Could Calvin Be Ordained in Your Presbytery?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was indulging in a bit of hyperbole. My point is despite his proto or nascent Sabbatarianism, to use Lauer's term, Calvin would be pretty much in the strict WCF camp.
I've never seen nor heard of a candidate being turned down in the PCA because they were a strict Sabbatarian or because they took no exceptions to the Standards. I took no exceptions to the Standards when I was being examined and my presbytery had no problem with that.
 
I know many Dutch Calvinists who hold to the continental view. It's articulated in the Heidelberg Catechism.

Dutch Calvinists from America...yes. The view you are attributing to those of the continent is an American invention. But the "continental view" is the historical reformed view from history (i.e. the German and Dutch Reformed from the time during and after the reformation - 1500-1700 AD), very similar if not the same as the Puritan or Westminster view.

Here's W. Robert Godfrey on the issue, "The Dutch Reformed view of the Sabbath developed over time and those who appeal to a “continental view” are usually appealing to a misunderstood moment in the history of the Dutch Reformed churches. The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) in its exposition of the fourth commandment certainly speaks very differently for the Westminster Confession written 80 years later. Still the HC does refer to Sunday as a holiday (Feiertag) which means a day of rest from ordinary work. At the Synod of Dort (1618-9) a question was posed about the Sabbath and the Synod offered a provision statement (saying that it did not have time to study this matter definitively.) These six points of Dort on the Sabbath are the only official synodical declarations of the Dutch Reformed churches although in later years the Dutch Reformed accepted and practiced the Puritan Sabbath expressed in the Westminster Confession."
 
The continental view has become a wax nose as far as definition. In practice, to go by Dordt, it is not much less strict than the puritan view. See Danny Hyde's :Regulae de Observatione Sabbathi: The Synod of Dort’s (1618–19) Deliverance on the Sabbath" appearing first in the PRTS journal and also in The Confessional Presbyterian 12 (2017), "sabbath" issue. I will refer again to the study paper done by my PCA Presbytery mentioned on other threads if not above, which is not known as a bastion of strict Sabbatarianism, whose study committee looking at what is the continental view, concluded it had become a useless term through modern redefinition.
I know many Dutch Calvinists who hold to the continental view. It's articulated in the Heidelberg Catechism.
 
Here is an excerpt from the Deuteronomy Sermons preached in the summer of 1555:
“Now from the foregoing we see what attitude68 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 order69 which God instituted to lead us to himself, why should they be astonished if all the rest of the week is degraded?”​
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)
 
So Calvin must have altered his view between 1555 when that sermon was preached and 1559 when his "definitive" edition of the Institutes was released, because his view in the Institutes is entirely at odds with what he said there, unless he was just using the word "Sunday" as a synonym for "the day that this particular church has decided to have it's weekly meetings on".
 
According to a trusted Bible Teacher that I greatly respect, Calvin had said that his Institutes are the true and full expression of his religious opinion and that anything that the conflicts between the Institutes and his commentaries etc. are to be resolved in favor of the Institutes.

So Calvin must have altered his view between 1555 when that sermon was preached and 1559 when his "definitive" edition of the Institutes was released, because his view in the Institutes is entirely at odds with what he said there, unless he was just using the word "Sunday" as a synonym for "the day that this particular church has decided to have it's weekly meetings on".

No offense to your trust of your bible teacher or your bible teacher himself, but do you have anything to prove what he said? I've always been taught to consider the Institutes, Commentaries, and Sermons together and not separate to understand Calvin's views, with an understanding of when he wrote what he wrote.

And in the Institutes...very clearly he's speaking of the ceremonial aspects of the fourth commandment. So in this case of Sabbath keeping for the Christian, we'd all agree the ceremonial aspects have been abrogated. So even if you are correct, that doesn't change what Calvin wrote about the 4th commandment regarding it's moral nature.
 
Maybe I am not clear on what it is exactly that I am trying to say about Calvin's view of the Sabbath, but I thought I made it plain in my earlier post. I am not trying to argue that Calvin considers the whole of the 4th Commandment to be abrogated (although in 8.32 he does actually call it abrogated).

My only point is that in Calvin's Institutes, (contra all of the English Puritan derived Reformed Confessions) he very clearly states that keeping a specific day of the week is a facet of the 4th Commandment that has been abrogated. He also very clearly states that the reasons for the Sabbath have not changed; there still needs to be a day in which the church gathers for worship, men cease from their labors, masters cease from laying burdens on their servants, men focus more upon things of God and less on things of men, but exactly which day that is, he makes it clear we are not bound by specifics.

"8.34 It was not, however, without a reason that the early Christians substituted what we call the Lord’s day for the Sabbath. The resurrection of our Lord being the end and accomplishment of that true rest which the ancient sabbath typified, this day, by which types were abolished serves to warn Christians against adhering to a shadowy ceremony. I do not cling so to the number seven as to bring the Church under bondage to it, nor do I condemn churches for holding their meetings on other solemn days, provided they guard against superstition. This they will do if they employ those days merely for the observance of discipline and regular order."

Reading 8.28 through 8.34, it is very hard to come away with the opinion that John Calvin considered the Lord's Day and only the Lord's Day to be the "absolute" Christian Sabbath.
 
I struggled a long while about the Sabbath. It was Calvin's writings that threw me over onto the Sabbatarian side. I don't think he would appreciate how lax some are on the Sabbath these days including me sometimes.
 
