Can we not keep the 4th commandment and be saved?

Status
Not open for further replies.
NO mortal has ever kept a commandment...and the only salvation I would doubt, would be the person who thinks they can do anything outside of Christ.
 
Last edited:
I'm a Calvinist when it comes to the Sabbath but with that said I understand that it is not in agreement with the WCF and as such take exception and will not be commenting further in defense of this view:

First, under the repose of the seventh day the heavenly Lawgiver meant to represent to the people of Israel spiritual rest, in which believers ought to lay aside their own works to allow God to work in them. Secondly, he meant that there was to be a stated day for them to assemble to hear the law and perform the rites, or at least to devote it particularly to meditation upon his works, and thus through this remembrance to be trained in piety. Thirdly, he resolved to give a day of rest to servants and those who are under authority of others, in order that they should have some respite from toil." (Institutes, Book II, chapter 8, section 27. See also section 34.)
But there is no doubt that by the Lord Christ's coming the ceremonial part of this commandment was abolished. (Institutes, II, 8, 31.)

Although the Sabbath has been abrogated, there is still occasion for us: (1) to assemble on stated days for the hearing of the Word, the breaking of the mystical bread, and for public prayers; (2) to give surcease from labor to servants and workmen. (Institutes, II, 8, 32.)
 
Calvin believes in the Sabbath, but he sees it as Lord's Day

NO mortal has ever kept a commandment...and the only salvation I would doubt, would be the person who thinks they can do anything outside of Christ.

The question is not whether we keep a commandment perfectly, but can one be a converted person who decides not to obey a commandment and intentionally disobeys it?

-----Added 3/29/2009 at 04:32:20 EST-----

I'm a Calvinist when it comes to the Sabbath but with that said I understand that it is not in agreement with the WCF and as such take exception and will not be commenting further in defense of this view:
Glad you are a calvin follower on the Sabbath. Which is now the Lord's day.
Here is Calvin on the Sabbath in a sermon on Deut
In fact, what was commanded about the day of rest must also apply to us as well as to them. For we must take God’s law as it is and thus have an everlasting rule of righteousness. For it is certain that in the Ten Commandments God intended to give a rule that should endure forever. Therefore, let us not think that the things which Moses says about the Sabbath day are unnecessary for us not because the figure remains in force, but because we have the truth represented by the figure.

For this reason, the Apostle (in Heb 4.3-10) applies the things that were spoken about the Sabbath to the instruction of the Christians of the new Church..... Therefore, let us understand that to serve God well we, on the Sabbath Day, are commanded to strive to the uttermost to subdue our own thoughts and desires so that God may reign in us and rule us by his Holy Spirit.
Now, let us now determine whether or not those who call themselves Christians behave as they ought to. Consider how many think that on the Lord’s Day they can freely go about their own business as if there were no other day of the week in which to do these things. Although the bell rings to call them to hear the sermon, yet it seems to them that they have nothing else to do but think about their business and take stock of one thing or another. Others are given over to stuffing themselves with food privately in their homes, because they are afraid to show such contempt in public. To them the Lord’s Day is an excuse to avoid the Church of God.

From these things we see what desires we have for Christianity and service to God, since we use the Lord’s Day as an excuse for withdrawing further from God instead of as a help to bring us nearer to him. Once we have gone astray it causes us to pull completely away. Is this not a devilish sign of disrespect in man? Sadly, in spite of this, it is a common thing. We wish to God that these things were rare and hard to find. But the world shows how holy things are misused to such an extent that people have no regard for observing the Lord’s Day as he has ordained it a day for withdrawing from all earthly cares and affairs so that we might give ourselves entirely to God.

Furthermore we must understand that the Lord’s Day was not appointed only for listening to sermons, but that we should spend the rest of the time praising God. For, although he gives us food every day, we do not keep his gracious gifts in mind and give him the glory. It would indeed be a poor thing if we did not give consideration to the gifts of God on the Lord’s Day. And, because we are so occupied with our own affairs on the other days of the week, we are slow to serve God in them in the way he has assigned on the one day. The Lord’s Day must, therefore, serve as a tower in which we can go up to view God’s works in the distance. It is a time in which there should be nothing to hinder us or keep us occupied, so that we can employ our minds meditating on the benefits and gracious gifts he has given us.

If we can apply this (that is, if we can meditate on the works of God) on the Lord’s Day, then we will be able to rest more during the remainder of the week.

So Calvin is probably much more strict on the observance of the Lord's day than most Sabbatarians today.

He goes on much more on the observance of the sabbath principle in the NT.

So those who say Calvin did not believe in the sabbath and thought it was abrogated pervert his belief. He says the Sabbath is abrogated and replaced with the Lord's Day wherein the same principle of that law is still in place.
This is like saying circumcision is abrogated and replaced with baptism.

It is not like saying the feat of tabernacles is abrogated and done and fulfilled in Christ and we have no principle applied in practice.

Please share this correction with your other Calvinistic sabbatarian friends who may not be aware of Calvin's belief in the Lord's Day as the moral law spiritual aspect of what was presented to the Jews as Sabbath and remains as the Lord's Day to us. In Calvin's mind The legal aspect as presented to the Jews as Sabbath was abrogated but the Spiritual day of Rest remains and is needed to remind us that every day really belongs to the Lord and all our time and attention.

Now who will they say they follow when they disobey the Sabbath commandment, as it is part of the moral law in its principle to us today?

So whether we call it Sabbath, sabbath principle, or Lord's day, it is still a rule of life and obligatory on Christians as all the other parts of the law as Christ also verified.
Matt 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled NKJV
 
The question was not can a sinner be converted but can person be converted and willfully not obey the commands, or even out of ignorance not obey a command.

