# Should Christians celebrate Christmas?



## AV1611

What is your argument? I wish to have a settled position before December 25 2007


----------



## jbergsing

Celebrating His birth is not commanded but appropriate. The mere fact that the Savior of the world finally arrives is worthy of celebration! However, one can make a strong argument against all the pagan pageantry that is used today.


----------



## AV1611

jbergsing said:


> Celebrating His birth is not commanded but appropriate. The mere fact that the Savior of the world finally arrives is worthy of celebration! However, one can make a strong argument against all the pagan pageantry that is used today.



What do you make of this?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

A bit early for me; but you'll have plenty of time to make up you mind I guess. This discussion is a semi-annual or more occurrence here on PB. See these threads.
http://www.puritanboard.com/search.php?searchid=597230


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Oh, and simply for the historical position of Presbyterians, and how it changed see my two cents, _The Religious Observance and Holy Days in American Presbyterianism._
http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner8-9&10.pdf


----------



## TexasBerean

1. That Christmas began not as a day to celebrate the birth of Christ, but rather a pagan celebration of darkness (winter solstace, darkest day of the year) adopted by the RC Church just as many other pagan practices were. 
2. That most of the celebrations around Christmas time are idolatrous in either the first or second commandment sense. Many worship Santa and teach their children his system of works (naughty or nice) righteousness (what limited salvation is it to get toys on one day of the year, what motivation is there to be good for an entire year for such paltry compensation?) Those who avoid Santa and observe only the Christian celebrations of the day are often caught in Idolatry in the second commandment sense because they worship him in a way he has not commanded.
3. That Jesus never asked us to commemorate his birth is evidence that he did not wish for us to celebrate it on a specific day. We are to remember the incarnation of Christ every time we celebrate the Lord's Table, that is the way he has ordained it. If he truely wanted us to celebrate Christmas, he would have told us his birthday. 
4. That the 25th of December is altogether inaccurate as the day on which Christ was born. That Christ was most likely born in the springtime is evidenced by the fact that the shepherds were out with their sheep bearing young. Sheep only have babies in the springtime, and this is the only time of year in which shepherds need to watch them. 

These are just a few humble points that you might remember during your deliberations. The issue boils down to the regulative principle of worship, whether God enjoys or accepts worship and services outside of what he has commanded. There are many more, many greater aruments, but they are for other better men than me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think the question would be better phrased as this: Do Christians have the liberty to celebrate Christmas?

or a more specific question might be:

Do Churches have the right to make Christmas a holy day?

The two end up getting mashed together and the threads get long. I kind of wish this wasn't being discussed right now because I like the respite from these threads.

As for the question: _Should_ Christians celebrate Christmas? It is framed in a way that I would say there is nothing in Scripture that commands an _oughtness_ (which is what should implies) where I can answer in the affirmative.

If you ask me: Do you celebrate Christmas with your family?

The answer is yes.


----------



## jbergsing

AV1611 said:


> What do you make of this?


 Although I feel a little bated here, I'll read this over later today and then reply.


----------



## wsw201

Having a special church service for Christmas with all the trappings? No.

Have a Christmas tree, exchange presents, drink egg nog, go caroling? have at it!


----------



## Civbert

I would say 'no' to the church celebrating Christmas - but I don't want to say that Christians should _not_. I think Christian's _may _celebrate Christmas - and it really depends on _how _they go about it. I think Christians _may _celebrate birthdays, anniversaries, national holidays (Independence Day, Thanks Giving, Mother's Day, etc). And it may be good for them to do so. But I wouldn't go so far as to say they _should _celebrate particular days.


----------



## jbergsing

Civbert said:


> I would say 'no' to the church celebrating Christmas - but I don't want to say that Christians should _not_. I think Christian's _may _celebrate Christmas - and it really depends on _how _they go about it. I think Christians _may _celebrate birthdays, anniversaries, national holidays (Independence Day, Thanks Giving, Mother's Day, etc). And it may be good for them to do so. But I wouldn't go so far as to say they _should _celebrate particular days.




Now that I've reread the question, I wish I would have voted differently. The word "should" doesn't leave an option for a Christian to not celebrate Christmas.


----------



## Herald

I think Anthony and Rich hit the nail on the head. Should the church celebrate Christmas? Should I have 6" or 5" rain gutters? Should I scratch my itch? As Rich indicated, "should" does not mean "ought", but neither does it forbid the observation. There are compelling arguments on both sides of the issue. It's similar to the EP vs. Non-EP debate. Neither one is sinful in my book. Be convinced in your own mind and do so to the glory of God.


----------



## JM

Civbert said:


> I would say 'no' to the church celebrating Christmas - but I don't want to say that Christians should _not_. I think Christian's _may _celebrate Christmas - and it really depends on _how _they go about it. I think Christians _may _celebrate birthdays, anniversaries, national holidays (Independence Day, Thanks Giving, Mother's Day, etc). And it may be good for them to do so. But I wouldn't go so far as to say they _should _celebrate particular days.


----------



## beej6

I believe I agree with the PB consensus - perhaps it's the difference between the private and public worship? If we privately celebrate all kinds of "holidays," certainly Christmas is one of them; whether a church must do so, I think, has liberty. 

The genetic argument (it started as a pagan festival) has some weight; however, I believe that particular argument cannot carry the day. I've seen that argument used *against* homeschooling, for instance.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I believe the regulative principle of worship applies to all types of stated worship, ie., public, family and private. No where in the Bible are we commanded to observe any religious holiday except the Lord's Day. Civil days such as the Fourth of July are not religious and therefore not normally regulated by the RPW (although other considerations come into play and when they fall on the Lord's Day, the Fourth Commandment overrules them). The Westminster Divines said it well:



> Touching Days and Places for Publick Worship.
> 
> THERE is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord's day, which is the Christian Sabbath.
> 
> Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.
> 
> Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for publick fasting or thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God's providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people.



Fisher's Catechism:



> Question 57. Which is the Fourth Commandment?
> 
> Q. 1. To what about the Worship of God has this command a reference?
> 
> A. It refers to the special TIME of God's worship.
> 
> Q. 2. Is the TIME of God's worship left arbitrary to the will of man?
> 
> A. No; we are to keep holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his word.
> 
> Q. 3. Why should such set times be kept holy, and no other?
> 
> A. Because God is the sovereign Lord of our time, and has the sole power and authority to direct how it should be improved.
> 
> Q. 4. What is meant by the set times mentioned in the answer?
> 
> A. The stated feasts, and holy convocations for religious worship, instituted under the ceremonial law, which the church of the Jews was obliged to observe during that dispensation, Lev. 23.
> 
> Q. 5. Is there any warrant for anniversary, or stated holidays, now, under the New Testament?
> 
> A. No; these under the Old, being abrogated by the death and resurrection of Christ, there is neither precept nor example in scripture, for any of the yearly holidays observed by Papists, and others: on the contrary, all such days are condemned, Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16, 17.
> 
> Q. 6. What crimes does the observance of them import?
> 
> A. The observance of them imports no less than an impeachment of the institutions of God, concerning his worship, as if they were imperfect; and an encroachment upon the liberty wherewith Christ has made his church and people free, Col. 2:20.
> 
> Q. 7. What is the special and stated time, which God has expressly, appointed in his word, to be kept holy?
> 
> A. One whole day in seven, to be a holy Sabbath to himself.


----------



## AV1611

SemperFideles said:


> I kind of wish this wasn't being discussed right now because I like the respite from these threads.



I understand but in my opinion it is better to ask now as opposed to December 24th


----------



## Civbert

A little OT. I went to a homeschool conference were the topic was developing family unity and peace. One of the ideas the used was to make up holidays. They would create their own holidays that they would celebrate every year. I guess the idea was, not only did they share this activity together, but it was uniquely theirs. They had their very own holidays.


----------



## lukeh021471

*christmas*

It really depends how you celebrate it.


----------



## jtbdad

May a Christian or a Church celebrate Christmas? I see nothing that indicates that they may not. Should they? Entirely up to the congregation or the individual. There is clearly no mandate that they must.


----------



## Coram Deo

Should the Church celebrate Christmas? *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, It is a man made tradition that has no warrant in the worship of God. Neither should the church cater to Christmas by hanging wreaths, and Holly and Bows and heaven forbid a christmas tree in the church... Once I visited a church near by for Christmas and they had a christmas tree in the place of the pulpit right in the middle of the stage and the pulpit moved over to the left side....  I walked out. It is idolatry and false worship for decorations and the celebration of christmas in the church of God.....

Are Christians permitted to celebrate Christmas in their own homes? Well, it is not required and should never be required on Christians to celebrate christmas nor should there be any peer pressure to get people to celebrate what is a man made holiday... But people do have liberty to celebrate christmas in their own homes as long as it does not have any sinful acts pertaining to certain activities. Nor must one think of it as a Holy day, but merely a Day of Thanksgiving for the birth of Christ.

Personally I do not decorate much and hardly anything outside.. My family tends to invite other parts of our families over sometime around Dec. 27 to have a Feast and exchanged small gifts and to give thanks for Christ and his mercy...... We also tend to have it on some other day then the 25 to not interact with the whole Commerialization of the day nor to view it as some holy day.....

