Jump to content
Online Baptist

Sabbath Worship?


Recommended Posts

On 11/8/2019 at 8:08 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

In your earlier posting you had specified those two times as John 20:19 & Acts 20:7.  As such, you excluded Acts 2:1-ff from your recognition as a New Testament account concerning the first day of the week."


DaveW started this topic with what I thought was with regard to weekly meetings on the first day of the week.  He wrote:  "...the Bible is quite plain that organised meetings were absolutely definitely held on Sundays."  Although not specifically stated, my reply was predicated on the idea that he was at least implying that there were multiple accounts of folks meeting weekly on the first day of the week.  So when I wrote there were only two times mentioned in scripture I was referring to weekly gatherings on the first day of the week. I didn't include the Acts reference since it is referring to an annual event.   In the furture I will try to be more specific with regard to my intent. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Does Romans 14 not answer this whole question clearly, completely and simply?

I am so confused right now as to why this discussion even took place.

If you're going to have an argument regarding which day of the week we "must" meet on for church, we will, if we are both intelligent and honest, have to include a separate argument regarding which calendar God was looking at whenever He set everything up.

The SDA's argue against Sunday worship because "it was invented by Rome" while observing the Hebrew "Sabbath" on a Gregorian calendar, given to them by ... Pope Gregory! 😂😁😅

Humans...they boggle the mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, weary warrior said:

Does Romans 14 not answer this whole question clearly, completely and simply?

I am so confused right now as to why this discussion even took place.

If you're going to have an argument regarding which day of the week we "must" meet on for church, we will, if we are both intelligent and honest, have to include a separate argument regarding which calendar God was looking at whenever He set everything up.

The SDA's argue against Sunday worship because "it was invented by Rome" while observing the Hebrew "Sabbath" on a Gregorian calendar, given to them by ... Pope Gregory! 😂😁😅

Humans...they boggle the mind.

I don't actually remember, but I think the first post (which was mine) was separated from an existing thread. The Original post was posted to lay out the plain and biblical facts of the matter in such a way that the issue was made plain. As can be clearly seen, the plain biblical facts are still denied by some, and excuses are made to allow those to continue to argue, whilst pretending they are not.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

weary warrior,
re:  "Does Romans 14 not answer this whole question clearly, completely and simply?"

Not in any of the various translations/versions that I've seen. The subject of the chapter from start to finish has to do with dietary practices.  This chapter says nothing with regard to the Sabbath. 

 

 

re:  "The SDA's argue against Sunday worship because 'it was invented by Rome' while observing the Hebrew 'Sabbath' on a Gregorian calendar, given to them by ... Pope Gregory!"

I'm afraid I don't understand your point.  I wonder if you might elaborate?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

 5  One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. note

 6  He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it."

If a man regards Sunday as a special holy day, thats between him and God, he is worshiping God and God accepts it. If a man feels God is the God of all, and all days are equally belonging to God, and worships on Thuresday with the assembly because thats when they are free, theyre worshiping God and God accepts it. That's ok too. The Lord who is Lord of the Sabbath is Lord of Tuesday or Friday as well.

We are not actually commanded to worship on any particular day. The early church DID worship on the first day of the week, yes. They also greeted each other with holy kisses and washed each other's feet. Which we don't do.

Our own worship and service must follow and adhere to one of two sources. Scriptural command or historical precedent. If we glean through the book of Acts of the Apostles ("acts", actions...the "history" of the Apostles) for our methodology and turn it into mandated doctrine, we are teaching for doctrine the commandments of men. We make traditions into doctrine. And we will be doing silly things like  choosing church leadership by rolling the dice (Acts 1:26). Instead, we pick and choose what traditions we make into mandated doctrine. Into dogma.

As for my other observation about the calendars, God gave the Hebrew people, who had their own Hebrew calendar, a command to keep a uniquely Hebrew holy day. We don't use that calendar. So an SDA in Cincinnati uses a calendar invented and given them by a Catholic Pope in Europe to observe a Jewish day from a Hebrew calendar, because to observe Sunday worship on that same catholic calender from Europe would be following the leadership and influence of the pope. I just find it humorously ironic the knots we tie ourself up in when we start trying to observe holy days and habits from another time, culture, continent, language and calendar that are not specifically commanded us in scripture, just to be more holy. None of that is what makes us holy. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, weary warrior said:

DaveW, if my tone in my post came off as cheeky or disrespectful, I do want to apologize. That's not how I ment it. 

