Is the observance of Sunday a matter of Christian Liberty? - Page 3

joshua · #81 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by historyb

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua

Quote:

Originally Posted by historyb

How much of the Law are we still burdened under, are we not free from the Law? Is not the sabbath made for man and not man made for the sabbath? Is it me or are Reformed more into legalism than other branches?

I'll most likely get beaten down, but these are my thoughts.

So how do we determine how "much of the Law" we are no longer bound unto? The Sabbath was indeed made for man. Six days thou shalt labor. Who wouldn't want a Sabbath after six days of work? How is that man being made for the Sabbath and not vice versa? How can you call something which is explicitly God's Law, legalistic? I thought legalism was trying to make commandments and doctrines out of the traditions of men?

To me legalism is trying to make more out of something than it is. Are we under the law of the OT or the new law of Grace, Paul said forsake not to assembling of yourself together but he didn't say you must do it like the Romans do. Was Christ wrong to have his Apostles pick grain on the Sabbath, is it to be so strict that we no longer get anything out of observing it.

In my view, and this is just me. Since Sabbath doesn't really exist and now we have the Lord's Day and Sunday all those rules are negated, maybe it's just me not being a Sabbathtarian (sic).

Had God's moral law expired? And the Sabbath does exist. In fact, in a New Testament book, namely Hebrews, the the Holy Spirit writes:

4:9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God,

It's interesting that the Greek sabbatismos there indicates a "keeping Sabbath." Seems to me to be more than a spiritual thing.

joshua · #82 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by historyb

Was Christ wrong to have his Apostles pick grain on the Sabbath, is it to be so strict that we no longer get anything out of observing it.

Forgot to address this in my last post. The Law of the Lord is perfect. Jesus is perfect. Thus, Jesus couldn't have been breaking the 4th Commandment. He may have been violating the Pharisees' poor interpretation of the 4th Commandment, but He ceratinly wasn't breaking God's Law. It was a work of necessity, the same as pulling an ass or an ox out a ditch. In fact, he even alluded to David's eating the show bread, if I'm not mistaken. This wasn't sin either. So this allusion has no bearing on the validity of Sabbath keeping for New Testament Christians.

PuritanCovenanter · #83 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 05:40 PM

You guys who are quoting the Colosians and Hebrew versess need to know that there are legitimate discussions and commentaries that support a sabbatarian view. I read an article by Robert P. Martin in the Reformed Baptist Theological review that he spoke on these verses. Here is just a quote.

vl. 1.2 A Sabbath Remains.. The Place of Hebrews 4:9 in the New Testament's Witness to the Lord's Day by Robert P. Martin
(Heb 4:9) There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

In it he notes the Word is used here is σαββατισμός and not κατάπαυσις

(rest).
G4520
σαββατισμός
sabbatismos

This is an obscure term evidently that is used in just a few other places outside of the scriptures but used only once in the New Testament. Robert Martin says,

Quote:

"I think that it is of interest that "in each of these places the term [σαββατισμός] denotes the observance or celebration of the Sabbath," i.e., not "a Sabbath rest" as a state that is entered into but "a Sabbath-keeping" as a practice that is observed. This, of course, corresponds to the word's morphology, for the suffix -μός indicates an action and not just a state. see A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 151.
Reformed Baptist Theological Review Vl. 1;2 p.5

Obviously the article consists of the surrounding verses but it is a good read and quotes John Owen who is one of my faves.

And the Colosians verse is tied to an old testament reference. I will write more on this later. As I am going to Church here in a little bit and I am going to have to find the references to it.

Sorry but I have been hitting the board very sporadically and inconsistent since before Thanksgiving. I am getting stuff done in light of possible surgery that I am possibly going to do. So don't be disappointed if I don't get back to answer this tonight. I will answer this. I even got a baptism thread that needs to be attended to with Calvin and Hobbes. I am such a slacker.

historyb · #84 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Forgot to address this in my last post. The Law of the Lord is perfect. Jesus is perfect. Thus, Jesus couldn't have been breaking the 4th Commandment. He may have been violating the Pharisees' poor interpretation of the 4th Commandment, but He ceratinly wasn't breaking God's Law. It was a work of necessity, the same as pulling an ass or an ox out a ditch. In fact, he even alluded to David's eating the show bread, if I'm not mistaken. This wasn't sin either. So this allusion has no bearing on the validity of Sabbath keeping for New Testament Christians.

Seems to here though, maybe I'm not reformed enough to keep every jot and tittle of the Law.

joshua · #85 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by historyb

Seems to here though, maybe I'm not reformed enough to keep every jot and tittle of the Law.

Welcome to the club. Nobody, other than Christ is able to keep the Law. Nor are we able to "be perfect" as our Father in heaven is perfect. Nonetheless, we are commanded to be so. Do you cease from trying to be holy, just because your unable to attain it fully? Surely not.

historyb · #86 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 05:55 PM

No, but I sure don't follow closely as some here do. Makes me think there is something wrong somewhere.