Michael


----------



## PastorFaulk

Forgive my departure from the reg principle, but I see the church as having the freedom to celebrate Christmas. The word should was poorly chosen. I would prefer "are churches able to celebrate Christmas". I think there is much we can learn from how God used festivals to educate the people of Israel. Each festival was used so that the people of God would look back to see what God had done. For example, Passover was used to help the people remember God's mighty hand in leading them out of Egypt. (It was also to foretell the coming of Christ.) Modern festivals aka Easter and Christmas serve in the same capacity. They help us remember the Incarnation of Christ and his death and resurrection. I believe the church has the freedom to stop yearly and celebrate the humiliation and glorification of Christ. (to go ahead and respond to a coming attack, yes the church should remember these weekly and daily, but I see the freedom for the church to give them special prominence during holidays that it might celebrate.)


----------



## MW

Every day, Ps. 118:24. Have a very merry August 16.


----------



## thekingsknight

armourbearer said:


> Every day, Ps. 118:24. Have a very merry August 16.


----------



## Davidius

The word "should" is misleading. If I were to say, "Christians should celebrate Christmas," I would be implying that it would be wrong for them not to. Are you asking whether it would be permissible? If so, I don't think the Church should orchestrate special services but am not against its celebration by individuals in their homes.


----------



## Kaalvenist

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> I believe the regulative principle of worship applies to all types of stated worship, ie., public, family and private.


Andrew, this may be the first time in my years on this board that I disagree with you on a subject in the Worship forum. I don't believe that it can be argued that the regulative principle of worship applies to anything beyond public worship.

1. There are certain things which most (or all) would allow in private or family worship, which should not be allowed in public worship, because of the RPW. I have not met with anyone who would argue that devotional books, such as _The Pilgrim's Progress,_ or other excellent works, are not permitted to be read for private or family worship. But the only book which is to be read in public worship is the Word of God. If the RPW applied to our private and family worship, we would be forbidden from reading anything but Scripture.

2. The regulative principle cuts both ways; it both forbids what is not commanded, _and mandates or requires what is commanded_ (Deut. 12:32). But, generally speaking, we don't have a sermon, sacraments, benediction, etc. during private or family worship. If the RPW applied to our less solemn worship (see WCF 21.6), we would be violating that principle by not employing those elements in our worship.

3. As far as I can tell, this seems to be the historically Reformed understanding of the RPW. Even when private Christ-mass observance was banned, it was not for violation of the RPW, but because of the many corrupt practices which were often associated with it.


----------



## MICWARFIELD

I know that many here aren't fond of James Jordan, but I've always loved how he addresses the subject in this article. http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/miscellaneous/the-menace-of-chinese-food/


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

I typed in "no" because I do not believe it to be a matter of the RPW in the formal worship of God. However, I do not see any harm in the observance of Christmas as a family tradition (again, in a non-worship sense).

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Kaalvenist said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the regulative principle of worship applies to all types of stated worship, ie., public, family and private.
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew, this may be the first time in my years on this board that I disagree with you on a subject in the Worship forum. I don't believe that it can be argued that the regulative principle of worship applies to anything beyond public worship.
> 
> 1. There are certain things which most (or all) would allow in private or family worship, which should not be allowed in public worship, because of the RPW. I have not met with anyone who would argue that devotional books, such as _The Pilgrim's Progress,_ or other excellent works, are not permitted to be read for private or family worship. But the only book which is to be read in public worship is the Word of God. If the RPW applied to our private and family worship, we would be forbidden from reading anything but Scripture.
> 
> 2. The regulative principle cuts both ways; it both forbids what is not commanded, _and mandates or requires what is commanded_ (Deut. 12:32). But, generally speaking, we don't have a sermon, sacraments, benediction, etc. during private or family worship. If the RPW applied to our less solemn worship (see WCF 21.6), we would be violating that principle by not employing those elements in our worship.
> 
> 3. As far as I can tell, this seems to be the historically Reformed understanding of the RPW. Even when private Christ-mass observance was banned, it was not for violation of the RPW, but because of the many corrupt practices which were often associated with it.
Click to expand...


Sean -- I think I understand your objection to my statement, but I also think that it is misplaced. To affirm that the RPW applies to private and family worship as well as public does not mean that I affirming that the same rules must apply to each category. 

For example, I don't believe women are required to wear headcoverings in private or family worship, though I believe they are required in public worship. I believe women may speak (ie., prayer requests, questions) during family worship, but not in public worship. And I also believe, along with the Scottish General Assembly which approved the directory of family worship, that catechism is permitted in family worship, which involves persons besides the head of household speaking. If the father is absent, I believe the female head of household may lead the family worship (if the circumstances are appropriate to that), while I would never approve of a women leading public worship even if the minister was providentially hindered from being there. And the head of household should lead the prayer and other parts of worship, including catechism, but not give a sermon or administer sacraments, which are responsibilities confined to the public ministry. So there are quite a few variations on the rules, or I should say, on the application of the rules, depending on the setting, none of which undermine the fact that we are not to worship God apart from the ordinances that he has commanded. 

To say that the RPW does not apply to private and family worship is to say, in effect, that the NPW (Normative Principle of Worship) applies, ie., we may worship God in the manner of our own choosing as along as the Bible does not expressly prohibit it. If that is the case, then we can sing uninspired hymns, light candles, play the guitar, offer incense, perform drama or dance, and incorporate numerous worship techniques that we (you and I) would recoil at in public worship, and holidays (Christmas and Easter are not the only ones to think about, there are numerous saints' days too which families could religiously observe if the NPW applies) are only the tip of the iceberg. If the RPW is said to not apply to private and family worship, there are no grounds to object to these things. 

The second commandment is spoken of in terms of images. Images of Christ (which are a big part of Christmas observance for most) are always prohibited, both in public and in private, because God will not be worshipped or represented by means of images in any circumstance. This is the tenor of the second commandment, ie., that we may not worship him except as he has commanded. To do so, no matter what the setting is to violate the second commandment. 

I would affirm to the contrary that God is approachable only on his own terms no matter what the setting of the worship offered. That principle holds true even if the setting involved does affect the way in which the rules are applied (e.g., no sermons or sacraments in family worship; but they do belong in public worship). I am opposed to private masses, including private Christ-masses. 

The prevailing opinion here (although not a consensus) seems to be that Christmas observance is idolatry in public but not in private. I would affirm that it is idolatry (by which I mean a violation of the second commandment which is the source of the RPW) in public and in private. God has not commanded us to religiously observe the Nativity of Christ in any setting, whether public or private. He has not told us the day that Christ was born and that plain and simple truth cuts across public, private and family attempts to observe a December 25 (Roman Catholic) or January 7 (Orthodox) Christmass. 

Santa Claus is another big part of Christmas observance for most people. In fact, it is one of the most common components of Christmas observance in our society (I am aware of the Dutch St. Nicholas Day and other variations on the theme). Santa Claus is a Roman Catholic attempt to turn a saint into a deity. By ascribing to him the usual omnipresent or omniscient characteristics which belong to God alone, one is engaging in an idolatrous practice. This is true whether in public or private. 

The Fourth Commandment also prohibits the religious observance of any day besides the Lord's Day. There is no exemption in Scripture for religious observance of man-made holy days besides the Lord's Day as along as it is done privately. There are no examples in Scripture (that I can think of) of prohibiting public holy day observance while permitting it in private. To the contrary, the Fourth Commandment not only requires Christians to only set apart the religious holy day of God's appointment (ie., the Christian Sabbath), it also requires us to work the other six days. The rest of the week is ours not to observe saints' days and offer incense but to offer daily private and family worship before and after our regular occupations whatever they may be. As I quoted from Fisher's Catechism, observing religious anniversary days is a violation of the Fourth Commandment. There is no exception for private or family observance of religious anniversary days. 

The reason for all of this is simply that God is never to be worshipped apart from the manner that he has prescribed. There are not two principles of worship (ie., RPW and NPW) -- although the RPW does not require the same rules or components for all settings in which people worship. In other words, just because the application of the RPW is different when comparing public with private and family worship, does not mean that the basic rule of Biblical worship (ie., that it is regulated by God's appointment) is thrown out when public worship is over.

