Please keep this on topic for this section...

Hey ... Good work Stan. I appreciate this. Will do.

Sorry, Stan! You see, it's that Redwood character. Gettin' us off-track. I will stick to topic. You hear, Redwood? Oh, I am pleased to see your response. Good man! We are now officially back on track, right? Speaking of back to topic, I would be interested in a response to the points I made earlier.

Dave

Here is the deal with this section. I have aksed three time not to take this off topic. The next time this happens, the person who goes off topic, will have to count how many times they went off topic since I said not to, and that will be the number of days they will be banned from the entire forum.


This is not TownHall this is a place were serious Bible students, including visitors, can inquire about a serious topic.

No jibber jabber in this forum.

Dear friends

Putting the distractions aside (some people seem a little notalgic of recess time during elementary school?!) I understand that both Luther and Calvin were ambiguous regarding the day of rest question, while stressing the importance of respecting the 10 Commandments as moral law of God.

Those who continued Calvin's work, like expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, defined more clearly this question of the 4th commandment. The "Lord's day" should be freed from all incumberances of both secular and recreational activities.

They attribute to Sunday the application of the 4th commandament, while others discuss the IF, not the WHEN of the matter. In other words, the confessional documents of both Baptists and Presbyterians (besides Bible commentaries and instructional works of others, like Methodists, Congregationals) set ONE DAY in seven, preferably Sunday due to Jesus' resurrection on that day, while in the modern Protestant/Evangelical field nobody cares about that principle. And when confronted with this question, the IF we are really under the obligation of keeping this "ceremonial" law of the Sabbath, be it as Sunday or as seventh-day Sabbath, is what comes up. So, for the confessional documents referred to, there is no IF, then, the point to discuss is the WHEN.

That should be the nature of this debate--not IF we have this principle of dedicating a day to the Lord in its 24 hours, but WHEN that day should be.

The fact is that, biblically, there is no room for any other day, but the seventh-day Sabbath, which, by the way, Luther, Calvin and Luther recognized being the day on which God rested in the creation of the world, thus becoming a UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE to dedicate a day to the Lord.

If that principle stems from the creation of the world, then, it has to be universal indeed.

Again, let's make clear this point: the discussion should not be IF there is still this valid principle of dedicating one day to the Lord (especially in these stressing times of ours), but WHEN that day should be--the seventh-day Sabbath, Sunday, anyday according to our convenience?

Oh, and also there is the question to be set clearly--what kind of observance of this day should we adopt? Going to the shopping, watching sports on the stadium or the TV would be okay in a day of honoring God?

Yesterday, Sunday, I went to a supermarket in our area for some small shopping and there were many gentlemen, ladies and children very well clad, one African-American woman even wearing a funny hat. . . I promptly identified them as churchgoers after their worship service doing some business on their "Lord's day"!

Is that according to the Bible teaching?!

You mentioned that before. In response, I asked if you have their statements on the subject available. You have not responded. All you have done is repeat a generality, without providing any substantiation. How about it? Do you, or do you not have their statements? If you are unable to provide them, I shall be glad to.

Is it your purpose on this thread to recite the arguments which have traditionally been used by SDA's ("In Defense of the Faith") and that is the end of it? I am reminded of one account of the Soviet prosecutor at Nuremburg--reportedly, he kept on asking the same question over and over. Is what will happen here, something similar? Someone raises questions or issues, but there is only a repetition of the same position statements? If so, that is not truly 'defending the faith.'



That is one school of thought. There are others.




Says who? Are you limiting the scope of this discussion?



In Old Testament times. That is NOT what they taught for New Covenant Christians. But if you assert otherwise, let's see some cites, please--actual statements with references, rather than assertions and conclusions.

I'd be interested to know how they would have explained their activity if you got to know some of them and then asked them that very question.

I have a feeling that you could hear some explanations such as that the gospel releases them from a "legalistic" application of the "Lord's Day."

They might say that they now serve in the glorious freedom that the Lord has given them.

They might also say that the fact that the vast majority of Christians worship on "the Lord's day" and not on the "Jewish Sabbath" is a demonstration that God has given the church the liberty to choose which day to worship on.

They might site many instances of proof of God's blessings on Sunday. They have such joy in the Lord, whereas they see Sabbath keepers looking sad and burdened with the law. They see miracles weekly in their services, they speak in tongues, they love one another, they don't quarrel, etc.

They might ask you what you have to offer them with your "Jewish Sabbath" that could possibly replace the happiness they have in the gospel they know.

What would be your responses to these questions?

I disagree, actually. And in fact, their devotees would comment on how easy it is to refute SDA's.



Is that what the Lutherans say, or is that your take on it?



Those who followed Scottish Presbyterianism/English Puritanism. Jonathan Edwards goes to great lengths to attempt to justify the change of the Sabbath. Today, Neo-Puritans attempt something similar. His, and their efforts are scoffed at by other Calvinists.



Elementary, my dear Watson.



Without a doubt, some Christian groups do believe such. However, many, many Christians do not.



Have you? Or have you been preaching to the choir?



New covenant includes new laws.



That passage DOES NOT say that! You are misquoting Scripture here.



Several reasons. First, it is a new covenant, thus a new law. "A NEW COMMANDMENT I give you," for example. Secondly, the literal Sabbath of the Old Covenant was fulfilled by Christ. We are now enjoying the spiritual Sabbath described in Heb. 4. Thirdly, the weekly Sabbath, like the sanctuary services, was part of the typical system. That whole typical system was abolished at the cross. New moons, sabbaths, feast days, all done away. The Sabbath and the sanctuary were the linchpins of the Jewish typical system. All of that came to an end. Today, we are part of SPIRITUAL Israel, and we have a SPIRITUAL temple, and a SPIRITUAL Sabbath, even Christ our righteousness.



N/A. The whole idea of days, new moons, festivals, all abolished. As for the Neo-Puritans, they do hang their hat on several NT references, which are significant as far as they go.



Because Christians under the New Covenant no longer are bound by holy days and festivals. Christ is their Sabbath rest, a spiritual rest entered into every day.



You are here attempting to use OT passages addressed to Israel "according to the flesh." Not on point. You will need solid NT references to establish your point, whatever that may be.

Incidentally, none of the foregoing pertains to or takes away from the need for periodic, physical rest. One should not work every day of the week. However, that is a separate issue from the theological considerations.

Dear friend

The problem is that you are just repeating the old stuff we have already covered totally. How about seeing what we said in the "10 Surprises" text on Heb. 4 (which NEVER says anything of end of the Sabbath)?

And your answer to my challenging question is veeeeeery inadequate, because there is NO INDICATION ABSOLUTELY that there was established any NEW LAW with the NEW COVENANT.

Let me just highlight one little detail: Paul knew nothing of this novelty theology of semi-antinomianism, which was something that begin being stressed in the end of the XIX century by the promoters of the "other Gospel" (Gal 1:8) of dispensationalism. These are the same who speculated with eschatology from here and there, ending up with the production of some books like The Great Late Planet Earth, predicting that 40 years AFTER the establishment of the state of Israel there would occur the rapture of the church, which should have been in 1988. This book was spread large and wide, translated in several languages around the world.

Of course they were wrong in their eschatology. Well, they are wrong in their semi-antinomian theology as well...

Now, the bottom line is the idea that the Sabbath ended for fulfilling its "ceremonial", "antytipical" role. How about the following study in 10 points in which we prove this wrong, in the name of Jesus? If you are able to present to me a full refutation of one by one of my 10 points I promise that I will never mention this Sabbath idea to anyone, either in the Internet or other means.

Agreed?!