Sabbatarianism and the 1689 Confession: Were the Particular Baptists wrong?

[Keachian]

So as to not derail my Confessional thread, this will be a thread to talk about the nature of the Christian Sabbath as it is derived from Scripture and espoused in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ this was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ it was changed to the first day of the week and called the Lord’s Day. This is to be continued until the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week having been abolished. (2LBCF 22.7)​

Ultimately the crux of the argument within the Confession comes down to Christ's Resurrection is the start of the New Creation, a reversal of the Fall and the consummation of all the promises to Abraham and Israel.

 

[BobRyan]

For the sake of "full disclosure" and context - I think we need to list all the details related to this subject from the BCF.

[FONT=&quot]1. That the Sabbath Commandment is first given to mankind in Gen 2:1-3
2. That all mankind was obligated by the TEN commandments in the OT and to this very day.
3. That the seventh day as the Sabbath was Saturday the seventh day of the week from Gen 2:1-3 until NT times - including at the cross.
4. That the Ten Commandments are the moral Law of God
5. That the moral law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant
6. that the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God are in no way opposed to grace and the Gospel.
7. That the Sabbath commandment can rightly be BENT by man-made-tradition to point to week-day-1 after the cross[FONT=&quot].


I don't claim to agree with all 7 of the points that the BCF is making - only 6 out of the 7 do I agree with.

But there are many on this board who are at war with all 7.

in Christ,

Bob
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Keachian]

I also think that a discussion of Chapters 19 and 22 without discussion of the rest of the Document as a whole is without merit, it comes down to whether it is man's actions which lead him to Christ, or whether it is Christ's actions which conform man to him.

But to not diverge from the topic,
I don't war against all the points, I disagree with point 1, which means that inevitably when I come to point 3 I would adjust it to Ex 19. Points 2,4-5 I agree with unequivocally, I think you misunderstand the confession on point 5, in that it is only by being delivered from Sin that we are able to even start to obey the commands, the deliverance from sin being a monergistic act of God. It is also clear that you are biased in your representation of your final point, we do not claim that we changed the day on which we rest, but that it was Christ in his Resurrection, the firstfruits of the New Creation. (1 Cor 15:23)

 

[BobRyan]

I also think that a discussion of Chapters 19 and 22 without discussion of the rest of the Document as a whole is without merit, it comes down to whether it is man's actions which lead him to Christ, or whether it is Christ's actions which conform man to him.

Most people will agree that the lost are saved by grace apart from works and that Christ is the one who first "DRAWs all mankind unto HIM".

the more calvinist details of "yes but not really ALL because the Drawing of God cannot happen until you are born again" is another topic entirely.

But to not diverge from the topic,
I don't war against all the points

Most people who affirm the BCF do not war against all 7 points it makes on this subject.

, I disagree with point 1,

Is that because you don't find it in BCF or you don't like what BCF says on that point?

I think you misunderstand the confession on point 5, in that it is only by being delivered from Sin that we are able to even start to obey the commands,

My point on this board has always been the Romans 8:6-8 point of Paul that the lost are stuck in a mode "at war with the Law of God" and that it is only the saved that are able to keep it by walking in the Spirit as Paul points out in Romans 6 and Romans 8.

you are biased in your representation of your final point, we do not claim that we changed the day on which we rest,

The BCF states that from Eden to the Cross that day was the 7th day of the week - and at the cross was changed to week day 1.

It even used the word "CHANGED".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Keachian]

Most people will agree that the lost are saved by grace apart from works and that Christ is the one who first "DRAWs all mankind unto HIM".

I said conform, not draws, there is a distinction.

the more calvinist details of "yes but not really ALL because the Drawing of God cannot happen until you are born again" is another topic entirely.

We're discussing a Calvinistic Confession, is it really another topic? And you're misconstruing the Doctrines of Grace, God is at all times drawing the Elect unto himself, whether they are regenerate now or yet to be regenerate.

Most people who affirm the BCF do not war against all 7 points it makes on this subject.

That's probably true.

Is that because you don't find it in BCF or you don't like what BCF says on that point?

On further contemplation I might as well agree with the confession on this point and point to the fall as to why it wasn't observed before Sinai.

My point on this board has always been the Romans 8:6-8 point of Paul that the lost are stuck in a mode "at war with the Law of God" and that it is only the saved that are able to keep it by walking in the Spirit as Paul points out in Romans 6 and Romans 8.

good to know.

