Is the observance of Sunday a matter of Christian Liberty?

[tdowns]

So...

just checking...

One can not say they hold to all 10 commandments, being valid today and for eternity, but, the 4th commandment, is upheld, by finding their REST in Christ, everyday, so that, they don't have any particular rules for any one day, other than, making sure, they gather together with the saints for word and Sacrament at some point each week.

It is not in one's Christian Liberty to uphold the above position? Which, although, maybe not worded the best way, seems to be the position of the average Christian in America today.

???

 

[ReformedWretch]

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?

this is my concern!

 

[VictorBravo]

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?

this is my concern!

Simplicity brother! Can't we largely avoid the entanglements by remembering that? As for eating, of course we can pick fruit or gather grain or put something in a pot or a microwave so that we can eat. It's just that we shouldn't feel compelled to make a production out of it.

As has been well addressed, the rules (I called them "don'ts") are there to show us when we are running off track. Perhaps another "cute" analogy would be driving down a highway. There are plenty of "don'ts": Don't run off the road, don't hit the oncoming car, don't look at the floor while driving, don't go too fast, don't hit that tree! The don'ts are extremely important, we need them. I trust that nobody thinks I'm discounting that.

But if in our driving we sought only to avoid the don'ts, we'd be better off never moving. Then we could claim to be really successful at keeping the law. Of course, that's not the point. When we drive we keep the don'ts in the back of our mind but focus on driving down the road in a safe and prudent manner.

So, on the subject of dining, for example, we can say "don't make a big production of the meal." What's that mean? Well, maybe a list would work: "don't use more than one bowl" or "don't work at it for more than an hour" or "don't cook at all!" It's hardly a formula for rest. Maybe we can acheive the same thing by having a simple meal already prepared, or maybe we snack on fruits and crackers and cheese--maybe we should all walk through a wheat field gathering whatever we need for the day. Whatever. Go ahead and use the stove, whatever is necessary. But keep the goal in mind.

 

[KMK]

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.

I don't think Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees was that their observance of the Sabbath was too *strict*. He rebuked them because they had actually laid aside the commandments of God and replaced them with the commandments of men. (Mark 7) I don't think anyone on PB desires to lay aside God's commandments in favor of man-made ones. The issue at hand is, "What exactly is God's commandment regarding the Sabbath?"

 

[KMK]

just checking...

One can not say they hold to all 10 commandments, being valid today and for eternity, but, the 4th commandment, is upheld, by finding their REST in Christ, everyday, so that, they don't have any particular rules for any one day, other than, making sure, they gather together with the saints for word and Sacrament at some point each week.

But where does the Bible teach this? Most who hold to this position hang their hat on places like Heb 4 and Col 2 which very obscure passages.

 

[JM]

I jog on Sunday after Church, it's my best prayer time of the week.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The mainstream of thought in Puritan Sabbath literature does not say we can't cook something to eat on Lord's days; rather the opposite. This was a big objection by the Anti Sabbs in the 17th century and almost every work I've seen from the Puritan perspective addresses it in some way. Here is what one of the grand daddy of all the Puritan works on the Christian Sabbath had to say at one point (he addresses it from several angles and at different points in his book):

And whereas the ecclesiastical writers1 make mention of certain heretics among the Jews, called Essau, “who dress their meat the day before, and upon the Sabbath kindle no fire, remove no vessel, Nec aluum purgant;” it seems unto me both that they condemn them for this over great strictness of theirs; and also that this practice in so precise a rest was not common unto all the Jews, but proper to this sect of heretics; who professing a certain kind of holiness above others, even in this point went beyond the law. And therefore whereas the Lord Jesus gives leave not only to draw the ox and the ass out of the ditch to preserve their lives, but also to lead them to the water (Luke 13:15), to make their lives more comfortable to them; we permit not only things needful to the life of man, but also such as are convenient to the use and comfort of man, as the dressing of meats, whereby a man may be made more cheerful in the duties of sanctification. So that both in using them we refresh and not oppress ourselves; and in preparing them, we use the time before, after, or between the public exercises. In that therefore the law permitted the leading of the ox to water, we see how things convenient are not at that time unlawful, so that they are not abused or overruled.
-------------------
1. Magdeburg Centuries, Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 5.

