I only wish that I had found this website a long time ago!…

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.

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.

“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.”

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

“Yes, Christ was clarifying and not changing the Sabbath. But all of His teaching on it is still applicable.”

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

“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.”

AH! FULL AGREEMENT!

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.

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

“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.”

But one group says that the Sabbath commandment means you cannot eat at a restaurant, or play any sort of games, and the other says you cannot (I recently heard preached) enjoy oneself at all. Scripture however tells us that no work, whatsoever, can be done on the Sabbath, that we can carry no load, etc…

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

Christ's expression of the Sabbath commands to the Pharisees was not a change of the Law, but a clarification of that which they misused.

I really wonder what effect this supposed Sunday-Sabbath had on slaves in Gentile cultures.

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.

Doesn't Hebrews 10 already give you that?

I see a contradiction here. Those who argue that God's moral law found in the 10commandments are perpetual are accused of setting “man-made rules”, and yet Calvin (and you it seems) turn around and say “the Lord's Day is to be spent in honor and worship of God as much as possible.” On what authority do you make such a statement? Furthermore, as I quoted Calvin above, he goes far beyond just saying that the Lord's Day “should” be spent in worship; he is very clear that certain things should not be done on that day, and that men are guilty of sin when they make it a “mockery.”

If you're not convinced on the perpetuity of the 10 commandments then that's fine; I'm not going to sit here and argue about it. Many great and godly brother and church history fathers disagree. But to say that my conduct is bound in any way whatsoever on the Lord's Day is just plain legalism. If I want to come to church once a month, then I have that freedom. If my church elders want to hold corporate worship once a month, then they have that freedom. If I want to work, play, relax, etc., on Sunday as much as I please, then I have that freedom. Saying that 'it is best', or 'it is preferred', 'it is expected' (which is often an unspoken expectation in our church culture, or even 'it is to your good' that I alter my behavior in any way whatsoever on the Lord's Day is legalism and is worse than being under the law. Give me some clear instruction from God what this 'Lord's Day' is, if not the Sabbath, or never mention it again less you hold me to unbiblical expectations.

“But I doubt not but that the Apostle designedly alluded to the Sabbath in order to reclaim the Jews from its external observances; for in no other way could its abrogation be understood, except by the knowledge of its spiritual design. He then treats of two things together; for by extolling the excellency of grace, he stimulates us to receive it by faith, and in the meantime he shows us in passing what is the true design of the Sabbath, lest the Jews should be foolishly attached to the outward rite.”

Again, Calvin's does not support the Sunday-is-the-Sabbath view you're promoting but he DOES certainly support the idea that Sunday should be used as a day of worship and therefore a fulfilling type of the Sabbath.

In his commentary on Col 2:16, Calvin writes:

“What he had previously said of circumcision he now extends to the difference of meats and days. For circumcision was the first introduction to the observance of the law, other things followed afterwards. To judge means here, to hold one to be guilty of a crime, or to impose a scruple of conscience, so that we are no longer free. He says, therefore, that it is not in the power of men to make us subject to the observance of rites which Christ has by his death abolished, and exempts us from their yoke, that we may not allow ourselves to be fettered by the laws which they have imposed. He tacitly, however, places Christ in contrast with all mankind, lest any one should extol himself so daringly as to attempt to take away what he has given him.”

What was are these “other things” in the Law that followed circumcision but the keeping of feast days and sabbaths (as Paul states in the verse.) I realize many have attempted to argue this usage away from the passage, but it cannot be granted when Paul's whole point is that Christians are free in regard to the Law-demanded feasts and the requirements of the Sabbaths just as they are free from the legal requirement of circumcision.

Again, in his commentaries, this time in the Harmony of the Law, Exo. 31:12-17

“If the Jews cry out that what is perpetual, and what is temporary, are contraries to each other, we must deny it in various respects, since assuredly what was peculiar to the Law could not continue to exist beyond the day of Jesus Christ. Besides, the Sabbath, although its external observation is not now in use, still remains eternal in its reality, like circumcision. Thus the stability of both was best confirmed by their abrogation; since, if God now required the same of Christians, it would be putting a veil over the death and resurrection of His Son; and hence the more carefully the Jews persevere in the keeping the festival, the more do they derogate from its sanctity. But they calumniate us falsely, as if we disregarded the Sabbath; because there is nothing which more completely confirms its reality and substance than the abolition of its external use.”

Read that? “If God now required the same of Christians, it would be putting a veil over the death and resurrection of His Son.” So now, taken in conjunction with Calvin said elsewhere (specifically his sermon on Deut 34) a clearer picture of his entire view comes into focus. As I stated before, Calvin did not see Sunday as a simple sabbath replacement as so many Reformed want to make it to be, applying their own man-made rules and regulations to it, rather he states:

“Thus we see what is the regulation for keeping this Day. It is not to keep the ceremonies as strictly as under the Jewish legal bondage, for we do not have the figure or shadow any longer. But rather, the Day serves as a means of calling us together so that we may learn, to the extent we are able, to apply ourselves more fully to serving God. We are to dedicate the day entirely to him, so that we may completely withdraw from the world and, as I said before, so that we may have a good start for the remainder of the week.”

I would argue that Calvin's entire position is that Sunday, the Lord's Day is to be spent in honor and worship of God as much as possible.

As Reformed Christians, understanding the doctrines of vocation and service, we cannot limit service to God solely to one day a week, or one location. While the believer is certainly bound by conscience to attend the gathering of the people, the Law no longer binds them from leisure, even if that includes watching a football game, so long as it does not prevent them from proper honor and worship of God with the rest of the saints (not Saints ).

I believe that Calvin, like many other Reformed authors, wavers between the freedom of the believer and the believer's duty to God in regards to the nature of rest on the Lord's Day.

I again ask, if Sunday has truly become the “Christian Sabbath”, where then are the clear written requirements found in Scripture? Where is the clear transference wherein we might find one of the Apostles stating for us that such is the case? Why must those who hold to the Sunday-Sabbath view browbeat others publicly when a supposed infraction against their view is committed? (I've seen this happen in a church foyer as a new believer mentioned his need to fulfill his promise to his wife by mowing his lawn upon returning home from church!)

Grace and peace to you, my friend.

There are many ways I could approach your question. The first is that clearly, even 'full subscription' to the 1689 doesn't mean strict in the sense that every jot and tittle is taken as gospel. Nobody, and I mean nobody, agrees to every setting of words and statements in the confession. That's because it isn't an infallible document.

I agree with what the confession states, but also believe that there is some application specifics that we have some freedom in, application that does not violate the wording of the confession.

For example, you stated where it said “observe an holy rest all day”. Well, what does 'all day' mean? Daylight only? 12 to 12, a full 24hours –and if so, am I being 'obedient' while sleeping some of that time during the night? Does it mean sundown to sundown, as in the OT? Etc. Many different 'applications' can be deduced here.

Say, for example, one man began his Sabbath on Saturday night, preparing for worship and following in the tradition of OT Sabbath observance. Then, on Sunday morning, he was at church, taught his family at home during the day, went and served some elderly folks at the nursing home, helped a neighbor repair a flat so he could drive to work the next day, went back to evening worship, had a time of prayer and singing with his family before putting them to bed, and then, about 9pm, a football game is on. Or, he had set his DVR and recorded a football game from earlier in the day. Is he still within the bounds of the confession and of God's word if he sits down and watches the game? Especially since he's already been observing for 24hours? I say absolutely, and do not see that as in conflict with the confession.

That is just one example, of many IMO, where application of the command differs slightly. And so I am not comfortable with setting specific rules beyond the general thrust of what scripture commands (which the confession states very well).

And I am a member of ARBCA, and do not agree with your statement that we hold to a strict interpretation so that nothing else is allowed on the day. The body of Christ within ARBCA, from my experience, has generally been very charitable towards others regarding some specific matters of application. Where the desire of the heart is obvious (like skipping church to watch football), then no, we are pretty strict; but in matters of conscience, there is more freedom than you're probably aware of.

“observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations”

Does this mean what it says, or is there a way in which to affirm this while not really agreeing with what it says, but rather holding to the spirit of it and not the actual statement? If that is the case, then you need to be clearer in the future about what you really affirm re: the Confession. One can interpret the Confession's words at this point in a way that actually affirms being guided by conscience and good judgment, or one can affirm what the Confession actually states (the words are pretty clear – rest all day from works, words and thoughts, about worldly employment and recreations). Many groups take these words on their face, such as ARBCA, and teach that nothing relating to recreation is permissible on that day. Others hold a much looser interpretation, in essence not really affirming what the Confession states at this point.

