# Did the Synod of Dordt require churches to celebrate Christ's birth?



## Pergamum (Dec 21, 2014)

Did the Synod of Dordt require churches to celebrate Christ's birth?



> Article 53. Days of Commemoration:
> 
> Each year the churches shall, in the manner decided upon by the consistory, commemorate the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as His outpouring of the Holy Spirit.


(Book of Praise: Anglo-Genevan Psalter rev. ed. [Winnipeg, Manitoba: Premier Printing ltd., 1984, 1995], p. 670).

This is the first I've ever seen of this and would love to learn more.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 21, 2014)

I may be mistaken, but that appears to be a quote from the book of Church Order of the Canadian Reformed Church...

Not finding it as a part of the Canons.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 21, 2014)

But here we find:

Church Order - Drawn up in the National Synod of Dordrecht (held in 1618 and 1619)

Article 67 - The Churches shall observe, in addition to Sunday, also Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, with the following day, and whereas in most of the cities and provinces of the Netherlands the day of Circumcision and of Ascension of Christ are also observed, Ministers in every place where this is not yet done shall take steps with the Government to have them conform to the others.

So yeah, they did. Dem Dutch shooer do like to pardee, don't dey?

But, according to the general consensus PB Presbyterian Puirist anti-christmassarians, these are heretical practices, so all the Dutch Reformed denoms must be apostate. 

Except Beeke. We love Beeke.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Dec 21, 2014)

Mushroom said:


> I may be mistaken, but that appears to be a quote from the book of Church Order of the Canadian Reformed Church...
> 
> Not finding it as a part of the Canons.



The Synod of Dort not only produced the Canons, but also a revised Church Order. The CO of the CanRC is based upon the CO of Dort, but with some revisions. One of the revisions has to do with "days of commemoration" (as we call them). Whereas Dort's CO had the churches agreeing (that's an important word here -- the CO is an agreement for life in a federation) to celebrate Christ's birth on December 25, in the CanRC the birth of Christ is commemorated "in the manner decided upon by the consistory." A consistory could decide to commemorate the incarnation on the Sunday before or after. It could also decide that this event will be commemorated when the catechism lesson (for the PM service) is Lord's Day 14. However, typically CanRC consistories decide to go with December 25.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 21, 2014)

It should be noted, and I don't know if this is explored by anyone, at this time the Puritan view was under suppression by King James I. So there was no Puritan witness at the Synod far as I know. 
As far as Dordt v. Puritanism, I like this statement from MW from 12-23-2010: http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/celebrating-christmas-64965/index2.html#post836395


MW said:


> RAS said:
> 
> 
> > Thus, my question, does the Puritan side (or do you Matthew) see the continental side on this point as not fully reformed or perhaps not even reformed at all?
> ...


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 21, 2014)

Perg:

Yes, you have, as affirmed by Dr. Bredenhof, correctly discerned the position of the Church Order adopted at Dort.

But it should be clear, and in follow-up to Chris Coldwell's comments, that this was all part of the Post-Acta of Dort. When the international body that had gathered there to deal with the Arminians had concluded that part of its work, all such international delegates that had come there left and the body that remained, among other things, adopted the Church Order of Dort. In other words, there were no English or any other but Dutch delegates involved in the so-called Post-Acta, all of which is now being republished in Latin with English Introductions (by Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht). 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 21, 2014)

Did the English fire off any letters or tracts against these practices? Do we have a record of dialogue or argument between the Dutch and the English Reformed over these manners shortly following Dordt? 

Also, did the Dutch Reform claim to follow the Regulative Principle even while doing all this? Or is this phraseology of "regulative principle of worship" more of an English thing?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 21, 2014)

Also, is this a true quote from the Second Helvetic Confession?



> The Festivals of Christ and the Saints. Moreover, if in Christian Liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord’s nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly



So, not only Christ's birth, but his circumcision may get their own special days? Bullinger wrote all this. Was there any push-back to his views?


----------



## Guido's Brother (Dec 21, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Did the English fire off any letters or tracts against these practices? Do we have a record of dialogue or argument between the Dutch and the English Reformed over these manners shortly following Dordt?



I'm not aware of anything of that sort. 



Pergamum said:


> Also, did the Dutch Reform claim to follow the Regulative Principle even while doing all this? Or is this phraseology of "regulative principle of worship" more of an English thing?



I would say that the RPW is expressed in the Three Forms of Unity, but the expression "regulative principle of worship" is much later. That said, the arguments used for celebrating these days typically focussed on using these civic holidays in a God-glorifying manner. There were those who dissented. In fact, a provincial synod in 1620 (right after the Synod of Dort) petitioned the government of the Netherlands to pass laws against "Roman feast days." Part of the decision read, "Synod judges that it would be edifying to take away the remains of the latter [Romish feast days] away from Reformed nations. For many spent these days in reveling and frivolities, which at times lead to gross sins." So, some argued that this should be dealt with through having worship services, others by petitioning the government to pass laws against the days themselves. But it was the former who won the day.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 21, 2014)

That is fascinating!

Do you think that this provincial synod of 1620 was right and that the Dutch confessions came up short on this issue and needed revision/refinement? 

The few Dutch reformed families I know are all big Christmas-ers. Is that an accurate representation of the Dutch Reformed in general?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 21, 2014)

The Heidelberg Catechism explains the fourth commandment as requiring that "I, especially on the sabbath diligently frequent the church of God." It doesn't say "exclusively" on the sabbath. Is this an evidence that other meeting days or even feast days were appropriate, or am I grasping too far here?

The Westminster "Directory for the Public Worship of God" allows for the observance of days of public fasting and thanksgiving. in addition to the Sabbath. Are these civil holidays designated by the government, or may they also be designated by the church? And if so, can civil state or church then designate Dec 25th as a feast day without violating the RPW?


----------



## Guido's Brother (Dec 21, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Do you think that this provincial synod of 1620 was right and that the Dutch confessions came up short on this issue and needed revision/refinement?



My personal view is that there is room, even for those who hold to the RPW (as I do) for a modest and at the same time joyful commemoration of Christ's birth. We don't call it a "feast day" or "holy day" but a "day of commemoration." It's certainly not to be honoured like the Lord's Day. 



Pergamum said:


> The few Dutch reformed families I know are all big Christmas-ers. Is that an accurate representation of the Dutch Reformed in general?



It depends on what you mean by "Dutch." There are the Dutch Dutch, and then there are Dutch immigrants. Dutch Reformed immigrants in Canada do tend to follow the crowd in North America and typically make a big deal out of the day (my family doesn't). As I understand it, Dutch Reformed immigrants in Australia are less inclined to make a big deal out of the day -- but they would still have a worship service and hear a sermon related to the incarnation. I'll soon find out since I've accepted a call down there and will be moving there next year. In the Netherlands, there is not only Christmas, but also Sinterklaas day (Dec. 5). All the commotion we associate with Christmas (gift-giving, etc) often takes place on Sinterklaas. Christmas day itself is more about simply commemorating the birth of Christ. Some Dutch immigrants also continue Sinterklaas traditions and I imagine that the North American Christmas has had some influence in the Netherlands too.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 21, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> And if so, can civil state or church then designate Dec 25th as a feast day without violating the RPW?


The days of which the Westminster divines speak are not appointed for the same reasons as pretended holy days. Besides, we should *not *ape the traditions of idolaters.*Set anniversary days are no necessary or even expedient means for conserving the commemoration of the benefits of redemption*
§6. The Bishop has yet a third dart to throw at us: _If the church_ (he says)[1] _has power, upon occasional motives, to appoint occasional fasts or festivities, may not she, for constant and eternal blessings, which do infinitely excel all occasional benefits, appoint ordinary times of commemoration or thanksgiving?_ Answer. There are two reasons for which the church may and should appoint fasts or festivities upon occasional motives, and neither of them agrees with ordinary festivities. 1. Extraordinary fasts, either for obtaining some great blessing, or averting some great judgment, are necessary means to be used in such cases; likewise, extraordinary festivities are necessary testifications [_testimonies_] of our thankfulness for the benefits which we have impetrate [_procured_] by our extraordinary fasts; but ordinary festivities, for constant and eternal blessings, have no necessary use. The celebration of set anniversary days is no necessary mean for conserving the commemoration of the benefits of redemption, because we have occasion, not only every Sabbath day, but every other day, to call to mind these benefits, either in hearing, or reading, or meditating upon God’s Word. _I esteem and judge that the days consecrated to Christ must be lifted, _says Danæus:_ Christ is born, is circumcised, dies, rises again for us every day in the preaching of the Gospel_.[2]

2.  God has given His church a general precept for extraordinary fasts (Joel 1:14; 2:15), as likewise for extraordinary festivities to praise God, and to give Him thanks in the public assembly of His people, upon the occasional motive of some great benefit which by the means of our fasting and praying we have obtained (Zech. 8:19 with Zech. 7:3). If it is said that there is a general command for set festivities, because there is a command for preaching and hearing the Word, and for praising God for His benefits; and there is no precept for particular fasts more than for particular festivities, I Answer: Albeit there is a command for preaching and hearing the Word, and for praising God for His benefits, yet is there no command (no, not in the most general generality) for annexing these exercises of religion to set anniversary days more than to other days; whereas it is plain that there is a general command for fasting and humiliation at some times more than at other times.

And as for particularities, all the particular causes, occasions, and times of fasting could not be determined in Scripture, because they are infinite, as Camero says.[3] But all the particular causes of set festivities, and the number of the same, might have been easily determined in Scripture, since they are not, nor may not be infinite; for the Bishop himself acknowledges that to appoint a festival day for every week cannot stand with charity, the inseparable companion of piety.[4] And albeit so many were allowable, yet who sees not how easily the Scripture might have comprehended them, because they are set, constant, and anniversary times, observed for permanent and continuing causes, and not moveable or mutable, as fasts which are appointed for occurring causes, and therefore may be infinite.

I conclude that, since God’s Word has given us a general command for occasional fasts, and likewise particularly determined sundry things about the causes, occasions, nature, and manner of fastings, we may well say with Cartwright,[5] that days of fasting are appointed at _such times, and upon such occasions [causes], as the Scripture does set forth; wherein because the church commands nothing but that which God commands, the religious observation of them falls unto the obedience of the fourth commandment, as well as of the seventh day itself._
_…_
§2.  Tilen sets out the expediency of holy days for imprinting in the minds of people the sense and knowledge of the benefits of redemption.[6] Answer. 1. There is no means so good for this purpose as catechizing and preaching, out of season and in season. 2. What could he say unto them who have attained his end without his means? I find people better instructed and made more sensible of those benefits where the feasts are not kept than where they are. 3. Think they their people sufficiently instructed in the grounds of religion, when they hear of the nativity, passion, etc. — what course will they take for instructing them in other principles of faith? Why do they not keep one way, and institute a holy day for every particular head of catechism?

But Bishop Lindsay thinks yet to let us see a greater expediency for observing holy days. _Certainly _(he says)_ nothing is so powerful to abolish profaneness and to root superstition out of men’s hearts, as the exercise of divine worship, in preaching, praying and thanksgiving, chiefly then when the superstitious conceits of merit and necessity are most pregnant in the heads of people—as doubtless they are when the set times of solemnities return—for then it is meet to lance the aposteme [abscess] when it is ripe._[7]
Answer.  This is a very bad cure, and is not only to heal the wound of the people slightly, but to make it the more inveterate and festered. I might object that little or nothing is preached or spoken, by him and his companions, at the revolution [_course_] of those festivities, against the superstitious keeping of them; but though they should speak as much as can be against this superstition, their lancing being in word only, and not in deed, the recidivation [_relapse_] will prove worse than the disease. The best lancing of the aposteme was not to observe them at all, or to preach against them, which are tried [_proved_] to work this effect more powerfully than the Bishop’s cure has done; for all know that there is none so free of this superstition as those who observe not the holy days.
George Gillespie, _A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies _(Naphtali Press, 2013) 50–51; 82–83. Footnotes renumbered for this extract.
----------------------
[1] Ibid. [Lindsay, part 3,] p. 26, 27.
[2] Apud [cited in] Balduin, de Cas. Consc., lib. 2, cap. 12, cas. 1. _Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo judicoque, quotidie nobis in evangelii prædicatione nascitur, circumciditur, moritur, resurgit Christus. _[Cf. Balduin, _Tractatus Luculentus_ (1654), 348.]
[3]Cameron, _Prælectiones,_ tom. 1, _de Potest. Eccl.,_ contr. 2. [Cf. vol. 1, page 369.]
[4]Lindsay, ubi supra, [part 3] p. 16.
[5]Cartwright, Ag. the Rhem. annot. on Gal. 4:10. [Cartwright has _causes_ at _occasions_.]
[6]_Parænesis ad Scotos,_ cap. 16, p. 65 [Andreapoli: Rabanus, 1620].
[7] _Proceedings in __Perth Assembly,_ part 3, p. 7. [Cf. 1625 ed., “Answer . . . Festivall Dayes,” 7. The 1625 text reads “and root out superstition.” The dashes for semicolons were added in _Works_.]​


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 21, 2014)




----------



## Pergamum (Dec 21, 2014)

Guido's Brother said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think that this provincial synod of 1620 was right and that the Dutch confessions came up short on this issue and needed revision/refinement?
> ...



Thanks Wes,

You wrote:



> We don't call it a "feast day" or "holy day" but a "day of commemoration." It's certainly not to be honoured like the Lord's Day.



Is this a historic distinction that has had a long use? How did the Dutch Reformed distinguish between what was properly to be called a Holy Day, a Feast Day, or a Day of Commemoration? 

And did the church follow the civil state in this (i.e. the civil state decreed a day and the church observed), or did the church act independently of the state in setting Days of Commemoration?


----------



## Guido's Brother (Dec 21, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Is this a historic distinction that has had a long use? How did the Dutch Reformed distinguish between what was properly to be called a Holy Day, a Feast Day, or a Day of Commemoration?



No, I don't think it is a distinction with a long pedigree (it may only date officially back to 1983). I'm not sure if it is even used outside of the Canadian Reformed Churches. As for the distinction itself, the only holy day is the Lord's Day. The redemptive-historical events we commemorate are the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and also the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. What defines a day of commemoration is merely a worship service on that day which includes a sermon preached related to the event being commemorated. 



Pergamum said:


> And did the church follow the civil state in this (i.e. the civil state decreed a day and the church observed), or did the church act independently of the state in setting Days of Commemoration?



Historically, yes, the church followed the lead of the state on these questions. Before 1834, the Reformed Church in the Netherlands was closely yoked to the state. So, for instance, it was the state that convened the Synod of Dort in 1618-19. Following that there was no general synod again for centuries. With regard to Christmas, for whatever reason, the ruling authorities decided to continue to observe it and the church decided to make the best of it.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 21, 2014)

Ok thanks. I'll read up some more and ask more questions later this week. If you have any suggested books or links, I'd love to hear them.


----------



## Jake (Dec 21, 2014)

I don't know much about this and am convinced of the Scottish view on such "holy days," but I found this interesting tidbit quoted by Brian Schwertley:



> 1. What was originally the conviction of the churches in regard
> to the holy days?
> The Reformers such as Calvin, Farel, Viret, Bucer and John Knox were
> opposed to observing the holy days.
> ...



source: THE REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE OF WORSHIP AND CHRISTMAS by BRIAN SCHWERTLEY (FREE BOOK on why Christ CONDEMNS CHRISTMAS at Still Waters Revival Books)


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 21, 2014)

Jake said:


> I don't know much about this and am convinced of the Scottish view on such "holy days," but I found this interesting tidbit quoted by Brian Schwertley:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks! That is very helpful.



> a. They did so as a concession to the Authorities, which clung tenaciously
> to the holy days as vacation days for the people.
> b. The churches permitted the ministers to preach on these holy days
> in order to change a useless and unprofitable idleness into a holy
> ...


Can we do likewise?


----------



## Jack K (Dec 22, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Also, did the Dutch Reform claim to follow the Regulative Principle even while doing all this? Or is this phraseology of "regulative principle of worship" more of an English thing?



The phrase is quite new, even in Presbyterian circles. But the teaching that we only worship in ways God has commanded is certainly present in the Dutch/Continental Reformed tradition. I was taught it growing up within that tradition.

Keep in mind that agreement with the principle does not always mean agreement on how to apply it. The Dutch Reformed applied the principle differently than the Puritans (by allowing certain holidays, for example), but this does not mean they denied the principle itself. Sometimes those who apply the principle most strictly will speak as if those who apply it more loosely don't affirm the principle at all. In fact, many affirm the principle but still observe Christmas, sing non-Psalms, etc.




Pergamum said:


> The few Dutch reformed families I know are all big Christmas-ers. Is that an accurate representation of the Dutch Reformed in general?



My experience is that being Continental Reformed they observe Christmas, but being Dutch they do it in an understated way.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 22, 2014)

http://www.rbvincent.com/BibleStudies/calvinxmas.htm

Here is a link purporting that Calvin was not opposed to Christmas celebrations. However, it sounds like he opposed them but merely tolerated them due to public opinion:



> Respecting ceremonies, because they are things indifferent, the churches have a certain latitude of diversity. And when one has well weighed the matter, it may be sometimes considered useful not to have too rigid a uniformity respecting them, in order to show that faith and christianity do not consist in that.


a few sentences later:


> As to festival days, they were abolished at Geneva before I left France; and those who had procured their abolition, were actuated by no spirit of contention or spite, but solely by the desire of abolishing the superstition which had been so prevalent in Popery.