Everyone would then go to Hell as this (in my opinion) implies we keep all the commandments perfectly and we don't. For example, Jesus told us not to even look at a member of the opposite sex with lust or we've committed adultery. Now we ALL know committing adultery is a sin, but there is no way I am going to believe that most or even more than a few (if that) accomplish this to the degree of never lusting (then we can get in to the definition of lust as well if need be).

What bothers me about this topic (not just this post) is if people take Calvinism this seriously (soteriology, which I think is pretty important) they would be called hyper Calvinists and pretty much be rejected. People take Sabbath "keeping" this seriously and it's a fine debate/discussion. That puzzles and concerns me.
 
I wonder why people would come to the Puritan board and argue against the beliefs of the Puritans, Reformers and the Confessions?

I've read the Confessions, Reformers and Puritans, and I don't see them basing a person's salvation on how well they've kept the Law. That form of belief is pharisaical. Isn't this the other gospel that Paul warned us about in Galatians 1? What does the Bible say? "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus."

How did Puritan Samuel Bolton (in his True Bounds Of Christian Freedom) differentiate between keeping the Law for salvation and keeping the Law as a rule of our walking with God?

Christ has freed us from the law: that is another part of our freedom by Christ. ‘Ye are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter’ (Rom. 7.6). ‘I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God’ (Gal. 2.19). ‘If ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law’ (Gal. 5.18). ‘Ye are not under the law, but under grace’ (Rom. 6.14). This then is another part of our freedom by Christ: we are freed from the law. What this is we shall now consider.
We are freed from the ceremonial law, which was a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear (Acts 15.10). Yet this is but a small part of our freedom.
(a) Freedom from the law as a covenant
We are freed from the moral law: freed from it, first, as a covenant, say our divines. It would save a great deal of trouble to say we are freed from the law as that from which life might be expected on the condition that due obedience was rendered. But take it, as do many, in the sense that we are freed from the law as a covenant.
The law may be considered as a rule and as a covenant. When we read that the law is still in force, it is to be understood of the law as a rule, not as a covenant. Again, when we read that the law is abrogated, and that we are freed from the law, it is to be understood of the law as a covenant, not as a rule. But yet in all this it is not yet expressed what covenant it is. The apostle calls it the old covenant (Heb. 8.13) under which they were, and from which we are freed. It could never give us life it cannot now inflict death on us. We are dead to it, and it is now dead to us. We read in Romans 7.1-6: ’The law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth. For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.’ Among other interpretations which might be set down, I shall suggest this one only: the law is your husband; you are under subjection to it as you are looking by your subjection to be justified and saved. And until the law as a covenant or husband is dead to you, and you to it (for the apostle makes them both one), you will never look for righteousness and life in another. Until the law kills you, and you are dead to it, you will look for righteousness and life through obedience to it. But when once the law has killed you, and showed you it is dead to you and can do you no good, so that you can expect nothing from it, then will you look for life by Christ alone.
Such was the apostle’s own case. He was once one that expected (as well he might) as much good from the law and his obedience to it as any man. Says he: ‘I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death’ (Rom. 7.9, 10). That is to say, I found that instead of saving me it killed me; it gave death instead of life. And again he says: ‘For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me’: that is, the law came in with an enlightening, convincing, accusing, condemning power, and laid me on my back, and did clean kill me. I saw I could expect nothing there, nothing from it as a covenant.
As for the apostle, therefore, the law was now dead to him, and could afford him nothing likewise was he also dead to the law. He expected nothing from it afterwards. As he tells us later: ‘I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God’ (Gal. 2.19): that is, the law having now slain me, I am for ever dead to it. I expect nothing from it as a covenant; all my life is in Christ. I look now to live by another. I through the law, that is, through the convincing, enlightening, condemning, killing power of it, see that it is dead to me and I to it. I can expect nothing from it that is, as a covenant of life and death. It is dead to me and I to it, and I look for all from Christ.

(b) Freedom from the curses of the law
The law requires two things of them who are under it: either they must obey the precepts, which is impossible with the degree of strictness and rigidness which the law requires (Gal. 3); or they must bear the penalties of the law, which are insupportable. Either they must obey the commands or suffer the curses of the law, either do God’s will or suffer God’s will in forfeitures of soul and body. In this sad dilemma are those who are under the law as a covenant: ‘He that believeth not is condemned already.. . the wrath of God abideth on him’ (John 3.18, 36). Unbelievers must needs be under the curses of the law.
But believers are freed from the law as a covenant of life and death. Therefore, they are free from the curses and maledictions of the law. The law has nothing to do with them at touching their eternal state and condition. Hence the words of the apostle: ‘There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus’ (Rom. 8.1), that is, to them who are not under the law. Were you indeed under the law as a covenant, condemnation would meet you, nothing else but condemnation. Though the law is not able to save you, yet it is able to condemn you. Unable to bestow the blessing, yet it can pour the curse upon you: ‘As many as are of the works of the law’ — that is, those under the law as a covenant, and that look for life and justification thereby — ’are under the curse’ (Gal, 3.10). And he continues with the argument: ‘For it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them’. It is not possible for a man to obey in all things without falling in any; hence he Is left under the curse. So that I say, if you are under the law, the law is able to condemn you, though it cannot save you (Rom. 8.3).

But Christ has brought freedom to those in Him, freedom from the curses of the law, and that by bearing this curse for them, as it is written: ‘Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us’ (Gal. 3.13). The apostle not only says that Christ bore the curse for us, but that He was made a curse for us, for: ‘It is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree’. This is another of the benefits which flow from Christ’s work. The believer is freed from the law as a covenant, and so from the curse of the law. The law cannot pass sentence upon him, it cannot condemn him. He is not to be tried in that court. Christ has satisfied the law to the full.

