# As if we need one more reason NOT to buy a Christ-mass tree



## Arch2k (Nov 9, 2005)

Upside-Down Christmas Trees 








One site says:



> Evoking a 12th century Central European tradition of hanging a tree from the ceiling at Christmas, this unique 7' pre-lit fir is inverted to ensure a smaller footprint for less-spacious areas, and *allowing more room for the accumulation of presents underneath.*


----------



## bond-servant (Nov 9, 2005)

You're kidding!?

To the chagrin of our extended family, we have not had a tree nor decorated for Christmas in over 10 years.

On a 'funny' note: what's that Bible verse:

Jer 10:2-4 Thus says the LORD: "Learn not the way of the nations, nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens because the nations are dismayed at them, for the customs of the peoples are vanity. A tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 9, 2005)

Beth! 

Besides, after spending $600 on a tree like that who would have money for _more_ presents??


----------



## Authorised (Nov 9, 2005)

What's wrong with a Christmas tree?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 9, 2005)

I think Beth pointed out what was wrong with the tree. The evergreen was representative of Nimrod's eternal state...and Christmas was the celebration of such. The Catholics replaced the pagan holiday with a "Christian" one.


----------



## heartoflesh (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> On a 'funny' note: what's that Bible verse:
> 
> Jer 10:2-4 Thus says the LORD: "Learn not the way of the nations, nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens because the nations are dismayed at them, for the customs of the peoples are vanity. A tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move.



That's way too much work-- going into the forest and all that. Mine's plastic and sits in a cardboard box most of the year.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Jeremiah does not apply unless you are cutting down a tree to carve it up and overlay it with metal in order to make an IDOL for worship.
> 
> A Christmas Tree is different altogether.



That's been a matter of opinion and I've yet to see evidence of such...scripturally it does not mention carving it...merely decorating it.


----------



## bradofshaw (Nov 9, 2005)

Sounds more like it's describing the forming of an idol out of a tree, covering or overlaying it in silver or gold, and nailing it in place so it doesn't roll away. Seems to be an emphasis on the living tree being turned into a non-living idol, and the vanity of the nations for worshipping such foolish things. Not only are they worshipping something dead, but they had to kill it first before they could attribute divinity to it.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 9, 2005)

BTW, that would have defeated the entire purpose of it representing Nimrod in the first place...it was it's evergreen branches that were the symbolic part.


----------



## bond-servant (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> ...



Need to close the  for a sec and take a humor break...
That was funny Rick! 

Okay, I got a hold of myself..ONward!
Bad Nimrod!
Bad tree!
Bad pagans!

and apparently a little to much cold medicine. ....hmmm..


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 9, 2005)

I could use some of that cold medicine...or even just a sleeping pill...I just can't wait to go to bed and forget about my stomach wambling (wonders if anyone will get this joke...)


----------



## bond-servant (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I could use some of that cold medicine...or even just a sleeping pill...I just can't wait to go to bed and forget about my stomach wambling (wonders if anyone will get this joke...)





Okay..I'll quit posting "" now if ya'll will quit making me laugh!

It was all I could do not to post a "" at Andrews comment about being to broke to buy PRESENTS after spending 600 on a tree! THAT was funny too!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 9, 2005)

I'm with Phil and Martin Luther on this one. Cut the tree down and let's light it up. God converted this pagan. I like the idea of another pagan thing turned into glorifying God.


----------



## bond-servant (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> oh well, we will enjoy our tree this year and all the time of celebration that goes with it glorifying God for the gift of His Son.
> 
> <snip>
> ...



As with most Christian principles, I think this is a matter of the heart. The Spirit of the law versus the letter of it. So many of our modern Christian customs have pagan roots. At some point in areas like this, [not moral ones] it becomes a matter of "abstaining from the appearance of evil" (1 Thes 5) and doing what is right for your family.

For our family, b/c of the reasons listed here, and others, we neither celebrate Easter in the "traditional" way or Christmas in the "traditional" way. 

Each Christmas every member of our family decides what "sacrifice" or "offering" they will give to Jesus as His "birthday present". It has been wonderful for our kids (and yes they get presents too), because each year even at an early age they are thinking how they can IMPROVE in thier walk with God.

A few years ago, my oldest (who had been saved for almost a year at that time) decided that for Jesus' present, he needed to follow in obedience and be baptized. This was HIS idea. Obedience was HIS word. We let him think about it for several months. Talked with our pastor. He was baptized the week before Christmas. The decision was ALL his and NOT ours.

We also bake Jesus a birthday cake..

I am in no way saying that ours is in anyway the "ideal". Our kids are young. And Yes, all we ARE and HAVE are Christ'S anyway, but it is a conscience honoring of Him and sacrifice of our will to HIS will. Contemplating our yearly offering begins long before Christmas...


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 9, 2005)

Also for us, having been around and familiar with pagans who question why a Christian would participate in a pagan practice, we have chosen not to celebrate those two holidays in the usually manner. My children are aware that Christ was born around the Feast of Tabernacles. We don't decorate. We don't do egg hunts. There is no Santa or Bunny that lays eggs and leaves baskets. We DO sing praises to God as a family, enjoy eggnog and pie, and we do exchange gifts with family...one per person. There is no extravagance. We also do not participate in Mayday or Halloween, both of which are part of the same pagan cycle (Mayday and the maypole was very popular when I lived in Washington State).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 9, 2005)

Before I was married I purposed in my heart to never lie to kids about St. Nicholaus. My reasoning was if I told them a lie about Santa who is to say that I aint lyin about Jesus. So when I started having children I told them the truth. St. Nick was dead but that he lived in heaven with Jesus. I told them about the fables and myths and said it was wrong to make Santa Claus have characteristics that only God has. 

Well, one Christmas we were in a department store and the cashier asked my two boys (probablly around 6years old) if they were good and if Santa was going to come to their house. To which my oldest looked at her and said, "No, Santa is dead." You should have seen the look of horror on that ladies face. It was great. I then explained to her that we believe that the real St. Nick is alive in heaven with Jesus but we wanted our son's to know that their parents always told them the truth. They could trust us when we said Jesus was real.

It is a great witness.

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 9, 2005)

Our children know who St Nick was also.


----------



## bond-servant (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Our children know who St Nick was also.





We also never told our kids there was a "santa claus" but told them the truth from the beginning for the same reason puritancovenanter mentioned.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> oh well, we will enjoy our tree this year and all the time of celebration that goes with it glorifying God for the gift of His Son.
> 
> We will go cut it down, or buy it already cut and bing it home and decortate it in a prominent place in our living room. Each year our tree is decorated with gold and silver ornaments representing the Lordship of Christ as He is King of Kings. It is circled from top to bottom with a red ribbon signifying His blood shed for us upon the Tree of Calvary. Some of the ornaments are of a musical nature to signify the necessity of singing praises to God the Father for sending His Son. And in place of a star on top we use a large bow to signify the fact that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit - ties that bind us forever as adopted children of God.
> ...





We celebrate the historical redemptive AND the eschatological advent.
We fell by eating the fruit of a tree. Christ died on a tree suspended between heaven and earth. We live by eating the fruit of THAT tree forever.


Isa 55:12 "For you shall go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall break forth into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. 

Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 
Rev 22:2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> oh well, we will enjoy our tree this year and all the time of celebration that goes with it glorifying God for the gift of His Son.
> 
> We will go cut it down, or buy it already cut and bing it home and decortate it in a prominent place in our living room. Each year our tree is decorated with gold and silver ornaments representing the Lordship of Christ as He is King of Kings. It is circled from top to bottom with a red ribbon signifying His blood shed for us upon the Tree of Calvary. Some of the ornaments are of a musical nature to signify the necessity of singing praises to God the Father for sending His Son. And in place of a star on top we use a large bow to signify the fact that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit - ties that bind us forever as adopted children of God.
> ...



I am sorry Phillip, I was going to let this slide, and didn't want to end up in a sensitive debate, but I just can't. When you put it like this, I honestly have to wonder weather you haven't made you "Christ-mass" tree into an idol. I have never heard anyone try to make up such a relation to Christ from a tree.

From The Regulative Principle and Christmas by Matthew MacMahon.



> Secondly, we must define whether or not Christmas actually falls under the category of worship. Is setting aside a certain day, once a year to honor Christ´s birth, a violation of the Regulative Principle and worship? Apart from asking this question, the Christian should be the first to realize that giving gifts, Santa Claus, *Christmas Trees*, Yule Logs and the like, *have absolutely nothing to do with the incarnation of Jesus Christ. * The closest in any of these is the giving of gifts, but we do not give gifts to Christ as the Magi did (which was for a specific purpose) but rather, we give them to one another. How is this honoring to Christ? *I have yet found anyone who can justify any of these things in a lawful connection to Christ and His Word. *



From your description, Christ looks an aweful lot like a christmas tree. How is this different from Jeremiah's day?


----------



## cupotea (Nov 9, 2005)

I'm not going to get into my feelings about Christmas, but there are two really annoying things about it that hopefully everyone here will agree on:

1. Christmas lights are such a waste of electricity. I've never heard anybody talk about them the way that Pastor Way just did, and he made me appreciate them a little more, but oh man, the poor, poor environment. (yeah, yeah, people waste electricity every day, but that's no excuse for continuing to waste it on Christmas!)

2. Wrapping presents is such a waste of paper! It's fun to unwrap them, and they certainly look pretty, but, again, oh man, the poor, poor environment!


----------



## historyb (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> oh well, we will enjoy our tree this year and all the time of celebration that goes with it glorifying God for the gift of His Son.
> 
> We will go cut it down, or buy it already cut and bing it home and decortate it in a prominent place in our living room. Each year our tree is decorated with gold and silver ornaments representing the Lordship of Christ as He is King of Kings. It is circled from top to bottom with a red ribbon signifying His blood shed for us upon the Tree of Calvary. Some of the ornaments are of a musical nature to signify the necessity of singing praises to God the Father for sending His Son. And in place of a star on top we use a large bow to signify the fact that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit - ties that bind us forever as adopted children of God.
> ...


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 9, 2005)

An aquaintance had this on her blog.

Here is a shocking excerpt from an article of a present day pagan :

In the fourth century C.E. Pope Julius I officially set the date of Christ's birth to December 25th, after a brief investigation. The truth is, no one had the faintest idea as to the actual date of his birth... they weren't even certain about the year! All of which lead to endless arguments amongst their faithful. Today scholars know one thing for certain- the Christ was not born in the year 0, on December 25th! That they all agree on. Many had speculated as to the exact date of birth of this religious figure. Some say they have proof that he was born in May... others have suggested April. Still others have championed January... March... and September. In reality no one knows- and they never will! But certain historical evidence has shown that he definitely was not born during the Yule Festival.

So why December 25th? Again... it was that old "if you can't beat them, then convert them by deceiving them." By placing the birth of their Christ in the middle of the ancient Mid-Winter heathen festival, the church hoped to convert, and thereby absorb the Pagans into their belief system. It was a limited success. For although the Yuletide became "Christmas", all the Pagan traditions stayed on. and the Nativity ended up taking a back seat to the rest. The ancient heathen practices never died out, but lingered on right up to the present time- lucky for us! And the traditions of Feasting, drinking, dancing, gift-giving, the lighting of fires, the holding of parties and general merriment and revelry... stayed on in their mostly original Pagan forms, with very little change. Over the years the church tried to stamp out the celebration of Christmas or Yule, and even made it illegal to observe it, at various times in history. It was officially abolished in England on the 3rd of June, 1647 C.E.! The puritans couldn't stand all the Pagan revelry, obviously having nothing to do with the birth of their "Christ", and so they too tried to stamp it out! When that failed, they tried to make the whole Christmas idea non-appealing and eventually illegal! However, this attempt to remove the Mid-Winter Festival from the hearts of people failed. And there were even riots against this law. It got absurd to the point where the mayors of cities, were forced by law, to go out an burn all Yule decorations they found! But the law could not remove it and it went underground, and was practiced behind closed doors. In 1660 the puritans were ousted and the Festival was returned to its former glory. The same thing happened in what would soon be the United States of America, and the observance of "Christmas" was banned, by law, between 1659 and 1681 C.E.. Again, this attempt to suppress the celebration of the return of the light and warmth of the Sun -failed!

