The Christian Sabbath and the WCF

Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by Marrow Man, Oct 28, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Marrow Man

    Marrow Man Drunk with Powder

    I am interested in getting the opinions of the members of the PB with regard to Sabbath issues and the WCF. As most of us know, it has become fashionable in our day to mock the Puritan view of the Sabbath. I was wondering how members of the PB would view statements such as these below on the issue, and what responses might be appropriate. These are quotes from a much larger paper which, by necessity, must remain anonymous at this point. Suffice it to say, these are not my own personal views.

    First, with regard to issues of the Law:

    And now, with regard to Westminster Sabbatarianism:

    I await your responses.
  2. TimV

    TimV Puritanboard Botanist

    Is the author ashamed of what he wrote, or did he ask you to keep his name secret?

    It sounds like the person is thinking out loud. If labor is not yet redeemed outwardly, then you still need an outward rest.
  3. Scott1

    Scott1 Puritanboard Commissioner

    It seems someone is admitting they do not believe the Confession(s) as a faithful summary of the doctrine of Scripture in some very basic ways.

    Okay, so this person is not "Reformed." Nothing unusual about that. I suspect, based only on these exerpts, this person does not understand Reformed theology, either.

    Maybe fodder for a meandering debate with someone general attacking the Confessions, without understanding them, or the biblical statements and propositions they represent.
  4. Marrow Man

    Marrow Man Drunk with Powder

    No, the person is not ashamed. I was sent this as an email and do not wish to defame his name w/o his permission. I am only seeking the thoughts of others and guidance before I proceed further with the matter. The fault of the "anonymity" lies with me, not him.

    Thanks for the comment on outward rest. But these are not "thinking out loud" comments; part of this is from a paper submitted to a Reformed seminary.
  5. Marrow Man

    Marrow Man Drunk with Powder

    Herein lies the problem; this person would fully consider himself to be Reformed and has placed himself under the authority of the WCF. Yet, he says some very disparaging things about the view of the Law in the WCF. And as I said in the above post, this was part of a paper submitted to a professor at a Reformed seminary (a name you would all recognize -- no, not John Frame!). This adds another layer to the troubling aspect of it.
  6. Theognome

    Theognome Burrito Bill

    This reads as a form of Antinomianism to me. If the Law is limited, why stop at the Sabbath? Why not sin so that Grace may be abound?

  7. Blueridge Believer

    Blueridge Believer Puritan Board Professor

    It reads like and odd mix of dipensationalism and new covenant theology. I used to think this way a little over a year ago.
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2008
  8. Contra_Mundum

    Contra_Mundum Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger Staff Member

    With all due respect, I think the whole excerpt is a package of errors.

    I seriously do not believe that the writer even understands the position he disputes as error-ridden. That's not unusual, after all I'm sure that 5 years ago I did not understand the Baptist position on baptism as well as I do now, and yet I would confidently point to what I considered its glaring errors. Today, I still think it is quite wrong, however, I also think I could present the Baptist position in such a way as the Baptist would own it. Then my description of what is "wrong" with it would be coherent with the Baptist's own view of the matter.

    That sort of analysis is exactly what is wrong with the excerpt above. He "disputes" the West.Stds. position, but cannot even explain what's "wrong" with it in a way that the W-S guy says "I agree with your description, and disagree with your conclusion."

    We didn't "salvage" the 10C from the Law. The 10C are independent of the Law and prior to it, and yet the Law as Moses received it could not have been established with any other cornerstone. So, even though the Law of Moses per se has gone, the 10C continue to be a handy, convenient, helpful, and complete (see a good exegesis of Jesus "2-great-commandments" teaching) summary of God's moral and eternal will.

    So, the real question is whether the 4C is MORAL. If it is, then all the above is bunkum. Just an excuse to not be held to any definable canon of righteousness. Sure, he won't question whether he may murder or not, but in the end he lacks a consistent reason for accepting one rule, and ducking another.
  9. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member

    The problem I see with all over-realized eschatologies is that they fail to account for the fact that man is still sinful. I also think the above description of the Law makes the common error of treating the OT community as if they were under the Law in some sort of "pretend" economy that had no meaning or purpose other than for Christ to come and proclaim: "OK, I'm here so you can stop doing all this pointless stuff."

    Does the author forget that the OT Saints had the "Gospel" too and that they had the same eschatalogical hope that we have even if they couldn't name the Savior? Anything that would be considered legalistic for us to do would be legalistic for them for the Law was to point them to a Messiah (2nd use) even as it points us to Christ. The Saints in the OT who believed upon Christ were saved by faith in Him as we are and were united to Him as we are.

    Now, what this fellow misses is apparently obvious to the casual observer who reads Hebrews and that is the fact that there are some things that clearly pass away when Christ comes. In fact, the big distinction in the OC and the NC is the Priesthood of the NC in contra-distinction from the priesthood of the OC. All the ceremonies that this fellow says are indistinguishable from the the rest of the Law are the very things that Hebrews says points to the imperfect nature of the OC and the anticipation that the perfect Priest would come whose sacrifice and intercession would be perfect and once-for-all.

    I just don't understand this desire to continually wrest OT Saints out of the stream of faith we find ourselves in as if they were to approach the Law differently than we. Certainly there was a magisterial role to it that we no longer participate in and the ceremonial aspects of it have clearly been fulfilled in the priesthood of Christ but to act as if our third use of the Law is materially different than theirs is to ignore Romans 4, Galatians 3, and Hebrews 11.
  10. greenbaggins

    greenbaggins Administrator Staff Member

    My opinion is here.
  11. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member

    :wow: You anticipated this thread by 3 years. In the words of Derek Zoolander are you bolemic?
  12. Backwoods Presbyterian

    Backwoods Presbyterian Puritanboard Amanuensis

  13. Rev. Todd Ruddell

    Rev. Todd Ruddell Puritan Board Junior

    If it is misleading to call the Lord's Day the "Christian Sabbath" then our Lord misled us when He said, in Matthew 24.20 that the first century Christians should pray that their flight be not on the "Sabbath Day" when the destruction of Jerusalem is at hand--that is, a Sabbath that existed long after the formal inaguration of the New Covenant.
  14. YXU

    YXU Puritan Board Freshman

    I feel so sad in reading this. When we take things off God's law, the next thing we will do is to add things to God's law and trying to make ourselves as law givers.

    The "sweetness" and "gentleness" throughout the article is the weapon they equip themselves to take off what God requires of us, and then use the same "sweetness" and "gentleness" to justify their wrongdoings by adding to God's law.

    May God has mercy on us, that we in this age have sinned against him greatly.
  15. Marrow Man

    Marrow Man Drunk with Powder

    Thanks for linking this. Your comments on Hebrews 3 and 4 are particularly good, I think.

    Question: there are references to "the pamphlet" in the post. But you also mention a discussion on another blog. Was it the other blog discussing the pamphlet? And was the pamphlet attempting to promote a Seventh-day Sabbath position?
  16. greenbaggins

    greenbaggins Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, the pamphlet referred to is a Seventh-Day Adventist propaganda booklet. The other blog was not discussing that particular pamphlet, and I regret not having linked to that blog post, although I think it was Nate Eshelman's blog to which I was referring, and these posts (here and here) in particular.
  17. greenbaggins

    greenbaggins Administrator Staff Member

    By the way, my good friend Wes White has some outstanding thoughts on this subject posted just today.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page