# Is Celebrating Easter Pagan?



## Romans922

Yes, it is almost that time again, to celebrate the Lord's Day. 

Easter & Christ Resurrection


----------



## N. Eshelman

Is it already that time? 

Last Lord's Day when I got home from church (remember I am a pastor) I looked at my wife and said, "Was today Easter?"


----------



## J. Dean

Oy vei....

---------- Post added at 06:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:12 AM ----------

While I understand the point, I think we need to differentiate between celebrating Christ's resurrection and incidentally calling it "Easter" vs. somebody who believes Easter is nothing more than bunnies that lay eggs and put us into sugar-induced comas with excessive chocolate. 

When a fellow believer says "Happy Easter," I'm generally kind enough, judicious enough, and reasonable enough to understand that they're not exalting a bunny over Jesus Christ. Making a mountain out of a molehill doesn't generally contribute to Christian love and unity


----------



## jwithnell

The early church celebrated a Sunday close to passover as a day of particular celebration and remembrance of Jesus' resurrection. I don't have a problem with that. Now the goddess and her bunnies and eggs, that's a different matter completely and certainly isn't tolerated in our house.


----------



## Unoriginalname

N. Eshelman said:


> Last Lord's Day when I got home from church (remember I am a pastor) I looked at my wife and said, "Was today Easter?"


Well if your church gave out reeds on Palm Sunday and coordinated a large pageant for Easter you wouldn't have forgotten.  That is how I always remembered when I was a wee lad. BTW this was not in a reformed church.


----------



## FenderPriest

to the pure, all things are pure...


----------



## jwright82

I get the whole not celebrating holidays view. What I don't get is making it binding on all christians. That is to say that it is wrong to celebrate easter. My daughter will be getting an easter egg basket with candy. My church puts on the largest easter egg hunt in town, again nothing wrong with that In my humble opinion. 

I understand that our confession forbids requiring people to celebrate holidays but doesn't that imply that they can't celebrate them on their own?


----------



## J. Dean

jwright82 said:


> I get th ewhole not celebrating holidays view. What I don't get is making it binding on all christians. That is to say that it is wrong to celebrate easter. My daughter will be getting an easter egg basket with candy. My church puts on th elargest easter egg hunt in town, again nothing wrong with that In my humble opinion.
> 
> I understand that our confession forbids requiring people to celebrate holidays but doesn't that imply that they can celebrate them on their own?



Tend to agree.


----------



## Tripel

J. Dean said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get th ewhole not celebrating holidays view. What I don't get is making it binding on all christians. That is to say that it is wrong to celebrate easter. My daughter will be getting an easter egg basket with candy. My church puts on th elargest easter egg hunt in town, again nothing wrong with that In my humble opinion.
> 
> I understand that our confession forbids requiring people to celebrate holidays but doesn't that imply that they can celebrate them on their own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tend to agree.
Click to expand...


Same here. I'll be celebrating, and my conscience is clear on the matter.


----------



## E Nomine

I agree with Christian liberty regarding the holiday, but I think a reformed church gives a very poor witness by sponsoring any event that promotes pagan traditions (egg hunt) and that reinforces the Papal calendar.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

With our "holy days" we have a mixture of "holy day" and "holiday" stuff. If we are talking religiously observing them as if they had some significance, even if privately, that is superstition and will worship. On the other, generally I'm thinking no. Certainly, no, if we are talking about the Lord's day; egg hunts on it, etc. In general, I've concluded it is just these "cultural" observances that were the opening that let the camel's nose in the Presbyterian tent. In any event, for either, even _if _personally indifferent, I see other scriptural rules or reasons to refrain. See at various threads my contention of the biblical rule for gross idolatry (here for instance: )
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/sign-cross-71095/#post910124
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/what-do-monuments-past-idolatry-church-64808/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/annual-presbyterians-do-not-celebrate-lent-thread-72880/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/kneeling-permitted-worship-71723/index2.html#post920037



J. Dean said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get th ewhole not celebrating holidays view. What I don't get is making it binding on all christians. That is to say that it is wrong to celebrate easter. My daughter will be getting an easter egg basket with candy. My church puts on th elargest easter egg hunt in town, again nothing wrong with that In my humble opinion.
> 
> I understand that our confession forbids requiring people to celebrate holidays but doesn't that imply that they can celebrate them on their own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tend to agree.
Click to expand...


----------



## Romans922

Just to be clear, the article I posted wasn't in my opinion a great defense, but did bring to light the pagan aspects of the day just as 'chrismass' has. There are better articles out there all which Chris Coldwell could point you in the right direction.


----------



## Scottish Lass

jwright82 said:


> I get the whole not celebrating holidays view. What I don't get is making it binding on all christians. That is to say that it is wrong to celebrate easter. My daughter will be getting an easter egg basket with candy. My church puts on the largest easter egg hunt in town, again nothing wrong with that In my humble opinion.
> 
> I understand that our confession forbids requiring people to celebrate holidays but doesn't that imply that they can't celebrate them on their own?



Doing a basket at home is celebrating on your own, but how does your church putting on an Easter egg hunt qualify as "on their own"?


----------



## jwright82

NaphtaliPress said:


> With our "holy days" we have a mixture of "holy day" and "holiday" stuff. If we are talking religiously observing them as if they had some significance, even if privately, that is superstition and will worship. On the other, generally I'm thinking no. Certainly, no, if we are talking about the Lord's day; egg hunts on it, etc. In general, I've concluded it is just these "cultural" observances that were the opening that let the camel's nose in the Presbyterian tent. In any event, for either, even _if _personally indifferent, I see other scriptural rules or reasons to refrain. See at various threads my contention of the biblical rule for gross idolatry (here for instance: )
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/sign-cross-71095/#post910124
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/what-do-monuments-past-idolatry-church-64808/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/annual-presbyterians-do-not-celebrate-lent-thread-72880/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/kneeling-permitted-worship-71723/index2.html#post920037
> 
> 
> 
> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get th ewhole not celebrating holidays view. What I don't get is making it binding on all christians. That is to say that it is wrong to celebrate easter. My daughter will be getting an easter egg basket with candy. My church puts on th elargest easter egg hunt in town, again nothing wrong with that In my humble opinion.
> 
> I understand that our confession forbids requiring people to celebrate holidays but doesn't that imply that they can celebrate them on their own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tend to agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thanks for the threads. I can see the point that because something was used for gross idolatry in the past we should refrain from its use now. But I think that proves too much. For one the quotes and bible verses all, it seemed to me, to be dealing with things that were presently religous formaly speaking. Since an easter egg hunt on the saturday before easter sunday (which is when my church is doing the easter egg hunt just to clear that up) is not formally speaking religous, so I don't see how they apply? Bondfires have always been used by pagan religions for their worship, should we refrain from lighting one and sitting around with our friends and family? I think we can all agree that that it is absurd. 

This seems a little like fencing the law to me. If you don't ever drink any wine or beer than you cannot ever be tempted to get drunk but presbyterians don't agree with that, not all but most at least. I mean that logic can be applied to almost anything. Again if you don't want to observe it than that is just fine but saying that it is unlawful for any christian to do so just doesn't add up.


----------



## Tripel

Scottish Lass said:


> Doing a basket at home is celebrating on your own, but how does your church putting on an Easter egg hunt qualify as "on their own"?




I don't see how a church Easter egg hunt is any different than a church picnic on the 4th of July.


----------



## Romans922

Isa 58:13-14: "If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."


----------



## jwright82

Scottish Lass said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get the whole not celebrating holidays view. What I don't get is making it binding on all christians. That is to say that it is wrong to celebrate easter. My daughter will be getting an easter egg basket with candy. My church puts on the largest easter egg hunt in town, again nothing wrong with that In my humble opinion.
> 
> I understand that our confession forbids requiring people to celebrate holidays but doesn't that imply that they can't celebrate them on their own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing a basket at home is celebrating on your own, but how does your church putting on an Easter egg hunt qualify as "on their own"?
Click to expand...


Its on the saturday before easter so it is not on the sabbath. But I think the same logic applies. Since an easter egg hunt is not formally speaking religous than it is no different In my humble opinion than anyother kind of community outreach that a church does.

---------- Post added at 12:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------




Romans922 said:


> Isa 58:13-14: "If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."



The easter egg hunt is on the saturday before easter.


----------



## E Nomine

When a reformed church sponsors an Easter egg hunt, it can lose credibility and invite criticism for hypocrisy. Then, again, maybe it provides a witnessing opportunity to discuss Christian liberty.


----------



## E Nomine

I wouldn't want to be the Easter egg-hunting Presbyterian debating a Lutheran on the subject of Ash Wednesday.


----------



## Romans922

For the Church to participate in easter is analogous to the Church participating in politics... It just shouldn't happen!


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Romans922 said:


> For the Church to participate in easter is analogous to the Church participating in politics... It just shouldn't happen!


Going to hijack your own thread eh?


----------



## Romans922

NaphtaliPress said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the Church to participate in easter is analogous to the Church participating in politics... It just shouldn't happen!
> 
> 
> 
> Going to hijack your own thread eh?
Click to expand...


Isn't that allowed?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I don't think it proves too much An easter egg hunt is specifically associated with the holiday/holy day of Easter. We are not talking about generalities; drinking, campfires, etc. And it is not like this has not already happened; the non religious-fun-cultural practice of the "xmas party" brought into the Sunday School movement and elsewhere, led to the relaxing of views and the eventual appropriating of some of the Roman calendar amongst the liberalizing PCUSA at the beginning of the 20th century. 


jwright82 said:


> Thanks for the threads. I can see the point that because something was used for gross idolatry in the past we should refrain from its use now. But I think that proves too much. For one the quotes and bible verses all, it seemed to me, to be dealing with things that were presently religous formaly speaking. Since an easter egg hunt on the saturday before easter sunday (which is when my church is doing the easter egg hunt just to clear that up) is not formally speaking religous, so I don't see how they apply? Bondfires have always been used by pagan religions for their worship, should we refrain from lighting one and sitting around with our friends and family? I think we can all agree that that it is absurd.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

What about a church that fills the eggs with scripture verses for the children?


----------



## Philip

Romans922 said:


> Yes, it is almost that time again, to celebrate the Lord's Day.
> 
> Easter & Christ Resurrection



Any scholar of Church history could point out that easter goes much further back in Church history than the anglo-saxons. Further, if it's an anglo-saxon feast, why do the Eastern Churches (all branches, including Copts and Syro-Malabar) celebrate it?

Easter is, in fact, the oldest of Christian feast days but it is only called "Easter" in English.



E Nomine said:


> I wouldn't want to be the Easter egg-hunting Presbyterian debating a Lutheran on the subject of Ash Wednesday.



I don't begrudge Ash Wednesday and Lent for Lutherans. I have no problem with those practices so long as they do not interfere with ordinary Lord's Day worship and are not made binding on the conscience of the believer. Now, if Lutherans are binding consciences with this, then naturally I object.


----------



## J. Dean

BTW, just so you all know, I've got the Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck "It's rabbit season/duck season" argument going on in my head now...


----------



## jwright82

Romans922 said:


> For the Church to participate in easter is analogous to the Church participating in politics... It just shouldn't happen!



Analogous or not they are two different things. 






NaphtaliPress said:


> I don't think it proves too much An easter egg hunt is specifically associated with the holiday/holy day of Easter.



How are they associated with a holy day in the pagan sense? Also I am free to participate in any holy day, in the christian sense, I wish. We are not talking about crosses here but eggs filled with candy. To say that they used to be pagan and so they are automoaticaly bad is the genetic fallacy. Just because we have borrowed practices that used to be associated with pagan traditions doesn't make them the same thing. Just because two things have one thing in common doesn't mean they have all things in common. 




NaphtaliPress said:


> We are not talking about generalities; drinking, campfires, etc.



I merely applied the logic that was used to reach the same conclusion and derived that campfires should also be refrained from. Unless you can show that there is in fact a substantial difference between the two than your distinction seems to me purely abritrary. 




NaphtaliPress said:


> And it is not like this has not already happened; the non religious-fun-cultural practice of the "xmas party" brought into the Sunday School movement and elsewhere, led to the relaxing of views and the eventual appropriating of some of the Roman calendar amongst the liberalizing PCUSA at the beginning of the 20th century.



I can't argue with that but just because that happened to them doesn't mean it will happen to everyone. Not to get off topic but you quote Gillespi a lot, which one of his works would you recomend to someone who has never read him before?


----------



## Jack K

Constantlyreforming said:


> What about a church that fills the eggs with scripture verses for the children?



In that case, are we redeeming eggs or degrading Scripture?

I don't mean to automatically condemn the practice, but I think that's the first question to ask.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

James,
Read the sections in Gillespie's _English Popish Ceremonies_, that I reference in those threads. He more than qualifies the argument to meet your objections. If you read the threads, you also know of my offer.


jwright82 said:


> I can't argue with that but just because that happened to them doesn't mean it will happen to everyone. Not to get off topic but you quote Gillespi a lot, which one of his works would you recomend to someone who has never read him before?


----------



## Tripel

Jack K said:


> Constantlyreforming said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about a church that fills the eggs with scripture verses for the children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case, are we redeeming eggs or degrading Scripture?
> 
> I don't mean to automatically condemn the practice, but I think that's the first question to ask.
Click to expand...


I agree, Jack. 

The idea of scripture-filled Easter eggs makes me a little uncomfortable. Similar to scripture-filled fortune cookies, and "A breadcrumb & Fish" t-shirts. But maybe that's me.


----------



## py3ak

Jack K said:


> Constantlyreforming said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about a church that fills the eggs with scripture verses for the children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case, are we redeeming eggs or degrading Scripture?
> 
> I don't mean to automatically condemn the practice, but I think that's the first question to ask.
Click to expand...


Thank you, Jack! That is a very neat way of putting a point that arises too often. Many efforts to "redeem" something wind up _degrading_ the element injected in order to redeem. The alternative way to say it, of course, is "Can't you see that you're not making Christianity better, you're just making rock and roll worse?"


----------



## jwright82

> §1. I have proved the ceremonies to be superstitious [see Part 3, chapter 1]; now I will prove them to be idolatrous. These are different arguments; for every idolatry is superstition, but every superstition is not idolatry, as is rightly by some distinguished.[1] As for the idolatry of the controverted ceremonies, I will prove that they are thrice idolatrous: I. Reductivè [By conducting], because they are monuments of by-past idolatry; II. Participativè [By imparting, see Part 3 Chapter 3], because they are badges of present idolatry; III. Formaliter [By form, see Part 3 Chapter 4], because they are idols themselves.



These ceremonies he is refering to specifically are formally religous ceremonies. I do not see how that can even be applied to the contemporary non-religous cultural practices? Unless you can prove that they are in fact religous than I just don't see it. I completly agree with him and you here but we are not talking about a religous practice. 



> First, then, they are idolatrous, because having been notoriously abused to idolatry heretofore, they are the detestable and accursed monuments, which give no small honor to the memory of that by-past idolatry which should lie buried in hell. Dr. Burges reckons for idolatrous all ceremonies devised and used in and to the honoring of an idol, whether properly or by interpretation such. Of which sort (he says) were all the ceremonies of the pagans, and not a few of the Papists.[3] If an opposite, writing against us, is forced to acknowledge this much, one may easily conjecture what enforcing reason we have to double out our point. The argument in hand I frame thus:
> 
> 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.
> 
> But the cross, surplice, kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, &c., are things and rites, &c., and are not such as either God or nature, &c.
> 
> Therefore they should be utterly abolished, &c.



"All things" refers to all things, so bondfires because they "have been so abused in the past to idolotry" should be therefore be "put away". Simply asserting that they are different seems abatrary at best. A bond fire is just as specific an act as finding easter eggs. The logic seems sound here but I could be missing something.



> §2. As for the proposition I shall first explain it, and then prove it. 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.



Again agreed but what we call easter today is so drastically different from whatever popish or pagan religous ceremony to dinstincly different things. 



> because without [outside] the compass of worship they may be used to a natural or civil purpose.



That is exactly my point, it is used for civil purposes because it is nonreligous in nature. 



> Things abused to idolatry are only then unlawful when they are used no otherwise than religiously, and as things sacred.



No one is affirming them as sacrad or religous.


----------



## N. Eshelman

I always find it interesting when people call for "Christian liberty" in these instances. The Liberty the Christ purchased is not the liberty to sin or to compromise, but the liberty to obey and to be free from the traditions of men. I agree with Josh- if you want to run around looking for eggs and eating rabbit candy- go for it. Just leave Jesus out of it. 



> I. The liberty which Christ has purchased for believers under the Gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, and condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law;[1] and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin;[2] from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation;[3] as also, in their free access to God,[4] and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind.[5] All which were common also to believers under the law.[6] But, under the New Testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected;[7] and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace,[8] and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.[9]
> 
> II. God alone is Lord of the conscience,[10] and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.[11] So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:[12] and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[13]
> 
> III. They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our life.[14]
> 
> IV. And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.[15] And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account,[16] and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. and by the power of the civil magistrate.[17]


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I certainly may be expanding beyond Gillespie's argument, though he seems to do the same by allowing some buildings, which would otherwise fall out of his argument generally, so attached to abuses to be destroyed, though see his full argument on that. In my opinion the cultural is so attached to the other, of which the idolatry and will worship remains, I think such "harmless" practices may fall under the same consideration. Again, see the whole section which I offered in one of those threads.


jwright82 said:


> No one is affirming them as sacrad or religous.


----------



## jwright82

NaphtaliPress said:


> I certainly may be expanding beyond Gillespie's argument, though he seems to do the same by allowing some buildings, which would otherwise fall out of his argument generally, so attached to abuses to be destroyed, though see his full argument on that. In my opinion the cultural is so attached to the other, of which the idolatry and will worship remains, I think such "harmless" practices may fall under the same consideration. Again, see the whole section which I offered in one of those threads.
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is affirming them as sacrad or religous.
Click to expand...




Will do. I don't have that book like you do so I can't say if somewhere else he deals particulerly with what I am talking. But I'll have to put that work on get someday list. Thanks.


----------



## a mere housewife

> 'It seems to me we can set for ourselves no more appropriate or profitable task this Easter day than at the hand of the apostle to trace the inner nexus of our Christian faith with the resurrection of Christ. If the observance by the church of special seasons associated with the great epochs in the work of redemption is to be justified at all, it can be justified on no higher ground than that such seasons as Christmas and Easter and Pentecost invite us to rise for a moment from the poor fragmentariness of our average consciousness of salvation to that clearer and more blessed vision whereby as from a mountain top we span the entire origin of our faith. Everything belongs to us of right brethren, because we are Christ's and Christ is God's; but we are consciously rich in so far only as we learn to place ourselves at least sometimes on those points of elevation from which we may survey the land of God's promises as a whole. Perhaps we do not sufficiently appreciate the extent to which the remembrance at stated seasons of these great facts of the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection, the gift of the Spirit, has kept alive in the church the spirit of true evangelical piety . . .'


(Geerhardus Vos, A Sermon on 1 Corinthians 15:14)

(on _'Whether it belong to the faith in the New Testament that besides the Lord's day there are other festival days properly so called whose celebration is necessary per se and by reason of mystery, not by reason of order or ecclesiastical polity only. We deny the papists.'_)


> 'The question is not whether days may be selected on which either the nativity, or circumcision, or passion, or the ascension of Christ, and similar mysteries of redemption, may be commemorated, or even on which the memory of remarkable blessing may be celebrated. For this the orthodox think should be left to the liberty of the church. Hence some devote certain days to such festivity, not from necessity of faith, but from the counsel of prudence to excite more to piety and devotion. However, others, using their liberty, retain the Lord's day alone and in it, at stated times, celebrate the memory of the mysteries of Christ, with whom "the dissonance of things of this kind does not take away the harmony of faith" as Augustine formerly remarked of a fast. Rather the question is whether some days are more holy and sacred than others and a certain part of divine worship ought to be celebrated under the reason of mystery and not only as related to ecclesiastical order and polity. . . .'


 (Turretin's Insitutes, 11.XIII.15) 

I very much stand with not introducing unwarranted practices like Easter Egg hunts into worship; but I think it is right to take care to distinguish those who celebrate Easter Sunday in the church without such trappings, and in such a way as not to think the day holier in itself but simply to commemorate a great moment in our Saviour's work for us, so as not to create dissonance in the harmony of the faith within our very fine, anti-pagan and anti-papistical reformed tradition.


----------



## Andres

Jack K said:


> Constantlyreforming said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about a church that fills the eggs with scripture verses for the children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case, are we redeeming eggs or degrading Scripture?
> 
> I don't mean to automatically condemn the practice, but I think that's the first question to ask.
Click to expand...


 

Why does the church always want to compromise with the world? Why not just stick to doing the two things that the church does that NO ONE else does - word and sacraments. Why are we constantly sending the message that word and sacrament are insufficient? God doesn't need us to add egg hunts, candy, Santa Claus, pageants, or any of this stuff. Word and sacrament are what He has prescribed!


----------



## M21195

E Nomine said:


> I agree with Christian liberty regarding the holiday, but I think a reformed church gives a very poor witness by sponsoring any event that promotes pagan traditions (egg hunt) and that reinforces the Papal calendar.





