Are we to infer that God commands us not to work on the Sabbath in order that we might enjoy 21st century entertainment on the Lord’s Day? Are all non-work lawful pleasures that are suitable for Saturdays somehow appropriate for Sunday? Did God command rest for one day in seven so that 21st century moms and dads would be free on Sundays to take their children to their soccer games? It should be apparent, the Divines did not base their view of Sabbath recreation solely on Isaiah 58:13-14. 

R.C. Sproul cites three so-called “controversies” in church history surrounding the Christian Sabbath. Is the Sabbath obligatory for the New Testament Church? If it is, should the Sabbath continue to be the seventh day of the week, the first day of the week, or is the day of the week up for grabs. Thirdly, Sproul raises a difference of opinion within the church regarding Sabbath recreation and acts of mercy. So, Sproul cites two defeated views, then fastens his wagon to a third. I’ll address them one-by-one.
Obligatory nature of the Sabbath
“Augustine, for example, believed that nine of the Ten Commandments (the so-called “moral law” of the Old Testament) were still intact and imposed obligations upon the Christian church… Augustine was persuaded that the Old Testament Sabbath law had been abrogated. Others have argued that because the Sabbath was instituted originally not in the Mosaic economy but in creation, it maintains its status of moral law as long as the creation is intact.”
There’s no doubt, Augustine was the theological giant of his day. However, Augustine lived 1600 years ago and anyone holding to his theology today could not be ordained in a Reformed Presbyterian church. That speaks to how far God has brought his church.
Many giants have stood on Augustine’s shoulders. Yet today’s Reformed church, with its elevated line to truth on the horizon, repudiates several of Augustine’s theological positions such as paedocommunion, the classification of non-elect regenerate persons, the abrogation of the Sabbath principle and more.
Of course, there are always theological “controversies” in the church but controversy does not lend credence to a defeated view held by an otherwise notable theologian of his day. That Augustine reduced the Ten Commandants to nine merely corroborates the Reformed understanding of the progressive doctrinal illumination of the church. We should expect that doctrine has been refined from Augustine’s day, through the time of the Protestant Reformation, to this very day within the Reformed tradition. Accordingly, any reference to Augustine that gives credence to a non-confessional Sabbath view gives equal credence to paedocommunion and losing one’s salvation, which resurfaced without warm ecclesiastical welcome in the fleeting phase of Federal Vision.
Saturday, Sunday or any day?
“The second major controversy is the question about the day of the week on which the Sabbath is to be observed. Some insist that… since the Old Testament Israelites celebrated the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week, which would be Saturday, we should follow that pattern.”
Sproul gives no details of who was embroiled in the controversy, so it’s hard to comment. As for today it’s safe to say that the Millerite movement that culminated in the Seventh-day Adventist sect and the teachings of its former prophetess, Ellen White, have no seat at the Reformed table. Nor do Saturday Sabbath cults like those that embrace Armstrongism and House of Yahwey heresies, or views held within the Hebrews Roots movement.
But back to basics. What is the relevance of citing the defeated side of a settled “controversy” by an appeal to a particular theologian? Would we lend credence to slavery because an otherwise notable statesman owned slaves? That a particular theologian (past or present) disagrees with the church might be interesting but it is neither surprising nor seemingly relevant.
Indeed, if it is one’s intention to lend credence to doctrines that lost the debate by citing notable theologians who were on the wrong side of the church, then how far might we take this approach? Should we revisit the credibility of the “transubstantiation of the mass” because Thomas Aquinas was sound on other doctrine? Where is Sproul hoping to lead us? Controversial debate might create doubt in the minds of the less theologically grounded, but can it lend credence to either side of an issue, especially to the losing side in a progressively illuminated church?
“John Calvin argued that it would be legitimate to have the Sabbath day on any day if all of the churches would agree, because the principle in view was the regular assembling of the saints for corporate worship and for the observation of rest.”
Well, Calvin didn’t have the benefit of the Westminster Divines as it relates to their mature thought on the Regulative Principle of Worship, Christian Liberty of Conscience and Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day, which through theological synthesis overturns the view that the church may determine which day in seven can be constituted as the Lord’s Day. The Divines with good reason rejected Articles XX and XXXIV of the church of England. Again, what’s the point of the history lesson?
How does historical controversy lend credence to, or cast doubt upon, settled error and in this particular case on the church’s alleged right to dictate religious rites and holy days?
Recreation and Acts of Mercy
“Within the Reformed tradition, the most significant controversy that has appeared through the ages is the question of how the Sabbath is to be observed. There are two major positions within the Reformed tradition on this question. To make matters simple, we will refer to them as the Continental view of the Sabbath and the Puritan view of the Sabbath.”
Tagging with an impressive label a non-confessional view might give people a subjective sense of theological backing but it cannot provide objective confessional or ecclesiastical backing. Moreover, as church historian and professor R. Scott Clark has argued, this rejected view, commonly referred to as “the Continental view” of the Sabbath, is thought by some to entail spurious revisionism. Or as Dr. Clark would have it:

