Twisted Logic on the Sabbath

[Key Guy]

In Today's Culture, What Does It Mean to Keep the Sabbath Holy?

by Lauren F. Winner

Excepted from Christianity Today.. http://www.christianitytoday.com/tcw/2004/001/14.16.html

Quote:

Of course, Christians aren't bound by Old-Testament Sabbath directives. Twice in his epistles, the apostle Paul made it clear that Sabbath observance, like other external signs of piety, is insufficient for salvation. As he wrote to the Colossians, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you … with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ" (Colossians 2:16-17). And Jesus, when rebuked by the Pharisees for plucking grain from a field on the Sabbath, criticized those who made a fetish of Sabbath observance, insisting, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).

But Jesus never said to forget the Sabbath completely. Keeping the Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments, after all! And through the ages Christians have seen the wisdom of devoting one full day to rest and praise. There's an old Puritan saying, "Good Sabbaths make good Christians."

How can you denegrate the Sabbath requirement on one hand by saying that we aren't bound by the Old Testament directives ("of course"), yet on the next paragraph elevate the requirement by admitting that it's one of the Ten Commandments "after all!"?

This is a major logical failure that neutralizes the whole article. The writer just negated her own points by undercutting whatever premise she was trying to establish.

I truly appreciate that God is a God of logic and wisdom and that He honors those that honestly seek for such.

[Naomi]

Quote:

I truly appreciate that God is a God of logic and wisdom and that He honors those that honestly seek for such.

Amen

[John317]

In Today's Culture, What Does It Mean to Keep the Sabbath Holy?

by Lauren F. Winner

Excepted from Christianity Today.. http://www.christianitytoday.com/tcw/2004/001/14.16.html

Quote:

Of course, Christians aren't bound by Old-Testament Sabbath directives. Twice in his epistles, the apostle Paul made it clear that Sabbath observance, like other external signs of piety, is insufficient for salvation. As he wrote to the Colossians, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you ? with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ" (Colossians 2:16-17). And Jesus, when rebuked by the Pharisees for plucking grain from a field on the Sabbath, criticized those who made a fetish of Sabbath observance, insisting, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).

But Jesus never said to forget the Sabbath completely. Keeping the Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments, after all! And through the ages Christians have seen the wisdom of devoting one full day to rest and praise. There's an old Puritan saying, "Good Sabbaths make good Christians."

How can you denegrate the Sabbath requirement on one hand by saying that we aren't bound by the Old Testament directives ("of course"), yet on the next paragraph elevate the requirement by admitting that it's one of the Ten Commandments "after all!"?

This is a major logical failure that neutralizes the whole article. The writer just negated her own points by undercutting whatever premise she was trying to establish.

I truly appreciate that God is a God of logic and wisdom and that He honors those that honestly seek for such.

I read the whole article. What's surprising is that it was written by a former Jew who obviously misses the Sabbath but is now a Sundaykeeping Christian. I wish the writer would learn about all the many thousands of Jews who keep the Sabbath as Christians.

[Look Alive!]

I would love to see a clear, concise answer to these kinds of statements (the ones in the article), setting forth Biblical truth, but in a similar style to the article, that is, not getting way too heavy or academic beyond the average reader's willingness to grasp.

What is the correct way to understand Colossians 2:16-17 then, if it's not talking about the Sabbath? Is there some evidence from the original Greek that it's referring simply to OT feast days or is it really the same word used to indicate SABBATH?

Just wonderin.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi KenGuy,

That kind of stuff is disgusting. I have heard others do the same thing. They talk about all the commandments with fervor and then when they come to the Sabbath they say, "You must keep one day in 7". At that point I start calling them hypocrits, but they are in the TV so they can't hear me :duno

Norman

[Look Alive!]

I don't hold them in contempt or disgust. I pity them. What a blessing they are missing out on! Poor dears.

[Tom Wetmore]

But is this any different than Christians across the board putting an interpretation on any one of the commandments consistent with and not really threatening to their lifestyle, cultural mores, values or dare I say, politics? Particularly where it enables them to distinguish themselves from those they deem to not measure up to their level of obedience to God's law? We as Adventists should be careful about our smugness on this one in wagging the bony finger of judgment at those missing the boat we are on. We are at risk of falling on the wrong side of the line as Jesus defined it when talking about and the commandments.

"You have heard that it has been said, 'Do not profane the Sabbath with______________________.' But I say to you, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, even if you have to work to find it and do it. And do you not know that the Sabbath was created by God to serve man and for his pleasure and not for man to be subservient to the Sabbath, wearing it like a heavy burden, like a yoked team of overworked oxen!"

