your view leaves a vacuum between oposing viewpoints.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that more emphasis is put on showing the error ina brother vs showing your opine to be right, when in fact they are both Arguements for the sake of Heaven. Christian Liberty proponents should not regard strict sabs to be in error, well at least I do not.
> 
> _Where as statements like this:Teaching your child to disobey God on the Sabbath day is a form of spiritual murder. Ted Bundy could only affect the body, but you would be destroying a soul.
> 
> Which is worse?_
> 
> sound like Moses' first cousin Korach who lead a rebellion against Moses and Aaron described in chapters 16 and 17 of the book of Numbers. While Korach(you CH) claims to be out for the good of the entire community,(upholding the 4th commandment and making it binding and a burden) he is in reality only interested in displacing Moses as the highest human authority.
> 
> You see the connection? Boht the Saducee and Pharisee started with the same root. They both believed in the 7th day. It is just you add the commandments of men, like the pharisee, which is not bad per se', as equally binding as the written Law.
> 
> Let me give you another example. A LAw stated that no commerce was to be done on the 7th day. Thats all the saducee would say, then the pharisee added that noone could carry money on the 7th day. Now their goal was to 'add' something to bind the people not as a burden, but only to reinforce the root of no commerce on the sabbath. So being a pharisee is not as bad as people make it to be. Obviously Christ was against them becasue He did not favor the oral law..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> You have skillfully ignored the point, and the question on this thread. As far as the duration of the Sabbath goes it is irrelevant when considering the Sabbath "Holy." Since the Ursinus commentary I quoted does not address the duration of the Sabbath by bringing in this topic you have created a logical fallacy - irrelevant thesis.
> 
> The questions that you must answer are: What does it mean to keep the Sabbath Holy? and, Does my Christian Freedom allow me to watch Football on Sundays?
> 
> The Oral laws - if there was such a thing - has nothing to do with what I am saying. Again, you bring in an irrelevant thesis in order to avoid answering the question.
> 
> Ursinus clearly points out that: "To keep holy the Sabbath, is not to spend the day in slothfulness and idleness (watching football?);" As I pointed out earlier (with parenthesis mine). If you are going to accuse me of Pharisaism, then I stand in good company with John Calvin, Ursinus, and the Puritans, and I would proudly wear such a label with these great men of God.
> 
> No Longer A Libertine:
> 
> I will commend the many posts of Chris Coldwell to you on this thread as "proof" of the position I hold. It would be rather tautological of me to repeat what he has written.
> 
> Blessings all,
> 
> -CH
Click to expand...


CH:

I have not forgotten about our "duel" here. Just reflecting a tad so I do not answer from the flesh and bring abosolutely nothing into the dialogue..


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Even the Scots Presbyterian and Puritan view would acknowledge some difference between walking in the field and what we normally think of as recreations. See Twisse's somewhat archaic addressing of the topic above. James Durham recognizes this is more in the area of the circumstances rather than simply unlawful as well.


> Wherefore, in reference to offense, men would have an eye on themselves,
> and what generally they are reputed to be, and so would abstain from the
> least appearance of what is supposed to be predominant in them, as also
> they would have respect to others that are present, or may be hearers or
> beholders, considering what are their thoughts of them, or of such deeds,
> etc., and accordingly would carry [themselves], although it [would mean
> abstaining] from such a place, apparel, diet, etc., which in reason,
> abstractly [considered] from offense, might be pleaded for as becoming.
> Thus one walking abroad on the Sabbath, may be sanctifying it, yet by his
> example some other may be provoked to vage and gad and cast off all
> duties of the day, and to neglect what is called for in secret, or in the
> family. In that respect, it becomes offensive to go abroad, although it is
> lawful in itself to meditate abroad in the fields, as well as in house.
> James Durham, _A Treatise Concerning Scandal_ (NP: 1990) 1.2, p. 14.





Daniel Ritchie said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is one Continental divine's perspective on Christian Sabbath-keeping as it pertains to the issue of recreation:
> 
> Wilhelmus a'Brakel, _The Christian's Reasonable Service_, Vol. 3, p. 144:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourthly, we sin when we make this day into a _day of worldly pleasure_. The sabbath is a delight -- however, when we abuse it by delighting ourselves in worldly things and in the lusts of the flesh. This pertains to sailing, horse-riding, fishing, bird-hunting, playing tennis, playing ball, or to the entertaining of one's self with such things that are lawful at the appropriate time and place, in the appropriate company, and with the appropriate objective. This pertains even more to games of chance, playing cards, and playing with dice (cf. Isa. 58:13-14). However, strolling in the fields or in gardens (be it alone or with others) does not belong to the forbidden sins, if we do so for the purpose of observing the works of God, to glorify Him thereby, and to be refreshed according to soul and body. Even if the world does this in a sinful manner, this cannot prevent the believer from doing it in a spiritual manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for this quote; however, I fail to see the difference between playing ball for 10 minutes and strolling in the fields - surely both constitute a form of recreation?
Click to expand...


----------



## NaphtaliPress

victorbravo said:


> Yeah, I was all ready to say it had something to do with the Continental Calvin bowling, but Chris has pretty effectively taken the fun out of that myth.


That's me, Mr. Lettheairoutoftheballoon. 



victorbravo said:


> BTW, Nicholas, I think the "continental view of the sabbath" idea actually has its roots in that myth.


Well, at the very least some sure give that impression when that seems to be the reflex defense of it!


----------



## tdowns

*It's Still Alive!!!!!*

I think, half this thread is a  and a third is  (with the little marks meaning frustrated words not cuss words), and a lot of watchers are  while some are, and many are , while I'm  only with a guitar, singing praises to my King for patience as I figure it all out......

Seriously, assuming, that, I don't embrace what I understand to be the basic of Non-Sabbath keepers, which is, "I'm keeping the 4th commandment, by, RESTING IN Christ, because HE IS THE SABBATH, so, that is my sabbath"...like the John Macarthur's, etc....and I do, for now, trust, in the Reformers, and the Confessions, which I am, and hold to the Sabbath view, then the NO WORK FOR ME OR OTHERS, seems obvious.

What does not seem obvious, is what constitutes, 

“ If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath,
From doing your pleasure on My holy day,
And call the Sabbath a delight,
The holy day of the LORD honorable,
And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways,
Nor finding your own pleasure,
Nor speaking your own words,
14 Then you shall delight yourself in the LORD;
And I will cause you to ride on the high hills of the earth,
And feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father.
The mouth of the LORD has spoken.”

First, if this is the only verse for no fun, or no recreation on Sabbath...I don't know context, etc...but seems like the language is not so specific, otherwise, you'd have to not say anything, at all, that was not scripture. 

On a broader note,

When my son, is having fun, I, as his father, find delight. I'm pleased to see him, use his body, enjoy the fun, and the very, very, very, productive, and useful physical activity; activity, that is SCIENTIFICALLY proven, to not only make his body healthy, but his mind. So, if our body, and soul, are all one, and both are GOOD, then why, would it not be a pleasure, to God, the Father, to see his children, rejoice in the Lord, using their bodies, with more focus, on the Sabbath, on God, in these things. Not professional...but for enjoyment. Taking delight (especially on the Sabbath, as well as in other days) in God, and what he has given us, in health, and mind, and creation.

I would argue, that, most great writers, are great readers, and enjoy, for their own pleasure, reading great works, so, to sit back, on a Sunday, and read all day, and fellowship, and maybe, just maybe, put off time with their kids (that possibly, they did not spend time with anyway, due to their very Godly time in their study) is so easy to say, this is what is Godly on the Sabbath.

I find it hard to believe, in all the time, between Jesus picking wheat in the fields, and our modern society, where only recently, did people even have large houses, and couches, and bibles in hand, that the Sabbath consisted of sitting around, visiting, and napping, and reading the Word.

It just seems, to me, that God the Father, would delight, in a father and son, or daughter, playing together, in the name of God, with the rejoicing of God on their lips, in the field or in the yard. Along with the study of the word, the sacraments on Sunday morning, etc.

I think non-physical people, might not quiet understand, that the mind is alive, and the focus can be on God, during physical activity.

Just some thoughts, on the culture of it all.

Another thought, on the flip side, most in days past, probably spent their time in physical labor all week, so to rest, for them, would mean, non physical, where those of us, who are stuck, inside, using our minds, all day, being drained, some physical activity, is truly rest for the mind.

I aim to submit, to the authority of God's word, and the Historic, Reformed Faith has not led me astray, so I'm seeking to understand it, truthfully, so I can submit to God's word, and follow it...I fail daily, and PRAISE GOD, for Christ's righteousness over me...just to give you the tone of where I'm coming from.


----------



## MW

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Thanks for this quote; however, I fail to see the difference between playing ball for 10 minutes and strolling in the fields - surely both constitute a form of recreation?



John Willison takes the same view (see quotation below). I wonder, though, seeing we live in an age where it is rare to find people walking to services, if it might be permissible to take a brief stroll just to refresh oneself so as to be more alert in the public and private exercises of God's worship.



> Willison: There are recreations which are voluntary and not necessary, freely chosen by people for their bodily pleasure and diversion; such as sports, pastimes, or games, whether more public or more private, such as playing at cards, dice, chess, tables, &c., or any sort of carnal music, such as whistling, singing, or playing of an instrument, or putting off the time with worldly converse, jesting, laughing, telling idle stories, walking and talking idly in the streets, or seeking our pleasure in the fields, though it be after public worship is over. Now, all such recreations being our own works, and for our own pleasure, and not subservient to the duties of God’s worship, but hindrances thereto, are unlawful on the Sabbath-day, as being expressly contrary to that rest required in the fourth commandment, and to that plain word in Isa. 58:13, 14, “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable, and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasures, nor speaking thine own words – then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob,” &c. Now, can there be any thing more directly levelled against carnal recreations, idle talking, walking, &c., on the Sabbath-day, than this is? “We must turn away our foot from doing our own pleasure on it,” i.e. by travelling or walking for pleasure or recreation; nay, we must neither do our own ways, speak our own words, nor find our own pleasures, on this day. (Works, 33, 34.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for this quote; however, I fail to see the difference between playing ball for 10 minutes and strolling in the fields - surely both constitute a form of recreation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Willison takes the same view (see quotation below). I wonder, though, seeing we live in an age where it is rare to find people walking to services, if it might be permissible to take a brief stroll just to refresh oneself so as to be more alert in the public and private exercises of God's worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willison: There are recreations which are voluntary and not necessary, freely chosen by people for their bodily pleasure and diversion; such as sports, pastimes, or games, whether more public or more private, such as playing at cards, dice, chess, tables, &c., or any sort of carnal music, such as whistling, singing, or playing of an instrument, or putting off the time with worldly converse, jesting, laughing, telling idle stories, walking and talking idly in the streets, or seeking our pleasure in the fields, though it be after public worship is over. Now, all such recreations being our own works, and for our own pleasure, and not subservient to the duties of God’s worship, but hindrances thereto, are unlawful on the Sabbath-day, as being expressly contrary to that rest required in the fourth commandment, and to that plain word in Isa. 58:13, 14, “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable, and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasures, nor speaking thine own words – then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob,” &c. Now, can there be any thing more directly levelled against carnal recreations, idle talking, walking, &c., on the Sabbath-day, than this is? “We must turn away our foot from doing our own pleasure on it,” i.e. by travelling or walking for pleasure or recreation; nay, we must neither do our own ways, speak our own words, nor find our own pleasures, on this day. (Works, 33, 34.)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This is a very good point about the benefits of getting your heart going. I'm convinced that one of the reasons I've done well academically over the years is AM exercise. I'm never so focused as when I'm moving.

Even the Pharisees recognized a Sabbath Day's walk could be up to 6 miles long. It's not as if they had cars back then. There's nothing inherently recreational about going on a stroll.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Yes, I note that Willison speaks of "idle walking" whereas a'Brakel distinguishes between strolling with a godly purpose in view and vain or sinful walking about:



> However, strolling in the fields or in gardens (be it alone or with others) does not belong to the forbidden sins, if we do so for the purpose of observing the works of God, to glorify Him thereby, and to be refreshed according to soul and body. Even if the world does this in a sinful manner, this cannot prevent the believer from doing it in a spiritual manner.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Yes, I note that Willison speaks of "idle walking" whereas a'Brakel distinguishes between strolling with a godly purpose in view and vain or sinful walking about:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, strolling in the fields or in gardens (be it alone or with others) does not belong to the forbidden sins, if we do so for the purpose of observing the works of God, to glorify Him thereby, and to be refreshed according to soul and body. Even if the world does this in a sinful manner, this cannot prevent the believer from doing it in a spiritual manner.
Click to expand...


Again this is an interesting point; however, might not a Continental Sabbath person (especially if he eats such a light breakfast ) respond by saying that throwing a ball in the air for ten minutes is done in order to refocus his mind on worship?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Daniel Ritchie said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I note that Willison speaks of "idle walking" whereas a'Brakel distinguishes between strolling with a godly purpose in view and vain or sinful walking about:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, strolling in the fields or in gardens (be it alone or with others) does not belong to the forbidden sins, if we do so for the purpose of observing the works of God, to glorify Him thereby, and to be refreshed according to soul and body. Even if the world does this in a sinful manner, this cannot prevent the believer from doing it in a spiritual manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again this is an interesting point; however, might not a Continental Sabbath person (especially if he eats such a light breakfast ) respond by saying that throwing a ball in the air for ten minutes is done in order to refocus his mind on worship?
Click to expand...


Well, a'Brakel is a Continental Sabbath person and he specifically wrote against playing ball. 

As has been mentioned, the term 'Continental Sabbath' can be misleading if not put into the proper context. In Joel Beeke's introduction to Willem Teellinck's _The Path of True Godliness_ (p. 27), he says of the spiritual climate in the Netherlands that "Sabbath days were ill-spent by many." The _Nadere Reformatie_ divines pointedly preached and wrote against recreational activities on the Lord's Day, which was a widespread problem for them, just as it is for us. Jacobus Koelman (_The Duties of Parents_, p. 76) wrote that parents should not allow their children to play in the house or the street. Walking is an act that is, it seems to me, adiaphora. What is the motive for the strolling about? That is the question. And as for tossing a ball around, I do think that allowance may be given for an infant playing with a ball, for example (perhaps then at least one Continental Sabbath person is more strict than I on this point), but honestly, in my opinion, I don't think the example given (tossing a ball around to "refocus for worship") can be justified in light of Isa. 58. It is not my place, however, to judge such a thing. I will leave something like that to another's conscience before God. I would refocus the discussion towards what our duty is on the Lord's Day. When we are fully occupied in duties and works of piety, necessity and mercy, there is no time, I think, for what most of us consider to be recreational activities. 