This privilege belongs not only to the present; it lasts for ever. Even though the believer falls into sin, yet the law cannot pronounce the curse on him because, as he is not under the law, he is freed from the curse of the law. A man is never afraid of that obligation which is rendered void, the seals torn off, the writing defaced, nay, not only crossed out and cancelled but torn in pieces. It is thus that God has dealt with the law in the case of believers, as touching its power to curse them, to sentence them and condemn. The apostle tells us: ‘He hath blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross’ (Col. 2.14). By ‘the handwriting of ordinances’ I conceive is not meant the ceremonial law alone, but the moral law also, so far as it was against us and bound us over to the curse.
We can here observe the successive steps which the apostle sets out. ‘He hath blotted out.’ But lest this should not be enough, lest any should say, It is not so blotted out, but it may be read, the apostle adds, ‘He took it out of the way’. But lest even this should not be enough, lest some should say, Yea, but it will be found again and set against us afresh, he adds, ‘nailing it to his cross’. He has torn it to pieces, never to be put together again for ever. It can never be that the law has a claim against believers on account of their sins. Indeed it brings in black bills, strong indictments against such as are under it; but it shall never have anything to produce against those who have an interest in Christ. I may say of believers, as the apostle does in another sense, ‘Against such there is no law’. As there is no law to justify them, so there is no law to condemn them.

Five reasons why the law cannot condemn the believer:
All this the apostle puts plainly: ‘Who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that died’ (Rom. 8.34). He sets the death of Christ against all the charges that can be brought. It is evident that the court of the law cannot condemn the believer:
(1) Because that court is itself condemned; its curses, judgments, and sentences are made invalid. As men that are condemned have a tongue but no voice, so the law in this case has still a tongue to accuse, but no power to condemn. It cannot fasten condemnation on the believer.
(2) Because he is not under it as a court. He is not under the law as a covenant of life and death. As he is in Christ, he is under the covenant of grace.
(3) Because he is not subject to its condemnation. He is under its guidance, but not under its curses, under its precepts (though not on the legal condition of ‘Do this and live’), but not under its penalties.
(4) Because Christ, in his place and stead, was condemned by it that he might be freed: ‘Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us’ (Gal. 3.13). It may condemn sin in us, but cannot condemn us for sin.
(5) Because he has appealed from it. We see this in the case of the publican. who was arrested, dragged into the court of justice, sentenced and condemned. But this has no force because he makes his appeal, ‘God be merciful to me a sinner’ (Luke 18.13). He flies to Christ, and, says the text, ‘He went down to his house justified’. So the court of the law (provided that your appeal is just) cannot condemn, because you have appealed to the court of mercy.


When I say that we are freed from the accusations of the law, I mean such accusations as are subordinate to condemnation. There is a twofold accusation, first, an accusation leading to conviction and humiliation for sin, second, an accusation resulting in sentence and condemnation for sin. All the accusations of the law against those who are under the law come under the second head. But all its accusations against the godly for sin are with a view to conviction and the humiliation of the godly under it, and so are subordinate to life and salvation. And so I conceive the law may accuse those who are, notwithstanding, the freemen of Christ. It may show them how far they come short of the glory of God, and how far they have wandered from the paths of righteousness, and may accuse them for it; but this results in humiliation, not condemnation. As I shall show hereafter, either this must be so, or else it must be denied that the law is a rule for believers.

But there are two queries that arise here. The first is whether the law may justly accuse us, seeing that we are not under it. Briefly I answer that we are not under its curses, but we are under its commands. We are not under the law for judgment, but we are under the law for conduct. So far as we walk not according to it, as a rule, it has an accusing power, though we are taken from under its condemning power. There is no further power left in the law than is for our good, our humiliation, our edification, and this is intended to lead to our furtherance in grace.

The second query is whether the law is just in its accusations against us, seeing we do not sin. This is founded on the previous query; if it be true that we are freed from the law as a rule or as a direction of life — were this so, it would be our bondage rather than our freedom — then our breaches of the law are not sin. If we are not subject to law, then we do not sin in the breaking of it, any more than we do if we break the laws of Spain or of any other nations, which are no laws to us.
I shall show later the invalidity and the danger of these two queries. In the meantime I must tell you that the law in its directive power remains with the believer. This must needs be plain from the words: ‘The law, which was four hundred and thirty years after (the promise), cannot disannul (the promise), that it should make the promise of none effect’ (Gal. 3.17). For if the law, as the apostle says, was given 430 years after the promise, then it was given either as a covenant or as a rule. But as a covenant it could not be given, for then God would have acted contrary to Himself, first in giving a covenant of grace and then one of works. Therefore He gave it as a rule, to reveal to us, after our justification by the promise, a rule of walking with God so that in all things we might please Him.

Furthermore, that can never be said to be a part of our freedom which is a part of our bondage; nor can that be said to be part of our bondage which is part of our holiness. But conformity to the law, and subjection to the law of God, is part of our holiness. Therefore it can never be said to be a part of our bondage. There is, indeed, a twofold subjection — the subjection of a son, and the subjection of a slave. We are freed from the one, namely, the subjection of a slave, which was a part of our bondage, but not from the other, namely, the subjection of a son, which is a part of our freedom.


I really suggest reading the whole book. It's an incredible treatise on the subject.

But, I will also say that I can see where you're coming from in your OP, Peacemaker. But I would say that the way it is written is to attempt to cause division and not peace. You are basically condemning all on this board who don't keep the Sabbath as you do.