The Christian attempt to change, by deception, the "rebirth of the Sun God" into the "birth of the Son of God", was never complete. And it only goes to prove that is ingrained so deeply in the hearts and spirits of the people, that is derived from their natural history, their ancestral faiths will always prevail!

Today...

Today the Yule Festival is observed by AsÃ¡trÃºar and Odinists with much Feasting and revelry. Blot ( symbolic ritual sacrifice) is traditionally performed to one of several gods. Some believe Thor is the god of the Yuletide... some think Balder, as the god of light... Some feel that Odin is the original Old Man of Winter, and therefore the god of Yule. We know for certain that Frey was honored at this time of year by our Heathen ancestors. But whoever you choose as the god of the Mid-Winter Festival- observe it well. For it is certainly one of the most potent times of the year. Feasting, giving of gifts, tree decorating, visiting with relatives and close friends, religious observances and more... fill the twelve days of Yule with as many special activities as you can. Rediscover the joy and anticipation of this wonderful time of year. Watch the Christians around you, as they go about, unknowingly performing ancient pagan rites... and celebrate! Realize that the excitement that everyone feels at this time of the year has nothing, whatsoever to do with the birth of the Son of God... but rather, has everything to do with the rebirth of the SUN GOD!.

Read entire article here (warning, this is a pagan web site):

http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usoh&c=holidays&id=4942


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

A little something for the witch-hunters who hate Christmas. You (plural) act as though Satan is still on the throne.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 

Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 


Eph 1:15 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, 
Eph 1:16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, 
Eph 1:17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 
Eph 1:18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 
Eph 1:19 * and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 
Eph 1:20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 
Eph 1:21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. *

Eph 1:22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 
Eph 1:23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. 


We may redeem anything the devil stole from God to begin with. 
Kill and eat !


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 9, 2005)

From Brian Schwertly's 
The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas:



> Many Christians argue that they do not worship the Christmas tree, and that the pagan origins are so far in the past as to be harmless. But such a view, while common in our day, shows a total disregard of the biblical teaching regarding idols, the paraphernalia associated with idolatry, and the monuments to idolatry.
> God has such a strong hatred of idolatry that Israel was not just commanded to avoid the worship of idols. Israel was also specifically ordered to destroy everything associated with idolatry. "Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: and ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. . . . [A]nd that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God" (Deut. 12:2-4, 30-31).
> When Jacob set out to purify the camp (i.e., his household and attendants) the earrings were removed as well as their foreign gods (Gen. 35:4), because their earrings were associated with their false gods. They were signs of superstition. When Elijah went to offer his sacrifice, in his contest with the prophets of Baal, he did not use the pagan altar. He did not take something made for idols (e.g., Saturnalia) and attempt to sanctify it for holy use (e.g., Christmas), but instead he rebuilt the Lord's altar. Christians should not take the pagan festival of Yule or Saturnalia and dress it with Christian clothing, but rather sanctify the Lord's day, as did the apostles. When Jehu went up against the worshipers of Baal and their temple, did he save the temple and set it apart for holy use? No! He slaughtered the worshipers of Baal: "they brake down the image of Baal, and brake down the house of Baal, and made it a draught house unto this day" (2 Ki. 10:27).
> "Moreover, we have the example of good Josiah (2 Ki. 23), for he did not only destroy the houses, and the high places of Baal, but his vessels also, and his grove, and his altars; yea, the horses and chariots which had been given to the sun. The example also of penitent Manasseh, who not only overthrew the strange gods, but their altars too (2 Chron. 23:15). And of Moses, the man of God, who was not content to execute vengeance on the idolatrous Israelites, except he should also utterly destroy the monument of their idolatry."25
> ...


----------



## gwine (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



A tree from the forest is cut down and *worked with an axe* by the hands of a craftsman. 

Unless you want to say that cutting the tree down and working it with an axe are the same event, it sure looks to me like there is some hacking and hewing and carving going on.

Interestingly enough, the NIV renders it:

For the customs of the peoples are worthless; 
they cut a tree out of the forest, 
and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.

Just my half cent.

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by gwine]


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_We may redeem anything the devil stole from God to begin with.
> Kill and eat !



I think we should start by redeeming our obedience to the law!

Jer 10:1 Hear the word which the LORD speaks to you, O house of Israel. 
Jer 10:2 Thus says the LORD: "*Do not learn the way of the Gentiles*; Do not be dismayed at the signs of heaven, For the Gentiles are dismayed at them. 
Jer 10:3 *For the customs of the peoples are futile*; For one cuts a tree from the forest, The work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. 
Jer 10:4 They decorate it with silver and gold; They fasten it with nails and hammers So that it will not topple. 

I say we redeem the trees by burning them!! This can represent God's wrath in the firey flames of hell! Somehow I don't think that many people would join in that celebration.

It seems this would be an equally significant way of using the tree to symbolize God!


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

The purpose of that O.T. restriction was gosel purity because Israel was God's Message bearer under the Old Covenant (Heb. 1)

I suppose you guys do not eat pork either.

Christ is risen. The shadows flee at His very name. The typologies have met every antitype in Christ.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 9, 2005)

Wow. So you think that we CAN worship God like the heathen do today? No restrictions?


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Wow. So you think that we CAN worship God like the heathen do today? No restrictions?



Didn't say that. But we have freedom to worship in any reverent, God-centered, and orderly manner. In spirit and in truth. We also have liberty to celebrate feast days of our own making. Thanksgiving, Easter, Epiphany, Advent, Pentecost, ad infinitum. . .


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



So can you slaughter a lamb as part of worship as long as it is "reverent, God-centered and orderly"? 

How about swimming in a pool of jello? Is that worship as long as it meets your requirements?

I guess even more appropriate is who defines "reverent"? Is that merely subjective?


----------



## Herald (Nov 9, 2005)

1. We have a Christmas tree every year

2. We have fun decorating it

3. We have presents under the tree

4. We enjoy opening them

5. We are not pagans

6. We do not worship the tree

7. We worship God alone

8. God alone gets the glory

9. Tree goes back in the attic until next year

10. We continue to worship God alone, and He continues to receive all 
glory.

The end


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

You can slaughter a lamb for a cookout. It is in no way any Levitical atonement if that is what you mean.

Obviously, swimming in jello is irreverent. Decorating a tree with lights is not. And don't you RPW guys have some magical esoteric formula for separating private worship and public worship anyway. I wish you would share it with the rest of us. 

You have the freedom to practice those strict old covenant regulations all you want. And I have the freedom to use common sense.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> You can slaughter a lamb for a cookout. It is in no way any Levitical atonement if that is what you mean.



We're talking about worship here. You said that you could do anything as long as it was reverent. Can you slaughter a lamb as long as it is reverent.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_Obviously, swimming in jello is irreverent. Decorating a tree with lights is not.


 Please explain. I think one to be as much a ridiculous act as the other.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> And don't you RPW guys have some magical esoteric formula for separating private worship and public worship anyway. I wish you would share it with the rest of us.



This is not argument agains the RPW. I would be willing to hold consistently between all forms if I was not shown a correct way to distinguish between them. The Bible still teaches it.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> You have the freedom to practice those strict old covenant regulations all you want. And I have the freedom to use common sense.



I would actually say that Holy Days are the old covenant regulations, and worshipping God according to the imaginations of the pagans is the moral element.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

The Westminster Confession According to Chapter 21, "Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day," in addition to "ordinary religious worship of God" on the Lord's Day, there are also "solemn fastings and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner" 

One of the prooftexts for this statement is Esther 9.22: "As the days wherein the Jews rested from their enemies and the month which was turned unto them from sorrow to joy, and from mourning into a good day; that they should make them days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions to one another, and gifts to the poor."


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

The Second Helvetic Confession (1566)

The Festivals of Christ and the Saints. Moreover, if in Christian Liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord's nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly (pp. 291-292).


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

The Synod of Dordt (1618-1619)
"Article 53. Days of Commemoration"

Each year the churches shall, in the manner decided upon by the consistory, commemorate the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as His outpouring of the Holy Spirit(Book of Praise: Anglo-Genevan Psalter rev. ed. [Winnipeg, Manitoba: Premier Printing ltd., 1984, 1995], p. 670).


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

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.

Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology (p. 101).


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

Jef, I am glad we may both peacefully celebrate according to our consciences.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> The Westminster Confession According to Chapter 21, "Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day," in addition to "ordinary religious worship of God" on the Lord's Day, there are also "solemn fastings and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner"
> 
> One of the prooftexts for this statement is Esther 9.22: "As the days wherein the Jews rested from their enemies and the month which was turned unto them from sorrow to joy, and from mourning into a good day; that they should make them days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions to one another, and gifts to the poor."



Yes. And subsequently, this would exclude Christmas. The thanksgivings spoken of here are civil days of thanksgiving (such as the day of Thanksgiving and Reformation Day) over and against religious "Holy Days."

This in accord with the rest of the Westminster Standards, especially where the Directory for Public Worship (also approved by the Westminster Divines) states:



> AN APPENDIX,
> 
> Touching Days and Places for Publick Worship.
> 
> ...


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

Jeff, my point was the prooftext . . Purim . . not to mention the idea of Hanukkah (which Christ celebrated).

My family and I will continue to celebrate Advent as long as we remain on this side of the acheron. 

Personent hodie 
voces puerulae 
laudates jucundae 
qui nobis est natus 
summo Deo datus 
Ideo, gloria in excelsis Deo 
Stella maris 
semper clara 
rosa munde 
res miranda 
mysterium mirabile



The Word has become flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. Behold His glory.

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Jeff, my point was the prooftext . . Purim . . not to mention the idea of Hanukkah (which Christ celebrated).
> 
> My family and I will continue to celebrate Advent as long as we remain on this side of the acheron.
> ...



Purim was a civil day of Thanksgiving, not a religious "holiday." The former is great, the latter sinful (outside the Sabbath of course).

Why do you wish to retain the Roman Catholic tradition of holydays? Is it just "fun"? Do you think that you can worship God in a better way than the way the Bible prescribes?


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 9, 2005)

Again from Brian Schwertly's article (link above) on Purim:



> II. 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?
> 
> 1. There is almost no resemblance between Christmas and Purim. Purim consists of two days of thanksgiving. The events of Purim are: "joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. . . and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor" (Est. 8:17; 9:22). There was no worship service. There were no levitical priestly activities. There were no ceremonies. The two days of Purim have much more in common with Thanksgiving and it's dinners than Christmas. Purim is certainly no justification for Christmas services. Purim resembles the special days of thanksgiving which are still allowed, and not the religious and ceremonial holy days of the Levitical system. In fact, the Westminster divines used Purim as a proof text (Est. 9:22) authorizing days of thanksgiving.38
> 
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 9, 2005)

If we want to play the quote game, I have many to post, but instead, I'll conserve space and just link to them.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

> Why do you wish to retain the Roman Catholic tradition of holydays? Is it just "fun"? Do you think that you can worship God in a better way than the way the Bible prescribes?



Why keep insisting on this false dilemma ?
The bible prescribes ceaseless rejoicing, and a dedication to all things unto Christ the Lord. You insist that Christmas was built upon a pagan holiday. What ever happened to the gates of hell prevailing against the church ? ?

Are not the days of the week named after pagan dieties ? ?
Do you worship on SUnday ?

Dies solis means the day of the sun, from which we get Sunday. Sun worship was marked by the use of the halo, or nimbus, which originated with the pagan Greeks and Romans to represent their sun god, Helios. Later artists adopted it for use in Christian images. 

OOPs . . . .


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > Why do you wish to retain the Roman Catholic tradition of holydays? Is it just "fun"? Do you think that you can worship God in a better way than the way the Bible prescribes?
> ...



