Being out of town on the Lord's Day

Status
Not open for further replies.
But that was the men of Sodom... Not the strangers visiting themselves.

I'm just not comfortable with complete strangers staying in my house, and I especially wouldn't be if I had kids. If it was, say, a friend of a friend I think I'd be more open. The key word is *unvetted*

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
That actually wasn't Sodom. That was the men of Gibeah, belonging to the Tribe of Benjamin. It wasn't the house guest but it happened as they were lodging as guest. My point isn't to say that will happen but rather to answer the question as to whether sexual abuse happened in those days. Although, that was written significantly before "Hebrews." Nor was I trying to discourage hospitality. Hosting people can be a great blessing, especially our brothers and sisters in Christ.
 
Last edited:
You may also consider booking an AirBnB, which is basically where you rent someone's house or apartment. Usually you have access to a kitchen, and no one is working for you.
 
Your are ALREADY paying for a room on a Sunday, so you are breaking the Sabbath just by staying at a hotel on a Sunday if you want to quibble.

I hope we can appreciate the enormous difference between hiring an object or a piece of property for a use that would overlap with the Sabbath, and hiring a person or animal to be put to work on the Sabbath? If not, any congregation that rents a hall for their services on the Lord's Day should reconsider...

The rented hall for church-meetings provides a good parallel to the OP. Suppose the owner of the hall includes a charge for cleaning along with the fee for rental. If the church officers become aware of a cleaning person being put to work on the Lord's Day to tidy up after their meetings, they should approach the owner about cleaning the facilities themselves, or finding a different solution, or else they should be prepared to find a different location.
 
At all times, do your best to maintain a clear conscience, knowing that whatever is not of faith, is sin. By all means, try and inform your conscience using the Word of God and the advice of other believers. Don't be afraid to challenge your conscience - you can ask questions like "is this really a sin??" After you have come to a settled conclusion, do what you believe is right, based on your convictions from the scriptures, knowing that it will likely still be tainted by sin, requiring God's grace.
 
I'm sorry to jump in with more questions, but as a Baptist I am new to all this.

Is there scripture warrant for many of the views thus expressed, i.e., that it would be wrong to make someone else work on the Sabbath?

I may be getting an indication, please correct me if I'm wrong, that many of the reformed/Presbyterian views expressed here mean that we are to observe the Sabbath as the Jews did? It sounds that way.

If that were true, I would then ask why you think we should observe this particular Jewish tradition as opposed to others. If you do not think we should observe the Sabbath as the Jews did, then I would ask why you are putting yourselves under some of these restrictions. And give scripture warrant whenever possible.

Thanks for taking the time to educate a newbie, however tedious that can be at times..
 
I hope we can appreciate the enormous difference between hiring an object or a piece of property for a use that would overlap with the Sabbath, and hiring a person or animal to be put to work on the Sabbath?

Forgive me if this sounds uninformed, but I can't see the distinction you are making between object/property and person/animal. If you hired a piece of property, then that is owned by someone, and without an exhaustive investigation, could lead to someone having to do some work on that day. It would also involve someone operating/working at the city power plant, the sanitation station, the water department, etc.
 
I'm sorry to jump in with more questions, but as a Baptist I am new to all this.

Is there scripture warrant for many of the views thus expressed, i.e., that it would be wrong to make someone else work on the Sabbath?

I may be getting an indication, please correct me if I'm wrong, that many of the reformed/Presbyterian views expressed here mean that we are to observe the Sabbath as the Jews did? It sounds that way.

If that were true, I would then ask why you think we should observe this particular Jewish tradition as opposed to others. If you do not think we should observe the Sabbath as the Jews did, then I would ask why you are putting yourselves under some of these restrictions. And give scripture warrant whenever possible.

Thanks for taking the time to educate a newbie, however tedious that can be at times..

I also am a Baptist, and here is what our Baptist confession of faith says on the matter:

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc22.html

I draw your attention specifically to these two section:

7. As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in 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, 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, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished.

