The Sabbath, the Lord's Day, Saturday or Sunday, and fasting on the Lord's Day

A friend asked me the question: "When is the Lord's Day?"

This is the result of the research I did to answer that friend. Below are all of the relevant verses and references from the early church (3rd century or earlier) that I found. There could be some significant verses out there that I didn't find.

Here are my conclusions:

1. The phrase "day of the Lord" refers to the future day of the Lord's judgment.

2. The phrase "Lord's Day" refers to Sunday or the eighth day of the week.

3. The early church felt it was extremely important to meet on the first day of the week (the Lord's Day) to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus.

4. It appears that calling the first day of the week the Lord's Day was a later development that occurred prior to John's writing of Revelation but after the rest of the writing of the rest of the New Testament.

5. Referring to the Lord's day as the eighth day of the week like many of the church fathers did hearkens back to the creation account. On the seventh day God rested. On the eighth he brought about his work of redemption.

One stream of thought ran through many of the church fathers was that we should not fast or kneel on the Lord's Day. I found this extremely interesting. This stream of thought seems to stem from Matthew 9:14-17

Matthew 9:14 Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?" 15 And Jesus said to them, "The wedding guests cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak, for the patch pulls away from the cloak, and a worse tear is made. 17 Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; otherwise, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved."

The early church believed that Jesus was present during the Lord's Supper, which was the centerpiece of the gathering on the Lord's Day. With Jesus being present there was no reason to fast or kneel. The church was to celebrate the resurrection of our king.


"day of the Lord" references

Isaiah 58:13

If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath and from doing as you please on my holy day, if you call the Sabbath a delight and the Lord's holy day honorable, and if you honor it by not going your own way and not doing as you please or speaking idle words.

Isaiah 61:2

to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn.

Lamentations 2:22

"As you summon to a feast day, so you summoned against me terrors on every side. In the day of the Lord's anger no one escaped or survived; those I cared for and reared, my enemy has destroyed."

Ezekiel 7:19

They will throw their silver into the streets, and their gold will be an unclean thing. Their silver and gold will not be able to save them in the day of the Lord's wrath. They will not satisfy their hunger or fill their stomachs with it, for it has made them stumble into sin.

Zep 1:8

On the day of the Lord's sacrifice I will punish the princes and the king's sons and all those clad in foreign clothes.

Zep 1:18

Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them on the day of the Lord's wrath. In the fire of his jealousy the whole world will be consumed, for he will make a sudden end of all who live in the earth."

Zep 2:2

before the appointed time arrives and that day sweeps on like chaff, before the fierce anger of the Lord comes upon you, before the day of the Lord's wrath comes upon you.

Zep 2:3

Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, you who do what he commands. Seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you will be sheltered on the day of the Lord's anger.

Ac 2:20

The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.

1Co 1:8

who will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1Co 5:5

deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

2Co 1:13-15

For we are not writing any other things to you than what you read or understand. Now I trust you will understand, even to the end (as also you have understood us in part), that we are your boast as you also are ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus.

2Pe 3:10

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

1Th 5:2

For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.

the only "Lord's day" references

Re 1:10

On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet.

"first day of the week" references

Mt 28:1

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

Mr 16:2

Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb.

Mr 16:9

When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.

Lu 24:1

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.

Joh 20:1

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

Joh 20:19

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, Peace be with you!"

Ac 20:7

On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

1Co 16:2

On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. And here are the early church references to the phrase "Lord's Day"

writings from the early church

From the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians:

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death — whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master — how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, “To the end, for the eighth day,” on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, whom the children of perdition, the enemies of the Savior, deny, “whose God is their belly, who mind earthly things,” who are “lovers of pleasure, and not lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”

From the epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians:

At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord’s Day contains the resurrection.

From the epistle of Ignatius to the Phillipians:

If any one fasts on the Lord’s Day or on the Sabbath, except on the paschal Sabbath only, he is a murderer of Christ.

from the fragments of the lost writings of Iraneus:

This [custom], of not bending the knee upon Sunday, is a symbol of the resurrection, through which we have been set free, by the grace of Christ, from sins, and from death, which has been put to death under Him. Now this custom took its rise from apostolic times, as the blessed Irenaeus, the martyr and bishop of Lyons, declares in his treatise On Easter, in which he makes mention of Pentecost also; upon which [feast] we do not bend the knee, because it is of equal significance with the Lord’s day, for the reason already alleged concerning it.

from Clement of Alexandria's The Instructor:

He states that the "the Christian Passover and the weekly Lord’s Day" are one of the areas that Christians are different for Jews.

from Clement of Alexandria's Stromata:

He, in fulfillment of the precept, according to the Gospel, keeps the Lord’s day, when he abandons an evil disposition, and assumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord’s resurrection in himself.

