<BGSOUND="berceuse.mid" LOOP="1" Click on the Pause button to the right of this icon if you want the music to stop.

CAN CHRISTIANS CHOOSE THEIR OWN DAY OF WORSHIP??

Updated 12/24/2000: Aesthetics

DIDN'T PAUL TELL US WE ARE TO BE FULLY PERSUADED IN OUR OWN MINDS?

Didn't Paul tell us that we are to be fully persuaded in our own minds and that we are to choose whichever day we want to rest on and what we want to do? In our contemporary society the air is thick with the lulling and unrelenting delusion that there is no consequence for the state of confusion found in the Christian world.  From time to time some religionists acknowledge that there is a problem and speak apologetically about it.  Yet the general norm is to rationalize the problem away along with its implications. 

Oh sure there would be many who would declare that it's not unprecedented at all.  They would quickly point to Romans 14 where was cited some major disagreements among the brethren regarding days to be or not to be kept holy, and foods to be or not to be eaten.  To deal with these issues Paul left some instruction for the church. Before I continue, allow me to alert all my readers to a very important warning contained in Scripture.  Every portion of scripture can be wrested from its true meaning, and, needless to say, that is a very dangerous thing to do.  Yet Paul's writings can more easily be wrested from its true meaning. In 2 Peter 3:15, 16, we find a warning we had never seen before concerning any other portion of scripture.  This is a warning against misinterpreting the writings of Paul, and it's interesting to note that those who support confusion, calling it "diversity" frequently resort thither to Paul to justify their course. 2 Peter 3:15, 16 says:

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Here is acknowledged the degree of difficulty found in the writings of Paul, more than intimating that great care must be taken when taking reference from his writings.  It implies that portions of his writings do not mean how they sound.  I cannot overemphasize the care that must be taken here.

Nevertheless, in the heat of the contentions among the brethren did Paul give the instruction:

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

2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 

3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. -- Romans 14:1-3.

Then is added:

The question should quickly arise, How can Paul make statements like these, and yet give his strong admonition in 1 Corinthians 1:10 that we must be of the same mind and the same judgment? 

1 Cor. 1:10:

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

In Romans 14, it appears that he is saying that the Christian brethren could in essence believe what they want, and yet he appeals for singularness of moral judgment in 1 Corinthians 1:10.

Anyone who has any experience with the Bible knows of a surety that it does not contradict itself.  This is a fairly universally acknowledged fact.  Yet if that is the case, how come Christians contradict other Christians?  Yet how come the apparent disparity among these two scriptures?  Can we accept their contradiction?

No, we can not accept the notion that these two scriptures contradict each other.  For one thing, it would be thoughtful to note that Paul wrote this portion of scripture to the Corinthian Church in response to irregular circumstances which took place and which threatened the spiritual prosperity of that church at that time.  In that, Paul apparently condoned some of the brethren holding one day holy above another while others held no day holy at all. 

Now brethren, did you ever know of a time when Christian brethren did not hold a day as holy unto the Lord?  Obviously there was never such a time. If one was to look up historical records even dating back to Paul's day however (even all the way back to the time of Nimrod), he would see how God's people consistently held only two days of the seven as holy to this very day (Saturday and Sunday).  There is therefore no record at all of Christians who regarded no day as holy; for if that was the case there would have been no stated day for all to gather and worship together at church.  It would also be odd to notice some Christians regarding Monday as a day of worship, and some regarding Wednesday, etc.  Proper church organization would have been virtually impossible under those conditions.  At no time in history did certain groups among God's church hold church on Monday, and other groups convened Tuesday, nor Thursday, etc.  Also a weekly employment schedule would be much more complex if workers regarded diverse weekdays as holy and required time off for those days.  Every Christian held the weekly Sabbath day holy insomuch that it was not a point of contention.  Therefore the weekly Sabbath was not even considered in the statement when Paul declared that some Christians regarded, "every day alike." 

In Paul's day every Christian kept the Sabbath day holy. Indeed the message Paul was giving in Romans 14 was, "LET EVERY MAN BE FULLY PERSUADED IN HIS OWN MIND."  That is, "LET EVERY MAN BE FULLY PERSUADED [OF THE TRUTH] IN HIS OWN MIND."  THIS SCRIPTURE IS NOT AN ABANDONMENT OF THE IDEA THAT TRUTH IS SINGULAR! 

Paul was in a way stating that he was in a predicament. Two different groups of Christians were squared off against each other and Paul was in the middle of it. He therefore spoke in terms of the following: "Oh man! Now I'm in a spot! One man regards a day above another, and the other regards every day alike! And now I am in the middle of it! Both sides expect me to side with them at the expense of the other! What am I going to do! They are fighting with each other and judging each other!" That was the scenario that Paul was faced with.

Another point where we can understand what is happening is by this statement given us by Paul as he assesses the quality of Christians he was dealing with. In Romans 14, he says:

7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

What is being shown here is that the two contending factions were living at a time when accepting Christianity was often like the virtual signing of a death warrant. They lived during a time of persecution for the church. We all know that persecution separates the true from the false. Only true Christians maintain the faith after fierce persecution hits. This shows us that the two contending factions were absolutely honest, and would die for the Lord Jesus Christ in a second. They were not choosing days based on convenience or to please any sweet tooth! They actually believed their several points.

One group believed that the Jewish feast days were to be kept, and the other didn't. That same group that believed the Jewish feast days were to be kept, also believed that people who ate meats consecrated to idols were lost. Paul was therefore referring to the Jewish Christians. They were the group that especially "ate not" the meats at the market places where it wasn't even surely known which portions were or were not consecrated to idols. The Jews were also especially the group famous for judging all others, thinking they were lost because they were not a special and chosen. Some of these habits remained among the new Jewish Christians in the new church. Paul therefore told them not to judge them that ate.

Paul then referred to another group, telling them that they were not to hate those that ate not. The Gentile Christians were most known for hating. The Jews would judge and think themselves superior, and the response from the Gentiles typically would be hate. Paul therefore told that other group not to hate those that ate not. All would give their lives for Christ in a moment however.

It was for that reason why Paul chose the method he chose of solving the problem: by telling them that everyone must be persuaded of what is the truth by his conscience, and must be convinced. That is why his method appears off-base, seemingly allowing for the members to do what they want. Such a method often would not be either wise or productive today. Otherwise Paul would have made a definite statement in order to show what is right from wrong.

One sure reason why what I have just stated is true, is the fact that since that time we find no record of Christians choosing any day they like nor no day if they like. This weird phenomenon has only actually started now, if it has even started now. Paul himself at other times actually ruled on the question he at that time refused to face. Paul stated that the ritual law was no longer to be observed with its attending Sabbaths. Soon all the Christians of that day understood that lesson. The Jewish faction was in error. The feasts ultimately were not to be kept because they were essentially parables that pointed to Christ.

The moral here was to let every man study the truth out for himself through the inerrant and uncompromising word of God.  Then he will see what days are to be or not to be held as holy.  The Bible has all the answers!