Christians go head-to-head over Sabbath
A two-hour, live-streamed debate titled “Should Christians Keep the Sabbath?” was billed by WND founder and debate moderator Joseph Farah as provocative and historic.
It didn’t disappoint.
Debaters Jim Staley and Chris Rosebrough dug deep into the issue of whether Christians should obey the fourth commandment – and if so, how?
Staley and Rosebrough traded barbs early and often in their quest to shed light on a question that has dogged Christian scholars for centuries. Staley is pastor of Passion for Truth Fellowship in St. Charles, Mo., while Rosebrough is a Christian apologist and pastor of Kongsvinger Lutheran Church in Oslo, Minn. Both men also have radio ministries.
Staley, whose teaching videos are available through the WND Superstore, had the home-field advantage as the debate took place at his church during the final hours of the traditional biblical day of rest – Saturday. He took the position that Christians today should continue to keep the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week, just as Jesus and His early followers did.
Rosebrough countered that the Sabbath laws were designed by God for the Israelites living under the Mosaic Covenant, and they no longer apply to believers in Jesus after he died on a cross and rose from the dead.
Staley wasted no time going on the offensive, throwing out a litany of Scripture references on the Sabbath. He cited from Genesis, Isaiah, Zachariah and Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament, and Mark, 1 John, Matthew and Romans in the New Testament.
“There are many people who say it (Sabbath) was given for Israel,” Staley said. “God, actually, from the very beginning, He never intended for all days to be the same. He put from the very beginning the sun and the moon in the sky to set so that he could have those special times and appointments and we wouldn’t miss them. So if the debate is going to be that we can choose the day (of rest) then we’re obliterating the day He put the sun and the moon and the stars in the sky.”
Read WND’s classic in-depth news report on the Sabbath controversy: ‘Deception’: Christians war over worship day
He said the Sabbath laws predated the Israelites, as they were alluded to in the Garden of Eden and in the days of Noah in the book of Genesis.
Staley sees the fourth commandment as no different than the other nine commandments in which believers are required to refrain from stealing, lying, coveting, murdering and committing adultery.
Keeping Sabbath is “all over the New Testament,” he said, citing Matthew 5:17, in which Jesus said, “I did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law.”
1 John 5:2 says “for this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.”
“If my children keep nine of my commandments but not one, which one am I going to remember?” Staley asked.
“In the tribulation (book of Revelation) we see God’s people defined by two things, not just that you love God but that you prove your love for God by, what? Keeping his commandments.”
Perhaps most important to Staley’s view was that Jesus “kept the Sabbath, as well as all the first Christians.”
See the full debate:
It was only after the destruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem that Gentile Christians began to be detached from the Jewish roots of their faith and forget the importance of the Sabbath, Staley said.
“It was man’s ideas … and anti-Semitism that changed man from his biblical roots.”
In A.D. 321 , the Roman Emperor Constantine required that all of Rome’s workshops be closed on the first day of the week, Sunday, which was the traditional day of observance to the pagan sun god.
“In that day you were no way going to go against the state, because if you did, you were going to die,” Staley said.
“We see this debate raging on through the centuries.”
The church officially banned Christians from keeping the Jewish Sabbath at the Council of Laodicea in A.D. 363, replacing it with Sunday or “The Lord’s Day.”
Jim Staley
“Why did it do that? Because Christ, they thought, was raised on a Sunday.”
He said while Jesus probably was crucified on a Thursday, and rose during the predawn hours of Sunday, “History proves, ladies and gentlemen, that the Sabbath was everywhere,” he said. “Who ended up ruling the world? Rome. And whoever rules ends up making the rules.”
He said the Bible shows the Sabbath “was for all men and for all time.”
“My opponent will have to prove the Sabbath was not given to man in the garden and in the millennium and was not given as a day of rest and blessing.”
Staley said God’s laws about the Sabbath were corrupted by “a history of pagan, polytheistic Gentiles using Greek interpretations.”
“It’s a formula for disaster from the very beginning,” he said. “If the intent of Christ was to abolish the Sabbath, why is there not a single, straight-forward instruction in the Bible?
“If keeping the Sabbath on the day the Bible says is bondage, why are so many people being healed and being blessed by keeping it?
“I believe the burden of proof lies with my opponent that God did not mean what He said and that what He meant as a blessing has become a curse. I suggest we go back and grab hold of the blessings that we don’t even know that we’re missing.”
Rosbrough counters
Rosebrough argued that Staley was misreading the text and missing the point of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
“The (fourth) commandment does not stand alone but is part of Torah,” he said. “This question cannot be answered solely by looking at the covenant. You cannot look just at the law. The early church fathers rightly understood this.”
To correctly interpret such Old Testament proclamations as “The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath forever,” one must dig a little deeper, he said.
“When you pay closer attention to the text, it is not saying the Sabbath will be observed for eternity,” Rosebrough said.
The Hebrew word “olam” does not always mean eternity but “for a time,'” he argued.
“As Old Testament scholar Harold Dressler said, it is not designed for all time but was a specific institution for Israel; it is not a covenant forever,” he said.
Rosebrough cited Hebrews 7, which says: “For when there is a change in the priesthood there is necessarily a change in the law as well.”
Also, Galatians 3:19, says the purpose of the law was to highlight transgressions “until the seed to whom the promise referred had come.”
“The law was our guardian so that we might be justified by faith,” Rosebrough said. “All of these clear passages that Christians are not under the law, and the law was but a shadow of good things to come, and therefore the idea that the earth and heaven shall pass away before the law is abolished does not mean it will never pass away. It’s an idiomatic statement, similar to our statement, ‘Until hell freezes over.’
“It is not saying the law will be in effect to the end of the world, but until all is fulfilled.”
In Hebrews 8, Rosebrough said the author communicates that “not only did Christ usher in a new covenant, but he makes the old one obsolete.”
He then read Ephesians 2:14-15, which says Jesus “destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.”
For the same reason, Christians don’t have to keep a kosher diet or celebrate the new moons and Jewish festivals, nor do they have to keep Sabbath, according to Rosebrough.
“Those were all types and shadows of things to come,” he said. “The law, according to the New Testament, is the shadow. Jesus is the substance.
“Paul specifically says in Colossians not to let anyone condemn you for not keeping the Sabbath. Why? Because these are the shadows!”
The idea that Constantine is responsible for replacing the Jewish Sabbath with a pagan observation “plays well if you’re into ‘Da Vinci Code’ conspiracies but doesn’t hold water if you look at Scripture.”
He then cited Acts 2, which says that on “the first day of the week” the apostles gathered to break bread.
“There’s not a single commandment in the New Testament regarding keeping Sabbath,” Rosebrough concluded.
“Because it was clear all the ordinances of the Torah, they were all canceled, giving way to the substance of the new covenant. And we are no longer under Torah and its ordinances, and its sabbaths and its new moons and its feasts.
“By the second century, Christians were observing the first day, the Lord’s Day and not the Sabbath.”
Pointing to reality
Staley rebutted Rosebrough’s conclusions, saying that while much of the Torah uses types and shadows, those symbols also “pointed to reality.”
He again hammered away at the anti-Semitism displayed by the early church fathers. He said the first Christians were described in Acts as meeting on the “first day because they were meeting every day.”
“I can see my opponent’s strategy is to bog me down by chasing all these Scriptures,” Staley said.
“If my opponent is correct, ladies and gentlemen, we can commit adultery, we can murder, because … if he is right we don’t have a single other definition of sin in the Bible.”
Chris Rosebrough
Staley noted the millions of dollars spent on overseas missions.
“If the law is done away with, there is no reason to tell them they need Jesus. For what? To save them from something that doesn’t exist?
“He came to remove the penalty, not the law,” Staley said. “Everyone of the verses my opponent has brought up has been misunderstood.”
“We’ve got massive amounts of Scriptures of disciples telling us to keep the law of God.
“We are not to live by the flesh but of the spirit. You did not receive the spirit of bondage but the spirit of God, and those who have the spirit of God actually keep the law of God. Those who do not have the spirit of God, cannot!”
Two covenants
Rosebrough hit hard on the difference between the two covenants of God.
“The reason they did not keep the Sabbath is because the Mosaic covenant is no longer in effect. Can we then commit adultery? Of course not.”
He cited the Epistle of Barnabas, saying early Christians kept the Sunday Sabbath “with joyfulness which is also the day Jesus rose from the dead.”
He cited Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew,” written about 60 years after the death of the Apostle John, as evidence that the Jewish Sabbath was no longer required to be kept by Christians.
“He is very kind to the Jew he is talking to and lays all this out,” Rosebrough said.
“This is 60 years after the death of John, and he’s saying those who don’t keep the Sabbath assuredly will inherit the things of God. Justin notes that Adam did not keep the Sabbath and Noah didn’t. It was Moses who enjoined the children of Israel to keep it.
“Early in the second century, Justin takes the time to explain to us what sounds exactly like a church service, with a call to worship, time to take the Lord’s Supper, to take up an offering for widows and orphans, and to hear the word of God,” said Rosebrough.
“All the church fathers acknowledged that the Sabbath had been done away with. And they commemorate the creation on the eighth day. And the reason is that they remember they were no longer under the old Mosaic covenant. It’s given way to the new covenant. Not some conspiracy theory.”
Staley criticized Rosebrough’s reliance on Justin Martyr to justify his position.
He then rattled off quotes from early church fathers that showed their disdain for all things Jewish, including one from Justin that said, “God imposed upon you (Jews) the Sabbath as a mark for your sins.”
St. John Chrysostom, also known as “Golden Mouth,” said the synagogue was “worse than a brothel” and “a temple of demons and a refuge of brigands and assassins of Christ, a den of iniquity.”
Staley said St. John Chrysostom hated the synagogue and hated the Jews for the same reason.
St. Augustine was not much better, he said.
“And on and on it goes where they are heavily slanted against the Jews, because they did not speak Hebrew, they did not understand the Hebrew roots. These were Greek philosophers.”
He agreed that the Jewish feasts are shadows of things to come but concluded: “The shadows are there to lead you to reality. The reason you might want to observe the feast days is that it would lead you to the foot of the cross. It’s a straw man argument my opponent has put up.”
Rosebrough was not swayed.
“How is it anti-Semitic for a church father to quote Galatians 3:19? Pointing that out to his Jewish dialogue partner does not make him anti-Semitic.”
