Questions for the "Non-Sabbatarian Day Of Rest" Advocates

Why is it that Christians who say "we need to take one day out of the week to rest" also say "the Sabbath is not for today"? If their view of resting comes from the Fourth Commandment, then why not promote the Sabbath? Seems very odd that they would derive a view from God's Law, yet say we do not adhere to that Law any more. To those Christians, it is believed that the Sabbath was abrogated in the New Testament, implying that the Sabbath was a ceremonial law foreshadowing Christ. Yet, it is the only ceremonial law that I know of that is used to draw out a "Christian principle" for living.

To the "non-sabbatarian day of rest" advocates, I have these questions for you:

1. Why derive anything from the abrogated Fourth Commandment?

2. Why derive anything at all from abrogated laws?

3. Is this "non-sabbatarian day of rest" an imperative?

4. If it is an imperative, are you not making a law? Why bother making a law when God's Law is already there?

5. Isn't making an imperative "Christian principle" out of an abrogated law Judaizing?

Either the Sabbath still stands or Christians are being Judaized. Either God's Fourth Commandment is in full force or Christians are honoring and following after a truncated view of an abrogated Jewish ceremonial law. There just isn't a middle ground here.

In Christ,

Victor

My Pastor's Article

On Thursday, February 16, my pastor, Paul Viggiano, wrote an article for the Daily Breeze, a local newspaper, entitled "Just Unhappy Cosmic Accidents?" (The Daily Breeze has archived the article, but I was able to copy it. It is posted here.) The article is quite insightful concerning what is being taught in the public schools today. With the Intelligent Design curriculum being struck down in Philadelphia, one has to wonder if the teaching of evolution is having an impact on our kids today. In speaking with students a month ago:

"I conveyed that they, perhaps unwittingly, had been taught that their presence on this Earth was a mere accident and that they were themselves accidents."

How did the students respond?

"They were savvy. They seemed to pick up on the spiritual and psychological consequences of such a proposition."

In Paul's article, he touches upon the fact that such an evolutionist mindset is killing our kids. By boiling down their origin to primordial goo, they are practically dehumanized. Anyone else want to venture as to what other areas have dehumanized people?

Ideas do have consequences, and some slopes are more slippery than others. One only has to look at the 20th Century to see the mass devastation some ideas have had on humanity. Godless governments of Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union destroyed lives in the tens of millions (some estimate the total of about 25+ million). And in 1973, our very own "Christian" nation ruled in favor of abortion, causing an estimated 40+ million deaths of unborn children.

My pastor's article touches upon a not-so-small segment of the population, and what a segment it is. These are children whose lives were not cut short by an outside decision, but now are making their own decisions to end their lives or head down a path of destruction (and sometimes they bring others down with them). At least they do not face such a godless government (at least, not yet) that would seek to destroy them for its own ideology, as Germany and Russia did with its own citizens. Who knows? Maybe if they survive long enough in their godless, Darwinist mindset, they may just become those kind of bloodthirsty leaders for our country.

But all hope is not lost since we place all our hope in Christ. In every sphere of our lives, we need to proclaim Christ as King and God as the one who gives meaning in our lives. Between the adults having to face their ever-growing godless government and the aborted babies, there is the children. By letting them know that they are "fearfully and wonderfully made", not only will their lives be saved from themselves, but perhaps they will be the leaders who bring back God into the government and eradicate abortion.

Yes, ideas do have consequences, for bad and for good.

In Christ,

Victor

Is Homosexuality Condemned Or Are Those Laws Abrogated?

The A-Team Blog (here and here) had referenced a very heated exchange between Brian McLaren (deemed as "THE" head of the Emergent Church movement by many) and Mark Driscoll (an emerging church leader, but supposedly much more theologically sound than McLaren). Both of their writings have stirred up quite an eruption over whether or not homosexuality is condemned in Scripture. For one visitor of The A-Team blog, it seems she doesn't think it does condemn it. Read her analysis of it here. Go ahead...read it. Come back here when you're done.

..........
..........
..........

Ok, now that you've finished reading that, let's analyze this analysis.

"Those who cite Scripture in condemning homosexuality, and those who seek guidance about heterosexual behavior in the Bible, tend to cite passages from Scripture which refer, explicitly or obliquely, to the Leviticus statutes defining cultural practice for ancient Israel. In Leviticus, principles underlying a believer's relationship to God are coupled with specific statutes given to the ancient people of Israel; some of these may also be found in Numbers and Deuteronomy. The statutes specifically describe behavior forbidden to the ancient Israelites."

Vicky's first mistake is to equate all of God's Law as "defining cultural practice for ancient Israel." That is, any moral stipulation that is found in Leviticus can only be applied to ancient Israel, therefore has no transcedence that applies to all cultures. Well, I guess we can forget about God telling ancient Israel how they are to be models to the other nations around them (Deuteronomy 4:1-8). They were not merely set apart culturally, but models for others nations.

"In addition, there exist a series of spiritual laws; Jesus Christ quoted the two fundamental spiritual laws given to God’s people: “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 22: 37-40) These two commandments are repeated in Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18. Jesus said “Do this and you shall live.” (Lk. 10:28)."

But what defines what a "spiritual law" is? By implying that the law concerning homosexual behavior falls under a "cultural practice for ancient Israel", it must not be a "spiritual law". But how can she make such an implication? What is the line of demarcation here? Unfortunately, Vicky offers none but an arbitrary assertion. As for the first and second greatest commandments, all the Law and the Prophets hang on these commandments. But since the homosexual laws fall under "cultural practice for ancient Israel," according to Vicky, Jesus must not mean those laws. Her use of Jesus' quote is a foreshadow of how she uses Him to mitigate the Laws found in the Old Testament. Watch for it.

"It’s very interesting that some modern readers of Scripture cite Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 as condemnation of homosexuality, implying that no believer should be gay in today’s world."

Well, yeah. Isn't that obvious? Seriously, can we be murderous, adulterous, thieving Christians? As Christians, we are to be repentant of our sins and turn away from them. Since homosexuality is a sin, according to Scripture, the identity of a Christian cannot be tied to practicing sin. But Vicky has already categorized homosexuality as something "cultural" and not transcendantly moral.

"Study of the context for the Leviticus statute reveals that various rules right beside that one are no longer kept by those Christians who would proscribe homosexuality on the basis of the “holiness code”. For instance, Lev. 19:19-22 forbids interbreeding of animals, and mixing of seeds in a field, practiced by many Christian farmers today. Also, most Christians probably wear clothes made of mixed fabrics (think: cotton and polyester, or linen and silk) also forbidden in these verses. Other statutes, currently ignored, include Lev. 19:26-27 which forbids eating “anything with its blood”—so much for rare or medium-rare steak. “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard” is right in there with “you shall keep my Sabbaths and reverence my sanctuary: I am the Lord”. None of these statutes are kept by Christians nowadays."

I'll give credit where credit is due. She is trying to keep in context, unlike a lot of other prooftexting Christians. However, she seems to have no clue on how to separate ceremonial practices and the moral ethics of God's Law. Do the things in Leviticus 19 call for the death penalty? These are not crimes if they are not done. However, with homosexuality, God calls upon the civil magistrate to enact justice and punish the evildoer. There is a difference between Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 19 in what they are speaking about, but Vicky just does not make that distinction.

Furthermore, a consistent application of her analysis would allow for incestuous relationships and bestiality. One has to wonder if she even realizes the monumental mistake she is making in her effort to absolve homosexual behavior from God's condemnation of it.

"What differentiates the spiritual laws most Christians keep from those statutes fallen into disuse? Any biblical scholar will attest to the cultural significance of the statutes, aimed at the people of Israel in a specific context as desert-dwellers during the early centuries of their identity as a people. The spiritual laws, on the other hand, embody general principles, rooted in God’s love, applicable to all people in all contexts, as made clear by Jesus Christ."