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.
 
@ccravens , for further clarification, the Reformed thought on the Law recognizes that the Law comes in three categories.

1. Moral Law
2. Ceremonial Law
3. Judicial Law

The Moral Law is summed up in the 10 Commandments, of which "Keep the Sabbath" is the 4th Commandment. Christ has never abolished the Moral Law. It is the rule of faith and life for every human being who ever lived from Adam until today, and it's the standard by which all men are judged and found to be guilty sinners.

The Ceremonial Law and the Judicial Law were peculiar to the Nation of Israel.

I definitely recommend (as a Baptist) that you read through the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith. It's quite illuminating on these matters.
 
@ccravens , for further clarification, the Reformed thought on the Law recognizes that the Law comes in three categories.

1. Moral Law
2. Ceremonial Law
3. Judicial Law

The Moral Law is summed up in the 10 Commandments, of which "Keep the Sabbath" is the 4th Commandment. Christ has never abolished the Moral Law. It is the rule of faith and life for every human being who ever lived from Adam until today, and it's the standard by which all men are judged and found to be guilty sinners.

The Ceremonial Law and the Judicial Law were peculiar to the Nation of Israel.

I definitely recommend (as a Baptist) that you read through the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith. It's quite illuminating on these matters.

Yes, I'm very familiar with the 3 categories you listed on OT law. What I've always heard or been taught, is that all 10 of the commandments have been repeated in the NT, and so are binding on all today. All, with the exception of the commandment to keep the Sabbath. So that is why we are not 7th Day Adventists, for example, and do not keep the Sabbath as the Jews did. Again, that's what I've been taught and accepted. It doesn't mean I'm not open to hearing something different!

If we are to keep the Sabbath, is there any scripture warrant in the NT on this? Even if there is not, do most reformed folks believe we should keep it the way the Jews did? Thanks for your reply.
 
Yes, I'm very familiar with the 3 categories you listed on OT law. What I've always heard or been taught, is that all 10 of the commandments have been repeated in the NT, and so are binding on all today. All, with the exception of the commandment to keep the Sabbath. So that is why we are not 7th Day Adventists, for example, and do not keep the Sabbath as the Jews did. Again, that's what I've been taught and accepted. It doesn't mean I'm not open to hearing something different!

If we are to keep the Sabbath, is there any scripture warrant in the NT on this? Even if there is not, do most reformed folks believe we should keep it the way the Jews did? Thanks for your reply.

I have heard that bolded argument before as well, and find it weak. God doesn't need to say something twice to make it binding.

If you look at the history of the Sabbath concept, it is linked to creation wherein God rested. So this concept was not introduced at Mount Sinai. Furthermore, the Israelites were not permitted to gather manna on the Sabbath day, and this was in place prior to the institution of the Mosaic law. This clearly points to the fact that this is actually a universal ordinance.

We have to recognize that the 10 commandments were given to God's covenant people as a whole, and that they are timeless. Of course, in the time they were given, his covenant people were 99% ethnic Jews, with the odd proselyte thrown in. Now in the New Covenant era, God has opened up the doors and allowed gentiles to be "grafted in" (see Romans 11) to the covenant people. But we should always understand the history of the Israelites as CHURCH history, not God's curious side project with ethnic Jews. Therefore, we need to realize that God's commandments are given to the CHURCH and unless they are specifically annulled we are bound by them.

That's my understanding, anyways.
 
Yes, I'm very familiar with the 3 categories you listed on OT law. What I've always heard or been taught, is that all 10 of the commandments have been repeated in the NT, and so are binding on all today. All, with the exception of the commandment to keep the Sabbath. So that is why we are not 7th Day Adventists, for example, and do not keep the Sabbath as the Jews did. Again, that's what I've been taught and accepted. It doesn't mean I'm not open to hearing something different!

