Relevance of Galatians for Holy Days

Status
Not open for further replies.

Afterthought

Puritan Board Senior
Galatians speaks against the use of Jewish holy days. The argument is then made: If celebration of days of God's appointing was spoken against, how much more so the days of men's appointing? However, the immediate context is about celebrating these days as necessary for salvation. It is then pointed out that Paul's language is general enough to condemn the days ("elements of the world") even if not celebrated as necessary for salvation?

Continuing on then: Given the immediate context, is one actually justified in applying Paul's strong language against those who attempt to celebrate pretended holy days today? Wouldn't the strong language be not so much because of will worship but because it was will worship being made necessary for salvation?

For an example of applying Galatians to today, see this old thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/64954-The-Silly-Season
 
Continuing on then: Given the immediate context, is one actually justified in applying Paul's strong language against those who attempt to celebrate pretended holy days today? Wouldn't the strong language be not so much because of will worship but because it was will worship being made necessary for salvation?

What did Christ come into the world to do? Save sinners. What does the Christ mass purport to celebrate? The day in which Christ came into the world to save sinners. Given this state of things, how is it possible to divorce salvation from the observance of the day? "Salvation" must factor into it somewhere, and if the carols are anything to go by it is given quite a central place in the devotions of the day; so much so, that I think it proclaims a "gospel of the incarnation," and provides a "typical" celebration of that gospel which parallels the "typical" nature of the Old Testament ceremonial.
 
"Salvation" does factor somewhere in there, and the day does seem to provide a "typical" celebration of a "gospel of the incarnation," but I don't know many Protestants who believe celebrating it is necessary for one's salvation, which is what I thought the Judaizers in Galatia were insisting upon? Or am I mistaking what Paul's strong language is directed against?
 
but I don't know many Protestants who believe celebrating it is necessary for one's salvation

Whatever the individuals might think, from a practical viewpoint it cannot be denied that the thing celebrated -- the coming of Christ -- is necessary for one's salvation; and Galatians is concerned to show that the coming of Christ is definitive in the way it brings the history of salvation to a close and puts an end to provisional, earthly ordinances.
 
but I don't know many Protestants who believe celebrating it is necessary for one's salvation

Whatever the individuals might think, from a practical viewpoint it cannot be denied that the thing celebrated -- the coming of Christ -- is necessary for one's salvation; and Galatians is concerned to show that the coming of Christ is definitive in the way it brings the history of salvation to a close and puts an end to provisional, earthly ordinances.

I believe I've heard this somewhere before, but this is probably one of the best things I've heard thus far. Is there any recommendations (articles, books, etc) for this line of thinking? Or would you suggest something else?
 
Is there any recommendations (articles, books, etc) for this line of thinking? Or would you suggest something else?

I would recommend David Calderwood (Perth Assembly) or George Gillespie (English Popish Ceremonies) against holy days. Chris Coldwell might help out with the bibliographic details. There is also Ames' Fresh Suit. I think all three would be available at EEBO TCP; but for meticulous editorial work which brings the Latin into English and sets everything in historical and bibliographic context, I would recommend Naphtali Press' edition of EPC; and I think I recall correctly that Naphtali's Anthology contains the piece by Calderwood.
 
Matthew refers to the three leading pieces which arose in reaction to the resurgence of anglocatholic practices with Laud, Gillespie (1637), Calderwood (1621, 222pp; Eng; Latin much expanded, 1623, 1000pp), and Ames (1633). Gillespie cites the latter two though' not as much as you would expect. The 2013 edition of EPC is on special with Bownd's True Doctrine of the Sabbath for $30 postage paid, if you live in the USA. http://www.naphtali.com/products-page/
 
