Ten Reasons I'm a Sabbatarian [moved thread]

[BobRyan]

You're welcome. When you locate it a few dozen posts ago, I hope you will offer your "take" on all of them.

If I can ever find it -- will do.

I never found a list of texts posted by you on this thread - but about 60 posts ago I just found a link to "Another web site" - posted by you.

Speaking of Paul, this article explains the basis for Sunday worship very well and includes all the "chapter and verse" citations that many Sabbatarians insist do not exist.

Does the Bible allow Christians to worship on Sunday? | carm.org

1. They phrase that in an odd way "allow Christians to worship"

Have you ever stated your position here as "Christians --allowed-- to worship on Sunday?".

To my knowledge - no one has ever posed something like "be careful not to worship God on Sunday" on this thread ... or any thread.

Nobody posts things like "I am very careful never to pray to God on Tuesdays"
Nor "I only worship God 6 days of the week never all seven days"
Nor "I am careful never to study my Bible and sing a Christian song on Tuesdays".

That sort of thing does not show up here at all.

And that's because the issue is not "CAN you worship God on Tuesdays" but rather it is of the form: "According to the Bible has God set each Tuesday apart to be devoted as an entire day of worship -- no secular activity allowed?".

And I am pretty sure everyone on this thread would say that the answer to that Tuesday-question is "no".
​

2. Having said that - they have a pretty good opening paragraph.

"In the Old Testament, God stated, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you,” (Exodus 20:8-10, NASB). It was the custom of the Jews to come together on the Sabbath, which is Saturday, cease work, and worship God. Jesus went to the synagogue on Saturday to teach (Matt. 12:9; John 18:20) as did the apostle Paul (Acts 17:2; 18:4). So, if in the Old Testament we are commanded to keep the Sabbath and in the New Testament we see Jews, Jesus, and the apostles doing the same thing, then why do we worship on Sunday?"
​

2.B. The question SHOULD be "

"why do we have Sunday as our DAY of worship instead of the seventh day?" Because the answer to the question "why do we all worship God on Sunday" is the same as the answer "why do we all worship God on Tuesday" - and that answer is "because we worship God every day - but not every day is devoted to only worship".
​

3. In Acts 13 it is GENTILES asking for "more gospel preaching - the NEXT Sabbath" -- not Jews.

4. In Lev 23:3 God commands them to have a "day of holy convocation" on Saturday, He does not say that about "every Tuesday".

5. In Acts 18:4 as they noted in that article - Paul is preaching the Gospel to Gentiles and Jews "every Sabbath" which means he is speaking to both believing gentiles and unbelieving gentiles "every Sabbath" in terms of the Christian religion.

6. The article makes this false statement

"First of all, of the ten commandments listed in Exodus 20:1-17, only 9 of them were restated in the New Testament. (Six in Matt. 19:18, murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, honor parents, and worshiping God; Rom. 13:9, coveting. Worshiping God properly covers the first three commandments) The one that was not reaffirmed was the one about the Sabbath. "
​

6.B. But that statement they make is not true.

The one commandment never quoted from at all in the NT is "Do not take God's name in vain" by contrast we find the 4th commandment quoted from in Rev 14 , in Acts in Heb 4 and mentioned in many places in the NT. However the fact that the 3rd commandment is never quoted from even once in the NT - is not Biblical "proof" that it is ok to take God's name in vain.
​

7. The article makes this statement as well - and it is accurate

"In creation, God rested on the seventh day. But, since God is all-powerful, He doesn’t get tired. He doesn’t need to take a break and rest. So, why does it say that He rested? The reason is simple: Mark 2:27 says, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” In other words, God established the Sabbath as a rest for His people, not because He needed a break, but because we are mortal and need a time of rest, of focus on God. In this, our spirits and bodies are both renewed."

It was made for "mankind" - the Bible does not say that "Just Jews are members of mankind". It is a blessing for mankind.
​

8. The article asks --is there any Bible support for the idea that they ever met on Sunday?

Which is bogus - since they met "every day" in Acts 2 -- the much-avoided questions that need to have their answer posted in that link:

a. "Is there Bible support for the idea that they had the custom of meeting every week-day-1 for worship or Gospel preaching etc?"
b. "Is there Bible support for the idea that they called week-day-1 the LORD's Day"
c. "Is there Bible support that they invited New Converts they were preaching to on Sabbath to -- Join us tomorrow in our week-day-1 service"
​

Without actually addressing the questions at the heart of the subject how can that link be helpful??

The central issues at the core of this idea were already posted here to given an example of what is not being addressed at links like that one.

Ok -- good point - a list of verses showing that:
1. sunday is the weekly day set aside for worship rather than secular activity,
2. or that Sunday is the Lord's day,
3. or that week-day-1 is the Lord's Day
4. or that they were preaching the Gospel "every Sunday" (just like we have for "Every Sabbath" in Acts 18:4),
5. or that the Sabbath Commandment now refers to week-day-1

-- would be a nice list of texts to have

Acts 2 shows that Tuesday was a day on which they had worship "at least one time" during the feast of pentecost -- but never a weekly day of worship.

How nice then for your position to have your post with just such a list of texts easy enough to point to -- feel free to post it or the link to it.

So...are you aware that you have yet to post a link to such a list of texts?

And without actually having such a list of texts - it is pretty hard to then claim that people who join you in not finding that list of texts - are somehow ignoring the NT.

9. The article says that we don't have civil laws to enforce with the death penalty things like -

a. Do not take God's name in vain
b. Do not make idols, or worship other God's
c. Honor your parents.
d. Remember the Sabbath day.

But the lack of a Theocracy in the NT is not an argument in favor sin

The Sabbath was part of the Law in that sense. In order to “remain” in favor with God, you had to also keep the Sabbath. If it was not kept, then the person was in sin and would often be punished (Ezek. 18:4; Rom. 6:23; Deut. 13:1-9; Num. 35:31; Lev. 20:2, etc.). But with Jesus’ atonement, we no longer are required to keep the Law as a means for our justification.

And the fact that one cannot be "justified" by "not taking God's name in vain" is not an argument for "taking God's name in vain".
​

10. The article falsely claims that they were commanded to meet every week day 1 and set aside money.

If the Sabbath was mandatory, why the use of the non-Jewish system?
“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come,” (1 Cor. 16:1-2).

Notice here that Paul is directing the churches to meet on the first day of each week and put money aside.

1 Cor 16 is a good example of a text that does NOT say "to meet on every first day of the week"

1 Cor 16 is the only text in the Bible that says to "do something" on the first day of each week, and yet it does not call it "the Lord's day" but rather "week day 1".

"On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper"

The command is for each individual put "aside" by himself alone - and save, at the first of each week.

Robertson –
Lay by him in store (par' eautwi titetw thsaurizwn).

By himself, in his home. Treasuring it (cf. Matthew 6:19. for thsaurizw). Have the habit of doing it, titetw (present imperative).

1 Corinthians 16 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org​

1Cor 16 is significant in its focus of the act being commanded to be "BY ones Self" - alone - not in community.

1Cor 16 is significant in that the "giving" of the offering - received by an official church member is placed at Paul's OWN reception of the gift.

Even though 1Cor 16 is significant in that it is the only place in all of the NT where ANYTHING is commanded regarding week-day-one yet the opportunity to call week-day-1 by some title/name-of-honor like "The Lord's Day" does not happen.

1Cor 16 is significant in that it is "the golden opportunity" for a NT author to introduce the the new name of week-day-one 1 to a brand new Jewish-Christian church.

For example "Day number 7" is given "a NAME" in scripture to show its significance rather than simply assigning it "a number". No other week day has that "name assigned" in either the NT or the OT - unless you consider the "preparation day" terminology that was sometimes used for Friday.

inexplicably we will later see this claim posted on this thread regarding the responses to the sunday-texts dealt with in this post ..

The Bible verses have been identified and, by and large, ignored.

 

[Albion]

Hello Albion,

I had some time today. Is your whole argument based on someone your following by the name of Matt Slick?

I have twice already said that I have no fondness for Matt Slick, but I linked my post to that website because it covered the subject being discussed here pretty thoroughly. It did also include all the verses that Sabbatarian posters here had been demanding be identified as though they were unaware of them.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I have twice already said that I have no fondness for Matt Slick, but I linked my post to that website because it covered the subject being discussed here pretty thoroughly. It did also include all the verses that Sabbatarian posters here had been demanding be identified as though they were unaware of them.

Which has all been rebutted here as not being biblical (see the rest of the post your quoting from. See post # 520 linked). What do you believe is your best argument from there. Let's discuss it here in detail and examine the claims through the scriptures?

