# What would you think on My Pastors view on the Sabbath?



## Dachaser (Jun 26, 2017)

This past Sunday, my Pastor did a summary teaching on the various viewpoints regarding the Sabbath throughout history of the Church.
He grouped first 2 views as being Sabbath keeping, as being either Saturday/Sunday, and the persons would see it as being a time to not work, no outside activities, basically allowed to attend church and worship and learn from the Lord.

Third view would be that we practice the principle of the Day as unto the Lord, but more flexible, as in could go to see a ball game, fishing, camping etc after doing church.
Fourth viewpoint would be that in Jesus, the Sabbath has been fully kept, and that we observe it as a day of rest, but as in resting fro efforts of obeying the Law to save ourselves, to go into His rest bu fully trusting in Jesus work for us, and thus keep the Law/Sabbath as Christ did that for us, he tied this into Hebrews, with there is now the Sabbath rest for those in Christ.

He just laid out the views for us, so what do you think?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 26, 2017)

David, you seem to be suggesting that he holds the fourth view, correct? Just off the top of my head, it seems clear that the rest enjoined in the fourth commandment is not contentless rest, but a rest towards worship (keeping it holy). In the redemptive-historical context of Israel not getting any rest, but being forced to work 24/7 in Egypt (and therefore not being allowed to worship God at all), this would have had a fairly specific meaning for them. They get rest from work in Egypt SO THAT they can worship God on the Sabbath. There is no exegetical warrant whatsoever for the view that "resting" means "resting from our own efforts of obeying the law to save ourselves." 

As to Hebrews, read Gaffin's article in _Pressing Toward the Mark_. The rest is eschatological rest, which we have in an already/not yet schema which does not alter the weekly sabbath observance (except for the day on which it is celebrated, which change Christ instituted, not the author of Hebrews), but rather confirms it. The "already" is that the rest comes before the work (the change of the day from Saturday to Sunday, on which see Vos's _Biblical Theology_). The not yet is that there still remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, which is why we still celebrate it weekly, since we have not entered the eternal Sabbath rest yet. 

I would also say that his classification is off. He does not seem to describe the Puritan position at all, which is that works of necessity and mercy are also part of Sabbath keeping.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 26, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> David, you seem to be suggesting that he holds the fourth view, correct? Just off the top of my head, it seems clear that the rest enjoined in the fourth commandment is not contentless rest, but a rest towards worship (keeping it holy). In the redemptive-historical context of Israel not getting any rest, but being forced to work 24/7 in Egypt (and therefore not being allowed to worship God at all), this would have had a fairly specific meaning for them. They get rest from work in Egypt SO THAT they can worship God on the Sabbath. There is no exegetical warrant whatsoever for the view that "resting" means "resting from our own efforts of obeying the law to save ourselves."
> 
> As to Hebrews, read Gaffin's article in _Pressing Toward the Mark_. The rest is eschatological rest, which we have in an already/not yet schema which does not alter the weekly sabbath observance (except for the day on which it is celebrated, which change Christ instituted, not the author of Hebrews), but rather confirms it. The "already" is that the rest comes before the work (the change of the day from Saturday to Sunday, on which see Vos's _Biblical Theology_). The not yet is that there still remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, which is why we still celebrate it weekly, since we have not entered the eternal Sabbath rest yet.
> 
> I would also say that his classification is off. He does not seem to describe the Puritan position at all, which is that works of necessity and mercy are also part of Sabbath keeping.


What is the Puritan position, and God did not change Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, but we still observe it on the Lord day Sunday, correct?


----------



## Jake (Jun 26, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> What is the Puritan position, and God did not change Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, but we still observe it on the Lord day Sunday, correct?



The position of the Westminster Standards is that the Sabbath has changed from Saturday to Sunday:

*WSC Question* *59.*_ Which day of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly Sabbath?_

*Answer:* From the beginning of the world, to the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly Sabbath; and the first day of the week, ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian Sabbath.

See also Fischer's Catechism for an explanation of the above: http://reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/documents/fisher/q059.html


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 26, 2017)

David, the book to read is Dennison's book _The Market Day of the Soul_, if you really want to understand the real Puritan position. He has an excellent taxomony of various views, and explains well why the Puritans came to the view they have.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 26, 2017)

There are not two Sabbaths; the old Saturday Sabbath has been changed to the first day of the week, theLord's Day, as the Christian Sabbath for the people of God. Here is a bit describing the puritan view from an article in last year's _The Confessional Presbyterian_.
*The Puritan Sabbath*

The refinement of English Sabbatarianism in the latter decades of the sixteenth century produced one of the key defining features of Puritan piety, which would later be systematized in Presbyterian and Nonconformist doctrine via _The Westminster Standards _(1647), _The Savoy Declaration _(1658) and the _Baptist Confession of Faith _(1677).While it is true that a generation earlier in England, the Elizabethan Puritans worked to refine and systematize a sounder doctrinal footing for Sabbatarianism, they were nevertheless building upon a conservative practical Sabbatarianism that stretched back to the middle ages, which even under the darkness and superstition of Roman Catholicism had laws against labor and pastimes on Sundays.4 The “evidence from the period establishes that late Elizabethan sabbatarians were not innovators, but were elaborating a doctrinal tradition which had medieval origins and was part of the authorized teaching of the English church.”5 The theological concept “of a morally binding sabbath … was defined first by thirteenth-century scholastics and used by such pillars of the English Reformation as Heinrick Bullinger, John Hooper, Thomas Becon, and others” (Parker, “Rogers,” 334).

Without question, the doctrinal statements of the Westminster Assembly present a Puritan or English Sabbatarian understanding of the fourth commandment. Some have noted that English Sabbatarianism consists of three major points, 1. that the fourth commandment is moral, not partly ceremonial, 2. that the day of worship was moved to the first day of the week because of the resurrection of Christ, and 3. that the day should be observed in a strict manner in putting aside our regular weekday labors and recreations.6 Patrick Collinson defined English Sabbatarianism as,

… the doctrinal assertion that the fourth commandment is not an obsolete ceremonial law of the Jews but a perpetual, moral law, binding on Christians; in other words, that the Christian observance of Sunday has its basis not in ecclesiastical tradition but in the Decalogue. The more important propositions of the Sabbatarians are that the Sabbath derives from the creation and so antedates both man’s fall and the Mosaic law, although its use was defined in the Decalogue; that the hallowing of the Lord’s day in place of the Sabbath was of apostolic or even divine appointment, and more than an ecclesiastical convention; so that the Sabbath is still in force in this altered form, commemorating the second creation in Christ’s resurrection, and robbed only of some of its ceremonial detail; that the whole day should be kept holy and devoted to the public and private exercise of religion; and that this precludes all otherwise lawful recreations and pastimes as well as the work of one’s calling, unlawful games and mere idleness.… The first extensively argued, dogmatic assertion that the fourth commandment is morally and perpetually binding was published in 1595, _The doctrine of the Sabbath_ by the Suffolk Puritan divine, sometime fellow of Peterhouse and rector of Norton, Dr Nicholas Bownd.7​
The ministry of Nicholas Bownd (1551?–1613) exhibited the practical divinity taught by his stepfather, Richard Greenham (1543?–1594), which focused on the means of grace (Word, Sacraments, prayer, etc.). The crucial ‘mean of the means’ whereby all these means of grace were made available to the people of God was the weekly gathering on the Christian Sabbath or Lord’s Day. The Lord’s Day is a blessing that the Lord has given to His people. “God prohibits certain activities on the Sabbath day in order to free us for communion and fellowship with Him and with one another.”8

Bownd’s 1595 book was based on lectures given circa 1585/86 at the Monday combination lecture in Bury St. Edmunds. The book was extensively augmented in a second edition in 1606, due in no small part to the criticisms and trouble caused the Norton parson by his severe conformist neighbor Thomas Rogers.9 In his 1606 dedication to Bishop John Jegon, Bownd outlines the Puritan Sabbatarian position as follows:

1. First of all, that the observations [_sic_] of the Sabbath is not a bare ordinance of man, or a mere civil or ecclesiastical constitution, appointed only for polity; but an immortal commandment of almighty God, and therefore binds men’s consciences.

2. The same was given to our first parents, Adam and Eve; and so after carefully observed, both [by] them and their posterity, the holy patriarchs and Church of God, before and under the law, until the coming of Christ.

3. And it was revived in Mount Sinai, by God’s own voice to the Israelites, after they came out of Egypt, with a special note of remembrance above all the rest; and fortified with more reasons than they, and particularly applied unto all sorts of men by name; all which shows how careful the Lord was that everyone should straightly keep it.

4. The ceremonies of the law, which made a difference between Jew and Gentile, though the gospel has taken away, since _the partition wall was broken down by Christ_ (Eph. 2:14); yet this commandment of the Sabbath abides still in its full force, as being moral and perpetual, and so binds for ever all nations and sorts of men, as before.

5. The apostles by the direction of God’s Spirit (leading them into all truth) did change that day (which before was the seventh from creation, and in remembrance of it) into the eighth; even this which we now keep in honor of the _Redemption. _And therefore the same day ought never to be changed, but still to be kept of all nations unto the world’s end; because we can never have the like cause or direction to change it.

6. So that we are in keeping holy of a day, for the public service of the Lord, precisely bound not only to the number of seven (and it is not in our power to make choice of the sixth or eighth day); but even on this very seventh day, which we now keep, and to none other.

7. On which day we are bound straightly to rest from all the ordinary works of our calling, every man in his several vocation; because six days in the week are appointed for them, and the seventh is sanctified and separated from the others, to another end; even for the public service of God, and that by God Himself.

8. Much more, then, in it ought we to give over [_relinquish_] all kinds of lawful recreations and pastimes, which are less necessary than the works of our calling, and whatsoever may take up our hearts to draw them from God’s service; because this law is spiritual, and binds the whole man, as well as any other. Most of all ought we to renounce all such things, as are not lawful at any time.

9. Yet in cases of necessity God has given great liberty unto us, to do many things for the preservation and comforts not only of the beasts and dumb creatures, but especially of man. Not only when he is weak and sick, but being healthful and strong, both in the works of our callings, and also of recreations, without which necessity we are persuaded that men ought ordinarily to cease from them.

10. And herein more specially the governors of the Church and Commonwealth have great liberty above all others, who in such cases may upon this day do many things for the good of both, not only for war, but for peace; and may prescribe unto others, and the people ought therein to obey them. And as in other things they ought not busily to inquire a reason of all their commandments; so in this they ought to presume with reverence so much of their good consciences, that they know more cause of the things which they command and do, than themselves do, or is meet for them curiously to inquire.

11. The same day of rest ought ordinarily to be spent altogether in God’s service, especially in frequenting the public assemblies, where the Word of God is plainly read and purely preached, the sacraments rightly administered, and prayer made in a known tongue to the edifying of the people; where also they ought to attend upon these things from the beginning to the ending.

12. The rest of the day ought to be spent by every man himself alone, or with others (as his family or neighbors) in all private exercises of religion, whereby he may be more prepared unto, or reap greater fruit from the public exercises: as in private prayer, reading of the scriptures, singing of psalms, meditating upon, or conferring about, the Word and works of God—and that either in their houses, or abroad in the fields.

13. And as every man particularly is bound to the observation of this commandment, so more specially masters in their families, magistrates in their precincts, and princes in their realms ought to provide for this, as much as in them lies; and hereby to look to all that are committed to their charge, and to compel them at the least to the outward observation of the _rest_, and the sanctifying of it, as well as of any other commandment, as of not committing murder, adultery, theft, and such like.

14. Lastly, though no man can perfectly keep this commandment, either in thought, word or deed, no more than he can any other; yet this is that perfection that we must aim at; and wherein, if we fail, we must repent us, and crave pardon for Christ’s sake. For as the whole law is our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ (Gal. 3:24); so is every particular commandment, and namely this of the Sabbath. And therefore we are not to measure the length and breadth of it by the over-scant rule of our own inability, but by the perfect reed of the Temple (Ezek. 40:3); that is, by the absolute righteousness of God himself, which only can give us the full measure of it.​
As noted by Collinson, Bownd’s work, while preceded by shorter works touching upon or anticipating Sabbatarian doctrine, was the first large scholarly publication to give the subject a systematic defense. The impact of the work was significant and while Bownd claimed no originality, his work helped to set the standard argumentation. From Bownd’s 1595 edition until the suppression of Sabbatarian works by Laud, many works were published promoting what became an essential characteristic of Puritan piety.10 After the lifting of the press ban that began with the reissue of the Book of Sports, many more works were published just prior to, during and after the Westminster Assembly to the close of the seventeenth century.11

Puritan Sabbatarianism was formally codified into Presbyterian theology by the well-known statements of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms on the doctrine of the Christian Sabbath.12

----------------
4. David N. Laband and Deborah Hendry Heinbuch, _Blue Laws: The History, Economics, and Politics of Sunday-Closing Laws_ (Lexington Books, 1987), 14–16.

5. Kenneth Parker, “Thomas Rogers and the English Sabbath: The Case for a Reappraisal,” Church_ History _53, no. 3 (September 1984): 332–333.

6. John H. Primus, _Holy Time: Moderate Puritanism and the Sabbath _(Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1989)_,_ 11; Richard L. Greaves, “The Origins of English Sabbatarian Thought,” Sixteenth Century Journal XII, No. 3 (1981), 19. Kenneth L. Parker, _The English Sabbath: A Study of Doctrine and Discipline from the Reformation to the Civil War _(Cambridge University Press, 1988), 6–7.

7. Patrick Collinson, “The Beginnings of English Sabbatarianism,” in _Studies in Church History, volume one, Papers read at the first winter and summer meetings of the Ecclesiastical History Society_ (Thomas Nelson, 1964), 207–209.

8. Pilgrim Covenant Church, Singapore, 16th Annual Conference (9–11 June 2015), The Lord’s Day; Dr. Joseph Pipa, The Lord’s Day: The Market Day of the Soul, 



 (accessed June 26, 2015).

9. See Chris Coldwell, “Anti-Sabbatarian Scold: Thomas Rogers’ Letter to Nicholas Bownd, April 29, 1598,” The Confessional Presbyterian 10 (2014): 113–170, and, Introduction, Nicholas Bownd, _The True Doctrine of the Sabbath_ (Naphtali Press and Reformation Heritage Books, 2015).

10. George Estey, _Certain and learned Expositions upon divers parts of Scripture _(London, 1603), which includes the earlier, _A Most Sweet and comfortable exposition upon the ten commandments _(London, 1602). John Dod and Robert Cleaver, _An Exposition of the Ten Commandments _(1603, 19th edition, 1635). William Greenham, _Treatise of the Sabboth_, in _Works _(London, 1604); George Widley, _Doctrine of the Sabbath, handled in Four Severall Bookes or Treatises _(London, 1604); John Sprint, _Propositions tending to prove the necessary Use of the Christian Sabbath, or Lord’s Day _(London, 1607); Andrew Willet, _Hexapla in Genesis _(1608). Lewes [Lewis] Bayly, _The Practice of Piety_, third edition (1613). Lewes Thomas, _A Short Treatise upon the Commandments, in seven sermons or exercises of seven sabbaths _(London, 1615). Edward Elton, _An exposition of the ten commandments of God _(London, 1623), an update of _A plain and easy exposition of six of the commandments _(1619). _Effigiatio veri Sabbathismi_ (1605) by Robert Loews may qualify but this Latin work contains criticisms of some points characteristic of what was becoming the Puritan position.

11. See the books listed in Chris Coldwell, “Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines, Or, Did Calvin Bowl on the Sabbath?”, The Confessional Presbyterian 6 (2010): 42, fn 60.

From Chris Coldwell, “Dropping the Subject, Again? The Decline of Sabbatarianism in the Old Southern Presbyterian Church and in the Presbyterian Church in America,” _The Confessional Presbyterian_ 12 (2017), 41–43.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 3 | Amen 1


----------



## malcolmmaxwell60 (Jun 26, 2017)

I love the last view. Celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ by resting in him. Remember the Christian Sabbath Day to keep it Holy. The Lord's day preparing for the eternal Sabbath Rest. Hebrews chapter 3 and 4

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


----------



## OPC'n (Jun 26, 2017)

Jesus fulfilled the whole law perfectly in a spiritual and physical manner (His being/spirit/soul was without sin thus he committed no physical/thought-based sin). He fulfilled the law so that his righteousness could be imputed onto us. We don't turn around then and say, "Well, Christ already fulfilled the whole law for us; therefore, we don't have to abide by it.". So why take the 4th commandment and say that of it? And to our detriment I might add. God doesn't need anything from us. He longs for us to give him the Sabbath so that we can be regenerated from the trying work week. An example I like is a man trudging through a hot, sandy desert all week where he finds small holes of water and food. However, once a week he finds the most beautiful oasis where he can drink and eat his fill, listen to beautiful birds and waterfalls, and lay beneath the shade of giant trees. Why on earth would he want to step out into the hot desert during that day? The Sabbath should be that for us. Why would we want to do our own thing when we get to spend the entire day with God and his ppl?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 26, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> Jesus fulfilled the whole law perfectly in a spiritual and physical manner (His being/spirit/soul was without sin thus he committed no physical/thought-based sin). He fulfilled the law so that his righteousness could be imputed onto us. We don't turn around then and say, "Well, Christ already fulfilled the whole law for us; therefore, we don't have to abide by it.". So why take the 4th commandment and say that of it? And to our detriment I might add. God doesn't need anything from us. He longs for us to give him the Sabbath so that we can be regenerated from the trying work week. An example I like is a man trudging through a hot, sandy desert all week where he finds small holes of water and food. However, once a week he finds the most beautiful oasis where he can drink and eat his fill, listen to beautiful birds and waterfalls, and lay beneath the shade of giant trees. Why on earth would he want to step out into the hot desert during that day? The Sabbath should be that for us. Why would we want to do our own thing when we get to spend the entire day with God and his ppl?


I fully agree that our Day of rest unto the Lord is now the Lord's Day, but when did the scriptures tranfer Saturday Sabbath to that Day, as I thought that the Sabbath was given to Israel to observe as that day, while our worship/observing Day's the lord's day itself?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 26, 2017)

malcolmmaxwell60 said:


> I love the last view. Celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ by resting in him. Remember the Christian Sabbath Day to keep it Holy. The Lord's day preparing for the eternal Sabbath Rest. Hebrews chapter 3 and 4
> 
> Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


Have you heard of that viewpoint before?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 26, 2017)

Jake said:


> The position of the Westminster Standards is that the Sabbath has changed from Saturday to Sunday:
> 
> *WSC Question* *59.*_ Which day of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly Sabbath?_
> 
> ...


I am not disagreeing at all with observing the Day unto the Lord, but why would that not be to us the Lord's day itself, instead of calling it the Sabbath?


