D
Deleted member 11889
Guest
In the last couple of weeks, Scott Hubbard and Tom Schreiner have written articles that summarize, in a nutshell, the case for non-sabbatarianism under the New Covenant.
Links: Hubbard; Schreiner
I observe numerous unproven assumptions in these articles - the bald assertion that the sabbath is of a different order than the other commandments, the thin read-between-the-lines reasoning for extrapolating abolition of the sabbath but not of the other commandments, the inconsistent application of an over-realized eschatology. (If eternal sabbath is close enough that we can do away with commandment #4, is the wedding feast of the lamb close enough that we can dispense with the institution of marriage?)
These arguments also seem to entail a dismissal of the OT's treatment of the Sabbath. Israel is condemned for empty ritualism and yet the breaking of the fourth commandment is ranked with all of the social sins and idolatry as part of the reason for God's judgment on them. The Sabbath as a creation ordinance is ignored. The authors also ignore the humanitarian/compassionate aspect of the Sabbath present in the OT. Then, when coming to the NT, Hubbard dismisses the explicit lack of any actual 4th-commandment violations on Jesus' part but then builds a case on implicit hints which he sees, and both authors overlook the debate over what Paul means in Col. 2 et. al. It's one thing to acknowledge the opposing viewpoint and disagree; it's another to just ignore it completely.
That's my . I would be edified and blessed by input from others.
Links: Hubbard; Schreiner
I observe numerous unproven assumptions in these articles - the bald assertion that the sabbath is of a different order than the other commandments, the thin read-between-the-lines reasoning for extrapolating abolition of the sabbath but not of the other commandments, the inconsistent application of an over-realized eschatology. (If eternal sabbath is close enough that we can do away with commandment #4, is the wedding feast of the lamb close enough that we can dispense with the institution of marriage?)
These arguments also seem to entail a dismissal of the OT's treatment of the Sabbath. Israel is condemned for empty ritualism and yet the breaking of the fourth commandment is ranked with all of the social sins and idolatry as part of the reason for God's judgment on them. The Sabbath as a creation ordinance is ignored. The authors also ignore the humanitarian/compassionate aspect of the Sabbath present in the OT. Then, when coming to the NT, Hubbard dismisses the explicit lack of any actual 4th-commandment violations on Jesus' part but then builds a case on implicit hints which he sees, and both authors overlook the debate over what Paul means in Col. 2 et. al. It's one thing to acknowledge the opposing viewpoint and disagree; it's another to just ignore it completely.
That's my . I would be edified and blessed by input from others.