On grace and difficult decisions.

Status
Not open for further replies.

dnlcnwy

Puritan Board Freshman
You are ignoring the plain meaning of the text. All the law is fulfilled in Christ. Do you still observe the dietary laws of the old testament? I have already stated that I place the Bible above the confession, something that the authors of the confession told us to do if we could prove that they were in error from the text. Let me turn the question around. What do you believe Colossians 2:16 is teaching?
 

Smeagol

Puritan Board Senior
You are ignoring the plain meaning of the text. All the law is fulfilled in Christ. Do you still observe the dietary laws of the old testament? I have already stated that I place the Bible above the confession, something that the authors of the confession told us to do if we could prove that they were in error from the text. Let me turn the question around. What do you believe Colossians 2:16 is teaching?
Okay so you still did not answer. I believe this passage is highlighting the abrogation of ceremonial laws. There were ceremonial sabbaths and the moral sabbath(singular). However, I do not believe the moral sabbath (in the NT called the Lord’s Day) has passed nor is it ceremonial in essence. The apostles and Christ never abrogated the moral sabbath which began at creation, predating the ceremonial law. I believe the Westminster confession to be faithful to scripture on this passage. The context of what Paul is saying is with regard to the ceremonial law. I also understand my interpretation to be the general consistent commentary among the reformed both dead and living.

Examples:

1. Matthew Henry:
I. Here is a caution to take heed of judaizing teachers, or those who would impose upon Christians the yoke of the ceremonial law: Let no man therefore judge you in meat nor drink, etc., v. 16. Much of the ceremonies of the law of Moses consisted in the distinction of meats and days. It appears by Rom. 14 that there were those who were for keeping up those distinctions: but here the apostle shows that since Christ has come, and has cancelled the ceremonial law, we ought not to keep it up. "Let no man impose those things upon you, for God has not imposed them: if God has made you free, be not you again entangled in that yoke of bondage." And this the rather because these things were shadows of things to come (v. 17), intimating that they had no intrinsic worth in them and that they are now done away. But the body is of Christ:the body, of which they were shadows, has come; and to continue the ceremonial observances, which were only types and shadows of Christ and the gospel, carries an intimation that Christ has not yet come and the gospel state has not yet commenced. Observe the advantages we have under the gospel, above what they had under the law: they had the shadows, we have the substance.

2. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown:
16. therefore—because ye are complete in Christ, and God in Him has dispensed with all subordinate means as essential to acceptance with Him.
meat … drink—Greek, "eating … drinking" (Ro 14:1-17). Pay no regard to any one who sits in judgment on you as to legal observances in respect to foods.

holyday—a feast yearly. Compare the three, 1Ch 23:31.

new moon—monthly.

the sabbath—Omit "THE," which is not in the Greek (compare Note, see on [2419]Ga 4:10). "Sabbaths" (not "the sabbaths") of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Le 23:32, 37-39). The weekly sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days. Le 23:38 expressly distinguished "the sabbath of the Lord" from the other sabbaths. A positive precept is right because it is commanded, and ceases to be obligatory when abrogated; a moral precept is commanded eternally, because it is eternally right. If we could keep a perpetual sabbath, as we shall hereafter, the positive precept of the sabbath, one in each week, would not be needed. Heb 4:9, "rests," Greek, "keeping of sabbath" (Isa 66:23). But we cannot, since even Adam, in innocence, needed one amidst his earthly employments; therefore the sabbath is still needed and is therefore still linked with the other nine commandments, as obligatory in the spirit, though the letter of the law has been superseded by that higher spirit of love which is the essence of law and Gospel alike (Ro 13:8-10).


Now again, do you take exception to the Westminster Standards regarding the Lord’s Day?
 
Last edited:

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
The law cannot save. The law cannot transform the unregenerate, either individually or corporately. If the confession says otherwise then I am not in conformance with with the confession on that point. I hate to say that about such a glorious and God honoring document as the Westminster confessions but the authors of that document themselves disavowed inerrancy.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Not one person has argued that the law saves.

Maybe you mean XV para II?:

"By it, a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God,(c) purposing and endeavouring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments."

The law convicts and exposes the sinner. That is a very important use of it.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

This is too much. Calling others hypocrites and Pharisees for calling you out on an unconfessional view of the Sabbath is itself hypocritical.

To be clear, our rule on this is set out below:

"c. AntiSabbatarianism and Normative Principle of Worship. A rejection of the doctrine of the Lord’s Day or Christian Sabbath and / or what is known as the Regulative Principle of Worship, are serious exceptions to the Reformed faith, and applicants who are decided and firm in rejecting these doctrines, are not eligible for membership. Applicants with open questions or still studying may apply, but need to state these in the application, and if at some future point determine they reject these doctrines to a degree it undermines them significantly, by applying, agree to surrender their membership in that eventuality."

https://www.puritanboard.com/help/terms/

If that is not your view, please let a moderator or admin know.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
...the authors of that document [i.e., the Westminster Confession of Faith] them selves disavowed inerrancy.
What are you talking about? WCF 1.5 speaks of Scripture's "entire perfection," "infallible truth," and "divine authority," and 1.9 speaks of it as being an "infallible rule." Of course, they didn't use the word "inerrancy" because that word's first known use is ca. 1834. But the concept is patently there.

You are ignoring the plain meaning of the text.
The plain meaning is that Paul says "sabbaths." He is not referring to the Sabbath. Those are two different things.
 

83r17h

Puritan Board Freshman
The law cannot save. The law cannot transform the unregenerate, either individually or corporately. If the confession says otherwise then I am not in conformance with with the confession on that point.

Westminster doesn't claim that the law can save, and reading through, I'm fairly certain that no one here has claimed that either. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the concept that law saves or regenerates has been explicitly denied. Just scrolling up a bit, #18, 19, and 20 specifically reject any concept that the law saves, so to argue against that is engaging something that no one is saying here, and that no one believes here.

As far as the law, maybe there's a more fundamental question that needs to be addressed. What do you think that the purpose(s) of the law are? And to be even more specific, can you answer that question for both the moral law and the civil law (I mean civil law as a general category - not specifically the Mosaic civil law)?

Given the ongoing discussion, it would be interesting to hear you apply your answer (at least on the purposes of the moral law) to the 4th commandment.

@Taylor I think that he intended to say that the Westminster divines did not claim inerrancy for themselves (as in: the WCF is not inerrant). Of course, no one here believes that Westminster is inerrant. But I think it's less of a challenge, and more of a justification for disagreement with it. The problem being that Westminster itself is derived from Scripture, and didn't create itself.
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
Reopening the thread.

Refocus the discussion to the main original point and take Sabbath-keeping off the table on this thread.

The Sabbath-keeping issue has been discussed between admins and the original poster. It came up in the context of the original post, but was not the point of the original post, so leave it aside.

To be clear, though, our policy on the Sabbath remains the same as always.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top