-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Legislating the 4th Commandment
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
It simply will not happen if we set back and not do any thing. I for one do not go with the flow of the world, but only in following God through which His love flows. I am not content, with allowing our world to continue removing God from it. If we abide by the world, we do not abide with God.rbell said:mandating that all businesses close is simply not feasible in today's world. Of course, there would be the "essential" places that must stay open (such as hospitals, fire stations, etc.) But who decides what is "essential?" Hotels? Pharmacies? and the list goes on and on...And there is the issue of the First Amendment. But....I seriously doubt that Sunday work laws would ever pass Constitutional muster in today's world.
Furthermore...like it or not, this is a seven-day workweek world. I wish it wasn't, but it is. There will never, ever be a return to how it was. The money, convenience, tax revenue, and many other factors mean Sunday "blue laws" won't be enacted. I'm not arguing that it's better that way...just that it's going to be that way.
Like I said, the Chik-Fil-A's of the world...may their numbers increase. And for the folks that work there, they have a special blessing. But for many, they have a difficult issue. People need to make a living. And there's simply not enough jobs out there that allow for every Sunday to be off. So, many people have to do their best and within the context of their job, get off for worship as much as they can. Some have better success than others. Some employers are more understanding than others.
So when I say "unworkable," it's more from the idea that it won't happen. Can individual companies pull it off? Yes...but it takes dedication from Christian leadership (I would strongly suspect), and there's fewer of those than I wish there were. Can municipalities/states/etc. pull it off? No...it won't pass the "cost analysis" test (think in secular and $$ terms), nor would it pass constitutional muster.
Therefore, it would be very workable and most definitely pleasing to God. With God all things are possible! are they not?
StefanM said:I fully support Chik-fil-a. Besides giving their employees Sundays off, they have really good chicken!
I for one am not particuaraly fond of Chik-fil-a, or any chicken for that matter, but I do think that their founder deserves a pat on the back for being one who is not afraid to take a stand, and put God in his rightful place...too bad others suffer from green withdrawal (the love of money)
J.Wayne said:It simply will not happen if we set back and not do any thing. I for one do not go with the flow of the world, but only in following God through which His love flows. I am not content, with allowing our world to continue removing God from it. If we abide by the world, we do not abide with God.
Therefore, it would be very workable and most definitely pleasing to God. With God all things are possible! are they not?
I would differ with you in this:
There are many issues that I fight for. I begrudge no one to fight the battle to have the government mandate that Sunday is a day off. But that's not a battle I'm going to spend time on. But just because it's not #1 on my priority list...that doesn't mean I am "going with the flow of the world." I personally take the concept of Sabbath and a day of worship very seriously. But I'm probably not going to take up the mantle in getting that mandated by our government. I have other battles I work on.
But like I said...that doesn't mean I am "reveling in the world."
EdSutton said:Given that the first sentence you cite is one I made, have I said something incorrect, here? If so, how?
As another posted, several of the colonies, and at least 7 of the original 13 states had some sort of 'state churches', with the last to go probably being that of the Congressional church in Massachusetts over 50 years after our nation's independence, in 1833.
BTW, I do agree with the second sentence you cite, as well. If there is no business, for whatever reason, religious or otherwise, there will not be open doors on them, for very long, anyway.
Frankly, I do not usually attempt to discern who may or may not have what agenda with my responses, as a rule, although I do recognize such exist, certainly, including in this thread. But that doesn't necessarily have to do with whether or not something is factual, IMO.
Ed
What the colonies did has nothing to do with the United States of America. We are governed by the constitution (or are supposed to be). Also, a number of our states had slaves for 70 years, but that did not make it right. A state church flies in the face of religious liberty and you had better hope we allow the "weirdos" to have their religions because the day is probably coming when "normal" christianity will need the protection.
The second statement says the Sabbath should be honored and then goes on to talk about Sunday. The Sabbath is Saturday. This also exhibits the fact that these laws will not work. Who gets to decide, the ones who say they are keeping the real OT sabbath or the Sunday observers? Read Romans 14.
Which of God's moral laws should the gov. enforce? Are we going to have a love court? Love thy neighbor... An idolotry court? Some people "worship" their cars. Some people worship their pastor. Do I take my kids to court when they don't honor me? I could get very absurd to show the absurdity of this.
Most importantly this whole thing shows a lack of understanding of what the OT law was and what Christianity is. That is what is the saddest. :tear:
I do not disagree with anything you have written, at least here. Nor am I one who confuses "the Sabbath" with Sunday, either, FTR. We are not under the law, but under grace, as NT Christians. There is not a single 'precept' of "the law" - i.e. the 'Mosaic' law - that is 'binding' on us in this 'age of grace', that entire 'system' that once separated us from God, having been abolished in the flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ and nailed to the cross by the Lord himself, personally. (Eph. 2:11-16; Col. 2:11-15)trustitl said:The second statement says the Sabbath should be honored and then goes on to talk about Sunday. The Sabbath is Saturday. This also exhibits the fact that these laws will not work. Who gets to decide, the ones who say they are keeping the real OT sabbath or the Sunday observers? Read Romans 14.
Which of God's moral laws should the gov. enforce? Are we going to have a love court? Love thy neighbor... An idolotry court? Some people "worship" their cars. Some people worship their pastor. Do I take my kids to court when they don't honor me? I could get very absurd to show the absurdity of this.
Most importantly this whole thing shows a lack of understanding of what the OT law was and what Christianity is. That is what is the saddest. :tear:
We were and are freed from this "law of sin and death", it being superceeded by "the law of the spirit of Life in Christ Jesus", aka "the law of Liberty" and/or "My commandments", and "My words", among other designations, a system entirely "under grace". (Rom. 8:2-4; Jas. 1:25; 2:12; Jo. 14:15, 21; 15:10; Mt. 24:35; Jo. 14:23; Rom. 6:14-15)
However, my original point was not 'theological', in this, but only that if one did not patronize any 'business', the doors would not be open, with no attempt of 'imposing any morality', in the process. Also, if one owns a business, they do not necessarily have to have it open at any given time, either, be it the 'Sabbath', a Sunday, or any other day. One of my own favorite Oriental restaurants is closed on Mondays and has always been, for as long as I have been aware of it. No one attempted to 'legislate' this closing, the owners have merely chosen to do so. Likewise with 'Chick-fil-A', as another mentioned.
Ed
Legislating the 4th Commandment?
Hasn't it been legislated thousands of years ago? Why again? But why, for Christians? Haven't Christian have Jesus Christ and the New Testament for that very Law as their own? I say, let the state keep out of Church matters! If it doesn't, what would we care? Does not Jesus maintain Himself in the hearts of those His Own? It won't do any good for the others to legalise the Law; its legalised already in God's Own Living Law and therefore only applies for and to those who matter in God's eyes..
Hasn't it been legislated thousands of years ago? Why again? But why, for Christians? Haven't Christian have Jesus Christ and the New Testament for that very Law as their own? I say, let the state keep out of Church matters! If it doesn't, what would we care? Does not Jesus maintain Himself in the hearts of those His Own? It won't do any good for the others to legalise the Law; its legalised already in God's Own Living Law and therefore only applies for and to those who matter in God's eyes..
Thesis:
"I do not disagree with anything you have written, at least here. Nor am I one who confuses "the Sabbath" with Sunday, either, FTR. We are not under the law, but under grace, as NT Christians. There is not a single 'precept' of "the law" - i.e. the 'Mosaic' law - that is 'binding' on us in this 'age of grace', that entire 'system' that once separated us from God, having been abolished in the flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ and nailed to the cross by the Lord himself, personally. (Eph. 2:11-16; Col. 2:11-15)
We were and are freed from this "law of sin and death", it being superceeded by "the law of the spirit of Life in Christ Jesus", aka "the law of Liberty" and/or "My commandments", and "My words", among other designations, a system entirely "under grace". (Rom. 8:2-4; Jas. 1:25; 2:12; Jo. 14:15, 21; 15:10; Mt. 24:35; Jo. 14:23; Rom. 6:14-15)"
Answer:
There is no such thing in all of Scripture as a 'Mosaic' Law, even where referred to "the Law of Moses". Where so referred to it merely means God's Law (and 'laws') as mediated by God through Moses. So we may speak of 'Christian' Law for the Law of God as 'mediated' through Christ (not through Christians!) eg. the 'Sermon on the Mount'; or even of 'Pauline Law for the Law of God as 'mediated' through and by Paul.
