His armory contains the relatively few scriptures that deal with the basic premise of Calvinism; mainly, that God has selected before time began, those who would be saved. These individuals would be the recipient of a mysterious inner enabling that would cause them to believe the Gospel. The obvious counterpart to this teaching, is of course, that by electing some, God, by default at least, was also electing some to eternal punishment.

This part of the theological equation is reluctantly acknowledged with much clarifying and a good deal of hedging, both by most Calvinists but here also by RC Sproul. No doubt sinners will go to Hell happier under Sproul’s explanation than the hyper Calvinist’s( or as the author calls them “sub-Calvinists"). The sub-Calvinist believes in double predestination which means that as God actively works on the elect to bring them to salvation, so He also actively works on the unsaved to make sure they don’t miss Hell. Sproul expresses horror at the implications to God’s character in this awful teaching. He is much more comfortable believing that God simply allows the sinner to go his way and thus justly wind up in Hell forever! Can anyone in their right mind find comfort for the honor of a God who does not lift His little finger to warn and save a blind sinner from an eternal Hell? And can anyone, except a Calvinist, believe that such a view as RC Sproul expresses is not as equally horrifying as the previous? Especially in light of the many clear passages to the contrary?

RC Sproul has confidence in his weapons; he, like all Calvinists, believe that they are placed on the high ground of God’s Sovereignty. After all “Who are you, oh man, to reply to God?” The problem with this position is that no Christian denies the Sovereignty of God. However, the Calvinist’s assumes that he alone speaks for God, so any opposition to his incorrect view is, in his eyes, the enemy of God. To question the Calvinist, is to question God! The truth of God, that He is Sovereign and holy is often used as an intimidating club to keep those of us who disagree with Calvinism at bay. For the record, God can do ANYTHING at ANYTIME as long as it is full accord with His revealed character and will. We do NOT question God’s Sovereignty; we simply look to the scriptures to see how He has deigned to exercise it in love. We reserve the right to “question the spirits, to see if they be of God.” This includes the Calvinist, who trumpets his love for the character of God and then besmirches it with his awful misuse of the Scriptures.

And then RC Sproul not only has confidence in his weaponry and position, he also glories in his “army”, men who espouse Calvinism. He says the unacceptable in a gracious way which in no way mitigates his obnoxious conclusion. The bottom line is that RC Sproul takes an elitist position here that is totally out of keeping with Christianity. He divides this Calvinist militia into the past and the present, with the past rosily viewed as those who should be listened to, since they all agreed on this theology. He even gives us a little table of comparison of the “greats” of the past who presumably were Calvinists, even though they disagreed on other points.

Augustine, St. Augustine that is, heads the list, as well he should. He is the true Calvinist, the one who Calvin viewed as his spiritual father. That Augustine was brilliant no one can argue. But does brilliance guarantee spiritual validity of concepts? Or should this brilliant philosopher/Christian’s teachings be checked against that of “ignorant and unlearned” fishermen instructed by the Master? Or against one who proved that brilliance of intellect is neither a barrier or a boon to truth, the Apostle Paul? Unequivocally, yes!

One only has to read one of Augustine’s sermons (the Good Samaritan passage comes to mind) to see the paucity of his hermeneutic skills. Such a sermon today would be a disgrace for a first year seminarian’s initial effort! Yet this is the mind and man behind Calvinism, one greatly influenced by his previous “spiritual” experiences and certainly the teachings of philosophy. One last comment on the so-called “church fathers”; one must realize that the Reformers for all their bravery and love for God, still made many mistakes, many of them from the influence of the errors of the “fathers! Perhaps the greatest Reformer’s mistake was to seek to reform the Catholic church rather than to leave and build a true church on the Apostolic teachings. May we learn from their grievous error and return fully to the scriptures and the Apostles, particularly Paul.

