Is the observance of Sunday a matter of Christian Liberty?

[ReformedWretch]

Not offended at all! I'm enjoying the discussion because you don't seem offended by my thoughts. I appreciate that. However, I am going to have to think about what you've said here before going on. I don't want to log on in the morning and think "why did I write that as a reply?!" (lol)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

How much of the Law are we still burdened under, are we not free from the Law? Is not the sabbath made for man and not man made for the sabbath? Is it me or are Reformed more into legalism than other branches?

I'll most likely get beaten down, but these are my thoughts.

And again I say...SIGH...... Lotsa heat, very little light here.

If after reading everything in this thread that these are your synopses of the discussion then I don't know how any discussion of God's Law would be edifying to you at this point. I think you need to read more carefully above and then read the book of Romans again with particular emphasis on Romans 6, 12, 14, and 15 if these are your conclusions. There is much more than heat being generated and this is a far cry from legalism.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ooops. So bogged down pulling quotes I forgot my snarky post:

In answer to the thread question, Is the observance of Sunday a matter of Christian Liberty?, and to summarize the Westminster Assembly,

NO!

I answered the same way by the way in case it's not clear. The 4th Commandment is perpetually binding. I wish I had more time to develop my thoughts.

Thanks, by the way, for posting the Critical Text above. Very cool.

I think the problem that many have is that they can't always distinguish between the motivations for a particular behavior. This is the subtlety of the Law that has taken me several years to understand.

I actually have begun to have a sharper appreciation for what Paul means when he calls the Law a schoolmaster for the Jews. The analogy is very apropos because, for small children, you really do have to give them a list of do's and don'ts. For all intents and purposes, you have to discipline their little bodies and minds to receive negative feedback for the don'ts and positive feedback for the do's.

It really dawned on me when I was teaching Romans 13 what Paul was saying about the love of neighbor being the fulfillment of the Law because love does no harm to a neighbor. It's the reason why, when Christ is asked to sum up the entire Law He summarizes it all in two positive commands: to Love God with our whole heart, soul, and mind and to Love Neighbor as ourselves. Two positive commands to love.

Then why the negative commands? Because of our immaturity. Because of the wickedness of our hearts. We require the Dont's because our hearts would deceive us as to what is actually loving toward our neighbor. We'd be content to cut corners and deceive ourselves that we're doing it just fine. So then we get the Law and our wicked hearts then deceive us because we ask the question: "How much can I do in order to 'pass' the requirements of this Law?" But, by doing so, Christ has shown us that we're not even pursuing righteousness at all because love would never seek a minimal requirement. We would be passionately impelled to give maximal effort to delight in the things that bring our God delight.

It is no mistake that Romans 12-16 follows Romans 1-11 as service and sacrifice to God is the reasonable response of love and gratitude to a Savior. In the beginning of Durham's exposition of the Ten Commandments he even highlights that and then he proceeds to show how negatively and positively each command is supposed to grip us. The pursuit of righteousness becomes a reasonable goal and not one that we're content we've achieved by just assuming that we're comfortable and so we must have really shown God how appreciative we are for our great salvation.

Thus, it's not about earning God's favor but whether or not we are really grateful for our redemption. If we are grateful and we believe we are united to Christ by faith and slaves to righteousness then why do we keep asking how low the bar has to be?

I would remind all that the Sabbath is one of a very few positive commands in Scripture but isn't it interesting how it's being interpreted here as if God, in telling us to rest in Him and consider Him is really giving us a list of things we're forbidden from doing. It's almost as if we're all pre-conditioned to thinking in those terms rather than delighting in the opportunity to worship, to rest, to consecrate, and to sanctify.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm still being sanctified in my delight of the Sabbath but my goal in sanctification is to continue to pursue the things that God delights in until they become a delight for me as I'm conformed to Christ. So, if people want to know why they ought to celebrate the Lord's Day then I'd ask them to go back and read the Gospels again and ask them what is not delightful about the Lord's Day in light of the Gospels.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

First, an apology to Bob V. for offending him by posting a theological point on the Sports Forum. Sorry Bob.

Second, I think the question is quite clear - and clearly avoided by the "libertines" who wish to watch Football on Sundays:

"Is the observance of Sunday a matter of Christian Liberty?"

I am not asking about "do's" and "don'ts" (by the way the 10 Commands are chock full of "don'ts" i.e. "Thou shalt not...")

I asked the question as to whether or not observing the Christian Sabbath is a matter of Christian Liberty? I surmise that the "libertines" here who watch football on Sunday consider "Sabbatarians" to be stepping on their Christian Freedom when they are told it is wrong.

The question is: Are their Christian Freedoms being stepped upon?

If this is the case, then how might others act concerning other parts of the Commands? Would a pathological liar consider his Christian Freedom as being stepped upon? Or, a Ted Bundy? Can we now erect a crucifix on the front lawn of the church?

Do you have any example in the Bible of Christians going to the Coliseum after church? Was this the practice of Jesus and His disciples? Can you hear the voice of God in the book of James:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if you commit no adultery, yet if you kill, thou have become a trangressor of the whole law, 2:10,11.

All sin is forgivable, but, do we not presume upon the forgiveness of God when we knowingly transgress the Law? Is observing one day in seven become such an inconvienance to you that you must take away that one day in order to serve your own desires?