If we are to keep the Sabbath, is there any scripture warrant in the NT on this? Even if there is not, do most reformed folks believe we should keep it the way the Jews did? Thanks for your reply.
First of all, I think I speak for my fellow baptists on this forum when I say that we collectively cringe whenever you claim "being a baptist" as a reason for not knowing these things. Could you qualify with "dispensational baptist" or "fundamentalist" or whatever other modifier applies?
Secondly, as for NT warrant for keeping the Sabbath, Jesus (who called Himself the Lord of the Sabbath--why would he care to be Lord of something that he was going to abrogate shortly?), said: "If you love me, keep my commandments." Which ones, you ask? Well, how about the ones He gave on Mt. Sinai and carved in stone to illustrate their permanence?
James states that whosoever keeps the law but breaks it in one thing is guilty of all. He is speaking of the moral law--the Ten Commandments. There is no place where the Sabbath commandment is removed from the list of moral obligations.

For further muses regarding Baptists and Covenant theology, I commend to you the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1869. A nice summary of what Baptists have historically believed.
 
I'm sorry to jump in with more questions, but as a Baptist I am new to all this.

Is there scripture warrant for many of the views thus expressed, i.e., that it would be wrong to make someone else work on the Sabbath?

I may be getting an indication, please correct me if I'm wrong, that many of the reformed/Presbyterian views expressed here mean that we are to observe the Sabbath as the Jews did? It sounds that way.

If that were true, I would then ask why you think we should observe this particular Jewish tradition as opposed to others. If you do not think we should observe the Sabbath as the Jews did, then I would ask why you are putting yourselves under some of these restrictions. And give scripture warrant whenever possible.

Thanks for taking the time to educate a newbie, however tedious that can be at times..

Hi Chris,

I believe you mentioned on another thread that you are reading an exposition of the Shorter Catechism. When you reach the section on the 4th Commandment, many of your questions will be addressed. There is an extensive literature on this whole subject, but a reasonably short treatment can be found here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-worship/the-lords-day/sabbath-a-day-to-keep-by-bishop-j-c-ryle/
 
I'm sorry to jump in with more questions, but as a Baptist I am new to all this.

Is there scripture warrant for many of the views thus expressed, i.e., that it would be wrong to make someone else work on the Sabbath?

I may be getting an indication, please correct me if I'm wrong, that many of the reformed/Presbyterian views expressed here mean that we are to observe the Sabbath as the Jews did? It sounds that way.

If that were true, I would then ask why you think we should observe this particular Jewish tradition as opposed to others. If you do not think we should observe the Sabbath as the Jews did, then I would ask why you are putting yourselves under some of these restrictions. And give scripture warrant whenever possible.

Thanks for taking the time to educate a newbie, however tedious that can be at times..
As a Presbyterian, I by no means think you are speaking for all Baptists ;) I like your willingness to ask and learn.

The fourth commandment offers more verbiage than any other in both the Exodus and Deuteronomic text, though with separate rationale. Redemption is front and center -- you were once enslaved! All are protected by this law. You can't pretend to set this day apart and ask another to take your place. I will not work, but I'll get my son to do it! Or my slave! I know, that foreigner isn't even Jewish, I'll get him to keep my business going! Nope, God's law, and in the slave's case, the freedom it offers, is applicable to all.

After the return from exile, the nation recognized that the Sabbath in all its forms, including the rest for the land, was part of God's displeasure that led to captivity. Eventually, one party, the Pharasees, decided they could fence the law. Well, if you only travel x distance and prohibit this task, etc., then God's law will be kept. Don't you even pluck a grain of wheat on the Sabbath, even if you are hungry, and/or are walking through the field anyway.

If you look carefully at the texts where Jesus is challenged on the Sabbath, you'll notice He engages the exilic Talmud, or oral tradition, and drives home the point that mercy and necessity are at the very heart of keeping the commandment. This is also reflected in the confessional standards. (I'm most familiar with the Westminster.) Mark in particular shows how factions were just waiting to catch Jesus in a statement or action that would set Him at odds with the Jewish or Roman leaders.