But since she has already implied a presupposition that homosexual behavior falls under a "cultural" thing for ancient Israel to do, these words fall hollow. True, that there are biblical scholars who "will attest fo the cultural significance of the statues", but usually those scholars know how to make the distinctions between ceremonial laws and moral laws. For Vicky, everything fits under one category of being a cultural statute.

"Reading the more specific statutes set forth in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the purpose emerges clearly: to promote health among the desert sojourners, to set them apart from neighboring idolaters, and “so that you may be fruitful and multiply greatly” (Deut. 6:3)."

Vicky grossly misunderstands the case laws ("specific statues"). These case laws helped to define the general laws of the Ten Commandments. Yes, they do help "promote health among the desert sojourners", but all of God's Law is supposed to do that. Murder is bad for the health. So's adultery. We don't even have to get into the first 4 commandment to know how unhealthy it is for us to break them. God's Law is there to protect His people! By not obeying them, everyone endangers their health.

"Most of these statutes are not kept today, for very good reasons. Most of us are not desert sojourners, for one thing. And, more compellingly, Jesus said “The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then, the Kingdom of God is proclaimed…” (Luke 16:16)"

There goes that cultural/transcendant dichotomy again. And her use of Jesus' quote is, quite frankly, yanked from it's context. Verse 17 reads: "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." This is parallel to Matthew 5:17-20:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

One has to wonder what laws we are to "practice and teach" in order to be called "great in the kingdom of heaven". My theological understanding of the Old and New Testament helps me to distinguish between the differences in the case laws. I can know from Scripture that we are to follow after the moral laws, but we no longer have to follow the ceremonial and dietary laws. Under Vicky's understanding, there is no distinction. To her, if we don't follow after some of the laws in Leviticus 19, then we don't have to follow those in Leviticus 18. All law is practically dismissed, with the exception of those "spiritual laws", whatever that means. For her to quote Luke 16:16, she would have to believe that heaven and earth has indeed passed away.

"It’s interesting to note that Jesus refined specific statutes pertaining to marriage, implying that those rules did not conform to His spiritual laws, to loving God and one’s neighbor. He said that “if you look at a woman with lust, you have committed adultery with her in your heart.” He also said that in the kingdom of heaven people “neither marry nor are given in marriage” (Luke 20:35). These statements show how higher spiritual laws overrule the specific statutes closely heeded by the Pharisees of Jesus’ time."

So Jesus is mitigating the specific statues of a God-given Law? Since when did Jesus have such an authority over His Father? All Jesus did was point out the evil in our hearts and how marriage doesn't happen in Heaven, and that overrides the specific statutes? I'm not sure if Vicky understands the difference between clarification and contradiction. Jesus did not contradict His Father's Laws, but helped clarify them. Her interpretation of Jesus' words have no foundation.

"The New Testament contains a few references to homosexuality: all are rooted in the same passages of the “holiness code” mentioned above. Romans 1:24-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 decry those who commit “sodomy” (which may also be committed by heterosexuals, and which does not define homosexual behavior) and those “men [who] giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.” (Romans 1:27) This obvious reference to Lev. 18:22 falls under the same statutory limitation as the other laws mentioned in Leviticus, and practiced by Paul and his Jewish companions."

Wow! Has she missed the point of these passages or what? Rather than letting the text speak for themselves, she goes back to her original assertion that these things were "cultural" mandates, and not "spiritual laws" (whatever that means). Reading the text of these passages she cites, Paul equates several practices with wickedness and sin. Is she now going to argue that it was only a "cultural" sin and not something offensive to God? Does not God's Law say that homosexual behavior is an abomination?

"Paul clearly states, elsewhere, that Christian Gentiles should not be bound by statutes; he specifically mentions those pertaining to food and drink, and “sabbaths”."

That's cause such statues, in the context Paul gives, were not moral in nature, but ceremonial in the foreshadowing of Christ. She misses this point.

"While the injunctions in Romans 1:24-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 may be read as condemning immoral sex or passion, they should not be read as condemning moral, thoughtful, prayerful practice of homosexuality."

Oxymoron anyone? If those passages condemn immoral sex (homosexuality fits under this category), can you be moral and a practicing homosexual? I don't think Vicky realizes her contradiction. But that's because she has already categorized homosexuality as something not immoral. Begging the question anyone?

