Restoration Ministries | home
"This Is My Beloved Son; Hear Him"
Chapter Six
Conclusion and Bibliography
________________________________________________________
I believe it is a great evil for brethren to judge one another regarding the Sabbath. Rather, we should see to it that we fulfill in a positive manner our revealed obligations (as summarized in Hebrews 10:25), and allow nothing in the alluring arena of the world distract us on our worship-day from our primary duties to worship Christ and fellowship with His people.
Negatively, let us not become wrapped up in Rabbinic casuistry as to what is and is not lawful to do, and miss the central intention of our corporate times together. The guiding principle of the New Testament is for us to use our liberty in Christ every day, not as an occasion for the flesh, but to serve one another in love (Galatians 5:13-14; cf. also my comments on this issue in “Crucial Thoughts,” pp. 13-14).
The following literature is recommended for your further investigation into this topic –
From Sabbath To Sunday — A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity, by Samuele Bacchiocci, (Rome, The Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977, 372 pages). Adventist Bacchiocchi was the first non-Catholic to graduate from the Pontifical Gregorian University, and is a Professor of Theology and Church History at Andrews University. I would urge those who feel that the Sabbath was transferred to Sunday to carefully read this volume. While I do not believe he demonstrates his Saturday Sabbath position, I do think that his forthright handling of the crucial texts raises many thorny questions for Sunday Sabbatarians (he discusses l Corinthians 16:1-3, Acts 20:7, and Revelation 1:10 on pages 90-131).
The Covenantal Sabbath, by Francis N. Lee (London: Lord*s Day Observance Society, 343 pages). This treatise sets forth the traditional “Christian Sabbath” position, but is filled with extra-textual assumptions, and many strained interpretations.
The Lord*s Day, by P. K. Jewett (Erdmans, 1971, 170 pages). A very sober presentation of position 4 stated above.
“The Economics of Sabbath Keeping,” by Gary North, in The Institutes of Biblical Law (Craig Press, 1973, pp. 824-836). This article raises many good questions for Sunday Sabbatarians to ponder.
“Place and Time of Worship,” by John Gill in Body of Divinity. The first part of this article is especially helpful.
The Kingdom of the Cults, by Walter Martin (Bethany Fellowship, 19771, pp. 398-403). In this section he deals with the Adventist position very capably.
“The Christian Sabbath – Its Nature, Design, and Proper Observance,” by R.L. Dabney, in Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, vol. 1, pp. 496-550). Dabney sets forth a defense of the position found in the Westminster Confession.
Sunday — Its Origin, History, and Present Obligation, by James A Hessey (London, 1880, 408 pages). This volume contains the Bampton Lectures of 1860. I wish it was in print. In my opinion, he forcefully demonstrates, both Scripturally and historically, that it is untenable to identify Sunday as the “Sabbath.” This is must reading for anyone wrestling with this question.
Having sought to set forth the basic teaching of Scripture in the five major points covered, there are a few questions that need to be answered –
1. “Is your position a new variation of Dispensationalism?”
Absolutely not. I reject the three points, as defined by Dispensationalists, which Charles Ryrie sets forth as the essence of this school of thought (Dispensationalism Today, Moody Press, 1965, pp. 44-48). For a full discovery of my position in regard to Dispensational heresies see Dispensationalism: A Reformed Inquiry Into Its Leading Figures and Features(Presbyterian & Reformed, 1978).
There are a few areas of formal correspondence with Dispensationalism, such as a rejection of the “covenant of works/covenant of grace” framework, but my basic theses that God has one purpose in Christ and that there is one people of God are inimical to the Dispensational scheme.
2. “Is your position in any way similar to historic Antinomianism, as found, for example, in the seventeenth century Baptist, Tobias Crisp?”
Absolutely not. First, I specifically repudiated Antinomianism in my articles, “Is There a Covenant of Grace?” (p. 48), “Crucial Thoughts on the Covenants,” (p. 16).
Secondly, I do not hold to the central tenet of Antinomianism, which is that “Law and Gospel are two distinct orders and that, in the life of the Christian, the order of Law ought to be replaced by the order of the Gospel” (Bengt Hagglund, History of Theology, 1966, p. 233).
I do believe that the Old Covenant and New Covenant are two separate covenant administrations, and that the Old has been abolished and replaced by the New. This much the Scriptures clearly teach. But the order of the gospel is an administration of law — the law of Christ. Thus when Antinomians taught that “Law should not be preached among Christians” (Hagglund, p. 282), they made the fatal mistake of driving a wedge between law and gospel. Numerous specific commandments are to be proclaimed and enforced in the New Covenant.
Thirdly, I do not see any kinship between Tobias Crisp’s views and my own. An original English document entitled “The Antinomian Conclusions as Understood by Most Auditors in 1644" (cited on p. 8 of Antinomianism in English History by Gertrude Huehns, London, 1951) includes the following seven points, and no doubt the influence of Crisp’s ideas is heavily felt –
a. God does not inflict punishment on the elect for their sins. I reject this point; the elect are disciplined for their sins.
b. God is never angry with the elect. I reject this point; the fact that God chastens His people is indication enough of His displeasure.
c. God sees no sin in His elect. I reject this point; of course, from the vantage point of free justification, God views us as covered in Christ*s imputed righteousness, but in terms of our daily practice, God certainly takes note of our sins.
d. The elect are always loved by God “be they ever so great sinners, yea in the very act of sin itself.” I reject this point; in terms of our practice, God is angry with us when we are in acts of sin, and because He loves us He sends appropriate discipline.
e. “That sanctification of life, in duties of piety, is nothing at all esteemed of God.” I reject this point; active pursuing of holiness is very important and without it no man shall see God.
f. The godly find no difficulty in the way to heaven. I reject this point; the way is narrow and filled with difficulties; therefore, the elect meet great opposition in pursuing the ways of Christ.
g. The elect are able to discern between God*s people and the wicked. I reject the spirit of this point; as if the elect can infallibly discern who is in and out of the kingdom.
Furthermore, in light of points c and d, the Antinomians tended to a form of perfectionism, for it was “impossible for them to
recognize the existence of evil in themselves” (Huehns, p. 15; cf. pp. 16, 44, 65, 154). I, of course, reject this error; the elect will always have remaining corruption in themselves which is properly designated as “sin.”
The Arminian Methodist, John Fletcher, in his Checks to Antinomianism defines this error as “any kind of doctrinal or practical opposition to God’s law . . . “thou shalt love God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself” (Works, vol.1, p. 100). I do not see how my views can fit his definition, for I believe in promoting God*s law as summarized in those two over-arching commandments (Matthew 22:36-40).
I find myself in agreement with the following statement by Fletcher –
“I answer, in the apostle’s days, that expression, the law, frequently meant “the whole Mosaic dispensation,” and in that sense every believer is dead to all that Christ has not adopted” (p 101).
Fletcher later cites John Flavel as a “sound” Calvinist who opposed Antinomianism. Three errors are listed which Flavel found in Antinomianism –
1. “all vilifying expressions of God*s holy law,”
2. “all opinions inclining men to neglect duties of obedience,”
3. “all opinions neglecting sanctification as the evidence of justification” (p. 23l).
I cannot see how my views fall into these three categories, for I would speak highly of God’s law, urge men to obey the gospel and follow hard after sanctification.
The only area where I can see that a misunderstanding is possible is in defining what “law” is for the Christian, and this is primarily a redemptive-historical consideration.
In the twelve-volume New Schaff/Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1908, vol. 1, p. 198), Thomas Gataker’s Antinomianism Discovered and Confuted (1652) is quoted. All of his marks of Antinomianism have been denied by me above. But his first mark is “that the moral law is of no use at all to a believer, nor a rule for him to walk in, nor to examine his life by.”
Now, I clearly stated that nine of the Ten Commandments are enforced in the New Covenant (“Crucial Thoughts,” p. 13), so without any reservation I fully believe that these commandments are of use to believers, a rule of life for them to walk in and to examine their life by. The interpretation of the Sabbath commandment finds no unanimity among believers, so belief that it has been fulfilled in Christ certainly does not put one in the camp of Antinomianism.
I, like Paul, am not huponomian (”under law”), anomian (“without law”), or antinomian (“against law”). I am certainly ennomian (”in law”) to our Lord Jesus Christ.
I think the problem of Antinomianism at its root was that it “placed them (the elect) above the law and exempted them from all considerations of conduct” (“Introduction,” p. li of Charles F. Adams’ The Antinomian Controversy, 1892). I have no sympathies with this conception. The elect are “in law” to Christ, and the New Testament is replete with exhortations to duty, and warnings for those who walk carelessly.
3. “In light of the criticisms you have articulated regarding the Puritan use of several Scriptures, are you thereby implying that the Puritan tradition is no longer of any value?”
Not at all. The Puritans were tremendous theologians of the heart. As with any tradition in the mainstream of evangelical Christianity, we would be sinning against Christ if we discarded the written remains of past gifts to the church.
The Puritans would be upset with us if we were to continue their tradition without entering into fresh theological investigation ourselves. Few would want to say that the Puritan tradition “said all that can be said.” Rather, the church must be constantly reforming, and bringing its thoughts into further conformity to Christ’s will.
The Puritan movement came to expression in a particular historical environment where church and state were joined together. This latter fact colored much of their activity, and, I believe, caused them to err in several crucial areas.
In seeking to be honest with Scripture, we must allow the results of exegesis to correct any tradition, including that of the Puritans. We must be faithful to Scripture, and reject that which is contrary to it.
I hope that I have given you much to ponder. I admit that the implications of what I have set forth are far-reaching, and especially indicate that we must re-orient in our minds and hearts the rightful focus upon Christ and His Word in our preaching and conduct.
I trust you will think through this issue of “law” seriously, and give your due attention to this weighty and important matter. If we confess that the Scriptures are our only guide, then let us not uncritically follow any tradition, and, like the Bereans, let us search the Scriptures daily to see what is true (Acts 17:11).
As Thomas Manton said in 1693, “Antiquity without Scripture is no sure rule to walk by” (An Exposition of the Epistle of James, London, 1962, pp. 384-385). And, in conclusion, let us give heed always to the exhortation of Samuel Bolton in 1645 –
“We must not give up ourselves to the opinion of other men, though they be never so learned, never so holy, merely because it is their opinion. The apostle directs us to try all things and to hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21; p. 221).
___________________________________________________
Letters and Opening Remarks
The Rightful Focus of the Old Testament: The Person and Work of Christ
The Rightful Relationship of Christ to the Law: Fulfillment and Setting Aside
The Rightful Focus of the Believer's Obedience: The Teaching of Christ
The Rightful Identification of the Law in the History of Mankind
The Rightful View of Law in Paul: Fulfill the Law of Christ