# Xmas is almost upon us again...you need to watch this...read this...



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 26, 2012)

[video=vimeo;54249633]https://vimeo.com/54249633[/video]

ePub Version at the Puritan Shop
Bah Humbug: How Christians Should Think About the Christmas Holiday - by C. Matthew McMahon | The Puritan Shop

Kindle Version
Bah Humbug: How Christians Should Think About the Christmas Holiday: C. Matthew McMahon: Amazon.com: Kindle Store

Print Version
Bah Humbug: How Christians Should Think About the Christmas Holiday by C. Matthew McMahon (Paperback)


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 26, 2012)

lol i always annoy ppl when i write Xmas glad to see someone else writes it that way too! Merry Xmas!


----------



## nick (Nov 26, 2012)

Looking forward to watching this when I get on a better connection. (SPRINT!)

Have a lot of questions about this topic.


----------



## Peccavi (Nov 26, 2012)

I tend towards total rejection of the holiday. I believe that there is an appropriate celebration of Christmas, but I tend toward thinking rather negatively of it because of the way our culture celebrates it. Materialism and hedonism are great enemies of the Christian faith, and both of these tend to be not only practiced but encouraged around the holiday season. Black Friday is an example of how our culture makes holidays about the purchasing of material goods. Even the giving of gifts to others, what ought to be reflective of the love we were given by Christ, has become about finding a great deal and getting the perfect material thing to please someone you care about. If there were ever a time for a Christian to begin to question their whole-hearted acceptance of "free market enterprise" the holiday season is that time. This is not a socialist position I am crafting, but rather a support for a certain kind of removal from embracing that which the world embraces. The birth of Christ can and should be celebrated always, and not in a fashion that co-opts pagan superstitions, values, and pleasures. 

All this to say: If we are, as Christians, to celebrate Christmas, then we ought to do so with great caution.


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 26, 2012)

Peccavi said:


> I tend towards total rejection of the holiday. I believe that there is an appropriate celebration of Christmas, but I tend toward thinking rather negatively of it because of the way our culture celebrates it. Materialism and hedonism are great enemies of the Christian faith, and both of these tend to be not only practiced but encouraged around the holiday season. Black Friday is an example of how our culture makes holidays about the purchasing of material goods. Even the giving of gifts to others, what ought to be reflective of the love we were given by Christ, has become about finding a great deal and getting the perfect material thing to please someone you care about. If there were ever a time for a Christian to begin to question their whole-hearted acceptance of "free market enterprise" the holiday season is that time. This is not a socialist position I am crafting, but rather a support for a certain kind of removal from embracing that which the world embraces. The birth of Christ can and should be celebrated always, and not in a fashion that co-opts pagan superstitions, values, and pleasures.
> 
> All this to say: If we are, as Christians, to celebrate Christmas, then we ought to do so with great caution.


Just because something is abused does not make it inherently wrong. People have abused Calvinism for many years, but I don't think anybody here would ditch Calvinism as a result of the mishandling of it by others.

We need to be VERY careful that we are not legalistically binding another's conscience on matters we feel strongly about in the process of doing what we think is right.


----------



## MW (Nov 26, 2012)

Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday. Neither Christ nor Mass can be taken out of it. You might change the "Christ" to "X," but it still stands for "Christ." You might choose to remove all religious significance in the holiday and celebrate it irreligiously, but then you join with pagans in failing to honour a religious festival, which is sacrilege. The only possible option for those who maintain the regulative principle of worship is to abandon Christmas and raise a testimony against its practice by professing Christians and pagans alike. "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry," 1 Corinthians 10:14. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols," 1 John 5:21.


----------



## gordo (Nov 26, 2012)

Good book so far. Very well put together. Bought it this morning and almost half way through it. Easy to read in a few nights or even one night if you want. Very informative.

It jumped out at me as my wife and co-workers call me 'Scrooge'. When I saw the Bah Humbug title I had to read it.


----------



## Afterthought (Nov 26, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday. Neither Christ nor Mass can be taken out of it. You might change the "Christ" to "X," but it still stands for "Christ."