----------



## malcolmmaxwell60 (Jun 26, 2017)

I agree with the Westminister standards on the Sabbath being changed from Saturday to Sunday, the first day of the week 

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


----------



## malcolmmaxwell60 (Jun 26, 2017)

First day 

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 26, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I fully agree that our Day of rest unto the Lord is now the Lord's Day, but when did the scriptures tranfer Saturday Sabbath to that Day, as I thought that the Sabbath was given to Israel to observe as that day, while our worship/observing Day's the lord's day itself?



The Sabbath was given to ALL humanity at creation in Genesis 2:1-3, not just to Israel. The Lord Jesus Christ transferred Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday by His resurrection from the dead on Sunday, His subsequent appearances to the disciples on Sunday, Paul's preaching on Sunday in Acts 20, the collection in 1 Corinthians 16, and John's use of the phrase "Lord's Day" in Revelation 1:10. 

Furthermore, the OT reasons for the Sabbath are creation (in the Decalogue in Exodus), and redemption (in the second giving of the law in Deuteronomy 5). These are complementary reasons for the Sabbath that receive new creation and new redemption in Christ's person and work that culminates in His resurrection from the dead on Sunday.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Von (Jun 27, 2017)

I've been of the 4th view for most of my life, but recently espousing the view that the Lord's day should be celebrated as a weekly day of rest on the first day of the week. How would you comment on Romans 14:5 "One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."?


----------



## Herald (Jun 27, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> There are not two Sabbaths...



Neither is there a Presbyterian Sabbath or a Baptist Sabbath; there is one Sabbath. Thank you Lane, and Chris for the detailed responses. On a practical note, we are never closer to God than our most intimate encounter with him, which is worship. Busyness is the enemy of rest. Our soul needs rest, just as the body needs rest. Lane did a good job of pointing out the true meaning of spiritual rest.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Jun 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> O am not sisagrreing at all with observing the Day unto the Lord, but why would that not be to us the Lord's day itself, instead of calling it the Sabbath?



Did you take a look at the link I gave you to Fischer's Catechism? It explains this.


----------



## Von (Jun 27, 2017)

Jake said:


> Did you take a look at the link I gave you to Fischer's Catechism? It explains this.


I had a look at the Catechism, and it seems to me that he is saying we should be calling it the Lord's day.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 27, 2017)

https://www.amazon.com/Calvin-Sabbath-Controversy-Applying-Commandment/dp/1857923766

This is a good book by Gaffin, a seminary professor ( WTS). Not too long and written for laymen. He ends up at the traditional view while giving fair explanation to the fourth (completely fulfilled- Hebrews) view. 

Personally I think that the sabbath rest is a creation ordinance that is part of the very fabric of natural life, before the law was ever given, like the institution of marriage, tithing ( Abraham to Mel ), male headship (Adam first, then Eve, as 1 Cor 11 repeats). But even so, our first and greatest recognition of it I think should be the Hebrews passage of resting from our works in Christ......even as we set apart that one earthly day if possible.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 27, 2017)

It is the Christian Sabbath known by it's scriptural appellation as the Lord's Day. But it is the NT or Christian Sabbath changed from the seventh to first day of the week as the weekly Sabbath. Only the day which was by positive command and subject to change, has changed. It is still the Sabbath or weekly portion of time set aside for worship by the fourth commandment. Fisher agrees with all of this; he is not objecting to the word Sabbath or the fact that the OT and NT day of worship are the Sabbath.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 27, 2017)

Von said:


> I had a look at the Catechism, and it seems to me that he is saying we should be calling it the Lord's day.


My understanding would be that the term Sabbath was reserved for Saturday, but that we in the New Covenant have our day as rest now as the Lord's day.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 27, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> The Sabbath was given to ALL humanity at creation in Genesis 2:1-3, not just to Israel. The Lord Jesus Christ transferred Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday by His resurrection from the dead on Sunday, His subsequent appearances to the disciples on Sunday, Paul's preaching on Sunday in Acts 20, the collection in 1 Corinthians 16, and John's use of the phrase "Lord's Day" in Revelation 1:10.
> 
> Furthermore, the OT reasons for the Sabbath are creation (in the Decalogue in Exodus), and redemption (in the second giving of the law in Deuteronomy 5). These are complementary reasons for the Sabbath that receive new creation and new redemption in Christ's person and work that culminates in His resurrection from the dead on Sunday.


So you would be accepting there there is the principle of a day unto the Lord in creation itself, before being formalized in the Law , and so we today are under that Day, regardless if we call it the Sabbath or the Lord's day?


----------



## Von (Jun 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> My understanding would be that the term Sabbath was reserved for Saturday, but that we in the New Covenant have our day as rest now as the Lord's day.


Yup.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 27, 2017)

David, it is called both, but yes, that day is binding for all time, although God can move it (and He is the only one with the authority so to do). God entered into eschatological rest (though that does not imply an inactivity with regard to creation) on the seventh day, and invited Adam and Eve to join Him in that eschatological rest by means of the Covenant of Works. Had he been obedient, he would have entered into that same eschatological rest by means of his works. The Covenant of Works implies that works come before rest. Now, in the Covenant of Grace, the rest comes before the work, and this change from work-rest to rest-work is symbolized by the change from Saturday Sabbath, where the rest comes at the end of the week, to Sunday Sabbath, where the rest comes at the beginning of the week. For this, see Vos's _Biblical Theology_, around page 140, I think. Everything in this paragraph comes pretty much straight from him.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> My understanding would be that the term Sabbath was reserved for Saturday, but that we in the New Covenant have our day as rest now as the Lord's day.



Just to be clear, that is not the Puritan's understanding. And, for that matter, those who drafted the 1689 London Baptist Confession agreed with the Presbyterians at that time.

This excerpt of Chapter 22, paragraph 7 of the LBCF is essentially identical to the Westminster Confession of Faith (found there in chap. 21, para. 7):

"[God] hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, 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, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, ...."

As far as they were concerned (and as far as those who hold to the confessions are concerned), the Lord's Day is the Sabbath.

A couple of additional resources on the topic easily found on-line:

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/the-perpetuity-and-change-of-the-sabbath/

Jonathan Edwards' exhaustive treatment:

http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/sabbath.htm

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Von (Jun 28, 2017)

Please don't read my post as me trying to be difficult (Coming from a reformed background, now in dispensational church, trying to figure out all of these things...):

In the new testament, every time that the word "sabbath" is used, it is in context of the jewish saturday/sixth day (and the Hebrews eschatological rest). I agree the term "Lord's day" is used only once in Revelation, but John must've known that his readers would know exactly what he meant with the term. Furthermore the early church used the term "Lord's day" (Didache, Chapter 14). 
I'm struggling to see a biblical reason for the word "Sabbath" as it applies to the first day of the week. 

PS: I also heard someone this morning say that I shouldn't join the conversation at 23h00 if it started at 08h00. I'm aware that the puritans and most of you guys (and girls) are lightyears ahead of me in terms of scripture knowledge, etc.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 28, 2017)

Von, recognizing that you may be new to the discussion about the Sabbath, a couple of points here. 

Firstly, the word "sabbaton" in Greek has a variety of usages in the New Testament. It can mean the Saturday Sabbath, as it does so often in the Gospels. Secondly, it can mean "week" as in the idiomatic expression "first day of the week" in Matthew 28:1 (literally and woodenly "first of the sabbaths," but it does not mean the first sabbath in a series of sabbaths, but simply "the first day of the week." Thirdly, the term can refer to Jewish feast days, which is its more probable meaning in Colossians 2:16. However, even if it did mean the weekly sabbath in that verse, that does not imply that one of the Ten Commandments has somehow been dropped from the list. Fourthly, it can refer to eschatological rest, as in Hebrews 4, as you pointed out. However, again, as Gaffin pointed out, we are not at the eschatological point of rest yet, which means that the weekly sabbath is still in effect (Hebrews says that there still remains a sabbath rest for the people of God). The lack of fully realized eschatology of sabbath implies the inaugurated eschatological situation in which we now are, which is that the sabbath now starts the week instead of ending it, just as grace comes before works. I have an article that deals with this in more depth in CPJ 12, as well as the issue of recreation. The entire redemptive-historical sweep of creation and redemption is tied to the Sabbath, and both find their culmination in the resurrection of Christ on Sunday. 

Do not make the mistake of tying a theology of Sabbath to a specific word-usage. The concept of the Sabbath changing to Sunday is present primarily by good and necessary consequence.


----------



## Von (Jun 28, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Von, recognizing that you may be new to the discussion about the Sabbath, a couple of points here.
> 
> Firstly, the word "sabbaton" in Greek has a variety of usages in the New Testament, etc.


Thank you - I think I need to do a bit more reading and praying on this topic as well (I'll add that to my 10000 other things that I still need to read up on).


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 28, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> David, it is called both, but yes, that day is binding for all time, although God can move it (and He is the only one with the authority so to do). God entered into eschatological rest (though that does not imply an inactivity with regard to creation) on the seventh day, and invited Adam and Eve to join Him in that eschatological rest by means of the Covenant of Works. Had he been obedient, he would have entered into that same eschatological rest by means of his works. The Covenant of Works implies that works come before rest. Now, in the Covenant of Grace, the rest comes before the work, and this change from work-rest to rest-work is symbolized by the change from Saturday Sabbath, where the rest comes at the end of the week, to Sunday Sabbath, where the rest comes at the beginning of the week. For this, see Vos's _Biblical Theology_, around page 140, I think. Everything in this paragraph comes pretty much straight from him.


Whether we choose to use the term of the Sabbath, or the Lord's day, would seem that we are saying pretty much the same thing here.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 28, 2017)

VictorBravo said:


> Just to be clear, that is not the Puritan's understanding. And, for that matter, those who drafted the 1689 London Baptist Confession agreed with the Presbyterians at that time.
> 
> This excerpt of Chapter 22, paragraph 7 of the LBCF is essentially identical to the Westminster Confession of Faith (found there in chap. 21, para. 7):
> 
> ...


I agree with either term to be used, as they both seem to me to be saying the same thing.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 28, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Von, recognizing that you may be new to the discussion about the Sabbath, a couple of points here.
> 
> Firstly, the word "sabbaton" in Greek has a variety of usages in the New Testament. It can mean the Saturday Sabbath, as it does so often in the Gospels. Secondly, it can mean "week" as in the idiomatic expression "first day of the week" in Matthew 28:1 (literally and woodenly "first of the sabbaths," but it does not mean the first sabbath in a series of sabbaths, but simply "the first day of the week." Thirdly, the term can refer to Jewish feast days, which is its more probable meaning in Colossians 2:16. However, even if it did mean the weekly sabbath in that verse, that does not imply that one of the Ten Commandments has somehow been dropped from the list. Fourthly, it can refer to eschatological rest, as in Hebrews 4, as you pointed out. However, again, as Gaffin pointed out, we are not at the eschatological point of rest yet, which means that the weekly sabbath is still in effect (Hebrews says that there still remains a sabbath rest for the people of God). The lack of fully realized eschatology of sabbath implies the inaugurated eschatological situation in which we now are, which is that the sabbath now starts the week instead of ending it, just as grace comes before works. I have an article that deals with this in more depth in CPJ 12, as well as the issue of recreation. The entire redemptive-historical sweep of creation and redemption is tied to the Sabbath, and both find their culmination in the resurrection of Christ on Sunday.
> 
> Do not make the mistake of tying a theology of Sabbath to a specific word-usage. The concept of the Sabbath changing to Sunday is present primarily by good and necessary consequence.


It seems that we can understand the concept of the Sabbath as being the first day of the week now, as a principle rooted into creation itself, and has now being under the Sabbath resting found in Jesus, so seems that can view this in various ways at same time.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 28, 2017)

Von said:


> Please don't read my post as me trying to be difficult (Coming from a reformed background, now in dispensational church, trying to figure out all of these things...):
> 
> In the new testament, every time that the word "sabbath" is used, it is in context of the jewish saturday/sixth day (and the Hebrews eschatological rest). I agree the term "Lord's day" is used only once in Revelation, but John must've known that his readers would know exactly what he meant with the term. Furthermore the early church used the term "Lord's day" (Didache, Chapter 14).
> I'm struggling to see a biblical reason for the word "Sabbath" as it applies to the first day of the week.
> ...


I came out from both Pentecostal/Dispensational circles, so a lot of this has been new to me also.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 28, 2017)

Yes, either term is appropriate. However, what can sometimes happen is that people will prefer "The Lord's Day" because they don't think that the fourth commandment has anything to say about the Lord's Day. If, however, the Lord's Day is the Christian Sabbath, then the fourth commandment does indeed apply. That is the material point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 28, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Yes, either term is appropriate. However, what can sometimes happen is that people will prefer "The Lord's Day" because they don't think that the fourth commandment has anything to say about the Lord's Day. If, however, the Lord's Day is the Christian Sabbath, then the fourth commandment does indeed apply. That is the material point.



we are under the Lord's day now, as our Christian Sabbath, sounds good to me.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 28, 2017)

We are under the fourth commandment; this is why we still observe one day in seven, while the exact day has changed.


Dachaser said:


> we are under the Lord's day now, as our Christian Sabbath, sounds good to me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 28, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> We are under the fourth commandment; this is why we still observe one day in seven, while the exact day has changed.


The Sabbath was placed by God into the very Creation though, before the Law of Moses was given even.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 28, 2017)

Of course; and so was marriage, before the fall. So what is your point? 


Dachaser said:


> The Sabbath was placed by God into the very Creation though, before the Law of Moses was given even.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## malcolmmaxwell60 (Jun 28, 2017)

Also in the Old testament there's a few references about the Sabbath day concerning the first and the eight day

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 30, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Of course; and so was marriage, before the fall. So what is your point?


The rest day was rooted by God into creation, and so he moved it from Saturday for Israel to now Sunday for the church, as the Day Jesus rose and granted a new creation, as in the New Covenant relationship with man.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 30, 2017)

The Sabbath is 'rooted' in the moral law which was revealed to Adam at creation as the rule of his obedience and later more fully revealed and summarized in the ten commandments given to Israel. Here is what the Westminster Larger Catechism says: 
*Q. 91. What is the duty which God requireth of man?*
A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will.397

*Q. 92. What did God at first reveal unto man as the rule of his obedience?*
A. The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of innocence, and to all mankind in him, besides a special command not to eat of the fruit of the tree knowledge of good and evil, was the moral law.398

*Q. 93. What is the moral law?*
A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body,399 and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man:400 promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.401

*Q. 94. Is there any use of the moral law to man since the fall?*
A. Although no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law:402 yet there is great use thereof, as well common to all men, as peculiar either to the unregenerate, or the regenerate.403

*Q. 95. Of what use is the moral law to all men?*
A. The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and the will of God,404 and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly;405 to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives:406 to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery,407 and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ,408 and of the perfection of his obedience.409

*Q. 96. What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?*
A. The moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to flee from wrath to come,410 and to drive them to Christ;411 or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable,412 and under the curse thereof.413

*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,414 so as thereby they are neither justified415 nor condemned;416 yet, besides 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;417 and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness,418 and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.419

*Q. 98. Where is the moral law summarily comprehended?*
A. The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, which were delivered by the voice of God upon Mount Sinai, and written by him in two tables of stone;420 and are recorded in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. The four first commandments containing our duty to God, and the other six our duty to man.421​


Dachaser said:


> The rest day was rooted by God into creation, and so he moved it from Saturday for Israel to now Sunday for the church, as the Day Jesus rose and granted a new creation, as in the New Covenant relationship with man.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 30, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> The Sabbath is 'rooted' in the moral law which was revealed to Adam at creation as the rule of his obedience and later more fully revealed and summarized in the ten commandments given to Israel. Here is what the Westminster Larger Catechism says:
> *Q. 91. What is the duty which God requireth of man?*
> A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will.397
> 
> ...


I agree with you on that point, as i was just saying that the views on the Sabbath/Lord's day seems to have more than one meaning and way to view it.


----------



## malcolmmaxwell60 (Jul 1, 2017)

Pastor Blake Law did a excellent job on preaching on the moral law. My point is that I am in agreement on the Sabbath, The Lord's Day 

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 4, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Yes, either term is appropriate. However, what can sometimes happen is that people will prefer "The Lord's Day" because they don't think that the fourth commandment has anything to say about the Lord's Day. If, however, the Lord's Day is the Christian Sabbath, then the fourth commandment does indeed apply. That is the material point.


Yes, as sometimes people will say that the Sabbath itself was not directly brought back in under the new Covenant, but it indeed has been, if we view the Lord's day as the worship time set apart for us now, due to the resurrection.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Herald (Jul 4, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, as sometimes people will say that the Sabbath itself was not directly brought back in under the new Covenant, but it indeed has been, if we view the Lord's day as the worship time set apart for us now, due to the resurrection.



The Lord's Day/Sabbath Day is more than just a worship time; it is the entire 1st day of the week. This is an important point of distinction to make. The 1689 LBC and the WCF are agreed on this:

1689 LBC 22.8 The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe _an holy rest all day_, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. 

WCF 21.8 This Sabbath is to be 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, 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.

With the Sabbath day being set apart to the Lord, for the believer's benefit, it takes on a different meaning than just 90 minutes on Sunday morning.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 4, 2017)

There is no "bringing back," period. The fourth commandment was never gone. It is only that the day has been changed.


Dachaser said:


> Yes, as sometimes people will say that the Sabbath itself was not directly brought back in under the new Covenant, but it indeed has been, if we view the Lord's day as the worship time set apart for us now, due to the resurrection.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 4, 2017)

Herald said:


> 90 minutes on Sunday morning



Oh so sadly, for much of the church (in the West, at least), even 90 minutes would be quite a stretch. I attended a church in Canada where, after 60 minutes - exactly, people would take out their keys and start jingling them to alert the pastor that his time was up!


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 4, 2017)

Herald said:


> The Lord's Day/Sabbath Day is more than just a worship time; it is the entire 1st day of the week. This is an important point of distinction to make. The 1689 LBC and the WCF are agreed on this:
> 
> 1689 LBC 22.8 The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe _an holy rest all day_, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
> 
> ...


I agree with you on that, its just that worship to me is more than attending the church service, while important, we are to set aside the whole Day unto Him.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 4, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> There is no "bringing back," period. The fourth commandment was never gone. It is only that the day has been changed.


The Apostles in their letters had reintroduced back to the Church 9 of the 10 Commandments of the Mosaic law, and I was just stating that they also did assume over to us under the New covenant the Sabbath, but now as the Lord's Day on Sunday.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jul 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The Apostles in their letters had reintroduced back to the Church 9 of the 10 Commandments of the Mosaic law, and I was just stating that they also did assume over to us under the New covenant the Sabbath, but now as the Lord's Day on Sunday.



I do not understand what you are trying to say here, David. The grammar and thought pattern is difficult to wade through. "Reintroduced"? No. Restated.... fine....and who went through and verified the N.T. writers did such? The Sabbath rest didn't go away and then come back.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Jul 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The Apostles in their letters had reintroduced back to the Church 9 of the 10 Commandments of the Mosaic law



It sounds like you have been indoctrinated with New Covenant Theology. The Reformed reject the idea that God's moral law was somehow lost/repealed/forgotten and needed to be 'reintroduced' by Christ and His Apostles.

LBC Chapter 19:

Paragraph 2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and *was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments...
*
Paragraph 3. Besides this law, commonly called *moral*, (the 10 Commandments are called moral) God was pleased to give to the people of Israel *ceremonial laws...*all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father *for that end abrogated and taken away. *(The ceremonial laws were abrogated)

Paragraph 4. To them also he gave sundry *judicial laws*, which *expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution*; (The judicial laws were abrogated.)

Paragraph 5. The moral law does *for ever* bind all...*neither does Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
*
Any aspect of Sabbath observance that was tied solely to the ceremonial or judicial laws expired when the old dispensation was expired.

However, the 4th Commandment as a 'moral law' was never abrogated, taken away, or dissolved. It was written upon the hearts of mankind before Moses and continues to be so written upon the hearts of mankind after Moses. Why would it need to be 'reintroduced' if it is forever binding upon all? God was not required to 'reintroduce' any of the 10 Commandments in the NT in order to bind mankind to them as a moral law. It is helpful that the Lord taught on them, for the NT reveals much about the depth of the Commandments, but He was not required to do so.

Whether or not a commandment is taught in the NT has nothing to do with anything.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 6, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> I do not understand what you are trying to say here, David. The grammar and thought pattern is difficult to wade through. "Reintroduced"? No. Restated.... fine....and who went through and verified the N.T. writers did such? The Sabbath rest didn't go away and then come back.


I have difficulty express myself at times, but was just saying here that the Apostles had restated that 9 of the 10 Commandments were brought back over into the New Covenant, and that the Sabbath day Commandment was also brought over and kept still, but now as being observed on the Lord's day, Sunday, not on Saturday, as it was under the Old Covenant as given to Israel.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 6, 2017)

KMK said:


> It sounds like you have been indoctrinated with New Covenant Theology. The Reformed reject the idea that God's moral law was somehow lost/repealed/forgotten and needed to be 'reintroduced' by Christ and His Apostles.
> 
> LBC Chapter 19:
> 
> ...


I agree with you that all of the Law is still binding upon us to observe, and was just saying the Apostles themselves mentioned all of them in their epistles by name, as now being still part of the new Covenant with God. They did not go away or change at any time, and that was their message to confirm that truth.

I do not hold to new Covenant theology at all in regards to this issue.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jul 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I have difficulty express myself at times, but was just saying here that the Apostles had restated that 9 of the 10 Commandments were brought back over into the New Covenant, and that the Sabbath day Commandment was also brought over and kept still, but now as being observed on the Lord's day, Sunday, not on Saturday, as it was under the Old Covenant as given to Israel.


David,
I can understand the difficulty of not expressing yourself as you want to. I find it is good to proofread before you press the button...I have caused myself much grief hitting the post button too quickly.
Your post, that I have quoted above, in the first part says the Commandments were "brought over" (stopped, then restarted?) and further down you stated they were "kept still" (perpetuated through the transition of progressive revelation?). Do you see the difficulty in responding to this? I don't know which position you are putting forth, because two positions seem to be stated in one post. The orthodox position has been clearly stated throughout this thread. I ask, for all of us, to consider the holiness of our God in this matter.......


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I do not hold to new Covenant theology at all in regards to this issue.


As has been stated, proofread your posts before or after they are posted and make corrections such that they can be understood. Using the "9 out of 10" phrase smacks of lingering NCT in your views, whether you mean it or not, that is how it is understood.

*Mod note:*
You are able to edit your posts for a considerable time after they appear. Make a habit of reviewing them. If English is not your second language, it is a violation of the rules to post content that requires the reader to regularly have to tease out their meanings, asking for clarifications often, etc., due to poor grammar and punctuation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 6, 2017)

In chiming in only for a moment (time restraints), in a conversation of this sort that pertains to the moral Law, one particular point is often neglected, which, in my estimation, ought to be the very first thing which is spoken about - regardless of which aspect of the moral law is discussed. It would, in fact, clear up most of the difficulty on the moral Law overall.

This concerns the _nature _of the moral law as the catechism answers, "The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them *of the holy nature* and *the will of God.
*
The Law *is a reflection of the character of God*. God's nature never changes. God's will never changes. God's nature and will are always reflected in his Law. If one were to keep the Law perfectly, they would be "perfect" as our Father in heaven is perfect. Christ's summation of the Law to his disciples in the sermon on the mount explains God's nature and will, and directs his disciples to be "perfect" in this sense. Love God and love your neighbor is the moral Law turned into a meatball and made simple. (The first table and the second table of the Law which directly reflect God's will *and nature*. Neither are to be dispensed with. To "dispense" with commanded covenant stipulations is to affront God and despise his will.)

When one understands that the Law is a direct reflection of God's attributes, (_i.e._ he is infinitely and immutably holy, and that men are to imitate this as Adam should have in the garden), then _at no time _does the Law appear, goes out, reappears, is enforced, is not enforced, is reinforced, comes into play, goes out of play, comes back into play, etc., or whatever terms one would like to posit onto the moral Law and its use through the testaments. 

God's attributes NEVER CHANGE. The moral Law, as a reflection of the morality of God's nature and will, _*never changes*_. It is always enforced, is always relevant and will always "be" since God always "is," even in heaven, where God will "is done" and we prayerfully desire to see it done on earth.

That is part of the reason why capital offenses are always bound to the moral Law as it reflects God's nature as holy. Pick up sticks on the Sabbath will get you stoned to death. It's a _capital _offense. Violating the moral Law is a direct violation against God's nature and will. It is not about repetition in one Testament or another. God's nature is reflected in His will. Keeping the Law reflects who God is. At no time is any part of the moral Law annulled or dispensed with, unless there is some part of God's specific attributes of holiness that ought to also be dispensed with. Rejecting one part of the moral Law means you reject one part of God's holiness. They are intrinsically bound. Dispensing with commandments is _Antinomianism_.