Jesus tells us that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. This is generally understood as works of Necessity and Mercy. If I am sitting at home like a bump on a log watching television, then how is this understood as a work of Necessity or Mercy? (No doubt someone will find a cheap joke out of that.) The Sabbath day is an opportunity to get out of yourself and do some good for your neighbor, the sick, the poor, the downtrodden, the fatherless, or the widow. Maybe the television was devised in order to keep the Christian home on the Sabbath so that he/she would not go out doing good?

I find that those who use Christian Liberty to defend their abuse of the Sabbath are thinking more of themselves and their own comforts rather than the good of others. Remember:

"If you have done it unto the least of these, my brothers, then you have done it unto me."

The Law is a burden only to the flesh. To us Christians united to Christ by faith it is, "the perfect law of liberty" James 1:25, where we joyfully keep it through faith in the sanctifying work of the Spirit of God.

What is football then when compared to the Kingdom of God?

Blessings,

-CH

 

[ReformedWretch]

Rich-as I continue to ponder this, so I can get back to Josh I must ask you this-

Thus, it's not about earning God's favor but whether or not we are really grateful for our redemption. If we are grateful and we believe we are united to Christ by faith and slaves to righteousness then why do we keep asking how low the bar has to be?

I would remind all that the Sabbath is one of a very few positive commands in Scripture but isn't it interesting how it's being interpreted here as if God, in telling us to rest in Him and consider Him is really giving us a list of things we're forbidden from doing. It's almost as if we're all pre-conditioned to thinking in those terms rather than delighting in the opportunity to worship, to rest, to consecrate, and to sanctify.

If God has not provided a "list" are we not forced to make one? Who is qualified to say what is and what is not permitted when the subject is not clearly spoken of in scripture? Look at the example of the disciples picking wheat on the sabbath, I can honestly see "some" here (if we didn't have this example in scripture) thinking doing that was sin in violation of the sabbath. You couldn't see that?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich-as I continue to ponder this, so I can get back to Josh I must ask you this-

Thus, it's not about earning God's favor but whether or not we are really grateful for our redemption. If we are grateful and we believe we are united to Christ by faith and slaves to righteousness then why do we keep asking how low the bar has to be?

I would remind all that the Sabbath is one of a very few positive commands in Scripture but isn't it interesting how it's being interpreted here as if God, in telling us to rest in Him and consider Him is really giving us a list of things we're forbidden from doing. It's almost as if we're all pre-conditioned to thinking in those terms rather than delighting in the opportunity to worship, to rest, to consecrate, and to sanctify.

If God has not provided a "list" are we not forced to make one? Who is qualified to say what is and what is not permitted when the subject is not clearly spoken of in scripture? Look at the example of the disciples picking wheat on the sabbath, I can honestly see "some" here (if we didn't have this example in scripture) thinking doing that was sin in violation of the sabbath. You couldn't see that?

I really do have to run somewhere. The point is that there have been a list of do's and dont's but given to guide us to maturity so that we don't decieve ourselves to think that we're fulfilling the law of love by doing something that God doesn't love. If God delights in us consecrating one day in seven to Him in worship and resting from our activities then we can either view that as a list of do's and don'ts or we can view that as something that is the reasonable thing to do for the One you love and were redeemed by.

I inherently understand why much of the view is interpreted as a set of rules and I also think that part of the problem is that, just because you grow up a Sabbatarian doesn't mean that you're always doing so because you delight in the Lord. Even the Sabbath can be celebrated hypocritically as something that you're a better person for unlike those other wicked people. I think we ought to strike the concern out of our mind how the concept is packaged at times and reflect more on what our goal is. I'm not saying this as a person who thinks he sanctifies the Day as perfectly as he ought but my happiest days have been the days where sunup to sundown I was in the presence of the people of God either in worship or fellowship talking about the things of the Lord. I can assure you that it did not feel like toil.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Ok, since Rich has to run I'll ask this of any(every) one.

Look at the example of the disciples picking wheat on the sabbath, I can honestly see "some" here (if we didn't have this example in scripture) thinking doing that was sin in violation of the sabbath. You couldn't see that?

I've seen women here ask if it's permissible to cook a meal for their family on Sunday. I've seen someone ask if answering the phone is. Again, if we didn't have the biblical example of the followers of Christ picking grain as they walked with him and Christ allowing it, don't you think it's possible that many here would disapprove?

If I logged in on Sunday and said I just gotten back from a walk with my friends where along the way we picked some vegetables and ate them, I think it's very possible that someone would think (and maybe even say so in a post) that doing so was sin on the sabbath.

Am I wrong?

 

[Iconoclast]

How much of the Law are we still burdened under, are we not free from the Law? Is not the sabbath made for man and not man made for the sabbath? Is it me or are Reformed more into legalism than other branches?

I'll most likely get beaten down, but these are my thoughts.

In Romans 13, we are told love is the fulfilling of the law. In Christ we are free from the penalty of the law as Jesus has paid for our sins against the law of God. The law is good if a man use it lawfully.
Post 18 was very helpful on this.
In the Nt. we are told that God was going to put the law in our heart. I do not think that it means our heart is burdened by law ,or law keeping.
What did the psalmist mean in Psalm 119:

18Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
34Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.
113I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love.

Some try to imply that only 9 commandments were mentioned in the New Covenant.
Were only 9 commandments placed inside the ark of the covenant?
In Romans 2:14-15
14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

What law is going to judge the unsaved gentiles, at the white throne? What law is on their conscience? Do you think it might be the ten commandments/or only 9?

Years ago I asked Pastor Chantry about the law and the gospel. He pointed out that central to the gospel message is the fact that the Lord Jesus kept the law perfectly,delighting to do the Father's will [even the sabbath observance]. It was His sinless life and law keeping that is put to our account, along with the payment in full of our sin debt that provides the necessary propitiation for us. Without any part of it,we do not see heaven.
Law keeping is at the heart of the gospel, and also this from Solomon:

13Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.



Walter Chantry wrote a book called Call the Sabbath a Delight. It might be helpful to work through.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ok, since Rich has to run I'll ask this of any(every) one.

Look at the example of the disciples picking wheat on the sabbath, I can honestly see "some" here (if we didn't have this example in scripture) thinking doing that was sin in violation of the sabbath. You couldn't see that?

I've seen women here ask if it's permissible to cook a meal for their family on Sunday. I've seen someone ask if answering the phone is. Again, if we didn't have the biblical example of the followers of Christ picking grain as they walked with him and Christ allowing it, don't you think it's possible that many here would disapprove?

If I logged in on Sunday and said I just gotten back from a walk with my friends where along the way we picked some vegetables and ate them, I think it's very possible that someone would think (and maybe even say so in a post) that doing so was sin on the sabbath.

Am I wrong?

I think you're wrong to primarily worry about how others will view the way you view the Sabbath. Incidentally, there is a spirit of strict Sabbatarianism that views their role as primarily being Reformed "hall monitors". I think a person's view and observance of the Sabbath and other such issues is best handled in a Pastoral setting because the kinds of concerns you have are meant to be handled in the setting where growth in Grace is primarily supposed to occur.

I don't think that simply because people are strict in their observance of the Sabbath that they will necessarily be mature in how they deal with others who have not come to that conclusion. I'm not arguing that there ought not be a concern but an "obey the Law you sinner!" attitude is not really the way to go here. It reveals that the attitude is more about how the offender is breaching what they expect about them and less about whether they have compassionate concern for those that still need to grow in many ways to include the Sabbath. I would hope that if a new Christian came into one of these Churches that they would want to mature such a man in the Gospel and not immediately hammer them the way they hammer others here and be more forebearing of their immaturity in such areas.

Ideally, those who are seeking to obey the Lord out of their overflowing gratitude and love for Him would be holding out the delight to others that they have. "Come, join us for the Law is our delight...." Should not the person who is demonstrating maturity in this area be humble and servant of all and seeking the edification of the immature? It might reveal in some cases that those that think they are mature in such things still don't realize that things aren't well in the Church just because they are mature if they're not willing to also build up the weak with their good in mind.

I can go around and around on this. The bottom line for me is that the Sabbath is holy. Its proponents are not always so holy because some of them are still themselves learning how to truly delight in everything: not only how they love the Lord in their observance of the Sabbath but how they love their neighbor and bear with his weaknesses, stubbornness, and immaturity. It really does help to be in fellowship with each other where such issues have to be worked out on the ground.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Two points of distinction need to occur in this discussion.

[1] Chris is surely correct: Westminster / Puritan theology is Sabbatarian. It was a huge issue for the Puritans ever since Richard Greenham took up the issue, and Nicholas Bownde (his son-in-law) published on it (in the late 16th century). This is surely an undisputed point and should not be questioned.

[2] However, the reformed tradition generally cannot be described as Sabbatarian. If we judge the reformed tradition according to all the confessions, we find them coming to different conclusions (as we find various reformed theologians coming to different conclusions on this matter).

Thus, WCF / Puritan Sabbatarianism is a subset of the reformed tradition. One doesn't have to be Sabbatarian to be reformed, but they're strictly not within the Puritan tradition.

The 4th Commandment is perpetually binding.

The problem I have with this statement, is that the 4th commandment (as given at Sinai) explicitly states that the Sabbath must be on the 7th day, or Saturday. Hence, unless we're 7th-day adventists (or baptists) then we can't affirm that the 4th commandment is perpetually binding because it's undergone some sort of transformation since Christ, even for the WCF / Puritan types (who now believe the Sabbath is on Sunday).

Every blessing.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The 4th Commandment is perpetually binding.

The problem I have with this statement, is that the 4th commandment (as given at Sinai) explicitly states that the Sabbath must be on the 7th day, or Saturday. Hence, unless we're 7th-day adventists (or baptists) then we can't affirm that the 4th commandment is perpetually binding because it's undergone some sort of transformation since Christ, even for the WCF / Puritan types (who now believe the Sabbath is on Sunday).

Every blessing.

I'm not interesting in debating this point. It's off topic. It is the Confessional view of the Scriptures that the actual day of the Sabbath was not the principle that was perpetual as much as the principle that one day in seven be consecrated. We have Apostolic testimony to the change in this in light of this fact. It is also noted by Puritans that Christ "worked" redemption on the Jewish Sabbath (was still in the grave) and rose again on the Lord's Day for our salvation.

As I said, however, this is off topic. If you're not even convinced that the Lord's Day needs to be consecrated then it's an interesting opinion but not something I'm interested in discussing in this thread.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Rich,

I'm not interesting in debating this point. It's off topic. It is the Confessional view of the Scriptures that the actual day of the Sabbath was not the principle that was perpetual as much as the principle that one day in seven be consecrated. [...] As I said, however, this is off topic. If you're not even convinced that the Lord's Day needs to be consecrated then it's an interesting opinion but not something I'm interested in discussing in this thread.