There is a wide gap between those two ways of affirming the Confession. I was under the impression that you affirmed it on its face. I apologize if that is not the case. Are you saying you affirm the spirit, but not the letter, of the Confession at this point?

My apologies for misrepresenting you if that is the case.

No wonder this discussion has gone nowhere.

No, but the 1689 does set that rule. And you said you agreed with it. Therein lies the confusion of your position.

During the French Revolution, one philosopher/dictator attempted to move the nation to a 10 day work week, according to him, to defeat Christianity. Voltair even said: “I can never hope to destroy Christianity until I first destroy the Christian Sabbath.”

As a believer living during this time, what are you to do? If the Apostles had demanded Sunday as the Christian Sabbath, then the 6 days labor and 1 day rest, ordained from creation, would be compromised. But because the people of God are not located in one region anymore, nor in one nation-state observing one calendar, the apostles are content with leaving the '6 days labor and 1 day rest' pattern from creation, while positively identifying the 1st day of the week for obeying Sabbath duties by leaving their example.

The 1689 rightly breaks down the duties of Sabbath obedience, best contained in scripture, IMO.

However, I do recognize some freedom in conscience. The day is to be set aside as holy to the Lord. In other words, we are to set aside a special time to 'delight' in the Lord, serve others, worship with others, and obtain some physical rest. Application of these things can be tough at times, and we should allow some freedom of conscience.

I am not upset just because people watch football on the Lord's Day. I'm concerned about their heart if they skip church, neglect other Sabbath duties, or fail to conscencrate their day as holy to the Lord. In reality, one 'application' of physical rest could be watching a football game, and I have no problem with that provided that other Sabbath duties were obeyed. Yes, it does seem to violate the instruction out of Is 58 which says we are to turn our foot away from our own pleasures (which entertainment is certainly one application), and yes it does seem to support those working on the Sabbath (contrary to the 4th commandment), but ultimately I am concerned that we can talk about football on Sunday without ever referecing the fact that the Sabbath command has something to do with this.

In this culture, which has almost completely rejected the 4th commandment because of the ease of lifestyle and entertainment that goes to the very core of what we live for here in America, I am content with getting people to realize that the 4th commandment has something to do with them. I am convinced that if we just get people to understand that the 4th commandment instructs us into practical obedience somehow, some way, then the Spirit will ultimatley guide them into proper obedience. The last thing we need to do is to set rules…and hopefully I have not given you the opinion that I am setting a rule of 'absolutley no football' on Sundays.

I'm finding it more and more difficult to have a discussion with you're not reading my comments carefully. You don't understand my position and are seemingly having a good time burning strawmen. It's so funny to me that you are the one telling me whether I agree with the 1689 or not!

Let me clarify a few things:

-I agree with the 1689.

-The specific day has been appointed by the example of the apostles, including by many other inferences in scripture where Sabbath duties are performed on Sunday by either example or Paul's instruction (1 Cor 16).

-I state that it was not *explicitly* appointed in the NT because of several reasons, the offending of Jews in the beginning, the full development of doctrine that came over time, and the fact that the morality of the command is not found in observing a specific 24hour period. Thus, the change in the day is not a huge issue because the gospel was to be taken to all the world. All the world encompasses many different timezones. For the apostles to explicitly say “Sunday” I think it would've confused the gentiles, many of whom operated on a different weekly calendar, and it would've confused those living in other nations when their “Sunday” would take place at a different time than Israel's Sunday. You overlook basic issues such as these, which are as obvious from the light of nature. Our Sunday here in GA is not the same moment in time as Sundays across the world! The specific moment in time, 24yr period, is unimportant. What IS important is that it is the 1st day of the week –whatever week it is you are in.

-That being said, I agree with the 1689 because scripture and reason make it clear that Sabbath duties can only be performed when the entire church is in unison on the day. Thus, by positive apostolic example, the testimony of history and the unity of the church on the day for the last 2 thousand years, and inference of precept from the scriptures, the Sabbath has changed to the first day of the week.

-Yes, it did change with the resurrection of Christ, but just as Paul was sympathetic to Jews, for a time allowing them to continue their ceremonial traditions without forcing the Law upon others, I see the apostles doing likewise with the Sabbath, and this could potentially be a reason why it isn't *explicitly* changed, as if we needed it to be anyway. Nevertheless, see my comments above about 'time and space', the weekly calendar, etc.

