Keeping the Sabbath?

Submitted by David on Sun, 2006-07-23 17:10

One thing that I've been thinking a fair bit about since I began attending the PCA is the attitude with which I approach the Sabbath.

I tend, as a matter of habit, to avoid shopping on Sunday, but at the same point in time this is more a matter of habit than of conviction for me. I've never been quite able to reconcile the following passage with such an attitude:

Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days - Colossians 2:16 (NET)

I was reviewing Joshua Harris' list of characteristics of a healthy church today, and when doing so remembered that he had also commented on this issue:

We see in Genesis that God takes a day a week for renewal very seriously. He made Sabbath-keeping one of the Ten Commandments. But if you're worried that I'm going to try to convince you that Sunday is the new Sabbath for Christians, you're wrong. I don't believe that Christians are called to observe the Old Testament laws about Sabbath-keeping. Still, I think we're missing out on enormous personal and spiritual blessings when we treat Sunday like any other day. Because it isn't. The early church called it "the Lord's day." It's a day to "receive and embrace," as Matthew Henry said, "as a privilege and a benefit, not as a task and a drudgery." (Harris, Stop Dating the Church, 102-103)

I tend to think that Joshua Harris views the Sabbath as is more a time for corporate worship then as a day to avoid the local Tim Hortons, or Starbucks, or whatever. Or are perhaps his words intended to reflect the thought of 1 Corinthians 6:12a (NET): "'All things are lawful for me' – but not everything is beneficial?" How does one best interprete his comment "Christians are called to observe the Old Testament laws about Sabbath-keeping" in light of its context?

I've also been thinking about Sabbath observance in a historical perspective. This is also a bit of a reflection back upon some of reading that I did in the book I recently finished entitled The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship. The reformation involved reflection back upon the works of the early church fathers but, at the same time, this did not involve an uncritical adoption of all that was seen there (and there also were of course many conflicts). Of those church practices that some in the early church supported , but which the reformers rejected, included such things as the veneration of Mary and of images. (I should note that some of those considered Church Fathers lived far from the time of the early church - almost as far as we are from the day of Christopher Columbus. How much do you know of the times of Columbus?)

It is known that Sunday as a state holiday dates from the time of Constantine (~ 300 AD), as do Christmas and Easter. One thing which pretty much any text of the time that I've read has emphasized is how this caused some confusion with the worship of the sun god. Sunday was named after the sun god, and the day that we now celebrate as Christmas was also associated with the same god. Just how much of an emphasis was there on sabbath observance in the early days of the church? Who of the early church fathers spoke of this?

Comments

David

Mon, 2006-07-24 12:03

One thing that I've been reflecting upon is if one were to adopt a less restrictive attitude towards the Sabbath, if this fits somewhere along a slippery slope towards an "anything goes" attitude.

Thus far a passage that seems to fit such a situation would be Acts 15:28-29 (NET) For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules: that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well. Farewell. (verses 19&20 of the same passage are similar)

Scott

Mon, 2006-07-24 14:29

Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days - Colossians 2:16 (NET)

I don't see how you can interpret that to mean that shopping on Sunday is encouraged. The things listed in that verse are what separated the Jews from the Gentiles. At the time, Christians were being told that because of Christ, a lot of old laws no longer applied. Certain unclean foods were now acceptable for eating, etc. The Jews were looking down upon the Christians for forsaking the laws of Moses. The key thing here is that not all of the old laws became obsolete. Nobody said to throw out the Ten Commandments; Christ elaborated on them.

Abstaining from shopping on Sunday, as well as spending money on Sunday in general, stems from observance of the new sabbath. Circumventing the day of rest by making others work for you is not right, and sets a bad example for others. I'm not going to try and reconcile Joshua Harris' personal opinions about Sabbath observance with what the Bible says, because nothing he says has any authority.

I note with interest that the topic of this book is about how people have a hard time committing to a church and look all over the place for a church that suits them. Very appropriate reading for you, and perhaps you are missing the point?

David

Mon, 2006-07-24 16:43

I don't see how you can interpret that to mean that shopping on Sunday is encouraged.

I think that there's a difference between 'encouraged' and 'not discouraged'.

The things listed in that verse are what separated the Jews from the Gentiles. At the time, Christians were being told that because of Christ, a lot of old laws no longer applied.

Doesn't the inclusion of the Sabbath in Colossians 2:16 seem to suggest that the Sabbath was one of these things? Or do you think that this verse applies merely to the difference between observing Saturday and Sunday as a day of rest? Would you have a problem if another group of Christians decided that they would rest on Saturday or (randomly choosing a day of the week) Tuesday?

Abstaining from shopping on Sunday, as well as spending money on Sunday in general, stems from observance of the new sabbath.

