CalvinDude.com

Here’s a couple of things analysis-wise that I’ve read this morning (and agree with :-D)

From Chuck Colson:

The other thing, of course, that figured in all of the voting, I think, is that the conservatives who came into power in 1994 determined to clean up the corruption in Washington, and they became as corrupt as the people they had run out of town. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, Lord Acton said. And we saw conservatives do it, which I’ll talk about on the air tomorrow because we betray our trust when we do it. We’re hypocrites when we do it—not so with the other side.And I think that the other issue is the disillusionment with the Republican majority in the House, because they swept into power in 1994, cleaned out the culture of corruption and the K Street entanglements, all the money that was misused, and then they turn around and do exactly the same thing. We had fifteen congressmen alone with ethical challenges! It has been an epidemic. It’s bad when anyone in public office betrays their trust, but particularly bad with a conservative, because the first principle of conservatism is the preservation of the moral order. And so when conservatives misbehave and betray the trust, it goes to the very definition of who we are. It goes to our very character. And that’s why it is so egregious. I think that is why people were so grossly offended by it. And it shows in the election returns.

Quotes Compiled By The Federalist (not yet updated on their website, AFAIK, but sent via e-mail):

“This is a message from the voters that we really need to step up and reclaim the mantle of reform that propelled us to power 12 years ago.” —Rep. Eric Cantor ++ “The House has just engaged in runaway spending for far too long… [T]he one thing we could have stopped, but didn’t, was runaway spending.” —Rep. Jeff Flake ++ “I don’t care how many times the news programs, papers and magazines tell us the blowout last night was because of the Iraq war. It wasn’t. It was because the American public has decided that Republicans are no longer good stewards of the U.S. Congress and threw them out.” —Rich Galen ++ “I think a fairly good case can be made that the story of Election 2006 is more about poorly-led House Republicans losing than Democrats winning.” —John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union ++ “Republicans have made matters worse by abandoning the reform agenda that animated their capture of Congress in 1994 and helped George Bush win the White House in 2000 and keep it in 2004. With scarcely a fight, Republicans gave up on Social Security reform in 2005, immigration reform in 2006, and never really got started on tax reform.” —Fred Barnes ++ The numbers from every corner of the country make it clear that the American people meant to send a message to their leaders, and the future of the conservative movement depends on an accurate reading of the substance they meant to communicate, and a realistic reassessment of the current state of our politics.”—Michael Medved

 

I told some people I was going to write this, and now I am :-)

Around the 2000 election cycle, I became an official member of the Republican Party.  Since then, I’ve grown more and more disguisted with it.  Now, as our elections wind up today, six years later, I’m announcing that I’m no longer in the Republican Party.

From now on, I am simply a Conservative.

I find it funny reading liberals and Democrats who complain about how the “right wing” portion of the Republican Party has hijacked it.  Would if it were only true!  Instead, the Republicans treat conservatives much the same way that Democrats treat blacks: they toss us a few scraps and otherwise ignore us, because they assume we’ll vote for them anyway.  So we get tax cuts.  But then spending goes up more than when Democrats controlled the government.  Where’s the improvement?

So I didn’t take Rush Limbaugh’s advice today.  I did not vote.  Part of it was because I can’t vote right now since I didn’t register when I moved recently; but mostly it’s because I simply cannot, in good faith, perpetuate the myth that the Republican Party stands for my views.

Sure, they’re closer than the Democrat Party is.  But when your choices are being shot in the leg or being shot in the head, I’d rather choose neither.

Unfortunately, the third party options are rather bleak at the moment.  I have no delusions that I will not be forced to vote Republican in the next election.  But make no bones about it either: I’m going to be actively working as much as I can to spread the Conservative message.  There are enough of us out here that we can get a viable Party of our own.

So I’ll conclude by saying this: I hope the Republicans lose the house.  I hope we get two years of gridlock.  Because with the Republicrats out of control, the Conservative Party will no longer have to kowtow to them.  Instead, we Conservatives can separate and show the Republicrats where their true power came from anyway.  Hint: it’s not the faux-Moderates.

UPDATE: I just read this over at the Powerline blog: “Conservatives still have winning issues–racial equality, immigration enforcement, limited government–but the Republican Party has largely stopped running on them.”  Indeed, which goes to the heart of the above as to why I’m no longer a Republican.

Got this quote sent to me from Rush Limbaugh speaking on polls, which were tightening before the elections today:

Now, if the polls indeed show this tightening, and my — again, I want to go on record, I don’t think the margin has ever been as wide in reality as what the polls have indicated. If they have been, what good are polls two months ago? What good are polls a month ago? What good are polls three weeks ago? If they’re now tightening, then the stuff that was happening out there, accurate or not, was irrelevant.

Excellent point.  This is why I consider polls to be worthless.  Only one poll counts, and that’s today’s.  Why, then, do we worry about polls in the first place?  When are they ever accurate?

With all the flak surrounding the Haggard mess (see also my previous post re: Daniel Morgan, who isn’t the only one posting on this but he’s the one I’ve interacted with–and yes, I apologize for not linking earlier as I was in a hurry to post: his post is found here), perhaps one thing that would be beneficial would be to take a step back and answer a more central question: just what makes a person a Christian anyway?

This question can be answered two different ways.  The first way is nontheologically.  This is the method most often used by people who conduct polls, by non-believers, and by the “general” public.  It basically boils down to this: You’re a Christian if you say you are one.

I remember when I was in high school, one of my atheist friends (and as a weird side note, most of my friends in the “real world” and not on-line have tended to be atheists) argued for that definition.  I merely pointed out that if I stood on a football field with my arms raised and said, “I’m a fieldgoal post” that wouldn’t make me one.  His response: “You could function as one.”  I gave him a look (since that’s all that was needed to respond to that argument in person) which said, “You know better than that”; after all, I wouldn’t fit the definition of a goal post.

And that brings us to the second point: the theological issue.  What is the theological definition of a Christian?  It is not simply claiming that you are one.  Indeed, there is some aspect to Christianity that includes the public affirmation that you are a Christian, but the public affirmation alone is not sufficient to warrant you being a Christian theologically.

Now I’m not going to focus on the first part of how salvation works (that is, God’s eternal decree, His election, regeneration, and man’s subsequent faith which results in God’s justification of the sinner).  Instead, I’m looking only at how we who are not omniscient can see if that has occured in someone or not.

Interestingly, Daniel did quote one of the key passages in Luke 18 (and if this was all that his post was trying to say I wouldn’t have objected to it).  There we read:

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

(Luke 18:9-14)

Here we see that those who “trusted in themselves” were not justified, but those who were able to say “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” were justified.  Thus, the first aspect in seeing if someone is justified is simple: do they acknowledge that they are sinners?

In short, the person who does not see himself as a sinner is not a Christian.  As such, I would issue a strong warning to those who believe they have become sinlessly perfect (as is found in many charismatic, Weslyan, or similar movements); these I wouldn’t put automatically in the category of unsaved since they generally state they they used to be sinners–however, they are dancing on a dangerous line.

The idea that we must acknowledge we are sinners is repeated by John: “If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (1 John 1:10).

Thus, the first key to recognizing if someone is a Christian is if they recognize their own sinfulness.  Note that I am not saying that if you believe you are a sinner you are a Christian; I am merely saying that you cannot be a Christian if you do not believe you are a sinner.  Without our acceptance that we are sinners, we have no need for Christ’s substitutionary atonement.  This is why Christ said:

And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

(Matthew 9:10-13)

Those who see themselves as well do not realize they need a doctor.  Only those who know they are sick will come to the doctor.

So what of those who acknowledge they are sinners?  How do we know if they are truly Christians after that?  Again, Christ gives us the way to tell:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

(Matthew 7:15-20)

We recognize people by their fruits.  After all, a healthy tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a diseased tree cannot bear good fruit.  As such, when false prophets (or false teachers) come up, we recognize they are false because they will not have good fruit.  (Of course, to determine whether spiritual fruit is good or not, one must understand the Bible’s definition of good too–but that is something beyond the scope of this post.)