In other places (Matt 5:18 jumps to mind) Jesus specifically states he affirms the eternal nature of the Torah, or written law. You'd have a hard time arguing for just nine of the commandments, much less setting grace and law at odds with each other as is so common among modern fundamentalists.

None of the grace shown in a day of rest is well served by those who repeatedly travel on the Lord's day for frivolous reasons, nor by those who would refuse the needs of travelers, who in God's providence, must be on the road on His day.
 
Last edited:
First of all, I think I speak for my fellow baptists on this forum when I say that we collectively cringe whenever you claim "being a baptist" as a reason for not knowing these things. Could you qualify with "dispensational baptist" or "fundamentalist" or whatever other modifier applies?

Indeed, I would like to keep the collective cringing of my Baptist brethren to a minimum. Would "fundamentalist Baptist" be acceptable? I'll try to remember that from now on. Don't want to embarrass my enlightened brethren..

I may be ignorant about much of reformed theology, but as I said, I am willing, and am here, to learn. At the very least I hope that "closed-minded fundamentalist Baptist" would not apply. If my asking innocuous questions like some third-grade school kid is annoying, I hope you can forgive the offense.

Thanks to all for the replies so far.
 
Hi Chris,

I believe you mentioned on another thread that you are reading an exposition of the Shorter Catechism. When you reach the section on the 4th Commandment, many of your questions will be addressed. There is an extensive literature on this whole subject, but a reasonably short treatment can be found here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-worship/the-lords-day/sabbath-a-day-to-keep-by-bishop-j-c-ryle/

Thanks, I will look at Ryle, an author I've always enjoyed. I am reading Flavel's WSC exposition now, and will read Thomas Watson's next.
 
Indeed, I would like to keep the collective cringing of my Baptist brethren to a minimum. Would "fundamentalist Baptist" be acceptable? I'll try to remember that from now on. Don't want to embarrass my enlightened brethren..
Moderator Note:

Chris,

I will give you the benefit of charity and assume you are not being churlish above about the call for you to not leverage your "just a Baptist" background as a reason for asking questions about the Sabbath. I hope you see that by doing that you are bringing scandal upon your Baptist brethren here...hence their cringing. Why? Because no confessional Baptist on this site would be struggling with the Sabbath distinctions you are poking at. Yet you are basically implying that Baptists here are confused.

Which is to say plainly, your use of being just a Baptist as some sort of crutch is basically assuming that confessional Baptists here are just not quite up to snuff for some reason or another. Really?
noway.gif


Then again, and more importantly, you claim "Baptist" yet affirmed the Westminster Standards in your profile and when you registered...you "see nothing that I take exception with" (your words) regarding these Standards. Why then the questions related to what you have affirmed?
idunno.gif


That odd position itself needs some reconciliation.

I do not mean to come across as harsh, nor do I wish to stifle sincere questions about that which we hold dear, but I do mean to make it clear that your tactics are getting attention.
 
I posted this on the question of strictness on the other recent thread on Sabbath legalism so will combine what I said in two posts here and add to it.

As to what is abrogated in the fourth commandment in regard to strictness, the puritan sabbatarian view of the WCF stands in that tradition of, as to the essentials, that we and the OT church are bound to the same strictness of observance of the Sabbath.