You are reading into that verse. The gates of hell shall not prevail, but that does not mean that we should mix with hell, for that would be to do the opposite of prevailing. If straight guys came out of the fight agains gays wearing dresses, make-up, and talking feminine, would you say that they prevailed? I think not.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Are not the days of the week named after pagan dieties ? ?
> Do you worship on SUnday ?
> 
> ...



I worship on the Lord's Day.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

There is prevailing _de facto_ and prevailing _de jure_. Forgive my failure to elucidate. It is a matter of wheat and tares. Santas and Jesus.
_Abusus non tollit usum._


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 9, 2005)

I think the whole "dominion mandate" idea is extremely abused in Christendom, and unfortunately, among Presbyterians today. I am well aware other Reformed do not have qualms about holy days, but obviously Westminsterian Presbyterians do (or SHOULD), as our confessional standards are quite clear on it.

This idea of "taking over paganism for Christ" doesn't sit well with me. Should we do abortions for the glory of God? Cut ourselves? Burn incense? Oh wait, Catholics already do that.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

Also, the subject of this thread contains an amphiboly. You are assuming the RC doctrine of the mass from the word Christmas. I think the English word "mass" however, is an Anglicized version of the Latin word _misse_. Fred can correct me if I am wrong here. Does that not make the literal meaning of Christmas to be "Christ-sent" ?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 9, 2005)

I like Christ-mass better.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 9, 2005)

The whole "taking over paganism for Christ" mentality really reduces itself to aburdity in the long run. This type of thinking completely ignores the fact that there are certain things that are inherantly WRONG to do in this world NO MATTER WHAT.

I can list them, but I think that everyone can think of examples.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 9, 2005)

Exactly, Jeff!!! I was thinking about that today while at work.

I used to buy in to the whole "dominion" thing, but now it seems absurd to me when taken beyond its context.

Just because we CAN take over pagan things for Jesus, that doesn't mean He wants us to or expects it or approves of it. I think it is fairly clear in Scripture that God HATES man-made holy days and solemn functions which He did not ordain.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 9, 2005)

*Merriam-Webster*



> Main Entry: ChristÂ·mas
> Pronunciation: 'kris-m&s
> Function: noun
> Usage: often attributive
> ...



It's Catholic, not matter which way you boil it.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 9, 2005)

Weren't people trying to get it changed to "Winter Holiday" a few years ago?


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

Luk 1:76 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, 
Luk 1:77 to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins, 
Luk 1:78 because of the tender mercy of our God, *whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high.*


Mal 4:2 But for you who fear my name, *the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings.* You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. 


The church chose December 25th to celebrate Christmas around the time of the winter solstice to highlight the themes of darkness and light so prominent in the Gospels. Pagans do not own the seasons; they have always tried to commandeer them from God and his people. It is a reclamation. 

Why fear the church calendar ? It has great didactic implications.

I Timothy 4:4
"Every thing that God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer."


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 9, 2005)

Yes, everything indeed is created good, but that doesn't mean it belongs in worship.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 
Act 15:20 but should write to them to abstain from the things *polluted by idols*, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 
Act 15:21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues." 


For you, Christmas is polluted by idols. So I commend you for abstaining.

For me:

Rom 14:13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 
Rom 14:14 *I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. *


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 9, 2005)

I'm not sure idolatry is subjective. In one sense it can be (like, TV is an idol for one brother while it is not for another), but in the context of worship, there are specific things forbidden by Yahweh.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

We are all idol factories. I often even make an idol of theology, or scripture itself.

The point is that we live by faith. We do all things as unto the Lord. Including this discussion concerning our different interpretations of scripture. We both have the goal of serving Christ with an undivided heart. One through the _via negative_ and the other through the _via affirmativa_. 


And therefore was law given them, to evince 
Their natural pravity, by stirring up 
Sin against law to fight: that when they see 
Law can discover sin, but not remove, 
Save by those shadowy expiations weak, 
The blood of bulls and goats, they may conclude 
Some blood more precious must be paid for Man; 
*Just for unjust; that, in such righteousness 
To them by faith imputed, they may find 
Justification towards God, and peace 
Of conscience; which the law by ceremonies 
Cannot appease; nor Man the mortal part 
Perform; and, not performing, cannot live. *

So law appears imperfect; and but given 
With purpose to resign them, in full time, 
Up to a better covenant; *disciplined 
From shadowy types to truth; from flesh to spirit; 
From imposition of strict laws to free 
Acceptance of large grace; from servile fear 
To filial; works of law to works of faith. *

Milton - Paradise Lost (Book XII, 287-306)


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 10, 2005)

I realize that, but my point from above is that, in worship, God runs the show completely, not our preferences or good intentions. The existence of a sovereign, covenantal, Creator presupposes and requires a regulative principle of worship.


----------



## Herald (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> For those of you who believe me to be a pagan tree idol worshipping idiot I have only one short phrase for you. I need no long quotes or religious tomes. I need not make false dilemmas about worship, the calendar, the RPW, the catholic church, mass, withcraft, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
> 
> Here is what the WORD OF GOD says:
> ...



Way! (as in "right on")


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

Is it possible that the Romans passage is speaking in reference to madated Jewish holy days? If so, this would still be different than a taking over of pagan holy days.

The one question I have to ask, as I have had to deal with it myself...and no one has dealt with it since I presented the article I did...have you thought of the example you are setting before the pagans? Obviously the RC failed in it's purposes for what it did, why do we continue to attempt the same? If nothing else, it has caused us to become a laughing stock and brought reproach upon us. 

I will admit to this having been a favorite time of year...I loved everything that came with it. My husband's family and I went ALL OUT for the holiday. But we have long since removed ourselves from it due to the reasons listed in this thread. So please consider your verbages when refering to those of us who have done away with the pagantry of this day and understand the reasoning behind doing so even if you should choose to do otherwise.


----------



## heartoflesh (Nov 10, 2005)

For me a Christmas tree is just something fun to do, fun to look at.

I guess the same goes for Christmas in general. I consider it a secular holiday more than anything else. That's the way I was brought up. I don't see the need to make it into a special day of worship. It just is what it is-- egg nog, presents, cookies, kids having fun-- maybe go sledding if our Minnesota summer ever come to an end. *65 degrees forcasted for tomorrow!!*

Not sure where that leaves me in the great debate.


----------



## gwine (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> So please consider your verbages when refering to those of us who have done away with the pagantry of this day and understand the reasoning behind doing so even if you should choose to do otherwise.



All I can say is it works both ways. God will judge our hearts.


----------



## bond-servant (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> All I can say is it works both ways. God will judge our hearts.



True. 

As interesting as this conversation is, For what it's worth, can I point out that we are once again 'majoring' on the 'minors'. 

People are beginning to get defensive. Is this topic still edifying?


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 10, 2005)

Gerry and I were just discussing how the Christmas tree debate exploded over night. I thought I would bring up this caution by way of recognizing an 'ex post facto'* law of the Puritan Board.

The Godwin Law is an observation that, 

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

To my knowledge there has never been any evidence of this law's effect on the PB.

However, there is a similar PB Law that would be described as, 

"As a PB online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving 'damnable heresy" or 'heretic" approaches 1.

Let's keep this in mind as we race down this well worn and bloodied path of the annual Christmas debate. Tis the season!

*Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. (Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.)


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

A friend reminded me that the entire idea of Christmas being wrong because the origins are pagan (which they are not) is built upon the genetic fallacy.

The origin of something being confused with the justification of it.

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 10, 2005)

And I thought there was some rule that anti-xmas discussions didn´t start till after Thanksgiving. I must say I have far less trouble with folks having xmas trees as a traditional neat thing to do, when a tree was a tree, lights were lights, and red ribbons where just that; this inventing our own symbolism thing treads on the Lord's prerogatives in my opinion.

For background on how Presbyterians came to embrace xmas celebration civilly and religiously, see this article http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/americanxmas.htm Some of the same facts apply to the other nonconformist denominations of the colonies/USA as well. Books by historians that were useful for researching this paper were:

Stephen Nissenbaum, _The Battle for Christmas: A social and cultural history of Christmas that shows how it was transformed from an unruly carnival season into the quintessential American Family Holiday_ (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997) 7-8. This is a secular treatment from the standpoint of a cultural and social historian, who was raised in an Orthodox Jewish family. Also, Penne L. Rested, _Christmas in America A History _(New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). And Katherine Lambert Richards, _How Christmas Came to the Sunday-Schools: The Observance of Christmas in the Protestant church schools of the United States, an historical study_ (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1934). This last traces the root of how Baptists, Presbyterians and other nonconformists succumbed to xmas celebration.

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## gwine (Nov 10, 2005)

> And I thought there was some rule that anti-xmas discussions didn´t start till after Thanksgiving.



How can people wait, when there is merchandise up before Reformation Day, if not sooner?


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Nov 10, 2005)

How does colossians 2:16 apply to Christmas. As for me, its my favorite time of the year, and I use this time specifically to contemplate on God's gift of His Son for my sins. In addition I use this time to sincerely bond with my family and be joyous. I see nothing wrong with that, and in actuality I see it as something that God would encourage me to do.

But for those who do not celebrate Christmas, I say more power to you.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
> Act 15:20 but should write to them to abstain from the things *polluted by idols*, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
> Act 15:21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."
> ...



So is using a golden calf in worship clean or unclean? Can you 'redeem' the golden calf and use it to the glory of God?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 10, 2005)

Jeff - 

Thanks for the quote. 

Remmber though, I am all for XMAS. Trees, yule logs, Jack Frost nipping at your nose, Santa, the Bumble, etc. - bring it on. We love the festivities of the season to be jolly.

Jolly - 1 a (1) : full of high spirits : JOYOUS (2) : given to conviviality : JOVIAL b : expressing, suggesting, or inspiring gaiety : CHEERFUL.

I find Thanksgiving through New Years to be a very jolly time of the year!

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Nov 10, 2005)

How could one not celebrate Christmas, when they hear Nat King Cole's Christmas songs :bigsmile:


----------



## bond-servant (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> How could one not celebrate Christmas, when they hear Nat King Cole's Christmas songs :bigsmile:



LOL, we <b>do</b> celebrate it, for sure! Our celebration just doesn't include a tree.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> For those of you who believe me to be a pagan tree idol worshipping idiot I have only one short phrase for you. I need no long quotes or religious tomes. I need not make false dilemmas about worship, the calendar, the RPW, the catholic church, mass, withcraft, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
> 
> Here is what the WORD OF GOD says:
> ...



Brian Schwertley answers Phillip Way:



> 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).
> 
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> For me a Christmas tree is just something fun to do, fun to look at.
> 
> I guess the same goes for Christmas in general. I consider it a secular holiday more than anything else. That's the way I was brought up. I don't see the need to make it into a special day of worship. It just is what it is-- egg nog, presents, cookies, kids having fun-- maybe go sledding if our Minnesota summer ever come to an end. *65 degrees forcasted for tomorrow!!*
> ...



Brian Schwertley answers Rick Larson:



> III. There is no question that Christmas has no place in the public worship of God, but isn't it okay to celebrate it privately in the home?
> 
> The problem with this view is that it presupposes that the Regulative Principle only applies to public worship. There is no biblical evidence to support the idea that the Regulative Principle was only meant for public worship. In fact, the biblical evidence supports the opposite view. Cain was condemned for an innovation in private worship (Gen. 4:2-8). Noah, in family worship, offered clean animals to God (Gen. 8:20-21). God was pleased and accepted Noah's offering on behalf of himself and his family. Abraham, Jacob and Job offered sacrifices to God in private or family worship, according to God's Word. God accepted these lawful offerings. The idea that innovations in worship are permitted in family and private worship is unbiblical; it is totally arbitrary because it is not based on divine revelation. If an innovation in public worship displeases God, then how does it please Him in private worship? Would it not be permissible, under such premises, to have little shrines in our homes where we burn incense, wear surplices, miters and such, as long as we keep such things out of public meetings?
> 
> ...


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

Jeff, 

In my living room I do not have a golden calf, but I do have a small statue of a lion. I see nothing wrong with statues either. The lion has been a symbol for many things, courage, strength, kingship, and for us St. Mark. (Not only my name but my favorite gospel)

Christ is the Lion Of The Tribe Of Judah .