We shall now respond to RC Sproul’s main point in Chosen By God. That is, his dealing with what he considers the main point of Calvinism, the depravity of man including his moral inability. In fact, he declares that if one accepts the Biblical view of human corruption, the debate about predestination is over. I for one, do accept the Biblical teaching on the sinfulness of man, but the Calvinist’s\Reformed solution to that condition is not predestination. Predestination deals with the ultimate place that God has ordained for every believer. Sinners are not predestined to salvation. People in Christ, believers, are all predestined for glorification with Christ and will ultimately be like Him in the beauty of holiness.

The helplessness of the sinner in doing right gives the Calvinist opportunity to offer his unscriptural solution. Since the sinner is “dead”, the Calvinists would have God inject new life into him which would then cause him to believe on Jesus. So in effect, God raises someone from the dead and then they believe unto salvation. This is far superior, in their view, than a “mere external call”, that is, the Gospel preached. Amazingly, “mere external call” is RC Sproul’s description of preaching the Gospel!

Let us consider a Biblical explanation and a Biblical example that correct this Calvinistic solution to the problem of man’s sin. First of all, the Calvinist persists in likening spiritual death to physical death. This is proven to be an error since both Adam and Eve were promised (threatened?) that in the day they ate the forbidden fruit they would die. They ate but they did not die physically as promised. Yet they died spiritually, that is, they were separated from God’s presence and blessing. They tried to cover up, hide, and they were afraid: they were aware of their lost condition even as “dead” people!

Another Biblical example of spiritual death misunderstood by Calvinists, is that of Lazarus. Christ raised him from the dead with no help from Lazarus. The Calvinist points to this as an example of Christ imparting life into a dead sinner. But this is a misuse of the actual experience since Lazarus was a saved man when he died. This is NOT a picture of a dead sinner raised to new life in Christ, but rather a preview of that time when Christ will physically raise all believer’s bodies to new life!

Back to dead Adam and Eve; how did they experience the grace of God to sinners? God came and preached the Gospel to them, even demonstrating same by shedding the blood of an animal to picture the death of the innocent Savior for sinners. Then He wrapped them in the coats of the animals, picturing the wrapping of sinners in the righteousness of Christ. This hid their nakedness (indicative of sin before God) from God’s all seeing eye. Thus they were restored to blessedness by His grace alone.

Consider the case of Cain, the first sinner to reject the Gospel. Instructed by his now Godly parents, his Godly brother’s blood sacrifice, and the pleadings of God, he nevertheless “went out from the presence of the Lord”. Here we see that Cain has no one to blame for his awful rejection of God’s Word except himself! We also see that contrary to the teachings of Calvinism, God strove desperately to draw Cain to himself, to no avail!

Thus it will always be; sinners will be saved by grace alone expressed in the Gospel which inspires faith. Sinners who are lost will have no one to blame except themselves for their stubborn unbelief. “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.” The so-called “mere external call” is entirely valid and open to all or God is a liar. The Gospel is the power of God that sets the prisoner free into new life in Christ.

God gave His Son for a sinful world and He gave the Gospel to enable sinners to believe. In His Sovereignty, He has allowed man the one major privilege of obeying (believing) or disobeying (not believing) the Gospel. This is in keeping with the tremendous choice that Adam was allowed to make. As that one choice of Adam’s plunged us all into death, so our right choice places us in life … forever. John 5:24

Dennis Clough

All Scripture fron NIV

http://phoenixpreacher.com/cms/?p=2645

Newnham is a former Calvary Chapel preacher who has converted from the strongly Arminian theology of the Calvary Chapel movement, and now is a Reformed pastor.

It is amazing that Dave Hunt could write a book branding Calvinism as a false gospel, and then admit to James White that he had not read any of the Reformer’s works. There are some people who are so prone to want to destroy what they perceive as Calvinism, that they will stoop to any lengths to do so.

Stan

At the beginning Owen spends almost 100 pages just to present some General Considerations. Here is perhaps the most important question that he’s going to answer in the book, the answer which divides reformation (lutheranism and reformation theology) from romanists and the rest of the world.

