Featured Sunday Sabbath

Biblicist

Thank you for the correct biblical response. Some just don't want to see it.Much unbiblical thought here on God's law.

 

The earliest and most prominent Baptist Confessions teach the "Christian Sabbath" is Sunday. London Confession of 1688; Philadelphia Baptist Confession; New Hampshire Baptist Confession.

The Sabbath under the New Covenant is not under Mosaic legislation or the Levitical law. The Sabbath Law never states it is the seventh day "OF THE WEEK". It is merely a pattern of seven days wherein it is preceded by six working days with the seventh day as the Sabbath which precedes six working days. It does not matter what day "OF THE WEEK" it might be placed as six working days precede it and six working days follow it and thus it is always the Seventh day Sabbath in relationship to six working days.

The greater work of redemption has made the first day "of the week" a fixed "Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10). There is no legalism or antinomianism about it. It is just what it is - "the Lord's Day" set apart (sanctified) unto the Lord and the spirit of its observation is found in Isaiah 59:12 and Psalm 118:24 while the practice of it is found in 1 Cor. 12-14 on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-2).

We are under grace not law.

 

Do you have a link?

 

That does not explain how the Philadelphia Baptists and the New Hampshire Baptists came to that position. I have owned Carson's book for years and it has flaws. The basic flaw is the failure to understand the Lord's own application of SAbbath Law.

 

I did have a link but the site is temporarily down. If you send me your e-mail address I can send it to you as an attached file.

 

This is not an issue that hangs on any confession. However, neither Dr. Bob nor you can deny that the New Hampshire and the Philadelphia Confessions were received by the vast majority of Baptists in America during the 1700-1800's.

The issue is how God Himself applied the Sabbath Law. Leviticus 23-25 are Messianic feasts and there is a clear transition from emphasis on the "seventh" to "first" days (1st, 8th, 15th, 22nd, 50th) all of which occur after the multiple of sevenths. He applies it to greater lengths than 24 hours.

There is no moral basis for a selected period of time. There is a numerical moral basis. The Old Covenatn emphasized a the Seventh division of time in regard to the Sabbath while the New Covenant emphasizes the First division of time and this can be clearly seen in the Messianic Feasts anticipating the New covenant.

The "old" Covenant Sabbath commemorated a sin cursed creation and typical redemption out of Egypt (Ex. 20; Deut. 5) while the "new" Covenant Sabbath commemorates the antitype redemptive work of the cross and the new creation yet to come or the eternal 8th day.

The gospel was preached and received at the time of Moses (Heb. 4:1-2) but not among those who rebelled in the wilderness. Those who received the gospel entered into SPIRITUAL REST IN CHRIST but still observed a literal 24 hour Sabbath day. Why? Because they had not yet entered into the complete fulfillment of the Sabbath - SPIRITUAL, SOULISH and BODILY rest or the completed work of redemption in Christ in a NEW heaven and earth.

 

Website is back up at this address:

http://victorybaptistchurch.webstarts.com/books_by_mark_fenison.html

 

JM:applause::applause:

 

I saw a clip where RC Sproul is accusing people from Dallas TS of being Antinomian...so this is a little confusing to me.

 

That's because Sproul and other Reformed Philosophers are being totally disingenuous about the Dispensationalist's view of works. I'm not sure if this is the clip you're referring to:

http://5ptsalt.com/2013/11/04/r-c-s...an-the-sinners-prayer-and-more-antinomianism/

It is impossible to be as studied as he is and not comprehend what Dispensationalists teach. Since he misrepresents the view, I believe he is being dishonest and deceitful.

His label of Antinomian is nothing short of crooked, where he is intentionally spreading slander and libel.

Consider this article from Sproul's Ligonier Ministries, with material from John Gerstner:

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/antinomian-way-justification/

Same drivel as Sproul, the Antinomian label is thrown around a half dozen times in the first couple of paragraphs. Yet, consider this paragraph:

The above paragraph is absolute proof of the misuse of the Antinomian label. Antinomians teach that Grace has given us a license to sin - eat, drink and be merry. No Law, so no worries. Do what you want, there's no foul when you're inside of Grace.

Yet Gerstner wrote that the Dispensational view encourages good works.

His charge of Antinomianism is nothing but a scare tactic, like a charge of heresy. Who would want to embrace Antinomian theology? Who would want to embrace heresy? That's all this charge amounts to. Can't defend against them on scriptural grounds? No problem, just charge them with heresy in order to give his position credibility.

But if his position is biblical, it doesn't need dishonest charges of heresy. It should be able to stand on its own merits. Very telling, indeed.

Here is a really objective article by a (seemingly) Reformed believer that addresses some of this Antinomian charge:

http://davestheology.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/31/

 

Could you briefly enlighten me as to what MacArthur has done to correct the error of antinomianism in Dispensationalism?

I'm really curious to know.

 

Well I guess that settles it. Discussion over, right?

You think his attempt to blend Lordship Soteriology with Pseudo-Dispensational eschatology corrects the whole thing, huh?

 

Big terms....you gotta be one of the ones studying all this crap.....and it is crap. Is this what the freaking seminaries teach today? Then they are as bad....no, worse than the Catholics with rheir mysticism BS. When you guys going to get off your high horses and start being Christians?

James....this Sproul guys in it for the money and God knows where Macarther stands. Its all horse manure. You know better than to be sucked up into it.

ure

 

That's probably a fair criticism in some regards. I like to say that some people have too much college and not enough Kindergarten.

There is definitely a need for these issues to be hashed out and understood. But not simply for the sake of academics. When these issues are studied, I believe it should be brought out of the seminary, put into layman's terms and taught in the churches.

Unfortunately, many of these seminary issues are kept from lay people. It's like a secret sect of seminary Pharisees who are so proud of their intellectual accomplishments, and all they ever do is pat each other on the back and endorse each others books.

And the lay people suffer from lack of understanding because of it.

I appreciate your concern, brother. Really I do. I studied a lot for about 10 years, read countless books, etc

But a few years ago, I left all the books and opinions of men and got back to the simplicity of scripture. It's really been amazingly refreshing.

You could be right about Sproul, I don't know.

 

Yeah, if you ever figure out where that is, let us know, would'ya? I've got a friend at church who likes MacArthur, but rejects Calvinism. The Calvinists around here adore Calvin because they say he is a Calvinist. Somebody better figure out what the million-dollar pastor actually believes.

 

I don't make hero 's outa men.....they are too flawed. Rather I can respect a persons viewpoint but I also realize it is 'a view from a point. ' Christ is the only Lord....so that is the guy I look to. Take a look again at the Sermon on the Mount.