Good Morning!
He is Risen! 🙂
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Mark 16
1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
____________________________________________________
I hope everyone has a very Happy Easter! 🙂
Wandering Views 
He is Risen, Indeed!
LikeLike
Happy Easter everyone. I am enjoying a cup of coffee and a little silence until the madness begins. You will all be in my prayers this morning as I give thanks.
LikeLike
Good morning! Wishing all of you a most blessed Resurrection Day!
LikeLike
He is Risen, Indeed!
LikeLike
Happy Easter, everyone!
LikeLike
He is risen indeed.
LikeLike
Hezke Velikonoce!
LikeLike
He is risen, indeed!
The sermon was on John 3:16 this morning. I haven’t heard that pereached in a long time.
We’re off to Brookgreen Gardens.
Temp is 67 degrees and windy. Not ideal for the gardens.
LikeLike
Christ the Lord is risen indeed! Chas I am so envious that you will spending the day at Brookgreen Gardens! Perhaps it won’t feel so windy under those lovely trees!
We’re off to see the grandkids for lunch and an egg hunt…their parents will be there too 🙂 Have a most blessed day dear brothers and sisters….
LikeLike
I was asked to be the second chalice bearer at the last minute (before church started). I got to see all the young children in their Easter finest. I may be a little prejudiced but we have some beautiful babies at our church. One of my favorite little girls was in French hand sewn and her brothers had real bow ties! My other favorite girl was in a precious smocked dressed. I watched her hunt Easter eggs. There were Resurrection Eggs to be found and then the story after church. Another baby girl had on what looked like antique hankerchief fabrice that was light green with white embroidery (sp?) , My own Baby Girl had on last years sundress from American Eagle and a pair of flip flops—- I wonder if it is too soon to suggest to Mr. P’s daughter in law to try for a girl????
LikeLike
http://www.familylife.com/articles/topics/holidays/featured/easter/explaining-the-story-of-easter-through-resurrection-eggs
LikeLike
I would hope that the president and others attending this church heard the gospel at some point … ??? 😦
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/notes-obamas-easter-service_712247.html
LikeLike
Friends and I attended the added “early” service at our church today (8:30) — most came for the regular 10 a.m. service, but there a good number of us there early, considering. (And I was racing to pick someone up on the way so had to leave the house with my hair still half wet!)
Good message & we sang, of course, “Jesus Christ is Risen Today.”
Afterward we went out for a leisurely breakfast and some fellowship. An easy Easter day for me compared to earlier years when I was driving all over the place to make it in time for dinner somewhere across town.
Hope you’re all having a wonderful day, too!
LikeLike
Forcast was for showers, and I did have to engage wipers going down, but it turned out to be a nice day. Azaleas not at therir peak. Had great shrimp & grits at the restaurant..
I’m going home tomorrow.
🙂
LikeLike
THE most important event in history. But just to be snooty, I’ll add that the Resurrection is meant to be celebrated every Lord’s day, without distinction.
LikeLike
Solar Pancake, my husband feels the same way. But if Passover could receive its own special annual celebration, I think it’s OK if the Resurrection does as well.
LikeLike
“If,” eh Cheryl? 🙂
LikeLike
Well, Romans 14:5 is quite clear that it doesn’t “matter” either way; seeing one day as more important or seeing all as equally important are both valid positions. So, giving an extra focus on the Resurrection and calling it Easter is valid (as my current church does); so is continuing your regular sermon series and Sunday school lessons (as my previous church did–though we did have one extra service during the week). So I think it’s fair to say that neither argument is “right” or “wrong,” since even Paul said that. Just as long as you do see the importance of the Resurrection, whether or not you notice Easter isn’t important.
LikeLike
That wasn’t all supposed to be italics. Oh well.
LikeLike
Agree, charity in these cases. The Presby church I belong to now does acknowledge events like Easter and Christmas, but in a rather low-key way (because, as SolarPancake points out, every Sunday is a celebration of the resurrected Christ; in fact, the only Christian “holy day” occurs weekly, on the Lord’s Day).
I found it interesting that family members who long since had quit attending church (Catholic in their case) still threw a big dinner and family gathering on Easter every year.
LikeLike
Donna – Emily went to an Easter brunch with R’s family of mostly atheists. My non-believing brother & SIL had a friend visit from out of town, along with their daughter & her fiance. But of course, to them & others like them, Easter is just a made up holiday about bunnies, eggs, & chocolate.
Here at our house, Lee & I went to the early service (8:30), & then Lee made a delicious beef roast for dinner. It was just the two of us & Chrissy.
Growing up, my parents were lapsed Catholics who never went to church, not even for Christmas or Easter, but we still got new Easter clothes & had a big dinner, & of course, the Easter basket of candy. When I was little, they hid eggs around the house for us to find, & one of those eggs would be wrapped in a dollar bill.
Anyone else see or hear “Happy Zombie Jesus Day”? Makes me cringe when I see that on Facebook.
LikeLike
That’s cool, Cheryl D. I don’t agree with your interpretation of Ro 14:5. A lot of Reformers don’t read the passage that way; some do. I agree with the former group, but I don’t want to be a belligerent here.
LikeLike
Paul’s Baby Boy showed up late but at least he showed. I let him know that it was his grandmothers china and silver that we were using and that he was welcome any time. I also thanked him for coming when we were alone in the kitchen and told him his dad missed him. He may come back next weekend.!!!! He is a decent kid. He needs to be part of the family.
I didn’t eat any but everyone including BG said the lamb was good!
LikeLike
I am glad to hear the lamb was good. A bad lamb would never do at Easter time.
Two of our hens are ailing. Our Christian neighbor just lets his hens out when they get too old, so they can chat with the hawks and the eagles, but my atheist wife told me that we need to catch our sick hens in the morning and take them to the vet. I don’t think we are having anything special for Easter, but chicken would be fine. As long as it’s not a chicken I know personally.
My goodness, we humans are getting soft and sentimental. Maybe the reason He has not returned is because He said, “Dad, our work here is done. Time to move on to the next galaxy.”
LikeLike
Karen, yes, I have seen a couple “zombie” Easter references, gives me the creeps, too. One FB friend (atheist) was delighted that the finale of “Walking Dead” was going to be on Easter night.
