The Church: Agency of Grace

I've just finished reading the biography of John Williamson Nevin written by DG Hart.

Hart only briefly addresses the childhood of Nevin before charging into the narrative of Nevin's ministry. The bulk of the book is an attempt to explain what Nevin had to say, the context in which he said it, and the impact (or lack of) that his work had in the German Reformed Church and the American Evangelical church-at-large.

Hart's work is helpful and well worth the time spent learning about this amazing theologian from our reformed past. However, the greatest work in this volume is the conclusion, in which Hart does a masterful job of demonstrating the importance of Nevin's contribution, and even criticism, of the church in America. While the lion's share of church historians consider the late 19th century to be the "critical period" in church history, Hart argues forcefully that given a different (more appropriate?) set of criteria, it can be demonstrated that by the late 19th century, the church had long since passed the critical period. This critique (drawn by Hart from Nevin) is most fascinating since it demonstrates Nevin's incredible insight into his own period. But more to the point, Nevin's arguments against the American church are no less true today than they were in his day, making this work, and particularly Hart's conclusion, decisively relevant for today's reader.

I leave you with a quote from the conclusion:

"...if the church is primarily an agency of grace through word and sacrament, then when those means of salvation become marginal, Christianity has entered an era fraught with abiding significance."

Isn't this the American church of today? Hasn't it been the American church since at least the 2nd Great Awakening?

Matt

Calvin and the Sabbath, Redux

Calvin understands the first condition as having two aspects (see the outline in the previous post). The first aspect was a typological observance. The second aspect was the real observance. By the typological observance, Calvin is referring to the outward or ceremonial observance. This consisted of the many rules concerning what could and could not be done on the Sabbath. These rules were meant to regulate the rest that was commanded. As with the other ceremonial aspects of the OT, these rules went away when Christ completed his earthly ministry. In other words, the rules were abrogated. This is because the rest was meant to typify the spiritual rest that would be won for us by Christ. However, once Christ did the work, we no longer needed the type, so the type passed into uselessness. This might be equated to the sacrificial system. The slaughter of innocent and spotless lambs for the atonement of sin prefigured or typified Christ. Once Christ came, there was no longer any need for such slaughter of innocents. The thing typified had been realized.

This brings us to the second aspect: the Real Observance. Calvin argues that the real observance was unrealized in the OT. In other words, the Sabbath observance in the OT was a shadow of the true Sabbath to come. This Sabbath is realized in Christ.

So, referring once again to our outline, we see that Calvin argued that the outward or ceremonial observance (according to the many rules of the OT) was abrogated. The inward observance, which was unrealized in the OT, is realized in the NT. Since this principle is always true, we should strive to observe it daily. In this way, Calvin is extending the principle underlying the Sabbath to each and every day of our lives, not just one day in seven. And so to this point we can properly argue that Calvin did not teach a strict observance of the Sabbath on these principles.

Calvin then goes on, however, to argue that the other two conditions, as I said above, are still to be observed.

Calvin believed that there is still a Sabbath observance. The nature of this observance is related not to rest, but to corporate worship. He further argues that this should occur one day in seven. However, Calvin does not believe that Sunday is necessarily the day upon which we are commanded by God to observe the Sabbath. God commands one day in seven. Prudence dictates that this day be Sunday. The church has met on Sunday since the NT, and therefore Calvin wholeheartedly supports the Sunday gathering for worship as an observance of the Sabbath. He further argues that this is not without meaning, since Christ accomplished the purchase of our rest in his resurrection, which occurred on Sunday.

The Sabbath is still to be observed inasmuch as we are still to apply the third condition as well. This is summarized well when Calvin writes "we should not inhumanly oppress those subject to us." While we see this condition being generalized by Calvin in his conclusion (as opposed to the specific statement in section 28), it is implied that we are to especially exemplify this on that day in which we rest from our work in order to worship God and improve in piety.

This is Calvin's view, which is different from Westminster. And that will have to be another post.

Calvin and the Sabbath

In a recent conversation with friend and DTS student Jared on my post below, I mentioned Calvin's view on the Sabbath. I decided that it might be helpful to some to offer some insight into Calvin's view on this. After doing my master's project (this is the alternative to a thesis at DTS) on Calvin's view of the Sabbath, I was struck by just how difficult it was to really come to an adequate understanding of what Calvin's saying. I based my interpretation of his view on the Institutes. While I was aware of his commentaries, I chose not to interact in depth with them for a very simple reason. The Institutes, in their final edition, are the result of many years of editing and reworking on the part of Calvin. He only finished the final edition a relatively short time before his death. So what we have in the Institutes is as close to a perfect distillation of Calvin's thought as we could possibly hope to get. We also have this in Latin as well as French, making it a very solid text for translation and interpretation. In contrast, Calvin's commentaries are essentially transcriptions of his sermons. They were preached one time and then with only minor editing placed into circulation, some of them many years before his death. So it is to the Institutes that we look in this case. And one more note on this, despite the many years of adding material and reorganizing it and editing and reworking it, Calvin's comments regarding the 4th commandment remained essentially unchanged. This leads us to believe that Calvin held his view in tact for the duration of his ministry with very little wavering.

We find Calvin's comments collected in Book II, Chapter VIII, Sections 28-34. This is Calvin's interpretation and explanation of the 4th commandment. I summarize Calvin's view this way:

The Fourth Commandment Under Moses:
I. Condition 1
A. Typological (Outward) Observance (CEREMONIAL)
B. Real (Inward) Observance (UNREALIZED)
II. Condition 2
III. Condition 3

The Fourth Commandment In Christ:
I. Condition 1
A. Typological (Outward) Observance (ABROGATED)
B. Real (Inward) Observance (REALIZED)
II. Condition 2
III. Condition 3

Calvin summarized the Sabbath with three conditions for observance in Section 28. First, God meant, through their physical rest, to represent to them the spiritual rest offered in Christ. The second condition was that they set this day aside in order to be trained in piety. By this, Calvin essentially means worship which consists of preaching and the sacraments. The third condition is that they should provide a day of rest to those under them, demonstrating the principle of rest being offered by God to they themselves.

With these three in mind, Calvin camps out on condition 1. Condition two will only be addressed really with regard to the day on which it should be observed. And condition three receives virtually no attention at all. We are still to gather for worship and be instructed in piety. We are still to be careful not to "inhumanly oppress those subject to us." This much becomes obvious not only in a reading of the sections together, but also in a reading of Calvin's summary in Section 34. Calvin, then, spends the bulk of these sections addressing the nature of the first condition.

I'm going to stop here for a bit. I'll post the remainder later today.