When I look at the little statue I do not bow to it, pray to it, light incense to it, offer it sacrifices human, animal, or vegetable, nor do I revere it in any way. I admire the craftsmanship that went into making it, and it serves in a small way as a reminder to be strong in Christ and the power of His might.

So, if it stirs up worship to God by semiotic reference is that idolatry ? How about a cross, or even a bible. ?

A golden calf might be a reminder in ones house of fleeing from idolatry.


----------



## Gregg (Nov 10, 2005)

I wish I had $1.00 for every one of these (similar) threads that pops up around this time of year on various discussion boards I've been to through the years.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Gregg_
> I wish I had $1.00 for every one of these (similar) threads that pops up around this time of year on various discussion boards I've been to through the years.



Perhaps you should ask Santa.


----------



## Gregg (Nov 10, 2005)




----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

I wish you would quit quoting Brian Schwertley. The man is wrong. That Romans 14 interpretation is pure Velveeta. Very dispensational in his hermeneutic if you ask me. 



> 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.
> 
> 2. It was not so much the difference itself that did the mischief as the mismanagement of the difference, making it a bone of contention.
> 
> ...



[Edited on 11-10-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



This was meant towards Mark Kodak who called us "witch-hunters that hate Christmas". I found this unneccessary name calling. Neither am I condemning those that choose to have a tree or celebrate in the usual manner. I merely stated MY reasons for not doing so simply for others consideration.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

> This was meant towards Mark Kodak who called us "witch-hunters that hate Christmas". I found this unneccessary name calling. Neither am I condemning those that choose to have a tree or celebrate in the usual manner. I merely stated MY reasons for not doing so simply for others consideration.



Do you hate Christmas ?
Do you hunt for pagan origins in everything the world does ?

Why be offended by the term ? 

Does it have a negative connotation that misrepresents your rigid application of the RPW ?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> You can slaughter a lamb for a cookout.



But can you dress it up to look like Jesus? Put gold and silver on it? Hundred of lights? Is all that OK before you slaughter it?


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

> But can you dress it up to look like Jesus? Put gold and silver on it? Hundred of lights? Is all that OK before you slaughter it?



These reductios are tedious. 

Passover was slaughtering a lamb representing Christ. Is it still wrong to celebrate Passover ? No. That is Paul's point. We can celebrate anything we want. We are not talking about corporate worship are we ? We are talking about Christmas. If I hang an eviscerated lamb on a cross in my front yard and deck it with lights that might be a great conversation starter . . . . 

Thanks for the idea.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Brian Schwertley is not inspired nor are his writings to be used to bind the conscience since he is not speaking God's very words, but giving us his interpretation of what God says.



The obvious. 



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I do not say that a person MUST have a Christmas tree. I know many godly families that do not use trees and some who even do not celebrate Christmasssssssssssss at all.



As you shouldn't! The question is "Do you think you're the better for having one?" 



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> And what testimony does it give pagans when I use the tree? Well from top to bottom I can use my tree to give the GOSPEL. How is that for a testimony to pagans? I can explain exactly and precisely why we have a tree in our house to point to Jesus Christ.



It seems that if you have attributed all of these things to the tree, and this is WHY you resurrect one, you have created for yourself a new sacrament....the holy tree. The tree that reminds me of God. God has already given us two sacraments, why try to make our own like Rome?


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

> It seems that if you have attributed all of these things to the tree, and this is WHY you resurrect one, you have created for yourself a new sacrament....the holy tree. The tree that reminds me of God. God has already given us two sacraments, why try to make our own like Rome?



Jeff, just curious, do you wear a wedding ring ?


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > But can you dress it up to look like Jesus? Put gold and silver on it? Hundred of lights? Is all that OK before you slaughter it?
> ...



So is Passover ceremonial or not? It was commanded in the O.T., if you did not keep it, you were outside the covenant. Did it just become optional in the N.T.? If so, what is your justification for saying that?


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > It seems that if you have attributed all of these things to the tree, and this is WHY you resurrect one, you have created for yourself a new sacrament....the holy tree. The tree that reminds me of God. God has already given us two sacraments, why try to make our own like Rome?
> ...



I do not.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

> So is Passover ceremonial or not? It was commanded in the O.T., if you did not keep it, you were outside the covenant. Did it just become optional in the N.T.? If so, what is your justification for saying that?



It is not optional in the sense that we always keep it in Christ. Yet it is optional in the sense that we may celebrate it externally for fun and didactic purposes.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > So is Passover ceremonial or not? It was commanded in the O.T., if you did not keep it, you were outside the covenant. Did it just become optional in the N.T.? If so, what is your justification for saying that?
> ...



Wow.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > This was meant towards Mark Kodak who called us "witch-hunters that hate Christmas". I found this unneccessary name calling. Neither am I condemning those that choose to have a tree or celebrate in the usual manner. I merely stated MY reasons for not doing so simply for others consideration.
> ...



I do not "hate" how some ppl view Christmas. I do hate the selfishness and waste that many times comes with it. Should I hate the holiday? Possibly. But I am human and regardless of emotion, I need to do what I believe to be RIGHT. I do not intentionally go around looking for pagan origins...however, I do happen to be educated enough and had enough experience of other religions (past and present) to be familiar with them and thus, yes, my conscience cannot permit participation of such. The reason I took offense was due to the manner that it was stated. Again, I found it unneccessary. I don't look for witchcraft in things, again these are things that were found through research in other areas unrelated. I found your comment to be a gross over-exaggeration.

As for the RPW, I do not attend a church that teaches it as of yet. I came to this board as one under the LBCF, have since been studying the WCF (due to a change of stance on baptism amoung other things), and am slowly learning about the RPW. If I am holding to something specific, I do not know of it...instead I am continuing from what I have learned previously and correcting that which needs correcting (eg passover/communion thread from previous). However, this thread has only provided information that furthur strengthens my stand on this issue...all that has been presented thus far to the contrary, I have not found to be relavent and based on emotion and good memories. Unless, it can be presented otherwise, I will hold so. I am always willing to consider a persons stand. Please present it rather than accusations. You stated that Christmas does not have pagan origins. I've been able to trace the origins back to the days just after Nimrods death. Would you present how the origins are not pagan, please? One of two things will happen...1) I will change my stand and know why 2) I will disagree, but know more of why a person believes so and why history contradicts such. What can you lose?


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



You disagree ?

Christ kept the whole law perfectly. Ceremonial, civil, moral. If we live in Him, we are saved by His works. He is our Passover. So if we celebrate the freedom from Egypt, the type of our bondage to sin, with a hebrew feast, that still points to Christ after the fact, what is the big deal ? The celebration does not save us, faith in Christ, the lamb slain before the foundation of the world does.


----------



## heartoflesh (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Remmber though, I am all for XMAS. Trees, yule logs, Jack Frost nipping at your nose, Santa, the Bumble, etc. - bring it on. We love the festivities of the season to be jolly.
> 
> Jolly - 1 a (1) : full of high spirits : JOYOUS (2) : given to conviviality : JOVIAL b : expressing, suggesting, or inspiring gaiety : CHEERFUL.
> ...


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

LadyFlynt,



> Why December 25?
> 
> Pastor Richard P. Bucher
> 
> ...


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

btw, on a side note of wedding rings,



> Betrothal Ring. The Romans were also the first to use finger rings to "tie" people not only to their social classes, but also to their marital partners. During the betrothal ceremony the bridegroom gave a plain iron finger ring to the family of the bride as a symbol of his commitment and financial ability to support the bride. Marriages were not made in heaven but over a negotiating table. Originally the betrothal ceremony was more elaborate and important than the marriage rite, which was a simple fulfillment of the betrothal commitment.



it was cultural, pagan or otherwise. It had no part in the worship of a false diety.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

Mark,

Interesting...your article has backed up precisely what we have been saying about pagan origins and the attempt to change them to have Christian meanings.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

The origins are not pagan, but in response to paganism. There is a difference.



> The pagan feast which the Emperor Aurelian instituted on that date in the year 274 was not only an effort to use the winter solstice to make a political statement, but also almost certainly an attempt to give a pagan significance to a date already of importance to Roman Christians. The Christians, in turn, could at a later date re-appropriate the pagan "œBirth of the Unconquered Sun" to refer, on the occasion of the birth of Christ, to the rising of the "œSun of Salvation" or the "œSun of Justice."



[Edited on 11-10-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

No, the practices...ie, the tree, the mistletoe, the date, etc...are pagan in origin. The Church merely replaced the name and meaning of the day incorporating the pagan practices.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> No, the practices...ie, the tree, the mistletoe, the date, etc...are pagan in origin. The Church merely replaced the name and meaning of the day incorporating the pagan practices.



Even if one can prove without a shred of doubt the pagan origin of any of these practices (an impossibility) it is still the genetic fallacy.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Jeff -
> 
> Thanks for the quote.
> ...



Can you help me reconcile your viewpoints on Halloween vs. Christmas? What you say here seems to contradict your position on the celebration of another pagan day, i.e. Halloween.

From your article on Halloween:


> What is the Christian to make of all this? What directive should the Christian think about concerning this holy day in pagan history which now invades itself into our homes through advertising, and in the common market through selling its wares?
> Should a Christian partake or relate to the unfruitful works of darkness? Ephesians 5:11-12 says, "œAnd have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret." What does it mean to have "œfellowship?" The word derives from the Greek "œkoinonia" which means, literally, "œcommonness." Those who follow the Lord should have no commonness with the unfruitful works of darkness. Halloween is filled with darkness. Dark, evil, wicked occultist practices makes Halloween Halloween. The Bible specifically commands us to avoid every kind of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22). *How could we possibly, knowing the Bible condemns the practices and ideas of Halloween as intrinsically anti-Christian, partake in such a day?*
> The Old Testament is leavened with a multitude of verses which condemn occultism and its practices, and to avoid them completely: Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 3:17; Leviticus 7:26; Leviticus 17:12-14; Leviticus 19:26, 31; Deuteronomy 12:31; 2 Kings 17:16-17; 1 Chronicles 10:13-14; 2 Chronicles 28:3-4; 2 Chronicles 33:1-6; Isaiah 8:19; Jeremiah 10:2; Ezekiel 20:31, and many others. Deuteronomy 18:9-14 is one of the more explicit pericopes covering an overview of the occultic practices to disdain, *"œWhen you are come into the land which Jehovah your God gives you, you shall not learn to do according to the abominations of those nations. * There shall not be found among you he that makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, that uses divination, that uses auguries, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or one that inquires of a spirit of Python, or a soothsayer, or one that consults the dead. For every one that does these things is an abomination to Jehovah, and because of these abominations Jehovah your God does dispossess them from before you. You shall be perfect with Jehovah your God. For these nations, which you shall dispossess, hearkened unto those that use auguries, and that use divination; but as for you, Jehovah your God has not suffered you to do so." The strongest word in the Old Testament for wicked actions, besides the word "œwicked" itself, is the word "œabomination." These practices are abominable. They are abominable whether they are just for fun, or for real. God desired that his people abhor such practices, and rid the land of those who practice such evils. Exodus 22:18, "œYou shall not let a witch live." They were to kill them and liberate the land of the abominable practice of witchcraft and sorcery.
> *The sign or symbol of a thing is not the thing itself, but a representative of the thing. For instance, the Lord´s Supper is a sign or symbol of the body of Christ "“ not the body itself. Halloween, in its essence, is representative of wickedness, and a host of abominable practices condemned by God. This means that those who practice Halloween are representing those abominable practices even if they dress their children up in a clown´s outfit instead of a vampire´s cloak.* The Druids did not wear costumes which represented Frankenstein, or the Mummy. They wore outfits of animal skins; bears, wolves, and the like. They were not "œhorrific" perse; much like the Halloween costume of a clown. The outfit does not make Halloween evil, rather, Halloween dictates that the participator wear an outfit. And the outfit, whatsoever that may entail, represents the wickedness of the day, and glorifies the devil "“ even if it is simply a cowboy outfit. *Its not the outfit, but the day which his necessarily wicked. So, what should the Christian do? "œCome out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues (Rev 18:4)." *
> ...


