| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3559 Registered: 12-2003  |
I received a letter today from a retired Adventist pastor who wrote at length about our misunderstanding of Romans, imparted and imputed righteousness, and how Dale Ratzlaff has left us with a legacy of "love legalism" instead of "law legalism". Although he completely missed the point about Christ's righteousness, he did raise objections that I believe reflect some issues regarding righteousness that bear addressing in Proclamation. I believe his misunderstanding is premised on the bottom line fallacy of Adventist theology: the lack of knowing what the new birth really is because of a disbelief in a real human spirit. Enclosed in his letter was a copy of a page from the March, 2006 Christianity Today. I tried to find the page online, but I couldn't. It's a page of advertisements of books. The one my corresondent pointed out is "The Rest of God" by Mark Buchanan. I'll quote a few lines from the brief review: "Jesus said, 'Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.' The Rest Of God is an extended meditation on that gospel promise. It is a call to restore Sabbathónot as a rule to keep, but as a way of thinking about our relationship to Godóand to everything else, for that matter. "The Rest Of God is a practical book. Buchanan isn't talking about the Sabbath as a vague abstraction, but as an actual day of rest to be observed each week. And yet he steers clear of the legalism that can make the Sabbath a burden rather than a joy. To that end, he suggests specific practices for Sabbath-keepingó'gestures to honor fresh ways of perceiving.' "Instead of Sabbath-rest, we have leisure time, and Buchanan's distinction between the two is one of the key inisghts of this book. The promise of leisure is "leaving it all behindÖSabbath, on the other hand, is about finding restóand thereby finding meaningóin the middle of it all. To observe the Sabbath, as Buchanan observes, is to get in tune with the God-designed rhythms of work and rest that make it possible to be sane and holy and whole. To take God up on his offer of rest is to enjoy the rest of Godóthat part of God that busy people can never quite connect with. 'Before we ever keep the Sabbath holy,' Buchanan writes, 'the Sabbath keeps us holy.' " Sometimes I feel as if the more clear the Biblical truth of rest in Jesus becomes, the more intense the detractors are. Just for starters, I just plain disagree with the statement that observing Sabbath (and you KNOW they mean Sunday!) gets us in tune with the rhythms of work and rest "that make it possible to be sane and holy and whole." This idea misses the point; observing Sabbath rest does not make us sane or holy or whole. I also disagree with the statement that taking God up on his "offer" of rest enables us to "enjoy the rest of Godóthat part of God that busy people can never quite connect with." If real, Biblical Sabbath-rest can't change our lives in the places where our lives are most out-of-control, then it isn't real. Jesus Himself is the only one who can keep our hearts peaceful amid trauma and more deadlines than we can handle and persecution and busy-ness. Taking a day off to focus on God (not that I disparage that!) just isn't the same thing as submitting to Him when we are crazily attempting to meet six deadlins and get the kids to their after-school practice, all at the same time. Jesus really can give us peace and a sense of calm and sanity even in the middle of 21st century suburban professional life. A Sabbath day does not solve this problem during the rest of the six. It is this miraculous rest in Jesus during every crazy day that Jesus offers in Matthew 11:28. He isn't offering a day; He is offering Himself. We experience Him as far as we are willing to submit to Him. A day just doesn't give us that rest. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I do start to feel as if this astonishing reality of Jesus is being increasingly rationalized away in favor of (let's be honest) the work of a "spiritual discipline". Yes, I believe in spiritual discipline, but I believe that discipline is my response to the call to submit myself as a living sacrifice moment-by-moment. I don't see anywhere in the book of Acts or the epistles that Paul or the other apostles were able to take a day away from their calling to suffer for Christ, to speak for Him, to be assaulted from all sides with demands and burdens. Yes, they had times they retreated. But they didn't handle their stress with a day. Paul handled His stress by submitting His agony to Jesus and resting in His presence even while he was suffering, working, preaching, and traveling from one outpost to another. Jesus IS our Sabbath rest. If this assertion is not true, all of His preaching and promises were false. This miraculous rest was the purpose of His incarnation. It is the result of His paying for sin and providing a way for us to be personally connected with God. It is the amazing inheritance His death and resurrection gave us. Merely taking a day with Him (which is obviously not a bad thing) so MISSES the point... Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1430 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen, The book you mention is in the similar vein that was reviewed on Tim Challies web site www.challies.com And then that most stimulating discussion followed. There is just mass confusion over this issue right now. And it comes directly from not understanding the covenants properly. New Covenant theology is a budding branch of evangelicalism that is trying to articulate the differences. John Reisinger at www.soundofgrace.com has done a terrific job in articulating the important distinctions. If you click on to Reisinger's library on that site, there is a wealth of information on New Covenant Theology, and a theology of Sabbath. But evangelicalism is confused today on so many issues, and so muddled in its thinking--and Christianity Today with David Neff, doesn't help the problem, as you have stated before. Stan | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 327 Registered: 10-2005 |
Thank you Colleen. I didn't know any better before I came to this forum. I'm so glad to be keeping the Sabbath now. I have peace that I never had when I was keeping or trying to keep the Sabbath day. It is very sad that there are a lot of problems with this undertanding with evangelicals. I get catalogs regularly from the Family Christian book stores and there was a book in the most recent catalog called " Keeping The Sabbath Wholly." It says: This refreshing book invites readers to experience the wholeness and joy that come from observing Godís order for life, a rhythm of working six days and setting one apart for rest, worship, festivity and relationships. The link on their website is: http://www.familychristian.com/shop/product.asp?prodID=14752 There is that hook the Adventists use to get people into their group. Believe this and your mind will soon belong to them. Personally, I always liked resting (really resting, not going to church) on Saturday mornings because I have always worked hard during the regular work week. Now I rest more on Saturday morning and on Sunday I feel refreshed and ready for worship. It feels so much better worshiping Him and not the Sabbath day. I am very much keeping the Sabbath. When I was a Seventh-day Adventist, I was keeping the Sabbath day, I no longer was keeping the 1st, that is loving the Lord with all of my heart. Really, someone should write a book for the Christian book stores on "Keeping the Sabbath Holy" and what that really means. | ||
| Wolfgang Registered user Username: Wolfgang Post Number: 68 Registered: 10-2005 |
You know I just finished reading the whole book the Rest of God,and I have to say I came away really liking the book. He does suggest just to take time away from the bills,the bussyness that distracts us all,and just rest.He goes on to say that for some cutting wood may be relaxing ,the exileration of being outside,smelling the wood being cut may bring a sense of "rest". It might be strolling in the antique shop with your wife,or playing soccer with your kids. He also makes it clear that we take rest in God,paul and silas took sabbath rest when they were in prison,they took rest n Jesus. I thought I could share this book with SDA friends in that they could see our Rest really is in Christ.I didnt finish that book with the "day" being the focus but with Christ being the focus. Dawn | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 228 Registered: 3-2005 |