MW said:
Whatever the individuals might think, from a practical viewpoint it cannot be denied that the thing celebrated -- the coming of Christ -- is necessary for one's salvation; and Galatians is concerned to show that the coming of Christ is definitive in the way it brings the history of salvation to a close and puts an end to provisional, earthly ordinances.
I noticed that Gillespie doubts that the days were being celebrated as necessary for salvation/to be justified by the works of the law (always fascinating how the exact same questions have been asked before). I look at Galatians 4, and I see nothing about justification by works (except for the part about Christ coming to redeem those under the law...). However, Galatians 3 and Galatians 5 return to talking about it. It kind of looks to me like there are a number of arguments being made against being justified by the works of the law. In a barest of bare bones sketch, Galatians 3 argues in various ways that the law is insufficient for obtaining righteousness and that being justified by the law was not its purpose. Galatians 4 continues to elaborate on the purpose of the law, and the purpose is inconsistent with Christ's coming into the world; hence, all the more reason to not seek justification by the works of the law. The strong language in chapter 4 then applies to all days not appointed by God for his church now, although the strong language in 3 and 5 are evoked by the Galatians attempting to be justified by the works of the law?

Is that what is being argued? If it is, the above seems to be okay until chapter 5? Paul returns to talking about justification by the works of the law, and in it he states that if they are circumcised then they are debtors to the whole law. Does this then mean that chapter 4 was also concerned with observing days, not merely has things done away with by Christ's coming, but as things being urged as necessary for salvation? Hence, the strong language is not merely about being put under bondage (maybe Galatians 5:1 actually settles the question in favor of this?), but about being put under bondage while observing these things as necessary for salvation?


Edit: I looked through the portions of the book again and read Matthew Poole's commentary on the matter. I think I understand now how even "foolish" could be applied to those who wish to observe days, even if not as necessary for salvation. Certainly though, if you have any further comments on what I wrote here, it would be appreciated and likely helpful.
 
Last edited:
Matthew refers to the three leading pieces which arose in reaction to the resurgence of anglocatholic practices with Laud, Gillespie (1637), Calderwood (1621, 222pp; Eng; Latin much expanded, 1623, 1000pp), and Ames (1633). Gillespie cites the latter two though' not as much as you would expect. The 2013 edition of EPC is on special with Bownd's True Doctrine of the Sabbath for $30 postage paid, if you live in the USA. http://www.naphtali.com/products-page/

Just ordered the deal package!
 
Edit: I looked through the portions of the book again and read Matthew Poole's commentary on the matter. I think I understand now how even "foolish" could be applied to those who wish to observe days, even if not as necessary for salvation. Certainly though, if you have any further comments on what I wrote here, it would be appreciated and likely helpful.

Imagine someone insisting that the scaffolding on the building remain after work has been completed. "Foolish?" It would (1) detract from the quality and utility of the building, and (2) suggest it was still under construction. Such were the ceremonies in relation to the work of Christ after He had perfectly accomplished our salvation. Whether the ceremonious individual means to be derogatory to the work of Christ or not, the thing is derogatory in and of itself. Whether the individual thinks the ceremony is necessary to salvation or not, the ceremony itself is revisiting salvation history.
 
First of all, I agree with everything Rev Winzer said above and almost dread coming behind him, as if I have anything to add to this thread. *BUT* here goes nothing!

I would argue that the majority of Christians in America who celebrate the Christ-mass [Protestants included] do in fact believe that celebrating the Christ-mass is necessary for one's salvation even if they say they don't.

I can't speak for anyone else, however, having not observed manmade holy days for a few years now, my salvation has been questioned often, even if unintentionally.

"You don't celebrate Christmas?!? I thought you were a Christian."

"How can you say you believe in Christ and yet you don't celebrate his birth and incarnation on Christmas?"

"Jesus is the reason for the season. So, you must not love Jesus. If you do, you should celebrate Christmas, it's His birthday afterall."

etc. Etc. ETC. (I could go on and on.)

To question someone as to whether or not they are a Christian or love Christ based upon the observation of certain holidays is in fact to make the observation of these holidays necessary for one's salvation... even if you say you don't believe they are.

:2cents:

Happy Lord's Day!!!
 
First of all, I agree with everything Rev Winzer said above and almost dread coming behind him, as if I have anything to add to this thread. *BUT* here goes nothing!

I would argue that the majority of Christians in America who celebrate the Christ-mass [Protestants included] do in fact believe that celebrating the Christ-mass is necessary for one's salvation even if they say they don't.

I can't speak for anyone else, however, having not observed manmade holy days for a few years now, my salvation has been questioned often, even if unintentionally.

"You don't celebrate Christmas?!? I thought you were a Christian."

"How can you say you believe in Christ and yet you don't celebrate his birth and incarnation on Christmas?"

"Jesus is the reason for the season. So, you must not love Jesus. If you do, you should celebrate Christmas, it's His birthday afterall."

etc. Etc. ETC. (I could go on and on.)

To question someone as to whether or not they are a Christian or love Christ based upon the observation of certain holidays is in fact to make the observation of these holidays necessary for one's salvation... even if you say you don't believe they are.

:2cents:

Happy Lord's Day!!!

You spoke for me as well here and have found all you wrote to be so true in practicality. Have you been called a JW yet?
 
First of all, I agree with everything Rev Winzer said above and almost dread coming behind him, as if I have anything to add to this thread. *BUT* here goes nothing!

I would argue that the majority of Christians in America who celebrate the Christ-mass [Protestants included] do in fact believe that celebrating the Christ-mass is necessary for one's salvation even if they say they don't.

I can't speak for anyone else, however, having not observed manmade holy days for a few years now, my salvation has been questioned often, even if unintentionally.

"You don't celebrate Christmas?!? I thought you were a Christian."

"How can you say you believe in Christ and yet you don't celebrate his birth and incarnation on Christmas?"

"Jesus is the reason for the season. So, you must not love Jesus. If you do, you should celebrate Christmas, it's His birthday afterall."

etc. Etc. ETC. (I could go on and on.)

To question someone as to whether or not they are a Christian or love Christ based upon the observation of certain holidays is in fact to make the observation of these holidays necessary for one's salvation... even if you say you don't believe they are.

:2cents:

Happy Lord's Day!!!

This is just the purest ignorance on the part of some Christians. Some of these people will have genuine faith in Christ but think - have always and automatically assumed - that if you have faith in Christ, Christmas will be something that "you do". They aren't necessarily saying that you must do Christmas in order to be justified.
 
"I would argue that the majority of Christians in America who celebrate the Christ-mass [Protestants included] do in fact believe that celebrating the Christ-mass is necessary for one's salvation even if they say they don't."

Frankly, this smacks of bearing false witness against many of your brothers and sisters.

I don't know of ANYONE who would say such a thing, and I am surrounded by people who are celebrating the Incarnation most joyously and happily these weeks. Usually they bear you, as a non-celebrator, much grace, and wish you joy whenever you DO think on the Incarnation. For it IS a joyful, wondrous thing.

Let's make this more personal. I don't think your salvation is at risk by your abstention. Do you think I am a liar?

SMH.
 
It is a profession of the faith. It is not just what we say that matters. What we do in the name of Christ is also bearing witness.

There is no need to make this about whether a person is or is not a true believer. The issue revolves around confessing Christ before men. What are we saying by our practice?
 
First of all, I agree with everything Rev Winzer said above and almost dread coming behind him, as if I have anything to add to this thread. *BUT* here goes nothing!

I would argue that the majority of Christians in America who celebrate the Christ-mass [Protestants included] do in fact believe that celebrating the Christ-mass is necessary for one's salvation even if they say they don't.

I can't speak for anyone else, however, having not observed manmade holy days for a few years now, my salvation has been questioned often, even if unintentionally.

"You don't celebrate Christmas?!? I thought you were a Christian."

"How can you say you believe in Christ and yet you don't celebrate his birth and incarnation on Christmas?"

"Jesus is the reason for the season. So, you must not love Jesus. If you do, you should celebrate Christmas, it's His birthday afterall."

etc. Etc. ETC. (I could go on and on.)

To question someone as to whether or not they are a Christian or love Christ based upon the observation of certain holidays is in fact to make the observation of these holidays necessary for one's salvation... even if you say you don't believe they are.

:2cents:

Happy Lord's Day!!!

This is just the purest ignorance on the part of some Christians. Some of these people will have genuine faith in Christ but think - have always and automatically assumed - that if you have faith in Christ, Christmas will be something that "you do". They aren't necessarily saying that you must do Christmas in order to be justified.

The fact remains that it is many vs. "some Christians" believe one ought to celebrate christmas if they are a Christian. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top