RT @LIAint: Just read @world_mag's "In the Shadow of War" about the people of the Nuba Mountains. Anyone else read it yet? 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Sabbath wrestling
Because WORLD posts my commentaries on Mondays, there’s a good chance you’re reading this piece on the day following the Christian Sabbath. So Christian, how did you do yesterday? Did you keep the Sabbath holy?
I’ve asked myself this question nearly every week for several years. I started feeling concerned about my Lord’s Day observance 11 years ago when I was coaching my son’s soccer team on Sunday afternoons. I noticed that I would get preoccupied about the games during church. After church, our family would hustle home, hurry through lunch, jump in the van, and dash to the field. I coached, my son played, and the family watched. The entire Wishing clan was caught up in a soccer Sabbath. After the game, I’d be mentally exhausted and would think about lessons to teach the team in the upcoming practice. Even though I was home, my brain couldn’t turn off soccer. And it bothered me. My son and I left our hometown league the following season for a league in a nearby town that plays on Saturday.
A few years prior to the Sabbath soccer experience, I was a partner in a golf course and worked seven days a week and didn’t think twice about it. Prior to that, while working as a financial consultant for Merrill Lynch, I became a Christian but I went to the office after church to get a jump-start on the week.
My views on the Sabbath have changed over the years, but at times I still struggle in living out the Lord’s Day. Weekly, I send my commentary to WORLD on Monday morning. I do my best to get it written by Saturday evening so that I can keep Sunday holy by focusing on worship and rest. But sometimes I slip. And when I do, I wait until sundown on Sunday to start writing. My rationale is that the Jewish Sabbath ran from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. Am I in the clear waiting until dusk? Some might say that I’m a bit legalistic about the Sabbath, and that may be legitimate criticism. But I can tell you that I have found Sabbath rest to be a blessing. I have experienced the truth of Jesus’ statement: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27).
The Fourth Commandment tells us to labor for six days and to keep the Sabbath day holy. The Westminster Shorter Catechism states, “The Sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days; and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship, except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.” In our 24/7 culture we Americans struggle with observing the Sabbath. Last month, in an effort to change the political direction of our country, tens of thousands of people gathered for a Tea Party in Washington, D.C., on September 12 . . . a Sunday. And of course, hundreds of thousands of Americans regularly attend NFL games on Sunday afternoons or tune in on television. Better to worship God and rest? Are these “worldly employments and recreations” that we should set aside on Sunday?
So how did you do yesterday? If you’re like me, you may have wrestled with that question and felt you came up short.
back to top106 Comments to “Sabbath wrestling”
I do recall a lot of running..
“The first [day] of the week….”(Joh 20:1)
“Then she RUNNETH, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they RAN both together: and the other disciple did OUTRUN Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.” (Joh 20:2-4)
Report comment to moderator
I rarely spend a sabbath in only worship and rest. I have not really struggled with the issue though I have been challenged to do so. There seems to always be some pressing task or interrupting situation that I think I cannot avoid.
This admission is not an excuse but an indication that I do need to consider the issue much more seriously.
Report comment to moderator
We’ve discussed this recently on Whirled Views. Since Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, I don’t think legalism about it is helpful, but I think seeing it as a gift is. I don’t work on Sunday; and I’ve defined that as midnight Saturday to midnight Sunday (since I actually am usually still up at that time, and since that’s our cultural break-of-day and an easier one to keep track of than sundown).
I do eat out on Sunday, since that’s my one regular time to eat with friends and as a freelance single person I don’t eat with other people nearly often enough. I try to avoid shopping, even getting gas, but will if I need to. (I drove a lot yesterday and needed to.)
Report comment to moderator
We spent yesterday going out for breakfast (a special treat since most Sundays we’re rushing to get to church early so my husband can prepare to lead worship), visiting a local Presbyterian church (since at the church where my husband is temporary pastor, they were going to be hearing and voting on the candidate for “permanent” pastor), going to WalMart to get some groceries, going to the local art center to see a special exhibit (which I’ve been suggesting for months, but most Sundays my husband is too tired after church), napping, practicing baritone horn with my son (I’m learning it too, to encourage him), and working on some homework with him that’s not due till Wednesday but I didn’t want him to leave it until late Tuesday night again.
So was it restful? I don’t know, I don’t feel very rested, but apparently that has something to do with having a sleep disorder (see today’s WV).
Report comment to moderator
We used to go to a church that was quite legaistic aboub Sundays. It was an all day thing and we spent most of Saturday getting ready for it. It was exhausting.
If we are in a relationship with Jesus every day is holy and communion on Suday just a blessing besides!
Report comment to moderator
We go out to eat after SS. (We go to early service, then SS, Southern Baptist want us to call it Bible Study Fellowship.)
The waitress told Elvera she works every day. Seven days a week, we’re talking about.
Sunday should be special. Not in a legal sense, but it was very important in God’s plan.
Report comment to moderator
Chas, my Southern Baptist church refers to Sunday School as Life Groups.
Report comment to moderator
Sundays are pleasant and restful for me these days. My son is at college now so there is not the struggle to get him to church on time. My husband and I attend different churches, and I leave earlier than he does so we don’t bump into each other while getting ready.
I assist with children’s Sunday School and my husband sings in the choir so we each have our way of serving on Sundays.
My husband picks up some fast food on the way home from his service. There is one particular fast food that is like comfort food for us so it is like a treat. We watch a little sports on tv and then my husband heads to his office for the afternoon. I then have time for Bible Study and resting in the Lord.
Later in the afternoon it is off to church again to work with Children’s Bible Drill. Afterwards it is back home and time to be in the kitchen for a while listening to praise music while I do whatever needs doing. Sometimes I do go by the grocery for an item or two, but I try not to do that regularly because it breaks the peace.
Sunday is a special day with a worshipful feeling to it and a different pace from the other days of the week.
Report comment to moderator
Sabbath. This has been an interest of mine for a while now. I do not believe it has to do with light switche, but allowing our bodies and our minds and our spirits to take a rest so we will be better suited to meet the challenges, and to be grateful to the Giver of all good gifts.
I am not so insistent on church attendance as I was in the past. We attend a church of older folk and bringing them illnesses is not a very kind thing. So, sometimes the little ones and I stay home with whoever is ill for the day. When we do go, they are not yet able to stay in church for the duration of either Sunday School or the big meeting so I take them out anyway, or an older child does. So, I rarely have church anyway. I do fellowship with the believers before and after and we do not just discuss the weather.
And then we have an easy lunch and an easy supper. Fewer dishes the better. Time spent quietly communing with God and each other. Maybe reading, maybe playing a game with kids, maybe chatting outside. Once every few months we go with what used to be called the Silver Seniors for lunch. They dropped the name after they kept asking me why I did not attend and I had to explain their age requirement. They welcome the kids (I do not know that they would if the kids were not very well behaved).
We also do some light shopping (milk, fruit, eggs) and get gas for the car. As it is the only trip to town, it makes more sense than making a special thirty five mile trip.
It is a gift, not a race.
Report comment to moderator
I think that as long as you allow yourself some rest during the week, then you are keeping the Sabbath.
And FYI, not all of us are Calvinists and number the commandments the same. In my book (Luther’s Small Catechism), “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy” is the Third Commandment.
Report comment to moderator
And of course, regular worship with your congregation is important to help recharge your spiritual batteries.
Report comment to moderator
Often legalism is the worry/concern when the topic of keeping the Sabbath is discussed. I can’t recall the last time I’ve heard it in reference to any of the other commandments; say murder or stealing.
I think we must be careful with using the word legalism. Legalism means we’re trying to earn our salvation. It speaks to motive. If your motivation for keeping the Sabbath or not stealing is to earn brownie points with God, then you’re on the wrong path. If you correctly realize that you’re not bringing anything to the table in regards to your salvation, and your just doing it out of a thankful heart, then the motivation is right.
Often the 2nd half of the commandment is completely ignored as well…that is not making others work. (…on it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant…) Is there anything closer to the manservant/maidservant referred to in the commandment than a waiter/waitress in present times?
We, as Christians ought not take this commandment any more lightly than the other 9.
Report comment to moderator
Growing up keeping the Sabbath was a long set of rules which was usually condensed to don’t work and don’t do anything that forces someone else to work. Years later, I worked in the restaurant industry and grew to appreciate that simple rule.
The majority of dinners for Sunday lunch were coming from church and although they gave employment to university students, most of us would have rather slept in (or maybe attend church ourselves). In addition, the “church crowd” was infamous for bad tips, food complaints and aggressive evangelicalism. Leaving tracts as tips and counseling one to attend church instead of working doesn’t make for good impressions. The wait staff usually pointed out the simple truth — if we went to church who would serve them.
Even though I no longer attend church, I still feel uncomfortable forcing someone to work for me in what should be a common day of rest. To me this is part of the contradiction between Christianity and capitalism which tends to be glossed over.
Report comment to moderator
We used to NOT SHOP on Sundays, but have become lax these days. We grocery shop after church sometimes. Occasionally I will go out to buy something specific on Sunday. (I CAN use the excuse that I don’t have the car very often so I take advantage of when one is available.)