Hi people:  It really is so frustrating seeing that the desire to keep up with the 'flow' of Reality causes greater and greater deception. Colleen, thank you for the wonderful job you do of proclaiming the Truth of the True Sabbath Rest. I for one, will never be the same because of your ministry. All who drink of the Living Water are greatly refreshed and will never thirst again. I LOVE THAT...I am grateful beyond description for that... I was convicted as I was writing this post that we must continue to pray for those still within that terrible bondage of trying to add to Christ's redemptive work. Patria | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 70 Registered: 2-2006 |
"He isn't offering a day; He is offering Himself." (Colleen's quote) Many do not want him alone. Or do not know enough about Jesus to have a desire for him, let alone enough to replace their Sabbath-god. Jesus isn't all that appealingly taught in some local churches. I recall a man harshly telling some very young kids in a church lobby that they were making Jesus and the angels mad at them. That is directly from Ellen White. If some SDA's grow up afraid of Jesus in some subconscious way...? That is just one more barrier Satan has slyly placed to seperate people from the true Christ, true Sabbath, scripture, et all. I recall myself as an SDA, even a backslidden SDA, not being able to get my mind past the conditioning of having to DO something to get somewhere or have something in life. Not only our society, but Adventism is embedded with this (earthly) philosophy. In the civil life, this is a good work ethic; but trying to place it in scripture, it denies Christ and all he does for and in us. All of the arguments you listed from SDA's, Colleen, would have gone thoguh my own mind, if you had presented the true Sabbath rest in Christ to me, back then. Until I found 'Sabbatismos' (Heb. 4:9), seeking truth in scripture and prayer, there wasn't much God could *directly* do with me, although he was always acting in my life, to lead me to Christ. (For my own case. I cannot speak about anyone else) I do know this; that if you had said these things to me, they would have remained in my memory and, I believe, that at a later time, the Holy Spirit would have used the scriptural wisdom to lead me further to a knowledge in Jesus Christ and all that he is, including our perpetual Sabbath rest; receving all good things from himself. There were people, sermons, books, things on the radio, which did do this. The seeds planted came to fruit years later. I really relate to your quote here; "Sometimes I feel as if the more clear the Biblical truth of rest in Jesus becomes, the more intense the detractors are." I have found that to be true, as well. Or they are just silent. I have tried to share, what like you wrote, with one of my family--in email-- in a way to not tell them to stop keeping the Sabbath, but about Christ in us as the Sabbath. In a way, telling them "This is what I beleive, now". As non-threatening as possible because I knew they would run away. No feedback at all. Not even that they didn't see it that way, etc.. The silence was a bit daunting. I think, they had a policy of not arguing, but I wasn't trying to argue. I was just sharing my own belief and scripture, not commenting on them to them. I think the Adventist FEAR kicked in. 'Hear nothing', which is not the SDA line. It is automatic until God breaks it down. Keep telling it like it is from scripture! We all must, when led to. You make it so clear, Colleen. The Holy Spirit is speaking through you in a special way, for others. It is so true, that in the midst of the 'storms' and chaos of society, worries and life, our rest in Christ gives us a peace, calm, love for others and sound mind--even joys-- which nothing we can generate or do can ever accomplish. Especially, not with ONLY one day! I need and want Christ every second within me, working what he does the rest of my life. I am so grateful for that. Cathy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3561 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dawn, I have no doubt that the book presents a really helpful view of "dividing" life and allowing for the chance that people can have relief from the pressing nature of life's demanding trivia and deadlines. The problem, though, is tying this idea with the idea of a "Sabbath". Many of the Adventists in So. California would entirely agree with this understanding of "Sabbath"óand they would never acknowledge that the nagging conviction that the day is actually IMPORTANT because they've again explained it so it's not a "legalism". For people who have never been spiritually bound by the Sabbath, the ideas in a book such as this might be helpful as a starting place. But for anyone who has been Adventist, there really is a spirit attached to the holiness of the day, and that spirit really does keep us from experiencing the freedom of the Holy Spirit's revelation of our true Sabbath rest in Jesus. I KNOW(!) that many people will stongly disagree with me about this; I would have disagreed with myself prior to making that frightening leap of faith and deliberately "breaking" the day, abandoing it completely in favor of Jesus. I cannot adequately express the asonishing affirmation of Jesus' presence that Richard and I experienced when we made that move. It has never gone away. As I've said before, one of our pastors told me that our experience reminded him of the strong affirmation of the presence of Jesus that Muslims experience when they finally take the leap and become baptized. They can accept Jesus, but baptism is the public sign of thier loyalty. That is the point at which they lose their family and culture and friendsóand that is the point at which they experience reassurance and affirmation from Jesus that is miraculous. The fact of this amazing affirmation and presence of Jesus has completely convinced me of the reality of the spiritual hold the Sabbath has on Adventists, whether they are "observant" or not. It owns them, whether or not they are aware of it. For people who have never been Adventist, there is a much more important thing Christians should be teaching each other. The Sabbath is a distraction from and even a psychological replacement for learning to submit and trust Jesus in the really overwhelming moments of life. Paul repeatedly admonishes us to encourage one another and to hold each other up; He does not stress that we "take time" away from things. That, actually, is a somewhat hedonistic idea that Christians try to spiritualize by using the OT Sabbath commands. Please, I do NOT negate the need to get away sometimes; but such reprieves are not about Sabbath. We tend not to take Jesus seriously about what He intends for us. He is able to do "exceedingly more than we ask or imagine according to His power at work in us" (Ephesians 3:20-21). His offer of rest has to be real, even in our agony and overwhelm, or He did not tell the truth. Rest is fine, but I truly have a problem tying it to Sabbath. Stan, I totally agree about the misunderstanding of the covenant. There is really great resistance among Christianity to understanding the implications of the New Covenant; losing that "law" is terrifying for most people. Praise God for Jesus and for the Holy Spirit Who reveals Himself through His word! Colleen | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 442 Registered: 1-2003  |
Stan, you said, "The book you mention is in the similar vein that was reviewed on Tim Challies web site". It is not only simular but is in fact the same book. http://www.challies.com/archives/001655.php It was mentioned here a short while ago and I ordered it and have been reading it. In Christ, Richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1143 Registered: 10-2004  |
Richard, Actually, Stan was talking about this review of Call the Sabbath a Delight: http://www.challies.com/archives/001639.php That's the one that started a lively discussion of over 200 posts, which is still ongoing. Jeremy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1439 Registered: 3-2005 |