Christ’s words carry a caution, for in the next statement, he says:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”

(Matthew 7:21-23)

Here we see specifically what I stated above: simply saying you are a Christian will not make you saved.  Indeed, even doing certain things in the name of Christ will not be evidence that you are saved.  Instead, it is “the one who does the will of my Father” that is saved.

Again, to know what the will of the Father is, one must know what Scripture teaches.

Thus, our second conclusion comes about: we know who is a Christian because the Christian obeys Scripture.  Now, these two things alone ought to be sufficient to rule out many false claims in today’s culture if we just apply it.  The vast majority of people in America who claim to be Christian A) don’t think they’re really all that bad people in the first place and B) have no clue what the Bible teaches on anything.  These two facts alone require me to doubt their profession of faith.

The true Christian, on the other hand, is the one who acknowledges he is a sinner, who casts himself before God’s mercy alone, who understands that God is working in him and thus who is spurred on to good works in His name.  The true Christian will yearn to know more about who God is; he will be immursed in the Scriptures, seeking to live his life by them.  This is not to say he will be perfect.  Indeed, his sin nature remains a part of him and he will stumble.  But again, as John wrote, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous’ (1 John 2:1).

And with that in mind, let me just conclude with the words of John:

Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

(1 John 2:4-6)

Well, Daniel Morgan put a comment on my blog, so I checked out his website again (I haven’t had time for about a week or so).  Yup, he’s playing the “holier than thou” card now, ripping on Haggard, etc.

The funny thing is…Daniel still has never given me what the basis of his morality is (well aside from “empathy”–but if I don’t empathize with him then why should his morality trump mine?). 

So Daniel spends lots of time criticizing believers for being hypocrites (he even links to a site that shows a whole twelve of them!) yet he hasn’t established why hypocrisy is wrong in the first place.  He criticizes people for not obeying the Scriptures while A) he does not obey Scriptures, B) he doesn’t believe Scriptures, and C) he has no reason from his worldview to criticize us for not obeying Scriptures.  (By the way, I think if you’re looking for a definition, part A about would be the definition for hypocrisy…).

But the totally ironic part is that Daniel doesn’t even believe what Haggard did was immoral in the first plac; it was only what he said that was immoral.  Yes, Daniel thinks he’s immoral for denouncing homosexuality while practicing it, but Haggard was not immoral for actually behaving that way.  Furthermore, Daniel somehow presumes that if Haggard is immoral then all believers must be immoral too (the fallacy of composition); thus, because one of our “leaders” is a hypocrite (and I note that he wasn’t my leader anyway) then we are hypocrites too.  How this follows is anyone’s guess.  Apparently, Daniel seems to think it makes a might good argument against Christianity, as he’s quite able to get his dander up and rip on Christians who would support Haggard but wouldn’t feed a homeless person.  (Again, how he got that conclusion is beyond me: I can look at who runs our local soup kitchens and who actually works in them: 95% Christians.)

But hey, I guess it’s easier to yell “hypocrite” than to actually engage in important philosophical discussions on issues.  So, Daniel, you’re a hypocrite.  I win.  :-)

Man, why didn’t I think of this tactic before???

The verdict has been announced:

Saddam Hussein was convicted and sentenced Sunday to hang for crimes against humanity in the 1982 killings of 148 people in a single Shiite town, as the ousted leader, trembling and defiant, shouted “God is great!”

Yes, God is great.  But you, Saddam, are not.  Naturally, the wingnuts are out again:

Some feared the verdicts could exacerbate the sectarian violence that has pushed the country to the brink of civil war…

Wait a minute…I thought Iraq was already in a civil war.  I mean, that’s what they’ve been saying on CNN and BBC for years now.

But this one is the best:

And the former leader’s lawyers have attacked the timing of the planned verdict, which comes days before the US votes in mid-term elections.