I'm good with celebrating Jesus the King, but keep the eggs, and bunnies out of it...


----------



## Handsomegeneralstabbyeyes

I'm excited about the discount candy and chocolate eggs.


----------



## Dearly Bought

True story:
I was recently talking to another apartment manager about activities which we put on every month for our residents. I wondered out loud what holidays there were in April for possible themes. She paused and said something along the lines of "I don't mean to be rude, but how did you forget Easter, church boy?" I then had to briefly explain that my household doesn't celebrate the church calendar.


----------



## FedByRavens

I sometimes skip easter altogether. When I do choose to celebrate it, my hearts focus is Christ's Resurrection. If eggs are involved that's cool, if not that's cool. But regardless of what I do, it will be for the glory of God. I love the idea of putting Bible scriptures on the eggs.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I suppose I should be used to this by now! Easter is _not_ a pagan celebration. There is a maxim that goes, “The misuse of a thing does not invalidate its proper use.”

Andrew, I notice in the link you provided in the OP, it alleged the use of “Easter” in the NT (Acts 12:4) is a mistranslation. That’s the first thing I’d like to address. This bush has been gone around before here at PB, though perhaps it’s time to refresh people’s minds. For me it all started a few years back after hearing Dr. Matthew McMahon’s podcast, Easter: The Devil’s Holiday, with his use of Alexander Hislop’s book, _The Two Babylons; Or The Papal Worship: Proved To Be The Worship Of Nimrod and His Wife_ (Lorizeaux Brothers, 1990), to support his thesis, and at that time I wanted to study a little and write on this. I also had avoided the whole Easter celebration mostly on this basis. I would tell people, “I don’t celebrate Ishtar.”

I note that the author of the article you linked, Andrew, also references Hislop and his work. To which I respond: First of all, Ralph Woodrow, who wrote, _Babylon Mystery Religion_, influenced deeply by Hislop’s book, later retracted his view (and pulled his book off the market) after realizing Hislop badly erred. He then wrote a review, “_The Two Babylons_: A Case Study in Poor Methodology”, in _Christian Research Journal_, 1999 Volume: 22 Number: 2. I have both of these works in my library, but I no longer use either due to their flaws. Anyone using them to promote arguments against Easter are automatically suspect in my view.

It should be needless to say, the pagan fertility symbols of eggs and rabbits _are_ carry-overs from ancient fertility rites and _do_ represent corruption in the church, if they be brought into the church. But this has nothing to do with pure Easter. I do not like ungodly accretions to the Gospel and to the biblical Faith, be they rabbinic or pagan; as a poet and word-smith I like language that is spare and potent, and keep a sharp eye on linguistic corruptions in my native tongue (English); on neither count am I offended by the word Easter.

Will Kinney has written an article, “Is the word ‘Easter’ an error in the King James Bible?”, which I think speaks well into the issue of the textual choice of the translators in Acts 12:4. I won’t post the article here for the sake of space, but it is most germane to the defense of the translation of the Greek _pascha_ as Easter. Those who want to be “up to speed” in this discussion should read it.

The King James is accurate as it uses the word “Passover” *before* the death and resurrection of Christ and then “Easter” the only time the word occurs in the book of Acts *after* His resurrection.

There is an English / Anglo-Saxon usage of the word “Easter” pre-dating the King James (and Tyndale), and an etymological derivation from the German “Oster”. Until Tyndale, though, the English held in common with the European tongues (excepting German) the use of the transliterated _pascha_ for both the Jewish Passover and the post-resurrection celebration and its transformed Passover meal / Lord’s Supper. Tyndale differentiated between the two with linguistic brilliance, which was followed by the King James Bible.

For an enjoyable tour of the original usage of this word – and the coining by Tyndale of the word “Passover” as well – see Nick Sayers’ article, _Why we should not Passover Easter_. Sayers explains why it is theologically and Scripturally correct to differentiate between Passover and Easter.

I will add some more from collected info on this matter for those who like to delve deeply into semantic matters:

The Indo-European roots of our languages have the prefix _*aus-*_, which means _to shine_, important derivatives of which are the words east, Easter, aurora. It has the idea, “the direction of the sunrise.” The Old High German _ostan_ – east – derives from this root. That the dawn-goddess _Eastre _or _Oestar_ derives from the same root does not mean they are the same word with the same meaning. The Indo-European _ausos-_ refers to the dawn, and also to the Indo-European goddess of the dawn. [Taken from _The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language_ 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] Ed, the section, “Indo-European Roots”, p. 2095.]

Greek philosophers gave the word _logos_ certain meanings, while the apostle John imbued it with an entirely different (though related) significance. Because Easter has etymological roots in common with a dawn goddess, does not negate its own peculiar etymology and associations, among which are east, shining, rising, resurrection, as noted below.
The English word _Easter_ is of German/Saxon origin and not Babylonian as Alexander Hislop falsely claimed. The German equivalent is _Oster. Oster_ (Ostern being the modern day equivalent) is related to _Ost_ which means the rising of the sun, or simply in English, _east. Oster_ comes from the old Teutonic form of _auferstehen / auferstehung_, which means _resurrection_, which in the older Teutonic form comes from two words, _Ester_ meaning _first_, and _stehen_ meaning _to stand_. These two words combine to form _erstehen_ which is an old German form of _auferstehen_, the modern day German word for _resurrection_.

In English etymology the word _Ester_ coming from the German _Oster_, morphed into the modern day term _Easter_. Similarily in German the word _Oster_ in Luther’s Day has now become _Ostern_, which are the same words but with different spelling. Tyndale with his expertise in the German language knew of the _Ester - Oster_ association. Luther obviously considered _Oster_ as both a synonym for the _Jewish Passover_ and a phrase used for the _resurrection of Christ_. In Luther’s German New Testament we find Ostern, Osterlamm, Osterfest, Fest, and only once das Passa (Heb. 11.28). In His Old Testament he used the German word _Passaopffer, Osterfest, Ostern_, and _Osterlamm_ once each.

In Exodus 12.11 Luther rendered Passah with a marginal note referring to the _'Osterlamm'_. Even in contemporary German the phrase "_das jüdische Osterfest_" (the Jewish Passover) demonstrates that the German _Oster_ can mean both the Jewish and Christian festivals. In fact the meaning of the German word _Ostern_ is today just as the English word _Easter_ was until the KJV translators skillfully put it in it’s correct semantic range, thus separating forever the _Old Easter_ and the _New Easter_. After 1611 the Old Testament Easter became _Passover_, a trend Tyndale had begun to accomplish. –excerpted from Nick Sayers article linked to above​ 
C. F. Cruse remarked, "Our word _EASTER_ is of Saxon origin and of precisely the same import with its German cognate _OSTERN_. The latter is derived from the old Teutonic form of auferstehen / auferstehung, that is - _RESURRECTION_." (_Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History__,_ Translated by C. F. Cruse, Hendrickson Publishers, p 437)

Most likely I won’t convince those whose see an Ishtar / Oestar goddess connection with the word Easter (and there _is_ an etymologic but not a meaning-equivalent connection with the Germanic Oestar) – I am in great measure posting this for the sake of those who hold to the King James Bible, to confirm them in the warranted confidence they hold in that holy Book. For – ultimately – I think the Easter question does hinge on its valid Biblical use, and I have labored here to show that its use in Acts 12:4 is indeed valid.

A thought: were Luther, with his thorough knowledge of German, and Tyndale with not only his knowledge of German and genius for English, but highly accomplished in many languages, ignorant in that they would either not know of or purposely insert / accept a pagan goddess festival as a word for the resurrection of our Lord? 

In sum: I hope this is sufficient to show that the appearance of the word Easter in our Bible, and its proper use in referring to the resurrection of our Lord, has adequate warrant.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Lest any be confused, Owen at the ellipse in that quote, calls the observance of Easter a presumption; noting the differences of observance, writing:...their practice; only there was a difference about the precise time or day which they were to solemnize as the head and rule of their festival, as every undue presumption hath one lameness or other accompanying it,--it is truth alone which is square and steady.​ The works of John Owen - John Owen, William H. Goold - Google Books
A Discourse Concerning Liturgies and their Imposition, Works, XV, p. 152.


----------



## Romans922

Steve, 

The link I posted like I said did not portray what I would have written myself. I don't actually think it was that great of an article. It addressed all the wrong things (secondary issues) instead of the main things (primary issues). I only posted it to get the grand annual discussion started.


----------



## timmopussycat

P. F. Pugh said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is almost that time again, to celebrate the Lord's Day.
> 
> Easter & Christ Resurrection
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any scholar of Church history could point out that easter goes much further back in Church history than the anglo-saxons. Further, if it's an anglo-saxon feast, why do the Eastern Churches (all branches, including Copts and Syro-Malabar) celebrate it?
> 
> Easter is, in fact, the oldest of Christian feast days but it is only called "Easter" in English.
Click to expand...


What is the feast day called in the Eastern Church? And where can details on their celebration of the day be found?


----------



## Philip

timmopussycat said:


> What is the feast day called in the Eastern Church? And where can details on their celebration of the day be found?



Πάσχα, or Paskha. Basically, it's the Greek for "passover," as it's found in the NT. The Eastern Churches still use the Julian (not Gregorian) Calendar and thus their Easter celebrations usually fall on a different day than those of the west.

I can't think what the best resource for Eastern Orthodox traditions might be---most of my knowledge here is secondhand from friends who have attended EO Churches. I remember reading a brief description of the Syriac Easter traditions in _The Church of the East_ (Stewart and Holzmann) a while back, but those are unique to Syriac Orthodoxy and the so-called "Nestorian" traditions.


----------



## Mushroom

Time to dig out the old bunny suit....


----------



## Unoriginalname

timmopussycat said:


> What is the feast day called in the Eastern Church? And where can details on their celebration of the day be found?



This is just second hand but one of my good friends grew up Ukrainian Orthodox and he stated that one of the traditional elements of their Easter service is crawling on your knees to kiss an icon of the risen Lord.


----------



## jwright82

Brad said:


> Time to dig out the old bunny suit....



Oh you have to post pictures of that in the family photo section.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks Chris, for pointing out the inappropriateness of that Owen quote I posited; it was careless of me not to thoroughly vet the context. I have removed it, as it merely shows the differences (as you said) of early presumptions re Easter celebration, not showing any clear warrant for celebrating Easter at all.

I will let it rest that the word Easter in Acts 12:4 (AV) is sufficient to remove any charge of paganism with respect to it. For me it is but another way to say Resurrection Sunday.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

P. F. Pugh said:


> The Eastern Churches still use the Julian (not Gregorian) Calendar and thus their Easter celebrations usually fall on a different day than those of the west.



"While the, 'living oracles' were neglected, the zeal of the clergy began to spend itself upon rites and ceremonies borrowed from the pagans. These were multiplied to such a degree, that Augustine complained that they were 'less tolerable than the yoke of the Jews under the law.' {1} At this period the Bishops of Rome wore costly attire, gave sumptuous banquets, and when they went abroad were carried in litters. {2} They now began to speak with an authoritative voice, and to demand obedience from all the Churches. Of this the dispute between the Eastern and Western Churches respecting Easter is an instance in point. The Eastern Church, following the Jews, kept the feast on the 14th day of the month Nisan {3} — the day of the Jewish Passover. The Churches of the West, and especially that of Rome, kept Easter on the Sabbath following the 14th day of Nisan. Victor, Bishop of Rome, resolved to put an end to the controversy, and accordingly, sustaining himself sole judge in this weighty point, he commanded all the Churches to observe the feast on the same day with himself. The Churches of the East, not aware that the Bishop of Rome had authority to command their obedience in this or in any other matter, kept Easter as before; and for this flagrant contempt, as Victor accounted it, of his legitimate authority, he excommunicated them. {4} They refused to obey a human ordinance, and they were shut out from the kingdom of the Gospel. This was the first peal of those thunders which were in after times to roll so often and so terribly from the Seven Hills.” - _The History of Protestantism by Rev. J. A. Wylie, Vol. 1, Book 1, Pg 4, Cassell Peter & Galpin, 1878_

{1}Baronius admits that many things have been laudably translated from Gentile superstition into the Christian religion (Annal., ad An. 58). And Binnius, extolling the munificence of Constantine towards the Church, speaks of his superstitionis gentiliae justa aemulatio (“just emulation of the Gentile superstition”). — Concil., tom. 7, notae in Donat. Constan.
{2}Ammian. Marcel., lib. 27, cap. 3. Mosheim, vol. 1, cent. 4, p. 95.
{3}Nisan corresponds with the latter half of our March and the first half of our April.
{4}The Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325, enacted that the 21st of March should thenceforward be accounted the vernal equinox, that the Lord’s Day following the full moon next after the 21st of March should be kept as Easter Day, but that if the full moon happened on a Sabbath, Easter Day should be the Sabbath following. This is the canon that regulates the observance of Easter in the Church of England. “Easter Day,” says the Common Prayer Book, “is always the first Sunday after the full moon which happens upon or next after the 21st day of March; and if the full moon happens upon a Sunday, Easter Day is the Sunday after.”


----------



## Andres

Unoriginalname said:


> This is just second hand but one of my good friends grew up Ukrainian Orthodox and he stated that one of the traditional elements of their Easter service is crawling on your knees to kiss an icon of the risen Lord.


----------



## gordo

Unoriginalname said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the feast day called in the Eastern Church? And where can details on their celebration of the day be found?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just second hand but one of my good friends grew up Ukrainian Orthodox and he stated that one of the traditional elements of their Easter service is crawling on your knees to kiss an icon of the risen Lord.
Click to expand...


Orthodox venerate icons. Nothing to do specifically with Easter.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

I'll not be doing things that can be misconstrued as idol-worshippers running to their vanities. Eggs and bunnies, as harmless as they seem the rest of the year, are not harmless at this time of year, as we are commanded to avoid the appearance of evil, as well as evil. And, as much as I love Turretin and Vos, I simply must disagree with them here--in the age of the Church's minority such things were given as helps and props to their faith, but not today. Elevating one day above another, for the sake of devotion after the fall of the Temple and the settling of the Sabbath on the first day of the week is simply not commanded by the Lord whom we serve. Worship is no for us, it is for Him.


----------



## dudley

E Nomine said:


> I agree with Christian liberty regarding the holiday, but I think a reformed church gives a very poor witness by sponsoring any event that promotes pagan traditions (egg hunt) and that reinforces the Papal calendar.



Amen! SW, As Reformed Protestants, I am a Presbyterian, we should celebrate the resurrection of Christ and our promise of salvation by faith alone in Him who overcame death and leads all who have faith in Him alone to eternal salvation by His one time only sacrifice for all who are made righteous by their faith in Jesus Christ and no merit of their own. We are an Easter People in that sense . I however do not condone pagan practices or anything that that reinforces the Papal calendar or smells of popery and Roman Catholicism.:


----------



## a mere housewife

Rev. Ruddell, I thought the purpose of what Turretin was saying was that it is not to be considered an elevation of one day above another? Yet I understand there is disagreement between the Scottish and the continental reformed tradition on this, about whether one can in fact have such days as a matter of ecclesiastical order and polity without undue elevation. Whatever might be said on that score, my own contribution was simply because I think labels like pagan or popish are misapplied to the celebration of events in Christ's life that falls within the reformed tradition, considering the distinctions that were clearly and carefully made.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Thank you, Heidi. I believe I understand your rationale. My own is that the origin of these accretions are from somewhere other than God's own command, and that therefore they ought to be avoided. But, as you seem to be a bright lady I'm sure you already knew that. It is difficult for me to get past the service we owe to God being ordered by Himself alone. And as I said above, as much as I read and have profited from Vos and Turretin I must say that whether the origin is pagan, popish, or pietistic it falls outside the command of God. My own view is well stated by the Larger Catechism: QA 109

...corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, *devotion*, *good intent*, or any other pretense whatsoever...


----------



## a mere housewife

Thank you for your kind response, Rev. Ruddell. I do very much respect the convictions on both sides of this issue. I pray you have a wonderful Lord's Day.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I suppose here is the gist of the matter for me: if the word Easter appears in the Bible(s) of the Reformation, let it not be said it is a pagan concept. You may argue with Tyndale (and other Reformation and post-Reformation textual editors) with regard to his coinage of the words Easter and Passover – though I for one appreciate the linguistic genius of the translations – but it remains that their pedigree is as pure as any other alternatives.

Now what people, churches, and popes, may have done to these good things is another story. Perhaps it will be remembered that my first words in this discussion were, ‘There is a maxim that goes, “The misuse of a thing does not invalidate its proper use.” ’

When pastoring the church in Cyprus I made it a point that we did not celebrate Easter, Christmas, Mother’s Day, etc. But neither did I denigrate either the words or the occasions. The expository preaching through various books of Scripture were not interrupted or supplanted by these occasions. The Scripture afforded ample opportunity to expound and celebrate the birth, life, atoning death, resurrection, ascension, coronation, millennial rule, and coming again in glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Every sermon we were reminded of His resurrection and enthronement at our Father’s right hand, as an explicit part of the service of worship was the request to bring us into His presence, and to bring His presence into our hearts.

Nonetheless, our Reformation Bible – the edition of which I use is the AV – honors the idea of Easter as the day our Lord rose from the dead on that first day of the week after His atoning death. In itself it is a good word. If one wants to rejoice in a first-day-of-the-week celebration commemorating Christ’s victorious resurrection – Easter – I for one will not denigrate a pure-hearted honoring of God’s glorious grace and might.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Steve,
Others can better speak to the translation issue. However, the rule you note needs to be qualified as I have made mention of before from Gillespie and Calvin. Below is what Gillespie answers his opponents Saravia, one of the KJV translators actually, and fellow Scot John Forbes of Course. G answers their argument that abuse does not take away the good use, that this is only true in things ordained by God. I'm not pressing the case here specifically, though I think it can be argued, only noting the qualification of the rule.

Gillespie is pursuing an argument based upon this rule:_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.__
But the cross, surplice, kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, &c., are things and rites, &c., and are not such as either God or nature, &c._​
§7. Thus, having both explained and confirmed the proposition of our present argument, I will make me [_my_] next for the confutation of the answers which our opposites devise to elude it.

And 1., they tell us, that it is needless to abolish utterly things and rites which the Papists have abused to idolatry and superstition, and that it is enough to purge them from the abuse, and to restore them again to their right use. Hence Saravia will not have _pium crucis usum _[_pius use of the cross_] to be abolished _cum abusu_ [_along with the abuse_], but holds it enough that the abuse and superstition be taken away.*1* Dr. Forbes’ answer is, that not only things instituted by God are not to be taken away for the abuse of them, but farther, _neither must indifferent matters thoughtfully introduced by men always be done away with because of ensuing abuse. The Papists have abused temples, and places of prayer, and cathedrals, and holy vessels, and bells, and the blessing of marriage; however, thoughtful reformers have not proposed that such things must be abandoned._*2*

Answer. (1)  Calvin,*3* answering that which Cassander alleges out of an Italian writer, _abusu non tolli bonum usum_ [_abuse does not take away the good use_]_,_ he admits it only to be true in things which are instituted by God himself, not so in things ordained by men, for the very use of such things or rites as have no necessary use in God’s worship, and which men have devised only at their own pleasure, is taken away by idolatrous abuse. _Pars tutior_ [_The safer part_] here, is to put them wholly away, and there is, by a great deal, more danger in retaining than in removing them.
​*1.* N. Fratri et Amico, art. 17. [“N. Fratri et Amico,” in Diversi Tractatus Theologici (1611) 16.]


*2. *Irenicum, lib. 1, cap. 7, 9, 6. neque res mediæ ab hominibus prudenter introductæ, propter sequentem abusum semper tollendæ sunt. Abusi sunt Papistæ templis, et oratoriis, et cathedris, et sacris vasis, et campanis, et benedictione matrimoniali; nec tamen res istas censuerunt prudentes reformatores abjiciendas [7–6, p. 43]. [The quotation comes from section 6. Section 9 reads: “IX. Atqueita iam paret justas fuisse & idoneas rationes, ex ipsarum rerum intuitu, propter quas Patres Perthenses articulos à Rege propositos, partim potuerunt, partim etiam admittere debuerunt. Nam in rebus illis quædam sunt necessariæ, omnes autem licitæ ac laudabiles: illæ sine peccato contemni non possunt; istæ licitè et laudabiliter admittuntur” (7–9, p. 45). Cf. The First Book of the Irenicum, trans. E. G. Selwyn, p. 118–119, 121–122.]