Richard, How interesting! It looks like Tim Challies loved the other Sabbath book as well. When I read the review of "Rest of God", I am not as bothered by that review as I was by the review that sparked the 200 plus posts. Rest of God seems to be approaching this topic from a much less legalistic way than "Rest of God". Thanks Richard for pointing that out. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1440 Registered: 3-2005 |
I meant to say Call the Sabbath a Delight was a much more legalistic sounding post than Rest of God on that Challies site. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1459 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, You are right about that thread over there on Challies still going. I think you posted as recently as today. You and Johnny C just keep going--good work Jeremy! You along with Colleen have made your marks in the Reformed blogosphere. For any who have not checked out this thread with the Sabbath discussions by Colleen and Jeremy, as I have said before, it is well worth it. Stan | ||
| Rafael_r Registered user Username: Rafael_r Post Number: 24 Registered: 2-2006 |
THE LORDíS DAY, THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Offences must come, that they which are approved may be made manifest." One end to be accomplished by the permission of errour, is the trial of man's faith, and the establishment of that of the truly and intelligently faithful. In this way, controversy more than compensates for any labour and anxiety to which it subjects the friends of truth. Among the topics of discussion at the present time, the claims of the Christian Sabbath occupy a justly pre-eminent place. We confine ourselves, at present, to that view of it which from circumstances painfully familiar to our readers, possesses a peculiar interest to us, at this time, viz.: Is the first day of the week now, the appointed day of rest, and of special religious observances? is it the Christian Sabbath? Before we enter on the direct examination of this question in the light of the Scriptures, by whose authority alone it can be determined, it becomes necessary to vindicate the good name of Calvin, the greatest of the Reformers, from the aspersionófor we regard it as suchóthat he maintained "the abrogation of the fourth commandment as a ceremonial institution, and contended for a Sabbath or stated day of worship, under the gospel, only as a wise and necessary human arrangement." That this eminent Reformer did use some expressions which give colour to these assertions, we do not deny, but this is all: he still maintained the Divine authority of the Lordís day. In speaking of this institution, among other words, he thus defines its end (Inst., Bk.II.; Chap.8; Sec.28): "First, under the rest of the seventh day, the divine Lawgiver meant to furnish the people of Israel with a type of the spiritual rest by which believers were to cease from their own works, and allow God to work in them. Secondly, he meant that there should be a stated day on which they should assemble to hear the law and perform religious rites, or which, at least, they should specially employ in meditating on his works, and be thereby trained to piety. Thirdly, he meant that servants, and those who lived under the authority of others, should be indulged with a day of rest, and thus have some intermission from labour." Having established this statement, he proceeds (Inst., Bk.II; Chap.8; Sec.31,32), "There can be no doubt, that, on the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, the ceremonial part of the commandment was abolished. He is the truth, at whose presence all emblems vanish; the body, at the sight of the which the shadows disappear." "The two other cases ought not to be classed with ancient shadows, but are adapted to every age. The Sabbath being abrogated, there is still room among us, first, to assemble on stated days for the hearing of the word, the breaking of the mystical bread, and public prayer; and, secondly, to give our servants and labourers relaxation from labour. It cannot be doubted that the Lord provided for both in the commandment of the Sabbath. The former is abundantly evinced by the mere practice of the Jews. The latter Moses has expressed in Deut. 5:14." "Who can deny that both are equally applicable to us as to the Jews? Religious meetings are enjoined upon us by the word of God; their necessity, experience itself sufficiently demonstrates. But unless these meetings are stated, and have fixed days allotted to them, how can they be held?" "But if the reason for which the Lord appointed a Sabbath to the Jews is equally applicable to us, no man can assert that it is a matter with which we have nothing to do. Our most provident and indulgent Parent has been pleased to provide for our wants not less than for the wants of the Jews. Why, it may be asked, do we not hold daily meetings, and thus avoid the distinction of days? Would that we were privileged to do so? Spiritual wisdom undoubtedly deserves to have some portion of every day devoted to it. But if, owing to the weakness of many, daily meetings cannot be held, and charity will not allow us to exact more of them, why should we not adopt the rule which the will of God has obviously imposed upon us?" In this passage, Calvin vindicates the law of the Sabbath as of perpetual obligation. He then proceeds to vindicate the church from the charge of Judaizing; and in the same connection asserts that the change was made not by "human arrangement," but by apostolic, and, of course, Divine authority (Inst., Bk.II; Chap.8; Sec.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 Lordís 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 the 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 Lordís 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, order, and peace in the church, another day was appointed for that purpose." For the intelligent and candid reader this will suffice. Calvin needs to be studied. That the infidel should misunderstand him, we do not wonder;ówe are surprised that any one taught in truth and capable of discrimination should do so. [Beza held the same views. His language is, "Therefore the observance of the Lordís day, which Justin mentions in his Apology, is of Apostolic and truly Divine tradition."] We now advert, as preparatory to our scriptural argument, to some statements of the earliest writers in the primitive church; in which it will be seen whether or not the institution of the Christian Sabbath was due either to the emperors of Rome, as has been asserted, or to Antichrist. We begin with Ignatius, a companion of the Apostle John, who says: "Let us no more Sabbatize, but let us keep the Lordís day, on which our Life arose." Justin Martyr, who lived, partly in the first and partly in the second century, a contemporary of John, gives this testimony: "On the day called Sunday is an assembly of all who live in the country, and the sermons of the Apostles and the writings of the prophets are read." Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, the friend of John, says: "On the Lordís day every one of us Christians keep the Sabbath, meditating on the law, and rejoicing in the works of God."[1] Tertullian, who lived at the close of the second century, says, that "The Lord's day is the holy day of the Christian church assemblies and holy worshipóevery eighth day is the Christianís festival." Dionysius, of Corinth, also in the second century, says: "Today we celebrate the Lordís holy day." Irenaeus, wrote an epistle in which he maintains that the Lordís Supper should be administered "upon the Lordís day." At the close of the second century, a decree was drawn up by some "Synods and convocations" to the same effect. We add that in the second century Melito wrote a treatise on the "Lordís day;" and in the next century Dionysius, of Alexandria, an essay on the same subject, entitled, "The Sabbath." And, finally, so well was the observance of the Lordís day known to be a distinctive characteristic of the Christian, that it was made a subject of inquiry by their heathen persecutorsó"Do you keep the Lordís day?" Their replies, as recorded by historians, were in substance, "I am a Christian, I cannot omit it."