 Yes, apparently Saddam’s lawyers read the Daily Kos….

Ted Haggard has been removed from New Life Church now.  This comes after he already resigned.  The board wrote:

 

“Our investigation and Pastor Haggard’s public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct.”

 

This is an interesting statement since it’s sufficiently vague.  Naturally, non-believers will immediately jump on this as proof that Haggard has had homosexual relations with his accuser.  And that may well be the case.  However, equally possible is a lesser degree of sexual immorality.

A few years back, one of the pastors at the church I attend resigned for an “inappropriate relationship.”  At the time, I wasn’t going to the church, so that’s all the information I heard about it.  Naturally, everyone assumed the worst: he had had an affair with someone.  It turns out, however, that he had kissed his secretary.  He had then gone to the board of the church and resigned for his inappropriate relationship.  Though the pastorl staff had offered to censure him for a time and then allow him back, he chose instead to remain out of the pulpit completely (although since quite a few years have now passed, he has actually come back a few times as pastor since the time I’ve joined the church).

Thus, it is possible that there could be something less than what the actual charge is (although how likely that is is yet to be known).

In any case, that’s not the real focus I want to make on this blog post.  Instead, I want to look at the issue of Christians backsliding and repentance.  This whole Haggard situation has reminded me of some recent comments over on Triablogue regarding John W. Loftus and his affair that ruined his ministry.  (Loftus is now an apostate.)  Those comments can be found in post such as this one and this one.

Throughout the ages–indeed from the very dawn of the Church–there has been sexual immorality within the Church.  This is because we are all sinners.  We are also ignorant of the hearts of men, and therefore some can claim one thing while doing another (i.e. hypocrisy).  The fact that this stuff occurs requires Christians to be able to deal with it when, as it inevitably must, the truth comes out.

Paul faced a similar situation in the Church at Corinth.  Indeed, it was such a bad situation there that Paul noted even the pagans would not behave that way: “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife” (1 Cor. 5:1).  Paul’s answer to this was clear: “Let him who has done this be removed from among you” (1 Cor. 5:2).

It would be simple enough to stop there, but the passage continues.  There is a reason that Paul demands this.  A reason that extends beyond just keeping the Church “pure.”  For Paul says: “When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:4-5).

Removing this man from the Church at that time was intended “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”  This form of discipline is not an attempt to harm the individual; it is an attempt to save that person.

Now if this same individual is refered to in 2 Corinthians, as many believe, then we know that this tactic worked.  The man repented and was restored to the Church.  On the other hand, as you read the above links to John Loftus, you will see what happens if such a person does not repent, but instead hardens his heart.

Haggard is now at the crossroads.  I think New Life has done well to remove him from any teaching position.  Now Haggard, if he is a genuine believer, can go through repentance and be brought back into the Church as a whole, just as any of us who sin do so.  If, on the other hand, he hardens his heart as Loftus has done, it will show us that he has been a fraud in far more than just his relationships with others (for he has been a fraud in his relationship with Christ too).

Whatever the case, there are Scriptural warrants for what should occur from now on. Despite the gleeful pointing out of the hypocrisy of Haggard by folks on the Left, the fact remains that Christianity both recognizes that Haggard has sinned and also has the means by which Haggard can be restored to a right fellowship.  The Left, on the other hand, is really inconsistent in condemning Haggard (both for the fact that they practice what he did rather openly, and are thus hypocrites, and also because they have no means by which to declare anything Haggard did is actually wrong in the first place).  Thus, we see that there is one worldview that both expects the behavior of individuals such as Haggard and can appropriately respond to it, and there is another worldview that can only seek to make political hay out of another’s downfall.

We’ve now got another story breaking about a sex scandal, this one involving Ted Haggard of New Life Church & President of National Association of Evangelicals.  What I find interesting is two paragraphs you see in the above linked article:

A senior pastor in the church of the embattled Rev. Ted Haggard says the evangelical leader admitted that some of the charges made against him — including gay pay-for-sex — are true.