Rather than being disgusted by this sort of article, I am delighted to find that Christians are rediscovering the joy and importance of this commandment so near and dear to us. I see a growing resurgence of Christians reaffirming God's commandments as they understand them, including the Sabbath. In fact some of the best Sabbath keeping affirming literature these days is coming from Sunday-keepers. They may have the wrong day, but they are understanding the right way. Adventists have spent so much time and energy stressing the right day, that very few really have a true appreciation for the right way.

I see this as evidence of the quiet and gentle prompting of the Holy Spirit for people to reawaken a desire to even think about the Sabbath. The Holy Spirit has to start leading a person from where they are. And let's face it, where they are, the overwhelming majority of Christians, is Sabbathing on Sunday. So the first steps to truth about the Sabbath for most Christians is a prompting to keep their Sunday Sabbath holy the right way. If they stay tuned into the Holy Spirit, they will get the right day in time. Will the Holy Spirit be able to show them the right day through us because we have the true spirit of Sabbathing, keeping it the right way? Or will they see us keeping the Sabbath the wrong way and conclude that since we keep it the wrong way, we must also be wrong about the day?

Tom

[Key Guy]

I don't hold them in contempt or disgust. I pity them. What a blessing they are missing out on! Poor dears.

I think that too many of us humans (including Adventists) are content to accept what a pastor or spritual leader says and not test what we hear with Scripture. Spoon-fed Christianity is not a good thing.

God encourages us to 'reason', to think and reach logical conclusions. That can only happen when quality time is spent searching the Scriptures with the aid of the Holy Spirit, SOP and meditation with an OPEN mind and a humble, teachable spirit.

The 'still, small voice' is no match for a closed mind.

[olger]

"They may have the wrong day, but they are understanding the right way."

Your attempt to define the zeal of sundaykeepers as the continuation and enrichment of the sabbath consecration is no doubt praiseworthy, but you fail to explain how the Biblical symbolic signifigance of the SABBATH rest can be transferred to the first day of the week without destroying the symbol itself.

gcw

[Bravus]

She basically said that commandment-keeping is not *sufficient* for salvation: and that is 100% orthodox SDA theology. Nowhere does she suggest that it is unnecessary, or that it is not important. The examples she sets out are of people being judged (including Jesus and his disciples) on the basis of particular interpretations of the Sabbath, and that's what she speaks against, not the Sabbath. Good to read what's actually written, rather than to project something else onto it.

[David Koot]

What is the correct way to understand Colossians 2:16-17 then, if it's not talking about the Sabbath? Is there some evidence from the original Greek that it's referring simply to OT feast days or is it really the same word used to indicate SABBATH?

Just wonderin.

I should be glad to respond to that. The word for 'sabbaths' there is sabbatwn, WITHOUT the article! Plural sabbaths. The weekly sabbath is typically 'ta sabbata.' When the plural sabbatwn is used WITH the article (twn sabbatwn) the reference is to the seventh-day sabbaths. WITHOUT the article, it does not, but refers to holy days in a broad sense.

A point of interest here: Paul, having listed foods, feasts, holy days, etc., in the plural, then uses a singular verb, literally "WHICH IS A SHADOW OF WHAT IS TO COME." IOW the entire ceremonial system was a shadow of Christ's sacrifice.

By contrast, the seventh-day Sabbath points BACK to Creation. Thus, on several levels, there is a distinction between the weekly Sabbath, and the ceremonial sabbaths described in Col. 2:16, 17.

Unfortunately, some of the modern translations muck it up when it comes to this passage. An example of the mantra: "Theology drives exegesis." For shame!!!!

[Look Alive!]

Originally Posted By: Look Alive!

I don't hold them in contempt or disgust. I pity them. What a blessing they are missing out on! Poor dears.

I think that too many of us humans (including Adventists) are content to accept what a pastor or spritual leader says and not test what we hear with Scripture. Spoon-fed Christianity is not a good thing.

God encourages us to 'reason', to think and reach logical conclusions. That can only happen when quality time is spent searching the Scriptures with the aid of the Holy Spirit, SOP and meditation with an OPEN mind and a humble, teachable spirit.

The 'still, small voice' is no match for a closed mind.

I agree with your statements, but following my quip with them in this case rings like a non-sequitur to me nonetheless. (*shrug*)

As for testing with Scripture: it's bad enough more do not even try to do this, but what's worse is many who try to simply cannot, because they've been pre-programmed to read scripture in a specific particular way, to the point where they are not actually READING IT at all but reading a reinforcement of those same filters. Present them with a text outside their box and they have fits trying to make it fit in with their established body of doctrine. *sigh*

[LifeHiscost]

We as Adventists should be careful about our smugness on this one in wagging the bony finger of judgment at those missing the boat we are on.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

"You have heard that it has been said, 'Do not profane the Sabbath with______________________.' But I say to you, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, even if you have to work to find it and do it. And do you not know that the Sabbath was created by God to serve man and for his pleasure and not for man to be subservient to the Sabbath, wearing it like a heavy burden, like a yoked team of overworked oxen!"