"I do not disagree with anything you have written, at least here. Nor am I one who confuses "the Sabbath" with Sunday, either, FTR. We are not under the law, but under grace, as NT Christians. There is not a single 'precept' of "the law" - i.e. the 'Mosaic' law - that is 'binding' on us in this 'age of grace', that entire 'system' that once separated us from God, having been abolished in the flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ and nailed to the cross by the Lord himself, personally. (Eph. 2:11-16; Col. 2:11-15)
We were and are freed from this "law of sin and death", it being superceeded by "the law of the spirit of Life in Christ Jesus", aka "the law of Liberty" and/or "My commandments", and "My words", among other designations, a system entirely "under grace". (Rom. 8:2-4; Jas. 1:25; 2:12; Jo. 14:15, 21; 15:10; Mt. 24:35; Jo. 14:23; Rom. 6:14-15)"
Answer:
There is no such thing in all of Scripture as a 'Mosaic' Law, even where referred to "the Law of Moses". Where so referred to it merely means God's Law (and 'laws') as mediated by God through Moses. So we may speak of 'Christian' Law for the Law of God as 'mediated' through Christ (not through Christians!) eg. the 'Sermon on the Mount'; or even of 'Pauline Law for the Law of God as 'mediated' through and by Paul.
There is no such thing as "this Law" - the Law or Laws of God - ever in the Scriptures being called "the law of sin". The 'law of sin' is the PRINCIPLE NATURAL LAW of cause and effect, in force from day one of man's existence: Sin, and die! Yes, today THAT 'law' has been abolished since Christ has set us free of its curse and gave us indestructable life in Himself. Christ 'saved' us from this law! Never from the expression of HIS OWN WILL, because, HIS OWN WILL is God's only Law as several times and in several ways through time revealed to man through men of His eclection or sanctifying for His own holy reason and cause. Christ 'saved' us UNTO this Law!
How many do the Old and New Testament say of the Law of God's revealed Will, "If a man do, he might live by it"? No man of God ever declared differently of God's Law, least, Christ Jesus!
In fact, just by having a look at Josua 5-6, it is clear Jesus Christ is the Revealer of God' Will in the Old Testament; and as Josua bent down and worshipped Christ in the valleys of Jericho, so let us worship Him in fear and trembling in the low lands of our sometimes so very miserable existence, en be revived by the Light of His Glory! A real Christian cannot be an 'Antinomian' as much as he cannot be an Arian or Arminian.
In fact, just by having a look at Josua 5-6, it is clear Jesus Christ is the Revealer of God' Will in the Old Testament; and as Josua bent down and worshipped Christ in the valleys of Jericho, so let us worship Him in fear and trembling in the low lands of our sometimes so very miserable existence, en be revived by the Light of His Glory! A real Christian cannot be an 'Antinomian' as much as he cannot be an Arian or Arminian.
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe you are incorrect in that "What the colonies did has nothing to do with the United States of America."trustitl said:What the colonies did has nothing to do with the United States of America. We are governed by the constitution (or are supposed to be). Also, a number of our states had slaves for 70 years, but that did not make it right. A state church flies in the face of religious liberty and you had better hope we allow the "weirdos" to have their religions because the day is probably coming when "normal" christianity will need the protection.
Have you ever heard of an insignificant little document known as "The Declaration of Independence"?
"The colonies" did that little production, I believe, if memory serves.
I agree that we are governed by the Constitution. But there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits any "state church", and that was my point. "The (US) Constitution" does not even mention "religious liberty" that I'm aware of. Nor was any alleged prohibition on any 'state church' contemplated by the states.