Now the inquiry, on what account, or for what cause and reason, a man may be so acquitted or discharged of sin, and accepted with God, as before declared, does necessarily issue in this: — “Whether it be any thing in ourselves, as our faith and repentance, thee renovation of our natures, inherent habits of grace, and actual works of righteousness which we have done, or may do? Or whether it be the obedience, righteousness, satisfaction, and merit of the Son of God our mediator, and surety of the covenant, imputed unto us?” One of these it must be, — namely, something that is our own, which, whatever may be the influence of the grace of God unto it, or causality of it, because wrought in and by us, is inherently our own in a proper sense; or something which, being not our own, nor inherent in us, nor wrought by us, is yet imputed unto us, for the pardon of our sins and the acceptation of our persons as righteous, or the making of us righteous in the sight of God. Neither are these things capable of mixture or composition, Romans 11:6. Which of these it is the duty, wisdom, and safety of a convinced sinner to rely upon and trust unto, in his appearance before God, is the sum of our present inquiry.

No mixture: either something external to us, or something internal, there is no middle ground. Notice that, in regard to something internal, even faith or repentance can practically function as a means of justification, turned into work-righteousness if it becomes the basis of acceptance, or justification before God. Perhaps the greatest challenge is to resist the temptation to think in those terms:

1 Faith and repentance or other “inherent habits of grace” are worked by the Holy Spirit in us.
2. Because these things are coming from God, they are acceptable before Him and we are accepted because of these graces.
3. Only works that are done in our power are falling under the rubric of works-righteousness condemned by the Bible.
4. We are justified before God because we did all we can do with God’s help, with God’s enabling power, and we rejected works that are done in our own power.

No, it doesn’t matter how we obtained those works, either only by ourselves or through God’s empowering grace, they are still our works, we did them, they are properly our own works because they are done by us and not without us. In contrast, the Bible speaks about Jesus’ work in our behalf, done apart from us, without us, which is counted to us as we did it. 

Owen is right when he’s speaking about mixture: some are trying to mix justification through imputation with something else, here is Owen again:

At present, the generality of men are secure, and do not much question but that they shall come off well enough, one way or other, in the trial they are to undergo. And as such persons are altogether indifferent what doctrine concerning justification is taught and received; so for the most part, for themselves, they incline unto that declaration of it which best suits their own reason, as influenced with self-conceit and corrupt affections. The sum whereof is, that what they cannot do themselves, what is wanting that they may be saved, be it more or less, shall one way or other be made up by Christ; either the use or the abuse of which persuasion is the greatest fountain of sin in the world, next unto the depravation of our nature.

Red letters: do your best, and Christ will impute you the rest, will count to you the difference.

When I left adventism, the professor from my former seminary with whom I was in conversation for a time, brought repeatedly to my attention Romans 2:13

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified

When I pointed to him that in the context this is brought as a proof that nobody can be justified by works of the law because there are no truly “doers of the law” since nobody performs 100% the law, he said that we do our best with God’s help and what remains undone is done by Christ, God counts us Christ’s righteousness and our works, albeit imperfect are counted perfect because Christ’s work, we qualify as “doers of the law” and we are justified. That was a mixture of starting with inherent righteousness and finishing with imputed righteousness, a combination that ends with us being justified partly because Christ did for us and partly because of the Holy Spirit work in us with our cooperation. It’s exactly the theology Owen spoke about.

Here a short commentary on Romans 2:13 from Calvin is useful. Calvin was very brief in his commentaries, he directed people to his Institutes for a thorough treatment of biblical themes:

This anticipates an objection which the Jews might have adduced. As they had heard that the law was the rule of righteousness, (Deuteronomy 4:1,) they gloried in the mere knowledge of it: to obviate this mistake, he declares that the hearing of the law or any knowledge of it is of no such consequence, that any one should on that account lay claim to righteousness, but that works must be produced, according to this saying, “He who will do these shall live in them.” The import then of this verse is the following, — “That if righteousness be sought from the law, the law must be fulfilled; for the righteousness of the law consists in the perfection of works.” They who pervert this passage for the purpose of building up justification by works, deserve most fully to be laughed at even by children. It is therefore improper and beyond what is needful, to introduce here a long discussion on the subject, with the view of exposing so futile a sophistry: for the Apostle only urges here on the Jews what he had mentioned, the decision of the law, — That by the law they could not be justified, except they fulfilled the law, that if they transgressed it, a curse was instantly pronounced on them. Now we do not deny but that perfect righteousness is prescribed in the law: but as all are convicted of transgression, we say that another righteousness must be sought. Still more, we can prove from this passage that no one is justified by works; for if they alone are justified by the law who fulfill the law, it follows that no one is justified; for no one can be found who can boast of having fulfilled the law.

Pretty clear, I wish I had read Calvin 15 years ago, it would have spared me a lot of confusion.

Gabriel

Religion, it is held, is an ineffable experience; the intellectual expression of it can be symbolical merely; the most various opinions in the religious sphere are compatible with a fundamental unity of life; theology may vary and yet religion may remain the same. Obviously this temper of mind is hostile to precise definitions. Indeed nothing makes a man more unpopular in the controversies of the present day than an insistence upon definition of terms. Anything, it seems, may be forgiven more readily than that. Men discourse very eloquently today upon such subjects as God, religion, Christianity, atonement, redemption, faith; but are greatly incensed when they are asked to tell in simple language what they mean by these terms. They do not like to have the flow of their eloquence checked by so vulgar a thing as a definition. And so they will probably be incensed by the question which forms the title of this book; in the midst of eloquent celebrations of faith-usually faith contrasted with knowledge-it seems disconcerting to be asked what faith is.

So, Machen rejects the tendency of his day (this book was published in 1925) to contrast faith with knowledge, and he argues for faith that is based on specific facts. He rejects any notion that there could be different definitions of terms while faith remains the same. The facts give the basis for faith.

Here is how he ends the first chapter:

How, then, shall we obtain the answer to our question; how shall we discover what faith is? At first sight it might seem to be a purely philosophical or perhaps psychological question; there is faith other than faith in Jesus Christ; and such faith is no doubt to be included with Christian faith in the same general category. It looks, therefore, as though I were entering upon a psychological discussion, and as though I ought to be thoroughly familiar with the epistemological and psychological questions that are involved.
Undoubtedly such a treatment of the subject would be highly useful and instructive; but unfortunately I am not competent to undertake it. I propose therefore a somewhat different method of approach. How would it be if we should study the subject of faith, not so much by generalizations from various instances of faith in human life (though such generalizations will not be altogether absent), but rather by a consideration of faith as it appears in its highest and plainest manifestation? Such concentration upon a classic example is often the best possible way, or at any rate one very fruitful way, in which a subject can be treated.
But the classic example of faith is to be found in the faith that is enjoined in the New Testament. I think that there will be widespread agreement with that assertion among students of psychology whether Christian or not: the insistence upon faith is characteristic of New Testament Christianity; there is some justification, surely, for the way in which Paul speaks of the pre-Christian period as the time “before faith came.” No doubt that assertion is intended by the Apostle as relative merely; he himself insists that faith had a place in the old dispensation; but such anticipations were swallowed up, by the coming of Christ, in a glorious fulfilment. At any rate, the Bible as a whole, taking prophecy and fulfilment together, is the supreme textbook on the subject of faith. The study of that textbook may lead to as clear an understanding of our subject as could be attained by any more general investigation; we can learn what faith is best of all by studying it in its highest manifestation. We shall ask, then, in the following chapters what the Bible (in particular the New Testament) tells us about faith.

To be continued…

Nate

The style is unusual, it’s a fictitious dialogue about which I’ll write in another post, and just as an introduction, and what follows are the words of a pastor for a young convert regarding union with Christ. I’ll try in other posts to bring more quotes I find to be worthy for sharing. The format is taken from a
blog

I tell you from Christ,
and under the hand of the Spirit,
that your person is accepted,
your sins are done away,
and you shall be saved;
and if an angel from heaven should tell you otherwise,
let him be accursed.