From Tertullian:

"We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday."

"We kneel at other times, but on the Lord’s day, and from the
Paschal Feast to Pentecost we stand in prayer, nor do we count it lawful to fast on Sundays."

from Origen against Celsus:

"If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the Lord’s day, the Preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost, I have to answer, that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his thoughts, words, and deeds serving his natural Lord, God the Word, all his days are the Lord’s, and he is always keeping the
Lord’s day."

from the Epistles of Cyprian:

"For because the eighth day, that
is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us."

from the the Canonical Epistle of Peter:

"No one shall find fault with us for observing the fourth day of the week, and the preparation, on which it is reasonably enjoined us to fast according to the tradition. On the fourth day, indeed, because on it the Jews took counsel for the betrayal of the Lord; and on the sixth, because on it He himself suffered for us. But the Lord’s day we celebrate as a day of joy, because on it He rose again, on which day we have received it for a custom not even to bow the knee...But on the Lord’s day we ought not to fast, for it is a day of joy for the resurrection of the Lord, and on it, says he, we have received that we ought not even to bow the knee."

Watch out for the potholes.

a question about personal Bible study

I had a question concerning personal Bible study. It wasn't until the printing press that personal Bible study was even an option for most people. If they wanted to hear the word of God, they would have to go down to the church and have it read out loud to them or read it out loud to others. Even Bible study in that time was a corporate event. We now have this whole issue of how to work out individual Bible study (which I think should be done) with community. Does anyone know any good studies, books, or articles out there on the transformation of Bible reading from a community-centered activity to a private and personal activity? Or maybe we started incorporating personal Bible study into our spiritual lives just because printed books were a new technology and hadn't really thought the concept through. I know I have thoroughly enjoyed the times when I have just gotten together with people to read Scripture. Any thoughts?

edited to add: A friend of mine recommended reading Dissident Discipleship to deal with this question.

Watch out for the potholes.

Physical Unity, Creeds, and Truth

I'm revisiting my church of Christ/Christian church church roots due to our visiting the Antwerp Church of Christ and conversations with friends.

God works personally. Everyday I am faced with situations in which I make decisions on what actions to make. Many of these are made without a direct commandment of Scripture telling me what is the right course of action. How we discern that right course of action by the grace of God through the Holy Spirit, studying scripture, filtering it through church history and our brothers and sisters in Christ, is still a method of discovering truth. Just because a truth is localized to our specific situation and circumstances doesn't mean that it isn't an important truth. Any truth reveals to us more of who God is. If we did not believe that there was a right course of action for us, then we would not be concerned about doing the right thing in areas where the Bible is silent. The fact that we are concerned about doing the right thing where the Bible is silent means that we believe their is truth outside of Scripture.

But I think that "We as Christians..." or "thus saith the Lord" statements should be used minimally and only in the instances where they are clear. Just because something is true in my circumstances and situation, does not mean that it would always be the right course of action for everyone to make. I think we need to avoid the common pitfall of only believing that there are clear truths when it comes to mental beliefs. Those mental beliefs without actions that stem from them are meaningless.

I've recently picked up my copy of Alexander Campbell's Christianity Restored. I've had it on my shelf since college. This apparently isn't in print any longer. My copy is from 1959.

Thomas Campbell and his peers came up with the Declaration and Address in 1809. In it they wrote:

"That this society formed, formed for the sole purpose of promoting simple evangelical christianity, shall, to the utmost of its power, countenance and support such ministers, and such only, as exhibit a manifest conformity to the Original Standard, in conversation and doctrine, in zeal and diligence;-- only such as reduce to practice the simple original form of christianity, expressly exhibited upon the sacred page, without attempting to inculcate any thing of human authority, of private opinion, or inventions of men, as having any place in the constitution, faith, or worship of the christian church;-- or any thing as matter of christian faith or duty, for which there cannot be produced a 'thus saith the Lord' either in express terms, or by approved precedent."

They even left room for a "thus saith the Lord" by approved precedent rather than direct teaching of Scripture. Maybe they will explain later what an "approved precedent" consists of, but it seems to me to be something that Christians have practiced through church history. The founders of the church of Christ/Christian church seem to exalt time as being a filter for truth. They even thought their original conclusion on unity was wrong except for what time showed them. (However, I do wonder what time now reveals about their teaching with the resultant schisms in their own movement.)

