Sabbath

Alcott,

re: "Romans 14:5-6..."

As has been touch on, the subject of the chapter from start to finish has to do with what people eat. Paul is writing about asceticism. Some in the church at Rome believed Christians should eat only vegetables. Paul calls these people "weak in the faith" (verses 1-2). The stronger in faith know they could also eat meat. Nothing in God’s law prescribes vegetarianism. The stronger in faith knew they were free from non-biblical asceticism. A part of the controversy that had sprung up between the weak and the strong Christians was the esteeming of days. In Rome some people had the pagan idea that on certain days certain foods should or should not be eaten. In this whole chapter Paul was just showing that others should not be offended, particularly weak members who have not yet learned the truth about the proper Christian diet and that they should not be judged by the stronger in the faith. This passage has nothing to do with the Sabbath.
　


re: "...Colossians 2:16."

As has also been touched on, How have you been able to rule out that Paul wasn’t simply telling the Colossians that they should not let anyone - other than the body of Christ, which is the church - criticize them for HOW they were observing the things mentioned in verse 16?
　

　
　

 

Because of the wording: "Let no one be your judge in regard to...." Therefore I do not let you be my judge in regard to any of those things mentioned. And neither do I judge your new moon ceremonies. You should have one coming up this Friday, you know.

 

1] the sabbath is made for man..one day in seven is set apart for that purpose
2] the ten commandments were in place before the mosaic law

3] all ten commandments are still in effect now

4] all ten commamdments were placed in the ark of the covenant...not 9

5] col2 rom 14 are not addressing this issue at all. this is a shallow attempt to avoid other passages that do speak to the issue

Matthew 28
1And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre

1 Corinthians 16
1And concerning the collection that [is] for the saints, as I directed to the assemblies of Galatia, so also ye -- do ye;

2on every first [day] of the week, let each one of you lay by him, treasuring up whatever he may have prospered, that when I may come then collections may not be made;


1We may fear, then, lest a promise being left of entering into His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short,

2for we also are having good news proclaimed, even as they, but the word heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard,

3for we do enter into the rest -- we who did believe, as He said, `So I sware in My anger, If they shall enter into My rest -- ;' and yet the works were done from the foundation of the world,

4for He spake in a certain place concerning the seventh [day] thus: `And God did rest in the seventh day from all His works;'

5and in this [place] again, `If they shall enter into My rest -- ;'

6since then, it remaineth for certain to enter into it, and those who did first hear good news entered not in because of unbelief --

7again He doth limit a certain day, `To-day,' (in David saying, after so long a time,) as it hath been said, `To-day, if His voice ye may hear, ye may not harden your hearts,'

8for if Joshua had given them rest, He would not concerning another day have spoken after these things;

9there doth remain, then, a sabbatic rest to the people of God,

10for he who did enter into his rest, he also rested from his works, as God from His own.

We get to worship God...the Lords Day is a delight,not a burden to be avoided

[QUOTE7._____ As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished.
( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )

8._____ The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
( Isaiah 58:13; Nehemiah 13:15-22; Matthew 12:1-13 )

][/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

Much of what you quote I have no argument against. I never said the early church did not meet on the first day of the week. Many of your verses are on topic, but the applications are not: Paul did not command all churches to meet on Sunday, I commanded the specific Corinthian churches of Corinth, Galatia, and perhaps elsewhere to lay aside money for a specific purpose.

And, yes, the Law was still in effect at the time of Paul's writing Hebrews, though it was in the process of fading away (Heb. 7, 2 Cor.).

This was not an injunction to meet on Sunday, merely a recognition that they already did. It has nothing to do with the Sabbath commandment.

I see also that you closed with the 1689 LBC. That may very well work as a summary of your beliefs, but it does not justify those beliefs scripturally. The LBC and you still need to prove that it is a "perpetual commandment".

I do notice with disappointment that you did not touch upon the verse I mentioned in Matt. More on that below.

I want to write of those verse you brought up from Hebrews 4. These are very appropriate for the subject, but unfortunately you left off quoting the next verses. You left out the section that shows that the Sabbath is, for those of the New Covenant, not a what but Who - Christ:

8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.

11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.

14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Our Bibles often obscure the continuity of scripture by their subtitles. Our rest is here associated with the Word of God (11-13). The rest is personified in Christ, our High Priest (14-16). Christ said elsewhere, "Come unto Me and I will give you rest." That rest of that "coming" is the same as that when we "come boldly to the throne of grace".

You did not answer my point from Matthew 5:17-18:

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Please tell me if the Sabbath commandment is also here. If so, then this was also fulfilled at the very same time as the other commandments. If it is still in effect, then, all the other commandments are in effect too.