So, what scriptural basis do we have for this new sabbath institution? In the gospels we do see Jesus advocating a less-restrictive view of the sabbath than the Pharisees at the time took (albeit not to this extent). Paul also speaks of continuing to meet (Hebrews 10:25), but in no instance is there a command to rest on the first day of the week. It's one thing to practice this yourself, but another to mandate that others do the same.

I'm not going to try and reconcile Joshua Harris' personal opinions about Sabbath observance with what the Bible says, because nothing he says has any authority.

But the quotes from Colossians and Acts that I referenced are taken from a source with authority. It's not just Josh Harris (and probably the vast majority of modern Christianity alongside him).

I note with interest that the topic of this book is about how people have a hard time committing to a church and look all over the place for a church that suits them. Very appropriate reading for you, and perhaps you are missing the point?

There's a reason that it's on my reading/review list. To be honest I don't like roaming from church to church. I could effectively remain a non-communicant member of the CanRC indefinitely, but I don't feel like this is really an option. (One thing that I noted in reading the Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship was that there were arguments that people should be booted from the church if they remained non-communicant for too long).

I object to the manner in which the Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dordt, and Belgic Confession are treated in the CanRC. By and large I can live with the texts of these documents. At the same point in time, to use the example of 'infant' versus 'believer' baptism the only conclusion I have been able to arrive at is that the Bible does not speak with clarity on this matter. Does this put me in disagreement with the CanRC form? This is the heart of the problem that I've thinking through.

Question one in this form is poorly defined (which would imply to me that it should be changed). The point of contention here is over the words "summarized in." One option is that the question imposes no real doctrinal requirement. One could then selectively agree with certain parts of these documents and subscribe to this while being any of the following: a universalist, a moralist, or an arminian. I don't think that this is the intention of the question, which leads me to the other alternative - believing it all to be the doctrine of the Word of God. This latter view seems more the intention but also disqualifies me.

The issue here is finding a church with which (a) I agree with sufficiently in terms of doctrine and that (b) also will let me join. I would classify the CanRC as fitting criteria A but not criteria B (due to the form ... even though I think that many in the church would not have a problem with my beliefs on baptism). Even though I have a lot of disagreements with the CanRC's 'liturgical style' I see those as little more than side-issues compared with doctrinal ones. And even though I think that many inside the CanRC would agree with me on this issue (and I could theoretically join an OPC and then transfer to a CanRC it being a major issue) as the (rigidly-defined) form stands I don't think that I can agree with it.

(BTW, in the book Josh Harris speaks not only of the importance of being a member of a local church but also about the problems of finding one.)

Scott

Tue, 2006-07-25 14:24

Doesn't the inclusion of the Sabbath in Colossians 2:16 seem to suggest that the Sabbath was one of these things? Or do you think that this verse applies merely to the difference between observing Saturday and Sunday as a day of rest? Would you have a problem if another group of Christians decided that they would rest on Saturday or (randomly choosing a day of the week) Tuesday?

I think the verse applies merely to the difference between observing Saturday versus Sunday. Seventh-Day Adventists continue to observe Saturday. I don't have a problem with them doing that, but I would have a problem if they expected everyone to do it too.

So, what scriptural basis do we have for this new sabbath institution? In the gospels we do see Jesus advocating a less-restrictive view of the sabbath than the Pharisees at the time took (albeit not to this extent). Paul also speaks of continuing to meet (Hebrews 10:25), but in no instance is there a command to rest on the first day of the week. It's one thing to practice this yourself, but another to mandate that others do the same.

I've been told that the early church began meeting on Sunday instead of Saturday to commemorate Christ's resurrection. I don't know where this information comes from exactly.

But the quotes from Colossians and Acts that I referenced are taken from a source with authority. It's not just Josh Harris (and probably the vast majority of modern Christianity alongside him).

To me it seems like you are grasping at things that are unclear and trying to use them against things that are clear. That's like people who cite verses about the "four corners of the earth" and insist that the world is flat even though we know it is round.

There's a reason that it's on my reading/review list. To be honest I don't like roaming from church to church. I could effectively remain a non-communicant member of the CanRC indefinitely, but I don't feel like this is really an option. (One thing that I noted in reading the Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship was that there were arguments that people should be booted from the church if they remained non-communicant for too long).

I heard of someone who was a non-communicant member his entire life. I don't know of any cases where someone was booted out, but I don't think it's good to stay non-communicant forever. People should want to commit to the true church.

I object to the manner in which the Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dordt, and Belgic Confession are treated in the CanRC. By and large I can live with the texts of these documents. At the same point in time, to use the example of 'infant' versus 'believer' baptism the only conclusion I have been able to arrive at is that the Bible does not speak with clarity on this matter. Does this put me in disagreement with the CanRC form? This is the heart of the problem that I've thinking through.