In general (although it could say more on the subject of recreation), having read much Puritan-minded Sabbath literature (though much more is on my reading list), the best little treatise on the subject (of Biblical Sabbath-keeping) that I can recommend is William Gouge's _The Sabbath's Sanctification_, reprinted by Matthew Winzer's Presbyterian's Armoury Publications (already quoted by me once in this thread), wherein Gouge notes (p. 6):



> They who are conscionable in performing all the fore-mentioned duties of piety, -- public, private, and secret -- shall find time little enough from their rising up to their lying down; so as they shall have not cause to complain of the many hours, or to say they know not what to do, or how to spend their time; especially if to those sundry duties of piety, they add duties of mercy.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

I am using "Continental Sabbath" in the sense of being "looser" than Scottish/Puritan.

My own view, at present, would be that recreation is contrary to Is. 58, but, as you say, it may be best to leave it to another's conscience.


----------



## jogri17

you know new covenanters have no problem with this issue...lol


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCft6oKv5_E]YouTube - Sam the Eagle[/ame]


----------



## JohnOwen007

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I am using "Continental Sabbath" in the sense of being "looser" than Scottish/Puritan.



The continentals had a variety of Sabbath views and cannot be lumped into one party:






[1] People like *Ursinus *believed in a 1 in 7 Sabbath but the actual day was negotiable (it was decided by the church).





[2] The Nadere Reformatie fellas (like *Voetius *_et. al._) believed (like WCF) that the Sabbath was divinely changed in the NT to Sundays (and no other day could be chosen).





[3] *Cocceius *and the Cocceians believed that Sabbath (as a ceremony) was completely fulfilled in Christ (and so the Cocceian women would sit knitting on their front porches on Sundays causing the Voetians to get very angry ).

So there is no "continental view" of the Sabbath.

Blessings.


----------



## Amazing Grace

JohnOwen007 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am using "Continental Sabbath" in the sense of being "looser" than Scottish/Puritan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The continentals had a variety of Sabbath views and cannot be lumped into one party:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [1] People like *Ursinus *believed in a 1 in 7 Sabbath but the actual day was negotiable (it was decided by the church).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2] The Nadere Reformatie fellas (like *Voetius *_et. al._) believed (like WCF) that the Sabbath was divinely changed in the NT to Sundays (and no other day could be chosen).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [3] *Cocceius *and the Cocceians believed that Sabbath (as a ceremony) was completely fulfilled in Christ (and so the Cocceian women would sit knitting on their front porches on Sundays causing the Voetians to get very angry ).
> 
> So there is no "continental view" of the Sabbath.
> 
> Blessings.
Click to expand...



Brother Martin:

I must commend you. I enjoy your take on subjects where many use the broadest brush possible to use a label. Yet with some effort, we always find there are distinctions that must be made. Just becasue it walks like a duck, it may bark like a dog, therefore is not a duck..


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

What is remarkable among the "Anti-Sabbatarians" here is that they will answer all of the questions except those that pertain to their "theology."

JohnOwen007 points out that Ursinus and Voetius had a disagreement concerning *when* the Sabbath should be observed (I have not checked Ursinus' postion on this as yet, and I see no citations from JOwen007). But the questions on this thread do not directly address this point. Both Ursinus and Voetius were in agreement with what it means to *Keep the Sabbath Day Holy unto the Lord.* Which is the subject-matter of this thread.

Cocceius was charged with being an antinomian (which is a synonym for "libertine") in regards to his view of Sabbath keeping. According to some of his biographers - Cocceius was a Sabatarian in practice, but not in theology. This is not all. Cocceius devised a Biblical Theology that placed such a stong emphasis on the differences between the Old and New Testaments that he anticipated Dispensationalism. This led him to believe in two different types of Justification: The Old Testament Saints were "imperfectly" justified because of the ceremonial laws, while the New Testament Saints were "perfectly" justified having the reality set before them,

All of this should be put aside.

The final arbiter of all religious disputes is the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scriptures. One must evaluate their Biblical arguments rather than their persons in order to find the truth.

Grace and Peace on this Lord's Day

-CH


----------



## JohnOwen007

CalvinandHodges said:


> JohnOwen007 points out that Ursinus and Voetius had a disagreement concerning *when* the Sabbath should be observed (I have not checked Ursinus' postion on this as yet, and I see no citations from JOwen007).



Dear CH,

Here we go mate. Try, Ursinus' _Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism_ q. 103, I (p. 563 in the Williard translation):

"The _old_ [Sabbath for Israel] was restricted to the seventh day [i.e. Saturday]: its observance was necessary, and constituted the worship of God. The _new_ depends upon the decision and appointment of the church, which for certain reasons has made choice of the first day of the week, which is to be observed *for the sake of order, and not from any idea of necessity, as if no other were to be observed by the church* [...]



CalvinandHodges said:


> The final arbiter of all religious disputes is the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scriptures. One must evaluate their Biblical arguments rather than their persons in order to find the truth.



Amen brother. I'm no Cocceius fan, but some trivia: he knew the entirety of Scripture in the original languages off-by-heart! However his doctrine of the abrogations of the covenant leave a lot to be desired. 

Blessings CH.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> So there is no "continental view" of the Sabbath.



Strictly speaking, that is probably true, but in popular usage today it is common for people to refer to the "Continental" Sabbath in distinction from the Scottish/Puritan view.

However, your quotes suggest that this is probably not the best term.


----------



## Amazing Grace

CalvinandHodges said:


> The questions that you must answer are: What does it mean to keep the Sabbath Holy? and, Does my Christian Freedom allow me to watch Football on Sundays?



There is nothing I can do to keep it Holy in respect to your faulty definition of Holy. I can "set it apart" as a day of worship with the community of faith. But Christ kept it therefore it is Holy through Him. I set it apart not out of a legal obligation, if I approach it this way, then I am obliged to keep the whole Law according to Paul in Galatians.

I no longer need the command to set aside one day to rest in the Lord with do's and dont's, as I now am indwelt by His Spirit and have the faith to be resting in Him constantly. Yes, most definately can I watch football, not that I do, in any of the 7 days. It has nothing to do with Christian freedom. I for one am not free, I am Christ's, bought with a price. I do not protest your thought becasue of being free, I am enslaved to Christ by the power of His Spirit.


The biggest contention I have is the thought that I must do anything alone for my moral benefit. My justification was not dependant upon me approaching God alone, therefore neither is my sanctification.


----------



## Amazing Grace

CalvinandHodges said:


> Cocceius was charged with being an antinomian (which is a synonym for "libertine") in regards to his view of Sabbath keeping.
> -CH



Wrongly I will add. This term is thrown around so much, it has no meaning anymore.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnOwen007 said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> JohnOwen007 points out that Ursinus and Voetius had a disagreement concerning *when* the Sabbath should be observed (I have not checked Ursinus' postion on this as yet, and I see no citations from JOwen007).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear CH,
> 
> Here we go mate. Try, Ursinus' _Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism_ q. 103, I (p. 563 in the Williard translation):
> 
> "The _old_ [Sabbath for Israel] was restricted to the seventh day [i.e. Saturday]: its observance was necessary, and constituted the worship of God. The _new_ depends upon the decision and appointment of the church, which for certain reasons has made choice of the first day of the week, which is to be observed *for the sake of order, and not from any idea of necessity, as if no other were to be observed by the church* [...]
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> The final arbiter of all religious disputes is the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scriptures. One must evaluate their Biblical arguments rather than their persons in order to find the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen brother. I'm no Cocceius fan, but some trivia: he knew the entirety of Scripture in the original languages off-by-heart! However his doctrine of the abrogations of the covenant leave a lot to be desired.
> 
> Blessings CH.
Click to expand...


OK, established that he believed that. I wish we had some more Dutch Reformed guys like Dr. Clark or others who have studied this as well weighing in.

A few observations worth noting:

1. I wonder if Ursinus at any point acknowledged that the Church *always* made choice for the first day for the sake of order. Incidentally, it's important to note that it wasn't simply made on Sunday (The Lord's Day) due to a sake of order but also, it just so happened that Christ rose again but I'm sure he would agree with that.

2. Either way, Ursinus *does* agree with the perpetuity of a 1 day in 7 and the setting apart of that day as holy. It's not as if we're debating over the theoretical member of the PuritanBoard whose Church has set aside Tuesday and so he is doing his own pleasure on Sunday while he needs us to help him on Tuesdays when he's trying to rest from his worldly pursuits. We're all celebrating this 1 day in 7 on the same day (well sort of, you and I are a day ahead of the rest).

In the final analysis, one of the reasons the actual day of the week is  wasn't that this issue isn't interesting but that it's sort of inconsequential to the discussion on the nature of liberty with respect to how God desires that a day of rest be honored.


----------



## MW

I'm disappointed with Marty's presentation of Ursinus' view because it omits important points which would effectively show there is no _substantial_ difference with the Puritan view. It is simply a difference of emphasis, coming at the subject from a slightly different angle. For the early reformers the issue was discussed in terms of discontinuity, where the moral obligation of it was accepted, but differences between the Christian and Jewish Sabbath needed to be articulated. For the Puritans continuity was central because the moral obligation of it was called into doubt by their opponents, so they needed to show how the Christian Sabbath was now as binding as the Jewish Sabbath had been.

Marty's post omits two crucial points which Ursinus carefully stated. First, he should have noted the context of the quotation, where Ursinus was only dealing with the ceremonial aspect of the Sabbath. On the same page he speaks about the morality of the Sabbath being the same for Jews and Christians. Secondly, he ought to have stated that for Ursinus the choice of the church to observe the Sabbath on the first day of the week is not post-apostolic, but one which was established in the normative apostolic church. Understanding these two points is crucial for correctly interpreting Ursinus' view, because it means there remains a moral obligation to observe the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath according to Ursinus, which makes his view substantially the same as the Puritan tradition.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Amazing Grace said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> The questions that you must answer are: What does it mean to keep the Sabbath Holy? and, Does my Christian Freedom allow me to watch Football on Sundays?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing I can do to keep it Holy in respect to your faulty definition of Holy. I can "set it apart" as a day of worship with the community of faith. But Christ kept it therefore it is Holy through Him. I set it apart not out of a legal obligation, if I approach it this way, then I am obliged to keep the whole Law according to Paul in Galatians.
> 
> I no longer need the command to set aside one day to rest in the Lord with do's and dont's, as I now am indwelt by His Spirit and have the faith to be resting in Him constantly. Yes, most definately can I watch football, not that I do, in any of the 7 days. It has nothing to do with Christian freedom. I for one am not free, I am Christ's, bought with a price. I do not protest your thought becasue of being free, I am enslaved to Christ by the power of His Spirit.
> 
> 
> The biggest contention I have is the thought that I must do anything alone for my moral benefit. My justification was not dependant upon me approaching God alone, therefore neither is my sanctification.
Click to expand...


First of all, mind your tone. Second, I will remind you that this is a Confessional board and it is un-Confessional to claim that the Scriptures now teach that we're now in the Spirit and constantly resting in Him and so we need not heed what the nature of the command was for.

I believe the point was made in a way that naturally caused hackles to go up but we cannot simply take something revealed to be in the nature of God and man and boil it down to "...it's all kept in Christ...."

Everything is kept in Christ. I can't say: "In Christ I'm loving my neighbor constantly because He loves my neighbor perfectly and everyone who says that I should love my neighbor doesn't know the nature of love." It would be facile of me to say that, because I don't love my neighbor the way Christ does, that I am not commanded to love him. It's also facile to make all that love to be boiled into one great Love - the love of God - and that we don't actually do anything specific with respect to loving people.

One thing you seem to be forgetting as well, with respect to the Sabbath, is that there is a positive command to _labor for 6 days_. In the process of trying to conflate the Sabbath with every single activity we do, you are actually undermining the Reformed recovery of the idea of vocation. God expects us to labor in the world and be diliegent about it. He expects us to be focused upon others and about providing for the needs of our family. In fact, Paul calls those who will not work those who have _denied the faith_. One thing that Edersheim points out about the Rabbinical literature is the incredible work ethic that the Rabbis had and how they commended hard work. It is very parallel to the Reformed recovery of vocation which took out of the hands of Roman Catholics the idea that, unless you were constantly engaged in "ministry" and devoted to "Church business" that you really weren't doing anything sanctified. The really holy people were the monks who escaped the world and its "carnality".

It's said that Luther was once asked what people should do now that would honor God if they weren't working in the monastery. He replied: "Make a good shoe and sell it at an honest price." That is profoundly compact and true.

Thus, lost in all of this is the fact that 6 out of 7 days God has commanded us to be "in the world" and laboring in it. He then commands us to assemble, rest from that sphere of service to Him, and worship Him and give the day over to focusing especially on the specific things of God because, throughout the week, we are called upon to honor our emploers and focus on the work they have for us or else we're reproved by God for our lack of submission to that authority.

You cannot simply say: "All life is worship" because, in a facile manner, destroys not only the sense of vocation but it also destroys the sense of what makes the day that God calls us together to worship Him.

No, it's not all about Do's and Don'ts in the final analysis. Nothing I said ought to be done grudgingly as a slave does who has to try to earn approval from his Master. Rather, it ought to be done with _delight_ as a son does for the Father who adopted Him and exclaims: "Today I get to worship the Lord and be among His people!"


----------



## Amazing Grace

SemperFideles said:


> First of all, mind your tone. Second, I will remind you that this is a Confessional board and it is un-Confessional to claim that the Scriptures now teach that we're now in the Spirit and constantly resting in Him and so we need not heed what the nature of the command was for.



Richard, I intended no malicious tone in my post. In fact as I was writing it, I was actually smiling. I apologize if this is how you understand my post. Therefore I will attempt to be more clear. 




SemperFideles said:


> Everything is kept in Christ. I can't say: "In Christ I'm loving my neighbor constantly because He loves my neighbor perfectly and everyone who says that I should love my neighbor doesn't know the nature of love." It would be facile of me to say that, because I don't love my neighbor the way Christ does, that I am not commanded to love him. It's also facile to make all that love to be boiled into one great Love - the love of God - and that we don't actually do anything specific with respect to loving people.



I agree. This is the true antinomian stance. My point being is Law does not compel me, nor did it ever compel anyone to obey rightly. Only the irrisistable grace of God by His Spirit does this. The thunderings of Law, the threatenings only increased condemnation, and Law IS the ministry of death pointing His to Christ.



SemperFideles said:


> No, it's not all about Do's and Don'ts in the final analysis. Nothing I said ought to be done grudgingly as a slave does who has to try to earn approval from his Master. Rather, it ought to be done with _delight_ as a son does for the Father who adopted Him and exclaims: "Today I get to worship the Lord and be among His people!"



Again I agree. This is why I stated:There is nothing I can do to keep it Holy in respect to your faulty definition of Holy. I can "set it apart" as a day of worship with the community of faith. But Christ kept it therefore it is Holy through Him. I set it apart not out of a legal obligation, if I approach it this way, then I am obliged to keep the whole Law according to Paul in Galatians. I do not look at it as a burden at all. 

Again the crux of the issue in the confessions, especially the HC i have contention with is EVERYTHING in the life of the believer has Christ as mediator. Yet when it comes to the puritan view of an aspect of Sanctification, we are to approach it alone, without Christ mediating or work's to the Father. 