Therefore, you may (without doubt) conclude
that you are a happy man;
for by means of this your matching with Christ,
you are become one with him,
and one in him,
you ‘dwell in him, and he in you’ (1 John 4:13).

He is ‘your well beloved, and you are his’ (S. of S. 2:16).

So that the marriage union betwixt Christ and you
is more than a bare notion or apprehension of your mind;
for it is a
special,
spiritual, and
real union:
it is an union betwixt the nature of Christ,
God and man,
and you;
it is a knitting and closing,
not only of your apprehension with a Saviour,
but also of your soul with a Saviour.

Whence it must needs follow that you cannot be condemned,
except Christ be condemned with you;
neither can Christ be saved,
except you be saved with him.

And as by means of corporeal marriage all things become common betwixt man and wife;
even so, by means of this spiritual marriage,
all things become common betwixt Christ and you;
for when Christ hath married his spouse unto himself,
he passeth over all his estate unto her;
so that whatsoever Christ is or hath,
you may boldly challenge as your own.

‘He is made unto you, of God,
wisdom,
righteousness,
sanctification,
and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30).

And surely,
by virtue of this near union it is,
that as Christ is called ‘the Lord our righteousness’ (Jer. 23:6),
even so is the church called, ‘the Lord our righteousness’ (33:16).

I tell you,
you may,
by virtue of this union,
boldly take upon yourself,
as your own,
Christ’s watching,
abstinence,
travails,
prayers,
persecutions,
and slanders;
yea,
his tears,
his sweat,
his blood,
and all that ever he did
and suffered
in the space of three and thirty years,
with his
passion,
death,
burial,
resurrection,
and ascension;
for they are all yours.

And as Christ passes over all his estate unto his spouse,
so does he require that she should pass over all unto him.
Wherefore,
you being now married unto Christ,
you must give all that you have of your own unto him;
and truly you have nothing of your own
but sin,
and, therefore, you must give him that.

I beseech you, then,
say unto Christ with bold confidence,
I give unto thee, my dear husband,
my unbelief,
my mistrust,
my pride,
my arrogancy,
my ambition,
my wrath,
and anger,
my envy,
my covetousness,
my evil thoughts,
affections,
and desires;
I make one bundle of these and all my other offences,
and give them unto thee.

And thus was Christ made ‘sin for us, that knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him’ (2 Cor. 5:21).

‘Now then,’
says Luther,
‘let us compare these things together,
and we shall find inestimable treasure.

Christ is full of
grace,
life,
and saving health;
and the soul is freight-full of all
sin,
death,
and damnation;
but let faith come betwixt these two,
and it shall come to pass,
that Christ shall be laden with
sin,
death,
and hell;
and unto the soul shall be imputed
grace,
life,
and salvation.

Who then is able to value the royalty of this marriage accordingly?

Who is able to comprehend the glorious riches of his grace,
where this rich and righteous husband,
Christ,
doth take unto wife this poor and wicked harlot,
redeeming her from all devils,
and garnishing her with all his own jewels?

So that you,
through the assuredness of your faith in Christ, your husband,
are delivered from all sins,
made safe from death,
guarded from hell,
and endowed with the
everlasting righteousness,
life,
and saving health
of this your husband Christ.’

And All of God’s People Say...Amen

I don’t know where to start.  I just got through the first chapter tonight, and I could hardly put it down.

The first chapter alone is worth the price of the book many times over. This chapter is called “Born Again Again”. 

The author set out to Atlanta for a youth conference when he was standing in line at a hotel, when he heard some young people talking about theology--of all things!  And guess what?  Can you believe the first people this author talked to when researching his book was a group of Seventh Day Adventists from the Florida Hospital SDA church?  Wow!  Apparently there are some SDA pastors who really like what Reformed teachers such as CJ Mahaney and others are teaching. 

This may whet your appetite for a really exciting journey to what the Lord is doing to bring a new revival of truly Biblical theology.

