Sunday, July 08, 2007

THE COMMANDMENT THAT TIME MADE OPTIONAL


Isn't it interesting how many Christians today will fight to keep the 10 Commandments posted in the schools and court houses, but when it comes right down to it, many of these same Christians don't even believe that the 10 commandments are for them to follow as a rule of life? Go figure.

Here's one of those surprising things you learn when you study church history. You read the words of Charles Spurgeon talking about "profane Sabbath-breakers", and the Puritans talking about Sabbath-breaking in the same sentence as lying, lusting, and other moral failings. You read many of the greatest theologians and seminary professors essentially saying: "of course we believe in the Sabbath, it is one of the 10 commandments". Now fast forward a hundred years or two, and you find modern Christians, usually with a fraction as much bible knowledge, who are so sure of themselves that the Sabbath is no longer for today. So who's right, the new Christians, or the old ones?
As you can see by my recent participation in a thread on Ingrid's blog, this is a debate where I happen to come out on the side of the extreme minority, today. Statistically speaking, it's likely that even you (the Old Truth reader) disagrees with me on this topic. But it probably wouldn't have been that way in the past. In his booklet on the 10 Commandments, AW Pink diagnoses our present Christian era: "The fact that any man can escape the observance of [the 4th] Commandment is a sad reflection upon our modern social order, and shows how far we have departed from the Divine plan and ideal". And in Pink's writing The Redeemer's Return he wrote: "There is such an awful 'falling away' from the observance of the Holy Sabbath". He went on to say:
"All around us are people who are worldly-minded, money-lovers, pleasure-seekers, Sabbath-breakers, yet who think all is well with them because they have 'accepted Christ as their personal Savior'. In their aspiration, conversation, and recreation, there is practically nothing to differentiate them from those who make no profession at all. Neither in their home-life nor social-life is there anything except empty pretensions to distinguish them from others. The fear of God is not upon them, the commands of God have no authority over them, the holiness of God has no attraction for them." --AW Pink, Gospel Preaching Commanded
Chances are, if you've benefited from a quotation or book excerpt that I've ever posted here on Old Truth, the one that I quoted was probably a Sabbatarian. That's likely true of your favorite hymn writers and authors of commentaries as well.
You see, in many past times and places, the Christian Sabbath was a wonderful thing to behold. It was said of one town in England during the Puritan era: "On the Lord's Day all disorder became quite banished out of the town. As you passed along the streets on the Sabbath morning, you might hear a hundred households singing psalms at their family worship". It reminds me of the scripture that my pastor's father based a book on, which he entitled Call The Sabbath a Delight.
So why have today's Christians rejected the Sabbath?
In the aforementioned book, Walter Chantry explains the reason why many today have jettisoned the 4th Commandment. In his chapter which demonstrates that even the New Testament teaches the Sabbath, Chantry responds to the common thinking that it was "just for the Jews", saying:
"Such a response calls our attention to one of the great difficulties which arises when modern evangelicals discuss the bible and it's teaching. In the United States, the Bible School movement and the Scofield Bible have spread far and wide a system of thought called 'dispensationalism'. Dispensationalism is a theology which distorts one's understanding of Scripture and places blinders on Bible students. ... It is dispensationalism which has given the popular impression that a Christian may dismiss Old Testament teaching or Commandments unless it is repeated in the New Testament. ..."
Dispensationalism, of course is rather new in church history, and as you know, I am very suspicious of new ways to interpret the bible. There are many great dispensationalists that I respect (such as John MacArthur), but here is one area where I depart with their teaching in favor of the 'old truth'.
By now you probably have questions (or even protests) that you are itching to comment on. This should make for a some useful and friendly debate in the comments below, but before we get into the details, let me make a couple of things clear and set some ground rules:
Sabbatarians do NOT believe that those highly detailed rules (the ceremonial law) in the Old Testament are still for Christians today, however the 10 Commandments are not in the ceremonial law.
The Sabbath pre-dates the 10 Commandments, as the bible establishes this pattern: "for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day".
Let's save "what Christians should and should not do on the Sabbath" for another post. In this post I am simply interested in discussing whether the 10 commandments are still for Christians to follow.
Sabbatarians do NOT believe that Christians are justified (saved) by following the 10 Commandments. With the Holy Spirit's help we endeavor to follow them because we want to please the God who has saved us, though we know we will not do so perfectly in this life.
Be careful not to make the mistake of thinking that this is an easy issue to decide against. Consider whether it's an arrogant thing to say "all of those dead guys were wrong and I am right". Maybe you ARE right, but just to make sure, do some reading on this topic; one book that I especially recommend is The Lord's Day, by Joseph Pipa. Also see the Richard Barcellos links given by my blogging partner over at SBF.
And finally, resist the temptation to think that it's "fine for you but not for me". Either it's 100% right for everyone to obey this commandment, or it's equally right that none of us should. Could murder (or another commandment) be fine for one person but not another?

No comments: