JO,
Is it your position that the meeting is our idea, that we call it? My first statement is derived from the RPW, that it is God who establishes order in worship. Is the Sabbath a "positive" AND "moral" AND "perpetual" commandment, as the Standards teach? If Calvin thought otherwise, OK. I consider him a master in Israel, but my Standards are a straightline development of his theology for the next 100 years. They are my government, and I happen to agree with them.

If God does set those things, then the moral requirement remains (one day in 7), and the positive requirement remains as the 7th day, unless he changes it to some other day--which, if the Puritan hermeneutic is correct, he did change to the first day. We argue that the evidence of this change is the explicit notations of the worshipful gatherings of the church in the NT.

When you say "it isn't clear to me" that the gatherings of the disciples were for worship, I concede 1) at first (certainly on resurrection day) they do not seem so; but 2) the appearances begin to follow a pattern. GOD keeps coming to meet with his disciples on the first day of the week. OK, was he just coming to them when THEY called a meeting? Acts tells us the believers were meeting CONSTANTLY, in essence one looooong worshipful gathering. But GOD keeps showing up one day in seven, which happens to be on the first day. So, if you were there, 7 days a week, and GOD kept showing up in the first day, which day would you start expecting him? Which day would you start thinking was the day HE was designating for his meeting? I know what I would be thinking.

Start with the RPW. If we find a description, we interpret it. Is the apostolic pattern an approved example? If so, it has the force of prescription when combined with the RPW.

As for Pentecost being Jewish, my main reason for including it is: it shows God meeting with his people, indeed doing something unique for his gathered people, again on the first day.

Acts 20:7 specifically designates a "first day meeting." I understand the disciples often met daily. Great. Perhaps we can meet more than we do as Christians too. But this marks the 1/2 dozenth time that the "first day" meeting is designated. Why don't we read about that "special meeting" on Lunes? Or some other day? Why even mention that it was the "first day" of the week at all? Much less repeatedly mentioning it? You are welcome to rubbish these references as so much coincidence, but I'm seeing something more there.

What is your reason for saying that slaves got Sunday off? Or did you mean would NOT have taken it all off? I agree, I think the saints would have set their meeting time (a circumstance) for when most people--including slaves--could be there, eventide. But unless you are saying its just coincidence that this was the first day... I don't see how it impacts the argument at all. And once again, this is a cumulative argument, not a prooftexting argument. What does the NT say about God's people gathering? What details are repeatedly emphasized?

As for 1 Cor 16:2, again you point to all these multiple designations of first-day religious observance, to the exclusion of other such designations, and wave the hand. OK. I can't make you see a pattern--all I can do is assert "its there" and wait until (if) you see it too.

And Rev. 1:10, maybe Jesus didn't tell us which day was his. I look at all the evidence, and I think he did. Its the day God designated to meet with his people, the day he started coming to them repeatedly, and which they in short order began to anticipate him, and to focus not on his coming to their gathering, but their attending on his appearance.

Blessings, as well.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --