History was made yesterday as the first official IFA football match was played on Sunday in N.Ireland.
There was some protest outside but the games went ahead with Glentoran gaining a 1-0 win over Bangor.
Just thought I'd fire a post up about such an occasion & ask what your views are on Sunday Sport?
Monday 8 September 2008
About Boaly
Gary has been involved in printing the Scriptures for 20 years, enjoys photography and rambling online
41 comments:
-
Sunday sport is just the next logical step in the erosion of Christianity from public society, the next step in the privatising of religion, and the next move to erase God from the conscience of the populace.
No doubt some professing Christians will justify playing sports on Sunday, but they do so either in ignorance of the fact, or defiance of the fact that the Scriptures allow work in only two circumstances; works of mercy and works of necessity. Kicking an air-filled lump of leather around a field is clearly neither.
Paul -
2:01 pm
-
Paul you say
"the fact that the Scriptures allow work in only two circumstances; works of mercy and works of necessity."
Would you mind quoting the scriptures? -
4:26 pm
-
Yes of course Boaly,
The whole of the Old Testament law teaches these two principles and it is abundantly illustrated in too many places to mention here, both positive example of the Sabbath being kept, and negative examples of God's judgement coming on Sabbath-breakers.
However the clearest text on Sabbath-keeping is Matthew 12,
Matthew 12:1-12 “1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!” 3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 “how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 “Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? 6 “Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. 7 “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 “For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” 9 Now when He had departed from there, He went into their synagogue. 10 And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”--that they might accuse Him. 11 Then He said to them, “What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? 12 “Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.””
In this text Jesus and disciples "worked" in harvesting grain - by Christ's definition this was not Sabbath-breaking, why? Because it was necessary for the support of life etc.
Likewise he healed on the Sabbath because this was a work of mercy.
Since no other circumstances are specified whereby the Sabbath may be used other than for rest, worship, fellowship and such like, and these two other circumstances, Christianity has classically been against sports on the Sabbath, indeed there was uproar in Puritan England and Scotland over the introduction of "The Book of Sports" by King Charles which legally sanctioned sports and secular recreation on the Lord's Day.
Paul -
6:03 pm
-
The question then has to be asked as to where the New Testament clearly teaches that Sunday is now the Sabbath?
Indeed the early Christians met on the first day of the week, cause that's when Jesus arose, but culturally in for their day they would have either met early or later in the day, having work during that day - 6 days labour, sabbath (Sun - Fri) with sabbath on Sat.
And what do passages such as Col 2:16-17 mean
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ"
Or Romans 14:5
"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."
It is striking that the commandment about the sabbath is the only one of the 10 commandments not repeated in the New Testament?
I do totally agree with a sabbath principle, yet struggle to see a command for us under the New Covenant.
I do love that we have one day a week set aside for corporate worship & fully believe in the creation principle of sabbath rest rather than the law of sabbath.
I think as brothers we must remember Romans 14:5 & Col 2:16&17 in this discussion.
By the way thanks for your comments on this, I believe its healthy to discuss these things and am fully willing to be changed by the Word as God uses others to teach me. -
8:03 pm
-
With regard to Sabbath keeping we must remember that like marriage and work, Sabbath-keeping is a Creation Ordinance, i.e it was not brought into being at the issuing of the 10C...the 10 commandments are merely the formalisation in writing of what always had been the righteous will of God. See for example Exodus 16 (pre-law!).
In other words any discussion about whether Sabbath-keeping is Old Covenant Law but not binding under the New Covenant is null and void because man was created to work, (in general be married, i.e. fellowship) and rest from his work 1 in 7 in reflection of God Himself, not merely as a response to Old Covenant legislation. I would actually say that the command is in essence repeated in Matthew 12.
Regarding the change from Saturday Sabbath this is done becaue of the New Testament examples as you note above. I believe this must have been the teaching of Christ.
I believe the simplest and most obvious way to interpret the Rom, Galatians and Colossians passages is in the context in which they were written. All of these churches were under attack from Judaisers who were seeking to bind the Christians to keeping Jewish sabbaths and festivals and ceremonies. These have all been fulfilled in Christ, but the creation ordinances were not under dispute, and thereby I believe there was no question of Sunday Sabbath-keeping being dealt with at all...Paul is saying no one is bound to keep the Jewish days.
