The Christian’s Battle With Sin

Article “Our Battle with Sin” by Pastor Steve Weaver (original source here)

Chapter XIII, Paragraph 3 of the Second London Confession: “Of Sanctification”

Over the Christmas holidays, I have been fighting an ongoing battle to recover my home study. For the past two years it has collected all the extra tools, home repair items, and especially stacks of books, papers, and periodicals. At times it has seemed like a losing battle. Storage bins were purchased, bags of trash have been carried off, periodicals and books have been organized and shelved. At present only a couple of stacks of loose papers remain in my study’s floor. It is very encouraging, but the vestiges of the struggle remain. I know that the battle to keep my study usable will be a lifelong struggle. There has been progress, but more work needs to be done and new battles will need to be fought daily.

Likewise, the battle for holiness is a lifelong battle. The believer’s sanctification progresses surely, but slowly. Paragraph 3 of chapter 13 of the Confession begins with a reference to war. The war spoken of is the “continual and irreconcilable war” between the flesh and the Spirit mentioned in paragraph 2 of the same chapter.

In this war, the remaining corruption may greatly prevail for a time. Yet through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part overcomes. So the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. They pursue a heavenly life, in gospel obedience to all the commands that Christ as Head and King has given them in his Word.1

Spirit or spirit?

In the first paragraph of this chapter, both the regenerate believer’s “new spirit” and the Holy Spirit are mentioned. At the end of paragraph 2, language from the Authorized Version of Galatians 5:17 is used of the conflict between the flesh and the Holy Spirit. However, listed along with the Galatians 5:17 prooftext is 1 Peter 2:11 where believers are called upon “to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.” The latter passage is clearly noting the conflict between our fleshly desires and our human souls.

The dual reference creates some confusion when moving to paragraph 3 and its opening mention of “this war” in which, we are told, “the remaining corruption may greatly prevail for a time.” The careful reader may ask, “What? The corruption of the flesh prevail over the Holy Spirit?” Then we realize that a shift has taken place in the confession to the struggle between the flesh and the regenerated human spirit. It is over the human spirit, although redeemed, that the flesh temporarily prevails.

The War and Persecution

In the battle between the flesh and the Spirit, the flesh may appear to prevail, and according to the confession, may actually do so “for a time.” In Romans 7:23, the Apostle Paul declares, “but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.” Although some today may differ in their interpretation of this passage, the framers of the confession understood Paul here to be referring to his own experience as a Christian struggling with sin. They used this verse as a prooftext for the believer’s struggle with sin. Christians face a lifelong struggle between their redeemed spirits and their not-yet-redeemed bodies.

Seventeenth-century Baptists knew what it was to experience long physical struggles in their periodic bouts with persecution by the state. London Baptist pastor Hercules Collins (1647–1702) was one of the original signatories of the Second London Confession when it was approved by the General Assembly in 1689.2 His long pastoral ministry at the Wapping Church (1677–1702) was punctuated by periods of persecution. In an imprisonment in 1684, Collins wrote to his church in a work titled A Voice from Prison. In this printed sermon, he urged his congregation to prepare themselves to endure persecution by practicing the mortification of their sins. “Let not that Man think to wear the Cross of Persecution, that doth not first wear the Cross of Mortification.”3 Collins went on to say,

We should inure our selves to wear the Publick Cross, by wearing it first more privately in our Houses, in our Families, in our Shops and Trades: For let not that Person think he will ever be able to part with his Houses, Lands, Liberties, for the Lord Jesus Christ, that cannot first part with a secret lust: But if we have Grace enough, to wear daily the Cross of Mortification of the old Man; you need not fear but he that giveth Grace to do the greater, will give Grace to doe the lesser; for I look upon the subduing of Corruption, a greater thing then enduring Persecution; though neither can be done as it ought, without help from Heaven.4

Those who, by the grace of God, were regularly putting to death their sins would experience an easier path in enduring physical persecution. Thus, Collins was encouraging personal holiness as the best means to prepare for persecution for the cause of Christ. Without this spiritual practice, professing believers would not be able to withstand the temptation to deny Christ in the face of persecution.

