# Pretense of Christian Liberty



## Peter (Nov 30, 2005)

WCF XX: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]


I think I've been seeing the doctrine of Christian liberty corrupted and abused quite frequently on the PB lately. To be clear, I don't mean any spite or ill will towards these Christian brothers, just to warn them of an error I perceive.

When some one invokes CL to defend observance of holy days they completely turn CL upside down and make it to say exactly the opposite of what it intends. CL means we are free from doing practices besides the word of God, not that we are free to do them. Notice the WCF says obeying such commands is betrayal of CL. 



> [12] COL 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 22 Which all are to perish with the using after *the commandments and doctrines of men?* 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in *will worship*, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. GAL 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.



Does anyone have any resources on CL, particularly the abuse of it to justify what I see as liturgical libertinism?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 30, 2005)

George Gillespie treats this subject well in his _Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies_ in a section called _That Festival Days Take Away Our Christian Liberty, Proved Out Of The Gospel_ and in other sections.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 30, 2005)




----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 30, 2005)

Gillespie Contra Holy Days
http://www.naphtali.com/GGhodays.htm
Holy Days take away our Christian Liberty Proved:
Out of the Law (EPC 1.7 31-36)
http://www.naphtali.com/GGhodays1.htm 
Out of the Gospel (EPC 1.8, 37-45)
http://www.naphtali.com/GGhodays2.htm


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 30, 2005)

Good topic. 

I'd like a good definition of what you consider a "holy day" to be.

What, specifically, would the Reformers have in mind when they referred to "holy days" in the confessions?

I know what a Roman Catholic thinks a holy day is but I'd like to understand what you mean when you think that any PB forum member has advocated the celebration of a holy day.

Does God forbid the rememberance or honoring of certain redemptive historical events or honoring others in worship?

For instance, if during prayer on the Sunday that falls on the national celebration of Mother's Day, the pastor spends more time than usual praying for mothers and women has he violated the regulative principle of worship and made the Sunday into a "holy day"?


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I'd like a good definition of what you consider a "holy day" to be.


Noah Webster:



> Holy
> HO'LY, a.
> 
> 1. Properly, whole, entire or perfect, in a moral sense. Hence, pure in heart, temper or dispositions; free from sin and sinful affections. Applied to the Supreme Being, holy signifies perfectly pure, immaculate and complete in moral character; and man is more or less holy, as his heart is more or less sanctified, or purified from evil dispositions. We call a man holy,when his heart is conformed in some degree to the image of God, and his life is regulated by the divine precepts. Hence, holy is used as nearly synonymous with good, pious, godly.
> ...






> Day
> DAY, n.
> 
> 1. That part of the time of the earth's revolution on its axis, in which its surface is presented to the sun; the part of the twenty four hours when it is light; or the space of time between the rising and setting of the sun; called the artificial day.
> ...





> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> What, specifically, would the Reformers have in mind when they referred to "holy days" in the confessions?



A similar day being treated similarly to the Sabbath. See above for definitions.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I know what a Roman Catholic thinks a holy day is but I'd like to understand what you mean when you think that any PB forum member has advocated the celebration of a holy day.



It does not matter necessarily how the Roman Catholics define a holy day (although I do not believe it is as mysterious or hidden as you make it out to be), but the same arguments can be made to anyone making any day holy other than the sabbath period.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Does God forbid the rememberance or honoring of certain redemptive historical events or honoring others in worship?



Civil days of thanksgiving are appropriate, religious days are forbidden.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> For instance, if during prayer on the Sunday that falls on the national celebration of Mother's Day, the pastor spends more time than usual praying for mothers and women has he violated the regulative principle of worship and made the Sunday into a "holy day"?