Interestingly enough, most of the people I know who celebrate the holiday will insist on this point: "You can't take Christ out of Christmas", so they say. At least it makes it easier for me to explain why I do not participate (Gillespie's "Monument of Idolatry" argument can take more effort to rehearse sometimes, I think)... I wonder though about a portion of your argument above: is it really sacrilege to not honor a religious festival that had no authority or right to be appointed or celebrated to begin with (would you show/explain why it is sacrilege in such a case?)? I mean, something seems "odd" about irreligiously celebrating such anyway, but is the "odd" thing really that it is sacrilege to do so?


----------



## Peccavi (Nov 26, 2012)

As I said, there is an appropriate celebration of the holiday.


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 26, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> We need to be VERY careful that we are not legalistically binding another's conscience on matters we feel strongly about in the process of doing what we think is right.



Logically, it would seem that those who attempt to appoint a holy day, where God has not appointed a holy day, would be the ones in danger of binding men's consciences. Those who oppose the appointing of holy days, not appointed by God himself, are standing for the sovereignty of God. Where he has not appointed a day, there is no day appointed.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 26, 2012)

This video makes me want to watch Christmas Carol tonight. 

I love Christmastime!


----------



## Kevin (Nov 26, 2012)

Very happy to preach my first Advent sermon (of 2012) this Sunday, to the Glory of God.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Nov 27, 2012)

When I was having my ordination exams here in Los Angeles, one of the presbyters asked me if I was planning on preaching Christmas and Easter sermons. I told him, "no." I was a bit hesitant, truthfully, because I was not sure where all the pastors and elders stood on the issue (it is still not at all the universal practice to have these types of sermons in the RPCNA). 

He said that when he was a young pastor he would always preach a resurrection sermon on Christmas (the Lord's Day prior) and preach an incarnation sermon on Easter Sunday. He went on to "not recommend that." 

LOL


----------



## kodos (Nov 27, 2012)

Actually what makes the Christ-Mass particularly wrong is celebrating it as a Holy Day that those in your congregation are *required* to participate. That is binding one's conscience and is a reason that I will not attend a special Christmas service.

Many Churches have become in essence Pharisaical by setting aside the Word of God for the Traditions of Men and it is rather sad to see the cultural infestation of men's traditions in Christ's Church. 

That said, I think you can appropriately treat this holiday as a cultural tradition in your own private homes if you want to decorate and give presents. But please, leave Christ out of it and remove that idolatrous Pelagian demi-god known as Santa. 



J. Dean said:


> Peccavi said:
> 
> 
> > I tend towards total rejection of the holiday. I believe that there is an appropriate celebration of Christmas, but I tend toward thinking rather negatively of it because of the way our culture celebrates it. Materialism and hedonism are great enemies of the Christian faith, and both of these tend to be not only practiced but encouraged around the holiday season. Black Friday is an example of how our culture makes holidays about the purchasing of material goods. Even the giving of gifts to others, what ought to be reflective of the love we were given by Christ, has become about finding a great deal and getting the perfect material thing to please someone you care about. If there were ever a time for a Christian to begin to question their whole-hearted acceptance of "free market enterprise" the holiday season is that time. This is not a socialist position I am crafting, but rather a support for a certain kind of removal from embracing that which the world embraces. The birth of Christ can and should be celebrated always, and not in a fashion that co-opts pagan superstitions, values, and pleasures.
> ...

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 27, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday. Neither Christ nor Mass can be taken out of it. You might change the "Christ" to "X," but it still stands for "Christ." You might choose to remove all religious significance in the holiday and celebrate it irreligiously, but then you join with pagans in failing to honour a religious festival, which is sacrilege. The only possible option for those who maintain the regulative principle of worship is to abandon Christmas and raise a testimony against its practice by professing Christians and pagans alike. "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry," 1 Corinthians 10:14. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols," 1 John 5:21.