Just got back from the dog park, it was a quiet late afternoon there, just a few folks with dogs. We’ve had just spotty sunshine today, lots of clouds with cool weather. Easter usually is super sunny and on the warm side here.
LA’s spring break was last week so the kids & teachers head back to school this coming week (but not until Tuesday).
LikeLike
Solar Pancake, I’ve never heard any other interpretation of that passage, and offhand can’t really even think of any other possible interpretations. But really, Christianity has its roots in Judaism, which celebrated just about everything. And clearly it can’t be wrong to focus on the resurrection on a specific day of the year (and it also is not required). So honestly, I see the only possible option as “charity.”
I think my parents handled it well. We did talk about the resurrection on Easter, but we didn’t do any of the “holiday” things. No Easter eggs, special clothes, or even special meal. It was low-key, a day that we focused on the Resurrection at church, and probably in Scripture reading at home. I think an Easter dinner is nice, and I don’t think anything is wrong with wearing pretty clothes. But Easter egg hunts and chocolate rabbits and all of that do seem potentially distracting to children, and I’m glad we didn’t participate in them. Easter never “meant” that stuff to me.
LikeLike
Cheryl D: Maybe I should clarify as I’ve had enough of these discussion that I had assumed it’s what we were disputing: my view is that the Lord’s Day is *THE* Christian Sabbath–the only remaining day designated by God as “holy,” and no other “sabbaths” or festivals or new moons or Easter or Christmas holidays, etc. remain or have been appointed in Scripture. I do agree there is nothing inherently wrong with focusing on certain “seasonal” Christian doctrines and such, only that the Scriptures don’t call for Easter observance. I think it’s worth considering whether one’s regard for an Easter observance, or a Christmas one, isn’t some form of “profane fire.”
LikeLike
I guess I’d have to ask what sort of Easter or Christmas observance you mean. I can’t imagine anything (so maybe I haven’t seen whatever you have) that would fall under the category of “profane fire.” Well, anything I’ve seen in my two PCA churches anyway. I think we could probably argue that living Nativity scenes complete with camels and donkeys aren’t a good substitute for a worship service.
But to start a service with “He is risen,” to have the day’s Scripture readings, sermon, and hymns focus on the resurrection, is simply to give a “theme” to the service, and obviously a biblical one. And while we can show preference for exegetical preaching (I think this is the first time in 1 1/2 years that I’ve seen my pastor deviate from going through a book of the Bible), I don’t think we can make a biblical case against focusing on the resurrection (or any other biblical theme) in a given service.
To gather with family or friends to eat a meal is obviously not unbiblical either. I don’t care whether you celebrate Christmas in any way, or birthdays or wedding anniversaries for that matter. Such things are obviously not required biblically. But they are also not forbidden. And I really don’t see any way around it that Paul was saying as much.
By the way, what on earth IS a solar pancake?
LikeLike
I’m saying I believe Scripture calls only the Lord’s Day, the Christian Sabbath, a holy day. No other day is to be regarded as holy; as a corollary, Easter falls on Sunday, but that day is not holy–nor should be considered such–*because* of Easter; that is, it would be wrong to consider Easter, per se, as holy. This is all basic creedal stuff, so I’m not really going off the reservation with this.
I think there’s all kinds of profane fire in most churches today, and despite my denomination’s efforts to be rid of such, I will not be surprised to find out, by and by or sooner, that aspects of our services would be considered profane. I subscribe to the Regulative Principle.
One of my now defunct 401k websites randomly spit out Solar Pancake as a user name.
LikeLike
Give me chapter and verse that says Christians have Sunday as a sabbath. I read in Hebrews that Christ himself is our sabbath but nowhere do I see a day of the week proclaimed as a sabbath for us.
And why do otherwise sound believers have to use a bunny and eggs on the Ressurection day celebration?
LikeLike
Peter L, it would be a worthwhile study for you to make. Scores of Christians–including some you may even respect–have believed the Bible defines the New Covenant Sabbath as having changed to Sunday. Asking for chapter and verse isn’t always a great approach.
LikeLike
SP I have read some the literature, such as Walter Chantry’s book. He has some good points. But I was reading along and suddenly he proclaims Sunday as the Christian sabbath. I reread the context 4 times and still could not see the connection.
I know the early church met on the first day of the week but I cannot find any reference to it being called the sabbath. Most of what I have read interprets sciptures to the author’s view.
Try this book: “Sabbath in Christ” by Dale Ratzlaff. His argument is much clearer on Jesus being our only Sabbath.
LikeLike
Solar, that’s why I described what was done in our “Easter” service and didn’t say Easter is “holy.” I don’t believe it is. I also don’t think it is wrong to focus on the Resurrection in the season in which he rose. I tend to think that our cultural focus at Christmastime (Jesus as a cute little baby) is a distraction from the Christian message, but there is nothing wrong with being reminded, and thankful for, the truth of the Incarnation. It seems as though the Lord’s day replaces the Sabbath as opposed to its being a sabbath. It seems to have a different focus than the Sabbath had.
But Paul does seem to be saying that just as one may choose to drink wine and another not, and either is an acceptable position as long as one does it in charity, so one Christian with Jewish roots may choose to continue to celebrate the Passover and another not, or one Gentile Christian may choose to celebrate the Resurrection in spring and another not, and neither can insist his position is right and the other wrong.
You never have said what you think Paul meant by saying some see one day as more important than others, and others don’t, and both positions are acceptable. Obviously you can’t be saying that he is saying that some people think the Lord’s day is special and others see all seven days as equally important, and both views are valid; and that’s the only other possible interpretation I can think of.
LikeLike
P.S. Nearly my whole family views drinking alcohol as a sin. One brother didn’t even partake of the Lord’s supper at my church in Nashville because there was wine available, even though grape juice was also available! And Scripture is very clear that it’s drunkenness, and not drinking itself, that’s a sin. The same principle is used for both. So I’m quite leery when people say, “It doesn’t mean that” and don’t offer what they believe a passage does mean.
LikeLike
OK, Peter L. There’s a smidge more written about the subject than a few lines in a Chantry book.
Cheryl D., Ok ok. Like I said before, I wasn’t intending my posts to be some exhaustive analysis of my first comment. Then I explained that the background for the discussions I usually have on this subject has to do with people calling particular days holy. When I’ve made an argument that the Lord’s day remains the only day specially prescribed by God as really truly *holy,* and that day has been transferred to Sunday–for various reasons supported by Scripture, in my and many notable Reformers’ views–a common rejoinder is that Ro 14 and a couple other passages say it’s no bid deal when one observes the day; often riding on the back of that interpretation is that there isn’t even an abiding 4th commandment at all. I can’t that that’s the most common anti-sabbatarian position, but I sure see it a lot myself.
My view (along with some of those others I alluded to) is that among those early Christians, as the Old Covenant era was passing away, observances of some of the ceremonial days (feasts, new moons, etc.) was permissible for professing Christians, but shouldn’t be pressed upon others; however, *the* Sabbath command remains, and is still to be obeyed, so in that sense, one day *is* to be regarded as separate from others. After all, John seemed to believe that way, as he used the phrase THE Lord’s Day. So I don’t know if we disagree on Ro 14 or not. But I’m leery of people who say “The clear meaning is this,” or “There’s NO other way to interpret that,” but don’t demonstrate any familiarity at all with arguments to the contrary, despite the clear fact that there are all kinds of quite astute believers who hold that contrary view. Not saying that’s you, necessarily, but maybe others here. I don’t know.
LikeLike
Sorry for typos. I’m not good on laptops. Insert profound points where you see misspelled words.
LikeLike
“Insert profound points where you see misspelled words.” 😀
LikeLike
SP, thank you. I haven’t had time (nor interest) to explore every possible interpretation anybody might have about any Scripture verse. And remember, I was raised and trained Baptist / dispensational. It wasn’t until after college that my own study (conferences, books) led me to the Reformed position. So if I don’t know every nuance of every possible interpretation some Reformed believers take, it isn’t (insert bad motive here). I honestly couldn’t think of any possible interepretation of that passage that doesn’t say “If someone wants to spend Easter Sunday with a deeper focus on the Scripture passages of Christ’s resurrection, that is biblically acceptable.” And what you said about new moons and such would be in keeping with that . . . so I still don’t know any reason that it isn’t biblically acceptable. No, it isn’t a high holy day on which we’re required to do such a thing, but then, I don’t know if even Rome says that.
I’ve never heard any arguments from the Reformed position as to why the Lord’s day would be equivalent to the Sabbath, in Old Testament terms. That is, anything to suggest that any “work” on the Sabbath is a sin. I’ve personally chosen not to accept work on Sundays; that’s a firm position. (When I worked at McDonald’s I’d see other Christians say “just this once,” and they had to do that several times a year.) But under the old covenants, even cooking a meatloaf or watering the garden would have been forbidden, and I don’t see biblical evidence that such laws are still in effect. Thus, it is the Lord’s day, a day of worship and rest, but not a day of legalistic ritual. I know that theonomists would say Old Testament laws are still in effect, but that isn’t a Reformed position, and it isn’t biblical. It’s one of those places where I wish New Testament writings had been more explicit. (Along with order of worship and meaning of baptism, and a few other things.)
Anyway, I have a lot of work to do this week, and I’d better get into it!
LikeLike
Cheryl D,
…so I still don’t know any reason that it isn’t biblically acceptable.
You had written,
Well, Romans 14:5 is quite clear that it doesn’t “matter” either way; seeing one day as more important or seeing all as equally important are both valid positions.
I’ve been trying to say I disagree with an interpretation of that passage that would say there is no longer a single, special, (or “more important”), HOLY day. If that’s your view, I disagree, and I know I’m not alone. There is a huh-YOOGE amount of excellent writing on the subject.
Question 59 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism reads,
Q: Which day of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly sabbath?
A: From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly Sabbath; and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian Sabbath.
Section VII of chapter 21 of the Westminster Confession reads,
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.
There is, likewise, all kinds of good, Reformed writing about how to observe the Sabbath (especially see the Puritans), including with regard to work, cooking, etc. It would be an unfortunate mistake to dismiss all that either out of ignorance (which would be a conundrum, I suppose) or because is just sounds legalistic.
LikeLike
OK, I’m not saying that the Lord’s day isn’t special . . . nor would I say that was what Paul was saying. But are we under the Old Testament meaning of the Sabbath (in which even gathering sticks for the fire was a capital offense)? No. Again, that’s where I wish the New Testament did go into a theological treatise on this–it doesn’t. But there is no hint that the apostolic understanding of the Lord’s day sees it as identical to the Jewish Sabbath, but just on a different day. The focus seems to be totally different. For one thing, the OT sabbath was not a day of corporate worship; the Lord’s day is. And Christ really seemed to go out of His way to poke at the Jewish understanding of the Sabbath; they were focused on the laws and their own interpretations of the laws, and forgetting that the Sabbath is meant as a gift and not a burden.
And that’s, thus, where my own focus on “Sabbath observance” has been–that it is given as a gift. We are honored to be given corporate worship, including the Lord’s supper. I am privileged not to have to work on that day, so I don’t edit and I usually don’t wash dishes or do any sort of housework. But to say I can’t make my husband a sandwich or that I can’t make the bed is to go far beyond any hint of what the apostles say of that day. And while the Old Testament is supremely useful for us today, it primarily points to Christ. We are not under all of its laws and regulations. Christ did not come to overthrow the law, but to fulfill it. We have to look to the New Testament to see what laws are still “in effect.”
So, there we see that we are no longer under the laws of ceremonial uncleanness, ritual purity and impurity, what we can or cannot eat and the like. We also see that the holy days are no longer binding . . . and that it’s acceptable to eat meat that has been offered to idols but is still not acceptable to eat blood. It isn’t always clear where the line is, honestly. But the focus seems to be “You are free from the Law’s bondage, but required to love your neighbor. And you are to be holy, as God is holy.”
The Sabbath predates the Mosaic law; like the death penalty for murder it could then be seen as “still in effect.” Except that it was changed in the New Testament. Just as the Lord’s supper doesn’t include lamb meat, though Passover did, and baptism doesn’t include blood, as circumcision did, the focus of the Lord’s day seems to be changed from that of the Sabbath. It seems to be changed from “You are not allowed to work” to “Rejoice, for He has risen!” Totally different focus, along with a different day.
I don’t know what the Puritans said about it; I’m not a Puritan, though I have read them. But the point of the Lord’s day is not how many miles you can drive or whether or not you can use electricity on that day. To look at such things misses “the point.”
But that’s a long way from our original discussion, whether or not Christians are “allowed” to link a special focus on Christ’s resurrection to the time of year when He rose. And I can’t see any possible answer to that question but yes. Required, no; allowed, yes.
LikeLike
Cheryl D, I thought I had made clear where I was disagreeing with you–that the Lord’s day IS to be regarded as HOLY–that Ro 14 doesn’t abrogate a special observance of the day. That may or may not have been what you were saying, but it seemed to be a part of what I had quoted from you. We still have 10 commandments, including the 4th.
We may also disagree regarding our understanding of the nature of the 4th commandment as it was to be observed under the Old Covenant. It wasn’t meant to be a matter of legalistic, joyless observance *then,* either. Jesus, himself, spent a considerable portion of his ministry correcting that misinterpretation of the command. He was attempting to *restore* proper observance of it, not turn it into something new. I don’t know why anything I’ve said would be taken as contrary to that. It’s kind of silly to reduce Puritan teaching–which you admit to not having read–to a view of the Sabbath as being merely about how many miles one can travel or work one can do. I’ve quoted your posts to point out where we disagree. It’s fine if you want to clarify what you’ve written. But really, I don’t see how you’re reaching some of the conclusions you are regarding what I’ve written. Maybe it would be instructive if you could supply quotes from me and ask about them before determining I want to impose travel laws on Christians in hopes they don’t have fun on Sundays.
LikeLike
Solar Pancake, I was not meaning to imply I thought you held to any specific principles of what is or isn’t proper Sabbath worship, or what the Puritans believe. I have read the Puritans on some issues, not on this one. I didn’t know what you believed. I was responding to what I don’t agree with, not saying that any specific person holds to those points.
You aren’t disagreeing with me that the Lord’s day is to be regarded as holy, because I believe that too. I thought our disagreement was on Easter; when I saw that you seemed to think it was on the Lord’s day as well, I tried to clarify that. We might differ on specific points on that (I don’t know what “you believe” in terms of what that means), but not on that day being set apart.
Yes, Jesus countered false beliefs about the Sabbath, places the Pharisees and others had added to the Law. However, the Law itself was very firm on it already–see the “picking up sticks” example I referenced earlier, or the strictness with which “no manna on the Sabbath” was dealt. I just don’t see any evidence for that level of observance being carried over to the Lord’s day.
And while I am Reformed, specifically PCA, and willing to see what the Reformers taught on a specific thing, the primary standard is what Scripture itself teaches. For example, my husband (who recently went through training to become an elder) pointed out that according to the Westminster standards, parents are in sin, “grave sin,” I believe was the wording, if they do not baptize their infant. I can’t agree with that. While I agree with baptism of babies, I do so tentatively. Scripture very clearly ties baptism to salvation; one can make a biblical case linking baptism to circumcision, and thereby making a case that baptism of infants is covenantally valid . . . but (in my opinion) it is the kind of case that isn’t so airtight that we dare say that others are in sin if they don’t follow the argument and baptise their babies. Obviously it is up to God, not me, when deciding what is or isn’t sin. But since Scripture links baptism to salvation, it’s “fair” for parents to say, “My child is not yet a believer, so I won’t have him baptized yet.” If Scripture had ever said explicitly, “Believers and their children are to be baptized,” I think we could (potentially) say it’s sin if believers haven’t baptized their children. In general, I think it’s safer to be convicted of sin for oneself and not for others, unless Scripture really is clear about something. (We can say that homosexual activity is definitely sin, for example.)
I know that Reformed people (including my husband) are often able to argue definitely that this point or that point in the Confessions makes their argument. While I have read the Westminster standards, it has been a few years (I’m due to do so again) and I did not grow up with them and have not memorized them. I did, however, grow up in a Christian home, memorizing Scripture, and graduated from Bible college. I have read the Bible through multiple times, and have been in church nearly every Sunday for 45 years, and even passages I haven’t intentionally memorized tend to come to mind. That’s not to “brag,” but to state the reality–I’m familiar with what Scripture says, fairly familiar with various “takes” on interpretation, but not as able (or as interested, actually) to argue from other sources. I’m NOT one of those people who says that doctrine is extraneous, that I “only believe the Bible.” But ultimately it has to come down to “What does the Bible say?”
But since I told a potential client this morning that I won’t even have time to give her a price quote until May, because my schedule is that full, realistically I simply must get back to work. (I come here on mini “breaks,” but can’t really hang out here much, not this month.)
LikeLike
P.S. I’m not Cheryl D. anymore. I married a year and a half ago, and that’s why I dropped my last initial, which was no longer accurate. 🙂
LikeLike
Hmm. Now you’re implying I too highly elevate extra-biblical creeds. Or if you aren’t, I’m not sure why you’d bring up that point. The Confession itself (!) acknowledges the authority of Scripture over the Confession’s construction. For the Westminster divines (and numerous other Reformed bodies), it DID come down to “What does the Bible say?” That was the point of the assemblies in the first place. If such commands as “picking up sticks” no longer apply, more has to be proffered than just that it seems legalistic, or that the “sense” of the 4 commandment is now somehow different. There has to be *Biblical* reason for no longer recognizing those aspects of the commandment. Maybe we’re talking at cross-purposes. I’m kind of at a loss for how to post anything about this discussion anymore, but I appreciate your replies.
LikeLike
Apologies for the mis-monikerizing. I think I got another poster’s letters and initials smushed into yours in my mind.
LikeLike
No, I used to be Cheryl D., and then I dropped the D. when I got engaged (summer 2011). The only reason I used the D. in the first place is that the first time I posted I was just “Cheryl” and then later I saw another Cheryl and added the D for clarity–but I only saw that other Cheryl one time. If I’d known AJ’s wife was also Cheryl, when he started this blog I might have renamed myself somehow, but people “know” me as Cheryl now, so that’s who I am.
I’m not implying you value other records too highly, or I’d be saying the same about my husband and many others in the Reformed movement. I’m saying that my own ability to use those sources is limited, but ultimately arguing from Scripture is what is most important anyway.
And the Reformers HAVE argued that not all Old Testament laws are applicable today. None of us avoids cotton-polyester blends lest we break the law, and obviously we are no longer supposed to sacrifice lambs and bulls and goats. Proper biblical interpretation, post-incarnation, requires a different look at the law. I’m not an expert on the subject of figuring out how to apply Old Testament rules and regulations today, but I do know that (1) the Reformers have addressed this issue in depth (three classifications of the law), (2) any reading of the Old Testament law makes it obvious that at least some elements are specific to Israel, that national law is included in “the Law,” (3) some elements of the Law are specifically “done away with” in the New Testament (e.g., Peter’s vision), (4) clearly some points remain (e.g., murder is still against God’s law), and (5) the way the Lord’s day is spoken of is distinctly different from the Sabbath, and (6) very few sects even attempt to equate them strongly (e.g., Seventh Day Adventists). I also know that the topic confuses even theologians at times, so I won’t pretend to be an expert but I’m in good company there.
Other passages come to mind, various things that Paul or Jesus say about the law. But basically, there are biblical reasons for saying that the Old Testament Sabbath and New Testament Lord’s day are spoken of very differently and that there is no reason to expect that Gentile believers would assume that the Sabbath laws applied to them too, unless they were told so . . . and they were not. When asked a similar question, was it Paul or Petwe who told new believers to abstain from eating blood and from sexual immorality and that about covers it. That particular answer has always seemed odd to me–surely if one were summing the law up in just two points, sexual immorality might be included, but not eating blood wouldn’t be! But apparently their errors were being corrected. They weren’t told that they must be circumcised, because that was no longer valid. They weren’t told to “keep the Sabbath,” and one might expect them to have been told that. I’d argue that they weren’t even told to tithe, since that was a Jewish tax; proportional, generous giving is the New Testament replacement of the tithe. (It isn’t, in other words, a specific percentage anymore.)
A lot is said, especially in Paul’s letters, about the Lord’s day. But nowhere is it said, “It’s still the Sabbath, remember; it’s just a different day now.” I don’t really think it’s good exegesis to assume that the biggest difference is the day of the week. It really seems as though it was a start-over moment. And if the old rules still applied, somewhere that would be said. Because it really isn’t self-evident that after we’ve changed the day of the week and begun to have a weekly worship service complete with the Lord’s supper, and adding elders and deacons, it just isn’t obvious that “except for all these changes, all the old rules still apply.” There was, in other words, no reason at all to expect that the rules for Saturday are now true for Sunday, unless we are told so. The new Jewish believer might, in fact, reasonably ask, “Now that we have the Lord’s day, do we stilll keep the Sabbath too?” (Meaning, do we still do this stuff on Saturday.) And the answer is no, the Sabbath is no longer in effect. Creation is no longer the ultimate action of God to which the week’s highlight points; now the Resurrection is the high point. Now the focus is no longer Sabbath rest, but worship of the One who raises the dead.
I’d be interested, someday, to read what others have said on this question. But I really think the Apostle to the Gentiles would have tackled this question had there been a need to; it isn’t “safe to assume” that new, largely Gentile believers would have been incorporating Jewish Sabbath principles into the Lord’s day unless they were directed to.
LikeLike
Of course I realize there are differences and abrogations of OT laws in the New Covenant. How did we get off onto this? I’ve only intended to say that I join with many Reformers (and others, if we’re categorizing theological groups) that the Sabbath command is still abiding, and that it follows logically and from Scripture that we are commanded to take a certain care–and not of our own invention but from the cues in Scripture–as to how we observe the day. And I’ve added in my posts that this isn’t a novel approach to the Biblical text, and that those who hold the view aren’t irresponsible exegetes. Again, it would seem silly to dismiss what they’ve argued because it didn’t occur to them that “nowhere is it said, ‘It’s still the Sabbath, remember; it’s just a different day now.'” I’m always kind of bewildered when intelligent trinitarian Christians think doctrine is supposed to always be presented that way.
LikeLike
I’m lost in all this theology. Well, I guess that goes without saying.
LikeLike
it does
LikeLike
The video for my project is not loading very quickly, so . . . I’ll be honest here that I’ve always found the connection between Sabbath and Lord’s day a bit confusing. As I said, I wish it were stated more explicitly. I was once in discussion on World blog with two different people, both insisting that his/her church was the only “correct” one . . . and one was in a home church and one in an Orthodox! They couldn’t be more different, and yet each argued that his/her church was the only one with biblical warrant. I’m not sure why some of these things aren’t spelled out more precisely. “On baptism, this is what it means, this is who should be baptized, and this is the proper mode.” How hard would that have been? We don’t have anything that clear.
And we don’t have anything that clear on “Sabbath observance under the new convenant” either. It would be easier if we did. But truly there doesn’t seem to be any sort of push to be sure the new Gentile believers are fully conversant with the Old Testament law. Gentiles weren’t changing Saturday observance into Sunday observance; they were coming to Christ and worshiping Him. In the instructions on how to worship in this newly established system, it wouldn’t make sense to assume that new Gentile converts would “just know” that some of the old Sabbath laws were still in effect, or which ones.
Again, I was raised in a family to whom not working on Sunday was very important. I probably lost chances to work some jobs as a teen by having absolutely no Sunday availability. We didn’t shop on Sunday. As an adult I’ve sometimes gone out to eat on Sunday, and I’ve never seen a hint of evidence that such practices of Judaism as “no use of electricity on the Sabbath” are valid, so I’ll open the refrigerator and I’ll turn on the stove. I don’t do complicated meals, but neither do I limit them to things I can get out of the cupboard and don’t have to heat. Scripture gives no rules for such things, because the Jews didn’t have electricity; the Pharisees tried to interpret exactly what every detail meant, but they weren’t commended for that.
I don’t know what elements of my life would be “out of sync” with those who believe in strict Sabbath observance, or how they’d show it by Scripture. The Amish don’t use electricity at all, but their beliefs are hardly biblical. Based on Old Testament guidelines, our half-hour drive to church might be too far . . . but it would be an odd sort of rule-keeping to have to go to a liberal or non-Reformed church (our only closer options) in order to keep our drive short. Nothing in the New Testament hints at the kind of measure-everything rule-keeping of the Old Testament. The purpose of that sort of purity was fulfilled in Christ! So I could ask, “Can a Christian wife spend half an hour cooking on Sunday?” and I hear Paul’s voice, “All things are lawful for me,” and then I look at the next part of that verse–“Is it helpful?” And really, that isn’t answered in black-and-white terms. Worship God. Rest. The “details” of what that rest looks like will vary from one household to the next. So, for me, I don’t work and I avoid housework.
I know that earlier generations of parents have sometimes not allowed their children to play on Sunday–but others (including my father’s family) have seen it as the only day children are allowed to play, because the other six days are for work! That second seems more in keeping with both the Sabbath command for the other six days and with the freedom we have in Christ.
We’re probably going around in circles at this point, though, and my next video is probably loaded.
LikeLike
Okie doke. I don’t know what to make of folks who admit they haven’t read all that extensively about a thing, then say there just *is no* support for that thing. I see atheists do that a lot. How can they KNOW there is no evidence for God? Did they check under the bed or behind the moon?
LikeLike
So, if you care to answer, OK: what “cues in Scripture” tell you what Sabbath observance looks like today? How do you merge two different days with two different purposes, and take out the fact that the laws given to Israel were sometimes specifically to Israel and were to a mostly agrarian culture? And are you a theonomist? I’m not trying to be argumentative here. How does one apply such laws as not gathering firewood on the Sabbath to heating a modern home on Sunday? Do you go through the laws and figure out how to apply each one, or is it a different process?
I think my video is finally loaded enough to watch some of it. I’m glad most of my editing projects don’t involve video! Our current connection is not fast enough for this stuff. . . .
LikeLike
Did I say there is no extrabiblical support? No, I’m sure there is. But is there biblical support? But perhaps my 20:13 questions will let you answer more specifically.
LikeLike
Wow I must be unclear. I didn’t mean to say you said there was no extrabiblical support. But certainly those Reformers–who upheld the authority of Scripture if anyone did–didn’t make their cases primarily on extrabiblical support. I’m *sure* you realize this. Parenthetically, I do recognize they weren’t unanimous on this matter. I’m a little limited on time, myself, and later I’ll only have access to my laptop–on which I can never get comfortable–so while I’m enthusiastic about this topic, I may be less so about typing in words to discuss it. I promise to try if I can. But I’m sure you could quickly find arguments online for the view I hold if I fail to return soon.
LikeLike
Below is a simple, clumsy, cut and paste from the Larger Catechism. One may disagree with the assembly on their work, but they were no dummies, and they were quite adept at handling the Scriptures. I left the bracketed numbers inline with the text. Those represent supporting Scripture references–but I would hope one wouldn’t conclude such men merely lazily proof-texted their way to their final product. So here’s the excerpt:
Q. 116. What is required in the fourth commandment?
A. The fourth commandment requireth of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his Word, expressly one whole day in seven; which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian sabbath,[622] and in the New Testament called The Lord’s day.[623]
Q. 117. How is the sabbath or the Lord’s day to be sanctified?
A. The sabbath or Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day,[624] not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful;[625] and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy[626]) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship:[627] and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day.[628]
Q. 118. Why is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?
A. The charge of keeping the sabbath is more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors, because they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge; and because they are prone ofttimes to hinder them by employments of their own.[629]
Q. 119. What are the sins forbidden in the fourth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the fourth commandment are, all omissions of the duties required,[630] all careless, negligent, and unprofitable performing of them, and being weary of them;[631] all profaning the day by idleness, and doing that which is in itself sinful;[632] and by all needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and recreations.[633]
Q. 120. What are the reasons annexed to the fourth commandment, the more to enforce it?
A. The reasons annexed to the fourth commandment, the more to enforce it, are taken from the equity of it, God allowing us six days of seven for our own affairs, and reserving but one for himself in these words, Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:[634] from God’s challenging a special propriety in that day, The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God:[635] from the example of God, who in six days made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: and from that blessing which God put upon that day, not only in sanctifying it to be a day for his service, but in ordaining it to be a means of blessing to us in our sanctifying it; Wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.[636]
Q. 121. Why is the word Remember set in the beginning of the fourth commandment?
A. The word Remember is set in the beginning of the fourth commandment,[637] partly, because of the great benefit of remembering it, we being thereby helped in our preparation to keep it,[638] and, in keeping it, better to keep all the rest of the commandments,[639] and to continue a thankful remembrance of the two great benefits of creation and redemption, which contain a short abridgment of religion;[640] and partly, because we are very ready to forget it,[641] for that there is less light of nature for it,[642] and yet it restraineth our natural liberty in things at other times lawful;[643] that it cometh but once in seven days, and many worldly businesses come between, and too often take off our minds from thinking of it, either to prepare for it, or to sanctify it;[644] and that Satan with his instruments labours much to blot out the glory, and even the memory of it, to bring in all irreligion and impiety.[645]
LikeLike
My point was that at the moment I’m not particularly looking for extrabiblical support, but I would be quite interested in biblical support. Basically any evidence that the apostles saw the Lord’s day as still including the laws of the Sabbath. I mean, obviously we could have had the Lord’s day AND the Sabbath as two separate days, or we could have one day that incorporates both, or we can have one day that is new and different. It seems like most Christians believe that the Lord’s day is different from the Sabbath, and that seems (on the surface at least) to be the New Testament view.
I have no time for my own research of anything right now, though. Once I get through this crunch, I do want ot read the Westminster standards again. But not this month!
LikeLike
Hi Cheryl: My point was that it’s not always as easy as saying a creed is merely extrabiblical support because it’s only a creed. No good creed invents doctrine. That’s not the purpose of creeds–not the major Reformed ones, at least. Maybe this is another thing I haven’t been clear on, but I didn’t originally refer to creeds or a group of theologians AS support for the NT Sabbath, but only to say that the prominence of Sabbath teaching from those quarters demonstrates that the understanding of the Sabbath I’ve been referring to is not a fringe novelty. As for what most Christians believe, you may be right about modern Christians, but I think a great many Christians, including those who did not view the day-change to Sunday to be mandated in Scripture–and this includes John Calvin–DO see New Covenant observance to be tightly linked, though not identical, to the Old Testament. It is still THE fourth commandment. It’s doubtful Jesus would have exerted such energy and aroused such animosity trying to correct a misapplication of the 4th commandment if, a few short months later, that teaching was going to be swept away for some revamped understanding of the Sabbath.