I will be very busy for the next three days, but I at least wanted to get this thread started.

More to come.

Solio Deo Gloria!

Stan

This is an argument for the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement. That fact alone will probably cause some of the readers of this site to boycott it. For those who are curious though, this book will leave you speechless and rejoicing in the new-found truth that God saves effectually. He does not fail in His purpose to save you, a sinner, and that is a most comforting and intensely practical thought.

Owen spends most of the book arguing for what the Bible teaches us about the nature of the atonement. Most discussions on this topic focus merely on a few universal texts, and completely ignore the topic of the nature of the atonement. When one does this, he wrongly concludes (based on his faulty presupposition that God must be egalitarian), usually sub-consciously, that the nature of the atonement is ineffectual, i.e. it merely makes salvation possible. A careful reading of the Scriptures, however, teaches us that the atonement actually saves sinners.

“She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he WILL save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21)

Happy reading. Highly Recommended!

Nate

I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, ...

Ezekiel 26: 7-21

For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon,…

And yes, God did foreknow these events. But the question is asked, does the fact that God foreknows some things mean that He foreknows all things? The evidence in chapter two suggests that this is not the case. Boyd writes, ”For example, I am at the present time deliberating about whether or not I should travel to San Diego next month. In deliberating about this matter, I asume that it is up to me to decide,when, where, and how I will travel. How could I honestly deliberate about this decision if I didn’t believe this? But notice, I also assume that much of the future is already settled and not up to me to decide. To deliberate about whether I should travel to San Diego or not, I have to assume that (among many other things) San Diego will exist next month, that the laws of physics will operate as they do today, and that I will be basically the same person then as I am now. I cannot deliberate about issues that are up to me to decide without presupposing the settledness of many other issues that are not up to me to decide.

This example illustrates that we cannot consider choices without presupposing that the future is partly open and partly settled-- the very position that the open view advocates. If we believe that all of the futre was open, we could not decide between options. If we believed that none of the futre was open, we could not decide between options. Hence, the fact that we obviously do decide between option s suggests that at some level we all assume that the future is partly open and partly closed.”

In the second chapter, Boyd presents such biblical examples which support the future being partly open. Among the examples are Genesis 6:6 and 1 Sam 13:13 where God regrets making mankind and Saul king respectively. Boyd asks, ”We must wonder how the Lord could truly experience regret for making Saul king if he was absolutely certain that Saul would act the way he did.”

Another example is found in Isaiah 5 where the Lord expresses suprise in an analogy of a wineyard he planted. The Lord asks ”4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes? ”

The appendix chapter contains many other examples, aswell as the rest of chapter two.

The third chapter explores the practical differences made by espousing the open view rather than the classical one. Boyd argues that it is more rationally coherent, increases the clarity of Gods Word aswell as positively affect our core view of who God. Boyd also argues that it places the urgency back in prayer. This because if the future is exhaustively settled, one may wonder what difference prayer does make. But if God can yet change his mind in answere to prayer, as he indeed is recorded as doing on many occations in the bible (several of the conversations between God and Moses come to mind), then prayer does make a difference. Boyd also argues that the open view brings some resolution to the problem of evil.

The fourth and last chapter gives answers to 18 common questions regarding the open view. Here, questions such as ”Why do you think God can’t foreknow future free actions?”, ” Isn’t Gods wisdom diminished by claiming he can’t foreknow everything about the future?” and ”How can you claim that the future is partly open and partly settled? It seems like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too”.

In conclusion, I found this book easy to read and well written. All may not agree with the conclusions made but that should not be a reason to avoid reading it if the questions it works with are interesting to you. And as Boyd points out in the foreword, this theology is peripherical and should not be allowed to come in the way of our unity in Christ.

Gregory A. Boyd
ISBN 0-8010-6290-X
Baker Book House
http://www.amazon.com/God-Possible-Biblical-Introduction-Open/dp/080106290X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201109288&sr=8-1

The summary on the back cover is as follows:

In this study the author acquaints the reader with the principal matters which bear upon the subject of the Christian day of worship. Following the order of redemptive history, he begins the discussion with a brief account of the Jewish Sabbath and proceeds to a consideration of the Lord’s Day, making Jesus’ view of the Sabbath a bridge between the two.

