[continued from previous post]
After looking through the various bad fruits upon which we can make righteous judgments, I would like to look at various objections here.
One objection which could be made is the fact that though Scripture tells us to judge, the act of judging is reserved for the Church as a whole, and thus only the leaders and elders of the church could do such judging. To be sure, the leaders and elders of the church can and must judge and discern between true and false teachers, and between true Christians, erring Christians to be disciplined, and false Christians who are actually wolves in sheep clothing out to destroy the flock. However, the Scriptures also do ask 'normal' Christians to judge. The command to beware of false prophets was given by Jesus to the ordinary people of God at that time, and Jesus many times warn the disciples and even the people of the religious leaders of their day, the Pharisees and the Sadducees. This is because of their false religiosity and self-righteousness, coming from their wrong interpretation of Scripture resulting to their adding of traditions which nulify the Word of God (Mt. 15:6). In the apostolic churches, the letters written by the apostles like Paul to the churches were to be read to the entire congregation (Acts 15:30-31, Col. 4:16). Since some of them contain admonitions against false teachers like for example 2 Cor. 11:1-15 which were to be read to the whole church, it can be seen that individual believers are also to judge and discern between the true Christians and the false Christians. The most explicit command relating to the church, as made up of individual members of the Body of Christ judging false teachers, was given by the apostle Paul to the church at Galatia in Gal. 3:1; 4:12-20, where Paul was pleading for the Galatians, individually and corporately, to stop listening to the Judaizers and return back to the pure Gospel of salvation by faith alone apart from the merits of obeying the Law.
After dealing with this objection, another question which we need to deal with is the idea of backsliding. After all, if a person stops loving Christ, stops going to church, and perhaps may start believing in various heresies also, are they to be considered backsliders or heretics? To answer this question, we must know what backsliding is. Backsliding as a concept is not explicitly found in the Bible. Nevertheless, Christians have used it to describe other Christians who were formally growing strong (or not too strong) in the faith and then falling away.
As a Reformed Christian, I subscribe to the biblical doctrine of the preservation of the saints, so a Christian who is truly a Christian will never fall away. However, not all who call themselves 'Christian' are truly Christians, with those coming out of us showing forth their true status as non-Christians (1 Jn. 2:19). Furthermore, as a Reformed Christian, I believe in the coupling of justification and santification, that ALL who are justified will be sanctified.
Since such is the case, backsliding could be construed to be apostasy or just backsliding. In the case of truly not loving God and truly embracing serious heresy, that person has shown forth that he/she is a heretic and is not to be treated as a backsliding Christian. However, if a person does not seem to love God, but this could be due to experiences of some hurts and painful experiences, and that the person does not embrace serious heresy but instead appears indifferent to sound doctrine, then the person could be treated as a backslidden Christian who has lost his/her way and is thus to be ministered to in the hope that he turns back to God, which the elect do evantually. Ultimately, judging in such cases should be done on a case by case basis with much discretion by the leaders of the church after much prayer to God and ministry to the party concerned.
In conclusion, I have proven from the Scriptures that Scripture does tell us to and even commands us to make righteous judgments, and that we should beware of false prophets, — to discern the true from the false teachers and prophets. I have also shown the criteria and the nature of the bad fruits used to evaluate and judge others, showing and explaining the way and method of judging peple to be heretics and unbelievers. Therefore, with this, we can learn how to make righteous judgments when the Lord requires us to do so, and thus bring glory to His name in the safeguarding of the purity of His bride, the Church.
In the next installment, I would analyze my judgment of Ed Silvoso according to these Scriptural principles as mentioned here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello Jenson,
ReplyDeleteit's nice to have you back here, and in action. Hope everything's fine in UK?
