- Bliv medlem
-
Log ind
Du er ikke logget ind
Log ind Opret dig - Kurv
Du er ikke logget ind
Beskrivelse
In writing about the sabbath, I know I am taking a huge risk. In other books, I have pressed buttons of a vermilion hue, but this tends to the infra-red. By linking 'sabbath' and 'questions', in the eyes of many I will have put myself beyond the pale before I start. It will confirm what they have suspected for a long time: 'David Gay is an antinomian. Have nothing to do with him or his works'. Well, I am more than happy to be accused of antinomianism for preaching the gospel with apostolic freeness. After all, Paul was accused of it (Rom. 3:5-8; 6:1). Consequently, I say to those who accuse me of antinomianism over the gospel: 'You fail to preach the gospel as it ought to be preached. You mix law and gospel'. But what about my view of the law? I have made my position clear. I am anti-Reformed on the law. I do not accept Calvin's threefold use of the law. But to call me an antinomian for saying this is a mark of ignorance. Or worse Read my works and see. Listen to my sermons. I am not anti-law. I am pro-gospel, pro-Christ - for justification, for assurance, for sanctification, for liberation, for glorification. Christ is all (Col. 3:11). But what about the sabbath? This, of course, is the reddest of all red buttons. And I press it. I do so because a friend (who reads my works and hears me preach) asked for help because Iain Murray's book 'Evangelical Holiness' raised problems for her, problems she could not answer. In writing something for her, it struck me it might help others. Hence this publication. All I ask is that you read this work with an open Bible. Is it too much to ask that you start with an open mind? Above all, be a Berean.