The BCF states that from Eden to the Cross that day was the 7th day of the week - and at the cross was changed to week day 1.

It even used the word "CHANGED".

Well the specific wording uses Resurrection instead of Cross, but yes it does use the word "changed" but we don't believe it was a change made by man, it was made by Christ who is most certainly God, he rose on the Lord's Day, The Father Raised him on the Lord's Day, the Holy Spirit Raised him on the Lord's Day, this is the New Creation breaking in, that is what it is a reflection of, the old Sabbath was a yearning back to creation and the Immanence of God in the Garden, the new Sabbath is the rest we have in Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

For the sake of "full disclosure" and context - I think we need to list all the details related to this subject from the BCF.

[FONT=&quot]1. That the Sabbath Commandment is first given to mankind in Gen 2:1-3
2. That all mankind was obligated by the TEN commandments in the OT and to this very day.
3. That the seventh day as the Sabbath was Saturday the seventh day of the week from Gen 2:1-3 until NT times - including at the cross.
4. That the Ten Commandments are the moral Law of God
5. That the moral law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant
6. that the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God are in no way opposed to grace and the Gospel.
7. That the Sabbath commandment can rightly be BENT by man-made-tradition to point to week-day-1 after the cross[FONT=&quot].


I don't claim to agree with all 7 of the points that the BCF is making - only 6 out of the 7 do I agree with.

But there are many on this board who are at war with all 7.

===================================

[/FONT][/FONT]
Most people will agree that the lost are saved by grace apart from works and that Christ is the one who first "DRAWs all mankind unto HIM".

the more calvinist details of "yes but not really ALL because the Drawing of God cannot happen until you are born again" is another topic entirely.

I said conform, not draws, there is a distinction.


We're discussing a Calvinistic Confession, is it really another topic? And you're misconstruing the Doctrines of Grace, God is at all times drawing the Elect unto himself, whether they are regenerate now or yet to be regenerate.

My point above is that your OP is not focused on all doctrines covered in the BCF but on the TEN Commandment application of the 4th commandment.

So I am trying to keep that focus.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The BCF states that from Eden to the Cross that day was the 7th day of the week - and at the cross was changed to week day 1.

It even used the word "CHANGED".

Well the specific wording uses Resurrection instead of Cross, but yes it does use the word "changed" but we don't believe it was a change made by man, it was made by Christ who is most certainly God, he rose on the Lord's Day, The Father Raised him on the Lord's Day, the Holy Spirit Raised him on the Lord's Day, .

It would be nice to have at least one bible text that said that.

We know that He was raised on what the Bible calls "week day 1" - but it never calls it the "Lord's Day" for that we have to go to tradition.

And for the idea that being raised on week-day-1 is the same thing as saying "I declare this the LORD's Day and I declare that the 4th commandment now be changed to point to this day instead of the 7th day" is a statement that can only be had in tradition - not in the actual Bible.

Hence the one point where I differ with the BCF's 7 points on this particular topic.

One of the common oft-repeated fallacies promoted by some on this section of the board is that if you differ with anyone on any point of doctrine -- you must claim to differ with them on all points of doctrine. As you can see here - I reject that logical fallacy.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Keachian]

It would be nice to have at least one bible text that said that.

We know that He was raised on what the Bible calls "week day 1" - but it never calls it the "Lord's Day" for that we have to go to tradition.

And for the idea that being raised on week-day-1 is the same thing as saying "I declare this the LORD's Day and I declare that the 4th commandment now be changed to point to this day instead of the 7th day" is a statement that can only be had in tradition - not in the actual Bible.

It's a Biblical doctrine in the same sense as the Trinity, it comes from taking in all the evidence.

The Resurrection is the start of the New Creation
Christ is the firstfruits. (1 Cor 12:53)
We as Christians are already part of the New Creation (2 Cor 5:17)
We both agree that Easter is the Christian Passover.
The Decalogue from Exodus ties Sabbath observance to Creation
The Deuteronomic Decalogue ties Sabbath observance to the Passover
Conclusion: Since the Passover event and the Creation event for the Christian are unified in the Resurrection our Sabbath is Resurrection day, the Lord's Day.

Hence the one point where I differ with the BCF's 7 points on this particular topic.

One of the common oft-repeated fallacies promoted by some on this section of the board is that if you differ with anyone on any point of doctrine -- you must claim to differ with them on all points of doctrine. As you can see here - I reject that logical fallacy.

I think it is incredibly disingenuous, as we have already noted there is more in the confession than merely the points we are discussing now and for the most part you don't agree with the bulk of what is found there.

 

[BobRyan]

The BCF states that from Eden to the Cross that day was the 7th day of the week - and at the cross was changed to week day 1.

It even used the word "CHANGED".

Well the specific wording uses Resurrection instead of Cross, but yes it does use the word "changed" but we don't believe it was a change made by man, it was made by Christ who is most certainly God, he rose on the Lord's Day, The Father Raised him on the Lord's Day, the Holy Spirit Raised him on the Lord's Day, .

It would be nice to have at least one bible text that said that.

We know that He was raised on what the Bible calls "week day 1" - but it never calls it the "Lord's Day" for that we have to go to tradition.

And for the idea that being raised on week-day-1 is the same thing as saying "I declare this the LORD's Day and I declare that the 4th commandment now be changed to point to this day instead of the 7th day" is a statement that can only be had in tradition - not in the actual Bible.

Hence the one point where I differ with the BCF's 7 points on this particular topic.

Notice that in my comment above I am not simply arguing for semantics -- I am arguing that the salient point, the core-proof-detail you list is missing from the actual text.

It is like the "Mary Mother of God" argument and "Mary assumed into heaven" argument - it simply is not in the bible. They can show that Mary is indeed Jesus' mother - and that Jesus was from all eternity past - God the Son - but they cannot show that Mary is the "instructor of God" or "Wiser than God" or the "Mother of God" etc.

The salient point in their argument for that added position is missing from the text.

You can show that the Bible writers - writing decades after Christ died - still call week-day-1 -- week-day-1 when describing Christ's resurrection.

And you can show that you "need them" to call it the "Lord's Day instead". And you can show that this is what those do - who believe that the Lord's Day is Sunday (as you just did).

And you can show that you would prefer some text stating that the 4th commandment was "Changed" in the way that the BCF says it was changed.

And unlike "Trinity" - the "Lord's Day" is actually used in the actual Bible so having it point to week-day-1 would be a nice thing to have since the term is used by Bible writers and Bible writers point out "The Son of man is LORD of the Sabbath" Mark 2:28.

It's a Biblical doctrine in the same sense as the Trinity, it comes from taking in all the evidence.

The Resurrection is the start of the New Creation
Christ is the firstfruits. (1 Cor 12:53)
.

Making the case that Christ is the firstfruits of the dead (and was in fact raised to life on the feast of firstfruits) is an example of a point that comes right out of the Bible itself -- by contrast to "week day 1 is the "Lord's Day".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Let's go back to this opening context again -

For the sake of "full disclosure" and context - I think we need to list all the details related to this subject from the BCF.

[FONT=&quot]1. That the Sabbath Commandment is first given to mankind in Gen 2:1-3
2. That all mankind was obligated by the TEN commandments in the OT and to this very day.
3. That the seventh day as the Sabbath was Saturday the seventh day of the week from Gen 2:1-3 until NT times - including at the cross.
4. That the Ten Commandments are the moral Law of God
5. That the moral law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant
6. that the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God are in no way opposed to grace and the Gospel.
7. That the Sabbath commandment can rightly be BENT by man-made-tradition to point to week-day-1 after the cross[FONT=&quot].


I don't claim to agree with all 7 of the points that the BCF is making - only 6 out of the 7 do I agree with.

But there are many on this board who are at war with all 7.
[/FONT][/FONT]

I think you and I would agree that we both view the other person has having some error on this subject. I would like to think that were I in your shoes I would be as certain of my position as you appear to be.

However there is a "detail" that even in such a case - I would hope I would not so quickly dismiss.

The 7 points listed above are warred against by almost every post that has been listed here against God's commandment.

You have been AWOL/MIA in almost every case. Why such a lack of interest when all SEVEN of the primary points the BCF lists on this doctrine are being slammed almost non-stop here by those at war with the TEN Commandments?

Your only posts (until now) have been to oppose those who agree with 6 out of the 7 points - and to support those who are at war with all 7 when possible. Hardly daring to even mention the BCF 6 points that are constantly being slammed - much less stand in favor of them.

We almost never debate them on the 1 point where you and I differ - because that is the very point 'no changing the 4th commandment' where they agree with us. So that debate point gets no fury or fuss on this section of the board at all.

How is that possible that you prefer to promote the argument that is at war with all 7 of the primary Bible points of the BCF on this doctrine?

The answer is obvious - it is that those who make those 7 point above - and those who are at war with all 7 - do agree on one point. And that is to technically violate the 4th commandment as God actually gave it in the actual Bible. That alone overrides all other considerations even in your view which in theory has 6 of the 7 Bible points correct.

That my friend is telling! Where did we first see that principle in the Bible? Genesis 3? That would be a wake-up-call for me in your shoes. I would at least want to keep an open mind.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Keachian]

Let's go back to this opening context again -

I think you and I would agree that we both view the other person has having some error on this subject. I would like to think that were I in your shoes I would be as certain of my position as you appear to be.

However there is a "detail" that even in such a case - I would hope I would not so quickly dismiss.

The 7 points listed above are warred against by almost every post that has been listed here against God's commandment.

You have been AWOL/MIA in almost every case. Why such a lack of interest when all SEVEN of the primary points the BCF lists on this doctrine are being slammed almost non-stop here by those at war with the TEN Commandments?

Your only posts (until now) have been to oppose those who agree with 6 out of the 7 points - and to support those who are at war with all 7 when possible. Hardly daring to even mention the BCF 6 points that are constantly being slammed - much less stand in favor of them.

We almost never debate them on the 1 point where you and I differ - because that is the very point 'no changing the 4th commandment' where they agree with us. So that debate point gets no fury or fuss on this section of the board at all.

How is that possible that you prefer to promote the argument that is at war with all 7 of the primary Bible points of the BCF on this doctrine?

The answer is obvious - it is that those who make those 7 point above - and those who are at war with all 7 - do agree on one point. And that is to technically violate the 4th commandment as God actually gave it in the actual Bible. That alone overrides all other considerations even in your view which in theory has 6 of the 7 Bible points correct.

That my friend is telling! Where did we first see that principle in the Bible? Genesis 3? That would be a wake-up-call for me in your shoes. I would at least want to keep an open mind.

in Christ,

Bob

Quite simply because no one is going to be stopped from warring against the points, or against God's law by pointing to the law and saying "do this" point to Christ and say know him. But no, your prophet has made the Law the full display of God's character rather than Christ theologically you have to point to the law as the source of salvation we need to be pointing to Christ.

 

[LarryP2]

Let's go back to this opening context again - Quite simply because no one is going to be stopped from warring against the points, or against God's law by pointing to the law and saying "do this" point to Christ and say know him. But no, your prophet has made the Law the full display of God's character rather than Christ theologically you have to point to the law as the source of salvation we need to be pointing to Christ.

It's worse than that. You severely understated the problem. The "Profit's" church is interested in trapping guilt-ridden, panicked and depressed people, all the better to efficiently harvest the permanent 10 percent revenue stream from their income.

The early Christians, taught straight from the mouths of the Apostles, say the same thing over and over again.

The Holy Spirit is emphatically NOT available to help you keep the Old Testament Law, and that includes the 10 Commandments. Any minute spent in your life thinking about the 10 commandments is a wasted minute that you will never get back.

As both Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch, who were taught the preceding paragraph straight from the Apostle John and the Apostle Peter, said: Chose the Old Testament Law. Or Choose Christ. They do not mix. They will NEVER mix.

Choose wisely.

 

[Keachian]

Notice that in my comment above I am not simply arguing for semantics -- I am arguing that the salient point, the core-proof-detail you list is missing from the actual text.

It is like the "Mary Mother of God" argument and "Mary assumed into heaven" argument - it simply is not in the bible. They can show that Mary is indeed Jesus' mother - and that Jesus was from all eternity past - God the Son - but they cannot show that Mary is the "instructor of God" or "Wiser than God" or the "Mother of God" etc.

Christotokos and Theotokos are not the subject of this thread, but I can see why you want to make the allusion, I will quite happily affirm that Mary is Theotokos and firmly state that you have misunderstood the phraseology and are in danger of denying Christ's deity, but Sunday Sabbatarianism is on more solid ground than some of the Marian Dogmas you allude to.

The salient point in their argument for that added position is missing from the text.

You can show that the Bible writers - writing decades after Christ died - still call week-day-1 -- week-day-1 when describing Christ's resurrection.

