Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges 
I find your post most increddible. From Ursinus' commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism: Quote: Keep holy. To keep holy the Sabbath, is not to spend the day in slothfulness and idleness (watching football?); but to avoid sin, and to perform such works as are holy. God is said to sanctify the Sabbath differently from what men do. God is said to sanctify the Sabbath, because he institutes it for divine worship. Men are said to sanctify it, when they devote it to the purpose for which God instituted it.
Six days shalt thou labor. God allots six days for labor, the seventh he claims for divine worship; not that he would teach that the worship of God and meditation upon divine things is to be omitted on all other days beside the Sabbath, but, 1. That there might not only be a private worship of God on the Sabbath as at other times, but that public worship might also be observed in the church. 2. That all those other works which men ordinarily perform on the other days of the week, might on the Sabbath give place to the private and public worship of God.
Thou shalt do no manner of work. When God forbids us to work on the Sabbath day, he does not forbid every kind of work, but only such works as are servile - such as hinder the worship of God, and the design and use of the ministry of the church. That this is the true sense of this command is evident from what is expressly said in other portions of the Scripture. pg. 558. parenthesis mine.
| Apparently, your understanding of the Heidelberg Catechism is radically different from that of the writers of it. |
Actually he does not speak of the duration, and stresses the fact of worshipping the Lord. Secondly, the work that was spoken by God was what is ORDINARILY done as occupation. Nothing more nothing less
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges Because two different parties start with two different premises means that one of them cannot call the other to repentance? Hmmm. Since Jesus had a different premise concerning the Sabbath than the Pharisees, then it was not proper for him to condemn them? Hmmmm. Since you have a different premise concerning Murder than Ted Bundy it is not proper for you to condemn him? Hmmmm. |
Do you know what Jesus was condemning? I suggest you read some 1st semester rabbinical literature to understand the meaning of shabbat halacha. Jesus was condemning the pharisees becasue they utilyzed the oral law in conjunction with the written law. That is the meaning of Christ's words, "It has been said" vs It has been written.. There is a big big difference. Christ has John the Baptist theology in this respect.
Ch, this is like arguing the truth of the book a Maccabees with a roman catholic. It cannot be done. It is not in a protty bible, but it is in theirs. So without a level beginning, it is impossible to dialogue correctly. Jesus could do as He pleased, He is God. But He did not condemn for the same reasons you condemn a non sab.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges That one party is in error concerning the observance of the Sabbath means that it is "inappropriate" to rebuke such? Your view of what is proper and not proper is flawed. In fact, it is not proper of you to rebuke me based on your own view of propriety. Your view leaves a vacuum between oposing viewpoints.
Blessings,
-CH |
It appears that more emphasis is put on showing the error ina brother vs showing your opine to be right, when in fact they are both Arguements for the sake of Heaven. Christian Liberty proponents should not regard strict sabs to be in error, well at least I do not.
Where as statements like this:Teaching your child to disobey God on the Sabbath day is a form of spiritual murder. Ted Bundy could only affect the body, but you would be destroying a soul.
Which is worse?
sound like Moses' first cousin Korach who lead a rebellion against Moses and Aaron described in chapters 16 and 17 of the book of Numbers. While Korach(you CH) claims to be out for the good of the entire community,(upholding the 4th commandment and making it binding and a burden) he is in reality only interested in displacing Moses as the highest human authority.
You see the connection? Boht the Saducee and Pharisee started with the same root. They both believed in the 7th day. It is just you add the commandments of men, like the pharisee, which is not bad per se', as equally binding as the written Law.
Let me give you another example. A LAw stated that no commerce was to be done on the 7th day. Thats all the saducee would say, then the pharisee added that noone could carry money on the 7th day. Now their goal was to 'add' something to bind the people not as a burden, but only to reinforce the root of no commerce on the sabbath. So being a pharisee is not as bad as people make it to be. Obviously Christ was against them becasue He did not favor the oral law..