 

[Albion]

Yes, your reply there was an impressive exercise in rebutting ideas that are not relevant to the issue we're supposedly discussing, with a nearly complete avoidance of the verses that traditional Christians believe authorize Sunday as the primary day of worship.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Yes, your reply there was an impressive exercise in rebutting ideas that are not relevant to the issue we're supposedly discussing, with a nearly complete avoidance of the verses that traditional Christians believe authorize Sunday as the primary day of worship.

I respectfully disagree as I believe that is something you have yet to demonstrate or prove from scripture as shown earlier so we might have to agree to disagree on your claims here. As posted earlier what is it you want to discuss in detail from the scriptures? Let's prayerfully talk scripture and bring everything to the light of God's Word and follow the teachings of Jesus in John 3:19-21.

 

[HIM]

Yes, your reply there was an impressive exercise in rebutting ideas that are not relevant to the issue we're supposedly discussing, with a nearly complete avoidance of the verses that traditional Christians believe authorize Sunday as the primary day of worship.

And you AVOIDED the following.

I love Colossians it is one of my favorite letters. It is a shame that to many of us get centered on just one thing because it really brings out the Gospel. Colossians 2:16 is being stated in context to verse 14. We know this by the use of the word therefore. This means that the handwriting to the ordinances mentioned in verse 14 are those to which included, the meat, drink, holydays, New moon and Sabbath days. These are they which are in the Book Of the Law.

And also Verse 14 is being stated in the Dative case, Hence why it should be translated Handwriting to the, of the, or in the Ordinances. Here follow along..

Be encouraged because our hearts are united in love And into all the riches, of the full assurance of the understanding into the full recognition. The knowing of the mystery of the God and Father and of the Christ. The Mystery which is Christ in us the hope of Glory. That we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. Striving according to his working, which worketh in us mightily.

So AS we have received Christ Jesus walk ye in Him. Being rooted, built up and established in the faith in Him. We are complete in Him, circumcised in the putting of the body of the sins of the flesh. Buried and risen with Him in baptism, quicken together with HIM walking in newness of life. Having Forgiving us all trespasses. Blotting out the handwriting TO THE ordinances. Not the ordinances themselves but the handwriting to them, in them or of them is what the verse says. THE ONES THAT HAD TO DO WITH FORGIVENESS or when we sinned. Because we have been forgiven all trespasses and are not complete in Him, striving to His working which works in us mightily. He took them out of the way nailing them to the cross.

That is the context. Having spoiled their, the handwriting TO THE Ordinances, power and their authority. He triumphed over them in it, the Cross. Let no man therefore, Because of what was just said judge you in meat, drink or respect of Holy day, new moon or sabbath days. These that were of the handwriting to the ordinances. NOT THE ORDINANCES themselves and certainly not the ten commandments.

Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
Col 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of the ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Col 2:16 Let no man THEREFORE (because of what was just stated) judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

 

[Albion]

And you AVOIDED the following.

I love Colossians it is one of my favorite letters.

Yes, I knew I did. It was a bit difficult handling so much of your irrelevant cut and paste material in my reply and then tailoring the reply, as would have been necessary, at the same time. You understand. Colossians is worth a discussion, but surely you do not think that orthodox Christians base their view on it alone. Why not take the link you were given and refute the points and verses there, if possible, instead of replying with a prepared lecture meant for all occasions.

 

[Freth]

Getting back to the OP:

Ten Reasons I'm a Sabbatarian.
1-10: God commanded us to remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Unless there is a commandment to forget the Sabbath day, to treat it as any other day, I don't think there is a valid argument.

 

[Albion]

Getting back to the OP:

Ten Reasons I'm a Sabbatarian.
1-10: God commanded us to remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Unless there is a commandment to forget the Sabbath day, to treat it as any other day, I don't think there is a valid argument.

Get a copy of the New Testament and read it through.

On second thought, maybe I should not say that. The thread's topic is "Ten Reasons I am a Sabbatarian" and you did tell us why you are.

 

[Albion]

I respectfully disagree as I believe that is something you have yet to demonstrate or prove from scripture as shown earlier so we might have to agree to disagree on your claims here.

If you don't confront the Bible verses that support Sunday, then I suppose that is where you'd come down, sure.

As posted earlier what is it you want to discuss in detail from the scriptures?

Mainly, it's whether or not we have the right to ignore God's word in Scripture by saying, in effect, "Before Christ came and founded his church, a new one, there was God's law for the Hebrews. Although 27 books of what is called the "New" Testament is God's word also, I'm not going to treat them as such. At least not all of them."

 

[LoveGodsWord]

If you don't confront the Bible verses that support Sunday, then I suppose that is where you'd come down, sure.


Mainly, it's whether or not we have the right to ignore God's word in Scripture by saying, in effect, "Before Christ came and founded his church, a new one, there was God's law for the Hebrews. Although 27 books of what is called the "New" Testament is God's word also, I'm not going to treat them as such. At least not all of them."

The problem is that every verse you have provided that you believe support Sunday as a day of worship does not support Sunday as a day of worship in place of Gods' 4th commandment and we have been through everyone of them now and I do not think you have addressed any counter arguments from the scriptures that I am aware of have you? As posted in my original post to you and shown from the scriptures already, Sunday as a day of worship set aside to honor the resurrection of Jesus as the so called "Christian sabbath" in place of God's 4th commandment is not supported in the scriptures. It is a man-made teaching and tradition that has led many to break God's 4th commandment. Jesus says those who knowingly follow man-made teachings and traditions that break the commandments of God are not worshiping God in Matthew 15:3-9. So who should we believe; God or man?

Take Care.

 

[Albion]

The problem is that every verse you have provided that you believe support Sunday as a day of worship does not support Sunday as a day of worship in place of Gods' 4th commandment

Of course, you've been taught to think that is the case. In reality, the authorization for Sunday is as clear as can be.

...Sunday as a day of worship set aside to honor the resurrection of Jesus as the so called "Christian sabbath" in place of God's 4th commandment is not supported in the scriptures.

In all of these threads and posts, the contention has NOT been that the sabbath was moved or replaced. And by the way, that kind claim, that misdirection--denying what hasn't been asserted--has been one of the reasons that getting anything settled here has been difficult.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Of course, you've been taught to think that is the case. In reality, the authorization for Sunday is as clear as can be. In all of these threads and posts, the contention has NOT been that the sabbath was moved or replaced. And by the way, that kind claim, that misdirection--denying what hasn't been asserted--has been one of the reasons that getting anything settled here has been difficult.

Actually no that is not true from my personal experience. I would be happy to share my personal testimony if your interested? What I have shared here and at CF is the result of my own prayerful bible study in God's Word prayerfully asking God for His Spirit to be my guide and teacher claiming His promise to do so in John 16:13: John 7:17; John 14:26; Hebrews 8:11 and 1 John 2:27. Perhaps you are following what you have been taught to think from others like your link to Matt Slick? If the contention was never the Sabbath has been removed or replaced in favor of Sunday worship, everyone would still be keeping the Sabbath but that is no longer the case now is it. God knew this was going to happen which is why the commandment starts off "Remember the Sabbath day" when we have all forgotten. Do you keep Gods' 4th commandment "seventh day" Sabbath of Gods' 10 commandments that in the new covenant gives us the knowledge of what sin is when broken dead friend *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7?

 

[BobRyan]

If you don't confront the Bible verses that support Sunday, then I suppose that is where you'd come down, sure

1. I agree that some list would need to be posted in that case making the Bible case for Sunday -
2. I agree that if not posted on this thread - then posting a link to them on some other website is at least a start.
3. I agree that the link you posted does present a fairly good example of whatever case can be had in that regard.
4. I also agree that a post addressing each of the points made there (some something like this one..
Yesterday at 8:27 PM #521 posted on this same thread) Would then be needed.

I do not agree that the response to that link "ignores the NT" or even requires that one ignore the NT.

I also note that at least half of the points made at that website are also arguments against Section 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith in its affirmation of the Ten Commandments.

 

[Icyspark]

In post #519 I responded to the first points of Matt Slick's article titled, "Does the Bible allow Christians to worship on Sunday." This article was Albion's answer for why he believes Sunday has been biblically "authorized" as the replacement of the Sabbath.

This post will address the second aspect of Slick's article.

In creation, God rested on the seventh day. But, since God is all-powerful, He doesn’t get tired. He doesn’t need to take a break and rest. So, why does it say that He rested? The reason is simple: Mark 2:27 says, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” In other words, God established the Sabbath as a rest for His people, not because He needed a break, but because we are mortal and need a time of rest, of focus on God. In this, our spirits and bodies are both renewed. [This paragraph appears to be the Sabbatarian's argument to set up Matt Slick's response below.]