Are you talking about not having it in church? I don't think it should be in church since it has nothing to do with Christ. Therefore, not only does it go against the RPW, but it would be like teaching about New Years Day in church...has nothing to do with Scripture. However, like NYD I don't see anything wrong with celebrating it with friends and family.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 27, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday. Neither Christ nor Mass can be taken out of it. You might change the "Christ" to "X," but it still stands for "Christ." You might choose to remove all religious significance in the holiday and celebrate it irreligiously, but then you join with pagans in failing to honour a religious festival, which is sacrilege. The only possible option for those who maintain the regulative principle of worship is to abandon Christmas and raise a testimony against its practice by professing Christians and pagans alike. "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry," 1 Corinthians 10:14. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols," 1 John 5:21.



Please do not misunderstand what follows as advocacy of the way the world celebrates the winter solstice under the name Christmas. That celebration I have long detested. But I wonder about a couple of problems in the way this particular objection is expressed. 
1) Christmas may have originated as an ecclesiastical feast, but it is not just an ecclesiastical feast today but a secular holiday as well
2) On the name of the festival: as I understand it the term "mass" began to be applied to Christian meetings, including the feast of Christ's nativity, a few hundred years *before *the erring Catholic theology of transubstantiation was explicitly proclaimed under that name. The word "mass" apparently derived from "missa" which was a word used in the dismissals (benedictions / blessings) of those services, not the false "sacrament." Thus the name itself is not inherently problematical.
3) The case might argued that with the advent of transubstantiation, the word mass has changed its meaning in Catholic circles and therefore Christians ought to avoid using the term. The answer to that is possible to point out the older usage of the word to practicing or lapsed Roman Catholics when evangelizing them, and to realize that "mass" has no specifically religious content for the non-historically educated pagans from non-Catholic backgrounds.
4)There may be an equivocation in the original post on the term sacrilege. If the RPW is correct, and Scripture (either by direct text or by GNC deduction), does not allow for a special celebration of the birth of Christ, then failing to honour the resulting festival cannot possibly be sacrilege in the sense of "the violation of anything truly sacred," which is the type of sacrilege that Christians must not commit. But we often commit "sacrilege" in the other sense of "the violation of things that pagans erroneously regard to be sacred" (e.g.,when we eat cows we commit what for a Hindu is sacrilege) so we need at least a more refined justification of this objection. 
5) On the question of participation in a secularly instituted holiday with religious overtones deriving from the true religion: Jesus was sufficiently engaged in the Feast of Dedication that he was walking at the site of the centre of the celebration and began to teach. Christ's action here would seem to indicate that the RPW cannot be proven to stretch so far as to deny all participation in such holidays.
6) The question of what form Christian participation should take in such holidays is an entirely separate question.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 27, 2012)

> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > However, like NYD I don't see anything wrong with celebrating it with friends and family.
> ...



oh ok. I'll still celebrate it though cuz it doesn't have that meaning for me. I guess it's like meat offered to idols....if it bothered a person they weren't to eat it and if it didn't bother another person they could.


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 27, 2012)

If we celebrate the day, as a purely secular one, then basically we're left with a fat, fictitious, old man, who miraculously slides down the chimney(if you have one) to bring toys to kids that are *good*(whatever that means without a Christian definition) and leaves a lump of coal for those who are *bad*.....and then of course, there is the greed, materialism, gluttony, and idleness that quite often attend the long drawn out celebration, that it so festive, that it can't possibly be confined to a single calendar day, and takes up an entire *season*.

I really like what William Bradford had to say on the matter, when he was governor of Plymouth Plantation.

"On Christmas Day, 1621, Governor William Bradford encountered a group of people who were taking the day off from work:

"And herewith I shall end this year [1621]. Only I shall remember one passage more, rather of mirth then of waight. One ye day called Christmas-day, ye Govr [William Bradford] caled them out to worke, (as was used,) but ye most of this new-company excused them selves and said it wente against their consciences to work on yt day. So ye Govr tould them that if they made it mater of conscience, he would spare them till they were better informed. So he led-away ye rest and left them; but when they came home at noone from their worke, he found them in ye streete at play, openly; somepitching ye barr, & some at stoole-ball, and shuch like sports. So he went to them, and tooke away their implements, *and tould them that was against his conscience, that they should play & others worke*. If they made ye keeping of it mater of devotion, let them kepe their houses, but ther should be no gameing or revelling in ye streets. Since which time nothing hath been atempted that way, at least openly." 
American Puritanism

The beginning of a new year is a fact, it is also a fact that we are an independent nation(4th of July), the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth and later having a harvest feast is a fact, we have indeed had many Presidents in this nation(Presidents' Day), it is a fact there a great deal of veterans in this nation that have served this country(Veterans' Day)....Christmas(however you look at it) is a fable. You really can't even call it a national 'holiday'. It is celebrated by people of many nations, and yet not celebrated by many people in our own nation.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 27, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> If we celebrate the day, as a purely secular one, then basically we're left with a fat, fictitious, old man, who miraculously slides down the chimney(if you have one) to bring toys to kids that are *good*(whatever that means without a Christian definition) and leaves a lump of coal for those who are *bad*.....and then of course, there is the greed, materialism, gluttony, and idleness that quite often attend the long drawn out celebration, that it so festive, that it can't possibly be confined to a single calendar day, and takes up an entire *season*.
> 
> I really like what William Bradford had to say on the matter, when he was governor of Plymouth Plantation.
> 
> ...



I guess I'm not understanding your Biblical support here. Are you saying that as long as a holiday is a national holiday we can celebrate it and if it's not then we can't so sayth Scripture? Also, idk about other ppl, but I don't celebrate it as Santa giving me anything (never have). My family and I celebrate it this way: we hang xmas lights, put up a gorgeous tree, have a great meal, then open presents and enjoy each others company. It has everything to do with family and friends and nothing to do with Christ or Santa. We can talk about God on that day like we would any other day but that's just bc we are Christians and he's apart of our lives.


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 27, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> I guess I'm not understanding your Biblical support here. Are you saying that as long as a holiday is a national holiday we can celebrate it and if it's not then we can't so sayth Scripture? Also, idk about other ppl, but I don't celebrate it as Santa giving me anything (never have). My family and I celebrate it this way: we hang xmas lights, put up a gorgeous tree, have a great meal, then open presents and enjoy each others company. It has everything to do with family and friends and nothing to do with Christ or Santa. We can talk about God on that day like we would any other day but that's just bc we are Christians and he's apart of our lives.


Sorry for not being clear, I believe that the RPW negates us from making holy days at all. The Lord has graciously given us 52 Lord's Days a year in which to pause and reflect upon the entire miracle of the Gospel. When the church sets up a holy day, other than the Lord's Day, it takes away from the blessing of God's appointed day. What I was trying to say is that I don't see Christmas as falling into either category, religious or national. I do respect your desire to get together with family at this time of year and even bless one another with gifts, if you feel led to do so. I certainly wouldn't be an advocate of avoiding family gatherings at this time of year, just because some people abuse certain gatherings. 
Blessings, Sarah, and sorry for the misunderstanding.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 27, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I'm not understanding your Biblical support here. Are you saying that as long as a holiday is a national holiday we can celebrate it and if it's not then we can't so sayth Scripture? Also, idk about other ppl, but I don't celebrate it as Santa giving me anything (never have). My family and I celebrate it this way: we hang xmas lights, put up a gorgeous tree, have a great meal, then open presents and enjoy each others company. It has everything to do with family and friends and nothing to do with Christ or Santa. We can talk about God on that day like we would any other day but that's just bc we are Christians and he's apart of our lives.
> ...



It's fine I just couldn't put together what you said with the quote you put up bc of his spelling. So his quote was about not preaching xmas in church? Then I agree.


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 27, 2012)

Well, actually, I think the purpose of his statement was that men ought not to use religious observances as an excuse to get a day off, while our brethren are laboring. Six day shalt thou labor....it wasn't the Sabbath, they should have been working with the rest of the settlers to finish the much needed extra housing.


----------



## proregno (Nov 27, 2012)

Geneva, December 25, 1551.

The reformer John Calvin preached a sermon on the book of Micah. Great lessons can we draw from the words contained in this snippet from the sermon.

May the Lord reach hearts through these few words, and make us meditate, the light of Scripture, on this day, which many have idolized him.

