A Question for Sabbath Keepers

[NaphtaliPress]

Moderating. Folks, please cite who you are responding to, 1. so all know who are not caught up, and 2. so they get the notice and don't miss your response. Also, just a reminder. This needs to stay in the asking questions realm and not go to advocacy for unconfessional views from heat of debate, which advocating for eating out whilly nilly on the Lord's Day most certainly is.

People seem to think that electricity is like some big tank that someone is filling and if you turn the spigot at your house it's not really affecting anything or causing anyone to work more (or more people to work).

That's not true. There is a direct link between your usage, and more people needing to work. If only Sabbatarians didn't use electricity on the Sabbath, it would directly correlate to fewer people working.

It's like you're saying that the hospital cafeteria has to be open to feed people in the hospital. That's a work of necessity. But if everybody else wants to walk in there and eat, resulting in the hospital needing to hire triple the number of food workers, that's perfectly fine because they are already doing a necessary activity. That's what's happening with the electricity.

I don't understand the logic.

Well I wrote this before the last couple posts but I think it still may be helpful to the discussion.

The electricity and eating out comparison is an apples and oranges comparison. You assume no work is needed at the power plant if you don't use the electricity which is not true. The plant must be manned by someone and adjustments made if anyone turns something on OR off - also for maintenance, outages, etc. Keep in mind our emergency services, communications infrastructure, etc all need electricity. It is also not possible to shut a power plant down for a day and restart it the next. (I say this as one who has a degree in electrical engineering with a power emphasis - though I now work in telecommunications). In the home electricity is necessary for everything from HVAC to water. Having everyone run their own generator sounds like something the Pharisees would dream up (no I am not calling you one), its far from the intent of the law. You now have private electricity, the main grid is still on, the power to your house is still provided by the grid, you can still use your self generated power unlawfully.

For clarity - how does this differ from a fuel station stop? You can prepare by filling your tank the day before it is possible to store up fuel in your car as preparation for the day. The fuel station needs to be able to provide fuel to emergency and necessary services though so it is not sinful for it to remain open and depending on your situation it may or may not be sinful to use it. It is not possible to store up the electricity necessary to power a modern home in the same way.

When you eat out you require unnecessary work, you go out of your way to do transactional business for your own pleasure - see Isaiah. By your logic everyone would need to have their own well and turn off the water main to their home for fear of a dripping sink (personal wells are not even legal in many municipalities). The eating out on the Lord's Day is a violation of God's 4th commandment not just because of your action on the day. The command was actually violated earlier that week when one failed to properly prepare for the Sabbath.

Is this an arbitrary question or is there some unnecessary use of electricity bothering your conscience? If you feel your usage of electricity is not necessary then stop, to violate your conscience is sin for you. I'm not sure how you reason that because you find difficulty applying the command as it pertains to electricity that leads you to a more liberal view of it in other areas, like eating out? Should we not look at the scripture and determine how to handle eating out, then look at the scripture and determine how to handle electricity? Rather than looking at scripture to determine how to handle electricity and then looking at electricity to determine how to handle eating out?

As for the man running the plant - his work is as necessary as any other emergency 24/7 service. He cannot know or control how people use the service and his conscience should be clear. He should seek to have a rotation so as to gather with the saints and take up the day in worship regularly, just like a emergency medical technician/doctor, police officer, etc.

Exodus 20:8-11
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Nehemiah 13:21
“Then I testified against them, and said unto them, Why lodge ye about the wall? if ye do so again, I will lay hands on you. From that time forth came they no more on the sabbath.”

Isaiah 58:13
If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

 

[JMC]

Ok so the real issue here is that the OP wants to eat out and is trying to justify it because other people use electricity? Is that what I'm getting? If we're going down this road then no eating is necessary on the Sabbath except in very rare instances.

I have no desire to eat out on Sunday. It started out with me realizing I shouldn't eat out on the Sabbath. But then I wondered why people who don't eat out on the Sabbath still do business with electrical companies forcing electrical workers to work. Then I've been playing devils advocate. If someone tells me I can't eat out on Sunday, then I can tell them that they can't use electricity. I am unsatisfied until there is some consistency in the logic and I think the best way to go about it is be playing devils advocate.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I have no desire to eat out on Sunday. It started out with me realizing I shouldn't eat out on the Sabbath. But then I wondered why people who don't eat out on the Sabbath still do business with electrical companies forcing electrical workers to work. Then I've been playing devils advocate. If someone tells me I can't eat out on Sunday, then I can tell them that they can't use electricity. I am unsatisfied until there is some consistency in the logic and I think the best way to go about it is be playing devils advocate.

Gotcha. sorry for the accusation. I have a further thought that might be helpful. For now, see Aaron's reply.

 

[Polanus1561]

I have no desire to eat out on Sunday. It started out with me realizing I shouldn't eat out on the Sabbath. But then I wondered why people who don't eat out on the Sabbath still do business with electrical companies forcing electrical workers to work. Then I've been playing devils advocate. If someone tells me I can't eat out on Sunday, then I can tell them that they can't use electricity. I am unsatisfied until there is some consistency in the logic and I think the best way to go about it is be playing devils advocate.