Anyway, with regards to your comment:
I would disagree with your point that true believers can be deceived by false prophets, at least not the extent that they would apostasized if they are so deceived. The verse in Mt. 24:24 puts the concept of the deceiving of the elect in a hypothetical phrase construct (if it were possible), which says nothing about whether such an event could or could not occur. [Logically, the sentence 'If p, then q' says nothing about whether p exists or doesn't exist]
Regarding backsliding, I would agree with you that people in the Bible have sinned and fallen away i.e. backsliding. However, what I was talking about here is a situation of backsliding for a extended period of time whereby the person shows forth indifference to Christian activities like attending a church, praying etc, and perhaps are even living in sin. Thus, it is not the short term effect of sinning for a while and then repenting, as in the case of David and Peter. With regards to Solomon, we can't know for sure from the Bible whether he repented in the end, but we can see that his case is technically more a case of compromise rather than of backsliding.
As with regards to Hosea 14:4, my version, the ESV, uses the word apostasy rather than backsliding. Regardless of which is the more correct word (Btw, I am not KJVO), the fact of the matter is that the context is referring to Israel who has rebelled against God. For our purposes as Christians, this passage refers to the people of God corporately as the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, I don't think this verse should be used to apply to individual Christians, but to the Church as a corporate body (similar to the most miquoted verse Rev. 3:20).
>', what doctrines are false and what are true? How does one ascertain another person’s “love for the Lord”?'
Regarding doctrines, I would say that those which would impact people's salvation and view of salvation would be rather serious (similar to Paul's take on the matter). Those which impact our view of God, and of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, and of the Holy Scriptures would similarly be major doctrines, since wrong belief in these would impact people's salvation. And how to ascertain which doctrines are true or false is by looking at Scripture and Scripture alone.
Regarding how to ascertain people's love for the Lord, the answer is that most of the time we can't. I think I make that rather clear in my post. Unless that person shows his lack of love of the Lord through embracing of false doctrines, and of blatent apostacy and blasphemy, it is rather impossible to judge. This is mainly for ourselves to use in examining ourselves.
>'What about those who preach “half a gospel” (e.g. those who advocate “Non-Lordship” salvation)? Would eating at a coffee-shop on a Sunday be “changing the grace of God into licentiousness”'
For the Zane Hodges and co. of the world, it would really depend on whether they truly believe what they teach or whether they are just deceived. Whatever the case, they are to be regarded as false teachers, to be rebuked if possible, and to be warned against.
As for eating at a coffee shop on a Sunday, I do not think it is 'changing the grace of God into licentiousness'. It is up to one's interpretation and application of what honoring the Sabbath means. Anyway, if that is really changing the grace of God into licentousness, then I myself am guilty as charged. I DO eat out on Sundays. In my opinion, honoring the Sabbath does not extend to such practices. If certain people feel convicted in their hearts that they should not eat outside on the Sabbath, then they are most welcome to not eat outside on Sundays. In fact, they must obey their convictions if they think that it is biblical. However, they shouldn't force their personal convitions on others as rules to follow, since the Bible does not give a command 'DO NOT EAT HAWKER & OTHER OUTSIDE FOOD ON SUNDAYS'.
OK, after thinking through and re-reading my post, I have made some minor changes here:
ReplyDelete'Backsliding as a concept is not explicitly found in the Bible.'
Word added is bold and italicized.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEh....
ReplyDeleteI think that I did apply Hosea 14:4 to the Church?, except I said that it should be applied corporately rather than personally.
>'2) why don't the reformed churches practice Sabbath keeping? Is it Scriptural or is it cultural?'
Actually, at least a few churches do practice Sabbath keeping on such a scale. Pilgrim Covenent Church does that, and I would add that Pst. JJ is rather strict on it too. I think CERC practices that too, after all, lunch is cooked by the members. However, I am not convinced that Sabbath keeping includes not eating out on Sundays. This issue is definitely a different category from abortion, since abortion is definitely the killing of unborn humans, and thus it is murder. However, I fail to see what bearing eating out on Sundays have on the keeping of the Sabbath. Regarding the WCF, well, I don't regard eating out on Sundays as a wordly enjoyment; it is a necessity, cause if I am hungry, I need to eat. Also, if you are meeting certain Christian friends for fellowship (that are from other churches), eating out is a necessity. After all, no one is going to spend time and effort cooking for you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEh Jenson,
ReplyDelete'It is generally recognised that the Sabbath issue is a "barometer" of the condition of a church.'