Because I shop some Sundays I think about how this makes the stores require someone to work who would prefer to take Sundays off.
Some say it wasn’t fair when stores closed on Sundays. Jews might want the stores closed on Saturdays. They might prefer to shop on Sundays.
Report comment to moderator
CHARBOY: Thank you for making that point. I think the legalism rationale is used as much as any other for the sake of getting out from under (alleged) burdensome and obsolete “rules.” Somehow a “we’re under grace now, not law” argument always seems to slip into discussions of the Sabbath. I don’t get why.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, no need to view a contradiction where there is none. As the Westminster standards (and others) articulated, Christ provided Sabbath exceptions for acts of mercy and necessity. There’s no “capitalistic” injunction to go and make moola on the Lord’s Day.
Report comment to moderator
Lee Wishing asks a good question, “So how did you do yesterday? If you’re like me, you may have wrestled with that question and felt you came up short.”
Yesterday was an anomaly for my family and me, but aside from church attendance, part of our normal Lord’s Day routine may include reading a good Christian book—theology, devotional, etc.; reading such books to our children—biographies are great for keeping children’s interest and teaching character; having lunch with others from the church, at our home or theirs–lunch or other such visits are great occasions for living out the “one another” enjoinders—“greet one another,” “encourage one another,” “bear one another’s burdens;” taking a walk or, yes, a nap; second service in the evening. Many of these things are difficult to do during the other six days of the week. But as God has called us to set apart the entire day from the other six, we can spend “the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship.” The Sabbath is to be a delight. Not every “rule” God gives should be a burden to us; in fact, none of them should!
As with any or all the other commandments, we will “come up short” in our Sabbath observance. Christ provides mercy for us in that. But “coming up short” is a different animal entirely from not regarding the Sabbath command as binding on us at all.
Report comment to moderator
“I think the legalism rationale is used as much as any other for the sake of getting out from under (alleged) burdensome and obsolete “rules.”
It is also used as a “rationale” when a believer tries to tell the rest of the world that his way is the best way.
I think it comes up more with the Sabbath because there is more wiggle room than, “Thou shalt do no murder.” In the book of Exodus whent the big 10 are given the Sabbath was Saturday. Jesus Himself has to address it because legalisms and traditions that God never owned were tacked on. Same with “Honor your mother and father” being not quite as clear as not coveting your neighbors wife.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, HRW, I stopped shopping on Sundays after the woman behind the counter said, “I wish I could go to church on Sundays.”
I played clarinet two services, sang as well, and came home to do the crossword puzzle, write a letter to the editor, and then I read most of the afternoon–I was very tired. I’d already made the spaghetti sauce, so dinner was easy and wrote for a couple hours afterwards because I felt guilty for lazing around all afternoon.
Report comment to moderator
First of all Sunday isn’t the Sabbath. It isn’t the seventh day.
Second, we are not under the law but Grace.
Third, Paul said not to criticize one another for regarding one day higher than another.
Fourth Jesus chastised the Pharisees for missing the meaning of the Sabbath.
Fifth, Sunday is not the Christian Sabbath, heaven is.
It is good for Christians to want to sanctify and redeem their time and meditate on God. What is not good is teaching bad doctrine. Confusing the meaning of the law and coming up with legalistic rules by which one hopes to earn God’s favor is not what Jesus taught. He told the Pharisees that their traditions made God’s law of no effect. He was angry with them because they completely missed the point.
Everything in the law was a teaching tool, an illustration about Christ and his works (Gal 3:24,25). The Sabbath was an illustration of the rest that awaits believers. Whenever you stop and think about heaven, you are sanctifying the Sabbath, by looking forward to that blessed rest.
Report comment to moderator
To clarify, nothing I said in #20 is related to which day Christians should meet for church. Any day or every day is acceptable. Therefore choosing Sunday as Christ’s resurrection day in the tradition of the early church is a good day. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of the Sabbath.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
Nobody is arguing, “Confusing the meaning of the law and coming up with legalistic rules by which one hopes to earn God’s favor is … what Jesus taught.”
Also, what point are you trying to make when you say, “[W]e are not under the law but Grace”?
Report comment to moderator
It is also used as a “rationale” when a believer tries to tell the rest of the world that his way is the best way.
Why is the Sabbatarian portrayed as arguing this way? One person claims scripture says X; another claims it says Y. Where does this “tell the rest of the world” stuff come from and why must it be that only the person arguing for an abiding Sabbath does it?
Report comment to moderator
Mac
There is a contradiction — the market demands Sunday shopping while god demands a day of rest. As for exceptions — my mom worked in a nursing home on Sundays and my dad milked cows. As Xion points out, there is no clear indication which day — personally I think one should be able to declare one day out of seven off limits to employers especially for retail employees.
Michelle — and that is exactly the point my parents and others made to me when I was young and later was underscored to me while in the restaurant industry. Although I didn’t mind the work, there were employees who would like to have all Sundays off but felt they couldn’t make that request.
Report comment to moderator
HRW: There’s no contradiction. Scripture doesn’t demand markets be open on Sundays.
You (and Xion) *say* there’s no clear indication of the day. What have you studied on the topic?
Report comment to moderator
I think we are commanded to set aside the day (then and now) — and, as has been pointed out, it is a gift in which we can rejoice, a day to cease from our daily routines. I appreciated the point made earlier about not making others work as well, though I admit I will sometimes make a grocery store or drug store run after church.
Adios (I think it was) mentioned once attending a church, however, that basically kept you there in various activities throughout most of the day, with meals, etc. I also once attended a church in which Sundays could be absolutely exhausting, especially for the women who were responsible for bringing all the food! Morning service, SS, lunch, evening service. It was a bit too much, and seemed like hardly a day of “rest” to me. I typically spend about 3 hours at church now (counting the service & SS) but after that I am ready to come home and “rest” — whether that means reading or napping or maybe taking the dogs to the park for the afternoon.
Report comment to moderator
#25 Macrutabaga “You (and Xion) *say* there’s no clear indication of the day. What have you studied on the topic?”
Why the Bible, of course. Nowhere does it prescribe worship on Sunday. In Acts it mentions that the early church was gathered on that day, but it also said they gathered every day.
Paul also warns in Rom 14 about criticizing people who sanctify one day over another.
The point he is really trying to make is to stop judging one another and get along.
Report comment to moderator
#22 Macrutabaga “Nobody is arguing, “Confusing the meaning of the law and coming up with legalistic rules by which one hopes to earn God’s favor is … what Jesus taught.”
It is the meta-argument. This thread is about keeping the Sabbath holy by doing a list of things which you deem holy and pleasing to God.
Nothing wrong with that, but it is not what the Sabbath was about. God gave Israel the Mosaic law, which was a peculiar set of rituals to teach them about the coming Messiah and what he would do. The peculiar set of rituals about the Sabbath was to teach about the coming rest, i.e. heaven which Christ would bequeath to those who believe.
Also, what point are you trying to make when you say, “[W]e are not under the law but Grace”?
Romans 6:14 “Ro 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.”
The entire book of Galatians, most of Romans and Hebrews are dedicated to this subject. The law was temporary until the Messiah arrived (Gal 3:19). Jesus said he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, which he did.
Churches like to keep certain aspects of the law around, like the Sabbath because it gets people to church and tithing because it motivates them pay. Most of the rest is ignored.
Paul made it clear that the law is finished, done, kaput, over, fini, outta there, gone. It is useful to us as a teaching tool still, only we do not need to keep the peculiar rituals.
How many times did Paul argue against circumcision? He was screaming at the Galatians, “If you keep any aspect of the law, then you will need to keep it all and you have fallen from grace”. (Gal 5:4) In other words, you’ve traded the gospel of grace (Gal 1:6) for the gospel of works.
To be clear, I do not oppose Christians taking a day to meditate on God. What could be better? What I object to is this notion that the Sabbath is somehow still in effect and that the purpose of this thread is to compare lists of merit to see how others make the day holy even though there is no obligation to do so. You should keep every day holy.
If you want to be more holy on Sunday then more power to you, but it won’t earn you extra favor with God. All the favor you will ever get is already available through the work Christ did. You see how that is a Christ-centric way of thinking? Talking about the little holy things I do is me-centric and is self-righteous, not relying on the righteousness of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for your replies, Xion. Of course, I, too, would argue that the basis for my belief is the Bible. I was really wondering what HRW, and you, too, if you wanted to chime in, had studied regarding the view that the Bible teaches a change of the day. Certainly there’s more to it than only church tradition.
This could be an interesting discussion, but I’m curious about something else, first. I’ve asked a similar question here a few times, but why do people such as yourself feel compelled to write things like:
If you want to be more holy on Sunday then more power to you, but it won’t earn you extra favor with God?
Report comment to moderator
Macgrutabaga: We had this discussion earlier this year, before you bailed out on me.
Something I asked at that time was what I see is a danger among believers – making a legalistic law re. a specific day (Sunday only) in which we can then lose the spirit of the commandment, which was rest and focus on God. As Xion also asks, where in the NT does God require Sabbath observance (in the spirit of the OT commandment) on Sunday only?