No, because the day is no more holy than any other Sabbath by the act of praying extra long for mothers. Setting aside one day (one month anymore) out the year for celebrating the birth of Christ (when he has given us a multitude of Sabbaths to do this already), and transforming it into a holy day by Advent, special services, nativities, parties, gift-giving, ornaments ALL IN THE NAME OF Christ is forbidden.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 1, 2005)

Jeff,



> It does not matter necessarily how the Roman Catholics define a holy day (although I do not believe it is as mysterious or hidden as you make it out to be), but the same arguments can be made to anyone making any day holy other than the sabbath period.


It makes all the difference in the world if you really want to interact with your confession on the subject of "holy days" in the sense the Reformed confessions used it. There are quite a few statements in the WCF that are antheses to Roman Catholic doctrine where a small appreciation for RC doctrine is necessary to fully understand the Divines meaning. I never inferred it was mysterious. I asked people to interact with the history of it instead of throwing out "holy days" and demonstrate, by their appeal to the expression, that they have little clue what the history behind it is.

Based on your answer to the above as well, I've yet to see anyone on the PB suggest we ought to make any day as holy as the Sabbath or set it aside as a religious observance.


> No, because the day is no more holy than any other Sabbath by the act of praying extra long for mothers. Setting aside one day (one month anymore) out the year for celebrating the birth of Christ (when he has given us a multitude of Sabbaths to do this already), and transforming it into a holy day by Advent, special services, nativities, parties, gift-giving, ornaments ALL IN THE NAME OF Christ is forbidden.


So you consider the RPW to extend to what happens between me and my friends and famly as well. When I take a day out of the year with my family, in my home, and tell the story of Christ's birth to my children and open gifts with them I am violating the Regulative Principle of Worship? I understand the restriction of liberty when in "Worship proper" and not introducing elements into Worship among God's people assembled on the Lord's Day but you're saying I have no personal liberty to do it in my home.

I also see a very wooden application of the RPW in your reply that no special rememberances or historical events are permitted during prayer. Saying that a Pastor is introducing "Strange Fire" because one day out of the year he especially commends mothers and thanks God for them is unbelievable. There is no Scriptural warrant to conclude that even a regular rememberance of something is somehow a declaration that "Today is an especially holy day". That need not be so. I'd like to hear what a Pastor has to say about that.

My main point is that rememberances or seasons do not have to be "holy days" or "extra holy" or "religious festivals". God very clearly sets a pattern of historical cycles in Scripture. His language is constantly one of calling to rememberance things He has done in history for His people - "I am the God that brought you up out of Egypt...." He commends stone markers that will show later generations the wonders God did at certain times and places. He inspires Prophets to remind His people of the past. He even institutes Church calendar events to remind His people of these historical events.

So now, in our day, if one day out of the year, without calling it extra holy, or without claiming that God has commanded a special observance, if a man exercises His Christian liberty to celebrate the Lord's birth and chooses to make one day more important than the other, He is violating God's command on how He is to be worshipped? If a pastor in New York City, with hundreds of members who lost loved ones on 9/11, asks God to comfort the grieving families on the aniversary of 9/11, he is suddenly making the day "holy" and violating the RPW?

[Edited on 12-1-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 1, 2005)

> Setting aside one day (one month anymore) out the year for celebrating the birth of Christ (when he has given us a multitude of Sabbaths to do this already), and transforming it into a holy day by Advent, special services, nativities, parties, gift-giving, ornaments ALL IN THE NAME OF Christ is forbidden.



How do you reconcile your understanding with this section of the WCF? 


> WCF Ch. 21
> 
> V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and *thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.*


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> Gillespie Contra Holy Days
> http://www.naphtali.com/GGhodays.htm
> Holy Days take away our Christian Liberty Proved:
> ...


Good articles. I completely agree with the author and his condemnation of holy days for the reasons he condemned them.

That said, I don't think all who celebrate or set aside certain days are making them "holy days", especially *NOT* in the sense that Gillespie was using it. Those are great articles to "level set" folks to understand what the Confession meant in their condemnation of holy days.

The very way in which Gillespie proposes holy days take away our Christian liberty needs to be understood in the context of how they did, in fact, do just that.