I would then ask you to consider the 'good witness to unbelieving restaurant staff' view that you acknowledged eaarlier.

 

[JMC]

EDITED PER MODERATOR

1) I am advocating for the confessional view, eating out is not lawful.
2) @JMC

Well I wrote this before the last couple posts but I think it still may be helpful to the discussion.

The electricity and eating out comparison is an apples and oranges comparison. You assume no work is needed at the power plant if you don't use the electricity which is not true. The plant must be manned by someone and adjustments made if anyone turns something on OR off - also for maintenance, outages, etc. Keep in mind our emergency services, communications infrastructure, etc all need electricity. It is also not possible to shut a power plant down for a day and restart it the next. (I say this as one who has a degree in electrical engineering with a power emphasis - though I now work in telecommunications). In the home electricity is necessary for everything from HVAC to water. Having everyone run their own generator sounds like something the Pharisees would dream up (no I am not calling you one), its far from the intent of the law. You now have private electricity, the main grid is still on, the power to your house is still provided by the grid, you can still use your self generated power unlawfully.

For clarity - how does this differ from a fuel station stop? You can prepare by filling your tank the day before it is possible to store up fuel in your car as preparation for the day. The fuel station needs to be able to provide fuel to emergency and necessary services though so it is not sinful for it to remain open and depending on your situation it may or may not be sinful to use it. It is not possible to store up the electricity necessary to power a modern home in the same way.

When you eat out you require unnecessary work, you go out of your way to do transactional business for your own pleasure - see Isaiah. By your logic everyone would need to have their own well and turn off the water main to their home for fear of a dripping sink (personal wells are not even legal in many municipalities). The eating out on the Lord's Day is a violation of God's 4th commandment not just because of your action on the day. The command was actually violated earlier that week when one failed to properly prepare for the Sabbath.

Is this an arbitrary question or is there some unnecessary use of electricity bothering your conscience? If you feel your usage of electricity is not necessary then stop, to violate your conscience is sin for you. I'm not sure how you reason that because you find difficulty applying the command as it pertains to electricity that leads you to a more liberal view of it in other areas, like eating out? Should we not look at the scripture and determine how to handle eating out, then look at the scripture and determine how to handle electricity? Rather than looking at scripture to determine how to handle electricity and then looking at electricity to determine how to handle eating out?

As for the man running the plant - his work is as necessary as any other emergency 24/7 service. He cannot know or control how people use the service and his conscience should be clear. He should seek to have a rotation so as to gather with the saints and take up the day in worship regularly, just like a emergency medical technician/doctor, police officer, etc.

it's alway great to meet another electrical engineer! but that's not how the Power grid works. It is a fact that if every house shut their power off for the Sabbath there would be less workers at the thousands of powerplants. For instance one powerplant might powering a hospital, but then next powerplant is powering a hundreds of homes. It's a fact that some people at powerplants are sinning on the Sabbath because they are powering unnecessary things. That's why If we say we are sinning by eating out, we must also say we are sinning when we power a microwave, speaker, etc. An argument i think could very well be made that nothing electronic is necessary, except hospitals and such because that is necessary for some people to live. People lived without it for so long and some continue to live without it.

I would then ask you to consider the 'good witness to unbelieving restaurant staff' view that you acknowledged eaarlier.

but what about the churches witness to all the electric companies.

 

[Polanus1561]

but what about the churches witness to all the electric companies.

I already said I believe power plants are lawful and a Christian utopia here would still have workers running a power plant.

 

[JMC]

I already said I believe power plants are lawful and a Christian utopia here would still have workers running a power plant.

But your argument for powerplants being lawful is not consistent logic. The logic you are using is saying that If one powerplant is providing energy to a hospital then all powerplants are necessary. That's like saying If one McDonalds is giving food out to the starving then all of them are and therefore okay to eat at.

I'm saying only the powerplants that are powering necessary things are lawful. The other ones are not because they are powering unnecessary things. It is the unlawful power plants that I was referring it

 

[aaronsk]

it's alway great to meet another electrical engineer! but that's not how the Power grid works. It is a fact that if every house shut their power off for the Sabbath there would be less workers at the thousands of powerplants. For instance one powerplant might powering a hospital, but then next powerplant is powering a hundreds of homes. It's a fact that some people at powerplants are sinning on the Sabbath because they are powering unnecessary things. That's why If we say we are sinning by eating out, we must also say we are sinning when we power a microwave, speaker, etc. An argument i think could very well be made that nothing electronic is necessary, except hospitals and such because that is necessary for some people to live. People lived without it for so long and some continue to live without it.


but what about the churches witness to all the electric companies.

Well that's not really true. Necessary services still require electricity and perhaps less man power is needed but the plant must still "be manned by someone". So the idea that the plant can be shutdown or unmanned isn't possible even in the most ideal sabbath situation for residential power. I am not advocating a situation where residential power can be just shut off. That isn't the world we live in. People have real needs that require electricity, its not all just for fun and they cannot store it up in their home.

But your argument for powerplants being lawful is not consistent logic. The logic you are using is saying that If one powerplant is providing energy to a hospital then all powerplants are necessary. That's like saying If one McDonalds is giving food out to the starving then all of them are and therefore okay to eat at.

I'm saying only the powerplants that are powering necessary things are lawful. The other ones are not because they are powering unnecessary things. It is the unlawful power plants that I was referring it

This doesn't make sense. You cannot determine that all power going to residential areas is not lawful. People have home medical equipment for instance, well water needs power, furnaces need power, sump pumps, lighting, etc. I don't follow the McDonald's thing. No, I have not said that everything you want to use electricity for is lawful, but residential electricity has lawful and unlawful uses just like anything else... What makes your eating at McDonald's necessary for the day? Are you saying you are starving in this scenario?

 

[Polanus1561]

But your argument for powerplants being lawful is not consistent logic. The logic you are using is saying that If one powerplant is providing energy to a hospital then all powerplants are necessary. That's like saying If one McDonalds is giving food out to the starving then all of them are and therefore okay to eat at.

I'm saying only the powerplants that are powering necessary things are lawful. The other ones are not because they are powering unnecessary things. It is the unlawful power plants that I was referring it

(Did I use the hospital example in this thread? Cannot remember)

1. Anyway, powerplants will never be lawful in your definition because how will power plants ever discern what the power is used for? I view buying power (a material) lawful on Sunday for lawful use. Thus the existence of plants are fine. Workers running it are fine. Me using it lawfully is fine. People using it for unlawful purposes does not poison the whole well.

2. What I am saying is, it is lawful for powerplants and sunday eateries to exist. That is different for me giving a blank cheque for anyone to use both for whatever reasons. Separate issue.

3. You already acknowledge the principle that eating out hinders the potential evangelistic aspect; any failure in reconciling of powerplants and eating out does not negate this principle you clearly acknowledged. Ethics has always distinguished the clear and the not so clear. The not so clear (parsing out power plant use) does not negate the clear.

 

[JMC]

Well that's not really true. Necessary services still require electricity and perhaps less man power is needed but the plant must still "be manned by someone". So the idea that the plant can be shutdown or unmanned isn't possible even in the most ideal sabbath situation for residential power. I am not advocating a situation where residential power can be just shut off. That isn't the world we live in. People have real needs that require electricity, its not all just for fun and they cannot store it up in their home.


This doesn't make sense. You cannot determine that all power going to residential areas is not lawful. People have home medical equipment for instance, well water needs power, furnaces need power, sump pumps, lighting, etc. I don't follow the McDonald's thing. No, I have not said that everything you want to use electricity for is lawful, but residential electricity has lawful and unlawful uses just like anything else... What makes your eating at McDonald's necessary for the day? Are you saying you are starving in this scenario?

That's the point. Sure they still need to be run and people will still work. But if we didn't use electricity on the Sabbath less workers would be needed. But since we do use it those additional workers are breaking the Sabbath. And since we would be the cause of them working we are breaking the Sabbath. The majority of work done is balancing the systems. It takes more work to balance a 50,000 MW system than it is to balance a 10,000 MW system. The whole concept is that when we use electricity we are causing more work.

My point with McDonalds is that I'm assuming your argument was that since some power is going to necessary things it makes it okay for it to power unnecessary things. But i guess your argument is that since the powerplants are powering necessary things it does not cause any more additional work for them to power unnecessary things since they are already there. If that is the case, it is not true. Less power does mean less work. On top of this every time you are flipping a switch you are causing several business transactions.

Also, So do you hold to the belief then that you can only use electricity for necessary things on the Sabbath? That's what I'm meaning by lawful or unlawful.

 

[JMC]

(Did I use the hospital example in this thread? Cannot remember)

1. Anyway, powerplants will never be lawful in your definition because how will power plants ever discern what the power is used for? I view buying power (a material) lawful on Sunday for lawful use. Thus the existence of plants are fine. Workers running it are fine. Me using it lawfully is fine. People using it for unlawful purposes does not poison the whole well.

2. What I am saying is, it is lawful for powerplants and sunday eateries to exist. That is different for me giving a blank cheque for anyone to use both for whatever reasons. Separate issue.

3. You already acknowledge the principle that eating out hinders the potential evangelistic aspect; any failure in reconciling of powerplants and eating out does not negate this principle you clearly acknowledged. Ethics has always distinguished the clear and the not so clear. The not so clear (parsing out power plant use) does not negate the clear.

1. it seems like your point was that since one powerplant is doing necessary work then all powerplants are doing necessary work. You said one act of unlawful use doesn't make all of them unlawful. But my point is that one act of lawful use doesn't mean all acts are lawful. This is what we are saying when we say since powerplants are running for necessary reasons we can use it for unnecessary reasons.