Generally regconized by who?
'In any case, breaking the 4th commandment is the same as the 6th.'
And you have yet to prove that eating out on Sundays is a violation of the 4th commandment. I do not agree with you, so your point is moot. Perhaps you can show me biblical why eating out on Sundays violates the 4th commandment? I would really appreciate if you can make it as concise as possible, coz I am very busy with various stuff including my honors project so I do not have the time necessary to read books or long articles at the moment. =)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello guys,
ReplyDeleteNice conversation, its interesting to see your points of view.
Something quite troubling is the concept of Sabbath. What is the Sabbath today?
I remembered the Lord saying this:
Luke 6
Lord of the Sabbath
1One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. 2Some of the Pharisees asked, "Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
3Jesus answered them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." 5Then Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
6On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was shriveled. 7The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath. 8But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Get up and stand in front of everyone." So he got up and stood there.
9Then Jesus said to them, "I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?"
10He looked around at them all, and then said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He did so, and his hand was completely restored. 11But they were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus.
also,
Lord of the Sabbath
23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
25He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
27Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
Did the Lord rid of the Sabbath rules? If not, then what shall we do? If yes, is it totlly rid of or is there a principle that remains? If so, what is the abiding principle and the biblical command for it? I understand the profound difficulty and i hope that i may know and follow.
Thanks for the reply(s). and God Bless!
OK.
ReplyDeleteThe only part that I see that is relevant in Peter Master's article is:
'There must still be a day of rest for workers, so that they also may benefit from (1) to (4). This aspect of the fourth commandment naturally precludes the support of unnecessary Sunday trading industries, whether shops, restaurants, filling stations or recreational facilities'
'If somehow a person or a family has no food, and there is no one to whom they may turn for help, they may have to go to a shop on the Lord's Day. They may be prepared to fast, although little children do not care for that. But such measures should be the last thing we want to do. We should never plan to shop on the Lord's Day, but the sabbath does yield to genuine necessities'
'If we seek to bring the lost into God's house on the Lord's Day and to proclaim Him to all, it is not right to encourage unnecessary industry and employment on that day, or indifference to it.'
All of this is similar to PCC's view on the Sabbath, btw.
However, I do not subscribe to this line of thinking. This whole argument of not supporting restaurants and other basic service industries is summed up in the argument that by so doing, we would show support for those people who are working in those industries in the breaking of the Sabbath. This I totally disagree. The whole idea of the Sabbath is the keeping of 1 day out of 7 holy unto the Lord. Time, as we know it, is relative, and one example of such arbitrariness is due to the different times in the different timezone regions. We can see that keeping the Sabbath must not necessarily be on a Sunday, though that is ideal. It is thus possible for people involved in essential basic service industries like food to keep their Sabbath on another day, i.e. Saturday perhaps.
As a matter of fact, Pst. Masters himself concedes the fact that people like doctors may not be able to keep the Sabbath due to their workload. In that case, are doctors then exempt from keeping the Sabbath, using their workload as a valid mitigating factor?
As an example of the difficulties of making only Sundays the Sabbath, let us look at the example of the various timezones, if you are so dogmatic on necessarily keeping Sundays as the Sabbath, what about a person who boards a plane on Saturday night in e.g. Hawaii to Sydney, cross the international timeline at 2359 Saturday night, which means that 2 more minutes later, the time would then be 0001 Monday morning? Since the person officially experience the most 2 minutes of Sunday, does this person then just need to keep 2 minutes of Sabbath?
Another thing that I would like you to think about is the role of pastors and church workers. For them, Sunday is their busiest workday. So therefore, aren't they violating the Sabbath? Or are you telling me that ministry cannot be considered work if it happens to be on Sundays, but it is work if it happens to be on other days of the week?
Oh, one more thing, what about doctors and other necessary professions who need to work on Sundays? Must they be resigned to waiting for their wifes to cook for them and bringing food to them while they work? And for those who are singles working far away from home, what then do you suggest? Fast the entire day?
Looking forward to your answers.