[2] But was there no more? Did not the primitive Christians also keep the seventh day of the week? Some of them did, but by no means all; and so, for a time, some of them were circumcised. That the observance of any other than the Lordís day, was not general, is evident from the language of Tertullian, quoted above, "the Lord's day is the holy day," and of Irenaeus, "on the Lordís day every one of us keeps the Sabbath." This observance of two days, whatever there was of it, gradually faded away, and was finally abolished after the empire became Christian. This whole matter is very summarily and satisfactorily presented by Mosheim. "All Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week, on which the triumphant Saviour arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship. This pious custom which was derived from the example of the church at Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the Apostles, who consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose, and was observed universally throughout all the Christian churches, as appears from the united testimonies of the most credible writers. The seventh day of the week was also observed as a festival, not by the Christians in general, but by such churches only as were principally composed of Jewish converts, nor did the other Christians censure this custom as criminal and unlawful."[3] If in any thing we have clearly marked the footsteps of the flock, it is in this branch of our Christian practice. And we have also the mind of the Spirit. Of this, we now enter upon the proof, purposing to show, I. that the phraseology of the fourth commandment is such as to admit the change; II. that there are sufficient indications in the Scriptures that such a change was intended; III. that this change has actually been made by Divine authority. And, I. The terms of the fourth commandment do not put the seventh day of the week beyond the possibility of change, as the Sabbath. Its terms are, "Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Now, it does not say, "the first six days of the week shalt thou labour, &c., but the seventh day of the week is," &c. It fixes merely the portion of time to be devoted to labour and rest respectively, with that order in which they shall succeed each other. The very letter of the commandment is obeyed when we labour six days, as we now do, and then rest upon the seventhóalthough that seventh day is the first of the week. From this commandment merely, the Jews could not have known what day they were to keep. This must have been, and was, in fact, otherwise determinedóeither by the unbroken tradition from the creation, or as some suppose, by a fresh discovery in the wilderness. In a word, the terms of the fourth commandment are such that it would be, truly observed, both in the spirit and in the letter, when any day of the week should be observed by divine appointment as the day of rest. II. It is sufficiently intimated that such a change as we vindicate was in contemplation. And, here, we argue, 1st. From the significant phraseology of this fourth commandment. It is so drawn as to guard the reader against the inference that it was designed to fix the Sabbath unchangeably to a particular day. It begins thus, "Remember the Sabbath day;" and closes thus, "and rested on the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." 2d. A change of day is clearly intimated in Isaiah 65:17, "Behold, I create new heavens, and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind." It is clear that this passage refers to a change of dispensation: the creation of a new spiritual heaven and earth; for it is added, "I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy." All this being, in part, accomplished in the removal of the partition wall between Jew and Gentile in the abolition of the former ceremonial dispensation, and the consequent extension of all gospel privileges to the inhabitants of all nationsóits full accomplishment taking place at that period when the kingdoms of the world shall actually receive and enjoy the benefits, personal and social, of the grace and dominion of Christ. The bearing of all this upon the change of the Sabbath is easily seen. The reason, in the fourth commandment, assigned for the observance of the Sabbath is, that "God rested on the seventh day," having made, in six days, "the heavens and the earth." In other words, the Sabbath was instituted as a standing memorial of the creation of the old heavens and the old earth. But the time was even thenóunder the Old Testament dispensation foretoldówhen this old heavens and earth should "no more be remembered, nor come into mind,"óthat is, their glory should be so obscured by the greater glory of this "new creation," as that they should be comparatively forgotten. But if this be so, is it possible that the church should still be required, to the end of time, to observe a day of rest, the grand reason of whose observance was, that it was a memorial of a work which should "no longer be remembered?" This argument is, to us, conclusive, as to the divine purpose to change the day of the Sabbath. It intimates, in language that can scarcely be misapprehended, that the entire system of worship under the new dispensation should be so arrangedóincluding, of course, the time specially set apart for the duties of social religionóas to cast into the shade all other demonstrations of the Divine glory; so as to remind the worshipper, that the great work of God is the work of redemptionóa work completed in Christís resurrection. 3d. Not only was a change foreshadowedóthe day was distinctly intimated; viz., the day of Christís resurrection. And this, (1.) In the fact that the Jews were to keep the seventh day as a memorial of their escape from Egypt. The fact is plainly stated in Deut. 5:14,15, "And remember, that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day." Indeed, it is nearly, if not quite certain, that this was the very day on which the Israelites came up out of the Red Seaóthe day on which their redemption from Egyptian bondage was finally consummated. But whether or not, the fact remains, that they were to remember the seventh day as a memorial of this grand event in their history, by which they received, in a certain sense, new life as a people. This entire transaction was typical. Its antitype was the resurrection of Christ. The inference is very direct, that the day of Christís resurrectionóthe day when he came up out of the great watersóthe day he lived again, and his people in Himóthe day emphatically of the new creation, should be observed under another dispensation as a day of rest and rejoicing by Godís spiritual Israel. (2.) This appears, with still greater clearness, in the 118th Psalm 22,24. The passage refers to Christ. None doubt this. His rejectionóspoken of in the 22d verseówas consummated in his crucifixion. He became the "head of the corner" in his exaltation, which began in his resurrection. And hence, in ver. 24, it is declared that "this is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it;" not merely in that one day in which Christ roseówe can hardly suppose the Spirit of inspiration to mean no more than this by terms so emphaticóbut in that same day in its ordinary weekly returns. Nor does it avail, for the purpose of getting rid of the plain import of the prophecy, to say that Christ became "head of the corner" when he ascended from Mount Olivet. This phrase comprehends more than his mere investiture with dominionóit includes his entire right to save, as well as to seek his peopleóHe is the corner stone of salvationóof the building of mercy. This passage is equivalent to a direct and specific declaration that the day of the churchís spiritual rest and rejoicing, should be changed at and after his resurrection.