Thanks for your response. I really don't want to be a pain here, but I'm not sure I understand why this is "off topic"--aren't we discussing the liberty of Sabbath keeping? If we are, then how the Sabbath commandment relates to the New Covenant surely is critical to the discussion.

For what it's worth I believe that one day in seven is for rest. However, I don't arrive there from the 4th commandment alone. And again, I'm not sure you appreciate that the fourth commandment isn't teaching the principle of one day off in seven, it's teaching that the the seventh day (Saturday) and not any other day is a Sabbath for Israel. This may be a subset of a general principle, but that general principle is not articulated in the 4th commandment itself. We must go beyond it. This is critical in understanding how the Torah relates to the New Covenant, which is at the heart of our discussion.

Hence, I don't think we can start with the 4th commandment and argue for liberty / non-liberty of the Sabbath. Rather, we start at creation, go through Cain and Abel, onto the command to rest from collecting manna (before the Torah was given), through the 10 words given at Sinai, and into Christ's statement that "the Sabbath was made for humanity (anthropos -- not just Israel)" and not vice-versa.

Every blessing dear brother,

Marty.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Ooops. So bogged down pulling quotes I forgot my snarky post:

In answer to the thread question, Is the observance of Sunday a matter of Christian Liberty?, and to summarize the Westminster Assembly,

NO!

From what I know of the opposite position, those who deny the abiding validity of the Sabbath would (generally) say that attendance at public worship on the Lord's Day - which they would consider as part of observing Sunday - is not a matter of Christian Liberty but is obligatory on all believers.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Dear Rich,

I'm not interesting in debating this point. It's off topic. It is the Confessional view of the Scriptures that the actual day of the Sabbath was not the principle that was perpetual as much as the principle that one day in seven be consecrated. [...] As I said, however, this is off topic. If you're not even convinced that the Lord's Day needs to be consecrated then it's an interesting opinion but not something I'm interested in discussing in this thread.

Thanks for your response. I really don't want to be a pain here, but I'm not sure I understand why this is "off topic"--aren't we discussing the liberty of Sabbath keeping? If we are, then how the Sabbath commandment relates to the New Covenant surely is critical to the discussion.

For what it's worth I believe that one day in seven is for rest. However, I don't arrive there from the 4th commandment alone. And again, I'm not sure you appreciate that the fourth commandment isn't teaching the principle of one day off in seven, it's teaching that the the seventh day (Saturday) and not any other day is a Sabbath for Israel. This may be a subset of a general principle, but that general principle is not articulated in the 4th commandment itself. We must go beyond it. This is critical in understanding how the Torah relates to the New Covenant, which is at the heart of our discussion.

Hence, I don't think we can start with the 4th commandment and argue for liberty / non-liberty of the Sabbath. Rather, we start at creation, go through Cain and Abel, onto the command to rest from collecting manna (before the Torah was given), through the 10 words given at Sinai, and into Christ's statement that "the Sabbath was made for humanity (anthropos -- not just Israel)" and not vice-versa.

Every blessing dear brother,

Marty.

It's off topic because it's too much for one thread to unpack. Also, I'm not aware of any Reformed Confessions that agree with your view that the Law of God taught that the Sabbath is constricted to Saturday. The command is to labor for six days and to rest on the seventh. Reformed Commmentators, in light of the New Covenant, have seen this as still perpetual but that the 6 days of labor follow the rest we celebrate now on the Lord's Day. Here is what the Heidelberg states:

Question 103. What does God require in the fourth commandment?

Answer: First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained; (a) and that I, especially on the sabbath, that is, on the day of rest, diligently frequent the church of God, (b) to hear his word, (c) to use the sacraments, (d) publicly to call upon the Lord, (e) and contribute to the relief of the poor. (f) Secondly, that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by his Holy Spirit in me: and thus begin in this life the eternal sabbath. (g)

I would also note that the Heidelberg in Question 92 also lists the fourth commandment as part of the Law of God. Under What is the Law of God and not what was the Law of God.

 

[kvanlaan]

Dear Brethren,

Is the argument somewhat opaque to this point because we are not agreed on fundamentals? What I mean by that is, should we first not be looking at what "Christian Liberty" consists of and go from there, rather than argue about the color of one another's dogs while some are referring to their cats and some their horses?

Rev. Bacon from the Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed in Texas has an incredibly thorough series on Christian Liberty (a 25-part series!) available on sermonaudio.com Rev. vanderZwaag from the HNRC covers the same in a more basic form (one sermon or so). I don't have the exact link to Rev. v.d. Zwaag's sermon, sorry - it is on sermonaudio.com as well. I do have the link to Rev. Bacon's series, below. I'm not entirely through it yet, but I have the best of intentions (!)...

SermonAudio.com - Search Results

BTW, they are both of the opinion that it is 'freedom from' certain sinful burdens/worldly conventions, not 'freedom to' do what we please. From the way this discussion has been developing, taking such a viewpoint as the basis for the argument would change the slant of things significantly.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Kevin,

It is a good point. I think part of the point of this thread is to unpack that point a bit. I've been trying to explain what we are set free from in order that we might be free to obey.

 

[kvanlaan]

I've been trying to explain what we are set free from in order that we might be free to obey.

I think that's a fundamental underpinning to this argument that needs to be fleshed out and come to consensus upon in order to proceed profitably.