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus: If it looks like I bailed, I’m assuming the thread in question was more than a couple days old and that it slipped off the first ‘page.’ I’m not good at keeping track of aging posts. I’ll try to answer your question soon, though I hope Xion answers the one I posed at the end of 29 first.
Report comment to moderator
As I mentioned on Angela’s Sabbath thread last week, my understanding of the Sabbath is that it is from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday and is observed by (some) Jews. I don’t call Sunday “the Sabbath”.
A day of rest is a welcome thing. However, like some of the posters above, I found in the past that Sunday was a day of exhaustion. Lots of preparation; lots to do; lasting from morning until evening.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutaba “[Xion] why do people such as yourself feel compelled to write things like: ‘If you want to be more holy on Sunday then more power to you, but it won’t earn you extra favor with God?’”
I’m guessing maybe that sounded a little flippant to you. I could have chosen a gentler way to say that I suppose, but I am actually making a very serious theological point, which requires a bucket of cold water.
The point that Paul makes in Galatians and Romans and Hebrews and elsewhere is that there are two competing systems of holiness. One is a system of merit, i.e. the law, which was temporary and imperfect. It had to do with the flesh, i.e. outward visible sins and was therefore imperfect. This outward holiness was self-righteous and led to all sorts of meaningless traditions of the Pharisees clamoring to be holier than the next guy.
The other system of holiness is that which is imputed to us by Christ’s work and the Holy Spirit. It is not about us at all. Our own righteousness is like filthy rags. God’s favor is a gift of grace which is granted to us. You can do nothing to earn it. People may feel better about themselves by keeping small acts of “holiness”, but Paul said he counted all of his own works like dung. Christ’s work is like a skyscraper next to my own petty little sandcastle.
The Galatians were picking and choosing aspects of the law to keep, believing that they were more holy for doing so. But Paul screamed at them to snap out of it. Christians who drift backward and start picking through the law to find little acts of holiness also need to be screamed at.
By flesh he means the merit system, a system of works, i.e. law and perhaps the Pharisaical traditions, which were concerned with earning God’s favor by perfecting the outward man, the flesh. Jesus called them whited sepulchers, nice and pretty on the outside but a putrid stench on the inside.
Both Paul and Christ screamed at the religious folks for choosing petty works and traditions rather than looking to Christ. While Jesus was addressing the Jewish leaders, Paul was yelling at the church.
Now I am not yelling at the church or Christians. I’ll leave that to Paul and Christ. If I were, then I would be pretending I am holier than thou. I am just happy to be the lowest of all Christians and am not trying to be critical of Christian traditions. They are fine. I am merely trying to make a very important point that Christianity is much bigger than that. It is so easy to be narrowly focused on one’s own tiny accomplishments and lose sight of the mega-accomplishments of Christ.
I think the church misses a lot of the Bible by becoming comfortable and complacent in one’s own petty little traditions. For example, by being satisfied with the tiny little self-righteous work of not shopping on Sunday one can miss the gigantic meaning of the Sabbath, which is eternal rest in the presence of God. If on the other hand, not shopping does help you focus on the true meaning, then more power to you. Does that make sense?
Report comment to moderator
Christianity is much bigger than that. It is so easy to be narrowly focused on one’s own tiny accomplishments and lose sight of the mega-accomplishments of Christ.
Again, in the context of anything I’ve said on this topic, what makes you want to tell me that? I mean, what have I said that makes you think I’m focusing on my own accomplishment rather than Christ? You’re speaking to an argument that isn’t being made.
As for your reading of Paul’s admonitions in Galatians/Romans, etc., why is it following a different “system of holiness” to advocate obeying a commandment? Contrary to your earlier post, I believe the commandments are still binding. Murder, theft, adultery, etc. They’re all binding on us. My saying that doesn’t mean I’m abiding by a different system of holiness.
Report comment to moderator
#34 Macrutaba “Again, in the context of anything I’ve said on this topic, what makes you want to tell me that? I mean, what have I said that makes you think I’m focusing on my own accomplishment rather than Christ? You’re speaking to an argument that isn’t being made.”
Oh, sorry. I was not addressing you directly. Sorry if you misunderstood. I launched into a general point about Christianity in general. I was really addressing Lee’s request for people to list their little acts of holiness on the so-called Christian Sabbath, which isn’t the Christian Sabbath in actuality.
Contrary to your earlier post, I believe the commandments are still binding. Murder, theft, adultery, etc. They’re all binding on us.
I realize that. That is fine, but I think there is a big aha moment awaiting you in the future as you come to understand Paul’s impassioned pleas in Galatians and Romans. In Romans 7 he says the law is dead. It doesn’t get any clearer than that.
As for murder etc., Paul gives the answer:
The outward, fleshly, merit based system of holiness is dead, being replaced by an inward, spiritual, Christ-centric system of holiness. If you walk in the spirit then you don’t need the law. You won’t murder your neighbor if you love him. Christ’s two commandments replaced the 613 in the mosaic law and any others made by the tradition of men.
Report comment to moderator
I would suggest (to everyone) to read the works of AW Tozer, the Christian mystic who taught an everyday 24×7 holiness.
This does not mean walking around with your head in the clouds, but is an earthly recognition of the holiness of God in whatever we do, and I mean everything. Brushing your teeth is holy. How wonderful teeth are! Jesus blessed food, not as some ritualistic drudgery, but how wonderful it is that we can enjoy his great bounty and digest and gain energy. Even sleep is holy. How wonderful sleep is!
I was once skiing with a rabbi and we were in the bathroom at adjacent urinals. He said a prayer blessing our orifices, which I found a bit uncomfortable, but later realized he was seeing the holiness in every moment. As we skied down the slope he showed me the trail I was leaving, just as in life what we do leaves a legacy whether bad or good. And so on.
It is fine for Christians to try to be holy one day a week, but look at all they are missing! Furthermore, if they are self-satisfied then their tiny works are completely meaningless. But if they see God’s holiness in what they do and appreciate and worship him, then more power to them, the power of the Holy Spirit that is.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Do you ever sin, and if so, how do you know it, i.e., what “command” have you broken?
Report comment to moderator
Notice how enjoying a spiritual 24×7 holiness as AW Tozer explained also fulfills this aspect of the law, by keeping the first of Jesus’ two commandments.
Orthodox Jews who try to do these things literally with Mezuzahs and Phylacteries are missing the point. God was saying these things would be in their heart. Some modern rabbis are closer to the truth, but still are missing the big picture of their Messiah.
Reading the law through the lens of Christ, the law being all about him opens up a true understanding of the law. On the road to Emmaus, the disciples said, “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” That is because the scriptures are all about him. Jesus said called them foolish for not understanding. Understanding brings a passionate desire to hear more.
Report comment to moderator
Obeying the 4th commandment, and the 5th and 7th and 1st, etc., is not a matter of “Mezuzahs and Phylacteries.”
David loved the law of God. He said so over and over and over. New Testament writers did, too. But are we to agree with Xion that many of the Psalms are now “finished, done, kaput, over, fini, outta there, gone”?
Report comment to moderator
#37 Macrutabaga “Xion: Do you ever sin, and if so, how do you know it, i.e., what “command” have you broken?”
I sin all the time by breaking one or both of Jesus’ two commandments to love the Lord with all my heart and my neighbor as myself. I sin by not walking in the Spirit which leads to bad fruit visa vie Gal 6. And so on.
I do not sin by failing to wear a phylactery or not sacrificing animals in my backyard or even failing to “keep” the Sabbath which begins Friday night and into Saturday.
I do not try to make God love me more by inventing silly little rituals for certain days of the week. He cannot love me more. He loves me because of what Christ did, not anything that I do.
I try to do good, not to earn his favor but because I am thankful just to be on the same lifeboat as any other Christian. Therefore I don’t need to be critical of other Christians, because we aren’t comparing each other. My words here aren’t meant to be critical. I am merely trying to teach a lesson, explain a principle, etc.
Report comment to moderator
#39 Macrutabaga “David loved the law of God. He said so over and over and over. New Testament writers did, too. But are we to agree with Xion that many of the Psalms are now “finished, done, kaput, over, fini, outta there, gone”?”
I love the law of God too. But as Paul makes amply clear, it was temporary (Gal 3:19) It is over, kaput, etc. meaning it is fulfilled. It was an object lesson about Christ. Once Christ came we have no more need to do the object lesson. But it remains as a tremendous teaching tool for ever.
The entire OT is teaming with insight which can only be understood in the light of Christ (Gal 3:24,25). David’s prophecies in the Psalms are all Messianic. He was looking forward to the Messiah.
The point I think you are missing is that God deals with different people at different times. What he commanded Noah or Abraham is not a commandment for you, but it does serve to teach a lesson.
(Good discussion. I have to get some work done now. I’ll check back later.)
Report comment to moderator
If anyone besides Xion does not see the glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in his assumptions, let me know and I’ll reply. Otherwise, it looks like Xion is having a discussion with someone else, for I, to, “do not try to make God love me more by inventing silly little rituals for certain days of the week.” But Xion still wants to lecture me on that notion.
Report comment to moderator
But Xion, what makes you assume those who keep a Christian sabbath are doing so to “earn favor” with God? You’re making an assumption about motive there. As Macrutabaga has pointed out, the 10 Commandments have not been abolished.