Look very carefully at this passage - don't go to the LBC or other words of men - to see that what I say is true: All these commandments live and die together. It is a package deal.

And Christ delivered us from the entire deadly (Romans 7:10; 2 Cor. 3:6) package.

 

Alcott,

re: "Because of the wording: ‘Let no one be your judge in regard to....’Therefore I do not let you be my judge in regard to any of those things mentioned."
　
I’m afraid I don’t see your point with regard to the Sabbath. Could you elaborate a bit?
　

re: "And neither do I judge your new moon ceremonies. You should have one coming up this Friday, you know."

I don’t know to what you are referring. What do you have in mind?

 

asterisktom,

re: "Paul did not command all churches to meet on Sunday..."
　
In fact he never commanded anyone to meet on the first day of the week.

 

Yes, agreed.

 

I could, but I won't.

Colossians 2:16. Don't let anyone be your judge in regard to food or drink, new moon ceremonies, or sabbath.

 

You did not answer my point from Matthew 5:17-18:

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Please tell me if the Sabbath commandment is also here. If so, then this was also fulfilled at the very same time as the other commandments. If it is still in effect, then, all the other commandments are in effect too.

Look very carefully at this passage - don't go to the LBC or other words of men - to see that what I say is true: All these commandments live and die together. It is a package deal.

And Christ delivered us from the entire deadly (Romans 7:10; 2 Cor. 3:6) package.

TOM

I think also it is a package deal and will always be a package deal. Therefore I think the question is found in till all is fulfilled.

Has all been fulfilled? Is there any difference between the laws of the Old Covenant and the laws of the New Covenant or is it that under the Old the people said all that the LORD says we will do and under the New it is the LORD that says I will.

Or do we find all fulfilled like say in Acts 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Or Eph. 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:

 

Yes, I do say that all things are fulfilled. That is what makes me a full preterist. There is no way to get around the cohesiveness of this passage: Either all of the OT Law is with us - or none of it is.

My answer is B.

 

I understand course you know I differ but that's OK. Is there yet a resurrection for us?

 

Understood.

There was the resurrection that the Scripture described. Past tense. Will elaborate if you want.

 

Hello Tom,
Thanks for responding to my post and asking some good follow up questions.
Alot of what I believe on this area of the law and the nt.believer comes from
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0851510833/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used
this is an excellent book on this whole topic,and here you can get it for 29 cents...the shipping is more...399
also from AwPink;http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Law/law.htm

Let me offer some response,but I would ask that you look at the verses offered by these men.

you said this;

1]Paul did not command all churches to meet on Sunday, I commanded the specific Corinthian churches of Corinth, Galatia, and perhaps elsewhere to lay aside money for a specific purpose........

.Tom, I do not remember the apostles commanding any church to meet on any day. Yet we do find the first day mentioned several times.

2]And, yes, the Law was still in effect at the time of Paul's writing Hebrews, though it was in the process of fading away (Heb. 7, 2 Cor.).

Tom I can agree that the ceremonial and judicial law of Israel's theocracy were fulfilled in Christ...and the mosaic covenant was fading away.
However as christians we are not lawless...
We are still under law to Christ.
Look what Paul writes in 1Tim 1;

Those sins are sins against the 10 commandments......the unbeliever must keep Gods law perfectly.....and of course he cannot

again in romans 13 we are told;

Again Paul appeals to the ten commandments again.

you said;

Tom.....I can agree with you that thanks be to God that we are delivered from
the laws penalty...the wages of sin is death.THe problem is not the law, but our sin in breaking the law.
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

3]on hebrews4......Yes We have an eternal rest in Christ
here again is Pink;
The purpose of the Holy Spirit in employing this term here is not difficult to discover. He was writing to Hebrews, Jews who had professed to become Christians, to have trusted in the Lord Jesus. Their profession of faith involved them in sore trials at the hands of their unbelieving brethren. They denounced them as apostates from the faith of their fathers. They disowned them as the "people of God." But as we have said the apostle here reassures them that now only believers in Christ had any title to be numbered among "the people of God." Having renounced Judaism for Christ the question of the "Sabbath" must also have exercised them deeply. Here the apostle sets their minds at rest. A suitable point in his epistle had now been reached when this could be brought in: he was speaking of "rest," so he informs them that under Christianity also, "there remaineth therefore a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God." The specific reference in the "therefore" is to what he had said in verse 4: God did rest on the seventh day from all His works, there]ore as believers in Christ are the "people of God" they must rest too.

"There remaineth therefore a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God." The reference is not to something future, but to what is present. The Greek verb (in its passive form) is never rendered by any other English equivalent than "remaineth." It occurs again in Hebrews 10:26. The word "remain" signifies "to be left after others have withdrawn, to continue unchanged." Here then is a plain, positive, unequivocal declaration by the Spirit of God: "There remaineth therefore a Sabbath-keeping." Nothing could be simpler, nothing less ambiguous. The striking thing is that this statement occurs in the very epistle whose theme is the superiority of Christianity over Judaism; written to those addressed as "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling." Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that Hebrews 4:9 refers directly to the Christian Sabbath. Hence we solemnly and emphatically declare that any man who says there is no Christian Sabbath takes direct issue with the New Testament scriptures.

"For he that is entered into his rest he also hath ceased from his own works, as God from His" (verse 10). In this verse the apostle expressly defines the nature of that excellent rest of which he had been speaking: it is a cessation from our works, as God from His. The object in thus describing our rest is to show that it is not to be found in this world, but is reserved for the world to come. The argument of this verse—its opening "for" denotes that further proof is being supplied to confirm what has been said—is taken from the self-evident principle that rest is not enjoyed till work is ceased from. This world is full of toil, travail and trouble, but in the world to come there is full freedom from all these.

][/QUOTE]

 

4] mt 5;17-19
more from Pink;
[QUOTE"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:17-19). It might appear to the disciples of Christ that their Master intended to set aside Moses and the Prophets, and introduce an entirely new standard of morality. It was true indeed that He would expose the error of depending on the work of the Law for acceptance with God (as Moses and the prophets had done before Him); but it was no part of His design to set aside the Law itself. He was about to correct various corruptions, which obtained among the Jews, hence He is careful to preface what He has to say by cautioning them not to misconstrue His designs. So far from having any intention of repudiating Moses, He most emphatically asserts: first, that He had not come to destroy the Law; second, that He had come to "fulfill" it; third, that the Law is of perpetual obligation; fourth, that whoso breaks one of the least of the Law’s commandments and teaches other so to do, shall suffer loss; fifth, that he who kept the Law and taught men to respect and obey it should be rewarded.

"I am not come to destroy the Law"—the Prophets simply expounded the Law, and rebuked Israel for their failure to keep it, and forewarned them of the consequences of continued disobedience. "I am not come to destroy the Law." Nothing could be more explicit. The word "destroy" here means "to dissolve or overthrow". When, then, our Lord said that He had not come to destroy the Law He gave us to understand that it was not the purpose of His mission to repeal or annul the Ten Commandments: that he had not come to free men from their obligations to them. And if He did not "destroy" the Law, then no one had destroyed it; and if no one has destroyed it, then the Law still stands with all its Divine authority; and if the Law still abides as the unchanging expression of God’s character and will, then every human creature is under lasting obligation to obey it; and if every human creature, then the Christian!

Second, the Son of God went on to say "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill". The word "fulfill" here means "to fill up, to complete". Christ "fulfilled" the Law in three ways: first, by rendering personal obedience to its precepts. God’s Law was within His heart (Psa. 40:8), and in thought, word and deed, He perfectly met its requirements; and thus by His obedience He magnified the Law and made it honorable (Isa. 42:21). Second, by suffering (at the Cross) its death-penalty on behalf of His people who had transgressed it. Third, by exhibiting its fulness and spirituality and by amplifying its contents. Thus did Christ, our Exemplar, "fulfill the Law."

So far from Christ having repealed the Law, He expressly affirmed, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled." In these words He announces the perpetuity of the Law. So long as heaven and earth shall last, the Law will endure, and by necessary implication, the lasting obligations of all men to fulfill it.

But this is not all that our Lord here said. With omniscient foresight He anticipated what Mr. Mead has aptly termed "The Modern Outcry against the Law", and proceeds to solemnly warn against it. He said, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven".

"Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the Law" (Rom. 3:31). In the previous part of the chapter the apostle had proven that "there is none righteous, no not one" (v. 10); second, he had declared "By the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified" (v. 2); then in verses 21 through 26 he had set forth the Divine way of salvation—"through faith in Christ’s blood". In verse 28, he sums up his argument by affirming "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law". In verses 29 and 30 he proves that this is true for Jew and Gentile alike. Then, in verse 31, he anticipates an objection: What about the Law, then? This was a very pertinent question. Twice had he said that justification was apart from the deeds of the Law. If, then, the Law served no purpose in effecting the salvation of sinners, has it no office at all? If we are saved "through faith" is the Law useless? Are we to understand you to mean (Paul) that the Law has been annulled? Not at all, is the apostle’s answer: "We establish the Law."

