From the TeachingtheWord Bible Knowledgebase

A number of people have asked why we didn't sign this doctrinal affirmation that first appeared in the United Kingdom earlier this year, and has the support of many Bible-believing Christians around the world.

An Admirable Document

Several readers have asked why TeachingTheWord as a ministry, or I as a minister personally, have not signed the Affirmation 2010 document that was published earlier this year. Before stating our reason, let me give some background.

Affirmation 2010 was first conceived in 2008 by members of the Bible League Trust in Britain, originally by Rev. Malcolm H. Watts, its chairman. The complete document is available here. Affirmation 2010 states many things which TeachingTheWord also stands for, and states them admirably well:

• The doctrine of the infallibility of the Scriptures; recognition of the superiority of the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received texts as the most accurate preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages; the rejection of Bible translations that are unfaithful to the original because of the use of corrupted texts and dynamic equivalence in translation.
• The doctrine of the Trinity, coupled with the rejection of heresies regarding the doctrine of God that are rooted in the early centuries of church history, but are appearing today in postmodern garb.
• The doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, apart from works of any kind, coupled with the rejection of "easy believism.'
• The doctrine of literal six-day creation, and the rejection of evolution in all its forms, both open and disguised.
• The doctrine that Christ's atonement was penal substitution for sinners, and that this is not merely one of many theories of the atonement, but at the heart of the Gospel.

• The doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the rejection of present-day heresies such as the New Perspective on Paul, the Federal Vision, and others that add works to faith.

• The doctrine of sanctification, i.e., that God requires holy living of believers, and that He works graciously within believers to cultivate it, and that it manifests itself in separated living and thinking.
• The fact that the Christian faith is not mere assent to a bare set of facts or an academic theology, but is also a matter of daily experience, which is the proof of regeneration.
• The need for reverence in worship and adherence to the Regulative Principle of worship, and the rejection of man-centered worship in its various forms.
• The doctrine of the nature of the Christian ministry of preaching as a unique and special calling of God, and of the qualifications and responsibilities of those whom God calls to preach the Word.
• The true nature of revival - that man does not manufacture it, but that it is a work of the Spirit, and rejection of the philosophy and methods of the Charismatic Movement specifically.
• The doctrine of the literal, bodily, visible Second Coming of Christ, and rejection of any notion that it is merely a "spiritual" coming or has already occurred.
• The doctrine of the Last Judgment and of the everlasting conscious enjoyment of the glories of the New Heaven and New Earth for the saved, and the everlasting, conscious suffering of the lost in the Lake of Fire.

A Problem

Despite our enthusiasm for most of the document, the section of Affirmation 2010 titled "The Sabbath Day" troubled me, on Biblical grounds. It reads as follows:

We affirm the perpetuity of the Sabbath. Appointed at the creation, observed by the patriarchs, maintained in the wilderness, incorporated in the Decalogue (or Ten Commandments), confirmed by the prophets, and predicted for New Testament times, it was upheld and enforced by our Lord. The keeping of the Sabbath involves the setting apart of "the seventh day"; and throughout the period of the Old Testament this was the seventh day of the week, but our Lord, while still keeping the seventh-day principle, changed the day from the seventh to the first day of the week, the day of His resurrection from the dead, and this day was therefore observed by the early Christian Church. A Sabbath therefore remains for the people of God, and we should keep it by resting from normal employment (except for works of necessity and mercy) and from recreation (which may be perfectly lawful on other days), and by spending the day, as far as is possible, in public and private worship, including spiritual reading, prayer, meditation, and conversation. The Sabbath thus kept will prove to be an inestimable blessing to individuals and to nations.

We reject the anti-Sabbatarianism which prevails in some circles; and we deeply lament the great decline in Sabbath observance; and the fact that so many in the world - and not a few in the church - openly profane the Sabbath by unnecessary work, watching television, the practice of sport, frequenting restaurants, and holiday travel. Tragically, contemporary "antinomianism" - especially in the form of "New Covenant Theology" - encourages the sinful profanation and desecration of God's Holy Day, and we abhor and denounce these theological errors as detrimental to God's greater glory and man's spiritual good.

While there is much that is worthy here, on the whole I cannot agree with this part of Affirmation 2010 on two principal grounds.

First of all, its specific stipulations are extra-Biblical: for example, that no Christian should ever enter a restaurant on the Lord's Day; that no Christian should ever watch television on Sunday; that no Christian should ever engage in holiday or vacation travel on a Sunday. Strictly speaking, such man-made regulations would mean that we could not turn on the television to find out what the weather will be; a minister would be prohibited from traveling on the Lord's Day to a preaching engagement that was along his route to an intended vacation destination. I am not accusing the drafters of this document of wishing to un-Biblically micro-manage the lives of others, but I know from experience that there are those would use such language to do so, as the Pharisees did (e.g., Mark 2:23-28) and as the Gnostics and Judaizers did (Colossians 2:16-23).

Secondly, this part of Affirmation 2010 tends toward legalism, in that it applies specifics of the law of the nation of Israel, which is not binding upon believers under the New Covenant, to present-day believers. (Let me make it clear at this point that I am opposed to the antinomian "New Covenant Theology" which they rightly reject in this statement, which is another matter entirely.) The key to this flaw in the document is an incorrect interpretation and application of Hebrews 4:9, "There remains therefore a Sabbath (or rest) for the people of God." The writer to the Hebrews in context is not speaking of the specifics of Jewish Sabbath-observance and saying that they continue to apply in toto to the people of God in all times and places. He is saying, as explained in the next verse, that the "Sabbath rest" of the believer is rest in Christ, ceasing from the works of the law. That is a very different thing. In other words, this verse in context is not about Sabbath observance, but about salvation.

I appreciate the work of these British brethren to uphold the true faith and to affirm sound doctrine. But I cannot support Affirmation 2010 unreservedly, and therefore chose not to become a signatory.

tq0299