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

Pagan or not ? Who cares. Do all to the glory of God.



> 1. What does the word "Noel" mean?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

Please explain what you mean by genetic fallacy. The term is meaningless to me and sounds as an excuse.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Pagan or not ? Who cares. Do all to the glory of God.



I found this comment sad.

Hubby's response...

The Jews were asked to rub Baal's nose before entering into a pagan neighbor's home. The Jews did this out of curtesy with the excuse that they were being curteous and it wasn't like they were worshipping Baal themselves. God judged them anyway. (from a former pastor of ours)


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

Paul would say the idol is nothing. Rubbing its nose before entering to me would be a fun gesture somewhat like : "How cute, I can pet your god on the nose like a tame little furry creature." I would mockingly comply just for the satisfaction that no one can even see YHWH and live.

The Genetic Fallacy is committed whenever an idea is evaluated based upon irrelevant history. To say that human reason is fallible, therefore reason cannot be trusted, hints of the genetic fallacy.

God used a pagan suzerain vassal treaty as the form of covenant with His people. Why not make a new form ?

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

I guess it's relevancy is a matter of opinion then...because I have found it to be very relative...particulary in lue of the pagans around us.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

And though an idol is nothing, I doubt he would have participated in the practices surrounding said idol.

but these are both your assumptions and my assumptions...and we can't base ourselves upon assumptions.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I guess it's relevancy is a matter of opinion then...because I have found it to be very relative...particulary in lue of the pagans around us.



I appreciate your sensitivity to purity. But Christ has won. The gods of the nations are eating out of His hand. We have nothing to fear. The demonic hosts are playthings that from all external appearances are still waging a war that they have utterly lost. 

Eph 6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 
Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 
Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 
Eph 6:13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 
Eph 6:15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. 
Eph 6:16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; 
Eph 6:17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, 
Eph 6:18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 
Eph 6:19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth *boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel*

It is not Satan's world.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

I do not find anything demonic something to be played with...not due to any power that would be attributed as I believe them to be powerless, but rather due to God's jealous nature.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

God's playthings, not ours. 

Isa 17:13 The nations roar like the roaring of many waters, but he will rebuke them, and they will flee far away, chased like chaff on the mountains before the wind and whirling dust before the storm. 

Isa 40:15 Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket, and are accounted as the dust on the scales; behold, he takes up the coastlands like fine dust. 

Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to the royal son! 
Psa 72:2 May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice! 
Psa 72:3 Let the mountains bear prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness! 
Psa 72:4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the children of the needy, and crush the oppressor! 
Psa 72:5 May they fear you while the sun endures, and as long as the moon, throughout all generations! 
Psa 72:6 May he be like rain that falls on the mown grass, like showers that water the earth! 
Psa 72:7 In his days may the righteous flourish, and peace abound, till the moon be no more! 
Psa 72:8 May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth! 
Psa 72:9 May desert tribes bow down before him and his enemies lick the dust! 

Luk 4:33 And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice, 
Luk 4:34 "Ha! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God." 
Luk 4:35 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent and come out of him!" And when the demon had thrown him down in their midst, he came out of him, having done him no harm.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

I do not see how God plays with demonic things. I see that he does away with them. There is also a difference in toying or making fun of something and practicing it.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

Psa 104:26 There go the ships, and Leviathan, which you formed to play in it. 

Isa 27:1 In that day the LORD with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea. 

Job 41:1 "Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook or press down his tongue with a cord? 
Job 41:2 Can you put a rope in his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook? 
Job 41:3 Will he make many pleas to you? Will he speak to you soft words? 
Job 41:4 Will he make a covenant with you to take him for your servant forever? 
Job 41:5 Will you play with him as with a bird, or will you put him on a leash for your girls? 
Job 41:6 Will traders bargain over him? Will they divide him up among the merchants? 
Job 41:7 Can you fill his skin with harpoons or his head with fishing spears? 
Job 41:8 Lay your hands on him; remember the battle--you will not do it again! 
Job 41:9 Behold, the hope of a man is false; he is laid low even at the sight of him. 
Job 41:10 No one is so fierce that he dares to stir him up. Who then is he who can stand before me? 

God is infering here that He can indeed do all those things. And what is Satan and his host but incorporeal creatures similar in majesty to Leviathan ? ?

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

None of which has anything to do with participating in pagan practices for the enjoyment of it.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

The pagan practices of Christmas, Haloween, Easter, etc . . are only pagan for THE PAGANS.

We are showing the world a better way. We are showing them that this is God's world, and all things in it like trees (fall, garden, cross, tree of life), lights (stars, promise of Abraham, the word that is a lamp unto our feet), wreaths (unending and verdant with life), are for His GLORY. The pagan dieties stole it from God who created it all and even created them. Were not even stealing it back, we are showing who it really belongs to.

Celebrate it however you want. If you want to celebrate Christmas by not celebrating it, or not having a tree, that is fine. But in my opinion, it looks like we are giving the message to the heathens around us that we are hiding, and giving up, and afraid of the demonic entities that Christ dethroned on the cross.

In our house, we will have Christmas with emphatic and obvious Christian symbolism.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

God created the trees...good, leave them where they are. God did not create the practices, heathen man did. It is the practices, not the items that I object to.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 10, 2005)

Mark, under your scheme, you have outlawed all morality, for everything is just sinful if you are a pagan.

1) Can you redeem sodomy?
2) How about lying?
3) Adultry?
4) Blasphemy?
5) Heresy?

Under all of these schemes, we must not try to "Chrstianize" what the pagans do, but to abondon their sinful method and turn to God's method.

You have unsuccessfully tried to destroy God's law through relativism and syncrotcism.

God has standards, and it is sinful to break them. Not everything is ok to do.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

Mark, one last word: The message that pagans are receiving, as stated by pagans themselves, are one of two things...either you are ignorant (seriously they believe this) or you are joining them and therefore your statements about your faith are meaningless.

You may do as you wish...my point the entire time has been "what appearance/example are we setting forth?"

I also found your logic to be off.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

Jeff,

Antinomian, fallacy of exclusion, slippery slope, slothful induction, and non sequitor. 

Syncretism ?

Christ used a seder cup of hebrew tradition to establish the Eucharist.

Get real. Having a Christmas tree is hardly a path to amalgamations like curandero.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

care to speak english? seriously...what you stated is not making sense. And comparing the seder/communion to redeeming pagan holy days?! That's a bit off.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> care to speak english?


one thing about the PB, having Mozilla is a must, because Mozilla has a dictionary search on their browser


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> care to speak english?



http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html


----------



## bond-servant (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> care to speak english? seriously...what you stated is not making sense. And comparing the seder/communion to redeeming pagan holy days?! That's a bit off.



Mark, to be honest, I didn't quite get your last statement myself:



> Get real. Having a Christmas tree is hardly a path to amalgamations like curandero.



What do you mean that having a Christmas tree is hardly a path to merging like a shaman? What is a shaman merging? spirituality and medicine? I feel a little dense here, but what does that have to do with a Christmas tree..merging with what??

I also don't get the comparison of the sedar cup for the Lords Supper and decorating a tree (??)

thanks Mark.

-signed "totally confused", or maybe "totally dense"! LOL


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

> Curanderismo is somewhat homogenous throughout the Spanish speaking world - with the exception of places where other arts, such as Cuban Santeria, clearly have their roots in West Africa - and that most of the practices involve Catholic Saints, and the curanderos consider themselves to be orthodox Roman Catholics in every sense, and that their roots are in classic Catholic traditions.



Response to Jeff's slippery slope charge against me of syncretism. A Christmas tree is hardly an amalgamation of ritual folk magic and Christianity. 



As for the seder meal. Some here will insist that what Christ celebrated was a common meal before the Passover feast. However, if not, then He used jewish tradition (apostate at that point, and definitely not in line with the RPW) to establish the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Augusta (Nov 10, 2005)

We are to be in the world but not of it. We are just passing through.

1 Thessalonians 5
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 
22 *Abstain from all appearance of evil.*

1 Peter 2:11
Dearly beloved, *I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul*;

2 Corinthians 6
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 
17 *Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. * 
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

1 John 2:15
*Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.*

1 John 2:16
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,* is not of the Father, but is of the world*.

Romans 12:2
*And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.*

Colossians 2:8
*Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.*

Ephesians 5:6-8 
5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 
*6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. * 
8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: 
9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth 
10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 
11 *And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. *


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

Wow, thanks for clearing things up for me. Who would have thought that a tree with lights and glass ornaments strung on it was a veritable pandemonium of djinn whispering blasphemous thoughts to me and my children stagnantly idling along in our dogmatic slumbers. Those deceptive gods cursing black incantations through the fire and the flames of those little flickering lights, crouched at the edge of their liminal dimensions watching with satanic merriment as the children of YHWH are sucked into idolatry by some maelstrom out there in the void, some vortex in that waste apposite to which man's transit and his reckonings alike lay abrogate. As if beyond will or fate Lucifer and his beasts and his trappings moved both in card and in substance under consignment to some third and other destiny.

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## bond-servant (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Wow, thanks for clearing things up for me. Who would have thought that a tree with lights and glass ornaments strung on it was a veritable pandemonium of djinn whispering blasphemous thoughts to me and my children stagnantly idling along in our dogmatic slumbers. Those deceptive gods cursing black incantations through the fire and the flames of those little flickering lights, crouched at the edge of their liminal dimensions watching with satanic merriment as the children of YHWH are sucked into idolatry by some maelstrom out there in the void, some vortex in that waste apposite to which man's transit and his reckonings alike lay abrogate. As if beyond will or fate Lucifer and his beasts and his trappings moved both in card and in substance under consignment to some third and other destiny.
> 
> [Edited on 11-10-2005 by Saiph]



not sarcastic now are we?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

nope, didn't take him that way at all either....(yah, right!).


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 10, 2005)

{MODERATER:

I am not going to enter into this fray at all - if someone wants my opinion, he can search the previous threads from the last three years' Christmas issues.

So having said that, it gives me the ability to require all, on all sides to be more respectful in tone and wording.

Do not be surprised if your harsh posts get edited or deleted.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.}


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

My apologies...I was seriously taking the oppurtunity to lighten up. (I'll behave)


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

With 132 replies and 1192 views, I take it that the topic is late for its own funeral.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)




----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 10, 2005)

http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7102#pid113205

Ja, I think this thread was more fun last year. Next year I'm bound to just say "not again!"


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 10, 2005)

{MODERATOR:

Just so we know, I did not have a specific post or person in mind. It was obvious that the level of heat was rising on all sides. Trying to keep it in line.

Blessings,}


----------



## bond-servant (Nov 10, 2005)

hmmm..And as we are nearing the end of page 5 and about to start page 6, I wonder: IS there anymore to say about trees that hasn't already been said last year?


----------



## Augusta (Nov 10, 2005)

One thing that I was just thinking of. Isn't this an issue of conscience and if so shouldn't people be much more sensitive as the Apostle Paul was to wounding anothers conscience over something so small. On both sides although obviously the side that is abstaining is the pricked conscience side. 

Or, are people actually calling it a sin outright and refusing to give way. I am not prepared to do that myself. My conscience is pricked about this issue so I am trying to see all sides. But isn't that just me trying to talk my conscience out of being pricked?? Is that safe? 

I honestly don't know where to draw the line. I put up the verses that I did hoping someone would engage those one way or the other. 

Are we sometimes "give me liberty or give me death" type of Christians. Is it really so important to cling to all this stuff so doggedly. I will give it up in a second if it is wrong. I can see both sides. I tend myself toward the sides of things where the flesh is mortified. Several issues I have tended toward that course. To me it is the safest.

Does that mean that I am not exercising my liberty like I should? I have never fully understood the biblical view of liberty short of the liberty from the bondage of sin and death. We should have a discussion about that. I think it would help with a myriad of side issues.