The OT system of Law required keeping the Sabbath as part of the overall moral, legal, and sacrificial system by which the Jewish people satisfied God’s requirements for behavior, government, and forgiveness of sins. The Sabbath was part of the Law in that sense. In order to “remain” in favor with God, you had to also keep the Sabbath. If it was not kept, then the person was in sin and would often be punished (Ezek. 18:4; Rom. 6:23; Deut. 13:1-9; Num. 35:31; Lev. 20:2, etc.).

But with Jesus’ atonement, we no longer are required to keep the Law as a means for our justification. The requirements of the Law were fulfilled in Christ. We now have rest from the Law. We now have “Sabbath,” continually.​

Slick is in error if he thinks the law was ever meant "as a means for our justification." The law was given solely to identify sin.

Romans 3:20
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.​

A consciousness of our sins reveals our need of a sin-pardoning Savior. If there is no law, then you're not a sinner. If you're not a sinner then you have no need of a Savior. If you have no need of a Savior then you have no need for Jesus. You are sinless. Do not pass go. Welcome to heaven! The Bible knows of no such thing. How can Paul say we are not to keep on sinning that grace may abound if there is no longer any such thing as sin?

The Bible also knows of no such thing as "rest from the Law." Even Slick acknowledges what he claims are nine commandments being "restated" in the New Testament, thus implying that he believes that these nine are still important and should be observed. Oddly it's only the command that says "Remember" which he believes is to be forgotten. This fourth commandment to rest is the only one of the Ten which apparently qualifies as requiring "rest from the Law." That is truly bizarre and counterintuitive. The one command which directs us to rest from works is supposedly the one that is works to observe? So we need rest from rest? Weird, right? But that's the argument being embraced.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[tall73]

Blotting out the handwriting TO THE ordinances. Not the ordinances themselves but the handwriting to them, in them or of them is what the verse says. THE ONES THAT HAD TO DO WITH FORGIVENESS or when we sinned. Because we have been forgiven all trespasses and are not complete in Him, striving to His working which works in us mightily. He took them out of the way nailing them to the cross.

That is the context. Having spoiled their, the handwriting TO THE Ordinances, power and their authority. He triumphed over them in it, the Cross. Let no man therefore, Because of what was just said judge you in meat, drink or respect of Holy day, new moon or sabbath days. These that were of the handwriting to the ordinances. NOT THE ORDINANCES themselves and certainly not the ten commandments.

It sounds like you take the position, that a lot of scholars do, that it refers to a hand-written certificate of bond, or in other words, blotting out the debt to sin? Some newer versions are translating certificate of debt on the basis of evidence of that meaning from other Koine sources.

 

[HIM]

It sounds like you take the position, that a lot of scholars do, that it refers to a hand-written certificate of bond, or in other words, blotting out the debt to sin? Some newer version are translating certificate of debt on the basis of evidence of that meaning from other koine sources.

If you mean the debt that was prescribed in the book of the law when we sinned yes. Those would be the handwriting to the ordinances. We don’t need them anymore we have been forgiven. And Jesus paid the debt for us and cleansed us with his blood.

 

[HIM]

Yes, I knew I did. It was a bit difficult handling so much of your irrelevant cut and paste material in my reply and then tailoring the reply, as would have been necessary, at the same time. You understand. Colossians is worth a discussion, but surely you do not think that orthodox Christians base their view on it alone. Why not take the link you were given and refute the points and verses there, if possible, instead of replying with a prepared lecture meant for all occasions.

once again you have posted nothing but conjecture and opinion.
Yes Cut and paste from personal devotion and study. It answers one of yours and Matt’s misconceptions. Sadly however all he does is post the verse and opinion about it. The post to which you respond to here posts facts derived from the passage. If you can Prove them wrong please do.

 

[BobRyan]

It sounds like you take the position, that a lot of scholars do, that it refers to a hand-written certificate of bond, or in other words, blotting out the debt to sin? Some newer version are translating certificate of debt on the basis of evidence of that meaning from other koine sources.

exactly!

The "speeding ticket - paid" not the "speed limit deleted"

 

[Albion]

once again you have posted nothing but conjecture and opinion.

Well, if the other party failed to address the real issue in his or her post but instead filled it up with extraneous stuff and Bible verses that do not apply...then the reply that comes back is likely not to be what the first writer was hoping for (the discussion being diverted to some other topic, that is).