There is much law in Jesus’ words in the New Testament (the Sermon on the Mount to name one). That we don’t — and can never — “earn” salvation with keeping the law is clear. None of us is ever “holy” enough.
But that does not mean God’s commands regarding the way we should live our lives has been abolished. As the Psalmist says, we come to love the law. Because God first loved us, we feel that “tug” to live our lives, as best we can, in accordance with God’s standards.
And I don’t think anyone here is “judging” others who do or don’t keep Sunday as a Sabbath, are they? For me, it has been a personal challenge, but one that doesn’t make me ever feel “more holy.” Not shopping on a Sunday earns me no favor with God. But perhaps it allows me more time to meditate on God, to set aside time for that purpose.
If I need a loaf of bread on a Sunday, I’ll most likely just go buy it. If I decide I can wait until Monday, I certainly wouldn’t feel any kind of pride in my “little” act of not shopping. I’m guessing you had some not-so-good experiences in a church at some point that had a different (much more legalistic) take on the Sabbath?
Report comment to moderator
XION’s comments are right on. My pride so easily urges a performance mentality. Even knowing the Grace of God, my flesh is drawn to seek to earn it. Works and Grace are both very satisfying but glorify different beings (myself and God). When I am tending toward works I sometimes need comments like “woe to you Pharisee”, or “o foolish Galatian” to arrest my attention. Words of Grace may work as well but only if I am tired in the works and ready to listen.
I am prone to very strongly defend my works.
By the way, I read most of the comments here as describing different ways people are seeking to rest in the Grace of God on Sundays. I take XION’s comments as a good caution to not let our rest become works that blind us to the wonderful Grace of God.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think that what people on this thread are choosing to do or not do on Sunday is for the purpose of gaining favor with God. I think they are trying to honor God. However, as with anything else, we need to be careful with not getting taken up with the inky dinks.
I guess what people make up their minds to do or not do, they should follow, but be mindful not put their restrictions on someone else (if it doesn’t have to do with sin).
If someone believes it’s sinful to watch football on Sundays, then by all means, refrain. But when you insist that watching football on Sundays is sinful for all believers, well, then there’s a problem.
Report comment to moderator
But HopeSprings,
It *may be* that watching football on Sunday is a violation of the Sabbath command. The Fourth Commandment *is* (or *was* to some people, apparently) a God-given command. It’s possible God has provided instruction to us on how to obey it.
Whenever two parties take opposite positions on a matter of doctrine, it follows that each sees the other as sinning by taking the position that opposing party takes. This *does not* mean that either party is taking an uncharitable attitude toward the other, or that they can’t or don’t regard the other as brother or sister in Christ.
For some reason it’s always the Sabbatarian who is being “legalistic,” “trying to earn favor with God,” being “taken up with the inky dinks,” and exercising undue judgment on fellow believers. All because that person argues that we still have 10 Commandments and not 9! My point is that, No, differences on views of the Sabbath are no different than other doctrinal disagreements, by and large. There is no reason to assume the Sabbatarian carries all the baggage many here are trying to foist upon him or her.
Report comment to moderator
Neil, your comments are well taken. But then it of course follows that any time we obey God can be wrongly (in our minds) turned to works of merit, no? I think we’d all agree that Christians cannot just live anyway they want and then presume upon the covering of God’s grace. Those who are truly saved will have a desire to live by his standards, fully realizing also that we can never be perfect in that obedience.
So long as Christians understand that the basis of their favor with God is not in any way on merit or their works — but rests entirely on God’s freely given grace — seeking to obey God will be done for the right motives.
As Macrutabaga points out, we can (and often do) disagree on some of these matters but we are also called to maintain charity toward one another’s views.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J, I agree.
Report comment to moderator
#42 Macrutabaga. I think you are missing both the tone and content of my point. You seem to feel like I am attacking you or Christians who keep Sabbath traditions. I am not attacking anyone. I thought we were just having a friendly theological discussion about the “Christian Sabbath”. I am not saying you are wrong, I was just hoping to expand the discussion a bit regarding the real meaning of the Sabbath and what some Christians might be missing out on.
I realize many posters here come from a Reformed background. I know all about that point of view and am in 95% agreement. However, I am coming from a Dispensational perspective, but I think we can still have friendly discussions can’t we? I was called a heretic here once by a Presbyterian pastor because I did not take an amillennial position. Well, why do we have to choose sides and fire cannons over the bow. Can’t we have lively debates in good spirits without accusing each other of being “totally wrong”?
If you would be so kind, I would like to know what my glaring inconsistencies and contradictions are since I think all I am doing is quoting Paul and Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Of course we can have friendly discussions here. But it’s plain the “tone and content” of your and other posters has been to do that stuff I mentioned above. Otherwise, your bringing it up was just a random insertion into the thread. I don’t mean to sound whiny. I’m just saying that when a person has to attempt to argue one side of a topic AND defend himself against wholly unrelated insinuations, it’s tiresome.
I’ll be happy to point out the glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in those parts of your post where you go beyond quoting Paul and Christ. It may not be for a few hours. I can’t do much more this afternoon than briefly duck in and out.
Report comment to moderator
#43 Donna J “But Xion, what makes you assume those who keep a Christian sabbath are doing so to “earn favor” with God? You’re making an assumption about motive there. “
If you aren’t doing these things to please God, then I am not sure what your motive might be. God is concerned about the heart, so if your motives are right, then that’s great. I am not criticizing anyone specifically nor accusing anyone of sinning as Macrutabaga says I am doing in #46. According to Paul in Romans 14, you are free to regard one day more highly than another. As I’ve said repeatedly that is perfectly fine. If you think that not shopping or not watching football somehow honors God, then go for it.
“As Macrutabaga has pointed out, the 10 Commandments have not been abolished.”
Well, you are going to have to argue with Paul then because that is exactly what he says,
If you read the entire context before and after this in Eph 2 it is clear that Jesus abolished the law. In Romans 7 and 8 Paul goes to great lengths to say the law is dead. Hebrews explains the spiritual intent of the law. Paul really can’t make it any clearer.
I do agree with your other points in #43 and #47. Nicely said.
Report comment to moderator
Just a quick clarification:
Xion, of course you’re accusing me of sinning; it’s an inescapable byproduct of your disagreement with me. I wasn’t saying, though, that your accusation was about how I observe the Lord’s Day, *but of my insistence that the Sabbath command is binding on all, and that the day has changed.* It is a sin to speak dogmatically on a thing where God has not spoken, or to misspeak for him where he has. One or the other of us is misspeaking for God. One or the other of us, therefore, is sinning.
*And in the context of this discussion, that’s OK!!* God has made gracious provision for us in our misunderstandings. He doesn’t reject those true believers whose doctrine is imperfect—else we all would perish; me included! But it’s necessarily the case that if we profess unsound doctrine, we sin. You and I can’t both be right about the Sabbath. One or the other of us is sinning. God is merciful and overlooks this sin (whoever’s it may be). And we can still discuss the matter civilly.
Report comment to moderator
#52 Macrutabaga “Xion, of course you’re accusing me of sinning; it’s an inescapable byproduct of your disagreement with me.”
I disagree. There is nothing sinful about disagreeing on matters that are peripheral to the faith. Good men can disagree. Paul and Barnabas disagreed and it caused more people to hear the gospel because they split up.
The attitude that all doctrinal disagreements are sin is precisely what caused that Presbyterian pastor to call me a heretic for merely disagreeing with him.
“One or the other of us is misspeaking for God. One or the other of us, therefore, is sinning.”
Since God is infinite and we are finite, we will always speak about God imperfectly even into eternity. We cannot sin in heaven, but we we can never know God perfectly. Therefore there will always be differences in our view of God and our discussion of him. It is not sin to disagree on non-essentials.
In essentials unity
In non-essentials liberty
In all things charity
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Sorry to renege. I was culling some of your stuff to which I wanted to reply and re-read #40. I’m not interested in that kind of discussion. That’s just too much pettiness.
If anyone *else* believes as Xion does regarding a low view of the law, let me know and maybe we could discuss.
Report comment to moderator
Xion (51), wanting to please God, of course. But not seeing that as something that “earns” a person points somehow, or helps solidify one’s salvation.
Our overall purpose in life as believers is to bring glory to God. How do we do that? For many, setting aside a day specifically for worship and rest, as is laid out in Scripture, is one aspect of that.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga, “inky dinks” was not the best term to use. My apologies. However, I don’t think we are talking about sin, really, in either camp.
I do think the differences come up between reformed and dispensational theology, though. I believe Moses delivered the tablets to Israel, not to Christians.
Having said that, I don’t think it should be a point of offense on either side.
Report comment to moderator
And I don’t think anyone here is “judging” others who do or don’t keep Sunday as a Sabbath, are they?
In my previous discussion with Macrutabaga and also here, I think he does hold to a “Sunday only” position for believers. Macrutabaga, please correct me if I’m wrong.
Report comment to moderator
But there’s a difference between holding to a particular view and feeling strongly about it vs. having a judgmental spirit toward those who may disagree. We all think we’re right in our particular doctrinal interpretations.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Donna, and I don’t necessarily believe that Macrutabaga has a judgmental spirit toward others, but I would be interested in hearing his position on “Sunday only”, as I requested in #30 as well.
