YECism and Sabbatarianism

[shernren]

Seems we have a new crop of YEC posters here so I felt like trying this again:

To YECs:

Do you, or do you not, believe that you are obligated to observe the Sabbath? If yes, when and how? Why?

I'll be upfront in my agenda: I am not so much interested in Sabbatarianism per se than in YEC's connection with it. IMHO, a thorough theological understanding of YECism and application of its hermeneutical principles should uncover Saabbatarianism before anything else, and the lack of an adequate, well thought-out response by the YEC community seems to indicate a relative immaturity and shallowness of the philosophical processes behind YECism.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Well, as a messianic, I observe Torah, therefore I observe the Sabbath...
I will say, however, that Torah made it clear that the Sabbath was a covenant between G-d and His people, forever...

So my YECism and my Sabbatarianism aren't really related...unless you count Torah

G-d is G-d...and in the end He will have judgement and mercy on those whom He chooses....

Those who observe Sabbath and those who don't really only have the grace and mercy of our Messiah and Savior, Y'shua...

whether YEC or Sabbatarian is linked for other denominations I can't say. The church did change the day of worship to Sunday, in celebration of Y'shua's resurrection.....

 

[muaxiong]

Do you, or do you not, believe that you are obligated to observe the Sabbath? If yes, when and how? Why?

First of all one would need to dig a bit deeper into the Old Testament for clarification. In the book of Exodus and throughout the old testament it clarifies that the Sabbath law was binding only to the Israelites. Particularly in Ezekiel 20:10-12 where it says: “Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.”

The Sabbath laws as stated in the old testament were for the Israelites, particularly for those who were delivered from Egypt. The honoring of the Sabbath was what one of the ten commandments demands, however it was for the Israelites who were bound by the covenant of the law, as Christians we are bound by the new covenant we have in Christ. The Old Testament to include the laws have been fulfilled by Christ as such it does not condemn us if we are unable to live up to its standards. Paul tells us in Hebrew 8:6-8 that: “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.”

As such why should YECs (or for that matter any Christian) have any problems with observation of the Sabbath?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

As such why should YECs (or for that matter any Christian) have any problems with observation of the Sabbath?

reading Gen 1 carefully and as literally as possible yields the idea that one of the major purposes is the justification of the Sabbath. The whole framework is a work week, with God resting on the Sabbath. clearly the issue is of paramount importance.

it clarifies that the Sabbath law was binding only to the Israelites.

i suspect that you are part of a theological tradition that is not Sabbatarian and therefore have simply not been exposed to the idea of the Sabbath as a creation ordinance which was binding from the beginning. That Adam practiced the Sabbath observation of resting on the 7th day. etc.

The Sabbath laws as stated in the old testament were for the Israelites,

the details of the observation, the particular hows and techniques was given to the Israelites, as was temple worship and the color of the cloth, for an example. the great principles of the law are written on the hearts of all mankind, this is summarized in the decalogue, of which the first tablet is rules governing our obedience to God.
The Sabbath as a creation ordinance was given to Adam as federal head of all mankind, in all ages, until the Judgment day. The particular observational practices unique to the Jews is not evident in Gen 1, only the requirement to "think God's thoughts after Him" and rest in a pattern of 6 on and 1 off.


it is a little difficult for me to argue such, i am mildly anti-Sabbatarian in a denomination where Sabbatarianism is the confessional standard.

the big issue is that a 6 day young earth creation is set within the Sabbath as a major motif, yet almost all YECists ignore the entire issue. SDA and conservative reformed churches being the major exceptions.

 

[Numenor]

In the book of Exodus and throughout the old testament it clarifies that the Sabbath law was binding only to the Israelites

It was binding to the Israelites and proselytes. Anyone who was an alien but lived among the Israelites was expected to observe the law given to the Israelites.

I suspect YEcs of a dispensationalist bent will not see the sabbath observance as binding, but those of a Covenat Theology bent are more likely to.

 

[muaxiong]

It was binding to the Israelites and proselytes. Anyone who was an alien but lived among the Israelites was expected to observe the law given to the Israelites.