2. I think powerplants can exist on Sunday. provided they are only providing power to necessary things.

3. You are right. It does not negate the clear. But my point is that forcing more labor at power plants is clear as well.

 

[Polanus1561]

1. it seems like your point was that since one powerplant is doing necessary work then all powerplants are doing necessary work. You said one act of unlawful use doesn't make all of them unlawful. But my point is that one act of lawful use doesn't mean all acts are lawful. This is what we are saying when we say since powerplants are running for necessary reasons we can use it for unnecessary reasons.

2. I think powerplants can exist on Sunday. provided they are only providing power to necessary things.

3. You are right. It does not negate the clear. But my point is that forcing more labor at power plants is clear as well.

1. Did I ever parse out one power plants vs all power plants? Obviously, power plants do not work that way. Every power plant is mixed in terms of sending power to all kinds of activities. Yes, I acknowledge power plants are involved in unlawful acts. But that does not mean I stay away from them altogether
"since powerplants are running for necessary reasons we can use it for unnecessary reasons." - What unnecessary reasons? Sorry brother, you have been lacking some clarity in some recent posts.

2. Ok.

3. I already said I am fine with labor at power plants. And-you are still equating one to one - a waiter and a cook serving you vs you buying a lawful material to do lawful acts.

 

[JMC]

1. Did I ever parse out one power plants vs all power plants? Obviously, power plants do not work that way. Every power plant is mixed in terms of sending power to all kinds of activities. Yes, I acknowledge power plants are involved in unlawful acts. But that does not mean I stay away from them altogether
"since powerplants are running for necessary reasons we can use it for unnecessary reasons." - What unnecessary reasons? Sorry brother, you have been lacking some clarity in some recent posts.

2. Ok.

3. I already said I am fine with labor at power plants. And-you are still equating one to one - a waiter and a cook serving you vs you buying a lawful material to do lawful acts.

1. For the sake of being simple I did not want to get into exactly how electricity works. You are right. Technically every Power Plant could be said that they are powering everything. What that means is that they are all contributing to unnecessary uses of electricity. It does not mean that since they are all contributing to necessary things that everything they are doing is necessary. Since unnecessary things are powered on Sunday ever Power plant connected on the same grid is contributing to that unnecessary action and therefore doing work on the Sabbath. What I am meaning by unlawful is unlawful according to the Sabbath. They are not powering unlawful things but the act of them powering unnecessary things on the sabbath is unlawful according to the Sabbath.

What is unnecessary? I would say making a cup of coffee is unnecessary. I would say using a microwave is unnecessary. I would say using a speaker in a small church is unnecessary. They only seem necessary because we are so used to their luxury.

3. how are you fine with Labor at power plants? because some of there work is providing essential needs? If so, does that mean a restaurant providing essential needs can now provide unessential services?

This is getting in the weeds. Could you clearly state why it's okay to use electricity but not okay to use the service of a restaurant?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I'll repeat this since it is not clear to me where this is going and I can't review the whole thread. Is this about every other Sabbatarian's view being inconsistent in power use or because of that the reformed confessional view against commerce and eating out is wrong and should't be advocated?

Moderating. Also, just a reminder. This needs to stay in the asking questions realm and not go to advocacy for unconfessional views from heat of debate, which advocating for eating out whilly nilly on the Lord's Day most certainly is.

1. For the sake of being simple I did not want to get into exactly how electricity works. You are right. Technically every Power Plant could be said that they are powering everything. What that means is that they are all contributing to unnecessary uses of electricity. It does not mean that since they are all contributing to necessary things that everything they are doing is necessary. Since unnecessary things are powered on Sunday ever Power plant connected on the same grid is contributing to that unnecessary action and therefore doing work on the Sabbath. What I am meaning by unlawful is unlawful according to the Sabbath. They are not powering unlawful things but the act of them powering unnecessary things on the sabbath is unlawful according to the Sabbath.

What is unnecessary? I would say making a cup of coffee is unnecessary. I would say using a microwave is unnecessary. I would say using a speaker in a small church is unnecessary. They only seem necessary because we are so used to their luxury.

3. how are you fine with Labor at power plants? because some of there work is providing essential needs? If so, does that mean a restaurant providing essential needs can now provide unessential services?

This is getting in the weeds. Could you clearly state why it's okay to use electricity but not okay to use the service of a restaurant?

 

[Logan]

I'll repeat this since it is not clear to me where this is going and I can't review the whole thread. Is this about every other Sabbatarian's view being inconsistent in power use or because of that the reformed confessional view against commerce and eating out is wrong and should't be advocated?

Neither. It's a given that one should not eat out (based on Sabbatarian convictions). The question is why we don't blink an eye at using electricity even though our use directly correlates into requiring more people to work.

