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

[adam149]

Found a helpful article on the topic of the day of rest. It's not online, so I will summarize and quote from it. It is written by James P. West, career pastor and current professor of Pastoral and Systematic Theology at City Seminary in Sacramento, and who has authored over 5 books.

First, on the topic that every day is the Lord's Day, West writes:

The breazy attitude of those who say that every day is a Lord's Day, [is] based upon a misreading of Romans 14:6, where Paul describes those who observe a day to the Lord, and others who do not observe the day, but to the Lord they do not observe it.

If every day is alike, then what Paul says about eating would also be true of the Lord's Supper. There would be no Lord's Supper because some eat to the Lord, and others who do not, eat not to the Lord. But Scripture teaches that the Lord's Supper is a sacrosanct meal distinguished from all others, so the Lord's Day is distinguished, too. Each day is unto the Lord, but only one day is the Lord's Day.

Second, Prof. West points out that Christians do not celebrate the Sabbath because the sabbath was a ceremonial-redemptive aspect of the law that was fulfilled in Christ's incarnation and sacrifice. He says that on "the first day of the week which is the Lord's Day, the church is commanded to sabbath. I phrase it this way because the old Saturday Sabbath has been fulfilled in Christ, so that the first day of the week is not (technically) the Sabbath Day." (p. 20).

In other words, the Sabbath day did not transfer in Christ to Sunday, rather the Saturday Sabbath Day was fulfilled. In Christ the glories of the heavenlies were opened to all those who believe in Christ (see Leithart's The Kingdom and the Power, ch. 5-7 for more on this).

Third, there are two kinds of rest, spiritual and physical. The spiritual rest on the Lord's Day is in Christ when we attend Church, learn from the Scriptures, participate in the Holy sacraments, publically call to and upon the Lord, and give tithes and offerings. The physical rest is a rest from work and the requirements of the rest of the week and to do what "refreshes our spirits and bodies. . . .The command to rest is just as authoritative as to worship or to work the other six days. We might take a nap on the Lord's Day, watch a movie, or shoot some hoops" (p. 20). The Lord's Day is about refreshment, about revitalizing ourselves. We could write, read, even make love (with a spouse, obviously ). The Puritans turned this day of rejoicing into a legalist religious workday in which no one could do anything except read the Bible. Instead, it is a day of celebration, of feasting, enjoyment, and parties! (to and for the Glory of God, obviously)

I hasten to point out that "there is such a thing as profaning the Lord's Day. But most questions about Sabbath-rest tend to be scholastic hair-splitting. Once the hair has been split, we split the same hair again and again" (p. 20).

Bottom line:

The Lord's Day is a royal day of worship, a royal day of fellowship, and a royal day of feasting. It is a foretaste of the eternal sabbath when we shall finally rest from all our works while enjoying the presense of the Triune God. That is when we will dine with the patriarchs at the marriage supper of the Lamb. May all our earthly Sabbaths be a foretaste of that great day!

So basically, rmwilliamsII not only asserts nonsense towards creationism by making it out to support Sabbatarianism (one might think he were a SDA looking for converts if one didn't know him) but also demonstrates the fundemental misunderstanding and apparent unfamiliarity with the Bible of those who first proposed the idea.

Creationists support the creation order, but not at the expense of later developments of redemptive history. Christ clearly fulfilled the Sabbath in Himself since the Sabbath was another symbolic shadow of Christ in the OT.

YECs are primarily Christian, and perfectly evangelical. We hold to the entire Bible and all of the developments therein, including all fulfillments of the OT law. It is quite simply shoddy hermeneutical work to accuse YECs of such rediculous notions and reveals far more about the critic's attitude and opinions than about YEC. Further, it is also shoddy criticism to argue such a position and demonstrates a certain incompetence or intentional misunderstanding on the part of the critic that is shameful coming from fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What an unusual position i find myself in, for adam149 has presented the fundamental argument that i have against the Sabbatarianism of my church's confession.

What is interesting is that to present the argument he must go beyond the literal hermeneutic and consciously adopt the redemptive-historical ideal which as a crucial element presents the revelation of God as progressive. Where the newer reinterprets the older.

but to deliteralize the Sabbath is to allow the same hermeneutic to be applied to the other 6 days of creation week.

This is why the 6 days of creation are not scientific or historical, because in the grace of God He has presented the Church with science. Which as a feedback mechanism to Scriptural interpretation shows that a newspaper man's report ideal of Gen1 is not proper. This is exactly the route i took to arrive at framework interpretation. A YEC viewpoint is inconsistent by separating the creation week into 6 literal days in a scientific and historical framework and the 7th day the Sabbath as a not literal creation mandate command. SDA's are consistent by interpretating both as literal. So are the YECists-Sabbatarians in the church (like the Puritans) who take all 7 days as literal and historically binding.

thanks to adam149 for showing that if the Sabbath is not literal and binding then the 6 days are not in a scientific or historical order either. for the same hermeneutic that solves the "YECist ought to be Sabbatarian" also leads logically to the framework interpretation.

plus, it is gratifying to see his calvinist icon.....

curiously the rightwing in our denomination uses YECism and Sabbatarianism to support each other, which is where i first saw the logical connection which became the argument of "if the YECists are literal in Gen 1 interpretation then why aren't they also Sabbatarians?"
....

 

[statrei]

Creationists support the creation order, but not at the expense of later developments of redemptive history. Christ clearly fulfilled the Sabbath in Himself since the Sabbath was another symbolic shadow of Christ in the OT.

If this were true then the Christian church should be celebrating on Friday for this is the day when Christ is supposed to have fulfilled the Sabbath. It is rank hypocrisy to make these arguments then conveniently disregard where they point. The early church did not follow these mazes that our theologians have imposed upon the historical record.

 

[adam149]

What an unusual position i find myself in, for adam149 has presented the fundamental argument that i have against the Sabbatarianism of my church's confession.

Glad to keep things interesting.

What is interesting is that to present the argument he must go beyond the literal hermeneutic and consciously adopt the redemptive-historical ideal which as a crucial element presents the revelation of God as progressive. Where the newer reinterprets the older.

First, there is no "literal" hermeneutic to speak of anyway. The only true hermeneutic is that Scripture interprets Scripture and clearer passages clarify less clear ones (thus rmwilliamsII would do well to contemplate Ex. 20:11 if he believes Gen. 1-2 to be unclear). The best interpretation is one that takes into account the grammatica-historical and biblica-theological methods, in my estimation.

but to deliteralize the Sabbath is to allow the same hermeneutic to be applied to the other 6 days of creation week.

Not at all. No one has "deliteralized" anything. The Lord did indeed rest on the seventh day. This is a historical fact. The Jews also rested on the seventh day. THis is also a historical fact. But if rmwilliamsII means to argue that because God changed the redemptive meaning of the day that the day itself is not a normative day then he should reconsider. Symbolic, spiritual meaning is assigned to many things in Scripture, including historical events. Take Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar as an example. This is an historical event that actually occured. Yet Paul also argues that it is a typological symbol for the old and new covenants (see Gal. 4:22-28). Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, all of these men (and others I could mention) are all types of Christ; shadows, symbols of the messiah, Christ. But at the same time, they are historical events of real people doing real things. The redemptic-ceremonial meaning of the seventh day is fulfilled. This in no way changes our view of the historical reality of a seventh day.

This is why the 6 days of creation are not scientific or historical, because in the grace of God He has presented the Church with science. Which as a feedback mechanism to Scriptural interpretation shows that a newspaper man's report ideal of Gen1 is not proper. This is exactly the route i took to arrive at framework interpretation. A YEC viewpoint is inconsistent by separating the creation week into 6 literal days in a scientific and historical framework and the 7th day the Sabbath as a not literal creation mandate command. SDA's are consistent by interpretating both as literal. So are the YECists-Sabbatarians in the church (like the Puritans) who take all 7 days as literal and historically binding.

This is not true. No YEC as far as I am aware seperates the creation week into 6 historical and one metaphorical days. Rather, we take the Bible as a whole, declaring creation in 7 consecutive, literal, historical days at the beginning of creation. We also note that the redemptive-ceremonial use for which the seventh day, which was established on the seventh day, no longer applies in the same way to the new covenant. This in no way affects the historicity of the account. To argue this is to abandon logic and reason to the wind and embrace a form of proto-gnosticism (see James Jordan's excellent critique of the framework hypothesis, Creation in Six Days.)

(note that there are two elements of the Bible, a redemptive-ceremonial element and a historical-moral element. In Christ the redemptive-ceremonial element was fulfilled. The historical-moral element remained unchanged in the new covenant. We fulfill these redemptive-ceremonial elements by believing on God's substitute, the great mediator Jesus the Christ).

Furthermore, SDAs are not consistant in their interpretation because they have ignored Christ's fulfillment of the shadow type that was the redemptive-ceremonial meaning of the seventh day. They fall into error by not letting Scripture interpret scripture. The YECist-sabbatarians are inconsistant for the same reason.

In actuality, every YEC takes all 7 days as literal and historically binding. I do this. We simply recognize that from our position in history, the redemptive-ceremonial meaning applied to the seventh day is fulfilled in Christ. With Him we are spiritually seated in the heavenlies and thus are able to celebrate the Lord's Day. This, I think, is what rmwilliamsII is misunderstanding about my point.

That point stated in summary: The redemptive meaning for which the seventh day was made has achieved fulfillment in Christ. Hence, the meaning, or purpose of the seventh day of rest no longer applies. This conclusion is a reasonable interpretation of Scripture and hardly inconsistant in declaring that the meaning of the seventh day has changed but the historical element, the normative day of creation itself, has not changed.

thanks to adam149 for showing that if the Sabbath is not literal and binding then the 6 days are not in a scientific or historical order either. for the same hermeneutic that solves the "YECist ought to be Sabbatarian" also leads logically to the framework interpretation.

Given the above, I hardly agree with your assertion, but thank you anyway. By "Framework interpretation," I take it you refer to Kline's framework hypothesis. There are some good observations Kline makes regarding the creation week, but I consider the model itself to be flawed and somewhat naive. Thankfully Kline's work on other areas of theology makes up for his views on creation.

plus, it is gratifying to see his calvinist icon.....

Good to see his as well. Always nice to have a fellow TULIP man in the crowd! I look forward to the time when we will meet in that big pub in the sky (oops, I mean non-alcoholic smoothie bar! ).

curiously the rightwing in our denomination uses YECism and Sabbatarianism to support each other, which is where i first saw the logical connection which became the argument of "if the YECists are literal in Gen 1 interpretation then why aren't they also Sabbatarians?"
....

I agree that it is curious.

 

[adam149]

If this were true then the Christian church should be celebrating on Friday for this is the day when Christ is supposed to have fulfilled the Sabbath. It is rank hypocrisy to make these arguments then conveniently disregard where they point. The early church did not follow these mazes that our theologians have imposed upon the historical record.

I don't want to be pulled away from my main post and response, but I will just note that your argument of friday and not sunday doesn't work either. The death and resurrection are the element that brought about the fulfillment. We celebrate on Sunday because that was the day when He was resurrected to life and completed what was begun with his death on friday.

 

[statrei]

I don't want to be pulled away from my main post and response, but I will just note that your argument of friday and not sunday doesn't work either. The death and resurrection are the element that brought about the fulfillment. We celebrate on Sunday because that was the day when He was resurrected to life and completed what was begun with his death on friday.

Then you should celebrate both Friday and Sunday or just enforce a three day weekend. You need to be true to your argument. Sunday alone does not cut it. There is a much better argument for Sunday but it is not my business to give it.

 

[adam149]

Then you should celebrate both Friday and Sunday or just enforce a three day weekend. You need to be true to your argument. Sunday alone does not cut it. There is a much better argument for Sunday but it is not my business to give it.

I believe that I am being true to my argument. On Sunday, on the resurrection, the fulfilling and redeeming work was completed, with Christ breaking the bonds of death and rising to life. Further, we are commanded to celebrate the Lord's Day in various places, as Prof. West points out.

Nevertheless, I do not doubt that there is a better argument. I am a finite creature with a limited memory.

Nonetheless, I think a defense of worship on Sunday itself is best left to other forums since it is a mite off topic.

 

[statrei]

I believe that I am being true to my argument. On Sunday, on the resurrection, the fulfilling and redeeming work was completed, with Christ breaking the bonds of death and rising to life. Further, we are commanded to celebrate the Lord's Day in various places, as Prof. West points out.

Nevertheless, I do not doubt that there is a better argument. I am a finite creature with a limited memory.

Nonetheless, I think a defense of worship on Sunday itself is best left to other forums since it is a mite off topic.

When they arrived on Sunday morning He had already arisen. Are you certain He arose on Sunday? Looks like you have more certainty of Friday.

 

[adam149]

When they arrived on Sunday morning He had already arisen. Are you certain He arose on Sunday? Looks like you have more certainty of Friday.

The prophesy was that he would rise on the third day. From sundown to sunup. He died before sundown, friday, so it was still Friday. One day. Then Saturday began at sundown to sunup. Two days. Sunday is the third day, the day upon which he rose.

Cheers.

 

[shernren]

And I'm still arguing with Critias over on the old thread? Shame on me for not noticing this new one! Well Adam I'm curious, what do you or your article make of Hebrews 4, where it mentions the Sabbath-rest as something that people can enter or exit from, and which makes no mention of a particular day in the week structure?

I too think that nobody really keeps Sabbath on Sunday. Either they keep a ceremonial Sabbath on Saturday (do Messianic Jews have church on Saturday or Sunday? Curious.), they keep a "spiritual" Sabbath day-to-day, or they have no idea what a Sabbath really is and think they're keeping it on Sunday when they're not keeping it at all! Keeping Sabbath on Sunday would mean excluding everything work-related - right down to closing all airports from Saturday night to Sunday night, which is the modern equivalent of what Nehemiah did when closing the city gates for the Sabbath when he had it re-observed.

This one issue (which I actually brought up at random! It was the first "superseded" Jewish ceremony I could think of) has convinced me that YECism hasn't had time to think through its philosophical roots yet. I mean, they argue that homosexuality is wrong - because God created man male and female. They argue for the chastity of marriage - because God created a monogamous pair - and they argue for the sanctity of life - because God alone created life. So why aren't they arguing for the Saturday Sabbath?! Glaring omission.

 

[adam149]

And I'm still arguing with Critias over on the old thread? Shame on me for not noticing this new one! Well Adam I'm curious, what do you or your article make of Hebrews 4, where it mentions the Sabbath-rest as something that people can enter or exit from, and which makes no mention of a particular day in the week structure?

The idea that Hebrews 4 demonstrates the non-literalness of the seventh day by making it eternal is nothing more than a misinterpretation. I wrote a paper on that, but it's not online right now.

I'm not sure, but I think messianic Jews worship with the rest of the Christians. YEC Jonathan Sarfati is a messianic Jew, and he does.

This one issue (which I actually brought up at random! It was the first "superseded" Jewish ceremony I could think of) has convinced me that YECism hasn't had time to think through its philosophical roots yet. I mean, they argue that homosexuality is wrong - because God created man male and female. They argue for the chastity of marriage - because God created a monogamous pair - and they argue for the sanctity of life - because God alone created life. So why aren't they arguing for the Saturday Sabbath?! Glaring omission.

Because, as I pointed out, understanding Genesis as being literal in no way necessitates arguing a Saturday sabbath. Or at least arguing that it still requires observing.