The Gospels are both Catechetical and Evangelical, as such I wouldn't expect them to use nomenclature intensely specific to the Christian Community. (possibly even specific only to the community on Patmos)

And you can show that you "need them" to call it the "Lord's Day instead". And you can show that this is what those do - who believe that the Lord's Day is Sunday (as you just did).

I made a case for the change and I only called it the Lord's Day after having proved the assertion that the Sabbath has changed.

And you can show that you would prefer some text stating that the 4th commandment was "Changed" in the way that the BCF says it was changed.

No, I'm pretty fine with the proof I've offered for the change.

the "Lord's Day" is actually used in the actual Bible so having it point to week-day-1 would be a nice thing to have since the term is used by Bible writers and Bible writers point out "The Son of man is LORD of the Sabbath" Mark 2:28.

So is the Son of Man not Lord of the other days?

Making the case that Christ is the firstfruits of the dead (and was in fact raised to life on the feast of firstfruits) is an example of a point that comes right out of the Bible itself -- by contrast to "week day 1 is the "Lord's Day".

Lord's Day is an ambiguous title that you are just assuming means Sabbath, I don't see any reason why they would change their nomenclature.

 

[LarryP2]

Lord's Day is an ambiguous title that you are just assuming means Sabbath, I don't see any reason why they would change their nomenclature.

Actually, it is not ambiguous at all. Both Justin Martyr, and Ignatius of Antioch were taught the meaning of the phrase "The Lord's Day" straight from the mouth of the Apostle John and the Apostle Peter. And both of them spent their entire careers scathingly denouncing the Ebionite heresy, that tried its best to divert the attention of early Christians away from Christ, by forcing them to keep the Jewish Sabbath.

Seventh Day Adventism is just re-packaged dead-cat-bounce Ebionite Heresy, electronically slicked up for TV, Radio and Internet. Its exactly the same garbage the Early Christians fought against, and the Apostle Paul savagely renounced in Gallatians.

Eastern Orthodoxy is adamant: Christianity commemorated the Resurrection on the Sunday when it occurred, and has never failed to commemorate it on every Sunday since. Furthermore, EO is adamant that the Christians celebrated the first Easter on the one-year anniversary of the Resurrection. They are outraged and livid that the Seventh Day Adventist Church has deceptively claimed that these days dedicated to celebrating the Resurrection of their dear Savior were initiated by the Papacy. Needless to say, the Papacy did not exist in the First Century, and neither did Roman Catholicism.

The SDA's willful dishonesty goes much much deeper than the EO thinks: SDA's false prophet Ellen White never mentions the EO, or addresses its claim in any of her writings. Their preeminent Sabbath expert, Dr. Samuele Bacchiochi, acknowledges the existence of EO, but makes no effort whatsoever to address its claim about Sunday and Easter observance beginning within the first year after the Resurrection.

Can you imagine ignoring a 2,000 year old Church with 300 million members? You cannot get anymore deceitful than that.

 

[BobRyan]

Let's go back to this opening context again -

For the sake of "full disclosure" and context - I think we need to list all the details related to this subject from the BCF.

[FONT=&quot]1. That the Sabbath Commandment is first given to mankind in Gen 2:1-3
2. That all mankind was obligated by the TEN commandments in the OT and to this very day.
3. That the seventh day as the Sabbath was Saturday the seventh day of the week from Gen 2:1-3 until NT times - including at the cross.
4. That the Ten Commandments are the moral Law of God
5. That the moral law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant
6. that the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God are in no way opposed to grace and the Gospel.
7. That the Sabbath commandment can rightly be BENT by man-made-tradition to point to week-day-1 after the cross[FONT=&quot].


I don't claim to agree with all 7 of the points that the BCF is making - only 6 out of the 7 do I agree with.

But there are many on this board who are at war with all 7.
[/FONT][/FONT]

==============================================================

I think you and I would agree that we both view the other person has having some error on this subject. I would like to think that were I in your shoes I would be as certain of my position as you appear to be.

However there is a "detail" that even in such a case - I would hope I would not so quickly dismiss.

The 7 points listed above are warred against by almost every post that has been listed here against God's commandment.

You have been AWOL/MIA in almost every case. Why such a lack of interest when all SEVEN of the primary points the BCF lists on this doctrine are being slammed almost non-stop here by those at war with the TEN Commandments?