Example: If all Sabbatarians were to not use electricity (or even decrease their use), it is a fact that fewer people would be working at the power plant on Sunday. Electricity already being in use for things like hospitals does not negate this fact. Therefore, Sabbatarians, by continuing to use electricity, particularly for things that are really just comforts, are directly requiring people to work on Sunday when they use their lights, cook on their electric ranges, use their electric ovens, brew their coffee, etc. Our use of electricity is in most circumstances not a necessity and it is definitely inside our control how much we use and therefore it is also in our control how many employees are required to work at the power company.

Just trying to get at the logic of why we argue this is acceptable. It may be, but I admit I'm having a hard time seeing why, when we know that our use directly impacts the number of people working. Surely the church struggled with this at some point in the past (say early half of 20th century), particularly when power generation was even more manual.

 

[Polanus1561]

Neither. It's a given that one should not eat out (based on Sabbatarian convictions). The question is why we don't blink an eye at using electricity even though our use directly correlates into requiring more people to work.

Example: If all Sabbatarians were to not use electricity (or even decrease their use), it is a fact that fewer people would be working at the power plant on Sunday. Electricity already being in use for things like hospitals does not negate this fact. Therefore, Sabbatarians, by continuing to use electricity, particularly for things that are really just comforts, are directly requiring people to work on Sunday when they use their lights, cook on their electric ranges, use their electric ovens, brew their coffee, etc. Our use of electricity is in most circumstances not a necessity and it is definitely inside our control how much we use and therefore it is also in our control how many employees are required to work at the power company.

Just trying to get at the logic of why we argue this is acceptable. It may be, but I admit I'm having a hard time seeing why, when we know that our use directly impacts the number of people working. Surely the church struggled with this at some point in the past (say early half of 20th century), particularly when power generation was even more manual.

How would you explain why electrical cooking is not a necessity? Coffee and perhaps light I can understand.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Neither. It's a given that one should not eat out (based on Sabbatarian convictions). The question is why we don't blink an eye at using electricity even though our use directly correlates into requiring more people to work.

Example: If all Sabbatarians were to not use electricity (or even decrease their use), it is a fact that fewer people would be working at the power plant on Sunday. Electricity already being in use for things like hospitals does not negate this fact. Therefore, Sabbatarians, by continuing to use electricity, particularly for things that are really just comforts, are directly requiring people to work on Sunday when they use their lights, cook on their electric ranges, use their electric ovens, brew their coffee, etc. Our use of electricity is in most circumstances not a necessity and it is definitely inside our control how much we use and therefore it is also in our control how many employees are required to work at the power company.

Just trying to get at the logic of why we argue this is acceptable. It may be, but I admit I'm having a hard time seeing why, when we know that our use directly impacts the number of people working. Surely the church struggled with this at some point in the past (say early half of 20th century), particularly when power generation was even more manual.

Every time or society when Christians existed had their own sets of challenges. First Century Christians who many were slaves had to work that day. Even at the time of the Westminster assembly, laws were passed by the puritan Parliament allowing milk delivery on the Lord's Day and middle upper class puritans hired coaches to get to church (all the streets were open sewers). A law also regulated inns to some extent to not serve food to any that day but those residing in them. I don't know the answer or can't formulate what is rolling around my mind, than pondering this from Bownd about not needing to oppress ourselves by matching the over strict Jewish sects in no fires or preparing food on the Lord's Day.
"And therefore whereas the Lord Jesus gives leave not
only to draw the ox and the ass out of the ditch to preserve their lives, but also to
lead them to the water (Luke 13:15), to make their lives more comfortable to
them; we permit not only things needful to the life of man, but also such
as are convenient to the use and comfort of man, as the dressing of meats,
whereby a man may be made more cheerful in the duties of sanctification.
So that both in using them we refresh and not oppress ourselves; and in
preparing them, we use the time before, after, or between the public exercises.
In that therefore the law permitted the leading of the ox to water, we
see how things convenient are not at that time unlawful, so that they are
not abused or overused." Bownd (2015), pp. 219-220.

 

[JimmyH]

This makes good sense. yet there is still the issue of using things that are not necessary. not having coffee doesn't cause more work for you, but having it does for someone else. it also seems like your argument is that why worry about this small thing when there are other bigger issues. Then could someone say, "I'm still going to eat out on Sunday, because I'm still working on reading my Bible on Sunday"?

Did the apostles light a fire to warm themselves on a cold day ? Did the 1st century Christians light a fire to warm their vittles ? They started a fire, perhaps having gathered the kindling the day before, and we throw a switch. At least that is my assumption.
Do we flush the toilet after use on the Lord's Day ? Where does 'observance', reverence begin and end ?
Do I love the Lord my God with all of my heart, mind and soul, and love my neighbor as myself ? Quite frankly I'm not even close to there yet, but I'm only 74.
I do try and keep the Sabbath holy, but I also have to remember that my righteousness is as filthy rags .... no matter what I do.
I'm not saying therefore, that it doesn't matter what I do. Before I was a Christian whatever I did had no effect on my state of mind.
Now I hate the sin that is in me and that governs my staying on the narrow way, Sabbath, or any other day.

 

[JMC]

Every time or society when Christians existed had their own sets of challenges. First Century Christians who many were slaves had to work that day. Even at the time of the Westminster assembly, laws were passed by the puritan Parliament allowing milk delivery on the Lord's Day and middle upper class puritans hired coaches to get to church (all the streets were open sewers). A law also regulated inns to some extent to not serve food to any that day but those residing in them. I don't know the answer or can't formulate what is rolling around my mind, than pondering this from Bownd about not needing to oppress ourselves by matching the over strict Jewish sects in no fires or preparing food on the Lord's Day.
"And therefore whereas the Lord Jesus gives leave not
only to draw the ox and the ass out of the ditch to preserve their lives, but also to
lead them to the water (Luke 13:15), to make their lives more comfortable to
them; we permit not only things needful to the life of man, but also such
as are convenient to the use and comfort of man, as the dressing of meats,
whereby a man may be made more cheerful in the duties of sanctification.
So that both in using them we refresh and not oppress ourselves; and in
preparing them, we use the time before, after, or between the public exercises.
In that therefore the law permitted the leading of the ox to water, we
see how things convenient are not at that time unlawful, so that they are
not abused or overused." Bownd (2015), pp. 219-220.

This makes a lot of sense. I didn't know the part about leading them to water. I also didn't know about hiring coaches and milk delivery. That certainly puts more light on the subject. I guess the logic would go that not eating out is not that big of an inconvenience where as not using electricity is a big inconvenience and therefore should be allowed. For I would say having electricity is like using a coach over walking through the sewer or leading the Ox to the water, where as eating out would be like Nehemiah 13. I think others have said similar things. I can get behind that.

 

[JMC]

Did the apostles light a fire to warm themselves on a cold day ? Did the 1st century Christians light a fire to warm their vittles ? They started a fire, perhaps having gathered the kindling the day before, and we throw a switch. At least that is my assumption.
Do we flush the toilet after use on the Lord's Day ? Where does 'observance', reverence begin and end ?
Do I love the Lord my God with all of my heart, mind and soul, and love my neighbor as myself ? Quite frankly I'm not even close to there yet, but I'm only 74.
I do try and keep the Sabbath holy, but I also have to remember that my righteousness is as filthy rags .... no matter what I do.
I'm not saying therefore, that it doesn't matter what I do. Before I was a Christian whatever I did had no effect on my state of mind.
Now I hate the sin that is in me and that governs my staying on the narrow way, Sabbath, or any other day.

Thank you. This is very helpful in how I should be viewing the Sabbath and the Christian life in general. I think you are 100% correct. Thank you for dealing with me graciously

 

[Eyedoc84]

The command is not "do nothing unnecessary". Eating, wearing shoes, going to the bathroom more than x times a day are not necessary either.

This makes a lot of sense. I didn't know the part about leading them to water. I also didn't know about hiring coaches and milk delivery. That certainly puts more light on the subject. I guess the logic would go that not eating out is not that big of an inconvenience where as not using electricity is a big inconvenience and therefore should be allowed. For I would say having electricity is like using a coach over walking through the sewer or leading the Ox to the water, where as eating out would be like Nehemiah 13. I think others have said similar things. I can get behind that.

Yes. I think electricity is now so basic to everyday living in the developed world that going without would end up causing more work for more people and lead to less doing of those things we should be devoting our Sabbath to. With regards to things like making coffee (not to mention keeping lights on with functioning heat/AC) I think hospitality should be regarded here, too. Whether hosting home fellowships or having families over between services, I can’t imagine being scrupulous to the point of denying those things to my guests.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I agree. If you read the thread linked earlier, this exact topic came up because I didn't understand the logic that says using public transportation, even in a city where that is the primary means of transportation and many people don't own vehicles, even if they are already being used for hospital workers, is breaking the Sabbath...but using electricity to heat my home and light my house on the Sabbath is fine because hospitals are already using electricity.

I don't have the answer but it seems inconsistent to me. Or perhaps we all like our electricity too much to think clearly about it?

Using electricity to light and heat our homes is not lawful on Sabbath because hospitals are also using electricity but because lighting and heating our homes are lawful actions. We were previously allowed to heat and light our homes and cook our food using a fire before electricity and therefore we are allowed to use electricity for these same things. If hospitals did not require the national grid to power them we could still make use of the national grid to do these things in our homes.

The problem in the previous thread is that certain persons were not comparing like with like. Electricity and public transport are not analogous. One is a form of energy, the other is a service. Energy can be put to both lawful and unlawful uses but the unlawful uses do not void the lawful. A service, or a work, is either lawful or unlawful. Running public transport in systematic disregard of the Sabbath is unlawful because it is an unnecessary work. (And the only reason it is available for use by Christians going to church is because it is being run for unlawful reasons. Just as an unlawful act does not make a lawful work unlawful; a lawful act- attending church- does not make an unlawful work lawful.)