I would go so far as to say that you're right. We should argue for a saturday sabbath to the extent that in the past the seventh day was indeed the sabbath! Under NT stipulations, as I pointed out above, the sabbath was fulfilled and no longer requires observation, being replaced by the Lord's Day. Indeed, to observe the Sabbath today would be idolatry, just as it was after Christ's resurrection, because the sabbath is part of the redemptive-ceremonial aspect of OT law that was and is fulfilled by Christ. Before Christ, the redemptive shadows were the path to God. After Christ the only way to God is Christ. To partake of the redemptive-ceremonial shadows today would be like trying to get to God without Christ!

That, of course, was the offense of Israel then and now. It was what brought divine judgement against Israel in AD 70, after all.

The implied argument of that idea is that YEC requires contradicting other, well-understood theological doctrines. This it does not do. You're arguing for two different things as if they were one: the meaning of the seventh day and the day itself. If I declare that my abstract painting has a certain meaning, but then change that meaning, it has no effect on the painting itself. THe only change is that people used to view it with the understanding that it meant this, but now people view it with the understanding that it used to mean this but now means that.

You argue that yecs argue for various moral facts because of creation (actually, this is wrong, they argue these moral things because they is true due to the Bible's declaration) but not saturday sabbath. I believe this is the case because you are not seeing the differences in elements of the OT. Homosexuality, sanctity of marriage, and abortion are moral issues. Keeping the sabbath is not a moral issue, it is a ceremonial issue that found fulfillment in Christ and no longer applies.

 

[statrei]

Because, as I pointed out, understanding Genesis as being literal in no way necessitates arguing a Saturday sabbath. Or at least arguing that it still requires observing.

The point being that no matter how much we claim to follow the Bible we always end up doing what we and our group believe, no matter what the Bible says. We should at least be honest about what we are doing instead of teaching the coming generation faulty methods of interpretation.

 

[shernren]

I'll look it up over the night and come back with something solid tomorrow morning. But I wasn't trying to imply that YECism breaks other doctrines. I was trying to imply that YECism hasn't really thought through what it's trying to say!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I would go so far as to say that you're right. We should argue for a saturday sabbath to the extent that in the past the seventh day was indeed the sabbath! Under NT stipulations, as I pointed out above, the sabbath was fulfilled and no longer requires observation, being replaced by the Lord's Day. Indeed, to observe the Sabbath today would be idolatry, just as it was after Christ's resurrection, because the sabbath is part of the redemptive-ceremonial aspect of OT law that was and is fulfilled by Christ. Before Christ, the redemptive shadows were the path to God. After Christ the only way to God is Christ. To partake of the redemptive-ceremonial shadows today would be like trying to get to God without Christ!

the problem is that even though the usage of G.Vos redemptive-historical heremeneutic is the reason we are not Sabbatarian, this answer is not the acceptable one, even within the orthodox Reformed churches. The majority of the YECist here did not even know what Sabbatarianism was, confusing it with 7thday worship. I will bet that there are no more than a handful of people reading this thread that have any historical or theological idea of what you are talking about. Plus accepting this viewpoint makes it impossible to be ordained in either the PCA or the OPC for instance, unless that Presbytery really stretches the Sabbath ordinance in WCF 21.

Most of the teaching elders in these denominations are Sabbatarians and don't accept the valid of this argument. So my question really stands unchallenged, it is a historical as well as a theological question. The SDA show a consistency that demonstrates the logic of the literal hermeneutic. The YECists show no such consistency, they don't use the redemptive-historical hermeneutic, this is almost completely contained to either liberal denominations or a handful of conservative Reformed ones that are interested in G.Vos, or individuals who have read him.

btw i use the short hand term literal hermeneutic to refer to what Mark Noll well describes as the literal Reformed hermeneutic, you'll see me use the long phrase, man in the pew, Scottish common sense realism, literal hermeneutic to better define it, and it is the YECist as well as the general Protestant hermeneutic of most of the churches in the US today. but that is another thread.

Keeping the sabbath is not a moral issue,

yes it is and has been defended historically as such, especially in the reformed churches.