The Sabbath was originally given the Israelites by divine revelation through Moses. Perceiving that the Sabbath rest was fulfilled in Christ, early Jewish Christians were indifferent to the continued observance of the seventh day, being fortified in this attitude by Jesus’ own use of the Sabbath. Since this insight was illuminated by the event of the resurrection, early Christian indifference to the seventh day coincides with the observance of the first day in commemoration of the initial fellowship of the disciples with the risen Lord on the evening of Easter.

This investigation leads to a Lord’s Day theology of fulfillment in hope. The study concludes with four principles suggested as minimal guides to the keeping of the Lord’s Day.

What interested me about this book was a section on Seventh-day Adventism. While much of the criticism in former Adventist circles centers on the Sabbath, I was intrigued at the approach a Reformed theologian would take, knowing that he may be more in line with Sunday Sabbatarianism as outlined in the Westminster Confession of Faith. I will reproduce key portions of what Jewett concluded about Adventists below. His conclusions are largely not shared by members of the former Adventist community and indeed, there have been critics within our circles who have claimed that Reformed theology “sets people up” for Adventism and Saturday Sabbatarianism because of its high regard for God’s moral law. The conclusions from Jewett show that nothing could be further from the truth. It does not follow that a high regard for God’s moral law and the Decalogue ends with someone “falling” for Adventism, rather, it ends with the disagreement being over what the Sabbath law pointed to and in Whom this law found its fulfillment. We don’t need to tiptoe around the Decalogue or even abandon all talk of the law as being valuable for the Christian life as many former Adventists have done. We only need to follow the example of Professor Jewett in seeing the battle lines drawn at the person and work of Jesus Christ rather than in a particular commandment.

Here is what Jewett says in his section about Seventh-day Adventists:

Whereas the Reformers were indifferent to the observance of any particular day, there are those in the Christian church who regard the seventh-day Sabbath as perpetually obligatory. This is both the simplest and—as is often the case—the least plausible option, when submitted to the rigors of critical analysis. The seventh-day worshipper puts his finger on the fourth commandment and declares that everyone who worships on the first day is an apostate, though an ignorant and well-meaning one in most cases. To counter this Adventist accusation of apostasy with that of legalism, as is too often done, is to exorcise the Devil by Beelzebub. We cannot say that those who worship on the seventh day are legalists, having no part in the Christian church. A man may or may not be a legalist, whatever day he sets apart for divine worship.

At the obvious level, the problem with the seventh-day position is that it constitutes a truancy from the mainstream of Christian teaching and practice, for which there is no evidence or justification in the sources. The Seventh-Day Baptists and Adventists are telling other Christians that they are wrong in doing what Christians have always done. They are saying that the Christians worshipped on the seventh day and not on the first day; but, as we have seen, there is no convincing evidence that this is so.

At a deeper theological level, theirs is an error at the opposite extreme from that of the Reformers. The Sabbatarian position fails to do justice to the movement of redemptive history. It resolves the question of the day of worship as though the Sabbath rest were wholly a future hope, and does not see the implications of the fulfillment of that hope in Christ, who is our promised rest. It frames a theology of the day of worship as though nothing had happened in redemptive history since God spoke by Moses; it is as though Christ had never come.

Adventists, the primary spokesmen for this position, still cling to the shadow of things to come and do not reckon with the fact that “the body is Christ’s” (Col. 2:17). The thesis that the church should worship on the seventh day, therefore, cannot contribute in an essential way to our effort to frame a theology of the Christian day of worship. We shall simply offer a brief account of the history of seventh-day worship, that the reader may not be wholly uninformed of the heritage of his brethren who revere the seventh-day Sabbath, together with some animadversions on the Adventist approach to Sripture and Christian tradition.