Your only posts (until now) have been to oppose those who agree with 6 out of the 7 points - and to support those who are at war with all 7 when possible. Hardly daring to even mention the BCF 6 points that are constantly being slammed - much less stand in favor of them.

We almost never debate them on the 1 point where you and I differ - because that is the very point 'no changing the 4th commandment' where they agree with us. So that debate point gets no fury or fuss on this section of the board at all.

How is that possible that you prefer to promote the argument that is at war with all 7 of the primary Bible points of the BCF on this doctrine?

The answer is obvious - it is that those who make those 7 point above - and those who are at war with all 7 - do agree on one point. And that is to technically violate the 4th commandment as God actually gave it in the actual Bible. That alone overrides all other considerations even in your view which in theory has 6 of the 7 Bible points correct.

That my friend is telling! Where did we first see that principle in the Bible? Genesis 3? That would be a wake-up-call for me in your shoes. I would at least want to keep an open mind.

Quite simply because no one is going to be stopped from warring against the points, or against God's law by pointing to the law and saying "do this" point to Christ and say know him.

Your argument is of the form "they are not saved they will not accept what the Bible teaches about the Law of God so introduce them to Christ".

But even the BCF will admit that the way to reach the lost is to first point to the sin - the need of salvation. After all if there is no problem -- then you do not need a solution.

==================================

And now once again ProgMonk is missing -- could it be because the first 6 points (the very ones upon which we both agree with the BCF) are being challenged "again"???



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You were trying to make the case that "week-day-1 as the Lord's Day' was a good argument even though no Bible text says it and you wanted to use the "Trinity" as a way to get that point across.

The problem is "Trinity" is "our word" not a Bible word so we can associate the meaning to it. But "Lord's Day" is a Bible word - it belongs to the Bible writers not us. So unlike Trinity we cannot simply make up whatever meaning we like for it.


You pulled up some other examples along the way. Such as Jesus being the first fruits of the dead upon his resurrection on the feast of First Fruits.

I pointed out that in this does not work since the term "Lord's Day" is not something we own - it belongs to the Bible writers - so then "yes" you do need an actual Bible text to make your case.

(Back to that sola scriptura thing)

The BCF states that from Eden to the Cross that day was the 7th day of the week - and at the cross was changed to week day 1.

It even used the word "CHANGED".

Well the specific wording uses Resurrection instead of Cross, but yes it does use the word "changed" but we don't believe it was a change made by man, it was made by Christ who is most certainly God, he rose on the Lord's Day, The Father Raised him on the Lord's Day, the Holy Spirit Raised him on the Lord's Day, .

It would be nice to have at least one bible text that said that.

We know that He was raised on what the Bible calls "week day 1" - but it never calls it the "Lord's Day" for that we have to go to tradition.

And for the idea that being raised on week-day-1 is the same thing as saying "I declare this the LORD's Day and I declare that the 4th commandment now be changed to point to this day instead of the 7th day" is a statement that can only be had in tradition - not in the actual Bible.

Hence the one point where I differ with the BCF's 7 points on this particular topic.

Notice that in my comment above I am not simply arguing for semantics -- I am arguing that the salient point, the core-proof-detail you list is missing from the actual text.

It is like the "Mary Mother of God" argument and "Mary assumed into heaven" argument - it simply is not in the bible. They can show that Mary is indeed Jesus' mother - and that Jesus was from all eternity past - God the Son - but they cannot show that Mary is the "instructor of God" or "Wiser than God" or the "Mother of God" etc.

The salient point in their argument for that added position is missing from the text.

You can show that the Bible writers - writing decades after Christ died - still call week-day-1 -- week-day-1 when describing Christ's resurrection.

And you can show that you "need them" to call it the "Lord's Day instead". And you can show that this is what those do - who believe that the Lord's Day is Sunday (as you just did).

And you can show that you would prefer some text stating that the 4th commandment was "Changed" in the way that the BCF says it was changed.

And unlike "Trinity" - the "Lord's Day" is actually used in the actual Bible so having it point to week-day-1 would be a nice thing to have since the term is used by Bible writers and Bible writers point out "The Son of man is LORD of the Sabbath" Mark 2:28.

It's a Biblical doctrine in the same sense as the Trinity, it comes from taking in all the evidence.

The Resurrection is the start of the New Creation
Christ is the firstfruits. (1 Cor 12:53)
.

Making the case that Christ is the firstfruits of the dead (and was in fact raised to life on the feast of firstfruits) is an example of a point that comes right out of the Bible itself -- by contrast to "week day 1 is the "Lord's Day".


[/quote]

Christotokos and Theotokos are not the subject of this thread, but I can see why you want to make the allusion, I will quite happily affirm that Mary is Theotokos and firmly state that you have misunderstood the phraseology and are in danger of denying Christ's deity,

Not even remotely true to say that "wiser than God" and "stronger than God" and "instructor of God" and "Mother of God" are all needed for Mary "or else we deny the deity of Christ" since NO Bible author does it. (And for good reason).

But as they say -- off topic -- yet it goes to the point that "A bible text is necessary".

but Sunday Sabbatarianism is on more solid ground than some of the Marian Dogmas you allude to.

If by that you mean that you have an actual Bible text that supports one of your claims you listed above - then show us.

Here is your claim - again.

"we don't believe it was a change made by man, it was made by Christ who is most certainly God, he rose on the Lord's Day, The Father Raised him on the Lord's Day, the Holy Spirit Raised him on the Lord's Day"

There is not one "Raised on the Lord's Day" in all of scripture - for that phrase we need to 'quote you'.

And since the "Lord's Day" is not your phrase but the Bible -- you will actually need a Bible writer to define it rather than selecting any day of the week you wish or any event you choose to assign the meaning.


In the mean time Christ made His own selection "The Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath".

And this from a NT Gospel writer - writing decades AFTER the cross when one might hope that at least ONE person was using the term "LORD's Day" in a fashion that your view might have wished.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So is the Son of Man not Lord of the other days?

Christ is the one that select the language for Mark 2:27-28 your argument is "with the text".

Lord's Day is an ambiguous title that you are just assuming means Sabbath,

"The Sabbath - The HOLY Day of the LORD" Is 58:14.

"The Son of man is LORD of the Sabbath" Mark 2:27

And not ONE "week day one - the Lord's Day" -- in all of scripture??

And yet we should go with man-made-tradition to believe it "anyway"??

Really??

Even non-Seventh-day sources agree to these "details".

=================================


The Faith Explained (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that
====================begin short summary
changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name".


page 243

"Nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"



====================================== begin expanded quote
. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243.))

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]CCC[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

" 2172 God's action is the model for human action. If God "rested and was refreshed" on the seventh day, man ought to "rest" and should let others especially the poor, "be refreshed." the Sabbath brings everyday work to a halt and provides a respite. It is the day of protest against the servitude of work and the worship of money.

" 2173 the Gospel reports many incidents when Jesus was accused of violating the Sabbath law. But Jesus never fails to respect the holiness of the day. He gives this law its authentic and authoritative interpretation: ' the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.' with compassion, Christ declares the Sabbath for doing good rather than harm, for saving life rather than killing. The Sabbath is the day of the Lord of mercies and a day to honor God. ' the son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath.' "
[FONT=&quot]====================end quote[/FONT]

 

[Hentenza]

So as to not derail my Confessional thread, this will be a thread to talk about the nature of the Christian Sabbath as it is derived from Scripture and espoused in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ this was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ it was changed to the first day of the week and called the Lord’s Day. This is to be continued until the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week having been abolished. (2LBCF 22.7)​

Ultimately the crux of the argument within the Confession comes down to Christ's Resurrection is the start of the New Creation, a reversal of the Fall and the consummation of all the promises to Abraham and Israel.

Yes, Christ is our rest. The NT is clear that Jesus, the Son of God and the second Godhead, established Sunday as THE day, not Saturday. All Christian services have been conducted on Sunday ever since to celebrate Christ's resurrection.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, Christ is our rest. The NT is clear that Jesus, the Son of God and the second Godhead, established Sunday as THE day, .

A Bible text showing Jesus as saying that the 4th commandment now applies to week-day-1 would have been good just then for anyone having any value for "sola scriptura" based doctrine.

I think we can all agree on that point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Hentenza]

A Bible text showing Jesus as saying that the 4th commandment now applies to week-day-1 would have been good just then for anyone having any value for "sola scriptura" based doctrine.

I think we can all agree on that point.

in Christ,

Bob

Since all scripture is God breathed and since Acts shows that Christians met on the first day of the week, then it is Jesus that said it. Now, if you want to ignore God-breathed scripture then you do so by choice.