Henry Hall
Puritan Board Freshman
So much for the half-day-plus celebration known as "Thanksgiving."
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Henry, I see that you claim to hold to the Westminster standards. Did you know that the Westminster Directory for Public Worship gives instruction for the observation of days of public thanksgiving? You may well have qualms with the American Thanksgiving Day and the way it's celebrated, but the DPW assumes the lawfulness of days set aside for giving thanks.So much for the half-day-plus celebration known as "Thanksgiving."
In context: "Besides solemn and general fasts enjoined by authority, we judge that, at other times, congregations may keep days of fasting, as divine providence shall administer unto them special occasion; and also that families may do the same, so it be not on days wherein the congregation to which they do belong is to meet for fasting, or other publick duties of worship.Did you know that the Westminster Directory for Public Worship gives instruction for the observation of days of public thanksgiving?
In the Larger Catechism we haveAlso, note that laboring six days is not among the duties required in the fourth commandment any time they are enumerated in the Westminster standards.
Chris, thanks for the necessary nuance.Work includes the lesser work of our recreating.
My first thought was to post "Six Days Shalt Thou Labor" and then just "QED." Ha!I have to ask what on earth you mean. (I can guess, but your short post does little to invite much constructive discussion.)
Chris, thanks for the necessary nuance.
I wouldn't say you are wrong, although it would be a novel thought for many that labor includes recreations. For them, I think it would be sinful to presume that they could just take half a day off for football, turkey, and a prayer. Especially so that they could keep a set time of worship not appointed in God's Word.
I'm interested in the sources you have from the puritans or otherwise that labor includes recreations. Thanks again.
Do such days of public thanksgiving violate your supposed command to work six days?In context: "Besides solemn and general fasts enjoined by authority, we judge that, at other times, congregations may keep days of fasting, as divine providence shall administer unto them special occasion; and also that families may do the same, so it be not on days wherein the congregation to which they do belong is to meet for fasting, or other publick duties of worship.
Concerning the Observation of Days of Publick Thanksgiving.
WHEN any such day is to be kept, let notice be given of it, and of the occasion thereof, some convenient time before, that the people may the better prepare themselves thereunto...
"AN APPENDIX,
Touching Days and Places for Publick Worship.
THERE is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord's day, which is the Christian Sabbath.
Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.
Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for publick fasting or thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God's providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people."
Tyler, thanks. I don't see how the American Thanksgiving, conceived by Christ's enemy Thomas Jefferson, celebrated annually at a set time, qualifies as such a special emergent occasion.
Do you really think that proves your point?In the Larger Catechism we have
"Q. 116. What is required in the fourth commandment?
A. The fourth commandment requireth of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his Word, expressly one whole day in seven;...."
Scripture proof for which is given as
"622 Deuteronomy 5:12-14. Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.
Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:...."
I figured that's what you meant, but I didn't want to assume incorrectly before posting.My first thought was to post "Six Days Shalt Thou Labor" and then just "QED." Ha!
God's command to work six days He gave in absolute terms to establish the presumption that it would be followed ordinarily. The burden is on the person who claims that some occasion is so specially emergent that work ought not to be done on that day.Do such days of public thanksgiving violate your supposed command to work six days?
My point was to push back on your point that the clause is not in the Standards.Do you really think that proves your point?
If you look back over my posts, you'll see that I never made an.argument for celebrating the American Thanksgiving Day. I purposely left that an open question in my first post.Did I sin by declining an invitation to a Thanksgiving event today and working instead?
Which is a point I never made. My point is that the Standards never list it among the duties required in the fourth commandment.My point was to push back on your point that the clause is not in the Standards.
On the face of the 4th C., though, He does, to establish the presumption. Any exception could be [and was] discussed later.For he does not, as some have foolishly thought, make a demand here for six days labour
It's you vs the greatest commentators of Christendom. If you feel comfortable standing against Poole, Gill, and Calvin, then go ahead. It ought to cause you to second-guess your interpretation, though. And again, though the Westminster Standards don't deny your view, they certainly don't teach it, either (though they easily could have listed among the duties required). It frankly makes you look rather presumptuous to try and proclaim this as the law of God--who do you have on your side? I ran across a passage in Rushdoony earlier (while studying a different matter), and saw that he takes it the same way you do; but his works are replete with eccentric interpretations. He's the only one I've heard take your view of the matter.On the face of the 4th C., though, He does, to establish the presumption. Any exception could be [and was] discussed later.
Six days shalt thou labor. In the absence of a lawful exception, such as a "special emergent occasion," it is to be followed.It's you vs the greatest commentators of Christendom. If you feel comfortable standing against Poole, Gill, and Calvin, then go ahead. It ought to cause you to second-guess your interpretation, though. And again, though the Westminster Standards don't deny your view, they certainly don't teach it, either (though they easily could have listed among the duties required). It frankly makes you look rather presumptuous to try and proclaim this as the law of God--who do you have on your side? I ran across a passage in Rushdoony earlier (while studying a different matter), and saw that he takes it the same way you do; but his works are replete with eccentric interpretations. He's the only one I've heard take your view of the matter.
Prove it. I've offered several refutations of your view of the Fourth Commandment, and you haven't answered any of them.Six days shalt thou labor. In the absence of a lawful exception, such as a "special emergent occasion," it is to be followed.
"Six days shalt thou labor. In the absence of a lawful exception, such as a 'special emergent occasion,' it is to be followed."Prove it. I've offered several refutations of your view of the Fourth Commandment, and you haven't answered any of them.
And what is my view of the 4th C for which you've offered several refutations?I've offered several refutations of your view of the Fourth Commandment, and you haven't answered any of them
Henry, I haven't argued in favor of the American Thanksgiving here. I've only argued against your doctrine that we are required to work six days a week. I've given quotes from Poole, Calvin, and Gill in which they say that there is no such requirement.And what is my view of the 4th C for which you've offered several refutations?
What hasn't been answered is "Which commentator is it which argues in favor of anything like the US Thanksgiving's (annual event; etc, etc, etc) being a lawful exception?"
So you're OK, then, with not working six days a week, you don't object to using the six days for work or recreation, but you're opposed to Thanksgiving? On what grounds, precisely? (I'm back to the beginning of the thread, when I asked what you meant by your brief opener.)That strawman would be a much easier man with which to contend, but it doesn't represent my position.
My position is the one which you quoted back to me earlier, which includes the part about lawful exceptions.
The three commentators (representing the classical Reformed view) said that the passage in question is a permission, not a command which admits of exceptions.That strawman would be a much easier man with which to contend, but it doesn't represent my position.
My position is the one which you quoted back to me earlier, which includes the part about lawful exceptions.
The burden is on those who would claim a status of special emergent occasion for American Thanksgiving.So you're OK, then, with not working six days a week, you don't object to using the six days for work or recreation, but you're opposed to Thanksgiving? On what grounds, precisely? (I'm back to the beginning of the thread, when I asked what you meant by your brief opener.)