What do you believe about the Sabbath?

[file13]

Same

Ditto. This is one part of Westminster where I respectfully disagree in favor of the view of the continental reformers.

38. Lord's Day

​

Question 103. What does God require in the fourth commandment?
Answer: First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained; (a) and that I, especially on the sabbath, that is, on the day of rest, diligently frequent the church of God, (b) to hear his word, (c) to use the sacraments, (d) publicly to call upon the Lord, (e) and contribute to the relief of the poor. (f) Secondly, that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by his Holy Spirit in me: and thus begin in this life the eternal sabbath. (g)
(a) Tit.1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 2 Tim.3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 2 Tim.3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 1 Tim.5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 1 Cor.9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? 1 Cor.9:13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 1 Cor.9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. 2 Tim.2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (b) Ps.40:10 I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation. Ps.40:11 Withhold not thou thy tender mercies from me, O LORD: let thy lovingkindness and thy truth continually preserve me. Ps.68:27 There is little Benjamin with their ruler, the princes of Judah and their council, the princes of Zebulun, and the princes of Naphtali. Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (c) 1 Tim.4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 1 Cor.14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. 1 Cor.14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 1 Cor.14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. (d) 1 Cor.11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. (e) 1 Tim.2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 1 Tim.2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 1 Tim.2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 1 Tim.2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 1 Tim.2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 1 Tim.2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 1 Tim.2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 1 Cor.14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? (f) 1 Cor.16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. (g) Isa.66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.


- Heidelberg Catechism

​

 

[LuxMundi]

Ditto. This is one part of Westminster where I respectfully disagree in favor of the view of the continental reformers.

There is no actual difference between the view of Westminster and the Continental reformers There is a difference of emphasis and way in which it is explained but then the Heidelberg Catechism was written in 1563 and the Westminster Standards in 1646, i.e. an 80 year gap. Have a read of Calvin's sermons on the Sabbath:

If we spend the Lord’s Day in partying, games and sports is this honoring God? No! Is it not mocking him and misusing his name? Yes! When the stores are closed on the Lord’s Day and men do not travel about as they do on other days, is this so that we can have more leisure and liberty to attend to the things that God commands? Is it so that we can be taught by his word, meet together for the confession of our faith, call upon his name, and exercise ourselves in the proper use of the sacraments? This is how the Sabbath regulation should serve us.

Sermons on Deuteronomy, "On the Sabbath" Part 1 by John Calvin

 

[Anoetos]

Just chiming in to say that I love me some Heidelbergs.

 

[file13]

There is no actual difference between the view of Westminster and the Continental reformers There is a difference of emphasis and way in which it is explained but then the Heidelberg Catechism was written in 1563 and the Westminster Standards in 1646, i.e. an 80 year gap.

Sadly brother, this is simply not historically accurate. Westminster goes much further then Heidelberg by equating the Lord's Day as the Christian Sabbath and calls for it to be kept in a sabbatarian manner. This view was peculiar to the English reformed and represents a different view of the Lord's Day then those in mainland Europe. For example:

M. Let us come to the fourth commandment.
S. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
M. Does he order us to labor on six days, that we may rest on the seventh?
S. Not absolutely; but allowing man six days for labor, he excepts the seventh, that it may be devoted to rest.
M. Does he interdict us from all kind of labor?
S. This commandment has a separate and peculiar reason. As the observance of rest is part of the old ceremonies, it was abolished by the advent of Christ.
M. Do you mean that this commandment properly refers to the Jews, and was therefore merely temporary
S. I do, in as far as it is ceremonial.
M. What then? Is there any thing under it beyond ceremony?
S. It was given for three reasons.
M. State them to me.
S. To figure spiritual rest; for the preservation of ecclesiastical polity; and for the relief of slaves.
M. What do you mean by spiritual rest
S. When we keep holiday from our own works, that God may perform his own works in us.
M. What, moreover, is the method of thus keeping holiday?
S. By crucifying our flesh, — that is, renouncing our own inclination, that we may be governed by the Spirit of God.
M. Is it sufficient to do so on the seventh day?
S. Nay, continually. After we have once begun, we must continue during the whole course of life.
M. Why, then, is a certain day appointed to figure it?
S. There is no necessity that the reality should agree with the figure in every respect, provided it be suitable in so far as is required for the purpose of figuring.
M. But why is the seventh day prescribed rather than any other day?
S. In Scripture the number seven implies perfection. It is, therefore, apt for denoting perpetuity. It, at the same time, indicates that this spiritualrest is only begun in this life, and will not be perfect until we depart from this world.
M. But what is meant when the Lord exhorts us to rest by his own example?
S. Having finished the creation of the world in six days: he dedicated the seventh to the contemplation of his works. The more strongly to stimulate us to this, he set before us his own example. For nothing is more desirable than to be formed after his image.
M. But ought meditation on the works of God to be continual, or is it sufficient that one day out of seven be devoted to it?
S. It becomes us to be daily exercised in it, but because of our weakness, one day is specially appointed. And this is the polity which I mentioned.
M. What order, then, is to be observed on that day?
S. That the people meet to hear the doctrine of Christ, to engage in public prayer, and make profession of their faith.
M. Now explain what you meant by saying that the Lord intended by this commandment to provide also for the relief of slaves.
S. That some relaxation might be given to those under the power of others. Nay, this, too, tends to maintain a common polity. For when one day is devoted to rest, every one accustoms himself to labor during the other days.
M. Let us now see how far this command has reference to us.
S. In regard to the ceremony, I hold that it was abolished, as the reality existed in Christ. (Colossians 2:17.)
M. How?
S. Because, by virtue of his death, our old man is crucified, and we are raised up to newness of life. (Romans 6:6.)
M. What of the commandment then remains for us?
S. Not to neglect the holy ordinances which contribute to the spiritual polity of the Church; especially to frequent sacred assemblies, to hear the word of God, to celebrate the sacraments, and engage in the regular prayers, as enjoined.
M. But does the figure give us nothing more?
S. Yes, indeed. We must give heed to the thing meant by it; namely, that being engrafted into the body of Christ, and made his members, we cease from our own works, and so resign ourselves to the government of God.
- Catachism of the Church Of Geneva
​

Have a read of Calvin's sermons on the Sabbath:

Sermons on Deuteronomy, "On the Sabbath" Part 1 by John Calvin

Yes, I go to church with Chris Coldwell who you may be familiar with, and our pastor just finished a bunch of sermons on the 4th Commandment (I think it was 6 in all) in line with WCF, so I'm quite familiar with the Presbyterian view of the Lord's Day. But again, I respectfully disagree with this view if favor of the view found in Calvin's Institutes, his Genevan Catechism, and Heidelberg. Could Calvin have changed his mind later in life? Sure. But this dosen't mean I'm obligated to change my personal view if he did.

In any case, I'm not trying to stir up trouble or debate against the WCF view. Just stating my personal opinion. I have no particular personal issues with the Presbyterian view of the Lord's Day, I'm just not convinced by it. But that's fine if you are....

 

[alton3]

The 1st day Sabbath as instituted by God the Father:

And in the first day shall be a holy assembly, also in the seventh day shall be a holy assembly unto you; no work shall be done in them, save about that which every man must eat, that only may ye do.

And the Son:

But I say unto you, that here is one greater than the Temple. Wherefore if ye knew what this is, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the innocents. For the Son of man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up again. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this Temple a building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.

And the Apostle:

Every first day of the week, let every one of you put aside by himself, and lay up as God hath prospered him, that then there be no gatherings when I come.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, let him be a new creature. Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

As the New Covenant supersedes the Old, the first day supersedes (as it follows) the seventh. The Risen Christ is greater than the Temple; the Lord's Day was instituted when God sanctified the first and seventh days of the Passover.

 

[myhopeisfound]

I am very torn on this subject in the way that I think recreation (playing outside with my kids, attending a bday party, taking a walk with the dog, etc.) is okay as long as my family and I are in church for the am and pm service. Some of my more liberal family members say I am being legalistic. Then on the other side, I have family members who think we are "going liberal" if we DO skip the PM service b/c we chose to enjoy God's creation at a forest preserve on a beautiful Sunday afternoon. It's a tough subject for me yet and missing "night church" actually makes me feel guilty b/c I feel like I should always desire to be in corporate worship. Hebrews 4 is still a little confusing as well. But, I've enjoyed reading the posts on this thread.

 

[picnic]

I think the Sabbath has always and always will be a Saturday. However, ultimately Christ is our rest and the sabbath day should point to Him who gives us rest.

I find it interesting that in Portuguese the word for Saturday is Sabado and for Sunday is Domingo, so the distinction is maintained between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day.

 

[LuxMundi]

I think the Sabbath has always and always will be a Saturday.

Why?

 

[LuxMundi]

Sadly brother, this is simply not historically accurate. Westminster goes much further then Heidelberg by equating the Lord's Day as the Christian Sabbath and calls for it to be kept in a sabbatarian manner. This view was peculiar to the English reformed and represents a different view of the Lord's Day then those in mainland Europe.

Perhaps I was unclear; do you follow if I talk about substance and accidents? Anyway, the substance of what the Puritans taught is also found in the Continental Reformed although the they differ in the formal expression of that same substance. So if we simply read the Westminster Standards and compare it with the Heidelberg Catechism then there does seem to be a difference but this is only superficial. Westminster states explicitly that which those on the Continent practices, in the Netherlands during the time of Ursinus is was illegal to go to the park on Sunday because it was deemed to break the Sabbath. Yes, this was not written into the Catechism he wrote, but we need to take into account their praxis too.

Hence when you say that Calvin changed his mind etc is to miss the point completely; his Geneva Catechism is not opposed to his sermons on Deuteronomy, rather they have different intentions etc. There is not contradiction between the two, the problem is that you are presupposing that the Catechism is less strict.

It's similar to say the 39 Articles, it doesn't even mention the Sabbath, but (a) that was not its intention (2) church attendence in England was compulsory by statute law and enforced.

 

[Philonephius]

Jesus is the sabbath; therefore, I find my rest in Him.

This is generally my approach as well.

 

[file13]

Perhaps I was unclear; do you follow if I talk about substance and accidents? Anyway, the substance of what the Puritans taught is also found in the Continental Reformed although the they differ in the formal expression of that same substance. So if we simply read the Westminster Standards and compare it with the Heidelberg Catechism then there does seem to be a difference but this is only superficial. Westminster states explicitly that which those on the Continent practices, in the Netherlands during the time of Ursinus is was illegal to go to the park on Sunday because it was deemed to break the Sabbath. Yes, this was not written into the Catechism he wrote, but we need to take into account their praxis too.

Yes, I speak Aristotle. Yes, I suppose you could argue that. I.e. that the WCF takes a maximalist approach, but that it's basically the same. Yes, you're also correct that there can be a disconnect between theory and practice and that you can argue that the "Continental view" was the same, though a matter of emphasis. Finally, I hope you understand that by the "Continental View," I'm referring to a general difference in understanding of the Sabbath, not that there weren't people on mainland Europe who may have shared their views. I.e. I'm using it as a differentiating term of convenience to contrast the views.

But really this all gets into deeper issues then what I was wanting to get into when I simply mentioned my personal view on the matter. But since we're on the subject, let me try to explain.

What I'm getting at though, is that there is a very big difference from saying that the Lord's Day is the Christian Sabbath in the sense that it is an ontological change of days, but not of meaning, made by God Himself AND that it must be kept in the same or similar manner as the Jewish 7th day Sabbath. I.e. in this view, there is always a literal day of worship called the Sabbath day, and this Sabbath day was literally changed to the Lord's Day (8th or 1st day). I.e. the day just changed, but otherwise we basically Judaize on Sunday. This is the view I disagree with.

A problem arises here because I think there is a difference between calling the Lord's Day "the Sabbath" as a convention of language and equating it in an ontological sense with the 7th day Sabbath. For example, if you look at Dort on the issue of the Sabbath, even though they call the Lord's Day the Sabbath and even say that Christians sanctified it. But if you look closely, they make it clear that:

II. The rest of the seventh day after creation was ceremonial and its rigid observation peculiarly prescribed to the Jewish people.

VI. This same day is thus consecrated for divine worship, so that in it one might rest from all servile works (with these excepted, which are works of charity and pressing necessity) and from those recreations which impede the worship of God.​

This is quite a bit of a different understanding of how we worship God and why. Notice the very different idea of recreation here (as opposed to WCF, esp the Larger Catechism):

Question 119: What are the sins forbidden in the fourth commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the fourth commandment are, all omissions of the duties required, all careless, negligent, and unprofitable performing of them, and being weary of them; all profaning the day by idleness, and doing that which is in itself sinful; and by all needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and recreations.
​

Notice the very different attitude towards the 4th Commandment here. One says to not work so you can go to church and to take it easy on the golf if it interferes with worship. The other assumes we're in the same situation as the Jews and thus, must Judaize on the Sabbath or we sin. Also notice that in WCF, there is no mention of abrogation (as we find in Dort and even Calvin), but instead the notion of seemingly literal "change."

This is why I think you'll find in the Puritan view of the Sabbath something very different from the "Continental View." I am personally not at all convinced by this Puritan view which you find expressed in popular books like Pipa's Lord's Day. If you're familiar with this book, you'll see that he takes the WCF approach that just the day changed, so you need to cook your meals, fill up your gas tank, cook dinner, don't drive anywhere, don't watch TV, etc, in a very similar manner as the Jews.

Finally, let me say that even if you reject my premise that the differences have to do with a very real understanding of what is meant by "Sabbath," I think that if you simply focus on "what do we do on that day?", you'll find a very real difference between "not partying on the Lord's day" and "it's a sin to relax on the Lord's Day." If nothing more, there clearly is a very real difference with how we are to "keep the sabbath" between the "Puritan view" and the "Continental view." I do personally think it's more than that as I've tried to express, but the point is, I think it's still clear that there are still two views regarding the Sabbath within Reformed theology, which is ultimately my point.

Hence when you say that Calvin changed his mind etc is to miss the point completely...

I never said he changed his mind. I said that even if he changed his mind, I'm not obligated to follow him there.

It's similar to say the 39 Articles, it doesn't even mention the Sabbath, but (a) that was not its intention (2) church attendence in England was compulsory by statute law and enforced.

Yes, I understand you argument from praxis (if you will). But even here, there's a difference between the CoE requiring people to go to the countries official church (which was Protestant) on Sunday or get fined and the idea that you must Judaize on the Sabbath.

This to me, seems to be the crucial aspect regarding the Lord's Day. Do we Judaize on it or not? How we answer that will likely determine what we understand Sunday to be. A day of worship sanctioned by the apostles and thus a "Christian sabbath" in the sense that it is our day of worship and that we should take worship seriously, or that the Lord's Day is literally the same thing as the Jewish Sabbath, but just on a different day now.

In any case, again, I'm not going to actually argue for my view here (i.e. why I disagree with the view). But I do think that there clearly are two views found within Reformed theology (regardless of what we call them). This was my point. But I think we may have gotten hung up on my using the term "continental," which in retrospect, I would have avoided if I knew that this might crop up.

 

[LuxMundi]

I think it's still clear that there are still two views regarding the Sabbath within Reformed theology, which is ultimately my point.

You are correct that in the modern Reformed scene there are two views; the question is has this always been the case, my contention is that the 'relaxed' view has grown from a misreading of the Continental Reformed as if they were opposed to the English Puritans. Sure, the way they explain things differs yet they are expressing quite clearly the same view. Oh and if you are quoting Dordt then you need to read it all because the most important bits are those you "accidentally" missed.

1. There is in the fourth commandment of the divine law a ceremonial and a moral element.

2. The ceremonial element is the rest of the seventh day after creation, and the strict observance of that day imposed especially on the Jewish people.

3. The moral element consists in the fact that a certain definite day is set aside for worship and so much rest as is needful for worship and hallowed meditation.

4. The Sabbath of the Jews having been abolished, the day of the Lord must be solemnly hallowed by Christians.

5. Since the times of the apostles this day has always been observed by the old catholic church.

6. This day must be so consecrated to worship that on that day we rest from all servile works, except those which charity and present necessity require; and also from all such recreations as interfere with worship.

​

Taken from Howard B. Spaan, Christian Reformed Church Government (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1968), 208

​

 

[file13]

You are correct that in the modern Reformed scene there are two views; the question is has this always been the case, my contention is that the 'relaxed' view has grown from a misreading of the Continental Reformed as if they were opposed to the English Puritans. Sure, the way they explain things differs yet they are expressing quite clearly the same view.

I disagree as do even Sabbatarians like Joseph Pipa who defends the WCF view.

In God's providence, the English Puritans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries brought together the conflicting strands of Reformational thinking on the Sabbath to give us the 'English Sabbath.' The Puritans clarified and refined the thinking of the English Reformers, who reflected the ambiguity of the early Reformers on the Continent.
- Joseph Pipa - The Lord's Day, pg 150.
​

So I think that history is much more of a tangled mess than what you or the folks at the Puritan board like to claim. For example:

THE TIME NECESSARY FOR WORSHIP. Although religion is not bound to time, yet it cannot be cultivated and exercised without a proper distribution and arrangement of time. Every Church, therefore, chooses for itself a certain time for public prayers, and for the preaching of the Gospel, and for the celebration of the sacraments; and no one is permitted to overthrow this appointment of the Church at his own pleasure. For unless some due time and leisure is given for the outward exercise of religion, without doubt men would be drawn away from it by their own affairs.

THE LORD'S DAY. Hence we see that in the ancient churches there were not only certain set hours in the week appointed for meetings, but that also the Lord's Day itself, ever since the apostles' time, was set aside for them and for a holy rest, a practice now rightly preserved by our Churches for the sake of worship and love.

SUPERSTITION. In this connection we do not yield to the Jewish observance and to superstitions. For we do not believe that one day is any holier than another, or think that rest in itself is acceptable to God. Moreover, we celebrate the Lord's Day and not the Sabbath as a free observance.
- The Second Helvetic Confession, CHAPTER XXIV
​

This is clearly not just a matter of emphasis nor is it simply that the Puritans developed their doctrine out of this view. They are distinct views and they are not modern as you're claiming. One view says that the Lord's Day is the day we worship on based on Apostolic Tradition as the appointed day of worship, the other says that the 7th Day Sabbath was literally changed into the 8th or 1st day, the Lord's Day, and carries with it the same judaizing practices as the old Sabbath. These are mutually exclusive views and they're not something modern antinomian Reformed people came up with. In fact, we could point to even earlier tradition in our favor.

Oh and if you are quoting Dordt then you need to read it all because the most important bits are those you "accidentally" missed.

6. This day must be so consecrated to worship that on that day we rest from all servile works, except those which charity and present necessity require; and also from all such recreations as interfere with worship.​

I quoted this part you bolded and I did provide my source in my earlier comment, so clearly I'm not trying to misquote anything. But you'll notice that I also argued why I quoted what I quoted, something you have not done. Instead, you have just quoted something and claimed it backs up your view. This is an assertion, not an argument.

That being said, you're welcome to have the last word on the interpretation of this statement if you like, but I'm personally not interested in continuing to throw tradition at one another. I think I've made a sufficient case. Of course, you're also welcome to try to interpret Reformation history to try to make it look like the WCF view was a universal belief amongst historical Reformed Christians in substance. But to do so will likely require you to make creative interpretations of confessions and other writings from tradition. But at that point we should probably step back and ask, "what are we doing?" Why are we wasting so much time trying to make tradition read a certain way, or worse, arguing over the interpretation of tradition...traditions of men like a bunch of Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox where we throw tradition at one another ad nauseum when we don't believe that tradition has the authority to bind our conscience?