*3. *Responsio Ad Versipellem Quendam Mediatorem, p. 41–44. [Cf. CR 37 (CO 9), 542. Cf. [French] “Response a Un Certain Moyenneur Rusé”, Recueil des Opuscules (Geneva: Stoer, 1611) 2191–2192. Translation from the French (courtesy of Raymond V. Bottomly): “… that what is alleged of an Italian writer, that abuse does not take away the good usage, will not be true if one holds to it without exception: because it is not in the least commanded [i.e. it is commanded] to us to prudently watch that by our example we would not offend the infirm brothers, that of never undertaking that which would be illicit. For Saint Paul prohibits offending the brothers in eating of flesh which was sacrificed to idols, and speaks of one kind, he always gives as a general rule that we are to keep ourselves, from troubling the consciences of the weak by a bad or damaging example. Indeed, one would speak better and more wholesomely when one says that what God himself ordains may not be abolished for wrong use or abuse that is committed against it: but it is necessary to abstain from these things which, after they have been corrupted with error by human ordinance, if the usage of these is harmful and scandalizes the brothers. And here I marvel how this “Reformer”, finally, after granting that sometimes superstitions, ordained by public authority, have such strong popularity that it is necessary to take them away from the realm of man (like we read having been done by Hezekiah regarding the bronze serpent), yet he does not even a little consider that his shrewdness is a horror to ways of good conduct: in defending some rituals as supportable, he would oblige that all superstitions if they are weighty enough, should be considered as safe and whole. For what is there in the papacy that would not resemble a bronze serpent, if only at its beginning? Moses had it made and forged by the commandment of God: he had it kept for a sign of recognition. Among the virtues of Hezekiah that we are told is that he had it broken and reduced to ash. The superstitions for the most part, against that which true servants of God battle today, are spreading from here to who knows, as covered pits in the ground, seeing the same are filled with detestable errors, which can never be erased, unless that usage of them be taken away. Why, therefore, do we not confess simply that which is true, that this remedy is needed in order to remove the filth from the church?”]
​From Part 3, chapter two, sections 1, and 7, George Gillespie, _A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies_ (revised edition, forthcoming) 149, 156-57.


----------



## thbslawson

To celebrate 52 times a year that Christ is raised from the dead is commanded in Scripture. To remember and celebrate the fact that it DID actually occur on ONE day in the course of time almost 2000 years ago is not commanded, but it is a good thing if one does it as unto the Lord. 

When someone tells me that they celebrate "Easter" I usually try to answer them as sanctimoniously as possible because, of course, that's the best way to show them love and the joy of the gospel in my life. =)


----------



## kappazei

We'll be celebrating. Our local conference does a combined service on Good Fridays. Good times.




Bob Yoshimaru

Calvary Baptist, Coquitlam BC, Canada

British Columbia Baptist Conference, Baptist General Conference

"The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin..."


----------



## he beholds

So I went to a Reformed college and I remember learning that things in and of themselves aren't holy or secular, but it's what people do with those things. Are not all Reformed of this opinion? 
Like, music isn't saved or unsaved, so calling it "Christian" music isn't quite right, and so on.

I cannot imagine that "Easter" can actually be a Christian or Pagan day, but it's what we, as either Christians or Pagans, do on that day. I mean, can I, as a Christian, even do anything Paganly? (Genuine question. I know I can sin, but can my sin make my actions Pagan?) So if I'm a Christian and I dye Easter eggs, am I not a Christian dyeing Easter eggs? And thus is it not me doing a Pagan ritual but it is a Christian dyeing eggs?

Am I way off? I grant that may be the case. I just sort of cringed when I read, "Celebrating Easter is Pagan," because I feel that as a Christian I don't have to worry about _why_ someone else created the act of dyeing Easter eggs and eggs, even colored ones, are a neutral thing and as such, if I were to do them I'd still be a Christian dyeing them.


----------



## Scottish Lass

he beholds said:


> So I went to a Reformed college and I remember learning that things in and of themselves aren't holy or secular, but it's what people do with those things. Are not all Reformed of this opinion?
> Like, music isn't saved or unsaved, so calling it "Christian" music isn't quite right, and so on.
> 
> I cannot imagine that "Easter" can actually be a Christian or Pagan day, but it's what we, as either Christians or Pagans, do on that day. I mean, can I, as a Christian, even do anything Paganly? (Genuine question. I know I can sin, but can my sin make my actions Pagan?) So if I'm a Christian and I dye Easter eggs, am I not a Christian dyeing Easter eggs? And thus is it not me doing a Pagan ritual but it is a Christian dyeing eggs?
> 
> Am I way off? I grant that may be the case. I just sort of cringed when I read, "Celebrating Easter is Pagan," because I feel that as a Christian I don't have to worry about _why_ someone else created the act of dyeing Easter eggs and eggs, even colored ones, are a neutral thing and as such, if I were to do them I'd still be a Christian dyeing them.


The objects are neutral, but our motivations never are. Do we not call Sunday "the Lord's Day," regardless of how others may observe it? Is it then possible that Easter can be pagan if Christians attach elements to the day that are contrary to scripture? It's one thing to mark spring's arrival with flowers, dyed eggs, etc. just as we might mark fall with hay bales and pumpkins, but if the former is attached to the work of Christ, is that not problematic?


----------



## Tripel

> Would that all the zeal (only with proper form, though) that goes into the celebrations of "Christmas, Easter," etc. be channeled in to keeping the sabbath day holy; now that would be glorious. Instead, the emphasis put on those non-commanded (and thereby forbidden) days only serves to take away from the commanded sabbath day.



Josh, can you please clarify what you are saying here? It sounds like you are accusing all of those who celebrate these holidays in any form of robbing the Lord's Day. Similarly, it also sounds like you are saying that it is indeed sinful to celebrate Christmas or Easter.


----------



## he beholds

Scottish Lass said:


> The objects are neutral, but our motivations never are. Do we not call Sunday "the Lord's Day," regardless of how others may observe it? Is it then possible that Easter can be pagan if Christians attach elements to the day that are contrary to scripture? It's one thing to mark spring's arrival with flowers, dyed eggs, etc. just as we might mark fall with hay bales and pumpkins, but if the former is attached to the work of Christ, is that not problematic?



I guess I can't think of anything Pagan or inherently sinful that is attached to celebrating Easter. What do most people do? Wake up, hunt for an Easter basket (My kids haven't done this but that's more because they just don't know about it so we can get away with not doing it.), eat breakfast, go to church (even non-Christians!!!), come home, go to Grandma's, eat ham, and cheesy potatoes if they're lucky, eat chocolate, talk to Grandma, run around with cousins, go home, go to sleep. Some time before Easter they'll probably dye eggs and have an Easter egg hunt (ours is actually usually on the Monday after Easter because it doesn't fit into our day on Sunday). I mean, is the pretending a bunny left the basket what is sinful? I think that's make believe, and again, we haven't yet done it, but I am actually a big fan of childhood being magical. 

I just don't get what can be Pagan about what I mentioned? Are some people doing human sacrifices or bowing to eggs and trees for Easter--if so, aren't _they_ the Pagans and thus whatever they do will be unChristian? I don't think people remembering that Christ rose from the dead takes away from Christians remembering that every other Sunday--I just think non-believers especially get reminded of it. And though I do nothing special on Good Friday, I think it actually might be good to stop and remember the dying on the cross part. We definitely cannot say that that's what every Friday of the year is for. So to take [at least] one day a year to specifically focus on and remember how loving and sacrificial our Lord is is probably a good thing. 

Again, I'm not big on holidays so we don't do much at all, so maybe that's why I'm not doing these Pagan things that make Easter Pagan.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Since the days of the Reformation I think the point has been made that we tend to elevate our superstitious accretions over God's prescribed worship.



Joshua said:


> You got the jist of it.


----------



## a mere housewife

Joshua kindly unlocked the thread so that I might ask for clarification on a point I forebore to ask clarification upon yesterday, as there were better things to focus on . I wondered if anyone can point me to a response made against the position Turretin outlines about festivals which view them as a circumstance, rather than an element, of worship? It is clear that Turretin (who holds to the same rule of worship, and the same high view of the Lord's Day -- this question follows on two where he deals scrupulously with the fourth commandment and with the Lord's day) did not conceive of a calendar as being an element of worship: had he accorded it any mystery, of course, it would have been, and would have required scriptural warrant. Yet he relegates it to order and polity, on the same level as deciding an order of service or a mid week meeting, etc, which falls within the liberty of the church to appoint: it seems then in his view a mere matter of circumstance, and nothing to do with the elements of our worship. I am not asking to further strife, but would sincerely like to understand a response that fully appreciates that ground of his being able to advocate such festivals, holding the same convictions as are presented here about the Lord's Day and the regulative principle of worship, but without violating his conscience.


----------



## a mere housewife

Well I would change my statement to say that Mr. Coldwell kindly unlocked it, but how could any action be kind that involved beating you?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I don't know of a direct response to Turretin, but Presbyterians have objected to the view that allowed some hold over days since the 2nd Helvetic Confession. The argument is not that the days are observed in the same manner (unless they are; but we are talking about supposed non superstitious/religious significance observance in this case), but what do we do with practices that have been seriously abused to idolatry so that they are not a means of stumbling in future. I think this is an important rule of reformation and I have harped on it on numerous occasions here, perhaps to the point of irritation. Gillespie adduces the rule in his work which I outlined yet again earlier in this thread. If you would like see his argument and defense of it as well as a preview of the forthcoming new edition of Gillespie's _Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies_, I can send that section to you in PDF. Same section I've offered before.


----------



## John Bunyan

If the problem is the word "Easter", you might just celebrate the Passover in a foreign language... Call it Páscoa, Pascua, Paasfees, Pashkë, Påske, pääsiäinen, Pâques, Páskar or pascha, for example.


----------



## Tripel

NaphtaliPress said:


> Since the days of the Reformation I think the point has been made that we tend to elevate our superstitious accretions over God's prescribed worship.
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got the jist of it.
Click to expand...



I would just like to see more clarity and specificity with accusations of sin. It's one thing to say that it's sinful to worship God with adherence to man-made holy days and superstitions. But it's totally different to make sweeping accusations that celebrations of a particular holiday are sinful or pagan. For one, you don't know how everyone celebrates those holidays. As has been said in this thread, to some Easter and Christmas are nothing more than a collection of cultural festivities. I would imagine (and hope) that nobody here believes Easter or Christmas to be an actual Holy Day that we are bound to recognize. But there are a lot of people here who engage in cultural enjoyments (such as decorating eggs or a Christmas tree) that are in no way an attempt to add to God's worship. 

It's just an egg. It's just a tree. I attach no religious significance to it at all, but it IS still a celebration. Just like it's a celebration to wave a flag on the 4th of July or drink a pint of green beer on St. Patrick's Day. It's 100% cultural, and there's nothing sinful in and of itself. So I don't find it helpful to talk in generalities about how sinful or pagan it is to celebrate a particular holiday.


----------



## a mere housewife

NaphtaliPress said:


> I don't know of a direct response to Turretin, but Presbyterians have objected to the view that allowed some hold over days since the 2nd Helvetic Confession. The argument is not that the days are observed in the same manner (unless they are; but we are talking about supposed non superstitious/religious significance observance in this case), but what do we do with practices that have been seriously abused to idolatry so that they are not a means of stumbling in future. I think this is an important rule of reformation and I have harped on it on numerous occasions here, perhaps to the point of irritation. Gillespie adduces the rule in his work which I outlined yet again earlier in this thread. If you would like see his argument and defense of it as well as a preview of the forthcoming new edition of Gillespie's _Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies_, I can send that section to you in PDF. Same section I've offered before.



Thank you Mr. Coldwell. That certainly seems to me a sounder basis on which to respond against Turretin's position (and it seems also a charitable one which allows that his position does not inherently, rather by its, as I understand the argument, inextricable association with a long history of abuse, lead to idolatry). Now that you've explained about the rule as it applies, the quote you posted in earlier comes much clearer to me; and is a very helpful elucidation of the view against festivals. I'm sure you haven't in the least pushed anything to the point of irritation: I am slow of understanding, and find it difficult to sort through a lot of the different cross currents that get argued in one thread -- and so sometimes actually avoid them, is all . I'm sure Ruben and I would both enjoy that pdf; and I'm grateful to understand better.


----------



## jwright82

Tripel said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the days of the Reformation I think the point has been made that we tend to elevate our superstitious accretions over God's prescribed worship.
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got the jist of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would just like to see more clarity and specificity with accusations of sin. It's one thing to say that it's sinful to worship God with adherence to man-made holy days and superstitions. But it's totally different to make sweeping accusations that celebrations of a particular holiday are sinful or pagan. For one, you don't know how everyone celebrates those holidays. As has been said in this thread, to some Easter and Christmas are nothing more than a collection of cultural festivities. I would imagine (and hope) that nobody here believes Easter or Christmas to be an actual Holy Day that we are bound to recognize. But there are a lot of people here who engage in cultural enjoyments (such as decorating eggs or a Christmas tree) that are in no way an attempt to add to God's worship.
> 
> It's just an egg. It's just a tree. I attach no religious significance to it at all, but it IS still a celebration. Just like it's a celebration to wave a flag on the 4th of July or drink a pint of green beer on St. Patrick's Day. It's 100% cultural, and there's nothing sinful in and of itself. So I don't find it helpful to talk in generalities about how sinful or pagan it is to celebrate a particular holiday.
Click to expand...


I agree. How many people have become Roman Catholic by celebrating easter? The second you make it a formally religous requirment than you have overstepped the bounds. What is it that makes a thing necesarally "pagan"? When is something purely civil and not covered by this principle? Does the modern celebration of Easter qualify as being "pagan" or "civil"? 

Better yet should we historically contextualize critiques of the celebration of Easter considering that they lived in a culture that was RC and then became Reformed? That is since at that time the celebration of Easter then was purely a religous act and therefore qualified as pagan under the principles being discussed here. But does the contemporary celebration of Easter still qualify as "pagan" in our historical setting? 

I just don't see these sorts of questions being answered. But they should be discussed and dealt with. It seems that it is assumed without reason that Easter today is automatically "pagan" or "popish". I'm not saying it isn't, I don't think so though. Nor do I wish to contradict the Reformed principles of worship and Sabbath observance. Only question whether or not the conteporary celebration of Easter violates those?


----------



## Philip

> But, yes, when we assign to ourselves religious holy days and celebrations, especially when they are on the sabbath day, we are robbing from God the day He has commanded to be set aside for His service.



This is a rather odd argument applied to Easter given that I don't know of any church that neglects the ordinary observance of the Lord's Day in order to observe it (I'm not even sure what that would look like, frankly, given that Easter, at least in my upbringing, has always been associated with the ordinary worship of the Lord's Day).

Just curious: would anyone here have an objection to Trinity Sunday?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

What is Trinity Sunday and how does that differ from each and every one of the 52 other Sunday's that God has ordained?


----------



## Mushroom

Josh & Ben, you guys just don't love the bunny -

[video=youtube;IS0T57GOwPo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS0T57GOwPo[/video]


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Josh and Chris, I also really desire to understand what is being said with regard to adding anything not prescribed to our day of worship. If I were to say, "Today we commemorate the rising of our Lord from the dead" or "This day is the glorious day of Christ's resurrection" – with no mention at all of Easter – what do you think of that?


----------



## Philip

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> What is Trinity Sunday and how does that differ from each and every one of the 52 other Sunday's that God has ordained?



In certain bodies, Trinity Sunday (Sunday after Pentecost) would usually involve preaching on the Trinity. Also (for those who say creeds in church) the Athanasian Creed is generally used.


----------



## jwright82

> I would think it's odd to say it only upon one particular sabbath day that comes around one time a year. I would question why the emphasis now, more than any other sabbath day. Nothing wrong with the words themselves, though. They're certainly true, and true of every sabbath day. As well as His incarnation, life, and death.



I definatly see your point Josh but doesn't your reply here imply that a church is free to emphasize whatever area of doctrine it wishes on any sabbath day that it wishes? Hence a church could then choose to do that not exclusivly but definatly at least on easter sunday?


----------



## kappazei

Scottish Lass said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I went to a Reformed college and I remember learning that things in and of themselves aren't holy or secular, but it's what people do with those things. Are not all Reformed of this opinion?
> Like, music isn't saved or unsaved, so calling it "Christian" music isn't quite right, and so on.
> 
> I cannot imagine that "Easter" can actually be a Christian or Pagan day, but it's what we, as either Christians or Pagans, do on that day. I mean, can I, as a Christian, even do anything Paganly? (Genuine question. I know I can sin, but can my sin make my actions Pagan?) So if I'm a Christian and I dye Easter eggs, am I not a Christian dyeing Easter eggs? And thus is it not me doing a Pagan ritual but it is a Christian dyeing eggs?
> 
> Am I way off? I grant that may be the case. I just sort of cringed when I read, "Celebrating Easter is Pagan," because I feel that as a Christian I don't have to worry about _why_ someone else created the act of dyeing Easter eggs and eggs, even colored ones, are a neutral thing and as such, if I were to do them I'd still be a Christian dyeing them.
> 
> 
> 
> The objects are neutral, but our motivations never are. Do we not call Sunday "the Lord's Day," regardless of how others may observe it? Is it then possible that Easter can be pagan if Christians attach elements to the day that are contrary to scripture? It's one thing to mark spring's arrival with flowers, dyed eggs, etc. just as we might mark fall with hay bales and pumpkins, but if the former is attached to the work of Christ, is that not problematic?
Click to expand...


Realistically though, I think the pagan significance of dyed eggs and bunnies have been effectively lost anyway. I think over the years, the Church has done a good job sanitizing the practises of pagans.
I am more concerned the Church never forgets the glorious deeds of our Lord, the death, the Ressurection and ascension. As humans, we need reminders and I think setting aside an annual Day for this is a good thing, aside from the two Sacrements.


----------



## Marrow Man

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I suppose here is the gist of the matter for me: if the word Easter appears in the Bible(s) of the Reformation, let it not be said it is a pagan concept. You may argue with Tyndale (and other Reformation and post-Reformation textual editors) with regard to his coinage of the words Easter and Passover – though I for one appreciate the linguistic genius of the translations – but it remains that their pedigree is as pure as any other alternatives.



Besides the KJV, what translations have "Easter" instead of "Passover" in Acts 12:4? The Wycliffe and Geneva Bibles, for instance, have "Passover."


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Tim, this is from the link to Will Kinney’s defense of “Easter” in Acts 12:4 in my post 43 above:

The KJV is not alone in translating this word as Easter. The Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Cranmer's bible (The Great Bible) 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishop's Bible 1568, all preceding the King James Bible, Mace's New Testament 1729, and Martin Luther also translated this word as Easter in 1545, and the German Luther version of 1912 also reads Easter (Ostern). The German word for Passover is a completely different word. The Geneva New Testament was first published in 1557 and read "Easter" in Acts 12:4 – "entending after EASTER to bringe him forth unto the people". You can see the 1557 Geneva Bible at this site here:

English Hexapla 1841. Greek New Testament according to Scholtz with 6 ancient English translations: Wiclif 1380, Tyndale 1534, Cranmer 1539, Geneva 1557, Rheims 1582, Authorised 1611

When the Geneva Old Testament was published in 1560, the New Testament was revised and at that time "Easter" was changed to "passover." Likewise the modern KJV 21st Century Version 1994 and the Third millennium Bible 1998.​ 
Hope this is helpful.


----------



## Marrow Man

Jerusalem Blade said:


> When the Geneva Old Testament was published in 1560, the New Testament was revised and at that time "Easter" was changed to "passover."



Thanks, Steve. Do you know the reason for this change?

BTW, I found this interesting, in Calvin's comments on Acts 12:4:



> Luke doth, in this place, declare by circumstances that Peter was, as it were, shut up in his grave, so that it might seem that he was quite past hope; for as they divided the day and night into four parts by three hours, so Herod divided the watches, that four soldiers might always keep watch, and that one quaternion might succeed another every third hour. He showeth the cause why he was not forthwith put to death, because it had been an heinous offense to put him to death in the Easter holidays; therefore, Herod doth not delay the time as doubtful what to do, but doth only wait for opportunity; yea, he maketh choice of a time, when as his gift may be more plausible, because there came a great multitude together from all parts unto the holy day.


----------



## jwright82

> Dear James,
> 
> My reply implies, actually, explicitly states, that the purpose of the sabbath day is to commemorate the eternal nature, incarnation, birth, humiliation, life, death, resurrection, and exaltation of the Lord Jesus Christ in the administration of His ordinances as commanded and prescribed by Him, not in formulating our practices around the pretenses and conjured-up sentimental will-worship of men.



I see. But do you think that it is wrong for a particuler church to choose to emphasize the ressurection on this particuler day if they don't make it a religous requirment?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

If someone here can make a rational case how their celebration of the resurrection that happens to fall on the same date as everyone else celebrates Easter is not making it a religious requirement I'm all ears.


----------



## Mushroom

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I'm all ears.


Bunny ears?


----------



## jwright82

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> If someone here can make a rational case how their celebration of the resurrection that happens to fall on the same date as everyone else celebrates Easter is not making it a religious requirement I'm all ears.



By simply calling it non-religously binding. You do not have to celebrate things this way but here at this church we choose to emphasize this doctrine on this date. That is as far as it goes. Look at my other post when I raised certian questions seemingly unanswered by people completly disagreeing with any celebration of any holiday.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Good luck with that. Simply telling folks who have been culturally conditioned to think Easter is a more important Lord's Day than one in July (even though there is zero Biblical warrant for it) and that you are "merely choosing to emphasize a doctrine" on that date is not plausible.


----------



## jwright82

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Good luck with that. Simply telling folks who have been culturally conditioned to think Easter is a more important Lord's Day than one in July (even though there is zero Biblical warrant for it) and that you are "merely choosing to emphasize a doctrine" on that date is not plausible.



Why not? I cannot affect what people believe. Do we bind the churchs conscience that to talk about the resurection on easter is morally wrong? Or do we leave their essential freedom open to say if you choose to teach things this way than fine but we disagree over here, which is fine. Especially if they lack any religous content in the civil realm.


----------



## Philip

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> If someone here can make a rational case how their celebration of the resurrection that happens to fall on the same date as everyone else celebrates Easter is not making it a religious requirement I'm all ears.



By perhaps suggesting that those who do not do likewise are not in sin? To assert it as a requirement is to suggest that to do otherwise is sinful. However, I maintain that the observance or non-observance of resurrection Sunday is a thing indifferent and those who partake or refuse to partake in this tradition may be equally free from moral blame.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

If it is not a big deal then why not hold "Resurrection Sunday" in July? What Biblical reason is there that it must be held in March/April depending on the "non-binding" church calendar of denominations that do not hold to the Regulative Principle? 

I'd love to see a church demonstrate that it's not a requirement that it be held when the other church's are celebrating Easter and other unbiblical holy days.


----------



## Marrow Man

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> why not hold "Resurrection Sunday" in July?



We're actually going to celebrate 5 of those this July!!!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

There are some things I am just not able to connect the dots concerning in this discussion of “Easter”.

The word “Easter” itself did not exist before approximately 1525, when Tyndale coined it and it appeared in his NT, although the various “celebrations” antedated it by many centuries, going back to maybe the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] century, and all these “Resurrection-celebration” events are mired in disputes and unbiblical activity. So there really is no Biblical warrant for “Resurrection-celebrations”; all there is are the traditions of various church fathers, and Roman and Eastern practices. And, as with the birth of our Lord, there really are no reliable dates (that I can trust, at any rate). So all such celebrations, whatever one might call them, are without any real substance. Oh well, I guess it must go the way of the tooth fairy.

That said, it remains that the Book of Acts lists the day of the Passover after the Resurrection as Easter and not Passover. I am left with gratitude that the angel of death has passed over me because of the blood of the Lamb, and that in the resurrection of Christ I am justified in Him before God – I know that it did indeed happen on a certain day, but being uncertain when that actually is, and that it has accrued so much nonsense around it, I will keep it simple and pure, and be grateful every day.

I suppose one reason I have been loath to let go of Easter, is that ours is a faith grounded in an historical reality – Christ Jesus lived and died and rose again in time and space – and to let go of the precise historical facticity of it all (down to the very days) veers near the non-historical myth-religions which have no basis but in imagination. Perhaps I will hunt to see if I can find the actual day, even if I don’t celebrate it.


----------



## he beholds

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> If it is not a big deal then why not hold "Resurrection Sunday" in July? What Biblical reason is there that it must be held in March/April depending on the "non-binding" church calendar of denominations that do not hold to the Regulative Principle?
> 
> I'd love to see a church demonstrate that it's not a requirement that it be held when the other church's are celebrating Easter and other unbiblical holy days.



Well, any church that has Sunday church is holding Resurrection Sunday on a Sunday in July, right? What are we talking about? What do churches do on Easter Sunday that they wouldn't do in July?


----------



## Afterthought

With respect to the use of "Easter" in Acts, the TBS explanation is found here. However, I have no idea of its accuracy, and it's difficult to tell without cited sources.


----------



## Philip

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Perhaps I will hunt to see if I can find the actual day, even if I don’t celebrate it.



Sunday after passover.



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> If it is not a big deal then why not hold "Resurrection Sunday" in July?



You are perfectly free to do so if you wish. I have no problem with this.



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> What Biblical reason is there that it must be held in March/April depending on the "non-binding" church calendar of denominations that do not hold to the Regulative Principle?



It's not a biblical reason so much as a (somewhat inaccurate) following of the Jewish Calendar.


----------



## Mushroom

Perhaps wiser minds than mine can explain the following event in light of the discussion of Christians holding one day above another in their conduct, thought, planning, and perhaps even worship.


> Act 20:16 For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.


Regardless of anything else we may say, it is evident that Paul attached some importance to a particular day of the year, and not for any purely secular reason. Pentecost was a decidedly Christian event, and it appears Paul thought it perfectly acceptable to cherish its annual remembrance on some level. If we as Christians determine to turn our attention toward the pivotal moment in all of history past and future at a particular time of year we think might correspond with the time in the year the event occured, if that fact intrudes into our worship in any way is that to be counted sin? Is the acknowledgement of any anniversary of any event during the service of worship contrary to the RPW? If not, then where does the dividing line lie between acceptable acknowledgement and unacceptable celebration?

Me, I'm an anti-any celebration anytime kinda guy. I want things to continue as regulary and uneventfully as possible. I prefer to hear expositional sermons that move carefully and steadily through one book at a time. I get some of that, but not as much as I'd like. I'd be happiest if there were no mentions of christmas or thanksgiving or easter or independence day, simply because they are tediously unimportant to me. But I find that to strangely not be so in the hearts of many of my beloved brethren whom I believe to be sincere in their profession, and some of them are Church Officers and I am not, so I commit it unto the Lord. We will attend our Church's Easter breakfast, and hear a sermon related in some way to That Day. When brothers say "Happy Easter" to me, I will respond with "Happy Resurrection Day", when they say "He is risen!", I will reply "He is risen indeed!" That sort of submission is easy.

In my Church, I am considered the epitome of the hardshell, legalistic, Confessionally over-strident, theological nit-picker; here I'm probably considered an antinomian. Maybe that means I'm lukewarm, but I can also tell you it means I'm tired of fighting these old battles.


----------



## jwright82

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> If it is not a big deal then why not hold "Resurrection Sunday" in July? What Biblical reason is there that it must be held in March/April depending on the "non-binding" church calendar of denominations that do not hold to the Regulative Principle?
> 
> I'd love to see a church demonstrate that it's not a requirement that it be held when the other church's are celebrating Easter and other unbiblical holy days.



Your commiting a fallacy here, The either/or fallacy. Either you do not emphasize Christ's resurrection on easter or you are saying that it must be held on easter making it a popish demand. But there is a third option that churchs are free to choose not to make it a demand but to emphasize that doctrine on that day without making it a requirment.


----------



## Scottish Lass

jwright82 said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is not a big deal then why not hold "Resurrection Sunday" in July? What Biblical reason is there that it must be held in March/April depending on the "non-binding" church calendar of denominations that do not hold to the Regulative Principle?
> 
> I'd love to see a church demonstrate that it's not a requirement that it be held when the other church's are celebrating Easter and other unbiblical holy days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your commiting a fallacy here, The either/or fallacy. Either you do not emphasize Christ's resurrection on easter or you are saying that it must be held on easter making it a popish demand. But there is a third option that churchs are free to choose not to make it a demand but to emphasize that doctrine on that day without making it a requirment.
Click to expand...

If I asked ten members of your congregation about important days at your church, how many would mention Easter or Christmas? 

While you say you can't affect what people believe, isn't that precisely the job of any church's leadership?


----------



## jwright82

Scottish Lass said:


> If I asked ten members of your congregation about important days at your church, how many would mention Easter or Christmas?
> 
> While you say you can't affect what people believe, isn't that precisely the job of any church's leadership?



Sure I agree with that. But the problem that I pointed out was one with the argument. None of us, as far as I can tell, who see no problem with easter have advocated that the church must make the celebration of this holiday mandatory for beleivers, hence binding their consciense. So when anyone responds that we are asserting that it is therefore binding on everyones conscience than that is unfactual but the arguement if true rests upon a false distinction that you are are either on their side or you agree with Rome. But we have advocated a third way that is not in either camp. 

All my post really amounts to is this. The argument being presented is underdeveloped. Thats all. It doesn't mean that my brothers and sisters in Christ whom I respectfully disagree with here are wrong, only that their argument for their position doesn't seem to me (for the reasons I and others have given) to be sound. This thread has been very enlightening to me. I am thinking if its more appropriate to do easter baskets, if you are, on the saturday night before easter so as to not break the sabbath? I am confident that my church's decision to do an easter egg hunt on the saturday before easter is perfectly fine and amounts to no more than community outreach.


----------



## Tripel

he beholds said:


> Well, any church that has Sunday church is holding Resurrection Sunday on a Sunday in July, right? What are we talking about? What do churches do on Easter Sunday that they wouldn't do in July?



I'd like to see Jessica's question addressed. 

There is nothing wrong with singing "Christ the Lord is Risen Today" on Easter Sunday. Nor is there anything wrong with preaching about the resurrection. I find it incredible that some are arguing that certain topics are off-limits on particular Sundays. 

Many of you argue that the topic of resurrection is derived from a man-made holiday, but how is that a problem? I'm not aware of the RPW addressing the exact way that a topic or passage is to be chosen. I think it is GOOD for the church to occasionally address a topic that is culturally relevant. On an election week in Novemeber, it is GOOD (but by no means mandatory) to have corporate prayer for our nation and leaders. On Thanksgiving week it is GOOD (but by no means mandatory) to corporately give thanks for our many blessings. During the first week of January it is GOOD (but by no means mandatory) to emphasize our dependence on God for all things and to pray for his church in the new year. 

I don't see how Easter (despite its origins) is any different. It is a week where many emphasize the resurrection, and that's not a bad thing. And it doesn't mean that we neglect the resurrection all of the other 51 Sundays on the calendar either. And when you factor in that Easter Sunday is the one week when a lot of non-church-goers attend worship, I can't think of a better topic to preach.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I've no problem with the pastor taking events into account as far as what he covers in the preaching of the Word; that is his job, and he should not be constrained by custom or expectations in faithfully performing his duty. The call of "events" however, is just as much to address the overwhelming idolatry and will worship that goes on as much as to deliver sound doctrine on whatever the topic is. I think that can be done in keeping with the ultimate goal of seeing this idolatry buried as the church reforms and jettisons this throw back to the cyclical nature of the Jewish observation of days.


----------



## Philip

Tripel said:


> I don't see how Easter (despite its origins) is any different. It is a week where many emphasize the resurrection, and that's not a bad thing.



I would also add to this and say that to some degree, I wish that more churches would be intentional about preaching on topics like the resurrection, the trinity, and the incarnation. I think that a church following the traditional calendar can be an aid to making sure these topics get preached. Even in those churches that don't deviate from the series they're preaching at these times will nonetheless emphasize these doctrines at those times.

I'm curious (for those whose churches don't follow the calendar) as to how many times the resurrection warrants a mention or a sermon in your churches. It's the central doctrine of Christianity and the Church stands or falls on it (I'm genuinely curious---maybe it's more often than in the churches I grew up in).


----------



## NaphtaliPress

"The celebration of set anniversary days is no necessary mean for conserving the commemoration of the benefits of redemption, because we have occasion, not only every Sabbath day, but every other day, to call to mind these benefits, either in hearing, or reading, or meditating upon God’s word. _I esteem and judge that the days consecrated to Christ must be lifted, _says Danæus:_ Christ is born, is circumcised, dies, rises again for us every day in the preaching of the Gospel_.” George Gillespie, EPC, 1-7-6.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

It requires a myriad of assumptions to interpret the in Acts 20.16 to say that Paul "attached some importance to a particular day of the year, and not for any purely secular reason. Pentecost was a decidedly Christian event..."

First, Pentecost was not a decidedly Christian event, but one of the three feasts of the Jews in which all the males were required to appear at Jerusalem. (See Leviticus 23) So, to say that Paul wanted to be in Jerusalem at Pentecost as a Christian celebration is to assume what is not stated in the text. All his life the Apostle was in Jerusalem on Pentecost, and if he continued to do so while the Temple stood, there are many reasons apart from commemorating a Christian calendar that seem more likely. 1) There would be a multiplicity of Jews there to hear the Gospel. 2) So as not to incite the Sanhedrin against him unnecessarily. 3) To bring an offering to the Temple according to the Law of Moses. (which would have been acceptable during that transition period, just as the taking of a vow was. See Acts 21.23-26). Note the words of the Apostle himself on this matter: (Acts 18.21) "I must by all means keep this feast which cometh in Jerusalem." Being a period of transition between the Old and New Testaments, and the changing of worship practice over that transition period, it would be quite appropriate for the Apostle to desire to be in Jerusalem at that time, to keep the feast, and to use that providential circumstance to advance his ministerial agenda. However, all such yearly celebrations passed away with the Old Testament ceremonial Law and the destruction of the temple in 70AD, as did the monthly sacrifices, blowing of trumpets, etc. If we look to the Scriptures, there is one day Holy, called so by the only One who has the authority to call a day Holy, and to set it apart for the worship of Himself. 

As for the "Easter Days" quotation from Calvin above, this is not an unknown use of that terminology to those who read 16th and 17th century literature in English. However, it is incorrect to attribute to that word "Easter" as it used in the Puritan and Proto-Puritan writings to any kind of resurrection festival day. It simply meant the days of Passover, that is, that decidedly Jewish, ceremonial feast day wich was also accompanied by a 7 day fast from leaven. As Dr. Gordon Clark said, place the glossary in the front of the book, not the end. When we read the word "Easter" we think of the resurrection festival of the Roman Church rather than what the puritan writers intended--which was the Jewish Passover. 

With you, Brad, I am an anti celebration kind of guy. I'm not particularly into birthdays, etc. And, at CCRPC we do not observe man made days of worship such as Easter, Christ-Mass, etc. We also do not celebrate Mother's Day, Father's Day, etc. on the Lord's Day. If children want to honor their fathers and mothers specially one day other than on the Lord's Day, that's fine. But on the Lord's Day we honor the Lord alone, (Isaiah 58.13) and to the best of our meager understanding and ability, in the way that He has commanded us. I do however love Thanksgiving as a civil holiday, celebrated not-on-the-Lord's-Day because I do believe that the civil magistrate has the authority to call for a day of Thanksgiving to God within his realms, as did Queen Esther and Mordecai in Esther 9. I do give thanks to God on that day as enjoined by my civil governors. 



Brad said:


> Perhaps wiser minds than mine can explain the following event in light of the discussion of Christians holding one day above another in their conduct, thought, planning, and perhaps even worship.
> 
> 
> 
> Act 20:16 For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of anything else we may say, it is evident that Paul attached some importance to a particular day of the year, and not for any purely secular reason. Pentecost was a decidedly Christian event, and it appears Paul thought it perfectly acceptable to cherish its annual remembrance on some level. If we as Christians determine to turn our attention toward the pivotal moment in all of history past and future at a particular time of year we think might correspond with the time in the year the event occured, if that fact intrudes into our worship in any way is that to be counted sin? Is the acknowledgement of any anniversary of any event during the service of worship contrary to the RPW? If not, then where does the dividing line lie between acceptable acknowledgement and unacceptable celebration?
> 
> Me, I'm an anti-any celebration anytime kinda guy. I want things to continue as regulary and uneventfully as possible. I prefer to hear expositional sermons that move carefully and steadily through one book at a time. I get some of that, but not as much as I'd like. I'd be happiest if there were no mentions of christmas or thanksgiving or easter or independence day, simply because they are tediously unimportant to me. But I find that to strangely not be so in the hearts of many of my beloved brethren whom I believe to be sincere in their profession, and some of them are Church Officers and I am not, so I commit it unto the Lord. We will attend our Church's Easter breakfast, and hear a sermon related in some way to That Day. When brothers say "Happy Easter" to me, I will respond with "Happy Resurrection Day", when they say "He is risen!", I will reply "He is risen indeed!" That sort of submission is easy.
> 
> In my Church, I am considered the epitome of the hardshell, legalistic, Confessionally over-strident, theological nit-picker; here I'm probably considered an antinomian. Maybe that means I'm lukewarm, but I can also tell you it means I'm tired of fighting these old battles.
Click to expand...



---------- Post added at 03:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 PM ----------

If I might indulge the patience of the board for one more comment: Our brother above said that he was "tired of fighting these old battles." While I understand the sentiment, there are a few things that come to mind. First, our weariness or strength is not a good indicator of what is important. Second, while there are things not worth fighting for, remember that the accretions of men obtruding themselves into the worship service of the God is one of the foundational reasons for our separation from Rome (it's not *only* a Gospel issue) and many of us today see the clamoring for extra-Biblical additions to the worship of God as a return to those principles which led to those grand perversions. Remember "Rome wasn't built in a day", which is to say that apostasy from the truth takes place little by little, not all at once, and it begins with little sentimentalities. If a Church today declares that they're going to put on an "Easter Pageant" it does bind the consciences of their membership because according to our Church standards we are required to answer the call to worship as authoritative. If the Church then says, "OK, you don't have to come when we have an Easter Pageant, or a Christ-Mass cantata" then they begin tearing down the authoritative call to worship, and teach that sometimes worship is optional. I guess what I'm trying to say is first, that I too am weary of explaining the same things over and again several times a year to people when they come asking. But rarely in the history of men have important battles come at convenient times. Many times the weary soldiers of the King have had to "lace 'em up one more time" and ride to the sound of the guns. We don't get to choose whether or not we will engage in such battles--the Lord chooses the battles for us, and it is our duty to answer the call faithfully according to our places and stations.


----------



## Philip

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> If a Church today declares that they're going to put on an "Easter Pageant" it does bind the consciences of their membership because according to our Church standards we are required to answer the call to worship as authoritative.



Todd, if a church were to do this in lieu of ordinary worship, or as a part of the worship service, then yes I would have a problem. I have a problem with additions to Lord's Day worship---I don't have a problem with such a pageant being held during Sunday School, given that Sunday School does not fall under the RPW. Likewise, I do not take issue with tenebrae or Christmas Eve services as these are not ordinary Lord's Day worship and therefore are not binding on the conscience.


----------



## jwright82

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> If I might indulge the patience of the board for one more comment: Our brother above said that he was "tired of fighting these old battles." While I understand the sentiment, there are a few things that come to mind. First, our weariness or strength is not a good indicator of what is important. Second, while there are things not worth fighting for, remember that the accretions of men obtruding themselves into the worship service of the God is one of the foundational reasons for our separation from Rome (it's not *only* a Gospel issue) and many of us today see the clamoring for extra-Biblical additions to the worship of God as a return to those principles which led to those grand perversions. Remember "Rome wasn't built in a day", which is to say that apostasy from the truth takes place little by little, not all at once, and it begins with little sentimentalities. If a Church today declares that they're going to put on an "Easter Pageant" it does bind the consciences of their membership because according to our Church standards we are required to answer the call to worship as authoritative. If the Church then says, "OK, you don't have to come when we have an Easter Pageant, or a Christ-Mass cantata" then they begin tearing down the authoritative call to worship, and teach that sometimes worship is optional. I guess what I'm trying to say is first, that I too am weary of explaining the same things over and again several times a year to people when they come asking. But rarely in the history of men have important battles come at convenient times. Many times the weary soldiers of the King have had to "lace 'em up one more time" and ride to the sound of the guns. We don't get to choose whether or not we will engage in such battles--the Lord chooses the battles for us, and it is our duty to answer the call faithfully according to our places and stations.



I can amen much of what you say here (being on the otherside of this issue), we should never abandon the good fight. This thread has taught me at least one thing. Is there any studies or books out there that address this issue form a contemporary perspective? And would deal specifically with the issues and unanswered questions that I mentioned before? If not than it is badly needed. I think it is only when we realize that we live in a different culture and set out to redevelop those arguments in this culture will we make much headway on this issue.


----------



## Afterthought

I could very well be missing something, but is it even possible to attach religious significance to something without it becoming binding? To my mind, there seems something funny about doing such, though I have difficulty articulating what it is. Romans 14 may show it is possible to some extent, though of course, the weaker brethren are to become strong brethren eventually and leave such things aside, so perhaps Romans 14 does not show that.


----------



## Romans922

> I could very well be missing something, but is it even possible to attach religious significance to something without it becoming binding?




No.


----------



## Mushroom

Rev. Ruddell, I agree whole-heartedly with what you say concerning the accretions of men into worship and the direction they always tend to take us. I agree that every instance of this stuff, whether Easter, advent candles, lessons and carols services, etc. are all sentimentarian toe-dabbling in the Tiber. Were I given the authority I would abolish them immediately. But I don't have that authority. I am a member of a PCA Church that is by far the most doctrinally sound in my area. I have been a member since 1996, except for a hiatus of 6 years where I was 'erased' from the roll by a Session unwilling to pursue proper discipline if their position was valid, brought on by my raising this and other related issues. I've had quite enough of the heartache those battles entail, and their detrimentall affects upon my family what with broken relationships and animosities that arise. My Father has ordained that I am not qualified, as a divorced man, to occupy Church Office, and has set over me men who don't agree with you and me in these matters. My life is a miserable road as it is. Am I commiting a sin of ommission by laying aside these conflicts and trusting the Lord to convict those set over me when and how He sees fit? Is it sin for me to have learned the lesson that putting my trust in these men may in some matters prove unwise, but a thing I am called to do anyway? I try to think the best of Church Officers, including yourself, but I can count a good number of men who have occupied said Offices who have in the past taught me quasi-Federal Vision concepts, hold to evolution, left to start home churches, left to start their own 'independent presbyterian' (?!) churches, and even the PCA Pastor who baptized all 4 of my children has since repudiated his stance on the covenant and become a credo-baptist Pastor. I am no babe in the woods concerning these things. I trust them, and you, with a distinct level of reservation that experience has dictated to be necessary.