Electricity is necessary to perform many lawful acts on Sabbath, just as fire (and gas) before it.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Argument 1: Electricity is allowed because its a necessity. Hospitals need it and police need it. I think there is a misunderstanding of how the grid works. It seems like the people holding to this view because they think that we turn the grid on and now anyone can use it without causing any extra work. Since Hospitals need it and the grid is powered we might as well use it. That's the argument, but that's not how the grid works. Every Watt that is produced by a generator is then sold to a utility company that then sends it to your house when your AC kicks on or you turn on a light. This is shocking because it happens in nanoseconds, but it does. When we use electricity it is directly cause someone else to work more. The grid could easily only power Hospitals and traffic lights and it would result in a lot less people working on the Sabbath. That's why this argument is not satisfying me because us using electricity does cause extra work.

Any extra work created by lawful uses of electricity- which extend beyond the emergency services into each and every home- is not unlawful work being performed by the men at the plant. So there is nothing to be concerned about there.

What this boils down to is this: are you as a worker at the plant culpable in the unlawful uses being made of this lawfully generated resource? As I said at the beginning my instinct is that no you are not. When the electricity is made use of in a private home (or even in a hospital) you cannot tell what, exactly, it is being used for can you? A "tv button" doesn't light up in the office does it? Any electricity which is made use of in any particular private residence could be- and often will be- being used for lawful works.

As I understand it parts of the grid can be shut down (a city, a region &c.) but I wouldn't have thought it possible to restrict the use of electricity to specific appliances in a home? Therefore I can't envisage a way in which the grid could be partially shut down and still allow all lawful uses of electricity. This is a complication which, strictly speaking, isn't necessary. It isn't essentially necessary that human society is powered by electricity: we got on quite well for a long time without it. But today it is necessary because that is how human society today is powered and therefore those are the circumstances we must operate within. When everything was powered and lighted by gas there was still the issue of the provision of gas.

Perhaps one's conscience might trouble one that he is working within the grid and thus providing electricity which will be used unlawfully. I can appreciate why that might be the case (though I personally don't think the person is sinning by working there). However that is a separate issue from the use of electricity itself. One can lawfully use electricity on Sabbath without being complicit in the sin of those who make use of it unlawfully, just as one may lawfully eat fruit on the Sabbath which may at some point have been picked on a Sabbath.

 

[Logan]

Electricity and public transport are not analogous. One is a form of energy, the other is a service...Electricity is necessary to perform many lawful acts on Sabbath, just as fire (and gas) before it.

I won't say the conclusion is wrong but the reasoning definitely is. Electricity is not just a form of energy. It is a service, provided by people working on Sunday, which utilizes a form of energy. If you are running your own generator or running of batteries then yes, I can accept your analogy to fire. But not if you're using public utilities.

If you want to talk about fire, an analogous situation would be hiring someone specifically to come to your house, build your fire, and keep it going for you by adding wood whenever you pointed your finger at them. The reasoning you keep using to make a distinction simply isn't valid, given how things actually work.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I won't say the conclusion is wrong but the reasoning definitely is. Electricity is not just a form of energy. It is a service, provided by people working on Sunday, which utilizes a form of energy. If you are running your own generator or running of batteries then yes, I can accept your analogy to fire. But not if you're using public utilities.

If you want to talk about fire, an analogous situation would be hiring someone specifically to come to your house, build your fire, and keep it going for you by adding wood whenever you pointed your finger at them. The reasoning you keep using to make a distinction simply isn't valid, given how things actually work.

The use of electricity is not wrong therefore the generating of electricity is not wrong. We do not need to employ others to build our fires as they are easy enough to build ourselves. Producing electricity sufficient to power even the necessary daily operations of society is of an altogether greater and more complex magnitude. To require that we use generators to power our churches, homes, hospitals &c. on Sabbath is utterly impractical and pedantic to the point that it begins to assume the spirit of legalism (and in current circumstances would actually result in more work because the national grid isn't going to shut down on Sabbath no matter what Christians do). This question is being needlessly, but deliberately, complicated in order, I believe, to obscure what are rather clear applications (and implications) of Scriptural principle. And, unlike with public transport, when Christians make use of the national grid they are not making use of a service (the provision of electricity rather than electricity itself) which is inherently unlawful. That which is inherently unlawful can never be made lawful, no matter the reason for using it.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

That's why this argument is not satisfying me because us using electricity does cause extra work.

This is interesting and very informative. I was not really clear on this until now. That does raise some serious questions, and I see where you are coming from with the question about logical consistency.

 

[JMC]

The use of electricity is not wrong therefore the generating of electricity is not wrong. We do not need to employ others to build our fires as they are easy enough to build ourselves. Producing electricity sufficient to power even the necessary daily operations of society is of an altogether greater and more complex magnitude. To require that we use generators to power our churches, homes, hospitals &c. on Sabbath is utterly impractical and pedantic to the extent that it begins to assume the spirit of legalism (and in current circumstances would actually result in more work because the national grid isn't going to shut down on Sabbath no matter what Christians do). This question is being needlessly, but deliberately, complicated in order, I believe, to obscure what are rather clear applications of Scriptural principle.