“There was no consciousness in the classical period of a distinctly “British” or ‘Continental’ view of anything. There was simply an international Reformed theology, piety, and practice.”

See also the Synod of Dort on sabbath observance:
“This same day is thus consecrated for divine worship, so that in it one might rest from all servile works (with these excepted, which are works of charity and pressing necessity) and from those recreations which impede the worship of God.”
Back to Sproul:
“The Puritan view argues against the acceptability of recreation on the Sabbath day. The text most often cited to support this view is Isaiah 58:13-14…The crux of the matter in this passage is the prophetic critique of people doing their own pleasure on the Sabbath day. The assumption that many make with respect to this text is that doing one’s own pleasure must refer to recreation. If this is the case, the prophet Isaiah was adding new dimensions to the Old Testament law with respect to Sabbath-keeping.”
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

From small artifacts to larger sites, recent discoveries lend proof to biblical accounts. For example, DNA found in the City of David confirmed that the Philistines, Israel’s main enemy during the reign of King David, turned out to be exactly the sort of people the Old Testament described. A smaller discovery was of a signet ring that confirmed the detail of an Old Testament character who only gets a passing mention in 2 Kings. And, of course, there was the discovery of the site of the Pool of Siloam, where we know Jesus walked.  

A recent article in Britain’s The Daily Mail suggested that the prophets Amos and Zechariah may have had something right. As the writer put it, 
A scientific breakthrough has exposed the truth about a site in ancient Jerusalem, overturning expert opinion and vindicating the Bible’s account. Until now, experts believed a stretch of wall in the original heart of the city was built by Hezekiah, King of Judah, whose reign straddled the seventh and eighth centuries BC. … But now an almost decade-long study has revealed it was built by his great-grandfather, Uzziah, after a huge earthquake, echoing the account of the Bible. 
“… echoing the account of the Bible.” The story reminds me of a scene from a Pirates of the Caribbean movie, when a character says to Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow, “You actually were telling the truth.” To which Captain Jack replied, “I do that quite a lot. Yet people are always surprised.” 
Throughout the last century, and especially in the last few decades, the scholarly world has been “surprised” to find that the biblical authors were telling the truth. Skeptics assume that the content of the Bible is more “pious fraud” than history, a well-intentioned story to inspire the faithful. And yet the reliability of the Word of God has been repeatedly affirmed, as more biblical archaeological sites are discovered and more extra-biblical sources corroborate biblical events.  
Read More
Related Posts:

Do not be satisfied to live in the shell of Christianity with all the forms and religious talk without truly believing. Remember what Jesus said, “You are my disciples if you abide [remain] in what I have said. And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (John 8 ). Live honestly. There is a way forward if you do.

It is oxymoronic that a person can happily claim the title of Believer in Christ, while simultaneously not fully and happily accepting as true the actual words of Christ and of his apostles and prophets which is explicit in that title, and must be true if there is any actual benefit of belief.
If you are a believer, then believe and follow unashamedly. Don’t pretend not to believe for fear of others who are skeptical. You have nothing to be ashamed of if you believe, say, in the way the Apostle Paul did, do you?
But if you are only an interested observer, do not take the title of believer until you do. If you are a curious but doubtful, then be that openly and humbly until things change. If a seeker, then seek the truth until you find it.
Read More
Related Posts: