# Advent



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 26, 2005)

Does anyone know of a good article on the celebration of the season of Advent from a Protestant perspective?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 26, 2005)




----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 26, 2005)

The Protestant perspective on the Advent "season" is found in David Calderwood's oft-cited maxim: "No ceremony, no bishop" (see _The Pastor and the Prelate_) and here in the Westminster Directory of Public Worship:



> THERE is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord's day, which is the Christian Sabbath.
> 
> Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.



Also see Doug Comin's God's Word and the Church Calendar; Brian Schwertley's The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas; Kevin Reed's Christmas: An Historical Survey Regarding Its Origins and Opposition to It; Martin Luther on Holy Days; Arthur Pink's Xmas and Christmas: Why Would You Want to Celebrate a Roman Catholic Holy-day?; G.I. Williamson's Is Christmas Scriptural?; Andrew Webb's Why do Presbyterians Observe Holy Days?; William Bradford On Christmas; Increase Mather Against Profane Christ-mass-keeping; and Charles Spurgeon On Christmas; as well as William Ames' _A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies_ and George Gillespie's _Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies_ and a litany of other such works by Reformers and Puritans.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 26, 2005)

Protestant implies _protesting_ against the Papists and their abundant idolatry, but some people seem to have forgotten that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> Protestant implies _protesting_ against the Papists and their abundant idolatry, but some people seem to have forgotten that.


Roger. Let's also not forget that there were more reforms than just the Calvinist one. I'm not advocating a position but interested in the history of it. Some communions still celebrate parts of the older Church calendar and don't do so simply because they are too stupid to throw off the shackles of Roman Catholicism. I think we need to give our brethren a little more credit than that when investigating the history of certain things before we attach labels.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 26, 2005)

See _The Religious Observance of Christmas and "˜Holy Days´ in American Presbyterianism_ for the history of non xmas and then eventual xmas observance in American Presbyterian'ism. 
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/americanxmas.htm


----------



## Scott (Nov 28, 2005)

Rich: What are you looking for?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Rich: What are you looking for?


Those are all great resources. I was also interested in perspectives from Evangelicals who have a tradition of celebrating the season and the historical reasons they do so. I don't think we have too many Reformed Anglicans on this forum though.


----------



## Peter (Nov 28, 2005)

I think Mark (alias Saiph) leans in that direction.

Does anyone know the Dutch Reformed position on popish holy days? I know that conservative denominations of that tradition such as the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Church countenance some religious honor to man made festivals.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 28, 2005)

Thanks for the resources Andrew it's something I still struggle with one of many thing's I need to study more on.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 29, 2005)

> By observing the church calendar, we are attempting to recover a richer, more biblical sense of time. Celebrating Advent and Christmas and Lent and Easter and Pentecost is a way of redeeming time. To celebrate Advent is to take a stand against the corrosion of modern life.
> 
> Peter Leithart


----------



## Scott (Nov 29, 2005)

From Francis Turretin, Calvin's heir in France (he is commenting on the 4th Commandment):


> Fifteenth Question: Festivals
> Whether it belongs 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 against the papists.
> . . .
> The question is not whether anniversary days may be selected on which either the nativity, or circumcision, or passion, or ascension of Christ, and similar mysteries of redemption, may be commemorated, or even on which the memory of some 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... ...we deny that those days are in themselves more holy than others; rather all are equal. If any sanctity is attributed to them, it does not belong to the time and the day, but to the divine worship. Thus, the observance of them among those who retain it, is only of positive right and ecclesiastical appointment; not, however, necessary from a divine precept.
> ...



[Edited on 11-29-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Saiph (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> From Francis Turretin, Calvin's heir in France (he is commenting on the 4th Commandment):
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 29, 2005)

The French Confession - Also called the Gallican Confession or the Confession of Rochelle, it was prepared by John Calvin (1509-1564) and his pupil Antoine de la Roche Chandieu (1534-1591). It was approved by a synod in Paris in 1559 and adopted (and revised) by the Synod of La Rochelle, held in 1571. It was the creed of the Huguenots. 



> XXIV. We believe, as Jesus Christ is our only advocate,[1] and as he commands us to ask of the Father in his name,[2] and as it is not lawful for us to pray except in accordance with the model God has taught us by his Word,[3] that all imaginations of men concerning the intercession of dead saints are an abuse and a device of Satan to lead men from the right way of worship.[4] We reject, also, all other means by which men hope to redeem themselves before God, as derogating from the sacrifice and passion of Jesus Christ.
> Finally, we consider purgatory as *an illusion proceeding from the same shop*, from which have also sprung monastic vows, pilgrimages, the prohibition of marriage, and of eating meat, *the ceremonial observance of days,* auricular confession, indulgences, and all such things by which they hope to merit forgiveness and salvation.[5] *These things we reject, not only for the false idea of merit which is attached to them, but also because they are human inventions imposing a yoke upon the conscience.*
> 
> 1. I Tim. 2:5; Acts 4:12; I John 2:1-2
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> The French Confession - Also called the Gallican Confession or the Confession of Rochelle, it was prepared by John Calvin (1509-1564) and his pupil Antoine de la Roche Chandieu (1534-1591). It was approved by a synod in Paris in 1559 and adopted (and revised) by the Synod of La Rochelle, held in 1571. It was the creed of the Huguenots.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> The French Confession - Also called the Gallican Confession or the Confession of Rochelle, it was prepared by John Calvin (1509-1564) and his pupil Antoine de la Roche Chandieu (1534-1591). It was approved by a synod in Paris in 1559 and adopted (and revised) by the Synod of La Rochelle, held in 1571. It was the creed of the Huguenots.
> 
> 
> ...


You must have never been Roman Catholic. I would be interested in the actual meaning that Calvin was trying to get at in those bolded words you highlighted.

1. It is interesting that Turretin calls the observances of some scheduled events to be a point of liberty as he would have certainly been aware of this confession.

2. To a Roman Catholic, feast days are holy days of obligation meaning that, to not celebrate them is a mortal sin. Nobody here is talking of a ceremonial observance of days in this case as a means to attain infused merit dispensed by the Church in the sense the confession means it.

In other words, I'm not interested in the way Roman Catholics view holy days of obligation. I had enough of that. I'm interested in thoughtful reasons for/against it from a Protestant perspective.