 

[satz]

Regarding Christian Liberty,

I think there are actually several kinds of 'christian liberty' mentioned in the bible. There is liberty from the bondage of sin, liberty from keeping the law as a requirement for salvation, and liberty from manmade religious rules.

However, I think the bible also speaks of another kind of christian liberty about which it would not be entirely wrong to say we are free to do 'as we please.' The bible does tell us we are bound only by what God has commanded or forbidden in his word. There is freedom in those other areas that God has not regulated. Hence, in regard to meat offered to idols, Paul told the Corinthians that since God did not consider eating such meat a sin, there were free to do as they pleased with regards to it. Now, that freedom was to be curtailed when it would offend a brother or bring disrepute upon the gospel, but it was a freedom nevertheless.

I think it is this kind of 'liberty' that most non-sabbatarians mean when they evoke the name of christian liberty in regards to the sabbath. From their perspective there is 'liberty' regarding following the Sabbath because the Sabbath laws, as contained in the OT are not binding on the NT church.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Hi:

First, an apology to Bob V. for offending him by posting a theological point on the Sports Forum. Sorry Bob.

Second, I think the question is quite clear - and clearly avoided by the "libertines" who wish to watch Football on Sundays:


I asked the question as to whether or not observing the Christian Sabbath is a matter of Christian Liberty? I surmise that the "libertines" here who watch football on Sunday consider "Sabbatarians" to be stepping on their Christian Freedom when they are told it is wrong.



If this is the case, then how might others act concerning other parts of the Commands? Would a pathological liar consider his Christian Freedom as being stepped upon? Or, a Ted Bundy? Can we now erect a crucifix on the front lawn of the church?

CH, the use of the word "libertine" in the context of one who does not observe a WCF prescribed sabbath rest is not proper at all. And to compare one as such to Bundy or this crucifix lawn ornament is inflammatory. I find it problematic that you offer an apology to Bob V for spaming a sports thread, yet continue to use malicious words in the "proper" forum...

 

[CDM]

Is the observance of Sunday a matter of Christian Liberty?

NO

When Christians honored the Sabbath in this land the entire country and Christ's Church was better for it. Christians have lost their testimony to the world because of their neglect of the 4th commandment. It's nonsense to preach to unbelievers that Christians are separate and holy from the world while using the Lord's Day to fulfill worldly pleasures. To my shame, I've been in both positions.

How much of the Law are we still burdened under, are we not free from the Law? Is not the sabbath made for man and not man made for the sabbath? Is it me or are Reformed more into legalism than other branches?

I'll most likely get beaten down, but these are my thoughts.

No, we are not free from God's commandments. Additionally, God's commandments are not burdensome or grievous to Christians.

I John 5:2-3

2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.​

******

Question: What does "...resting in Christ" mean? I've heard it many times before as a response to Sabbatarians. In fact I used to parrot it as a newborn Christian at your local Evanjelly meeting on the corner. In my mind it meant "We [Christians] are not the Nation of Israel so we are not bound to observe this commandment as it was meant for just them..." I've asked this question to the PB in the past but never received an explanation (it may have been buried under Today's Posts. )

So, "resting in Christ":

-What is this doctrine?
-How or what do we do?
-Was this taught / is this found in early Christian doctrine?
-How does this relate to the Sabbath that was established before the Law? Were those saints resting in Christ?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

A plug or two. Much of this is of course simply stating that there remains a debate over whether the Puritan/Presbyterian tradition is correct on the nature of the fourth commandment; however, in the Reformed tradition going back to Calvin, the observance of the day was for all practical purposes "Puritan" if I can be anachronistic. One only need look at Calvin's sermons on Deuteronomy. I cover much of the literature in my Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines article; also I highly commend/recommend/thumbs up Woody Lauer's entry in the 2007 issue of The Confessional Presbyterian, John Calvin, the Nascent Sabbatarian: A Reconsideration of Calvin’s View of Two Key Sabbath-Issues, which was first published in Japanese, and this is the first English printing.

PS. I have much of Bownd's work on the fourth commandment worked up to publish but it has been a back burner project due to difficulties.

Two points of distinction need to occur in this discussion.

[1] Chris is surely correct: Westminster / Puritan theology is Sabbatarian. It was a huge issue for the Puritans ever since Richard Greenham took up the issue, and Nicholas Bownde (his son-in-law) published on it (in the late 16th century). This is surely an undisputed point and should not be questioned.

[2] However, the reformed tradition generally cannot be described as Sabbatarian. If we judge the reformed tradition according to all the confessions, we find them coming to different conclusions (as we find various reformed theologians coming to different conclusions on this matter).

Thus, WCF / Puritan Sabbatarianism is a subset of the reformed tradition. One doesn't have to be Sabbatarian to be reformed, but they're strictly not within the Puritan tradition.

The 4th Commandment is perpetually binding.

The problem I have with this statement, is that the 4th commandment (as given at Sinai) explicitly states that the Sabbath must be on the 7th day, or Saturday. Hence, unless we're 7th-day adventists (or baptists) then we can't affirm that the 4th commandment is perpetually binding because it's undergone some sort of transformation since Christ, even for the WCF / Puritan types (who now believe the Sabbath is on Sunday).

Every blessing.

 

[JohnOwen007]

A plug or two.

Thanks for the plugs Chris, I look forward to reading them.