[4] 4th. None can question the right of the Lord Jesus Christ to make this change. He claims it, Mark 2:28, "The Son of man is the Lord also of the Sabbath." Indeed, by Him the Sabbath was given to the Israelites in the re-enactment of the moral law by his authority in the wilderness. Hence, the preface of the decalogue is well paraphrased by the Westminster divines, "Because the Lord is our God, and Redeemer, therefore are we bound to keep all his commandments." Now, if we have rightly interpreted the language of the fourth precept, did he, in this re-enactment of the moral law, bind himself to the permanent establishment of the day then observed? So far from this, the terms of the law were so devised, as to leave room for a change then contemplated, and, as we have endeavoured to show, not indistinctly foresignified to the church under the former economy. Nor can it be said that any obligation lies upon mankind by virtue of the bond of the covenant of works [which is] of such sort as to render this change impossible. (1.) It is by no means certain that the Sabbath was revealed to Adam before that covenant was broken. Certainly, the Sabbathówe mean the particular period and dayówas not a part of the law written upon Adamís heart. These must always have been matter of positive enactment [i.e., not a matter of the light of nature]. We hear of no positive laws [i.e., laws no founded in nature] given to Adam, except that relating to the tree of knowledge. (2.) We cannot reason, from the covenant of works, in regard to the manner and circumstances of the worship to be observed under the new. (3.) It is absurd that we should now grope among the obscurities of a broken law and covenant for rules of duty, when we have the written word, to which we may appeal. The primitive law of magistracyóthe patriarchalówas the mode of civil government contemplated, so far as we can see, in that covenant. Is this to be adopted now? or are we to take the principles and directions of the written word? "To the law and the testimony." (4.) The change which we maintain accords with the spirit and order of the new covenant, and seems to be required for the complete exhibition of that order. Under the old covenant, works preceded rest in God [hence, we call it "the covenant of works"], and this was properly illustrated in the fact that six daysí labour preceded a day of rest. Under the new covenant, we first find rest in Christ [by grace], and then work for him. And with this accords the orderóa day of rest followed by six daysí labour. Nor is it any objection to this view, that the Jews were required to observe the order of the primitive law [i.e., that of "the covenant of works"óthe seventh day]. The development of the scheme of grace, in its entire and adequate illustration by the institutions of worship, was gradual; and besides, the former economy was, in its arrangements, comparatively burdensome. The church was then under age, and was introduced to the full enjoyment of her new covenant privileges at the erection of the present dispensation.[5] Of this we have a beautiful exposition in the latter part of the fourth chapter of Galatiansóthe allegory of Hagar and SarahóIshmael and IsaacóSinai, and Jerusalem that is from above. (5.) It is sheer nonsense to refer to the obedience of Christ to the law of the seventh day Sabbath, as if by this he confirmed it as the standing season of rest and worship. This is the same sort of ad captandum argument [a dishonest argument used "to catch the crowd"] with which Baptists impose upon the ignorant, forgetting, as those who use the same argument in regard to the Sabbath do, that if it prove anything, it proves that the church should circumcise her members, observe the forms of synagogue worship, offer sacrifices, keep the passover, conform, in short, to the whole Mosaic ritual [i.e., because Jesus did while on earth]. The authority of Christ was, then, unrestricted by any previous enactment. His dominion over the Sabbath was ample to make the change. We come now, III. To show that this change has actually been made by His authority. This we establish, 1. By the circumstances attending his burial and resurrection. He rose on the first day of the week, having lain in the tomb the seventh; and this, as every Christian will admit, according to a deliberate purpose, and with design. Can we fail to see in this a settled intent to bury the Jewish Sabbath, and to institute another day as the day of rest and rejoicing? The Sabbath was to be a "delight" [cf. Isa. 58:13]. Was the day when Christ lay in the grave a "delight" to the disciples? They were filled with sadness. But the next dayóthe first day of the ensuing weekówas there ever such a day of gladnessóof spiritual gladness and joy as this to the church on earth? The day before had been to the disciples a day of fasting indeed; the Bridegroom had been taken away. But now, their sadness is turned into the brightest rejoicing. Could they ever forget either the one or the other? What more natural than the transfer of the emotions of holy delight with which they formerly observed the seventh day, to this new day which "the Lord had made"? This was of itself, at least, almost sufficient to bring about the existing change in the season of worship. 2. Christ eminently distinguished and honoured the first day of the week. (1.) On this day he appeared to his disciples. John 20:19; "Then the same day, at evening, being the first day of the week,Öcame Jesus, and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." This is not so remarkable; but, ver. 26, "after eight days"óon the ensuing first day of the weekó"again his disciples were withinÖ. Then came Jesus,Öand said, Peace be unto you." Now, in any view of the disciples assembling, this appearance of Christ signalizes the first day of the week. Did they meet every day; then why but to put singular honour upon it, as the day in which he would especially vouchsafe his presence to his people. Did he select this day to meet with his disciples?óthen still more the probability is, that they met by design on this day, and that with the expectation of meeting Jesus. Mark the phraseology, "After eight days, again his disciples were within." In the language of [William] Paley, "it has every appearance of a previous appointment." But in any event, the first day is here signally honoured, and begins in the very morning of the new dispensation to hold that place which it has since occupied, as the day of devotion and of Christian enjoyment. (2.) On this day, the Spirit was poured upon the New Testament church. We refer to the great event recorded, Acts 2,óthe Pentecostal baptism of the disciples. This was on that first day, for, as we learn from Lev. 23:15,16, the Pentecost was observed on the fiftieth day after the paschal [i.e., Passover] Sabbath. Now in this occurrence, the whole church, to the end of time, has a direct interest. It stands alone. It marks an era. It was a visible emblem and seal of the superior glory of the New Testament, that it was to be a ministration of the Spirit. Moreover, it constituted, at the time, as Peter afterwards declares, a visible testimony to the exaltation of Christ, that he had become the head of the corner. Christ did most eminently separate, and distinguish, and honour the first day of the week. 3. This day was observed by the apostles and the primitive church. True, the apostles frequented, when among the Jews, their synagogues, but merely for the purpose of ministering to these the gospel. But among themselves, the first day of the week was their day of the week was their day of worship and rest. This appears, (1.) In the meeting of the church in Troas for the dispensation of the Lordís Supper on that day. Acts 20:7; "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them." To "break bread" is to dispense the Supper. It is absurd to suppose that they came together to eat a common meal; or that, if they did, it would be solemnly left on record. The day is mentioned. Why, unless to distinguish it and honour itóto hold it up as the usual season of observing the solemnities of Divine worship? Moreover, Paul would not travel on that day; for it is added, "being minded to depart on the morrow."[6] (2.) In the command given to the Corinthians and to the Galatians to make their collections for religious purposes on that day. 1 Cor. 16:1,2. Why, we ask again, specify the first day? But one answer can be given, it was a day particularly devoted to the observance of gospel ordinances, of which contributing for religious ordinances is one. Nor is it any objection to this view that the apostle says, "by him in store;" for the following clause, "that there be no gatherings when I come," removes all obscurity, and shows that the contributions were to be put into the public stock on that day: otherwise this very thing would have necessarily followedóthere would have been "gatherings" when he came. (3.) The first day of the week is called expressly the Lordís day. Rev. 1:10; "I was in the spirit on the Lordís day." This was evidently some particular day. Every day is, indeed, the Lordís; but here this epithet is distinctive: just as the city of the Lord is the epithet of Jerusalemóor as under the old economy, the seventh day was Godís day. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." "The Lordís day," [is] Christís day, as the Lordís Supper is Christís Supper. But how the Lordís, and why? His, inasmuch as, from his resurrection, made peculiarly his, to be devoted to his service. "This is the day the Lord hath made." If any doubt remains whether the first day of the week be really meant, this is dispelled, when we remember that from this very period, as we have seen in our quotations from the contemporaries and immediate followers of John, it was invariably so used in the primitive church. If the meaning of any term can be fixed by testimony, the interpretation of this epithet must be so regarded. 4. This day has ever since been observed by the Christian church. That it has been, none ever disputed. For a time, as stated by Mosheim in the extract that we have given on a former page, both days, the seventh and the first, were observed by some portions of the Christian church. And this was winked at, as was the observance of circumcision, for a time, in the case of Jewish converts. With this exception, the course of the church has been uniform. Doubts on this subject are of very recent origin. They date no further back than the ages subsequent to the Reformation, and then they arose chiefly among the same people who denied, because there is no command in the New Testament enjoining it, the propriety of infant baptism. Now, let it be observed, we draw no argument from any mere church authority. We lay no stress upon the canons of any council. Our faith rests upon no ecclesiastical dictum. Our argument is, that if the first day of the week be not the Christian Sabbath, then has Christ left the church for nineteen-hundred years without a Sabbath at all? a divinely authorized and accepted Sabbath. Our argument here is analogous to that which we use against the Jews. We say, your system is abolished. God abolished it: for nineteen-hundred years, you have had no temple, no altar, no sacrifices of atonement: your ceremonies have been wiped out of existence by the strong and great hand of God, the Governor of the world. Now, so we argue on behalf of our Sabbath. If the first day be not the Sabbath, then has God himself wiped out the institution; there is then no longer any such day or season. Now, the infidel may adopt this alternative; the Christian will not. He cannot believe that the Most High has so bereft his church, as that he has left her for her entire course, as a church of all nations, to run counter to his will, and live in perpetual disregard of one of his express commandments [i.e., the Fourth commandment]. We add, 5. And lastly, God has blessed the first day of the week, and so put his seal upon it. God has not left his church without a Sabbath, nor without tokens of his approbation in her observance of the first day of the week as the day of rest and devotion. On this day his word has been preached for the conversion of sinners, and the sacraments dispensed for the edification of the faithful, for many hundreds of years. And where has religion flourished, with all the interests of morality, personal and social? Where have religion and good order declined? Any tyro [i.e., novice] can answer these questions. With Sabbathófirst day Sabbathóobservance, every spiritual and moral interest has flourished; with Sabbath desecration comes in a flood of all kinds of evil. As religion revives, is not the Sabbath more strictly kept? as it declines, is it not more loosely observed? God has blessed the Sabbathóthe Lordís dayóthe Christian Sabbath. This argument, in connection with the preceding, amounts to demonstration. A voice from heaven could hardly make it more evident than does the manifest blessing of God upon his day. And it proves that it is his mind and will that his church and the nations should keep, to the end of this dispensation, the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath.óJames Chrystie. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Footnotes: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] This will answer, in part, to resolve the following: "If you can prove that any one man among the millions of Adamís children, from the beginning of the world to the rise of Antichrist, ever called the first day of the week ëthe Sabbath,í you will shed a light upon this controversy, for which a host of writers have searched in vain." As also the following: "The first day of the week was not classed by any of the children of men as a Sabbath, for three hundred years after the birth of Christ." There was a sufficient reason for the far more frequent use of the term "Lordís day," in the fact that so long as the Christian community were in close connection with the Jews, who, of course, used the term "Sabbath" to denote their day, the seventh,óbecause many of the converts were, at first, Jews,óit was necessary to distinguish. That they did so, is an argument substantiating their observance of the first day. When that which "letted" [i.e., the Roman Empire] was out of the way, the Sabbath would gradually come into use, and so it did. [BACK] [2] This may serve to resolve another inquiryó"Tell me candidly was there ever a martyr who died in defense of the first day Sabbath?" It will be time enough to call for a martyr expiring in this land, when some persecution rises up to put to death expressly for this. [BACK] [3] It is vain that many learned men have laboured to prove, that in all the primitive churches, both the first and last day of the week were observed as festivals. The churches of Bithynia, of which Pliny speaks in his letter to Trajan, had only one stated day, for the celebration of public worship; and that was undoubtedly the first day of the week, or what we call the Lordís day. [BACK] [4] The arguments, except the first, adduced under this division, are cumulative. They all exhibit, as in a series, the design of God to magnify the work of redemption by making it the prominent object in every part of New Testament worship. There is a text, Ezekiel 43:27, which can hardly bear any other interpretation than that which regards it as intimating a change of Sabbath: "And when these days are expired, it shall be on the eighth day, and so forward." [BACK] [5] We will not be understood as intimating that the way of salvation was any other, under the former dispensation [i.e., the Sinaitic or Mosaic covenant], than it now isóor that the Mosaic economy was not a dispensation of the covenant of grace [cf. WCF VII.5,6]. We refer to the outward aspect of that economy. [BACK] [6] Could the writer have read this clause, who says that this passage proves that Paul travelled on the first day of the week? The text says, "He was minded to depart on the morrow." [BACK] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to Homepage | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3686 Registered: 12-2003 |