". . . Now I see here today more people than I am accustomed to having at the sermon. Why is that? It is Christmas day. And who told you this? You poor beasts. That is a fitting euphemism for all of you who have come here today to honor Noel. Did you think you would be honoring God? Consider what sort of obedience to God your coming displays. In your mind, you are celebrating a holiday for God, or turning today into one. But so much for that. In truth, as you have often been admonished, it is good to set aside one day out of the year in which we are reminded of all the good that has occurred because of Christ's birth in the world, and in which we hear the story of his birth retold, which will be done Sunday. But if you think that Jesus Christ was born today, you are as crazed as wild beasts. For when you elevate one day alone for the purpose of worshipping God, you have just turned it into an idol. True, you insist that you have done so for the honor of God, but is more for the honor of the Devil. ... "

Source: Fabio Martins at the 'Purity of Worship' facebook page.


----------



## MW (Nov 27, 2012)

Afterthought said:


> is it really sacrilege to not honor a religious festival that had no authority or right to be appointed or celebrated to begin with



Absolutely, it is not sacrilege, but then the only option is to abandon the day. Relatively, however, where an individual implicitly accepts the authority to appoint the day by his own observance of it, he effectively commits sacrilege because the authority which appointed the day did so for a religious purpose.


----------



## MW (Nov 27, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> Are you talking about not having it in church?



I am talking about not having it at all. The body of Christ is "the church." When we "go to church" we are simply gathering together as "the church."


----------



## MW (Nov 27, 2012)

timmopussycat said:


> But I wonder about a couple of problems in the way this particular objection is expressed.



OK, I am happy to sharpen the objection.



timmopussycat said:


> 1) Christmas may have originated as an ecclesiastical feast, but it is not just an ecclesiastical feast today but a secular holiday as well



By saying "as well," it seems that you are agreeing the secular holiday does not exist on its own without the ecclesiastical. Looking at the way the civil authorities have set apart the day historically, they recognised it is an ecclesiastical day and gave their sanction to it as such; for those who did not want to celebrate it religiously there was the option to treat it as a secular holiday, but the day itself was set apart because it was an ecclesiastical holiday.



timmopussycat said:


> Thus the name itself is not inherently problematical.



That is correct. The point is, it requires a meeting. It does not require a degenerate Roman Catholic meeting. But it does require a meeting in order to celebrate the nativity of Christ. Hence the very term charges sacrilege against those who accept the validity of the day but fail to celebrate Christ's nativity.



timmopussycat said:


> 4)There may be an equivocation in the original post on the term sacrilege.



We must distinguish between an absolute and a relative. It was either lawfully or unlawfully appointed. Relatively, if one accepts the day it is sacrilege to rob it of its religious significance.



timmopussycat said:


> Jesus was sufficiently engaged in the Feast of Dedication that he was walking at the site of the centre of the celebration and began to teach. Christ's action here would seem to indicate that the RPW cannot be proven to stretch so far as to deny all participation in such holidays.



This is a disputed point relative to a discussion of the RPW. I leave it for its own place. Suffice to say, preaching is warranted from its own institution and has nothing to do with days of man's appointment.



timmopussycat said:


> 6) The question of what form Christian participation should take in such holidays is an entirely separate question.



Fair enough! My comments, of course, need to be read in the context of this thread, where a secular celebration has been advocated.


----------



## gordo (Nov 27, 2012)

..........


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 27, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > Are you talking about not having it in church?
> ...



No presents or honey baked ham for you!  lol


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 27, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > But I wonder about a couple of problems in the way this particular objection is expressed.
> ...



What you say the secular authorities did with Christmas seems to be exactly what Judas Maccabeus and his colleagues did when they set up the feast of Dedication.



armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > Thus the name itself is not inherently problematical.
> ...



Does the name in itself require a meeting? I don't think so. It simply records that the early Church thought it appropriate to meet on the day. Would the term itself charge sacrilege against those who accept the validity of the day but fail to celebrate Christ's nativity by meeting together? I think that would only be true if the churches *required participation in Christmas services of their members as a fundamental doctrinal commitment. *I've never seen that level of commitment asked for in any of the churches I've been in, even if one assumes that the day *must *be celebrated by a meeting. What is mandated by Scripture is the regular assembly of believers, not a particular ecclesiastical calendar. In fact most of the churches I've seen celebrate the Christmas season (usually focusing on one of the two Advents in the sermons) but do not usually have services on Christmas day itself. And if churches decide that the day should be so celebrated, a regular service with the sermon focusing on the significance of his coming (and the significance of the fact that we don't know the real day on which Christ entered the world) would be appropriate. But this really moves us to the question of how to celebrate the day if we are going to do so, which as I said, was a separate question.



armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > 4)There may be an equivocation in the original post on the term sacrilege.
> ...



One may deny the doctrine of transubstantiation without robbing the day of any religious significance that it may have. But how one marks that religious significance, if the day is accepted is the question I said was entirely separate.



armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus was sufficiently engaged in the Feast of Dedication that he was walking at the site of the centre of the celebration and began to teach. Christ's action here would seem to indicate that the RPW cannot be proven to stretch so far as to deny all participation in such holidays.
> ...



Whether or not the RPW extends to days of man's appointment is what creates the entire issue of the validity of celebrating Christmas or Resurrection Day or other notable events in the progress of God's kingdom. So this is the place for its discussion. For the RPW, if correct, may not be so applied that it makes Christ the author of sin. The fact is that Christ preached (which does have its own warrant) from the epicentre of a humanly set up feast oriented toward the true religion that lacked specific divine authorization. At a minimum his participation extended to his presence at, and his engaging in an element of true worship at the time and site of a humanly instituted event. That he preached there is enough to prove that one of the principle elements, if not the principle element of Christian worship, is not sinful when done in such a context. By parity of reasoning then it would seem that any or all of the elements of Christian worship would not be sinful when done in such a context. Those who think otherwise will need to demonstrate by direct scripture quotation or deductions that really are good and necessary consequences from other Scriptural statements. Given Christ's example, I can't see at the moment how such a defense could be mounted successfully although I have seen some attempts to mount one.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Nov 27, 2012)

A friend of mine shared this thought-provoking video with me: Christmas Video


----------



## matt01 (Nov 27, 2012)

SolaScriptura said:


> I love Christmastime!



I am looking forward to the season. Hopefully will be able to get the tree set up on Saturday.


----------



## MW (Nov 27, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> No presents or honey baked ham for you!  lol



That's the spirit!


----------



## earl40 (Nov 27, 2012)

Just a quick question. Would most that adhere to RPW believe that it would be a sin to attend a service on any day besides Sunday, which would of course include Dec. 25th? If so is this not taking the narrative portions of scripture and applying didactic applications?

I am simply asking because I do believe Sunday is the proper day to worship and only ask because I could imaging the early church (the gathering of the believers) on some other days occasionally along with Sunday.


----------



## Afterthought (Nov 28, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Absolutely, it is not sacrilege, but then the only option is to abandon the day. Relatively, however, where an individual implicitly accepts the authority to appoint the day by his own observance of it, he effectively commits sacrilege because the authority which appointed the day did so for a religious purpose.


Thank you. Those I know who celebrate the day religiously often sharply get upset with the pagans and unbelievers who celebrate the day irreligiously; I never thought about it in those terms before, but the thing that upsets them could be the sacrilege commited by unbelievers: they are upset by the hatred of Christ that pagans show by their rejection of the religious elements of the festival. One prominent reason pagans and unbelievers celebrate the day irreligiously (if they celebrate it at all) is because they hate Christ, and indeed, even get offended at calling the day "Christmas"; it seems it might be encouraging them in that true sacrilege of rejecting Christ by saying, "You're right. Christ shouldn't be in Christmas, so it should only be celebrated irreligiously, if at all", which, among other things, doesn't seem to be acting in a loving manner to them (edit: although actually, I wonder if the same thing could be charged against those who do not celebrate the day; the charge being they encourage unbelievers that do not observe it).