1. Since the moral principles derive from the nature of the Creator, it is not possible for these principles to be variable or optional in a creation intended to declare the Creator's glory, eternal power and divine nature. Therefore we say that the moral laws are each necessary and cannot be abrogated without confusing or denying aspects of God's nature.
...
Considering these properties, it will become evident by the details given in God's word that the Creation Sabbath fits the category of Moral Law, and the Levitical Sabbaths do not. They fit into the category of Ceremonial Law.
... While the practices and interpretations of law have varied, the Sabbath has been honored by the church in the time of the early church fathers, the Roman Period, the time of the Reformation, the era of Puritans and Separatists in England, and all who have adhered to a complete and inerrant Scripture.

Virtually every main branch of Christianity has recognized the Creation Sabbath requirements. The confessions and catechisms of the Presbyterians, Episcopalians (including the Methodists, and Anglicans), the Roman Catholic churches, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Baptists (the London Confession of 1689 and the Philadelphia Confession of 1720) all attest to the continuing force of the Creation Sabbath along with all the other creation ordinances and moral laws.

Sabbath keeping, as with all Moral Law, did not begin at Sinai. It was recognized from the time of pre-fall Eden throughout all of biblical history. To show how important it is, God, at Sinai, put the Creation Sabbath law into covenant form, and included it with his summary of the other commandments that together summarize the principles of moral law.

from: http://www.girs.com/library/theology/syllabus/nom3c.html
which is an excellent reformed defense of Sunday Sabbatarianism, from someone who uses the redemptive-historical hermeneutic to defend the Sabbath as a creation mandate for all people through all of history.

reading this defense makes me even more sure that something is going on in general evangelicalism that doesn't seem to sense the logic of a creation Sabbath as it does the need for a 6 24 hr day recent creation week.

post posting edit

When i started this issue about a week ago, my first surprise was that no one knew what the issues around Sabbatarianism even were. I go to a Sabbatarian church and always have, i was simply unaware that most Christians are not the intellectual descendents of the Puritans and that the issue of the Sabbath disappeared from their view sometime in the 19thC.

The second surprise is that even when presented with the argument, most people don't even see the logic of the issue. The reason appears to be that no modern churches outside of the conservative reformed teach the Sabbath as a moral requirement and a creation mandate. It appears to be the strident separation of grace and law that is evident in dispensationalism and that is often labelled antinomianism but i am uncertain of its origin.

so if anyone is aware of the history of their theology, can you help me with exactly when Sabbatarianism ceased to be an issue in evangelicalism? a few names would help the research along, thanks.

if you are interested in the issue, check out:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=10472
.....

 

[rmwilliamsll]

tentatively i'm going to look at the general antinominaism of modern evangelicalism and the dispensationalist inspired division of under grace or under the law as the source of both the lack of knowledge about sabbatarianism and why people dont even see it as an issue. looks like a good place to start given the answers i see here.

..

 

[TheBear]

There are some good points being brought up in this discussion.



Please consider the following questions.

- Was God literally tired after the sixth day of creation?
- Did He literally need a resting period?
- Did He stop looking over and caring for His creation for a time?
- Did He put the world and universe on auto-pilot on the seventh day?
- And today, does He refuse to help us on the Sabbath?

 

[Smidlee]

If YEC are literalists then why don't they worship on the Sabbath?
Probably because most YEC literally are not Jews which would make them literally Gentiles which the Sabbath was literally given to literally Jews who were literally circumcised which they literally offered up a lamb on a a literal atlar in a literal temple where literally Gentiles wasn't not literally allow to enter but only so far in this literal temple. Next question?

 

[statrei]

If YEC are literalists then why don't they worship on the Sabbath?
Probably because most YEC literally are not Jews which would make them literally Gentiles which the Sabbath was literally given to literally Jews who were literally circumcised which they literally offered up a lamb on a a literal atlar in a literal temple where literally Gentiles wasn't not literally allow to enter but only so far in this literal temple. Next question?

I wonder if anyone realizes how ridiculous the argument that the law was an agreement with the Jews is. One would get the impression that this was the result of some collective bargaining agreement between Heaven and the Hebrew Union and there has no relevance to the Gentile Union. If Chrisitians don't understand the true issues related to the salvation of the human race how can they even claim to be Christ's representatives.