Collins closed his prison epistle with a series of prayers to God. In the first petition, Collins asked that God would purge the church of its impurities which he saw as a cause for their persecution. “God is contending with us,” Collins warned. Therefore, he urged his church to purify, not only their churches, but also their own hearts. “Let us all Banish and Expel the Achan out of our Hearts, out of our Churches, and shew our selves Zealous against Sin.”5 Collins believed God was using persecution to drive believers to fight against their own sin in the continual war between the flesh and the spirit.

Winning the War

Despite the seemingly unending quagmire, the “regenerate part” (redeemed soul) will ultimate overcome due to the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit who is at work within us to sanctify us. For this confidence, the framers pointed to Romans 6:14, which says, “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” The conquering of sin comes “through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ.” Here the distinction between our redeemed human spirit and the Holy Spirit becomes clear. It is the Holy Spirt who enables our spirit to overcome the flesh. The Spirit is described by the adjective “Sanctifying” as opposed to the more common “Holy.” In other words, the Spirit who is Holy is in the business of making men holy. It is only by the work of the Spirit that any victories over sin and the flesh are achieved.

From this point onward, this paragraph of the confession strikes a more encouraging note. Now, believers are addressed as “Saints” who are growing in grace and “perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” Although the modern English edition cited in this article has moved the scriptural proofs of Ephesians 4:15–16, 2 Corinthians 3:18 and 7:1 to the end of the paragraph, they were originally placed here in the original 1677 edition.6 This placement is confirmed by a comparison of the text of the Second London Confession with one of its source documents—the Westminster Confession of Faith.7 The Westminster Confession ended its chapter on sanctification with the phrase “fear of God” and included all three of the prooftexts. Ephesians 4:15–16, which speaks of believers growing up, illumines the phrase “the saints grow in grace.” 2 Corinthians 3:18, which speaks of “beholding the glory of the Lord” and “being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another,” explains the phase “perfecting holiness.” 2 Corinthians 7:1, which commands believers to “let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God,” expands upon the idea of “perfecting holiness in the fear of God,” using the exact same language found in the Authorized Version.

As is well-known to the readers of this publication, the Second London Confession is a Baptist adaptation of the work of the Westminster Assembly in their confession of faith first published in 1647. Lesser known is that whenever the Second London Confession deviates from the wording of the Westminster divines, it follows the Savoy Declaration (1658) of the Congregationalists, which is itself a modification of the Westminster Confession. Perhaps even lesser known is that on occasion the framers of the Second London Confession would utilize the language of the First London Confession to emphasize their Baptist distinctives or to elaborate upon some topic. The Second London adds the wording from the latter part of the article on sanctification in the First London Confession to the original language of the Westminster/Savoy confessions.8

The topic of sanctification is addressed in chapter 29 of the First London Confession. The chapter in its entirety states:

All believers are a holy and sanctified people, and that sanctification is a spiritual grace of the new covenant, and an effect of the love of God manifested in the soul, whereby the believer presseth after a heavenly and evangelical obedience to all the commands, which Christ as head and king in His new covenant hath prescribed to them.9

Beginning with the word “presseth,” the Second London follows the language of the First London fairly closely in their seventeenth-century editions, the only substantial change being the exchange of “Word” for “new covenant.”10 The additional language makes clear that genuine believers are interested in growing in holiness. They are not merely passive in the process of sanctification. The language of “pressing,” “obedience,” and “commands” reminds believers of their responsibility to “work out” their own salvation as God “works in” them (Philippians 2:12–13).

All this was to be done in submission to the authority of Christ as king and His precepts contained in the written Word. These Baptists built their churches upon the idea of the regulative principle of worship, which declared that God alone in His Word has the authority to determine how He is worshiped. The language from the end of the chapter on sanctification requiring “obedience to all the commands that Christ as Head and King has given them in His Word” seems very familiar. This was exactly the language used to defend their ecclesiastical distinctive of believer’s baptism by immersion. Their interest in the authority of Scripture and Christ as law-giver, however, was not merely ecclesiological, but also had direct personal application. In other words, they were not only interested in the church obeying the commands of Christ corporately regarding the ordinances, specifically the immersion of believers; they also held to the lordship of Christ over the individual lives of His people. Christ requires that His people walk and grow in holiness. Growing in holiness was no more optional for the individual believer than following Christ’s example in being immersed as a professing believer.