Report comment to moderator
Xion , 53:
I don’t intend to make a big deal of this, and it’s a simple point, but I wasn’t saying the sin lies in the *disagreeing,* but in the taking a wrong doctrinal position (and again, I don’t know why you feel the urge to lecture me on charity and unity, etc. in 53. I already essentially agreed in the post immediately above it). If one person claims, “God commands X” and another that “God commands not-X,” both presume to speak for God, even if they claim to do so solely from scripture. If we claim God says something that he actually did *not* say, that’s sin. It just is.
Whoever: I’m not going to write four paragraphs about how I’m not intending to judge anyone, except so far as my disagreeing with someone means I think I’m right and that person’s wrong. The converse is true, you know?
Tychicus: As for the change of the day to Sunday, do you believe the 4th commandment is still binding on us at all, and that one day of the week is to be wholly separated to God, i.e., do you agree with this portion of the Shorter Catechism Lee Wishing quoted in his article:
No need for me to argue for a position we already agree on. Thanks for reminding me I hadn’t responded, and sorry I forgot. Kind of scrambling around this week.
Report comment to moderator
#60 Macrutaba “I don’t know why you feel the urge to lecture me on charity and unity, etc. in 53″
I guess I am not sure what to say since I am not by any means lecturing you. I view all of this as a friendly discussion.
“If one person claims, “God commands X” and another that “God commands not-X,” both presume to speak for God, even if they claim to do so solely from scripture. If we claim God says something that he actually did *not* say, that’s sin. It just is.”
Sure, but I don’t think either of us are proclaiming things God did not say. We are trying to interpret them.
Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology agree on all of the essentials, but differ in a few non-essential areas, like eschatology and ecclesiology in regard to the roles of Israel and the law. My Reformed brethren see the Bible more as a continuum, with the church replacing Israel spiritually and the law continuing on in spirit. A dispensational view is more literal, taking God’s commands to Noah, Abraham, Israel as being mostly for them alone. When Paul says the law is dead, then it is dead.
To me, these differences are perfectly fine and one of my great joys is to engage other Christians on these matters. I think God has written the Bible as he has in order to spur his people on to lively discussions about him and to meditate incessantly on his greatness without ever losing interest. His mercies are new every morning. Some Christians instead become quite offended. For that I am sorry.
When two Christians disagree on the Bible, I view this as a learning opportunity rather than assuming that someone is sinning. After we’ve been in heaven a million years, we still will not have a perfect understanding of God and we will have millions of more years to learn about him. There is no sin in heaven, yet there is still finite knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
I say God has said the Sabbath is an abiding commandment. You say God has said “it is dead.” And neither of us is misspeaking for God? If one or the other of us wasn’t sure, then we would be wiser to refrain from speaking on the matter. As it is, we’re both saying, “God hath said…” And when we do that and we’re wrong, it’s sin. No need to lecture me (again) on the topic of differences. Haven’t you seen that I’ve already said essentially the same thing as you on that point? It just seems like if you meant that stuff, you wouldn’t have characterized what your brothers in the Lord do as “silly,” etc., without any provocation.
I don’t reject Paul. I appreciate what usually seems to be a genuine effort to have a friendly discussion, but it’s like you can’t refrain from tossing in these little rhetorical lunges. I also caught that it was a *Presbyterian* guy who was the heretic hunter. Oh, those Presbyterians.
As I mentioned before, I know this sounds like a big whine, but it’s possible to discuss points of doctrine without all the insinuations you’ve made. It drains the fun out of it trying to address the doctrinal matter and hand *along with all that other stuff.*
Report comment to moderator
Saints, if we look at Romans we see that the law is still Holy, we are not to make VOID the law because of grace or faith and we are to ESTABLISH (make firm) the law. Also in JAMES we hear him say that if someone breaks commandment number 6 but does not break number 8 still breaks the commandments of the GOD that gave all ten. So we are to remember the Sabbath, which is the forth commandment. Problem is, since Jesus said HE is LORD of the sabbath and when HE said that the Sabbath was Saturday the 7th day of the week. The seventh day of the week as in the creation week. In the eternal sense Jesus spoke and HIS words are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. HE is still LORD of the sabbath which in the original ‘yesterday’ was seventh day of the week. Remember Jesus spoke and it was eternal. And we wonder why we have no power.
Report comment to moderator
13 “If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
and from doing as you please on my holy day,
if you call the Sabbath a delight
and the LORD’s holy day honorable,
and if you honor it by not going your own way
and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,
14 then you will find your joy in the LORD,
and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land
and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob.”
The mouth of the LORD has spoken.
(Isaiah 58:13-14)
We are to delight in the sabbath. This of course does not mean that we are not to delight in ALL the days our sovereign Lord has created, but that we are to set aside one day a week as ESPECIALLY unto the Lord. It only makes sense that if we are to meet in fellowship with other believers to worship the Lord together, commune with Him and them, that we as a group ought to agree on the day to meet. Historically, Christians have choesn sundays. Honor the Lord by looking in your pantry, seeing that you’re running low on bread, and making the effort for a late grocery run Saturday evening to avoid making people work on the sabbath (if Sunday is the day you’ve chosen as Holy unto the Lord.) Yes, it’s effort, but but praising and honoring God is not always convenient. Good gravy, God commands that not only are our man servants and maid servants not allowed to work, but neither are our ox and ass, nor the stranger that is staying with us.
Xion, I understand you view the law – in it’s entirety, I believe – to be dead. Rather, I think that the law was – instead of killed, “summed up” in Jesus’ life and in His command to love God and love our neighbors. But surely, for those of us who don’t know what that always looks like in every given situation, looking to the law for God’s explanations of what loving Him and obeying Him looks like can’t be wrong. Jesus fulfilled the law…Matt 5:17″Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Heaven and earth are still here, the law still stands, we still sin, God is still gracious.
Report comment to moderator
“Good gravy, God commands that not only are our man servants and maid servants not allowed to work, but neither are our ox and ass, nor the stranger that is staying with us.”
Good gravy, One Voice, I don’t have servants or four footed beasts, and haven’t seen any strangers around here lately.
Report comment to moderator
So it was cool with God to have made *other people’s* manservants work?
Report comment to moderator
Hopesprings…I rarely comment, so when I do, I have to control my desire to come back every three minutes and check to see if anyone’s responded. Your comment gave me a big smile, thank you.
I think, though, that you get God’s point. If we are not to allow our servants, four footed beasts, or strangers to work, how much *more* ought we not to make any body else work for our pleasure/convenience?
Report comment to moderator
#64 One Voice “Xion, I understand you view the law – in it’s entirety, I believe – to be dead. Rather, I think that the law was – instead of killed, “summed up” in Jesus’ life and in His command to love God and love our neighbors.”
I agree with that statement, since that is exactly what Christ and Paul said. The law is not abolished in the sense that it is anihilated, but that it was fulfilled, as I said in #35 and #41. The law is dead in the sense that it is no longer legally binding. If you want to keep the Saturday Sabbath on Sunday, then go for it. Just don’t plow with your oxen or pick up sticks and you’ll be fine.
I feel a little like I am speaking into an echo chamber when I point out that Paul said the law was dead and abolished and most people here say, “No it was not!” and assume I am some sort of hooligan stirring up trouble for quoting the Bible.
I am not sure why people here are so offended by Galatians, Romans, Ephesians and Hebrews, other than that my literal reading of those words clashes with their honored traditions.
I don’t oppose those honored traditions, but I think there is more to the Bible for people who are willing to consider it.
Report comment to moderator
No, Xion, nobody assumes you’re a hooligan, nor is offended by books of the bible. The difference of opinion is in what Paul (and Galatians, Romans, etc.) *means* when he says the law is dead. Murder and theft were wrong before the law was given to Moses; in fact, the *moral* component of each of The Ten is still binding on us. It’s what points us to Christ! What Paul, etc., means by calling the law “dead” is that it is no longer (and never was, actually–Ro. 8:3) able to provide salvation; it has always been of grace, only now–after Christ–its ceremonial aspect is fulfilled in Christ.
Report comment to moderator
In some ways y’all are saying basically the same thing. Here are some more words to hopefully bring further clarification.
There are some basic reasons why God gave us the Law and the commandments. All of those reasons point to a final reason and that is so that God might build into each Christian’s mind, a foundation of principles which could not be shaken. The transition looks something like this: The Jews needed rules to govern their lives and to recognize sin when they saw it. So God gave them four commandments to govern their relationship with God. He gave them six commandments to govern their relationship with man. They needed these rules, so God gave them to them foundationally. But then, Jesus came and along with Him came grace. Now the Christian looks through the scope of the Ten Commandments and still sees four commandments to govern our relationship with God and six to govern our relationship with people. But now, they are seen through the lens of grace. Now they become more than laws, they become principles of godliness. Jesus kept saying, “You have heard that it was said, but I say unto you” and then He would share God’s laws applied through grace. As the Law finds its expression in grace, the absolutes become attitudes – attitudes that can change the world.