Instead, you could have easily shown your zeal for the 4th Commandment and urged people to continue to set aside this day as holy, and not condemn them for not keeping it perfectly.
To me, what you ended up doing was present a different gospel. One that saves based on works. Only death is found down that road.
I don't think you believe that. I think you may have overexaggerated your statements just to show how important this subject was to you.

God bless you on this Lord's Day.
 
Last edited:
So Calvin is probably much more strict on the observance of the Lord's day than most Sabbatarians today.

He goes on much more on the observance of the sabbath principle in the NT.

So those who say Calvin did not believe in the sabbath and thought it was abrogated pervert his belief. He says the Sabbath is abrogated and replaced with the Lord's Day wherein the same principle of that law is still in place.
This is like saying circumcision is abrogated and replaced with baptism.

It is not like saying the feat of tabernacles is abrogated and done and fulfilled in Christ and we have no principle applied in practice.

Please share this correction with your other Calvinistic sabbatarian friends who may not be aware of Calvin's belief in the Lord's Day as the moral law spiritual aspect of what was presented to the Jews as Sabbath and remains as the Lord's Day to us. In Calvin's mind The legal aspect as presented to the Jews as Sabbath was abrogated but the Spiritual day of Rest remains and is needed to remind us that every day really belongs to the Lord and all our time and attention.


I just want to say again that I have found your Calvin quotes to be helpful. I have heard him referred to regarding this subject in a way that I now realize is totally inaccurate. I could have pictured him going to church, and then coming home and doing chores and going out to buy bread.

I do think there is not agreement among the Reformed about specifics- John Murray was denied ordination because he would serve communion to those who took a tram just to get to church (although he would not take public transit himself on Sunday). We need to be very careful not to try and decide like God where and when an ox fell into a well or not, when brethren disagree, even while trying to obey this command.
 
NO mortal has ever kept a commandment...and the only salvation I would doubt, would be the person who thinks they can do anything outside of Christ.

The question is not whether we keep a commandment perfectly, but can one be a converted person who decides not to obey a commandment and intentionally disobeys it?

-----Added 3/29/2009 at 04:32:20 EST-----

I'm a Calvinist when it comes to the Sabbath but with that said I understand that it is not in agreement with the WCF and as such take exception and will not be commenting further in defense of this view:
Glad you are a calvin follower on the Sabbath. Which is now the Lord's day.
Here is Calvin on the Sabbath in a sermon on Deut
In fact, what was commanded about the day of rest must also apply to us as well as to them. For we must take God’s law as it is and thus have an everlasting rule of righteousness. For it is certain that in the Ten Commandments God intended to give a rule that should endure forever. Therefore, let us not think that the things which Moses says about the Sabbath day are unnecessary for us not because the figure remains in force, but because we have the truth represented by the figure.

For this reason, the Apostle (in Heb 4.3-10) applies the things that were spoken about the Sabbath to the instruction of the Christians of the new Church..... Therefore, let us understand that to serve God well we, on the Sabbath Day, are commanded to strive to the uttermost to subdue our own thoughts and desires so that God may reign in us and rule us by his Holy Spirit.
Now, let us now determine whether or not those who call themselves Christians behave as they ought to. Consider how many think that on the Lord’s Day they can freely go about their own business as if there were no other day of the week in which to do these things. Although the bell rings to call them to hear the sermon, yet it seems to them that they have nothing else to do but think about their business and take stock of one thing or another. Others are given over to stuffing themselves with food privately in their homes, because they are afraid to show such contempt in public. To them the Lord’s Day is an excuse to avoid the Church of God.

From these things we see what desires we have for Christianity and service to God, since we use the Lord’s Day as an excuse for withdrawing further from God instead of as a help to bring us nearer to him. Once we have gone astray it causes us to pull completely away. Is this not a devilish sign of disrespect in man? Sadly, in spite of this, it is a common thing. We wish to God that these things were rare and hard to find. But the world shows how holy things are misused to such an extent that people have no regard for observing the Lord’s Day as he has ordained it a day for withdrawing from all earthly cares and affairs so that we might give ourselves entirely to God.

Furthermore we must understand that the Lord’s Day was not appointed only for listening to sermons, but that we should spend the rest of the time praising God. For, although he gives us food every day, we do not keep his gracious gifts in mind and give him the glory. It would indeed be a poor thing if we did not give consideration to the gifts of God on the Lord’s Day. And, because we are so occupied with our own affairs on the other days of the week, we are slow to serve God in them in the way he has assigned on the one day. The Lord’s Day must, therefore, serve as a tower in which we can go up to view God’s works in the distance. It is a time in which there should be nothing to hinder us or keep us occupied, so that we can employ our minds meditating on the benefits and gracious gifts he has given us.

If we can apply this (that is, if we can meditate on the works of God) on the Lord’s Day, then we will be able to rest more during the remainder of the week.

So Calvin is probably much more strict on the observance of the Lord's day than most Sabbatarians today.

He goes on much more on the observance of the sabbath principle in the NT.

So those who say Calvin did not believe in the sabbath and thought it was abrogated pervert his belief. He says the Sabbath is abrogated and replaced with the Lord's Day wherein the same principle of that law is still in place.
This is like saying circumcision is abrogated and replaced with baptism.

It is not like saying the feat of tabernacles is abrogated and done and fulfilled in Christ and we have no principle applied in practice.

Please share this correction with your other Calvinistic sabbatarian friends who may not be aware of Calvin's belief in the Lord's Day as the moral law spiritual aspect of what was presented to the Jews as Sabbath and remains as the Lord's Day to us. In Calvin's mind The legal aspect as presented to the Jews as Sabbath was abrogated but the Spiritual day of Rest remains and is needed to remind us that every day really belongs to the Lord and all our time and attention.

Now who will they say they follow when they disobey the Sabbath commandment, as it is part of the moral law in its principle to us today?

So whether we call it Sabbath, sabbath principle, or Lord's day, it is still a rule of life and obligatory on Christians as all the other parts of the law as Christ also verified.
Matt 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled NKJV

I don't disagree with you Don. I call it the "Lord's Day" and honor it as such however I do feel that the application of the Moral principle can be perverted into something laborious rather than delighted in by some Reformed folks.
 
Last edited:
1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. NKJV

I don't know how anyone can say keeping the commands or Lord's Day is burdensome.

Some may say that they believe in the Lord's day and don't believe in the 4th commandment as obligatory to NT believers. This would be unconfessional

But I was only pointing out that Calvin did because many think he didn't.

I made no statement about how to celebrate the Sabbath or Lord's day, or how I think it should be done so you can't disagree with me on that. You can disagree with Calvin, and the Larger Catechism if you want.

I don't think those ways would be burdensome either though.

And yes when man goes beyond what is in scripture it may be a good idea and wise but it is not required of anyone else. Like Boston does in His works on how to sanctify the Lord's Day.

Lynnie I am excited and praising God that you have an open mind and can see how some people, mostly due to a lack of thorough study of Calvin, have misused some isolated and narrow contexted statements by Calvin to support their UnBiblical view. Perhaps being freed from the bondage of that error you will be more free for the Spirit to continue to guide you in how you will sanctify it and convict you to keep it holy.

Alex said
But I would say that the way it is written is to attempt to cause division and not peace. You are basically condemning all on this board who don't keep the Sabbath as you do.

Instead, you could have easily shown your zeal for the 4th Commandment and urged people to continue to set aside this day as holy, and not condemn them for not keeping it perfectly.
To me, what you ended up doing was present a different gospel. One that saves based on works. Only death is found down that road.
I don't think you believe that. I think you may have overexaggerated your statements just to show how important this subject was to you.

Alex, I am sorry you have judged me this way.
And I am sorry I did not make it more clear. Perhaps if you had read the whole thread and my earlier posts you would not have gotten that opinion.

I do not condemn anyone. God is our judge. Presenting scripture is not condemning people. And asking them to consider if one could be converted and yet intentionally deny and choose to disobey the 4th commandment or others.
I said nothing about keeping any command perfectly.
I caused no division.
This is a Confessional Board and I stated what is Confessionally consistent with scripture.
If there is a division it is because people do not subscribe to the Confession they were asked to when they came on this board.
This is the position of that Confession we are all to agree to or at least if we differ, not to teach against. If there is division it is those who differ from scripture who divide.
Can you show me a verse that someone could use who believes scripture teaches the 4th commandment is no longer binding as a rule of life for us?

Division is not wrong. God tells us there will be divisions even father from son etc., and we are to separate ourselves from those who walk disorderly, etc.

I did not present a different gospel, I presented this one James 2:20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? NKJV

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. NKJV

John 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. NKJV

John 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, NKJV

1 John 3:24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. NKJV

1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. NKJV

So to all of you who have posted that we can't keep the commandments I suggest you stop using this as an excuse and seek to obey the command which shows we can keep the commandments.
No one keeps the commandments perfectly in this life. That is not what it means to keep them. No one in their right mind would say we had to keep them perfectly or think we could keep them perfectly.

And be warned that if one is not desiring to and seeking to keep them they may not be converted. They certainly have no reason for assurance as John has laid out the evidence of our personal assurance that we are in a state of grace, abiding in Christ.
One evidence of true faith is obedience.
Obedience does not merit salvation, it may manifest its reality, whereas outward obedience only could come from an unregenerate, though we may not be able to tell.

But we can choose to keep them and we can keep them, or we can choose to ignore them or we can say we do not believe them or we can just choose to intentionally disobey them.

It is not about perfection, it is about intention and the desire of our new nature.

I am no one's judge, I am merely siting scripture and asking you to consider it because there has been much false gospel and deception put out in the name of Christianity.
1 John 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. NKJV

What God is teaching us is that though we still have an old nature, its power is broken and we have been given a new nature that delights in the law of god and desires to obey and believe. We gradually grow in sanctification, holiness, separation from the world and flesh and sin, and are more and more able to please God.

But for those who choose not to follow the commands.... they are in danger
There are many warning in scripture.
Our doctrine is not once saved always saved, it is perseverance and preservation. The preservation is always accompanied by perseverance just as faith is always accompanied by works in true saving faith.

No one is implying the works have any merit toward salvation, but they are a result of conversion and will be evident.

So please do not try to say I or St. James is advocating works salvation.

As for Bolton's True Bounds of Christian Freedom I loved that book when I first read it twenty some years ago and encourage others to read it. He believes the same thing I do that the 4th commandment is as much obligatory for Christians as the others. So whether we use the word binding, obligatory or not, we agree one born again will desire to and keep the law, all 10 out of love to god and yet it is still a rule of life to us since we are not perfected in love yet.

So though I may not have been clear, I did not over exaggerate my statements to support my own idea. It isn't my idea.

I said nothing of how I or one should keep the Sabbath or Lord's day holy. One who posted did make accusations as if I had made fundamantalistic or Pharisaical rules for keeping the Lord's day holy as the Talmud does, but I made no such statements, that was their own defensive reaction.

I make no prescriptions other than what is clear in scripture.
Isa 58:13 "If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on My holy day, And call the Sabbath a delight, The holy day of the LORD honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words, 14 Then you shall delight yourself in the LORD; NKJV

I make no binding burden on anyone for how to keep it. It should be a delight to be given a day each week to reflect on how heaven will be, to begin to step into that time we will be exclusively with the Lord, free of all that is in this world, to rest from our work and tears etc.

Let them pray and ask God and seek to find out how others throughout the history of the church have kept the day holy and come to their own convictions.

So Alex I ask you to reconsider what you have said and accused me of and to repent of this judgment and misrepresenting me as a purveyor of a false gospel.

And others I encourage you to take a good notice in yourselves how you reacted to the hearing of these commands and why?
Why did you raise the issue of no one can keep them perfectly when no one ever said anything about perfectly.
Why did this defense rise in you so quickly and strongly?
In fact over and over it was posted we are not saying keep perfectly and yet this same thing rises up again and again and in others too.

Why?
I know why it used to in me!
Praise God for His mercy to me so far.
 
Last edited:
Don said:
Perhaps if you had read the whole thread and my earlier posts you would not have gotten that opinion.

Don, I did read all your posts. I found them offensive only when you based a person's salvation on the keeping of the Law. Once again, this is not the Gospel.

Don said,
I do not condemn anyone.

Don, you did.

Don said,
This is a Confessional Board and I stated what is Confessionally consistent with scripture.

Don, you did not.

Don said,
If there is a division it is because people do not subscribe to the Confession they were asked to when they came on this board.

Wrong again Don. As Christians we hold to a Gospel that is based solely on Christ's finished work. And the Confession back this up.

Don said,
This is the position of that Confession we are all to agree to or at least if we differ, not to teach against.

That would be you Don.

Don said,
Can you show me a verse that someone could use who believes scripture teaches the 4th commandment is no longer binding as a rule of life for us?

No. Because I believe it is to be a rule of life to us.
But you, apparently, also believe that if someone doesn't keep a commandment they can't be saved. That is where I differ from you.

Don said,
I did not present a different gospel, I presented this one James 2:20...

You did Don. Remember when your wrote, "Then you agree with us that someone who does not obey all the commands all his life is not converted."

I like what Joshua said when he wrote, "The Lord Jesus kept all the commandments perfectly, and that's the only way we can be saved."

Don said,
No one keeps the commandments perfectly in this life. That is not what it means to keep them. No one in their right mind would say we had to keep them perfectly or think we could keep them perfectly.

Then what is the point of this thread, Don? How do you know how strict a Sabbatarian each person is? Where are the guidelines and boundaries? Only God knows a person's heart. Why bring into question a person's salvation if they aren't as strict as you are?

Don said,
Our doctrine is not once saved always saved, it is perseverance and preservation. The preservation is always accompanied by perseverance just as faith is always accompanied by works in true saving faith.

Please explain what you mean by this. I just need clarification.

Don said,
So please do not try to say I or St. James is advocating works salvation.

Please don't place your words on the same level as Scripture. This is a logical fallacy... I just can't remember the term...
But anyway, I know James isn't advocating a works based salvation.

Don said,
As for Bolton's True Bounds of Christian Religion I loved that book when I first read it twenty some years ago. He believes the same thing I do that the 4th commandment is as much obligatory for Christians as the others.

I'm glad you read it. But he certainly does not believe the same thing you do, as far as condemning people for not keeping the Law. That point is the only reason why I'm even writing in this thread.
I've only read Bolton's book twice. The last time was last year. And he was extremely clear and very careful to state that the Law is a rule of life for us Christians and cannot condemn us. (Which is the way every one of your posts comes across in this thread.) So, you are in disagreement with Bolton, and the Confessions, and the Bible on this issue. At least, that's the way it looks to me.

Don said,
So though I may not have been clear, I did not over exaggerate my statements to support my own idea. It isn't my idea.

You're right. Cults have been teaching this belief for ages.

Don said,
I make no binding burden on anyone for how to keep it. It should be a delight to be given a day each week to reflect on how heaven will be, to begin to step into that time we will be exclusively with the Lord, free of all that is in this world, to rest from our work and tears etc.

I agree.

Don said,
So Alex I ask you to reconsider what you have said and accused me of and to repent of this judgment and misrepresenting me as a purveyor of a false gospel.

At this point, it still seems like you hold to the view that keeping the Law is a requirement for salvation. So, I can't do that.

For the most part, you're preaching to the choir about the importance of the 4th Commandment, to me.
A HUGE red flag popped up when you started bringing people's salvation into question.

Clear that up, and we'll be fine.
 
Eph 5:5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them NASB

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. 15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. NKJV

What do you make of these?
Would the same thing hold for other commands or just the ones listed?

1 John 2:3Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. NKJV

-----Added 3/29/2009 at 07:44:37 EST-----

Don said:
Perhaps if you had read the whole thread and my earlier posts you would not have gotten that opinion.

Don, I did read all your posts. I found them offensive only when you based a person's salvation on the keeping of the Law. Once again, this is not the Gospel.

You did Don. Remember when your wrote, "Then you agree with us that someone who does not obey all the commands all his life is not converted."


I agree this was unclear. I clarified this in a later post.

I did not mean they had to perfectly keep the law all their life to be saved.

I meant, if one chooses not to believe the law and chooses not to obey the law, all their life.

I hope this "Clears it up for you"

Re-Read the posts then, you are misunderstanding them.
 
I say that you are misinterpreting the Bible. It seems to me that you are saying that if a Christian commits a sin he has become "immoral and impure". (And this applies to the breaking of all of the commandments.)
And I say that you are wrong. We have Christ. If and when I sin, I am still seen as righteous by God. My sin isn't counted against me. Christ was the perfect sacrifice.
See Romans 8:1 (whole chapter); Romans 5:1

So, if a Christian commits murder, does he lose his salvation? Or does this prove that he was never a Christian to begin with? Are all Christians sinless? If not then how big of a sin makes that person a non-Christian?

I believe these verses are talking about non-Christians. Christians have eternal life because they have Christ.

You are not helping your cause, in my opinion.
 
First, I think telling someone to repent is a bully move.
Next, I cannot understand how you do not see why people are arguing against you. Perhaps you do not mean the things you say, but what you are saying is that if someone does not keep the Sabbath, they are going to hell.
You are not recognizing the fact that YOU don't keep the Sabbath nor CAN you.
You say you are recognizing this, by making a distinction between your efforts and another's lack of efforts (as you see it), BUT where does the Bible say, "Your efforts are enough." In my reading I see, "Your good works are dirty rags."

And please, what exactly do YOU mean by this? I don't know any Reformed Christian who thinks that the Sabbath has nothing to do with them. They either think the Sabbath is our rest in Christ, and we keep it by being in him, or they think the Sabbath is a day of rest, and we keep it by not working, or they think it is a day of rest and we keep it by not working or recreating, or they think it is a day of rest and we keep it by doing X, Y, Z, ETC. Who on this board is going to answer in the generic that they do not keep the Sabbath??? If you are speaking to a specific subset of self-professed Sabbath keepers, whom you believe to actually be Sabbath breakers, please say that. Otherwise, this argument is useless.
 
First, I think telling someone to repent is a bully move.
Next, I cannot understand how you do not see why people are arguing against you. Perhaps you do not mean the things you say, but what you are saying is that if someone does not keep the Sabbath, they are going to hell.
You are not recognizing the fact that YOU don't keep the Sabbath nor CAN you.
You say you are recognizing this, by making a distinction between your efforts and another's lack of efforts (as you see it), BUT where does the Bible say, "Your efforts are enough." In my reading I see, "Your good works are dirty rags."

And please, what exactly do YOU mean by this? I don't know any Reformed Christian who thinks that the Sabbath has nothing to do with them. They either think the Sabbath is our rest in Christ, and we keep it by being in him, or they think the Sabbath is a day of rest, and we keep it by not working, or they think it is a day of rest and we keep it by not working or recreating, or they think it is a day of rest and we keep it by doing X, Y, Z, ETC. Who on this board is going to answer in the generic that they do not keep the Sabbath??? If you are speaking to a specific subset of self-professed Sabbath keepers, whom you believe to actually be Sabbath breakers, please say that. Otherwise, this argument is useless.

:ditto:
 
This will be the only post I make in this topic, mainly because as I see it, although I'm encouraged by the zeal on both sides to defend their arguments, and the desire to look at what scripture says about these issues, I think things are getting a little more heated than necessary.

I think another question that's underlying here is "Who's view of the Sabbath should we follow?" From Scripture and past posts, it's already understood that we cannot follow all the commandments perfectly, including the 4th. If we could, we would have no need for a Savior or Mediator.

Something to consider, I think, is Peter's words to the Jerusalem counsel (Acts 15:10-11, quoting NASB):

"Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

There's a difference between a believer who is working to keep the Sabbath but keeps failing, and someone who knows all that Scripture teaches on the issue and still constantly refused to attend worship, etc. Likewise, there's a difference between someone who is trying to follow the Sabbath law out of love for our God, and someone following the Sabbath rules because his/her conscience being bound by others (i.e., if someone keeps the Sabbath in certain ways, etc. that may go beyond the bounds of Scripture).

That said, I agree with another poster who said that some of the issues being brought up here sound like issues of sanctification.
 
So this thread seems to be fairly tense. Might I jump in quickly with some statements I think all can agree upon? I hope that these can result in fruitful and edifying conversation on this Lord's Day.

1.) We all acknowledge that faith is not merely a mental assent, but includes a turning of the will toward God, and thus has a corresponding endeavor to obey his commandments.
2.) He who desires nothing to do with the commandments of God should not be thought to have an eternal interest in him.
3.) Upon King David's grievous sin, the appropriate response was not to bring the law before him to suggest that he might, in fact, be condemned; but rather, to convict him of his sin, bring him to repentance, demonstrate what his estate would be without Christ and to direct his paths to renewed obedience.
4.) We must always remember the distinction between God's hidden and revealed will; we do not know the causes why God allows us, his children, to walk in darkness for certain seasons.
5.) We ought continually examine our obedience, and test whether we see fruits of God's Spirit within us; where we see lack, this ought not to cause doubt if the response is an endeavor to further obedience. And our assurance never comes from the quality of our faith (or the corresponding quality of our obedience), but from the object of our faith, which is Christ's work.
6.) As Christians, we approach the law from within the Covenant of Grace, not from without.
7.) Church discipline for our sins and faults is not to be confused inclusion and exclusion from the mystical body of Christ; the visible church is not coextensive with the invisible.
8.) Ignorance of how to practically work out certain commandments is not to be equated with conscious rebellion against the authority of God; if a tribal culture should not yet have learned that to wed one's sister falls outside of God's law (and yet, this same tribe is not attempting to cast off rebellion against God's commandment regarding adultery, yea, rather they endeavor to keep it), we do not accuse them of rebellion and cast them outside of the saving power of God, but rather attempt to show them the better way.
9.) We trust that we will see certain signs of conformity to God's law in his people; if we don't see that which we might expect, we do not necessarily make this determinative of God's secret will, but rather take occasion of such sin to exhort the congregation of God's revealed will, cherishing the right way, while leaving the hidden things to the Lord our God. For that lengthy time between David's adultery and the execution of his plan to have Uriah killed, how many would have counted him regenerate?
10.) When we walk (even ignorantly) in sin, there are surely consequences in this world. If we all walked as the Psalm 1 man (Christ), we should live here on earth in perfect harmony and blessedness. Let us all long for the day when we both understand the commandments fully, and are able to walk in them wholly; and until then, let us use every effort to learn wisdom and walk uprightly.

These are but a few points; perhaps more can be posted shortly. Do we all agree upon these?
 
Then what is the point of this thread, Don? How do you know how strict a Sabbatarian each person is? Where are the guidelines and boundaries? Only God knows a person's heart. Why bring into question a person's salvation if they aren't as strict as you are?

Amen!
 
Then what is the point of this thread, Don? How do you know how strict a Sabbatarian each person is? Where are the guidelines and boundaries? Only God knows a person's heart. Why bring into question a person's salvation if they aren't as strict as you are?

Amen!

This isn't even the issue.

I have stated over and over how you keep the Lord's day is not the issue I am discussing here at all.

It is whether or not one believes they need to keep the commandments and desires to and seeks to do it, as opposed to one who chooses not to obey or not attempt to obey.
If they disregard it or don't believe they need to obey the command.

I don't understand why this is so confusing.

Does saving, justifying faith cause a person to want to obey and seek to obey all 10 commands, the moral law, or not.

I am not talking perfect obedience, as stated, no confusion here

I am saying could a truly converted person deny or ignore the commandments?

Can they continue to deny one or more
or by intent disobey one or more of them or not think they apply to them in this age.

Or will they as a result of saving faith understand all 10 to some degree apply to them and seek to and desire to obey them to some degree?

I don't believe They can earn or lose their salvation by doing or not doing.

Is it inconsistent with a true conversion to practice, live in, or continue unrepentant of not obeying the commands.

I am not questioning one who agrees they should obey, tries to and fails, but one who would say they don't need to obey and don't seek to obey one or more of the commands.

Are they deceived in thinking they have been converted if they do not desire and attempt to obey one or more of the commands, is my question.

Is this clear?

I am not saying anyone is not saved if they don't keep the Lord's Day like me or Calvin, I am not condemning anyone.

I am asking you what you think and what you think the verses I have quoted mean.

So why attack me, accuse me of believing in works salvation etc. when I don't?

I was just asking what you think and posting verses.

I believe Christians sin. I believe in this life we never get to where we do not sin.

But I do believe this, you decide what it means.
Don't tell me what I believe, I am not telling you what it means and forcing anything on anyone.
You tell me what these mean.

1 John 3:4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. NKJV

1 John 3:15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. NKJV

1 John 3:24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. NKJV

1 John 5: 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.
NKJV

John 14:21-24
21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."

22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?"

23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words;
NKJV

John 15:10
10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love,
NKJV

Off to prayer meeting
 
Just in case it comes across as if I was upset or in "attack-mode", I'd like to apologize, because I wasn't. I was just in my "defend the Gospel" mode. :)

I rarely post much anymore, due to a busy work schedule. But this thread came across as an attack on the Gospel from the first post. So I responded.

And to leave this post in a positive note, I had a blessed Lord's Day today. I believe I set apart this day as holy, and the Lord blessed me with an AMAZING service at church and the day was filled with wonderful fellowship with the saints of God.
 
For what it's worth, Don, I do think there is a lot of talking past each other in this thread. I think you'll find very few who will disagree with the fact that he who willingly and knowingly attempts to cast off the commandment of Christ should not presume to have any interest in his saving benefits. This of course does not mean he cannot be a recipient of that salvation (as I think most saints have sinned presumptuously at some point, which is, in effect, the same thing).
 
Actually Don you have been pretty adamant that your view of the sabbath is a sign of salvation. I do apologize for coming across in a hostile manner to your accusations (and that is what they are). In no way was I implying you were being LDS but they do keep the Sabbath in a similar way to what you proposed. Since you claimed salvation was shown by adherence to the rules, the LDS would qualify and many True Reformed believers would not (there are diverse views on what constitutes Sabbath Keeping out there). :oops: You can believe what you will on this but a kinder presentation might actually make people think while consigning those who go to Coco's after church to perdition will make them discount any good advice you are offering here. :2cents:
 
Regenerate = Know the Truth...

I may be missing it, there is a lot here.

But, it seems to me, your argument, is implying, that someone who has the Holy Spirit (regenerate) will know the commandments, and want to follow them. But, what about lesser things; baptism, church leadership, roles of women, which bible is "true", the intricacies of the Doctrines of God, and the doctrines of grace, how we worship God, etc...

There is a Holy Spirit Stamped TRUTH, to the correct understanding of the ten commandments, and the above list. If we proclaim or follow anything other than that truth, it's a sin. But, with great men of God, there has been disagreement of the above.

It seems to me, you argument says, if you have the Holy Spirit, YOU WILL KNOW AND WANT TO FOLLOW THE TRUTH.

Well, from the Sabbath, down through my list, there are said believers on many sides, they all WANT TO FOLLOW THE TRUTH, they just disagree on what the truth is.

Non Sabbatarians, want to follow the 10 commandments, they love the Sabbath, the Sabbath that is Christ. So they don't say, "Oh, that's a true commandment, I'm just in rebellion to it." They say, Christ is the fourth commandment, so I live in rest 24/7."

So, if we say, that those who don't want to follow the fourth commandment, because they understand it differently than you, because, YOU have the truth, then we could say the same about those in "sin" because of their differing views on other truths.

You can say they are wrong, and if they were "saved" they would get that...but, then you should use that argument for every other sin, that said believers commit when they do baptism different, etc.

Bottom line, it SOUNDS like this, "I'm a true believer, I see it like this, it's the truth, if you don't see it this way, you are probably not saved."
:detective:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top