Nicholas Bownd, Sabbathvm veteris et Novi Testamenti (1606; Naphtali Press, draft edition, 2003) 230.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

From previous threads:

John Willison, An Example of Plain Catechising Upon the Assembly's Shorter Catechism, p. 188:

Q. How much of the day appointed for the sabbath is to be kept holy to the Lord?

A. One whole day in seven; a whole natural day, consisting of twenty-four hours, commencing from midnight to midnight, ought to be dedicated unto the Lord, seeing he claims a seventh part of our time. It is true, time for eating and sleeping must be allowed upon the sabbath as well as on other days, being works of necessity, seeing without these we cannot perform the duties of the sabbath.

On the night of 'fall back' (for those who observe daylight savings time), here is some counsel from William Gouge, The Sabbath's Sanctification, p. 11, on the importance of a good night's rest before the Lord's Day:

Question 26. What are those particulars which our weak bodies do most need?

Ans. (1.) Sleep, Eccl. 5:12. (2.) Food, Luke 14:1. (3.) Apparel, 2 Sam. 12:20. (4.) All other occasional helps, Mark 2:3, 4.

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

I agree that true Sabbath-keeping is not a list of do's and don'ts, but is exemplified in Augustine's famous saying, "Love God as do as thou wilt."

However, we can summarize the Ten Commandments as "Love God and love your neighbor" and still recognize that it is precisely a list of do's and don'ts. We need to think of God's law on both levels (the practical and the abstract).

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

I agree that true Sabbath-keeping is not a list of do's and don'ts, but is exemplified in Augustine's famous saying, "Love God as do as thou wilt."

However, we can summarize the Ten Commandments as "Love God and love your neighbor" and still recognize that it is precisely a list of do's and don'ts. We need to think of God's law on both levels (the practical and the abstract).

The hard part is in determining what are the real do's and don'ts without adding to or subtracting from the Word of God, and giving a place to liberty of conscience. Otherwise all you are left with are burdens such as the Pharisees heaped on folks.

Now, some folks believe the Westminster folks got the list right. However, having been in the PCA and having listened to enough candidates for the gospel ministry take an exception to the Standards in this area (ride my bike, play in the park with my children, take a nap), I wonder sometimes what they don’t just admit the Standards' view is too strict and change it.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

How did the Pharisees stop people from giving birth on the Sabbath?

 

[Amazing Grace]

Could a strict sab answer a couple questions for me please? Out of the gate, so there is no decpetion in this post as if I am setting up a bait and switch, I am a non sab. Yet I do not call those who are in question as being pharisees. Even when 'rebuked or admonished" becasue of my stance, I smile and re read Romans 14, Heb 4 and Col 2 in my head.

I have head that the Sabbath observance is more than the 4th commandment, is this true? That it is some sort of "necessary consequence" deduced form creation ordinance. I honestly do not know what that sophist statement means, but I wont argue.

So this sabbath ordinance prescribed in the 4th commandment, was there more that the Israelites were required to do?

How many sabbaths are included in the 4th commandment? Is this sabbath prescribed in the 4th commandment Law? As equal to the sabbath year? Lev.25:17....Israel is instructed to number seven times seven Sabbath years (49) and the following year is the Jubilee (50th year) which would be observed by no sowing or reaping. All slaves were to be released, and the land they purchased is to be returned to the original owner. All the debts were to be forgiven.

Are these sabbaths different that the creation ordinance which has been imported to be the 4th commandment?

 

[Amazing Grace]

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.

How did the Pharisees stop people from giving birth on the Sabbath?

I have no clue, they didnt have a pitosin drip then. It is my favorite though!!!!!!

Ken also stated:He rebuked them because they had actually laid aside the commandments of God and replaced them with the commandments of men.

WOuld not this thought of "preparing ones mind the day before the sabbath be considered a commandment of men then? It is nowhere taught in the writ as far as I can see. Perhaps I am not looking in the right place though

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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 not start with the same premise regarding the perpetual observance of the 4th commandment in the New Covenant. There they are "technically" not breaking a commandment. There is no sin where there is no Law.