Conclusion: A Gospel Obedience

The obedience to the commands of Christ, while expected of believers, were not seen as a means of justification. Instead, this obedience is a “gospel obedience” that flows out into believers’ lives as a result of faith in the gospel. Chapter 11 of the Second London makes clear that even this “gospel obedience” is not the means of justification. Believers are justified “for Christ’s sake alone and not for anything produced in them or done by them.” The confession goes on to say that Christ

does not impute faith itself, the act of believing, or any other gospel obedience to them as their righteousness. Instead, He imputes Christ’s active obedience to the whole law and passive obedience in His death as their whole and only righteousness by faith.

In his final work published in the final year of his life, Hercules Collins demonstrated how those who first embraced the confession lived out the tension between relying on Christ’s righteousness and the biblical commands to pursue holiness. Believers, he said, “ought to live so holily as if we were to be saved by our living, and yet when we have done all, to rely upon Christ and his righteousness.”11

NOTES:

1 Stan Reeves, ed., The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in Modern English (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2017), 31–32. Citations of the confession in the remainder of this article will come from this edition. Scripture references are from the English Standard Version (ESV).

2 For details on the life and theology of Hercules Collins, see G. Stephen Weaver, Jr., Orthodox, Puritan, Baptist: Hercules Collins (1647—1702) and Particular Baptist Identity in Early Modern England (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015).

3 Hercules Collins, A Voice from the Prison, Or, Meditations on Revelations III.XI. Tending To the Establishment of Gods Little Flock, In an Hour of Temptation (London, 1684), 30. Spelling and capitalization in original.

4 Collins, A Voice from the Prison, 30.

5 Ibid., 32.

6 See A Confession of Faith: Put forth by the Elders and Brethren of Many Congregations of Christians (baptized upon Profession of their Faith) in London and the Country (London: Benjamin Harris, 1677), 46.

7 An excellent resource for comparing the major seventeenth-century Particular Baptist confessions and catechisms with their source documents has been provided in James M. Renihan, ed., True Confessions: Baptist Documents in the Reformed Family (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2004).

8 The language used by the framers of the Second London Confession comes from the second edition of the First London Confession published in 1646. The first edition had been published in 1644. A Confession of Faith of seven Congregations or Churches of Christ in London, which are commonly (but unjustly) called Anabaptists (London: Matth. Simmons, 1646).

9 Renihan, True Confessions, 116–17.

10 The modern English edition begins this section with “They pursue….”

11 Hercules Collins, The Temple Repair’d: Or, An Essay to Revive the Long-Neglected Ordinances, of Exercising the Spiritual Gift of Prophecy for the Edification of the Churches; and of Ordaining Ministers Duly Qualified (London: William and Joseph Marshal, 1702), 36–37.

Biblical Citations in the 1689 London Baptist Confession

Question: Are the implicit interpretations of the bible citations provided in the Confession mandatory for confessionalists? Why? Why not?

Answer: From the Preface: We have also taken care to affix texts of Scripture at the bottom, for the confirmation of each article in our Confession; in which work we have studiously endeavored to select such as are most clear and pertinent for the proof of what is asserted by us; and our earnest desire is that all into whose hands this may come would follow that (never enough commended) example of the noble Bereans, who searched the Scriptures daily that they might find out whether the things preached to them were so or not.

“From a straight forward reading of this paragraph they thought the Scripture citations confirmed the content of the paragraph.” – Rick Fernandez

“Our unity is not based on our interpretation of the individual texts of the Bible, but on our unity regarding the doctrine taught by the Bible. So the implicit meaning assigned to those texts by the Confession to the proof texts it cites is not necessarily as authoritative as the confesssional statements themselves. On the other hand, a careful consideration of those proofs may shed light on how the meaning of the Confession and conversely on the meaning of those texts.” – Dr. Sam Waldron

Should you use the 1689 London Confession in your church?

london-baptist-1689The following article is by Shawn Wright. (original source here at 9marks ministries) He is an Associate Professor of Church History at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky as well as the Pastor of Leadership Development at Clifton Baptist Church.

Though I am not sure I agree with every point made in the article, there are some interesting points made which can open up worthwhile discussion.

****(AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE IS A RESPONSE BY DR. SAM WALDRON)

Should you use the 1689 London Confession in your church?

Although the 1689 London Confession (also known as the Second London Confession [SLC] to distinguish it from the 1644, or First London Baptist Confession) is a wonderful statement of Calvinistic Baptist faith, it should not be used as a local church’s statement of faith. Three factors lead to this conclusion

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

First, like all historical documents, the SLC was written in a particular historical context. This context shows the need that Particular Baptists as a whole felt to issue the SLC. The SLC was intended to distance the Baptists from questionable groups and to show their orthodox Protestantism, vis-à-vis other Reformed Protestants. The “Puritan Revolution” in mid-17th century England had its religious expression in the Westminster Assembly. This Puritan group of divines was overwhelmingly Presbyterian in character (though there were a handful of Congregationalists in attendance), so the “standards” it produced —including the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF; issued in 1646)—were expressions of fundamental Puritan Presbyterianism.

The Puritan revolution failed. With the reign of King Charles II renewed persecution of Protestants began. Before toleration came with the “glorious revolution” of William and Mary in 1688 two other Protestant denominations issued very slightly-modified versions of the WCF. Their reasons for broadly reissuing the WCF were, first, to show their broad agreement with the WCF and, second, to distance themselves from emerging groups like the Quakers who were viewed by orthodox Protestants as holding aberrant doctrine. So the Congregationalists issued the Savoy Declaration in 1658 and the Particular Baptists composed the SLC in 1677. The SLC was issued anonymously in times of Protestant persecution and then with full denominational support after toleration came for Protestants in 1689. We must be aware of the SLC’s place in history, for this influenced its shape.

Of course, the SLC’s historical situation does not mean that the document itself is heretical or even useless for Christians today. That situation does help us, though, to understand the felt need of 17th century Particular Baptists to identify themselves doctrinally with other Protestants in the Reformed tradition. They succeeded from a denomination-perspective. But that does not mean that the SLC should be used as a local church statement of faith. Continue reading

Modifications to the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689

KINGSJSv3A Statement from the King’s Church Elders

Concerning Chapter 22 of the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689: OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AND THE SABBATH DAY

At the Diet of Worms in 1521, Martin Luther declared “to act against conscience is neither right nor safe.” How true this is! It is a concept drawn from the Bible itself. “Whatever is not of faith is sin” (Romans 14:23).

It needs to be said, with great emphasis, that there are wonderful, genuine Christians, who truly love God’s word who come to differing conclusions on this issue of the Sabbath. This is not a new phenomenon in any way. This was the case even in New Testament times. Romans 14: 5, 6 says, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord.” In this chapter (Romans 14), the Apostle Paul outlines how we are to handle these kind of differences in the setting of the local Church, and rather than breaking fellowship with each other, exhorts us to walk together with our fellow Christians in love and understanding, believing the best of each other, while at the same time, never violating our individual conscience.

In the context of outlining what Christ accomplished for His people on the cross, the Apostle Paul writes, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath (literally, ‘sabbaths’ plural). These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” (Colossians 2:16, 17) Christians are told to never let anyone judge them concerning Sabbath observation. When Church leadership tells another Christian “we cannot walk with you because of your view of the Sabbath” this is a clear violation of Paul’s apostolic command. Such should never be the case.

The Bible alone is the word of God – the sole infallible rule of faith for the people of God. Historic creeds and confessions of the Church, while having great weight and significance, never rise to the level of God breathed Scripture. Only Scripture has the authority to bind the conscience absolutely. This also means that every creed and confession must therefore be in agreement and alignment with the Bible to be true.

As elders at King’s Church, our study of the Scriptures has brought us to the conclusions outlined here below. Yet even as we make our position plain, we wish to make clear that those who hold a strong Sabbatarian view are very welcome at King’s Church. Please know that! We simply ask that they do not seek to promote or push that view on others in the flock. To these precious people we say “we can live with you as long as you can live with us.”

As to the question, “ARE THE SABBATH LAWS BINDING ON CHRISTIANS TODAY?”

We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are typological and associated with the Mosaic Covenant, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have been fulfilled along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses’ law that prefigured Christ. Here are the reasons we hold this view.

1. In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to Sabbaths as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase “a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day” refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). Paul is referring to all kinds of Sabbaths, which is why he used the Plural.

2. The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.

3. The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.

4. In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

5. Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle. Also, a Gentile cannot be expected to practice a sign of a covenant of which he is not a member; thus requiring Sabbath observance by Gentiles makes no sense. It’s like requiring unbelievers to attend the Lord’s Supper.

6. There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses.

7. When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers.

8. The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them.

9. In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath).

10. In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers).

11. Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord’s Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11).

So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord’s people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as “the Sabbath.”

Note on Col. 2:16

A. Why do some translations translate the last part of vs. 16 as “or a sabbath day” (using the indefinite article and render “Sabbath” as singular), while others translate “or sabbaths” (not using the indefinite article but render “Sabbath” in the plural)?

It seems to us that the original intent of Paul, using the plural without the definite article, was to refer to multiple “kinds” of sabbaths – i.e. weekly, seasonal, etc. – which were commanded in the mosaic covenant.

To illustrate in English, using the term “holiday” – if we said, “let no one judge you in regard to a holiday” (using the indefinite article and singular noun) – we would mean, let no one judge you in regard to all of the days we classify as holidays – i.e. 4th of July, Memorial Day, Easter, Christmas, etc. Also, if we said, “let no one judge you in regard to holidays (omitting the indefinite article and using the plural noun) we would understand the same thing – i.e. let no one judge you in regard to any days we classify as holidays since there are different types of holidays.

The fact that Paul used the plural can only mean one of two things.

1. Either the thought is since the weekly Sabbath is repeated he put it in the plural because he wanted to say let no one judge you in regard to any particular week’s Sabbath. We do not think he meant this – but if he did it supports the non-sabbatarian position.

2. If the reason for the plural is not #1, then the plural must be being used as in the “holiday” illustration above – i.e. there was more than one type of “Sabbath” and Paul wanted to address them all.

Now if we are to be Sabbatarians we must go further in explaining Paul’s use of the plural. We must say he wanted to address more than one kind of Sabbath (the non-weekly ones) but not all kinds of Sabbaths (i.e. not the weekly)! And we would need to say that his readers (mainly Gentile Christians) could be expected to conclude this!

In summary, it may be clarifying to ask (and answer) this question:

What did the 4th commandment mean to the Israelites to whom it was given?

The fourth commandment was to be observed as a sign of the Mosaic Covenant the Israelites had just entered:

Exodus 31:12 And the LORD said to Moses, 13 “You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you.

Ezekiel 20:9 But I acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations among whom they lived, in whose sight I made myself known to them in bringing them out of the land of Egypt. 10 So I led them out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. 11 I gave them my statutes and made known to them my rules, by which, if a person does them, he shall live. 12 Moreover, I gave them my Sabbaths, as a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them… 19 I am the LORD your God; walk in my statutes, and be careful to obey my rules, 20 and keep my Sabbaths holy that they may be a sign between me and you, that you may know that I am the LORD your God.

Sabbath observance was to remind Israel that they were in covenant relationship with Yahweh. The reason the sign was a day of rest was to remind them that Yahweh redeemed them from the house of bondage and gave them rest.

Deut. 5:12 Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

Israel practiced this command because they were a redeemed-by-Yahweh-people. This is what the Sabbath in the Decalouge, in the Mosaic Covenant, is about. This is not a natural law matter written on all human consciences. It’s a redemptive revelation revealed in the “gospel” in the law – God giving His people rest and rolling back the curse.