What did the apostle mean when he said "we establish the Law"? He meant that, as saved men, Christians are under additional obligations to obey the Law, for they are now furnished with new and more powerful motives to serve God. Righteousness imputed to the believer produces in the justified one a kind and an extent of obedience which could not otherwise have been obtained. So far from rendering void or nullifying the authority and use of the Law, it sustains and confirms them. Our moral obligation to God and our neighbor has not been weakened, but strengthened. Below we offer one or two brief excerpts from other expositors.

][/QUOTE]

 

Thought provoking Sabbath article from Tom Schriener's new book here:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs...bbath-still-required-for-christians/#comments

 

Good morning, Iconoclast,

I appreciate the detailed response, though I disagree with your main points. Bolton and Pink are both great writers from whom I have benefited - especially Pink, but I disagree with their view on the Sabbath. More below.

I don't have a lot of time this morning but I will try to hit the high spots of your post.

The scenario you seem to offer is one of only two options; either following the Law or being antinomian. Yet I say that believing in the "Royal law of liberty" constitutes a real third category for those of us who are on the New Covenant.

Your quoting of Timothy is more to my point than yours, IMO. Verse 9 to whom the Law was made for. Yes, it is good. Its purpose has already been fulfilled in us. It was the pedagogue (as Paul says in Galatians) leading us to the One who has fulfilled the Law.

Yes, he appeals to it. But appealing is not applying. He already spoke of what the Law was for (above).

Once again, about your Pink quote (which I have for time's sake omitted); it was an eye-opener - but not in the way you might think. Earlier I would have read those lines of his and been convinced of his point. I used to, in fact, agree on your position on the Christian Sabbath. But I definitely see things differently now. It was scripture itself that caused the change.

More comments later.

 

Well, I guess I am part of - as your writer puts it - "the modern outcry against the Law". But so be it. Let God be true, but every man a liar - myself included, if Scripture itself does the speaking.

I disagree with Pink here. The Law, according to Paul, "was against us". It was also nailed to the cross with Christ. In His death to the Law we also died. Its accusations no longer reach us.

But saying all this is not - like Pink and many seem to infer - similar to the man whose room is swept clean, without any new moral compass. We have the indwelling Christ that prompts acts of love. Prompting is not commanding. There is a distinction here that is often brought out in John's epistle.

I am running out of time this morning. Let me just say that if Christ fulfilled we do not need to additionally fulfill it. The entire Law - incl. the Decalogue - were preparatory for Christ. So many Christian do not recognize all that is entailed in the Law of Liberty we have now in Him, to what it means to walk in newness of life, not the deadness of the Letter.

Most importantly. Pink did not address the point I raised concerning Matt. 5, that all of the Law was deprecated, fulfilled at the same time. Until that time was come it was still in force. The implications of this seems to have been unrecognized by Pink. And it is an important foundation to my present position.

 

Hello Tom,
I am enjoying the interaction on these verses and I would like to say I appreciate the spirit and kindness of your reply's. I am glad you are taking the time to go over that which these writers have offered,but also that we share a desire to give the Holy Scriptures the preminence.
When I offer quotes from some of these men, I am not trying to "hide" behind them, but they write so clearly sometime I cannot improve upon what they say.
There is much we are in agreement with.I look forward as time permits to re-examine these issues as I like to remain open to any and all biblical correction that the Lord sends my way.:thumbs:
I will see if I can offer more on Matt.5 for you.
Tom......so are you advocating what is called the
NT or New Covenant position on the law,,,,,the law of love?the royal law?
like John Zens and those men in the 1980s in some of the sovereign grace
churches?

http://www.biblelighthouse.com/covenants/nct-reisinger01.htm

 

Thanks, Icon. I detect a kindred spirit in you. This topic requires carefulness because it is so easy, to an impatient reader, to be misunderstood. But constant appeal to scripture should get us to where we want to go.

Understood. The only problem is that the longer quotes tend to make the topic flange out and make it herder to manage. Also, in some of the quotes there seemed to be a causticness I don't think you would write. Thinking of that one by Schriener.

That sounds good. I believe that this passage has applications that, when applied, should guide our interpretation of other verses. Oftentimes the verses that seem most familiar are the ones that have overlooked tenets.

I don't know who Zens is. I do know Reisinger and like much of what he writes. I would say that my position is New Covenant. You can find some of my writings on this on various articles of mine on my Xanga:
http://asterisktom.xanga.com/tags/newcovenant/
http://asterisktom.xanga.com/510738...good-teaching-gets-a-bad-rap---and-a-bad-rep/