I would probably agree with this. Those of us who believe that the Sabbath remains obligatory need to show those who disagree why they are in error, we cannot just accuse them of being Libertines as they are not acting in rebellion to a KNOWN command of God. They sincerely believe that this command has been abrogated in the NT, so they cannot be branded as being antinomian.

 

[VictorBravo]

Could a strict sab answer a couple questions for me please? Out of the gate, so there is no decpetion in this post as if I am setting up a bait and switch, I am a non sab. Yet I do not call those who are in question as being pharisees. Even when 'rebuked or admonished" becasue of my stance, I smile and re read Romans 14, Heb 4 and Col 2 in my head.

I have head that the Sabbath observance is more than the 4th commandment, is this true? That it is some sort of "necessary consequence" deduced form creation ordinance. I honestly do not know what that sophist statement means, but I wont argue.

So this sabbath ordinance prescribed in the 4th commandment, was there more that the Israelites were required to do?

How many sabbaths are included in the 4th commandment? Is this sabbath prescribed in the 4th commandment Law? As equal to the sabbath year? Lev.25:17....Israel is instructed to number seven times seven Sabbath years (49) and the following year is the Jubilee (50th year) which would be observed by no sowing or reaping. All slaves were to be released, and the land they purchased is to be returned to the original owner. All the debts were to be forgiven.

Are these sabbaths different that the creation ordinance which has been imported to be the 4th commandment?

The second question is pretty straightforward. The fourth commandment in Ex. 20 explicitly states "the Sabbath day" in Hebrew and ties it directly to the 6 days work of God at creation. It only applies to the one day out of seven, not to any other of the numerous "sabbaths."

As for the first question, I don't really understand. Are you asking was there more required than what is stated in scripture? If so, no.

 

[historyb]

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.

So how do we determine how "much of the Law" we are no longer bound unto? The Sabbath was indeed made for man. Six days thou shalt labor. Who wouldn't want a Sabbath after six days of work? How is that man being made for the Sabbath and not vice versa? How can you call something which is explicitly God's Law, legalistic? I thought legalism was trying to make commandments and doctrines out of the traditions of men?

To me legalism is trying to make more out of something than it is. Are we under the law of the OT or the new law of Grace, Paul said forsake not to assembling of yourself together but he didn't say you must do it like the Romans do. Was Christ wrong to have his Apostles pick grain on the Sabbath, is it to be so strict that we no longer get anything out of observing it.

In my view, and this is just me. Since Sabbath doesn't really exist and now we have the Lord's Day and Sunday all those rules are negated, maybe it's just me not being a Sabbathtarian (sic).

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

You guys who are quoting the Colosians and Hebrew versess need to know that there are legitimate discussions and commentaries that support a sabbatarian view. I read an article by Robert P. Martin in the Reformed Baptist Theological review that he spoke on these verses. Here is just a quote.


vl. 1.2 A Sabbath Remains.. The Place of Hebrews 4:9 in the New Testament's Witness to the Lord's Day by Robert P. Martin
(Heb 4:9) There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

In it he notes the Word is used here is σαββατισμός and not κατάπαυσις

(rest).
G4520
σαββατισμός
sabbatismos

This is an obscure term evidently that is used in just a few other places outside of the scriptures but used only once in the New Testament. Robert Martin says,

"I think that it is of interest that "in each of these places the term [σαββατισμός] denotes the observance or celebration of the Sabbath," i.e., not "a Sabbath rest" as a state that is entered into but "a Sabbath-keeping" as a practice that is observed. This, of course, corresponds to the word's morphology, for the suffix -μός indicates an action and not just a state. see A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 151.
Reformed Baptist Theological Review Vl. 1;2 p.5

Obviously the article consists of the surrounding verses but it is a good read and quotes John Owen who is one of my faves.

And the Colosians verse is tied to an old testament reference. I will write more on this later. As I am going to Church here in a little bit and I am going to have to find the references to it.

Sorry but I have been hitting the board very sporadically and inconsistent since before Thanksgiving. I am getting stuff done in light of possible surgery that I am possibly going to do. So don't be disappointed if I don't get back to answer this tonight. I will answer this. I even got a baptism thread that needs to be attended to with Calvin and Hobbes. I am such a slacker.

 

[historyb]

Forgot to address this in my last post. The Law of the Lord is perfect. Jesus is perfect. Thus, Jesus couldn't have been breaking the 4th Commandment. He may have been violating the Pharisees' poor interpretation of the 4th Commandment, but He ceratinly wasn't breaking God's Law. It was a work of necessity, the same as pulling an ass or an ox out a ditch. In fact, he even alluded to David's eating the show bread, if I'm not mistaken. This wasn't sin either. So this allusion has no bearing on the validity of Sabbath keeping for New Testament Christians.

Seems to here though, maybe I'm not reformed enough to keep every jot and tittle of the Law.

 

[historyb]

No, but I sure don't follow closely as some here do. Makes me think there is something wrong somewhere.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Could a strict sab answer a couple questions for me please? Out of the gate, so there is no decpetion in this post as if I am setting up a bait and switch, I am a non sab. Yet I do not call those who are in question as being pharisees. Even when 'rebuked or admonished" becasue of my stance, I smile and re read Romans 14, Heb 4 and Col 2 in my head.

I have head that the Sabbath observance is more than the 4th commandment, is this true? That it is some sort of "necessary consequence" deduced form creation ordinance. I honestly do not know what that sophist statement means, but I wont argue.

So this sabbath ordinance prescribed in the 4th commandment, was there more that the Israelites were required to do?

How many sabbaths are included in the 4th commandment? Is this sabbath prescribed in the 4th commandment Law? As equal to the sabbath year? Lev.25:17....Israel is instructed to number seven times seven Sabbath years (49) and the following year is the Jubilee (50th year) which would be observed by no sowing or reaping. All slaves were to be released, and the land they purchased is to be returned to the original owner. All the debts were to be forgiven.

Are these sabbaths different that the creation ordinance which has been imported to be the 4th commandment?

The second question is pretty straightforward. The fourth commandment in Ex. 20 explicitly states "the Sabbath day" in Hebrew and ties it directly to the 6 days work of God at creation. It only applies to the one day out of seven, not to any other of the numerous "sabbaths."

As for the first question, I don't really understand. Are you asking was there more required than what is stated in scripture? If so, no.

Vic, I am asking what did the Israelites do on the sabbath day and was there a preparing for it the day before.

 

[ReformedWretch]

It seems to me that the "bottom line" is that the Lord need give you this desire, or passion. Now understand when I say what I am about to say I am NOT comparing these two things, just the "feeling" I have inside myself about each being similar.

When I was in charismatic churches I never spoke in tongues (thankfully) but was told that I needed to just "trust God" and it would "just happen". It never did. Back then I thought there must be something wrong with me. I feel the same now about this. I just can't see this strict adherence as something to pursue or seek to have for myself, but if I just believe, and trust God (I know some may wish to say "repent" even) that as a follower of Christ it will just come to me.

If it never does, should I question my salvation the way I was told to do as a charismatic?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

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.

Hi:

I find your post most increddible. From Ursinus' commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism:

Keep holy. To keep holy the Sabbath, is not to spend the day in slothfulness and idleness (watching football?); but to avoid sin, and to perform such works as are holy. God is said to sanctify the Sabbath differently from what men do. God is said to sanctify the Sabbath, because he institutes it for divine worship. Men are said to sanctify it, when they devote it to the purpose for which God instituted it.
Six days shalt thou labor. God allots six days for labor, the seventh he claims for divine worship; not that he would teach that the worship of God and meditation upon divine things is to be omitted on all other days beside the Sabbath, but, 1. That there might not only be a private worship of God on the Sabbath as at other times, but that public worship might also be observed in the church. 2. That all those other works which men ordinarily perform on the other days of the week, might on the Sabbath give place to the private and public worship of God.
Thou shalt do no manner of work. When God forbids us to work on the Sabbath day, he does not forbid every kind of work, but only such works as are servile - such as hinder the worship of God, and the design and use of the ministry of the church. That this is the true sense of this command is evident from what is expressly said in other portions of the Scripture. pg. 558. parenthesis mine.

Apparently, your understanding of the Heidelberg Catechism is radically different from that of the writers of it.

What is really bizarre is what you wrote here:

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.

Because two different parties start with two different premises means that one of them cannot call the other to repentance? Hmmm. Since Jesus had a different premise concerning the Sabbath than the Pharisees, then it was not proper for him to condemn them? Hmmmm. Since you have a different premise concerning Murder than Ted Bundy it is not proper for you to condemn him? Hmmmm.

That one party is in error concerning the observance of the Sabbath means that it is "inappropriate" to rebuke such? Your view of what is proper and not proper is flawed. In fact, it is not proper of you to rebuke me based on your own view of propriety. Your view leaves a vacuum between oposing viewpoints.

Blessings,

-CH

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

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.





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.

Hi:

I find your post most increddible. From Ursinus' commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism:

Keep holy. To keep holy the Sabbath, is not to spend the day in slothfulness and idleness (watching football?); but to avoid sin, and to perform such works as are holy. God is said to sanctify the Sabbath differently from what men do. God is said to sanctify the Sabbath, because he institutes it for divine worship. Men are said to sanctify it, when they devote it to the purpose for which God instituted it.
Six days shalt thou labor. God allots six days for labor, the seventh he claims for divine worship; not that he would teach that the worship of God and meditation upon divine things is to be omitted on all other days beside the Sabbath, but, 1. That there might not only be a private worship of God on the Sabbath as at other times, but that public worship might also be observed in the church. 2. That all those other works which men ordinarily perform on the other days of the week, might on the Sabbath give place to the private and public worship of God.
Thou shalt do no manner of work. When God forbids us to work on the Sabbath day, he does not forbid every kind of work, but only such works as are servile - such as hinder the worship of God, and the design and use of the ministry of the church. That this is the true sense of this command is evident from what is expressly said in other portions of the Scripture. pg. 558. parenthesis mine.

Apparently, your understanding of the Heidelberg Catechism is radically different from that of the writers of it.

What is really bizarre is what you wrote here:

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.

Because two different parties start with two different premises means that one of them cannot call the other to repentance? Hmmm. Since Jesus had a different premise concerning the Sabbath than the Pharisees, then it was not proper for him to condemn them? Hmmmm. Since you have a different premise concerning Murder than Ted Bundy it is not proper for you to condemn him? Hmmmm.

That one party is in error concerning the observance of the Sabbath means that it is "inappropriate" to rebuke such? Your view of what is proper and not proper is flawed. In fact, it is not proper of you to rebuke me based on your own view of propriety. Your view leaves a vacuum between oposing viewpoints.

Blessings,

-CH

So now we're comparing playing catch with your son or a game of dominoes on Sunday to Ted Bundy? That seems like quite an acrobatic hoop.

 

[BJClark]

houseparent;

If it never does, should I question my salvation the way I was told to do as a charismatic?

I don't think so no...

Here is a link on the Jewish Observances of the Sabbath...sounds like many of them are just as confused as what is acceptable and what is not..

MyJewishLearning.com - Daily Life: Many Ways to Celebrate Shabbat

 

[CalvinandHodges]

So now we're comparing playing catch with your son or a game of dominoes on Sunday to Ted Bundy? That seems like quite an acrobatic hoop.

Teaching your child to disobey God on the Sabbath day is a form of spiritual murder. Ted Bundy could only affect the body, but you would be destroying a soul.

Which is worse?

-CH

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

So now we're comparing playing catch with your son or a game of dominoes on Sunday to Ted Bundy? That seems like quite an acrobatic hoop.

Teaching your child to disobey God on the Sabbath day is a form of spiritual murder. Ted Bundy could only affect the body, but you would be destroying a soul.

Which is worse?

-CH

You have failed to prove God is dishonored by bonding with a child on a Sunday, that seems rather fatherly to me actually.

Perhaps you are not personally a task master but I know some of my most edifying conversations have been in the midst of playfulness and other activities that involve community.

