Vanishing Westminster Sabbatarianism: Summary of the Puritan view of the Lord’s Day

Status
Not open for further replies.

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Bownd-3D.jpg It is certainly true that the old nonconformist view of 'Sunday' as The Lord's Day or Christian Sabbath, a day to put away our weekly labors and pastimes and devote a day to the Worship of God has been a steadily vanishing view. But it is particularly sad that there is now a move in the Presbyterian Church in America, that supposed bastion of conservative evangelical Presbyterianism, to try and change their version of the Westminster Standards regarding the prohibition of pursuing our own pleasures on that one day of seven. This is completely out of keeping with the doctrine of the Sabbath as articulated and historical held by Puritanism since the late sixteenth century and all of Presbyterianism until the decline of the last century. Changing the proscription is not some small change but represents a rejection of the Puritan understanding of the fourth commandment. Below is a summary of the doctrine of the Sabbath derived from the fourth commandment as given by the English puritan Nicholas Bownd in 1606 in his preface to True Doctrine of the Sabbath. That work greatly influenced Puritanism to the extent one can say it has a Sabbatarian heart at its center, and it no doubt influenced the view articulated a generation later in the Westminster Standards. This book was recently published in a new critical edition by Naphtali Press and Reformation Heritage Books (see end of this post for details).

First of all, that the observations of the Sabbath is not a bare ordinance of man, or a mere civil or ecclesiastical constitution, appointed only for polity; but an immortal commandment of almighty God, and therefore binds men’s consciences.


2. The same was given to our first parents, Adam and Eve; and so after carefully observed, both [by] them and their posterity, the holy patriarchs and Church of God, before and under the law, until the coming of Christ.


3. And it was revived in Mount Sinai, by God’s own voice to the Israelites, after they came out of Egypt, with a special note of remembrance above all the rest; and fortified with more reasons than they, and particularly applied unto all sorts of men by name; all which shows how careful the Lord was that everyone should straightly keep it.


4. The ceremonies of the law, which made a difference between Jew and Gentile, though the gospel has taken away, since the partition wall was broken down by Christ (Eph. 2:14); yet this commandment of the Sabbath abides still in its full force, as being moral and perpetual, and so binds for ever all nations and sorts of men, as before.


5. The apostles by the direction of God’s Spirit (leading them into all truth) did change that day (which before was the seventh from creation, and in remembrance of it) into the eighth; even this which we now keep in honor of the Redemption. And therefore the same day ought never to be changed, but still to be kept of all nations unto the world’s end; because we can never have the like cause or direction to change it


6. So that we are in keeping holy of a day, for the public service of the Lord, precisely bound not only to the number of seven (and it is not in our power to make choice of the sixth or eighth day); but even on this very seventh day, which we now keep, and to none other.


7. On which day we are bound straightly to rest from all the ordinary works of our calling, every man in his several vocation; because six days in the week are appointed for them, and the seventh is sanctified and separated from the others, to another end; even for the public service of God, and that by God Himself.


8. Much more, then, in it ought we to give over [relinquish] all kinds of lawful recreations and pastimes, which are less necessary than the works of our calling, and whatsoever may take up our hearts to draw them from God’s service; because this law is spiritual, and binds the whole man, as well as any other. Most of all ought we to renounce all such things, as are not lawful at any time.


9. Yet in cases of necessity God has given great liberty unto us, to do many things for the preservation and comforts not only of the beasts and dumb creatures, but especially of man. Not only when he is weak and sick, but being healthful and strong, both in the works of our callings, and also of recreations, without which necessity we are persuaded that men ought ordinarily to cease from them.


10. And herein more specially the governors of the Church and Commonwealth have great liberty above all others, who in such cases may upon this day do many things for the good of both, not only for war, but for peace; and may prescribe unto others, and the people ought therein to obey them. And as in other things they ought not busily to inquire a reason of all their commandments; so in this they ought to presume with reverence so much of their good consciences, that they know more cause of the things which they command and do, than themselves do, or is meet for them curiously to inquire.


11. The same day of rest ought ordinarily to be spent altogether in God’s service, especially in frequenting the public assemblies, where the Word of God is plainly read and purely preached, the sacraments rightly administered, and prayer made in a known tongue to the edifying of the people; where also they ought to attend upon these things from the beginning to the ending.


12. The rest of the day ought to be spent by every man himself alone, or with others (as his family or neighbors) in all private exercises of religion, whereby he may be more prepared unto, or reap greater fruit from the public exercises: as in private prayer, reading of the scriptures, singing of psalms, meditating upon, or conferring about, the Word and works of God—and that either in their houses, or abroad in the fields.