The first four commandments are summarized by “You shall love the Lord God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength”. The last six are summarized by “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”. The Ten Commandments were not just for Moses and the Israelites, they are also for us. They form the foundation, the cornerstones upon which rest the pillars of our day to day walk with God.
Report comment to moderator
Now concerning the Sabbath, the chief principle and the spirit of the commandment is that a believer should give a seventh of his/her time for rest and focus on God. Given that the Lord’s day is Sunday and that is the most natural time to keep the principle b/c one can also easily participate in corporate worship and fellowship, shouldn’t we allow individual Christians freedom of conscience as to how (and which day) they keep the spirit of the commandment? After all, God has given us Sabbath rest for our own benefit and refreshment. We certainly shouldn’t make it into a fetish.
I would be interested how any of you might interpret Col 2:16 Therefore let no one judge you in food or drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
One Voice, you’re welcome.:) We all need a smile now and then.
I guess you’re saying that by picking up milk at the grocery store or filling up my car at the gas station, I’m forcing someone to work? Not really. Even if I sit at home quietly on Sunday (or the Sabbath) and all of the other believers in this country do the same, that won’t close any retail doors. Gas stations will not turn off their pumps. Restaurants will not put up “Closed” signs.
Actually, the only stores I know to be closed on Sundays (but open on the Sabbath) are Christian book stores, Chick-fil-A restaurants and small mom and pop places run by Christians with that particular conviction. Oh, yes, Salvation Army thrift stores are closed on Sunday, too.
Report comment to moderator
We certainly shouldn’t make it into a fetish.
Good grief. Does everybody debate this way?
Thychicus, I’ll speak to Col. 2:16 when I have a chance. To clarify, do your posts 70 and 71 mean you answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the question I posed to you in 60?
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga, surely you’ve heard worse in debates on this forum.
Report comment to moderator
Sure, Hopesprings, but I’ve only mentioned about 24 times that nobody advocating the observance of the Sabbath has indicated anything about being legalistic, works-oriented, or pre-occupied with fetishes. I really have no idea why these criticisms come out of the woodwork when the Sabbath is being discussed.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga: I say we shouldn’t make it into a fetish b/c some people do. Don’t take it personally. (Btw, when did you mention that nobody has indicated anything about being preoccupied with fetishes?)
The Sabbath is binding in the sense that I expressed it, as an attitude applied through the lens of grace. That is, a day set aside for rest and focus on God (but individual freedom as to when that day is).
Now in your #60, you still weren’t clear as to whether you think that day of Sabbath rest has to be Sunday only. What say you?
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus,
Btw, when did you mention that nobody has indicated anything about being preoccupied with fetishes?
Though I didn’t specify the term (fetishes), I did speak to that point in 34 when I dismissed an implication about being “narrowly focused” on “tiny accomplishments,” in 39 regarding “Mezuzahs and Phylacteries,” in 42 concerning “silly little rituals,” in 46 regarding “inky dinks,” and in a general sense in other posts. All I’m saying is that, while we can debate what Paul or Moses or Christ meant in this or that passage, it adds nothing to the discussion to ascribe all these motives to someone with whom you disagree, at least so long as that person hasn’t voiced anything indicating those motives. Responding to *that* part of an argument is like trying to explain why you’re not anti-poor people merely because you oppose minimum wage laws, or a racist because you didn’t vote for Obama. You have to spend half your time just addressing baseless and irrelevant points…as we’re seeing right now!
But I will get to the Col verse soon. Hopefully at that point, the discussion will be only about the doctrinal question of the thread. As to your question in 76, yes, I do believe the Sabbath day has changed to Sunday, and only Sunday. I thought you were already operating on that assumption about my position.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga: In #71 I wasn’t addressing you directly, but rather all the folks who might come to this thread. As in your engagement with Xion, I think you have a tendency to be over-sensitive as if you were being attacked personally. This has been a good discussion and I really appreciate your input!
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus: You asked!! I don’t mind being “attacked.” I mind wasting my time straightening out accusations that are entirely irrelevant. I could as easily say people who disagree with me are coming off as feeling attacked, what with all the charges of legalism and judgmentalism, etc. Can we just discuss the Sabbath now, please??
Report comment to moderator
#77: “in 46 regarding ‘inky dinks’,”
Macrutabage, I made the “inky dink” comment in #45 and, if you recall, I apologized for the use of the term in #56.
Report comment to moderator
#72 Hopesprings “I guess you’re saying that by picking up milk at the grocery store or filling up my car at the gas station, I’m forcing someone to work? Not really. Even if I sit at home quietly on Sunday (or the Sabbath) and all of the other believers in this country do the same, that won’t close any retail doors. Gas stations will not turn off their pumps. Restaurants will not put up “Closed” signs.”
Someone has to be there to keep the lights on and run your credit card, so yes, you are forcing someone to work FOR YOU when you choose to run your errands on your Sabbath. The point of Christains not attending stores on the Sabbath is not to force all stores to put up “Closed” signs…that’s silly. Forcing people into understanding and loving God’s law rarely – if ever? – works, and besides, is not how He tells us to do it. I am not responsible for anyone else breaking God’s pretty clear command on not being the cause for others to work on the Sabbath. But I am held accountable for my own – and my family’s – obedience.
#68 Xion “I feel a little like I am speaking into an echo chamber when I point out that Paul said the law was dead and abolished and most people here say, “No it was not!” and assume I am some sort of hooligan stirring up trouble for quoting the Bible.
I am not sure why people here are so offended by Galatians, Romans, Ephesians and Hebrews, other than that my literal reading of those words clashes with their honored traditions.”
The law is dead and abolished in and of itself. The law could never EVER lead one to true salvation – we are sinful, we screw things up pretty frequently and sometimes uniquely. I think the reason you are being jumped on for your “hooligan”-osity is that we believe you are confusing and misunderstanding your own quotes, though you believe they are in context. The law – OUTSIDE OF GRACE – is dead. The law – WITHIN GRACE – lives on until heaven and earth disappear. Surely you can’t look at Matthew 5:17?Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished,” and maintain your position that the law is utterly void. Of course the law was fulfilled – IN CHRIST (and I’m so glad we agree
– HOWEVER, the law is NOT fulfilled in us, and God, through the death and resurrection of Jesus’s life, graciously covers our disregard for His perfect commands.
By the way, Xion, I’m in no way trying to be facetious, and I wish you could hear my tone so you could decipher for certain. I’m a little confused as to what the logical ramifications are agruing that the law – in it’s entirely and forevermore – is dead? Wouldn’t we – being naturally and dreadfully sinful – let sin abound all the more so that grace may abound all the more as well? I guess what I’m asking is, what if you’re right? What does that mean?
Report comment to moderator
Hi Hopesprings, 80: I do realize that, and I appreciate your apology. I only referred to the terms in answering Tychicus’s question.
Report comment to moderator
One more thing, Hopesprings – and I don’t mean to pick on you, but you are voicing the general mentality of what I disagree with, so please don’t take it personally. Maybe, “to all you Hopesprings out there…”
I was thinking more about the comment that you picking up bread or getting gas isn’t really making someone work because that person would have to be there to serve everyone else who comes by or might come by anyway. But, under that logic, I could get a gun and shoot some guy dead, then plead innocence saying, “Well, he was going to die anyway, and if I didn’t shoot him, someone might have or could have anyway, so I didn’t really do anything wrong.” Replace that with, “Well, the clerk was going to have to work that day anyway, and if I didn’t go and buy my gas, somone might have or could have anyway, so I didn’t really do anything wrong.”
And just a side note…80% (!) of Americans claim christianity. Just imaging if 80% of the nation refused to go out on Sunday, and businesses were losing 80% of their income (or gaining only 20% revenue, as compared to other days of the week) maybe a business or two would decide it’s not worth paying employees to work on a day when so few people come in. As it already stands, most shops around I live don’t open until 10am (!) vs. 8 or 9 like they used to, because they had so little traffic/profit. I know I know, my percentages will be off and argued…but the point still stands.
Report comment to moderator
No, I don’t take it personally, One Voice. I think the example you used is a bit of a stretch, though.
Report comment to moderator
Yea, me too. But the logic applies
Report comment to moderator
#81 One Voice “I think the reason you are being jumped on for your “hooligan”-osity is that we believe you are confusing and misunderstanding your own quotes, though you believe they are in context.”
You aren’t arguing with me. You are arguing with Paul. No one has shown me theologically where Paul misunderstands what he is saying when he proclaims that the law is dead in Romans 7, abolished in Ephesians 2 blotted out and and nailed to the cross in Colossians 2 and spends the entire book of Galatians chastising them that if they feel compelled to keep the law at any point then they are obligated to keep it all and have fallen from grace. (Gal 5:1-4)
I am glad you brought up Matt 5:17, because many people trip over this.
The explanation is to be found in all the verses I quoted above. The clearest chapter in the whole Bible on the subject of the law is to be found in Galatians 3.
Paul starts out this chapter by showing the Galatians how foolish it was for them to think that once saved by grace they are then sanctified by works (Gal 3:5). He then drops back to Abraham and spans the whole history prior to the law, during the law and post-law. He could not be clearer that the law was temporary until Christ came (Gal 3:19) and more specifically when he died (Col 2:14; Eph 2:15,16, Rom 7, etc.) If there is no post-law period then please explain to us why Paul says there is.