Here is an example of a crass comment:



> Originally posted by Peter
> Does anyone know the Dutch Reformed position on popish holy days? I know that conservative denominations of that tradition such as the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Church countenance some religious honor to man made festivals.


Yes, of course, all Anglicans, Lutherans, and many other Reformed people are papists and slaves to man-made festivals. Such disdain for them is surely fitting of the children of God.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> You must have never been Roman Catholic.


No, but I was Arminian. 



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I would be interested in the actual meaning that Calvin was trying to get at in those bolded words you highlighted.



I am betting that Calvin had in mind the same days (Christmas, Easter, Advent etc.) that you have in mind. Here are some quotes from Geveva and people surrounding Calvin during the time in which the French Confession was written:



> One should abolish all festivals, retaining only the Lord's day. . . . My reason is this: with our present abuses of drinking, gambling, idling, and all manner of sin, we vex God more on holy days than on others. And the matter is just reversed; we have made holy days unholy, and working days holy, and do no service, but great dishonour, to God and His saints with all our holy days. --*Martin Luther (German Reformer), Address to the German Nobility (1520).*





> Those who observe the Romish festivals or fasts shall only be reprimanded, unless [i.e., if] they remain obstinately rebellious. --*Register of the Company of Pastors (Geneva, 1546).*





> Abrogation of Festivals. On Sunday 16 November 1550, after the election of the lieutenant in the general Council, an edict was also announced respecting the abrogation of all the festivals, with the exception of Sundays, which God had ordained.--*Register of the Company of Pastors (Geneva, 1550).*





> This one thing, however, we can scarcely refrain from mentioning, with regard to what is written in the 24th chapter of the aforesaid Confession [Second Helvetic] concerning the "festival of our Lord's nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, ascension, and sending the Holy Ghost upon his disciples," that these festivals at the present time obtain no place among us; for we dare not religiously celebrate any other feast-day than what the divine oracles have prescribed. --*The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland [subscribed by John Knox, John Craig, James Melville, and a host of others],* Letter to the Very Eminent Servant of Christ, Master Theodore Beza, the Most Learned and Vigilant Pastor of the Genevan Church (1566).





> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 1. It is interesting that Turretin calls the observances of some scheduled events to be a point of liberty as he would have certainly been aware of this confession.



I disagree with Turretin on this issue. That being said, I think there are more learned divines on the side of abolishing all such festivels and "holy" days. See this link for more quotes from historic theologians regarding this matter.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I disagree with Turretin on this issue. That being said, I think there are more learned divines on the side of abolishing all such festivels and "holy" days. See this link for more quotes from historic theologians regarding this matter.


That's fine that you disagree with Turretin. I don't even mind that others may disagree with the celebration of Church seasons. I only found your quote of the French Confession dubious as support for them as wicked. Did Turretin have a hand in writing the French confession? Did he know about it? Was he being non-confessional when he said it was a matter of liberty?

Also, not all celebrations are Romish festivals and you cannot merely pluck a quote at whim without understanding what it refers to. Words have meanings.

My point is not arguing for or against the practice in this case. I only wanted to inform the reader what the idea of a ceremonial observance means in the context of merit in the Romish system and that it was a poor quotation to utilize in making the point.

I find myself in the awkward position of appearing as if I'm defending the practice. I'm indifferent frankly but I think it is very uncharitable to attack a practice celebrated by thoughtful and faithful Evangelicals with passing and disdainful comments that do not address the substance of why the still celebrate them.

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 30, 2005)

This is about the ONLY thing I disagree with Turretin on. He should've listened to his mentor a little more, I think


----------



## Saiph (Nov 30, 2005)

It is strange how many Christians seem to struggle with the liberty of other Christians. If a Christian desires to set apart one day of the year for private devotion to the giving of the decalogue on Sinai would that be wrong ? Of course not. Just admit, you do not like Christmas, Advent, etc . . . because of a presupposition that it is of pagan origin. You have the freedom of conscience to NOT celebrate. But no Christian has the freedom to judge other believers because they do celebrate holidays.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> It is strange how many Christians seem to struggle with the liberty of other Christians. If a Christian desires to set apart one day of the year for private devotion to the giving of the decalogue on Sinai would that be wrong ? Of course not. Just admit, you do not like Christmas, Advent, etc . . . because of a presupposition that it is of pagan origin. You have the freedom of conscience to NOT celebrate. But no Christian has the freedom to judge other believers because they do celebrate holidays.



1. Nobody has liberty to sin. Violating the regulative principle of worship constitutes a breaking of the second commandment, ergo, it is sin.

2. Yes, setting apart one day out of the year as a religious celebration of the giving of the law from Sinai would be wrong, since the observance of such a day was never commanded by God.

3. I care much less about the pagan and Popish origins of the Christ-mass than about it not having been commanded by God.

4. Your entire argument sounds as though you're trying to argue for the private celebration of holy-days by independent Christians (arguing from Rom. 14). Aside from the fact that Rom. 14 refers, not to man-made holy-days, but to the liberty _at that time_ for Jewish Christians to continue observing the Old Testament holy-days which _God had actually appointed;_ Christ-mass, Advent, Easter, Whitsunday, etc., are all days ordinarily observed, not by private Christians, but _in the churches,_ which violates the conscience of those who do not believe in observing those days. If you want to be consistent, you will have to join us in arguing against the observance of those days in public worship, while arguing for their private observance.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 30, 2005)




----------



## Saiph (Nov 30, 2005)

> 1. Nobody has liberty to sin. Violating the regulative principle of worship constitutes a breaking of the second commandment, ergo, it is sin.



The RPW is not explicitly stated in scripture. It is a legalistic eisogesis of scriptural principles.



> 2. Yes, setting apart one day out of the year as a religious celebration of the giving of the law from Sinai would be wrong, since the observance of such a day was never commanded by God.



Neither was Purim.



> 3. I care much less about the pagan and Popish origins of the Christ-mass than about it not having been commanded by God.



Good, then do not celebrate it.



> 4. Your entire argument sounds as though you're trying to argue for the private celebration of holy-days by independent Christians (arguing from Rom. 14). Aside from the fact that Rom. 14 refers, not to man-made holy-days, but to the liberty at that time for Jewish Christians to continue observing the Old Testament holy-days which God had actually appointed; Christ-mass, Advent, Easter, Whitsunday, etc., are all days ordinarily observed, not by private Christians, but in the churches, which violates the conscience of those who do not believe in observing those days. If you want to be consistent, you will have to join us in arguing against the observance of those days in public worship, while arguing for their private observance.