Regarding the moral laws, Rosebrough said the question comes down to what function Torah serves.
“It’s important to know that the commandments all get rolled up in the New Testament, but none of the commandments about the Sabbath and feast days, none of those get rolled up in the New Testament. But the first Christians did not observe those yet they had extremely high morals. In fact, I would argue that the morals of the New Testament are greater than those in the Torah.
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love is the fulfilling of the law,” said Rosebrough.
“Christ has not called his church to lawlessness, so the idea that without the Torah we cannot be moral? No, you haven’t read your Scriptures.”
At one point in the debate, Rosebrough turned to his opponent and asked: “Am I an apostate if I don’t keep the Sabbath?”
“It is a transgression against the law. That’s different than being apostate. Torahlessness is lawlessness,” Staley answered. “There’s only one law, my friend.”
“No, actually, there is the law of Christ,” Rosebrough responded.
Rosebrough’s closing statement
“We see the Mosaic covenant has come to an end, and this is why we see Christians of the late second century no longer observed” the Hebrew Sabbath, Rosebrough concluded, t
He then cited Hebrews 4, saying, “For we who have believed entered into his rest.”
Rosebrough said the reality “that’s being pointed to was salvation through faith alone.”
“When we are in Christ we are in the true Sabbath rest. And to add works to what the Lord has already done is to put yourself outside the Sabbath that Christ has created for you. It’s a free gift, a Sabbath rest, and if you do not have it you are not truly in him.”
Staley’s closing statement
Staley said those who believe God meant for the Sabbath to remain find themselves in “a win-win situation, because there is no proof anywhere in the Bible that the day He set apart and called holy would suddenly be suspended or canceled.”
“There is no commandment saying we are not to keep it. Only assumptions and quotes from anti-Semitic church fathers,” he said.
“Chris, if you are right and I’m wrong I have nothing to lose. But if I am right, and you are wrong, you will have to answer to God as to why you listened to church fathers and not him.
“The Bible says fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.
“Every one of us has two choices of who we can follow: You can choose to follow the church fathers if you’d like, but as for me and my house, we will follow the father of the church!” https://www.google.com/amp/www.wnd.com/2014/05/christians-go-head-to-head-over-sabbath/amp/
Tags
Who is online
416 visitors
At the same time, though, the minister supports the idea of resting one day each week to stay on track with God.
“Humanity has forsaken the importance of Sabbath rest,” he said. “God desires us to be renewed spiritually. We should observe a day … to be consecrated and to be devoted to God, to be renewed and refreshed. In terms of affecting the human quality of life, it would do us very well to observe a Sabbath rest.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2008/03/57978/#ywRrjT0xraxVRohh.99
Wow, so god is so egotistical he needs a whole day devoted to just him. I can think of better uses of my time.
And nothing in the world is stopping you from doing whatever you want on any day of the week.
Exactly. Why an atheist who doesn’t believe that God even exists would jump into a discussion on a religion board between Christians as to what they/we believe He wants us to do on a given subject is beyond me.
I'm telling you, it isn't enough for them that they don't believe, they really don't want anyone else to believe either.
And you know they can't resist that urge to call names and belittle others for believing differently from them.
One thing I have trouble figuring out is why they keep voting for the same parties that passed all these laws they hate.
You are confused that atheists chime in on God discussions??
I never said there was.
What interest is it to an atheist regarding a discussion among Christians as to which day we should choose to refrain from worldly pursuits and worship the God they don’t believe exists. That you all are here is undeniable. The question is why you are?
You did not read Gordy's comment? The Blue Laws (by any other name) affect everyone.
How could you possibly miss that? Come on HA, try a little harder.
You guys can debate which is stronger, Zeus or Cronus, all you want, that's your business. Just keep it out of our schools, laws, publicly funded spaces and schools. Beyond that, I just have to laugh at those who spend hard earned dollars to buy into the fantasy, "available through the WND Superstore".
We will continue onward with or without your blessing.
It is our Constitutional right, and you will do nothing to infringe on it.
And we wouldn't dream of infringing on your right to not believe or worship as you wish, or not worship at all if you wish.
Those sharia laws are only your right as long as they stay within the confines of your cult. Once they leak into the government they become everyone's problem.
Gee, you sound so worried.
Why?
What are you so scared of?
Because I care about good government. Christian sharia laws don't really affect me personally these days but they have impacted my daughter and other people I know. They should be ripped from our body of law like the vile middle eastern leaches they really are. They're remnants of an oppressive and theocratic past which is best buried, like the unconstitutional blasphemy laws which some states still have on their books or the unconstitutional and nutty sodomy law which your state refuses to repeal.
The funny thing is that bible-babblers always seem to need the state to help prop up their cults. They can't seem to abide having a secular government which doesn't endorse their superstitions.
Deleted CoC {SP}
Well, the govt. we have has worked pretty well for over 200 years. I'll stick with it, since it has worked arguably better than any other form in the same time span.
It's working much better now that we've largely rid ourselves of its theocratic Christian sharia laws including slavery, coverture laws, blasphemy laws, sodomy laws, a lack of equal protection, bans on mixed-race and same-sex marriage, racial bans on immigration, bans on women and blacks voting, etc. It certainly had numerous flaws especially on basic civil rights issues......but that's to be expected in any country which was predominantly Christian.
It's also not a surprise that the states which still lack comprehensive civil rights protection are pretty much all in the bible-babble belt.
The federal law covers everyone in the US. Isn't that enough for you?
Or did you think states can pass laws contrary to federal laws concerning civil rights?
Blue laws are wrong. Period. Worship is a choice a voluntary action between God and man and the government should not compel in such matters.
This place is not a government or a school. You can debate pagan gods on a seed dedicated to that discussion. WND sponsored the debate and they have a faith section in their on line news site. Their founder had an interest in the topic.
The issue here isn’t religion in government. It’s about believers looking at the two days of observation each observes one of on and why they do.
true.
Sadly so.
So a post with 7 votes up is deleted? Seems NT is going down the fascist tube just like the vine did.
We agree on this.
Even under Clinton...and Obama?
Or for that matter FDR?
Or has it worked pretty well for 200 years only during those periods when the Republicans were in power?
Pretty well overall.
What does World Nut Daily have to do with Christianity?
They have a faith section in their on line news web site and they sponsored the debate.
Religious bullshit doesn't belong on the front page of NT either.
If it bothers you so much, why read it?
faith = ignorance
ignorance = faith based logic, proves ignorance rules, but I have ignorance based in faith, that the faithful will remain ignorant to what Blind Faith does to logic and reasoning.
Intolerance = ignorance
For some around here, the ignorance has left them intolerant, of lactose, more than 2% of the time they're milking it for
Belittling someone's beliefs in God, calling them stupid or just flat out wrong is intolerance at its finest.
If you haven't noticed, I try and steer clear of faith seeds.
I belittle by large.
I don't have a problem with someone's faith or belief in ANY God, How about You ?
What are your thoughts on Muhammad and Islam in general. Are you never belittling "THEIR" beliefs in God ? Do you feel they are stupid or smart ? Do you feel it as flat out wrong to be intolerant about their religion, or just you at your finest ?
I have no problem with any religion, including Muslims, and don't have one of mine own.
Doesn't matter to me if one believes in a God or something else or not.
Live and let live.
agreed
If that's the case-- why hasn't God told us to stay away from Social Media?
When I was working and had weekend off, it was mine to enjoy as I wanted
And the constant rebuilding of the Holley 4160. Been there, done that.
I started to read the seeded article in the hope of finding something worthwhile to comment on, but not having drank copious amounts of alcohol this evening, I couldn't get there.
I think articles about dogma should be confined to groups. It borders on proselytizing and it was a snoozefest.
I was just about to start an Andechs doppelbock dunkel before tackling HA's bible-bible. Damn good beer and brewed by Benedictine monks.
Never heard a bad thing said about what monks can do with grape juice.
The first time I tried it was about 20 years ago at their monastery in Bavaria. It's considered one of the very best beers in Germany.....and I just found out a few weeks ago that a local liquor store now carries it. I didn't even know they made enough to export to the US.
Capitalism at its finest. I expect MONKSRUS.COM to be the next hot stock.
Really , it is in the religion section and is a theological debate showing both sides of an on going discussion. One that is quite interesting. Where is the proselytizing here?
And yet, you read it and took your valuable time up by posting while complaining what a waste of time it was.
That's pretty smart of you!
Off Topic {SP}
Fossil fuel/far-right fascism.
I like you--you're a hoot!
LMFAO!
What does that have to do with the seeded topic?
I thought you might find it somewhat interesting considering all that the various churches have to say about both sides of the debate above. This is not a political discussion which is what we usually engage in rhetorical combat on.
I think articles about dogma should be confined to groups. It borders on proselytizing and it was a snoozefest.
Definitely boring.
Here's a suggestion-- perhaps you should contact Perrie and request she eliminate the rule in the CoC that forces us to read entire articles that we're not interested in-- and worse yet, the part of the rule that forces us to comment on an article-- even if we're not interested in it!
Good idea !
I’m a fan of the sabbath.
And didn't the Great Sky Fairy say that the sabbath was supposed to be kept on Saturday? How arrogant of Protestants to move it to Sunday.
Do you really care what day people worship, or are you just in general bitching?
Protestants didn’t do that. A majority of us have continued to observe after we came to be in the reformation. Sunday was the day observed by the vast majority of the church for 1,000 years before there was a Protestant.
They don’t care one bit. They are only here to prevent a friendly discussion among Christians about the seeded topic from ever occurring. Just like on my seed a few days ago where they used a hecklers veto to poison the conversation until an atheist collapsed the seed.
Sounds pretty messed up. Christians apparently no longer even try to keep the 4th commandment about remembering the sabbath and keeping it "holy". Apparently there were too many leaves to rake on Saturday, the true sabbath day.
Deleted CoC {SP}
Nah, we're just amused by the hypocritical Christians who want the government to enforce their sharia laws.....while they themselves constantly violate those vestiges of theocracy. Like your pussy-grabbing and pathological lying Fuhrer for example.
Lol, you are giving not only a pass, but accolades as well, to a man who doesn't know a commandment from his arse. The supposed christians don't give one f**k about the commandments unless they stand to gain something. You can't walk back this total lack of morals and values on one hand, and care about it when you want to pretend righteousness. We don't believe your commitment to the commandments because of the way those christians are living their lives in front of our very eyes. We see what they value, we see who they value.
Ah, there it is!!
Deleted CoC {SP}
See, Skirting COC {SP} are totally incapable of debating anything without bringing their President into it.
Of course, I expected little and wasn't disappointed!
I didn't say that your Fuhrer was comparable to Hitler but now that you mention it it seems that even the Germans see the similarity.
Off Topic {SP}
.
Of course the central point of commonality is authoritarian Christianity.
Off Topic {SP}
Off Topic {SP}
Off Topic {SP}
Off Topic {SP}
Skirting CoC {SP}
Off Topic {SP}
Stay classy. S/
Off Topic {SP}
Off Topic {SP}
You posted it, you own it.
Why blame someone else for YOUR post?
Ah, grasshopper.
When will you learn to read what is written instead of what you IMAGINE is written?
Huh? That doesn't even make sense.
The President is not a related topic to the seeded article.
probably doesn't to you, and I have neither the time or patience to bring you up to speed.
get someone at home to explain it to you.
This is to discuss the issues between the keeping of either of the two days and why people keep either one and the positives each sees in what they observe. This is not the place to make fun of one side or the other from within or from the outside looking in.
You HAVE to be f.... .kidding me!
Minus the expletive I agree with you 100%. It’s quoted in the very next post and in no objective way whatsoever was that even a skirting much less a coc.
It isn't a big deal to me, because I can leave whenever I wish, but it does seem a little overboard with the supposed CoC violations.
Not to mention it isn't meted out very equally.
Whatever!
There is a handicap to being a conservative, particularly the combined conservative believer. I don’t want you to go anywhere as I want to see us conservatives who came from newsvine over time to stay together in one place and here’s as good as any. The other not as good place does have it so liberals moderate liberals and conservatives moderate conservatives from what I’ve seen which is great but the rest of it is so so.
Heck, add in white male and we hit the trifecta!
My ancient clan believed in a flying Spaghetti monster long before your backwards heretic clan.
They used the "nuclear option"-- the dreaded "heckler's Veto"? OMG!!!
(Next thing you know they'll try to invite the Nt filibuster rule --- when a simple majority in both Houses of NT should suffice! In any event, let's not blame all those evil Athiests. Why not keep it simple-- and just blame Hillary!
And what about Reincarnation? Wasn't that Church doctrine until some Pope came along and said that Reincarnation wasn't kosher?
I’m happy for you. Thanks for sharing that with us.
Not a catholic so I have no idea. Ask John. He might know. There’s certainly nothing in the KJV Bible that supports reincarnation.
Nope, not going to have a discussion where atheists sit on the sidelines picking sides and emflaming a what should be friendly discussion. They will not goad us into major conflict over our own issues. The hecklers veto prevails for now. For now the seed is closed.
So you are unable to support your point of view?
Which is quite fitting, as the minds of some of the participants are the same way!
(Couldn't resist... started to get a bit bored so I thought I'd enagage in some light trolling
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity
First-day sabbatarian churches and organizations Edit
Main article: Sabbatarianism § Sunday Sabbatarians
The observance of the Lord's Day (Sunday) as the Christian Sabbath is known as first-day Sabbatarianism and this view was historically heralded by nonconformist denominations, such as Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists, as well as many Episcopalians.[73][74][75][76] First-day sabbatarianism impacted popular Western Christian culture, with influences remaining to the present day, e.g. Sunday laws.[77]
The Sabbath Breakers by J.C. Dollman (1896)
For example, The Westminster Confession, historically upheld by Presbyterians, commands the belief of first-day Sabbatarian doctrine:[78]
As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.
This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe a holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
The Savoy Declaration, upheld by Puritan Congregationalists,[79] as well as the Second London Baptist Confession, upheld by Reformed Baptists, advanced first-day Sabbatarian views identical to those expressed in the Westminster Confession.[80] General Baptists also advocate first-day Sabbatarian doctrine in their confessions of faith; for example, the Treatise on the Faith and Practice of the Free Will Baptists states:[81]
This is one day in seven, which from the creation of the world God has set apart for sacred rest and holy service. Under the former dispensation, the seventh day of the week, as commemorative of the work of creation, was set apart for the Lord's Day. Under the gospel, the first day of the week, in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ, and by authority of Christ and the apostles, is observed as the Christian Sabbath. On this day all men are required to refrain from secular labor and devote themselves to the worship and service of God.[81]
In keeping with historic Methodism,[82] the Discipline of the Bible Methodist Connection of Churches enshrines first-day Sabbatarianism:[83]
We believe that the Lord’s Day, celebrated on Sunday, the first day of the week, throughout the Christian church, is the Christian sabbath, which we reverently observe as a day of rest and worship and as the continuing memorial of our Savior’s resurrection. For this reason, we abstain from secular work and from all merchandising on this holy day, except that required by mercy or necessity.[83]
Organizations that promote Sunday Sabbatarianism include Day One Christian Ministries (formerly known as the Lord's Day Observance Society) in the UK. With unwavering support by mainstream Christian denominations, Sabbatarian organizations were formed, such as the American Sabbath Union (also known as the Lord's Day Alliance) and the Sunday League of America, following the American Civil War, to preserve the importance of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath.[6] Founded in 1888, the Lord's Day Alliance continues to "encourage all people to recognize and observe a day of Sabbath rest and to worship the risen Lord Jesus Christ, on the Lord’s Day, Sunday".[84] The Board of Managers of the Lord's Day Alliance is composed of clergy and laity from Christian churches, including Baptist, Catholic, Episcopalian, Friends, Lutheran, Methodist, Non-Denominationalist, Orthodox, Presbyterian, and Reformed traditions.[84] The Woman's Christian Temperance Union also supports Sabbatarian views and worked to reflect these in the public sphere.[85] In Canada, the Lord's Day Alliance (renamed the People for Sunday Association of Canada) was founded there and it lobbied successfully to pass in 1906 the Lord's Day Act, which was not repealed until 1985.[86] Throughout their history, Sabbatarian organizations, such as the Lord's Day Alliance, have mounted campaigns, with support in both Canada and Britain from labour unions with the goals of preventing secular and commercial interests from hampering freedom of worship and preventing them from exploiting workers.[87]
The founder of the Moody Bible Institute declares, "Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word 'remember,' showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?"[88].
Seventh-day sabbatarian churches Edit
Oldest Sabbatarian Meeting House in America (Seventh Day Baptists), built in 1729 in Newport, Rhode Island, now owned by Newport Historical Society.
Main article: Sabbath in seventh-day churches
Seventh-day Protestants regard Sabbath as a day of rest for all mankind and not Israel alone, based on Jesus's statement, "the Sabbath was made for man" (i.e., purposed for humankind at the time of its creation, Mark 2:27, cf. Heb. 4), and on early-church Sabbath meetings. Seventh-day Sabbatarianism has been criticized as an effort to combine Old Testament laws, practiced in Judaism, with Christianity, or to revive the Judaizers of the Epistles or the Ebionites.
Seventh-day Sabbatarians practice a strict seventh-day Sabbath observance, similar to Shabbat in Judaism. John Traske (1586–1636) and Thomas Brabourne first advocated seventh-day Sabbatarianism in England. Their ideas gave rise to the Seventh Day Baptists, formed in early 17th-century in England. Samuel and Tacy Hubbard began the first American congregation on Rhode Island in 1671.
Grace Communion International (Armstrongism) taught seventh-day Sabbath observance. The United Church of God teaches seventh-day Sabbath observance.
Seventh-day Adventist Church Edit
A Seventh-day Adventist Church.
See also: Seventh-day Adventist worship, Armstrongism, and Seventh-day Adventist eschatology
The Seventh-day Adventist Church arose in the mid-19th century in America after Rachel Oakes, a Seventh Day Baptist, gave a tract about the Sabbath to an Adventist Millerite, who passed it on to Ellen G. White.
Fundamental Belief # 20 of the Seventh-day Adventist Church states:
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, Isa. 6; Isa. 58:13, Isa. 14 ; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, Eze. 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)
— Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Beliefs[89]
skirting the CoC [ph]
I presented both sides of a given issue. Sometimes it takes detailed info to present them both fairly.
Interesting that you should quote them given that they're one of the last remaining racially segregated cults in the country. Skirting the CoC [ph] given that the founder of the cult thought that black folks were subhuman "amalgamations" and the product of sex between man and animals.
I quoted what was available to both sides in the wiki article. It seems that Catholics are the largest on the 1st day view and the Adventists the largest on the 7th day view.
Atheists can't help themselves. They are like children always interrupting the grown ups.
You mean the grownups who worship mythological beings? Those grownups?
So you are saying that all the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Animists around the world aren’t grown up adults?
Apparently some folks never grow out of their need for an imaginary friend.
And yet, you vote for them.
Why does someone believing in God pose such a threat to you?
Exactly!
Adults don't believe in Santa, or mythological beings that never ever, in any way, show themselves or provide even a shred of evidence that they exist. Only children believe in that non-sense. In other words, you have it backwards.
In other words all the people around the world who worship any God their religion calls for are children and only those who follow the religion of atheism which believes no god exists are mature adults? Now who are the condescending arrogant ones?
"Children" is the wrong word. "Irrational" would be better.
You must be confused. Atheism isn't a religion. And not believing in a god is not a belief in itself. Calling it a religion/belief is a contradiction in terms, not to mention willfully disingenuous.
I just love it when one liberal has to explain what another one meant, instead of typing what you mean. if he didn't mean children, he shouldn't have used the word.
If you believe there is no god then you believe. You take it as an article of faith that there isn’t one despite the fact you haven’t been all over the universe looking for one to be certain there is not one. Your assumption that there is no god is an article of faith on your part.
The poster that said...
??????????
Doesn't exist. And weirdly enough, freedom of religion, also means freedom FROM religion.
Do you get paid to use the word, "liberal"? I mean, you just spew garbage with the word liberal attached to everything. Do you think that EVERYONE that doesn't agree with YOU is a LIBERAL? Good grief, grow up.
Are you claiming you are not a liberal?
Aren't you afraid they'll kick you out of the club if you deny it publicly?
Thinking you can drag us down to your level with the worn-out old BS isn't doing you any good and not working. But I know that won't stop you from doing it.
Believe in what? Nothing? Why do people insist on trying to paint atheism as a belief system when all it does is make them look clueless?
Is that what he does? No, HA, nobody takes it on 'faith' that there is no god. That does not even make sense. The closest one can come to the bizarre notion you have presented is the gnostic atheist who claims certainty that no god exists. Very few atheists are gnostic atheists because the position of certainty is unsupportable. (Likewise, your position of gnostic theism is unsupportable.)
Most every atheist is an agnostic atheist. An agnostic atheist is simply not convinced there is a god. No belief system, just plain old fashioned skepticism pending persuasive evidence.
No it does not.
Which liberal/s are you referring to?
I am not a liberal, no.
Yea, it really does. No one can force their religion on another person, in other words, freedom FROM religion.
If not a liberal, why take umbrage?
Of course I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is a liberal--that would be stupid. Is that what you do?
Some secular progressives deny being liberal. In 2016, Hillary claimed to be a progressive.
No one can force anything religion wise in America. On the other hand no one has the right to never be exposed to religious thoughts. One has freedom of religion or no religion but no one can repress others free speech rights to avoid hearing their message.
Yes, it does.
A lack of belief is not a belief. That notion is absurd. Neither do I "believe" there is no god. I simply do not accept claims for a god without evidence. Without evidence or proof, there is no reason to accept, or believe, there is a god.
Actually it is a belief-- its a belief that God exists. As is the belief that God doesn't exist. (neither POV is a provable fact).
A belief-- as opposed to a fact. Facts can be proven, beliefs can't be. And since you can't prove God doesn't exist,...that's a belief.
But if that's the case-- does no one also have the right to be exposed to religious beliefs?
Is either right protected by the Constitution?
I do. Perrie pays me each time I say it due to the extra hits the site draws because of it. Makes the advertisers happy. /s.
We have free speech rights and freedom of religion. That means we have to make up our own minds if we see read or hear forms of speech they disagree with or weren’t exposed to previously.
Yes-- and without evidence or proof, there's no reason to accept or believe that there is no god.
Again-- there is no prof that there is a god AND the is no proof that there isn't a god.
Since there's no proof either way, you can believe there is a god, or believe that there isn't a god. But both are beliefs-- not provisble facts.
A third possibility that is not a belief is simply not being convinced that there is a god. It is like not being convinced there are Martians. Without evidence to support the existence of Martian life there is no reason to hold that Martians exist. Should evidence present itself then ... major league headlines ... and skeptics now following the evidence to where it lead.
Making this comment because quite a few on NT are on a 'atheism is a belief system - a religion' kick. Like dealing with mini-Ken Hams.
Why am I not shocked.
Could have fooled the rest of us. The right uses the word, "liberal", almost as a racial slur, given how often they use it.
Some people are easy to fool, I guess.
Not sure if you are kidding, but you should be surprised because Perrie seeks the opposite of sensationalized, label-driven content. A bunch of childish name-calling and ridiculous general claims about parties, ideologies, etc. is tabloid crap - not thoughtful discussion / debate.
That's the intention. Along with their preferred prefixes and suffixes.
We like Ken Ham.
Yes it does, necessarily. See Torcaso v Watkins if you want to understand why that is.
I know, HA, .... I know.
Any difference between a conservative calling the opposition liberal and liberals calling the opposition conservatives?
I predict the response will be crickets.
WTF SP? Why not just delete all the posts and be done with it? Ridiculous.
That’s the whole idea isn’t it. Don’t like a seed disrupt it, the off topic disruptions come down, then kill off the whole thing. Not today. There’s plenty here for believers to discuss as to the topic of the seed.
Not just debaters but master debaters, I'm sure.
You crack you up.
Off Topic? {SP}
Off Topic {SP}
Where to start? Faith came before the Commandments and Law?
Yes Cal, faith comes first in Christianity, before anything else, before any possible debate about God's existence. The first thing you must do is 'have faith.' I love it when you godders talk about how important 'faith' is. You are openly admitting that you have no logical reason for believing the fantastical nonsense you claim to. Faith is not required to believe what is true.
Name-calling is child-like. And even some children won't play at it. Let's set a good example, eh? If you do not wish to positively add to the discussion, here take your 'ball,'— I have one of my own!
Overlook the word 'godders' (you have been called worse) and lenny is simply stating what religious people state. It all begins with faith. Faith is the cornerstone of everything religious. Do you not agree?
Just to play Devil's advocate here for a moment-- IMO its perfectly fine to believe its true without being able to prove it logically.
Actually it would be accurate to say I "know" something is true but the process by which I know its true is not logic. Rather, some of what I know t be true comes from Intuition-- I can't logically prove it to anyone, but I know its true.
But that is just playing semantics. English words typically have multiple usages - different definitions based on how they are used in a sentence and in various contexts.
The use of 'I know' to mean 'I am convinced' is valid, but we still need to distinguish the semantic claim of truth from one of personal conviction.
It is. We are saved through grace given by Christ through faith. Once saved we build a relationship with him because we love him. And as he said, if ye love me obey my commandments. Those are to love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as your self. In those is all of the law. The first four and the last six of the commandments. We obey God and act to help others because we love Him and desire to please Him, not to do works. Our works on their own without his saving grace are as filthy rags. Jesus knew of the future when he talked to Thomas after the resurrection and showed him his hands and side. Jesus said he believed because he saw, blessed are those who not seeing, believe. So, yes, it’s all about faith.
We agree but we also see things differently. You see faith as a positive whereas I see it as a negative. Faith, to me, is the suppression of critical thinking. Accepting something as true without evidence - simply because other human beings said it was true.
Religions have convinced people that faith is not only a good thing but it is something to strive for ... indeed it is THE thing to strive for. They have taken their greatest vulnerability and turned it into the ultimate goal. As I have noted many times, religions are the historical masters at ensnaring minds. Religions have mastered how human beings think and the art of getting people to believe what you tell them.
It is the tactless onslaught that I seek to avoid sometimes. The attitude ( 12.1 . . ." the fantastical nonsense ". . . ). People of faith historically know we do not put forth the narrow definition of evidences rationalists seek. Jesus said this about that :
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then He *said to Thomas, Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
&
'A Christian Catechism says: "First, I learn to believe in God the Father, who hath made me, and all the world; secondly, in God the Son, who hath redeemed me, and all mankind; thirdly, in God the Holy Ghost [Spirit], who sanctifieth me, and all the elect people of God."'
The agnostic says, "How do you know all that? I consider I have no means of knowing these things you assert respecting God. I do not know, and can not know, that God is a Father, and that he has a Son, and I do not and can not know that such a Father made me, or that such a Son redeemed me."
But the Christian did not speak of what he knew, but of what he believed. The first word of a Christian is not, "I know," but "I believe." He professes, not a science, but a faith; and at baptism he accepts, not a theory, but a creed."
— Henry Wace, D.D. 1888&
Of course, there is the addition of the Indwelling Spirit.
All of this repetitive 'talk' by people who have made their point to the nth degree is. . .disturbing. It is like a room of three-four year olds seeking to be a noisy distraction! We are grown-ups, so let people speak plain!
I t is a topic about our mutually shared faith. If others do not have something nice to say, good home-training would say just be civil and listen.
Understood, but lenny made a fair point and was not rude. ('Godders' is pretty mild.) I suspect you agree with his actual point.
I can not 'hear' his point for the 'noise.' For your efforts at sharing, Christians have a Messenger to bring the Word. For Faith comes by hearing!
Religion is the side-effect of needing uniformity of expression. My friend, you should know this. There is no way for many minds to constructively strive together in what the New Testament calls, one body in any form unless there are rules, and from those customs, and traditions are acquired.
Faith (in God) is our first love and it is purposes is to teach love and trust for God/Spirit. My friend, you do not 'hear' the Spirit. You do not accept the 'calling' and we are 'locked' into explaining this point over and over to you; for, no man can give you faith. It is God's gift to those who ask!
Now then, why did I say the last? Because, we all need to move the discussion forward to breaking new territory.
Romans 10:17 New King James Version
17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Going up↑ the 'chain' a link: The word of God requires a "Messenger."
I think you should re-read my post because your comment makes no sense as a reply to mine.
This ...
... is talking about the distinction of absolute truth from personal truth. It has nothing whatsoever to do with me telling someone that something is not true.
You replied to my comment which means you were replying to the words I wrote.
Your reply does not make any sense based on what I wrote. It is as if you replied to an entirely different comment.
Agreed. Totally unrelated to what I wrote.
Do as you wish. But if you misrepresent someone else do not be surprised (or offended) if they too object.
Thanks. Hope you are feeling better.
Nice to see two people resolve an issue with comity and civility. As the seeder of this article, I appreciate that when it happens.
Believe in whatever you want to believe in, doesn't bother me in the least. But remember this, your religious freedom STOPS when it violates someone else's civil rights. Ask Kim Davis, she can explain it in explicit detail.
I agree. And, vice-versa!
I believe in a 4 day work week so everyone has time to have a life, period.
I do not know how it is possible to allow everyone to have the same day off without emergency services suffering. The 4 day work week could rotate days so that everyone had the same number of weeks off in the course of a year. I have worked 4 ten hour days and liked it because I had 3 day weekends occasionally and because I had a weekday off to go the doctor, dentist, tag my vehicle or just read a book while the kids were in school and the husband was at work!
However, I would like to see the 4 day work week consist of 8 hour days with full pay and full benefits. I believe the increase in morale and production would prove to be cost effective. Also, our society would benefit because we wouldn't be constantly stressed over work, work, work. We might have time to plant some roses and smell them. LOL!
For the religious minded, maybe some flexibility is needed by the spiritual leaders to poll their flock and to meet the needs of their flock instead of demanding that their flock only meet on Sundays and Wednesday for the evangelicals, Saturdays for the Seventh Day Adventists, etc.
Flexibility should not be a problem for the Christians since they have adapted to ignoring Yahweh's directive to kill people who work on the Sabbath. To date, Yahweh has not retaliated or reiterated that he really wants his followers to murder anyone who works on the Sabbath.
Four day or five day weeks are fine as long as those who are believers can be accommodated as to taking their day of worship off.
Why doesn't their pastor accommodate them? Isn't that his/her job?
How about the believers that work in hospitals? How about the believers that have a heart attack or seizure during church services? Who is going to tend to them if all of the Christians don't have to work on their sect's Sabbath? Yahweh?