I think this sums it up well. However the questions are not deliberately trying to obscure clear applications. I think I had a misunderstanding of necessity. Where I was getting off is that electricity has become a necessity (which you point out). I was thinking using electricity is not necessary, but necessity doesn't mean necessary for life or death situations. It seems to me like electricity is like the puritans taking a coach instead of walking through the sewer. I don't know where the line is, but there does seem to be a line where some things are easy to not do and therefore should not be done (eating out) and other things that would be too hard to not do and therefore it's acceptable to pay for it's service on the Sabbath (electricity).

As a side note, I think it would be doable to power things by generators. Just hear me out. Power plants would still being powering hospitals, traffic lights, etc. But, people who keep the Sabbath would simple power the things we want (our home and church building) with generators or batteries. But Generators would be a lot cheaper than batteries. The reason we would do this is because we wouldn't want to cause others to work (at powerplants, RTOs, etc) more than they need to. I now don't think we need to do this because it would cost a lot of money and I guess in that sense you are right it would be impractical and a burden on churches and every Christian to have to figure out. I think it's definitely doable, but yeah, just too impractical. Which is why I think electricity should be allowed. All this has been very helpful

At the end of the day, I do think you are right in that electricity is necessary because that is the world we live in right now. and therefore all uses of it (beside ones that break the rest of the commandments) are lawful on the Sabbath. Eating out is not necessary in normal circumstances and therefore should not be done on the Sabbath. Again, I don't know where the line is drawn, but I can say with confidence that Electricity is on the allowable and eating out is on the not allowable side. Thanks for your points

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

"And therefore whereas the Lord Jesus gives leave not
only to draw the ox and the ass out of the ditch to preserve their lives, but also to
lead them to the water (Luke 13:15), to make their lives more comfortable to
them; we permit not only things needful to the life of man, but also such
as are convenient to the use and comfort of man, as the dressing of meats,
whereby a man may be made more cheerful in the duties of sanctification.
So that both in using them we refresh and not oppress ourselves; and in
preparing them, we use the time before, after, or between the public exercises.
In that therefore the law permitted the leading of the ox to water, we
see how things convenient are not at that time unlawful, so that they are
not abused or overused." Bownd (2015), pp. 219-220.

To ensure I'm understanding, is the argument basically that it is lawful to maintain certain conveniences which require work from others if not having them would make it exceedingly burdensome to observe the Lord's Day? If that's the argument, I guess the relevant question in relation to the OP is simply where the line is in terms of what is exceedingly burdensome.

 

[Polanus1561]

there are some broader issues we can think about here:

If one could avoid any interactions with other people sinning, should we?

e.g Potentially, I can immigrate to a country where my tax payer money does not fund abortions, should I?

 

[alexandermsmith]

I think this sums it up well. However the questions are not deliberately trying to obscure clear applications. I think I had a misunderstanding of necessity. Where I was getting off is that electricity has become a necessity (which you point out). I was thinking using electricity is not necessary, but necessity doesn't mean necessary for life or death situations. It seems to me like electricity is like the puritans taking a coach instead of walking through the sewer. I don't know where the line is, but there does seem to be a line where some things are easy to not do and therefore should not be done (eating out) and other things that would be too hard to not do and therefore it's acceptable to pay for it's service on the Sabbath (electricity).

As a side note, I think it would be doable to power things by generators. Just hear me out. Power plants would still being powering hospitals, traffic lights, etc. But, people who keep the Sabbath would simple power the things we want (our home and church building) with generators or batteries. But Generators would be a lot cheaper than batteries. The reason we would do this is because we wouldn't want to cause others to work (at powerplants, RTOs, etc) more than they need to. I now don't think we need to do this because it would cost a lot of money and I guess in that sense you are right it would be impractical and a burden on churches and every Christian to have to figure out. I think it's definitely doable, but yeah, just too impractical. Which is why I think electricity should be allowed. All this has been very helpful

At the end of the day, I do think you are right in that electricity is necessary because that is the world we live in right now. and therefore all uses of it (beside ones that break the rest of the commandments) are lawful on the Sabbath. Eating out is not necessary in normal circumstances and therefore should not be done on the Sabbath. Again, I don't know where the line is drawn, but I can say with confidence that Electricity is on the allowable and eating out is on the not allowable side. Thanks for your points

Another consideration could be: even if the grid was restricted to only supplying electricity to hospitals and other emergency services, that may reduce the amount of work you are doing but would it actually reduce the amount of time spent at you work? Wouldn't your shifts be the same length but you're just doing less because there is less demand? I suppose you would have the comfort of knowing only necessary services were being supplied but it would still require you to work on Sabbath.

However the questions are not deliberately trying to obscure clear applications.

That wasn't directed at you. But I would say that there comes a time- on any number of issues- where one has to synthesise all they have learnt and come to an informed decision one way or another. There is often a danger that we get so bogged down in the debates and arguments that we forget all this discussion is for the purpose of acquiring enough light to come to a conclusion and to act upon that conclusion.