WHoever said "The law points us to Christ, Christ fulfill's the Law for us, then points us back to perform the Law" Was in serious error. I paraphrased it, but I know it exists. Christ NEVER points us back to Moses/Law on our own.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Amazing Grace said:


> Again the crux of the issue in the confessions, especially the HC i have contention with is EVERYTHING in the life of the believer has Christ as mediator. Yet when it comes to the puritan view of an aspect of Sanctification, we are to approach it alone, without Christ mediating or work's to the Father.



What?! _That_ is patently false. You better be careful of your facts before you libel the Puritans so.


----------



## Amazing Grace

SemperFideles said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again the crux of the issue in the confessions, especially the HC i have contention with is EVERYTHING in the life of the believer has Christ as mediator. Yet when it comes to the puritan view of an aspect of Sanctification, we are to approach it alone, without Christ mediating or work's to the Father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?! _That_ is patently false. You better be careful of your facts before you libel the Puritans so.
Click to expand...


Can you or anyone explain it to me then clearly? Who said the quote that I posted? Law>Christ>law? If I am wrong I will publicly recant...


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> Again the crux of the issue in the confessions, especially the HC i have contention with is EVERYTHING in the life of the believer has Christ as mediator. Yet when it comes to the puritan view of an aspect of Sanctification, we are to approach it alone, without Christ mediating or work's to the Father.



To quote Thomas Watson, "the Christian is in a blessed Sabbath-frame, when, like a seraphim, he is burning in love to Christ." Obviously the Puritan view insists no one truly keeps the Sabbath who does not rest in Christ as mediator. There is an unnecessary dichotomy created by the way you state your case. It supposes Jesus' eschaological fulfilment of the Sabbath necessarily abrogates man's duty to fulfil that law morally. But consider marriage. Christ's union with the church perfectly fulfils the ordinance of marriage, and yet marriage continues as a creation ordinance nonetheless.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Amazing Grace said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again the crux of the issue in the confessions, especially the HC i have contention with is EVERYTHING in the life of the believer has Christ as mediator. Yet when it comes to the puritan view of an aspect of Sanctification, we are to approach it alone, without Christ mediating or work's to the Father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?! _That_ is patently false. You better be careful of your facts before you libel the Puritans so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you or anyone explain it to me then clearly? Who said the quote that I posted? Law>Christ>law? If I am wrong I will publicly recant...
Click to expand...


What I *reproved* was your statement that the puritan view of sanctification is that it is to be approached alone without the mediation of Christ. _That_ is scandalous.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

On the Puritan view of Good Works:



> Chapter XVI
> Of Good Works
> 
> I. Good works are only such as God has commanded in His holy Word,1 and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.2
> 
> II. These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the *fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith*:3 and by them believers manifest their thankfulness,4 strengthen their assurance,5 edify their brethren,6 adorn the profession of the Gospel,7 stop the mouths of the adversaries,8 and glorify God,9whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto,10that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.11
> 
> III. *Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.*12 And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of His good pleasure:13 yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.14
> 
> IV. *They who, in their obedience, attain to the greatest height which is possibly in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do.*15
> 
> V. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, *we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins,16but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants*:17 and because, as they are good, they proceed from His Spirit,18 and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God's judgment.19
> 
> VI. *Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him*;20 not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God's sight;21 but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.22
> 
> VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others:23 yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith;24 nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word;25 nor to a right end, the glory of God,26 they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God:27 and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.28


----------



## Bygracealone

In fact, a Puritan by the name of Walter Marshall wrote what has become one of the "classic" works on the subject of sanctification and in his work ("The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification) he presents a thoroughly monergistic understanding of sanctification which is based upon our union with Christ.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

online here.
Walter Marshall - The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> I'm disappointed with Marty's presentation of Ursinus' view because it omits important points which would effectively show there is no _substantial_ difference with the Puritan view.



Dear Matthew, thanks for your thoughts brother. I always appreciate them.



armourbearer said:


> Marty's post omits two crucial points which Ursinus carefully stated. First, he should have noted the context of the quotation, where Ursinus was only dealing with the ceremonial aspect of the Sabbath. On the same page he speaks about the morality of the Sabbath being the same for Jews and Christians.



In my penultimate post I said that Ursinus adhered to the moral obligation of a Sabbath day (1 in 7).



armourbearer said:


> Secondly, he ought to have stated that for Ursinus the choice of the church to observe the Sabbath on the first day of the week is not post-apostolic, but one which was established in the normative apostolic church. Understanding these two points is crucial for correctly interpreting Ursinus' view, because it means there remains a moral obligation to observe the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath according to Ursinus, which makes his view substantially the same as the Puritan tradition.



Well, I'm not sure I can agree with you on this point. Ursinus certainly argued that the believers of the apostolic period moved their celebration of the Sabbath to Sunday. However, I don't think Ursinus believed that Sunday becomes morally normative for believers (see top of p. 564). It's a matter of order, not necessity. This was the position of other continental divines (e.g. Polanus). I won't pursue this point as it's off limits in this thread.

However, I do believe the difference is not simply one of emphasis. There is a _slight _difference of substance.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

Every blessing Matthew.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

To follow Rich's posting from the Confession, here is the text of Larger Catechism Q&A 97. 

*Q.97 What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?*
*A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, (f) so as thereby they are neither justified (g) nor condemned; (h) yet, beside the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; (i) and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, (k) and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience. (l)*


f ROM 6:14; ROM 7:4, 6; GAL 4:4-5 [L&Rab have ROM 16:14 but text is 6:14.
g ROM 3:20 [MAX: 8:20; not repeated; actual text correct]
h GAL 5:23; ROM 8:1
i ROM 7:24-25; GAL 3:13-14; ROM 8:3-4
k LUK 1:68-69, 74-75; COL 1:12-14

l ROM 7:22; ROM 12:2; TIT 2:11-14
Variants:
1)In Q (1) “there, of”: MSa. (2) “law, to”: FOURTH.
2)“regenerate and”: Dunlop; L&Rac;* E.Rob. *L&Rb had the comma.
3)“moral law, as”: MSa.
4)“as, thereby,”: MSb.
5)“justified, nor”: MSS; MAX; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX; RP.
6)(1) “condemned, yet”: THIRD; FOURTH; COX. (2) “condemned: yet”: Dunlop; RP; L&R. E.Rob has the semi-colon.
7)“yet beside”: MAX; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX; Dunlop.
8)“besides the general”: 
9)“thereof, common”: MSb.
10)“all men: it”: MSb.
11)“use to show”: MSa; RP.
12)“Christ, for”: MSb.
13)“fulfilling it and”: MSa.
14)“thereof, in their”: MSb.
15)“stead and”: Dunlop; L&R; E.Rob.
16)“thereunto, as”: MSa; RP; E.Rob.
17)In “l” ROM 12:2 missing: W1438.


----------



## JohnOwen007

SemperFideles said:


> In the final analysis, one of the reasons the actual day of the week is  wasn't that this issue isn't interesting but that it's sort of inconsequential to the discussion on the nature of liberty with respect to how God desires that a day of rest be honored.



Brother Rich, I can see that you think its "inconsequential" and not of the nature of liberty. However, I know presbyteries (over here in Oz) who won't ordain TE's unless they believe the new covenant Sabbath is divinely ordained to be Sunday _and no other day_. They won't let people with the Ursinus / Polanus _et. al._ view (which I hold) to become TE's. In other words, this issue (in my circles) is *not* one of liberty. Alas. 

