# Do you plan on celebrating Christmas?



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 13, 2015)

_*The Christian’s Duty to Reject Christma*_s, by Thomas Mockett (or Mocket) (1602-1670)

Thomas Mockett (or Mocket) (1602-1670), was a studious theologian, Reformed preacher of the Gospel, and scholarly puritan divine during the era of Westminster. Edmund Calamy describes him as, “a very pious, and humble man.”

Mockett’s argument in this work is directed to well-meaning Christians who are defiling the Regulative Principle – that God alone determines the manner and time in which sinners are to approach him. Writing against the, “observation of Christ’s nativity,” Mockett shows the Christian how he is to reject, whole-heartily, adding Christ into Christmas as a religious or worship observance.

Mr. Mockett is not going to deal with taking Christ out of Christmas. Instead, he is going to painstakingly demonstrate the ill-use of trying to reclaim Christ for Christmas as an unholy venture. He will show that it is a detestable, sinful practice to put Christ back into Christmas since men have no warrant from God to do so. Though they do this in pretense of honoring Christ in a day of worship, and do so with a sincere heart, as Mockett shows, “Good intentions and well meanings cannot justify any unwarrantable practice.”

Mockett’s treatment of this issue is clear and well documented. The student of Scripture and historical theology cannot but come away with believing that reclaiming Christ in Christmas is truly a violation of God’s word, and a sinful practice which has harmed the church throughout its history.

This is not a scan or facsimile, has been updated in modern English for easy reading and has an active table of contents for electronic versions.

eBook Pack at the Puritan Shop (mobi, PDF and ePub)

Printed Version

Kindle Version

Google Books Version

Nook Version

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Chengyi (Nov 13, 2015)

Yes, I do intend to celebrate Christmas this year. Just as I have celebrated it in years past. I know that some Christians might object to the celebrating of Christian altogether. It seems from the title and description the author of this particular book might be advocating Christians should do just that. Last year, R.C. Sproul wrote an article that addresses a lot of the reasons some Christian might decide to reject Christmas. The article is posted here, [ http://www.ligonier.org/blog/dont-be-scrooge-christmas/ ] if anyone is interested in reading it.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## earl40 (Nov 13, 2015)

Chengyi said:


> Yes, I do intend to celebrate Christmas this year. Just as I have celebrated it in years past. I know that some Christians might object to the celebrating of Christian altogether. It seems from the title and description the author of this particular book might be advocating Christians should do just that. Last year, R.C. Sproul wrote an article that addresses a lot of the reasons some Christian might decide to reject Christmas. The article is posted here, [ http://www.ligonier.org/blog/dont-be-scrooge-christmas/ ] if anyone is interested in reading it.



Where is the charity calling a brother Scrooge if they decide to not plan on celebrating this day? Don't get me wrong it has little effect on me but my question stands. 

Bah Humbug

This paragraph alone should be cause to wonder where Pastor Sproul places The Lord's Day in his thinking...."Christmas is a holiday, indeed the world’s most joyous holiday. It is called a “holiday” because the day is holy. It is a day when businesses close, when families gather, when churches are filled, and when soldiers put down their guns for a 24-hour truce. It is a day that differs from every other day."


----------



## Captain Picard (Nov 13, 2015)

I respect the reasons people have for not celebrating, but I will be. I do think that the bandying about of terms like "scrooge" is unhelpful. I also think the implicit accusations of idolatry or violating the 4th commandment regarding people who do have some celebration of the Incarnation in December is unhelpful.

I'm considering going against the flow and dropping the term "Christmas" in favor of something like "Incarnation Day". I don't celebrate "mas".


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 13, 2015)

It is pretty well known that Dr. Sproul disdains the traditional Reformed teaching on both the 2nd and 4th Commandments.


----------



## Elizabeth (Nov 13, 2015)

We will joyfully celebrate the Incarnation, taking part in advent and Christmas services, music, parties, etc. 

But honestly, we celebrate it all year round. It is a great and glorious wonder! 

The special emphasis of Scripture reading and music in December is an especial blessing, as is the remembering of the Resurrection. Good things to note and mark and relish as a church body. 

We are not an RPW church, needless to say.


----------



## Elizabeth (Nov 13, 2015)

The 'Scrooge' comment is a bit much, for sure, I meant to add.


----------



## Chengyi (Nov 13, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Chengyi said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I do intend to celebrate Christmas this year. Just as I have celebrated it in years past. I know that some Christians might object to the celebrating of Christian altogether. It seems from the title and description the author of this particular book might be advocating Christians should do just that. Last year, R.C. Sproul wrote an article that addresses a lot of the reasons some Christian might decide to reject Christmas. The article is posted here, [ http://www.ligonier.org/blog/dont-be-scrooge-christmas/ ] if anyone is interested in reading it.
> ...



My purpose in mentioning the article by R.C. Sproul was not to imply that any brother who does not celebrate Christmas is a scrooge but simply to highlight in brief some of the reasons why some Christians decide not to celebrate Christmas.


----------



## Chengyi (Nov 13, 2015)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> It is pretty well known that Dr. Sproul disdains the traditional Reformed teaching on both the 2nd and 4th Commandments.



This is news to me. Could you please provide some proof?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Nov 13, 2015)

Chengyi said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > It is pretty well known that Dr. Sproul disdains the traditional Reformed teaching on both the 2nd and 4th Commandments.
> ...



I know your question was addressed to Rev. Glaser but reading the article you posted above then reading the Larger Catechism on the second commandment should be pretty obvious.

WLC

Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, *all devising,529 counselling,530
commanding,531 using,532 and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God
himself*;533 tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any
of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or
likeness of any creature whatsoever;534 all worshipping of it,535 or God in it or by it;536 the
making of any representation of feigned deities,537 and all worship of them, or service
belonging to them,538 all superstitious devices,539 corrupting the worship of God,540 *adding to
it*, or taking from it,541 *whether invented and taken up of ourselves,542 or received by tradition
from others,543 though under the title of antiquity,544 custom,545 devotion,546 good intent, or
any other pretence whatsoever*;547 simony;548 sacrilege;549 all neglect,550 contempt,551
hindering,552 and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.553.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 13, 2015)

“When God touches earth, the place is holy. When God appears in history, the time is holy. There was never a more holy place than the city of Bethlehem, where the Word became flesh. There was never a more holy time than Christmas morning when Emmanuel was born. Christmas is a holiday. It is the holiest of holy days.”​ This is truly sad. Hello?! This is the anglocatholic argument which Presbyterians rejected at the Reformation, and cast off again at the second reformation. 


earl40 said:


> Chengyi said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I do intend to celebrate Christmas this year. Just as I have celebrated it in years past. I know that some Christians might object to the celebrating of Christian altogether. It seems from the title and description the author of this particular book might be advocating Christians should do just that. Last year, R.C. Sproul wrote an article that addresses a lot of the reasons some Christian might decide to reject Christmas. The article is posted here, [ http://www.ligonier.org/blog/dont-be-scrooge-christmas/ ] if anyone is interested in reading it.
> ...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 13, 2015)

Chengyi said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > It is pretty well known that Dr. Sproul disdains the traditional Reformed teaching on both the 2nd and 4th Commandments.
> ...



One only needs to know that Dr. Sproul plays golf on the Lord's Day and has a large painting of Kenny Loggins in the narthex of Saint Andrews to understand Dr. Sproul's thoughts on this.

But here are some articles.

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/defining-debate/

http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2011/01/05/ask-r-c-sproul/

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/second-commandment/


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 13, 2015)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Chengyi said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



By Kenny Loggins I assume you mean a tacky painting depicting a very unrealistic likeness of Jesus.


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 13, 2015)

No, I don't intend to celebrate Christmass--I'm too lazy and don't feel like putting something else on my calendar. I look forward to binge-watching Netflix though!


----------



## N. Eshelman (Nov 13, 2015)

No. 

Isn't this place called PURITAN Board? 
I expect all answers to be "no" otherwise you must pay a fine of 5 shillings.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 13, 2015)

We'll take payment in M&Ms; but not the Green and Red ones.


N. Eshelman said:


> I expect all answers to be "no" otherwise you must pay a fine of 5 shillings.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 13, 2015)

Actually I thought it was Christmas last night watching the Bills and Jets in those tacky red uniforms vs. tacky green uniforms


----------



## Gforce9 (Nov 13, 2015)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Chengyi said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



I have personally seen Dan Fogelberg and Gregg Allman in various places.......


----------



## KMK (Nov 13, 2015)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> and has a large painting of Kenny Loggins in the narthex of Saint Andrews



Is this so that sinners will know they are on a 'highway to the danger zone?'


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 13, 2015)

I celebrate Christmas for family time, presents, the beautiful tree and lights. I don't believe it has any more to do with Christ than the other holidays which I also celebrate except for Easter. I don't recall ever celebrating Easter even as a child.


----------



## kodos (Nov 13, 2015)

Nope. We intend on celebrating the incarnation and resurrection every Lord's Day. 

Besides the fact that Dr. Sproul has no license from God to create a holy day, he is mistaken on both the 2nd and 4th commandments, though he is very good on a good many other topics and undoubtedly a much wiser man than I am in many areas.

I know that Christmas is a "sacred cow" (and that's fun to say when it comes to this topic) when it comes to many believers, but the more that one studies its origins and the emphasis on this day, the more disturbing it becomes. Beyond the fact that several churches will celebrate it as a holy day (see Dr. Sproul) which is against the teaching of Scripture, the fact that it revolves around a lie (Christ's birth is nowhere said to be Dec. 25), and is really more about people feeling good about their own traditions (see Jesus re: traditions of men), the commercialism, the greed, etc. just makes this a very disturbing "holiday" on many levels.

It is hard to be objective about something that the culture has elevated to something sacred however. 

Beware any time that Popish Ceremonies and Madison Ave link arms: You end up with Christmas.


----------



## Username3000 (Nov 13, 2015)

I have only been a Christian for a few years, and although I haven't eradicated Christmas from my life completely, I do feel less inclined to celebrate it every year. But I have never really sat down with the purpose of looking into it in-depth.

Can someone please clarify what exactly is meant by celebrating Christmas? Is it wrong to:

Get together with family on December 25th?
Have a family dinner on the 25th?
Exchange gifts with your family on the 25th?

Or is it only wrong when any of these things come into the church? Christmas Eve services, etc.

Where is the line drawn? Is it possible to do some of these things without being in the wrong?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 13, 2015)

Christians should not refer to their brothers and sisters who do not celebrate Christmas as "Scrooges." Nor should Christians who refrain from celebrating Christmas voluntarily assume or "poke" the other side by embracing the label of "Scrooge" as a badge of honor showing disdain for the day/season. Ebenezer Scrooge isn't "Scrooge" because he is an otherwise good man who simply disregarded Christmas. On the contrary, he is a pitiless, miserly, thoughtless, self-absorbed, materialistic, naturalistic, utilitarian wretch. And oh, he didn't celebrate Christmas. In every way "Scrooge" is the embodiment of virtues Christians should repudiate, even if his utter-rejection of Christmas strikes your fancy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CJW (Nov 13, 2015)

No,I don't celebrate the 25th December as anything special. One of the most liberating decisions I have ever made! I dreaded it every year, but, because Jesus was born that day, and I was supposed to be merry, and generous, and buy gifts for everyone, and cook, and entertain, and have green and red stuff everywhere in my house, I did it. To discover to my joy that my conscience had been bound by the tradition of men all those years, and that not one single place in all of scripture commanded me to do these things was marvellous good news indeed! I am now free to be generous, merry, and entertain whenever I wish, and I never have to subject myself to red and green decorations again 

Another advantage of my giving up Christmas is that my research on the subject brought me here, to the Puritan Board, where I have been blessed beyond measure by the wisdom and knowledge of the saints here.


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 13, 2015)

SolaScriptura said:


> On the contrary, he is a pitiless, miserly, thoughtless, self-absorbed, materialistic, naturalistic, utilitarian wretch. And oh, he didn't celebrate Christmas. In every way "Scrooge" is the embodiment of virtues Christians should repudiate, even if his utter-rejection of Christmas strikes your fancy.



How do you _really_ feel, Ben?


----------



## johnny (Nov 13, 2015)

OPC'n said:


> I celebrate Christmas for family time, presents, the beautiful tree and lights. I don't believe it has any more to do with Christ than the other holidays which I also celebrate except for Easter. I don't recall ever celebrating Easter even as a child.



Ditto...

That reminds me, I've got to put the tree up soon.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Nov 13, 2015)

Yes


----------



## earl40 (Nov 13, 2015)

SolaScriptura said:


> Christians should not refer to their brothers and sisters who do not celebrate Christmas as "Scrooges." Nor should Christians who refrain from celebrating Christmas voluntarily assume or "poke" the other side by embracing the label of "Scrooge" as a badge of honor showing disdain for the day/season. Ebenezer Scrooge isn't "Scrooge" because he is an otherwise good man who simply disregarded Christmas. On the contrary, he is a pitiless, miserly, thoughtless, self-absorbed, materialistic, naturalistic, utilitarian wretch. And oh, he didn't celebrate Christmas. In every way "Scrooge" is the embodiment of virtues Christians should repudiate, even if his utter-rejection of Christmas strikes your fancy.