Edited to add:

Brian Schwertley has an article about this which is on point:



> The scriptural law of worship is very simple: “The Holy Scripture prescribes the whole content of worship. By this is meant that all elements or parts of worship are prescribed by God Himself in His Word. This principle has universal reference to worship performed by men since the fall. In other words, it has equal application to the Old and the New Testaments. It is also universal in that it is regulative of all types of worship, whether public, family, or private.”[8]
> ...
> 3. There is no question that Christmas has no place in the public worship of God, but isn’t it okay to celebrate it privately in the home?
> 
> The problem with this view is that it presupposes that the regulative principle only applies to public worship. There is no biblical evidence to support the idea that the regulative principle was meant only for public worship. In fact, the biblical evidence supports the opposite view. Cain was condemned for an innovation in private worship (Gen. 4:2-8). Noah, in family worship, offered clean animals to God (Gen. 8:20-21). God was pleased and accepted Noah’s offering on behalf of himself and his family. Abraham, Jacob and Job offered sacrifices to God in private or family worship, according to God’s Word. God accepted these lawful offerings. The idea that innovations in worship are permitted in family and private worship is unbiblical. It is totally arbitrary because it is not based on divine revelation. If an innovation in public worship displeases God, then how does it please Him in private worship? Would it not be permissible, under such premises, to have little shrines in our homes where we burn incense, wear surplices, miters and such, as long as we keep such things out of public meetings?
> 
> There are some differences between public and private worship (e.g., private worship should occur two to three times a day, whereas public worship should occur at least once every Lord’s day.) People in Reformed denominations who brought in unbiblical innovations such as Christmas, women teaching the Bible and theology to men in Bible studies and Sunday school, hymns and Christmas carols, etc., did not seek to justify these new innovations by appealing to Scripture. Instead, they arbitrarily set these activities outside of the regulative principle by pronouncing them all as under the sphere of private worship. Pastors and their flocks are so in love with their innovations that they resort to mystification. They act as if their pastor is a pope or bishop and has the authority to turn private worship (where they assume human autonomy is permitted) into public worship (where the Word reigns supreme) by saying “thus begins the public worship of God.” Where in the Bible is public worship relegated to a few hours on the Lord’s day?[104] Jesus Christ said, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20). How is a woman teaching several men on the Sabbath private? How are fifty people singing Christmas carols engaging in private worship? Do not presuppose that God permits innovation and human autonomy in private worship. Try to prove it from the Word of God. You cannot. Do not arbitrarily declare what is obviously public worship as private. The rabbis of old justified all sorts of nonsense with such reasoning.
> 
> The Bible says, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9). When Presbyterian pastors and elders stopped disciplining church members for celebrating Christmas in the home in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, they virtually guaranteed that the pagan-popish leaven of Christmas would spread. In fact, it has. One must search far and wide to find a Presbyterian home or church where this popish invention is not celebrated.[105]
> 
> 4. We do not celebrate Christmas. For us the day is just a secular family day. What could be wrong with that?
> 
> There are 365 days in a year. How is it that every year your secular family day just happens to fall on December 25? Could it be that you are just imitating your pagan neighbors and their heathen culture? Could it be that you celebrate the day just as everyone else does and merely declare it secular as a justification or an excuse? If you are just having a good family day, then why do you fill your living room with the monuments and mementos of present and past idolatry? You say the day is a secular family day, but you have a tree, evergreens, mistletoe, gifts, candles and carols. It is obvious that you celebrate Christmas much as a papist does. The truth is that if you eliminated all the pagan paraphernalia of Christmas, then you probably would not bother to celebrate it. The pagan day would lose its glitter, charm and emotional allure. As Christians we should be family oriented. We should get together with our relatives and enjoy each others’ company. But we do not need a pagan festival day to do so.
> 
> [8] William Young, “The Second Commandment” in Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman, eds., Worship in the Presence of God (Greenville, SC: Greenville Seminary Press, 1992), 75.
> [104] God’s people are the church whether they meet in a church building, barn, park or house. When Christians gather together to hear the Word and worship God, it is the church meeting. It is public worship whether they meet at 7:00 a.m. or 11:00 p.m. Public worship must occur on the Lord’s day, but that does not mean that public worship is limited to that day alone. The idea that teaching and worship at 10:00 a.m. is not public, but at 11:00 a.m. it is public is totally irrational and arbitrary. It is based on human tradition. If this imaginary line really existed between 10:59 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., then could not Reformed churches have two worship and teaching services each Lord’s day? One could be run by women. The women could teach and lead. They could sing uninspired hymns and charismatic campfire songs. They could burn incense and wear popish dress. They could have intricate popish liturgies, candles, bells, dance and so on. Then at 11:00 a.m. they could have “public worship” in which they have Psalm singing, preaching by men, etc. Those who arbitrarily set up a sphere of private worship in which human innovations are permitted have no recourse, on their own presuppositions, in which to avoid such bizarre dualities.
> 
> [105] As noted earlier, Christmas is a monument to past and present idolatry; therefore, even apart from the regulative principle it is still wrong to celebrate it in the home, office, church, country club, and so on.



Also, as noted in this thread, see the judgment of the Church of Scotland which prohibited the observance of Christmas by private persons specifically _not_ on the basis of abstaining from "corruptions" in practice but because of a lack of Scriptural commandment to observe it at all:



> Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland on Festival Days
> 
> Festival days not commanded nor warranted by scripture. General Assembly seeks total abolition not reformation of abuses only.
> 
> December 10, Session 17, 1638.
> 
> And next in particular, concerning festival days findeth that in the explication of the first head of the first book of discipline it was thought good that the feasts of Christmas, Circumcision, Epiphany, with the feasts of the Apostles, Martyrs and Virgin Mary be utterly abolished because they are neither commanded nor warranted by Scripture and that such as observe them be punished by Civil Magistrates. Here utter abolition is craved and not reformation of abuses only and that because the observation of such feasts have no warrant from the word of God. (The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, pp. 37-38 [Still Waters Revival Books, reprint, 1997, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/g.htm)



and



> Observation of festival days censurable.
> 
> February 13, 1645.
> 
> Act for Censuring the Observers of Yule-day and other superstitious days especially if they be scholars.
> 
> The General Assembly taking to their consideration the manifold abuses, profanity, and superstitions committed on Yule-day and some other superstitious days following have unanimously concluded and hereby ordains; That whatsoever person or persons hereafter shall be found guilty in keeping of the foresaid superstitious days shall be proceeded against by Kirk censures and shall make their public repentance therefore in the face of the congregation where the offence is committed. And that Presbyteries and Provincial Synods take particular notice how Ministers try and censure delinquents of this kind within the several parishes. And because scholars and students give great scandal offence in this, That they (being found guilty) be severely disciplined and chastised before their Masters. And in case the Masters of Schools or Colleges be accessory to the said superstitious profanity, by their connivance, granting of liberty of vacancy to their Scholars at that time, or any time thereafter, in compensation thereof, That the Masters be summoned by the Ministers of the place to compear before the next ensuing General Assembly, there to be censured according to their trespass; And if Scholars (being guilty) refuse to subject themselves to correction, or be fugitives from discipline, That they be not received in any other school or college within the kingdom. (The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, pp. 285-286 [Still Waters Revival Books, reprint, 1997], http://www.swrb.com/catalog/g.htm)


----------



## Croghanite

This sermon series by Pastor Steven Dilday greatly helped me understand that Gods people should not take part in recognizing christmas.

THE REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE OF WORSHIP AND CHRISTMAS
by Brian Schwertley is another great resource.

I encourage all who wish to look into this subject to the above links. These resources have been a blessing to my family and many others I know. Proceed to drag mouse and click.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> I typed in "no" because I do not believe it to be a matter of the RPW in the formal worship of God. However, I do not see any harm in the observance of Christmas as a family tradition (again, in a non-worship sense).
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH


you can't give up the eggnog and the fruit cake eh


----------



## Richard King

This will sound prideful. 
I don't write well enough to eliminate that. 
But I know from personal experience there is incredible freedom in NOT embracing December 25th in the manner the world does. 


I can celebrate Christ and give to others every day without pagan trappings, without lying to children, without running up credit card debts and upping my consumerism and materialism. 

I am in the camp of :

THERE is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord's day, which is the Christian Sabbath.


...and it has been a wonderful stress relief ever since we quit the international spending day plot...oops I mean Christmas.


----------



## Sebastian Heck

*Question wrongly put?*

I think you should either rephrase or add another option to the answers.
The question for me does not seem to be whether "Christians" should celebrate it. The question is either: should Christian churches (!) celebrate Christmas, or: may Christians celebrate Christmas. The former would then refer to the regulative principle, while the latter would relate to Christian freedom.
But the way the question is put, I can answer neither yes nor no. Yes would imply there is a positive command for Christians privately to celebrate xmas (which there isn't); no would imply I think there is positive warrant against it (which In my humble opinion there isn't).


----------



## Arch2k

This thread is WAY to early!  I personally do not celebrate Christ-mass at all. I believe (as Andrew has already noted) that there is no good reason to believe that the regulative principle does not apply to family worship as well as public worship. We have to be careful here as well, and be sure to not turn into Scrooges during the December season, but rather to give thanks for all things. I still visit my family during this time, largely because it is one of the VERY few times that we see each other any more. I am usually asked to say the family prayer before the meal, and ironically, I never mention Christmass, but rather give God praise as I normally would in a family situation. However, this year, me and the wife are thinking about taking a vacation during that time.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Civbert said:


> One of the ideas the used was to make up holidays. They would create their own holidays that they would celebrate every year. I guess the idea was, not only did they share this activity together, but it was uniquely theirs. They had their very own holidays.



George Costanza's dad did this. They called the holiday Festivus. It was "Festivus for the Restivus!"

In all seriousness, the church should not celebrate Christmas because it would violate the RPW, forcing believers to go against conscience if they, personally, did not celebrate Christmas. Whether an individual celebrates Christmas or not is really a matter of conscience.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Jeff_Bartel said:


> This thread is WAY to early!


I don't know of other agreements or commonalities in this thread, but I see a small consensus here.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Slippery said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> I typed in "no" because I do not believe it to be a matter of the RPW in the formal worship of God. However, I do not see any harm in the observance of Christmas as a family tradition (again, in a non-worship sense).
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
> 
> 
> 
> you can't give up the eggnog and the fruit cake eh
Click to expand...


The eggnog especially! I like mine with a little Harvey's Bristol Creme. 

-Rob


----------



## govols

CalvinandHodges said:


> Slippery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> I typed in "no" because I do not believe it to be a matter of the RPW in the formal worship of God. However, I do not see any harm in the observance of Christmas as a family tradition (again, in a non-worship sense).
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
> 
> 
> 
> you can't give up the eggnog and the fruit cake eh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The eggnog especially! I like mine with a little Harvey's Bristol Creme.
> 
> -Rob
Click to expand...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> Should Christian celebrate Christmas?



No, it is not in the Bible.

If you mean is it lawful to exchange gifts etc on the 25 December, I would leave that to individual conscience; but as for bringing Christ-mass into the worship of God this is _persona non gratia_, as there is no warrant for it in Scripture.


----------



## etexas

Scripture, Faith , Reason , and Tradition. For me it is like this, Scripture tells that the incarnation of the Christ was a real space time event and a joyful one, this must be backed by the faith imparted to the redeemed of the Lord, it is not unreasonable to set aside a date for celebrating Our Lord's Blessed Incarnation, the celebration of said incarnation is well established in Church History thus the backing of Tradition. Therefore MERRY CHRISTMAS!.........By the way.............why WAS this thread started this time o' year? Heavens people! It is 92 here! Joy to the world.....


----------



## terry72

I was raised in a holiness pentecostal environment. You know, the kind of holy-rollers that don't believe a woman can cut her hair and that a man should be clean shaven. That women should only wear long dresses and that it is a sin to wear shorts. No make-up allowed and certainly no kind of jewelry (it was even debated by some if even a wedding ring was appropriate). I was also raised to believe that celebrating christmas was a sin and that one should only listen to southern gospel music. And oh yeah, and owning tv was a sin too.

So, to make a long story short...I voted yes. 

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West


----------



## etexas

terry72 said:


> I was raised in a holiness pentecostal environment. You know, the kind of holy-rollers that don't believe a woman can cut her hair and that a man should be clean shaven. That women should only wear long dresses and that it is a sin to wear shorts. No make-up allowed and certainly no kind of jewelry (it was even debated by some if even a wedding ring was appropriate). I was also raised to believe that celebrating christmas was a sin and that one should only listen to southern gospel music. And oh yeah, and owning tv was a sin too.
> 
> So, to make a long story short...I voted yes.
> 
> Blessings in Christ,
> Terry W. West


....As a Christmas "defender" I have heard some great arguments in favour of observing the Holy Incarnation.......strangely that was one of the best I have heard. Lord Bless you Brother...........I am still trying to figure out why we are debating this now......did Richard AV1611 start this......quick.......accuweather and see if there is a weird coldsnap in the UK!


----------



## dalecosby

I lean to the Public church observance, no and the private, moderate observance is permitted but not required.


----------



## Israelite

Jeremiah 10:1-3
“Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen…for the customs of the people are vain” 

Christmas is coming! Quite so; 

but what is “Christmas?” 

Does not the very term itself denote its source—“Christ-mass”? 

Thus it is of Roman origin, brought over from paganism. But, says someone, Christmas is the time when we commemorate the Savior’s birth. 

It is? 
And who authorized such commemoration? 

Certainly God did not. The Redeemer bade His disciples “remember” Him in His death, but there is not a word in scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, which tells us to celebrate His birth. 

Moreover, who knows when, in what month, He was born? 

The Bible is silent thereon. It is without reason that the only “birthday” commemorations mentioned in God’s Word are Pharaoh’s (Genesis 40:20) and Herod’s (Matthew 14:6)

Is this recorded “for our learning?” 

If so, have we prayerfully taken it to heart?

And who is it that celebrates “Christmas?” 

The whole “civilized world.” Millions who make no profession of faith in the blood of the Lamb, who “despise and reject Him,” and millions more who while claiming to be His followers yet in works deny Him, join in merrymaking under the pretense of honoring the birth of the Lord Jesus. Putting it on its lowest ground, we would ask:

is it fitting that His friends should unite with His enemies in a worldly round of fleshly gratification? 

Does any true born-again soul really think that He whom the world cast out is either pleased or glorified by such participation in the world’s joys? 

Verily, the customs of the people are vain; and it is written, 

Exodus 23:2
“Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil” 

Some will argue for the “keeping of Christmas” on the ground of “giving the kiddies a good time.” 

But why do this under the cloak of honoring the Savior’s birth? 

Why is it necessary to drag in His holy name in connection with what takes place at that season of carnal jollification? 

Is this taking the little one with you out of Egypt (Exodus 10:9-10), a type of the world, or is it not plainly a mingling with the present day Egyptians in their “pleasures of sin for a season?” (Hebrews 11:25). 

Scripture says:

Proverbs 22:6
“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” 

Scripture does command God’s people to bring up their children 

Ephesians 6:4
“in the nurture and admonition of the Lord”

but where does it stipulate that it is our duty to give the little one a “good time?”

Do we ever give the children “a good time” when we engage in anything upon which we cannot fittingly ask the Lord’s blessing?

There are those who do abstain from some of the grosser carnalities of the “festive season,” yet are they nevertheless in cruel bondage to the prevailing custom of “Christmas”; namely, that of exchanging “gifts.” We say “exchanging” for that is what it really amounts to in many cases. A list is kept, either on paper or in memory, of those from whom gifts were received last year, and that for the purpose of returning the compliment this year. Nor is this all: great care has been taken that the “gift” made to the friend is worth as much in dollars and cents as the one they expect to receive from him or her. Thus, with many who can ill afford it, a considerable sum has to be set aside each year with which to purchase things simply to send them out in return for others which are likely to be received. Thus a burden has been bound on them which not a few find hard to bear.

But what are we to do? 

If we fail to send out “gifts,” our friends will think hard of us, probably deem us stingy and miserly. The honest course is to go to the trouble of notifying them—by letter if at a distance—that from now on you do not propose to send out any more “Christmas gifts” as such. Give your reasons. State plainly that you have been brought to see that “Christmas merrymaking” is entirely a thing of the world, devoid of any Scriptural warrant; that it is a Romish institution, and now that you see this, you dare no longer have any fellowship with it (Ephesians 5:11); that you are the Lord’s “free man” (1 Corinthians 7:22), and therefore you refuse to be in bondage to a costly custom imposed by the world.

What about sending out “Christmas cards” with a text of Scripture on them? 

That also is an abomination in the sight of God. 

Why? 

Because His Word expressly forbids all unholy mixtures; Deuteronomy 22:10-11 typified this. 

What do we mean by an “unholy mixture?” 

This: the linking together of the pure Word of God with the Romish “Christ-mass.” By all means send cards (preferably at some other time of the year) to your ungodly friends, and Christians too, with a verse of Scripture, but not with “Christmas” on it. 

What would you think of a printed program of a vaudeville having Isaiah 53:5 at the foot of it? 

Why, that it was altogether out of place, highly incongruous. But in the sight of God the circus and the theater are far less obnoxious than the “Christmas celebration” of Romish and Protestant “churches.” 

Why? 

Because the latter are done under the cover of the holy name of Christ; the former are not.

Proverbs 4:18 
“But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto perfect day” 

Where there is a heart that really desires to please the Lord, He graciously grants increasing knowledge of His will. If He is pleased to use these lines in opening the eyes of some of His dear people to recognize what is a growing evil, and to show them that they have been dishonoring Christ by linking the name of the Man of Sorrows (and such He was, when on earth) with a “Merry Christmas,” then join with the writer in a repentant confessing of this sin to God, seeking His grace for complete deliverance from it, and praise Him for the light which He has granted you concerning it.

Beloved fellow-Christian, 

James 5:8
“The coming of the Lord draweth nigh”

Do we really believe this? 

Believe it not because the Papacy is regaining its lost temporal power, but because God says so—

2 Corinthians 5:7
“for we walk by faith, not by sight”. 

If so, what effects does such believing have on our walk? 

This may be your last Christmas on earth. During it the Lord may descend from heaven with a shout to gather His own to Himself. 

Would you like to be summoned from a “Christmas party” to meet Him in the air?

Matthew 25:6
“Go ye out to meet Him” 

The call for the moment is out from a Godless Christendom, out from the horrible burlesque of “religion” which now masquerades under His name.

2 Corithians 5:10
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad”. 

How solemn and searching! The Lord Jesus declared that 

Matthew 12:36
“every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment”. 

If every “idle word” is going to be taken note of, then most assuredly will be every wasted energy, every wasted dollar, every wasted hour! Should we still be on earth when the closing days of this year arrive, let writer and reader earnestly seek grace to live and act with the judgment seat of Christ before us. His “well done” will be ample compensation for the sneers and taunts which we may now receive from Christless souls.

Does any Christian reader imagine for a moment that when he or she shall stand before their holy Lord, that they will regret having lived “too strictly” on earth? 

Is there the slightest danger of His reproving any of His own because they were “too extreme” in “abstaining from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul” (1 Peter 2:11)? 

We may gain the good will and good works of worldly religionists today by our compromising on “little (?) points,” 

but shall we receive His smile and approval on that day? 

Oh to be more concerned about what He thinks, and less concerned about what perishing mortals think.

Exodus 23:2
“Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil”. 

Ah, it is an easy thing to float with the tide of popular opinion; but it takes much grace, diligently sought from God, to swim against it. Yet that is what the heir of heaven is called on to do: to “Be not conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2), to deny self, take up the cross, and follow a rejected Christ. How sorely does both writer and reader need to heed that word of the Savior, “Behold, I come quickly; hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown” (Revelation 3:11). Oh that each of us may be able to truthfully say, “I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep Thy Word” (Psalm 119:101).