The history of this shows this, in the earlier days of our country, as multiple states with 'official' "state churches" ratified all of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, in its entirety.
What does the historical question of slavery have to do with any of this? The question was not that of any "moral judgment" ("that did not make it right"), and I never addressed such. I am certainly not advocating that slavery was ever 'right', but that point is (A,) tangential, at best; and (B.) moot, as it is unconstitutional, - after the ratification of the 13th Amendment, and that Amendment was further 'strengthened' and reinforced by Amendments 14, 15, 17, 19, and 24.
FTR, I in no way oppose allowing anyone to "have their religions", be they "wierdos" or otherwise, as it relates to our nation.
Ed
enforcing "all" OT laws is not being considered here...just the moral laws which are still in effect. The ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in Christ and are no longer required as they were a shadow of the truth found in Him.rbell said:I doubt any of us want full enforcement of all OT laws. We won't have enough grave sites to bury the adulterers and rebellious kids.
Did they run out of grave sites in OT Israel?...No.
A statement like that which has no factual basis is hard to take too seriously.
What would more likely happen is that people would start taking adultery and rebellion more seriously than they do now.
It's not a very good argument anyway. If there were so many murders or rapes that we wouldn't have the resources to punish them all, would we just make murder and rape legal? Of course not!
larryjf said:enforcing "all" OT laws is not being considered here...just the moral laws which are still in effect. The ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in Christ and are no longer required as they were a shadow of the truth found in Him.
Did they run out of grave sites in OT Israel?...No.
A statement like that which has no factual basis is hard to take too seriously.
What would more likely happen is that people would start taking adultery and rebellion more seriously than they do now.
It's not a very good argument anyway. If there were so many murders or rapes that we wouldn't have the resources to punish them all, would we just make murder and rape legal? Of course not!
No one's arguing to make murder and rape legal. Don't be silly.
So you want to go back to stoning rebellious kids and adulterers?
Excellent point. Let's just remember that it is #4 on God's list...pretty important to Him.rbell said:But just because it's not #1 on my priority list...that doesn't mean I am "going with the flow of the world."
What some are arguing for is making other parts of God's moral commands legal.rbell said:No one's arguing to make murder and rape legal. Don't be silly.
So you want to go back to stoning rebellious kids and adulterers?
Let's see...God's standard is to put to death rebellious kids and adulterers...yes, i agree with God.
larryjf said:What some are arguing for is making other parts of God's moral commands legal.
Let's see...God's standard is to put to death rebellious kids and adulterers...yes, i agree with God.
So, you would have stood with the Pharisees against Jesus in John 8?
The Lord's Day, the NT Sabbath is most certainly Sunday, as is specified in Mat. 28:1 and other NT Scritpures.trustitl said:The second statement says the Sabbath should be honored and then goes on to talk about Sunday. The Sabbath is Saturday. This also exhibits the fact that these laws will not work. Who gets to decide, the ones who say they are keeping the real OT sabbath or the Sunday observers? Read Romans 14.
[SIZE=-1]Mat 28:1-
At the end of the sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the first of sabbaths[/SIZE]
This clearly labels Sunday as the first of Sabbaths at the time of the resurrection.
God rested from His work of creation on the 7th day, Christ rested from His work of re-creation on the 1st day.
Rom 14 has nothing to do with allowing folks to break God's moral commands.
You are walking a dangerous line when you try to set Jesus up against the moral laws of God.rbell said:So, you would have stood with the Pharisees against Jesus in John 8?
We must consider the Jn 8 passage in context with the whole counsel of God's Word. It is the state that has the power of the sword, not the Church. The Pharisees had no right to capital punishment because they were not the State governing Israel at the time...Rome was.
I will presume this was addressed to me.rbell said:So you wish to return to stoning rebellious children and adulterers???
The "stoning" part of the command is the positive, not the moral part.
I believe that capital punishment for these offenses is proper...because God says it is proper. I would not dare question God's judgment on the proper way to punish such moral crimes.