"The application of the principle already stated trimmed us so naked, that we strongly inclined to suspect its fallacy, and had well nigh abandoned it as a deceitful speculation. Time, however, that great teacher, and Experience, that great critic, have fully assured us that the principle is a salutary one; and that although we seemingly lose much by its application, our loss consists only of barren opinions, fruitless speculations, and useless traditions, that only cumber the ground and check the word, so that it is in a good measure unfruitful."

It is interesting that the founders of the church of Christ focused on establishing physical unity. We seem to be a people content with disunity when it comes to our physical state of Christianity. It is refreshing to read the writings of someone who cares about the church being one, as Jesus prayed it would, here on earth. They were discontent with us just being one spiritually like so many in the church currently emphasize.

"Tired of new creeds and new parties in religion, and of the numerous abortive efforts to reform the reformation; convinced form the Holy Scriptures, from observation and experience, that the union of the disciples of Christ is essential to the conversion of the world, and that the correction and improvement of no creed, or partizan establishment in christendom, could ever become the basis of such an union, communion, and co-operation, as would restore peace to a church militant against itself, or triumph to the common salvation,--a few individuals, about the commencement of the present century, began to reflect upon the ways and means to restore primitive christianity."

Here is another good chunk from that book. Then I'll be done for the time being.

"On examination of history of all the platforms and constitutions of all these sects, it appeared evident as mathematical demonstration itself, that neither the Augsburg articles of faith and opinion, nor the Westminster, nor the Wesleyan, nor those of any state creed or dissenting establishment, could ever improve the condition of things, restore union to the church, peace to the world, or success to the gospel of Christ.

As the Bible alone was said and constantly affirmed to be the religion of protestants, it was for some time a mysterious problem;--why the Bible alone, confessed and acknowledged, should work no happier results than the strifes, divisions and retaliatory excommunications of rival protestant sects. It appeared, however, in this case, after a more intimate acquaintance with the details of the inner temple of sectarian christianity, as in many similar cases that it is not the acknowledgment of a good rule, but the walking by it, that secures the happiness of society. The Bible alone in the lips, and the creed in the head and in the heart, will not save the church from strife, emulation, and schism. There is no moral, ecclesiastical, or political law, that can effect any moral, ecclesiastical or political good, by simply acknowledging it in word. It must be obeyed...The Bible alone is the Bible only, in word and deed, in profession and practice; and this alone can reform the world and save the church

We found it an arduous task, and one of twenty years labor, to correct our diction and purify our speech according to the Bible alone. And even yet, we have not wholly practically repudiated the language of Ashdod. We only profess to work and walk by the rules which will inevitably issue in a pure speech, and in right conceptions of that pure, and holy, and celestial thing, called Christianity---in faith, in sentiment, and in practice.

A deep and an abiding impression that the power, the consolations and joys---the holiness and happiness of Christ's religion were lost in the forms and ceremonies, in the speculations and conjectures, in the feuds and bickerings of sects and schisms, originated a project many years ago for uniting the sects, or rather the christians in all the sects, upon a clear and scriptural bond of union; upon having a "thus saith the Lord" either in express terms, or in approved precedent, "for every article of faith, and items of religious practice."

Watch out for the potholes.

On the King James Version of the Bible

I was in a conversation this week about the King James Version. To refresh my memory I read the Wikipedia articles.

The New Testament in the King James was translated from the Textus Receptus. Here are a few of the highlights from the article:

Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the book of Revelation and was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek from the Latin in order to finish his edition.

It is now widely accepted by textual scholars that the selection of manuscripts available to Erasmus was quite limited — due partly to his time constraints, partly to geographic isolation before high-speed transit, and partly to the fact that many important texts were as yet undiscovered — being confined to a few late medieval texts that most modern scholars consider to be of dubious quality.

The majority of textual critical scholars have adopted an eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament, with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts, which are mainly Alexandrian in character, thus breaking with the Textus Receptus in numerous places.

In summary, Erasmus, the compiler of the Textus Receptus, didn't have access to many of the earlier manuscripts that we now have access to. The current thought of biblical scholars, which I agree with, is that a manuscript is more accurate the closer it is to the date the of the original authorship. Consequently, this means that the accuracy of the translation of the New Testament in the King James Version isn't as accurate as some of the more recent translations.

The Old Testament of the King James Version is taken from the Masoretic Text. This text is pretty much accepted as the authority on the Old Testament and is used in most English translations.

watch out for the potholes.

The Conversion (?) Of Fox Reporter Steve Centanni and Christianity

If you haven't been following the news in the last week, two Fox News reporters were kidnapped. Then they converted to Islam. Then the Holy Jihad Brigades released them. All of the news coverage after their release mentions nothing of the confession on video of their conversion to Islam. It seems like their release wasn't due to the pressure of the governments involved but to the conversions.

I also wonder if the Palestinian government was allowed to negotiate with them, why weren't they able to arrest the kidnappers. But that seems to be another topic for another day.

I don't know if Steve Centanni and his companion claimed to be Christian prior to this kidnapping, so this is not an attack on them. I am happy that they are freed.

But the story got me thinking. What if I was kidnapped by a group like the Holy Jihad Brigades? They would give me the option to convert to Islam or be killed. Part of me says that I could just give lip service to my Islamic conversion just to be free. Isn't Christianity just a matter of the heart anyhow? If I don't give my heart over to Islam, then it wouldn't really count no matter what I say.

Wow. How far we have come to reach the point where our actions and words don't really matter. I really thought that was a viable option for a few minutes until I realized how that devalued our words and actions to being inferior to our faith.

The church has dealt with this problem throughout history. Sadly, I don't think the Bible clearly addrsses the issue. Maybe it does and I am mistaken. In the practice of Christianity, there always seems to be a struggle being being pure and holy with legalism that excludes. Below is an excerpt from A History of Christianity that deals with this subject.

In its earlier days the Church maintained rigorous standards for its
membership. As we have seen, baptism was believed to wash away all sins
comitted before it was aministered. After baptism, the Christian was supposed not
to sin, and some sins, if indulged in after that rite had been administered,
were regarded as unforgivable. Tertullian listed the "seven deadly sins" as
"idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, fornication, false witness, and fraud."
Both Hermas and Tertullian conceded that forgiveness might be had for one
such sin committed after baptism, but allowed only one.

Modfications began to be made in this rigour. The guilty might obtain remission even forapostasy and sex offenses if they were truly repentant--although assurance of
forgivenss and readmission into the full fellowship of the Church might be deferred until the penitent had demonstrated his sincerity by prolonged demonstration of sorrow for his sin. Pardon might be had through the officers of the Church. Those about to suffer death or who had endure mprisonment and torture for the faith were often looked upon as competent to assure forgiveness to the repentant, especially to those who had lapsed. The exercise of this function sometimes proved annoying to the bishops, among them to the Cyprian whom we have met as Bishop of Carthage. Again and again there were Christians who protested against this laxity. Part of the appeal of the Montanists was their insistence upon strict moral standards.

In the first quarter of the third century Callistus, Bishop of Rome, seems to have
declared that no sin is unforgivale if the sinner is genuinely contrite. He is said to have appealed to Scripture for authority for his practice, finding as he did so ample precedent in the parables of the lost sheep and the prodigal son and in Paul's letters. He is also reported to have declared that the Church is like the field which has both wheat and tares and like Noah's ark, in which were many kinds of animals. In the next quarter of a century the principles of Callistus won wide although by no means universal acceptance in the Church.

In he middle of the third century the Decian persecution brought the issue starkly before the Church, for thousands yielded to pressure and compromised their faith. Many of them, terrified or deeply grieved by what they had done sought readmission to the Church. In Rome the bishop, Cornelius by name, was prepared to permit the restoration of the lapsed. However, there was opposition led by Novatian, a presbyter of the Roman Church, no mean theologian, and of impeccable orthodoxy. Chosen bishop by critics of Cornelius he gathered about him many who shared his convictions about exacting ethical requirements for church membership and
rebaptized those who came to him from the Catholic Church. The movement spread and in part coalesced with the Montanists. Novatian appointed bishops for the emerging communities, and churches in sympathy with him arose in North Africa, the West, and especially the East. They persisted for several generations. In the fifth century there were three Novatian churhes in Constantinople and even more in Rome. In the first half of the fifth century the Bishop of Rome took possession of their churches in that city and they could henceforth meet only secretly and in private homes. Yet their churches were still permitted in Constantinople.

The Donatist schism appeared after the persecution which began with Diocletian in the first quarter of the fourth century and had its main centre in North Africa. A Bishop of Carthage was consecrated in 31 by one whom the strict elements in the
Church declared to have been a traitor during the persecution. These elements
chose a counter bishop who in 316 was succeeded by Donatus, from whom the
movement took its name. A number of factors combined to give the Donatists an
extensive following in North Africa. It may have been that they were drawn
largely from the non-Latin and the Catholics from the Latin elements in the
population, and that the cleaveage was in part racial and cultural. It is said
that at one time they had 270 bishops. Synods called by Constantine at the
request of the Donatists decided against the latter and for a time the Emperor
sought to suppress them by force. Augustine endeavoured, without avail, to
bring about a reconciliation. They regarded themselves as the true Catholic
Church and continued at least until the Vandal invasion of the fifth century and
possibly until the Moslem Arab invasion late in the seventh century.