In Gal 3:24,25 Paul says that the law was our schoolmaster, an object lesson, a tutorial, an illustration, training material about what Christ would do. By keeping the law, the Jews were acting out the meaning of their Messiah’s arrival, much like
people do drills or train to prepare for some future event. Atonement, substitutionary sacrifice, redemption, the priesthood, the feasts even food laws (see Acts 10). But once the object of the lesson arrives, there is no more need to act out the lesson or to train and drill. For example, once the 33 Chileans were rescued, the rescuers no longer had to train for that rescue.
Given that comprehensive and lucid explanation from Paul, Christ’s words in Matt 5:17 now become crystal clear. Since the law was all about Christ he certainly did not come to throw it out but to fulfill it. And that is precisely what he did. The spotless Lamb fulfilled the law and nailed it to the cross, proclaiming “It is finished”. He is the Redeemer, the High Priest, the substitutionary sacrifice and everything else the law said he would be.
God’s grand demonstration of his love is finished and remains for ever and ever as the greatest story ever told. This story will never pass away. The Word of God endures for ever. The law was not annihilated, it was fulfilled.
As Paul makes abundantly clear in Romans 7, just as when a husband dies a wife is no longer bound to the marriage, so likewise now that Christ is dead, we are no longer bound to the law (Rom 7:4). This could not be any clearer.
I think the issue here is really an unsettledness and difficulty for those who have followed certain traditions for so long that Paul’s words come to mean whatever the tradition defines it to be, rather than what Paul’s words actually say.
I say this with the utmost care and respect. I am not attacking anyone or accusing anyone or saying anyone is sinning or criticizing in any way. Rom 14 says people feel differently about these matters and we should respect one another. I am simply putting the plain text of the Bible out there for you all to read in the hope that we might expand the discussion to the ultimate meaning of the Sabbath, namely our final rest.
And so, if anything I have said is wrong, then please show me biblically where I (or even Paul) errs. Merely saying I am wrong or confused is not the same as actually proving the point scripturally. Peace!
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus: I asked whether you thought the 4th Commandment was still binding because it affects where to start the conversation regarding Col. 2:16. I’m still not clear on your position. Does “through the lens of grace” mean only that the particular *day* is no longer part of the requirement, but that we’re still obligated to keep at least *one* day, whatever it is, holy to the Lord? Or do you mean we’re not required to observe a day at all, only to somehow portion out one-seventh of the week to God, or what?
I believe the commandment to observe one whole day is still binding because, like the other commandments, the *moral* component of Sabbath observance has existed since day one. The Sabbath was not instituted with the Mosaic law, but *at creation.* As the commandment reads, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy…for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and rested the seventh day; *therefore,* the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it” (my emphasis). God’s setting apart the Sabbath in that regard is in no way a *ceremonial* act, i.e., it was not a ritualistic function of somehow making peace with God, just as obedience to the other Commandments were not. More could be said on the perpetuity of Sabbath-keeping, and let me know if you’d like me to supply it; at this point, I only mention it for background to Col. 2:16.
It’s noteworthy that the reference in that verse is to Sabbaths, plural, as the version you used in quoting it (in #71) translates. At various points in the OT, references are made together to ‘new moons,’ ‘festivals,’ and ‘Sabbaths’ (e.g., 2 Chron. 31:3, Neh. 10: 32, 33). These things are *ceremonial* in function, not moral, as is the Decalogue. Paul makes a similar admonition at Gal. 4:10 using the terms “days and months and seasons and years.” Paul wrote during a transition time (in a sense) between Old and New Covenants. Word was still getting out about the inauguration of the New. Merely observing a ‘new moon’ or festival or Sabbath was neither required nor prohibited; *but requiring others to observe was.* This is part and parcel of the error of the Judaizers. Salvation is not gained by ceremonial observances; nevertheless, the commandments, in their moral component (murder, adultery, coveting, the Sabbath, etc.), remain binding. In Col. 2:16, Paul is clarifying that we should not judge others, nor allow ourselves to be convicted, regarding keeping (or not) Jewish festivals and ceremonies. The *Christian* Sabbath, though, remained binding—it’s character goes beyond festival and ceremony; how could it be otherwise—it’s not a ceremonial law but a *creation* ordinance.
Report comment to moderator
It occurs to me, rather than saying “since day one,” it would be more accurate to say “day seven.” I only meant that it came before the giving of the Mosaic law, in fact, it goes all the way back to creation.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, in 39, I asked, ““David loved the law of God. He said so over and over and over. New Testament writers did, too. But are we to agree with Xion that many of the Psalms are now ‘finished, done, kaput, over, fini, outta there, gone’?”
Your reply was confusing:
If the law is kaput and finished, how is it also a tutor to lead us to Christ? Without the law, how do we know what sin is? In 40, you stated that you sin whenever you break one of Jesus’ two commandments. On what occasion did he provide those commandments? The answer: When he was asked, ““Teacher, which is the great commandment in *the Law*?” And he gave his answer by quoting from *the Law.* If the law is dead, how can it serve as a teaching tool? How do you argue on the one hand that “we have no more need to do the object lesson,” yet, “[The law] remains as a tremendous teaching tool”? Aren’t “object lesson” and “teaching tool” nearly synonymous?
Adding to what I said earlier, it is the *ceremonial* aspects of the law that are done away, not the moral. Even the verse you cited in 51 gives indication of this (w/ my emphasis),
The ceremonial aspects of the law are fulfilled in Christ, are not necessary for salvation, and are dead. The *moral* law remains, which is not to say we earn favor or salvation by our endeavoring to keep it; however, we endeavor to keep it because we are new creatures in Christ and we love him.
Report comment to moderator
#89 Macrutabaga “If the law is dead, how can it serve as a teaching tool? How do you argue on the one hand that “we have no more need to do the object lesson,” yet, “[The law] remains as a tremendous teaching tool”? Aren’t “object lesson” and “teaching tool” nearly synonymous?”
The answer is provided in all of the scripture I have been quoting. So let’s look at Romans 7. I would like to quote the entire chapter along with chapters 3-6, but there just isn’t room here.
In Romans 7:1-6 Paul gives an illustration of a wife whose husband has died. If she were joined to another prior to his death it would be a violation of their marriage. But once he is dead, she is no longer bound to her marriage vows, being “till death do us part”. Likewise, once Christ died the Jews were no longer bound to the law. That is exactly what Paul is saying.
“The ceremonial aspects of the law are fulfilled in Christ, are not necessary for salvation, and are dead. The *moral* law remains, which is not to say we earn favor or salvation by our endeavoring to keep it; however, we endeavor to keep it because we are new creatures in Christ and we love him.”
That position is a common one here and in Reformed churches, though Calvin never taught it. There are also Reformed theologians who agree with me. And so, I would challenge you or anyone here to find any scriptural support for such an interpretation. It is an extrabiblical tradition of men which quite frankly contradicts Paul’s epistles and Calvin.
(Note: Just because I think that view is imperfect, doesn’t mean that we can’t get along. I reject the notion that if Christians disagree, then at least one of the parties is speaking heresy. It is OK to disagree on non-essentials of the faith. We can help and sharpen one another through discussion and debate and still maintain the unity of the Spirit.)
The Bible says the law was given to God’s chosen people, the Israelites on Mt. Sinai. If you are not Jewish, then the law never applied to you. Yet, you can learn much about Christ by reading the law which is there as a legacy and an illustration for learning.
The danger I see for Christian churches is not the desire to keep certain spiritual aspects of the Mosaic law, but the notion of sanctification by works which is an error Paul warned about in Gal 3:3. This legalism is the leaven (Gal 5:9) which arises in churches and results in bickering, biting and devouring one another (Gal 5:15).
Rather than celebrating what Christ has done, it becomes all about the things which we do and the bickering is about who does or doesn’t do something. Instead, we should focus on Christ’s works, not our own, and learn to love one another. Peace!
Report comment to moderator
After all the whining I’ve done about the topic, you still post this:
Rather than celebrating what Christ has done, it becomes all about the things which we do and the bickering is about who does or doesn’t do something. Instead, we should focus on Christ’s works, not our own, and learn to love one another.
Where have I done any of this stuff you warn about? Why, oh why, do you still feel the need to lecture me on that point? It’s absolutely amazing!
Report comment to moderator
#91 Macrutabaga. Here’s a question: Why oh why do you think I am lecturing you? My statement was directed at all Christians, myself included.
As I was using my chainsaw today, preparing for winter in the Great North woods, I thought of a simpler example of the point I (and Paul) are trying to get across.
Have you ever been to a church service with a Messianic congregation? I love going, since lots of Hebrew is spoken and there is a high respect for the law. I love having Seder meals and celebrating the feasts Moses style. I learn so much about Christ by acting out the feasts in the law.
Now, some Messianic congregations teach that Jewish converts must keep the law. They are clearly in opposition to what Paul teaches. However, other Messianic congregations keep the feasts, not out of obligation, but to learn about the Messiah. They make the correct distinction that God’s people are no longer obligated to keep the law, but there is so much that we can learn from the law.