That gives the impression that the senior pastor said Haggard has admitted to gay pay-for-sex.

Then, just a few pargraphs later, we read:

The acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted that some of the accusations were true, but did not specify which ones.

He did not elaborate, and attempts Thursday night to contact Parsley were unsuccessful.

Which is it?

In any case, all that aside, the timing is most definitely political (I’m so shocked!):

The accusations were made by Mike Jones, 49, of Denver, who said he decided to go public because of Haggard’s opposition to the proposed gay marriage ban.

Most of all, I enjoy how everyone is innocent until proven guilty except for people who are not in agreement with you politically or religiously.

Of course none of this should be construed that I’m supporting Haggard.  I actually think “evangelicalism” is doing more damage to Christianity right now irregardless of what he has done or not done.  I think it’s time to *cough cough* reform.

I accidentally started a mini war of sorts last night while chatting in #prosapologian.  Someone posted an article (I didn’t copy the URL) and asked if the author was a little harsh, even though he was writing about those who did not hold to a literal six day creation.  I pointed out that I do not hold to a literal six day creation.  And thus the war began.  (Of course I should note there were only three participants in this “war” so it’s not like it was the end of the world or anything.) ;-)

In any case, I figured now would be a good time (while I have a minute) to just quickly sketch out why I don’t hold to a literal six day creationist view.  The first thing I would point out is this: When interpreting Scripture, we must be careful not to eisegete a passage.  That is, we cannot read a meaning from the outside into the text.

Now YEC (Young Earth Creationists) often accuse people such as myself (I am agnostic and apathetic toward the age of the Earth) of eisegesis.  That is, we’re reading Darwin’s time-table into Genesis.  But I would simply level this counter-charge: it is the YEC who is eisegeting the text by reading anti-Darwinism into the text.

The fact is, Genesis doesn’t concern itself with Darwinism.  Whether you hold to literal days or not, Genesis will never teach Darwinism.  Unfortunately, YECs seem to think that if they give up a strict, literal interpretation of Genesis 1 then Creationism as whole tumbles into the dreaded realm of theistic evolution.

But if we take a step back and examine Genesis 1 as it actually is written, we see that the text itself does not demand a literal 24-hour day interpretation.  Perhaps this is most easily demonstrated by simply quoting a few Church fathers who happened to write before Darwin, and thus did not have an evolutionary bone to pick.

For instance, we read Cyprian of Carthage (~250 AD) say: “As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years…” (see source (search for “seven thousand” and you’ll get right to the quote).

Clement of Alexandria (~208 AD) wrote:

That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: “This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth.” For the expression “when they were created” intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression “in the day that God made,” that is, in and by which God made “all things,” and “without which not even one thing was made,” points out the activity exerted by the Son. As David says, “This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice in it; ” that is, in consequence of the knowledge imparted by Him, let us celebrate the divine festival; for the Word that throws light on things hidden, and by whom each created thing came into life and being, is called day.

(See source.)

And finally, Augustine also wrote: “For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!”  (See source.)

Now these were not the only views held at the time, of course.  But we do see that a non-literal “day” was held by many people long before Darwin came along.  My argument would be that more people would hold to the non-literal day today if it had not been for Darwin.  With the advent of Darwinism, however, people feel that they have to accept the literal view in order to be a Christian.  As a result, we have a huge conflict over a point of theology that is utterly unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

So let us look quickly at the structure of Genesis 1.  First I would note that Genesis 1 is the only place in Scripture that gives us any time indications for the Creation.  The rest of Scripture is content merely to state that God has created all things.  Thus, we have no other passages to fall back on to support the interpretation either way in Genesis 1 (unlike, for instance, the numerous verses in several books that refer to Christ’s deity).  This quickly becomes important as we look at the structure.

The six days of creation are divided into a parallelism.  That is, we have the following things created:

Day 1: Light
Day 2: The Sky separates from water
Day 3: Land separates from water
Day 4: The sun, moon, & stars
Day 5: Fish and birds
Day 6: Land animals and man

Now the parallels are clearly seen. Day 1 –> Day 4 (Light –> sun); Day 2 –> Day 5 (Sky separates from water –> air and sea creatures); Day 3 –> Day 6 (Land is created –> Land dwellars).