----------



## pastorway (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > Setting aside one day (one month anymore) out the year for celebrating the birth of Christ (when he has given us a multitude of Sabbaths to do this already), and transforming it into a holy day by Advent, special services, nativities, parties, gift-giving, ornaments ALL IN THE NAME OF Christ is forbidden.
> ...



An even better question:

How do you reconcile it with THE WORD OF GOD?

*Romans 14*
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. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord´s. 9 For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...


----------



## Peter (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> ...



Gillespie was not engaging Roman Catholics, EPC is a refutation of Protestant Episcopalians and those in the Scottish Church who accepted their ceremonies, 'holy days' are an example. What you are saying about Gillespie is just not correct. Mr. Coldwell's article on the history of Presbyterian observance of holydays demonstrates this perfectly.


----------



## Peter (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> How do you reconcile it with THE WORD OF GOD?
> 
> ...



Gill's commentary:


> Rom 14:5 - One man esteemeth one day above another,.... This is another instance of the difference of sentiments in this church, about the observation of rituals; and is *not to be understood of days appointed by the Christian churches* for fasting, or abstinence from certain meats, either once a year, as the "Quadragesima", or Lent; or twice a week, as Wednesdays and Fridays; for these are things of much later observation, and which had never been introduced into the church of Rome in the apostle's time; nor were there any disputes about them: much less of days of Heathenish observation, as lucky or unlucky, or festivals in honour of their gods; for the apostle would never say, that a man who regarded such a day, regarded it to the Lord; nor would have advised to a coalition and Christian conversation with such a man, but rather to exclude him from all society and communion: it remains, therefore, that *it must be understood of Jewish days*, or of such as were appointed to be observed by the Jews under the former dispensation, and which some thought were still to be regarded; wherefore they esteemed some days in the year above others, as the days of unleavened bread, or the passover; particularly the first night, which was a night to be observed throughout their generations; and in their service for it to this day, use these words, ×”×–×” ×ž×›×œ ×”×œ×™×œ×•×ª ×ž×” × ×©×ª× ×” ×”×œ×™×œ×”, "how different is this night from every other night" (n)? and the feast of tabernacles, especially the last and great day of the feast, and the day of Pentecost; also one day in a month above others, the first day of the month, or new moon; and one day in a week, the seventh day sabbath: now there were some, who thought that the laws respecting these days were still in force, particularly the latter, and therefore esteemed it above another: but let it be observed, that the man that did so was one that was weak in faith; the same man that ate herbs, because he would not be guilty of violating those laws, which ordered a distinction of meats to be observed, the same weak man esteemed one day above another, imagining the laws concerning the distinction of days were still obligatory, not rightly understanding the doctrine of Christian liberty, or freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law:



[Edited on 12-1-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Robin (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



 

Depend on Pastor Way to keep things on track!



Robin


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > Setting aside one day (one month anymore) out the year for celebrating the birth of Christ (when he has given us a multitude of Sabbaths to do this already), and transforming it into a holy day by Advent, special services, nativities, parties, gift-giving, ornaments ALL IN THE NAME OF Christ is forbidden.
> ...



From The Regulative Principle and Christmas by Matthew MacMahon:



> Some appeal to The Westminster Confession in their statement concerning lawful days of "œthanksgiving" in order to appeal to a day of thanksgiving for Christmas. However, The Westminster Confession says the following, "œThe reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner. (WCF Chapter 21, Section 5; They use Esther 9:20-22 as a proof text for "œand thanksgivings upon special occasions", not for worship.) The Westminster Confession makes the distinction between worship which appears in the first part of the paragraph, and then separates other days of spiritual edification by the word "œbesides." They are not the same, and appeal to them is unwarranted.


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



First of all,  to Peter's quotation of Gill's commentary. I would also highlight Matthew Henry's comments:



> Concerning days, Rom_14:5. Those who thought themselves still under some kind of obligation to the ceremonial law esteemed one day above another - kept up a respect to the times of the passover, pentecost, new moons, and feasts of tabernacles; thought those days better than other days, and solemnized them accordingly with particular observances, binding themselves to some religious rest and exercise on those days. Those who knew that all these things were abolished and done away by Christ's coming esteemed every day alike. *We must understand it with an exception of the Lord's day, which all Christians unanimously observed; but they made no account, took no notice, of those antiquated festivals of the Jews.* Here the apostle speaks of the distinction of meats and days as a thing indifferent, when it went no further than the opinion and practice of some particular persons, who had been trained up all their days to such observances, and therefore were the more excusable if they with difficulty parted with them. But in the epistle to the Galatians, where he deals with those that were originally Gentiles, but were influenced by some judaizing teachers, not only to believe such a distinction and to practise accordingly, but to lay a stress upon it as necessary to salvation, and to make the observance of the Jewish festivals public and congregational, here the case was altered, and it is charged upon them as the frustrating of the design of the gospel, falling from grace, Gal_4:9-11. The Romans did it out of weakness, the Galatians did it out of wilfulness and wickedness; and therefore the apostle handles them thus differently. This epistle is supposed to have been written some time before that to the Galatians. *The apostle seems willing to let the ceremonial law wither by degrees,* and to let it have an honourable burial; now these weak Romans seem to be only following it weeping to its grave, but those Galatians were raking it out of its ashes.



And the learned John Calvin:



> 5. One indeed, etc. He had spoken before of scruples in the choice of meats; he now adds another example of difference, that is, as to days; and both these arose from Judaism. For as the Lord in his law made a difference between meats and pronounced some to be unclean, the use of which he prohibited, and as he had also appointed festal and solemn days and commanded them to be observed, the Jews, who had been brought up from their childhood in the doctrine of the law, would not lay aside that reverence for days which they had entertained from the beginning, and to which through life they had been accustomed; nor could they have dared to touch these meats from which they had so long abstained. That they were imbued with these notions, was an evidence of their weakness; they would have thought otherwise, had they possessed a certain and a clear knowledge of Christian liberty. But in abstaining from what they thought to be unlawful, they evidenced piety, as it would have been a proof of presumption and contempt, had they done anything contrary to the dictates of conscience.



From Brian Schwertley's article on Christmas:



> I. Doesn't Romans 14:5-6 allow Christians to celebrate Christmas?
> 
> "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 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" (Rom. 14:5-6).
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott (Dec 1, 2005)

It is not an abuse of Christian liberty for a church to choose to hold a service on December 24 or 25 so that a lawfully ordained minister and read and preach the Word publicly. There is nothing wrong with reading the scriptures about the advent and preaching on them in December, which is what the complaint boils down to.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 1, 2005)

The question of holding a biblical worship service around a pretended holy day is not one of lawfulness or unlawfulness per se, or of binding the conscience. The Puritans at the time of the Westminster Assembly had to face a similar question of whether to have preaching on xmas day or not (see my previously referenced article Americanxmas). It is a question of prudence and governed by the rules of things otherwise indifferent (like most circumstantial things would be regarding worship). Durham notes this in passing when making a sixth distinction in his opening chapter concerning Scandal (ie offense).



> Whence arises another distinction of offenses, viz. from the matter of a practice, or from the manner of [the] performing of it, or the circumstances in the doing of it. For as it is not an act materially good that will edify, except it is done in the right manner, so will an act materially good not keep off offense, if it is not done tenderly, wisely, etc. And often we find circumstances have much influence on offense, as times, persons, places, manner, etc. For it is not offensive [for] one to pray or preach, but at some times, as before an idol, or on a Holy-day, it may be offensive.



