Should we break the church's peace for every difference of opinion? (John Collinges)

[Reformed Covenanter]

It is a mad fancy of some, who think that every opinion in Religion is worth breaking the Churches peace for …

John Collinges, A modest plea for the Lord’s Day or rather the sum of the plea made by divines for the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath, against those who contend for the old Sabbath of the seventh day, in order from the creation (London, 1669), epistle dedicatory.

 

[Pergamum]

Awesome quote!

 

[Ed Walsh]

It is a mad fancy of some, who think that every opinion in Religion is worth breaking the Churches peace for …

One day, on Earth and in time, Jesus' thrice-repeated prayer in John chapter 17, that the believers would be one will become a reality. Maybe not perfectly, but actually and visibly. One thousand one hundred ninety-nine of the world's 2000 dominations will have to go. We know that since this is Jesus' prayer, therefore also a prophecy, this Oneness will be a visible Oneness that will convince the world, the remaining unbelieving world, that God did, in fact, send his son Jesus to be the Savior of the world.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Agree with the quote. But isn't the Sabbath one of those issues where the church has to take a stand? It's a pretty important issue.

 

[No Other Name]

One day, on Earth and in time, Jesus' thrice-repeated prayer in John chapter 17, that the believers would be one will become a reality. Maybe not perfectly, but actually and visibly. One thousand one hundred ninety-nine of the world's 2000 dominations will have to go. We know that since this is Jesus' prayer, therefore also a prophecy, this Oneness will be a visible Oneness that will convince the world, the remaining unbelieving world, that God did, in fact, send his son Jesus to be the Savior of the world.

Imagine a world.

Where the Romanists and the NAR and the neo-evangelicals and the universalists and the weary among the Bible-believing confessionally Reformed unite under one banner - one new confession of unity - both actual and visible.

Would the natural response for the outside remainder be to do likewise? Highly unlikely to my view.

I see no evidence in John 17 to suggest it *needs* to be visible this side of Paradise.

Actual? sure. Absolutely. The actual elect are already united as One spiritually in Christ.

I suspect it will not be visible until the Second Coming.

 

[Josheb]

Should we break the church's peace for every difference of opinion?

It is a mad fancy of some, who think that every opinion in Religion is worth breaking the Churches peace for …

John Collinges, A modest plea for the Lord’s Day or rather the sum of the plea made by divines for the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath, against those who contend for the old Sabbath of the seventh day, in order from the creation (London, 1669), epistle dedicatory.

I ask your forbearance with my impertinence but most of us know there is a very popular (and growing) theology that inherently asserts the Church is corrupt and takes the matter of ecclesiology as core to its theology (along with eschatology). From its inception nearly 200 years ago it has near-constantly asserted the corruption of the Church in various ways and individuals and sects within that theological perspective have asserted their own views as true and/or uncorrupted, a restoration of the New Testament practice.

The op appears to focus on Sunday as the day of worship or "sabbath" but there are many, many other beliefs and practices for which some in the Church criticize and divide the Church, as is implied by the title inquiry. I'll attend to the matter of the Sabbath in a minute, but I suggest we start any discussion of the church's "peace" and breaking thereof with a proper understanding of what constitutes the Church.

The Church, or ecclesia, are those who are "called out." Most of (I assume) know this. Most of us understand the "called out" in the context of "those called out of the world into God's service." In larger contexts the scriptures can be applied to say the Church is the boy of Christ (who is the foundation, cornerstone, capstone, etc.). The Church is the royal priesthood of God's holy nation, His temple. (for those not recognizing the references I will happily provide the relevant scriptures). It's also very important to understand what the Bible does not assert with that term. For example, the Bible never uses the term "ecclesia" to indicate a building. There were no church buildings in the first century. Similarly, the Bible never asserts the word "church" as something sectarian or denominational. The Bible asserts the word "Church" as people.

Which brings me to my next and perhaps most salient point in answering this op's inquiry: The New Testament Church was a very, very messy place; one filled with division and divisiveness. When we read in the Corinthian letters some were following Jesus, some Apollos, some Cephas, etc. we are reading about the early seeds of sectarianism and denominationalism. When we read about a man sleeping with his father's wife we necessarily understand some severely aberrant and abhorrent behavior was going one. When we read Paul treating ALL of his readers as Christians we necessarily understand his view of their soteriological or eternal disposition was not wholly couched in their temporal conduct, yet we also know there is a clear dividing line when he and the other NT writers write about those who are heretical. However, it is worth noting Paul's directive to discharge a congregant he says something of import and interest:

1 Corinthians 5:5
I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Even the handing over of a Christian to satan was for the purpose of his/her salvation!

A conceptual answer to this op's inquiry lays in the distinction between division and divisiveness. Paul said the existence of divisions were good (1 Corinthians 11:19). They must exist to show who is approved . I will suggest that we should avoid inserting the word "only" in that verse. Divisions do not only serve to show those approved. In contrast, divisiveness is a work of the flesh (Gal. 5). Extra-Biblically we all necessarily understand sound Christian doctrine has historically been formed by rigorous prayerful debate. It took us 400 years to settle on some of the most core and valuable doctrines of our faith. The Reformation was a time of division. Currently,, we are witnessing a division between those who approach scripture emphasizing the covenant(s) model and those who emphasize dispensations; those who read the Bible with continuity preeminent and those who read discontinuity.

