Actually, the issue is quite simple... There are those today who reject the historic Reformed view of the Sabbath as stated in the Westminster Standards, the LBCF, Savoy, and other confessions, i.e., the Sabbath is the Fourth Commandment which is perpetually binding upon all men and especially believers albeit the day was changed to the first day of the week, aka: the Lord's Day.

In this particular case, Gaffin and others are maintaining that "true" Calvinism, i.e., that which originated with Calvin and the other magisterial Reformers was not the same as the view later espoused by the Puritans. Thus, those who adhere to the formulation of Sabbatarianism from the WCF, etc., are in error and not embracing historic Calvinism. Thus Gaffin and others attempt to show that Calvin's view was different and secondly it is to be preferred over the Puritan view. Some go so far as to claim that Calvin actually bowled on Sunday. [Linked Image] It is truly amazing how far some will go to justify their rejection of the Fourth Commandment.

Even if it were true that Calvin held to a libertarian view of the Sabbath or even if he rejected it outright, which is certainly not the case, John Calvin isn't the "standard" which a Christian should look to for matters of doctrine or practice. Fortunately, men such as Stuart Lauer have challenged Gaffin's understanding of Calvin's view of the Sabbath and shown most effectively that John Calvin held to the same view of the Sabbath/Fourth Commandment as the Puritans which is firmly grounded in the Scriptures.

So, there you have a summary of the controversy in a nutshell. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]