The church has no place forcing people to celebrate holidays. So it is generally safe if churches do not celebrate them. (I did not say it was wrong) But I do not see anything in scripture that forbids individual families and groups from celebrating Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, etc. . . as much as they want. We may meditate on Christ's life any time we so desire. And we may write songs, sing songs, exhange gifts, pray, and fellowship in the Spirit as freely and as often as we want. Is your complaint with the church or with individual christians who chose to celebrate Christ by using an outline like the church calendar ?


----------



## Scott (Nov 30, 2005)

"This is about the ONLY thing I disagree with Turretin on. He should've listened to his mentor a little more, I think . . ."

Calvin did not condemn the discretionary observance of Christmas. I believe he even suggested that daily public worship would be good (not Christmas, but what people actually do on Christmas - listen to the Word read and preached).


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 30, 2005)

> It is not a work but a word makes one day more holy than another. There is no day of the week, but some eminent work of God has been done therein; but it does not therefore follow that every day must be kept as a Sabbath. The Lord Christ has appointed the first day of the week to be perpetually observed in remembrance of his resurrection and redemption. If more days than that had been needful, he would have appointed more. It is a deep reflection on the wisdom of Christ, to say, He has not appointed days enough for his own honour, but he must be beholding to men for their additions. The Old Waldenses witnessed against the observing of any holidays, besides that which God in his Word hath instituted. *Calvin, Luther, Danaeus, Bucer, Farel, Viret, and other great Reformers, have wished that the observation of all holidays, except the Lord's Day, were abolished.* A Popish writer complains that the Puritans in England were of the same mind. So was John Huss and Jerome of Prague long ago. And the Belgic Churches in their Synod, Anno 1578. The Apostle condemns the observation of Jewish festivals in these days of the New Testament, Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16. Much less may Christians state other days in their room. The Gospel has put an end to the difference of days as well as of meats. And neither the Pope nor the Church can make some days holy above others, no more than they can make the use of some meats to be lawful or unlawful, both of which are expressly contrary to the Scripture, Rom. 14:5,6. All stated holidays of man's inventing, are breaches of the Second and of the Fourth Commandment. A stated religious festival is a part of instituted worship. Therefore it is not in the power of men, but God only, to make a day holy. --Increase Mather (Nonconformist minister, New England), Testimony Against Prophane Customs (1687).





> 1. What was originally the conviction of the churches in regard to the holy days?
> *The Reformers such as Calvin, Farel, Viret, Bucer and John Knox were opposed to observing the holy days.*
> 2. What were their motives for this?
> a. That they were not divine but human institutions.
> ...





> Christmas, Good Friday, and Easter are Romish sacred days. By this we mean that they have their source in Roman Catholic tradition, rather than in Scripture. . . . [T]here have been times in the history of the Reformed churches when the truth on the subject of sacred days received reverent attention. *Already, before John Calvin arrived in Geneva at the time of the great Reformation, the observance of Romish sacred days had been discontinued there.* This had been done under the leadership of Guillaume Farel and Peter Viret. *But Calvin was in hearty agreement. It is well known that when these traditional days came along on the calendar, Calvin did not pay the slightest attention to them. He just went right on with his exposition of whatever book of the Bible he happened to be expounding. The Reformers, Knox and Zwingli, agreed with Calvin. So did the entire Reformed church of Scotland and Holland. At the Synod of Dort in 1574 it was agreed that the weekly Sabbath alone should be observed, and that the observance of all other days should be discouraged. * This faithful Biblical practice was later compromised. But that does not change the fact that the Reformed churches originally stood for the biblical principle. The original stand of the Reformed churches was Scriptural. That is the important thing. --G. I. Williamson (minister, Orthodox Presbyterian Church), On the Observance of Sacred Days (n.d.).


----------



## Kaalvenist (Nov 30, 2005)

> The RPW is not explicitly stated in scripture. It is a legalistic eisogesis of scriptural principles.


1. The Trinity is not explicitly stated in scripture. So what?

2. I've heard of people imposing a legalistic eisegesis on the text of Scripture, but not on scriptural principles. Maybe you could elucidate and/or clarify what you mean.

3. If the scriptural principles you refer to are "whatever is not commanded in worship is forbidden," or "we are not to add our human inventions and will-worship to God's sacred worship," then I'm not sure how the RPW would be a wrong understanding of those principles. I could certainly see how the latitudinarian worship of Lutherans and Anglicans would constitute a misapprehension or wrong interpretation of those principles, though.



> Neither was Purim.





> From Brian Schwertley's The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas:
> 
> 2. Didn´t the Jews in the days of Queen Esther set up a holy day not authorized in the law of Moses? Doesn´t that example allow the church to set up a holy day (e.g., Christmas) not authorized in the Bible?
> 
> ...





> Good, then do not celebrate it.


I won't, thank you.



> The church has no place forcing people to celebrate holidays. So it is generally safe if churches do not celebrate them. (I did not say it was wrong) But I do not see anything in scripture that forbids individual families and groups from celebrating Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, etc. . . as much as they want. We may meditate on Christ's life any time we so desire. And we may write songs, sing songs, exhange gifts, pray, and fellowship in the Spirit as freely and as often as we want. Is your complaint with the church or with individual christians who chose to celebrate Christ by using an outline like the church calendar ?


1. That's part of the problem... you are looking for a place in Scripture that specifically forbids the celebration of those days. This is where the regulative principle of worship really shines. Consider how many truly improper things people have introduced into God's sacred worship. If He were to explicitly condemn each particular, specifically, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that He should have to write. There is no need for God to specify, "Thou shalt not observe seven sacraments," or "Thou shalt not celebrate the birth of Christ by one certain day in winter," or "Thou shalt not sing 'Shine Jesus Shine' in public worship," or "Thou shalt not use puppets in the sacred assembly; for this is an abomination." But by the simple rule that we are to observe in worship only what He has commanded, without adding to or taking from His commands (Deut. 12:32), these are all condemned, without having to take up untold volumes specifying the various abominations which are forbidden.

2. People should think about the birth of Christ, and the life of Christ, and the teachings of Christ, and the death of Christ, and the resurrection of Christ, and the ascension of Christ, and the present reign of Christ, and the future coming of Christ. But that does not warrant setting aside one day out of the year for the consideration of each of these things, to be observed religiously in their yearly occurrence; especially when the observance of these days can be easily traced back to paganism, Popery, and will-worship.

3. You have taken the church calendar, not from Christ, nor from his pure bride, but from the Romish whore. Why? Is there some reason why the innovations and additions of Antichrist, borrowed from pagan sources, have a place within the church?



> Calvin did not condemn the discretionary observance of Christmas. I believe he even suggested that daily public worship would be good (not Christmas, but what people actually do on Christmas - listen to the Word read and preached).





> From Schwertley on Christmas:
> 
> John Calvin´s own Presbytery, the pastors in Geneva, explicitly condemned extra biblical holy days over a decade before they were outlawed in Scotland (e.g., see the Scottish First Book of Discipline, 1560). In 1546 the Company of Pastors in Geneva ruled: "œThose who observe the Romish festivals or fasts shall only be reprimanded, unless [i.e., if] they remain obstinately rebellious." Four years later they strengthened their previous ruling. "œAbrogation of Festivals. On Sunday, 16 November 1550, after the election of the lieutenant in the general Counsel, an edict was also announced respecting the abrogation of all the festivals, with the exception of Sundays, which God had ordained" (Register of the Company of Pastors, Geneva 1550).


----------



## Saiph (Nov 30, 2005)

Sean, the bible does not command us to pray using sign language either, but that is still acceptable. And if you say language is a circumstance and the element is prayer, then we could use the example of playing an instrument.

The Bible does not teach the RPW that you are subscribing to. However, that particular flavor is extremely safe to follow, and many here have decided to err on the side of safety and risk legalism. I would rather live with freedom, like David, and dance naked before the ark, even though God never commanded me to.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 30, 2005)

I feel like I'm on a bible translations forum asking for the reason why other Christians find other versions of Scripture acceptable but mainly getting responses from the KJV-only crowd cursing all other versions. 

The purpose of the OP was not to get into a discussion on the RPW. The purpose was to understand why other communions outside Presbyterianism, that are not false Churches, celebrate it.

Let me quote Paul for a second here:


> Rom 14:5-6
> 
> 5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day , observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day , to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.


I think we need to be *very* circumspect before we rob liberty from a person or condemn a person in this regard.

My only other point is that some of you really need to understand Roman Catholic theology and Church History a little better so you can understand some of the things you are citing to bolster your claims. Some of the quotes don't contribute to the substance of your argument in the way you think they do because you do not understand the meaning attached to the term _holy day_.

There are some reforms that were enacted, such as the removal of all stained glass windows and even instrumental music, that served a particular purpose because of the stumbling block they represented to certain people at that time. It's rather like meat sacrificed to idols in the 1st Century and the reason why some, out of conscience, felt they had to just stay away from meat altogether. Saint worship was (and remains) commonplace in the RC Church so the removal of stained glass windows was a very practical reform.

Discontinuing certain "holy" days would have been similar, especially all the compulsion, merit, and idolatry that surrounded such days. To discontinue them would be as much a matter of prudence as anything else.

From a regulative principle, I do not agree that the Scriptures would forbid the season as a reminder of how God has acted in history. The principle of yearly rememberances is established firmly in Scripture. Historical "markers" from stones in the Jordan to the celebration of Purim are examples. Celebrations or reminders do not have to have a bunch of seasonal trappings to call the past to mind.

Once again, though, let's get back on the subject. This is not intended to be an RPW debate. If you want one then go start another thread. 

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Peter (Nov 30, 2005)

Rich, regarding the example you made of me, yes, I abhor all false religion even when held by sincere Christians, that does not mean I detest them though. Ironically, I was not challenging the propriety of their beliefs, I was asking a question about them when you digressed from the stated topic by using my question to attack one view of the RPW and advance yours. Ordinarily I'd say there's nothing wrong with that, just ironic b/c that's exactly what you were complaining of.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Rich, regarding the example you made of me, yes, I abhor all false religion even when held by sincere Christians, that does not mean I detest them though. Ironically, I was not challenging the propriety of their beliefs, I was asking a question about them when you digressed from the stated topic by using my question to attack one view of the RPW and advance yours. Ordinarily I'd say there's nothing wrong with that, just ironic b/c that's exactly what you were complaining of.


It was the manner of your question. To label something that Protestant brethren celebrate as a "popish holy day" is to attribute as much as to query. It's like asking: "Are the dutch Reformed people wife beaters too?"

How can you interact meaningfully with a historical practice if, _a priori_, it is a popish holy day in any expression it is found?

There are many elements of false religion - one of them is bearing false testimony against your neighbor. I'm trying to get to the reason why certain communities of generally faithful communions (granted I have serious issues with other aspects) still celebrate some calendar events.

I am most sympathetic to the regulative principle but I will listen charitably and respectfully to their reason for it and know that their forebears are a bit smarter than a blind adoption of every Romish holy day for Romish reasons.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 30, 2005)

Paul was referring to feast days already COMMANDED by God in the OT in Romans 14, not man-made holy days.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Paul was referring to feast days already COMMANDED by God in the OT in Romans 14, not man-made holy days.


OK. So does that mean that a Church can celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles during worship but not a season where Christ's birth is memorialized? I wouldn't even commend the former during worship because that seems very strange on its face as a feast that has passed since the coming of Christ.

You keep using the term holy days. I'm not using that term.

I know Paul has in mind Jews here who still set aside as holy some days out of the calendar. Paul is even saying that the days aren't really holy any more except to that person. Seems precisely what I'm arguing. The principle is that the Christian has the liberty to set a side a day for the Lord in the same way he has the liberty to fast on a day he sets his heart to do unto the Lord. Are you also saying that we no longer have the liberty to fast because he was speaking of only OT fasts?

[Edited on 12-1-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Saiph (Dec 1, 2005)

> The principle is that the Christian has the liberty to set a side a day for the Lord in the same way he has the liberty to fast on a day he sets his heart to do unto the Lord. Are you also saying that we no longer have the liberty to fast because he was speaking of only OT fasts?




Amen.


Actually, I think we are to set aside every day, every minute, unto the Lord, in remembrance of His mercies and goodness. We can make every day a holiday, personally, existentially, and corporately if we so please.
So long as we do not forsake gathering on the Lord's day. Did not the disciples in Acts meet daily ?

[Edited on 12-1-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> Actually, I think we are to set aside every day, every minute, unto the Lord, in remembrance of His mercies and goodness. We can make every day a holiday, personally, existentially, and corporately if we so please.
> So long as we do not forsake gathering on the Lord's day. Did not the disciples in Acts meet daily ?


----------



## Peter (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



Rich, I've already come to a conclusion regarding the celebration of holy days, my question was purely historical. in my opinion celebration of holy days by protestants is "popish", so did the puritans. I think you should try and understand your own traditon a little better before investigating others. If you did you wouldnt condemn my use of the epithet.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > By observing the church calendar, we are attempting to recover a richer, more biblical sense of time. Celebrating Advent and Christmas and Lent and Easter and Pentecost is a way of redeeming time. To celebrate Advent is to take a stand against the corrosion of modern life.
> ...



Nadab and Abihu uttered the same exact words just before offering "profane fire" to the Lord.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> You keep using the term holy days. I'm not using that term.
> 
> ...



What else would you call a day that is set apart from other days for ostensibly religious purposes?


----------



## Saiph (Dec 1, 2005)

> Nadab and Abihu uttered the same exact words just before offering "profane fire" to the Lord.




Nadab and Abihu were administering the gospel as shadows on the cave wall. We have the reality, and are no longer under those strict levitical boundaries. Evident by the fact that Christ interprets the Sabbath as being made for man, not contrariwise, and gives His apostles the freedom to start a "new day" of creation by celebrating Sabbath on the first day of the week, marking the resurrection. 

The veil is rent brother.


----------



## historyb (Dec 1, 2005)

Now that I am no longer catholic advent takes on no significance whatsoever. Advent and lent for me are of no consequence anymore. I still do celebrate Christmas and Easter as always, I just no longer care about advent and lent.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...


How about a day that I esteem better than another day (Rom 14:5)? Does that work for you.

I'm distinguishing between the Confessional meaning of the term holy day which I've been encouraging people to read about and understand. To me the term "holy day" carries with it much baggage from Roman Catholicism in terms of obligatory participation and mortal sin if you do not.

Within Presbyterianism the only stated worship event is Morning and/or Evening Worship by a particular session. All other events the community has the liberty to attend or not attend (including Sunday School) without breaking the command to come together for worship. What happens in those times of liberty are times of liberty. Others seem to want to make every second of every day, including the times not designated as stated worship times, to fall under the RPW. If so, then I must conclude that even Sunday School violates the RPW because some are under the mistaken notion that it is a special time of the week to learn about God. 

In my home church in Temecula (Providence OPC) once a year we would celebrate Reformation Day (not during worship) every year. I suppose there are some that would find that a violation of the RPW as well. You might want to bring the whole Presbytery there up on charges because the abuse seems rampant. For that matter, birthdays are special days that I noticed many there were marking once a year. Yet another example of Nadab and Abihu perhaps?

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by historyb_
> Now that I am no longer catholic advent takes on no significance whatsoever. Advent and lent for me are of no consequence anymore. I still do celebrate Christmas and Easter as always, I just no longer care about advent and lent.


Hey Doug! You should go to the OPC Church in Temecula, CA. That's my home Church that I hope to end up at when I retire.

I haven't practiced either since I left Roman Catholicism as well. I'm indifferent to the practice frankly but I do lament a loss of "seasonality" in some circles. It's as if the Church is doing everything it can to pretend like the season is not at hand in its fear that it's going to slip and violate the RPW. I think there is a healthy way to recognize a season without making it into a religious observance.

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## gwine (Dec 2, 2005)

> I haven't practiced either since I left Roman Catholicism as well.



I appreciate seeing the reference to the Roman Catholic church as you have rendered it, rather that using the terms "Romish" or "Popish". It adds a sense of dignity and of charity that is often lacking here.

It's all in the words, my brothers and sisters.



> 1Co 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.





> Tit 3:1 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,
> Tit 3:2 to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm quite alright with using words like Papist and Romish, and you should be too, Gerry. They are not our brothers.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I'm quite alright with using words like Papist and Romish, and you should be too, Gerry. They are not our brothers.


So because they're not our brothers in Christ and merely our neighbors we have Scriptural approval to offer unnecessary offense? What principle of Scripture does that idea uphold?

Further, the adjectives in this forum have primarily been applied to Protestants who celebrate seasons such as Anglicans, Lutherans, and even some Reformed congregations. Do you also alright in using such derogatory terms when talking to them?


----------



## gwine (Dec 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



*The Word of God*

_Luk 10:27 And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." 
Luk 10:28 And he said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live." 
Luk 10:29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"_

*Thus ends the Word of God*


Well, I'm not all right with using the words, especially in the tone that many have used. There may be times when such name-calling is warranted, since even Christ called the Pharisees and Sadducees a _ brood of vipers_. But Christ has one advantage we do not in that he can see into the heart of men, and for all of us that heart is deceitful and desperately sick.

Let us all remember that we have come from the City of Destruction and it is only by the grace of God that we have entered through the narrow gate.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 2, 2005)

I have some good friends who are Roman Catholics. I want to see them get saved, just as I would like to see any of my other friends saved. And there is no way that I'm going to call my Catholic friends derogatory names such as "Romish" or "Papists".

Some people on this board need to learn a lesson from the Apostle Paul's address to the Areopagus in Acts 17. They were immersed in gross idolatry. And yet Paul did not lambast them and call them names. Rather, he gently used _one of their idols_ to point them to the One True God, and to His Son, Jesus Christ. 

Nonchristians may be flies. But so were we. And flies are much more attracted to honey than to vinegar, as the wise old saying goes.

Gentleness and patience with the lost can go a _long_ way!




[Edited on 12-2-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 2, 2005)

*From Noah Webster\'s 1828 Dictionary*

Romish
RO'MISH, a. [from Rome.] Belonging or relating to Rome, or to the religion professed by the people of Rome and of the western empire, of which Rome was the metropolis; catholic; popish; as the Romish church; the Romish religion, ritual or ceremonies.

Papist
PA'PIST,n. A Roman catholic; one that adheres to the church of Rome and the authority of the pope.

These are no more derogotory than calling something Catholic (as in the Roman sense), or calling something Protestant or Puritan.

We might as well rename the PuritanBoard because to call something Puritan might be derogotory. 

Truth is truth. If a RC is ashamed to be called Romish or Papist, maybe they should rethink their religion.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> These are no more derogotory than calling something Catholic (as in the Roman sense), or calling something Protestant or Puritan.



If you really believe that, then you obviously need to read some more Reformed and Puritan literature. Such terms most certainly ARE usually used in a derogatory sense.

We are talking about context, context, context. I just looked up one particular word on dictionary.com, and the first definition I got was, "A female canine animal, especially a dog." I'll let you guess what word it is that I looked up. But I guarantee that you would consider it derogatory.

Regardless of the dictionary definitions, you need to be sensitive about how a particular word will be *received* by the hearers.



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Truth is truth. If a RC is ashamed to be called Romish or Papist, maybe they should rethink their religion.



Wrong. There is a good way to convey truth, and there is an evil way to convey truth. Not all forms of communicating truth are equally appropriate.

Do you think a Roman Catholic is more likely to listen to you if you are kind, gentle, and patient, or do you think you are more likely to win them over by calling them "Romish papists"?


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 2, 2005)

I have read plenty of Puritan/reformed works that use "romish" and "papist." Yes, they are using them in a context that it is NOT a good thing to be. Does that make it "calling names" or "not loving"? The definitions above are legit uses of the word, and there is no problem with using them today. 

If a Roman Catholic came up to me and called me a Calvinist/Puritan, it would probably mean something derogatory in their world, but to me, it is a compliment, and a legit name for who I am and what I believe. I would take no offense at all to such a name, and I don't see why the RC's should take offense when it comes to their counterpart names.

If you think it is unloving to call a snake a snake, then you have charged Christ and the prophets with sin.


----------



## Peter (Dec 2, 2005)

Rich and Joe make a point about being loving in our language I will have to consider. We are admonished to be as peaceful as doves. On the other hand these are terms the Reformers, Calvin, especially Luther, and many others used freely. I see derogatory and scathing language used against other groups on this board without a wimper from the Newspeak P.C. police though. Is "evangellyfish" a term non-reformed evangelicals like to be called? Or Fundies? Leftist, Leftwing are also a derogatory terms for someone with liberal political persuasion. Please don't call someone of the Islamic faith a Mohammedan, an Islamicist, or Jihadist. Homosexuals are not queers, homos, fags or sodomites. I'm from the North but please dont call me a Yankee, you might hurt my feelings. You cant call an abortionist a baby killer, they're "pro-choice." I'm sure Futurists dislike the terms paranoied or mad. Examples could be multiplied ad nauseum. Jesus called the Pharisees fools, vipers, hypocrites, and wolves. And What term is more proper to a worshiper of the Papal Antichrist then "papist"? But I suspect the sensitivity to anti-RC epithets has the same source as the love for Xmass. Popery was and remains the greatest enemy and danger to the Church. The reason is that she has infiltrated the temple of God 2 Thess 2 and continues to corrupt it. Even those who have allegedly broken from her whoredoms are gradually returning to her.


----------



## Peter (Dec 2, 2005)

BTW, my mother's side of my family is Roman Catholic. My grandmother is a devout romanist. I received my baptism in the RCC, and went to a popish church for many years.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Dec 2, 2005)

"No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God. In which respects, *POPISH* monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself." (Westminster Confession, 22.7)

"It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet is it the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord: and therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, *PAPISTS,* or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies." (Westminster Confession, 24.3)

"In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same: so that the *POPISH* sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect." (Westminster Confession, 29.2)

Are there any confessional Presbyterians out there who will refuse to use the language of their Confession?

For that matter, consult the Three Forms of Unity:

"Q. What difference is there between the Lord's supper and the *POPISH* mass? A. The Lord's supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; and, that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ, who, according to his human nature is now not on earth, but in heaven, at the right hand of God his Father, and will there be worshipped by us:--but the mass teaches, that the living and the dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests; and further, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshipped in them; so that the mass, at bottom, is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry." (Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 80)

"The true doctrine having been explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those...Who teach: That without a special revelation we can have no certainty of future perseverance in this life. For by this doctrine the sure comfort of all believers is taken away in this life, and the doubts of the *PAPIST* are again introduced into the church, while the Holy Scriptures constantly deduce this assurance, not from a special and extraordinary revelation, but from the marks proper to the children of God and from the constant promises of God. So especially the Apostle Paul: 'No creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord,' Romans 8:39. And John declares: 'And he that keepeth his commandments abideth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he gave us,' 1 John 3:24." (Canons of Dordt, 5th Head, Error 5)


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 2, 2005)

and  Sean and Peter!


----------



## gwine (Dec 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I have read plenty of Puritan/reformed works that use "romish" and "papist." Yes, they are using them in a context that it is NOT a good thing to be. Does that make it "calling names" or "not loving"? The definitions above are legit uses of the word, and there is no problem with using them today.



Just because they did use the words does not make it correct. I would venture to say that the Puritan divines weighed their words carefully. I question whether it is done often enough here.



> If a Roman Catholic came up to me and called me a Calvinist/Puritan, it would probably mean something derogatory in their world, but to me, it is a compliment, and a legit name for who I am and what I believe. I would take no offense at all to such a name, and I don't see why the RC's should take offense when it comes to their counterpart names.



I don't know what to say, except that there is more to this than merely taking offense. It's the tone of the language and your own attitude. Why not speak the truth in love and win those over? If the motive is wrong then the words become sinful. Are we trying to win the praises of men or are we seeking to glorify God?



> If you think it is unloving to call a snake a snake, then you have charged Christ and the prophets with sin.



Please re-read my comments above and my earlier post. At least Christ knew intimately what was in the hearts of those he castigated. And I believe John the Baptizer and the OT prophets knew as well. Christ was sinless in all that he did, including his condemnation of the Pharisees. And his heart was right too, something that all of us can not say.

And in response to Peter Gray I will say that I am not advocating the use of PC talk. But if your church was trying to reach out to the homosexual community or to prostitutes from the red light district, would you use the terms "fags" and "whores" to to invite them to church? I would hope not.



> But I suspect the sensitivity to anti-RC epithets has the same source as the love for Xmass.



You suspect wrong for me. I know that I have far to go in learning how to communicate graciously with people, here and face-to-face.