As it was said .. I think the sabbath was made for man not man for the sabbath. If for eg. I do not keep or honor the sabbath, then it is my own loss. Sabbath keeping is meant to be a blessing, therefore if I was a doctor I would try to keep the sabbath (can be any day) for my own good.
ReplyDeleteI believe church workers should attempt to keep another day apart from sunday as the sabbath since sundays for them usually involve work. Or they could start their sabbath on sunday aftns after all their sunday duties have been discharged (i.e. ending the sabbath on monday aftn or something)
If I was a doctor (separate case) and believed in not eating out on sundays, then I could always pack my own lunch for that day beforehand and bring it to work.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello Jenson,
ReplyDeleteit's ok. You are indeed most welcome to believe that eating out on Sundays is wrong. That is your own personal conviction. However, what I am trying to show you is that I think that there must be flexibility in keeping the Sabbath, instead of fixing it only of consisting of a defined time preiod on days known as Sundays, which is defined arbitrarily in different timezones.
For me, keeping the Sabbath is more than just doing the Lord's work. I think that spending time with God in studying His Word and praying to Him is very important, and this must constitute at least part of the Sabbath. Thus, if the whole of Sunday is spent on ministry, you are not spending personal time with God and thus you are not keeping the Sabbath on that day. Sabbath is supposed to be a day of rest, NOT a day of busyness in ministry!
Eh.. phrasing error...
ReplyDelete'is defined arbitrarily in different timezones.'
...should be
'is defined arbitrarily between different timezones.'
And just to add a comment, I do not think that just because doctors and police etc. are performing 'duties of necessity and mercy', esp. on Sundays, they are exempt from keeping the Sabbath. As Munchy has said, they should find another day to spend time with God as a day of resting in Him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello Jenson,
ReplyDeletethe short answer to your question is no, I haven't studied the subject in detail yet; that's why I do not do main posts on the topic on this blog (or any other blogs either) nor do I write [as distinct from commenting] anything about the matter. I only write about what I can confidently say and am sure that I am more or less correct according to the Scriptures. Comments to me do not have the same weightage as posts.
Thanks for that twist on my blog name, though. I am stuggling over whether I should be amused or not...
Anyway, so far with regards to this issue, the reason why I do not subscribe to your point is that I do not see them mentioned in Scripture. They may well be, but I do not see them there. Quoting the Reformers and the Puritans is good, but my ultimate authority is on Scripture, not on what they said. I certainly respect and admire the sacrifice and godliness of many of these dear saints, but I do not treat their writings as on par with the Word of God.
As I have said, the issue is NOT whether the Sabbath should be honored, so proving that to me is pointless. The point is whether the Sabbath should be limited to Sundays and Sundays alone. That's why, for me, Peter Master's article was good but it does not address the key issue under contention. He presupposes that if Sunday is not honored as the Sabbath, then the Sabbath is not honored at all, an axiom which I reject.
Notice that the issue under contention is an issue which falls under practical Christianity or applied theology, so unless Scripture explicitly or implicitly says that Sabbath must be on a certain day and a certain day only, then to limit it to Sundays is to me unwarrented from Scripture.
I would like you to take note of the reason why the Christian Sabbath is Sunday instead of the Jewish Saturday in the first place. The whole reasoning is based on that since Christ rose on Sunday, therefore we honor Christ on that day, and this day then becomes the Christian Sabbath. Notice that besides that, there is no other reason given. Did God commanded the change of the Sabbath day in Scripture? No, he didn't. Who did? The Church! In order that she might honor Christ as her preeminant Lord and Savior, the Sabbath is changed to Sunday.
Since that is so, I would like to ask you: According to your hermeneutical principle, how can you justify why the Church feels at liberty to change the Sabbath to Sunday, since God did not so command her to do so? Unless of course, the early Church did not feel the Sabbath to be so bound to certain fixed days....
Oh, and unless you are adamant about it, I do not see why the discussion should not continue on the comment page, since I am sure at least both Wenxian and Marn Chi wouold be edified by the ongoing discussion.
Typo again!
ReplyDeleteHe... not he.
Eh Munchy,
ReplyDeletethe fourth commandment is a commandment; it is NOT the fourth suggestion.