I am sure if Christ had not come all of us would still be bound by it - but Christ did not come to abolish the law but to fullfill it so the laws are still in effect for those who accept not Christ. However the important point here is that we are no longer bound by it because of what Christ has done - not that the law no longer has any relevance as such the question of YECs and the sabbath is simply a moot point.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

but again, all of this discussion is introducing subsequent theology and history into the question.

read Gen 1. one of the major points is the Sabbath. the reason that YECists don't recognize this is that their vaulted principle of literal reading is embedded within a social group and its history. YECists in general are not part of those churches that teach a binding Sabbath as a creation ordinance on all of mankind. but it is clear from the chapter (Gen 1) that it is a really big issue for the text.

that is the point of the OP.
to provide more evidence that YECism is not just a religious phenomena but a social/cultural one as well, bound to the particular historical conditions of American fundamentalism of the early 20thC. It is not nearly as literal a hermeneutic as it's proponents claim, but rather the hermeneutic is quite flexible when the underlying theology desires it to be. If the text was driving the issues we would be fighting over Sabbatarianism not the age of the earth. Sabbatarianism is clear from the text. the age of the earth has to be inferred from a long line of assumptions about geneologies and the meaning of numbers. rest like God rested at the very beginning is very clear from the text.

there are other issues that point this out as well.
temperance and slavery for two good examples.
temperance because it contradicts the clear teaching of the Scripture yet is a very important social issue for the same groups as sponsor YECism. and slavery because the same hermeneutical issues as we discuss here were discussed in the first half of the 19thC, the same social groups supported slavery with the same literal hermeneutic as their great grand children do YECism today. yet their great grand children deny the basic principles defended back then (for the most part, like geocentrics and flat earthers, there is always someone around to defend pass conflicts).

for myself, i just don't understand why YECists don't see the point.
but then again, they miss the point of TofE as well. go figure.

 

[muaxiong]

for myself, i just don't understand why YECists don't see the point.

What's to understand if wer are making mountains out of molehills? The point of the thread was to show the inconsistency of YEC theology and yet this was proved to be false. YEC emphasize a literal 6 day creation and the significance of the sabbath where the Law required the keeping of the sabbath, but we are no longer bound by the law - so what's the big issue?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What's to understand if wer are making mountains out of molehills? The point of the thread was to show the inconsistency of YEC theology and yet this was proved to be false. YEC emphasize a literal 6 day creation and the significance of the sabbath where the Law required the keeping of the sabbath, but we are no longer bound by the law - so what's the big issue?

the big deal is that:

one: YECists claim to be literally interpreting the text. Gen 1 is obviously all about the Sabbath

two: YECists claim to take the Bible as authoritative, yet they are not Sabbatarians.

three: the issue is that these things are a result of social forces, of patterns of church history, not forces intrinsic to the Bible but very external to it.

fourth: there are significant parts of the church that greatly disagree on the Sabbath issues, however since the beginning of the 20thC these voices have not been heard as loudly, evidence is the repeal of the Sabbath laws that embodied the 19thC ideal.

fifth: even though someone may disagree with the topic, at least they understand the significance of the discussion. i have yet to hear from a YECists that actually evidences understanding of the issues. i get this same party line that Christ has abrogated the Sabbath command. in doing so, you miss all the interesting issues. but i should not be surprised, subtle thinking is not a mark of YECism, rather brute force appears to be more indicative. but it would be nice simply to be understood, i seldom expect agreement but understanding the issues ought not to be this difficult.


o'l well. back to php programming.

 

[Underdog77]

I haven't read the above answers so maybe I am being redundent.

No, I do not feel obligated to observe the Sabbath, instead I have made it a personal commitment as an act of worship. We were released from the binds of the old law by Christ who set up a new convenent.

 

[mark kennedy]

Seems we have a new crop of YEC posters here so I felt like trying this again:

To YECs:

Do you, or do you not, believe that you are obligated to observe the Sabbath? If yes, when and how? Why?

I'll be upfront in my agenda: I am not so much interested in Sabbatarianism per se than in YEC's connection with it. IMHO, a thorough theological understanding of YECism and application of its hermeneutical principles should uncover Saabbatarianism before anything else, and the lack of an adequate, well thought-out response by the YEC community seems to indicate a relative immaturity and shallowness of the philosophical processes behind YECism.

The New Testament is clear that the Sabbath rest is faith in Christ:

"For we who have believed do enter the rest, as He has said; 'So I swore in my wrath, They shall not enter My rest'. although the works were dingished from the foundation of the world. For He was spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way'. And God rested on the senenth day from all His works', and again in this place; 'The shall not enter My rest'. Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, again He designates a certain day, saying in David, 'Today', after such a long time, as it has been said; 'Today if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts'." (Hebrews 4:3-7)

The Sabbath has been fullfilled, we enter God's promised rest through faith in Christ.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[muaxiong]

two: YECists claim to take the Bible as authoritative, yet they are not Sabbatarians.