Seems like numerous added thoughts to the Word.

Not really, if you listen to and understand the whole Word... At worst it is a composite paraphrase of what the Jews said about the Sabbath and what Jesus said about it (OT and NT). And if I erred it was not by adding anything, but cryptically condensing and leaving out many details. (See Neh. 13:15-22; Matt. 12:1-21; Ez. 22:7-8, 25-26; Luke 6:6-11; Mark 3:4; John 5:1-22; John 7:23; Mark 2:27; Luke 13:10-17, 14:1-6; Isaiah 58:1-14; Matt. 11:16-30; 1 Kings 12:1-19; Isaiah 9:4, 10:27; Gal. 4:21-5:5; Acts 15:10,11.)

Originally Posted By: LifeHiscost

...A very valid point. One to keep in mind when tempted to believe the conduct of men is that which should be followed as opposed to accepting the sure Word of God.

"And you shall be witnesses... unto the uttermost parts of the earth" "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works..." And as Dwight L. Moody once said, "Preach the gospel at every opportunity, and if necessary use words."

Tom

[LifeHiscost]

Seems like numerous added thoughts to the Word.

[KiwiJohn]

Adventists don't have to defend Sabbath keeping. The others must defend their observation of Sunday. That's the day that doesn't fit Scipture. Tradition isn't enough unless you follow Catholicism.

[KiwiJohn]

Did you know Dwight Moody was a Sabbath keeper?

[Naomi]

Adventists don't have to defend Sabbath keeping. The others must defend their observation of Sunday. That's the day that doesn't fit Scipture. Tradition isn't enough unless you follow Catholicism.

Excellent

[LifeHiscost]

Did you know Dwight Moody was a Sabbath keeper?

No, I didn't, but I'm not surprised and I'm glad to hear it. Would you mind expanding on the subject re: his personal devotional habits?

Regards!

[D. Allan]

Quote:

Adventists don't have to defend Sabbath keeping. The others must defend their observation of Sunday. That's the day that doesn't fit Scipture. Tradition isn't enough unless you follow Catholicism

Maybe NO one needs defend their day of 'rest.' If the spirit of this Bible verse from Romans 14 is taken to heart: Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

RO 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. We must learn how to agree to disagree, and here Saint Paul shows how to do it.

[olger]

is God then impartial about His rest day?

[David Koot]

Maybe NO one needs defend their day of 'rest.' If the spirit of this Bible verse from Romans 14 is taken to heart . . . RO 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

This very passage is very often used by those who worship on Sunday, as proof that the NT, and Paul the apostle do not support any requirement of keeping the Bible Sabbath.

The use of this passage in that way is an example of 'twisted logic.' I have often pointed out to non-SDA's, that the verse here says nothing about a weekly day of rest. What is it referring to? "Disputable matters." (v. 1) Disputable on what basis? On the basis of the Bible. To attempt to apply this passage to the issue of the weekly day of rest and worship, to use this verse to try to show that which day a person chooses is a 'disputable matter,' would be using circular reasoning. A person would need to show from Scripture that the Sabbath is disputable, in order to properly apply this passage in that way. And, Scripture is very, very clear. The Fourth Commandment specifices, "Remember THE Sabbath day, to keep it holy . . . for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth . . . and rested THE seventh day: Wherefore the Lord blessed THE Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

There WERE days that were 'disputable' for believers in the early church. For example, the Gentiles were accustomed to observe various holidays. The Jews apparently thought they should not. THESE were disputable issues. Also, one faction of the Jews fasted on two days a week, while another faction fasted on other days--with finger-pointing back and forth. THESE were disputable days.

But to suggest to a Sunday-keeper that he or is at liberty to select a day of worhsip according to his own preference--as in the pastor who told me that he makes Monday his sabbath each week--would be violating the plain teaching of the Bible, and doing the person a real disservice.

Dave

[D. Allan]

I think Paul's main purpose in the passage i quoted is to show how we are to treat those who have different ideas about religion than we do.

...the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

~dallan

[D. Allan]

Evidently.

[David Koot]

...the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Paul is here speaking of "disputable things." The specific issue is foods offered to idols. Either position would be acceptable, in that case. However, that is quite different from the Bible Sabbath. That is not a "disputable thing," so the verse is not on point.

None of that takes away from the idea of assuming the best about others, or of recognizing and acknowledging that they may very well be in good faith in their beliefs. But the core issue is clear-cut, according to the Bible. If someone is believing and practicing something that is contrary to the Word of God, then we who have been blessed with great light have a responsibility to do what is in our power to share that light with them, as opportunities arise.

Once again, the Romans passage does not address the issue of the day of worship.