mls@cbnewsm.att.com (Mike Siemon) (10/11/89)
David Buxton points out that my earlier note was not phrased in a manner
that would lend itself to coherent discussion:
+ You ... think I am side stepping something. Be specific so I can be responsive.
My passions are engaged in this controversy because I see David's position as
amounting to a denial of the gospel. He (correctly) infers that I am no
advocate of blue laws, or indeed of any other meddling of the Church in
secular society. I am an ardent disestablishmentarian. But let me see if I
can provide a brief and relatively cool enumeration of the problems I find in
the sabbatarian position.
1. The piling up of OT commendations of the Law is irrelevant. These are
all references to the *whole* Torah and they are all written from the
standpoint of Israel. Insofar as one takes these citations as binding
for Christians, then the whole of Torah must be binding -- and as has
been pointed out by others, observance of days is *specifically* named by
Paul as nonbinding. Acts 15:20 does *not* name sabbath observance as one
of the things Gentiles should do when they turn to God.
Nothing from the OT may be used to override the Christian proclamation.
2. I have no quarrel with the general notion that human morality has its
foundation in human nature, as created by God. It is less clear that
such a notion can be derived from scripture; if so, the derivation is
oblique. I am suspicious of *all* doctrinal positions that do not
come from direct scriptural sources read with close attention to their
context. [This position is not as "Protestant" as it may seem at first
glance; part of the context is, necessarily, the context of the church
as teacher, since that is the *origin* of the gospels and Paul's letters.]
I see no evidence that the "general moral law" is equated with the ten
commandments, anywhere in scripture. It is simply a logical fallacy to
infer that rejection of murder implies acceptance of a sabbath.
3. My previous post was an empassioned plea to recgonize that *all* ritual
observance amounts to the observers separating themsleves from the non-
observers. This also seems to me to deny the gospel, though I admit a
certain practical necessity of some such liturgical/ritual separation.
At the very least baptism and eucharist *do* separate Christian from
non-Christian -- but I am wary of anything that calls too much attention
to this separation. The only separation that matters is that on the Day
of Judgment; and only God knows the lines of division there.
4. More speculatively, and treading ground that many Christians will not
want to follow me onto, the mythology of a 6-day creation followed by
a 7th day on which God rested, which is used by the Priestly author as
"justification" for the sabbath ordinance in the decalogue, is in my
opinion pure literary figuration.
Note that the Deuteronomist has a very *different* justification:
"You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt,
and the LORD your God brought you out thence with a mighty hand
and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you
to keep the sabbath day." [Deuteronomy 6:15]
This, to me, makes three points. It reinforces what I said above about
this law, and the rest of Torah, being *Israel's* and not mine. And in
connection with Christ's passion and resurrection being the Christian's
passover and deliverance, the *reason* for the law given in Deuteronomy
would seem to point quite directly at our taking Sunday for our sabbath.
The third point is that the sabbath is to be a reminder of deliverance
from oppression. (Which should in itself support David's objection to
blue laws; it surely can make no sense to remember deliverance from
oppression by *enforced* measures!)
The sabbath, however and whenever observed, is no part of God's will if it
is observed *against* mankind. The sabbath was made for us (for rest and
recollection of deliverance) and not us for the sabbath.
+ I simply want to stand up and show that there are solid scriptural grounds
+ for the stand that we take.
Unless you are a Jew, I think those "solid grounds" are quicksand; and even for
the Jew it seems to me to be a very weak foundation if the Jew happens also to
be Christian. A new covenant abrogates the old one, and trying to bring the
old one back in by exegesis is dangerous, because for those who live in Christ,
the old law is dead. I may no longer rely on "I did right; it says so here in
the book" but must always act in love, and constrained only by love.