[What follows is a brief history of the early seventh-day Sabbatarians and how their position was embraced by the early Adventists.]

In evaluating this position, we need not conjure up the specter of legalism. As we have said, one can no more infer one is under the law because he worships on the seventh day than that one is under grace because he worships on the first day. The problem is rather the uncritical nature of the arguments for seventh-day worship. Take, for example, the thesis that Daniel 7:25 refers to changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, or Ellen White’s interpretation of the book of Revelation: “...in the last days the sabbath test will be made plain. When this time comes anyone who does not keep the Sabbath will receive the mark of the beast and will be kept from heaven.” (The Great Controversy, p. 449). How can one interact critically with such arguments? One can only accept them without question or leave them, much as he would leave arguments for a flat earth.

...

Not only are Adventist writers seemingly oblivious to scientific information about the age of the earth and the antiquity of man, but the manner in which they handle the testimony of history leads in like manner to a cul-de-sac. Every piece of evidence that Christians have worshipped on Sunday is either explained away or cited as evidence of apostasy. Thus it appears a priori certain that the voice of tradition can only support the Seventh-day Adventist position. Did the Reformers teach the observance of the first day of the week? Yes, of course, say the Adventists. And what a tragedy that they should have “stopped short in their work of reformation! One more tradition of the medieval church should have been rejected—the false sabbath” (cited from Richard B. Lewis, The Protestant Dilemma). “The Reformers failed to forsake this heresy along with transubstantiation, purgatory, Mariolatry, and other errors of Rome” (cited from Lewis). And it really matters not how primary the evidence for Sunday worship may be, in contrast to that for transubstantiation, purgatory, and Mariolatry. The great antiquity of such evidence simply proves to the Adventists that the apostasy of worshipping on the first day is much more ancient than the heresy of transubstantiation, purgatory or Mariolatry.

[What follows is an account from Lewis where he claims “Sunday has always been the day of heathen worship. It has always been dedicated to the sun god..."]

Thus to stigmatize the observance of Sunday by Christians as having its origin in pagan sun worship is perhaps “the most unkindest cut of all,” for it rests upon palpable historical inaccuracies. It is a well-known fact that from a hoary antiquity men have worshipped the sun, but at the commencement of the Christian era there was no particular association of this cult with the first day of the Jewish week. The day was not called “Sunday” when Christians began to worship on it; and the oft-repeated statements that the first Christians worshipped on “Sunday” really means that they worshipped on the day which subsequently came to be called Sunday, when the days of the week were named for the planets. This usage, the so-called Planet Week, is a post-Christian one.

To be sure, when the Planet Week was established, the day on which Christians worshipped was also devoted by pagans to the worship of the sun, particularly in the cult of Mithras, since the god Mithras was originally a Persian light god. Christians were then sometimes supposed themselves to be sun-worshippers by their pagan neighbors, because they worshiped on Sunday. (The apologist Tertullian is the first to mention this case of mistaken identity. -see footnote) But there is no reason why those who are themselves Christians should make the same mistake.

Footnote: W. Rordorf suggests that the Christian observance of Sunday may have influenced the Mithraitic practice. That is to say, the evidence points in the opposite direction of the Adventist claim.

Source: A Theology of the Lord’s Day, pp. 106-114

In summary, there are good historical and theological reasons to disagree with the Adventist claim that Saturday observance is an apostolic Christian practice. To minimize the law in an effort to prevent people from joining Adventism is to make a greater error than the Adventist who places undue weight on a single command. There is no need to be afraid of God’s law. As the Psalmist declares, “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether” (Psalm 19:7-9). And if we think this quote from the Psalms is merely an Old Testament sentiment, let us pay attention to the apostle Paul, who said, “I delight in the law of God, in my inner being” (Romans 7:22) and “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31).

Greg

It’s a great book and I highly recommend it.

The Wine of Roman Babylon
by
Mary E. Walsh

http://salmun.cwahi.net/nrm/chrst/sda/apol/cath/wrb/wrb.htm