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.
My "bashing the Confession" point is meant to be reflective of those who claim that the Puritans went "too far" in their view of the Sabbath. I have not read the book or spoken specifically with Dr. Adams on the subject, but I had a lengthy conversation with several folks from his church at General Synod a couple of years ago who said that book was coming out, and their view (which I assume is indicative of Adams', given the context of the conversation) is that the 4th commandment is ceremonial, fulfilled in Christ, therefore not applicable in the life of the Christian (in the Westminster sense, anyway). Hence my comments above. Sorry is "bashing" is offensive or too strong of a word. Perhaps I should say "non-Westminsterian."
Perhaps Adams has changed his views as well since this conversation.
Affirming the Sabbath does not mean affirming all of the Puritan practices (especially some of the Scots) in regard to the Sabbath.
I say AMEN, the Sabbath is forever, even while I am going out the door for a jog on a Sunday, and then to kick a soccer ball with my son, or to workout...
Nope, won't do it for two reasons. First, I am a recovering Baptist and would horribly misuse the Presbyterian jargon. ...
You certainly don't limit your book purchases to those volumes with which know you already agree.
Just as a note, the Reformers' views of the fourth commandment held a pretty wide spread. If you read Calvin's Institutes he clearly rejects the observance of the 4th commandment, since he argues that it was all ceremonial, and has been completely fulfilled in Christ. He states that those who would make it part ceremonial and part moral law take away with one hand what they give with the other, and bring the church into a Judaistic bondage. He seems to hold a different view in some of his other writings. Witsius and Turretin both divide it into ceremonial and moral aspects, with the latter holding a stricter view that the former. The WCF, without trying to bash it, is truly the "strictest" of all with some of its statements.
I'm not making any position statements here, just wanting folk to recognize that the writings of the Reformers on the issue are complex and varied.
I don't think everyone will ever agree on Calvin's views on the Sabbath were since he says different things in different places. One thing is sure....whether he thought it was ceremonial or not he kept the Sabbath more strictly than most people alive today.
Just as a note, the Reformers' views of the fourth commandment held a pretty wide spread. If you read Calvin's Institutes he clearly rejects the observance of the 4th commandment, since he argues that it was all ceremonial, and has been completely fulfilled in Christ. He states that those who would make it part ceremonial and part moral law take away with one hand what they give with the other, and bring the church into a Judaistic bondage. He seems to hold a different view in some of his other writings. Witsius and Turretin both divide it into ceremonial and moral aspects, with the latter holding a stricter view that the former. The WCF, without trying to bash it, is truly the "strictest" of all with some of its statements.
I'm not making any position statements here, just wanting folk to recognize that the writings of the Reformers on the issue are complex and varied.
I don't think everyone will ever agree on Calvin's views on the Sabbath were since he says different things in different places. One thing is sure....whether he thought it was ceremonial or not he kept the Sabbath more strictly than most people alive today.
The clearer remarks clarify what he meant in the more obscure.
He was a strict 4th commandment adherent who kept it as the Lord's day and saw the term sabbath as mosaic economy.
The method to obey remained basically the same, and as Christ taught but not as the Pharisees added to the OT law, like 1200 paces max.
Like I said I don't think everyone will ever agree....
I recently had a conversation in our Bible study group regarding the Sabbath. One viewpoint put forward was that the reason we worship on the first day of the week is that the apostles and early church did so. We also observe the Sabbath day on Sunday, but it is not mandated. Basically the day we celebrate the Sabbath isn't that important, but just the principle of one day in seven being our Sabbath day. So if the government changed the structure of our workweek, Christians could go ahead and change the day, and make that day the Sabbath day.
Now I'm not sure if anyone has read the recent Christian Renewal magazine, but I found that two ministers held to that same viewpoint. If I'm not mistaken, one even said that the Seventh Day Adventists are free to worship on Saturday. Is this something new or do Dutch reformed churches have a history of this viewpoint?
So under this view, they see the 4th commandment as a moral law, but they are fuzzy on which day is actually the Christian Sabbath. Maybe they view it as a good tradition. I view Sunday as the only day which can be the Lord's Day and the Christian Sabbath, but I was wondering if anyone had some insights.
I cannot speak as to Dutch history on the subject, but it would seem surprising to me if this were the case. At any rate, it does "matter" in the sense that if one were demanding an OT Sabbath concept (i.e., worship on the 7th day/Saturday), this would matter as such a concept (albeit taking into consideration broader OT ceremonial days) is looked down upon by Paul in Colossians 2:16-17. And it's not as if Seventh Day Adventists are simply choosing to worship on a different day: "Sunday worship" is considered to be the mark of the Beast by them if their highway billboards are any indication of their doctrine.
Confessionally, we worship on the first day of the week because of Christ's resurrection on the first day of the week. Other things in the early church followed and established this pattern: the repeated gatherings of the disciples on the first day of the week (John 20), the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the meetings of early Christians in Acts, etc. And Paul's comments in Col. 2 are telling: the OT sabbath was "a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." It would seem to intentionally neglect the change of day in favor of OT observance is to embrace the type instead of the One to whom this pointed. And that's not spoken of positively in the NT.