--
Michael L. Siemon "O stand, stand at the window,
cucard!dasys1!mls As the tears scald and start;
att!sfbat!mls You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer With your crooked heart."zach@drutx.att.com (Zach Lewis) (10/13/89)
In article <Oct.11.04.44.03.1989.15559@athos.rutgers.edu>, mls@cbnewsm.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes: > > "You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, > and the LORD your God brought you out thence with a mighty hand > and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you > to keep the sabbath day." [Deuteronomy 6:15] > I see God saying again that the Sabbath show that you believe I am your God. Do we worship a different God than the Jews in the Bible ? You do but who is the god of sunday ? I don't find one in the Bible ? > > The sabbath, however and whenever observed, is no part of God's will if it > is observed *against* mankind. The sabbath was made for us (for rest and > recollection of deliverance) and not us for the sabbath. I agree and that was what Jesus tryied to show the Jews that the Sabbath is a day for helping to free people for pain and suffering and sin . > > + I simply want to stand up and show that there are solid scriptural grounds > + for the stand that we take. Where are the Text that we should worship on Sunday ? Give me one text that says remember the 1st day to keep it HOLY ? Just one ? or may you think the Lord's day is Sunday too read Mark 2:28 Jesus is LORD OF SABBATH THE LORD'S DAY IS THE SABBATH !!! Clear or am I reading into the text like you ? > > Unless you are a Jew, I think those "solid grounds" are quicksand; and even for > the Jew it seems to me to be a very weak foundation if the Jew happens also to > be Christian. Is Galatians 3:28,29 that confusing THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE !!! >A new covenant abrogates the old one, and trying to bring the >old one back in by exegesis is dangerous, because for those who live in Christ, > the old law is dead. I may no longer rely on "I did right; it says so here in > the book" but must always act in love, and constrained only by love. > -- > Michael L. Siemon Please Read through the book of Hebrews and understand what is the old covenant ! In Hebrews you find that the SAME GOSPEL WAS PREACHED TO MOSES AND THE JEWS ! There is no OLD and NEW gospel only one salvation with faith in Jesus alone. The JEWS were NOT SAVED BY WORKS ? please read and understand that we are ALL SAVE BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS ALONE ! Hebrews shows clearly that the old covenant dealt with the sacrifical services not the 10 commandments ? but the lamb, bulls, and doves the day of atonement and all of those things. Please stay in the Bible and don't say you have clear Bible evidence and don't list one text that makes sunday holy or even suggest that the we should go to a church. If I take your point of view than the Bible does not support any day or any rule for going to church, but one little text in Hebrews that you can make say go to church sometime but not every week. An why don't churches have church every day and not force people to come on Sunday to hear a sermon if the day does not matter why do you stop at Sunday ? I know why I worship on Sabbath and that is because you can show clearly from the Bible that the 7th day was blessed and made Holy no other day can you say that for and find a text in the Bible. Also God does not want us to be confused so He said remember also ? It is your choice and you now have more Bible evidence (the book HEBREWS) God will judge you on want you did with this evidence ! Zac ** Man's word or God's which is it and then think it through ** ** If it does not matter WHY GO **
davidbu@tekigm2.men.tek.com (David Buxton) (10/13/89)
[Mike Siemon writes] >1. The piling up of OT commendations of the Law is irrelevant. These are > all references to the *whole* Torah and they are all written from the > standpoint of Israel. Insofar as one takes these citations as binding > for Christians, then the whole of Torah must be binding -- and as has > been pointed out by others, observance of days is *specifically* named by > Paul as nonbinding. Acts 15:20 does *not* name sabbath observance as one > of the things Gentiles should do when they turn to God. Deuteronomy 5 re-states the Decalogue. You perhaps claim that chapter 5 is the entire Torah? You are entitled to your opinion. I read Deuteronomy 5 and clearly see only the Decalogue - the law of God presented directly to Moses by God. Then reading through the chapter break (a more modern inven- tion) I find myself at Deut. 6, especially verses 5 and 6, where God makes it clear how we are to keep His Commandments just stated in Chapter 5. I do not see how you come to the conclusion that God is telling them how to keep the entire Torah. No, the context is clearly Decalogue and not Torah. Must I revisit my series of posts that clearly show that the Decalogue con- tains no statements "that are against us" while the laws of Moses most cer- tainly do, and are identified by Moses as such? Yes, there is one "law of promise" which speaks of a positive consequence. We have to look elsewhere to find consequences. The Decalogue is the only portion of scripture that we have that is written by the hand of God. I do think that I have made already made my case clear and do not wish to re- post my material. If you missed it I'd be glad to email it to you. At the time of Christ the Jews had their Mishna and other detailed rulings on how the law was to be kept. And there were those perhaps who did insist on combining all of the laws and ordinances of the OT into an inseparable mass. That may be true of some or even a majority. I am told rather, that the Jews of Christ's day were quite good at understanding, by context, what subset or whole of the Torah or Mishna was being spoken of. If I accept that it is all an inseparable Torah then I quickly find that Paul is very inconsistent: At times he speaks against the Torah and at other times he finds it to be holy and perfect and so on, and clearly delights in it. Somehow I have to believe that if it was a 'New Command- ment' called 'Love', then Paul would instead of said that 'Love' is pure and holy and a delight. But he uses the words 'law' and If I accept that Paul allowed for various different laws and subsets and supersets of the various laws, especially Mosaic vs God's Law, then I find that what Paul says makes very good sense and is not at all inconsistent. You may find it expedient to keep them as inseparable Torah so that you can do away with all of it or one of it. I find it easy enough to sort out a lot of them, if not all of them, and am convinced that they are indeed separable by