if the YECists are literalists then why aren't they Sabbatarians?

adam149 said:

Ok.



No. God does not get tired. The point for the "rest" was to examine and be satisfied in the work He had done.



No. God does not need rest. The point of the resting period was as an example to his people, as was the point of taking a week to create the universe (see Ex. 20:11).



No. God's sustaining power is continuous.



No. This is deism. God sustains the world. The "natural laws" are not natural, they are the sustaining hand of God (this in no way means that they change).



No. See Luke 13:14-17 and Luke 14:1-6.

Click to expand...

The obvious answer to all these questions is 'no'.

Now that we have established and agreed to that, we can now get to my main point.

If the same literal standards were applied to 'rest' as are applied to 'day', one could only conclude that God literally rested.....else, it wouldn't be literal.

I am curious, is that theistic evolutionists don't understand the hermeneutical approach of understanding what the author intended to say, or is it that theistic evolutionists refuse to understand?

I hear it being repeated, as dogma, that young earth creationists are "literalists" and therefore must take every piece of the Bible, every word, as literal or else they are inconsistent in their hermeneutical approach.

The same can be said in the opposite for one who takes Genesis 1-2 as mythical, allegorical, figurative, or whatever style you want to call it. I could make a similar claim to these people that they cannot believe in a literal fall of mankind, where sin entered the world and be consistent with their hermeneutical approach.

Seriously though, is this just about not being able to understand each other or not wanting to understand each other?? If it is the later, why even communicate with one another on the subject?

TheBear said:

The obvious answer to all these questions is 'no'.

Now that we have established and agreed to that, we can now get to my main point.

If the same literal standards were applied to 'rest' as are applied to 'day', one could only conclude that God literally rested.....else, it wouldn't be literal.

Click to expand...

And herein lies your error. We cannot apply "literal standards" to Scripture. This will and does fail. Were we to apply a "literal" interpretation, we would be forced to conclude that Jesus was a literal door (John 10:9).

You assume that everyone who believes in creation in six days is a fundementalist/literalist. I suggest you no longer do so.

Had you paid attention to the discussion, you would have noted that I clearly denied a "literal" hermeneutic, and informed everyone here that I used the proper interpretive method, namely that Scripture is always its own best interpreter. I also employ the grammatica-historical and biblica-theological methods.

Critias said:

I am curious, is that theistic evolutionists don't understand the hermeneutical approach of understanding what the author intended to say, or is it that theistic evolutionists refuse to understand?

Click to expand...

They have presupposed that YECs are wrong (about everything) before they enter the conversation. That's why they never listen to us.

Critias said:

Seriously though, is this just about not being able to understand each other or not wanting to understand each other?? If it is the later, why even communicate with one another on the subject?

Click to expand...

The problem is that most people don't understand the difference between facts and their interpretation. All facts are interpreted according to a framework that is adopted before looking at evidence. The framework dictates which facts are true facts and which ones need reinterpreting to fit into the framework. This is all that happens. I propose a certain evidence to prove the days were normal, then they reinterpret the evidence so that within their framework it no longer requires accepting the days were normal.

No philosopher of science (heck or philosopher of anything) takes seriously the idea that facts are brute, or that they are never interpreted.

I'd read these articles for a good intro to this idea.

adam149 said:

They have presupposed that YECs are wrong (about everything) before they enter the conversation. That's why they never listen to us.

Click to expand...

We have presupposed that you are wrong in the identical fashion that you presuppose the error of flat-earthism and geocentrism. Based on our previous research of YECism, we will presuppose that erroneous things will still be erroneous when we hear it for the millionth time.

The problem is that most people don't understand the difference between facts and their interpretation. All facts are interpreted according to a framework that is adopted before looking at evidence. The framework dictates which facts are true facts and which ones need reinterpreting to fit into the framework. This is all that happens. I propose a certain evidence to prove the days were normal, then they reinterpret the evidence so that within their framework it no longer requires accepting the days were normal.

No philosopher of science (heck or philosopher of anything) takes seriously the idea that facts are brute, or that they are never interpreted.

Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding me. Everything requires interpretation except for Scripture, right? The fact is that Genesis requires interpretation, too, but YEC's argue no less tenaciously than TE's that their interpretation of Scripture is unassailable. Not only that, but having the interpreting of everything only as it reads at first blush as number one rule is not exactly interpretation; in fact, one of the most commonly-heard arguments against a TE interpretation is that we distort the "plain reading" of Scripture, where "plain" = "surface reading only, no interpretation required".

Trying to say we have different interpretations gets us nowhere until you're willing to lay your cards out on the table and say "I believe that my interpretation is right and your interpretation is wrong." Failing to do so is to lapse into relativism that is more becoming of Hinduism. Frankly I'm getting ready to put that argument across. I just need to look more deeply into the Biblical history of the Sabbath.

And I would say that 90% of modern evangelical Christians aren't intellectual descendants of anything whatsoever besides Purpose-Driven Life, Left Behind, AiG and the Bible through those strange polarized glasses. Anybody here reads Alister McGrath? *raises hands*

Smidlee, I don't think you're seeing my point. (Though in all fairness I fail to see yours quite often too.) You see, there are moral issues pertaining strictly to the Jewish religion, and there are those that pertain to humanity in general. For example, humanity in general is allowed to eat unclean food such as pork and shellfish, while the Jewish religion wouldn't allow it - because the dietary restrictions began at the giving of the Law to the Jews.

However, one common YEC argument is that the giving of the Law of the Sabbath validates the literal 7-day week. Arguments like "What else can 'For God created the world in six days, and rested on the seventh; therefore you also must rest on the seventh' mean?" are put forward all the time. Well I tell you what else it means: it means that the Sabbath is a creation mandate instead of a Jewish / Torah regulation and is thus compulsory for all. Even though I am free of the Torah, that doesn't give me an excuse to murder! The law not to murder is a creation mandate valid because only God who gave life has the right to remove it. So when you say that Moses in the Torah looks back to Creation that inspires God to make the Law of the Sabbath (instead of Moses in the Torah looks back and writes Creation to validate the God-given Law of the Sabbath), you are saying that the Sabbath is a creation mandate just like monogamy and heterosexuality and sanctity of life, "hard-wired" into creation as it is and not limited to the Jews.

adam149 said:

And herein lies your error. We cannot apply "literal standards" to Scripture. This will and does fail. Were we to apply a "literal" interpretation, we would be forced to conclude that Jesus was a literal door (John 10:9).

You assume that everyone who believes in creation in six days is a fundementalist/literalist. I suggest you no longer do so.

Had you paid attention to the discussion, you would have noted that I clearly denied a "literal" hermeneutic, and informed everyone here that I used the proper interpretive method, namely that Scripture is always its own best interpreter. I also employ the grammatica-historical and biblica-theological methods.

Click to expand...

We may disagree on the specifics here, but that doesn't make us mortal enemies of each other. Good grief! Put things in proper perspective here. This is a wonderful and meaningful discussion among Christian brothers and sisters, and among friends. It should be an enjoyable experience for all. .....an experience of sharing of our own beliefs, and a listening to others' beliefs, and it should be good fellowship overall. That's why I enjoy coming to the Christians Only sections.

Let's treat each other with the dignity and respect we all deserve and expect from others. Remember, it's not what one says, it's how they say it. The same points can be discussed in great depth, while still in the 'friendship and fellowship' frame of mind.

I'll get to your other points later. Right now, I just want to be sure we're on the same page with this.

adam149 said:

And herein lies your error. We cannot apply "literal standards" to Scripture. This will and does fail. Were we to apply a "literal" interpretation, we would be forced to conclude that Jesus was a literal door (John 10:9).

Click to expand...

You are the one in error for pretending that a literal interpretation denies grammatical devices. His point is that one must be consistent in one's interpretation of any passage. If the first part of a passage is viewed literally then one cannot change to a figurative interpretation of the second part unless there is incontrovertible evidence in the text that one must do so. Arguments like the one you just made cause others to question the sanity of Christians. Let's not just argue for the same of being "right."

First of all, let's all (and I include myself here) take a deep breath and calm down. We're all Christians here. I don't think any of us can claim to have the last word.

Didaskomenos:

Didaskomenos said:

We have presupposed that you are wrong in the identical fashion that you presuppose the error of flat-earthism and geocentrism. Based on our previous research of YECism, we will presuppose that erroneous things will still be erroneous when we hear it for the millionth time.

Click to expand...

This is not a presupposition (Deffinition: "As used here, a "presupposition" refers not to just any assumption in an argument, but to a personal commitment which is at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Presuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundational perspective [or starting point] in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one's thinking, being treated as your least negotiable belief and being granted the highest immunity to revision").

Second, this assumes the neutrality of facts. To understand my position, I recommend reading this article by superb christian philosopher Cornelius Van Til.

Van Til is hard to understand at times, so I also recommend these good articles by Greg Bahnsen, "the 20th century's greatest logical mind" as he has been called. Van Til's Presuppositionalism, Apologetics in Practice, The Heart of the Matter, Tools of Apologetics, Where the Rubber Hits the Road, Van Til's Challenge to Illegitimate Common Ground, and Ready to Reason.

Didaskomenos said:

You've got to be kidding me. Everything requires interpretation except for Scripture, right? The fact is that Genesis requires interpretation, too, but YEC's argue no less tenaciously than TE's that their interpretation of Scripture is unassailable. Not only that, but having the interpreting of everything only as it reads at first blush as number one rule is not exactly interpretation; in fact, one of the most commonly-heard arguments against a TE interpretation is that we distort the "plain reading" of Scripture, where "plain" = "surface reading only, no interpretation required".

Click to expand...

I am sitting here completely mystified as to how you came to this conclusion. Please, please, please try to understand what I mean by my words or communication here is hopeless. Do not assume your understanding of these terms are the same as the meanings I am using.

So, please show me where I stated that "everything requires interpretation except for scripture." I have not stated this, and in fact have emphasized the contrary. (I would direct you to a wonderful little book on this by Vern S. Poythress, Symphonic Theology). For my position on literalism, see this article, the general thrust of which I agree.

Second, please show me where I stated that a "plain reading" of scripture means "surface reading only, no interpretation required." You will find that I have not. A plain meaning of Scripture is one which applies contexts to passages. Historical passages are interpreted historically, poetic poetically, prophetic prophetically, etc. Since the hebraic grammatical construction of Genesis is historical, TEs distort the context, known to theologians as "an unwarrented expansion of a semantic range."

Shernren:

shernren said:

Trying to say we have different interpretations gets us nowhere until you're willing to lay your cards out on the table and say "I believe that my interpretation is right and your interpretation is wrong." Failing to do so is to lapse into relativism that is more becoming of Hinduism. Frankly I'm getting ready to put that argument across. I just need to look more deeply into the Biblical history of the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be arguing my position if I didn't think I was right. But my position is not relativism as you supposed. My position is the position of christian philosopher Cornelius Van Til, who was "the most important Christian thinker of the twentieth century" (John Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought). He developed a good system of Christian thought which tries to "think God's thoughts after him" and to always start with scripture and let it have the final word. I highly recommend everyone here read Van Til.

TheBear:

TheBear said:

We may disagree on the specifics here, but that doesn't make us mortal enemies of each other. Good grief! Put things in proper perspective here. This is a wonderful and meaningful discussion among Christian brothers and sisters, and among friends. It should be an enjoyable experience for all. .....an experience of sharing of our own beliefs, and a listening to others' beliefs, and it should be good fellowship overall. That's why I enjoy coming to the Christians Only sections.

Let's treat each other with the dignity and respect we all deserve and expect from others. Remember, it's not what one says, it's how they say it. The same points can be discussed in great depth, while still in the 'friendship and fellowship' frame of mind.

I'll get to your other points later. Right now, I just want to be sure we're on the same page with this.

Click to expand...

I'm in whole-hearted agreement. I've often said this. I don't think we're enemies. I think we're Christian brothers and sisters discussing a matter of interpretation. But you have to understand my frustration at times when people automatically assume that because I argue in favor of creation in six days I'm some kind of ignorant fundamentalist hick who uses a "literal" interpretation, even after I and others have repeatedly stated that this isn't true. It would be nice if the TEers and others on this board would actually remember these things from post to post.

So, I did come on a little strong. Forgive a fellow brother his lack of patience, eh?

Statrei:

statrei said:

You are the one in error for pretending that a literal interpretation denies grammatical devices. His point is that one must be consistent in one's interpretation of any passage. If the first part of a passage is viewed literally then one cannot change to a figurative interpretation of the second part unless there is incontrovertible evidence in the text that one must do so. Arguments like the one you just made cause others to question the sanity of Christians. Let's not just argue for the same of being "right."

Click to expand...

Please show where I have argued that a "literal interpretation denies grammatical devices." You will find that I have never claimed this and have actually argued to the contrary!

Please show where I have ever defended a "literal" interpretation. You will find that I have not.

I never switched between literal and figurative (as if these were the only two interpretive options). You will notice that I clearly stated that the seventh day remained a historical day but in my (admittedly fallible) understanding the meaning for us (Christians since Christ's resurrection) has changed.

Who is more consistant, the person who takes into account the development of redemptive history or the person who ignores it? I do not deny the eternal moral obligation to sabbath. I do not deny the original meaning of the seventh day. I also do not deny that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial aspects of the law.

My point in all of this (which I just realized I may have never stated ) is that this issue of sabbatarianism is irrelevent to the creation-evolution issue. Of course for those YECs who are sabbatarians, it may be. I certainly didn't pretend that my position was the only position.

rmwilliamsll said:

my big point is that within the Reformed churches the right wing is both Sabbatarian and YECists and furthermore that they justify both with reference to Gen 1 in exactly the same manner.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand this.

rmwilliamsll said:

my current interest is to understand why the general evangelical right, which is YECist doesnt tie these two issues together, for their are logically, theologically, and historically related.

Click to expand...

Well, they may be sabbatarians. I certainly don't know. I wouldn't assume that they're not. But if pressed on the issue (the intellectuals at least), they would likely either agree that YEC and sabbatarianism are linked, or they would use a variation of my argument, that sunday is The Lords Day in distinction with the old Sabbath, though the moral requirement to sabbath continues.

rmwilliamsll said:

your redemptive historical hermeneutic can't be the answer because the evangelical churches don't use it, it is Vos's contribution and appears confined to reformed churches and maybe intellectuals.

Click to expand...

I still don't see why my answer is invalid because some people disagree with it. If it is the proper answer (and I'm willing to be corrected) then it is the proper answer regardless of how many people don't follow it.

I actually haven't read Vos. He's on my reading list. But I have read others such as Bahnsen and Poythress who may be in some areas disciples of his.

rmwilliamsll said:

it is invalid as an explanation of why the general evangelical YECists community is not also Sabbatarian, not as an argument against Sabbatarianism per se. especially since i used almost the exact same words to explain why i could not sign the WCF.

Click to expand...

Well, I can agree with that, then. *people stop dead in the streets. Wha'ts this? He agreed with something? That's amazing!* (hey, a little self-humor doesn't hurt)

I don't see why you couldn't sign the WCF. When I was explaining my argument to my father (a theologian) he said he didn't see much of a difference between the WCF and what I was saying, and in thinking about it, I can't either.

Anyway, my perspective would give them a possible response (and I would point out that Dr. Sarfati, who is a more general evangelical, has cited Vos in Refuting Compromise on the very issue of progressive redemptive revelation. Given the popularity of that book, a lot more people are now more open to Vos's work and the redemptive-historical method.

rmwilliamsll said:

no one here or or another board knew what Sabbatarianism even was, mistaking it consistently for SDA 7th day sabbath keeping. only those in the direct line from the Puritans are aware of the depth or historicalness of the questions. it simply has disappeared from the general Christian community.

Click to expand...

Sabbatarianism, just to be clear, is the belief that the Sabbath transfered to Sunday with Christ's resurrection.

it's (sabbatarianism) absence from the intellectual toolbox of most Christians despite it's logical consistency with the 6 24 hr hr day creation week is interesting and points to something other than logical completeness or consistency as the underlying forces. especially when i can see those forces at work in the conservative reformed churches leading people to both Sabbath keeping and YECism together as a logical unit, and defended together as a logical unit of thought....[/QUOTE]

I would certainly defend the moral obligation to sabbathing using the creation week. That's not inconsistant with my position.

This whole discussion really sounds like a works based salvation versus a faith based salvation. The physical resting of the Sabbath versus the spiritual reflection and worship of the Sabbath.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law, we are no longer under the Law but under Grace. If you insist that this is wrong, then you are looking to the Law to save you and not Jesus Christ.

I would assert that yec's do keep the spiritual aspects of the Sabbath. The problem is in this thread is that physical aspects of the Sabbath are being exalted over the spiritual aspects, which was never God's intention in the first place. Take circumcision for an example. God is more concerned with the circumcision of the heart than of the body.

When this discussion gets down to it, it is the te's (seemingly) saying that the works are more important and the yec's (seemingly) saying faith is more important.

The Bible says by faith alone we are saved. That should show any Christian what God considers more important, works or faith.

Critias said:

This whole discussion really sounds like a works based salvation versus a faith based salvation. The physical resting of the Sabbath versus the spiritual reflection and worship of the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

There is a sense in which this might be true, though I believe we are under the moral requirement to sabbath, in the sense of resting from working activity, ala jobs. It's a day to forget about all of the requirements of the world and focus on God and his glory.

Critias said:

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law, we are no longer under the Law but under Grace. If you insist that this is wrong, then you are looking to the Law to save you and not Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

We are no longer under the law as a means of salvation. He also removed the ceremonial aspects of the law, the rituals and such. Christ did not remove the moral obligation of following the moral laws, however. Christ said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matt. 5:17-18)

When asked what were the greatest commandments (Matt. 22:36), Jesus said they were loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind (Matt. 22:37) and loving your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:39). Jesus then said that "on these two commandments depend all the law and the Prophets" (Matt. 22:40), showing that he was, in different language, reaffirming "all the law and the Prophets."

Paul agrees. He says "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law" (Rom. 3:31). "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means!" (Rom. 6:1-2). But there cannot be sin where there is no law (Rom. 5:13-14, 20-21; 7:7), thus Paul is operating under the assumption of the law's continuation. "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but grace? By no means!" (Rom. 6:14-15).

"But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching [i.e. the law] to which you were committed, and having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. . . .For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification" (Rom. 6:17-18, 19b). Paul contrasts two issues, sin and righteousness, slavery to lawlessness in contrast with slavery to righteousness. The opposite of lawlessness is lawfulness. He continues this contrast in 6:22-23.

"What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means!" (Rom. 7:7) because "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! . . .(v. 12-13), For we know that the law is spiritual . . .(v. 14), I agree with the law, that it is good" (v. 16). "For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members" (v. 22-23).

"To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law" (1 Cor. 9:21). What is the law of Christ? The greatest commandments (Matt. 22:36-39). And what are they? They are the law of Christ, on which "depend all the law and the Prophets" (Matt. 22:40). Indeed, Christ is the fulfillment of the law of righteousness (Rom. 10:4).

There are bunches of more examples I could give. Needless to say that it is not nearly as simple as being "under grace, not law." Yes, we are not under law as a means of salvation (Rom. 8:1-4). That comes through faith in Christ alone (Rom. 3:20-25; Gal. 2:16). Yet the moral law and its application (Ex. 20-23) are universal standards of God's righteousness (Rom. 3:19). It is knowing the law that brings the conviction that leads to salvation (Rom. 7). We need to balance our freedom in grace through Christ with God's righteousness and goodness (Rom. 3:31; 7:12, 16) of His unchanging moral law (Matt. 5:18).

Wow, looking at these verses, I am struck once again by the amazing love of God for his people and the free gift of grace through Christ!

Critias said:

I would assert that yec's do keep the spiritual aspects of the Sabbath. The problem is in this thread is that physical aspects of the Sabbath are being exalted over the spiritual aspects, which was never God's intention in the first place. Take circumcision for an example. God is more concerned with the circumcision of the heart than of the body.

Click to expand...

