Argument XVIII
Personal Bias
In this installment of Mr. George's defense of dining out on the Sabbath, the argument is made that because the majority of COG fellowships disagree with the authors of A Sabbath Test, the authors position must be wrong. Mr. George then declares "the issue is settled" after which he chastises Mr. Braidic and Mr. Fischer for being closed minded when presenting their case. Here is how he begins.
Mr. George:
Nearly all the Churches of God have officially and repeatedly rejected your opinion. The mere fact that some cannot explain their position to your satisfaction does not make them wrong. One reason many may not have well-organized answers is that it appears so intuitively obvious to them that Sabbath dining makes a positive contribution to its observance that they can't imagine anybody challenging it in the first place! That doesn't mean there aren't good answers, such as I hope and trust I've provided here.
Our Response:
The notion that because the majority believe something, it is probably correct, has rarely proven true, and God's people more than everyone, should understand this. The vast majority of professing Christians embrace a host of ideas that are light years from the truth. Would we accept them simply because the numbers favored their position? Or, what about the great apostasy that infested God's Church less than fifteen years ago? The majority bought into that deception too, but was it right?
We at Blow the Trumpet have a personal view as to why this issue has not been addressed by the majority of COG groups and why those who have addressed it find their position being challenged by a growing number of God's people. The fact of the matter is that at the core of this debate lies a fundamental issue that is simply too difficult for Sabbath diners to reconcile with the God of the Bible and His view of righteousness. Those who are honest with themselves must face this question and when they do a change in heart is almost certain.
To understand this fundamental component of the debate over whether it is pleasing to God for His people to dine out on the Sabbath, consider the following questions. As you do ask yourself how God Almighty would answer them?
1. Does the labor performed in restaurants on the seventh day profane the Sabbath?
2. Does the labor that is performed in restaurants on the Sabbath desecrate the day God made holy?
3. Is that labor an act of sacrilege against God's law?
4. Does God abhor what is done by those who labor in restaurants on His Sabbath?
5. Does that labor clearly violate the fourth commandment?
6. Is that labor a SIN?
7. Is the labor performed in restaurants on the Sabbath partially responsible for the death of God's beloved Son?
Those who refuse to dine out on the Sabbath do so because they have answered these questions and the answer to everyone on them is a resounding YES! Whether Mr. George or anyone else wants to believe it, God HATES what is being done in restaurants every Sabbath. Furthermore, God's people should hate it as well. Regrettably, some don't. There are some like Mr. George, who consider the act of dining out on a Friday evening or Saturday afternoon something that actually enhances Sabbath observance. We at Blow the Trumpet believe that such a view reeks of hypocrisy.
Although Mr. George believes he has offered "good answers" in defense of dining out on God's Sabbath, he has never answered these questions. Instead he mocks those who share the same view as God Almighty on this sin. Add to that, his evidence in support of this practice relied on a huge manipulation of the Biblical record as well as a distortion of historical facts.
Furthermore, although Mr. George is correct in stating that the majority of God's people believe that dining out on the Sabbath is an appropriate behavior, there has been a prominent shift in this view. Today, significant numbers of God's people are carefully examining this very important question. Included among these are leading men in almost every prominent COG fellowship. In short, the numbers are changing. What we are saying here is that there are men who hold high positions in God's Church who have changed their view on this issue. They now see dining out on the Sabbath as a clear violation of God's Sabbath law.
Mr. George continued:
The issue is settled. Unless someone presents disproof of the very highest standard, God's people are entitled to embrace and rely on the church's binding and loosing decisions before God and man. I don't believe you have met the burden of proof; you overlooked scriptures much more salient than those you cited, and they prove the opposite. These are serious defects for people claiming to be authentic and responsible teachers. How hard would it have been to open-mindedly check all the passages containing the word "Sabbath" before composing and releasing your material?
Our Response:
When the Messiah gave the apostles authority to bind and loose it came with conditions. Nowhere, did he suggest that the leadership could bind something that stood in clear violation of God's law. In other words the church cannot declare that unclean meats may be eaten or that unmarried couples may live together. To think it may declare Sabbath dining an appropriate discharge of this great responsibility is an insult to God Himself. Why would any fellowship make such a pronouncement when it requires God's people to purchase the very services that God abhors?
With respect to overlooking scriptures, A Sabbath Test is over one hundred and thirty pages long. That alone suggests to us that the authors were not trying to "overlook" anything. Furthermore, what Mr. George claims "proves the opposite" does no such thing. He has advanced many of these "proofs" in his letter and Blow the Trumpet has addressed them in this series.
Additionally, Mr. George's assertion that that Art Braidic and Dennis Fischer were closed-minded when researching this issue could not possibly be true. What he fails to understand is that both of these men once believed as he does. They both dined out on the Sabbath. It wasn't until they were prompted to investigate this practice that their position changed. If that isn't being open-minded we don't know what is.
However, when it comes to Mr. George's open-mindedness, things are a little different. As a matter of fact objectivity occupied no place in his argument. For example: although he claimed his study on this issue was a search for the truth, he openly mocked those who bought into the Sabbath Test argument. Additionally he spoke with disdain about lugging heavy ice coolers to services. He then claimed that no one was going to make him eat cheese and crackers in a cold car when he could enjoy the comfort of a warm restaurant. These are not things he would have discovered in a study on Sabbath dining. They were feelings he had before his study began. Open-minded? We don't think so.
Argument XIX