 

[adam149]

the problem is that even though the usage of G.Vos redemptive-historical heremeneutic is the reason we are not Sabbatarian, this answer is not the acceptable one, even within the orthodox Reformed churches. The majority of the YECist here did not even know what Sabbatarianism was, confusing it with 7thday worship. I will bet that there are no more than a handful of people reading this thread that have any historical or theological idea of what you are talking about. Plus accepting this viewpoint makes it impossible to be ordained in either the PCA or the OPC for instance, unless that Presbytery really stretches the Sabbath ordinance in WCF 21.

You present no evidence that my arguements are not "acceptable," only arguments from authority that have no bearing on the validity of the arguent.

Ordination in both the PCA and OPC permit the ordinatee to "take issue" with any point of the WCF. If they deem your objection innocent, you can still be ordinated. My pastor taught this stuff from the pulpit.

I will be bringing this to the attention of my elders to see what they have to say.

Most of the teaching elders in these denominations are Sabbatarians and don't accept the valid of this argument. So my question really stands unchallenged, it is a historical as well as a theological question. The SDA show a consistency that demonstrates the logic of the literal hermeneutic. The YECists show no such consistency, they don't use the redemptive-historical hermeneutic, this is almost completely contained to either liberal denominations or a handful of conservative Reformed ones that are interested in G.Vos, or individuals who have read him.

To the contrary, the conclusion that your question stands unchalleneged in no way flows logically from the argument of authority which preceded it.

btw i use the short hand term literal hermeneutic to refer to what Mark Noll well describes as the literal Reformed hermeneutic, you'll see me use the long phrase, man in the pew, Scottish common sense realism, literal hermeneutic to better define it, and it is the YECist as well as the general Protestant hermeneutic of most of the churches in the US today. but that is another thread.

Well, I'm hardly a Scottish commonsense realist (if I'm properly understanding it in the sense that you're using it).

yes it is and has been defended historically as such, especially in the reformed churches.

That's true. I phrased that particular statement rather poorly.

from: http://www.girs.com/library/theology/syllabus/nom3c.html
which is an excellent reformed defense of Sunday Sabbatarianism, from someone who uses the redemptive-historical hermeneutic to defend the Sabbath as a creation mandate for all people through all of history.

Again, don't misunderstand. I'm not against the sabbath. We're commanded to sabbath. If I've given that impression, its simply because of my poor communication skills.

When i started this issue about a week ago, my first surprise was that no one knew what the issues around Sabbatarianism even were. I go to a Sabbatarian church and always have, i was simply unaware that most Christians are not the intellectual descendents of the Puritans and that the issue of the Sabbath disappeared from their view sometime in the 19thC.

That's probably because its the rare church that does any kind of real discipleship/learning program to educate their members on things, reformed or otherwise.

The second surprise is that even when presented with the argument, most people don't even see the logic of the issue. The reason appears to be that no modern churches outside of the conservative reformed teach the Sabbath as a moral requirement and a creation mandate. It appears to be the strident separation of grace and law that is evident in dispensationalism and that is often labelled antinomianism but i am uncertain of its origin.

so if anyone is aware of the history of their theology, can you help me with exactly when Sabbatarianism ceased to be an issue in evangelicalism? a few names would help the research along, thanks.

I know little of the history of this. I'd agree that it is probably a result of antinomianism. But if your comments are in reaction to what I said, know that I am about as far from antinomian as it is possible to be without being a legalist (salvation through the law). I love Bahnsen's work on the law (and apologetics too).

edit:

I just found this passage: Col. 2:16-17.

Therefore let no one pass judgement on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

 

[adam149]

There are some good points being brought up in this discussion.

Please consider the following questions.

Ok.

- Was God literally tired after the sixth day of creation?

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

- Did He literally need a resting period?

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).

- Did He stop looking over and caring for His creation for a time?

No. God's sustaining power is continuous.

- Did He put the world and universe on auto-pilot on the seventh day?

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).

- And today, does He refuse to help us on the Sabbath?

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