Our final word is to the pastors. To you the Word of the Lord is, 

1 Timothy 4:12
“Be thou an example of believers in word, in deportment, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity”. 

Is it not true that the most corrupt “churches” you know of, where almost every fundamental of the faith is denied, will have their “Christmas celebrations?” 

Will you imitate them? 

Are you consistent to protest against unscriptural methods of “raising money,” and then to sanction unscriptural “Christmas services?” 

Seek grace to firmly but lovingly set God’s truth on this subject before your people, and announce that you can have no part in following pagan, Romish, and worldly customs.

Arthur W. Pink


----------



## Israelite

*The Light Before Christmas*

Protestant HoHo (i.e. Christmass) Carols 

The Light Before Christmas

‘Twas the night before Christmas; and strange as it seems
I wasn’t indulging in covetous dreams;
But reading my Bible, I searched for a clue
Why Christians take part in this holiday too.
I plainly could see that it carried His name,
But the spirit behind it just wasn’t the same.
The songs spoke of wise men, of virgin and child,
Of shepherds, of God, and all men reconciled;
But nothing was said of the blood and the cross;
Of repentance, and faith, and of counting the cost.
They sang of the babe, His miraculous birth,
But not of the day when He’ll judge the whole earth.
My Bible said nothing of Santa, or toys,
Of Frosty the Snowman, and small drummer boys.
A reference to Rudolph not once did I see.
But it seems Jeremiah did mention the tree.
I sat and I pondered this curious matter,
When out on the roof there arose such a clatter
That I knew in a moment he soon would be here;
So I prayed in the Spirit and stood without fear.
He slipped down the chimney, quick as a flash,
And stepped from the fireplace all covered with ash.
There stood St. Nick with his bag and his beard,
He looked at the Bible I held, and he sneered,
“Another fanatical Christian, I see;
No stockings; no holly, no pictures of me.”
I asked him if Jesus was God in the flesh,
He said that was something he couldn’t confess.
He said, “I am Santa, I come from afar.”
I stood in the truth - “The Devil you are.
That suit and that beard doesn’t fool me one bit.
Your jolly deception is straight from the pit.
Beneath all your Ho Ho Ho’s Lucifer lurks;
With your all-seeing eyes and your gospel of works
Like a thief in the night you impersonate Christ,
Returning to judge the naughty and nice.”
“So call Christmas pagan,” he said, “That’s O.K.
‘Cause that’s what my sons at the Watchtower say.
You’ll look like a pagan or like a deceiver,
But none will suspect you to be a believer.”
I said, “I don’t care what your servants will say,
My loyalty lies with the Ancient of Days.
No matter how many abuses are hurled,
My Bible says be not comformed to this world.
You have no power, and no part of me,
So I stand on God’s Word, and command you to flee.”
He squealed like a pig that was stuck with a knife.
He ran to the chimney and climbed for his life.
And I heard him exclaim, as he drove out of sight,
“Merry Xmas to all, and a long, dark night.”


----------



## jaybird0827

Observation: People who don't celebrate spend just as much time preparing not to celebrate it or talking about not celebrating , etc. etc. It amazes me how much one day of the year is on our minds for so many of the rest of the days of the year.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Calvibaptist said:


> In all seriousness, the church should not celebrate Christmas because it would violate the RPW, forcing believers to go against conscience if they, personally, did not celebrate Christmas.



Well said. When the Christ-mass idolatry is brought into the church, I, being bound to attend & participate in all Lord's day worship services am now bound to a broken conscience. Then there are the long talks with the children about what went on at the Church service, after words. 

How about this. If you MUST celebrate this, please keep it out of the Church for the sake of us brethren who do not partake in Popish days.


----------



## Herald

Calvibaptist said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the ideas the used was to make up holidays. They would create their own holidays that they would celebrate every year. I guess the idea was, not only did they share this activity together, but it was uniquely theirs. They had their very own holidays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Costanza's dad did this. They called the holiday Festivus. It was "Festivus for the Restivus!"
> 
> In all seriousness, the church should not celebrate Christmas because it would violate the RPW, forcing believers to go against conscience if they, personally, did not celebrate Christmas. Whether an individual celebrates Christmas or not is really a matter of conscience.
Click to expand...


Doug....huh? *scratches head* Is this the sarcastic Doug I know and love?


----------



## Tim

As I have learned to delight in the Lord's Day more and more, I have less and less desire for Christmas. I am currently looking forward to our church services on Sunday, December 30!


----------



## Barnpreacher

Tim said:


> As I have learned to delight in the Lord's Day more and more, I have less and less desire for Christmas. I am currently looking forward to our church services on Sunday, December 30!



I too am looking forward to this coming Lord's Day. I've been anticipating it greatly as I've made my sermon preparation. 

Yet, I also had a wonderful morning this morning with my wife, daughter, and baby-to-be. 

Thanks be to God for all his blessings!


----------



## DMcFadden

Not should, but may, and I do.


----------



## bookslover

Well, now that it _is_ Christmas Day (1:37 pm in California as I type this), I think the emerging consensus is a good one: (1) keep it out of church services; and (2) if you are of a mind to, celebrate it as a cultural holiday at home - tree, eggnog, presents (I got my usual lump of coal again this year), family fist-fights , the whole nine yards!


----------



## ~~Susita~~

bookslover said:


> ...family fist-fights...



Matt and I had a grappling match earlier. I won.


----------



## Authorised

“So call Christmas pagan,” he said, “That’s O.K.
‘Cause that’s what my sons at the Watchtower say.
You’ll look like a pagan or like a deceiver,
But none will suspect you to be a believer.”
I said, “*I don’t care what your servants will say*,


I think the implication here is rather silly, much less the entire argument.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

I am glad the popish holy day is nearly over; I spent most of the day revising for exams and proof-reading my next book, yet most Christians probably think that I am sinning by working on this "holy" day. Such man-made inventions are hindering people from legitimate dominion duties.


----------



## a mere housewife

Andrew, I truly respect your integrity and the way you hold & present your positions in a thoroughly Christian manner. Indeed some of the people I respect most do not celebrate Christmas; I'm not at all hostile to that view simply because I very much enjoy the celebration (though I agree that it ought to be kept out of church, and is binding upon absolutely no one). I was wondering though about the argument that the RPW would regulate private & family worship from any observance of religious days. Wouldn't the verses where Paul allows for liberty of conscience for people to keep or not to keep religious days either do away with the RPW over private and family worship or else give Scriptural precedent for allowing the keeping of them? How can one keep a non-binding religious day without it entering into private worship?

I can't help thinking of Christ's incarnation more at this time of year, and it adds to my joy. If I didn't, I wouldn't feel like a bad Christian but my thoughts naturally turn that way because of how I was brought up, and I find it a help to my joy. My husband has no taste for any observance of days, though he's always up for presents -smiles; but I really love Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, etc., not only because of the traditions of celebration but because they help me to think more about the realities and have become -not a necessary or a religious, but a joyful- signification of those realities. Ruben doesn't bind my conscience about it and I hope I never do anything to make him miserable. But I don't see how I could observe my joy in the incarnation around Christmas without some observance in my private worship; and I think I have liberty to do so just as my husband has liberty not to do so, because of that passage about days?

Honestly, I don't know how to celebrate a purely cultural anything. Everything seems to me to become religious, as it becomes at all a real celebration.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

a mere housewife said:


> Andrew, I truly respect your integrity and the way you hold & present your positions in a thoroughly Christian manner. Indeed some of the people I respect most do not celebrate Christmas; I'm not at all hostile to that view simply because I very much enjoy the celebration (though I agree that it ought to be kept out of church, and is binding upon absolutely no one). I was wondering though about the argument that the RPW would regulate private & family worship from any observance of religious days. Wouldn't the verses where Paul allows for liberty of conscience for people to keep or not to keep religious days either do away with the RPW over private and family worship or else give Scriptural precedent for allowing the keeping of them? How can one keep a non-binding religious day without it entering into private worship?
> 
> I can't help thinking of Christ's incarnation more at this time of year, and it adds to my joy. If I didn't, I wouldn't feel like a bad Christian but my thoughts naturally turn that way because of how I was brought up, and I find it a help to my joy. My husband has no taste for any observance of days, though he's always up for presents -smiles; but I really love Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, etc., not only because of the traditions of celebration but because they help me to think more about the realities and have become -not a necessary or a religious, but a joyful- signification of those realities. Ruben doesn't bind my conscience about it and I hope I never do anything to make him miserable. But I don't see how I could observe my joy in the incarnation around Christmas without some observance in my private worship; and I think I have liberty to do so just as my husband has liberty not to do so, because of that passage about days?
> 
> Honestly, I don't know how to celebrate a purely cultural anything. Everything seems to me to become religious, as it becomes at all a real celebration.



Thanks for your kind and thoughtful remarks (as always), Heidi. I hear what you are saying. And I agree that a celebration of Christ's incarnation cannot possibly avoid being religious by its very nature, no matter how hard people try. The celebration of Christ's birth, right or wrong, is necessarily religious. The question then, given its inherently religious nature (that is, the celebration of a day appointed to commemorate Christ's incarnation, death, resurrection, etc.), we must either conclude that 1) the regulative principle of worship applies to any and all said "observation" and thus Christmas-keeping because it is not commanded is therefore forbidden in any sense, or 2) the regulative principle of worship only applies to public worship and the normative principle of worship applies to all other settings of worship and Christmas-keeping is prohibited in the church but everywhere else allowed.

I would submit that #1 is consistent with what the Bible teaches, ie., there are not two principles of worship, but one, which regulates how we may engage in worship, although as noted before this does not preclude differences in application between settings. While #2 posits two principles of worship, which opens the door to "anything not forbidden in worship is allowed" in private and family worship, which I cannot find any Biblical warrant to justify. 

Romans 14.5 and Col. 2.16 are the verses usually appealed to to suggest that observation of holy days is a matter of Christian liberty. It is important to understand that these verses refer to Jewish holy days, which were instituted by God, not man. There is no warrant from these verses to think that man-made holy days may be observed, whether in public or private. It is also important to consider whether these verses are directed to those who would condemn Christians for not observing Jewish holy days, as if they were sinning by not doing so, and encouraging such Christians to be at peace that not observing such days is in fact part of the liberty they have under the gospel, since the ceremonial law has been done away with. And it is also important to consider these passages in the light of Gal. 4.9-11, which does condemn the observation of certain days. Certainly the observation of the Lord's Day is not condemned; what then? Again, it is Jewish holy days that are spoken of, and their observation in this context is said to be "bondage" because it is a return to the ceremonial worship. What is the difference between the scenarios in Romans 14/Col. 2 and Gal. 4? The difference is those who were attached to the Jewish holy days are taught to bear with those who rightly understood that their gospel liberty freed them from such observances, and Paul is gentle with such because their attachment is understandable; but those who required observance of Jewish holy days he is harsh towards because this is mere Judaizing. In none of these Biblical instances, however, is there any warrant to conclude that man-made holy days, which never had any claim to be instituted by God; ergo, whether considering public or private worship, Rom. 14/Col. 2 do not offer any justification for celebration of Christmas, Easter or the like. 

To help flesh this out, the comments of John Evans (from Matthew Poole's Annotations) on Rom. 14.5 may be considered:



> (2.) Concerning days, Rom 14:5. Those who thought themselves still under some kind of obligation to the ceremonial law esteemed one day above another—kept up a respect to the times of the passover, Pentecost, new moons, and feasts of tabernacles; thought those days better than other days, and solemnized them accordingly with particular observances, binding themselves to some religious rest and exercise on those days. Those who knew that all these things were abolished and done away by Christ's coming esteemed every day alike. We must understand it with an exception of the Lord's day, which all Christians unanimously observed; but they made no account, took no notice, of those antiquated festivals of the Jews. Here the apostle speaks of the distinction of meats and days as a thing indifferent, when it went no further than the opinion and practice of some particular persons, who had been trained up all their days to such observances, and therefore were the more excusable if they with difficulty parted with them. But in the epistle to the Galatians, where he deals with those that were originally Gentiles, but were influenced by some judaizing teachers, not only to believe such a distinction and to practise accordingly, but to lay a stress upon it as necessary to salvation, and to make the observance of the Jewish festivals public and congregational, here the case was altered, and it is charged upon them as the frustrating of the design of the gospel, falling from grace, Gal 4:9-11. The Romans did it out of weakness, the Galatians did it out of wilfulness and wickedness; and therefore the apostle handles them thus differently. This epistle is supposed to have been written some time before that to the Galatians. The apostle seems willing to let the ceremonial law wither by degrees, and to let it have an honourable burial; now these weak Romans seem to be only following it weeping to its grave, but those Galatians were raking it out of its ashes.



And Richard Adams (likewise from Poole's Annotations) on Col. 2.16:



> Col 2:16. Let no man therefore judge you; he infers none should be condemned: none condemns another for exercising Christian liberty; none hath power to judge and censure herein: q.d. Suffer not any one (he excepts none) to impose upon you that, as necessary in the use and practice of it, which is not after Christ, Col 2:8, not warranted by his law of liberty, Rom 14:3-4; Gal 5:1; James 1:25. Paul himself would not be imposed on, 1 Cor 6:12; 1 Cor 7:23; Gal 2:5,11,14, etc.; he would not (as one of the words doth note) be domineered over by any, or suffer any to exercise authority over him, who held the Head, and owned Christ to be Lord of the conscience, and sole dictator of what way he will be served in. In meat, or in drink; he therefore would not have the practice of ceremonials obtruded, instancing in some, as the difference of meats and drinks, in the use or not use of which (now after Christ had nailed those decrees to his cross) superstitious ones would, from the antiquated rites of the Jews and Pythagorean philosophers, place holiness in, and add them to the Christian institution. Or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; or the difference of festivals and sabbaths, whether annual, or monthly, or weekly, from the Levitical institutions.



Fisher's Catechism:



> Q. 57&58.5. Is there any warrant for anniversary, or stated holidays, now, under the New Testament?
> 
> A. No: these under the Old, being abrogated by the death and resurrection of Christ, there is neither precept nor example in scripture, for any of the yearly holidays observed by Papists, and others: on the contrary, all such days are condemned, Gal 4:10; Col 2:16-17.
> 
> Q. 57&58.6. What crimes does the observance of them import?
> 
> A. The observance of them imports no less than an impeachment of the institutions of God, concerning his worship, as if they were imperfect; and an encroachment upon the liberty wherewith Christ has made his church and people free, Col 2:20.



God has given to us a sacrament (the Lord's Supper) whereby to observe a memorial of his death, and a day (the Lord's Day) to celebrate his resurrection. Not only this but by his providence we are called (publically and privately) to observe days of fasting and thanksgiving. I fully recognize that people inherently need "days" which are different than other days. They are moments to stop and consider something special. And I know that the intentions to observe Christ's incarnation, et al. are well meant by most, but God has nowhere commanded us to observe Christ's birth in such a way, he has appointed a day and a sacrament to observe his death and resurrection, and providentially calls us to observe special days of fasting and thanksgiving, and these, along with civil days called by the magistrate for good cause, should be sufficient for us. It is not enough to say that the observation of Christ's birth, etc. is optional/private. It is religious in nature, no matter how much people may try to secularize it (as some try to justify pictures of Christ by saying it is not religious but educational), and not commanded by God, which prohibits any kind of such observation. 

While much can be said against Santa Claus, Christmas carols, nativity scenes, midnight mass, keeping days appointed by the Pope or Patriarch, etc., many of the things done by believers on Dec. 25 in the name of Christmas are not in themselves bad (giving gifts, having a special dinner, etc.). But the objection I have to the latter is not because they are inherently wrong but because they are done in the name of keeping a day to honor Christ's birth which God has not commanded. The same can be said of many things good in themselves that go on during the Lord's Day, such as NFL games and other fun activities. It matters when and why people do the things they do. Gift giving can happen at any time of the year, why single out Dec. 25? People can meditate upon the birth of Christ at any time of the year, why single out Dec. 25? Luke 2 can be read any time of the year, why single out Dec. 25? The Fourth Commandment teaches us that we have six days to go about our ordinary business and one to sanctify unto the Lord. It also teaches us that it is God who calls apart religious days, not man. The celebration of Christ's birth is inherently religious and therefore we must look to see if God has commanded it; if he has not, then we may not observe it under any circumstances but must rather look at Dec. 25 as day where ordinary works are required, in public and in private. 

Rom. 14/Col. 2 do not offer any support for public or private observation of man-made holy days; Gal. 4 warns us in the strongest possible terms against observation of days previously appointed by God, and how much more should we be concerned about observing days never appointed by God; and the Fourth Commandment teaches us that God alone has the prerogative to set apart holy days, all other days being given to us for our ordinary activities/duties. Holy days, Biblically considered, are never optional or private-only. The distinction between public prohibition of holy day observance by the RPW, and allowing private holy day observance on the basis of the NPW, is a distinction that seems to me to be lacking in Biblical support. 

I have only the highest regard for my brethren here who both observe Christmas publically and those who reject its public observance while practicing it privately. My convictions opposing both are not grounded in that description of Puritanism by H.L. Mencken: "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." Rather, I believe it is God alone who may authorize special religious days, and Christmas is not one that he has authorized. So I hope not to offend anyone by my words but only to point others to Christ's prerogative in matters of worship.


----------



## a mere housewife

Thanks, Andrew. That was clear, and I'll think about what you are saying.


----------



## Herald

> I believe it is God alone who may authorize special religious days, and Christmas is not one that he has authorized. So I hope not to offend anyone by my words but only to point others to Christ's prerogative in matters of worship.



Andrew, it's not a matter of offense (intended or not), it's a simple matter of disagreement. It's one of many issues that PB'ers disagree on: baptism, RPW, EP, Sabbath etc. etc. I am acquainted with the arguments against Christians observing Christmas and remain unconvinced. You are convinced. So be it. I will still shake hands with you and rejoice in our greater unity in Christ.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

a mere housewife said:


> Thanks, Andrew. That was clear, and I'll think about what you are saying.





BaptistInCrisis said:


> I believe it is God alone who may authorize special religious days, and Christmas is not one that he has authorized. So I hope not to offend anyone by my words but only to point others to Christ's prerogative in matters of worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew, it's not a matter of offense (intended or not), it's a simple matter of disagreement. It's one of many issues that PB'ers disagree on: baptism, RPW, EP, Sabbath etc. etc. I am acquainted with the arguments against Christians observing Christmas and remain unconvinced. You are convinced. So be it. I will still shake hands with you and rejoice in our greater unity in Christ.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kaalvenist

I just posted some of my thoughts on this subject on my blog.