Amazing Grace · #87 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by victorbravo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Could a strict sab answer a couple questions for me please? Out of the gate, so there is no decpetion in this post as if I am setting up a bait and switch, I am a non sab. Yet I do not call those who are in question as being pharisees. Even when 'rebuked or admonished" becasue of my stance, I smile and re read Romans 14, Heb 4 and Col 2 in my head.

I have head that the Sabbath observance is more than the 4th commandment, is this true? That it is some sort of "necessary consequence" deduced form creation ordinance. I honestly do not know what that sophist statement means, but I wont argue.

So this sabbath ordinance prescribed in the 4th commandment, was there more that the Israelites were required to do?

How many sabbaths are included in the 4th commandment? Is this sabbath prescribed in the 4th commandment Law? As equal to the sabbath year? Lev.25:17....Israel is instructed to number seven times seven Sabbath years (49) and the following year is the Jubilee (50th year) which would be observed by no sowing or reaping. All slaves were to be released, and the land they purchased is to be returned to the original owner. All the debts were to be forgiven.

Are these sabbaths different that the creation ordinance which has been imported to be the 4th commandment?

The second question is pretty straightforward. The fourth commandment in Ex. 20 explicitly states "the Sabbath day" in Hebrew and ties it directly to the 6 days work of God at creation. It only applies to the one day out of seven, not to any other of the numerous "sabbaths."

As for the first question, I don't really understand. Are you asking was there more required than what is stated in scripture? If so, no.

Vic, I am asking what did the Israelites do on the sabbath day and was there a preparing for it the day before.

PuritanBouncer · #88 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 06:04 PM

It seems to me that the "bottom line" is that the Lord need give you this desire, or passion. Now understand when I say what I am about to say I am NOT comparing these two things, just the "feeling" I have inside myself about each being similar.

When I was in charismatic churches I never spoke in tongues (thankfully) but was told that I needed to just "trust God" and it would "just happen". It never did. Back then I thought there must be something wrong with me. I feel the same now about this. I just can't see this strict adherence as something to pursue or seek to have for myself, but if I just believe, and trust God (I know some may wish to say "repent" even) that as a follower of Christ it will just come to me.

If it never does, should I question my salvation the way I was told to do as a charismatic?

CalvinandHodges · #89 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

I am sorry that you took it that way. My apology to Bob was over a technical matter and not the question of this thread - so they are not connected.

As I understand it - the Three Forms of Unity agree with the Westminster standards on this particular matter. I used the term "libertine" in quotes to show that I was not utilizing the full force of the term. A person who breaks the Commandment in the name of "Christian Freedom" is technically a "libertine." You would have to explain yourself concerning that this "is not proper at all."

It is not proper becasue both parties do nto start with the same premise regarding the perpetual observance of the 4th commandment in the New Covenant. There they are "technically" not breakign a commandment. There is no sin where there is no Law.

HC:
LORD’S DAY 38

Q. 103. What doth God require in the fourth commandment?

A. First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained;1 and that I, especially on the sabbath, that is, on the day of rest,2 diligently frequent the church of God,3 to hear His word, to use the sacraments, publicly to call upon the Lord,4 and contribute to the relief of the poor,5 as becomes a Christian. Secondly, that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by His Holy Spirit in me; and thus begin in this life the eternal sabbath.6

Article 25: Of the abolishing of the Ceremonial Law.

We believe, that the ceremonies and figures of the law ceased at the coming of Christ, and that all the shadows are accomplished; so that the use of them must be abolished amongst Christians; yet the truth and substance of them remain with us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have their completion. In the meantime, we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets, to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honesty, to the glory of God, according to his will

This is all I find in the BC relating to Law...

And Dort mentions nothing.

8. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. WCF

I see a big differnce actually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

If you argue that your "Christian Freedom" allows you to break the Sabbath command and do your own pleasure on the Lord's Day, then how can you enforce any of the other commands? The Bible links the commands together as I showed from the book of James. Jesus links the Commands together with the Command to Love as the fulfillment of the Law. One could simply say that it is a matter of Christian Freedom and claim the Command does not apply.

If you say that such is ridiculous, then that is my point. Why then do you say that watching football on Sunday is legitimate?

All sin is forgivable - even Ted Bundy's - whom I believe was truly repentant for his sins and is now with the Saints in Heaven.

Grace is truly Amazing isn't it?

-CH

Yes it is amazing. But again you are arguing from a different starting point.

Personally I am inclined, though not convince to start with Hosea 2:11

Hosea 2:11: “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her New Moons, her Sabbaths-- all her appointed feasts.”

DO you know how the Pharisee perverted the sabbath regulation? They actually had a list of over 1500 do's and don'ts for the Sabbath. Some of their Sabbath don'ts: don't rescue a drowning man; don't light a candle (but a Gentile could be hired to do this); don't walk any farther than is absolutely necessary; don't pluck heads of grain; and, what is my personal favorite, don't give birth.

Hi:

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.

What is really bizarre is what you wrote here:

Quote:

It is not proper becasue both parties do nto start with the same premise regarding the perpetual observance of the 4th commandment in the New Covenant.

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.

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

No Longer A Libertine · #90 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

I am sorry that you took it that way. My apology to Bob was over a technical matter and not the question of this thread - so they are not connected.

As I understand it - the Three Forms of Unity agree with the Westminster standards on this particular matter. I used the term "libertine" in quotes to show that I was not utilizing the full force of the term. A person who breaks the Commandment in the name of "Christian Freedom" is technically a "libertine." You would have to explain yourself concerning that this "is not proper at all."

It is not proper becasue both parties do nto start with the same premise regarding the perpetual observance of the 4th commandment in the New Covenant. There they are "technically" not breakign a commandment. There is no sin where there is no Law.

HC:
LORD’S DAY 38

Q. 103. What doth God require in the fourth commandment?

A. First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained;1 and that I, especially on the sabbath, that is, on the day of rest,2 diligently frequent the church of God,3 to hear His word, to use the sacraments, publicly to call upon the Lord,4 and contribute to the relief of the poor,5 as becomes a Christian. Secondly, that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by His Holy Spirit in me; and thus begin in this life the eternal sabbath.6

Article 25: Of the abolishing of the Ceremonial Law.

We believe, that the ceremonies and figures of the law ceased at the coming of Christ, and that all the shadows are accomplished; so that the use of them must be abolished amongst Christians; yet the truth and substance of them remain with us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have their completion. In the meantime, we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets, to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honesty, to the glory of God, according to his will

This is all I find in the BC relating to Law...

And Dort mentions nothing.

8. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. WCF

I see a big differnce actually.

Yes it is amazing. But again you are arguing from a different starting point.

Personally I am inclined, though not convince to start with Hosea 2:11

Hosea 2:11: “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her New Moons, her Sabbaths-- all her appointed feasts.”

DO you know how the Pharisee perverted the sabbath regulation? They actually had a list of over 1500 do's and don'ts for the Sabbath. Some of their Sabbath don'ts: don't rescue a drowning man; don't light a candle (but a Gentile could be hired to do this); don't walk any farther than is absolutely necessary; don't pluck heads of grain; and, what is my personal favorite, don't give birth.

Hi:

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.

What is really bizarre is what you wrote here:

Quote:

It is not proper becasue both parties do nto start with the same premise regarding the perpetual observance of the 4th commandment in the New Covenant.

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.

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

So now we're comparing playing catch with your son or a game of dominoes on Sunday to Ted Bundy? That seems like quite an acrobatic hoop.

BJClark · #91 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 07:48 PM

houseparent;

Quote:

If it never does, should I question my salvation the way I was told to do as a charismatic?

I don't think so no...

Here is a link on the Jewish Observances of the Sabbath...sounds like many of them are just as confused as what is acceptable and what is not..

MyJewishLearning.com - Daily Life: Many Ways to Celebrate Shabbat

CalvinandHodges · #92 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Longer A Libertine

So now we're comparing playing catch with your son or a game of dominoes on Sunday to Ted Bundy? That seems like quite an acrobatic hoop.

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?

-CH

No Longer A Libertine · #93 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

So now we're comparing playing catch with your son or a game of dominoes on Sunday to Ted Bundy? That seems like quite an acrobatic hoop.

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?

-CH

You have failed to prove God is dishonored by bonding with a child on a Sunday, that seems rather fatherly to me actually.

Perhaps you are not personally a task master but I know some of my most edifying conversations have been in the midst of playfulness and other activities that involve community.

Fellowshipping doesn't necessarily involve words, we can glorify God and bond together just by being present and working together in nonverbal ways such as sport or competition.

Declaring someone a murderer because you are unable to wrap your mind around how one could love their child Biblically on a Sunday and play with them is absurd and I'm sorry to say comes across very very smarmy.

Amazing Grace · #94 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 08:10 PM

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..

mshingler · #95 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 09:10 PM

They would appeal to passages such as Romans 14 and Colossians 2:16 in support of the idea that the Sabbath is no longer obligatory.[/quote]

Speaking as one who comes from a dispensational background, I would say that it's much more than these passages. The argument is that the 10 commandments were given to Israel and not to the church. Therefore, the only reason the other 9 commandments would be obligatory is because they are specifically repeated in the New Testament, in some form. Hence, the law, as contained in the 10 commandments, is not the rule of life for the Christian. The commands of the New Testament are.
I don't subscribe to this view. I'm just familiar with it as most of my Christian friends and acquaintances would hold to it.

mshingler · #96 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 09:23 PM

I don't personally think that the Sabbath or "Lord's Day" is a question of liberty, even though sincere believers differ in their views and convictions about it. When I look at Rom. 14 and 1Cor. 8-10 (which I just finished preaching through), I find issues that are clearly acceptable. That is, the issues Paul describes under Christian Liberty are things that Christians undoubtedly are free to do, but some still have a weak conscience about. When it comes to the Sabbath issue, it's a matter of different biblical interpretation - a theological difference. I would say that, in order for it to be a matter of liberty, it has to be something that is clearly allowed - something that is neutral in and of itself.
I think we are too quick to lump everything that Christians disagree about into the context of "liberty". We can honestly disagree about the Sabbath, but that disagreement falls in a different category than whether 1st Century Christians could eat meat or whether a Christian can have a glass o