What would you think on My Pastors view on the Sabbath?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Von, recognizing that you may be new to the discussion about the Sabbath, a couple of points here.

Firstly, the word "sabbaton" in Greek has a variety of usages in the New Testament. It can mean the Saturday Sabbath, as it does so often in the Gospels. Secondly, it can mean "week" as in the idiomatic expression "first day of the week" in Matthew 28:1 (literally and woodenly "first of the sabbaths," but it does not mean the first sabbath in a series of sabbaths, but simply "the first day of the week." Thirdly, the term can refer to Jewish feast days, which is its more probable meaning in Colossians 2:16. However, even if it did mean the weekly sabbath in that verse, that does not imply that one of the Ten Commandments has somehow been dropped from the list. Fourthly, it can refer to eschatological rest, as in Hebrews 4, as you pointed out. However, again, as Gaffin pointed out, we are not at the eschatological point of rest yet, which means that the weekly sabbath is still in effect (Hebrews says that there still remains a sabbath rest for the people of God). The lack of fully realized eschatology of sabbath implies the inaugurated eschatological situation in which we now are, which is that the sabbath now starts the week instead of ending it, just as grace comes before works. I have an article that deals with this in more depth in CPJ 12, as well as the issue of recreation. The entire redemptive-historical sweep of creation and redemption is tied to the Sabbath, and both find their culmination in the resurrection of Christ on Sunday.

Do not make the mistake of tying a theology of Sabbath to a specific word-usage. The concept of the Sabbath changing to Sunday is present primarily by good and necessary consequence.
It seems that we can understand the concept of the Sabbath as being the first day of the week now, as a principle rooted into creation itself, and has now being under the Sabbath resting found in Jesus, so seems that can view this in various ways at same time.
 
Please don't read my post as me trying to be difficult (Coming from a reformed background, now in dispensational church, trying to figure out all of these things...):

In the new testament, every time that the word "sabbath" is used, it is in context of the jewish saturday/sixth day (and the Hebrews eschatological rest). I agree the term "Lord's day" is used only once in Revelation, but John must've known that his readers would know exactly what he meant with the term. Furthermore the early church used the term "Lord's day" (Didache, Chapter 14).
I'm struggling to see a biblical reason for the word "Sabbath" as it applies to the first day of the week.

PS: I also heard someone this morning say that I shouldn't join the conversation at 23h00 if it started at 08h00. I'm aware that the puritans and most of you guys (and girls) are lightyears ahead of me in terms of scripture knowledge, etc.
I came out from both Pentecostal/Dispensational circles, so a lot of this has been new to me also.
 
Yes, either term is appropriate. However, what can sometimes happen is that people will prefer "The Lord's Day" because they don't think that the fourth commandment has anything to say about the Lord's Day. If, however, the Lord's Day is the Christian Sabbath, then the fourth commandment does indeed apply. That is the material point.
 
Yes, either term is appropriate. However, what can sometimes happen is that people will prefer "The Lord's Day" because they don't think that the fourth commandment has anything to say about the Lord's Day. If, however, the Lord's Day is the Christian Sabbath, then the fourth commandment does indeed apply. That is the material point.

we are under the Lord's day now, as our Christian Sabbath, sounds good to me.
 
Also in the Old testament there's a few references about the Sabbath day concerning the first and the eight day

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk
 
Of course; and so was marriage, before the fall. So what is your point?
The rest day was rooted by God into creation, and so he moved it from Saturday for Israel to now Sunday for the church, as the Day Jesus rose and granted a new creation, as in the New Covenant relationship with man.
 