In any case, we know what the WCF says and churches which hold to it make it clear how they understand the the WCF regarding the sabbath, so I really don't see the point in spending so much time arguing over this slippery thing called tradition. Ad fontes....

 

[LuxMundi]

I also argued why I quoted what I quoted, something you have not done. Instead, you have just quoted something and claimed it backs up your view. This is an assertion, not an argument.

The Continental Reformed differentiated between the Sabbath as ceremonial and as moral, so they sometimes speak as the Sabbath being abrogated because they are speaking of the ceremonial aspects of the Sabbath whilst they retain the Sabbath as being part of God's moral law. Which is why some people have spoken of the Continental Reformed being more 'relaxed' but that is because they fail to see the difference that the CRs are making, Frame and Sproul are classic examples of this. Pipa is right that there is some ambiguity, one could read the CRs as being relaxed but then what of their strict praxis? Whilst I agree with Frame and Sproul that recreation is fine on the Sabbath, I do this in the recognition that I self-consciously am differing from both the Puritans and Continental Reformed.

I think the whole debate gets far more complicated when one factors in the origins of the biblical material (exilic/post-exilic P material) and the New Perspective with respect to the torah.

 

[file13]

The Continental Reformed differentiated between the Sabbath as ceremonial and as moral, so they sometimes speak as the Sabbath being abrogated because they are speaking of the ceremonial aspects of the Sabbath whilst they retain the Sabbath as being part of God's moral law.

Brother, I apologize for continuing the discussion when I did offer you the last word. But I just can't leave this historical inaccuracy hanging. What I'm quoting from comes from the Institutes (1559 Latin & 1560 French). Keep in mind, Calvin's sermons on Deuteronomy are dated to 1555. Does Calvin say that it's just the ceremonial that's abrogated here?

And, thirdly, that we may avoid oppressing those who are subject to us. In this way, we get quit of the trifling of the false prophets, who in later times instilled Jewish ideas into the people, alleging that nothing was abrogated but what was ceremonial in the commandment, (this they term in their language the taxation of the seventh day), while the moral part remains—viz. the observance of one day in seven [to which the French edition adds: making no other distinction between the Sunday and the Sabbath, save that the seventh day, which was kept till then, was abrogated, but that it was nevertheless necessary to keep some one day.] But this is nothing else than to insult the Jews, by changing the day, and yet mentally attributing to it the same sanctity; thus retaining the same typical distinction of days as had place among the Jews. And of a truth, we see what profit they have made by such a doctrine. Those who cling to their constitutions go thrice as far as the Jews in the gross and carnal superstition of sabbatism; so that the rebukes which we read in Isaiah (Isa. 1:13; 58:13) apply as much to those of the present day, as to those to whom the Prophet addressed them. We must be careful, however, to observe the general doctrine—viz. in order that religion may neither be lost nor languish among us, we must diligently attend on our religious assemblies, and duly avail ourselves of those external aids which tend to promote the worship of God.
- Institutes of the Christian Religion 2.8.34
​

Again, my point remains that this is not a late or modern development, Calvin was from the continent, and Calvin explicitly disagrees with your assertion here that it's just the ceremonial which was abrogated. He clearly stands with Luther on this point in direct contradiction to the WCF here. So again, there is more then one view of the 4th commandment in Reformed theology and these differences are not new innovations of modern lazy antinomian Christians.

 

[LuxMundi]

Again, my point remains that this is not a late or modern development, Calvin was from the continent, and Calvin explicitly disagrees with your assertion here that it's just the ceremonial which was abrogated.