Fellowshipping doesn't necessarily involve words, we can glorify God and bond together just by being present and working together in nonverbal ways such as sport or competition.

Declaring someone a murderer because you are unable to wrap your mind around how one could love their child Biblically on a Sunday and play with them is absurd and I'm sorry to say comes across very very smarmy.

 

[Amazing Grace]

I find your post most increddible. From Ursinus' commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism:

Keep holy. To keep holy the Sabbath, is not to spend the day in slothfulness and idleness (watching football?); but to avoid sin, and to perform such works as are holy. God is said to sanctify the Sabbath differently from what men do. God is said to sanctify the Sabbath, because he institutes it for divine worship. Men are said to sanctify it, when they devote it to the purpose for which God instituted it.
Six days shalt thou labor. God allots six days for labor, the seventh he claims for divine worship; not that he would teach that the worship of God and meditation upon divine things is to be omitted on all other days beside the Sabbath, but, 1. That there might not only be a private worship of God on the Sabbath as at other times, but that public worship might also be observed in the church. 2. That all those other works which men ordinarily perform on the other days of the week, might on the Sabbath give place to the private and public worship of God.
Thou shalt do no manner of work. When God forbids us to work on the Sabbath day, he does not forbid every kind of work, but only such works as are servile - such as hinder the worship of God, and the design and use of the ministry of the church. That this is the true sense of this command is evident from what is expressly said in other portions of the Scripture. pg. 558. parenthesis mine.

Apparently, your understanding of the Heidelberg Catechism is radically different from that of the writers of it.

Actually he does not speak of the duration, and stresses the fact of worshipping the Lord. Secondly, the work that was spoken by God was what is ORDINARILY done as occupation. Nothing more nothing less

Because two different parties start with two different premises means that one of them cannot call the other to repentance? Hmmm. Since Jesus had a different premise concerning the Sabbath than the Pharisees, then it was not proper for him to condemn them? Hmmmm. Since you have a different premise concerning Murder than Ted Bundy it is not proper for you to condemn him? Hmmmm.

Do you know what Jesus was condemning? I suggest you read some 1st semester rabbinical literature to understand the meaning of shabbat halacha. Jesus was condemning the pharisees becasue they utilyzed the oral law in conjunction with the written law. That is the meaning of Christ's words, "It has been said" vs It has been written.. There is a big big difference. Christ has John the Baptist theology in this respect.

Ch, this is like arguing the truth of the book a Maccabees with a roman catholic. It cannot be done. It is not in a protty bible, but it is in theirs. So without a level beginning, it is impossible to dialogue correctly. Jesus could do as He pleased, He is God. But He did not condemn for the same reasons you condemn a non sab.

That one party is in error concerning the observance of the Sabbath means that it is "inappropriate" to rebuke such? Your view of what is proper and not proper is flawed. In fact, it is not proper of you to rebuke me based on your own view of propriety. Your view leaves a vacuum between oposing viewpoints.

Blessings,

-CH

It appears that more emphasis is put on showing the error ina brother vs showing your opine to be right, when in fact they are both Arguements for the sake of Heaven. Christian Liberty proponents should not regard strict sabs to be in error, well at least I do not.

Where as statements like this:Teaching your child to disobey God on the Sabbath day is a form of spiritual murder. Ted Bundy could only affect the body, but you would be destroying a soul.

Which is worse?

sound like Moses' first cousin Korach who lead a rebellion against Moses and Aaron described in chapters 16 and 17 of the book of Numbers. While Korach(you CH) claims to be out for the good of the entire community,(upholding the 4th commandment and making it binding and a burden) he is in reality only interested in displacing Moses as the highest human authority.

You see the connection? Boht the Saducee and Pharisee started with the same root. They both believed in the 7th day. It is just you add the commandments of men, like the pharisee, which is not bad per se', as equally binding as the written Law.

Let me give you another example. A LAw stated that no commerce was to be done on the 7th day. Thats all the saducee would say, then the pharisee added that noone could carry money on the 7th day. Now their goal was to 'add' something to bind the people not as a burden, but only to reinforce the root of no commerce on the sabbath. So being a pharisee is not as bad as people make it to be. Obviously Christ was against them becasue He did not favor the oral law..

 

[mshingler]

They would appeal to passages such as Romans 14 and Colossians 2:16 in support of the idea that the Sabbath is no longer obligatory.[/QUOTE]

Speaking as one who comes from a dispensational background, I would say that it's much more than these passages. The argument is that the 10 commandments were given to Israel and not to the church. Therefore, the only reason the other 9 commandments would be obligatory is because they are specifically repeated in the New Testament, in some form. Hence, the law, as contained in the 10 commandments, is not the rule of life for the Christian. The commands of the New Testament are.
I don't subscribe to this view. I'm just familiar with it as most of my Christian friends and acquaintances would hold to it.

 

[mshingler]

Liberty?

I don't personally think that the Sabbath or "Lord's Day" is a question of liberty, even though sincere believers differ in their views and convictions about it. When I look at Rom. 14 and 1Cor. 8-10 (which I just finished preaching through), I find issues that are clearly acceptable. That is, the issues Paul describes under Christian Liberty are things that Christians undoubtedly are free to do, but some still have a weak conscience about. When it comes to the Sabbath issue, it's a matter of different biblical interpretation - a theological difference. I would say that, in order for it to be a matter of liberty, it has to be something that is clearly allowed - something that is neutral in and of itself.
I think we are too quick to lump everything that Christians disagree about into the context of "liberty". We can honestly disagree about the Sabbath, but that disagreement falls in a different category than whether 1st Century Christians could eat meat or whether a Christian can have a glass of wine.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hold On!!!

I'm about to go high and to the right. Both sides of this debate are really starting to make me quite angry. I've banned three users from this thread to try to restore civil dialogue and send people to their corners on this.

There are a number of things that really irk me about responses to some things that ought to be understood and embraced by Christians regardless of scruples on a certain issue. I am honestly sick and tired of it. Some of us may have to agree to disagree if this is going to be a long term modus operandi and part ways and, guess what, as the Admin of this board I'm staying put. I hate to be this blunt but we have to agree on certain fundamentals or we'll just alway butt heads and there is a reason why there are certain Confessional requirements on this board.

1. The attitude that "...well I guess I'll just have to get some divine light to be as Reformed as you guys..." is snide and childish and people who make such comments don't know what Spirit they are a part of. It absolutely floors me that someone could read the Scriptures, understand Pauline theology concerning how the Gospel is an announcement of God's grace to save us from the condemnation of the Law, and then hear Paul's delight for the things of God as redeemed, grateful saints turn back to the God who saved them and ask eagerly: "What might we do to serve you."

I've tried carefully, over and over, in this thread to give a mature expression of it. I avoid giving hard and fast do's and don'ts because hard and fast do's and don'ts in terms of how to approach a particular command are for the immature. They are for children. I tell my child when to cross the road and when not to. At some point, he becomes mature enough to do things on his own. Every law begins at the point of do's and don'ts and people are still asking what the do's and don'ts are on a precise basis and when I direct them to the goal of maturity to let their hearts and minds be transformed and renewed (Romans 12:1-2) they look at me as if I made up the idea and I'm talking about some sort of gnostic gift that some have and others don't. None of us have it in perfection but it is our pursuit. If it is written off, a priori, as something "not for me" then I just simply don't understand that spirit in a Christian man at all. I'm not asking anyone to believe just like Rich on a particular point of the Sabbath observance but I am demanding that each of us live as if we believe the Gospel and the power of God in the Gospel to sanctify His Saints.

On this note, I'm also a bit tired of people who simply will not acknowledge that there is any need for maturity in this or any matter and that when the point comes forward it is offensive to them that anyone would note that. OK, revelation here: I'm immature and I need maturity. Does that make everyone feel better? I assume that when I'm using such terms that people are reading enough Paul, Peter, and James to realize that the Apostles enjoin us all to mature and that we shouldn't be too proud to hear that we're still very much immature and don't love the things of God the way we ought. There is a poisonous attitude among many Christians that somehow saving faith entails that you've gotten to the minimum bar of what God measures your faith against and that everything after that is simply gravy. We always want to ask the question: how much faith does that person need to do so we can determine the lowest common denominator and then let's not be bothered about much beyond that point.