This structure of parallelisms matches Hebrew poetic expressions, which are themselves highly figurative.  Add into the mix Genesis 2, which has a “different” Creation account, and the structure of Genesis 1 now necessitates a figurative view.  This is especially pertinent when we realize that each of those days listed above have an “evening” and a “morning”; yet the seventh day, when God rests, never ends.  There is no morning or evening cycle there.

Naturally, the use of the term “evening” and “morning” bear some explaining too.  The first thing I would note is that these terms are obviously not the same as we hold to them today since the sun was not created until Day 4.  Now one person argued in the channel that we could still be refering to a revolution of the Earth in view.  I, however, do not find this convincing.  In such a case, the Light that God created would need to function exactly like the sun does (in which case one must wonder why God then created the sun when He already had in place something that worked exactly as the sun would later work).  In other words, the light would need to be located (from the Earth’s perspective) where the sun is now while the Earth spun as it does now.  To me, this renders the creation of the sun superfluous.

So I don’t see how it can be a literal “morning” and “evening” either.

And as to the usage of the word “day”, we of course see in Genesis 2:4 (just the verse after the end of the seven day creation period), “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”  To highlight some words, note the word “generations” and the fact that all these days take place “in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”  Thus, if we take “day” literally (as 24 hours) in Genesis 1, we cannot take it literally here (for now the day must be at least six days long!).  If we take it literally here, we cannot take it literally in Genesis 1.  I, personally, do not take either term literally.

What, then, of the 10 commandments.  After all, when we are commanded to honor the Sabbath it is stated: “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy” (Exodus 20:11).

Before I respond to that, let us first look at why God instituted the Sabbath in the first place.  That is found in Hebrews 4:4-10, where we read:

For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this passage he said, ”They shall not enter my rest.”  Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, ”Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”  For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

(Note that our heavenly stay is also called a “day.”)

Here, the author of Hebrews links the Sabbath to the rest the believers receive upon entering Heaven.  That is, the reason that God rested on the Sabbath was to indicate to us what it would be like after we finish our work on Earth and enter into rest ourselves.  God, in other words, set up Creation as a typology.  He rested the “seventh day” in order that we will have something to look forward to, based on His pattern for us.

Now let us look back to the commandment.  We are to rest on the Sabbath because God rested on the seventh day.  We rest every seventh day as a prelude to our future rest in heaven.  Our seventh day’s rest is but a mere shadow of what we will receive in the future.  It is a copy.  It is not an actual yet.

It is based off of the fact that God rested on the seventh day.  Is this contradictory with my position of an indefinite day?  Not at all.  Let us assume that each day represents a billion years (just to go ultra extreme).  People do not live that long on earth.  Therefore, in order for us to actually have a typology, God would need to shorten the actual length of time creation took in order that we could have a pattern we could physically follow.  Therefore, if God uses indefinite days as the Creation pattern by which the Sabbath command would be grounded, thus pointing toward our future rest in Him, there is no contradiction.

Now one person in the channel did argue that typologies are always based on literal things.  This, however, does not follow, and I shall give just one example of it (as my lunch break is about to end) from the same book of Hebrews, and that is Melchizedek.  Hebrews 7:3 states of Melchizedek: “He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.”  Now we know that if Melchizedek resembles the Son of God, he is not himself the Son of God.  Further, we know that if he is not the Son of God then he must have had a father or mother and a genealogy.  However, this genelogy is not recorded in Scripture.  Instead, Melchizedek pops up “out of nowhere” and Abraham gave a tithe to him!  Melchizedek was a type of Christ; he was a shadow and a foretaste of the One who would come.  He was not Christ himself, but he represented him.

Thus, despite the fact that he does literally have a father and mother, he does not in the typological sense.  And therefore, we have a typology that is based on the record of Scripture rather than on a literal being.