I think you are misreading Calvin on this point; he is dealing with a sect known as the sabbatarians (wholly unrelated to the current debates). Plus if we read that quote in context we see the following in section 32:

The two other cases ought not to be classed with ancient shadows, but are adapted to every age. The sabbath being abrogated, there is still room among us, first, to assemble on stated days for the hearing of the Word, the breaking of the mystical bread, and public prayer; and, secondly, to give our servants and labourers relaxation from labour. It cannot be doubted that the Lord provided for both in the commandment of the Sabbath. The former is abundantly evinced by the mere practice of the Jews. The latter Moses has expressed in Deuteronomy in the following terms: “The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant;—that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou,” (Deut. 5:14). Likewise in Exodus, “That thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed,” (Exod. 23:12). Who can deny that both are equally applicable to us as to the Jews? Religious meetings are enjoined us by the word of God; their necessity, experience itself sufficiently demonstrates.
​

What we also see, is what you did not quote in your section from 34:

It was not, however, without a reason that the early Christians substituted what we call the Lord’s day for the Sabbath...The whole may be thus summed up: As the truth was delivered typically to the Jews, so it is imparted to us without figure; first, that during our whole lives we may aim at a constant rest from our own works, in order that the Lord may work in us by his Spirit; secondly that every individual, as he has opportunity, may diligently exercise himself in private, in pious meditation on the works of God, and, at the same time, that all may observe the legitimate order appointed by the Church, for the hearing of the word, the administration of the sacraments, and public prayer: And, thirdly, that we may avoid oppressing those who are subject to us.

​

Of course we could then turn to his commentaries on Genesis dated to 1563where he says:

Whence it also appears, that God always had respect to the welfare of men. I have said above, that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the consideration of his works. He had the same end in view in the appointment of his own rest, for he set apart a day selected out of the remainder for this special use. Wherefore, that benediction is nothing else than a solemn consecration, by which God claims for himself the meditations and employments of men on the seventh day. This is, indeed, the proper business of the whole life, in which men should daily exercise themselves, to consider the infinite goodness, justice, power, and wisdom of God, in this magnificent theater of heaven and earth. But, lest men should prove less sedulously attentive to it than they ought, every seventh day has been especially selected for the purpose of supplying what was wanting in daily meditation. First, therefore, God rested; then he blessed this rest, that in all ages it might be held sacred among men: or he dedicated every seventh day to rest, that his own example might be a perpetual rule. The design of the institution must be always kept in memory: for God did not command men simply to keep holiday every seventh day, as if he delighted in their indolence; but rather that they, being released from all other business, might the more readily apply their minds to the Creator of the world. Lastly, that is a sacred rest, which withdraws men from the impediments of the world, that it may dedicate them entirely to God...Therefore when we hear that the Sabbath was abrogated by the coming of Christ, we must distinguish between what belongs to the perpetual government of human life, and what properly belongs to ancient figures, the use of which was abolished when the truth was fulfilled. Spiritual rest is the mortification of the flesh; so that the sons of God should no longer live unto themselves, or indulge their own inclination. So far as the Sabbath was a figure of this rest, I say, it was but for a season; but inasmuch as it was commanded to men from the beginning that they might employ themselves in the worship of God, it is right that it should continue to the end of the world.
​

 

[file13]

I think you are misreading Calvin on this point; he is dealing with a sect known as the sabbatarians (wholly unrelated to the current debates). Plus if we read that quote in context we see the following in section 32...Who can deny that both are equally applicable to us as to the Jews?...

I disagree. I think he's perfectly and explicitly clear here. He's referring to the need to gather for worship here as he says in the next sentence:

Religious meetings are enjoined us by the word of God; their necessity, experience itself sufficiently demonstrates.​

What we also see, is what you did not quote in your section from 34:

I did not quote the whole thing because it's irrelevant to the discussion. People can and should click on the link I provided to read the whole thing. The point is that Calvin (and folks who disagree with WCF) do not believe that the 4th commandment has no purpose anymore. The issue is "is the Lord's Day now the same thing as the Sabbath." He clearly denies that it is.

Of course we could then turn to his commentaries on Genesis dated to 1563where he says....

Ditto.