If one misses or is misinformed on the nature of God, then the commandments are the second to go after Theology Proper. If one is misinformed on the nature of the moral Law, God's character and nature is impinged. Theology Proper is the _first thing _to take a hit in that order.

In light of the thread, there are only 3 views possible on the 4th commandment:

Either one holds Calvin's view of the 4th commandment, which *only Calvin held*. Calvin spiritualized the 4th commandment and required "heaven's rest" now in that sense. That means everyone was to be daily and constantly under the preaching of the word in Geneva. Calvin's mistake was he only spiritualized the 4th commandment, without spiritualizing ALL the commandments. His view is unattainable no matter how hard one tries to uphold it in this life. He looked for heaven's rest now in its totality.

The second view is the view of the Catechism / Westminster Confession.

The third view is some flavor of Antinomianism and a rejection of God's _*holy nature and will*_.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 6, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> In chiming in only for a moment (time restraints), in a conversation of this sort that pertains to the moral Law, one particular point is often neglected, which, in my estimation, ought to be the very first thing which is spoken about - regardless of which aspect of the moral law is discussed. It would, in fact, clear up most of the difficulty on the moral Law overall.
> 
> This concerns the _nature _of the moral law as the catechism answers, "The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them *of the holy nature* and *the will of God.
> *
> ...


The viewpoint of Calvin would thus seem to be the 4th position that my pastor discussed during his message on the Sabbath, and how Christians have tended to views its meaning and application to us for today./


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 6, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> As has been stated, proofread your posts before or after they are posted and make corrections such that they can be understood. Using the "9 out of 10" phrase smacks of lingering NCT in your views, whether you mean it or not, that is how it is understood.
> 
> *Mod note:*
> You are able to edit your posts for a considerable time after they appear. Make a habit of reviewing them. If English is not your second language, it is a violation of the rules to post content that requires the reader to regularly have to tease out their meanings, asking for clarifications often, etc., due to poor grammar and punctuation.


I have been going back and updating certain postings, and appreciate the grace showed to me by yourself and the others on this Board.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 6, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> David,
> I can understand the difficulty of not expressing yourself as you want to. I find it is good to proofread before you press the button...I have caused myself much grief hitting the post button too quickly.
> Your post, that I have quoted above, in the first part says the Commandments were "brought over" (stopped, then restarted?) and further down you stated they were "kept still" (perpetuated through the transition of progressive revelation?). Do you see the difficulty in responding to this? I don't know which position you are putting forth, because two positions seem to be stated in one post. The orthodox position has been clearly stated throughout this thread. I ask, for all of us, to consider the holiness of our God in this matter.......


I view the Sabbath as the Reformed position is on this issue, but at times find it hard to state it in precise terminology, as afraid of being misunderstood.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 6, 2017)

Yet from at the very least a practical standpoint, Calvin was a practical Sabbatarian. Woody Lauer makes a pretty good case it is a bit more than that and that Calvin was a Nascent Sabbatarian. The scholarship in the last 20 years convinces me he held a Sabbatarian principle; otherwise you are only left with the imposition of cessation of labor on the Lord's Day by church authority seems to me. 
I may have already cited one of these or both above; pardon if so. The following are notes from the forthcoming "John Calvin’s Letters to the Ministers of Montbéliard (1543–1544): The Genevan Reformer’s Advice and Views of the Liturgical Calendar," Intro by Chris Coldwell, translation by David C. Noe. 
“Even before Calvin arrived in Geneva, those church holidays that were not Sundays had been abolished. Farel and Viret wished to honour only the Sunday as the Lord’s Day. They refused to acknowledge any human institution.” _Ioannis Calvini Opera omnia,_ Series 5, Sermons volume 8, _Plusieurs sermons de Jean Calvin,_ ed. Wilhelmus H. Th. Moehn (Genève: Librairie Droz, 2011), xix.

Farel and Calvin wished “to establish the sabbatarian principle as the law of Geneva.” Thomas Lambert, “Preaching, Praying and Policing the Reform in Sixteenth-Century Geneva.” Ph.D. dissertation (University of Wisconsin, 1998), 190. This early Sabbatarianism was not as developed as that of English Puritanism and Scottish Presbyterianism, but it is clear Calvin not only shares a practical agreement with how the Sabbath was to be kept, but stands much closer theologically to the later views than is usually granted. On Calvin’s ‘practical’ Sabbatarianism see John H. Primus, “Calvin and the Puritan Sabbath: A Comparative Study,” in _Exploring The Heritage Of John Calvin: Essays In Honor Of John Bratt,_ ed. David E. Holwerda (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), pp. 40–75; _Holy Time: Moderate Puritanism and the Sabbath_ (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1989); and “Sunday: The Lord’s day as a Sabbath—Protestant Perspectives on the Sabbath,” in _The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Tradition,_ ed. Tamara C. Eskenezi, Daniel J. Harrington, S. J., and William H. Sher (New York: Crossroads, 1991). For an argument that Calvin was closer theologically to later English Puritanism than generally conceded, see Stewart E. Lauer, “John Calvin, the Nascent Sabbatarian: A Reconsideration of Calvin’s View of Two Key Sabbath-Issues,” _The Confessional Presbyterian_ 3 (2007); and reprinted in volume 12 (2016).​


C. Matthew McMahon said:


> alvin spiritualized the 4th commandment and required "heaven's rest" now in that sense. That means everyone was to be daily and constantly under the preaching of the word in Geneva. Calvin's mistake was he only spiritualized the 4th commandment, without spiritualizing ALL the commandments. His view is unattainable no matter how hard one tries to uphold it in this life.





Dachaser said:


> The viewpoint of Calvin would thus seem to be the 4th position that my pastor discussed during his message on the Sabbath, and how Christians have tended to views its meaning and application to us for today./


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The viewpoint of Calvin would thus seem to be the 4th position that my pastor discussed during his message on the Sabbath, and how Christians have tended to views its meaning and application to us for today./



You may have misunderstood my post, or Calvin's position. No one holds to "Calvin's Position" today. Only Calvin held Calvin's position. 



> Yet from at the very least a practical standpoint, Calvin was a practical Sabbatarian.



Yes.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 7, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> You may have misunderstood my post, or Calvin's position. No one holds to "Calvin's Position" today. Only Calvin held Calvin's position.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.


Thanks for the clarification.


----------

