The danger of nullifying the command of God.

[Benjamin]

My dear friends,


As I have looked into the past, and how some of the Reformers and almost all of the Puritans responded to those who sought to nullify the 4th commandment, it was much more earnest than I feel much of the Church today.

I own Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible and I can quote him now, but his view on those who say that the Lord's Day is not to be kept anymore will not be in heaven. He is very earnest about it, so earnest that he wrote an article defending it, and urging his readers to repent of this disobedience. I was also reading through Robert Murray M'Cheyne and he also is very earnest. He doesn't hold back, but says the following,

"We love to spend the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship, except so much as is taken up in the works of necessity and mercy. We love to rise early on that morning, and to sit up late, that we may have a long day.

How many may know from this that they will never be in heaven! A straw on the surface can tell which way the stream is flowing. Do you abhor a holy Sabbath? Is it a kind of hell to you to be with those who are strict in keeping the Lord’s day? The writer of these lines once felt as you do. You are restless and uneasy. You say, “Behold what a weariness is it” “When will the Sabbath be gone, that we may sell corn?” Ah! soon, very soon, and you will be in hell. Hell is the only place for you. Heaven is one long, never-ending, holy Sabbath-day. There are no Sabbaths in hell." (I Love the Lord's Day - Robert Murray M'Cheyne » Reformation Scotland)

Is he right in his zeal? If the Sabbath Day is still in affect, and only the day has changed from the 7th to the 1st day, then the warnings of Scripture, which to my knowledge are as severe as Robert proposed are still in effect. I don't believe we can say that the New Testament is more lax, for it seems like Jesus always condemned laxity, e.g. You have it said don't commit adultery, but I say whoever looks at a woman to lust etc. Neither do I believe that we can say that the law is fulfilled in Christ, therefore...for Paul refutes that ungodly argument in Romans.

My view is that if even one of the 10 commandments are not taken notice of then it means we are on the road to hell. We are not saved by the law, God forbid, but we are saved to obey it. If we love Jesus, we will obey His commandments, and His commandments are not burdensome, but a delight, the very thing that those who refuse the Lord's Day don't call it! They call it a burden! The parrallels between the early Church and our Church seems to be too close to ignore. The subject seems vitally important, and I think that the Church has not payed enough attention.

What are your views? Do you stand with me, or do you think I am in error?

Kind regards as always,
Ben

 

[Kim G]

My view is that if even one of the 10 commandments are not taken notice of then it means we are on the road to hell. We are not saved by the law, God forbid, but we are saved to obey it.

I am not well-studied in this area, so I will speak briefly and bow out. To show utter disregard for the law of God (even when confronted with their error) shows, in my opinion, that they have no Spirit of God within them. I'm refering to those who call themselves "Christian" but desire to throw off God's hold from their lives.

However, if we are talking about requiring perfect obedience to the law to gain heaven, then we would all be on our way to hell. How often do we become angry and hate in our hearts? How often do we covet our neighbors' possessions, or lust after inappropriate desires? Any honest believer would have to say that they cannot keep the ten commandments completely. But praise God that the Lord Jesus Christ kept every point of the law for our benefit!

I guess I just wanted to make the distinction between hating the law of God, and not keeping it perfectly.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

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

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



Kim, I think you are basically on-target.

 

[Benjamin]

My view is that if even one of the 10 commandments are not taken notice of then it means we are on the road to hell. We are not saved by the law, God forbid, but we are saved to obey it.

I am not well-studied in this area, so I will speak briefly and bow out. To show utter disregard for the law of God (even when confronted with their error) shows, in my opinion, that they have no Spirit of God within them. I'm refering to those who call themselves "Christian" but desire to throw off God's hold from their lives.

However, if we are talking about requiring perfect obedience to the law to gain heaven, then we would all be on our way to hell. How often do we become angry and hate in our hearts? How often do we covet our neighbors' possessions, or lust after inappropriate desires? Any honest believer would have to say that they cannot keep the ten commandments completely. But praise God that the Lord Jesus Christ kept every point of the law for our benefit!

I guess I just wanted to make the distinction between hating the law of God, and not keeping it perfectly.

Thanks, this is very helpful. No, I was in no way condemning those who are weak, I am speaking of those who care nothing for the Lord's Day, and who desire to have it gone. None of us can obey the Lord perfectly of course, what I was saying is that if we trample the commandments of God under foot then we are in danger of being trampled under foot ourselves. If we take Jesus as Savior, and do not desire that He rule over us, how can we say we are His children?

 

[Benjamin]

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

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

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



Kim, I think you are basically on-target.

Thanks for the reply.

I was wondering what you meant by "Rather, because in the 1700s it was a sin against the light, and in today's context it seems to me to be a sin in almost sheer ignorance."

How has it become a "sin in almost sheer ignorance"? Whose fault is it then, that it is a sin in almost sheer ignorance? Do you mean that because many people are now confused about what day the Sabbath is, when we are to keep it etc. it is now less serious? Again I am NOT saying we need to obey the commandments perfectly to be saved, what I am saying is that if we treat one of the commandments, even one, with hatred and throw it away as if it is no worth then it could be a clear sign that we do not belong to the Lord. Or does Scripture have something different to say? I am just wanting to challenge you guys and myself to.

Kind regards,
Ben

 

[Ex Nihilo]

How has it become a "sin in almost sheer ignorance"? Whose fault is it then, that it is a sin in almost sheer ignorance? Do you mean that because many people are now confused about what day the Sabbath is, when we are to keep it etc. it is now less serious? Again I am NOT saying we need to obey the commandments perfectly to be saved, what I am saying is that if we treat one of the commandments, even one, with hatred and throw it away as if it is no worth then it could be a clear sign that we do not belong to the Lord. Or does Scripture have something different to say? I am just wanting to challenge you guys and myself to.

Kind regards,
Ben

Pastors. Most Christians I know have not seriously reconsidered the common assumption that the Sabbath is no longer binding.