The Sermons on the Ten Commandments, a subset of the Deuteronomy sermons, was published with a preface dated le dernier iour d'aoust (last day of August), in 1557 and reprinted, 1558, 1559 and 1562, in Calvin's lifetime. So it's a lot tighter than between 1555 and 1559 and one has to contend with the republication concurrent with the 1559 Institutes. I don't think his views changed. It is a matter of trying to make sense of the sermons and other material and the Institutes and Sermons as some have tried to do, such as Lauer. Here is my source for the dates.
So Calvin must have altered his view between 1555 when that sermon was preached and 1559 when his "definitive" edition of the Institutes was released, because his view in the Institutes is entirely at odds with what he said there, unless he was just using the word "Sunday" as a synonym for "the day that this particular church has decided to have it's weekly meetings on".
 
I know many Dutch Calvinists who hold to the continental view. It's articulated in the Heidelberg Catechism.


Whatever one might call the “continental view”, or have an idea of what it might be, we can be assured of it here in the 164 session of the Synod:

Session 164, May 17 PM
Trans. R. Scott Clark

Rules on the observation of the Sabbath, or the Lord’s Day, with the agreement of the brothers from Zeeland the following concepts were explained and approved by Doctor Professors of Divinity.

  1. In the fourth Commandment of the divine law, part is ceremonial, part is moral.
  2. The rest of the seventh day after creation was ceremonial and its rigid observation peculiarly prescribed to the Jewish people.
  3. Moral in fact, because the fixed and enduring day of the worship of God is appointed, for as much rest as is necessary for the worship of God and holy meditation of him.
  4. With the Sabbath of the Jews having been abrogated, the Lord’s Day is solemnly sanctified by Christians.
  5. From the time of the Apostles this day was always observed in the ancient Catholic Church.
  6. 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.
Source: H.H. Kuyper, De Post-Acta of Nahandelingen van de nationale Synode van Dordrecht in 1618 en 1619 gehouden een Historische Studie (Amsterdam, 1899), 184–86.
 
I've never seen it done in my presbytery. I was not examined on such views when I was coming up.
I have, several times. It's asked both at Committee level as well as on the floor. I've served on exam committee for almost a decade now.
 
Interesting. During which exam do these issues come up?
Typically during the Theology Exam. Progressive neo-Calvinists tend to be more concerned about social and racial justice than theological precision in other areas. They'll bristle at the idea of not ordaining a paedocommunionist but are concerned that a minister really understands and applies the idea that the Church should be about redeeming the City.

Most are completely ambivalent about the Sabbath issue. Some Presbyteries won't even list a person's Sabbath differences as stated differences. A few years ago North Texas Overtured GA to remove parts of the Westminster Standards dealing with Recreation on he grounds that "...everyone takes that exception."
 
Typically during the Theology Exam. Progressive neo-Calvinists tend to be more concerned about social and racial justice than theological precision in other areas. They'll bristle at the idea of not ordaining a paedocommunionist but are concerned that a minister really understands and applies the idea that the Church should be about redeeming the City.

Most are completely ambivalent about the Sabbath issue. Some Presbyteries won't even list a person's Sabbath differences as stated differences. A few years ago North Texas Overtured GA to remove parts of the Westminster Standards dealing with Recreation on he grounds that "...everyone takes that exception."

Our presbytery pretty much sticks to Westminster stuff during the theology exam and I am grateful for it. We have some more "progressive" types in our presbytery, but they are not very vocal. Asking about social justice issues during a theology exam seems out of place to me.
 
Asking about social justice issues during a theology exam seems out of place to me.

Where else would they be asked? Theology is the king of sciences, it touches everything. Theology gives us the study of justice (biblical). So to determine someone's view of justice and God's justice it is proper to ask about social justice issues.
 
Where else would they be asked? Theology is the king of sciences, it touches everything. Theology gives us the study of justice (biblical). So to determine someone's view of justice and God's justice it is proper to ask about social justice issues.

I don't think that candidates should be examined on such views. This would imply that there are orthodox and unorthodox views on social justice and that a candidate could be dismissed for, say, personally supporting more democratic policies like universal healthcare. Or, conversely, a candidate could be dismissed for not supporting universal healthcare. It's just a little overkill.
 
I don't think that candidates should be examined on such views. This would imply that there are orthodox and unorthodox views on social justice and that a candidate could be dismissed for, say, personally supporting more democratic policies like universal healthcare. Or, conversely, a candidate could be dismissed for not supporting universal healthcare. It's just a little overkill.

It’s up to the presbytery to determine what they examine their candidates on. When a Pastor’s whole life is under scrutiny by the world and the church at all times, when the Pastor is to lead his people not just with his voice but his life, then everything can be examined. It is therefore up to the Presbytery to decide what each candidate is examined on. Your Church Government (BCO) provides the minimum a candidate must be examined on.
 
It’s up to the presbytery to determine what they examine their candidates on. When a Pastor’s whole life is under scrutiny by the world and the church at all times, when the Pastor is to lead his people not just with his voice but his life, then everything can be examined. It is therefore up to the Presbytery to decide what each candidate is examined on. Your Church Government (BCO) provides the minimum a candidate must be examined on.

I'm glad that we don't examine candidates on their political views. Do you think that this is helpful for the church to do so?

I would also add that if a presbytery refused to ordain a candidate because he did not believe in universal healthcare, I think that this could easily be overturned by our GA. So it's not just the prerogative of the presbytery that matters.
 
I'm glad that we don't examine candidates on their political views. Do you think that this is helpful for the church to do so?

Like I said it is up to the Presbytery to determine what a candidate needs to be examined on. If I saw online a candidate talking positively about critical race theory, BLM, planned parenthood, even the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts...I’m going to ask them about it. Because as a Pastor and as a Christian - every view you hold ought to be shaped by God. You are a new creation. My being a Christian and being Reformed shapes my political views. So if there are questionable political views then absolutely I’m going to question a guy on that. I’d be negligent in my duty as a presbyter not to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top