As an aside to Jenson, I would say that all of us should attempt to keep the Sabbath on Sunday if possible. As for me personally, I would like to go to church on Sunday. If it is not possible, i.e. during the 2005 Easter holidays with my uni friends in Europe, I would spend more time with God in worship and prayer in order to keep the Sabbath.
Hello brothers,
ReplyDeleteI am a bit bothered by the concept of eatting out. You see, our government (or any other) suscribes to the idea of laïcité: the separation of religion and the state.
This means that while our Bible is correct absolute and utterly true, we cannot enforce the observance of the Lord's Day (or in Jenson's case, Sunday) on non-believers. (we can't enforce what they don't believe) Of course, we can fully apply them to Christians.
So hence, the industries on sunday will continue to run whether we observe the Lord's day or not. Just as the Lord has created wicked people for punishment, so hence those who are not chrsitians will continue to run sunday like any other day, obviously, because the non-christians don't care about the sabbath.
We forget that we have non-christian bosses who demand we work on sunday and rest on monday (or saturday) as a norm. Is this an implict call to quit such jobs?
Hence, we can see from 1) the social situation 2)lack of biblical thrust to fix it ONLY (i dunno how to bold a text) on sunday (although a day of rest must be present) that it makes no sense to go extra-biblical to say that we must do so and so on sunday.
Its like fixing a way of playing 'praise and worship' songs - must be guitar and harp or something. (rhetoric)
I believe the more important is the actual observance within a day, not the day itself, but what is done on that particular day.
But brother Jenson, i also understand your idea: that if all chrsitians observe a sabbath on the same day: it would be a powerful testimony, people will kinda 'notice the difference'. But a testimony of a christ-led 5 days of work is far stronger than 1 day of sabbath by virtue of the consistnency of faithfulness. But i do not deny that it will be a wonderful testimony.
These conservation(s) are a tad bit extrabiblical and we have to watch ourselves. Lets not talk more than what is written. I fear i may have lack of knowledge and may have said something wrong in this comment. Do correct the above.
Wenxian,
ReplyDeleteChristian bosses can choose to enforce no work sundays on non-christians. I heard somewhere that CK Tangs used to be closed on sundays.
Non-christians can also at least attempt to make their preferences known to the boss.
Daniel,
Im trying to look at it in a sense of providing motivation to obey commandments also cuz its meant for our benefit. And in the first place commandments are all for our benefit.
But yeah it is a commandment that I have difficulty keeping. Half the time no choice need to do work on sundays cuz nus life is v busy heh..
But one thing I notice and cannot stand is that many people disregard this commandment as being an irrelevant bit of OT law, and they just convert it into some notion of going to church on sundays. As jenson said, there is so much said about it in the bible and I think people shouldnt be able to play down the importance of sabbath keeping with a clean conscience.
Well Munchy,
ReplyDeleteat least we can find something to agree on 100%. =)
Hey,
ReplyDeletejust have a very pertinent verse for Jenson to perhaps think about — Rom. 14:5-6. =)
Cheers,
Daniel.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello munchy,
ReplyDeleteI hope everyone can do a 'CKtangs' that would be wonderful! But its an impossible reality - other we have to 'suscribe' to Ed Silvoso's conversion of instituitions. But i love the idea.
Yeap, Christians ought to do that. I did it when i was working in the hols. Immediately, i saw it as the perfect opportunity to let everyone in the petrol kiosk by being a good testimony. Suddenly people had expectations of me. But thank God, i did what i was supposed to do - i think - at least they praised our Lord for what i did.
Thanks bro.
Eh Jenson,
ReplyDeleteI DIDN'T say what you said I said. I was just mentioning that Rom. 14:5-6 seems related to the topic, since the issue I have with you is that you insist that Sunday is the only proper Sabbath day. Obviously, if you have understood my many comments so far on the topic, I DO NOT subscribe to the view that 'Those who observe and honour the Lord's Day are "esteeming one day above another"?'.
Incidentally, from this wrong presentation of my view, you have shown that you still do not know and understand what is the issue that divides us, otherwise you would not have said what you have just said.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI have been following this blog for sometime so I hope you don’t mind if I comment.