Generally speaking, while I'd just assume ignore the season, I have no theoretical problem with having such a service or having a so called xmas sermon during a Lord´s day service as long as the sermon is similar to one Samuel Davies preached on two occasions around Xmas time, and superstition and idolatry are avoided and preached down, and offense avoided. See
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/ChristmasSermon.htm

My problem is that keeping these kind of observances, however they may be innocuous to begin with, are an open door back to superstitious observances. This is another facet of Gillespie's argument against holy days which needs to be considered in my opinion. My  For what it's worth.



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> It is not an abuse of Christian liberty for a church to choose to hold a service on December 24 or 25 so that a lawfully ordained minister and read and preach the Word publicly. There is nothing wrong with reading the scriptures about the advent and preaching on them in December, which is what the complaint boils down to.


----------



## Scott (Dec 1, 2005)

Chris: That is a more balanced approach than I have heard from some others.


----------



## Peter (Dec 1, 2005)

I agree Chis. If the idea is to circumvent the RPW to accommodate holy days by practicing something between the cracks of lawful worship then you're not abstaining from all appearance of evil and you're daring the devil with dangerous occasions.


----------



## Scott (Dec 1, 2005)

That is not what I am saying. Chris is at least acknowledging that the preaching of the Word on December 24 or 25 (speaking of when that is not a Sunday) is not per se wrong. That is a more reasonable opinion than those who oppose the preaching of the Word on the Dec. 24/25 when those days don't fall on Sundays.

Biblical worship is biblical worship even if men in their prudence plan out biblical worship themes (i.e. the incarnation or other events in His life) a year in advance.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 1, 2005)

Just a personal observation:

I've gone to church every Christmas since I was a child; also every Thanksgiving, New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, Good Friday, and Ascension Day, as well as a day on the other end of Thanksgiving Day, Prayer Day: seven in all. At no time did I ever believe them to be "holy days", nor was that ever taught me. As a matter of fact, my parents were adamant about the fact that these were not holy days. 

Much of this language is strange to me. I personally am convinced that those who are opposing for worship on those days are not arguing against what I practice. I agree with them on almost all things. It really has nothing to do with me or what I have practiced all my life. I don't have a problem with the RPW and worshipping on special days. And I don't believe for a moment that I am standing on Christian Liberty in order to disestablish the RPW. In fact, I am convinced of the opposite.


----------



## Peter (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> That is not what I am saying. Chris is at least acknowledging that the preaching of the Word on December 24 or 25 (speaking of when that is not a Sunday) is not per se wrong. That is a more reasonable opinion than those who oppose the preaching of the Word on the Dec. 24/25 when those days don't fall on Sundays.
> 
> Biblical worship is biblical worship even if men in their prudence plan out biblical worship themes (i.e. the incarnation or other events in His life) a year in advance.



I understand. I see your point and perhaps am willing to concede it. Nonetheless, my view is, even if per se preaching on Dec 24, 25 is not wrong it is still an occasion to slip into the idolatry of regarding the day as sacred and other common superstitions associated with xmass. Christians have a duty to 'abstain from all appearance of evil', in my opinion this is playing with fire.

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 1, 2005)

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


Understood, but:

1. I never said that he was engaging Roman Catholics. Can you show me from your quote of me above where I said he did? 

2. The point to what I was saying is that if you read the way in which he describes and attacks holy days he is attacking specific abuses. People want to repeatedly pour their own meanings into the term. Gillespie is a great historical backdrop to understand what the WCF meaning of the term is.

3. Even though I was not talking about RC theology per se, if you read some of his articles then much of that practice is revealed and condemned as well.

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Just a personal observation:
> 
> I've gone to church every Christmas since I was a child; also every Thanksgiving, New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, Good Friday, and Ascension Day, as well as a day on the other end of Thanksgiving Day, Prayer Day: seven in all. At no time did I ever believe them to be *"holy days"*, nor was that ever taught me. As a matter of fact, my parents were adamant about the fact that these were not *holy days*.
> ...