Rafael, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I'm sure that no one here will argue that one should NOT have a day during which they attend public worship, spend time with family, allow their employees to have a day off, and so forth. Church tradition, as James Chrystie explains in this document you posted, "established" Sunday as the most convenient and symbolic day to gather as Christians to worship together. Sunday actually was foreshadowed in the Feast of Pentecost (always celebrated in Israel on the First Day), was made memorable by the resurrection of Jesus, was clearly different from the Jewish weekly tradition, etc. But nothing about church tradition "sanctifies" Sunday. Similarly, the sacredness of the seventh-day Sabbath was fulfilled in the Person of Jesus by His death and resurrection. Hebrews 4 is clear that Israel never entered their Sabbath rest in spite of that day being the sign of their covenant with God. But TODAY we can enter that Sabbath restóit is not specific to the seventh (or the first or the third, etc.) day of the week, It is the rest that is ours when we embrace the finished work of Christ, just as Adam and Eve entered God's rest with Him when He finished His work at Creation. Romans 14:5-6 and Colossians 2:16-17 clearly state that the ceremonial sacredness of any day is no longer applicable to Christ-followers because they were all shadows of Christ Jesus. Further, the seventh day (and the first day, etc.) are created things. In the New Covenant, our entire loyalty is to be to the Lord Jesus, not to created things representing Him. Days are not eternal; Jesus is. Before Jesus came to earth, God gave humanity physical "shadows" to symbolize the spiritual realities He had already established in eternity. Jesus, incarnate God, came and fulfilled those physical shadows with Himself and His work of salvation. Physical shadows and symbols have absolutely no sacredness in themselves, and now that Jesus has come, the only symbols that represent an unseen reality for Christ-followers are baptism and the Lord's Supper. Observances we might do because of our own need or convictions are personal issues; they are not commands of God or requirements or "official" ways of declaring our loyalty to God. In the New Covenant, Jesus asks us to be 100% loyal to Him, to live by the law of the Spirit of life (Romans 8:1-4), and He convicts us individually of things we need to give up to Him in order to grow spiritually. No matter what church tradition or even eminent theologians might say, the New Testament is the final authority on the life and practice of a true Christian. When we submit ourselves to the Lord Jesus, telling Him we are willing to let go of everything we believe and cherish in order to know and serve Him, He reveals Himself to us and clarifies His desires for us. We can trust Him. We no longer have to agonize over OT laws and rules and try to figure out how they "fit". Jesus is the One who "fits", and He will direct us individually to grow in surrender, submission, authority, and power in His Spirit. Colleen | ||
| Rafael_r Registered user Username: Rafael_r Post Number: 25 Registered: 2-2006 |
So, the christian that from the very beginning of the christian history had worshiped in the Lord¥s day and have it as a special day were not led by the Spirit? If a christian read his/her bible, pray, attend to church services, listen to sermons, abstein of all kind of evil, etc., is he/her not trusting in Christ? It is not sunday the Lord¥s day, it is not His day? It is not all scriture usiful? How can you explain the blesing of God upon people like Spurgeon, Edwars, Whitefield, Calvin, the puritans, etc.,? Do you know that one of the caracteristic of all cult is the rejection of the testimony of christian history? My point is that sabbath keeping is a blesing not a burden nor a rejection of the gospel. | ||
| Freeindeed Registered user Username: Freeindeed Post Number: 16 Registered: 3-2006 |
Colleen, Thank you for your post. I have been reading the dialogue on Revival Sermons from about a year ago and what you just said above I needed to hear. It is absolutely amazing when you just "get it". Everything that didn't quite add up when looked at through OC eyes begins to add up. The truth about the Gospel was laid out so clearly from scripture (Revival Sermons by formers) and they (SDA's) just didn't get it. The subject was changed or shifted away from the clear Biblical truth. They clearly want to hold onto the Sabbath more than Christ, and EGW more than the Bible. I had not seen it so clearly before. Anyway, thank you for your post. It was refreshing. Freeindeed | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 193 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hello Rafael, Sorry just to butt in if you are having a conversation with someone, but I just thought I would make a comment. I think it is a very fundamental mistake to assume, that if someone is being blessed by God, then they must have their theology perfectly worked out. This mentality has very often led to confusion, and sectarianism. For a start, I do agree that it is often useful to study church history to be able to obtain better insight into many issues. I think, though, that God often blesses us, not because we have got it all right, but because we turn to him in faith, because we trust him, and also because he is gracious and he knows we need his blessing. We don't earn God's blessing because we are right, but we get it because he loves us. I think. Just a thought. God bless, Adrian | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3688 Registered: 12-2003 |
Adrian, very good point. Rafael, Hebrews 11 lists people who lived "by faith", but the outstanding common charactersitic among them was that they ultimately trusted God and obeyed Him in faith. They had many flaws in their experiences and in their understandings. Jephtha, for example, offered his daughter as a sacrifice to God after his successful battle because he believed he had to in order to keep his promises to God. Samson also is listed as a giant of faithóand he betrayed God's gift to him. As Adrian said, it's not our belief or practice that qualifies us for God's blessing; it is God's sovereign grace that determines our blessings. When people trust God and act in faith, that faith doesn't automatically result in all their doctrine being "straightened up" at once. If God's blessings were determined by the orthodoxy of our practices, then His blessings would no longer be grace; they would be 'wages'. Colleen | ||
| Rafael_r Registered user Username: Rafael_r Post Number: 26 Registered: 2-2006 |
So, who is free from sin?, How can you relate sunday keeping with jephta mistake or the sins of Sanson with the Lord's day? Do you mean that it is a sin to keep the sabbath? Second, you can not use romans 14 with the Lord's day, because this day was/is the apointed day for christian assembly (as we can see in the nt and the christian history). Neither you can use colossians 2:16-17 with the Lord's day because Paul is talking about the Jewish festivals, including the old seventh day. I ask you again, were the christians of the past not led by The Spirit? Godís day is dishonoured by those who are not thankful to him. God has, in great mercy, given us a day, on day in seven, wherein to rest, and to think of holy things. There were seven days that God had in the week. He said, ìTake six, and use them in your business.î No, we must have the seventh as well. It is as if one, upon the road, saw a poor man in distress, and having but seven shillings, the generous person gave the poor man six; but when the wretch had scrambled to his feet, he followed his benefactor to knock him down, and steal the seventh shilling from him. How many do this! The Sabbath is their day for sport, for amusement, for anything but the service of God. They rob God of his day, though it be but one in seven. This is base unthankfulness. May not many here confess that they have been guilty of it? If so, let no more Sabbaths be wasted; but let their sacred hours, and all the week between, be spent in diligent search after God; and then, when you have found him, the Lordís-day will be the brightest gem of all the seven, and you will sing with Dr. Watts,ó ìWelcome, sweet day of rest, That saw the Lord arise; Welcome to this reviving breast, And these rejoicing eyes!î Oh, what a delight to worship the King of kings! Come, then, off with sloth and indifference! Let us forsake our worldly ìamusements.