The latter often asserts the Church is corrupt.

The point to our denominations as evidence of that corruption (so all us Presbyterians aren't the true Church ).



As to the matter of the Sabbath, Paul wrote quite eloquently and decisively about the honoring of one day above another in Romans 14 and he concluded there is liberty to do so IF that is done unto the Lord and there is liberty not to do so IF that is done unto the Lord and the one who does the former is not to judge the one who does the latter and vice versa.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

All, Daniel may inform us of the context, but from what I can tell from the context, the OP's cited author is chastising the seventh day observers for dividing from the sound majority and he's not treating them with kid gloves but informing them an erring conscience needs to correctly inform itself (paraphrasing; again, looking to @Reformed Covenanter for context).

As to the matter of the Sabbath, Paul wrote quite eloquently and decisively about the honoring of one day above another in Romans 14 and he concluded there is liberty to do so IF that is done unto the Lord and there is liberty not to do so IF that is done unto the Lord and the one who does the former is not to judge the one who does the latter and vice versa.

Josh, Maybe I'm not understanding your point. Romans 14 is not about the Lord's Day but the old Jewish days during the interim before the temple was destroyed. Observing the Lord's Day is as obligatory as any of the other 9 commandments. Has that truth fallen on hard times; certainly.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Agree with the quote. But isn't the Sabbath one of those issues where the church has to take a stand? It's a pretty important issue.

See Chris's response to Josh in an earlier comment.

 

[Josheb]

Josh, Maybe I'm not understanding your point. Romans 14 is not about the Lord's Day but the old Jewish days during the interim before the temple was destroyed. Observing the Lord's Day is as obligatory as any of the other 9 commandments. Has that truth fallen on hard times; certainly.

Is that ALL it is about?

To whom was Paul writing? Was he writing to Jews? Was he writing to Jews only? Was he writing to only Jews only about Jewish practices?

I assume you know the correct answers to all those questions, so please don't take them to be made with snarky intent. Exegetically speaking we must always stay away w=from what I call "onlyism," or the practice of sticking the word "only" in where it neither exists nor belongs. The book of Romans is the first of the epistles in our Bible but it was NOT the first epistle written. It was among the last. By the time he'd written that letter the Church had a couple of decades of trial and error learning and Paul (and the other NT writers) had spent a couple of decades teaching sound doctrine..... mainly to pagan converts, not Jews or Jewish converts. The matter of Gentile converts practicing or not practicing old covenant Jewish practices (like the Sabbaths) did not occur in a vacuum of only-Tanakh. That orientation is nowhere to be found in Romans. A more thorough way of approaching that chapter is to understand the problem of Judaizing, a problem that had long existed in the Church (see Acts 15 and Galatians 2:11-14 for examples) BUT it also occurred within the context of pagan rituals influencing the Church!!!

Romans 14 is explicitly about accepting the one weak in faith. Says so right in the opening verse of that narrative, a narrative that is only a small portion of the larger epistle. Within the context of acceptance and weakness of faith Paul gives two examples: 1) eating (vegans versus omnivores ) and 2) holy days, or days set aside and held sacred (which is what the word "holy" means). Pagan converts to Christ did NOT hold the Jewish sabbath(s) holy. The did NOT have the problem of requiring Adamic veganism. They had pagan religious legalisms. Just as the Judaism did not occur in a vacuum absent any and all other competing theisms, so to the paganisms did not occur in a vacuum of only-paganism. To read that passage is if it is only one or the other is to create a false dichotomy. Paul's not writing to Jews about Judiasm. He's not even writing only to Jews only about Judaism and the way Calvary and Pentecost inform Torah. He is writing to Christians who are both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ about accepting those weak in faith.

Corinth (and Ephesus) were two ancient cities that served as "hubs" of paganism. Corinth was supposed founded by a son of Zeus and it was home to the temples of Apollo (the sun god) and Aphrodite (the love goddess). Ephesus was home to Artemis and Dionysius. Familiarity with the practices of those two religions informs our understanding of scripture. These pagan religions had very, very different kinds of priests. They had very different kinds of religious practices and different "holy" days. f a Gentile grew up as a worshiper of Aphrodite or Dionysius (for example) then they grew up learning hedonism, and routinely worshiped God through the practices of temple prostitutes (both hetero and homosexual). These and other influences run throughout the epistles in unstated form. They were the cultural contexts to all the Pauline epistles, and they would have been understood as such by their original readers.

The irony is that when Christian teachers in modernity try to make that passage only about Judaism they are paradoxically Judaizing the Christian scriptures .

Think me wrong? Okay, then do this: get out your Bible and read chapter 14. Count the number of times the words, "Jew," "Law," and/or "Sabbath" occur in that chapter.