What makes them "special" but not "holy", either confessionally or biblically? Certainly "Christmas day" is not special from a biblical standpoint, for God did not even bother to inerrantly reveal the proper day to His children. And the writers of the confession, when speaking of times of particular thanksgiving, were very careful to use the phrase "special occasions", not "special days" which smacks of popery.

What you are left with is simply changing the name in order to mask what is by all accounts a "set apart" (holy) day done on an annual basis to religiously remember an event in a way that God has not commanded in His word.


----------



## Peter (Dec 2, 2005)

Understood, but:

1. I never said that he was engaging Roman Catholics. Can you show me from your quote of me above where I said he did? 

So you're saying you *dont* think his criticism was directed a catholic beliefs exclusively

2. The point to what I was saying is that if you read the way in which he describes and attacks holy days he is attacking specific abuses. People want to repeatedly pour their own meanings into the term. Gillespie is a great historical backdrop to understand what the WCF meaning of the term is.

What exaclty are you saying?

3. Even though I was not talking about RC theology per se, if you read some of his articles then much of that practice is revealed and condemned as well.

I agree. What he was attacking infact was RC theology latent in some protestantism. Perhaps only dilluted RCism, but poison anyhow (a little leaven...)


----------



## Peter (Dec 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...



 personally, I believe Christ was born sometime Oct. during the Feast of Tabernacles, as in his incarnation God is said to have dwelt or encamped among us John 1:14. Dec 25 is the date of the Yule-Day among the pagans.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Understood, but:
> 
> 1. I never said that he was engaging Roman Catholics. Can you show me from your quote of me above where I said he did?
> ...


Not exclusively. He is interacting with an Anglican bishop and condemns specific abuses within England. In some cases he's as upset with what the King is doing as anything else.



> 2. The point to what I was saying is that if you read the way in which he describes and attacks holy days he is attacking specific abuses. People want to repeatedly pour their own meanings into the term. Gillespie is a great historical backdrop to understand what the WCF meaning of the term is.
> 
> What exaclty are you saying?


That if you read the way he describes and attacks holy days he is describing what a holy day is. Some are pouring their own meaning into the confessional term "holy day". You cannot merely port what you think the confession means by the term holy day but need to understand the term in the context of the WCF writers. Gillespie's work is an excellent way to understand that backdrop.



> 3. Even though I was not talking about RC theology per se, if you read some of his articles then much of that practice is revealed and condemned as well.
> 
> I agree. What he was attacking infact was RC theology latent in some protestantism. Perhaps only dilluted RCism, but poison anyhow (a little leaven...)


It was more than a little leaven. It was pretty bad. People had to celebrate holy days under compulsion among many other abuses. The main point is that you have to understand where certain lessons cross over. For example, R.C. Sproul's Church in Orlando has stained glass windows. There were some who forbade stained glass windows early in the Reformation for very specific reasons.

The slippery slope argument is not sufficient to take away liberty for rememberances that are not stated worship events. The sinful human heart can turn even the blessed assurance from a verse in Scripture into a sin. God calls us to be thoughtful about our practices and not turn the RPW into a license to rob Christians of their liberty.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> personally, I believe Christ was born sometime Oct. during the Feast of Tabernacles, as in his incarnation God is said to have dwelt or encamped among us John 1:14. Dec 25 is the date of the Yule-Day among the pagans.


Or perhaps even in the summer since the shepherds were out with their flocks at night. Too cold on clear December nights for such activity. I totally agree that it is not probable that Christ was born in December.


----------



## Scott (Dec 2, 2005)

Tom: Rick Warren celebrates Christmas. That should settle the matter, right? :bigsmile:


----------



## JohnV (Dec 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...



As I said, you're saying these things about what you think I practice, but not about what I really practice. "Simply changing the name" is just the thing that is avoided; "to mask by all accounts a 'set apart' (holy) day" is just the thing that is not done. There is no resemblance to Popery, and it is not the ones from this background who have resorted back to popery. 

I'm just saying, "be careful", that's all.


----------

