Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Benjamin,
I'm sure there is a place for that polemic. Having said that, I also think there is probably a reason why that polemic was appropriate in the 1700s and may not be exactly fit today. Why? Not, I say, because sin isn't serious, or because the facts of such resistance to God's will result in the same condemnation, whether it is exhibited in one century or another.

Rather, because in the 1700s it was a sin against the light, and in today's context it seems to me to be a sin in almost sheer ignorance. In other words, the truly guilty parties for this offense, this damage of the Christian Sabbath, are those who attacked the Sabbath (and the rest of God's ethic) in days past, and those who actively resist it today, hating the law generally,

The law will still do its job! We simply need to employ it in the lawful manner. Tell people that they are obligated to heed its present-day relevance. This is what is needed, rather than 200 year old polemics. Polemics do not rebuild the ruins. They defend the castle from attacks; they attack the rival castle. We have let our own bulwarks rust and tarnish. Joey Pipa's The Lord's Day is a better book for today, IMO.



Kim, I think you are basically on-target.