I still hope to get to your earlier questions.
LikeLike
Hi Cheryl: I was wanting to respond to your earlier post, but wondered if you could clarify what you mean by this statement:
How do you merge two different days with two different purposes
I don’t propose merging anything, so I’m not sure what you may have in mind. Can you also explain what two different purposes you have in mind (or perhaps think I have in mind) as regards the Sabbath?
In reading the Larger Catechism Q’s and A’s I posted, some of which contain words of Scripture themselves, is there anything you see that appears unbiblical, or that doesn’t answer some of what you’re posted here?
LikeLike
I know that the creeds and catechisms, etc. don’t invent doctrine, and obviously I think they are helpful. But nevertheless they do interpret doctrine, and they are fallible. They use “Scripture proofs” because they are grounded in Scripture, and need to be. But they are manmade and are not, in themselves, convincing to the conscience . . . nor ought they to be! The father who sees that not baptizing his child is a “grave sin” ought to look for biblical evidence that he should do so, not “obey” the catechism. They help us show what conclusions orthodox, learned men came to on various points, but they themselves carry no weight.
Your two questions, one of which I’ll turn back to you: two days with two different purposes: the Old Testament sabbath was NOT a day to gather with fellow believers and worship God; the Lord’s day is. The sabbath was a day of rest, and presumably that rest might also include an opportunity to catechize one’s children or otherwise focus on God–but is it ever commanded that it be? (It may be . . . but isn’t as far as I know.) In the New Testament, the first day of the week is referred to as the Lord’s day. It isn’t called a sabbath (as far as I know), nor is it referred to as a day of rest. Both seem to be ” a day to remove oneself from one’s labor for livelihood,” but they don’t otherwise seem to have the same focus. So, what I’m looking for is evidence that the Lord’s day is said to “also” be a continuation of the Sabbath and not a replacement of it. I’m not saying it isn’t; I’m saying that it seems in Christian circles to be assumed, not taught, and the New Testament doesn’t make it clear, either. How would you, for example, tell a Jew that “Honor the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” does not bind him to continue setting aside Saturday, even if he were to become a Christian and begin worshiping on Sunday?
As to does it answer some of what I’ve posted here, I’ll turn it around: I’ve already told you I set aside the Lord’s day, always have. When we as a family growing up could not attend services for some reason (car not running, half the family sick, on vacation and in a town where we could not find a decent church), we would have services at home: Dad would read Scripture and talk about it a bit, we’d sing a few hymns, and we’d pray together. (We also had daily family devotions, but generally that did not include singing time.) Obviously we did not partake of the Lord’s supper, but then, we generally attended services that offered that monthly and not weekly. In the afternoon the family usually took naps. In the late afternoon we might do a puzzle or read or play a game, and then we’d go off to the evening service and come home for a light supper. Except that we don’t attend an evening service, that’s pretty much what it looks like for us, as well. Some people might say that any use of the TV or computer is prohibited that day; some might say any “secular” entertainment is. But I think we’re probably generally in agreement in principle–with what would you disagree? And if you’d say that the Sabbath still is a day of doing no work, even turning on the oven, how would you reconcile that with the fact that most Christian believers need to get into their car and drive to church (which is also “work”)? That’s where questions like how do you merge the two days come in.
But I understand if you want to leave it and not continue the discussion at this point.
LikeLike
I’ll be happy to reply later as I only have the phone now but ??? Didn’t I just acknowledge creeds are subordinate to scripture and all that??? Like right up there in my posts? I only read that portion. of your reply to me so that now I wonder if you’re actually intentionally misreading me.
LikeLike
Yes, you did. I was agreeing with you and clarifying my own understanding. (When I say something, I am not always showing disagreement with the other person’s position! I’m stating my own, which may or may not be in agreement.)
LikeLike
Hi Cheryl. Thanks for your reply.
The Sabbath does include congregational meeting. Leviticus 23: 3:
Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places.
I think you earlier acknowledged the Sabbath was a creation ordinance. Like marriage, it doesn’t have its genesis with Israel or the Exodus. The Sabbath day was set apart *at the beginning.* The day has always been separated–by God–as holy. While ceremonial attachments were made at the decalogue, the recognition of the day itself as holy has always been a moral requirement. Should we not recognize as holy what God has described as such? If the day is no longer *holy* (as opposed to merely “different” or “special” based on our own traditions or convictions), we have 9 commandments, not 10. If we don’t believe it’s *holy,* but only special or whatever, we need to be able to explain from Scripture why there has been such a monumental change in God’s assessment of the day and the creation ordinance, and the revoking of an entire commandment that goes back to the beginning.
The *holy* nature of the day remains, and so does its purpose. Isaiah 56 is a glorious picture of the New Covenant economy–referring to Gentiles and eunuchs, and it lays heavy emphasis on the Sabbath. (Reference to eunuchs is significant because they were prohibited from entering God’s house in the OT; but this picture of the NT era, they are depicted as entering on the Sabbath).
Isaiah 58 is also a promise to the church in the New Testament. Among other things, it provides framework for how the day ought to be observed. Verse 13 and 14 read,
“If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath,
from doing your pleasure on my holy day,
and call the Sabbath a delight
and the holy day of the Lord honorable;
if you honor it, not going your own ways,
or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly;
then you shall take delight in the Lord,…
Your concerns about cooking and driving and things are valid. Christ spoke to that (and various creeds explain). Certain activities–of necessity and mercy–are permitted. I’m a little pressed for time. I could address that later if you want. Or you could go a different direction, if you do reply. Either way, thanks for checking in here!
LikeLike
Thanks, SP. That’s helpful.
I do have one other: we sometimes refer to the Lord’s day as the Christian sabbath, but does the New Testament ever do so? Again, how would you explain (from Scripture) to a new Jewish believer that we no longer keep Saturday holy but we have transferred its meaning to the first day of the week (but added other aspects as well)?