Paul, after having excoriated the Galatians for their misunderstanding of this concept especially regarding circumcision, had Timothy circumcised anyway in Acts 16:3. Obviously it is good and fine to study and practice the law for the sake of learning, or in the case of Timothy to reach the Jews, but there is no obligation to do so.
Does this illustration make it any clearer?
Report comment to moderator
Oh, your view isn’t unclear to me, Xion. It’s pretty much the default position of the modern American Evangelical church. It’s the position I once held.
Believing we are obligated to keep the *moral* law does not necessarily mean one believes we are *saved* or *sanctified* by it, contrary to your assertions. I’ve already stated that I believe our motive for keeping the commandments is not to earn salvation or God’s favor–we can’t do those things–but because we love Him (Jn 14:15).
Maybe you’re getting hung up on the term “obligated,” though I never used that term as part of my argument. If I were to use it of a believer, I would only do so to mean that the law is the standard by which we measure our sanctification. It points out to us how we should live; it convicts us of our sins; and it drives us to Christ for mercy. Sin is lawlessness. Sin is breaking God’s law. That’s how sin is defined by John in 1 Jn. 3:4. You don’t suppose John meant that we sin when we don’t offer bulls and goats at the appointed times, do you? No, he (along with Paul and the other apostles) refers to the *moral* aspect of God’s law, which is binding on all men everywhere. The Christian recognizes, though, that he or she is unable to keep that law, which is why we place our faith in the One who did so for us.
It is no less a sin when a believer commits adultery than when an unbeliever does, and it’s a sin for the exact same reason—both have broken God’s law.
Report comment to moderator
“Oh, your view isn’t unclear to me, Xion. It’s pretty much the default position of the modern American Evangelical church. It’s the position I once held.”
Really? As far as I can tell, mine is the minority position here.
“If I were to use it of a believer, I would only do so to mean that the law is the standard by which we measure our sanctification. It points out to us how we should live; it convicts us of our sins; and it drives us to Christ for mercy.”
What is your take on Gal 3:1-5 which says that we are not sanctified by works, but by the Spirit.
Jesus made it quite clear in Matt 5 that the law was inadequate as a standard. It only focuses on the outward. He wants truth in the inward parts.
“No, he (along with Paul and the other apostles) refers to the *moral* aspect of God’s law, which is binding on all men everywhere”
It sounds like you are referring to Romans 2:14,15 which speaks of the Gentiles who didn’t have the law, but are convicted by the law written on their hearts, i.e. part of our very sin nature. That is a good point. This places the whole world under sin and need of a Savior. “For all have sinned…”.
However, the Sabbath is part of the Mosaic law. It is a ritual like the feast of Passover and so on. How are non-Christians obligated to keep the Sabbath?
Report comment to moderator
First thing I read is this:
I said, “Oh, your view isn’t unclear to me, Xion. It’s pretty much the default position of the modern American Evangelical church. It’s the position I once held.”
You replied,
Really? As far as I can tell, mine is the minority position here.
Really? Do you see what you did here? I was making a point to say that your position is not unfamiliar to me. To clarify what I was saying, I noted that your view is popular *in the modern American church,* and that I once held the view. You replied as though I was saying that the majority position *at this website* is yours.
I’ll get to the other stuff later, maybe, but can you cut this rhetorical crap?
Report comment to moderator
“I’ll get to the other stuff later, maybe, but can you cut this rhetorical crap?”
Wow! Sorry I misunderstood your previous subtlety. Now, I see you are done with subtlety. As far as I am concerned you are no longer interested in having a civil discussion. Surprising, since I always thought we got along quite well. Let me know when you’re ready to talk like adults again. Peace!
Report comment to moderator
Macgrutabaga (87): I completely agree with you that the concept of sabbath rest was instituted at Creation; but again, where in the Bible does it say that that day of rest absolutely must be Sunday only? Remember again Paul’s words in Rom 14:5 (similar to Col 2:16) One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. The Jews had surrounded the sabbath with various regulations and prohibitions, and Paul was very concerned about an attitude that in effect was saying that Christianity means observing one particular day. Conscience is very important here.
Further, going back to the “What can be done on the day?”, the sabbath was instituted to provide rest and relief for people, and so the day is best sanctified when human need is met on that day. So any action which promotes people’s rest and general well-being is allowed on the day (and is of course allowed on other days, but that day is the most appropriate day for it to happen b/c doing so clearly advances God’s purpose in establishing the sabbath.)
I would like to add more to the broader law/grace discussion, but simply don’t have the time to give to it right now.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: There was nothing subtle about how I phrased my point. I was clearly referring to the broader church, not this site. I’ve been interested in a civil discussion all along. I don’t view your constant implication that I’m a works-based believer to be civil at all, no matter how you attempt to deliver it with lessons on Christian charity. Neither I nor anyone holding my view here ever gave you occasion to launch into such diatribes.
Report comment to moderator
Tyuchicus: There was no dispute among those believers that Sunday had become the day for Christians to observe the Sabbath. Paul was saying that believers *did* have license at that time to observe “sabbaths” (plural) if they chose–if they were “fully convinced in [their] own mind[s].” They were still free to observe festivals and new moons and such, so long as they were not requiring it of others, and did not view it as a requirement of themselves, *as a means of salvation.* But the Sabbath, being a moral law having been instituted *at creation* (despite Xion’s claim) was still binding–one day in 7 to be observed to the Lord, the Lord’s Day.
Report comment to moderator
What is your take on Gal 3:1-5 which says that we are not sanctified by works, but by the Spirit.
What have I said contrary to Gal 3:1-5? I haven’t said we’re sanctified by works.
Jesus made it quite clear in Matt 5 that the law was inadequate as a standard. It only focuses on the outward. He wants truth in the inward parts.
Where does he say it’s an inadequate standard, and where does he state the law is not concerned with “inward parts”? You’ve quoted Deut 6:5 yourself: “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” How does that not speak to “inward parts”? We’ve mentioned the Psalms, and David’s view of the law. Certainly, David recognizes the law applies to the “inward parts.” If you flipped through the Psalms and randomly stuck your finger on a verse, you’d have a good chance of seeing David applying the law to his heart. Here’s one section of many that can be counted:
I’d quote all of Psalm 119, but space is limited.
However, the Sabbath is part of the Mosaic law. It is a ritual like the feast of Passover and so on. How are non-Christians obligated to keep the Sabbath?
The Sabbath was instituted before Moses. It is a creation ordinance. In fact, God even separated the Sabbath day *before the fall.* The commandment reads, “…for in 6 days the Lord made the heavens and the earth…and rested the 7th day; therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” So how are believers obligated to keep the Sabbath? The same way they’re required to honor their fathers and mothers, forsake covetousness, and acknowledge God as God. Is it your belief that unbelievers are not required to obey the 1st commandment and that it’s permissible for them to worship other gods?
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus (30): … where in the NT does God require Sabbath observance (in the spirit of the OT commandment) on Sunday only?
Frank: 1) It seems to me that the NT teaches the continuing validity of the OT law — Jesus is very clear on this matter at Matt. 5:17-20.
2) Re. Sunday: While I don’t think it’s a matter of “Sunday only”, I do think it is clear that the first day of the week — the Lord’s Day, the day of His resurrection, “Sunday” — has replaced the last day of the week as the seventh day that Christians should “keep holy” and on which they should rest from their labors.
I think there are other aspects of the weekly sabbath rest that have changed due to Christ’s fulfillment of OT messianic promises, so that the OT sabbath doesn’t look precisely like the NT sabbath, while the general spirit of holy worship and rest are still the same between the two.
Report comment to moderator
I meant to correct my typo: in the last paragraph of 100, the reference to “believers” should be “unbelievers.”
Report comment to moderator
Frank (101): That is pretty much my position – thanks for your input.
Report comment to moderator
My mother used to say that even machinery works / runs better after a day of rest! I believe we should use Sundays to worship, visiting, having family time and just generally do good. I went to church and SS. In PM I helped with a worship service at a nursing home, played a game of croquet with 2 grands and a daughter-in-love, fixed a light super for five. I went to church again in the eve and listened to my son, a laymen, talk on the topic of peer pressure. After church I wrote my weekly column for the “Budget.” Ah,thank you Lord for a satisfying and refreshing day. You are so good! I praise your Holy Name. Amen
Report comment to moderator
I absolutely struggle with this. Being a junior in high school, on 2 varsity sports, and in numerous clubs that meet outside of school, sometimes, I want Sunday to be my day. Yes, I go to church on Sundays, and read my Bible and pray just the same, but I wrestle with getting so stressed out about Monday. The time I spend filling out my calendar for the week, or washing my clothes, or packing my lunch, is incredible compared to the time I spend in the Word. Sundays, I’ve decided, I need to rest and relax with my family. So instead of jumping all over the house, I just relax with my family during dinner, and I put off the weekly things, because I know that Sundays are the Lord’s days.
Report comment to moderator
“The puprose of the Fourth Commandment is to remind us that we are not lord of our own schedules.” ~ My pastor (paraphrased), from yesterday’s sermon
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!