-I never said the BF&M supported my position; of course it doesn't. I'm not a Southern Baptist. I said it still bears the resemblance of the Baptist forefathers who wrote it, who were sabbatarrian. We want to get back to the 'Founders', right? But IMO, the BF&M is legalistic because it commands something that is not rooted in the Law of God.

-Do you understand what I mean by 'moral'? Doesn't seem like it to me. The moral is what is commanded for us to do; the ceremonial is the arena, or time/place in which we do it. Sunday is the ceremonial portion of the command, just as Saturday was in the OC; our duties are the moral portion, to be performed on the ceremonial day. What I am saying is that the ceremonial aspects of the command have changed from OC to NC, but that the moral substance has remained the same since creation. Add to this my comments above (again) about time, space, timezones, calendars, cultures, etc. The Apostles were not explicit because the people of God were moving out of a nation state located in a specific part of the world and operating on a specific calendar, to “all the world”, which encompasses many nations and timezones and calendars. But this does not mean that the 1st day of OUR week, just as they did in their time, is not the Christian Sabbath.

Now Brian, I have answered all of your questions. Hopefully you understand my position now, and I am content with that. I could likewise ask you a series of questions, point out your inconsistencies, but I am at little weary of this discussion. I would simply just ask that you read more of the puritans, historic baptists, and reformers on this issue so that maybe you'll see that Sunday-Sabbath doesn't get created out of thin air.

Thanks.

You say that there is not a specific day that has been appointed (or even considered as THE day by the Apostles), then you cite John's reference to a specific day being called the “Lord's Day”. Which is it? Also, why would none of the Apostles make the connection for us of the Sabbath law moving to another day if it were so? Yes, an argument from silence…but a deafening silence!

Your position now does not line up with the LBC 1689, which specifically states that the Sabbath changed from the last day of the week to the first day of week (and did so change from the resurrection of Christ, with no transition period). And it does not ground its position only in the moral aspects of the Sabbath, but also in many aspects of the ceremonial (restriction of certain activities).

Your position also does not line up with the Baptist Faith and Message (which you cited earlier), which states that, “Activities on the Lord's Day should be commensurate with the Christian's conscience under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.” The BF&M and the LBC 1689 are at odds on this point, and I thought that you were agreeing earlier with the 1689, but your most recent comments throw that into doubt.

My point is this – you were all up in arms about people watching a football game on Sunday, and you originally cited the LBC 1689 as to why you were against recreation on Sundays. That reasoning I can understand, because the Confession explicitly states that not only should no recreation be engaged in, but not even any THOUGHTS about it should occur. The Confession states that a Christian should cease on Sunday from, “their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations”

But now you seem to be appealing just to the moral aspect of the Sabbath law. So I am trying to get a handle on what exactly it is that you believe concerning the Sabbath law and Sunday worship. If only the moral aspect of the law has remained, then there is nothing for you to get upset about concerning someone else who's conscience is not bound concerning watching football on a Sunday (even if your conscience IS bound not to watch it). Do you see the difference? When you try to impose upon others something like what the LBC 1689 states concerning Sunday activities, you are attempting to bind their conscience with something you believe is a universal law that applies to everyone (and that in fact may be what you believe). Your inconsistency is revealed, though, when you begin to say things like their is no specific day, and that it is purely moral now, with no ceremonial requirements. The LBC 1689 retains some ceremonial requirements to its view of Sunday. The BF&M does not. It states that activities on that day should be guided by the conscience. If you have a conviction about things you shouldn't do on Sunday…great! Follow that. But do not try to impose your conscience onto another to bind theirs.

I believe, as you do, that formal corporate worship should on Sunday (as I have already stated, I agree with Calvin, Luther and Turretin). What I do NOT agree with is the LBC 1689's grounding that worship in OT ceremonial restrictions concerning what can and cannot be done on that day, which in earlier remarks you seemed to agree with the LBC on those points. Has that changed? Do you line up with the LBC or the BF&M? Binding law, or guided by conscience?

BTW, my reference to some of the paedo position and how they reach that position was not to make you guilty by association. It was to show the similarity in some of the argumentation with respect to something being explicitly abrogated or not.