“A Brief Synopsis and Defense of the Reformed View of the Christian Sabbath”

By Mr. Julio Martinez, Jr.

    In recent days, I have given more than ample emphasis on the theology of the Sabbath. Even in some discussions that I have around the table with some relatives, I would have to fight tooth-in-nail to prove that the Sabbath is not a ceremonial law. They would even look at me like some legalistic, eccentric young zealot. In some sense, I am a zealot; I am zealot for God's Law, His moral law (yes, I am saying that the Sabbath is a morally divine referendum). Having considered all this, I have looked at some writers, especially Reformed theologians (being that I am a Reformed Presbyterian with the PCA, Presbyterian Church in American), to give me some kind of closure. Right here, right now, I want to mention only one Reformed theologian; his name is Johannes G. Vos. He wrote his famous The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary (Ed. G.I. Williamson), but I want to focus specifically on Questions 115-121.

Synopsis

    The brevity of the debate, whether the Sabbath-keeping is at all viable in the New Covenant context, will determine how we will summarize and/or discursively analyze the content of the Lord's Day. There are roughly six questions in relation to the fourth commandment, so we will only look at Question 116 on the requirements of the fourth commandment.

    Question: What is
required in the fourth commandment?

Answer: The fourth commandment requires of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his word, expressly one whole day in seven; which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian Sabbath,^[1] and in the New Testament called The Lord's Day.^[2]

^1. Deut. 5:12, 14, 18; Gen. 2:2-3; I Cor. 16:1-2; Acts 20:7; Matt. 5:17-18; Isa. 56:2, 4, 6-7

^2. Rev. 1:10

Vos here moves on to define moral laws, more specifically in relation to the fourth commandment:

1. The law of the Sabbath was instituted not with Moses but with creation.
   
2. Since the fourth commandment is found in the context of moral laws, it makes no sense to conclude that it is not a moral law.
   
3. Like the other laws (moral laws), the fourth was written with non-perishable elements, thus signifying the perpetual nature of the fourth commandment.
   
4. God's own finger instantiated the entire law, and the fourth is part of that law; therefore, the law en toto is therefore perpetually binding.
   

The Critique

Vos then moves the inference to another level: "On whom is the Sabbath commandment binding? Upon all men without exception. As Jesus said, 'the Sabbath was made for man'…" Now tell me this: if the law is purely ceremonial, why would Christ in the New Covenant, though it wasn't realized until his resurrection, say that the Sabbath was made for man, not only for Israel? That's because it is true that the Sabbath is binding on all men, even upon the Christian in the New Covenant context. The debate rests on the fact that the fourth commandment is binding solely on the basis that it is moral in se. Second, if the fourth commandment is be viewed as cultic, then we must assume that the commandments five through ten are also cultic, viz. applying only to the nation of Israel. Vos reminds us that the Ten Commandments form a unity. If the law begins morally and ends morally, logically then list must continue on moral grounds.

Michael Horton’s “Christless Christianity,” Ch.1: My Opinions on the Church

Diagnosing the problem:
The church has been going through a death that it herself is not noticing. In its attempts to become a relevant church, it has largely lost its aim and goal—the Great Commission. I would even say that the ultimate goal is found in the first question in the Westminster Catechisms (both short and large), i.e., enjoying and glorifying God in all of life. Horton is right; we don't need a life-coach. God is not here in my life to maximally make life better for me quantitatively but to 'kill me' daily and make me more like His Son. And what I found most appalling is the statistical 'error' George Barna scribes in The Second Coming of the Church: 86% of Americans claim some religious association or orientation, specifically in the Christian religion. How can America claim 86% of its populace when large churches like Joel Osteen's do not preach the gospel of Christ? Did I mention that Osteen's church is the largest in the country? (See the special on Joel Osteen on 60 Minutes. I have made it available on my Facebook at your, the reader, convenience.) My question here is—how in the world did we get here? And how is this bondage? Frankly, I think the churches, as Horton shows, is looking more like an American church rather than a Church in America. Nationalism is replacing piety; Commercialism is replacing the Word and Sacraments. The bondage is the turpitude of wanting to become like the world in place of looking like the historical Church. The problem is becoming relevant.

SCRF Retreat and Some Thoughts

The retreat, according to the Facebook forum of the SCRF, was a success. I don't think that it wasn't; I just wish it was a little different. Friday night, I got to meet most of the people that arrived that night. More arrived later, obviously—but the main one's that I talked to were Blake (who was consequently from Boise, Idaho) and Stephanie (I think that was her name). She was interesting…very cordial. Blake was chill. There was something very interesting about him. He was very quiet and, in a way, carried a melancholy with him. I would like to see how he interacts with his friends. As we began conversing about his hometown, he told me about the friends he has back at home. He categorized his social strata into categories of two: LDS or drugsters. Though it seems unfair for him, especially since his church should be considered a chapel (he goes to an old school Dutch church), he really doesn't have the luxury of meeting kids his own age, making really difficult to meet people.

Then there were the messages. Dr. Gary Johnson did most of the speaking. He was definitely an enthusiastic speaker, and he has a fervent heart for the gospel and theology (New Testament theology). I was able to get to know the man. He studied under Greg L. Bahnsen. He also said that it was Greg (he called him that) lead him to the Reformed faith. It seems that Bahnsen has that influence on people. I think God really has used Bahnsen to bring people to the faith, specifically the Reformed faith. Dr. Johnson told me that Greg took him to Westminster East to see Van Til. Van Til, I heard gave Dr. Johnson all his works when they went to see him in his study (Machen Hall). My pastor, Rev. Ronald Gleason Ph.D., had received something of a similar gratuitous cordiality when he met Van Til as well. I was actually in his study as I surveyed the voluminous works of Cornelius Van Til. I myself have been devoting myself to the study of the pioneer of the so-called Presuppositional approach to apologetics. But back the point. Dr. Johnson shared with me all the wonderful times he had with Greg. I thought it was amazing. He even complimented me in my learning of Reformed theologians. Though I wish I knew more and understood more, I thought that the compliment was honorary, since he himself is a graduate of a strenuously scholarly seminary. During dinner he also shared with me all the works he has published. He's done so much for Christian education that I'm almost willing to become a teacher for that sole cause. Amazing man!

The messages were all amazing. They were all based on the book of Galatians. The first night was purely diagnostic self-examination. The next morning we looked at how the cross of Christ exposes all the filth within the church. And I was sadly late to the Lord's Day sermon on the last day. I slept in—well, after the fact that I had to nap after lunch (or was it breakfast?). I'm going to try and post most of the sermons, at least the outlines, on here for people—my readers—to see.