I agree (though we should not create a gnostic division in which the everything spritual=good and everything physical=evil).

Critias said:

When this discussion gets down to it, it is the te's (seemingly) saying that the works are more important and the yec's (seemingly) saying faith is more important.

Click to expand...

And this is where a legitimate medium ground can be found. Both works and faith are important to God (though we are saved by faith alone in Christ Jesus!). For example, Christ expects us to perform good works (Matt. 5:16; John 14:12), and humanity was created for good works (Eph. 2:10) and to be rich in them (1 Tim. 6:18-19). In fact, we are to be a model to others in our good works (Titus 2:7). We are to be "zealous" for good works (Titus 2:14) and "devote" ourselves to them, because they are "excellent and profitable" (Titus 3:8, 14). We are to stir each other up to "love and good works" (Gal. 10:24). Faith without works is a dead faith (James 2:17, 14), our faith is proved to those around us by our works (James 2:18). God will render according to works of the saved (Rom. 2:6-11), though justification does not come through works (Rom. 3:20, 28).

In fact, at the judgement we and our works will pass through fire and all unrighteous works will be consumed. Good works recieve reward (1 Cor. 3:12-15).

Even Christians performance of good works are not perfect, they are good only because of Christ's mercy (Rom. 7:13-20; Gal. 5:17). Works are an expression of our love for God and his Word, thus God has promised to reward us for what we have done (Matt. 7:17-21; Phil. 3:12-14; 2 Tim. 4:7, 8; 1 Cor. 3:14).

Critias said:

The Bible says by faith alone we are saved. That should show any Christian what God considers more important, works or faith.

Click to expand...

Obviously faith alone in Christ for salvation is the most important, but as we've seen, works are not unimportant either. They are the result of faith.

Naturally, my exegesis may be in error in points. I do not pretend to have this completely right in my mind.

adam149 said:

There is a sense in which this might be true, though I believe we are under the moral requirement to sabbath, in the sense of resting from working activity, ala jobs. It's a day to forget about all of the requirements of the world and focus on God and his glory.

Click to expand...

I would agree. A point I should have made was, does it matter what day it is on to God, or does it matter that it is done?

What if there are people out there that cannot worship on Sunday or Saturday? Many people are very poor and have to take the jobs that they can get and some require them to work on the weekends. Instead of Sat or Sun, these peopel worship on another day, like Wed night in Church. Shall the wrath of God come down on them because they worshipped on the wrong day? No, I don't think so.

I think you would agree that God is not going to condemn people because they worshipped Him on the wrong day, not in today's society.

I believe this is further backed up by the life of Jesus and His relationship with non-Jews.

adam149 said:

We are no longer under the law as a means of salvation. He also removed the ceremonial aspects of the law, the rituals and such. Christ did not remove the moral obligation of following the moral laws, however. Christ said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matt. 5:17-18)

When asked what were the greatest commandments (Matt. 22:36), Jesus said they were loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind (Matt. 22:37) and loving your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:39). Jesus then said that "on these two commandments depend all the law and the Prophets" (Matt. 22:40), showing that he was, in different language, reaffirming "all the law and the Prophets."

Paul agrees. He says "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law" (Rom. 3:31). "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means!" (Rom. 6:1-2). But there cannot be sin where there is no law (Rom. 5:13-14, 20-21; 7:7), thus Paul is operating under the assumption of the law's continuation. "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but grace? By no means!" (Rom. 6:14-15).

"But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching [i.e. the law] to which you were committed, and having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. . . .For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification" (Rom. 6:17-18, 19b). Paul contrasts two issues, sin and righteousness, slavery to lawlessness in contrast with slavery to righteousness. The opposite of lawlessness is lawfulness. He continues this contrast in 6:22-23.

"What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means!" (Rom. 7:7) because "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! . . .(v. 12-13), For we know that the law is spiritual . . .(v. 14), I agree with the law, that it is good" (v. 16). "For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members" (v. 22-23).

"To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law" (1 Cor. 9:21). What is the law of Christ? The greatest commandments (Matt. 22:36-39). And what are they? They are the law of Christ, on which "depend all the law and the Prophets" (Matt. 22:40). Indeed, Christ is the fulfillment of the law of righteousness (Rom. 10:4).