Josh, Maybe I'm not understanding your point. Romans 14 is not about the Lord's Day but the old Jewish days during the interim before the temple was destroyed.

There is absolutely no evidence in the passage itself to support that interpretation.

Romans 14 it definitely NOT specifically about any "Jewish days." completely agree. What is is about is accepting those weak in the faith and one of the examples given is the treatment of one day as more significant than another.

Observing the Lord's Day is as obligatory as any of the other 9 commandments.

I completely agree and nothing have posted should be construed to say otherwise, but the "Lord's Day" has much more significance and import than was understood in the days of Torah. We are not Jews. We are Christians and we should refrain from Judaizing Christianity an ALL ways. Our rest is not found n a temporal day. Our rest in found in Christ, in God, and we, the regenerate believers in Christ, those in whom God Himself dwells are never without that rest. The newer revelation informs the older revelation. That which was hidden or veiled in the old covenant(s) is revealed and made known in the newer revelation.

Remember: the day of rest preceded the Law. To define the Sabbath only by the Law isn't only onlyism, it is starting the understanding seventy chapters into the story in complete neglect of all that occurred prior to that chapter and all that was later revealed. That's not sound exegesis. Ever.

We should worship God together one day of the week but there is never a day when we, the Christian, does not rest in the Sabbath that is Christ. Nor is there a day in which we do not work. We, the workmanship of God, are to be about His work which necessarily (paradoxically) entails resting in Him at all times everywhere while we work. Paul writes about this when he notes the priests violated the Sabbath every Sabbath!

Is God contradicting Himself by making the OT priests violate the Law they served? No! Of course not!

Romans 12:1-2
Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

Which day of the week do you get to stop being the living holy sacrifice acceptable to God?

If the answer is, "I don't" then there's a conflict with an only-Torah-based view of the Sabbath. It's somewhat akin to the tithe. The Old Testament standard is a tenth of the harvest, but in the New Testament we are the harvest, our lives have been purchased and we are not our own. Everything we have everything we are, is God's and God's alone. Note the word "tithe" s nowhere found in the epistolary . The New Testament standard is 100%, not 10%. The New Testament standard is 100% cheerful and generous giving based on God's leading and real need.

When you and apply that standard to the Sabbath everything changes. When we apply the other standards I've just sampled everything changes.




And.......

getting back to the larger inquiry of the op.....

According to Romans 14, this matter of treating one day more significant than another is one in which we have liberty. Liberty is a good thing is "the church's peace" is being considered. There are some places where we do not have liberty. This is not one of them. Paul is quite explicit about what is required within this liberty: do it unto the Lord and don't judge others.

Observing the Lord's Day is as obligatory as any of the other 9 commandments. Has that truth fallen on hard times; certainly.

I encourage you to give my post some thought because I assume you don't want to be a believer who uses the premise of "fallen on hard times" to violate the Church's peace .

I worship God every day. I find my rest in Him every day. I have the privilege of taking off BOTH Saturday and Sunday to rest in God and rest from my labor(s) in unique ways on those days and I take advantage of that opportunity and privilege. I also have the privilege to do good on the Sabbath (Mk. 3:4ff), and I do it.

And if you judge me for doing so then I will resist the urge to tell you to take a hike because I don't want to ruin the Church's peace . I will resist the urge to tell you I do it better than you and you're a schmuck for doing such a comparatively in adequate job of meeting you obligation because that would be paradoxically self-indicting. If you can see that then don't do it to others.

I am not a Jew.

The Sabbath was made for you and me, not us for the Sabbath. Whole scripture not selective scripture. Whole scripture applied in principle, not just its letter. Legalism kills.

 

[Taylor]

There has to be some kind of award on Puritan Board for the longest word salad ever.

 

[Jake]

I worship God every day. I find my rest in Him every day. I have the privilege of taking off BOTH Saturday and Sunday to rest in God and rest from my labor(s) in unique ways on those days and I take advantage of that opportunity and privilege. I also have the privilege to do good on the Sabbath (Mk. 3:4ff), and I do it.

I'll add a couple of quotes from our united Confession and Catechism in this response.

I agree that God is to be worshiped daily. From WCF 20:6, "...but God is to be worshipped everywhere in spirit and truth; as in private families daily, and in secret each one by himself, so more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly or willfully to be neglected or forsaken, when God, by his Word or providence, calleth thereunto."

But I think the issue is how do we keep a day as a Sabbath unto the Lord. The Larger Catechism says,

Q. 117. How is the sabbath or the Lord’s day to be sanctified?
A. The sabbath or Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship: and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose, and seasonably to despatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day.

While I await the Eternal Sabbath in which we can truly spend each day in such things, I don't know how possible it is to sanctify multiple days of each week in this week at this time. So I'm happy to keep the Sabbath on the day of our Lord's resurrection, jointly with the people of God who gather for worship on the Lord's Day.

 

[VictorBravo]

Just a reminder, we are a Confessional board.

WCF chapter 21 has this:

7. As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath.

8. This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, 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.

The 1689 LBCF has almost identical language.