----------



## bond-servant (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> ? I have never fully understood the biblical view of liberty short of the liberty from the bondage of sin and death. We should have a discussion about that. I think it would help with a myriad of side issues.



That's an excellent idea!


----------



## gwine (Nov 10, 2005)

Al Martin's excellent (and lengthy) 21 sermon series on Christian liberty spends most of it talking about the freedom we have in Christ (from death, from bondage to sin, etc.) before getting to the so-called liberty we have to do what God doesn't forbid. And his conclusion will not square with many who are looking for a way to "flaunt" their liberty.

It is worth listening to, In my humble opinion.

You can find it on SermonAudio.com at:

A Fresh Look at Christian Liberty


----------



## heartoflesh (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Wow, thanks for clearing things up for me. Who would have thought that a tree with lights and glass ornaments strung on it was a veritable pandemonium of djinn whispering blasphemous thoughts to me and my children stagnantly idling along in our dogmatic slumbers. Those deceptive gods cursing black incantations through the fire and the flames of those little flickering lights, crouched at the edge of their liminal dimensions watching with satanic merriment as the children of YHWH are sucked into idolatry by some maelstrom out there in the void, some vortex in that waste apposite to which man's transit and his reckonings alike lay abrogate. As if beyond will or fate Lucifer and his beasts and his trappings moved both in card and in substance under consignment to some third and other destiny.
> 
> [Edited on 11-10-2005 by Saiph]



I like this, actually. It reminds me of early Dylan-- "Chimes of Freedom".

Through the wild cathedral evening the rain unraveled tales
For the disrobed faceless forms of no position
Tolling for the tongues with no place to bring their thoughts
All down in taken-for-granted situations
Tolling for the deaf an' blind, tolling for the mute
Tolling for the mistreated, mateless mother, the mistitled prostitute
For the misdemeanor outlaw, chased an' cheated by pursuit
An' we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.


----------



## satz (Nov 10, 2005)

Hi Traci,

Just some thoughts :

Conscience is tricky area, but i am not so sure that Paul meant that all because someone somewhere is offended by something means we are to give it up. There have been other threads on liberty of conscience recently where, if i can remeber, someone pointed out the difference between merely 'offending' a brother as we would use the english word today and tempting the brother to sin, which i think is a biblical difference.

Also, whilst we should not sin against our consciences, there is nothing wrong in trying to properly educate our consciences to know what is right or wrong. Our gut feelings are not always right, even if they tend towards being more strict. If we forbid something, ideally it should not be simply because of our consciences being pricked, but because we understand how the bible forbids it. 

So if one feels burdened in their conscience about something, but you honestly cannot find any bible evidence to back that feeling up, i do not think it is wrong to try to 'talk your conscience' out of that feeling. Off course if you are unable to do that than i would be wiser to abstain.

Regarding the verses you posted, i think the problem is that one must first accept that christmas is evil in and of itself ( and not just abused ) before they can apply those verses directly.

regards

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by satz]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Wow, thanks for clearing things up for me. Who would have thought that a tree with lights and glass ornaments strung on it was a veritable pandemonium of djinn whispering blasphemous thoughts to me and my children stagnantly idling along in our dogmatic slumbers. Those deceptive gods cursing black incantations through the fire and the flames of those little flickering lights, crouched at the edge of their liminal dimensions watching with satanic merriment as the children of YHWH are sucked into idolatry by some maelstrom out there in the void, some vortex in that waste apposite to which man's transit and his reckonings alike lay abrogate. As if beyond will or fate Lucifer and his beasts and his trappings moved both in card and in substance under consignment to some third and other destiny.
> 
> [Edited on 11-10-2005 by Saiph]





> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Posters will refrain from sarcasm, especially when used in a disrespectful manner of a moderator (or Admin).
> 
> This will not happen again, or posting privileges will be suspended.


----------



## Peter (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Wow, thanks for clearing things up for me. Who would have thought that a tree with lights and glass ornaments strung on it was a veritable pandemonium of djinn whispering blasphemous thoughts to me and my children stagnantly idling along in our dogmatic slumbers. Those deceptive gods cursing black incantations through the fire and the flames of those little flickering lights, crouched at the edge of their liminal dimensions watching with satanic merriment as the children of YHWH are sucked into idolatry by some maelstrom out there in the void, some vortex in that waste apposite to which man's transit and his reckonings alike lay abrogate. As if beyond will or fate Lucifer and his beasts and his trappings moved both in card and in substance under consignment to some third and other destiny.



 This beats out Pastor Way's waxing sappy for the sacred conifer


Silly Protestants, Christmas is for Catholics


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

Let's use our acumen for peace then shall we brethren ? We swing like dead pendulum branches in the wind from liberty to legalism. Will we choose to drink the water of grace from His hand, and His well of mercy ? Or will we reach to imbibe upon the stagnant pool of a cup offered anonymously out of the world's darkness, each draught knotting in our stomach with a thirst more powerful than before? Which cup will we offer to our neighbor ? Our brother ? In our flesh such freedom sometimes seems no more than merely a further curse, raping our dignity, our soul's raging lament like St. Paul's vociferatied query of "who shall deliver us from this _corpore mortis_?" Yet in the Spirit, liberty becomes the scarlet thread leading us out of the labyrinth, and a surgeons filament by which our deepest wounds are mended. His truth opens blind eyes, and leads us like a poet through the underworld, teaching us where to step, and enlightening our path as we progress towards the holy mountain. The freedom we are given must not be used to hinder others along that same path. It should be offered as a tether to the weak from the sober immunity we are gaining from a pale death that surrounds us on every side. It is in pardon that we are pardoned. The same truth that sets us free may be reduced to another form of bondage. Vouchafe to us Lord the wisdom and discernment to see where our latitude might lead to the enslavement of another.



[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## non dignus (Nov 11, 2005)

We too decided not to teach our children error about God through the celebration of Christmas. We are teaching them a very important lesson - that the Lord is not a giant KILL JOY!

It doesn't matter if it is tainted by paganism- what isn't? I'm probably using technology developed by Nazis. Does that make me a Nazi?

We celebrate Christmas and enjoy Halloween because we are Americans, not because we are Christians. (see u on SUNday)


----------



## Peter (Nov 11, 2005)

Dave, this is the attitude I am inclined towards. If it weren't for family pressure I'd probably give it up altogether but so long as it isn't made a holy day I think it is tolerable. The families at my church make Yuletide merriment but thank God there is no idolatrous sacramentizing of a tree or special X-mass service or other popish ceremonies the modern protestant church has been wont to adopt.

I think Confessional Presbyies should start a movement to popularize Festivus!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> I think Confessional Presbyies should start a movement to popularize Festivus!



It's almost that time of year to start the airing of grievances again! 

Festivus

"Oh Festivus," sung to the tune of "O Canada" 

Oh Festivus!

Our humble holiday.

Serenity Now is our only goal today.

With glowing hearts we see thy shining pole,

No tinsel there to distract our souls!

From far and wide,

Oh Festivus, to air grievances we´re free.

Thy feats of strength are glorious to me.

Frank Costanza, we tip our hats to thee.

Oh Festivus, we´ll pin you first, you´ll see.


----------



## non dignus (Nov 11, 2005)

Peter, 
Yes. Amen.

I used to value Easter as a sort of Yom Kippur. And I found out that doing that inclined me more to sin! Now I'm trying to shed my former superstitions in favor of the Lord's day only and be thankful for it.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 11, 2005)

I have no disrespect for those who choose not to celebrate certain holidays, but I do take issue with the binding of conscience that is done in a dogmatic way. We can take all things to an extreme whether pagan origin or not. I could argue that we shouldn't drive or own or travel by automobile because the church did not invent it, but the pagans! The pagans created such evil that has caused us to be in a big hurry, lazy, irresponsible, murderers in some cases, and covetous. Why support the pagan automobile industries? Shall we bind consciences over that? Shall we support Ford motor company who desires to obey it's father the devil? I bet we could come up with a convincing argument to avoid just about anything, no?

What about having electricity in a church? Did the Church establish such technology? Does it really matter? The bible does not say we should accommodate our comforts in such a way. Should we have cushions on the pews?

Nimrod, who was from the line of Cain (the seed of the serpent) invented hunting. Let us abstain from such pagan practices, do not learn the way of the heathen!

Trees were not made to be uprooted and decorated and they were not made to be carved and shaped into furniture, picture frames, tree houses, arks, altars, and hammock supports either I suppose.

Celebrate Christmas, don't celebrate Christmas, decorate a tree, don't even have a tree. But do all to the glory of God and stop needlessly binding unlearned consciences. Christ is victorious, what can mere man do to me?


----------



## Augusta (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Hi Traci,
> 
> Just some thoughts :
> ...



I don't agree that you or anyone ought to give something up for anothers conscience. That is not what Paul said at all. What he did say is that he would not wound their conscience but abstain himself in their presence. I don't see that happening here. The abstainers are being reviled.



> Also, whilst we should not sin against our consciences, there is nothing wrong in trying to properly educate our consciences to know what is right or wrong. Our gut feelings are not always right, even if they tend towards being more strict. If we forbid something, ideally it should not be simply because of our consciences being pricked, but because we understand how the bible forbids it.



We are abstaining because of conscience, but it is an informed conscience. In some cases, as in Colleen's, it is from previous experience. In others it is an informed conviction that is shared with many ministers of old. It is still a position taken from conscience and should be treated with some respect and maybe only admonished in love by another brother. 



> So if one feels burdened in their conscience about something, but you honestly cannot find any bible evidence to back that feeling up, i do not think it is wrong to try to 'talk your conscience' out of that feeling. Off course if you are unable to do that than i would be wiser to abstain.



I agree that we should search the scriptures to see if it be so. I also agree that it is wiser to abstain which is where I am leaning.



> Regarding the verses you posted, i think the problem is that one must first accept that christmas is evil in and of itself ( and not just abused ) before they can apply those verses directly.



I would say we must first see if creating out of whole cloth a holy day unto the Lord, that he has not himself instituted, is acceptable. 

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the *tradition of men*, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

Is it a tradition of Christ or of men? As it stands now it is a tradition of men. Set aside all of the silliness of its roots. It is a tradition of men. Do we believe that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice or not. 

Do we need tools to preach the gospel? No. Do we need a tree decked in a special way to create talking points? I don't think so. We have one way that God ordained to preach the gospel and it doesn't include props. Otherwise we better apologize to all of the modern churches with skits and props. 

Dr. McMahon said it best. Go ahead and do whatever just don't say it's unto God and call it worship to God through this action. You will have to say it is a Christmass tree or just a tree that we decorated for fun and not anything to do with Christ. 

Thank you for the kind way in which you presented your comments. I am only getting more and more convinced myself as I work through these arguments.


----------



## Peter (Nov 11, 2005)

I have a big time problem with people invoking Christian Liberty and the "dont bind my conscience" argument for the authorization of man-made holy days. Christian liberty mean freedom _from_ the dictates of man not freedom _to_ follow the dictates of man. Christian liberty mean freedom from Chrismas not freedom to celebrate Christmas. Why do you think it is that the people who framed WCF XX were against willworship and Xmass?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 11, 2005)

It is not dictated that we celebrate Christmas.

Why not make your own traditions?


----------



## Peter (Nov 11, 2005)

Because of the Regulative Principle of Worship.

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 

WCF 21:I. The light of nature shows that there is a God, who has lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and does good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.[1] But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.[2]


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Because of the Regulative Principle of Worship.
> 
> Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
> ...



I am not suggesting that we incorporate pagan practices during the Lord´s Day service.

But then again, I do not take off my wedding band before worshipping with the church.


----------



## historyb (Nov 11, 2005)

I like Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, etc. Withouth these things we might as well just all be hating family get togethers and celebrating Christ. my 

This is which was actually a reason I was told to stay away from reformed type stuff, to legalistic. I don't listen too good. 

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by historyb]


----------



## Peter (Nov 11, 2005)

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



It doesn't matter what their origin is, so long as they are not from God they condemned by God.

Puritan Worship


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 11, 2005)

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



But I don't think anyone here is arguing about what to do while worshipping as an assembly.