So while you, my beloved brother, may think it a Christian duty to fight such wars, to divide Churches, to wreak sorrow upon my family over discord with people they love, I will tell you it's not mine. Been there, done that, and bear the scars. I get to sit on the sidelines and let you official fellas duke it out, and say to my family that while we don't agree with them on every issue, we are called to love and submit to our Session, and that they will be the ones to answer for the error they promulgate - not us. I am not going to harass them for, nor am I going to leave my Church over, the fact that they celebrate Easter and Christmas. I providentially must spend the bulk of my time figuring out how to pay the electric bill and still afford to have a bad tooth pulled and pay my daughter's college tuition. Sniping at laymen may not be the solution, since from my perspective the failing has been most prevalent in those who have presumed to be teachers - the Officers of our Churches. Please go harangue them for their failures before turning your sights this way, brother. If you are as faithful as you imply, your efforts should bear much fruit.


----------



## Philip

Afterthought said:


> I could very well be missing something, but is it even possible to attach religious significance to something without it becoming binding?



Yes. I find much edification in my church's observance of these times and seasons but I will not judge those who believe otherwise. I do not judge them to be less spiritual but would ask their indulgence in my weakness here. On this point I trust the judgment of my church that this is a good thing to observe, but I do not believe, nor, I think, do they, that this is a commandment binding on all believers. 



> The whole sabbath day falls under the regulative principle of worship, as well only as works of necessity and mercy. It is not the Lord's hour, but the Lord's Day. These pageants and acknowledgments of special "services" are not what God has ordered; thus, the only ones served are men, and that's not what worship is about. Worship is about giving God alone service. If He doesn't order a service, as the King and Head of His Church/Kingdom, who are we to bring to Him that which He has not commanded?



Ok. In this case, then, you would agree that Sunday School times are not commanded and are therefore forbidden (they were a 19th-century invention) and therefore should be forbidden? Part of the trouble here is that the most that we can support from Scripture on the Sabbath is a) corporate worship b) abstention from ordinary labour aside from works of mercy and necessity in favour of devoting time to the Lord. How, then, would an "Easter Pageant" outside corporate worship not fall into the second category. If Sunday School would fall into the second category, then so, I think, would things of that nature.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Dear Brad, 

Your reply points up a most important consideration, which I tried to address in my post--that we pursue the truth in accord with our place and stations. Forgive me if I did not place enough emphasis upon your good point. However, I will say that the abuse of Church authority that you have described does not negate the proposition itself, which our Lord gave us, that He has placed the leadership of the Church in the hands of fallible men who will give account to the Great and Chief Shepherd. Ezekiel 34 is a passage with which I refresh myself often, that the Lord does call to account those shepherds who abuse His flock. As far as my own faithfulness is concerned, it is an easy matter to say that I fail in my duties, like we all do, and understand that the best of my efforts are imperfect and tainted with sin, and that, in Christ alone, is found acceptance of my person and services. I also understand the difficulty of being a layman or assistant pastor in a Church where I had strong disagreement with the rest of the leadership. I know what it means to long for another country. My great desire for you, for me, and all those who name the Name of Christ is that we depart from iniquity. And, dear brother, we know not the extent to which we are ill-affected by false worship. A friend of mine once said, "why did God cast off His ancient people? Because they refused to keep the first table of the Law." I think that's a good point. If we read of the 7 churches in Revelation 2-3 we see the Lord calling them to account for violations of the first table of the Law. Dear brother, worship issues (and if I read you correctly you agree with me) are egregious sins for which the Lord has cast off Churches, put people to death, even if the authorities of the day refused to do so, etc. Don't give up the fight for the purity of worship, dear sir! Pray for your elders, give them relevant materials, entreat them as fathers in the Lord, kindly, humbly. If they abuse you because you have acted righteously toward them, the Chief Shepherd will call them to account. 

OK--I'm off to read Ezekiel 34 again. Please, my dear brother, I'm not after you. I want *all* who read to consider the abominable nature of the corruption of worship. The Lord Himself calls it abominable.


----------



## Romans922

P. F. Pugh said:


> Afterthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could very well be missing something, but is it even possible to attach religious significance to something without it becoming binding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I find much edification in my church's observance of these times and seasons but I will not judge those who believe otherwise. I do not judge them to be less spiritual but would ask their indulgence in my weakness here. On this point I trust the judgment of my church that this is a good thing to observe, but I do not believe, nor, I think, do they, that this is a commandment binding on all believers.
Click to expand...


Philip, 

The very fact that you are a member of a church that celebrates this is an attempt to bind your conscience in celebrating it too. If you didn't believe in celebrating these things, then you would be in some sense torn between submission to your session or submitting to the Lord. But as it is, the very fact of a congregation celebrating something not commanded in Scripture (adding religious significance to something) automatically makes it binding upon its membership. The church is acting in binding the conscience instead of allowing the Lord to bind the conscience with His Word.

The church is attempting to usurp the Lord's authority, and it drags its members (consciously and/or ignorantly) with them.


----------



## Tripel

If this is an issue that you feel so strongly about, why are you a TE in the PCA, a denomination whose vast majority of churches recognize these holidays in some capacity? Or why aren't you at least bring charges before the GA?


----------



## jwright82

Romans922 said:


> Philip,
> 
> The very fact that you are a member of a church that celebrates this is an attempt to bind your conscience in celebrating it too. If you didn't believe in celebrating these things, then you would be in some sense torn between submission to your session or submitting to the Lord. But as it is, the very fact of a congregation celebrating something not commanded in Scripture (adding religious significance to something) automatically makes it binding upon its membership. The church is acting in binding the conscience instead of allowing the Lord to bind the conscience with His Word.
> 
> The church is attempting to usurp the Lord's authority, and it drags its members (consciously and/or ignorantly) with them.



Probably because we don't view it the same way you do. To you it is automatically binding, to us it isn't until the Lord binds our conscience and we are compelled to go to another church that does not practice such things.


----------



## Philip

Romans922 said:


> If you didn't believe in celebrating these things, then you would be in some sense torn between submission to your session or submitting to the Lord. But as it is, the very fact of a congregation celebrating something not commanded in Scripture (adding religious significance to something) automatically makes it binding upon its membership. The church is acting in binding the conscience instead of allowing the Lord to bind the conscience with His Word.



But let's take the converse: are you not also binding the conscience in forbidding such celebrations? It seems to me that if you say that the individual _must_ not observe and _must_ not attach significance to such things, you are thereby also binding his conscience. Further, it does not seem to me that the practice of preaching on the resurrection on a certain Lord's Day and altering the liturgy within reasonable bounds to fit this emphasis is in any way adding to the elements of worship.


----------



## Romans922

[EBAY][/EBAY]


P. F. Pugh said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn't believe in celebrating these things, then you would be in some sense torn between submission to your session or submitting to the Lord. But as it is, the very fact of a congregation celebrating something not commanded in Scripture (adding religious significance to something) automatically makes it binding upon its membership. The church is acting in binding the conscience instead of allowing the Lord to bind the conscience with His Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's take the converse: are you not also binding the conscience in forbidding such celebrations? It seems to me that if you say that the individual _must_ not observe and _must_ not attach significance to such things, you are thereby also binding his conscience. Further, it does not seem to me that the practice of preaching on the resurrection on a certain Lord's Day and altering the liturgy within reasonable bounds to fit this emphasis is in any way adding to the elements of worship.
Click to expand...


In such a case, I am not the one binding the conscience but rather speaking God's Word. The Lord binds the conscience.

---------- Post added at 12:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 PM ----------




Tripel said:


> If this is an issue that you feel so strongly about, why are you a TE in the PCA, a denomination whose vast majority of churches recognize these holidays in some capacity? Or why aren't you at least bring charges before the GA?


. 

I am still a minister in the PCA because I have not been forced to do/say anything that is against my conscience. I don't bring charges because I am not currently in a position to so.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

The conscience is not an arbitrary thing. The section in the WCF on conscience is very clear that to require something that the Lord has not required is binding the conscience. To forbid something in the worship of God that the Lord has not commanded is not binding the conscience. WCF 20.2: 

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, *contrary to His Word; or beside it,* in matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.

Note the statement "or beside it". This puts away all extra-biblical stuff that passes for worship, and to obey such out of conscience betrays true liberty of conscience. The best work on this topic I have ever read is Samuel Rutherford's "Pretended Liberty of Conscience", which is the view espoused in WCF 20. It is not binding the conscience to forbid corrupt worship practices as a Church guide. Rather, it is to set the boundaries that the Lord Himself has set.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Rev. Ruddell


----------



## he beholds

he beholds said:


> So if I'm a Christian and I dye Easter eggs, am I not a Christian dyeing Easter eggs? And thus is it not me doing a Pagan ritual but it is a Christian dyeing eggs?





he beholds said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The objects are neutral, but our motivations never are. Do we not call Sunday "the Lord's Day," regardless of how others may observe it? Is it then possible that Easter can be pagan if Christians attach elements to the day that are contrary to scripture? It's one thing to mark spring's arrival with flowers, dyed eggs, etc. just as we might mark fall with hay bales and pumpkins, but if the former is attached to the work of Christ, is that not problematic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I can't think of anything Pagan or inherently sinful that is attached to celebrating Easter. What do most people do?
> 
> 
> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is not a big deal then why not hold "Resurrection Sunday" in July? What Biblical reason is there that it must be held in March/April depending on the "non-binding" church calendar of denominations that do not hold to the Regulative Principle?
> 
> I'd love to see a church demonstrate that it's not a requirement that it be held when the other church's are celebrating Easter and other unbiblical holy days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, any church that has Sunday church is holding Resurrection Sunday on a Sunday in July, right? What are we talking about? What do churches do on Easter Sunday that they wouldn't do in July?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tried to condense my questions into one post. I am really severely confused over what people are doing that is sinful on April 8th that they aren't doing on April 1. Not what are Pagans doing, but what are our PCA, ARP, RPCNA, Reformed Baptist, OPC, etc, churches doing that is sinful? What are you all saying is sinful? If it is stuff that shouldn't be done on the Lord's day (like petting zoos or something), OK, gotcha. If it's eating at grandma's, I definitely do NOT get it. If it's a sermon that mentions the fact that our Lord is risen, you are going to have to do a better job at telling me why that is forbidden.
> 
> And if it's binding the consciences of some, to what are they being bound? Perhaps I've been extremely blessed to never have been to a church that does these crazy Pagan rituals a few times a year that you guys are so worried about. Can anyone tell me how their own conscience has been bound by Easter? I can say that the people who are worried about these bound consciences seem to be the ones who'd be more likely to bind my own conscience. I feel like if you were my pastor you'd be making me feel guilty for...well, I'm still not exactly what we aren't allowed to do on Easter because no one has really given any examples of these Pagan rituals.
> 
> So what is it exactly that we shouldn't be doing? I'm not being a jerk, I honestly have no clue what I'm even defending and I'm actually a little confused by the lack of examples. (I left Anna's quote there because she did attempt to answer me, but I don't get what Easter has to do with adding to the work of Christ. I seriously have no clue what I should not be doing. Saying the word Easter?)
Click to expand...


----------



## Mushroom

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Don't give up the fight for the purity of worship, dear sir! Pray for your elders, give them relevant materials, entreat them as fathers in the Lord, kindly, humbly.


Dear Rev. Ruddell,

Thank you for your gracious response. I'm sure it is I who needs to ask forgiveness for my less-than-gracious post. I did not demonstrate proper respect in my words to you, and I apologize.

As for the encouragement above, the first part is no problem, although I've never done so as I ought, but the last I find to be an art I am not greatly blessed with the ability to carry out. It's too easy for me to grow disdainful of men I perceive to handle these matters with such cavalier sin who have presumed themselves to be teachers. The best way for me to count them as fathers in the Lord is to bear with these infirmities and focus instead on those characteristics I see in them that reflect my Savior.

As useless as I may be in this fight, I find myself fully convinced of your position in the matter. May the Lord soon purge His Bride of these corruptions.

---------- Post added at 03:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------




he beholds said:


> Can anyone tell me how their own conscience has been bound by Easter?


Not sure if this is what you're looking for, Jessica, but I can give an example regarding Christmas. We stopped celebrating it several years ago, but after returning to our local PCA Church it has been a struggle. They do advent candles - but before the call to worship, so I ignore it. They hold a 'lessons and carols' Christmas Eve service. It entails a call to worship, then congregants read a portion of scripture and introduce a carol. All are invited, and many women volunteer. So we have a called worship service, centered around a Roman 'church calendar', that is carried out in flagrant violation of the Confession and the RPW. We went this last year. It was a miserable experience. So, we have to choose between not going and thus denigrating the call to worship, or going and particpating in denigrating worship. If my Session tells me I must come, they are binding my conscience to do the latter, if they suggest I skip it they are binding my conscience to do the former. 

The sad reality is that if my Session repented and threw all this C-E stuff out the window, we'd probably lose more than half the congregation. I approvingly call that a Scottish revival, my Session would however not likely agree.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Dear Jessica, 

Those of us "guys who are so worried" are zealous for the Lord and His worship. Keep the Lord's Day holy, follow the 4th Commandment to the best of your ability, read Isaiah 58.13ff, and understand that coloring eggs, having a egg hunt, on the Lord's Day is not appropriate. A sermon on the resurrection of Christ is appropriate 52 Lord's Day per year. Elevating one Lord's Day above another, calling it resurrection Sunday, or whatever, is not Biblical. The Lord's Day itself was, by Apostolic authority and practice changed to the first day of the week in order that it might commemorate the Lord's resurrection every week, as well as the entirety of His work for us, as the resurrection is the capstone of that work. If we say this Lord's Day is somehow more significant than another we detract from the Lord's pressing the resurrection to us every week. In answer to your question, "So what is it exactly that we shouldn't be doing?" the answer is in WCF 21.1: 

"But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." Whatever He has not required us to do in His worship, that's what we're not supposed to do. Having an Easter pageant, a Christ-Mass cantata, a special soloist singing about the resurrection and how meaningful it is to him/her, or any other way the Lord's Day is polluted by un-commanded rites. The list is long in today's Churches--as I said in an earlier thread, these things come in little by little. 

If you desire to color eggs with your children on Saturday, I would be the last one to tell you that you're sinning. I would however question the wisdom of such an activity, as I have questioned many of my former practices As an older adult with grown children, I often see my own shortcomings as a parent in allowing these "harmless" things while they were small, when I didn't know better, as they then take them the next step later with their children. They are responsible, I know that, but I too will answer for introducing them to corruption in the first place.

---------- Post added at 07:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 PM ----------




Brad said:


> Rev. Todd Ruddell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give up the fight for the purity of worship, dear sir! Pray for your elders, give them relevant materials, entreat them as fathers in the Lord, kindly, humbly.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Rev. Ruddell,
> 
> Thank you for your gracious response. I'm sure it is I who needs to ask forgiveness for my less-than-gracious post. I did not demonstrate proper respect in my words to you, and I apologize.
> 
> As for the encouragement above, the first part is no problem, although I've never done so as I ought, but the last I find to be an art I am not greatly blessed with the ability to carry out. It's too easy for me to grow disdainful of men I perceive to handle these matters with such cavalier sin who have presumed themselves to be teachers. The best way for me to count them as fathers in the Lord is to bear with these infirmities and focus instead on those characteristics I see in them that reflect my Savior.
> 
> As useless as I may be in this fight, I find myself fully convinced of your position in the matter. May the Lord soon purge His Bride of these corruptions soon.
Click to expand...



Dear Brad, 

I would not say you're useless--I'm commanded against doing that in the Sermon on the Mount. Your prayers for your session are indeed commendable, and your silent witness to the truth probably does more that you know. Be encouraged brother, keep the faith. And, if you can get down here to Texas, I'll buy your dinner.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

austinww said:


> Rev. Todd Ruddell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Brad,
> 
> I would not say you're useless--I'm commanded against doing that in the Sermon on the Mount. Your prayers for your session are indeed commendable, and your silent witness to the truth probably does more that you know. Be encouraged brother, keep the faith. And, if you can get down here to Texas, I'll buy your dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very generous offer, Rev. Ruddell, but Brad and Mindy and their delightful progeny would be visiting New Braunfels first if they visited Texas. You might have to drive down here.
Click to expand...


Sez you!


----------



## Philip

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Whatever He has not required us to do in His worship, that's what we're not supposed to do. Having an Easter pageant, a Christ-Mass cantata, a special soloist singing about the resurrection and how meaningful it is to him/her, or any other way the Lord's Day is polluted by un-commanded rites.



Let's grant this: for most of the churches I've been at, this is not what Resurrection Sunday worship involves (except maybe the solo during offertory---but that would not have been unusual anyway, and that's a separate discussion). I'm not sure I see the objection here. Is the objection to a particular emphasis on a particular day? I can fully imagine a Resurrection Sunday service that did not violate the RPW in the way you are suggesting. Indeed, I have attended services on Resurrection Sunday that, apart from the emphasis in the hymns chosen and the sermon preached, were indistinguishable from Lord's Day worship at other times. The main difference at my current (at school) church is the fact that there's a fellowship brunch in lieu of Sunday School.



Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> If we say this Lord's Day is somehow more significant than another we detract from the Lord's pressing the resurrection to us every week.



I don't think that. The Lord's Day is my favourite day of the week whether it's a feast of the church or not. It's a built-in holy day every week! Maybe I'm just missing an inconsistency in my position.


----------



## au5t1n

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Todd Ruddell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Brad,
> 
> I would not say you're useless--I'm commanded against doing that in the Sermon on the Mount. Your prayers for your session are indeed commendable, and your silent witness to the truth probably does more that you know. Be encouraged brother, keep the faith. And, if you can get down here to Texas, I'll buy your dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very generous offer, Rev. Ruddell, but Brad and Mindy and their delightful progeny would be visiting New Braunfels first if they visited Texas. You might have to drive down here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sez you!
Click to expand...


The kids will mutiny if they don't get to see their big brother!


Incidentally, we had visitors on December 25 last year and they left before the first Scripture reading. I'm not sure what they were expecting, but whatever it was, they didn't see it. Evidently at least their conscience was bound that holy days should be acknowledged.


----------



## MW

he beholds said:


> I guess I can't think of anything Pagan or inherently sinful that is attached to celebrating Easter. What do most people do?



The inherent sinfulness is in the refusal to acknowledge the sovereign, righteous, and beneficent prerogative of God to regulate His own worship. Without this right and prerogative of God there would be nothing inherently sinful in anything.


----------



## Gesetveemet

> Whatever He has not required us to do in His worship, that's what we're not supposed to do.



Would this include the tradition of singing psalms "Hallel" (Psalms 113-118) both before and after the passover Seder as was the tradition when Jesus celebrated the Passover when He worshiped?

And the Scotts custom of singing Psalm 23 beginning the communion service and ending it with psalm 103 which may go back to John Knox?

Just asking and thank you in advance.



.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

The singing of Psalms is a commanded element of worship. Which Psalm is sung and how many is circumstantial.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Dear Phillip, 

What in Scripture gives you the idea that you should call one Lord's Day out of 52 in the year "Resurrection Sunday" and that you should do so every year? This is exactly my point. Every first day of the week is the Lord's Day, the Day He claims for His own. When we call one Lord's Day Resurrection Sunday, or Epiphany, or Advent, or Pentecost, etc. we add to the Scriptures concerning that Day the Lord calls His own--we must take care to keep our foot off of His Holy Day, by calling it something that pertains to a man-made holy-day. Over and again in the Scripture, the ability to name something corresponds to authority over it. Adam names the animals, Nebuchadnezzar names the captives. Why do we want to name the Lord's Day something other than what He calls it, and to elevate one of those days above another with that name, as if we had authority to do so?

I do not desire to be combative here. These are the questions our Puritan fathers asked, and they answered by rejecting all man-made celebrations such as Easter, Christ-Mass, Epiphany, Pentecost Sunday. I only wish to point out the history and reasoning of the Puritan understanding on this, the Puritan-Board. 



P. F. Pugh said:


> Rev. Todd Ruddell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever He has not required us to do in His worship, that's what we're not supposed to do. Having an Easter pageant, a Christ-Mass cantata, a special soloist singing about the resurrection and how meaningful it is to him/her, or any other way the Lord's Day is polluted by un-commanded rites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's grant this: for most of the churches I've been at, this is not what Resurrection Sunday worship involves (except maybe the solo during offertory---but that would not have been unusual anyway, and that's a separate discussion). I'm not sure I see the objection here. Is the objection to a particular emphasis on a particular day? I can fully imagine a Resurrection Sunday service that did not violate the RPW in the way you are suggesting. Indeed, I have attended services on Resurrection Sunday that, apart from the emphasis in the hymns chosen and the sermon preached, were indistinguishable from Lord's Day worship at other times. The main difference at my current (at school) church is the fact that there's a fellowship brunch in lieu of Sunday School.
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Todd Ruddell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we say this Lord's Day is somehow more significant than another we detract from the Lord's pressing the resurrection to us every week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that. The Lord's Day is my favourite day of the week whether it's a feast of the church or not. It's a built-in holy day every week! Maybe I'm just missing an inconsistency in my position.
Click to expand...


