Calvin on the 4th Commandment

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've noticed that, on this board, it is always those that follow the English Puritans that are arguing for strict Christian Sabbath while the Dutch Reformed are usually either ambivalent or silent in the matter. I am not studied enough in the various streams to tell whether my suspicion that Presbyterians have a much stricter tradition than others bears out. I do find it interesting, though, that folks like J.I. Packer really love the Puritans but take certain elements of their development while they leave others.

I, for one, consider myself a follower of the English, Dutch, Scottish and Irish Puritans when it comes to Fourth Commandment. The Dutch Puritans were known as the Nadere Reformatie, and their strict view of the Fourth Commandment is indistinguishable from the English Puritans, both with respect to the Christian Sabbath, and its prohibition against recreation, for example, and with respect to opposition to man-made holy days such as Christmas, which is a Fourth Commandment issue. The Dutch Reformed as a group include the Nadere Reformatie (examples include Gisbertus Voetius, Jacobus Koelman, Willem Teellinck and Wilhelmas a'Brakel, and the 1574 Provincial Synod of Dordrecht); the Cocceians (followers of Johannes Cocceius), who believed the Sabbath was Jewish and no longer binding on Christians; and those whose views are reflected in the Heidelberg Catechism and the statement of the 1619 Synod of Dort on the Fourth Commandment, which also allowed for the observance of man-made holy days in its Church Order. Thus, there is a range of views among the Dutch Reformed historically, which ought to be kept in mind when comparing the Dutch Reformed and English Puritan traditions. For some interaction on these themes, see the threads below:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/continental-view-sabbath-33355/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/continental-reformed-vs-puritan-reformed-25233/
 
I haven't asserted anything with regard to my view of the Sabbath; I have only been commenting on Calvin's view. In historical theology one must be competent to distinguish one's own beliefs from the historical figure who is being examined.

OK. Didn't mean to be argumentative, I was just asking out of curiosity, after you said:

I have stated unequivocally that I agree with him that the ceremonial Sabbath is abrogated.
 
I haven't asserted anything with regard to my view of the Sabbath; I have only been commenting on Calvin's view. In historical theology one must be competent to distinguish one's own beliefs from the historical figure who is being examined.

OK. Didn't mean to be argumentative, I was just asking out of curiosity, after you said:

I have stated unequivocally that I agree with him that the ceremonial Sabbath is abrogated.

That of course was after you had charged me with being "ungenerous to Calvin."
 
Here is an excerpt from the Deuteronomy Sermons (I transcribed on another occasion) preached in the summer of 1555:
“Now from the foregoing we see what attitude[SIZE="-1"]68 we hold all Christianity and the service of God. For what was given to us in order to help us approach God, we use as an occasion for alienating ourselves from him even more. And as a result we are led astray. We must recover it all. Is not such a diabolical malice in men? Would to God that we had to look hard for examples and that they were more rare. But as everything is profaned, we see that the majority hardly care about the usage of this day which has been instituted in order that we might withdraw from all earthly anxieties, from all business affairs, to the end that we might surrender everything to God.

“Moreover, let us realize that it is not only for coming to the sermon that the day of Sunday is instituted, but that in order that we might devote all the rest of the time to praising God. Indeed! For although he nurtures us every day, nevertheless we do not sufficiently meditate on the favors he bestows on us in order to magnify them…. But when Sunday is spent not only in pastimes full of vanity, but in things which are entirely contrary to God, it seems that one has not at all celebrated Sunday [and] that God has been offended in many ways. Thus when people profane in the manner the holy order[SIZE="-1"]69[/SIZE] which God instituted to lead us to himself, why should they be astonished if all the rest of the week is degraded?”[/SIZE]​
From “The Fifth Sermon”, which, along with “The Sixth Sermon”, address the 4th commandment. Benjamin W. Farley, transl., John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ten Commandments (Baker, 1980; paperback reprint 2000)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/calvins-view-sabbath-35725/#post444413
 
recovering.jpg
I know this is tedious, but I can't help myself. There's a chapter on the Sabbath, including a discussion of Calvin on the Sabbath relative to other Reformed writers in RRC.
 
You don't see a contradiction between one party that views the 4th Commandment as a perpetual moral law and one that does not?

Reading section 1 on one's way to sections 28ff instills the principle that "the public worship of God once prescribed is still in force." Any reading of Calvin's treatment of the fourth commandment which empties the commandment of its binding force cannot be regarded as honouring his own fundamental principle. Section 28 announces what is the binding force of the fourth commandment. 1. Spiritual rest. 2. A stated day for assembling. 3. Physical rest for those under authority. The subsequent exposition maintains this threefold application under the New Testament.

But would the Puritans agree with this from Rich's passage?

Why, it may be asked, do we not hold
daily meetings, and thus avoid the distinction of days? Would that we
were privileged to do so!
Spiritual wisdom undoubtedly deserves to have
some portion of every day devoted to it. But if, owing to the weakness
of many, daily meetings cannot be held, and charity will not allow us
to exact more of them, why should we not adopt the rule which the will
of God has obviously imposed upon us?

I might be wrong (and please correct me if I am), but wouldn't the Puritans disagree with this on the grounds it is a violation of the RPW?
 
I might be wrong (and please correct me if I am), but wouldn't the Puritans disagree with this on the grounds it is a violation of the RPW?

They maintained that daily meetings are to be held in "the church in the home" -- family worship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top