This is, and has been, a matter of the home. Shall I have a lawfully ordained minister preach the word and administer the sacraments to my family everyday because of the RPW? Of course not, and that is not what we are discussing here.


----------



## Peter (Nov 11, 2005)

For one, many Protestant Churches do import Xmass celebrations into the "public assembly".

Two, I will let Brian Schwertley speak (Jeff posted this earlier in the debate), I agree with him here:



> III. There is no question that Christmas has no place in the public worship of God, but isn't it okay to celebrate it privately in the home?
> 
> The problem with this view is that it presupposes that the Regulative Principle only applies to public worship. There is no biblical evidence to support the idea that the Regulative Principle was only meant for public worship. In fact, the biblical evidence supports the opposite view. Cain was condemned for an innovation in private worship (Gen. 4:2-8). Noah, in family worship, offered clean animals to God (Gen. 8:20-21). God was pleased and accepted Noah's offering on behalf of himself and his family. Abraham, Jacob and Job offered sacrifices to God in private or family worship, according to God's Word. God accepted these lawful offerings. The idea that innovations in worship are permitted in family and private worship is unbiblical; it is totally arbitrary because it is not based on divine revelation. If an innovation in public worship displeases God, then how does it please Him in private worship? Would it not be permissible, under such premises, to have little shrines in our homes where we burn incense, wear surplices, miters and such, as long as we keep such things out of public meetings?
> 
> ...


----------



## Augusta (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by historyb_
> I like Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, etc. Withouth these things we might as well just all be hating family get togethers and celebrating Christ. my
> 
> This is which was actually a reason I was told to stay away from reformed type stuff, to legalistic. I don't listen too good.
> ...




Doug, is it legalistic to believe that the revealed word of God is our only rule for faith and practice?? God's commands are not to be taken lightly. Think of the most powerful earthly sovereign king, who can take your life or your livelyhood from you with a word. Now times that by infinity. He is not only all of those things but instead of just killing you and taking away your livelyhood he can take your very soul and justly torment you for eternity. Would you not tremble before him. 

Would you try his long-suffering of your sin with parties and traditions that he has not commanded? And if that doesn't sound so bad what if these parties and revelries mirrored pagan ones of old that are still practiced by modern day pagans but you whitewash them and call them something different to make is sound good. Would you do them anyway after all that this wonderful God had done for you?


----------



## historyb (Nov 11, 2005)

> 23"Everything is permissible""”but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible""”but not everything is constructive. 24Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.
> 
> 25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."[c]
> 
> ...



1 Cor 10:23-31

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by historyb]


----------



## Augusta (Nov 11, 2005)

Amen!! That does not trump other scriptures that speak to offering of praise or sacrifice of praise to God. Sincerity is not the model. Was Cain sacrifice acceptable? No. Able's was because he obeyed. Cain was angry that his was not accepted. 

There is a right way and a wrong way to approach God and to worship God.


----------



## historyb (Nov 11, 2005)

Maybe I am in the wrong place since some think holidays are evil. 

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by historyb]


----------



## Saiph (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by historyb_
> Maybe I am in the wrong place since some think holidays are evil.
> 
> [Edited on 11-11-2005 by historyb]



You are not in the wrong place Doug. Great theologians like Francis Turretin agree with you:

Concerning the celebration of holidays: 

*Hence we cannot approve of the rigid judgment of those who charge such churches with idolatry (in which those days are still kept, the names of the saints being retained), since they agree with us in doctrine concerning the worship of God alone and detest the idolatry of the papists.*
Francis Turretin - Institutes of Elenctic Theology (p. 104) 

Modern day teachers like Brian Schwertley could not even hold a candle for him either.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Nov 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> Christ kept the whole law perfectly. Ceremonial, civil, moral. If we live in Him, we are saved by His works. He is our Passover. So if we celebrate the freedom from Egypt, the type of our bondage to sin, *with a hebrew feast*, that still points to Christ after the fact, what is the big deal ? The celebration does not save us, faith in Christ, the lamb slain before the foundation of the world does.



Which Hebrew feast are you speaking of? One modeled after the practices of the unbelieving rabbinic Jews?

Biblical passover had a slain lamb. No lamb, no passover. 

The NT replaced the passover with the Lord's Supper. Celebrating some ersatz passover is a denial of the work of Christ.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by historyb_
> ...



And great theologians of old disagree with you.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 15, 2005)

Many Godly men disagree with me Gabriel. So allow those of us who celebrate within our liberty, to enjoy Advent, 12 days of Christmas, and Epiphany in good conscience and faith towards God.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Many Godly men disagree with me Gabriel. So allow those of us who celebrate within our liberty, to enjoy Advent, 12 days of Christmas, and Epiphany in good conscience and faith towards God.



I will gladly allow anyone their liberty in Christ to do as they wish by faith, so long as it is not expressly warned and commanded against in God's Word.


----------



## heartoflesh (Nov 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



So we're all good to go then?


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 15, 2005)

Gabe,

Is the church exclusively bound to hold corporate times of worship on the Lord's Day, or are there prescriptions in Scripture that allow for meeting more often, for the sake of the body? If additional voluntary meetings are allowed for in Scripture, must this voluntary meeting be limited to special circumstances, or may it also be held on traditional days as well?


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Gabe,
> 
> Is the church exclusively bound to hold corporate times of worship on the Lord's Day, or are there prescriptions in Scripture that allow for meeting more often, for the sake of the body? If additional voluntary meetings are allowed for in Scripture, must this voluntary meeting be limited to special circumstances, or may it also be held on traditional days as well?



Churches are allowed to. The following rules would apply however:

1) People would not be bound to come. It would be optional.
2) The day could not be looked upon as holy. This rules out Christ-mass and easter. God has one holy day, and only he can pronounce it to be so.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 15, 2005)

What if we do not view Christmas and Easter as holy, but only as days of special thanksgiving and remembrance to God for acts that He performed in history?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> What if we do not view Christmas and Easter as holy, but only as days of special thanksgiving and remembrance to God for acts that He performed in history?



Is "worship" going to be part of this "remembrance"?


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 15, 2005)

Thanksgiving and Scripture reading will be, not the Lord's Day worship in the full sense.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 15, 2005)

Is that ok?


----------



## Saiph (Nov 15, 2005)

> Is "worship" going to be part of this "remembrance"?




For want of a nail the kingdom was lost.


----------



## gwine (Nov 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> ...



Romans 14

5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 

6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 15, 2005)

Me thinks me should have just posted the whole article. 



> 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).
> 
> ...


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 15, 2005)

What if we do not view Christmas and Easter as holy, but only as days of special thanksgiving and remembrance to God for acts that He performed in history, attended with thanksgiving and reading of the Word? 

Does someone want to respond? Is this ok?


----------



## Peter (Nov 15, 2005)

Gal 4: 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. 

The context is Jewish festivals, but then so is Ro 14


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 15, 2005)

And a binding observance of such festivals, which a remembrace and thanksgiving on days such as Christmas and Easter would not be.


----------



## Peter (Nov 15, 2005)

Appointing days of religious thanksgiving on Christmas and Easter certainly would not be "fleeing all appearance of evil." Not to mention that it would be a terrible occasion for falling into the supersition of respecting the day as holy


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 15, 2005)




----------



## Arch2k (Nov 15, 2005)

Civil days of thanksgiving are okie dokie. I celebrate Reformation Day and Thanksgiving within the realm of the Westminster Confession:



> V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear,[17] the sound preaching [18] and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence,[19] singing of psalms with grace in the heart;[20] as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God:[21] beside religious oaths,[22] vows,[23] solemn fastings,[24] *and thanksgivings upon special occasions,*[25] which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.[26]
> 
> 17. Luke 4:16-17; Acts 15:21; Col. 4:16; I Thess. 5:27; Rev. 1:3
> 18. II Tim. 4:2; Acts 5:42
> ...



However, I also reject man-made *holy * days that is thought to be set-apart. Here I agree with the Westminster Divines as well:



> Touching Days and Places for Publick Worship.
> 
> THERE is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord's day, which is the Christian Sabbath.
> 
> ...



The distinction comes down to: Is the day a civil day of thanksgiving (lawful) or a religous holy day (unlawful).


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 15, 2005)

A religious day of thanksgiving does not imply either a civil day of thanksgiving or a religious holy day, therefore it is lawful.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 15, 2005)

Pretty much the only holydays I'm against the celebration of (and integration with the Christian Church as worship or sacred) are Easter and Christmass, both of which were originally days to honor pagan deities in the Greco-Roman world. The Roman Empire was wrong to "take them over for Christ."


----------



## gwine (Nov 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Civil days of thanksgiving are okie dokie. I celebrate Reformation Day and Thanksgiving within the realm of the Westminster Confession:
> 
> 
> ...



Would you explain exactly what is meant by "to be used in an holy and religious manner"?

And I am not seeing where the context of Romans 14 is about Jewish festivals. It appears right smack in the middle of Paul's comments about eating food offered to idols. 

Help me out, please.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 15, 2005)

We don't have to "take over for Christ" Christmas and Easter. We may, within the bounds of Scripture, offer up thanks to God for His feats of fulfilling prophesy regarding His birth and His resurrection on traditional days each year in so far as they are not set apart as holy religious days, but instead commemorated as non-binding days of thanksgiving to God.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> A religious day of thanksgiving does not imply either a civil day of thanksgiving or a religious holy day, therefore it is lawful.



I disagree.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> We don't have to "take over for Christ" Christmas and Easter. We may, within the bounds of Scripture, offer up thanks to God for His feats of fulfilling prophesy regarding His birth and His resurrection on traditional days each year in so far as they are not set apart as holy religious days, but instead commemorated as non-binding days of thanksgiving to God.



Where do Christ-mass carols, exchanging of gifts, mistle toe, holly, lights, candles, incense, egg nog, trees, tinsel, nativity scenes, pageants, passion plays, images of Christ and His crucifixion, eggs, bunny rabbits, chocolates, Satan Claus (whoops, Santa, not Satan.. my mistake), and Charlie Brown specials fit *"within the bounds of Scripture"* for a non-binding day of thanksgiving to God, considering the fact that most-if-not-all of these wind up within on Church buildings during this time of the year, and take center place in our homes rather than, say, a posted copy of the Ten Commandments?


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> Would you explain exactly what is meant by "to be used in an holy and religious manner"?


Better men than I have answered your questions better than I could, so I will just point them out to you.

Robert Shaw's Commentary on the Confession


> 6. Solemn fastings and thanksgivings. Stated festival-days, commonly called holy-days, have no warrant in the Word of God; *but a day may be set apart, by competent authority, for fasting or thanksgiving, when extraordinary dispensations of Providence administer cause for them. When judgments are threatened or inflicted, or when some special blessing is to be sought and obtained, fasting is eminently seasonable. When some remarkable mercy or deliverance has been received, there is a special call to thanksgiving.* The views of the compilers of our Confession respecting these ordinances may be
> found in "The Directory for the Public Worship of God."





> _Originally posted by gwine_
> And I am not seeing where the context of Romans 14 is about Jewish festivals. It appears right smack in the middle of Paul's comments about eating food offered to idols.
> 
> Help me out, please.



John Gill on Romans 14:5:



> 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:



And Matthew Henry:



> 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 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.


----------



## gwine (Nov 15, 2005)

Thanks for the references cited.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 16, 2005)

> Where do Christ-mass carols, exchanging of gifts, mistle toe, holly, lights, candles, incense, egg nog, trees, tinsel, nativity scenes, pageants, passion plays, images of Christ and His crucifixion, eggs, bunny rabbits, chocolates, Satan Claus (whoops, Santa, not Satan.. my mistake), and Charlie Brown specials fit "within the bounds of Scripture" for a non-binding day of thanksgiving to God, considering the fact that most-if-not-all of these wind up within on Church buildings during this time of the year, and take center place in our homes rather than, say, a posted copy of the Ten Commandments?