Every blessing.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> Well, I'm not sure I can agree with you on this point. Ursinus certainly argued that the believers of the apostolic period moved their celebration of the Sabbath to Sunday. However, I don't think Ursinus believed that Sunday becomes morally normative for believers (see top of p. 564). It's a matter of order, not necessity. This was the position of other continental divines (e.g. Polanus). I won't pursue this point as it's off limits in this thread.



Marty, I gather you are referring to, "yet we are not bound to or tied down to any particular day." But as I understand it in its native context, he is speaking about "that which is particular" so far as Sabbath sanctification is concerned. Hence his meaning is only that there is no inherent moral holiness placed in one day over another, so that the day is to be considered one of positive appointment. The Puritans held the same. As for the appointment of the first day of the week, he provides a significant reason why this day was appointed over others, namely, "because on that day the resurrection of Christ took place, by which the internal and spiritual Sabbath is begun in us." (P. 563.) Again, the Puritans held the same. It is also worth noting that Ursinus would use the word "church" in the context of "Christendom," or the idea of a universal church, not in any sense suggesting that it is up to each individual congregation to decide what day it will worship on. Blessings!


----------



## Amazing Grace

SemperFideles said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?! _That_ is patently false. You better be careful of your facts before you libel the Puritans so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you or anyone explain it to me then clearly? Who said the quote that I posted? Law>Christ>law? If I am wrong I will publicly recant...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I *reproved* was your statement that the puritan view of sanctification is that it is to be approached alone without the mediation of Christ. _That_ is scandalous.
Click to expand...



Thank you Richard. Then I prematurely recognized a charicature of their thought. I stand corrected


----------



## Amazing Grace

My apologies for digrssing the thread a tad. That said, In regards to the premise of the thread at hand regarding activity on the sabbath, is there any Epistle references that can be cited denouncing any activities? I cannot find any. Many cite Old Covenant references and some references in the gospels, when the Mosaic Law code was still in force because Christ, had yet to die , but never is any command or principle from the apostolic doctrine sections of Scripture cited to support this thought. In defence of "anti sabs" for lack of a better term, I see Rom 14, Col 1 and Heb 4. Yet we are accused of the ole "taking them out of context" issue. CH cited James 2:10,11 which in no way has this thought in mind. You would think that something as important as some make it, there would be at least a shred of Apostolic scripture speaking on this. I cannot find any evidence the New Covenant calls for any person to cease from all activity on Sunday or on the Sabbath.

Believers who do not keep the Sabbath should not judge those who do so as legalists, unless those who do so begin to make it mandatory for all other believers. Romans 14: 4-6 is clear on this.


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> My apologies for digrssing the thread a tad. That said, In regards to the premise of the thread at hand regarding activity on the sabbath, is there any Epistle references that can be cited denouncing any activities? I cannot find any. Many cite Old Covenant references and some references in the gospels, when the Mosaic Law code was still in force because Christ, had yet to die , but never is any command or principle from the apostolic doctrine sections of Scripture cited to support this thought. In defence of "anti sabs" for lack of a better term, I see Rom 14, Col 1 and Heb 4. Yet we are accused of the ole "taking them out of context" issue. CH cited James 2:10,11 which in no way has this thought in mind. You would think that something as important as some make it, there would be at least a shred of Apostolic scripture speaking on this. I cannot find any evidence the New Covenant calls for any person to cease from all activity on Sunday or on the Sabbath.
> 
> Believers who do not keep the Sabbath should not judge those who do so as legalists, unless those who do so begin to make it mandatory for all other believers. Romans 14: 4-6 is clear on this.



The burden of proof is unreasonable because it requires us to assume a non-reformed position with respect to the relationship of Old and New Testaments. The fact that a moral obligation is not repeated in the New Testament does not mean it has been abrogated.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Amazing Grace said:


> My apologies for digrssing the thread a tad. That said, In regards to the premise of the thread at hand regarding activity on the sabbath, is there any Epistle references that can be cited denouncing any activities? I cannot find any. Many cite Old Covenant references and some references in the gospels, when the Mosaic Law code was still in force because Christ, had yet to die , but never is any command or principle from the apostolic doctrine sections of Scripture cited to support this thought. In defence of "anti sabs" for lack of a better term, I see Rom 14, Col 1 and Heb 4. Yet we are accused of the ole "taking them out of context" issue. CH cited James 2:10,11 which in no way has this thought in mind. You would think that something as important as some make it, there would be at least a shred of Apostolic scripture speaking on this. I cannot find any evidence the New Covenant calls for any person to cease from all activity on Sunday or on the Sabbath.
> 
> Believers who do not keep the Sabbath should not judge those who do so as legalists, unless those who do so begin to make it mandatory for all other believers. Romans 14: 4-6 is clear on this.


1. I think you have a wrong understanding of the nature of the moral law by framing the question/challenge the way you did.

2. I don't really see the Apostles spelling out how we are not supposed to covet our neighbor's property either. See point # 1.

3. The discussion actually bears upon what the nature of liberty is. Obviously, nobody is permitted to judge the other and this is the reason, in another thread, that I enjoined people to be careful about their attitudes toward one another and cited Romans 14 as an the example of the attitude that believers are supposed to have toward one another. As you recall, I did not start this thread. My post was moved over here to a new thread and it kind of morphed into the present discussion.

I personally would not have started a new thread giving people the impression that the discussion on the Sabbath is a disagreement between the weak and the strong. See the discussion on the things adiofora in another thread to get my views on what I believe is adiofora. I actually don't think there's really much doubt that the Sabbath is a moral law that finds its genesis in Genesis at creation.

I agree that there are ways that the Sabbath can be pressed into legalism but those issues have to do with the disposition/motivation of the person toward the command. Even the command not to covet can be turned into a legalistic exercise but it isn't, by definition, legalistic to seek to obey the command when redeemed. So it is with the Sabbath.

The big question is this: is the Sabbath still something of the nature of the moral law? Does God still command that we labor diligently for 6 days and rest in/worship Him on the 7th? If so, then a child can be _confused_ about what pleases His Father and not delight in the same things His Father does but a child cannot _know_ that His Father delights in a thing, do the opposite, and claim that He's pleasing His Father and then get upset with other brothers who are reminding Him that He's insulting the One he claims to love.


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> Marty, I gather you are referring to, "yet we are not bound to or tied down to any particular day." But as I understand it in its native context, he is speaking about "that which is particular" so far as Sabbath sanctification is concerned. Hence his meaning is only that there is no inherent moral holiness placed in one day over another, so that the day is to be considered one of positive appointment. The Puritans held the same. As for the appointment of the first day of the week, he provides a significant reason why this day was appointed over others, namely, "because on that day the resurrection of Christ took place, by which the internal and spiritual Sabbath is begun in us." (P. 563.) Again, the Puritans held the same. It is also worth noting that Ursinus would use the word "church" in the context of "Christendom," or the idea of a universal church, not in any sense suggesting that it is up to each individual congregation to decide what day it will worship on. Blessings!



Dear Matthew, thanks for the thoughts, and I can appreciate from where you're coming. But in context I still find it difficult to follow your reading. We differ over whether the apostolic change of day was a positive appointment or not. Hence, I read the words like "liberty" not simply to apply to the apostolic church but also now to the church of today as well. The problem I have with your reading, is that I can't find Ursinus explicitly saying that the apostolic change of day was a _positive appointment_. That's the unstated assumption. It may well be there. I haven't found it yet.

However, it seems to me that Ursinus does indicate that the church of today is free to change the day of worship. We find it in a passage where he rebuts the Anabaptist objection that no day is to be seen as special, and hence Sunday as well as any day is now unlawful to consecrate:

But it is not in this way [no day is special] that the Church observes the Lord's day, or the first day of the week. The observance of the first day of the week on the part of Christians differs in two respects from the observance of the Jewish sabbath. 1. It was not lawful for the Jews, on account of the express command of God, to alter or change the sabbath of the seventh day, as being a part of the ceremonial worship. But the Christian church, in the exercise of her own liberty, *sets apart* [notice the present tense] the first, *or any other day* to the ministry, without connecting with it any opinion of necessity of worship. [...]

Every blessing.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> But it is not in this way [no day is special] that the Church observes the Lord's day, or the first day of the week. The observance of the first day of the week on the part of Christians differs in two respects from the observance of the Jewish sabbath. 1. It was not lawful for the Jews, on account of the express command of God, to alter or change the sabbath of the seventh day, as being a part of the ceremonial worship. But the Christian church, in the exercise of her own liberty, *sets apart* [notice the present tense] the first, *or any other day* to the ministry, without connecting with it any opinion of necessity of worship. [...]



Marty, as you suggested previously, we may need to agree to disagree in the way we interpret Ursinus. I think the broader context of how the reformers approached the subject explains what Ursinus is aiming at. He starts from the position that the Sabbath is morally binding, and seeks to show wherein the Christian Sabbath differs from the Jewish. From that position his statements seem transparent to me, that the Christian church, unlike the Jewish church, does not regard one specific day as possessing inherent holiness over any other day. He clearly states that this respect to one specific day is what belonged to the ceremonial law. The Puritans also regarded the specific day as something which was positive, not moral. It might be argued that the Puritans laid greater emphasis than Ursinus on the fact that the positive institution of the first day was normative, and that would be in keeping with the different points they were seeking to establish; but it cannot be doubted that Ursinus saw the first day of the week as being appointed by the apostolic church, and that it appointed the first day because it was the day on which Christ rose from the dead.

The above quotation does not appear to me to suggest that the church today might change the day on which she keeps holy to God one day in seven. It seems merely to indicate that the church has freedom to minister not only one day of the week, but on every day of the week. Again, this would be in keeping with the reformed contention that the Christian church is not bound to observe the ceremonial aspects of the Sabbath commandment. Many blessings!


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> Marty, as you suggested previously, we may need to agree to disagree in the way we interpret Ursinus.



I'm happy with that. Thanks for the discussion thus far brother. All the best.


----------



## historyb

On my way to Church Sunday and as I routinely do on my cart, I cut through the parking lot of the local RCC and I had a thought after see the multitudes of cars. They go to mass because hey have to to avoid hell they think, we go because we want too. 

Anyway that's what I was thinking in my little mind.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

historyb said:


> On my way to Church Sunday and as I routinely do on my cart, I cut through the parking lot of the local RCC and I had a thought after see the multitudes of cars. They go to mass because hey have to to avoid hell they think, we go because we want too.
> 
> Anyway that's what I was thinking in my little mind.



As one who grew up Roman Catholic, that is a very good observation. They even call Holy Days "Days of Obligation". 

They approach worship as a slave would.

Now, granted, a few of them are happy slaves and, existentially, they are looking forward to going to Mass but it is as a happy slave, along with the vast majority in the RCC that are miserable slaves who know they'll go to Hell if they don't at least "punch in" on Christmas and Easter. Every employer has their 10% of really motivated servants.

But, in the best case scenario, the Roman Catholic is coming to worship God as the Prodigal Son had in mind: "It's better to be a slave in my Father's house...." What I discovered last year was something profound. The Father would not accept the Prodigal Son back as a slave but only as a son.

As Peter reminds us in 2 Peter 1:1-4, we've been given everything in Christ and our inheritance has been secured by Him. Thus, we don't come even as happy slaves trying to earn the good that God is doing for us in our worship and service to Him. That's the Pharisee, the elder brother. The Prodigal Son was not going to be the happy slave compared to the dutiful but miserable slave that his elder brother thought Himself to be.

No! The younger son was inside, in the light, rejoicing with His Father and the household. He hadn't earned any of it. He couldn't claim any of it. The Father had given to the son an inheritance he had no claim to. Sheer grace and love lavished for nothing good in him.

We enter into worship as adopted sons and not as slaves!


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

historyb said:


> How much of the Law are we still burdened under, are we not free from the Law? Is not the sabbath made for man and not man made for the sabbath? Is it me or are Reformed more into legalism than other branches?
> 
> I'll most likely get beaten down, but these are my thoughts.



I'm not here to beat you down brother, but does it not burden your heart that you have placed the gift of the Sabbath in the classification of a portion of "the law [that we are] still burdened under..."?

I absolutely thank God for the Sabbath. A day for the removal of those things that constantly fight for their placement on the throne of your heart, of which throne we all know should have Christ seated thereon. I fail every Sabbath to keep it. But there are sooooo many blessings that I receive on that day since there are so few distractions. I am kicked back with the Word of God, Buchanan, or Durham or a good sermon from sermonaudio at home, instead of a soccer game, cleaning my guns, or tending the garden. I have had to purchase medicine and gas on the Lord ’s Day before, and it burdens my heart that I am aiding in the prevention of these same gifts to that poor soul behind the counter. 

For me it is not a day I look at and say I get to relax and have some fun or recreation. Nor is it a day in which I contemplate all of the things that I can't do. Look at the benefit in the day. I see no burden other than my own corrupt heart, and this serves to point me to Christ. I am glad that He fulfilled the law, because I sure have failed to do so.


----------



## historyb

I don't wish to cause more trouble, I had hope this thread died. As to your question - No I don't feel bad nor do I consider us having a "sabbath" anymore. I do personally see a problem when someone says we must observe it.


----------



## moral necessity

With regard to the original question, I don't think that any of us believe we have the liberty to disobey God. All here are in agreement with this. The question is over what God commands the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, to do after the arrival of the Messiah. My opinion at this time is that, even before the Messiah arrived, God did not require Gentile believers to submit to the law given by Moses, and that after the arrival of the Messiah, all Jews were called to leave Judaism and the law of Moses for Christ. I think the 10 commandments were, in principle, present before Moses, and were adapted by him for the nation of Israel for their dwelling in the land of Canaan, until the advent of the Messiah. Since his coming and fulfilling of the law, the principles of the commandments remain in effect, but the adaptation of them for their application in a "nation-like setting" are no longer necessary. I refer to Luther for a better wording of this position. If anyone has the resource, you will find much thought on this subject in Luther's Works, Volume 47, pp.58-119. With regard to my brothers who view the issue otherwise, my blessings and my fellowship are with them in all sincerity and loyalty. In my partly renewed and mostly depraved mind, this view currently makes more sense to me. I hope those who differ in thier opinions with one another would extend grace, and stand with Paul when he says, "and if in this anyone is inclined to think otherwise, God will reveal that to you also." Below is an excerpt of Luther from this work of his cited above. 

From pp.90-94 - "And later when he (Moses) wants to set up a special law and nation apart from all others, as has been commanded to do, he first introduces God himself; he is the universal God of all the nations, who gives the universal Ten Commandments-which prior to this had been implanted at creation in the hearts of all men - to this particular people orally as well. In his day Moses fitted them nicely into his laws in a more orderly and excellent manner than could have been done by anyone else. Circumcision and the law of Moses, however, were not implanted in men's hearts; they were first imposed by Abraham and Moses on their people."