I found out about the reformed faith about 4 years ago and have generally come to embrace many of its teachings. However, the issue of the Sabbath day is one I guess I still do not ‘get’.
I hope you will allow me to just state some of my thoughts on this matter. Please know I am not arguing against the necessity for Christians to keep all of God’s commandments for them. But the idea that the Sabbath command of the old testament is just as binding on new testament Christians as it was on Israel does not seem as obvious to me as it does to many others.
Firstly, it seems to me that a logical leap is made by assuming the Christian Lord’s day is connected to the Sabbath Day. I can’t really see how the bible makes that connection. We know that Israel under the old testament observed the Sabbath as given to them by the Lord, and we know that new testament Christians began worshipping on the Lord’s Day shortly after the resurrection of Christ, but I can’t think of any place where the bible says the Lord’s Day is the new testament version of the Sabbath. They are certainly similar institutions in that they are the day used for the worship of God, but I find it hard to go beyond that.
I find it interesting that Sabbath observance is never mentioned again in any of the new testament epistles except for Colossians 2 which speaks against the observance of ‘sabbath days’ (and I am happy to say that may not be referring to the weekly Sabbath of the fourth commandment) and Hebrews 4, which talks of the way the Sabbath foreshadows the rest we have in Christ.
Sabbath breaking is also never mentioned even once in the ‘lists’ of sins in that cannot inherit the kingdom of God (Romans 1, Galatians 5, Eph 5 etc etc)
Now please know that I am not taking the view that if something from the old testament is not mentioned again in the New we are free to disregard it, but the Sabbath commandment is also the only commandment of the ten that God identifies as a special sign of his covenant with Israel. (Exodus 31:12-18, Deut 5:15, Ezekiel 20:12 ), which does lead me to lean toward thinking that the Sabbath as seen in the old testament was part of the covenant signs God made with Israel and not a binding command on all men everywhere.
Thoughs, comments or rebukes welcome.
For your perusal. For the Reformed View of Lord’s Day observation, see:
ReplyDeleteWLC
Questions 115-121
Calvin’s Institutes Volume 2.
Chapter 8
Section 28-34.
Calvin wrote in his institutes (2.8.33-34):
"33. I am obliged to dwell a little longer on this because some restless spirits are now making an outcry about the observance of the Lord’s day. They complain that Christian people are trained in Judaism, because some observance of days is retained. My reply is, That those days are observed by us without Judaism, because in this matter we differ widely from the Jews. We do not celebrate it with most minute formality, as a ceremony by which we imagine that a spiritual mystery is typified, but we adopt it as a necessary remedy for preserving order in the Church. Paul informs us that Christians are not to be judged in respect of its observance, because it is a shadow of something to come (Col. 2:16); and, accordingly, he expresses a fear lest his labour among the Galatians should prove in vain, because they still observed days (Gal. 4:10, 11). And he tells the Romans that it is superstitious to make one day differ from another (Rom. 14:5). But who, except those restless men, does not see what the observance is to which the Apostle refers? Those persons had no regard to that politic and ecclesiastical arrangement, but by retaining the days as types of spiritual things, they in so far obscured the glory of Christ, and the light of the Gospel. They did not desist from manual labour on the ground of its interfering with sacred study and meditation, but as a kind of religious observance; because they dreamed that by their cessation from labour, they were cultivating the mysteries which had of old been committed to them. It was, I say, against this preposterous observance of days that the Apostle inveighs, and not against that legitimate selection which is subservient to the peace of Christian society. For in the churches established by him, this was the use for which the Sabbath was retained. He tells the Corinthians to set the first day apart for collecting contributions for the relief of their brethren at Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:2). If superstition is dreaded, there was more danger in keeping the Jewish sabbath than the Lord’s day as Christians now do. It being expedient to overthrow superstition, the Jewish holy day was abolished; and as a thing necessary to retain decency, orders and peace, in the Church, another day was appointed for that purpose.