I deny that all these things must be necessarily present. Therefore, I will rephrase my postulation as a question:

May we, within the bounds of Scripture, offer up thanks to God for His feats of fulfilling prophesy regarding His birth and His resurrection on traditional days each year in so far as they are not set apart as holy religious days, but instead commemorated as non-binding days of thanksgiving to God?


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> May we, within the bounds of Scripture, offer up thanks to God for His feats of fulfilling prophesy regarding His birth and His resurrection on traditional days each year in so far as they are not set apart as holy religious days, but instead commemorated as non-binding days of thanksgiving to God?



This is tricky. I have problems with parts of this, but not all. 

First of all, how would you define a "holy" day? How is your hypothetical NOT a "holy" day?

Secondly, this reasoning does not justify the celebration of Christmas. From Matthew MacMahon's article on the subject:



> 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.



The problem is, is that you are making a religious day of celebration (this is where the term "holy" comes in). The distinction that the Westminster Confession is making is between religous "holy" days (such as Christ-mass and easter) and civil days of thanksgiving. The former that deny based upon the regulative principle, and God's instituting the Sabbath as a day to celebrate God and his work in salvation. The latter they affirm based upon the texts provided. 

I see the distinction they are making and think it is vital to the correct worship of God.


----------



## historyb (Nov 16, 2005)

I been keeping up with the debate and In my humble opinion it's silly to get so hung up on this. Everything is permisable and as Peter was shown nothing is now unclean. If someone doesn't celebrate Christmas so be it, if someone does so be it too. Let us not get caught up in leagelism over one tiny thing, but let us do all to the glory of God


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by historyb_
> I been keeping up with the debate and In my humble opinion it's silly to get so hung up on this. Everything is permisable and as Peter was shown nothing is now unclean. If someone doesn't celebrate Christmas so be it, if someone does so be it too. Let us not get caught up in leagelism over one tiny thing, but let us do all to the glory of God



Doug,

Have you read any of the articles provided in this thread?

This debate only becomes "silly" if you do not take the Sabbath and/or the Regulative Principle seriously.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by historyb_
> I been keeping up with the debate and In my humble opinion it's silly to get so hung up on this. Everything is permisable and as Peter was shown nothing is now unclean. If someone doesn't celebrate Christmas so be it, if someone does so be it too. Let us not get caught up in leagelism over one tiny thing, but let us do all to the glory of God



Doug, I understand your point; however, as some have said, they do not see this a s a freedom issue, but a direct command given to us in scripture. From their perspective they are saying something akin to [say] abstain from sexual immorality, to which you reply, "It's silly to get so hung up on this. Everything is permisable and nothing is now unclean. If someone doesn't abstain from sexual immorality so be it, if someone does so be it too. Let us not get caught up in leagelism over one tiny thing, but let us do all to the glory of God."

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by ChristopherPaul]


----------



## heartoflesh (Nov 16, 2005)

They aren't the same. If someone started espousing that sexual immoratlity was acceptable they would be banned.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> They aren't the same. If someone started espousing that sexual immoratlity was acceptable they would be banned.



Well, from our perspective (and that of many Reformed throughout history), this issue is spoken of as clearly in Scripture as a command as abstinence from sexual immorality is.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> They aren't the same. If someone started espousing that sexual immoratlity was acceptable they would be banned.



I realize that. My point is, some of those who are abstaining from celebrating Christmas are doing so for the very same reason they abstain from sexual immorality - it is expressly warned and commanded against in Holy Scripture.

See such posts from this thread:



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...





> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by historyb_
> ...


----------



## historyb (Nov 16, 2005)

I will do as I've always done. I can do no other so help me God. I will celebrate Christmas and keep Christ at the center. Yes not do it because you want to perserve every little jot and tittle of the law is legalistic.

Then again I'm not hung up on the non essentials.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by historyb_Yes not do it because you want to perserve every little jot and tittle of the law is legalistic.



That is NOT legalism. See here for a treatment of the term. Here is an excerpt:



> Simply put, legalism is belief, stated or supposedly implied, that law, not faith, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption.



Therefore your charge of legalism is unwarranted.


----------



## heartoflesh (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> Remmber though, I am all for XMAS. Trees, yule logs, Jack Frost nipping at your nose, Santa, the Bumble, etc. - bring it on. We love the festivities of the season to be jolly.
> 
> ...




Matt, I've been thinking more about your statement here, and I have a question. What is the difference in celebrating Xmas in a secular fashion from celebrating Halloween in a secular fashion?


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



That's exactly my question for the webmaster.  (See earlier post where I quoted him)


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by historyb_
> I will do as I've always done. I can do no other so help me God. I will celebrate Christmas and keep Christ at the center. Yes not do it because you want to perserve every little jot and tittle of the law is legalistic.
> 
> Then again I'm not hung up on the non essentials.



Doug, My household will be celebrating Christmas . We will have a tree, presents, mistle toe, etc. I am just pointing out to you that a simple accusation of legalism will not work. You need to show how such sins as sexual immorality are forbidden, but celebrating Christmas is not.


----------



## historyb (Nov 16, 2005)

ok sorry, sometimes I put the cart before the horse.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



I don't know webmaster's answer, but I gather from his post it has something to do with the promotion of joy and cheer rather than evil and mischief.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Civil days of thanksgiving are okie dokie. I celebrate Reformation Day and Thanksgiving within the realm of the Westminster Confession:
> 
> 
> ...



I don't see how annual days such as the so-called Reformation day or Thanksgiving fall into the category of _thanksgivings upon special occasions_. I believe the Westminster divines had in mind those particular occasions where God's immediate providence is in view, e.g., after some "natural disaster" (humanly speaking) where God preserved His people. Setting up annual days to recall these things don't seem to fit within the context. In other words,, the first "thanksgiving" in 1621 celebrated by those Puritans was OK. God brought those people to the new world and preserved then during hard days. Turning it into an annual event hundreds of years later is not at the behest of the state is not. 

If you do it annually it is no longer a "special occasion".

Besides, WCF XXI is speaking of divine worship. The civil authority has no place in defining days of divine worship. in my opinion, annual civil days precipitate a false civil religion.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



I think there is validity to this critique of modern Thanksgiving compared with the days of thanksgiving envisioned (and practiced) by the Westminster Assembly. I personally observe Thanksgiving -- though I believe it is far from what the Pilgrims and Puritans observed and stands in great need of Reformation. The current date is chosen merely to inaugurate the Christmass shopping season. 

Reformation Day (and Guy Fawke's Day) for me are historical commemorations of providential events. I don't believe the church should have Reformation Sunday services or do anything to alter her Lord's Day observances. Historical anniversaries are like birthdays to me, just anniversaries worth remembering. 

That said, and being well cognizant of the tendency of our hearts to turn things good or indifferent into idols, I don't think annual days of thanksgiving are necessarily unBiblical. Purim was an annual event and it is specifically cited (Est. 9.22) as a proof text by the Assembly in support of days of thanksgiving. 

Matthew Henry notes regarding this verse how Purim was instituted well but degenerated in its observance by the Jews. He refers to a truism: "Nothing more purifies the heart and adorns religion than holy joy; nothing more pollutes the heart and reproaches religion than carnal mirth and sensual pleasure. Corruptio optimi est pessima--What is best becomes when corrupted the worst." This should serve as a warning to all Christians regarding all holiday observances.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> Besides, WCF XXI is speaking of divine worship.



I'm not sure that I agree entirely. See Matt's treatment of this section (see quoted above) :



> 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. *


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 16, 2005)

What is a freedom issue? (Give NUMEROUS examples please)


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> What is a freedom issue? (Give NUMEROUS examples please)



What do you mean by a "freedom" issue?


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 16, 2005)

To what issues is the text in Romans 14 applicable?


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> To what issues is the text in Romans 14 applicable?



That text deals with things of which God has no directive, either explicit or implicit. Pick a multitude.

The problem is that we disagree that God has something to say about celebrting "holy days." He does implicitly. Since he has made the Sabbath a holy day, it is an element of worship. Therefore, via the Regulative Principle (whatever is not commanded is forbidden) we deduce that he condemns this form of will worship.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 16, 2005)

Does God have a directive concerning the gathering of believers to thank God corporately?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Does God have a directive concerning the gathering of believers to thank God corporately?



I would assume this would fall under the command of praise. 


Psa 22:25 From you comes my praise in the great congregation; my vows I will perform before those who fear him. 

Psa 22:23 You who fear the LORD, praise him! All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel!

Psa 148:2 Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his hosts! 

Psa 148:3 Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars! 

Col 3:17 And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.


----------



## gwine (Nov 16, 2005)

to *Jeff Bartel* :

Back again. I read the quotes about Romans 14 and how it is suppose to be referring to Jewish days, but I still don't get it. Except for 1 scripture by Matthew Henry there are no biblical citations. Is not Paul referring to Gentiles when he writes about eating meat offered to idols? If so then why would he not be talking to the Gentiles when referring to the days observed, since it is in the middle of the whole discussion? It seems so odd to me to switch like that.

This is not a hill for me, but I still, after wading through the 8 (!) pages of this thread, am puzzled.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> to *Jeff Bartel* :
> 
> Back again. I read the quotes about Romans 14 and how it is suppose to be referring to Jewish days, but I still don't get it. Except for 1 scripture by Matthew Henry there are no biblical citations. Is not Paul referring to Gentiles when he writes about eating meat offered to idols? If so then why would he not be talking to the Gentiles when referring to the days observed, since it is in the middle of the whole discussion? It seems so odd to me to switch like that.
> ...



Gerry,

What other days WOULD Paul be speaking of? Surely not Christmas/Easter (i.e. man-made holy days) because they had not even been dreamed up yet. Paul was not speaking of the Sabbath, becuase it was universally recognized as a binding part of the moral law.

John Gill again:



> another esteemeth every day alike; that is, one that is strong in faith, and has a greater degree of the knowledge of the Gospel, and of evangelical liberty, *knows that the distinction of days, as well as of meats, is taken away*





> _Originally posted by gwine_
> Is not Paul referring to Gentiles when he writes about eating meat offered to idols?



Sorry to keep quoting Gill to you, but he is much more learned than I, and I would just basically be regurgitating him back to you, only less eloquently. 

Here he is on the introduction to Romans 14:



> *The church at Rome consisted both of Jews and Gentiles:* and the former, though they believed in Christ, were not clear about the abrogation of the ceremonial law, and thought they ought still to observe the distinction of meats and days, which were made in it; the latter looked upon themselves under no manner of obligation to regard them; and even among thee Jews, some might have greater light and knowledge in these things than others, and used their Christian liberty, when others could not; and this occasioned great animosities and contentions among them; and some on account of these things were called strong, and others weak: and the chief view of the apostle in this chapter, is to give advice to each party how to behave one towards another;



Keep studying Gerry. 

The two articles that convinced me once and for all were WHY DO PRESBYTERIANS OBSERVE HOLY DAYS? by Andrew Webb and The Regulative Principle and Christmas by Matthew MacMahon.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> ...



With a due respect, I think the word "besides" is used to set off "*ordinary* religious worship of God" from what follows, which is extraordinary in appearance. Just look at the next chapter, which begins, "A lawful oath is a part of religious worship". Oaths are mentioned in the latter portion of XXI:5 after "besides".


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 16, 2005)

tcalbrecht,

I can see your point here, and am interested. I'll have to look into that further. Thanks for the thoughts!


----------



## gwine (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > What other days WOULD Paul be speaking of? Surely not Christmas/Easter (i.e. man-made holy days) because they had not even been dreamed up yet. Paul was not speaking of the Sabbath, because it was universally recognized as a binding part of the moral law.



Actually I was thinking of pagan festivals. That's who Paul was referring to about the meat issue, was he not? But maybe I am stretching too far.




> Keep studying Gerry.
> 
> The two articles that convinced me once and for all were WHY DO PRESBYTERIANS OBSERVE HOLY DAYS? by Andrew Webb and The Regulative Principle and Christmas by Matthew MacMahon.



Oh, I will keep studying. I will read these articles and see what they have to say. And For what it's worth, I'm not sure I need convincing so much as I want to understand it well enough to explain it to someone else. I have a lot of trouble doing that.


----------