You are correct Ben, and when I said "Baa Humbug" I did not mean convey my objection to the celebration of Dec. 25 in the way Ebenezer did, as you pointed out, which is unavoidable in the vast majority of today's society in that this type of connection "Baa Humbug" is assumed unless one is familiar with our confessions and catechisms.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 14, 2015)

johnny said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > I celebrate Christmas for family time, presents, the beautiful tree and lights. I don't believe it has any more to do with Christ than the other holidays which I also celebrate except for Easter. I don't recall ever celebrating Easter even as a child.
> ...



We put ours up a few days after Thanksgiving. I love decorating the tree. One year I played Pink Floyd while decorating it I was already tired of the xmas music lol.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 14, 2015)

I have come to the conclusion that no signs of Christmas ought to interfere with churchly activities or worship on the Sabbath. But privately and in families, Christians may partake of holidays and special red calendar days. So do we celebrate Christmas? Both No, and also Yes. Depending on how and where and among whom. I even believe that Christians have liberty to let their kids dress up and trick or treat on Halloween.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Nov 14, 2015)

I loathe the spectacle of Christmas, I am that guy who hates the trees, music, the smell of peppermint, and the sentimentality. That said I cannot muster any objection to a church choosing to highlight the incarnation in December or choosing hymns and psalms that highlight the promise of the Messiah.


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 14, 2015)

I'll endeavor to honor my Lord by observing his ordinances this winter, and I won't dishonor him by observing the ordinances of Antichrist.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 14, 2015)

No, I do not. I would, however, caution against condemning all Christmas-observers as non-Reformed. Now, don't get me wrong, holy days are contrary to the Westminster Confession - that point is beyond all reasonable dispute. That said, other branches of the Reformed tradition have (at the very least) tolerated Christmas and Easter. Still, that is no excuse for modern Presbyterians observing 25 December as a holy day.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 14, 2015)

Ultimately, this is exactly what Aaron did while his brother was up on the mount in their creating the golden calf. Ex 32.

Jer 10:1-5, Isaiah 44:12-28.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 14, 2015)

"Many think it a strange thing for men not to pay regard to such festivals; Why may not we keep the birth of our Saviour? Now, that you may not think it so, do but consider this, that when God has set apart any thing for a holy use, it is no strange thing; but it would be strange in man to venture to imitate God in the things of his worship, to do that in God’s worship which God himself has done before. Thus God has set apart a holy time, viz. the sabbath; it is set apart to solemnize the whole work of redemption, the nativity of Christ, his life, death, resurrection,m ascension, and the coming of the Holy Ghost; God, I say, has set the sabbath apart that we might have a holy-day to keep the remembrance of them all. Now, when God has appointed one day, for man to dare to venture to set another apart, this is presumption." "--Jeremiah Burroughs, _Exposition of Hosea 1–3_ (1643), 379.​
As far as ecclesiastical observance, what Jeremiah Burroughs says on pretended holy days, can not the same be said for services that carve out acts of redemption when God Himself has set a day to observe them all? If that were insufficient (which is rather blasphemous to think); wouldn't He have left directive to know which and what acts to highlight, since that could easily have been expressed in Scripture? Why does Christ's birth get a service but not the sending of the Holy Ghost? And the fact the church has more than tended to turn such observances to will worship and idolatry should give pause to continuing such practices (not to mention the argument from the necessity of putting away monuments of idolatry). Whether such services are volountary or not, thought specifically more holy than other times the church gathers or not, is not the mere perpetual highlighting of one act over another where the Lord has given no such prescription, presumption against God's prerogatives regarding His worship? And as I say, we see what the tendency is; even a leader in modern Presbyterianism like RC Sproul speaks like an anglocatholic on this subject.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 14, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> "Many think it a strange thing for men not to pay regard to such festivals; Why may not we keep the birth of our Saviour? Now, that you may not think it so, do but consider this, that when God has set apart any thing for a holy use, it is no strange thing; but it would be strange in man to venture to imitate God in the things of his worship, to do that in God’s worship which God himself has done before. Thus God has set apart a holy time, viz. the sabbath; it is set apart to solemnize the whole work of redemption, the nativity of Christ, his life, death, resurrection,m ascension, and the coming of the Holy Ghost; God, I say, has set the sabbath apart that we might have a holy-day to keep the remembrance of them all. Now, when God has appointed one day, for man to dare to venture to set another apart, this is presumption." "--Jeremiah Burroughs, _Exposition of Hosea 1–3_ (1643), 379.​
> As far as ecclesiastical observance, what Jeremiah Burroughs says on pretended holy days, can not the same be said for services that carve out acts of redemption when God Himself has set a day to observe them all? If that were insufficient (which is rather blasphemous to think); wouldn't He have left directive to know which and what acts to highlight, since that could easily have been expressed in Scripture? Why does Christ's birth get a service but not the sending of the Holy Ghost? And the fact the church has more than tended to turn such observances to will worship and idolatry should give pause to continuing such practices (not to mention the argument from the necessity of putting away monuments of idolatry). Whether such services are volountary or not, thought specifically more holy than other times the church gathers or not, is not the mere perpetual highlighting of one act over another where the Lord has given no such prescription, presumption against God's prerogatives regarding His worship? And as I say, we see what the tendency is; even a leader in modern Presbyterianism like RC Sproul speaks like an anglocatholic on this subject.



I wonder if the main confusion is arising on this issue is the observance of Dec. 25th in the non-ecclesiastical sense? I think most of here understand that to call a worship service, as an obligation, on Dec. 25 is not to be done. I think what "Mockett shows the Christian how he is to reject, whole-heartily, adding Christ into Christmas *as a religious* or worship observance." Personally I have trouble explaining how Presbyterianism is substantially different than Baptist, RC, and any other denomination so far as Christmas is concerned in the setting outside of the ecclesiastical.

I personally remember my former Uncle Gwendal who died 30 or so years ago(PCUSA) who seemed to be not religious because he did not do christmas. What I am saying is that I wish Uncle Gwendal told me why he did not do such, so that I did not look at him as a Scrooge.


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 14, 2015)

I am sure anyone who works in retail can attest that it is such a disgusting holiday. 
I celebrate it (sort of) because of my family. If I was away from them or whatever, I wouldn't celebrate it.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 14, 2015)

I wouldn't even begin with that it should never be called; it obviously has been done by Puritans and Presbyterians as they felt occasion warranted; but it would not be a service most would be used to I'm pretty sure. The problem is treating the two issues together; the superstitious observers won't separate them but those seeking reform should because they involve different authorities and different principles. The PCUS had the dinosaurs that were still condemning the calendar as late as 1950. However, the cultural observance outside of puritan new england in the south was more English; the Presbyterians if they observed any custom it was without any religious significance. That all changed in the mid to late 19th century. But, there's plenty of old threads on this. My deal is get it out of the church and as the folks are instructed the cultural will come along at the pace it needs to with each individual and family. 


earl40 said:


> I wonder if the main confusion is arising on this issue is the observance of Dec. 25th in the non-ecclesiastical sense? I think most of here understand that to call a worship service, as an obligation, on Dec. 25 is not to be done. I think what "Mockett shows the Christian how he is to reject, whole-heartily, adding Christ into Christmas as a religious or worship observance." Personally I have trouble explaining how Presbyterianism is substantially different than Baptist, RC, and any other denomination so far as Christmas is concerned in the setting outside of the ecclesiastical.
> 
> I personally remember my former Uncle Gwendal who died 30 or so years ago(PCUSA) who seemed to be not religious because he did not do christmas. What I am saying is that I wish Uncle Gwendal told me why he did not do such, so that I did not look at him as a Scrooge.


----------



## Miss Marple (Nov 14, 2015)

with gusto! not at church though.

The only time I get to sing Christmas carols is with a large retinue of unbelievers at Davies Symphony Hall every December. There is a SF Girls' Chorus Christmas concert there every year, and we go, because one of my daughters is in that chorus. I love these hymns and find it sad that I never get to sing them with my believing brothers and sisters.

But, I'll live.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Nov 17, 2015)

Scott Bushey said:


> Ultimately, this is exactly what Aaron did while his brother was up on the mount in their creating the golden calf. Ex 32.
> 
> Jer 10:1-5, Isaiah 44:12-28.



Soooo.... churches that commemorate the incarnation in December, and families that do trees, gifts, decorations, etc. are idolaters?


----------



## Captain Picard (Nov 17, 2015)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> > Ultimately, this is exactly what Aaron did while his brother was up on the mount in their creating the golden calf. Ex 32.
> ...




Seems to be the inexorable logic of some on here. Personally, if before the throne, the primary knock on my sanctification was that I celebrated the incarnation unnecessarily in December, I'll be overjoyed that I'd attained that degree of earthly sanctity.

If someone wants to follow the DPW to the degree of forsaking all holidays, that is their conviction, and I see nothing untoward about the grounds and motivation for it. I think some in the Reformed community could stand to extend a little grace to people who don't share that conviction, given the grounds and motivation for observation of the "season".


----------



## Elizabeth (Nov 17, 2015)

It is never, ever idolatrous to read Scripture about the Incarnation, to pray thinking on it, or to sing of it. It is a glorious joy. Anytime. Our church does this year round really, with special emphasis in December. Men may call me an idolator, but God does not. 

"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."

We think on these things with wonder, merriment, humility and love. What an astounding gift and grace our God has given us in Jesus: birth, life, death and resurrection and reign. All excellent things, worthy of praise, all the time. Even in December.


----------



## nick (Nov 17, 2015)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> a large painting of Kenny Loggins



Hahahahahahahaaha!


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 17, 2015)

nick said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > a large painting of Kenny Loggins
> ...



Can it rightly be called a second commandment violation if the image is question is clearly of Kenny Loggins and not Jesus? 

Clarification: My tongue is planted firmly in my cheek as I write this.


----------



## kodos (Nov 17, 2015)

This is a delicate topic, so I want to tread here carefully. The question that is before us is this however: "Can the worship of the true God ever be done in an idolatrous fashion?"

The answer (as can be proven from the Scriptures) is YES.

If this follows, then we must take great care and pains to examine our motivations, and source for our worship.

No one has given a satisfactory basis in this thread for the command to celebrate a Holy Day that is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures. None will be forthcoming of course, because there is none. 

I understand that some here don't feel as if it is idolatrous to celebrate the day, but that's not the standard found in the Scripture. I have had to repent of any number of idolatrous things that felt "good" and "right" to me, but then the deeper that I examined my motives and the Scriptural basis for those things, the more I found that I was engaged in something that is ultimately not God honoring. Ask any Roman Catholic who feels compelled to go to the Mass - they would be shocked if you called it idolatry. Their feelings have no real basis in the matter as far as God is concerned - our hearts are deceitfully wicked since we still have indwelling sin in us. If you haven't truly come to grips with the fact that your own heart is deceitful, that your own heart is wicked; it will be very hard to be confronted with the Scriptures when you cherish something dearly.

But we can see the idolatry and declension that has come upon this day - just a look at a Nativity Scene some time. Besides the blatant 2nd Commandment violation, it transfixes Jesus as the helpless baby at Mary's side (a very common theme in the Roman Catholic Church).

I don't say these things to exalt myself and to tear my brothers and sisters on this thread down - for I know that much sin dwells within me, and I have by no means arrived. These same brothers and sisters will be able to teach me much about walking closer with Christ in other ways, I have no doubt. 

But I say this so that God would be glorified, and that by tearing these ceremonial things away from my brothers and sisters, they would see Jesus more clearly without the baggage that is added by the traditions of men, and that they would enjoy God more fully. So please do not take these words in the wrong way, brethren.

There are many ways to honor our God-Man Redeemer who was born as the son of David, who even now reigns at the right hand of God the Father. There are many ways to serve our neighbor and to bring the hope of salvation in Christ to them. Let's use those appointed means, and avoid the ones made by man.

*Matthew 15* - "These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Nov 17, 2015)

Gforce9 said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Chengyi said:
> ...



I greatly upset some folks in the SBC church I grew up in by asking a few years ago: "Why do you have a picture of a blue-eyed Robert Plant look-a-like dressed up as a sheppard in your church?"


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 17, 2015)

'Bearded lady' doesn't earn any brownie points either.


----------



## Edward (Nov 17, 2015)

kodos said:


> The question that is before us is this however: "Can the worship of the true God ever be done in an idolatrous fashion?"
> 
> The answer (as can be proven from the Scriptures) is YES.



I do agree with that proposition. However...

Let me make clear that my statements below do not address any comments which have been made on this thread. But they do deal with comments I have seen on this subject in prior years. 

If a pastor deliberately orders his preaching to avoid any mention of the birth of Christ during the period between the civil observation of Thanksgiving and the end of the year, he probably should examine himself to make sure that he isn't making the avoidance of the subject an idol.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 17, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> If someone wants to follow the DPW to the degree of forsaking all holidays, that is their conviction, and I see nothing untoward about the grounds and motivation for it. I think some in the Reformed community could stand to extend a little grace to people who don't share that conviction, given the grounds and motivation for observation of the "season".



The Lord shall judge the motivation of the act. The "act" of celebrating is sinful no matter what the motivation is. Now in saying this, love does indeed cover a multitude of sin, and I am blessed my brothers and sisters, especially my wife, look past my sinful acts though they realize those "sinful acts" are still sin.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 17, 2015)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> and has a large painting of Kenny Loggins in the narthex of Saint Andrews to understand



Okay. That made my day


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 17, 2015)

Gforce9 said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Chengyi said:
> ...



My favorite are the framed pictures of Ewan McGregor from Episode 1.

"Save us Obi Wan"


----------



## MW (Nov 17, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> Personally, if before the throne, the primary knock on my sanctification was that I celebrated the incarnation unnecessarily in December, I'll be overjoyed that I'd attained that degree of earthly sanctity.