34. It was not, however, without a reason that the early Christians substituted what we call the Lord’s day for the Sabbath. The resurrection of our Lord being the end and accomplishment of that true rest which the ancient sabbath typified, this day, by which types were abolished serves to warn Christians against adhering to a shadowy ceremony. I do not cling so to the number seven as to bring the Church under bondage to it, nor do I condemn churches for holding their meetings on other solemn days, provided they guard against superstition. This they will do if they employ those days merely for the observance of discipline and regular order. The whole may be thus summed up: As the truth was delivered typically to the Jews, so it is imparted to us without figure; first, that during our whole lives we may aim at a constant rest from our own works, in order that the Lord may work in us by his Spirit; secondly that every individual, as he has opportunity, may diligently exercise himself in private, in pious meditation on the works of God, and, at the same time, that all may observe the legitimate order appointed by the Church, for the hearing of the word, the administration of the sacraments, and public prayer: And, thirdly, that we may avoid oppressing those who are subject to us. In this way, we get quit of the trifling of the false prophets, who in later times instilled Jewish ideas into the people, alleging that nothing was abrogated but what was ceremonial in the commandment (this they term in their language the taxation of the seventh day), while the moral part remains, viz., the observance of one day in seven. But this is nothing else than to insult the Jews, by changing the day, and yet mentally attributing to it the same sanctity; thus retaining the same typical distinction of days as had place among the Jews. And of a truth, we see what profit they have made by such a doctrine. Those who cling to their constitutions go thrice as far as the Jews in the gross and carnal superstition of sabbatism; so that the rebukes which we read in Isaiah (Isa. 1:13; 58:13) apply as much to those of the present day, as to those to whom the Prophet addressed them. We must be careful, however, to observe the general doctrine, viz., in order that religion may neither be lost nor languish among us, we must diligently attend on our religious assemblies, and duly avail ourselves of those external aids which tend to promote the worship of God."
Hello,
ReplyDeleteLets do a little maths here. We know that Sabbath is to be kept on the 7th day of the week:
What is the first day?
"As it is 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 has 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." (WCF)
So lets see here. Sunday is the 1st day of the week according to this text. Sabbath must be kept at the 7th day [Proof texts: Exodus 20:10, Exodus 20:11, Leviticus 23 etc..]
sunday - day 1
monday - day 2
tuesday - day 3
wednesday - day 4
thursday - day 5
friday - day 6
saturday - day 7!!
Is this a numberical error? Or has the Sabbath then changed to the first day?
Why am i doing all this? Because 7th is the ORDER of the days, not the fixing of a particular day.
Lemme give us an example:
"the exam will be the fifth day after today". Does this mean it is friday? Not but it simply means that we count five from what is arbitarily called the first.
So i believe that 7th day of sabbath is an arbitarily called day: but sunday is ideal because it is recognised by society as the day for sabbath.
Notice clearly that every bible verse is giving order but not fixing the name, nor the date or moon cycle or pegging it to something fixed (unless you can show me otherwise, pls.) of the day. Then are you implying that church who have saturday services are sinning because they 'tempt' people to sin by allowing them to come on saturdays as the sabbath?
Thats quite a serious charge if indeed the Sabbath must die-die fix onto sunday and no other day.
Hello Mark,
ReplyDeleteIf it would help, keeping the Sabbath is the 4th commandment out of the 10 commandments. Therefore, it is as binding on us as the other 9 commandments.
With regards to the 'lists' of sins that those who do not inherit the Kingdom of God commit, I agree with you, but this does not mean that we should not keep the Sabbath; it just means that persistently not keeping the Sabbath is not the unpardonable sin.
Hi Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response.
I am aware that the sabbath is the fourth commandment. But could you show me where the reformed idea that the ten commandments are God's unchanging moral law comes from? I can't think how the bible necessarily sets them apart in that way. The Sabbath was obviously of great importance to israel, which might explain it being included in the ten commandments in that way. However, I do not find it impossible that a ceremonial (pertaining to israel only) command would be included amongst the ten, since it was a very important sign of God's covenant with israel.
The verses i quoted where God calls the sabbath his special sign to israel combined with the fact that the sabbath is no more mentioned again in the NT epistles, and added to the fact that Paul in Col 2:16 says christians ought not to be judged by their observance of 'sabbath days' makes me very disposed to the idea that the sabbath was a ceremonial sign for israel only.
I know this is against the grain of reformed understanding, but i hope you will see that i am not trying to explain away God's commands, but i (for the moment) truely see it as one of the laws that was given to israel but was not carried forward to the New Testament.
BTW, if you chose not to post this msg of mine, i would still be grateful to hear your thoughts, you can mail be at blackpanda_1981@hotmail.com
Finally, regarding the 'lists' of sins that I mentioned, I think none of them are truely 'unpardonable'. If committed by God’s elect they are covered and washed away with the blood of Christ and a Christian can receive practical pardon by repentance and confession. However, they are still sins that displease and grieve the Lord and that Christians ought to avoid. I find it interesting that Sabbath breaking is not once mentioned if it is as important as people say, especially in Romans 1, which specifically talks about sins that are done ‘against the light of nature’. If the Sabbath is really something that is shown by the light of nature, as the WCF says, why didn’t Paul mention it there?
Well, irregardless of our differences on the Sabbath, take care and have a good Lord’s day tomorrow.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Mark
ReplyDeleteI believe new testament scripture does not disapprove of the practice of keeping a sabbath... but rather to the legalistic observance of sabbath traditions.
"He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. "
As for Col 2:16, I believe the context is about how we shouldnt let ourselves be overly concerned with regulations and how people view us with regards to our behavior and observance of traditions (cuz Christ has triumphed over the law), and not that we shouldnt observe sabbath or new moon celebrations. (Pushing the logic you put forth about sabbath for israel only, does it mean that eating and drinking is for Israelites only? haha no right)
Hmmm...For example new moon celebrations, our chinese lunar new year is a new moon celebration right? Do we celebrate CNY? Of course! Are we going to worry that people will judge us by the fact that we celebrate CNY? Of course not!
I would also like to bring up the point that God looks at the heart. Its possible to do work on sunday and sin, but its also possible to not do work on sunday yet sin. Likewise its possible to do work on sunday and not sin.
ReplyDeleteWe shouldnt be so concerned about our activities and behavior but concentrate on our heart before God. When our heart is in the right place, so will our body be. If our heart and attitude towards sabbath keeping and resting before God is in the right place, likewise our actions will be appropiate.
Hello Mark,
ReplyDeletewhat you are really asking is whether the 10 commandments are binding on us Christians. If they are binding, then we must obey the 4th commandment, regardless of the typographical significance it has which has been fulfilled in Christ being our eternal Sabbath. (Heb. 4:1-11), and regardless of the covenent sign it has for the people of Israel in the OT.
With regards to the 10 commandments, I would address that in my next post.
Eh Jenson,
ReplyDeleteI have glanced at your blog entry, and assuming that you are referring to me as the person you are having a 'debate' with, I would request that you refrain from using terms such as 'thinking little of the Lord's Day'. Such ad-hominem caricatures serve little but to alienate people who do know better. Just because I do not share your view on the nature of Sabbath-keeping does not mean that I think little of the Lord's Day. In fact, I could even say that I think of it more highly than you, since you obviously think that people with legitimate reasons (i.e. doing duties of necessity and mercy) could skip honoring the Lord's Day whereas I think they are not exempt from this obligation but are to do so on another day besides Sundays.
Oh, and please do transfer comments on the Sabbath to my post on the 10 commandments, since it is obviously more linked to the topic, instead of the topic of this post on the judging of heretics.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello Jenson,
ReplyDeleteI wasn't suggesting that somehow I miraculously gone from knowing little about the Lord's Day to knowing a lot about it in 6 days. I was just saying that my view seems to make it mandatory for all people to observe the Sabbath, whereas yours seem to allow certain people to not observe the Sabbath due to having to do 'works of necessity'. Therefore, my view seems to think more highly of the Sabbath than yours, don't you think so? Anyway, if somehow I have offended you, I'm sorry. I'm sure you have experienced joy in observing the Sabbath on Sundays, but somehow experience isn't quite convincing for me.