The Sabbath is 'rooted' in the moral law which was revealed to Adam at creation as the rule of his obedience and later more fully revealed and summarized in the ten commandments given to Israel. Here is what the Westminster Larger Catechism says:
Q. 91. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will.397

Q. 92. What did God at first reveal unto man as the rule of his obedience?
A. The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of innocence, and to all mankind in him, besides a special command not to eat of the fruit of the tree knowledge of good and evil, was the moral law.398

Q. 93. What is the moral law?
A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body,399 and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man:400 promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.401

Q. 94. Is there any use of the moral law to man since the fall?
A. Although no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law:402 yet there is great use thereof, as well common to all men, as peculiar either to the unregenerate, or the regenerate.403

Q. 95. Of what use is the moral law to all men?
A. The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and the will of God,404 and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly;405 to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives:406 to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery,407 and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ,408 and of the perfection of his obedience.409

Q. 96. What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?
A. The moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to flee from wrath to come,410 and to drive them to Christ;411 or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable,412 and under the curse thereof.413

Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?
A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works,414 so as thereby they are neither justified415 nor condemned;416 yet, besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good;417 and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness,418 and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.419

Q. 98. Where is the moral law summarily comprehended?
A. The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, which were delivered by the voice of God upon Mount Sinai, and written by him in two tables of stone;420 and are recorded in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. The four first commandments containing our duty to God, and the other six our duty to man.421

The rest day was rooted by God into creation, and so he moved it from Saturday for Israel to now Sunday for the church, as the Day Jesus rose and granted a new creation, as in the New Covenant relationship with man.
 
The Sabbath is 'rooted' in the moral law which was revealed to Adam at creation as the rule of his obedience and later more fully revealed and summarized in the ten commandments given to Israel. Here is what the Westminster Larger Catechism says:
Q. 91. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will.397

Q. 92. What did God at first reveal unto man as the rule of his obedience?
A. The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of innocence, and to all mankind in him, besides a special command not to eat of the fruit of the tree knowledge of good and evil, was the moral law.398

Q. 93. What is the moral law?
A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body,399 and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man:400 promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.401

Q. 94. Is there any use of the moral law to man since the fall?
A. Although no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law:402 yet there is great use thereof, as well common to all men, as peculiar either to the unregenerate, or the regenerate.403

Q. 95. Of what use is the moral law to all men?
A. The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and the will of God,404 and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly;405 to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives:406 to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery,407 and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ,408 and of the perfection of his obedience.409

Q. 96. What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?
A. The moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to flee from wrath to come,410 and to drive them to Christ;411 or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable,412 and under the curse thereof.413

Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?
A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works,414 so as thereby they are neither justified415 nor condemned;416 yet, besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good;417 and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness,418 and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.419

Q. 98. Where is the moral law summarily comprehended?
A. The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, which were delivered by the voice of God upon Mount Sinai, and written by him in two tables of stone;420 and are recorded in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. The four first commandments containing our duty to God, and the other six our duty to man.421
I agree with you on that point, as i was just saying that the views on the Sabbath/Lord's day seems to have more than one meaning and way to view it.
 
Last edited:
Pastor Blake Law did a excellent job on preaching on the moral law. My point is that I am in agreement on the Sabbath, The Lord's Day

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk
 
Yes, either term is appropriate. However, what can sometimes happen is that people will prefer "The Lord's Day" because they don't think that the fourth commandment has anything to say about the Lord's Day. If, however, the Lord's Day is the Christian Sabbath, then the fourth commandment does indeed apply. That is the material point.
Yes, as sometimes people will say that the Sabbath itself was not directly brought back in under the new Covenant, but it indeed has been, if we view the Lord's day as the worship time set apart for us now, due to the resurrection.
 
Yes, as sometimes people will say that the Sabbath itself was not directly brought back in under the new Covenant, but it indeed has been, if we view the Lord's day as the worship time set apart for us now, due to the resurrection.

The Lord's Day/Sabbath Day is more than just a worship time; it is the entire 1st day of the week. This is an important point of distinction to make. The 1689 LBC and the WCF are agreed on this:

1689 LBC 22.8 The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.

WCF 21.8 This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, 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.

With the Sabbath day being set apart to the Lord, for the believer's benefit, it takes on a different meaning than just 90 minutes on Sunday morning.
 
There is no "bringing back," period. The fourth commandment was never gone. It is only that the day has been changed.
Yes, as sometimes people will say that the Sabbath itself was not directly brought back in under the new Covenant, but it indeed has been, if we view the Lord's day as the worship time set apart for us now, due to the resurrection.
 
90 minutes on Sunday morning

Oh so sadly, for much of the church (in the West, at least), even 90 minutes would be quite a stretch. I attended a church in Canada where, after 60 minutes - exactly, people would take out their keys and start jingling them to alert the pastor that his time was up!
 
The Lord's Day/Sabbath Day is more than just a worship time; it is the entire 1st day of the week. This is an important point of distinction to make. The 1689 LBC and the WCF are agreed on this:

1689 LBC 22.8 The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.

WCF 21.8 This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, 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.

With the Sabbath day being set apart to the Lord, for the believer's benefit, it takes on a different meaning than just 90 minutes on Sunday morning.
I agree with you on that, its just that worship to me is more than attending the church service, while important, we are to set aside the whole Day unto Him.
 
There is no "bringing back," period. The fourth commandment was never gone. It is only that the day has been changed.
The Apostles in their letters had reintroduced back to the Church 9 of the 10 Commandments of the Mosaic law, and I was just stating that they also did assume over to us under the New covenant the Sabbath, but now as the Lord's Day on Sunday.
 
The Apostles in their letters had reintroduced back to the Church 9 of the 10 Commandments of the Mosaic law, and I was just stating that they also did assume over to us under the New covenant the Sabbath, but now as the Lord's Day on Sunday.

I do not understand what you are trying to say here, David. The grammar and thought pattern is difficult to wade through. "Reintroduced"? No. Restated.... fine....and who went through and verified the N.T. writers did such? The Sabbath rest didn't go away and then come back.
 
The Apostles in their letters had reintroduced back to the Church 9 of the 10 Commandments of the Mosaic law

It sounds like you have been indoctrinated with New Covenant Theology. The Reformed reject the idea that God's moral law was somehow lost/repealed/forgotten and needed to be 'reintroduced' by Christ and His Apostles.

LBC Chapter 19:

Paragraph 2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments...

Paragraph 3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, (the 10 Commandments are called moral) God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws...all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away. (The ceremonial laws were abrogated)

Paragraph 4. To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; (The judicial laws were abrogated.)

Paragraph 5. The moral law does for ever bind all...neither does Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

Any aspect of Sabbath observance that was tied solely to the ceremonial or judicial laws expired when the old dispensation was expired.

However, the 4th Commandment as a 'moral law' was never abrogated, taken away, or dissolved. It was written upon the hearts of mankind before Moses and continues to be so written upon the hearts of mankind after Moses. Why would it need to be 'reintroduced' if it is forever binding upon all? God was not required to 'reintroduce' any of the 10 Commandments in the NT in order to bind mankind to them as a moral law. It is helpful that the Lord taught on them, for the NT reveals much about the depth of the Commandments, but He was not required to do so.

Whether or not a commandment is taught in the NT has nothing to do with anything.
 
I do not understand what you are trying to say here, David. The grammar and thought pattern is difficult to wade through. "Reintroduced"? No. Restated.... fine....and who went through and verified the N.T. writers did such? The Sabbath rest didn't go away and then come back.
I have difficulty express myself at times, but was just saying here that the Apostles had restated that 9 of the 10 Commandments were brought back over into the New Covenant, and that the Sabbath day Commandment was also brought over and kept still, but now as being observed on the Lord's day, Sunday, not on Saturday, as it was under the Old Covenant as given to Israel.
 
It sounds like you have been indoctrinated with New Covenant Theology. The Reformed reject the idea that God's moral law was somehow lost/repealed/forgotten and needed to be 'reintroduced' by Christ and His Apostles.

LBC Chapter 19:

Paragraph 2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments...

Paragraph 3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, (the 10 Commandments are called moral) God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws...all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away. (The ceremonial laws were abrogated)

Paragraph 4. To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; (The judicial laws were abrogated.)

Paragraph 5. The moral law does for ever bind all...neither does Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

Any aspect of Sabbath observance that was tied solely to the ceremonial or judicial laws expired when the old dispensation was expired.

However, the 4th Commandment as a 'moral law' was never abrogated, taken away, or dissolved. It was written upon the hearts of mankind before Moses and continues to be so written upon the hearts of mankind after Moses. Why would it need to be 'reintroduced' if it is forever binding upon all? God was not required to 'reintroduce' any of the 10 Commandments in the NT in order to bind mankind to them as a moral law. It is helpful that the Lord taught on them, for the NT reveals much about the depth of the Commandments, but He was not required to do so.

Whether or not a commandment is taught in the NT has nothing to do with anything.
I agree with you that all of the Law is still binding upon us to observe, and was just saying the Apostles themselves mentioned all of them in their epistles by name, as now being still part of the new Covenant with God. They did not go away or change at any time, and that was their message to confirm that truth.

I do not hold to new Covenant theology at all in regards to this issue.
 
I have difficulty express myself at times, but was just saying here that the Apostles had restated that 9 of the 10 Commandments were brought back over into the New Covenant, and that the Sabbath day Commandment was also brought over and kept still, but now as being observed on the Lord's day, Sunday, not on Saturday, as it was under the Old Covenant as given to Israel.
David,
I can understand the difficulty of not expressing yourself as you want to. I find it is good to proofread before you press the button...I have caused myself much grief hitting the post button too quickly.
Your post, that I have quoted above, in the first part says the Commandments were "brought over" (stopped, then restarted?) and further down you stated they were "kept still" (perpetuated through the transition of progressive revelation?). Do you see the difficulty in responding to this? I don't know which position you are putting forth, because two positions seem to be stated in one post. The orthodox position has been clearly stated throughout this thread. I ask, for all of us, to consider the holiness of our God in this matter.......
 
I do not hold to new Covenant theology at all in regards to this issue.
As has been stated, proofread your posts before or after they are posted and make corrections such that they can be understood. Using the "9 out of 10" phrase smacks of lingering NCT in your views, whether you mean it or not, that is how it is understood.

Mod note:
You are able to edit your posts for a considerable time after they appear. Make a habit of reviewing them. If English is not your second language, it is a violation of the rules to post content that requires the reader to regularly have to tease out their meanings, asking for clarifications often, etc., due to poor grammar and punctuation.
 
In chiming in only for a moment (time restraints), in a conversation of this sort that pertains to the moral Law, one particular point is often neglected, which, in my estimation, ought to be the very first thing which is spoken about - regardless of which aspect of the moral law is discussed. It would, in fact, clear up most of the difficulty on the moral Law overall.

This concerns the nature of the moral law as the catechism answers, "The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and the will of God.

The Law is a reflection of the character of God. God's nature never changes. God's will never changes. God's nature and will are always reflected in his Law. If one were to keep the Law perfectly, they would be "perfect" as our Father in heaven is perfect. Christ's summation of the Law to his disciples in the sermon on the mount explains God's nature and will, and directs his disciples to be "perfect" in this sense. Love God and love your neighbor is the moral Law turned into a meatball and made simple. (The first table and the second table of the Law which directly reflect God's will and nature. Neither are to be dispensed with. To "dispense" with commanded covenant stipulations is to affront God and despise his will.)

When one understands that the Law is a direct reflection of God's attributes, (i.e. he is infinitely and immutably holy, and that men are to imitate this as Adam should have in the garden), then at no time does the Law appear, goes out, reappears, is enforced, is not enforced, is reinforced, comes into play, goes out of play, comes back into play, etc., or whatever terms one would like to posit onto the moral Law and its use through the testaments.

God's attributes NEVER CHANGE. The moral Law, as a reflection of the morality of God's nature and will, never changes. It is always enforced, is always relevant and will always "be" since God always "is," even in heaven, where God will "is done" and we prayerfully desire to see it done on earth.

That is part of the reason why capital offenses are always bound to the moral Law as it reflects God's nature as holy. Pick up sticks on the Sabbath will get you stoned to death. It's a capital offense. Violating the moral Law is a direct violation against God's nature and will. It is not about repetition in one Testament or another. God's nature is reflected in His will. Keeping the Law reflects who God is. At no time is any part of the moral Law annulled or dispensed with, unless there is some part of God's specific attributes of holiness that ought to also be dispensed with. Rejecting one part of the moral Law means you reject one part of God's holiness. They are intrinsically bound. Dispensing with commandments is Antinomianism.

If one misses or is misinformed on the nature of God, then the commandments are the second to go after Theology Proper. If one is misinformed on the nature of the moral Law, God's character and nature is impinged. Theology Proper is the first thing to take a hit in that order.

In light of the thread, there are only 3 views possible on the 4th commandment:

Either one holds Calvin's view of the 4th commandment, which only Calvin held. Calvin spiritualized the 4th commandment and required "heaven's rest" now in that sense. That means everyone was to be daily and constantly under the preaching of the word in Geneva. Calvin's mistake was he only spiritualized the 4th commandment, without spiritualizing ALL the commandments. His view is unattainable no matter how hard one tries to uphold it in this life. He looked for heaven's rest now in its totality.

The second view is the view of the Catechism / Westminster Confession.

The third view is some flavor of Antinomianism and a rejection of God's holy nature and will.
 
In chiming in only for a moment (time restraints), in a conversation of this sort that pertains to the moral Law, one particular point is often neglected, which, in my estimation, ought to be the very first thing which is spoken about - regardless of which aspect of the moral law is discussed. It would, in fact, clear up most of the difficulty on the moral Law overall.

This concerns the nature of the moral law as the catechism answers, "The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and the will of God.

The Law is a reflection of the character of God. God's nature never changes. God's will never changes. God's nature and will are always reflected in his Law. If one were to keep the Law perfectly, they would be "perfect" as our Father in heaven is perfect. Christ's summation of the Law to his disciples in the sermon on the mount explains God's nature and will, and directs his disciples to be "perfect" in this sense. Love God and love your neighbor is the moral Law turned into a meatball and made simple. (The first table and the second table of the Law which directly reflect God's will and nature. Neither are to be dispensed with. To "dispense" with commanded covenant stipulations is to affront God and despise his will.)

When one understands that the Law is a direct reflection of God's attributes, (i.e. he is infinitely and immutably holy, and that men are to imitate this as Adam should have in the garden), then at no time does the Law appear, goes out, reappears, is enforced, is not enforced, is reinforced, comes into play, goes out of play, comes back into play, etc., or whatever terms one would like to posit onto the moral Law and its use through the testaments.

God's attributes NEVER CHANGE. The moral Law, as a reflection of the morality of God's nature and will, never changes. It is always enforced, is always relevant and will always "be" since God always "is," even in heaven, where God will "is done" and we prayerfully desire to see it done on earth.

That is part of the reason why capital offenses are always bound to the moral Law as it reflects God's nature as holy. Pick up sticks on the Sabbath will get you stoned to death. It's a capital offense. Violating the moral Law is a direct violation against God's nature and will. It is not about repetition in one Testament or another. God's nature is reflected in His will. Keeping the Law reflects who God is. At no time is any part of the moral Law annulled or dispensed with, unless there is some part of God's specific attributes of holiness that ought to also be dispensed with. Rejecting one part of the moral Law means you reject one part of God's holiness. They are intrinsically bound. Dispensing with commandments is Antinomianism.

If one misses or is misinformed on the nature of God, then the commandments are the second to go after Theology Proper. If one is misinformed on the nature of the moral Law, God's character and nature is impinged. Theology Proper is the first thing to take a hit in that order.

In light of the thread, there are only 3 views possible on the 4th commandment:

Either one holds Calvin's view of the 4th commandment, which only Calvin held. Calvin spiritualized the 4th commandment and required "heaven's rest" now in that sense. That means everyone was to be daily and constantly under the preaching of the word in Geneva. Calvin's mistake was he only spiritualized the 4th commandment, without spiritualizing ALL the commandments. His view is unattainable no matter how hard one tries to uphold it in this life. He looked for heaven's rest now in its totality.

The second view is the view of the Catechism / Westminster Confession.

The third view is some flavor of Antinomianism and a rejection of God's holy nature and will.
The viewpoint of Calvin would thus seem to be the 4th position that my pastor discussed during his message on the Sabbath, and how Christians have tended to views its meaning and application to us for today./
 
As has been stated, proofread your posts before or after they are posted and make corrections such that they can be understood. Using the "9 out of 10" phrase smacks of lingering NCT in your views, whether you mean it or not, that is how it is understood.

Mod note:
You are able to edit your posts for a considerable time after they appear. Make a habit of reviewing them. If English is not your second language, it is a violation of the rules to post content that requires the reader to regularly have to tease out their meanings, asking for clarifications often, etc., due to poor grammar and punctuation.
I have been going back and updating certain postings, and appreciate the grace showed to me by yourself and the others on this Board.
 