None of the Israelite observance was applicable to non covenant members, i.e. Gentiles. Actually it would be a misuse of the command for Gentiles to practice this Sabbath as if they were one of Yahweh’s people (much like an unbeliever practicing the Lord’s Supper in our day).

*The WCF/LBCF sabbatarian needs to show that 1) Non covenant members were required to keep the 4th commandment and 2) when they do keep it, keeping it means something different for them from what it means for covenant members.

Concerning Chapter 26 of the Confession: OF THE CHURCH

Paragraph 4 – we revise to say:

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner. As the Lord Jesus is the single head of the universal church it is impossible that any person has been or ever will be the single head of the universal church on earth.

Sabbath and Conscience

KINGSJSv3A Statement from the King’s Church Elders

Concerning the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 – Chapter 22: OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AND THE SABBATH DAY and the New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith (1833), article 15: OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH:

At the Diet of Worms in 1521, Martin Luther declared “to act against conscience is neither right nor safe.” How true this is! It is a concept drawn from the Bible itself. “Whatever is not of faith is sin” (Romans 14:23).

It needs to be said, with great emphasis, that there are wonderful, genuine Christians, who truly love God’s word who come to differing conclusions on this issue of the Sabbath. This is not a new phenomenon in any way. This was the case even in New Testament times. Romans 14: 5, 6 says, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord.” In this chapter (Romans 14), the Apostle Paul outlines how we are to handle these kind of differences in the setting of the local Church, and rather than breaking fellowship with each other, exhorts us to walk together with our fellow Christians in love and understanding, believing the best of each other, while at the same time, never violating our individual conscience.

In the context of outlining what Christ accomplished for His people on the cross, the Apostle Paul writes, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath (literally, ‘sabbaths’ plural). These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” (Colossians 2:16, 17) Christians are told to never let anyone judge them concerning Sabbath observation. When Church leadership tells another Christian “we cannot walk with you because of your view of the Sabbath” this is a clear violation of Paul’s apostolic command. Such should never be the case.

The Bible alone is the word of God – the sole infallible rule of faith for the people of God. Historic creeds and confessions of the Church, while having great weight and significance, never rise to the level of God breathed Scripture. Only Scripture has the authority to bind the conscience absolutely. This also means that every creed and confession must therefore be in agreement and alignment with the Bible to be true.

As elders at King’s Church, our study of the Scriptures has brought us to the conclusions outlined here below. Yet even as we make our position plain, we wish to make clear that those who hold a strong Sabbatarian view are very welcome at King’s Church. Please know that! We simply ask that they do not seek to promote or push that view on others in the flock. To these precious people we say “we can live with you as long as you can live with us.” As to the question…

ARE THE SABBATH LAWS BINDING ON CHRISTIANS TODAY?

We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are typological and associated with the Mosaic Covenant, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have been fulfilled along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses’ law that prefigured Christ. Here are the reasons we hold this view.

1. In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to Sabbaths as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase “a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day” refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). Paul is referring to all kinds of Sabbaths, which is why he used the Plural.

2. The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.

3. The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.

4. In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

5. Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle. Also, a Gentile cannot be expected to practice a sign of a covenant of which he is not a member; thus requiring Sabbath observance by Gentiles makes no sense. It’s like requiring unbelievers to attend the Lord’s Supper.

6. There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses.

7. When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers.

8. The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them.

9. In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath).

10. In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers).

11. Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord’s Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11).

So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord’s people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as “the Sabbath.”

Note on Col. 2:16

A. Why do some translations translate the last part of vs. 16 as “or a sabbath day” (using the indefinite article and render “Sabbath” as singular), while others translate “or sabbaths” (not using the indefinite article but render “Sabbath” in the plural)?

It seems to us that the original intent of Paul, using the plural without the definite article, was to refer to multiple “kinds” of sabbaths – i.e. weekly, seasonal, etc. – which were commanded in the mosaic covenant.