Kaalvenist's Xanga Site - 12/25/2007 1:09:06 PM


----------



## a mere housewife

Andrew, I've been thinking about this lying awake (the unfortunate effects of caffeine). I want to first make sure I understand the argument properly: 1. the elements of worship are always and everywhere regulated by the RPW -- God alone has the authority to reveal Himself and to define how He is to be worshiped any day of the week (I think I agree, but the examples that are coming to mind, such as that we shouldn't worship with images at home any more than at church, are expressly prohibited). 2. the language about some keeping days and others not keeping them would not give precedent for observing Christmas in private worship because the context had to do with God-instituted days of the previous dispensation, and that can't simply be transported whole into our situation. (I'm not sure no parallel could be drawn but I can grant this for the sake of the discussion). 

I don't quite see either of these two things leading to what I understand to be the conclusion -- that one cannot either in public or private worship meditate on truths other than those commemorated by the Lord's supper and Sunday itself at any set time. I think that it might prove far too much. For instance, if I am disallowed to specially meditate on the incarnation on Dec. 25, I can't specially meditate on it on July 4th either. It is simply off limits for special meditation? For any time I meditate on it will be equally my own appointed day, as even Bible-reading schedules aren't ordained in Scripture but are a matter of human invention and human implementation (and if one reads the same schedule regularly, one will end up meditating on the same truths at the same times every year; and otherwise one still meditates arbitrarily). If the elements of my private worship are not violating the RPW, then wouldn't the timing of them be more a matter of unregulated 'circumstance'?

I certainly would disagree with the exchange of gifts, etc., as an act of worship. But I honestly don't believe I am guilty of that: I hope not and will try consciously not to be so; last year we couldn't do the whole gift exchange and it was one of the most profitable and happy seasons I have had in my private worship. I don't know how to make a completely secular distinction, which is part of what I was trying to say above: even July 4th becomes a religious celebration as it becomes at all a joyful realization of the reality of freedom and a cause worth fighting for etc. But I do understand that there is a very clear line drawn between what God accepts as His own stated worship and seeing His glory in presents or potato peels; one doesn't decide to make Him a shrine of potato peels or presents for all that. & on all days the elements of my private worship are still bible reading, expositional reading, prayer, meditation -- to meditate is to celebrate to a very large degree. I don't see how this can be objected to, any more than one can object to hearing a sermon about the incarnation in church in December, or indeed in July?

To deny the annual element of our thought patterns and our human composition seems to me impossible. In the fall I always think about Christ's death: I can't help it. I don't know of any reason for this other than the leaves as they fall and all their beauty in falling, and the colors all over the ground. God's Son hung here for a space as well, in vivid colors. I certainly wasn't taught to do this. I know that nowhere am I commanded to make this association; but our minds are always making spiritual associations: to not do so would be 'to walk blindfold in this glorious theater' that is declaring not just the glory of the Creator but of the redeemer, the born and dying and resurrected God. Nature has always turned mens' minds to spiritual realities, and nature is very bound in her seasons. I can't see that it is a violation of the RPW to think about the same truths, which are legitimate to think about, in the same annual pattern -- which annually repeats because God made it to do so, and me to go round and round with it. I guess what I'm wondering is if I grant an argument about not meditating on the incarnation in private worship on Dec. 25 because the tradition was man made, whether I'll be left with any ability to see spiritual realities any kind of pattern other than the most arbitrary cast of my own will out of even all patterns of nature (which would still be a 'man made' tradition of sorts)?

I'm sure you've heard these reasons before: I'm not trying to convince you or to have yet another Christmas argument, truly. I'm trying to think more about the observance of days in general. I would like to understand better if I'm simply confused etc; also I don't want you to think that I would simply disregard the force of what you said above and continue to do things the way I like regardless. I think what you said does have a lot of force.

(edit: I am having a hard time with understanding how the RPW applies to private worship unless one does make some distinction between the occasions of public and private worship. For instance, one of the arguments against images of Christ would be that as a representation of God they ought to lead us to worship, but as an occasion or element of worship they are expressly forbidden. The Messiah by Handel is not expressly forbidden, yet it leads me to worship, so do the Brandenberg concertos, so do falling leaves, childrens' books, lightbulbs, the Oxford English Dictionary. None of these things are commanded for worship, but they are part of life. & if there is no distinction for the occasions of private as opposed to public worship then I have to cut them all out completely and walk around deliberately stifling my senses. 

Also, I was wondering if this is a historic majority position of the Psalm singing church, as I had understood that many of them would allow hymn singing at other times than the public worship [which would have to be an occasion of worship unless they were repeating the words without understanding]. Indeed otherwise one is disbarred from writing or reading religious poetry at all; or any poetry that might be an occasion of worship. I'm sorry to complicate my objections, but I'm not sure I do accept that the RPW rules private as well as public worship unless we make so many distinctions for things that aren't commanded or expressly prohibited as occasions or circumstance that it becomes uninformative to say it equally applies? Basically I have 2 questions: _1. if the RPW can be said to apply to private worship is not Dec. 25 or August 23 equally a circumstance rather than an element of worship in meditating on the incarnation? -Does not one have to go out not only out of background but almost out of nature and events, becoming most arbitrary of all, to avoid such circumstances? 2. Wouldn't so many things have to be made into circumstances in the realm of private worship as to make the extension of the RPW from public worship where such things are inappropriate and unnecessary elements as they are not in life, rather meaningless?_)


----------



## lwadkins

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Romans 14.5 and Col. 2.16 are the verses usually appealed to to suggest that observation of holy days is a matter of Christian liberty. It is important to understand that these verses refer to Jewish holy days, which were instituted by God, not man. There is no warrant from these verses to think that man-made holy days may be observed, whether in public or private. It is also important to consider whether these verses are directed to those who would condemn Christians for not observing Jewish holy days, as if they were sinning by not doing so, and encouraging such Christians to be at peace that not observing such days is in fact part of the liberty they have under the gospel, since the ceremonial law has been done away with. And it is also important to consider these passages in the light of Gal. 4.9-11, which does condemn the observation of certain days. Certainly the observation of the Lord's Day is not condemned; what then? Again, it is Jewish holy days that are spoken of, and their observation in this context is said to be "bondage" because it is a return to the ceremonial worship. What is the difference between the scenarios in Romans 14/Col. 2 and Gal. 4? The difference is those who were attached to the Jewish holy days are taught to bear with those who rightly understood that their gospel liberty freed them from such observances, and Paul is gentle with such because their attachment is understandable; but those who required observance of Jewish holy days he is harsh towards because this is mere Judaizing. In none of these Biblical instances, however, is there any warrant to conclude that man-made holy days, which never had any claim to be instituted by God; ergo, whether considering public or private worship, Rom. 14/Col. 2 do not offer any justification for celebration of Christmas, Easter or the like.



Conclusions that it took our family a great deal of time to arrive at. Due to ingrained tradition and fond memories of past celebrations of "Christmas" we resisted the idea that it was not biblical until recently.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

a mere housewife said:


> For instance, if I am disallowed to specially meditate on the incarnation on Dec. 25, I can't specially meditate on it on July 4th either. It is simply off limits for special meditation?



A common argument seems to be that the Christmas celebration and meditation on Christ’s birth are equivalent. I don’t think that these should be confused. Why would someone not meditate on any aspect of Christ at any time, be it appointed on a predefined day or not? The argument is not against the remembrance of anything in the bible at all. 

I would suppose that others who are against the Celebration of Christmas would also agree that it is certainly not an argument against remembering Christ. But if there is not a dichotomy between the remembrance of the incarnation and the celebration of Christmas I must be out of my mind.


----------



## a mere housewife

Hey Ben , I was thinking of Andrew's statement here: 'God has given to us a sacrament (the Lord's Supper) whereby to observe a memorial of his death, and a day (the Lord's Day) to celebrate his resurrection. Not only this but by his providence we are called (publically and privately) to observe days of fasting and thanksgiving. I fully recognize that people inherently need "days" which are different than other days. They are moments to stop and consider something special. And I know that the intentions to observe Christ's incarnation, et al. are well meant by most, but God has nowhere commanded us to observe Christ's birth in such a way,"

I understood 'such a way' to simply be a day one sets apart for meditation on the incarnation. Since I don't think the gift giving, tree, etc. would be acts of worship -one can meditate on the incarnation irrelevant of them; they are an expression of joy but not objects or elements of adoration - they would not be affected by the regulative principle even if the RPW does apply? So yes, there is a dichotomy between the meditation and the presents etc.: it's precisely that dichotomy that I see making an application of the RPW to a gift exchange at home that is not being performed as a ritual of worship rather difficult.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Heidi -- I'll try to answer some of your questions. Bear with me because there is a lot that could be said (and has already been said). 

