Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.)
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.
Glad you are a calvin follower on the Sabbath. Which is now the Lord's day.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:
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.
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.
I wonder why people would come to the Puritan board and argue against the beliefs of the Puritans, Reformers and the Confessions?
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.
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-----
Glad you are a calvin follower on the Sabbath. Which is now the Lord's day.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:
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
Perhaps if you had read the whole thread and my earlier posts you would not have gotten that opinion.
I do not condemn anyone.
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.
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?
I did not present a different gospel, I presented this one James 2:20...
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.
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.
So please do not try to say I or St. James is advocating works salvation.
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.
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 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.
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.
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."
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.
"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."
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?
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!