> Since my recall, I have pursued the moderate course of keeping Christ’s birth-day as you are wont to do. But there were extraordinary occasions of public prayer on other days; the shops were shut in the morning, and every one returned to his several calling after dinner. There were, however, in the meanwhile, certain inflexible individuals who did not comply with the common custom from some perverse malice or other. Diversity would not be tolerated in a rightly constituted church: even for citizens not to live on good terms with one another, would beget mistrust among strangers. I exhorted the Senate to remove this disagreement in future by a proper remedy.



It does sound like the Reformer was working with the government and "making the best of it" as he interacted with the council of the city. I'd love to know more about this episode in Calvin's life.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 22, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> http://www.rbvincent.com/BibleStudies/calvinxmas.htm
> 
> Here is a link purporting that Calvin was not opposed to Christmas celebrations. However, it sounds like he opposed them but merely tolerated them due to public opinion:
> 
> ...



I do enjoy Calvin and his heart to this issue in that he understood that to rip away any signs of christmas immediately would no doubt cause much harm to many people who held on to the Romanish practices. I am experiencing this personally in that in my family thinks I am crazy to speak against that practice because they see christmas *celebrated in our church with almost all the fanfare as a RC church*.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 22, 2014)

Bob Vincent* if I recall correctly from that and online discussions ignores the contrary evidence. That being said there is no question Calvin for the good of the church sought a moderate course. However, when a church was able to remove such "trifles" they should not dare go back to them again. Calvin is simply not a good source to find for an advocate for observing holy days.

*Bob also pretty strongly rejects the regulative principle, again if memory serves.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 22, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Bob Vincent* if I recall correctly from that and online discussions ignores the contrary evidence. That being said there is no question Calvin for the good of the church sought a moderate course. However, when a church was able to remove such "trifles" they should not dare go back to them again. Calvin is simply not a good source to find for an advocate for observing holy days.
> 
> *Bob also pretty strongly rejects the regulative principle, again if memory serves.



From what I see Calvin may not be a good source to reference to rid our churches with this problem. Personally I like how many men in the OT took care of it. I understand we are speaking of two different problems. One being, in the church, and the other outside the church. Of course I suppose Our Lord had a zeal for the proper things that are to happen in the church and I think that remedy would go over like a lead brick today in our churches. Curious is there there any Presbyterian church that does not allow such problems today?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 22, 2014)

The specific phrase (not the concept, by any means) "regulative principle of worship" does not trace back earlier than the middle part of the 20th century, even as the phrase "five points of Calvinism" (though earlier in the century) cannot be found before the 20th century, either.

With respect to the former, my good friend Larry Wilson (now in Airdrie, Alberta, outside of Calgary) traced this down for his liturgics course for the Ministerial Training Institute of the OPC. This was confirmed by Hughes Oliphant Old and others. It's interesting to note that what we often take to be long-established terminology may not be such. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 22, 2014)

As I've cited before Calvin had the right tools and principle; but his setting didn't let him do as he wished. We need to understand Calvin at the very least to refute those who use him to defend keeping holy days for reasons other than they simply cannot be got rid of at a given moment.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 22, 2014)

I"ve done a good bit of investigation over the years and posted to the new thread; I thought I had done this before on PB but couldn't find it.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/whe...le-referring-worship-arise-85443/#post1065281


Alan D. Strange said:


> The specific phrase (not the concept, by any means) "regulative principle of worship" does not trace back earlier than the middle part of the 20th century, even as the phrase "five points of Calvinism" (though earlier in the century) cannot be found before the 20th century, either.
> 
> With respect to the former, my good friend Larry Wilson (now in Airdrie, Alberta, outside of Calgary) traced this down for his liturgics course for the Ministerial Training Institute of the OPC. This was confirmed by Hughes Oliphant Old and others. It's interesting to note that what we often take to be long-established terminology may not be such.
> 
> ...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 22, 2014)

That depends on what you mean by "quite" and by "new." Certainly it has been used for the last nearly 75 years with greater and greater frequency, and longer perhaps if Harper indicated common usage (not clear if that is so) in his work on the catechism in 1905. See my post on the new thread. It was already common amongst the growing number rediscovering Presbyterian princiiples in the mid 1980s when Old disparaged it in a note in the back of one of his books; I can't find the reference. I would peg the 1980s as the time it picked up steam; that may be relative; it is when I first heard of it (1983 to be exact).


Jack K said:


> The phrase is quite new, even in Presbyterian circles.


----------