There are bunches of more examples I could give. Needless to say that it is not nearly as simple as being "under grace, not law." Yes, we are not under law as a means of salvation (Rom. 8:1-4). That comes through faith in Christ alone (Rom. 3:20-25; Gal. 2:16). Yet the moral law and its application (Ex. 20-23) are universal standards of God's righteousness (Rom. 3:19). It is knowing the law that brings the conviction that leads to salvation (Rom. 7). We need to balance our freedom in grace through Christ with God's righteousness and goodness (Rom. 3:31; 7:12, 16) of His unchanging moral law (Matt. 5:18).

Wow, looking at these verses, I am struck once again by the amazing love of God for his people and the free gift of grace through Christ!

Click to expand...

Again, I agree with you. What I see here is that people are saying yec's have to worship on a particular day because of God giving the Sabbath to be Jews.

adam149 said:

I agree (though we should not create a gnostic division in which the everything spritual=good and everything physical=evil).

Click to expand...

I agree. I do think God is more concerned with the heart than with the body, but that is not to say that God is not conerned with the body.

adam149 said:

And this is where a legitimate medium ground can be found. Both works and faith are important to God (though we are saved by faith alone in Christ Jesus!). For example, Christ expects us to perform good works (Matt. 5:16; John 14:12), and humanity was created for good works (Eph. 2:10) and to be rich in them (1 Tim. 6:18-19). In fact, we are to be a model to others in our good works (Titus 2:7). We are to be "zealous" for good works (Titus 2:14) and "devote" ourselves to them, because they are "excellent and profitable" (Titus 3:8, 14). We are to stir each other up to "love and good works" (Gal. 10:24). Faith without works is a dead faith (James 2:17, 14), our faith is proved to those around us by our works (James 2:18). God will render according to works of the saved (Rom. 2:6-11), though justification does not come through works (Rom. 3:20, 28).

In fact, at the judgement we and our works will pass through fire and all unrighteous works will be consumed. Good works recieve reward (1 Cor. 3:12-15).

Even Christians performance of good works are not perfect, they are good only because of Christ's mercy (Rom. 7:13-20; Gal. 5:17). Works are an expression of our love for God and his Word, thus God has promised to reward us for what we have done (Matt. 7:17-21; Phil. 3:12-14; 2 Tim. 4:7, 8; 1 Cor. 3:14).



Obviously faith alone in Christ for salvation is the most important, but as we've seen, works are not unimportant either. They are the result of faith.

Naturally, my exegesis may be in error in points. I do not pretend to have this completely right in my mind.

Click to expand...

Yes, by faith alone we are saved and because of our faith works will be produced. Faith is dead without works, but works do not save someone, faith alone does.

So there is a necessity of both, but only one we are saved. That is the essence of "believe in Me and follow Me". I don't think many understand this command by Jesus very well. NOt only are we too believe, but we must follow. This is followed up by James who says I will show you my faith by my works, but it is my faith alone that saves me. Through faith in Jesus Christ we are saved - believe in Me - and by our works our faith is seen - follow Me.

And faith alone is what saves is seen at the Cross when the crook says remember me in paradise and Jesus says you will be with me today in paradise.

Critias said:

I would agree. A point I should have made was, does it matter what day it is on to God, or does it matter that it is done?

What if there are people out there that cannot worship on Sunday or Saturday? Many people are very poor and have to take the jobs that they can get and some require them to work on the weekends. Instead of Sat or Sun, these peopel worship on another day, like Wed night in Church. Shall the wrath of God come down on them because they worshipped on the wrong day? No, I don't think so.

I think you would agree that God is not going to condemn people because they worshipped Him on the wrong day, not in today's society.

I believe this is further backed up by the life of Jesus and His relationship with non-Jews.

Click to expand...

This is a good point, and one I have struggled with myself. A lot of Christians argue that it doesn't matter what day we worship on as long as we worship.