And TEs do not? If so which parts are and which parts are not? And how is it that they determine this? It is the very fact that the Bible is authoritative when it says that God created in 6 days and that Christ has fullfilled that law that YECs are not all Sabbatarians - because we are NO LONGER bound by the law therefore it is "NO LONGER" required that all YECs (or TES for that matter) be Sabbatarians - clear enough?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

And TEs do not? If so which parts are and which parts are not? And how is it that they determine this? It is the very fact that the Bible is authoritative when it says that God created in 6 days and that Christ has fullfilled that law that YECs are not all Sabbatarians - because we are NO LONGER bound by the law therefore it is "NO LONGER" required that all YECs (or TES for that matter) be Sabbatarians - clear enough?

what is clear is that it(your posting) is an example of a specific theological tradition of interpretation. it is not clear that it(your contention) is true, nor is it clear that using this interpretative structure ought to change how people read Gen 1. it might be used to change the application of Gen 1, however it is unclear that it (your position of abrogation) ought to change how people read the chapter in the first place, before they begin exegesis.

reading is not exegesis is not application, they are different levels of the process.

either gen 1 is about the sabbath or it is not.

this is a different issue than if the sabbath is binding or not, or how the sabbath is binding, on who the sabbath is binding, how to express the sabbath in secular law etc.etc. etc.

which is yet another issue from the principles of hermeneutics that can lead from the text to any of the communities that believe these things. that is, a comparison of the hermeneutical principles involved in general evanglicalism, SDA and conservative reformed who all end up in a different place with respect to this complex of questions. a comparison will show not only a difference in basic hermeneutical principles but more importantly a hierarchy of priorites in which order to apply them.

see. it is not clear that you understand the variety of issues that are involved. that is what i am saying. YECists seem to misunderstand the questions involved, jumping almost immediately into application when i am still trying to read the text.

i am not asking if the sabbath is binding or not. i am asking how a literal interpretation is not centrally concerned in Gen1 with the very structure which is a Sabbath Creation Week. looking only at the text of Gen 1, what is it about? what are the important structural elements? what is it's main points? the answer to all these very low level textual questions is the Sabbath. long before anyone even thinks of application or abrogation or Christ as fulfillment etc. simply put, what is the text about? what did it mean to it's first readers?

 

[Numenor]

I am sure if Christ had not come all of us would still be bound by it - but Christ did not come to abolish the law but to fullfill it so the laws are still in effect for those who accept not Christ.

So non-Christians are bound to observe the sabbath but not Christians? Non -Christians should be offering up burnt offerings?

However the important point here is that we are no longer bound by it because of what Christ has done - not that the law no longer has any relevance as such the question of YECs and the sabbath is simply a moot point.

If by your reasoning we don't have to keep the 4th commandment ...

[sup]8[/sup] "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. [sup]9[/sup]Six days you shall labor and do all your work, [sup]10[/sup]but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. [sup]11[/sup]For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

...then by neither do we have to keep the 6th, 7th 8th or 9th

[sup]13[/sup]You shall not murder.
[sup]14[/sup]You shall not commit adultery.
[sup]15[/sup]You shall not steal.
[sup]16[/sup]You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

Why is the 4th commandment discarded but not the others?

 

[shernren]

Here's an analogy:

===

One day I walk into the bank and ask the teller to deposit a cheque. The teller looks at the cheque and frowns. The amount written is "Twenty One Thousand Only"; but the "Twenty" is barely legible and scribbled in blue ink, while the "One Thousand Only" is clearly written ("printed" you Americans would say ) in thin black ballpoint pen.

"You're an idiot to think I'll accept this cheque," the bank teller says, obviously not knowing the slightest thing about PR. "It's obvious that the cheque originally read 'one thousand only', that there happened to be a big space before it, and you scribbled 'twenty' in." But I'm in good standing with the bank, and when the manager comes out to see the commotion he says, "Hold on while I call the issuer" - the issuer also being in good standing with the bank.

I wait impatiently in the manager's office - the issuer's phone is engaged - and when the call gets through I'm vindicated. "I was writing him this cheque in the middle of the night," he says, "and I fell asleep writing it but I didn't want to waste that cheque when I woke up the next morning. I'd already groggily written the 'twenty' and then thunked off to sleep, and then I added the 'one thousand' first thing the next morning when I saw the cheque."

The manager tells the teller that the cheque is perfectly valid and scolds him for his rude lack of manners. I smirk at him, put the cheque back into my pocket, and walk out of the bank.

Funny, the teller seems to be shouting at me. He hasn't learned his lesson has he? What's he saying? I don't care.

"Sir, sir ... Are you going to deposit that cheque??"

===

I'm not trying to say that the Bible looks like a forged cheque. But it seems to me that so often YECs are too busy upholding the truth of Genesis 1 that they forget all about what Genesis 1 was originally written for and how it was supposed to be applied in their lives. Genesis 1 is the friggin' first chapter of the Bible! God put it "at the beginning" for a reason! And I bet it wasn't just for the sake of inspiring exotic research on hyperactive radionuclides and weird space-bending theories to squash the earth's geological history into 6,000 years.

Genesis 1 was meant to be the ethical foundation of a godly understanding of the relationship between nature as God's creation, God as creator, and man as steward, whether or not it was a historical-scientific narrative. And in the only commandment of the Ten which draws directly from Genesis 1 - from the foundation of nature and man's interrelationship and dependence on God - we are told to rest completely, one day in seven. And yet I think it would be safe to say that there is next to nothing in all of YECism's collective meditations that focusses on this - on any part of the grand "why" that Genesis 1 expresses.

It's like trying to validate a cheque, exulting when it's shown to be valid, and then tucking it into a pocket somewhere and never depositing it or even looking at it again. I could even extrapolate as far as to say that YECism's scientific emphasis makes Genesis 1 a scientific oddity and a litmus test to separate "believers" from "fakers and atheists" instead of an integral foundation from which to understand the world.

But I shan't go that far. I shall only ask:

Why are you trying so hard to prove that the cheque is valid (that the Bible is true and therefore scientifically true) when you're not going to deposit it (examining and meditating over the possible spiritual lessons and their validity)? Why uphold the authority of a cheque which you seem content to leave in a dark drawer once it's proven valid?

 

[vossler]

I'm not trying to say that the Bible looks like a forged cheque. But it seems to me that so often YECs are too busy upholding the truth of Genesis 1 that they forget all about what Genesis 1 was originally written for and how it was supposed to be applied in their lives. Genesis 1 is the friggin' first chapter of the Bible! God put it "at the beginning" for a reason!

Couldn't agree more! Yet the reason many YECs do as you say is because the very truths stated there are our foundation. If those truths are now misguidingly shown to be false then the reason it is at the beginning becomes skewed and misrepresents everything that is to follow.

And I bet it wasn't just for the sake of inspiring exotic research on hyperactive radionuclides and weird space-bending theories to squash the earth's geological history into 6,000 years.

If there is one thing about YECism that does frustrate me is the extent to which some will argue things from a scientific perspective. I have nothing against using science when it clearly and emphatically backs your position, but when we get into all sorts of speculation and such we've become no better than the evolutionists.

Genesis 1 was meant to be the ethical foundation of a godly understanding of the relationship between nature as God's creation, God as creator, and man as steward, whether or not it was a historical-scientific narrative. And in the only commandment of the Ten which draws directly from Genesis 1 - from the foundation of nature and man's interrelationship and dependence on God - we are told to rest completely, one day in seven. And yet I think it would be safe to say that there is next to nothing in all of YECism's collective meditations that focusses on this - on any part of the grand "why" that Genesis 1 expresses.

Considering that YECism's existence is to counter the lie of evolution, well I just don't see how the Sabbath should be a focus. If the lie of evolution didn't exist the need for YECism wouldn't either.

 

[artybloke]

If those truths are now misguidingly shown to be false then the reason it is at the beginning becomes skewed and misrepresents everything that is to follow.

In what way does showing something to be a non-factual and symbolic account rather than a factual account show the truths of that passage to be false? No-one yet has given me a good enough reason to suppose that Gen 1 has to be factual in order to be true.

 

[Willtor]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to shernren again."

The validity of your analogy was precisely what frustrated me even when I was a YEC.

 

[shernren]

Considering that YECism's existence is to counter the lie of evolution, well I just don't see how the Sabbath should be a focus. If the lie of evolution didn't exist the need for YECism wouldn't either.

That's just my whole point: YECism seems to exist simply as an overblown reaction to evolutionism than anything concrete in terms of understanding the Bible.

If I walk into a bank, win a big fight over whether or not a cheque is valid, and then walk out without depositing the cheque, what does that tell you about my motives? Whatever my motive is it's not the money.

In the same way the lack of consideration towards other issues which would naturally be brought up by the same interpretive framework used in Genesis 1 ... perhaps shows that YECism really isn't about what the Bible is trying to say to us at all.

 

[vossler]

That's just my whole point: YECism seems to exist simply as an overblown reaction to evolutionism than anything concrete in terms of understanding the Bible.

I don't see challenging a lie as an overblown reaction.