# The Dutch Reformation and special days



## Pergamum (Sep 28, 2017)

Hello,

This is not a thread for the pros and cons of Christmas and Easter, but I am seeking historical information.

Coming across some of the documents from the Dutch Reformed churches it seems commanded or expected that Christmas and Easter are part of the Church Calendar. 

Is this true and where does it say so? And was this a normal feature of all the Dutch Reformed Churches? And how did they reconcile that with the Regulative Principle?

Again, this thread is not to bash "holidays" but to seek what they did at that time and their own justification for it.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 28, 2017)

Generally speaking the churches were curtailing the calendar of old pretended holy dasy more and more but magistrates tended to view things differently, either for ill or practical reasons (they were the only days off for servants is about the best reason you can find) reimposed or retained them. By the time next century of the _Nadere Reformatie_ when such things were being re examined, I guess it was basically too late for significant change. I cover some of this in a look at Calvin in the introductory piece I wrote to a translation of two of his letters that will appear in the 13th issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian,_ due out in about two weeks.
_"In Translatiōne:_ John Calvin’s Letters to the Ministers of Montbéliard (1543–1544): The Genevan Reformer’s
Advice and Views of the Liturgical Calendar," _The Confessional Presbyterian _13 (2017 forthcoming): 198-220.
Demarest puts the best spin from their perspective on it.
At first it was clearly the intention to abolish these days entirely. Then it was deemed better (as the people continued to take them for holidays), to turn them to a good account by the holding of religious services, and finally their observance was enjoined, doubtless on the ground of edification. Probably the magistrates, who are continually referred to as having authority in the matter, did not, for reasons springing out of the circumstances of the times, and the genius and habits of the people, deem it expedient to abolish, them. While they continued by authority, the Church, rightly aimed to make them promotive of piety.”​David D. Demarest, _History and Characteristics of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church,_ 2nd ed. (New York, Board of Publication of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, 1856), 175.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 28, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Generally speaking the churches were curtailing the calendar of old pretended holy dasy more and more but magistrates tended to view things differently, either for ill or practical reasons (they were the only days off for servants is about the best reason you can find) reimposed or retained them. By the time next century of the _Nadere Reformatie_ when such things were being re examined, I guess it was basically too late for significant change. I cover a some of this in a look at Calvinin the introductory piece I wrote to a translation of two of his letters that will appear in the 13th issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian,_ due out in about two weeks.
> _"In Translatiōne:_ John Calvin’s Letters to the Ministers of Montbéliard (1543–1544): The Genevan Reformer’s
> Advice and Views of the Liturgical Calendar," _The Confessional Presbyterian _13 (2017 forthcoming): 198-220.
> Demarest puts the best spin from their perspective on it.
> At first it was clearly the intention to abolish these days entirely. Then it was deemed better (as the people continued to take them for holidays), to turn them to a good account by the holding of religious services, and finally their observance was enjoined, doubtless on the ground of edification. Probably the magistrates, who are continually referred to as having authority in the matter, did not, for reasons springing out of the circumstances of the times, and the genius and habits of the people, deem it expedient to abolish, them. While they continued by authority, the Church, rightly aimed to make them promotive of piety.”​David D. Demarest, _History and Characteristics of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church,_ 2nd ed. (New York, Board of Publication of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, 1856), 175.



So these traditions were too hard to break all at once, and so the church compromised for a time and tried to make the best of it? Do Dutch theologians agree with this assessment?


----------



## Justified (Sep 28, 2017)

Read chapter 24 of the Second Helvetic Confession. It gives approbation to the celebration of "the memory of the Lord’s nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly."

That's _one _example of a continental position. Others disagreed, as I understand. I have qualms with a certain historiography that sees Scottish Presbyterian Puritanism as the end of the Reformed dialectic. It just seems like some people disagreed about this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 28, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> So these traditions were too hard to break all at once, and so the church compromised for a time and tried to make the best of it? Do Dutch theologians agree with this assessment?


I cited a Dutch explanation. The churches generally wanted to purge them but via the civil magistrates they were retained and thus it was thought best to put them to a religious use. That's not a puritan reinterpretation; that's what a Reformed historian said. And that is how the NR saw it citing Voetius as given at the link:"Gisbertus Voetius, a delegate to the Synod of Dordt, relates that the Dutch Church had been trying to get rid of holy days for a long time, but the allowance of holy days by the synod was '_imposed from the outside, burdensome to the churches, in and of itself in an absolute sense unwelcome; to which Synods were summoned, compelled, and coerced to receive, bring in, and admit, as in the manner of a transaction, in order to prevent worse disagreeable and bad situations_' (_Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum pars prima_, cited in _Why are Ecclesiastical Feast Days in our Church Order?_). The later Dutch Further Reformation was more successful in removing holy day observance from the churches (c.f. _Nadere Reformatie Contra Christmas_)." https://purelypresbyterian.com/2016/11/03/8-reasons-holidays-should-not-be-observed/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 28, 2017)

I should add that Voet is not some small Reformed figure to find saying this.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 29, 2017)

I should add, if you haven't discovered it at the link above, the paper by Anderson backs up and proves in detail that this was largely due to the magistrates countering the reformed churches move to reduce/get rid of the feast days, and that the days were not to be imposed as necessary. _Why are Ecclesiastical Feast Days in our Church Order?_

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Nate (Oct 1, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I should add, if you haven't discovered it at the link above, the paper by Anderson backs up and proves in detail that this was largely due to the magistrates countering the reformed churches move to reduce/get rid of the feast days, and that the days were not to be imposed as necessary. _Why are Ecclesiastical Feast Days in our Church Order?_



This paper was excellent - thanks for the link! As part of our congregarion's regular Bible study, we discuss our Church Order. I'm eager to use this paper when we come to our Article 67.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 1, 2017)

Agreed; I'm surprised it has not received more notice.


----------