But forgive me, all of you, for hijacking this thread, although I believe what I have to say is worth taking the time to ponder. Someday I will learn to keep my fingers closed.


----------



## Peter (Dec 2, 2005)

> And in response to Peter Gray I will say that I am not advocating the use of PC talk. But if your church was trying to reach out to the homosexual community or to prostitutes from the red light district, would you use the terms "fags" and "whores" to to invite them to church? I would hope not.



That's true. But I think there is a season for polemic and convicting in which case emotive words have an acceptable use.


----------



## Peter (Dec 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Does anyone know the Dutch Reformed position on popish holy days? I know that conservative denominations of that tradition such as the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Church countenance some religious honor to man made festivals.





> [Rules that help distinguish between truth and lies, walking in divine truth promotes godliness] For example when debating whether to maintain Lenten Eve (Fat Tuesday), Epiphany (when the wiseman saw Christ), and other Roman Catholic holidays or to radically abolish them, some people may say yes and others no. However, the godly immediately know the right way, for they understand that Roman Catholic holidays have no basis in Holy Scripture and that regular observance of them offers occasion for much sin. The celebrations cause great disorder in the places or homes where they are observed and become a stumbling block to real holiness as they strengthen the old man. The godly swiftly conclude that Reformed Christians who would gladly abolish or ignore the feast days have the truth on their side.



Willem Teellink, father of the Nadere Reformatie (Dutch 2nd Reformation), The Path of True Godliness, p. 101

I just accidentally read this tonight. Praise God for the way He leads me.

[Edited on 12-3-2005 by Peter]

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by Peter]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



Thanks for the quote, Peter. Praise God for the _Nadere Reformatie_!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Romish
> RO'MISH, a. [from Rome.] Belonging or relating to Rome, or to the religion professed by the people of Rome and of the western empire, of which Rome was the metropolis; catholic; popish; as the Romish church; the Romish religion, ritual or ceremonies.
> 
> ...


I wish more people posted their birth dates in their profiles so I can get a feeling on how old they are. Unfortunately although the word *prudence* can be found in the dictionary it is not as easy to practice it as to define it.

I'm unafraid to use the terms and have even used them myself but under the circumstances warranted. If you would take the time to nuance the issue and the objections to it you would see why I think it inappropriate to use the term when referring to other Protestants as has been done repeatedly in this forum.



> Originally posted by Peter
> Rich and Joe make a point about being loving in our language I will have to consider. We are admonished to be as peaceful as doves. On the other hand these are terms the Reformers, Calvin, especially Luther, and many others used freely. I see derogatory and scathing language used against other groups on this board without a wimper from the Newspeak P.C. police though. Is "evangellyfish" a term non-reformed evangelicals like to be called? Or Fundies? Leftist, Leftwing are also a derogatory terms for someone with liberal political persuasion. Please don't call someone of the Islamic faith a Mohammedan, an Islamicist, or Jihadist. Homosexuals are not queers, homos, fags or sodomites. I'm from the North but please dont call me a Yankee, you might hurt my feelings. You cant call an abortionist a baby killer, they're "pro-choice." I'm sure Futurists dislike the terms paranoied or mad. Examples could be multiplied ad nauseum. Jesus called the Pharisees fools, vipers, hypocrites, and wolves. And What term is more proper to a worshiper of the Papal Antichrist then "papist"? But I suspect the sensitivity to anti-RC epithets has the same source as the love for Xmass. Popery was and remains the greatest enemy and danger to the Church. The reason is that she has infiltrated the temple of God 2 Thess 2 and continues to corrupt it. Even those who have allegedly broken from her whoredoms are gradually returning to her.


Gosh it is really hard not to walk up to people we barely know and have the first words out of our mouth be "How's it going you baby killer?!"

"What? You're offended. Well that's what you are. The truth hurts doesn't it?! Now let's sit down and have a dialogue about Christ...."

I really don't understand what you're advocating. You can't be in a more blunt profession than I'm in. We care little about feelings in our normal day to day work and I have no problem confronting people to their face unlike the theoretically brave who claim to be blunt but rarely actually interact with the world. Such people are miserable leaders both outside and in the Church because they know little about people and lack the even hand that can be firm yet soft in the use of tact. An elder of the Church is not to be pugilistic.

This isn't about thought police or word police and only an insincere reading of the posts would conclude that. Do you suppose, however, that what Paul meant by "becoming a Jew among the Jews" in order to spread the Gospel is that he spent the first five minutes labelling them with epithets in order to win them to the faith?

In answer to your specific question:


> What term is more proper to a worshiper of the Papal Antichrist then "papist"?


For me, _Mom_ for one worshipper, _Sir_ to the Colonel I work for, and _friend_ to many others who have shown more character in rough times than some I share the true worship in Christ with. 

It's almost sad to me that this has to be explained in, yes, a blunt way. Perhaps I might have labelled you and others with epithets in my response to determine if you responded by saying "Yeah, you're right, you're just speaking the truth man and the truth is the truth after all...."

[Edited on 12-3-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Peter (Dec 3, 2005)

> I'm unafraid to use the terms and have even used them myself but under the circumstances warranted. If you would take the time to nuance the issue and the objections to it you would see why I think it inappropriate to use the term when referring to other Protestants as has been done repeatedly in this forum.





> And in response to Peter Gray I will say that I am not advocating the use of PC talk. But if your church was trying to reach out to the homosexual community or to prostitutes from the red light district, would you use the terms "fags" and "whores" to to invite them to church? I would hope not.
> 
> 
> That's true. But I think there is a season for polemic and convicting in which case emotive words have an acceptable use.



No one here has ever called a fellow protestant a papist. I called the celebration of Roman Catholic holidays popish.



> For me, Mom for one worshipper, Sir to the Colonel I work for, and friend to many others who have shown more character in rough times than some I share the true worship in Christ with.





> BTW, my mother's side of my family is Roman Catholic. My grandmother is a devout romanist. I received my baptism in the RCC, and went to a popish church for many years.



Do you think I call my grandmother a papist? Please stop misrepresenting me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 3, 2005)

Fair enough Peter. 

I understand you wouldn't call your grandma a Papist which only makes the point that we ought to be circumspect in the use of terms and that dictionaries do not always inform us of propriety of use.


