Someone sent me this FAQ by E-mail and I post my response here.

[I'm not enforcing the inclusion limits on this FAQ because most
of our readers probably haven't seen it.  --clh]

Christ warns that anyone who "breaks one of the least of these
commandments *and* teaches otheres to do the same will be called least in
the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19.  This FAQ is so full of error that I
must respond to it.  I hope that whoever maintains will remove from it the
partisan theology.


1.  The law was known to man before it was revealed on Mount Sinai.  Rom
4:15 notes that "where no law is, there is no transgression."  Not only
did sin exist before Sinai (Eden), but the Sabbath was kept before it
was revealed on Sinai (Ex 16).

2.  The problem with the first covenant was not the law, but the promise
which undergirded it.  God wanted to perform his will in the lives of the
people, but in their ignorance after 400 years of slavery, they promised
"what ever He says to do we will do."  That is why the new covenant is
based on "better promises" (Heb. 8:6).  Rather than do away with the law
God promised to "put my laws in their minds and write them on their
hearts" (Heb. 8:10).

3.  Including the Sabbath in the Acts 15 is selective inclusion.  The
Sabbath was more important to the Jews than circumcision.  If any attempt
had been made to do away with the Sabbath the reaction would have been
even more strident than is recorded in Acts 15.  Do not confuse the weekly
Sabbath of the Decalogue with the ceremonial sabbaths which could occur at
any time of the week and were part of the law (ceremonial) which was
*added* because of transgression (of the moral law) (Gal 3:19).

4.  Israel stands for God's people of all time.  That is why God *grafted*
the Gentiles in.  Roma 9:4 says that the adoption, the glory, the
covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God and the promises
belong to Israelites.   In explanation Paul makes it clear that being born
into Israel is not enough "For they are not all Israel, which are of
Israel" v 6.  Then in Gal 3:19 he says "if ye be Christ's, then are ye
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."  All Christians are
Abraham's seed, Jews, Israelites.  Not physically, for that is not the
criterion, but spiritually.  We are joint heirs with Jesus based on the
promise God made to all his people the Israelites.


People would probably agree but they are wrong.  How can the Sabbath
commandment be ceremonial when it is part of a law which predates the
ceremonial laws?  You are not free to choose your time of worship.  Even
if you were why do you follow a day of worship which has its origins in pagan
sun worship.  Would you rather give up a day which God blessed,
sanctified, and hallowed in exchange for one which all church leaders
agree has not biblical foundation (see Sabbath Admissions in
soc.religion.christian.bible-study).
I do not care what Calvin or any theologian says.  My guide is what God
says.  If being not under the law means we do not have to keep the law,
why is it that the only section of the law we have trouble with is the
Sabbath commandment, which is the only one God thought was important
enough to say *REMEMBER*?  If you study the word deeply you will note that
the message is that we are no longer under the condemnation of the law but
freed by the grace of God.  If a cop pulls me over for speeding, then in
court I ask for mercy and the judge does not throw the book at me but gives me
grace, do I walk out of the court saying "I can now go on speeding, for I
am now under grace?"  Being under grace I now drive within the speed
limit.  Paul adds to it in Rom. 3:31 "Di we then make void the law through
faith?  God forbid: yea, we establish the law."  "Wherefore the law is
holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (Rom. 7:12).


Do you prefer implication to fact?  A careful study of the Acts 20 shows
that the meeting was on Saturday night and that on Sunday morning Paul did
not go to a worship service, but set off on a long journey by foot to
Assos.  In ICor 16 there is no way you can equate "lay by him in store"
with "go to a worship service."

Wrong.  These are the sabbath days of the ceremonial law, not the Sabbath
day of the moral law.
Why would you prefer to twist and turn, relying on different arguments
which conflict with each other, rather than obey a simple request from a
God who loved you enough to die for you.  Jesus died because the law could
not be changed.  Why bother to die in order to meet the demands of a
broken law if all you need to do is change the law.  Penalties for law
breaking means the law is immutable.  That is why it is no sin not to
follow the demands of the ceremonial laws.  It will always be a sin to
make false gods, to violate God's name, to break the Sabbath, to steal, to
kill, etc.  Except it you disagree.  But then your opinion has no weight
when placed next to the word of God.

Darius

[It's not clear how much more needs to be said other than the FAQ.  I
think Paul's comments on esteeming one day over another (Rom 14) is
probably all that needs to be said.  I accept that Darius is doing
what he does in honor of the Lord.  I just wish he might equally
accept that those who "esteem all days alike" are similarly doing
their best to honor the Lord.

However I'd like to be clear that I do not think there's unambiguous
proof that regular Christian worship was on the first day.  As I
indicated, there are responses on both of the passages cited.

The difficulty with both of these passages is that they are actually
about something else.  They both look like they are talking about
nnregular Christian meetings, but neither explicitly says "and they
gathered every Sunday for worship".  We get various pieces of
information, but nothing aimed at answering this question.  

Act 2:26 describes Christians as participating both in Jewish temple
worship and in Christian communion services in homes.  Obviously the
temple worship is on the Sabbath.  Acts 13:44 is an example of
Christians participating in them.  Unfortunately it doesn't tell us
what day Christians met in their houses.  Acts 20:7, despite Darius'
confusion, is described by Acts as occuring on Sunday.  (I see no
reason to impose modern definitions of when days start, when the
Biblical text is clear about what was meant.)  The wording implies to
me that this was a normal meeting.  It doesn't say they gathered to
see Paul off, but that when they were gathered for breaking bread,
Paul talked about his upcoming travel.  But that's just not explicit
enough to be really convincing.  Similarly with 1 Cor 16:2.  It says
that on the first day they should set aside money for Paul's
collection.  Now if you want to believe that they gathered specially
to do this, or that they did it in their homes, I can't disprove it,
but the obvious time for a congregation to take an offering would be
when they normally gather for worship, and if they were expected to do
it in their homes there would be no reason to mention a specific day.
So I think the most obvious reading of this is that "on the first day
of every week" simply means every time they gather for worship.  

I think the reason we have only implications and not clear statements
is that the NT authors assumed that their readers knew when Christian
worship was.