Last night's engagements at Santa Monica were very fruitful. It was a little different given the large pockets of conversations that were happening on the sidelines. I was very comforted to see what was going on. Different people even came up to me and asked me questions about Islam and I was happy to direct them to my website.
On a different note, however, was the conversation about Law or Torah—the first five books of Moses. The last conversation—or I should say the last question that was asked—had to do with the keeping of the Sabbath. It is important to discuss issues that pertain to theology, but the nature of the question was very different in that the young man wanted to know what saved him. I think he was depending on his works, i.e., keep the Sabbath, which he claimed warrants to say that he could be saved by keeping it. Personally I think Luis and the young man were speaking past each other. The young man, concerned with the Law, was asking why Christians do not keep the Sabbath. I too would ask that question in light of the third use of the law. Men, theologians, of good repute—e.g., Luther, Calvin and Olivian, to name a few—all held that the Sabbath is a moral decree, not only ceromonial. I think the primary confusion was about the application of the moral law under its third use. In this sense I would have to disagree with TruthDefenders, and at this juncture I am going to appeal to my confessional standards:
WCF 21.8—This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men after a due preparing of their hearts and ordering of their common affairs beforehand do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works words and thoughts about their wordly employments and recreations but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship and in the duties of necessity and mercy. |
Now this is an issue for debate, but it is intramural and should not be employed while we preach the evangelical gospel once delivered to saints (Jude 4). As a polemical issue I think that I take issue with some interpretations of this article, but like I said it is intramural for the Reformed community. I don't expect anyone who is not covenantal to hold to this view. My main aim in this blog is mainly to update people about the gospel as it is preached in Santa Monica. Polemical issues, though important, are hard to deal with in a quick conversation on the mic. It should be noted that notes and papers have been written by myself with due diligence in research, however limited for the purposes of evangelizing, and by others as well. If anyone wishes to debate these issues, I think the best way to talk about them is through email interchange or even forum boards, which are available (see the PuritanBoard website). Santa Monica is not a platform for a thorough discourse of theology or whatever view. It is primarily for evangelism.
Angel was causing havoc once again. (Boy he annoys me!) I also got to meet some nice people from Hope. I really enjoy their zeal for evangelism. I was able to give a young man some materials that he could pick up on eschatology—a personal favorite of mine.
As far as the Lord's Day is concerned, it was an awesome message. Ron preached a great sermon. It really got me thinking about servitude and the example Jesus laid down for Christians to follow. Covenant theology part in parcel was also discussed this morning in the catechism class (WSC Q7-Q10). We talked about the indicative/imperative perceptive will of God, which also branches into the Law/Gospel distinction in covenant theology. Finally, we celebrated the Lord's Table this morning. I loved it! Great morning today.
No comments:
Post a Comment