If I can mention several works that helped me understand the reformed Sabbath:

[1] Richard Greenham's originally unpublished work on the Sabbath (on which Bownd derived his ideas) was recently published: Practical Divinity: The Works and Life of Richard Greenham, edited by K. L. Parker and E. J. Carlson. Greenham in many ways is the father of Puritan Sabbatarianism.

[2] A great book that recounts the rise of the Puritan Sabbath is John Primus, Holy Time: Moderate Puritanism and the Sabbath. It shows the different views that eventually developed into the Sabbath doctrine finally codified in the WCF. I found it fascinating. It augments Kenneth Parker's book, The English Sabbath.

[3] Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism on question 103 is an eloquent exposition of a Sabbath doctrine that differs with the WCF, showing the view of certain Continental theologians.

Every blessing,

Marty.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Thanks Marty. I rely on Primus a bit in my Calvin article and also Lauer interacts with Primus (Gaffin and another Japanese writer) whose view of Calvin I think has held sway, at least in recent decades in the literature. I'm not sure how much Bownd is derivative of Greenham; certainly the roots of the Puritan Sabbath reach back beyond both men. Babbington is often singled out as the first published Sabbatarian work in 1583. Works by Greenham and Perkins were both circulating in MSS amongst the Puritans. Bownd certainly has the first full treatment and it made an impression to be sure and sparked the first Sabbath controversy in English Literature. I cover some of the dating of the origins of Sabbatarianism in CPJ 1 in the intro to the first translation of a Latin preface to Bownd, the one by Willet, which I think supports Dennison's contention that:

... it should not be concluded that because the sources are not more explicitly strict, Sabbatarianism is nowhere to be found before 1583. Then how did it happen that, in 1583, Gervase Babington penned a statement on the fourth commandment which could have passed for a summary of Nicolas Bownd? In this writer’s opinion the answer is contained in the underground development of Puritanism via prophesyings, lecturings and the universities. One must not neglect to weigh the almost certain effect of the biblical discussions in these Puritan gatherings—discussions which undoubtedly touched on the Sabbath discussion…. Consider the fact that the following men, all of whom later expressed sentiments of a Puritan nature upon the fourth commandment, at one time attended Cambridge University, the “nursery” of Puritanism: John Knewstub, Edward Dering, William Perkins, Richard Greenham, Nicholas Bownd, John Stockwood, Philip Stubbes, Gervase Babington, William Fulke, and Andrew Willet. Furthermore, the Pur-itan lectureships and prophesyings were in full swing in the first decade of Elizabeth’s reign.

In Translatione. Andrew Willet’s "To the Pious Reader," from Book One of Nicholas Bownd’s Sabbathvm veteris et Novi Testamenti, The Confessional Presbyterian 1 (2005) 166-167.

A plug or two.

Thanks for the plugs Chris, I look forward to reading them.

If I can mention several works that helped me understand the reformed Sabbath:

[1] Richard Greenham's originally unpublished work on the Sabbath (on which Bownd derived his ideas) was recently published: Practical Divinity: The Works and Life of Richard Greenham, edited by K. L. Parker and E. J. Carlson. Greenham in many ways is the father of Puritan Sabbatarianism.

[2] A great book that recounts the rise of the Puritan Sabbath is John Primus, Holy Time: Moderate Puritanism and the Sabbath. It shows the different views that eventually developed into the Sabbath doctrine finally codified in the WCF. I found it fascinating. It augments Kenneth Parker's book, The English Sabbath.

[3] Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism on question 103 is an eloquent exposition of a Sabbath doctrine that differs with the WCF, showing the view of certain Continental theologians.

Every blessing,

Marty.

 

[BJClark]

houseparent;

I've seen women here ask if it's permissible to cook a meal for their family on Sunday.

Well, as a SAHM, if I am cooking on the Sabbath, then I am not getting a 'day of rest', because this is part of my everyday responsibilities...so for me, it would mean, I cook the day before and make sure to put everything in throw away containers, and we use paper plates and plastic ware so that we don't have dishes to wash...so that nobody in the household is doing their worldly 'work' on the sabbath...and everyone can enjoy the day of rest completely.

And I certainly can't go out to dinner after church either as that would be hypocritical of me...or even to have a dinner on the grounds after church...as that to would be hypocritical...as someone would still be required to set up the meal table, requiring them to labor on the Lords Day, even if for fellowship purposes...and if it is not okay for me to labor, how then can it be okay for me to ask someone else to labor?

But I can certainly cook a meal, and it not go against the Sabbath, as even then, I labor in the Lord's work...ensuring my family is cared for..

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

How much of the Law are we still burdened under, are we not free from the Law? Is not the sabbath made for man and not man made for the sabbath? Is it me or are Reformed more into legalism than other branches?

I'll most likely get beaten down, but these are my thoughts.

Hopefully no one is going to beat you up. But faithful are the wounds of a brother.

(Pro 27:5) Open rebuke is better than secret love.

(Pro 27:6) Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

First let me say that obeying God is not burdensome. Those who are burdened by God's will are outside of God's will and are burdened by a human sinful problem of indwelling sin tugging on their affections. The sabbath was created for man because it is good for him. The Sabbath is a time God has set aside for communion with Him. If you find this burdensome then the Sabbath, nor God, are to blame.