IIRC we've had this discussion more than once already; I don't really have anything more to say on the matter. If you haven't already talked to a minister about it, do so. If you have already talked to a minister about it, talk to more ministers. Another minister might approach the same "problem" from a different angle, one that will make more sense to you. My final suggestion to you is to take a look at other writings from around the same period which are not part of the Biblical canon and see if they make more explicit mention of infant baptism. Although they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, the possibility exists that the are at least somewhat accurate historical accounts. That is to say, not everything that happened in history can be found in the Bible.

David

Tue, 2006-07-25 23:21

I think the verse applies merely to the difference between observing Saturday versus Sunday. Seventh-Day Adventists continue to observe Saturday. I don't have a problem with them doing that, but I would have a problem if they expected everyone to do it too.

So, would you agree then that the general principle here is one of regular rest, rather than resting on a specific day of the week? (or would you insist that Seventh-Day Adventists and whatever other groups might want to observe Saturday as a day of rest also observe Sunday in a similar fashion?)

I've been told that the early church began meeting on Sunday instead of Saturday to commemorate Christ's resurrection. I don't know where this information comes from exactly.

I spent some time today Googling around trying to find some talk of where the early church stood on this. Thus far I came up with a couple links. I'm also unsure how my original comment missed Romans 14:5.

One interesting thing about the first is how it uses rabbinic tradition to argue that the Sabbath was one thing that the Jews did not hold as applicable to foreigners. It also notes that notes Acts 2:46 & 19:9 that the disciples and later Paul met daily.

The second document is off a Catholic website. It's a list of citations from the early church concerned the Jewish sabbath and the sunday. The first clear call that I see for all Christians to rest on the seventh is from the (post-Constantine's-decree) Council of Laodicea. Beyond that I think that it's at least clear that they met on Sundays, and that there was opposition to keeping the old sabbath. The quote from Origen I wonder about, but if I read the surrounding context of that later I'm not sure that the words they introduced as implicit belong there (Origen was rather mystical).

To me it seems like you are grasping at things that are unclear and trying to use them against things that are clear.

If I'm interpreting your comment about Seventh-Day Adventists correctly, it seems that you also view this as a somewhat unclear issue.

My final suggestion to you is to take a look at other writings from around the same period which are not part of the Biblical canon and see if they make more explicit mention of infant baptism. Although they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, the possibility exists that they are at least somewhat accurate historical accounts.

I've listened to some stuff by Albert Mohler (one of the most prominent of the Southern Baptists, and also connected with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals). He holds to the believer baptism position, but at the same time (from what I recall) agreed that there was no all that much extrabiblical evidence for it. However, he felt this position to be a return to the truth of scripture. There is Biblical precedent (see Galatians 2:11) for actions - even of the apostles - not to line up with how they should be. I would say that one can use extrabiblical evidence to conclude one position more probable than another, but not to arrive at a conclusion with certainty (which is what the catechism seems to demand).

Wes Bredenhof

Tue, 2006-07-25 15:45

David wrote:

I object to the manner in which the Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dordt, and Belgic Confession are treated in the CanRC.

My reply:

So you object to using the Creeds and Confessions as summaries or road-maps of important Bible teachings? Or do you object to using the Creeds and Confessions as teaching tools? Or is it that you object to having Creeds and Confessions as public testimonies of what our churches believe? Perhaps it's the fact that the confessions have derivative, subordinate authority?

The question of baptism is one of hermeneutics. If you're leaning in the direction of a dispensational hermeneutic, then you're bound to question infant (covenant) baptism if not to reject it altogether. Hermeneutics is where this issue begins. Arguing about individual texts is pointless if we don't have the same hermeneutical framework.

David

Tue, 2006-07-25 23:42

I don't disagree with the creeds, and think that they are succinct enough to be used in public worship. (If what I recall of early church history is correct, the variation upon the apostles creed was effectively their form for profession of faith).

I also don't have a problem with the confessions being used - albeit to a more limited extent. First off, I do think that in someways they go too far in being restrictive (my traditional example being that of baptism), and as such I do not think that I can swear allegiance to them when they make statements in which I feel there is room for liberty.

I also think that their utility is limited in that they are documents set essentially in a 16th century context. Not all of the matters that they target are issues that we spend as much time thinking about today (think of a predominantly Roman-Catholic world and the post-modern one of today). I suppose that one question that I have to ask would be: why has the CanRC (and its predecessors) has not adopted or composed a new catechism in centuries?

The question of baptism is one of hermeneutics.

If the CanRC does not believe in baptismal regeneration then I wonder why such a big deal is made of it. Certainly it would something to argue about, but should it be enough to prevent one church from considering another to be a true church? Consider the relatively famous quote - "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity" (attributed to Augustine I think)