13. And as every man particularly is bound to the observation of this commandment, so more specially masters in their families, magistrates in their precincts, and princes in their realms ought to provide for this, as much as in them lies; and hereby to look to all that are committed to their charge, and to compel them at the least to the outward observation of the rest, and the sanctifying of it, as well as of any other commandment, as of not committing murder, adultery, theft, and such like.


14. Lastly, though no man can perfectly keep this commandment, either in thought, word or deed, no more than he can any other; yet this is that perfection that we must aim at; and wherein, if we fail, we must repent us, and crave pardon for Christ’s sake. For as the whole law is our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ (Gal. 3:24); so is every particular commandment, and namely this of the Sabbath. And therefore we are not to measure the length and breadth of it by the over-scant rule of our own inability, but by the perfect reed of the Temple (Ezek. 40:3); that is, by the absolute righteousness of God himself, which only can give us the full measure of it.



From the author’s preface, Nicholas Bownd, Sabbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti, or The True Doctrine of the Sabbath (Naphtali Press and Reformation Heritage Books, 2015) 7–9. Hardbound, dust jacket, ~600 pp. Retail $30; check for sale pricing. Available from RHB (The True Doctrine of the Sabbath: or, Sabbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti - Reformation Heritage Books) and Solid Ground Books (Add to Cart (2125a)). and Naphtali Press (Naphtali Press » Blog Archive » #####Sabbathum Veteris Et Novi Testamenti: or, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath.
 
Wow, was not aware that was happening in the PCA, but that really doesn't surprise me.

Chris, you also ought to put a link to your book Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines, because undoubtably the urban myth that Calvin routinely bowled on the Sabbath will at some point be trotted out by someone as these debates and discussions progress.

This sounds like a great book, I will try and secure a copy.
 
I would say 1 overture last year (NTX, kicked back) and it resubmitted and another pressing the same issue (TN), is a move if not a movement.
 
Since the confessional teaching is widely ignored, the call to amend the standards has a certain logic to it. (That is not to say that I support it by any means.) In many presbyteries it seems that the Standards on this doctrine have practically been amended already. It would appear that the exception is simply noted without discussion unless a pesky "TR" is out to make trouble.

Beyond "recreation," there seems to be little question about engaging in unnecessary commerce on the Sabbath either. I've had at least one PCA minister invite me to do so on the Lord's Day.
 
From where does this need, or desire, to rewrite the standards arise? In other words, what's the motivation?
 
From where does this need, or desire, to rewrite the standards arise? In other words, what's the motivation?

Persoanally I would have like to known my pastor took this exception because I naively assumed that he did not when we started attending a reformed church (PCA). Also we say and advertise as a particular church as holding to the WCF standard which is simply dishonest, and I wish not to have others, like myself, find out later we do not hold to the WCF....as a local church in the PCA.
 
Last edited:
When 'shopping' for PCA churches the motto 'buyer beware' is prudent advice. Ask questions.
I'm not even confident that there is not a muted exception amongst many who might otherwise call themselves confessionalists to the recreation clause. We'll see.
Chris is right above; this has been building since the beginning of the PCA as it was a common allowed exception. I would not call it a logic; but simply the same results of any progressive undercutting of sound doctrine. We have reached that tipping point where the exception takers don't like the fact they are the ones out of accord and now the vast majority, want the legalist holders of the original to be those out of accord with the PCA standards.
 
"But it is particularly sad that there is now a move in the Presbyterian Church in America, that supposed bastion of conservative evangelical Presbyterianism, to try and change their version of the Westminster Standards regarding the prohibition of pursuing our own pleasures on that one day of seven"

In the number of local PCA Presbytery meetings I have visited as a delegate from the OPC, there have been two or more men being examined for the ministry. That would be a sample size of about 12-15 over a few years. Everyone one of them (save maybe one) took exception to the recreation clause.

So, if enough of these exceptions are allowed, it would only make sense that the standards could change.
 
I am not sure that there isn't a fundamental ignorance over the Puritan position that goes along with these exceptions. And likely a tremendous about of seminary teaching prejudicing the confessional view as well.
In the number of local PCA Presbytery meetings I have visited as a delegate from the OPC, there have been two or more men being examined for the ministry. That would be a sample size of about 12-15 over a few years. Everyone one of them (save maybe one) took exception to the recreation clause.
 
I think amending the Standards would be a good course of action if it is already a position not held to by elders, taught or enforced by discipline. It is better to have standards that people actually confess than a confession that is on paper but not put into practice.
 
I think amending the Standards would be a good course of action if it is already a position not held to by elders, taught or enforced by discipline. It is better to have standards that people actually confess than a confession that is on paper but not put into practice.