The position of the puritans (the authors of the confessional view) stated this in different ways and on the surface could be seen as disagreeing in more than some incidentals (such as the execution of the man picking up sticks on the Sabbath). In the first significant large work detailing the puritan Sabbatarian view, Nicholas Bownd maintained the fourth commandment “containeth in it nothing ceremonial, nothing typical, nothing to be abrogated." Some of the ceremonial strictness added under the Mosaic economy is abrogated, which is essentially what some other puritans mean in still maintaining a ceremonial aspect of the fourth commandment done away with. So you will still see puritans and later Sabbatarian theologians talking about a partly ceremonial aspect of the command. This as far as I see is the same as Bownd who prefers to maintain the thesis above while putting the partly ceremonial aspect under the idea of added ceremonial aids (which is also true of the second commandment and others as Bownd notes). This is from my intro analysis to Bownd's work:
It is also the case that Greenham and Bownd held similar views on a primary ‘innovation’ Primus assigns to Bownd, regarding the ceremonial aspect of the fourth commandment. Much is made of Bownd’s affirming that there is nothing ceremonial or typical in the ten commandments. As previously noted, in this he really is not innovating as he draws upon a statement of Heinrich Wolf’s in doing so, who maintained the Sabbath “is not to be reckoned among the figures and ceremonies of the Jews, both because it was ordained in paradise before the fall of man for the worship of God, and also it is commanded in the Decalogue, which contains in it nothing ceremonial, nothing typical, nothing to be abrogated.”74 Yet there were ceremonial or figurative aids added to the moral law under the old economy, such as the deliverance from Egypt added as another reason to rest under the fourth commandment as given in Deuteronomy 5. Greenham explained his distinction in moral and civil law in relation to this: “That I call morall, which doth informe mens manners either concerning their religion to God, or their duties unto man: that I meane figurative, which is added for a time in some respect to some persons for an help to that which is morall….”75
Bownd affirms this same figurative help or ceremonial addendum to the moral law:
So that the Jews having this reason to move them to this rest, besides the above mentioned, were more severely tied unto it than any other people; but yet so, that it was required at the hands of men, long before this cause was annexed unto it. And therefore though that is removed and taken away, yea and the people to whom it only appertained; yet notwithstanding the Sabbath and day of rest is not gone with them, but is still in its first virtue and ancient strength, which upon good grounds it had in the beginning. The which thing, that it might not seem strange unto us, we may consider the like almost in every moral precept; which though every one of them was from the beginning, yet as they were given to the people of the Jews, had certain things added unto them, as accessory helps to keep them in the better obedience of them; which now being taken away again, the first commandments themselves have lost nothing of their former authority, but do bind as much as ever they did.76​
From p. CVI, Sabbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti: or, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath (Naphtali Press and Reformation Heritage Books, 2016). You can currently get Bownd for $14, a steal for a 600p quality sewn hard bound in a pretty fine dust jacket from RHB. Bownd's work is full but pastoral and less technical that some later works. A good modern book on the doctrine of the Lord's Day is Dr. Pipa's book.

So coming back to the strictness question. The fourth commandment binds us as strictly now as in the OT to put aside our weekly labors, recreations and pastimes, to devote a whole day to the worship of the Lord, allowing for acts of necessity when they arise, and for works of mercy. Here is Bownd on the question.
13. Christians as Strictly Bound by this Law as were Jews​
{And methinks there is great reason why we Christians should take ourselves as straitly bound to rest upon the Lord’s Day, as the Jews were upon their Sabbath.

1. For seeing it is one of the moral commandments, it binds us as well as them; for they are all of equal authority, and bind all men alike. Therefore when as in the other nine commandments we do truly judge ourselves to be as much restrained from anything in them forbidden, and as precisely bound to do anything in them commanded, as ever the Jews were, and in all those we put no difference between ourselves and them—as in keeping ourselves from images, from blasphemy, from murder, theft, adultery, and such like—why should we then imagine that in this one the Lord has privileged us above them? Or think that when He gave these laws indifferently to all mankind, His meaning should be to give a dispensation to the Gentiles above the Jews in this one, as though He had been somewhat partial to them, and over hard to the other?

2. And if we consider the reasons of this commandment, we shall find that they concern us Gentiles as well as the Jews, and therefore they alike bind all unto the observation of it: whether we look to the example of God, who making the whole world in six days, did rest the seventh, that all mankind following His example by the consideration of His creatures might glorify their Creator; or to the proportion between six days wherein we may do all our work, and the seventh wherein we should rest, which must needs seem to be just and equal in the eyes of all men, both Grecian and Barbarian, bond and free.