rules identified in the OT - rules specified by God which Moses did indeed communicate. Perhaps the challenge of sorting out these laws is too much for some people? Acts 15:20 identifies a list of things that they are to abstain from. Acts 15:20 makes *no* statement about abstaining from the Sabbath. ". . . . --how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you." (Gal. 4:9-11) Here Paul is clearly speaking against the ceremonial laws and rituals which included annual Sabbath dayS. Nowhere do I find Paul speaking against any one of the 10 Commandments. Rather I find plenty of evidence that Paul was a strong (weekly) Sabbath keeper; even though he saw the annual sabbath dayS as being done away with. > Nothing from the OT may be used to override the Christian proclamation. Since I am not acquainted with what you propose to be the "Christian proc- lamation" I cannot respond here. What ever it is - are you sure that it will stand up before God on judgement day? >2. I am suspicious of *all* doctrinal positions that do not > come from direct scriptural sources read with close attention to their > context. I'll happily agree with that. I'll allow that it is possible that I have been out of context, as the exception to the rule. I have not done so on purpose if I have. On t.r.m. there have been times when I have happily admitted to a context mistake and am willing to do so on s.r.c. > I see no evidence that the "general moral law" is equated with the ten > commandments, anywhere in scripture. It is simply a logical fallacy to > infer that rejection of murder implies acceptance of a sabbath. Where no law is, there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15). Sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). What law do you propose that these texts refer to? If you insist that all NT references to the law refer to an inseparable Torah that is done away with then you have to accept that there is no transgression now that the Torah is gone. That means that Christ's death did away with man's need for a Saviour. "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him." (1 John 3:4-6). Where there is no law there is no sin and where there is no sin there is no need for a Saviour; in the sense that all can be saved regardless of whether they come to Christ or not. I find it impossible to escape this conclusion. So, please do explain what you do with these texts that define what sin is? My understanding of the Gospel is that Christ came to save us from our sin (not in our sin). Do you deny this Gospel? >3. My previous post was an empassioned plea to recgonize that *all* ritual > observance amounts to the observers separating themsleves from the non- > observers. This also seems to me to deny the gospel, though I admit a > certain practical necessity of some such liturgical/ritual separation. > At the very least baptism and eucharist *do* separate Christian from > non-Christian -- but I am wary of anything that calls too much attention > to this separation. The only separation that matters is that on the Day > of Judgment; and only God knows the lines of division there. I agree that we are not to develop modern codes of Mishna. I agree that we are not to be separate for the sake of separation. Here is what I told one of my email friends when we talked about him potentially coming to visit me -- he is welcome to attend church with me on Sabbath and then I'll happily go with him to the church of his choice on Sunday. I'd happily do the same with you. Here are two texts that I think you ought to read: "Do not think that I come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division." (Luke 12:51). "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (Mark 10:37-39) And then there is also the text in Revelation that says "come out of her my people". These all speak of separation. I do not interpret that these texts say we should separate for the sake of separation but rather that when we refuse to compromise our principles we may indeed find others separating us away. It is clear to me, from the Bible, that the Children of Israel should have been taking the good news of the plan of Salvation and the good news about God to the world around them. Instead they went to the world and learned the ways of the world. ->In your section '4' you refer to creation week as mythology and then claim that the Sabbath was instituted as a remembrance of deliverance from bondage. But the 4th commandment is clear - "Remember the Sabbath . . . . 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 Sab- bath day and made it holy." To me it is clear that the Sabbath day and creation week are inseparable in this 4th Commandment. In the 4th Commandment God shows that at least this commandment dates back to Creation Week and so cannot be simply an Israel- ite Commandment. I happen to subscribe to the belief that all ten are eternal. >The sabbath, however and whenever observed, is no part of God's will if it >is observed *against* mankind. The sabbath was made for us (for rest and >recollection of deliverance) and not us for the sabbath. I believe that this text says that the Sabbath was made for all mankind and not just for the Jews. It was made for humans and not just for Jews. >. . . . . . A new covenant abrogates the old one, and trying to bring the >old one back in by exegesis is dangerous, because for those who live >in Christ, the old law is dead. I may no longer rely on "I did right; it >says so here in the book" but must always act in love, and constrained only >by love. Read Exodus 19 and it should be clear that the Decalogue and the not a replacement of the Decalogue. Perhaps it replaces Exodus 19 but certainly not Exodus 20. I provided for you the OT texts that show how the law is to be kept. A few kept it according to God's way - by inviting God to place it in their hearts. The OT is clear that the 'in the heart' experience is Hebrews 8:16 says nothing new or unique to the NT. As a nation the Children of Israel failed because they preferred to do it their own way. The New Covenant sim- ply says that God no longer has a nation (with a few exceptions that let God keep the law by placing it in their hearts) but rather His covenant is now with anybody - regardless of nationality, sex, creed, color, or any other delineation - who keep the commandments the way God wanted it done as stated in Deut 6:6. The Old Covenant was with a Nation that turned against God's way and did it their way. The New Covenant is with anyone willing to do things God's way instead of man's way. God does not care what organiza- tion you belong to in this respect. \\///// 8-) (-8 Dave (David E. Buxton) | .-. davidbu@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM . . Smile! Its a beutiful day! \_/