To illustrate in English, using the term “holiday” – if we said, “let no one judge you in regard to a holiday” (using the indefinite article and singular noun) – we would mean, let no one judge you in regard to all of the days we classify as holidays – i.e. 4th of July, Memorial Day, Easter, Christmas, etc. Also, if we said, “let no one judge you in regard to holidays (omitting the indefinite article and using the plural noun) we would understand the same thing – i.e. let no one judge us in regard to any days we classify as holidays since there are different types of holidays.

The fact that Paul used the plural can only mean one of two things.

1. Either the thought is since the weekly Sabbath is repeated he put it in the plural because he wanted to say let no one judge you in regard to any particular week’s Sabbath. We do not think he meant this – but if he did it supports the non-sabbatarian position.

2. If the reason for the plural is not #1, then the plural must be being used as in the “holiday” illustration above – i.e. there was more than one type of “Sabbath” and Paul wanted to address them all.

Now if we are to be Sabbatarians we must go further in explaining Paul’s use of the plural. We must say he wanted to address more than one kind of Sabbath (the non-weekly ones) but not all kinds of Sabbaths (i.e. not the weekly)! And that his readers could be expected to conclude this?!

The Guardrail of the Creeds

“While never rising to the same authority as sacred Scripture (which alone is the word of God), the ancient creeds and confessions of the Church have served the people of God through the ages as concise and precise summaries of what the Bible teaches on very vital matters. These include, amongst others, the doctrine of God, the person and work of Christ, how a man is justified in God’s sight as well as the doctrine of last things (eschatology). On today’s Dividing Line, guest host John Samson teaches on the practical value of the ancient Creeds and Confessions of the Church.”

Confessing the Faith in 1644 and 1689

CONFESSING THE FAITH IN 1644 AND 1689

Pastor James M. Renihan

Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at Westminster Seminary in California
Reformed Baptist Church of North San Diego County, Escondido, CA

Confessing the Faith in 1644 and 1689

Introduction

Try to imagine a situation like this: You live in a large city, the capital of your country. You are a member of one of a handful of churches, just beginning to grow and be noticed in the city. But it is illegal for you to meet with your brothers and sisters. For as long as anyone living can remember, there has been only one legal religion, and every attempt to disagree with that one religion has met with opposition and persecution.

As your churches grow, rumors begin to spread. A hundred years before, some people with beliefs that were marginally similar to your own had been involved in a terrible rebellion in another country relatively close by, and rumors were beginning to spread that your churches would do the same kinds of things. What would you do?

That is something of the situation facing the members of seven Calvinistic Baptist churches in London in 1644. In the space of a few short years, their numbers had grown, and people were beginning to take notice of their presence in London. But it was often not a friendly notice. In 1642, an anonymous pamphlet entitled A Warning for England, especially for London; in the famous History of the frantick Anabaptists, their wild Preachings and Practices in Germany was published. It is an amazing piece of work. The author, in 9 double sized pages, described the sad events of Munster, Germany. Rebellion, sedition, theft, murder are all charged to the “anabaptists.” Throughout, there is no mention of anything but these events from another time and place—until the very last sentence of the pamphlet which stated “So, let all the factious and seditious enemies of the church and state perish; but, upon the head of king Charles, let the crown flourish! Amen.” The warning was in one sense subtle, but in another brilliantly powerful: beware! What was done in Germany by the anabaptists may well happen again in London, if these people are allowed to spread their doctrines.

So what did the Baptists do? The situation was potentially explosive. They knew that it was essential to demonstrate that they were not radicals, subversively undermining the fabric of society. To the contrary, they were law-abiding citizens, who were being misrepresented and misunderstood by many around them. They wanted and needed to demonstrate that they were quite orthodox in their theological beliefs, and that they had no agenda beyond a faithful and conscientious commitment to God and His Word.

As the Baptists faced these circumstances, they decided that they needed to take action to relieve the fears and misinformation spreading. God had blessed their efforts thus far, and they did not want to see those efforts frustrated by the rumor and innuendo of their enemies. So they adopted a practice frequently used by others in the last 150 years—they issued a confession of faith so that anyone interested in them might be able to obtain an accurate understanding of their beliefs and practices. Continue reading