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
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
posted by Soli Deo Gloria | 2/26/2006 11:10:00 PM
6 Comments:
Theoretically I go back and forth on this issue. Practically, I generally refrain from working on Sundays. However, I don't think our Sabbatarian understanding (be it Saturday, Lord's Day, or any day) should be rooted in Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law was rooted in God's acts of creation and that is where we should look for guidance. For whatever reason God decided to rest on the 7th day, and we being made in His image, it seems, would be wise to do likewise.
I agree that the Sabbath is rooted in God's acts of creation, but an argument against this I have read goes something like this:
Because we are a New Creation in Christ, essentially born-again, our rest does not come from the Sabbath, which was rooted in the Old Creation, but rather, our rest is in Christ. Therefore, because we no longer are part of the Old Creation, we have no obligation to follow the Sabbath.
Where in the world do you get the idea you should "abstain from commerce?" That just sounds like legalism.
Legalism is certainly a term that has lost a lot of meaning. As I have understood the term, "legalism" is when:
1. One follows after the Law as a means of righteousness, rather than faith in Christ.
2. One follows after abrogated Laws (dietary or ceremonial) as a moral obligation.
3. One follows after laws not derived from Scripture as a moral obligation.
Ehud makes excellent points concerning the "Non-Sabbatarian Day Of Rest" in that it really doesn't follow after the Sabbath. In that case, it is a man-made law, which is my third understanding of "legalism". But my question to Ehud is this: If this "Day of Rest" is founded upon the New Creation, and not on the Old, then would the nature of this rest change?
As for Ehud's commentary about not engaging in commerce, it is the necessary implication of the Fourth Commandment. To call this legalism is to miss this implication.
So then we're still under the Law? What happened to the Gospel? My use of legalism would fit the 3rd definition. Why would you apply that law from the Mosaic Covenant and not the others?
ps-Ehud, I have no idea if I know you, but I do enjoy the story of Ehud.
"So then we're still under the Law? What happened to the Gospel?"
The phrase "under the Law" is also one of those phrases which has been misunderstood/misused. Many think of Law as the opposite of Gospel when, in fact, the Gospel leads us into obedience to the Law. It is for this reason God says:
"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." Jeremiah 31:33
So Law is not opposed to the Gospel, but is part of it.
But what of "under the Law"? It makes more sense to understand this turn of phrase as being under the Law as a means of righteousness. This is "legalism" under definition 1. This is what is opposed to the Gospel, which bestows Grace and imputes the righteousness of Christ upon the believer. Not only that, but as noted above, the promise of God to write the Law upon our hearts and minds is a promise to sanctify, to make us more like Christ. Would anyone argue that Christ did not follow after the Law?
"My use of legalism would fit the 3rd definition."
I think you missed the point of what Ehud and I said. The idea to not engage in commerce is absolutely derived from the Fourth Commandment. Everyone, both believer and unbeliever, is obligated to follow after God's Law (the unbeliever tries to do it to save himself, while the believer does it because he is saved already). If someone engages in commerce, then it means that someone is working. For example, if I were to to seek out an open store to buy a piece of bubble gum, then I am seeking out someone who is working. In the case of economics, where there is a great demand, people will begin to fulfill that demand. So, for the last 50-60 years, more and more Christians sought to do more buying on the Sabbath, which in turn would lead to others to meet that demand, therefore you had people working on the Sabbath. This is the necessary implication of not following the Sabbath Law.
Why would you apply that law from the Mosaic Covenant and not the others?
Not sure if you mean the "no commerce" part or the larger category of ceremonial/dietary laws. If you mean the latter, then I refer you to definition 2 of legalism. That is a large topic to cover, of which I do not have the time to discuss here.
If you were referring to the former, I refer you back to my previous explanation. When studying and meditating upon the Law of God, it does the Christian a disservice to not think about the necessarily implications and far-reaching impact of what God is saying.
Post a Comment
<< Home