Beloved, this is not Christianity. It's not that our sanctification saves us but a heart that is not desirous of pursuing the things of God and being transformed by the Scriptures is not a heart that has faith. It is a dead faith. It is a faith that says it has faith while others have works. Calvin and Luther and all the Reformers had to rail against the Roman Catholics who would say that all they wanted was a get out of jail free card that gave them every opportunity to sin now because all they had to do was claim faith. Paul, in fact, reports that this is exactly how he was slandered.

But the Gospel is life and it produces fruits, it produces desires. It doesn't look back on itself as I've noted over and over and over again to people struggling with their sin. By fixing its attention upon the work of Christ, thanksgiving gives way to a desire to serve God. It gives way to a desire to put to death the body of sin that dwells within us and not give excuse that we already did our minimum so what's the big deal of sin remains. Put very simply, the Reformed faith is not an excuse for anti-nominianism where we're content to just do whatever we want because we have faith. Faith is the fruit of a heart transformed and transformed hearts hate sin. I don't look at the Law as a way to save me but it does constantly reveal the sin that still remains and so I go CONSTANTLY to the foot of the cross and repent of my sins and thank Jesus that He is delivering me from this body of death. But I also remember that, when I'm tempted to sin, that I'm united to Christ and I am now a slave to Christ and not a slave to sin and I pray for the Grace to hate my sin and to love the things that God loves.

2. The kind of rhetoric that I feared would happen from the strict Sabbatarians here is occurring. One thing I've learned very recently is that technical accuracy does not always build up the Saints that you think you're building up. We are called to be tender-hearted and bear with one another. I'm not honestly willing to grant that every list of do's and don'ts that people have come up with and say: "This honors the Sabbath" does indeed honor the Sabbath. That may be the beginning of honoring the Sabbath but is not the end of it. We simply cannot measure the end of the law in loving our God with our heart, soul, and mind with a "one size fits all" list. I think it's a good starting point to begin teaching the immature how to love Him while one patiently explains how each scruple is an aid to disciplining but when the list becomes the end then the goal of maturity is left behind. This is why I've stated that the kind of growth that I'm talking about is best handled in a pastoral setting. You simply cannot judge a person's heart by the list he keeps and you can't sanctify a man by giving him a list.

I also think that, in a perfect world, the most sanctified Sabbatarians would be attracting others to their conclusions by the witness of their Christian lives. Mature people sometimes have to rebuke a petulant spirit in the immature but when we're obeying as to the Lord then we stop getting so uptight and personally angry about immaturity in others.

Just because people have come to personal convictions in this matter and are in congregations where strictness is observed in this area they ought not to think too highly of themselves as having received an instant "maturity" card. Wisdom is not measured in our ability to know the rules and tell others what the rules are. If you love the Law from a redeemed heart then start expressing that love of the Lord by being as patient and loving to your neighbor and showing him why you delight in these things and not telling him to just get on board.

3. Finally, I am tired of warning about the labels with particular attention to the label of Pharisaism. Everyone needs to be responsible for their own tone and conduct. This is one line that has been clearly drawn. Just as there is a mature understanding of the Law, it takes a bit of maturity to understand what it is that is Pharisaical and what it is that is not. Some people might be immature in how they present things and they might have some need to reflect back on the genesis of their convictions but not every helpful principle that a person doesn't immediately understand or agree with is an addition to the Word of God. Be careful. I'm tired of warning about it.

In conclusion, I woke up this AM and sighed with sadness when I read this thread. I had hoped the discussion would be more irenic with people trying to help others understand why they believe the Sabbath is a delight to God. I understand the inherent impatience but if people can't express the mature goal in mind then maybe they have no business in trying to promote the techniques to get to that goal until they do. I've already expressed my disappointment in those with folded arms that see any expression that we should desire maturity as a goal so I'll leave it here.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

OK, thread bans lifted. Go back to discussing this issue and refraining from turning phrases that immediately inflame and label.