I have (tentatively!) come to the conclusion that it is important to worship corporately as a unified body on the Lord's Day, or Sunday. I think this because when we participate in that wonderful corporate worship session, the whole of the body of Christ is spiritually placed in the heavenlies before the central alter in heaven, in the presense of the Throne of Glory. There is also a sense in which all of the differences in the body fall away and we are one in worship. Baptists and Presbyterians, Calvinists and Arminians, Methodists and Congregationalsts become one body in their unified belief in salvation through faith alone in the grace of God and the atonement of Christ for the forgiveness of sins!

Those who don't participate, then, in that worship are missing the unification of the body or stepping to the great heavenly alter. In Bible studies or wed. night services are, I don't think, the same thing since they are congregational specific. The whole body is not worshiping before the throne. They won't be refreshed from the rigors of life in the same way we are supposed to be in corporate worship. They aren't the same thing as the Lord's Day worship, which is a foretaste of the new heavens and new earth to come.

I'm not sure about cursing them for not attending, but I'm not sure they're receiving the blessings of attending and taking the Lord's Supper, etc.

It is possible that attending Lord's Day worship would also fall under a good work, but I'm not sure.

Critias said:

Again, I agree with you. What I see here is that people are saying yec's have to worship on a particular day because of God giving the Sabbath to be Jews.

Click to expand...

Right. Well, some of them (the SDAs for sure) are arguing for seventh-day worship. But sabbatarianism is the belief that the literal Sabbath transfered to Sunday along with the requirements.

Critias said:

I agree. I do think God is more concerned with the heart than with the body, but that is not to say that God is not conerned with the body.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Well said. I mean, one of the big points of YEC is that God loves the physical world over against the spiritualization of the creation week by TEs and OECs into poetry or an allagory (like "it's telling us the who and the why of creation" or "its only a literary framework").

Critias said:

Yes, by faith alone we are saved and because of our faith works will be produced. Faith is dead without works, but works do not save someone, faith alone does.

Click to expand...

Precisely.

Critias said:

So there is a necessity of both, but only one we are saved. That is the essence of "believe in Me and follow Me". I don't think many understand this command by Jesus very well. NOt only are we too believe, but we must follow. This is followed up by James who says I will show you my faith by my works, but it is my faith alone that saves me. Through faith in Jesus Christ we are saved - believe in Me - and by our works our faith is seen - follow Me.

And faith alone is what saves is seen at the Cross when the crook says remember me in paradise and Jesus says you will be with me today in paradise.

Click to expand...

In complete agreement. We cannot have Jesus as savior without also having Him as our Lord of our lives (being slaves to righteousness).

I would agree that I think it does matter what day we worship because Sunday is the day here in America where Christians do gather to worship. I think this together-ness is important.

That being said, I don't think God is going to condemn someone who is trying to feed his/her children and has to work on Sunday. So they worship God together with other people in Church on another day.

"Where two or more gather in My name, I will be there."

And I know some Churches who do communion on Wed or Saturday nights for those who cannot make it on Sundays.

rmwilliamsll said:

it is invalid as an explanation of why the general evangelical YECists community is not also Sabbatarian, not as an argument against Sabbatarianism per se. especially since i used almost the exact same words to explain why i could not sign the WCF.

no one here or or another board knew what Sabbatarianism even was, mistaking it consistently for SDA 7th day sabbath keeping. only those in the direct line from the Puritans are aware of the depth or historicalness of the questions. it simply has disappeared from the general Christian community.

it's (sabbatarianism) absence from the intellectual toolbox of most Christians despite it's logical consistency with the 6 24 hr hr day creation week is interesting and points to something other than logical completeness or consistency as the underlying forces. especially when i can see those forces at work in the conservative reformed churches leading people to both Sabbath keeping and YECism together as a logical unit, and defended together as a logical unit of thought.

Click to expand...

You seem to be suggesting that the cause of the progressive change in the general Christian attitude towards Sabbath keeping is governed by some force that also governs the philosophy of Christian creationists. I disagree. These are completely different areas of thought. If we compare creation scientists of Christian fundamentalist and Orthodox Jewish groups, their core scientific beliefs will be very similar. However if we compare the beliefs of these two groups regarding Sabbath keeping we find a major difference due to a difference in understanding of the purpose of the law.