3. Again, if we consider the end why rest is here commanded, namely that thereby we might be more fit for the service of God; then if we are as straitly bound under the gospel to worship God holily and religiously upon His holy day, as they were under the law, though after another manner; I do not see why we should not be as severely forbidden all work (as |248| the thing that might hinder us from it), and as earnestly commanded to rest (as a means to further us thereunto) as ever they were.

4. Lastly, if the Jews when they were most of all restrained, might do all works of holiness to God, and of necessity to any of the creatures, and we do not find in the gospel that Christians have any further liberty granted to them in these days; then we may safely conclude that Christians are as precisely to rest as the Jews were, though not only the common practice, but opinion also, of most men is to the contrary. Which makes me to fear that this truth as a Christian paradox will not easily be admitted at the first. But I desire them in the fear of God, and love to the truth, casting away all partiality towards themselves, whereby they are ready (Matt. 23:4) to lay heavy burdens upon other men’s shoulders, but will not touch them themselves with the least of their fingers, to weigh the reasons, and so to judge accordingly; and the Lord give them understanding in all things (2 Tim. 2:7).}

Bownd then moves to address objections. See True Doctrine, p. 254ff.
 
I do not mean to come across as harsh, nor do I wish to stifle sincere questions about that which we hold dear, but I do mean to make it clear that your tactics are getting attention.

I am not, and was not attempting to leverage my "just a Baptist" moniker as any kind of "tactic" to start an argument or ruffle feathers. I was using that as another way of saying, "as I was brought up in a fundamentalist independent Baptist church, I was not taught any of these things, so I am asking in good faith, not wanting for anyone to think that I am trying to flame or start an argument." That my words caused consternation I do apologize.

If I was just interested in arguments I would join the Baptist forum; there are plenty to be had there. I didn't join here to start arguments or cause collective cringing. I joined here because I have a love for Puritan and reformed literature, and thought this would be a good place to discuss such. I am just now educating myself on reformed theology, and with my fundamentalist Baptist background, there are many things I have never heard before, nor understand. That's why I have repeatedly said that I am here to learn.

You will either believe that or you won't. A simple review of all of my prior posts should be enough to indicate whether I am here to troll, start arguments, or any such "tactics." Or whether I am here to discuss Puritan and reformed literature and authors, and learn more about reformed theology.

I am not interested in staying confined within my independent Baptist bubble. I was hoping this site might be a help along the lines of broadening my theological knowledge and worldview.
 
I am not, and was not attempting to leverage my "just a Baptist" moniker as any kind of "tactic" to start an argument or ruffle feathers. I was using that as another way of saying, "as I was brought up in a fundamentalist independent Baptist church, I was not taught any of these things, so I am asking in good faith, not wanting for anyone to think that I am trying to flame or start an argument." That my words caused consternation I do apologize.
Moderator Note:
Chris,

If applicable, it would be best to lead explicitly with that "fundamentalist independent Baptist" item in the future.
 
I'm sorry to jump in with more questions, but as a Baptist I am new to all this.

Is there scripture warrant for many of the views thus expressed, i.e., that it would be wrong to make someone else work on the Sabbath?

I may be getting an indication, please correct me if I'm wrong, that many of the reformed/Presbyterian views expressed here mean that we are to observe the Sabbath as the Jews did? It sounds that way.

If that were true, I would then ask why you think we should observe this particular Jewish tradition as opposed to others. If you do not think we should observe the Sabbath as the Jews did, then I would ask why you are putting yourselves under some of these restrictions. And give scripture warrant whenever possible.

Thanks for taking the time to educate a newbie, however tedious that can be at times..
Nicholas Bownd - "The True Doctrine of the Sabbath."
https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...bbathum-veteris-et-novi-testamenti-bownd.html
 
Moderating. Reopening. Folks, please return to the OP. I ask that ccravens please start separate threads if he has questions after reading the suggested material and what has been posted. Folks, if you have issues with the way a moderator is handling something, particularly if it is not about yourself, contact him directly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top