Out of the controversy came the enunciation of the principle, formulated by one of
the councils called to deal with the issues raised by the Donatists, that, contrary to the latters' contention, ordination and baptism are not dependent for their validity upon the moral character of the one through whose hands they are administered. This continued to be upheld by the Catholic Church.

A schism in Egypt about the same time as that of the Donatists and for a similar reason was that of the Meletians, named for the bishop who was their first leader. They, too, stood for a rigorous attitude towards those who had denied the faith.

As we have suggested, the majority in the Catholic Church took the attitude that no sin is beyond forgiveness if it is followed by the true pentience. It may be that it was this conviction which led to the addition to the Roman Symbol of the phrase [I believe in] "the forgiveness of sins," now so familiar a part of the Apostles' Creed.

Watch out for the potholes.

Martin Luther on Reason and an Unreasonable Grace

Our flesh, despite its creation by God, does not find itself naturally pure but filled with impure desires. Our heart, despite its creation by God, does not find itself naturally humble or filled with the passion to love our neighbors. We find our hearts filled with pride and selfishness. Unless our flesh or our hearts are forcibly restrained, they will act according to these naturally tainted inclinations.

People of reason are similar. Through reason, these people know that we should only do good. Sadly, reason is so perverted that through it we cannot decipher what is good. Reason calls whatever is pleasing to itself good. It then takes its good to an extreme and concludes that we should only do that which it has defined as good. The end result is that through reason we find ourselves pursuing evil rather than good.

Through reason, we know that we should be pious and serve God. People of reason know how to talk the talk when it comes to piety and service. And through their reasoning, they think they can show the whole world how they should be pious and serve God. But in the end, these people cannot, through reason, show us how we should be pious and in what ways we are to serve God. Of true piety and service, these people know nothing. They are almost blind, if not completely blind. They say we must fast, pray, sing, and do the works of the law. People of reason continue to act the fool with works untl it has gone so far astray as to imagine that people are serving God in building churches, ringing bells, burning incense, whining, singing, wearing hoods, shaving their heads, burning candles, and other innumerable trivial acts. We continue to clutter our lives with acts that we consider worship and service to God. In this clutter we continue to wallow while the bright light of Truth that would free us from this vicious cycle or reason remains shining for all that are willing to seek it.

Jesus, the light of grace, came and taught us to be pious and serve God. In doing this, he was not focused on extinguishing reason but opposed to the way and manner that people of reason teach us how we are to become pious and serve God. He said, "To become pious is not to do works. No works are good without faith."

Then begins the fight. People of reason rise up against grace and cry out against the teaching of Jesus. Although they will not claim they are against Jesus, they accuse his teachings of forbidding good works. These people claim to have the right way of becoming pious and continually argue that we need to be pious and serve God only in their way. Through their teachings, they attempt to make the teachings of Jesus foolishness. They relegate His teaching of grace to the realm of error and heresy. The person of reason believes the teaching of grace needs to be persecuted and banished. This is as far as a person of reason can go. He will find himself raving against the teachings of Jesus while constantly boasting of his piety and good works. People of reason will not be taught what piety is and what good works really are. People of reason insist that what they think and propose are right and good.

In teaching and living to what is reasonable, we have the cause and origin of all idolatry, of all heresy, of all hypocrisy, and of all error that the prophets of old have spoken about and the Scriptures protest. Many of the prophets were even killed for speaking out against people of reason.

All this comes from the stubborn, self-willed arrogance and delusion that people of natural reason find themselves in. They are self-confident and puffed up because they know that we ought to be pious and serve God. They will not listen to or suffer a teacher to teach them. They think they know enough and would find out for themselves what it means to be pious and serve God. They will reason for themselves how they should be pious and serve God.

Divine truth cannot and must not ever submit to reason or the thoughts of the people of reason. This would be the greatest mistake and be contrary to God's honor and glory. Through conceding to people of reason, contentions and tribulations arise.

**

An excerpt in modern language from Martin Luther's Third Christmas Sermon preached in 1521.

Sadly, I find myself to be more of a person of reason. May I be able to change.

Watch out for the potholes.