"We and all Gentiles are just as duty-bound as the Jews to keep the first commandment, so that we have no other gods than the only God. But we Gentiles have no use and can have no use for the phrase which modifies this commandment and which applies solely to the Jews, namely, "who brought you out of Egypt, out of the exile," etc., I would be like a sow entering a synagogue, for God never performed such a work for me. God would punish me as a liar; I would be making an imaginary god out of him. Yet I must recite and keep all the other words of the first commandment. I may also say, "You are my God, the God and also the Creator of us all, who, to be sure, led the children of Israel out of Egypt, but not me; however, you did lead me out of _my_ Egypt and _my_ exile." Thus the first commandment remains common to both Jews and Gentiles. It is especially adapted and suited to the Jews with reference to the exodus from Egypt, just as everyone after his own exile can and should name and praise the God of all as his own God and Helper."

"It is as if a prince or the head of a household wished to establish an ordinance for his country or his house because God had rescued him from great need and he wanted to show his gratitude, as perhaps Naaman the Syrian did or might have done (I Kings 5). He also would begin by teaching first about God, how he alone should be worshipped and regarded as the true God, able and willing to deliver from every need all who trust and believe in him, whatever nation it may be,...After that the prince or the head of a household would continue by enunciating the ordinances for his country or his house."

"In this way the prince would not have imposed the ordinances of his country on all other countries which did not experience this help, nor would he have had the authority to do this, even if he at the outset first commanded that they should worship and honor the true God of all countries. That is what Moses also does. When he is supposed to organize his people, who have been delivered from Egypt, he first lets God himself issue his Ten Commandments,which pertain to all of mankind. Subsequently, and still at God's command, he gives the people the particular laws of their country, which do not concern other nations. As Moses' people were obligated to obey these ordinances because God had given him this command, so each country and each household is duty-bound to observe the ordinances of its prince and head of a household. For these also are the commandments of God, who ordained all the governments of the world (Rom.13:1)."

"Similarly, the third commandment concerning the Sabbath, of which the Jews make so much, is per se a commandment that applies to the whole world; but the form in which Moses frames it and adapts it to his people was imposed only on the Jews, just as with regard to the first commandment none but the Jews must believe and confess that the common God of all the world led them out of Egypt. For the true meaning of the third commandment is that we on that day should teach and hear the word of God, thereby sanctifying both the day and ourselves. And in accord with this, ever after to the present day, Moses and the prophets are read and preached on the Sabbath day among the Jews. Whereever God's word is preached it follows naturally that one must necessarily celebrate at the same hour or time and be quiet, and without any other preoccupation only speak and hear what God declares, what he teaches us and tells us."

"Moses' mention of the seventh day, and of how God created the world in six days, which is why they are to do no work - all this is a temporal adaptation with which Moses suits this commandment to his people, especially at that time. We find nothing written about this previously, either by Abraham or at the time of the old fathers. This is a temporary addendum and adaptation intended solely for this people which was brought out of Egypt. Nor was it to endure forever, any more than was the whole law of Moses. But, the sanctifying - that is, the teaching and preaching of God's word, which is the true, genuine, and sole meaning of this commandment - has been from the beginning and pertains to all the world forever. Therefore the seventh day does not concern us Gentiles, nor did it concern the Jews beyond the advent of the Messiah, although by the very nature of things one must, as already said, rest, celebrate, and keep the Sabbath on whatever day or at whatever hour God's word is preached. For God's word cannot be heard or taught when one is preoccupied with something else or when one is not quiet."

"Therefore Isaiah, too, declares in chapter 66, vs.23, that the seventh day, or, as I call it, Moses' adaptation of it, will cease at the time of the Messiah when true sanctification and the word of God will appear richly. He says that there will be one Sabbath after another and one new moon after another, that is, that all will be sheer Sabbath, and there will no longer be any particular seventh day with six days in between. For the sanctifying or the word of God will enjoy full scope daily and abundantly, and every day will be a Sabbath."

"I am well aware of what the Jews say about this and how they interpret this saying of Isaiah...But in brief, no Jew can tell me how it is possible for all flesh to worship before the Lord in Jerusalem every new moon and every Sabbath, as the text translated most accurately and exactly into German according to their understanding, conveys. Some people or flesh live so far from Jerusalem that they could not get there within twenty, thirty, or a hundred Sabbaths, and the Jews themselves have not worshipped in Jerusalem for fifteen hundred years, that is, in twelve times fifteen hundred new moons - I will say nothing of the Sabbaths..."

"Jeremiah comments on the first commandment's qualifying phrase, "who brought you out of the land of Egypt," in chapter 23,verse 5: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land," etc. And he adds immediately: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when men shall no longer say, 'As the Lord lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt,' but 'As the Lord lives who brought up and led the descendents of the house of Israel (note that not the entire house of Israel but the descendents of it are mentioned here) out of the north country and out of all the countries where he had driven them.' Then they shall dwell in their own land." (vs.7,8)"

"...Whenever the Jews hold to their teachers, (editors comment - "presumably Jewish exegetes who dealt with the passage before it became a focus of controversy with the Christians"), they are agreed with us that Jeremiah is here speakiing about the time of the Messiah. When this time comes, the prophet states plainly, that part of the first commandment which was given by Moses, where it says, "who brought you out of the land of Egypt," will cease to apply. For the text says that one must no longer swear by the God who brought them up out of Egypt, but by the God who gathered them from all the lands unto the Branch of David. Now, if this phrase in the first commandment does not pertain beyond the time of the Messiah, then Moses' law is not eternal but terminates with the Messiah, and there remains only the law of the Ten Commandments, which was in force prior to Moses from the beginning of the world and also among all the Gentiles: namely, that one must not have more than one God, etc. So far as the Ten Commandments are concerned, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, for God is the God not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles, as St. Paul declares (Rom.3:29) and as the aforementioned examples of the kings of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, etc., prove."

Hope this is helpful in your study.

Blessings!


----------



## holyfool33

It depends what you define as "The Believer's sabbath" for instance I would define the sabbath as when one is regenerated by God and saved so that he now "rests" in Christ the OT Sabbath was a type of the believer's salvation in Christ The Book of Hebrews shows this.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Then, by the same logic, no regenerated Israelite should have concerned himself with the Sabbath either. He also rested in Christ. Arguing that "Christ hadn't come yet" so salvation was "future" for the OT saint negates the efficacy of Christ's until its temporal occasion, an opinion denied by the Scriptures, OT & NT. Furthermore, our full salvation is also still future:


> Rom 13:11 Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.


Hence, salvation (and rest) awaits us, even as it awaited the OT saints (for Joshua, though he did give them rest, did not give them permanent rest, Heb. 4:8). Jesus has made that rest more sure and certain. But it still waits for us. That is the eschatological divide. Israelites had an "already-not yet" experience. And _so do we_. They kept the Sabbath because of it. _And so must we._


----------



## AV1611

holyfool33 said:


> It depends what you define as "The Believer's sabbath" for instance I would define the sabbath as when one is regenerated by God and saved so that he now "rests" in Christ the OT Sabbath was a type of the believer's salvation in Christ The Book of Hebrews shows this.



That is certainly a 'popular' view amongst certain baptist groups but I am yet to see it defended exegetically without major hermeneutical errors. I say this not to be "party political" but just as a matter of fact.


----------



## holyfool33

AV1611 said:


> holyfool33 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends what you define as "The Believer's sabbath" for instance I would define the sabbath as when one is regenerated by God and saved so that he now "rests" in Christ the OT Sabbath was a type of the believer's salvation in Christ The Book of Hebrews shows this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly a 'popular' view amongst certain baptist groups but I am yet to see it defended exegetically without major hermeneutical errors. I say this not to be "party political" but just as a matter of fact.
Click to expand...


It depends how you look at it D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo have taken smiler views of The Law but what are these errors you speak of?


----------