No. The only justification for amending the standards is if Scripture warrants it. If the standards are correct in their interpretation it should stand. Hopefully the denomination would cease it's drift and return. If you change them just because men fail to practice what is taught then we have done away with Sola Scriptura and might as well pack it up.
 
I think amending the Standards would be a good course of action if it is already a position not held to by elders, taught or enforced by discipline. It is better to have standards that people actually confess than a confession that is on paper but not put into practice.

No. The only justification for amending the standards is if Scripture warrants it. If the standards are correct in their interpretation it should stand. Hopefully the denomination would cease it's drift and return. If you change them just because men fail to practice what is taught then we have done away with Sola Scriptura and might as well pack it up.

That is a great point. The Confessional Standards ought to reflect the ultimate standard in God's Word. Our Confession is not to mirror our practice as fallen man, but to mirror God's redemptive history from Genesis to Revelation.
 
And the issue in the PCA, at least the Overture sent and the common defense: This is our practice, therefore we need to change the Standards (Doctrine). Practice --> Doctrine.

Instead of what it ought to be: Doctrine --> Practice.
 
How does one go about taking exception? Is that an actual thing? Or they just choose not to follow it? What are the reasons? That someone does not believe the commandment is carried over into the new covenant? Or that they are personally unable to keep it, but think that besides that they should fit the pastor role? This is new to me not coming from a reformed background.
 
Each candidate for ministry is to make known his differences with the Standards, the Presbytery then judges those differences to determine if they are allowable exceptions or not.
 
How does one go about taking exception? Is that an actual thing? Or they just choose not to follow it? What are the reasons? That someone does not believe the commandment is carried over into the new covenant? Or that they are personally unable to keep it, but think that besides that they should fit the pastor role? This is new to me not coming from a reformed background.
Technically, one cannot take an exception. An exception is granted by the Presbytery. I don't know if this is uniform practice (I believe it is), but many Presbyteries do not require regular church members to receive the WS as containing the doctrines taught in the bible. Officers, however, are required to vow to such and to report if their beliefs are out of accord with the Standards. A Presbytery will then decide if that candidate's or officer's beliefs strike at the fundamentals of the faith. If not, they will likely grant the exception. If so, well then that candidate or officer will likely not be/remain ordained.
 
Last edited:
I think amending the Standards would be a good course of action if it is already a position not held to by elders, taught or enforced by discipline. It is better to have standards that people actually confess than a confession that is on paper but not put into practice.

No. The only justification for amending the standards is if Scripture warrants it. If the standards are correct in their interpretation it should stand. Hopefully the denomination would cease it's drift and return. If you change them just because men fail to practice what is taught then we have done away with Sola Scriptura and might as well pack it up.

My point was confessions confess what we believe to be the true doctrine of Scripture. It would be meaningless and misleading to continue to have a clause in a confession if it is not taught, affirmed or used in discipline in the church. If we do not do those things we really cannot say we believe that to be the true doctrine of Scripture
 
My point was confessions confess what we believe to be the true doctrine of Scripture. It would be meaningless and misleading to continue to have a clause in a confession if it is not taught, affirmed or used in discipline in the church. If we do not do those things we really cannot say we believe that to be the true doctrine of Scripture

Codifying apostacy is not the way to correct it. The Lord's way is in Rev. 2:15-16 -- "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth."
 
My point was confessions confess what we believe to be the true doctrine of Scripture. It would be meaningless and misleading to continue to have a clause in a confession if it is not taught, affirmed or used in discipline in the church. If we do not do those things we really cannot say we believe that to be the true doctrine of Scripture

Codifying apostacy is not the way to correct it. The Lord's way is in Rev. 2:15-16 -- "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth."

...are you implying all persons who don't affirm the exact language and Puritan interpretation of WCF XXI.8 are not saved?
 
...are you implying all persons who don't affirm the exact language and Puritan interpretation of WCF XXI.8 are not saved?

Have you been reading in context? There is a church with a standard and office-bearers who take exception at it, and then the general suggestion was given that exceptions should be made the rule. My statement related to that general suggestion.
 
If by "apostasy" you mean "leaving Westminster Presbyterianism", I'd prefer the more wordy term to the use of a term usually used to denote being lost from an eternal standpoint.
 
Have you been reading in context? There is a church with a standard and office-bearers who take exception at it, and then the general suggestion was given that exceptions should be made the rule. My statement related to that general suggestion.

I may be missing something. How is a revision by taking out the work and recreation clause making a rule? In other words, by changing this they are not saying one is not allowed to follow what scripture says we ought to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top