----------



## jwright82

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> What in Scripture gives you the idea that you should call one Lord's Day out of 52 in the year "Resurrection Sunday" and that you should do so every year?



What in scripture gives you the right to say that a church may not emphasize a particuler doctrine on a particuler Lord's day if that happens to be Easter or Ressurection Sunday?




Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Every first day of the week is the Lord's Day, the Day He claims for His own. When we call one Lord's Day Resurrection Sunday, or Epiphany, or Advent, or Pentecost, etc. we add to the Scriptures concerning that Day the Lord calls His own--we must take care to keep our foot off of His Holy Day, by calling it something that pertains to a man-made holy-day.



What about the birth of Jesus or his ressurection is man made?




Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Over and again in the Scripture, the ability to name something corresponds to authority over it. Adam names the animals, Nebuchadnezzar names the captives. Why do we want to name the Lord's Day something other than what He calls it, and to elevate one of those days above another with that name, as if we had authority to do so?



If we decided to celebrate super bowl sunday at church than you would have a point. But we are taking God's word and emphasizing different doctrines on certian sundays. It is not clear to me why that is wrong?




Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> I do not desire to be combative here. These are the questions our Puritan fathers asked, and they answered by rejecting all man-made celebrations such as Easter, Christ-Mass, Epiphany, Pentecost Sunday. I only wish to point out the history and reasoning of the Puritan understanding on this, the Puritan-Board.



Neither are we who disagree with you. I have much respect for you and anyone else who holds to your view, you cannot fault someone for wishing to keep the Sabbath holy. Might I suggest a couple of things to think about. 

1. If we are faithful to our reformed heretage than we must also admit that we, like all totally depraved people, can become pharasee like in our thinking. We can add to God's law even for "good reasons". Like some baptists and non-denomanational churchs here in the south, who forbid dancing, smoking, drinking, etc..., we can also over protect things to a fault. Not to offend or accuse anyone here of anything but it seems to me, In my humble opinion, that that may be what is going on here. We have asked over and over again why such practices today in our culture are pagan. The response we get in no way argues why such things are pagan, for the most part, but simply assumes that they are. This is in effect, even if unintetionally, to make a straw man of our side. As much as I respect the Puritans, I must point out that they were arguing against a different thing back then and their arguments cannot be that easily applied to anything today. 

2. That the "logic" of what is going on here is no so simple as being presented by some of my brothers and sisters in Christ on the other side of this discussion. As I see it there are three different problems to be solved here. For one is the sabbath to be regarded as holy? Yes, both sides overtly agree on this (we may be implicitly disregarding it but that has not been shown yet). So simply replying that "we should regard the sabbath as holy and not add manmade things to it" doesn't get us very far in the discussion. In fact it ignores the questions that we have pointed out with regards to this. For two what freedoms do a individual congragation have in what is emphasized in worship? This is not to suggest that we can add anything but asks what can be changed if anything? For three what makes what we call Easter today manmade and pagan? I am not saying that we should do easter baskets at church but why is it pagan or manmade to celebrate Christ's ressurection on this day?

---------- Post added at 11:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 AM ----------




Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> The singing of Psalms is a commanded element of worship. Which Psalm is sung and how many is circumstantial.



The teaching of the whole counsel of God is a commanded element of worship. Which doctrine on which sunday is circumstantial.


----------



## Romans922

jwright82 said:


> What in scripture gives you the right to say that a church may not emphasize a particuler doctrine on a particuler Lord's day if that happens to be Easter or Ressurection Sunday?



James, 

Why do you celebrate Easter? What will you do on Easter that is different than any other Lord's Day?


----------



## jwright82

Romans922 said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in scripture gives you the right to say that a church may not emphasize a particuler doctrine on a particuler Lord's day if that happens to be Easter or Ressurection Sunday?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James,
> 
> Why do you celebrate Easter? What will you do on Easter that is different than any other Lord's Day?
Click to expand...


Because I wish to emphasize the doctrine of Christ's ressurection on this day of my own free will. I may go to my grandmothers house if the family is getting together. If I have my daughter than sometime that weekend I will give her a basket with candy in it. That saturday I will take her to my church to do the easter egg hunt.


----------



## Romans922

jwright82 said:


> Because I wish to emphasize the doctrine of Christ's ressurection on this day of my own free will.



But I don't see how that is not emphasized every Lord's Day, especially since He rose on the first day of the week. 

Doing so by your own free will isn't really helping your case because the question is has God commanded it. 


Deut. 12 says in the context of worship, "Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it."

James you said,


jwright82 said:


> If we are faithful to our reformed heretage than we must also admit that we, like all totally depraved people, can become pharasee like in our thinking. We can add to God's law even for "good reasons".



That seems like exactly what you are doing, especially in the context of Deut. 12 that is quoted. What did the Pharisees do? They added to the commandment of God. 

You are adding, not by God's command, but by your own free will an emphasis that God Himself has not commanded or made distinct from any other Lord's Day. Josh has said this before, putting emphasis on one particular Lord's Day in contrast to others is showing the lack of zeal for the other Lord's Days. If you are not giving all of yourself in every Lord's Day to rest in the Lord then you are in sin. 

The question is where has the Lord commanded to emphasize, at the determination of the Roman Catholics, the resurrection in a greater way than any other Lord's Day? 

It is really offensive to God's divinity to suggest that man's designation could somehow super-add specialness to something that is holy by His prescription and peculiar presence in it.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Let's watch the charges of sin and who is the Pharisee and deal with the questions that come up as far as these observances without making it personal or taking it personally. To that end I really think the many questions involved here need separating out and answering distinctly based upon the principles involved. Lumping various questions of going to grandma's house on a holiday, egg hunts on week days, eating holiday candy, countenancing the church calendar and the freedom the pastor has to choose his sermon subjects, under whether Easter has pagan ties, ultimately is not helpful.


----------



## jwright82

Romans922 said:


> But I don't see how that is not emphasized every Lord's Day, especially since He rose on the first day of the week.
> 
> Doing so by your own free will isn't really helping your case because the question is has God commanded it.
> 
> 
> Deut. 12 says in the context of worship, "Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it."
> 
> James you said,



Who says it can't be? Your point really backfires in a way. If I understand you correctly, and please correct me if I am not, we should not tie it down to one day, agreed. What in any of our posts has suggested that you either:
A. Must emphasize the ressurection on this particuler day
b. Cannot celebrate it on anyother day

This is the straw man that I mentioned. If you take your point to its logical conclusion than it suggests that you must not, man binding the conscience, celebrate the ressurection on this day. How is that not a manmade law upon God's people? 




Romans922 said:


> That seems like exactly what you are doing, especially in the context of Deut. 12 that is quoted. What did the Pharisees do? They added to the commandment of God.



In what way have we added to the commandment of God? We have uniformally said that it is not binding on all christians to emphasize this doctrine on this day. That is again a straw man argument. 




Romans922 said:


> You are adding, not by God's command, but by your own free will an emphasis that God Himself has not commanded or made distinct from any other Lord's Day. Josh has said this before, putting emphasis on one particular Lord's Day in contrast to others is showing the lack of zeal for the other Lord's Days. If you are not giving all of yourself in every Lord's Day to rest in the Lord then you are in sin.



So we are never to mention or emphasize either the Lord's birth or ressurection because there are Roman Catholic rituals associated with them? Or that we must not emphasize or mention them on those days? That is very much a manmade law upon God's people. Would it be wrong for a church to emphasize the TULIP on all the sundays in July? So sermon series and emphasizing one book of the bible for a time is wrong? I think that we can all agree that that is absurd. But as soon as you admit that you leave open the question of If it is up to the particuler church to emphasize which books or doctrines on which sabbath days, than why would it be wrong to emphasize those doctrines on those days?




Romans922 said:


> The question is where has the Lord commanded to emphasize, at the determination of the Roman Catholics, the resurrection in a greater way than any other Lord's Day?
> 
> It is really offensive to God's divinity to suggest that man's designation could somehow super-add specialness to something that is holy by His prescription and peculiar presence in it.



Again straw man arguments. We are not saying that you must or are commanded by God to do so. We are saying that you are commanded to teach the whole counsel of God. Which of that counsel you teach on which sabbath day is up to the local church. This is not a matter of command but one of circumstance.

---------- Post added at 12:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------




NaphtaliPress said:


> Let's watch the charges of sin and who is the Pharisee and deal with the questions that come up as far as these observances without making it personal or taking it personally. To that end I really think the many questions involved here need separating out and answering distinctly based upon the principles involved. Lumping various questions of going to grandma's house on a holiday, egg hunts on week days, eating holiday candy, countenancing the church calendar and the freedom the pastor has to choose his sermon subjects, under whether Easter has pagan ties, ultimately is not helpful.



Will do. I was writing my last post when you posted this. But I will abide by this in the future.


----------



## he beholds

NaphtaliPress said:


> Let's watch the charges of sin and who is the Pharisee and deal with the questions that come up as far as these observances without making it personal or taking it personally. To that end I really think the many questions involved here need separating out and answering distinctly based upon the principles involved. Lumping various questions of going to grandma's house on a holiday, egg hunts on week days, eating holiday candy, countenancing the church calendar and the freedom the pastor has to choose his sermon subjects, under whether Easter has pagan ties, ultimately is not helpful.



But to so many of us, that's ALL that celebrating Easter is. So I'm asking how are those things pagan? If you are allowed to do it on ANY other Sunday, so it passes the RPW test, then it can't suddenly become Pagan if it's on April 8th, is my understanding. When this thread was started, "Celebrating Easter is Pagan," my question became, what am I doing that is Pagan? If that cannot be answered, then the thread is too broad and it isn't celebrating Easter that is Pagan but it is doing such and such that is Pagan and I'm looking for the such and such. Is preaching on Christ resurrected Pagan? Are eggs Pagan? Is the color yellow Pagan? Are bunnies Pagan? Are ducklings Pagan? Is "He is Risen" Pagan? Are sunrise services Pagan? Are breakfasts Pagan? Are fellowship meals Pagan? Is Grandma's house Pagan? Is ham Pagan? Is special music Pagan? Are lilies Pagan? 
AND, if any of those ARE Pagan, then the issue still isn't April 8th, but every Lord's day.


----------



## Philip

jwright82 said:


> Would it be wrong for a church to emphasize the TULIP on all the sundays in July?



To add to this, would any of you celebrate Reformation Sunday? Would you at least reference to the 95 theses in a sermon around the 31st of October?


----------



## jwright82

he beholds said:


> But to so many of us, that's ALL that celebrating Easter is. So I'm asking how are those things pagan? If you are allowed to do it on ANY other Sunday, so it passes the RPW test, then it can't suddenly become Pagan if it's on April 8th, is my understanding. When this thread was started, "Celebrating Easter is Pagan," my question became, what am I doing that is Pagan? If that cannot be answered, then the thread is too broad and it isn't celebrating Easter that is Pagan but it is doing such and such that is Pagan and I'm looking for the such and such. Is preaching on Christ resurrected Pagan? Are eggs Pagan? Is the color yellow Pagan? Are bunnies Pagan? Are ducklings Pagan? Is "He is Risen" Pagan? Are sunrise services Pagan? Are breakfasts Pagan? Are fellowship meals Pagan? Is Grandma's house Pagan? Is ham Pagan? Is special music Pagan? Are lilies Pagan?
> AND, if any of those ARE Pagan, then the issue still isn't April 8th, but every Lord's day.



I think his point is that we are dealing with two different questions here. The questions raised about what is permissable on the sabbath have nothing per se to do with whether or not Easter is pagan. If we determined that Easter is pagan it would in no way affect those broader questions. Like you and Phillip I see them as connected in a broader way but they get us off on a tangent that has nothing to do with whether or not Easter is pagan, which is the point of this thread. We could start another thread to hash all that out if we wanted to.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Todd, you asked (post 142),

“What in Scripture gives you the idea that you should call one Lord's Day out of 52 in the year ‘Resurrection Sunday’ and that you should do so every year?”

How would you unpack these verses:

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day _alike_. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth _it _unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard _it_. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.​


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Dear Steve, 

Thank you for your specific and thoughtful question. I understand that verse, following our Reformation Fathers, as speaking of whether or not the first century Jews in the Roman Church had the freedom to celebrate a Saturday Sabbath or other particularly Jewish festivals. Because these were commanded to the OT Church, but were no longer binding on the NT Church, there arose an appreciable difficulty in first century congregations that were comprised of Jews and Gentiles. The context also speaks of clean and unclean foods, helping us with the context, pointing us toward the ceremonial laws. I would also add that the "other days" spoken of there with regard to non-observance were in no way the Christian Sabbath, as the 4th Commandment is the Moral Law, forever binding upon all. So, being Jews, there was an attachment to OT ceremonies, and in some cases, pressing that observance to gentile Christians as well. Paul is arguing for acceptance of each other's practice during that time when the OT practices "laid in state" until they were forever put away for those who named the Name of Christ.

---------- Post added at 07:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 PM ----------

Dear Phillip, 

We do not "celebrate" "Reformation Sunday". There is no such day, scripturally speaking. I have preached Gospel sermons on the Lord's Day nearest to that date, just as I believe one is free to preach on the Resurrection any Lord's Day of the year. Thank you as well for a thoughtful question.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Jessica, The thread topic is not my issue; you will need to get clarification what the thread author thinks. I think there are far more important questions that can be addressed from the basis of the second or fourth commandment, and other scriptural rules that may apply to circumstantial or otherwise indifferent matters. 



jwright82 said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> But to so many of us, that's ALL that celebrating Easter is. So I'm asking how are those things pagan? If you are allowed to do it on ANY other Sunday, so it passes the RPW test, then it can't suddenly become Pagan if it's on April 8th, is my understanding. When this thread was started, "Celebrating Easter is Pagan," my question became, what am I doing that is Pagan? If that cannot be answered, then the thread is too broad and it isn't celebrating Easter that is Pagan but it is doing such and such that is Pagan and I'm looking for the such and such. Is preaching on Christ resurrected Pagan? Are eggs Pagan? Is the color yellow Pagan? Are bunnies Pagan? Are ducklings Pagan? Is "He is Risen" Pagan? Are sunrise services Pagan? Are breakfasts Pagan? Are fellowship meals Pagan? Is Grandma's house Pagan? Is ham Pagan? Is special music Pagan? Are lilies Pagan?
> AND, if any of those ARE Pagan, then the issue still isn't April 8th, but every Lord's day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think his point is that we are dealing with two different questions here. The questions raised about what is permissable on the sabbath have nothing per se to do with whether or not Easter is pagan. If we determined that Easter is pagan it would in no way affect those broader questions. Like you and Phillip I see them as connected in a broader way but they get us off on a tangent that has nothing to do with whether or not Easter is pagan, which is the point of this thread. We could start another thread to hash all that out if we wanted to.
Click to expand...


----------



## jwright82

NaphtaliPress said:


> Jessica, The thread topic is not my issue; you will need to get clarification what the thread author thinks. I think there are far more important questions that can be addressed from the basis of the second or fourth commandment, and other scriptural rules that may apply to circumstantial or otherwise indifferent matters.



I'm not Jessica. Both of our names begin with "J" though. These issues seem to bring up so many different issues that it is hard to keep it narrow. I do think that how we answer those questions affects how you are than forced to answer the others, if you are going to be consistant.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I've no idea what that means.


jwright82 said:


> I do think that how we answer those questions affects how you are than forced to answer the others, if you are going to be consistant.


----------



## jwright82

Did I get you right and you wrote the wrong name? Its no big deal I just wanted to make sure you were talking to me.

You are presented with two questions. Is it o.k. for a church to dedicate the month of july to preaching on the TULIP? Is it o.k. for a church to dedicate the day of easter to preaching on the ressurection? If you answer yes to the first one and no to the second one than you now are in a position in which you must make a valid distinction between the two. How is the first one different from the second one? If you cannot or do not come up with a substantial reason why than your distinction is arbatrary.

No doubt if we follow the logic here like a chess game than the person will likley say that easter is a pagan or popish tradition. O.k. that is a valid distinction it clearly makes a substantial difference between the two. But if it is pointed out that what we call easter today is so different from what it used to be than the burden of proof is on the person claiming that it is pagan. So now the person has to provide some reason why it should be considered pagan or popish. If no reason can be presented than again it is a purely arbatrary distinction.

Sorry for this I think in purely logical categories and I work out the consequences of someones ideas in an instant. It seems to annoy people because they have no idea how I got from where they are to where I am, I am working on it . Van Til was that way so I am in good company. So if no valid distinction can be provided than how you answer question one will have to be, for consistancy sake, the way you answer question two. Vice versa how you answer question two will determine how you answer one. So without the valid distinction you either answer yes to both or no to both, or be inconsistant and arbatrary. Thats why we brought up those questions because it forces those who disagree with us to provide a valid distinction.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Todd, I appreciate your gracious reply. Very likely you realize there is a lot more at stake in discussions like these than the simple point at issue, and that is the validity of 1) Reformed theology in general, 2) The Westminster Standards as reflecting the Biblical data, 3) the Regulative Principle of Worship, and 4) even the Sabbath as the Biblical day of worship – in the eyes (and understanding) of believers who are not accustomed to / or convinced of these teachings. And even old salts (this one is 70!) who have more to learn concerning the doctrine which is according to godliness.

The very title of this thread can be offensive to those who with sincere, godly desire serve the Lord, albeit with much to learn. Of course, shock value has its place in the Way of Christ (to wit, the Book of Revelation uses it often with its vivid images to shake up the complacent saints), but it can also damage – especially if meted with a heavy hand.

When the impression is given in teaching such as in this thread, _*“This is the Law of godliness – obey it or stand condemned”*_, the heart recoils at what _seems_ a pharisaic legalism, as the 4 items noted above are not immediately self-evident upon reading God’s word. Myself, I wandered in a doctrinal wilderness of Wesleyan perfectionism and Finneyesque pelagianism _for decades_ till the Lord taught me very dramatically concerning the doctrines of grace, and shortly afterward, a Reformed Baptist pastor showed me the truth of the 5 points of Calvinism as regards soteriology. But there is much more to Reformed doctrine than soteriology. Threads like this can be really destructive to tender and young consciences – not to mention those not members of PB and from other theologies, or even unbelievers, looking in. A heavy-handed and terse rejoinder to sincerely seeking but erring souls – such as I have been even in this thread – does not have the savor of the winsomeness of Christ Jesus our Shepherd who leads us in paths of righteousness for His name’s sake, and can put souls off even from the truth.

So I repeat, your (and others’) irenic and helpful approaches are much appreciated.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Dear Steve, 

I do try to be irenic. Busy-ness and the keyboard are things that work against that, making a short statement (that can be mis-interpreted as acerbic) the easy way out. It is because of this that I don't wade in very often--I rarely have the time to put the necessary time into typing out things that I know are new to many. 

In answer to your kind reply I would say that I am hearty agreement--there is more at stake than simply "Easter and its trappings". These issues are foundational to Reformed/Puritan Presbyterian Theology (which I unashamedly assert is the most consistently Biblical expression of Christianity)--you are right on target. It means so much more than soteriology, it is living by the Bible in all its liberty to do what God has commanded, and also the freedom to say "no" to our former hard master, sin. The ramifications for worship, ecclesiology, hermeneutics, theology proper (and the rest of the loci) are so far reaching that many do not see it today, run right past it, and do so with a high, ignorant, and vocal hand. Ignorance can be remedied, but only the Lord God Himself can cure the rebellion to His Word that lurks in all our hearts as remnants of our former days of bondage. I pray that instead of digging in because we are invested in a practice, that we would be invested in obedience. 

As for your comment "This is the Law of Godliness--obey it or stand condemned" I would only reply that it is my prayer we all would understand the way we receive correction to be a window into the estate of our souls. When we dig in our heels and refuse correction, well, we all know what Solomon says in the Proverbs concerning that way. Thank the Lord that there was a man who took you aside and opened your eyes to the truth of the Scriptures. Thank the Lord that He Himself opened your eyes to see those great truths, and then kept pressing you with the truth. I pray for myself, following the example of the Apostle Paul that I would have that edgy kind of Christianity that "presses forward", never content with stasis. (Philippians 3) that I would never be so defensive as to close my eyes to correction because it's my ox that's being gored, my practice that's being evil spoken of. I desire, albeit haltingly and failingly, to obey the Lord, and not to be condemned, and I make every effort, again, weakly, to count those wounds of correction as faithful--because although they may be brought mediately by a fellow pilgrim, if they are faithful, then they are from Christ, who calls me His friend.


----------



## jwright82

Jerusalem Blade said:


> When the impression is given in teaching such as in this thread, “This is the Law of godliness – obey it or stand condemned”, the heart recoils at what seems a pharisaic legalism,



I concur. In all honesty we on the other side of this issue have been met with with passionate replies that do not answer our questions or provide anyway forward in the discussion. I hope that we can move forward with a discussion but it doesn't seem likley at this point. Straw man arguments against our position are simply unhelpful at best. I for one admire and respect my brothers and sisters on the other side of this issue for their zeal in protecting the sabbath, you can never fault someone for that. But without answering our questions this discussion cannot move forward. There is no reason that we cannot move forward in this discussion but the other side will have to answer our questions in ways other than straw man arguments. I believe that we can move forward in this discussion but coperation on all sides is needed.

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 PM ----------




Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> I would only reply that it is my prayer we all would understand the way we receive correction to be a window into the estate of our souls.



And we are open to correction. But look at it from our perspective. We ask questions that never get answered. The answers we do get are along the lines of what Steve mentioned. So we are finding it hard to see our "errors" in that envioroment. Perhaps if our questions got answered we could all move forward and get some good discussion going.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Yes; I was addressing Jessica; but since you posted I commented on your comment. I've already explained how I come at this question of what we do with things in worship notoriously abused to idolatry; per George Gillespie's argument which you said you did not have access to (but which I offered and it is online). Is it your contention that the pretended holy days are no longer idolatrous in the RCC? I think you would need to bear the burden of proof for that.



jwright82 said:


> Did I get you right and you wrote the wrong name? Its no big deal I just wanted to make sure you were talking to me.
> 
> You are presented with two questions. Is it o.k. for a church to dedicate the month of july to preaching on the TULIP? Is it o.k. for a church to dedicate the day of easter to preaching on the ressurection? If you answer yes to the first one and no to the second one than you now are in a position in which you must make a valid distinction between the two. How is the first one different from the second one? If you cannot or do not come up with a substantial reason why than your distinction is arbatrary.
> 
> No doubt if we follow the logic here like a chess game than the person will likley say that easter is a pagan or popish tradition. O.k. that is a valid distinction it clearly makes a substantial difference between the two. But if it is pointed out that what we call easter today is so different from what it used to be than the burden of proof is on the person claiming that it is pagan. So now the person has to provide some reason why it should be considered pagan or popish. If no reason can be presented than again it is a purely arbatrary distinction.
> 
> Sorry for this I think in purely logical categories and I work out the consequences of someones ideas in an instant. It seems to annoy people because they have no idea how I got from where they are to where I am, I am working on it . Van Til was that way so I am in good company. So if no valid distinction can be provided than how you answer question one will have to be, for consistancy sake, the way you answer question two. Vice versa how you answer question two will determine how you answer one. So without the valid distinction you either answer yes to both or no to both, or be inconsistant and arbatrary. Thats why we brought up those questions because it forces those who disagree with us to provide a valid distinction.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

James, 

You have made the charge a couple of times now that you have asked questions that have not been answered. Please forgive my dullness and indulge me by asking one question at a time, and I will do my meager best to answer. I thought I was addressing your concerns, but perhaps I have spoken so as not to be understood. Also, when you say above "and we are open to correction" I was not speaking in my post of any particular party, but us all.


----------



## jwright82

NaphtaliPress said:


> Yes; I was addressing Jessica; but since you posted I commented on your comment.



Sorry I was confused because you quoted me. It looked confusing.




NaphtaliPress said:


> I've already explained how I come at this question of what we do with things in worship notoriously abused to idolatry; per George Gillespie's argument which you said you did not have access to (but which I offered and it is online). Is it your contention that the pretended holy days are no longer idolatrous in the RCC? I think you would need to bear the burden of proof for that.



Yes your right. But if we are to be logical here than the question is if two things have one thing common here do they have all things in common? That is unless it can be shown that a reformed church emphasizing the doctrine of the ressurection on easter has all popish and pagan things in common with Rome than a dinstiction must be made, if we are to be reasonable about it. Simply asserting that it is pagan is not helpful. Simply asserting that it is the same as Rome again doesn't get us anywhere. 

I did quote the references you posted to make my case though, so I don't think it is that easy. I also pointed out that those quotes are conditioned by there historical setting, that point has never been addressed thus far. I think that we can move forward in this but if either side raises a valid question than the other side must at least address it or we get nowhere. Passion for God's sabbath is a great virtue but the situation may be more complex than we thought and it is neccessary from time to time to reavaluate how we understand these truths.


----------



## Philip

There seem to be two main concerns and points of contention here:

a) whether the church could be Scripturally warranted in ordaining feast days.

b) whether such feast days would constitute an element or a circumstance of worship.

The answers, according to the stricter interpretation, would be "no" and "element." I personally question both of these positions. The first, it seems to me, is an argument that those instances where we seemingly have God countenancing new feasts are either secular feasts (akin to the 4th of July or Thanksgiving) or else that Jesus Himself did not participate (an argument from silence which I find unconvincing).

As for the second question, it also seems to me that calling a feast of the sort that Easter is an element of worship just seems odd.


----------



## kappazei

> The Church is not called to sanitize pagan practices, but to come out from among them, be separate from them, and utterly repudiate them. Sanitizing pagan practices is no different than what the rebellious children of Israel did in Exodus 32.



I agree that 'sanitizing' should not be our Calling but don't we end up being salt and light to Them all the same while we're still here? I am thinking of how in Augustine's time the Christian emperors outlawed some of the more gruesome pagan practices in Rome. 
Hey, maybe it's really the media/marketers who 'sanitised' the Pagan significance behind Easter eggs and bunnies!


----------



## jwright82

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Also, when you say above "and we are open to correction" I was not speaking in my post of any particular party, but us all.



Sorry for misunderstanding. You speak wisdom here. First off I would like to welcome to the PuritanBoard, I can tell from your posts that it will be very beneficial to me in any interactions that I have with you in the time to come. 

To start perhaps the last question I asked abouth the difference between a preacher choosing to preach through the TULIP in july and that same preacher choosing to preach on Christ's ressurection on easter sunday, what is the difference? I elaborated on this on page 4 at the end. I don't what # post it was. I understand that you have limited time so I appreciate it. But I couldn't go there to grab my quote and write this, I will quote it here once I am done.

---------- Post added at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 PM ----------




jwright82 said:


> You are presented with two questions. Is it o.k. for a church to dedicate the month of july to preaching on the TULIP? Is it o.k. for a church to dedicate the day of easter to preaching on the ressurection? If you answer yes to the first one and no to the second one than you now are in a position in which you must make a valid distinction between the two. How is the first one different from the second one? If you cannot or do not come up with a substantial reason why than your distinction is arbatrary.
> 
> No doubt if we follow the logic here like a chess game than the person will likley say that easter is a pagan or popish tradition. O.k. that is a valid distinction it clearly makes a substantial difference between the two. But if it is pointed out that what we call easter today is so different from what it used to be than the burden of proof is on the person claiming that it is pagan. So now the person has to provide some reason why it should be considered pagan or popish. If no reason can be presented than again it is a purely arbatrary distinction.
> 
> Sorry for this I think in purely logical categories and I work out the consequences of someones ideas in an instant. It seems to annoy people because they have no idea how I got from where they are to where I am, I am working on it . Van Til was that way so I am in good company. So if no valid distinction can be provided than how you answer question one will have to be, for consistancy sake, the way you answer question two. Vice versa how you answer question two will determine how you answer one. So without the valid distinction you either answer yes to both or no to both, or be inconsistant and arbatrary. Thats why we brought up those questions because it forces those who disagree with us to provide a valid distinction.



Here it is in context.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Dear James, 

Not a newbie to the PB. Check my profile. 

Question #1: Is it OK to preach on TULIP in July. Answer: Yes. 
Question #2: Is it OK to preach on the resurrection on the day that folks call "Easter Sunday". Answer: Yes. I have repeatedly stated in this thread that preaching about the resurrection is not what's at issue. A preacher may preach on the resurrection 52 Lord's Days per year, in my estimation. 

What I have contended for in this thread is that we have no warrant to call any Lord's Day "Resurrection Sunday, Reformation Sunday" etc. because the first day of the week belongs to the Lord. I have further asserted that because the Lord by His Apostles changed the day of worship, the Lord's Day, to the first day of the week to commemorate the resurrection in our *weekly* worship that such festival days are not only unnecessary, but un-commanded, and therefore forbidden by the regulative principle codified in our standards, which I believe are the standard of this board. 

I would be happy to continue this exchange if you have further questions. And thank you for the kind words at the beginning of your post.


----------



## MW

James, please note that Rev. Ruddell has been here since 2007. 

To clarify, preaching on the resurrection on a particular Lord's day does not constitute Easter observance. Marking a specific day on the church calendar as Easter and observing it accordingly is Easter observance.

Philip, you are free to argue on the basis of the RPW but there is no liberty to undermine the RPW. For clarification, the RPW is, What is not commanded is forbidden.

It is good when discussion can move beyond personal commentary. Let's leave commentary for the people who sit on the sidelines and know nothing of the challenge of robust discussion. For those involved in the discussion it is helpful to leave personal reflection on the sidelines.

Blessings!


----------



## NaphtaliPress

James, Rev. Ruddell and I essentially are on the same page, and as usual Rev. Winser succinctly identifies the distinction at issue. I will offer the full revised Gillespie extract yet again in PDF, but up the ante by including the full argument of chapters 1-3 or 4 (forget); but it is extensive; and tedious, so fair warning. Maybe a new thread could be started to discuss that argument some what in an organized fashion (yea, I know that this format is not conducive to that). You can find the text online but lacking the translations and bibliographical helps. Chapters 1-4 of part three of English Popish Ceremonies. PM me if interested. Rev. Ruddell, if this is of interest maybe you can take point, PM me if so. 
I've got to pull back on this for now.


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> Philip, you are free to argue on the basis of the RPW but there is no liberty to undermine the RPW. For clarification, the RPW is, What is not commanded is forbidden.



With regard to the elements of worship, absolutely.


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philip, you are free to argue on the basis of the RPW but there is no liberty to undermine the RPW. For clarification, the RPW is, What is not commanded is forbidden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to the elements of worship, absolutely.
Click to expand...


If "days" aren't elements, I don't know what is. They were commanded under the OT and abrogated under the NT. Galatians 4:10, 11, "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." It is difficult to imagine the apostle would be speaking in such severe terms about a circumstance of worship.


----------



## au5t1n

As I understand it, a circumstance is something that does not stand alone and have its own worship significance but is a circumstantial aid to performing a commanded part or element of worship. Pews have no worship significance on their own, but we sit in them to hear the Word preached (or maybe you sit on something else--that's fine; it's a circumstance). The paper on which the psalms are printed has no worship significance on its own, but we use it to help us sing the psalms. A microphone has no worship significance on its own, but the preacher might use one to facilitate hearing the sermon. You may be interested to learn that Rev. Ruddell takes an iPad with him into the pulpit. He can do that. It's as lawful as using paper sermon notes, which are also circumstantial aids to preaching. They aren't parts of worship. No express warrant is required for them; just their usefulness to the commanded element of preaching. 10:00 am has no worship significance on its own, but we have to begin the service sometime, and that's as good a time as any. You get the idea.

If we didn't clarify that positive warrant is required only for elements and not circumstances, then we would have people saying, "Well, then why does your preacher use a microphone? Why do you use printed psalters? Why does your church have pews? The Bible doesn't command these things." But these things are circumstantials that enable the commanded parts of worship to be done decently and in order. It should be apparent that a Feast Day does not fit into the same category.

A Feast Day cannot be a circumstance because it _does_ have worship significance of its own, and it is not necessary or even helpful to the performing of any of the commanded elements. Which part of worship is improved by a Feast Day?


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> But on the Lord's Day we honor the Lord alone, (Isaiah 58.13)



View attachment 2771


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> Galatians 4:10, 11, "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." It is difficult to imagine the apostle would be speaking in such severe terms about a circumstance of worship.



Unless such a circumstance was being made binding on the conscience, as it was in Galatia. In Romans 14, on the other hand, Paul says "let each man be covinced in his own mind."

And in the case of the day in question, we are already commanded to worship on it anyway.



austinww said:


> A Feast Day cannot be a circumstance because it does have worship significance of its own



Not sure why it would, necessarily.



austinww said:


> Which part of worship is improved by a Feast Day?



All of it?

Am I taking it that you are objecting to worship gatherings on days other than the Lord's Day as well?


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Galatians 4:10, 11, "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." It is difficult to imagine the apostle would be speaking in such severe terms about a circumstance of worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless such a circumstance was being made binding on the conscience, as it was in Galatia. In Romans 14, on the other hand, Paul says "let each man be covinced in his own mind."
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting a circumstance is by definition something which does not bind the conscience? That will not hold up under scrutiny. If the church decides to meet at place A and time Z, a worship participant is not free to disregard it in preference for place B and time Y. A circumstance is simply that without which the action of worship could not be performed. Once decided, it is as binding as the worship itself.

Romans 14 speaks of days of the Lord's appointing. They were binding on the conscience of the weak believer because he had not yet been convinced that they had been abrogated. There is no reference to non-binding circumstances.


----------



## au5t1n

P. F. Pugh said:


> All of it?



How exactly? I can understand how a microphone makes it easier to hear the preaching of the Word or how a printed psalter makes it easier to sing, but how does Easter facilitate any of the elements of worship?

Now, it might make someone enjoy them more, but that takes us back to Rev. Ruddell's (et al.) point pages ago that Easter tends to detract from the value of other Lord's Days.



P. F. Pugh said:


> Am I taking it that you are objecting to worship gatherings on days other than the Lord's Day as well?



I don't object. Without that we couldn't have Presbytery.



P. F. Pugh said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Feast Day cannot be a circumstance because it does have worship significance of its own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure why it would, necessarily.
Click to expand...


Isn't the purpose of Easter to celebrate the resurrection of Christ?


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> Romans 14 speaks of days of the Lord's appointing.



Not all of the Jewish feasts were of this nature. For example the Feast of Dedication.



> A circumstance is simply that without which the action of worship could not be performed. Once decided, it is as binding as the worship itself.



The colour of the church carpet (or lack thereof) is a circumstance of worship. I'm not sure how that is supposed to be binding.



austinww said:


> I can understand how a microphone makes it easier to hear the preaching of the Word or how a printed psalter makes it easier to sing, but how does Easter facilitate any of the elements of worship?



By focusing the worship for that particular Lord's Day on the resurrection of Our Lord.



austinww said:


> That is nice for you, Philip, but to every other Christian I know who celebrates Easter, the purpose of Easter is to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.



Why are the two mutually exclusive?


----------



## au5t1n

P. F. Pugh said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand how a microphone makes it easier to hear the preaching of the Word or how a printed psalter makes it easier to sing, but how does Easter facilitate any of the elements of worship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By focusing the worship for that particular Lord's Day on the resurrection of Our Lord.
Click to expand...


I guess if the only thing that was different was that the sermon was on the resurrection and maybe the normal flow of the Scripture reading was interrupted in favor of resurrection account readings, there wouldn't be much to object to. A "theme" on a given Lord's Day might be a circumstance, but even if it is, there is a difference between a theme and a holy day. You may say that to you it is not a "holy day," but does most of the congregation ever know this? When I was in another Presbyterian denomination where Easter is commonly celebrated, the prayer on Easter included thanksgiving that Christ was risen "today" (not the Lord's day, Easter day) and members greeted one another with "He is risen!" as though he were not risen (in the church calendar sense) yesterday. This is not a theme; it is a special day. Special days were elemental in the OT. Besides, circumstances are necessary for elements. How is Easter necessary? In a certain sense, every church has a theme every Lord's day. The minister preaches on something different every week, but we don't announce in July that Christ just healed a leper "today" and celebrate the healing on an annual Leprosy Healing Day.



P. F. Pugh said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is nice for you, Philip, but to every other Christian I know who celebrates Easter, the purpose of Easter is to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the two mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...


I don't think I understand. You said you don't see how a feast day must necessarily have a worship significance. I said the purpose of Easter (the feast day in question) is to celebrate the resurrection of Christ, which is a worship significance. What are the "two" things you're asking about? Sorry if I've missed something obvious. It happens. 
(By the way, before I saw your response I edited the portion of the post which you quoted and removed the sarcasm. I meant it nicely in the first place, but that isn't always clear in textual communication, so I removed it. Sorry about that.)


----------



## Philip

austinww said:


> When I was in another Presbyterian denomination where Easter is commonly celebrated, the prayer on Easter included thanksgiving that Christ was risen "today" (not the Lord's day, Easter day) and members greeted one another with "He is risen!" as though he were not risen yesterday.



Is there a usual greeting in your church? To some degree, I would wish that "He is risen" were our standard Christian greeting. You're right, in a way, that the Easter celebration includes particular liturgical emphases not present on other Lord's days, but on the other hand, most churches will have some variance in the weekly liturgy.



austinww said:


> I don't think I understand. You said you don't see how a feast day must necessarily have a worship significance.



I meant worship significance on its own apart from the elements of worship. The celebration of Easter does not have "worship significance of its own."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jerusalem Blade said:


> “This is the Law of godliness – obey it or stand condemned”



Has this really been said in this thread? I am not sure this has been implied. Maybe it should be thought that this is a law of Godliness and to disobey it has consequences maybe but I have not read condemned. BTW, I would say that profaning and the trivialization of the Sabbath has had very ill effects upon the Lord's Church and our neighbors. 

Steve to equate the Weslyan perfectionism of the 19th Century with what we hold to in the faith is not even close. I know you know this. I am saying this more out of respect for you and for those reading this. Yes, some may recoil and kick against the goad but that doesn't necessarily make it Pharisaical obedience as in that we are trying to establish our own righteousness. We just want to be pleasing to God and do what Deuteronomy 29:29 says.

The following ought to be understood better so that this charge of Pharisee wouldn't be levelled so quickly. 



> "*The Gospel is temporary, but the law is eternal and is restored precisely through the Gospel. Freedom from the law consists, then, not in the fact that the Christian has nothing more to do with the law, but lies in the fact that the law demands nothing more from the Christian as a condition of salvation. The law can no longer judge and condemn him. Instead he delights in the law of God according **to the inner man and yearns for it day and night.*
> 
> Therefore, that law must always be preached to the congregation in connection with the Gospel. Law and Gospel, the whole Word, the full counsel of God, is the content of preaching. Among Reformed people, therefore, the law occupies a much larger place than in the teaching of sin, since it is also part of the teaching of gratitude.”
> 
> Herman Bavinck​



BTW, this is still true. 



> (Gal 6:7) Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
> 
> 
> (Gal 6:8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.



And when others want to warn that there are violations to the Commandments for the purpose of maturity, I at least try to understand it and receive it. A lot of people just recoil and fight agianst it and won't receive instruction. I miserably fail at what God requires concerning the Sabbath. But I do know what He expects and I shouldn't cause others to have a false understanding of it. Isaiah 58 is very spelled out. I know you understand this. I love the law and hope I can keep growing in fulfilling God's will because it is full of love.


----------



## Gesetveemet

Just a couple thoughts, I do believe that there are few on this board has ever been in a covenant keeping Reformed Church in the Netherlands where they would not dare to have anything to do with the worlds Easter. Where they still cling to the old paths of the Reformation. Where they would not dare call the Lord's day a celebration day as if everyone in the church has reason to celebrate. No in those churches each and every Lord's day is a solemn event where a man is placed in the pulpit to become a mouth peace for God in the proclaiming of His gospel. Churches where the women still cover their heads and they have had enough sense to cling to the same Bible for the past 400 years. A place where they can carry someone out dead with only a brief pause so in order to continue with the preached word knowing the all importance of the conversion of a soul. Churches where the man in the pulpit would not dare use levity to get a chuckle out of the congregation and the elders do not stick out the hand of fellowship after the service if the doctrine was not right. In my opinion this thread has done a great injustice to those type churches and that sola scriptura does not make Reformed tradition unscriptural or invalid.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hi Randy,

I think there is some misunderstanding here. In no way did I mean to say that “Wesleyan perfectionism and Finneyesque pelagianism” have anything to do with what this board stands for – quite the contrary! this but the “doctrinal wilderness” I was in for decades (of spiritual failure!) and came out of precisely because of the truth and power in the Doctrines of Grace.

True things may be said in a harsh and abrupt manner which then conveys not the grace and truth of Christ but an all-too-human attitude of impatient holier-than-thou correctness – which then tends to make what is really true and good _*seem*_ (note how I italicized that word in my previous post, #159) like pharisaic legalism. I know from my own experience – from my own heart! – that I have said true things but with a bad attitude (unaware I was doing so) which harmed rather than helped the cause of Christ. _*This*_ is what I was cautioning against.

There are many souls here paying rapt attention to this thread because of the importance of the issues, particularly because some of this information is new (new to some of us which have non-Reformed backgrounds) and goes against long-held sincere convictions. _Especially_ when bringing the RPW to bear on celebrations of days – which may have fond as well as _apparently_ godly associations to many – it behooves those doing the teaching to be gentle, understanding, and patient, which is what I commended Todd concerning. These things are too important to be dealt with with a high hand, i.e., as though we peons ought to get this stuff, and what’s our problem. That’s why teachers are to have mature and tender characters.

I brought up the other issues – Reformed doctrine generally, the Westminster Standards, and the Christian Sabbath – as they are really all bundled together in this discussion, and when one aspect is handled poorly, it reflects on them all. We are not talking about Biblical truth only here, but how it is presented, and how received.

Because of the nature of this board, which is confessional, and those who vary from its held values may rightfully be silenced, the maxim remains which states, “A man ‘convinced’ against his will is of the same opinion still.” When I am teaching I seek more than to silence opponents, but to win them over. My remarks were to that end.

I’m sorry, Randy, if they were not clear. You’ve been a good friend, and I take what you say seriously.


----------



## Marrow Man

Gesetveemet -- please fix your signature per PB rules (see the link in my signature below).


----------



## au5t1n

Good thoughts, Mr. Rafalsky, and thank you for the reminder.

Phillip, I'm on my iPod so please pass over (or Easter) my not using the Quote function. 

I see what you are saying better now. I guess I think that if a church truly succeeds in taking the holy day out of Easter and makes it little more than a focus in the elements, then it seems to me it has taken Easter out of Easter. At that point I wonder, why do it? I guess I just think that if it were desirable or necessary to have "circumstantial focus days," it would at least be better not to coincide them suspiciously with Roman days notoriously abused to idolatry. I guess to me Gillespie's point via Chris Coldwell is the central issue.

I think this is the last I want to bring to the table on this thread, but I appreciate your thoughts and will read your response if you make one.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Jessica,
Sorry for the delay---I teach on Tuesdays and and Wednesdays are crazy around here. My main objection is to the additional meetings in many churches during the week prior---Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, etc. As far as other concrete examples of pagan/non-scriptural additions, many (even Reformed) churches do palm branches, flower crosses, change the colors of church vestments to mark days, etc. 

As others have said better above, I see no scriptural example of adding anything to worship whether it be December or March/April. Surely in a Reformed church, Christ's resurrection is made clear each week, for without it we have no hope.


----------



## jwright82

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Dear James,
> 
> Not a newbie to the PB. Check my profile.



Sorry. This is the first time that I have ever interacted with you, I would rather err on the side of being friendly. But I'll keep that in mind. 




Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> What I have contended for in this thread is that we have no warrant to call any Lord's Day "Resurrection Sunday, Reformation Sunday" etc. because the first day of the week belongs to the Lord. I have further asserted that because the Lord by His Apostles changed the day of worship, the Lord's Day, to the first day of the week to commemorate the resurrection in our *weekly* worship that such festival days are not only unnecessary, but un-commanded, and therefore forbidden by the regulative principle codified in our standards, which I believe are the standard of this board.
> 
> I would be happy to continue this exchange if you have further questions. And thank you for the kind words at the beginning of your post.



So its all in the name as they say? That is different but a little odd. I see the point but its like we are going to choose to preach on this subject this day but no one call it easter. This then In my humble opinion seems more a problem for theory than for practice. But never the less that is different from what I was pointing out before. I do have questions but they are off topic so maybe one day if I am curious enough I'll start a thread. Thanks. 




armourbearer said:


> James, please note that Rev. Ruddell has been here since 2007.



Yeah thanks for pointing that out. I have never interacted with him before but I wanted to be nice upfront, as we say in the American "down under" (the south) "you catch more flys with honey than with vinegar". 




armourbearer said:


> To clarify, preaching on the resurrection on a particular Lord's day does not constitute Easter observance. Marking a specific day on the church calendar as Easter and observing it accordingly is Easter observance.



I see the difference now. I'm still not entirely convinced but my questions are on a different topic so I will not get off topic again. But thank you.




NaphtaliPress said:


> James, Rev. Ruddell and I essentially are on the same page, and as usual Rev. Winser succinctly identifies the distinction at issue. I will offer the full revised Gillespie extract yet again in PDF, but up the ante by including the full argument of chapters 1-3 or 4 (forget); but it is extensive; and tedious, so fair warning.



Sorry Chris I don't remember you offering that to me before, I must have missed it. I look forward to the challange of reading it. After I post this I will PM you my email.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

jwright82 said:


> Rev. Todd Ruddell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I have contended for in this thread is that we have no warrant to call any Lord's Day "Resurrection Sunday, Reformation Sunday" etc. because the first day of the week belongs to the Lord. I have further asserted that because the Lord by His Apostles changed the day of worship, the Lord's Day, to the first day of the week to commemorate the resurrection in our *weekly* worship that such festival days are not only unnecessary, but un-commanded, and therefore forbidden by the regulative principle codified in our standards, which I believe are the standard of this board.
> 
> I would be happy to continue this exchange if you have further questions. And thank you for the kind words at the beginning of your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So its all in the name as they say? That is different but a little odd. I see the point but its like we are going to choose to preach on this subject this day but no one call it easter. This then In my humble opinion seems more a problem for theory than for practice. But never the less that is different from what I was pointing out before. I do have questions but they are off topic so maybe one day if I am curious enough I'll start a thread. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Dear James, 

In my understanding, what is odd that otherwise confessional and Biblical-believing Christians would adopt extra-Biblical names and practices in worship, especially when those names are associated with the accretions of men obtruding themselves into the worship of God. 

Thanks,


----------



## ericfromcowtown

Tripel said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doing a basket at home is celebrating on your own, but how does your church putting on an Easter egg hunt qualify as "on their own"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how a church Easter egg hunt is any different than a church picnic on the 4th of July.
Click to expand...


Is a 4th of July church picnic, or some other celebration of Independence Day, common in reformed churches? That would make me squeemish, and not just because I'm Canadian.


----------



## jwright82

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Dear James,
> 
> In my understanding, what is odd that otherwise confessional and Biblical-believing Christians would adopt extra-Biblical names and practices in worship, especially when those names are associated with the accretions of men obtruding themselves into the worship of God.
> 
> Thanks,



If thats what was going on than I would totally agree. Guilty by association is a slipperly slope. Back to the OP I mean what about easter is actually pagan? Back during the Reformation when distancing themselves from the idolatrous practices was a practical neccesity. That is the lay people were used to that way of religous life. So must all be thrown out to preserve the sanctity of the sabbath. If presbyterians start converting to catholicism because of celebrating easter than I would be the first to call for its practice to be abandond, underscoring the non-binding nature of it. I agree that many churchs abuse the sabbath on easter but I would say that this is more of an abuse than something being inherently wrong. 

I am looking forward to diving into the stuff that Chris is going to send me, so I might change my mind or have more to say after that. But I want to read those chps. in their own context and look at if the arguments being developed are timeless truths applicable to all people at all times or were they just historical applications of timless biblical truths for the well being of the church at that time.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Eric,

I would think this but a pleasant occasion for the saints to gather for fellowship over a meal. We would give thanks to our Lord for the food and friendship, and living in a free land (so far), while remaining in accord with His word. Our children could play together, and the adults could converse as families are wont to do – we now being the family of God, world without end. This year the 4th of July falls on a Wednesday.


----------



## jwright82

> Regrettably, the siren songs of the extra and contra-biblical trappings of Romish practice have influenced many _professed _​Presbyterians down that road of apostasy to Rome.



I guess I'll believe it when I see it, surely there is some kind of poll out there. On a side note I am glad that Presbyterians aren't as obssessed with polls as evangelicals are.


----------



## Romans922

Read through the bios of many former OPC and PCA men who have gone to Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy: Authors | Called to Communion


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

James, 

Polls and outcomes are not in our authority to determine--the Lord does that. Ours is to be faithful in prescribed means. We don't do our theology or practice from polls or results. Our success is being faithful in means--to the Lord and His will for outcomes!


----------



## NB3K

FenderPriest said:


> to the pure, all things are pure...



Does that mean cheating on my wife is pure too? Is there not a line which the pure in Christ do not cross? Xmas & Easter are pagan celebrations which the pure should be pure of and hate!


----------



## he beholds

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Dear James,
> 
> In my understanding, what is odd that otherwise confessional and Biblical-believing Christians *would adopt extra-Biblical names and practices in worship,* especially when those names are associated with the accretions of men obtruding themselves into the worship of God.
> 
> Thanks,


OK, so if that's what we're talking about, we "adopt extra-Biblical names and practices in worship," (and that looks like a good summary of the complaints against Easter to me) then I think some of us have different understandings or experiences of what Easter looks like. I don't remember Easter ever being called "Easter Sunday" or "Resurrection Sunday" on any bulletins, announcements, calendars, etc, verbalized or written. I also don't think I've been to a church that did extra-biblical practices on Easter, either. (Of course EP people would say they do, but they'd say that on all 52 Sundays.) 
So, since my church does nothing Eastery at all (I don't know, _maybe_ a different hymn, but no mention of Easter, nothing weird or foreign or extra-biblical in the service) am I still being Pagan by doing the things that are Eastery at home? Eggs, grandma's, ham, etc?


----------



## Romans922

The Lord's Word should be sufficient to answer your question Jessica, 

Isa 58:13-14: "If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."


----------



## he beholds

Romans922 said:


> The Lord's Word should be sufficient to answer your question Jessica,
> 
> Isa 58:13-14: "If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."


Great, thanks!


----------



## py3ak

Romans922 said:


> The Lord's Word should be sufficient to answer your question Jessica,
> 
> Isa 58:13-14: "If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."



[Moderator]*Rev. Barnes, as the author of this thread, if you are unwilling to engage and interact with the questions raised by the title you chose and the article you posted, the thread will be closed. A post such as this does not constitute engagement or interaction.* [/Moderator]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Easter is a very different animal than most holy-days that "get argued about."

Biblically and confessionally there is no way that I see around rejecting the meaning behind the Romanist amalgamation of Druidic and Celtic ideas behind Ishtar, and Easter. It's as bad as Halloween and Samhain.

Everyone in the thread that has said something about observing the Lord's Day _as the Lord's Day _is right. Let's not mess with the 4th commandment.

That said, Rev. Rudell is right in saying that one "could preach" through 52 sermons on the Resurrection without any problem. Jessica is also fine if she wants to have grandma over to her house on the Lord's Day 52 times in a row and eat ham, and boiled eggs, although I think that'd get a bit monotonous for everyone. 

It's the "singling out" of that particular "Easter" day to do specific things that are associated _with Easter_ on the Lord's Day that becomes a problem. Don't change a hymn. (Sing _Psalms_, that'd solve the problem, but that's another thread). Don't hunt for eggs. Don't give out candy. Etc. Why? 

What did the Reformers do? The Puritans? The 5th century Augustinian monks? Historical Theology is so helpful when we realize we don't have to reinvent the wheel and see what others said about Biblical Truth concerning these things.

Here are just a couple of thoughts:

The Puritans “proposed a stricter observance of Sundays, the Lord’s Day, along with banning the immoral celebration of Christmas — as well as Easter, Whitsun and saints’ days.” (see Patino, Marta, _The Puritan Ban on Christmas_). The reason the puritans denied the celebration of any holy days was a biblical foundation to deny the “dressing up” of _any other day than what God had specifically prescribed in Lord’s Day worship_. 

“Holy days" have no such prescription — there is no Scriptural command, approved example, or good and necessary inference, which warrants tying specific acts of redemption to ‘holy’ days of our own choosing.” (See Chris Coldwell's nice article on, The Religious Observance of Christmas and ‘Holy Days’ in American Presbyterianism.)


In “The Quest for Purity: Dynamics of Puritan Movements” by Walter E. a Van Beek, he states, “Because Easter invariably fell on a Sunday, this was a *problem *for Puritan preachers who were consistent with their repudiation of of the traditional calendar. The usual solution _was to preach a sermon that had no direct connection with Easter_.” (Page 77.) 

Even if a preacher was preaching through the resurrection, and there would be no problem preaching about the resurrection on any particular Lord' Day, Puritan preachers wouldn't _reinforce _the already infiltrated mind of their congregation with "Easter-related" ideas. A sermon on the resurrection, on Easter, would be the normal thought process of Roman Catholicism. Check their book of homilies. It's gonna be a resurrection sermon. To continue to dismantle "relatable ideas" to things that are already saturated in our own mind, if alive today, they would pick something else to preach on, _on purpose_.

Calvin, well, deleted Easter. Walsh states in his “Holy Time and Sacred Space in Puritan New England” (Walsh, American Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Spring, 1980), pp. 79-95) “The New England [Pilgrims] like Reformed Protestants everywhere, rejected traditional Roman Catholic and Anglican beliefs and practices that organized time around consecrated churches, railed-off altars, holy shrines, miraculous wells, and that supposed the flow of time to be an irregular succession of holy days and sacred seasons. _The Reformers argued_, what was intended as a crutch for others had become a cast for Christians who willingly accepted the obligation of constant worship. They for whom all days are holy can have no holidays.” Read _The Sermons of John Calvin Upon the Fifth Book of Moses called Deuteronomie_, trans. Arthur Golding (London: H. Middleton, 1583). He deleted Easter.

Side note: Keep in mind also, that when one searches "celebrate Easter" in the search engines, this thread comes up on the first page _multiple times_. Be weary about the way you dialogue and talk about the Lord's Day.


----------



## Romans922

Sorry Ruben, 

On the first page, I responded to some things about the opening post where I said the following: 



Romans922 said:


> Just to be clear, the article I posted wasn't in my opinion a great defense, but did bring to light the pagan aspects of the day just as 'chrismass' has. There are better articles out there all which Chris Coldwell could point you in the right direction.



I believe some of those aspects of the day have been clarified through James and Todd's interaction. Chris also provided better articles by Gillespie. Others gave good responses as well, that I thought showed the Biblical view. It is my view that the Westminster Standards forbid the celebration of Easter/Christmas in the worship of the Church. The Standards are the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures. To add to what the Lord has said to do in His worship is, I believe, a pagan practice (an unholy, unrighteous practice). 

I was trying to stay out of the conversation since Todd was responding much better than I had been (Todd has been stating my position). Too many people discussing on a message board can be confusing and it was getting confusing to me, so I stopped. Jessica's post seemed simple to answer, and when God's Word is clear what better answer can one give. If I were to answer Jessica further, doing things in your home outside of the Lord's Day (Is. 58 addresses on the Lord's Day) should be guided by the wisdom we find in God's Word.


----------



## Philip

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Biblically and confessionally there is no way that I see around rejecting the meaning behind the Romanist amalgamation of Druidic and Celtic ideas behind Ishtar, and Easter. It's as bad as Halloween and Samhain.



Except that it originated in the Hebrew world. The timing of _Pascha_ was originally supposed to be calculated around Passover. "Easter" is an English word for an early Christian celebration. The genetic argument here actually goes back to the OT. The bunnies and eggs do go back to paganism, but that's mainly just silliness now.


----------



## jwright82

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> James,
> 
> Polls and outcomes are not in our authority to determine--the Lord does that. Ours is to be faithful in prescribed means. We don't do our theology or practice from polls or results. Our success is being faithful in means--to the Lord and His will for outcomes!



Granted, my point was that if you say that to celebrate these things leads one to Rome than that is why we shouldn't celebrate it, than yes in that case looking at that evidence alone than polls would be appropriate becaue they would determine if this phantom threat was even happening.

---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 PM ----------




Philip said:


> Except that it originated in the Hebrew world. The timing of Pascha was originally supposed to be calculated around Passover. "Easter" is an English word for an early Christian celebration. The genetic argument here actually goes back to the OT. The bunnies and eggs do go back to paganism, but that's mainly just silliness now.



I agree Philip, if the argument is that we shouldn't celebrate it because it is pagan than some sort of criterion is needed to differentiate between pagan and non-pagan, lest the term become a catch all for what ever the particuler person doesn't like and you call it pagan (I have no one in view here who is guilty of this, I only mean that it is a distinct problem that could arise if you do not do the hard work of defining exactly what "pagan" is). These are logical problems.

---------- Post added at 09:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 PM ----------




C. Matthew McMahon said:


> What did the Reformers do? The Puritans? The 5th century Augustinian monks? Historical Theology is so helpful when we realize we don't have to reinvent the wheel and see what others said about Biblical Truth concerning these things.
> 
> Here are just a couple of thoughts:
> 
> The Puritans “proposed a stricter observance of Sundays, the Lord’s Day, along with banning the immoral celebration of Christmas — as well as Easter, Whitsun and saints’ days.” (see Patino, Marta, The Puritan Ban on Christmas). The reason the puritans denied the celebration of any holy days was a biblical foundation to deny the “dressing up” of any other day than what God had specifically prescribed in Lord’s Day worship.
> 
> “Holy days" have no such prescription — there is no Scriptural command, approved example, or good and necessary inference, which warrants tying specific acts of redemption to ‘holy’ days of our own choosing.” (See Chris Coldwell's nice article on, The Religious Observance of Christmas and ‘Holy Days’ in American Presbyterianism.)
> 
> 
> In “The Quest for Purity: Dynamics of Puritan Movements” by Walter E. a Van Beek, he states, “Because Easter invariably fell on a Sunday, this was a problem for Puritan preachers who were consistent with their repudiation of of the traditional calendar. The usual solution was to preach a sermon that had no direct connection with Easter.” (Page 77.)
> 
> Even if a preacher was preaching through the resurrection, and there would be no problem preaching about the resurrection on any particular Lord' Day, Puritan preachers wouldn't reinforce the already infiltrated mind of their congregation with "Easter-related" ideas. A sermon on the resurrection, on Easter, would be the normal thought process of Roman Catholicism. Check their book of homilies. It's gonna be a resurrection sermon. To continue to dismantle "relatable ideas" to things that are already saturated in our own mind, if alive today, they would pick something else to preach on, on purpose.



With all due respect is it possible that the religous and cultural differences were so drastic from their time to ours that the strict applicabilaty of their arguments may not be so easily transferable? What I mean is this, is what they were arguing the application of timeless biblical principles to particuler historical problems that may or may not still be the case? That seems to me at least to be a valid scholarly, although I am no scholar, question. As an example lets turn to an area that I am more familer with Van Til. He destroyed the very philosophy of Idealism by working out the timeless truths of the reformed faith towards apologetical ends. Although he applied timeless biblical truths to a particuler historical philosophy. 

We can learn so much from Van Til's critique of Idealism. But you would be a fool to take those same exact arguments and apply them to analytic philosophy or any other philosophy. You can learn much from his critique but you would have to redevelop them to apply to any other philosophy. In the same vien I think that we must ask whether or not the same problem is going on here as well?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Okay; the moderators have some real problems with this thread; closing for now to afford time to pow wow on best course to take.


----------



## py3ak

Romans922 said:


> Sorry Ruben,
> 
> On the first page, I responded to some things about the opening post where I said the following:
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, the article I posted wasn't in my opinion a great defense, but did bring to light the pagan aspects of the day just as 'chrismass' has. There are better articles out there all which Chris Coldwell could point you in the right direction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe some of those aspects of the day have been clarified through James and Todd's interaction. Chris also provided better articles by Gillespie. Others gave good responses as well, that I thought showed the Biblical view. It is my view that the Westminster Standards forbid the celebration of Easter/Christmas in the worship of the Church. The Standards are the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures. To add to what the Lord has said to do in His worship is, I believe, a pagan practice (an unholy, unrighteous practice).
> 
> I was trying to stay out of the conversation since Todd was responding much better than I had been (Todd has been stating my position). Too many people discussing on a message board can be confusing and it was getting confusing to me, so I stopped. Jessica's post seemed simple to answer, and when God's Word is clear what better answer can one give. If I were to answer Jessica further, doing things in your home outside of the Lord's Day (Is. 58 addresses on the Lord's Day) should be guided by the wisdom we find in God's Word.
Click to expand...


Sure, I understand that Andrew - but it was also apparent that many misconceptions created by the article and the title were having to be cleared up by others, who couldn't know if you supported them or not. There's been confusion over what "Easter" is, over what "celebrate" is, over what "pagan" is - and that confusion could easily make it harder for someone to accept the thoughtful arguments put forward by, e.g., Chris.

At this point it might be fair to say that one genuine point of practical difference for ministers would be whether the associations of the day call for one to take advantage of the expectations of the masses (no doubt supporting themselves on the use Christ made of the feast of the dedication and the use Paul made of Pentecost) to preach Jesus and the resurrection to unusually large numbers of visitors; or whether they call for one to preach on something else to avoid reinforcing superstitious associations; or whether they call on one to oppose openly and vocally the idolatrous ideas and habits that come to expression. 
I'd imagine everyone recognizes there exists a danger of being those who with more care keep holiday the wrong than others the right way, and that no law, but merely a recommendation of prudence, could be made about the subject of a sermon, private meditation, or discussion on any Sunday without creating unnecessary scruples for the conscience.

But it should be obvious at the least that the Puritan position arose out of their high regard for God's rights with regard to his own worship, and a zeal to stay within the boundaries of the authority God had given them. For that, as well as for its depth, consistency, and careful application of the word of God to circumstance, it certainly deserves careful consideration, and it is a pity that in modern times it is largely either unknown or carelessly caricatured.

P.S. - Sorry Chris, didn't see it was closed until I hit "post".


----------



## NaphtaliPress

No problem Ruben; good place to leave this. There's always next time folks; these things being as cyclical as they are. The moderators will be a bit more engaged in future to make sure these kind of topics stay on a confessional as well as helpfully framed track.


----------