î We shall be exalted by the Lord only when we humble ourselves. The Lordís Day still belongs to the Lord, and He is still worthy of our fullest adoration and praise. (spurgeon) Furthermore we must understand that the Lordís Day was not appointed only for listening to sermons, but that we should spend the rest of the time praising God. For, although he gives us food every day, we do not keep his gracious gifts in mind and give him the glory. It would indeed be a poor thing if we did not give consideration to the gifts of God on the Lordís Day. And, because we are so occupied with our own affairs on the other days of the week, we are slow to serve God in them in the way he has assigned on the one day. The Lordís Day must, therefore, serve as a tower in which we can go up to view Godís works in the distance. It is a time in which there should be nothing to hinder us or keep us occupied, so that we can employ our minds meditating on the benefits and gracious gifts he has given us. If we can apply this (that is, if we can meditate on the works of God) on the Lordís Day, then we will be able to rest more during the remainder of the week. The keeping of that Day will, as it were, shape and polish us beforehand so that to the extent we have meditated on his works, to that extent we will be influenced to benefit by them and will be led to give God thanks on Monday and every other day of the following week. Now, if the Lordís Day is spent playing games and in other empty pastimes, and in things that are clearly contrary to God, so that men think that the way to keep the Day ëholyí is by offending God in different ways, and if Godís holy regulations which he ordained to bring us to himself are broken in this way, then is it any wonder that men act as brute beasts the rest of the week? What are we to do then? Let us understand that it is not enough for us to hear the sermon preached on the Lordís Day to receive some good instruction and to call upon the name of God. We must also digest the same things, and bend our minds to meditate on the gracious things that God has done for us. By this means we may conform ourselves to the things that will lead us to our God on Monday and during the rest of the week. So that we will have time to meditate on the things we have learned, let us put out of our minds all the things that hinder us or which drag us away from mediating on the works of God. Thus we see what is the regulation for keeping this Day. It is not to keep the ceremonies as strictly as under the Jewish legal bondage, for we do not have the figure or shadow any longer. But rather, the Day serves as a means of calling us together so that we may learn, to the extent we are able, to apply ourselves more fully to serving God. We are to dedicate the day entirely to him, so that we may completely withdraw from the world and, as I said before, so that we may have a good start for the remainder of the week. Also we should consider that it is not enough for us to meditate upon God and his works on the Lordís Day by ourselves. Rather, we must meet together on a specified day to perform the public confession of our faith. In fact, as I said before, this should be done every day, but because of manís spiritual immaturity and laziness it is necessary to have a special day dedicated entirely to this purpose. It is true that we are not limited to the seventh day, nor do we, in fact, keep the same day that was appointed for the Jews, since that was Saturday. But, to show the liberty of Christians, the day was changed because the resurrection of Jesus Christ set us free from the bondage to the Law and canceled the obligation to it. That is why the day was changed. Yet, we must observe the same regulation of having a specified day of the week. Whether it be one day or two is left to the free choice of Christians. Nevertheless, if people assemble to observe the sacraments, to offer common prayer to God, and to show agreement in the union of faith, it is convenient to have a single specified day for the purpose. It is not enough that each person withdraw into his own home, whether to read the Holy Scriptures or to pray to God. Rather, it is best that we keep the regulation that God has commanded and that we come together in the company of the faithful and there show the agreement which we have with the whole body of the Church. But what do we find? We find that service to God is treated with disrespect. As I said before, there are a great number who easily find it in themselves to mock God and think that they are exempted from the law that applies to all men. It is true that they come to hear the sermon five or six times per year. What do they do when there? In fact, they mock God and his doctrine. They are pigs which come to defile the temple of God, and they should be in stables. It would be better for them to stay in their stinking hovels. To be blunt, it would be better that these wicked and filthy scoundrels were cut off from the Church of God, rather than coming to mingle with the company of the faithful. And yet, how often do they come? If the bell rings long enough you will look and find them there. So we ought to be more diligent and careful in stirring ourselves to confess our faith so that God may be honoured by common agreement among us. Beside that, all superstitions must be banished. We see that it is the opinion of the Papacy that God is served by idleness. This is not the way we are to keep the Sabbath Day holy. But, so that it may be applied to a right and lawful purpose, we must consider, as I said before, that the Lord requires that this day be used for nothing else but for hearing his word, for offering common prayer, for confessing our faith, and for the observing of the sacraments. These are the things that they are called to do. Nevertheless, we see that all these things have been corrupted by the Papal system. They have allocated days for honoring their male and female ësaintsí and have set up images for them. They have come to the conclusion that they are to worship by idleness. Since the world is given over to corruption, it is best for us to consider carefully this passage concerning the Sabbath Day as it is given by Moses. Let us consider the purpose of our Lordís command to the people of old: that they should have one day of rest in the week. Since we know that the day has been abolished by the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, we should ensure that we apply ourselves to the spiritual rest. That is, we should dedicate ourselves entirely to God, forsaking all our own ideas and desires. But we should retain the outward regulation, as it is useful for putting aside our own affairs and business so that we can apply ourselves entirely to the meditation of Godís works, and occupy ourselves in a consideration of the good things that he has done for us. Above all this, let us strive to acknowledge the grace he offers daily in his Gospel so that we may be strengthened in it more and more. When we have used the Lordís Day for praising and glorifying Godís name, and for meditating on his works, let us show all week that we have profited from this. (Calvin) | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 156 Registered: 7-2005  |
It does really matter under which covenant we place ourselves. The galatians accepting circumcision placed themselves under the obligation to keep the whole law (Galatian 5:3: Acts 15:5)Because the Sabbath is the sign of the Old Covenant, to adopt it means to be under the obligation to keep the Old Covenant, the entire law of Moses. But the new covenant has nothing to do with keeping a day as a sign. I still have debates with adventists who are trying to prove that the sign of the new covenant is the Sabbath. I asked them to provide a single text when Sabbath is called the sign of the new covenant, and of course, they have none. The same is with the Lord's day. In the Bible it is never called sabbath, never called the sign of the new covenant under which we live, never given as a command to be obeyed. The jewish sabbath has all of this feature. It was given to the people of Israel as a command at Sinai. It was clearly presented, all recognized the necessity to obey it. If the sabbath is now Sunday, it must be clear to all that to keep it holy is a matter of life and death, as it was in the Old Covenant. This is if Sunday must have the same role as Sabbath. But we are here as former adventists who understand better than Calvin what to be under the bondage of a day means. Calvin, as a giant as it was missed the perspective of someone who was under the yoke of the law, to be a Sabbath keeper. He tried to keep sunday as a Sabbath, but, because sunday was not the Old Covenant sign, it has not for him the same effect. For we, sabbatarians, it means for us that we are under the obligation to keep it holy. We understand what it means to keep it holy, because we never were sure that we have keep it. If now the sabbath is Sunday, we face the same situation. We will never knew if we keep it holy as we must. And this can turn our focus from Jesus and place it on ourselves. Surely it will return us in bondage. And this will be a sin. |