David,
I can understand the difficulty of not expressing yourself as you want to. I find it is good to proofread before you press the button...I have caused myself much grief hitting the post button too quickly.
Your post, that I have quoted above, in the first part says the Commandments were "brought over" (stopped, then restarted?) and further down you stated they were "kept still" (perpetuated through the transition of progressive revelation?). Do you see the difficulty in responding to this? I don't know which position you are putting forth, because two positions seem to be stated in one post. The orthodox position has been clearly stated throughout this thread. I ask, for all of us, to consider the holiness of our God in this matter.......
I view the Sabbath as the Reformed position is on this issue, but at times find it hard to state it in precise terminology, as afraid of being misunderstood.
 
Yet from at the very least a practical standpoint, Calvin was a practical Sabbatarian. Woody Lauer makes a pretty good case it is a bit more than that and that Calvin was a Nascent Sabbatarian. The scholarship in the last 20 years convinces me he held a Sabbatarian principle; otherwise you are only left with the imposition of cessation of labor on the Lord's Day by church authority seems to me.
I may have already cited one of these or both above; pardon if so. The following are notes from the forthcoming "John Calvin’s Letters to the Ministers of Montbéliard (1543–1544): The Genevan Reformer’s Advice and Views of the Liturgical Calendar," Intro by Chris Coldwell, translation by David C. Noe.
“Even before Calvin arrived in Geneva, those church holidays that were not Sundays had been abolished. Farel and Viret wished to honour only the Sunday as the Lord’s Day. They refused to acknowledge any human institution.” Ioannis Calvini Opera omnia, Series 5, Sermons volume 8, Plusieurs sermons de Jean Calvin, ed. Wilhelmus H. Th. Moehn (Genève: Librairie Droz, 2011), xix.

Farel and Calvin wished “to establish the sabbatarian principle as the law of Geneva.” Thomas Lambert, “Preaching, Praying and Policing the Reform in Sixteenth-Century Geneva.” Ph.D. dissertation (University of Wisconsin, 1998), 190. This early Sabbatarianism was not as developed as that of English Puritanism and Scottish Presbyterianism, but it is clear Calvin not only shares a practical agreement with how the Sabbath was to be kept, but stands much closer theologically to the later views than is usually granted. On Calvin’s ‘practical’ Sabbatarianism see John H. Primus, “Calvin and the Puritan Sabbath: A Comparative Study,” in Exploring The Heritage Of John Calvin: Essays In Honor Of John Bratt, ed. David E. Holwerda (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), pp. 40–75; Holy Time: Moderate Puritanism and the Sabbath (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1989); and “Sunday: The Lord’s day as a Sabbath—Protestant Perspectives on the Sabbath,” in The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Tamara C. Eskenezi, Daniel J. Harrington, S. J., and William H. Sher (New York: Crossroads, 1991). For an argument that Calvin was closer theologically to later English Puritanism than generally conceded, see Stewart E. Lauer, “John Calvin, the Nascent Sabbatarian: A Reconsideration of Calvin’s View of Two Key Sabbath-Issues,” The Confessional Presbyterian 3 (2007); and reprinted in volume 12 (2016).​

alvin spiritualized the 4th commandment and required "heaven's rest" now in that sense. That means everyone was to be daily and constantly under the preaching of the word in Geneva. Calvin's mistake was he only spiritualized the 4th commandment, without spiritualizing ALL the commandments. His view is unattainable no matter how hard one tries to uphold it in this life.

The viewpoint of Calvin would thus seem to be the 4th position that my pastor discussed during his message on the Sabbath, and how Christians have tended to views its meaning and application to us for today./
 
The viewpoint of Calvin would thus seem to be the 4th position that my pastor discussed during his message on the Sabbath, and how Christians have tended to views its meaning and application to us for today./

You may have misunderstood my post, or Calvin's position. No one holds to "Calvin's Position" today. Only Calvin held Calvin's position.

Yet from at the very least a practical standpoint, Calvin was a practical Sabbatarian.

Yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top