That might work if you could live to yourself and die to yourself, but the reality is our actions bear witness to others and influence their lives in ways for which we must give an account.

Something indifferent that has been abused to idolatry should be laid aside for the simple reason that it has an immoral influence on others. Since it is regarded as indifferent it can be laid aside. Since it has a bad effect on others it should be laid aside. It ceases to be indifferent the moment it is understood to have a bad use.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 17, 2015)

Top 10 Traditions About Christ’s Birth That Are Not True


----------



## Dwimble (Nov 17, 2015)

kodos said:


> No one has given a satisfactory basis in this thread for the command to celebrate a Holy Day that is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures...


I have never in my entire life seen anyone declare that there is a "command" to observe Christmas, and I have only seen an ignorant few refer to it as a "holy" day. Perhaps there are some people who do that, but I've never seen them, and I've been a Christian for 33 years and attended a large variety of churches in that time: mainline Methodist, over-the-top ultra-charistmatic, Pre-millennial Pre-trib Dispensationalist, conservative Presbyterian, and so on. I'm not sure exactly who you're arguing against, but to my knowledge no one says we are "commanded" to observe Christmas or that it should be treated as a "holy" day. At least no one within the churches and teachers I've seen.

Do any but a tiny percentage of people view any holiday as a "Holy Day?" Regardless of the etymology of the word "holiday," it hasn't meant "holy day" in western culture for a very long time. A holiday is merely a day that some group of people celebrate something, remember something, do some traditional activity, or the like. I doubt you'll find many who ascribe some sort of spiritual significance to any given calendar day, regardless of what they're celebrating on that particular day. I'm sure there are some, but I doubt there are many, at least not among believers. If, however, someone believes he is commanded to observe Christmas, or views it as a "holy" day, then he is wrong and should repent of that, but are there really many believers who think that? I don't know. Maybe there are. I've just never encountered them in the church. Catholics, maybe?

I can understand those who have convictions against "Christmas" and "Christmas Eve" themed church services, and I can respect those who do not wish to participate in any Christmas traditions, whether secular or religious. However, that's quite a different thing than those whom I've encountered over the years who declare that anyone who has a decorated tree, sings songs about snow, or gives their kids some wrapped presents on 12/25 is somehow dishonoring Christ and idolatrous. It puzzles me; it is something I truly don't understand.


----------



## MW (Nov 17, 2015)

Dwimble said:


> At least no one within the churches and teachers I've seen.



The church must surely be bigger than this. There are obviously Christian churches who maintain the day is holy and appoint it to be observed by their own authority. Even if your church has separated from such churches, you are obliged to explain why you have separated from them and to seek their restoration to true order.


----------



## kodos (Nov 17, 2015)

Dwimble said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> > No one has given a satisfactory basis in this thread for the command to celebrate a Holy Day that is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures...
> ...



It's puzzling you say this, because my experience is completely opposite to yours - and only being a Christian for about 8 years. There are many people in the Church that do maintain it. Here is R.C Sproul, a man who is not ignorant and a fine theologian, and what he has to say. From the article linked below:


> "Christmas is a holiday, indeed the world’s most joyous holiday. It is called a “holiday” because the day is holy."



http://www.ligonier.org/blog/dont-be-scrooge-christmas/?aref=SS

Perhaps you need to get out more?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 17, 2015)

In what ways do folks exhibit they actually think this time is special some way?


----------



## bookslover (Nov 17, 2015)

OPC'n said:


> johnny said:
> 
> 
> > OPC'n said:
> ...



The song "Money," obviously. LOL


----------



## bookslover (Nov 17, 2015)

Christmas is a holiday, not a holy day - unless it falls on the Lord's Day. Then the headaches begin.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 17, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> In what ways do folks exhibit they actually think this time is special some way?



I would need a calculator to tally the ways.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 17, 2015)

I think it would be helpful as I do see the objection that no one thinks that way about such observances, and I mean in the church.


earl40 said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > In what ways do folks exhibit they actually think this time is special some way?
> ...


----------



## sfontel (Nov 18, 2015)

Hey guys! Its seems easy for me...but I do plan to celebrate....in accordly to this I do nothing wrong...

Rm 14.5-6 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


----------



## kodos (Nov 18, 2015)

sfontel - The context of Romans 14 has to do with ceremonial ordinances, which at one point was indeed ordained by God - but now had passed away. It is hard for those Jews who have had these things ordained by God to see them as passing away, particularly without the full canon of Scripture available to them (such as Hebrews, or even the book of Romans itself). I think we should look at that passage in context. This is why they would have to be convinced, not because these were days made by man - but they were days instituted by God Almighty, and they didn't understand the passing away of these things quite yet. They were immature in the faith, which is why the New Testament even has a book relating to this discussion (Hebrews).

In many ways this is a very different thing from Christmas, which is not once to be found in the Word of God itself.

Now, since you do bring Romans 14 to bear here - I do believe it shows us the proper frame in which are to treat our brothers who are in error; without despising them, being self righteous, etc. but seeking to build them up in the faith by helping them to see these things.

Blessings, and welcome to the Puritan Board!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 18, 2015)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> > Ultimately, this is exactly what Aaron did while his brother was up on the mount in their creating the golden calf. Ex 32.
> ...




Is the violation of God's determination of how sinners are to approach him _idolatry_?


----------



## Miss Marple (Nov 18, 2015)

Question for those finding the celebration (at home) of Christmas to be idolatrous:

Can you use the arguments against it similarly against birthdays? If not, why not?

To set aside Oct. 1 as my birthday, to have traditions, presents, special foods, even a prayer(!), in Christian circles instead of the traditional Happy Birthday song they sing one with Jesus in it, family must get together, asking a blessing. . . special decorations, etc. . . . gifts. . .

Is this wrong? Are we making a "holy day?" 

I would really like to know the difference in application of the various arguments as applied to Christmas versus a person's birthday.


----------



## Nate (Nov 18, 2015)

Dwimble said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> > No one has given a satisfactory basis in this thread for the command to celebrate a Holy Day that is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures...
> ...



The Church Order of my denomination commands the observance of Christmas. The elders issue an official call to worship every December 25th. The same is true for Good Friday, Easter (must be commemorated), Ascension Day, Pentacost, Prayer Day, Thanksgiving, New Year's Eve, and New Year's Day...


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Nov 18, 2015)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> PointyHaired Calvinist said:
> 
> 
> > Scott Bushey said:
> ...



Sure, but choosing to commemorate the Savior's incarnation at a certain Lord's Day, and celebrating a certain day of the year in commemoration of said event with family does not fall into this. That's where the disagrement is, and unfortunately brethren are busy calling each other "Scrooge" and "Idolater." If the extreme puritans are right I - and others such as Dr. Sproul - are unrepentant idolaters.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 18, 2015)

What is an"extreme puritan?" Is that like a "radical jihadist?"

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


----------



## MW (Nov 18, 2015)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> If the extreme puritans are right I - and others such as Dr. Sproul - are unrepentant idolaters.



The accepted course of justice is to examine the facts of the case first, and then come to a determination of the case on the basis of the facts. It subverts justice to begin with the determination and then proceed to judge the facts so as to avoid a certain determination.

Whether "unrepentant idolaters" is a determination warranted by the facts can only be ascertained by looking at the facts.


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 18, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> Question for those finding the celebration (at home) of Christmas to be idolatrous:
> 
> Can you use the arguments against it similarly against birthdays? If not, why not?
> 
> ...



Excellent question! The puritans (and early Christians) disapproved of celebrating birthdays due to the pagan religious roots of it.

In my thinking, the celebration of birthdays is severed from religion almost entirely in our culture, so the danger seems to be gone. Not so with Christmas.


----------



## KMK (Nov 18, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> Not so with Christmas.



What would Christmas need to look like for it to qualify as being 'severed' from religion?


----------



## MW (Nov 18, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> Are we making a "holy day?"



No, because you are not the Holy One.

Civil respect is required by Scripture, so such days of man's appointing are permissible within reason.

Also, I am gathering the date of your birth is not in question. The date of Christ's birth is not revealed. Celebrating it only canonises the tradition and perpetuates the falsehood.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 19, 2015)

As per the OP "Do you plan on celebrating Christmas?" 

As a practical matter of why we ought not to celibate the season would be to "plan on celebrating Christmas", as a religious season of joy, is presumptuous in that in The Lord's providence He may wish to take a loved one at this time. I say this from experience in that when my parents left this world to be with The Lord I did not feel like celebrating the season at all. Now the same does not go for the Sundays that immediately followed their death. I was able to act appropriately to the circumstance of the death of my parents. Let us face it the season can attempt to force joyfulness in the mist of sorrow for many in our church and culture.


----------



## CJW (Nov 19, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> Question for those finding the celebration (at home) of Christmas to be idolatrous:
> 
> Can you use the arguments against it similarly against birthdays? If not, why not?
> 
> ...



Myself, I don't celebrate my birthday either. Probably a personality quirk as I don't like being fussed over (and have rather strong anti-industrial economic model leanings), and not a religious conviction, although I do think marketing and the cult of the self have skewed birthday celebrations into something far different than it ought to be. I find the anniversary of another sinner entering the world to be an excellent time for mourning the many sins I have committed, rejoicing that there is mercy at the cross, and beseeching the Lord to grant me mercy for the year to come.

Do I think its "wrong" that other people care about celebrating their birth day? No  For my family and friends that would be offended if I forgot, I call them on their birthdays.


----------



## Captain Picard (Nov 19, 2015)

earl40 said:


> As per the OP "Do you plan on celebrating Christmas?"
> 
> As a practical matter of why we ought not to celibate the season would be to "plan on celebrating Christmas",* as a religious season of joy, is presumptuous in that in The Lord's providence He may wish to take a loved one at this time.* I say this from experience in that when my parents left this world to be with The Lord I did not feel like celebrating the season at all. Now the same does not go for the Sundays that immediately followed their death. I was able to act appropriately to the circumstance of the death of my parents. Let us face it the season can attempt to force joyfulness in the mist of sorrow for many in our church and culture.



No one is forcing anyone to be joyful, but surely a "season of joy" can transcend an individual's earthly circumstances?

RE: an above post about the "Romanist tradition" of "Jesus being a helpless infant at the side of Mary"...

Jesus was never a helpless infant at the side of Mary? I don't feel obligated by Scripture to believe he was supernaturally preserved from dependence on his mother, just to "avoid" a bunch of Romanist nonsense that has nothing to do with objective fact.


----------



## kodos (Nov 19, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> Jesus was never a helpless infant at the side of Mary? I don't feel obligated by Scripture to believe he was supernaturally preserved from dependence on his mother, just to "avoid" a bunch of Romanist nonsense that has nothing to do with objective fact.



The point, which I probably failed at communicating, is the fact that Jesus is no longer a helpless babe at Mary's side. And yet, it pleases many folks to keep our Lord transfixed in a state of humiliation in the minds of the church. This theme of a small Jesus and a big Mary is found in many Romanist depictions of our Lord (and mind you, I was talking about a depiction - namely a nativity scene), and so this played into my making that comment.

The fact of the matter is this though: Jesus is now at the right hand of God the Father in Glory (see Revelation Chapter 1 for John's vision of the risen Christ) and is not a helpless child any longer. It is good to remember Christ's humiliation because this is how we are saved. This is true. But we should use the proper means to do so.

Regardless of this discussion on how our Lord is depicted in a nativity scene, the deeper problem is that all such depictions are forbidden by the express command of God (2nd Commandment), which is the root of the problem anyway. Since you subscribe to the TFU: HC 96-98.

Now, it is rather interesting that you wish these things to be based upon objective facts - because even the date that Christmas is celebrated on cannot be said to be based upon anything objective, but rather upon the traditions of men. So I agree with you, let us have a discussion on objective facts, and let's leave the superstitions and traditions of men behind.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 19, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > As per the OP "Do you plan on celebrating Christmas?"
> ...



If only we heard the words to the song "It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year" with "It's the most Wonderful Day of the Week" I might agree with you.


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 19, 2015)

KMK said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > Not so with Christmas.
> ...



It would have to cease being observed as any kind of religious holiday in a society. All religious associations with it would have to be put to an end for a long time on a broad scale, so that no even thinks of it as having anything to do with religion.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 19, 2015)

Tuesday.


KMK said:


> What would Christmas need to look like for it to qualify as being 'severed' from religion?


----------



## lynnie (Nov 19, 2015)

Its funny...I started out in the anti Christmas crowd- it is mostly Catholic pagan winter solstice traditions and so forth. I had to mellow over the years as my kids went to Christian school and had big Christmas programs with music and drama. I do like Christmas carols. We never had a tree, the Babylonian symbol of the resurrected sun God on the 25th was more than I could bear.

But I have found myself the last few years getting almost pro Christmas as I see the attempt of secular forces trying to stamp out any religious expressions. Schools that can't sing a traditional Christian carol, lawsuits against mangers. Employees being told they have to say " Happy holiday" instead of Merry Christmas. So much of a push against any reference to Christ at all. I find myself reacting to want to defend Christian freedoms. Not sure where I'll end up, but I was in a mall that was playing the old hymns with all the great lyrics, and I can only thank the Lord for that.


----------



## nick (Nov 20, 2015)

I am glad we have a place like the PB to dissect some of our reasoning on this subject.


----------



## Captain Picard (Nov 20, 2015)

kodos said:


> Captain Picard said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus was never a helpless infant at the side of Mary? I don't feel obligated by Scripture to believe he was supernaturally preserved from dependence on his mother, just to "avoid" a bunch of Romanist nonsense that has nothing to do with objective fact.
> ...



Let me celebrate a season for the Incarnation, if you will, and I will not judge you for having none! Neither attribute to me idolatry for a date for that celebration, and I will not attribute to you any unkindness. If people worshiped Christ at the Incarnation itself when the Word did not command it (and some of them may have been pagans) why does this not continue? There's a similar idea regarding the alleged "first thanksgiving"...did the Scripture command special worship there?


----------



## Captain Picard (Nov 20, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Captain Picard said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



Please don't hold me responsible for the words for that song. Not saying you do, but don't make that part of my argument. I don't wish to appear unkind about your original point! I sure hope you don't take any offense. However, I do enjoy the season I celebrate the Incarnation in, just like other seasons of the year. If you believe I am violating the command of God in "bringing strange fire before the Lord", I ask you to pray for me, and I will pray for me. And that goes for everyone. But frankly, I don't believe HC 86 and following obliges me to exclusive psalmody or negation of celebration of the Incarnation in Winter. Sorry.


----------



## kodos (Nov 20, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> If people worshiped Christ at the Incarnation itself when the Word did not command it (and some of them may have been pagans) why does this not continue?



Is it your claim that you cannot find a command in the Scriptures to worship God in His very presence?


----------



## earl40 (Nov 20, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Captain Picard said:
> ...



I was in no way saying that song was attributed to you directly but only used that to respond about the idea that no one forces another to be joyful in that season as we hear it in the malls and around the trees at our brothers and sisters houses when we gather for Christmas meals. Now please understand I do say it is a sin to celebrate the season because it is IMPOSSIBLE to separate the season from a religious context. I say the above "is a sin" in a most the most humble manner I can without compromising my position knowing how far I fall short....even in this area we are discussing. I will pray for you, and I hope you will pray for me.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 20, 2015)

It is not about US. It is about HIM; it is about worshipping God as He commanded and being satisfied with the fact He commemorated His Redemption of us by moving His prescribed day of worship to the first day of the week. Now, when He has so honored a day it is presumption to act like God and think we can carve out various acts such as Christ's birth to highlight on some other fixed day as more important to US than another part of our redemption in Christ. If God wished to be honored in highlighting Christ's birth, we'd have a book in the bible called 'calendar.'

“Shall we suppose that Christ and his apostles, in abrogating those days which God himself had appointed to be observed, without instituting others in their room, intended that either churches or individuals should be allowed to substitute whatever they pleased in their room? Yet the Christian church soon degenerated so far as to bring herself under a severer bondage than that from which Christ had redeemed her, and instituted a greater number of festivals than were observed under the Mosaic law, or even among pagans.” M’Crie on Esther.

“Yes, some will say, to observe the Jewish days after they were abolished by God, was sinful and dangerous, but we do not keep Jewish days. But mark what these men say, God abolishes his own, and yet they think he gives liberty to man to set up others. If upon God's abolishing his own, men have liberty to set up theirs, then Christians are under a more heavy bondage, and grievous pedagogy, than ever the Jews were, for it is better to have a hundred days of God's appointing, than one of man's, and more honourable. Further, if God appoint, there needs no scruple, as if man appoint: yea, if God appoint, we may expect a special blessing, and efficacy, and presence of God; we cannot expect such things in man's appointment. Now, if when God has taken away Jewish ceremonies and days, man might lawfully appoint others as he pleases, we may pray to God with good reason to bring us under the bondage of the law again, rather than to be thus under man's power.” Burroughs on Hosea.


----------



## ZackF (Nov 20, 2015)

SolaScriptura said:


> Christians should not refer to their brothers and sisters who do not celebrate Christmas as "Scrooges." Nor should Christians who refrain from celebrating Christmas voluntarily assume or "poke" the other side by embracing the label of "Scrooge" as a badge of honor showing disdain for the day/season. Ebenezer Scrooge isn't "Scrooge" because he is an otherwise good man who simply disregarded Christmas. On the contrary, he is a pitiless, miserly, thoughtless, self-absorbed, materialistic, naturalistic, utilitarian wretch. And oh, he didn't celebrate Christmas. In every way "Scrooge" is the embodiment of virtues Christians should repudiate, even if his utter-rejection of Christmas strikes your fancy.



Not that I agree with this entire defense but even Scrooge is entitled to one.


----------



## KMK (Nov 20, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > TylerRay said:
> ...



So, if it was only Santa without the Nativity, it would be 'severed' from religion. It appears to be moving in that direction.


----------



## 2ndViolinist (Nov 20, 2015)

Yes, to an extent. My family gets together and makes music, exchanges gifts, and enjoys delicious homemade food.

Sproul has no authority to declare Christmas as a holy day. God does, and He made the Christian Sabbath (Genesis 2:3). In all likelihood, Christ's incarnation was not on December 25th and if I remember correctly, some pope had made it coincide with some sun-god celebration.

I leave with a Spurgeon quote:



> "We have no superstitious regard for times and seasons. Certainly we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical arrangement called Christmas. First, because we do not believe in the mass at all, but abhor it, whether it be sung in Latin or in English; and secondly, because we find no Scriptural warrant whatever for observing any day as the birthday of the Savior; and consequently, its observance is a superstition, because not of divine authority... Since it is lawful, and even laudable, to meditate upon the incarnation of the Lord upon any day in the year, it cannot be in the power of other men's superstitions to render such a meditation improper for to-day. Regarding not the day, let us, nevertheless, give God thanks for the gift of His dear Son."



And another one...



> "THIS is the season of the year when, whether we wish it or not, we are compelled to think of the birth of Christ. I hold it to be one of the greatest absurdities under heaven to think that there is any religion in keeping Christmas-day. There are no probabilities whatever that our Savior Jesus Christ was born on that day and the observance of it is purely of Popish origin; doubtless those who are Catholics have a right to hallow it, but I do not see how consistent Protestants can account it in the least sacred. However, I wish there were ten or a dozen Christmas-days in the year; for there is work enough in the world, and a little more rest would not hurt laboring people. Christmas-day is really a boon to us, particularly as it enables us to assemble round the family hearth and meet our friends once more. Still, although we do not fall exactly in the track of other people, I see no harm in thinking of the incarnation and birth of the Lord Jesus. We do not wish to be classed with those 'Who with more care keep holiday The wrong, than others the right way.'"



I would be wary of churches that regard the day or season as holy and institute traditions pertaining to its 'holiness' (e.g. advent candles, wreaths, etc.).


----------



## Miss Marple (Nov 20, 2015)

KMK said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



It is mystifying to me.

We are usually in the mode of "taking all captive for Christ." 

Having a birthday party? Sing the Jesus oriented birthday song, have a time of devotions, pray for the birthday boy.

Having a baby shower? Have a devotional time, a time of prayer for mother, have everyone pass around a book putting in their favorite Bible verse as a keepsake.

Starting a business? Dedicate it to the Lord, put Scripture on the walls, print a Bible verse on the receipts.

Sanctify everything by the word of God and prayer. . .

except Christmas, which must be made holy in a reverse way, by keeping it all snowmen and seasonal holly.

It is contradictory, to me.


----------



## Username3000 (Nov 20, 2015)

I have a question for those of you who don't celebrate Christmas in any way, shape or form: Do you believe that, if kept entirely out of the church, Christmas can exist in a private home without it being sinful? Does the answer hinge on whether the day is considered holy by the family or not? Can a family have the music, decorations, etc. and be free from sin if the season and day are free from any ascribed holiness?


----------



## Captain Picard (Nov 20, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > TylerRay said:
> ...



You'd be surprised. Some people appear to think anything that takes place outside of the four walls of a church is evil and irredeemable.

Plenty of Reformed folks seem to think the goal is to avoid things rather than redeem them, or that many things just aren't redeemable.


----------



## kodos (Nov 20, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> We are usually in the mode of "taking all captive for Christ."
> 
> Having a birthday party? Sing the Jesus oriented birthday song, have a time of devotions, pray for the birthday boy.
> 
> ...



When it comes to idolatry, the proper response isn't to sanctify it. It is to remove it. The mistake that the Roman Catholic Church made, which led to her demise was the fact that she was quite happy to sanctify idolatry and pagan practices. Also, read the sad history of Israel's idolatry in the books of history in the Bible.

The question that has yet to be answered by the pro-Christmas crowd is whether or not Christmas has its foundation in the Scriptures. So far, the silence has been truly deafening. All we have seen thus far is a list of "I like it", "it suits me", "I enjoy it", and "I think it honors Christ because we should celebrate the Incarnation". But friends, all you have to do to find the the origin of Christmas is ask yourself why it is called "Christmas" to begin with. 

Ask yourselves the same question any decent reporter would. Be like the Bereans. Search the Scriptures. Why was this day instituted? Why Dec. 25th? Why is it called Christmas? What churches opposed this day, and on what grounds? What churches push the day, and on what grounds?

Does the very name of the thing break the 3rd commandment? Yes.
Does stating that Jesus was born on Dec. 25th break the 9th commandment? Yes.

Ask yourself, on what basis do I celebrate the day? And why do I do so on Dec. 25th? If you take a hard look at it from that perspective, it would be very hard to claim there is a legitimate basis for its observance.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 20, 2015)

When it was treated idolatrously, the bronze serpent was not repatriated to a redeemed use, it was destroyed. This is a reformation principle to destroy monuments of idolatry. If I can forecast a revision of my xmas in American Presbyterian research which may run in this year's_ The Confessional Presbyterian_ v11 (working to get it out but it will likely hit mail boxes in January)....


> As covered in the historical review above, the church in Scotland rejected any countenancing of the old pretended holy days, because they were notoriously part of the idolatrous worship of Roman Catholicism. It was determined that these were no longer indifferent observances to be retained or rejected at our good pleasure. They must be rejected according to the argument Gillespie framed in his _Dispute_:All things and rites which have been notoriously abused to idolatry, if they are not such as either God or nature has made to be of a necessary use, should be utterly abolished and purged away from divine worship, in such sort that they may not be accounted nor used by us as sacred things or rites pertaining to the same….[1]
> 
> ​I say, all things and rites, for they are alike forbidden, as I shall show. I say, which have been notoriously abused to idolatry, because if the abuse is not known, we are blameless for retaining the things and rites which have been abused. I say, if they are not such as either God or nature has made to be of a necessary use, because if they are of a necessary use, either through God’s institution, as the sacraments, or through nature’s law, as the opening of our mouths to speak …, then the abuse cannot take away the use. I say, they may not be used by us as sacred things, rites pertaining to divine worship, because without [outside] the compass of worship they may be used to a natural or civil purpose. If I could get no other meat to eat than the consecrated host, which papists idolatrise [idolize] in the circumgestation[2] of it, I might lawfully eat it; and if I could get no other clothes to put on than the holy garments wherein a priest has said mass, I might lawfully wear them. Things abused to idolatry are only then unlawful when they are used no otherwise than religiously, and as things sacred.​
> Gillespie pursues five proofs for this rule for dealing with monuments to idolatry (3.2.3–6):
> ...


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 20, 2015)

KMK said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



Actually, Santa is one of the great idols of our day. I remember saying prayers of thanksgiving to him as a child on Christmas morning (after all, he sees me when I'm sleeping, he knows when I'm awake, etc). When my parents heard me doing that, they decided it was time to let me know that the whole thing was a hoax.

Nope, Santa superstition would have to be put away as well as statues of "baby Jesus."


----------



## Miss Marple (Nov 21, 2015)

"The question that has yet to be answered by the pro-Christmas crowd is whether or not Christmas has its foundation in the Scriptures. "

No.

But neither is Thanksgiving day, 4th of July, baby showers, birthday parties, etc. as mentioned.

I have no issue keeping the RPW in the formal worship of the church. But I feel like it's being applied to activities/events/celebrations/rememberances/occasions OUTSIDE the church, and that is where I find myself taking issue.


----------



## Username3000 (Nov 21, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> "The question that has yet to be answered by the pro-Christmas crowd is whether or not Christmas has its foundation in the Scriptures. "
> 
> No.
> 
> ...



I am still working my way through the issue, but I tend to agree with you. God did not authorize a day to be set apart for formal worship of His church on Christmas, I get that. But how far does that apply? Into one's home? I am still wanting someone to elaborate on the private aspect of Christmas. Is it sin to decorate your house, listen to Christmas music, and exchange gifts without calling the day itself holy? What if these things are done, not to commemorate the exact day of Christ's birth, but for the enjoyment of the things themselves? Is that any different than any other man-made holiday on our calendar, such as Thanksgiving? If I separate Christmas from the 'holiness' ascribed to it by men, isn't the leftover a matter which falls into the realm of conscience?

If, as the head of my household, I decide that in addition to our regular worship, we will have a special emphasis on the Incarnation at one point of the year, the Resurrection at another, am I in sin? Can this emphasis only exist apart from any of the Christmas flair?


----------



## Toasty (Nov 21, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> "The question that has yet to be answered by the pro-Christmas crowd is whether or not Christmas has its foundation in the Scriptures. "
> 
> No.
> 
> ...



I think the point was that the celebration of Christmas should not be included in the worship of God. The 4th of July, baby showers, and birthday parties do not violate the RPW because they were not intended to be elements of worship. They were not intended to be a way to worship God.

One could celebrate Christmas without worshipping God, but that would go against the purpose of celebrating Christmas.


----------