(1Jn 5:2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

(1Jn 5:3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

I admit that I live in a world where I look for things to be active in so I can commune with it. But I also must keep my communion with God as priority. I do fail at this. We tend to justify whatever activity we are involved in. But at the same time, while in this world we need to be careful about how we judge those who might do something similarly like Jesus who walked across a field plucking grains or King David who ate the showbread. The pharisees were condemning Jesus according to tradition. We don't want to be like that. But at the same time we are responsible for meeting with God the way he tells us to. In that we are required to warn others also who are not complying. So when we are challenged or rebuked we should at least listen. Those who are challenging us are doing it from their heart. They are jealous for God and might be showing us that God is jealous because we have stuck something in front of him. If we are convinced that we are not violating God's word and someone who is weaker is trying to force some burden on us that is not in God's heart then we should just bear with those who are out of accord and not be offensive toward them. I think that is the point Rich is trying to express.

If any of you Baptists or Presbyterians want to read a few good articles on the Sabbath, find someone with the Reformed Baptist Theological Review Volume 3. No, 2. You could also order it and read it. There are two good articles dealing with the Sabbath. One by Rich Barcellos and the other by James Renihan.

Reformed Baptist Academic Press

*The Old Testament Theology of the Sabbath -- Creation, Old Covenant and Old Testament Prophecy by Richard C. Barcellos

*"Bound to Keep the First Day" -- Covenant Theology, the Moral Law, and the Sabbath among the first English Particular Baptists by James M. Renihan

Reformed Baptist Academic Press

Be Encouraged,
Randy

 

[tcalbrecht]

houseparent;

I've seen women here ask if it's permissible to cook a meal for their family on Sunday.

Well, as a SAHM, if I am cooking on the Sabbath, then I am not getting a 'day of rest', because this is part of my everyday responsibilities...so for me, it would mean, I cook the day before and make sure to put everything in throw away containers, and we use paper plates and plastic ware so that we don't have dishes to wash...so that nobody in the household is doing their worldly 'work' on the sabbath...and everyone can enjoy the day of rest completely.

And I certainly can't go out to dinner after church either as that would be hypocritical of me...or even to have a dinner on the grounds after church...as that to would be hypocritical...as someone would still be required to set up the meal table, requiring them to labor on the Lords Day, even if for fellowship purposes...and if it is not okay for me to labor, how then can it be okay for me to ask someone else to labor?

I’m trying to understand the criteria here. If I work in an office all week, is it OK then to cook for the family on Sunday? Is cooking the food more work than merely setting it out on the table for people to eat? And, do we need to just leave the remains on the table or can we clean up after? Are we to avoid all fellowship (esp. involving a meal) on the Sabbath because anything involves some amount of “work”?

I remember when my father worked as service manager for a car dealer and he often would deliver customer cars on Saturday. He had one Jewish customer that would leave his wallet on a table near the front door so my dad could remove the payment for the service. The customer could not touch the money because he did that the other six days of the week. It was a good example of a hedge around the law.

What does the Bible actually say? Where is cooking a meal on Sunday, for example, spoken of as unnecessary work? And how do we avoid the entanglements of the Pharisees and rabbis?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

First, an apology to Bob V. for offending him by posting a theological point on the Sports Forum. Sorry Bob.

Second, I think the question is quite clear - and clearly avoided by the "libertines" who wish to watch Football on Sundays:


I asked the question as to whether or not observing the Christian Sabbath is a matter of Christian Liberty? I surmise that the "libertines" here who watch football on Sunday consider "Sabbatarians" to be stepping on their Christian Freedom when they are told it is wrong.



If this is the case, then how might others act concerning other parts of the Commands? Would a pathological liar consider his Christian Freedom as being stepped upon? Or, a Ted Bundy? Can we now erect a crucifix on the front lawn of the church?

CH, the use of the word "libertine" in the context of one who does not observe a WCF prescribed sabbath rest is not proper at all. And to compare one as such to Bundy or this crucifix lawn ornament is inflammatory. I find it problematic that you offer an apology to Bob V for spaming a sports thread, yet continue to use malicious words in the "proper" forum...

I am sorry that you took it that way. My apology to Bob was over a technical matter and not the question of this thread - so they are not connected.

As I understand it - the Three Forms of Unity agree with the Westminster standards on this particular matter. I used the term "libertine" in quotes to show that I was not utilizing the full force of the term. A person who breaks the Commandment in the name of "Christian Freedom" is technically a "libertine." You would have to explain yourself concerning that this "is not proper at all."

I was not comparing Ted Bundy to a Sabbath breaker, but I was doing something far more subtle that you seemed to have missed. So I will have to explain it more carefully:

If you argue that your "Christian Freedom" allows you to break the Sabbath command and do your own pleasure on the Lord's Day, then how can you enforce any of the other commands? The Bible links the commands together as I showed from the book of James. Jesus links the Commands together with the Command to Love as the fulfillment of the Law. One could simply say that it is a matter of Christian Freedom and claim the Command does not apply.

If you say that such is ridiculous, then that is my point. Why then do you say that watching football on Sunday is legitimate?

All sin is forgivable - even Ted Bundy's - whom I believe was truly repentant for his sins and is now with the Saints in Heaven.

Grace is truly Amazing isn't it?

-CH

 

[BJClark]

tcalbrecht;

I’m trying to understand the criteria here. If I work in an office all week, is it OK then to cook for the family on Sunday? Is cooking the food more work than merely setting it out on the table for people to eat? And, do we need to just leave the remains on the table or can we clean up after? Are we to avoid all fellowship (esp. involving a meal) on the Sabbath because anything involves some amount of “work”?

That is pretty much what I am getting at..to me it seems silly to say that any type of labor on the Lords day should be avoided, just because it's labor and isn't focusing directly on God. If I am going to be preparing a meal or doing dishes, that is going to be my focus...and not directly on God, as it appears many are saying needs to be done on the Lord's Day..only focusing on God and God alone to the exclusion of anything else.

What does the Bible actually say? Where is cooking a meal on Sunday, for example, spoken of as unnecessary work? And how do we avoid the entanglements of the Pharisees and rabbis?

I believe this is the gist of the question being asked by many...how do we avoid the entanglements of the Pharisees and Rabbi's; that even in watching a ball game with friends enjoying fellowship with them..should be avoided, because it is not focusing on God.

For me, when I am cooking, I am focused on preparing the meal (so as not to burn it, or miss an ingreident), not on God...Jesus didn't just sit around and do nothing on the Sabbath.

I personally don't care to sit around and watch football or any sport for that matter...I personally enjoy sitting around talking about God and the things God is doing in my life and the lives of others..and I would certainly rather do that than cook a meal, but alas my husband enjoys a hot meal, even on Sundays, so therefore I cook.

Should I stand in the kitchen and grumble because I am cooking? Or should I be thankful I have the food and means to cook a meal for my family? Should I grumble because my husband is spending time with the kids playing a video game and not reading the Bible? Or should I be thankful He is spending time with the kids doing something they all enjoy doing? Should I grumble when he wants to go to the beach after church enjoying the nice weather God has provided as opposed to wanting to sit home and read the bible? Or should I be thankful God has provided a nice day that we can go out and enjoy together as a family relaxing and having fun, not focusing on the weeks work or the bill's that need to be paid?

At what point does it become legalistic and not enjoying what God has provided?

 

[shackleton]

I don't know it this is related, I am sorry if it is not. This is something I have wondered for some time and have not come to a conclusion because there are so many different views on the subject.

Are we still obligated to fulfill the covenant of works? Did Christ fulfill it for us, or did he make it possible for us to fulfill it, with the help of the Spirit?

I heard a Baptist seminary professor tell me that Christ fulfilled the Sabbath and our rest comes in heaven. Based on this belief he proceeded to work like a dog on Sunday. He never took any days off and eventually got sick, probably due to exhaustion.

One of Christ's main beef's with the Pharisees was their strict abservance of the Sabbath. He did many things on the Sabbath just to get under their skin and bring up the subject. Then went on to say that the Sabbath was made for man and not for God.

Is the Sabbath a day of reflection back to God our creator, or is it simply a day to do nothing? What constitutes work and and how far do we have to go to restrict activity on the Sabbath?

These are just some things I am wondering, any thoughts?

 

[Amazing Grace]

I am sorry that you took it that way. My apology to Bob was over a technical matter and not the question of this thread - so they are not connected.

As I understand it - the Three Forms of Unity agree with the Westminster standards on this particular matter. I used the term "libertine" in quotes to show that I was not utilizing the full force of the term. A person who breaks the Commandment in the name of "Christian Freedom" is technically a "libertine." You would have to explain yourself concerning that this "is not proper at all."

It is not proper becasue both parties do nto start with the same premise regarding the perpetual observance of the 4th commandment in the New Covenant. There they are "technically" not breakign a commandment. There is no sin where there is no Law.

HC:
LORD’S DAY 38

Q. 103. What doth God require in the fourth commandment?

A. First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained;1 and that I, especially on the sabbath, that is, on the day of rest,2 diligently frequent the church of God,3 to hear His word, to use the sacraments, publicly to call upon the Lord,4 and contribute to the relief of the poor,5 as becomes a Christian. Secondly, that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by His Holy Spirit in me; and thus begin in this life the eternal sabbath.6

Article 25: Of the abolishing of the Ceremonial Law.

We believe, that the ceremonies and figures of the law ceased at the coming of Christ, and that all the shadows are accomplished; so that the use of them must be abolished amongst Christians; yet the truth and substance of them remain with us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have their completion. In the meantime, we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets, to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honesty, to the glory of God, according to his will

This is all I find in the BC relating to Law...

And Dort mentions nothing.

8. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. WCF

I see a big differnce actually.

If you argue that your "Christian Freedom" allows you to break the Sabbath command and do your own pleasure on the Lord's Day, then how can you enforce any of the other commands? The Bible links the commands together as I showed from the book of James. Jesus links the Commands together with the Command to Love as the fulfillment of the Law. One could simply say that it is a matter of Christian Freedom and claim the Command does not apply.

If you say that such is ridiculous, then that is my point. Why then do you say that watching football on Sunday is legitimate?

All sin is forgivable - even Ted Bundy's - whom I believe was truly repentant for his sins and is now with the Saints in Heaven.

Grace is truly Amazing isn't it?

-CH

Yes it is amazing. But again you are arguing from a different starting point.

Personally I am inclined, though not convince to start with Hosea 2:11

Hosea 2:11: “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her New Moons, her Sabbaths-- all her appointed feasts.”

DO you know how the Pharisee perverted the sabbath regulation? They actually had a list of over 1500 do's and don'ts for the Sabbath. Some of their Sabbath don'ts: don't rescue a drowning man; don't light a candle (but a Gentile could be hired to do this); don't walk any farther than is absolutely necessary; don't pluck heads of grain; and, what is my personal favorite, don't give birth.