I think that Scripture is clear that the early Christians celebrated the first day of the week. I don’t understand Seventh Day Adventists at all. But what is less clear is that the Fourth Commandment still applies, but in regard to a different day of the week. We tend to look at the Ten Commandments as somehow the apex, but is there anything particular that says we can’t have only nine of them be relevant today? I’m not trying to be quarrelsome; I just think we sometimes put more focus on the specific Ten than Scripture does.
LikeLike
Sorry, Cheryl. I ran out of time today but had hoped to reply. I should be able to drop in tomorrow. For clarification, when you ask how I might try to explain the day change to a Jewish believer, what is your meaning by specifying the person being a Jew? Are you asking about something different than just what are the Biblical grounds for the change?
LikeLike
Good question. To us, we have no particular “tie” to Saturday sabbath, or to the laws regarding it, since it has never been part of our tradition. Our “norm” is Sunday. I’m asking for an answer from Scripture, but given to someone with only the Old Testament as perspective, and who is still in the Saturday-is-Sabbath mode.
I don’t know your denomination, BTW, but you might check out the link I posted on today’s thread if you have any connections with the PCA.
LikeLike
I may not entirely agree with that assessment of our ties to the Sabbath. It’s a moral command and creation ordinance. It does and has always applied to Jew and Gentile alike. To a believing Jew, it’s possible he may be more easily persuaded of the day change, seeing how he has already embraced Christ as the fulfillment of OT promises. Now I’m at work (on a break) so don’t have time at the moment to ‘check my notes’ for that argument from Scripture, but I may have time over lunch….
LikeLike
It may have always “applied,” but the fourth doesn’t make sense without the first three, and I doubt it was followed by Gentiles. Or at least not “because God said it.” Gentiles likely took a day off work, but I have no idea which day they took off; and it was likely treated the way most Americans treat the Lord’s day today–nothing more than a day off. Part of the weekend.
LikeLike
Yes, but there’s no question all of the decalogue has applied to all people at all times. I’m sure I was guilty of violating all 10 before I had any kind of understanding of most of them. Jew or Gentile, Christians who submit to the authority of the Bible would, presumably, accept its teaching regardless of how dissonant it may sound to them. It’s certainly possible instruction on the Lord’s day could be tailored a certain way to address those with a Jewish background–it sounds like it would be fruitful to think about that–but that can be said about a lot of teachings and a lot of people’s backgrounds.
I have to run an errand over lunch. I’ll try to revisit. But I’ll be interested in any of your thoughts if you post them….
LikeLike
Yes, a believer would accept its authority. But a Christian (by definition, one who came to faith after Christ’s resurrection) wouldn’t ever have celebrated the Sabbath as such, unless he was Jewish first. I don’t think there is as much cognitive dissonance for those of us who only ever knew of worship being on the first day of the week. And growing up Baptist, we were told pretty decisively that the Sabbath didn’t apply to us, that Sunday wasn’t the same thing.
And years ago I looked through a book on the Ten Commandments that my publisher was going to publish, and gave the author some preliminary comments. The author said the first four commandments were God-focused and the next six man-focused . . . and then he proceeded to limit the Fouth to “take it easy; make sure you put your feet up and rest on that day.” I asked hey, you said this one relates to God, yet you say nothing about its relation to God–what gives? I didn’t see what happened to the book after my initial notes to him (I don’t even know if we published it), but that was from a man writing a book on the subject.
LikeLike
But “the Sabbath as such” is what God says it is. If the day has changed, and Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, the no religious Jew (as opposed to Jewish Christian) is celebrating the true Sabbath. He would be no less accountable to honor the commandment than anyone else with a different background.
I don’t think Baptist theology precludes the understanding of the Sabbath I’ve been mentioning here. I know Spurgeon was an ardent sabbatarian–day change and the whole shebang.
LikeLike
should say, “…THEN no religious Jew…”
probably other typos in there, too…
LikeLike
Well, yes, but he might want more evidence than someone with a cultural understanding of “Sunday is the day people worship.”
LikeLike
That’s entirely possible, but that need wouldn’t defeat the commandment.
LikeLike
No, it wouldn’t defeat the commandment; they still have to answer the same questions as to whether it is still meaningful today, and to what extent.
I did have one question I don’t think you answered: would you consider yourself a theonomist? Frank in Phoenix / Spokane was, as you may or may not recall, and that affected how he spoke of such things.
LikeLike
Oops, sorry, I did mean to answer that. I don’t know what a full-fledged theonomist looks like, so I don’t know if that’s me. I’ve read enough to know that like many adherents to a certain view, they aren’t monolithic in their beliefs. I also know they’ve frequently been grossly misrepresented by those who disagree with them, sometimes to really make me scratch my head. It’s often of the same strain as the “Calvin killed Servetus” rant. I know I *do* agree with the notion often attributed to thenomists–but perceptible in Reformed creeds and teaching–that whatever laws have not been specifically or implicitly abolished are still binding today. But that’s hardly a new understanding of the law. It would be a mistake to attribute the idea only to modern theonomists.
Have you ever seen the cover of Bahnsen’s “No Other Standard”? It pictures the Bible with a ‘no symbol’ drawn over it, and equates it to a picture of a circle with nothing inside it. Basically, “If the Standard isn’t the Bible, the standard is nothing.” If we’re going to ignore a law’s application to us, we need to give a scriptural account for why that is.
And in case you’re itching to make the charge, neither I nor any theologian whom I respect–theonomist or not–believe that salvation or favor with God is earned by obeying any law. I’m with the Psalmist, David, who loved the law for its ability to give light to his path.
LikeLike
No, I’m not itching to make any “charge.” I have a lot of respect for Frank (who openly used the label for himself), but just disagree. It helps to know someone’s “framework,” though. And right now I’ve been slammed with more work than I’ve had at one time since I got married (and marriage added to the mix makes me busier than equal levels of work when I was single), so I’m basically just dropping in here from time to time to give my tired mind a rest. And obviously with one new project since yesterday (and one additional one offered today to which I said “no”), when I was busy enough, I pretty much need to “bow out” anyway, but I do appreciate the discussion. And I’m sure it won’t be the last one.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s cool. I’m kind of in the same way. I appreciate it, too. I enjoy your posts when I have time to check in here.
LikeLike