The Judaizers seem never taught that the Sunday Worship and Sabbath was void, but merely that the Saturday Sabbath was still in place as well.
I would reccomend highly Joseph Pipa's book The Lord's Day for a detailed and biblical discussion of the Sabbath Day. -
8:11 pm
-
Mmmm, Haven't heard it like that before, I think I'll have to look further, and get a copy of that book.
Thanks again for joining me in discussing this! -
8:52 pm
-
What's good about this book is that not only does it teach what the biblical view is, it encourages us not to view the Sabbath negatively as a day of "don't" but positively as a gift from God for joyful "doing".
Paul -
9:36 pm
-
Paul wrote."No doubt some professing Christians will justify playing sports on Sunday, but they do so either in ignorance of the fact, or defiance of the fact that the Scriptures allow work in only two circumstances; works of mercy and works of necessity. Kicking an air-filled lump of leather around a field is clearly neither."
Agreed.
On a personal note I was particularly sad to see that the Glens were among the first to desecrate God's day in this way. As a lifelong supporter it was pretty tough to read about this. -
2:15 am
-
Very interesting and thankfully civilised comments on this topic so far.
I have a question that maybe some of the more Biblically educated could help me with.
As far as the Jewish Sabbath was concerned, they were strict about so many things e.g. only travelling a 'Sabbath's day journey,' which was only 2000 cubits (3000 feet) {Joshua 3:4-5}.
If we as Christians are to regard Sunday as our Sabbath, does that mean that this law, and the other Jewish Sabbath laws, are now transferred to a Sunday, thus binding us to keep them? -
6:45 am
-
Can i disagree with the glens playing on a sunday and still get a chicken chow mein with curry sauce (separate) on the way home from church on a Sunday night?
-
11:18 am
-
Ian,
I wouldn't pretend to be a supporter of any Irish League team, indeed of any football team, but there is a sense of irony that the one of the first teams to do this is from the Protestant heartland of East Belfast!
Timotheus,
While I would not claim to be more Biblically educated than you, I would answer your question, which is an excellent one in this way. The Jewish laws you refer to were human inventions, and burdens over and above the law that the Pharisee's placed on the people, burdens they themselves could not bear...and were just another instance of them missing the heart of the law by covering it with a morass of regulations of their own hypocritical invention, thus Christ said,
Matthew 23:23 “23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.”
My favourite "law" was the one which banned women from looking in a mirror on the sabbath in case they spotted a grey hair, and pulled it out thereby breaking the Sabbath....I kid you not.
Even some matters of the ceremonial sabbath law that was legitimate are NOT transferred to the Sunday Sabbath, only the Creation ordinance maintained - i.e. a day sanctified unto the Lord for rest, recuperation, fellowship and above all worship and communion with God and works of evangelical kindness and love.
Kitchy,
Personally I think you choice would be wrong, whether the curry is separate or not is immaterial, Crispy Chilli Chicken and Fried Rice would be a much better choice.
However, seriously, this again is a good question and I would not want to bind your conscience on that one. If at 10pm on a Sunday night you get the munchies and have faithfully worshipped and fellowshipped then as your conscience would allow I think you could do as you suggest.
Personally I wouldn't, not because it would necessarily entail me breaking the Sabbath, but because I would feel that I would be contributing to an economy that necessitates others break the Sabbath by working...in other words in my conscience I think I would be failing to love my neighbour as myself.
A similar case can be seen in recent church history. The late John Murray (theologian in Princeton Seminary was never ordained in his home Scottish church because he maintained that a person should be allowed the liberty to use a public transport system that was running anyway, to access worship and for church attendance if they had no other means of transport and no biblical church within walking distance etc. He felt in that case that the more important thing was to worship God with God's people as per explicit command (Heb.10:25) that to miss out on that because of a scruple concerning the use of the extant system. I dare say many good Christians must of necessity use the Tube in London for the same reason.
In these questions I always where possible and where conscious of choices err on the safe side.
Good questions brothers.
Paul -
12:52 pm
-
Reformedandbaptist said
"Regarding the change from Saturday Sabbath this is done becaue of the New Testament examples as you note above. I believe this must have been the teaching of Christ."
