Church attendance and the Super Bowl: two questions

Klockheed said above (sorry, the specific thread where he said this doesn't have a 'reply' button):
“Doesn't Hebrews 10 already give you that?”

I've been in churches where if you don't come to Wednesday prayer, or Tuesday visitation, or Friday night bible study, then you're looked down upon as not serious, not dedicated, etc. What if church leaders, using Heb 10, say that attendance 3 nights a week is necessary for one to obey the command “do not forsake the assembly”? Some churches I know won't put a member under discipline (or better yet, take them off the role) unless they come less than once every 6 months. Some churches I know hold worship services on Saturday night. Some churches I've heard of hold services every other week.

My point is simply that Calvin's teaching on the Lord's Day are legalistic if they're not rooted in the 4th commandment. But you see, he does root them in the 4th commandment, otherwise he'd never come up with those things; he just doesn't admit such. And most Christians, I have found almost without exception, set expectations around corporate worship that lack biblical foundation if the Sabbath commandment means nothing anymore.

You see, God call us to worship Him one full day out of every 7. He doesn't demand that we 'read our bible and pray' every day ('quiet time' is not a biblical term), even though that may be good. He doesn't command us to attend Wednesday prayer. The bible presupposes that we will be 100% busy 6 days a week with work and family, but that we give God one Day for our spiritual and physical good. But in our culture, we have loads of free time, unlike any previous society. And so it is natural to us to expect more from others than God actually calls for.

Anyway, I said all that to say that I am content with the pattern of worship God has setup, but that I'm weary of Christians setting 'Lord's Day' rules and patterns that are not rooted in any clear teaching. No law on worship, an ambiguous law on worship, or an unspoken law that 'reveals our affections' is worse than being under the strictness of the Old Covenant.

“Why cannot those church leaders you mention likewise root their claims in the 4th commandment, extending the Sabbath to whatever day they please.”

Apostolic example is just as binding as apostolic instruction. The New Testament goes out of its way to communicate how Jesus appearing to the disciples, Pentecost, and continued corporate worship always took place on the first day of the week. Furthermore, Paul in 1 Cor 16 instructs to church to gather on the first day of the week, as he had instructed other churches. But this is all moot: only a small, select group of churches in the last 2000 years have gathered to worship on any day other than Sunday, and we'd probably found that most have abandoned the gospel and are gathering such to meet the felt needs of unbelievers who want their Sundays free.

“On what Biblical basis can we continue one part of the command while denying the rest?”

To a large extent, Christian conscience. However, the moral law found in the 10 commandments, in which the 4th is based upon the creation account, should guide our understanding, and not the other distinctly Jewish patterns of the law that have passed away. The Jewish Sabbath system is quite elaborate, and Paul is clear that it passed away in Christ (Col 2). But what is contained in the moral law, the creation account, and apostolic example, continues.

Yes, Christ was clarifying and not changing the Sabbath. But all of His teaching on it is still applicable. Maybe we forget that the gospels were written many decades later, and were written specifically to instruct the NT church. That's why there are no teachings/regulations in the gospels on the ceremonial aspects of the Law. The Sabbath Day isn't ceremonial; the Sabbath system was. Only the Decalogue is held up in the NT as perpetual, word for word.

And slaves in gentile cultures: Jesus taught that the Sabbath was “made for man”, and not the other way around. IT is a slave to us; we are not a slave to it. It is a gift, a delight, a privilege, and a joy. If we are providentially hindered from keeping it holy in externals, as slaves would have been, then there is mercy there, and we'll keep it holy internally. It should never be a burden to us, as none of the law of God is in Christ.

Klockheed said:
“THIS is NOT Apostolic example, but tradition. On this basis one can point to anything that has become the norm over 2000 years and appeal to it as the reason we ~must~ do anything.”

I said it was 'moot' because churches for 2000years have followed Sunday worship. This establishes that they follow some kind of rule (uniformly); this does not establish the rule. The apostolic example recorded in the New Testament, built on the foundation of the Sabbath, and only properly understood through the Sabbath, establishes the rule.

“Neither the creation account, nor Apostolic example speak of football or restaurant patronage.”

The Decalogue, Exodus 20:11, points to the creation account (as does Hebrews 4). Thus, along with the other 9 commandments, they are to be understood as an explicit revelation of God's moral law, the law of creation. In that commandment restaurant patronage is prohibited if within our power and not in a situation of emergency/necessity. That's where I base my view; obviously we disagree here.

“Since you agree that Christ did not change the Sabbath, on what basis do you carry any load on the “Sabbath”?”

Christ, along with other parts of scripture (specifically, IS 58), made it clear that physical activity was not the essence of 'sabbath keeping'. Love, mercy, justice, and other moral necessities associated with the command, worship –corporate and private–, are the essence.

“AH! FULL AGREEMENT!”

Very good, my brother. Even if we don't agree on all the specifics, we can agree that Christ is our righteousness, is the end of the Law, and that the Sabbath rest ultimately and finally points to the rest we have in Him, right? Yes, I believe there is a 'already/not-yet' aspect, where we still obey the type (the physical day) in anticipation of the full anti-type (the eternal Sabbath), but at the end of the day we're probably closer to agreement than we realize. Let's keep Christ center regardless.

I do not think a church should cancel church for a Super Bowl game. First of all football is one of the most violent sport that is out there. They are all violent. Do people realize how some of the football players get hurt over a football game. As a christian how can I sit there and watch someone get hurt and be dragged out on a gurney and have to go to the hospital for months over a injury. Would Christ go to a Super Bowl party and watch such violence? I do not think so and watch grown men and women yell and sceam at the top of there lungs and get into fight over it. No he would not! Our chruch don’t have Sunday night service but the pastor is going to have a super bowl party at his house. Some of the women told me they where going for the fellowship. How is that going to be fellowship in a football game. A doctor that goes to school for years makes less than a football player how is that fair? Why do they make so much more than people who have studied there whole life? As a christian a follower of Christ I refuse to protain in such a sport in church or out of church! I don’t think a church shoulde sponser a Super Bowl game in any shape, form, or fashion. I say this due to the violence of it.