Not at all - I thought it might be helpful to give some explanation. 😊

Link to post
Share on other sites

weary warrior,
re:  "5  One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. note  6  He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it." 

And again, the issues being addressed in Romans 14 have to do with dietary practices.  Nothing is said about the Sabbath. 

 

 

re:  "The early church DID worship on the first day of the week, yes."

Just so it's understood that scripture is silent with regard to saying that anyone met on the first day of the week for the purpose of weekly worship - or for that matter for a day of rest. 

 

 

With regard to your comments about calendars, I still don't see your point with regard to Sabbath observance. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 hours ago, rstrats said:

weary warrior,
re:  "5  One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. note  6  He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it." 

And again, the issues being addressed in Romans 14 have to do with dietary practices.  Nothing is said about the Sabbath. 

 

 

re:  "The early church DID worship on the first day of the week, yes."

Just so it's understood that scripture is silent with regard to saying that anyone met on the first day of the week for the purpose of weekly worship - or for that matter for a day of rest. 

 

 

With regard to your comments about calendars, I still don't see your point with regard to Sabbath observance. 
 

If you still can't see it, there's not much I can do to help. So we'll just move along.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 11/26/2019 at 7:56 AM, weary warrior said:

Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.

As per the portions that I have emphasized with emboldening and underlining, it sure appears to me that these verses are talking about DAYS, not about diets.
 

On 11/27/2019 at 6:56 AM, rstrats said:

And again, the issues being addressed in Romans 14 have to do with dietary practices.  Nothing is said about the Sabbath. 

Brother "Rstrats," could you point out the particular wording in the verses above which move you to see the issue of diets?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  Some confusion has come from  the story of Jesus' crucufixion The self-righteous Jews who wanted Him dead asked the Romans to make sure He & the other two condemned men were dead & to remove their bodies from the crosses before sunset, as the coming day was a Sabbath.

   Now, this wasn't the regular weekly Sabbath, but was a HIGH SABBATH, the first of the two Holy Convocation days that God ordained, first in Ex. 12:16. These days could fall on any day of the week, including  Saturday. (When that occurred, the rules of the regular Sabbath were followed, as well as any special rules for that particular High Sabbath that may apply.)

  The misunderstanding led to the man-made creation of "Good Friday",  in the mistaken belief that Jesus died on a Friday. But actually, He died on a Wednesday before sunset, which began Thursday for the Jews, & was resurrected, I believe on Saturday, shortly before sunset, so by Sunday AM He had been resurrected for several hours. And "Good Friday" isn't actually a "holy day".

 

   As for the regular weekly Sabbath, God gave it only to Israel to observe for ever, so a Jew who worships on Saturday isn't wrong. However, most of the rest of Israel, whoever/wherever they may be, has gotten away from this.

 

 Col. 2: 16Let 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:

  While the Colossian Church was made up of mostly gentiles,  some Jewish Christians (or pseudo-Christians) came there, as they had done almost everywhere Christianity then-existed, & told the gentiles that, in order to be REALLY saved, they must follow the Jewish worship traditions, including Sabbath-keeping. But Paul, on authority from Jesus, told them otherwise, as we see in the above Scripture.

  My "take" is this: If you feel you should keep the Sabbath, by all means, follow your conscience, but if you believe otherwise, follow your conscience as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

"...could you point out the particular wording in the verses above which move you to see the issue of diets?"


No, not in the 2 verses when taken alone and not surrounded by the context of the chapter.    

However, the context of the chapter from beginning to end deals with the issue of the eating of animal food versus vegetables along with the related practice of fasting on certain days. 

Verse 20 sums up the intent of the chapter:  "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food."
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

No...... no it doesn't say that.

It says this:

Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
42 minutes ago, rstrats said:

No, not in the 2 verses when taken alone and not surrounded by the context of the chapter.    

However, the context of the chapter from beginning to end deals with the issue of the eating of animal food versus vegetables along with the related practice of fasting on certain days. 

Verse 20 sums up the intent of the chapter:  "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food."

Indeed, the primary issue about being a "stumbling block" in Romans 14 is that of diet (as per verses 2, 3, 6, 15, 17, 20, 21).

However, it appears to me that a secondary issue is also referenced concerning days (as per verses 5, 6).

From your comments above it appears that you are viewing this reference to days as a reference to "fasting on certain days."  However, I see NO reference to the idea of fasting in the chapter at all.  Could you point out the particular wording anywhere in the chapter which moves you to the idea of fasting?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Pastor Scott Markle,
re:  "From your comments above it appears that you are viewing this reference to days as a reference to "fasting on certain days."  However, I see NO reference to the idea of fasting in the chapter at all.  Could you point out the particular wording anywhere in the chapter which moves you to the idea of fasting?" 

Verse 6 - "He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks."
I take this to be saying that days are being observed for eating or not eating.  I take not eating to be refering to fasting.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 minutes ago, rstrats said:

Pastor Scott Markle,
re:  "From your comments above it appears that you are viewing this reference to days as a reference to "fasting on certain days."  However, I see NO reference to the idea of fasting in the chapter at all.  Could you point out the particular wording anywhere in the chapter which moves you to the idea of fasting?" 

Verse 6 - "He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks."
I take this to be saying that days are being observed for eating or not eating.  I take not eating to be refering to fasting.  

I see. So then it appears that you view the second half of the verse as contrasting those who do not fast and those who do --

1.  Those who do not fast - "He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks."
2.  Those who fast from food - "And he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks."

On the other hand, I would view the verse as speaking concerning the SAME matter that has been within THE CONTEXT since verse 1 --

"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

For one believeth that he may eat all things [comfortable eating meat]:
another, who is weak, eateth herbs [not comfortable eating meat].

Let not him that eateth [comfortable eating meat] despise him that eateth not [not comfortable eating meat];
and let not him which eateth not [not comfortable eating meat] judge him that eateth [comfortable eating meat]: for God hath received him.

Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?  To his own master he standeth or falleth.  Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.

He that eateth [comfortable eating meat], eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks;
and he that eateth not [not comfortable eating meat], to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks."

Consider the contextual parallels between verses 2, 3, 6.  As such, I do not see the matter of fasting anywhere at all in the context.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

  God gave everyone a conscience regarding these matters.

  I useta make fun of congregations that had a "no pants on women" rule, or similar ones til I studied Scripture more closely & saw I was wrong. While I still  won't attend such congregations when I'm on a "church visit", it's because of more-serious doctrinal differences than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

  As for the Sabbath, it was given to ISRAEL ONLY, & I see no Biblical requirement for all to follow it. But again, it comes down to an individual's conscience.  My church meets on Sundays, but we don't badmouth those who meet on Saturdays for that reason, although those groups often hold some actual false doctrines.

 

  We should give thanx & praise to GOD every day !

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

I have been recently dealing quite a bit with a fellow who is convinced that believers today must observe the whole Torah, keep the Sabbath, and that, oddly, the new covenant has not yet begun. 

Recently I gave him this, (which of course was merely scoffed at).  But for those of us here that believe the KJV Bible is written as it is for a reason, it ought to give us, at least, some pause for thought.  

We all know here, I am sure, why the KJV uses language that was already considered archaic when it was written, like the usage of Ye, You, Thee, Thy, Thou, and Thine: They indicate plural or singular language, which is plain in Hebrew and Greek, but not so much in modern English, (even 400 years ago), so these terms were used to make more plain the meanings. They become very important in such verses as, when Jesus speaks to Nicodemas and says "Verily, verily I say unto THEE, YE must be born again" In modern English, we lost the meaning completely, when Jesus says '...I say unto YOU, YOU must be born again'  Here, who is Jesus speaking to, and to whom does He refer needing to be born again? Just Nicodemas? But in the KJV it is clear, "...I say unto thee, (Nicodemas, singular), ye, (everyone, plural) must be born again"

That being said, (follow me now), read how the Lord gives the commandments at Sinai: 

20 And God spake all these words, saying,

I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

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, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

13 Thou shalt not kill.

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

15 Thou shalt not steal.

16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Now, notice, God is speaking to all the people: why doesn't the translator use the words 'You" or "Ye" to show a plural sense In the Lord's words? "Ye shall have no other gods before me"? Why? Because God is speaking to them as a singular people, a singular nation, meaning these laws and commands are not given for ALL nations, but for ONE nation: Israel, the children of Jacob. Period. Not even for all the children of Abraham, just Jacob. Not all the children of Isaac, just Jacob. A single people.

Therefore, NONE of it was given for those who would be believers, especially of the Gentile nations, after Christ-He is the END of the law for righteousness to them that believe. So the idea that ANY part of it, except for that repeated and carried on in the New Covenant, is silly.

As well, after the law was given, Moses took the blood of a sacrifice and sprinkled the blood upon the book of the law and upon the people, and made a covenant at Sinai between national Israel and God, to keep the law. It was between them and God, and of course we know they broke it, time and again, almost immediately! 

So we are not under any portion of that OT law of Sinai, but are under a new and better covenant, sealed by the blood of Jesus Christ, not the bull at Sinai. And that includes the Sabbath, for they are all part and parcel of the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 2/9/2018 at 6:43 AM, rstrats said:

Actually, as far as scripture is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody getting together on the first (day) of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first. The John reference has them together in a closed room after the crucifixion because they were afraid of their fellow Jews. Nothing is said about a worship service or day of rest.  And it couldn't have been in recognition of the resurrection because at that time they didn't even believe that the resurrection had taken place.  

The Acts reference has them together very likely because Paul happened to be in town and he wanted to talk to them before he had to leave again. The "breaking of bread" could simply be saying that the disciples got together to eat a meal on this particular first day of the week . The phrase, "to break bread", does not have to refer to a religious service - unless it is specifically stated - but to dividing loaves of bread for a meal. "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds" (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840.
 

Here's another...

1 Corinthians 16:2 "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."

"(1) That there is here clear proof that the first day of the week was observed by the church at Corinth as holy time. If it was not, there can have been no propriety in selecting that day in preference to any other in which to make the collection. It was the day which was set apart to the duties of religion, and therefore an appropriate day for the exercise of charity and the bestowment of alms. There can have been no reason why this day should have been designated except that it was a day set apart to religion, and therefore deemed a proper day for the exercise of benevolence toward others."

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible
1 Corinthians 16

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

 I think I shall simply follow what Paul wrote & observe or not observe as my beliefs & conscience tell me, and not criticize anyone who believes or observes differently. I don't hafta answer to God for THEIR actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 2/5/2014 at 9:04 PM, DaveW said:

Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Sabbath and first day are quite clearly different.

Joh 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Jesus met with the disciples who were all gathered on the first day, and did nit rebuke them for their meeting that day.

In fact....
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

now if the day spoken of before is the first day of the eight, then they were meeting the next Sunday and Jesus appeared to them again. And once again didn't rebuke them for meeting on a day other than the Sabbath.

And:

Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

It seems that in this case they met on the first day of the week for the express purpose of hearing the preaching of the Word of God.


And,
1Co 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Without getting into what was being laid by, it is noted that again this was done on the first day, with the express purpose that there be no gathering when he came.
Written to a church, with the intent that this happen on the first day, indicating a gathering at least for that purpose.

Now there are other passages that show that these Christians met on all sorts of days, but the Bible is quite plain that organised meetings were absolutely definitely held on Sundays.

There is no biblical command for Christians to meet officially on any day, but by example we see that if a specific day of the week is nominated, it is Sunday.

Sunday worship is in the new Testament clearly.

That should be enough, but in any case historical record shows Sunday worship also occurred BEFORE the Catholic so called church existed.

Ignatius recorded "If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death. "

The quote continues on, but you get the idea. Ignatius died around 107AD, Constantine didn't start the travesty of the Catholic system ill about 200 years after Ignatius died, and didn't make his decree about Sunday worship until 321AD.

So Sunday worship can't have been a Catholic invention, primarily because the New Testament records it, and history agrees......

The very first mention of God requiring anyone to observe the Sabbath was in Mosaic law given to Israel by Moses to them, so was not binding on any save those in israel under the Old Covenant!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 32 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...