"Consider just a sampling of the other sexual laws found in Leviticus, in order to see clearly the cultural context in which they were valid: Sex with slaves is delineated (Lev. 19: 20-22 and other places); does that mean we modern Christians may have sex with slaves?"

If she would study the whole of the Law and not wrench things out of context, she would know that the answer is no. And if she would look at the rest of Leviticus 18, she is practically allowing for incestuous relations and bestiality.

"Polygamy is sanctioned; yet even in the days of Jesus and Paul, it began to fall into disrepute, as when Paul amends the law by stating that a church leader must be “husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:12)"

Sanctioned? No where in Scripture is such a practice sanctioned. Just because it happened without consequence to the polygamist doesn't mean it was sanctioned nor condoned. Such an assertion is unfounded and argues from silence. There is no "law" for Paul to amend because there was no law that said people were supposed to practice polygamy.

"Women were to separate themselves when menstruating and “You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness when she is in her sexual uncleanness” (Lev. 18:19) Do modern believers sequester themselves when it’s that time of month? Then too, if “a man has an emission of semen, he shall bather his whole body in water and be unclean until the evening. Everything made of cloth or of skin on which the semen falls shall be washed with water and be unclean until the evening. If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bather in water and be unclean until the evening” so that would involve loads of extra laundry for many modern believers, should any elect to keep this statute."

Again, a gross misunderstanding of ceremonial laws. And again, the antinomian argument rears its ugly head.

"What separates the statutes, culturally appropriate to desert-dwelling tribes, from the spiritual laws, given at Sinai, reinforced by Jesus, and upheld by believers today?"

Again, Vicky shows no understanding of the case laws defining the nuances of the Ten Commandments. Instead, she pits them against each other as if they are in contradiction with one another.

"The spiritual laws stipulate a spirit of love toward God and neighbors."

She's right. It does. But what is "love"? Am I not loving by treating my neighbor right? Aren't the case laws indicative of that? Apparently, to Vicky, it isn't. Ironically, she had used Matthew 22:37-40 earlier, which tells us that all the Law and Prophets hang on two commandments: Love God and love your neighbor. Let me emphasize: ALL the Law and Prophets.

"Jesus overruled “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (Lev. 24:20), asking his Father instead to “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”"

Vicky certainly shows us that she has no idea between the just punishment the civil magistrate must do here on earth, and the final judgement the Father will do when we place our trust in Christ. Again, she believes that Jesus can overrule the Father, which has no biblical basis whatsoever.

"He healed those who those zealous in the law deemed unclean; those who the lawkeepers deemed unworthy, he sat with, ate with, walked with, and saved."

She also shows us that she cannot distinguish between our behavior and the duty of the civil magistrate here.

"When a man asked Jesus what he should do to inherit eternal life, Jesus asked what was written in the law, and the man replied: “You shall love the Lord your God withal your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself. And Jesus said to him, You have given the right answer. Do this and you shall live.” (Luke 10:27-28)"

I've commented on this concerning the parallel passages of Matthew 22:37-40.

"Jesus did not ask the man whether he was gay; why then do some of us so fervently condemn homosexuality, when there are so many loving and needful tasks which await us?"

Jesus didn't have to ask the man if he was a practicing thief or an adulterer. Strongly implied in His reply is that you cannot continue in sin against God or against his neighbor and expect to have eternal life. Sorry, but that also includes practicing homosexuality.

In all, Vicky's rendering of God's Law and her understanding of Scripture is so wrought with error that I find it hard to take such horrible exegesis seriously, yet I must. We all should. Gross errors and liberal interpretations are a bane to Christian morality, let alone an offense to God for such a mishandling of His precious Word. As I have indicated before, if homosexuality can be dismissed based on a few verses in Leviticus 19 that we no longer practice (most of Leviticus 19 are moral case laws), then it's just a hop, skip and a jump towards incest and bestiality. Thank God that His Word is true and demolishes such arguements that favor sin.

In Christ,

Victor