As you mentioned in another post "Sabbath-keeping is a Creation Ordinance".
Now as this is one of God's foundation commandments; is it not likely that Jesus would have mentioned the change somewhere rather than leaving us to second guess from the Apostles actions? To me a change of day for the Sabbath would be of some magnitude?
Also Paul was a lifelong Sabbath keeper and he does not mention a change anywhere.
From studying history it appears that the Sunday (the day of the sun) was the rest day of the pagan Roman Empire.
Can it be that Sunday observance is one of those traditions, like Easter and Christmas, which has rather blurred roots?
According to the Ausburg Confession of Faith "The observance of the Lord's Day (Sunday) is founded, not on any command of God, but on the authority of the Church" I'm supposing this must have been the church pre-reformation?
Can the change of Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday have possibly been one of those clever tactics of the evil one to ensure that God's people are misled? -
7:32 pm
-
JimFlem,
I honestly would not be in a position to discuss what the probabilities of Jesus teaching on it or not is,or rather the probabilities of it being recorded are. I am absolutely sure that he did, for why else would the church have adopted Sunday?
The fact remains that it is not recorded. Wouldn't it have been nice if perhaps the Apostles and Christ had been just that little bit clearer about say baptism?....you would think given it's importance they "probably" would have dealt with it in more detail. I'm not being sarcastic, just drawing an analogy which shows that probability really is not an accurate measure in this case.
Since we only have data that shows the early church meeting on a Sunday and not on a Saturday the obvious and necessary implication is that this was in keeping with both Christ's and the Apostle's teaching. I dare say the early Jewish Christians probably kept both sabbaths to some degree for a while. The fact is either we meet on the Sunday following the example of the earlier church or we have zero information and can do whatever we want.
As such there can be no question at all of "blurred roots" the Christian church knows nothing so far as the infallible inerrant word of God is concerned than a Sunday sabbath...and that from it's inception.
Why Sunday? More than likely it is to do with the rising of our Lord on that day, since we're not told we can't be sure, the fact that "Sunday" just happened to be the same day as some pagans celebrated is incidental, and while many have attempted to make that connection so far as I know there is no historical/archaeological/manuscript evidence to support that theory.
So far as this being a tactic of the Evil One, I have no doubts this is NOT the case - since then what you are saying is that the early Christians were basically instantly deceived by the Devil at the inception of the Church and and the Apostles who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is unthinkable. And the whole church basically to a man up to this very day is still permeating his devices. That I cannot buy.
I'm not terribly familiar with the Ausburg Confession but I could certainly understand it to be saying the same as I have said...there IS no explicit command, but the early church practice DOES set the precedent which has been followed.
Paul -
7:59 pm
-
Well well, this post has really kicked off - the comments are flying.
Firstly, many thanks to you Boaly for facilitating this - what has now become a very interesting discussion on the sabbath.
Secondly, many thanks to you Paul for taking the time and effort to answer my question so conscientiously.
I like that law banning women from looking in the mirror on the sabbath. Perhaps the church should reinstate that one and then I won't be late for anything ever again.
Paul, in your answer to me, you said;
"Even some matters of the ceremonial sabbath law that was legitimate are NOT transferred to the Sunday Sabbath."
My question arising from this is how do we know what legitmate ceremonial sabbath laws ARE transferred from the Jewish sabbath to sunday?
Is there a verse or verses in the New Testament which tell us about this? -
8:14 pm
-
Sorry Paul, your comment to jimflem hadn't been published when I started to type my above question. It took me so long to type it! No need to answer if you don't want to as it covers a lot of the same ground in your answer to jimflem.
-
8:20 pm
-
Timotheus,
That maybe came out more complicated than it was meant to! All I meant by that phrase was that under the old covenant there was a Sabbath but also sabbaths, i.e. special sabbaths, or rather special things to do on certain sabbaths (e.g. Leviticus 23).
My point was that New Covenant Sabbath-keeping is very simple and uncomplicated like it was pre-Levitical ceremonial law which foreshadowed aspects of Christ.
Paul -
8:24 pm
-
Thanks again Paul for your exceedingly fast answer in this "sabbath forum."
I have one more question that has been on my mind for ages - and as this discussion is topical I thought now would be the best time to ask it.
In my experience, a lot of Christians quote the sabbath law from the 10 commandments (Ex. 20) as there scriptural support for the sabbatarian viewpoint.
If this was the case then we should not only observe one rest day, but we should also work a 6 day week!
Exodus 20:9 "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work..."
Has anyone else ever noticed this? Personally speaking, I am very thankful to get Saturday and Sunday off work. -
8:37 pm
-
Timotheus,
I'm afraid I'm not sure I can offer you anything fresh there, and indeed would be content to admit that this may indeed be an area of widespread inconsistency.
Interestingly Work is another of the Creation ordinances, and the consistent view would be that we are to work 6 days. Indeed it would not be too much to say that the Sabbath rest is meaningless without the 6 days labour. Likewise we must say that like marriage and Sabbath, 6 days of work is both a duty and a blessing for mankind. In other words if we don't do it we're the losers!
John Murray comments on this in his book Principles of Conduct,
"We can be quite certain that a great many of our physical and economic ills proceed from failure to observe the weekly day of rest. But we can be equally sure that a great many economic ills arise from our failure to recognise the sanctity of the six days of labour"
This is exactly your point!
Now an interesting question is this. If we all worked 6 days, would we be happier to be at church and at home rather than, just to pick something from the air, go to football matches? Give an inch and take a mile comes to mind! Would we have the widespread problems of drunkeness and violence and a largely immoral entertainment industry if we all worked 6 and rested 1? It's worth thinking about. The old saying is surely true - "the devil makes work fro idle hands".
I've thought about this myself quite often and the best I can come up with is this.
We must take ourselves out of modern life for a second or two. When the ordinance was made there was a different economic structure - Adam looked after the garden, he didn't get paid, had no contracted hours etc. etc. It was an agricultural, subsistence economy and so forth. Nevertheless the principle still applys - six days labour. However I think the point was don't be idle....do something useful for 6 days, as it were. Work was not defined by contract but by applications to tasks, and avoiding idleness.
Back to our era then, of necessity we have a very structered, regulates economy, and while it is possible to get a second job on the Saturday, but the command does not necessitate I think that the "work" must be paid, salaried, contracted work. Quite frequently those who are contracted for 5 days will "do useful stuff on the sixth"....wash the car, cut the grass, paint the windows, do the groceries etc....hence they are not idle when they do these things.
So I suppose under the current economy as men we should be working at least five, doing useful stuff for 1 and resting and worshpping for1.
But then what about shift patterns? 4 longs days on, 3 off? Hmmm. It really does get complicated !
I suppose as with all the laws - it is the heart that is the main thing, do we have a heart for employment and labour and usefulness or a heart that craves idleness and time-wasting pursuits which surely if nothing else contravene 1 Cor 10:31.
Anybody else any ideas on this one?
Paul -
9:20 pm
-
Hi Gary,
Hope you and the family are keeping well.
May I recommend to all contributers of this post the following sermon by Dr Alan Cairns - ‘Remember the Sabbath Day’
(http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5977)
This was of great benefit to me when I was seeking to establish whether the fourth commandment was still binding in the New Testament age.
Stephen -
10:18 pm
-
Mr Mcareavey, how's things brother?
Good to hear from you.
Thanks for the sermon recommendation, I'll try to get listening it in the next couple of days.
How's things with yourself? -
10:28 pm
-
Paul
Thanks for your reply.
I'm still confused and still find it very hard to believe that such a seismic shift from Saturday to Sunday wouldn't warrant at least a few verses.
I don't think your analogy with baptism is all that helpful. From reading Acts the Apostles actions on baptism are very clear; that baptised in the name of Jesus. -
10:41 pm
-
JimFlem,
You misunderstand me, or I wrote it unclearly.
I'm wasn't saying anything about whose name we baptised in..what I'm saying is that given the magnitude of church division there has been and is with regard to the mode and subjects of baptism you would think a clear text like "you shall baptise only adults when they profess faith in Christ" or "you may baptise infants of Christian parents"....would have been helpful....but there is a right way and a wrong way and there is definitely enough there to determine the mind of Christ on it, if we were not too sinful to see it.
Likewise while there is no clear statement of the change from Saturday to Sunday - "Jesus taught the disciples that the Sabbath was to be moved to the 1st Day".....I believe there is enough evidence there to teach us that that it was changed from Sat. to Sunday.
In other words a clear statement would have cleared up the ambiguity with regard to both baptism and Sabbath..but we don't have one for either.
Just to be clear baptism is always to be in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit.
Matthew 28:19 “19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”
I'm not sure the shift is as seismic as you think. Where in the history of the church or secular history or Jewish history do the seismic cracks appear, where is the massive controversy. -
11:00 pm
-
Gary,
I'm keeping well thanks.
The following is taken from the 'Dictionary of Theological Terms' by Alan Cairns
A Keeping of Sabbath Remains. We may question if the NT really remains silent on the matter. Heb 4:9, 10 says "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his." Throughout Heb 4, the Greek word 'katapausis' is used to signify "rest." In verse 9 the word is 'sabbatismos', which means "a sabbatism" or "a keeping of sabbath." Any exegesis of Heb 4 must take note of and do full justice to the introduction by the Holy Spirit of this word. Every exegesis that removes all reference to the keeping of the sabbath from the apostle's argument fails to do justice to the special character of the word and furnishes no real reason why 'katapausis' should not have been used.
The most popular interpretation of the verse is to make it refer to the future rest of the redeemed in heaven, and, it is said, the word 'sabbatismos' is introduced to lend emphasis to the idea. But why then is it dropped in verse 10? If the text (Heb 4:9) had appeared in our version as, "Therefore, there is left to the people of God a keeping of sabbath," it is doubtful if any bible reader would have imagined a reference to heaven.
The word 'remaineth' is important. The original verb is 'apoleipomai,' and it signifies "to be left with something going before." What is it that is left to the people of God? A keeping of the sabbath, for that is the only meaning that the word 'sabbatismos' can have. John Owen held that it was "undeniably manifest that the apostle here proves and asserts the granting of an evangelical sabbath, or day of rest, for the worship of God to be constantly observed" -
12:13 am
-
Thanks Paul.
Excellent answer to my question. I never really thought about things like cutting the grass and sorting the house out (which we all seem to do on a Saturday) as a type of 'work.'
It got me thinking about housewives and the fact that they are at home for most, if not all of the time, without any contract of employment etc. - yet I would be a brave and foolish man to suggest that looking after the children, the husband and the house is anything less than hard labour. Oh yes, and they do it for 7 days a week! -
6:51 am
-
I was just reading in 'From Sabbath to Lord's Day' (edited by D.A. Carson) something I thought quite interesting.
'In the last two chapters we traced the developement of sabbatarian views in Christian theology over a long period leading to a sabbatarian doctrine that was accepted nearly unanimously in the scolastic theology of the later middle ages. This developement was reversed by the protestant reformers of the sixteenth century, who returned to a less sabbatarian position closer to the views of the New Testament writers and early fathers. A new sabbatarianism, however rapidly developed in the protestant tradition, espicially in English puritanism"
He then quotes Luther:
"If anywhere the day is made holy for the mere day's sake - if anywhere anyone sets up its observance on a jewish foundation, then I order you to work on it, to ride on it, to dance on it, to feast on it, to do anything that shall remove this encroachment on Christian liberty."
Luther also says:
"For where the sabbath law is kept for the sake of rest alone, it is clear that he who does not need rest may break the sabbath and rest on some other day, as nature allows".
The Augsburg confession (1530) says:
"The Scripture, which teacheth that all the mosaic ceremonies can be omitted after the gospel is revealed, has abrogated the sabbath. And yet, because it was requisite to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the church did for that purpose appoint the Lord's day: which for this cause also seemed to have been pleasing, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the observation, neither of the Sabbath, nor of another day, was of necessity".
"Calvin also stressed that the institution of the weekly sunday is a matter of convenience and order only, since daily public worship would be impractical. He said
"I answer that we do not by any means observe days, as though there were any sacredness in holidays, or as though it were not lawful to labour on them, but that respect is paid to government and order - not to days"."
Just thought it was interesting -
9:52 am
-
Boaly,
I haven't read Carson's book but am familiar with his thesis I believe, which is that the Christian Sabbath is a convenience for the good order of the church -this is no doubt correct. He also cites the early reformers and like many is seeking to see if there is a difference in opinion between the continental reformers and the british reformers. There does seem to be a difference...but then Calvin and Luther were not inspired nor were they the last word in reformed or exegetical matters in history....Reformation must be continual.
However arguments such as this from historical theology should not be conclusive lest we make tradition equal with or above Scripture which is to be exegeted and understood by itself, it and it alone is authoritative not man's interpretation there-of. So while we must never ignore the Church's dogma, it must not stand alone. I myself have to be conscious of this danger given my confessional puritan background.
However the big weakness in almost all the early reformers, in my humble opinion was their inability to see the fact that the Sabbath is founded in creation...and that Sabbath-keeping under the Old Covenant Law was based on that foundational creation ordinance, therefore the Law did not create Sabbath-keeping, but enshrined it in stone, and the levitical laws added more details to its regulation.
Paul -
10:33 am
-
By the way here is an excellent recent article dealing with many of the things discussed here,
http://opc.org/GA/sabbath.html
Paul -
10:42 am
-
I totally agree that luther & Calvin weren't inspired, sorry if I came accross that way - I just found it interesting that this was their conclusion of what Scripture was teaches on the sabbath.
Its certianly an interesting debate & I have to say I'm learning a fair bit by it. Thanks for everyone who's involved here, especially to Paul for taking the time to discuss this with us.
It's great that its a very civil discussion as so many of these things can get heated very fast! -
10:45 am
-
Boaly,
You didn't come across that way!
But lot's of folk do have tendency to become fixated...if Darby says.....Calvin says....etc....Historical Theology is good and necessary, but it has it's dangers.
I think you can detect progress all through history in theological development, thus Nicene and Chalcedon progresses our understanding of Christ and the Trinity...and then the Augustine clarifies grace, and Calvin clarifies, pretty much everything, but that doesn't make him infallible. The man was genius - but like he was wrong on baptism :-) .
I think the Puritans moved us forward greatly even beyond Calvin.. Indeed I think Presbytrians have progressed the civil/church relationship in recent centuries beyond the Puritan view. and who knows perhaps we will take a step forward in our generation.
In context I with regard to the Sabbath it's important we don't become entrenched in historical categories which blind us to the Word, the same as any other doctrine really.
I've enjoyed the discussion greatly, because I get the impression and hopefully am presenting the impression that we are genuinely seeking the truth together.
For my money the most important texts regarding the Sabbath are Matthew 12, Exodus 16, and Genesis 2. Everything else must circulate and be interpreted in light of them.
Paul -
11:10 am
-
Paul you say:
"I've enjoyed the discussion greatly, because I get the impression and hopefully am presenting the impression that we are genuinely seeking the truth together."
I say "A HUGE AMEN to that!" -
11:39 am
-
Paul on water baptism you quoted Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”
Can't argue with that scripture Paul but to add to the theme of ambiguity..........
Acts 2:38
Peter instructed "be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ"
Acts 8:16
".......they had only been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus"
Acts 10:48
"So he ordered them to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ"
Acts 19:5
"When they heard this they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus"
Now I'm really confused........
There are arguments here for both having the Sabbath on Saturday or Sunday and also for being baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holt Spirit and also in the name of Jesus! -
12:03 pm
-
JimFlem,
The Reformation principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture must frequently be applied in understanding the Bible; baptism and the Sabbath issue are not the only doctrines which can at times be problematic. Taking one text or even a few texts on their own can never build a strong doctrinal basis, all Scripture is given for....(2 Tim 3:16&17) this means not only that Scripture is the only authority but that ALL of Scripture must be applied to our understanding.
The general principle is that unclear texts must be interpreted in light of clear passages. This is also called the analogy of faith.
In this case since the Great Commission takes the form of a clear unambiguous direct command of Christ the Incarnate Son of God the other texts must be seen in the light of that and interpreted in keeping with it. Thus the Church has by a huge majority in history always had a trinitarian form for baptism.