----------



## Peter (Dec 3, 2005)

You're a gentleman, Rich, thank you. Emotive language can be used inappropriately yet it is a powerful rhetorical tool we should avail ourselves of as Jesus and the apostle Paul did.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 4, 2005)

To all, here is an excerpt from Page 8 of Ligonier Ministries Christmas Catalog:



> the advent season is a time of great anticipation and celebration of the birth of our Savior. The coming of the Messiah that was prophesied in the Old Testament was fulfilled in a tiny manger two-thousand years ago, when God became flesh and dwelt among us for more than thirty years. Our delight in this special season grows as we mature in our knowledge of the person and work of Jesus. The following resources celebrate His birth and His life on earth.


----------



## gwine (Dec 4, 2005)

> I wish more people posted their birth dates in their profiles so I can get a feeling on how old they are. Unfortunately although the word prudence can be found in the dictionary it is not as easy to practice it as to define it.



Well, I will be 53 in about 3 weeks and I do know what the word means. We will all have to give an account for every idle word and thought and quite frankly, I could be doing a lot better.

I appreciate your defense of my stand, Rick, and I wish you well in everything you do. May God continue to bless you with wisdom.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 5, 2005)

Thomas Vincent, _The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly Explained and Proved from Scripture_:



> LVIII. Ques. What is required in the fourth commandment?
> Ans. The fourth commandment requireth the keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his Word, expressly one whole day in seven, to be a holy Sabbath to himself.
> 
> Q. 1. What is the difference between the worship required in this fourth commandment, and the worship required in the first, second, and third?
> ...



John Flavel, _An Exposition of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism_ on the Fourth Commandment:



> *Q. 9. Is there any other day holy besides this day?
> A. No day but this is holy by institution of the Lord; yet days of humiliation and thanksgiving may he lawfully set apart by men on a call of providence; but popish holidays are not warrantable, nor to be observed; Galatians 4:10. Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.*



John Willison, _An Example of Plain Catechising, Upon the Assembly's Shorter Catechism_:



> Q. Hath God appointed any other set times to be kept holy to the Lord, besides the sabbath?
> A. None but the Jewish festivals or ceremonial sabbaths, which being only shadows of things to come, they expired with Christ's coming; but the command for the weekly sabbath being moral, it continues still in force, Col. 2:16,17; Gal. 4:9-11; 1 Cor. 16:1,2.
> Q. Are we bound to keep the holy-days observed by others, such as days for Christ's birth, passion and ascension; days dedicated to angels, as Michaelmas; to the virgin Mary, as Candlemas; besides many others dedicated to the apostles and other saints?
> A. Though it be pretended that these days serve to promote piety and devotion, yet we have no warrant from God to observe any of them; nay, it appears to be unlawful to do it: for 1st, God doth quarrel men for using any device of their own for promoting his service or worship, without having his command or warrant for it, as in Deut. 12:32; Isa. 1:12; Jer. 7:30. 2ndly, the apostle Paul doth expressly condemn the Galatians for observing such holy days, Gal. 4:10,11. 3dly, It is a disparaging of the Lord's day which God hath appointed, and a usurping of his legislative power, for men to set days of their appointing on a level with his day, as the institutors do, by hindering people to labor thereupon. 4thly, It is an idolatrous practice to consecrate days to the honor of saints and angels, for commemorating their acts, and publishing their praise; such honor and worship being due to God alone.
> ...



John Brown, of Haddington, _An Essay Towards an Easy, Plain, Practical, and Extensive Explication of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism_:



> Q. May the church appoint holy days, to remember Christ's birth, death, temptation, ascension, etc.?
> A. No; as God hath abolished the Jewish holy days of his own appointment, so he hath given no warrant to the church to appoint any: but hath commanded us to labour six days, except when Providence calls us to humiliation or thanksgiving; and expressly forbids us to observe holy days of men's appointment, Col. 2:16; Gal. 4:10,11.
> Q. What is the difference between a fast day and a holy day?
> A. The day of a fast is changeable, and esteemed no better in itself than another day; but a holy day is fixed to a certain time of the week, year, or moon, and reckoned better in itself.



Fisher's Catechism:



> Q. Is there any warrant for anniversary, or stated holidays, now, under the New Testament?
> A. No: these under the Old, being abrogated by the death and resurrection of Christ, there is neither precept nor example in scripture, for any of the yearly holidays observed by Papists, and others: on the contrary, all such days are condemned in bulk, Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16,17.
> Q. What crimes doth the observation of them import?
> A. The observation of them imports no less than an impeachment of the institutions of God, concerning his worship, as if they were imperfect; and an encroachment upon the liberty wherewith Christ hath made his church and people free, Col. 3:20.



Henry Belfrage, _A Practical Exposition of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism_:



> Under the old dispensation, there were a number of days appointed for ceremonial observances. The Jews kept thirty-five in the year, but of these some fell on the Sabbath. While the Mosaic economy lasted, and while they remained in Palestine, these were to be observed; but at the death of Christ they passed away. Hence the apostle says to the primitive Christians, "Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath day" (Col. 2:16), or the Jewish Sabbath, on the seventh day of the week, which was now merged in the first. This shews how little they understand the liberty of the gospel, who prescribe for the observance of Christians, a variety of holy days, which are unauthorized in Scripture, and are found in experience to be lost in idleness, or abused in folly. Such days, originating in secular policy, or superstitious excitement, may be marked by names and rites solemn and imposing; yet, wanting the sanction of Jehovah, and the animating breath of heaven, they are soon disregarded as empty forms, hated as encumbrances on public industry, and welcomed only by those whose situation makes them wish for a season and a pretext for amusement and dissipation.



James R. Boyd, _The Westminster Shorter Catechism_: 



> Under the Jewish economy there were other set times and modes of worship, which were abolished when the Christian economy was introduced. Since then no holidays (holy days) but the Sabbath, are of divine authority or obligation. . . .



James Harper, _An Exposition in the Form of Question and Answer of the Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism_: 



> Q. 7. Is it not a daring intrusion upon the prerogative of God to appoint as a stated religious festival any other day or season, such as Christmas or Easter?
> A. It is an impeachment of the wisdom of God and an assertion of our right and ability to improve on his plans.



[Edited on 12-5-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 5, 2005)




----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Thomas Vincent, _The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly Explained and Proved from Scripture_:
> 
> 
> ...


I *completely* agree that there ought to be no holy days or stated religious festivals set by the Church that obligate its members participation.


----------