First of all, there is an enormous variety of ways in which people celebrate Christmas in the home. I have not attempted to address every angle of it. For some, it involves setting up and decorating a Christmas tree with angels and other ornaments -- some put religious significance on the tree, as an evergreen symbolizing eternal life or other things, some think of it as aesthetically pleasing. But it is done in the name of celebrating Christ's incarnation, which makes it religious. Others give gifts -- again, in the name of celebrating Christ's incarnation, which makes it religious. Others sing Christmas carols -- in the name of celebrating Christ's incarnation, whether or not they are accurate ("We Three Kings", "Hark, the Herald Angels Sing," etc.). Others give each other candy canes, some with overt religious symbolism, others just as a treat, but all in the name of celebrating Christ's incarnation. These and other traditions are not done at any other time of the year, excepting Eastern Orthodox who do so in January. Nobody ever sets apart a day in July to celebrate Christ's incarnation in this way (although some Christmas stores make a point to be open year-round). These things are tied to a day of the Pope's appointment, and they are all religious in nature, though some will try to minimize that and others will try to emphasize that. 

In other words, celebrating December 25 as Christmas in the home for most people is much, much more than merely meditating upon Christ's incarnation. I can't speak to every family's approach to the day, but I do know that people rarely only meditate upon the incarnation on this day without all the other trappings of the Catholic festival. By doing this, December 25 is elevated to the status of a holy day, special from other days, without the appointment of God to back it up. 

It is entirely lawful and good to meditate upon Christ's birth at any time of the year, but doing so on an annual basis at December 25 means that it is not mere providential coincidence but Christmas-keeping. When a pastor preaches through the Bible or a person reads through the Bible and they happen to land at Luke 2 on or about December 25 in the course of things, there is no necessary yoke tying them to the day. But when it happens every year at the same time for the same reason, that is a yoke from which Christ has set us free. 

Our Webmaster has an article on this subject. I don't concur with everything he says. But here are some thoughts relevant to the point:



> Whenever Christians have thoughts of Christ or of God, they are beginning to engage in worship. Jeremiah Burroughs in his book Gospel Worship defines worship simply as “thoughts about God.” The interaction of the mind of man to the mind of God, to think His thoughts after Him, is worship. The opposite of having thoughts of God and worshipping Him, is to suppress and remove God from the thoughts; Psalm 10:4 states, “The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God; God is in none of his thoughts.” The Christian is to have his thoughts fixed upon God. We are to be living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to Him every minute of every day – but there are also times of public and private worship which take place at God’s command. Colossians 3:2 states, “Set your mind on the things above…” Isaiah 26:3 says that the righteous’ “mind is stayed on You.” Meditating and thoughtfulness about God is worship. Formal worship, gathering together as a body of believers in a church setting to hear preaching and teaching, etc., is commanded of God to His people. Private worship is still worship, though it be done in the home. In either case, creating a day for formal worship, such as Christmas, is a violation of the principles of worship. If one were to take one day a month to meditate on the incarnation in their private devotions, there would be no contention. It is the formalizing of a specific day to honor Christ which is the problem. Public or private worship is still to be regulated by God’s Word and not the imaginations of men’s minds.
> ...
> If someone wants to create some religiously significant time with their family as it is dictated in the Bible, there is no sin there. If, for example, a father wants to use the month of July each year to teach his family a four week teaching on the cross of Christ, he should do it. It could become a family tradition to do so. If a mother wanted to teach her children about the Holy Spirit in November, then by all means, she should do so. Christians, however, should be cautious to "equate" what is done at home with what the church will wrongly give a "stamp of approval" for during the season of "Christ-mas". In other words, "Jesus is the reason for the Season" is just a load of bunk. Jesus Christ is not only Lord of the season, but He is Lord of every day and every minute of every day, and, in fact, upholds everything in every moment and is the One in whom "we live and move and have our being" every day of the year. His incarnation extends to every moment of every time in the monumental significance of human and creative redemption. The incarnation is not just for December 25th, July 8th or March 12th, dates that have absolutely no religious significance whatsoever, unless they fall on the Lord's Day and are, in fact, observed as the Lord's Day. Christians must be careful about how they use something lawful and good at a time when it can be misconstrued. The incarnation is lawful, good and theologically necessary for salvation. But December may be a "cliché" month to visit that topic. One may measure their bondage to that cliché by their ability or non-ability to use ANOTHER month to teach their family about the incarnation. Reader, could you celebrate the meanings that you hold in Christ-mas in, say, August, or February? If not, you may be more bound to the secularization of Romanism than you may be willing to believe.



You raise a point about private worship and object to the RPW applying to private worship because it seems that everything all around ought to stir us up to worship God and therefore all of life is worship. It is certainly true that when we behold the marvelous works of God in creation or providence we can and should give glory to Him, lifting our thoughts heavenward and honoring Him. We are told to “pray without ceasing,” although this is not quite the literal command that some would suggest. We can live our lives to God’s glory without agreeing with the proposition that all of life is worship. If it is, the RPW has no meaning. That proposition also cuts against public worship as well as private worship. (Almost) No one that holds to EP or the RPW applying to private as well as public worship would say that the second commandment prohibits us from reading, reciting or singing religious compositions outside the Psalms/Scriptures. But the context is important. There is a distinction between stated worship (public, family, private) and meditating in the fields, as it were, or giving God the glory for his works of creation and providence. When I speak to my wife generally about how beautiful a shooting star was, this gives glory to God; but it is not a distinct act of worship. Reading a religious poem aloud is not an act of worship – unless it is done in stated worship, and then it must be evaluated whether this act is authorized by the RPW. Meditating, also (and here I would differ from our Webmaster to a degree), is not, precisely speaking, an act of worship, although it is a religious duty. The divines I have studied concerning meditation have classified it as an act between hearing/reading God’s word or observing God’s works and prayer; that is, something that digests the former and quickens the latter, but is distinct from both. This may seem rather technical and forced, but it is really, I think, just a matter of being precise. Because it is an error to think that all of life is worship rather than distinguishing between specific acts of worship and their context, and giving glory to God in general through our obedience and how we live our lives. If all of life is worship then the second commandment/RPW is emptied of any meaning. So I think it is important to be precise in the discussion, as much as we can, or else not just regulated private worship must fall by the wayside but regulated public worship too. I would simply argue that if the distinctions that I have made concerning stated worship and life generally lived to God’s glory cannot be made in the private sphere, they cannot be made in the public sphere as well and the RPW is thereby vitiated completely. 

And so, coming back to Christmas, one can meditate upon Christ’s incarnation at any time of the year. We have the liberty to do so. But if it is only tied to December 25, that is not liberty, that is bondage. Likewise, gift giving, listening to or singing Handel’s Messiah (the original performance took place in April), and all the other traditions which are good in themselves but sadly yoked to a day of the Pope’s appointment, not God’s. 

Because God alone can set apart days from a common usage to a religious usage, whether by his word (Lord’s Day) or providence (days of fasting or thanksgiving). Which is precisely why we can mediate upon facets of Christ’s life and death and resurrection at any time without being yoked to a certain day annually of our choosing. But again, for most, Christmas observance is much, much more than mere meditation. It is a whole plethora of activities done only at one specific time of the year in the name of celebrating Christ’s incarnation, a religious object of veneration. 

I don’t think anyone is forced to meditate upon Christ’s death every fall or his birth every winter solstice. I spend time in meditation upon these things when called to it providentially and that does not mean by looking to the calendar but rather considering what my pastor is preaching on, what we are studying in family worship, events in the world around me, and the like. Again, that is liberty, the freedom to meditate upon Christ (and other matters) not on the basis of a calendar but on the basis of the realities of life around us, no matter what the calendar says. It is a liberty that is very precious to me, and part of the essence of the gospel, which is why I believe Paul spoke so forcefully about against observing times and seasons in Galatians. 

I've said a lot on this subject, and probably not made it that much clearer. But I hope that some of what I have said makes sense. It would be easier to have a conversation about this rather than typing up my thoughts. I apologize if I end up tripping over words or don't have the energy to continue as needed. But I'd like to summarize my thinking here with two points:

1) Whenever something is done in the name of observing Christ's incarnation or the like, it is an act of worship that needs warrant from the word of God.

2) The distinction between stated worship (public, family, private) and living life to God's glory in general is crucial and matters to both public and private worship as it is regulated by the RPW. If all of life is worship, then not only is there no RPW to speak of, there is also no distinction to speak of between public and private worship.


----------



## a mere housewife

Andrew, thanks again. As I explained to another friend, to me it is a minor point since I can't see where the celebration in private as enjoyed by most people I know is sinful (most people I know aren't telling their kids that the tree or the candy cane has any spiritual significance: I wouldn't say that I make candy, exchange gifts, to commemorate Christ's birth but because I enjoy it), esp. considering the agreement we have on this same topic as regards the public worship, not being bound in conscience to the day, or ignoring the truth of the incarnation the rest of the year, or being unable to think about the incarnation without lights and a tree (or to listen to Handel's _Messiah_ at any other time of year). I know it's very important to people I respect who can't but believe any celebration of Christmas idolatrous (idolatry is always significant) and don't want to simply dismiss the larger question about the RPW; at the same time it does tend to become a laborious discussion centered disproportionately on Christmas, and I hate to plague anyone with it esp. as the Christian community in general seems bound to the observance of repeating the discussion every year. Yes, it would be much easier in person (esp. as my thoughts aren't very clearly formulated). Thanks sincerely for your time and patience trying to help me understand. And if I can work up the clarity and the nerve, I may bring it up again in June, just to be refreshingly - arbitrary?

So, to answer the poll question -- no I don't think any Christian 'should' celebrate Christmas, and I think there are ways in which they certainly should not, but presently I do think Christians can and may celebrate Christmas in a way that does not violate any principle of worship; and I'm still thinking it through.


----------