The only folks who do otherwise are those with aberrant and heretical doctrines of the Trinity and the Person of Christ such as the Jehovah's Witness and Oneness Pentecostalists who are Sabbellian in doctrine. -
12:25 pm
-
Hi Paul
Yeah I understand where you're coming from but does that mean that Apostles like Peter, James, John and Paul had got it wrong? As you put it did they practice aberrant and heretical doctrines?
As they had been personally instructed by Jesus over the course of His ministry on earth, could they have then ignored His clear command from Matthew 28 and done their own thing?
One terrible thought going through my mind is what if Matthew 28:19 has been slightly mis-interperted or that those examples from Acts, which I used, have been changed to suit some particular doctrine? Alarm bells are ringing!
I'm seriously puzzled..........and I have to say that on face value from scripture there is slightly more evidence for baptism in the name of Jesus rather than in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I guess we'll never really know until the Lord reveals it in the New Jerusalem. -
1:10 pm
-
Fear not JimFlem (is it Jim?)
There is a textual variant in at least the Acts 10 passage, that is some manuscripts have Lord instead of Jesus Christ, but it is still not the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28.
There are no textual variants in Matthew 28..all extant manuscripts have the full trinitarian formula. Some critics have pointed out that there is no manuscript evidence from before the 4th century, true but then we don't yet have any manuscripts from that period anyway, so this is a poor argument from silence.
What we do have are writings of men from earlier periods who all use the full three person formula; Ignatiues (died 110AD), Irenaeus (d 202) Tertullian (d 250)...you get the picture.
So there can be no doubt that the Matthew 28:19 is genuine and orginal.
That only partly answers your question (I hope Boaly doesn't mind our digression?). Why is the shortened form used in the other places?
Well I think the best, though not entirely satisfactory, answer is that in the other texts the author/preacher/speakers intention is not to describe or prescribe the form of words to be used but to exhort or command the folks he was writing to or preaching to, to receive Christian baptism, as opposed to John the Baptist baptism, or Jewish Proselyte baptism (which sometimes happened when a Gentile converted to Judaism). John the Baptist's baptism is called a baptism of repentance.
So just as we take about someone being baptised, or Christian baptism (baptism of Chris!) we do not mean to be understood to be advocating that Christian baptism in not in the name of Father, Son and Spirit.
In other words I suppose what I'm saying is that all these others texts are saying is that Peter etc. were commanding the new converts to be baptised....Christian baptism that is.
Paul -
1:40 pm
-
Also JimFlem I forgot to mention Acts 19:1-7
Acts 19:1-7 “1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.”
Here we see Paul asks the men if they had received the Holy Spirit..they basically say WHO?....Paul then it seems to me is surprised and asks them in what way then were they baptized....the implication is that if they had been properly baptised they would have heard the name of the Holy Spirit at least...how through the trinitarian formula as per Matt 28!..He then proceeds to baptise them again....more than likely mentioning the Holy Spirit at least even though it is termed as the baptism of the Lord Jesus.
Paul -
2:10 pm
-
Hi Paul
Think he (Paul) was actually praying for them to have the infilling (baptism) of the Holy Spirit, i.e. the Pentecostal experience of Acts 2. They had already had water baptism.
Thanks for the debate, some interesting stuff.
God bless
Jim -
10:58 pm
-
Forgot to mention - the most important matter about the Sunday game, whichever day you believe to be the Sabbath, is that the Glens won!!
Jim -
10:59 pm
-
JimFlem,
He was as you note praying for the Spirit to come on them, but only after he baptised them again, it says so specifically in v5.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And then he laid hands on them, and then they received the Holy Spirit. Man doesn't baptise by the Spirit, God does that.
Thanks,
Paul -
7:14 am
-
This has heated up since I last checked in! The GBoal - is this number of comments a record for one of your posts?
-
2:44 pm
-
Gary,
You should read Dan Walker's testimony at http://www.lordsday.co.uk/Dan%20Walker.htm. He is a presenter for BBC Sport and BBC Sports News and a Christian who refuses to commentate on sporting events on a Sunday. -
11:06 pm
-
Thanks Stephen - interesting article! Class
-
9:48 am
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Amazon
Created with by OmTemplates | Distributed by GooyaabiTemplates