Having said all that, I may almost have your argument, but not quite. I think you are saying that if a person celebrates the day in a secular way, one is stating by one's actions that the day was given by proper authority. Then, because the day was intended for religious purposes, one's actions then deny that the day should be celebrated religiously. But because the person accepted the authority of the day, which purpose was religious, one is thwarting the purpose of the day one already recognized as legitimately established. But then I get stuck here, and have difficulty continuing the argument to the conclusion of "They are therefore effectively committing sacrilege." The best conclusion I can reach from the above is that such a person is stating that the day had no authority to be established religiously, but insofar as it is irreligious, the day has proper authority.

I'm also having difficulty understanding why if, "absolutely, it is not sacrilege", the only option is to abandon the day. Would you be willing to elaborate on that a bit? And finally, what is the reason that we should care about effectively commiting sacrilege, considering that absolutely speaking, it is not sacrilege anymore than not fasting during Ramadan is sacrilege (absolutely speaking)?

If your argument is good, there is a rather interesting insight connecting to the comments I made earlier in this post: "You can't take Christ out of Christmas" is both the reason to not celebrate it religiously and to not celebrate it irreligiously; indeed, the non-celebration of the day on this basis really does become a testimony against both kinds of observances of it, as you mentioned in your initial post.



earl40 said:


> Just a quick question. Would most that adhere to RPW believe that it would be a sin to attend a service on any day besides Sunday, which would of course include Dec. 25th? If so is this not taking the narrative portions of scripture and applying didactic applications?
> 
> I am simply asking because I do believe Sunday is the proper day to worship and only ask because I could imaging the early church (the gathering of the believers) on some other days occasionally along with Sunday.


That's something I'd also be interested in seeing an answer to. The two answers I can think of and/or have seen are that (1) We are told in Hebrews to exhort one another daily, so there's authority for meeting outside of the Lord's Day (though this argument seems to prove too much; namely, that we should all meet every day), and (2) time of meetings is a circumstance of worship, and so may be done when desired according to the general rules of the word and Christian prudence; hence, other meetings may be held at any time during the week, though the meeting on the Lord's Day is mandatory because in that case, the time is not completely a circumstance (cause a specific day is commanded); the trouble I have with this argument is that, I'm not sure how a meeting of public worship can be non-mandatory, given the authority of the elders, though I suppose if religious instruction outside of the public worship setting is justified, it would be justified on the same grounds as Sunday School is justified (and so such non-public-worship meetings for religious instruciton/prayer/praise would seem to be okay during the week).


----------



## jandrusk (Nov 28, 2012)

You can celebrate the holiday, but I do not think you have any biblical basis for it. My own personal view is that it is simply a time to reflect on the goodness of God in the gift of His Son our Lord Jesus Christ. There is nothing biblically holy about December 25th. The only "holy-days" that I recogize is the Sabbath as well as the sacrements.


----------



## iainduguid (Nov 28, 2012)

There seems some confusion here over whether churches that follow the RPW can appoint special days for worship services. 
[A separate pet peeve: the RPW in itself says nothing for or against any particular worship practice: it merely says that we must have positive warrant for our worship practices from the Scriptures. To determine what practices are or are not Biblical requires actual exegesis of the Biblical passages. But I digress...]

According to the 1645 Westminster Directory of Public Worship “Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued. Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for publick fasting and thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispositions of God’s providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people”. 

So, according to the Westminster divines, Christmas and Easter are out, along with the vast number of saints days that had completely overrun the calendar in their day. [the equivalent in our own day are all of the special Sundays in the evangelical calendar, such as "Sanctity of Life Sunday", etc. However, they believed that the elders (or even the state) could appoint a day of fasting or thanksgiving in response to particular acts of God's providence. Thus, according to Horton Davies, the Puritans in England held annual services celebrating the discovery of Guy Fawkes plot to blow up parliament every November 5th, a date that has no direct Biblical warrant but rather was one that flowed from a reading of God's acts of providence. So the Westminster divines would have been quite happy in principle with the state appointing a day for Thanksgiving, or perhaps a day of fasting every September 11th. The Biblical principle they though they were following was that in the OT, when God blessed his people, the kings appointed times of thanksgiving, and in times of trial, they called a fast.

Not all of us would be comfortable with the exegetical continuity that they saw between Israel and Britain (America) as nations in covenant with God, yet the PCA directory of worship has similar provision for the state to call the church to a day of prayer or praise in response to particular national experiences.

The question is whether the argument can be pressed further on Biblical grounds. The feast of Purim is not commanded by God, but is instituted by Esther in response to God's providential redemption of his people. Likewise, though not part of the canonical text, Hannukah, which Jesus appears to be celebrating in some sense in the NT. And if Christians are free to gather at any time to worship God and give thanks for his acts of providence, why may a group of Christians in a particular place not agree to meet on a particular day to celebrate his acts of redemption. To be sure, they will want to protect the consciences of those who may not feel that same freedom, and so it should be clear that this is not a service at which God's people are required to be present. But can I only give thanks for the incarnation on a Sunday? Must I avoid December 25th just because the culture in which I live has attached confused ideas to that date? It would seem that these are matters of wisdom in which different Christians (and different sessions of elders) may reach different conclusions, while still acting appropriately within the bounds of Biblical truth.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Nov 28, 2012)

Peccavi said:


> I tend towards total rejection of the holiday. I believe that there is an appropriate celebration of Christmas, but I tend toward thinking rather negatively of it because of the way our culture celebrates it. Materialism and hedonism are great enemies of the Christian faith, and both of these tend to be not only practiced but encouraged around the holiday season. Black Friday is an example of how our culture makes holidays about the purchasing of material goods. Even the giving of gifts to others, what ought to be reflective of the love we were given by Christ, has become about finding a great deal and getting the perfect material thing to please someone you care about. If there were ever a time for a Christian to begin to question their whole-hearted acceptance of "free market enterprise" the holiday season is that time. This is not a socialist position I am crafting, but rather a support for a certain kind of removal from embracing that which the world embraces. The birth of Christ can and should be celebrated always, and not in a fashion that co-opts pagan superstitions, values, and pleasures.
> 
> All this to say: If we are, as Christians, to celebrate Christmas, then we ought to do so with great caution.



Well said. 

I have wondered what it would be like, if instead of giving gifts to our family and friends, we used the money to give to missions and the poor.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Nov 29, 2012)

Great info, Iain. It's good to know where the Divines stood on the issue and also about adding special days.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 29, 2012)

Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday? Do you mean a formal, official ecclesiastical holiday? Not anywhere I know of. Certainly not in the United States...


----------



## davenporter (Nov 29, 2012)

I will be celebrating the social-day of Christmas with family and worship the Lord Jesus Christ in family worship as every other day of the year, although I would not find a focus on his incarnation to be inappropriate. I have no qualms about enjoying gift-giving and other adiaphorous societal traditions. I probably won't be attending a Christmas service at church but I won't condemn those who do.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Nov 30, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday.


If it is simply an ecclesiastical holiday, and not biblically mandated couldn't one just celebrate it however they choose then?
Why is Christmass/Xmass wrong if you don't celebrate it as a holy day? Could not one look at it as a time to get together with family and have a happy jolly time. I am willing to listen. 

Thanks,

Patrick


----------



## JonathanHunt (Nov 30, 2012)

I have to say, this 'debate' took longer to start up than in recent years, when it has started about Reformation Day!

I'll be preaching on 'Christmas Day'. I'd honestly rather that I wasn't, but Rome was not built in a day (perhaps an unfortunate phrase) and it behooves us to exercise great care and love when we address the whole subject with the vast majority of sincere Christians who do not understand where we are coming from.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 30, 2012)

I agree that all things should be taught in humility and grace in kindness and gentleness in understanding and patience but also in truth and boldness. Not fearing either side (the reformed nor the unreformed person), and thus staying balanced in all things. Throwing out superstition on both sides of the aisle. Although xmas should be kept out of the church as a holy day, the birth of Christ is taught in the Bible and is an example of just one teaching that is to be taught. I wonder if pastors could find a day that comes closest to the time when Christ was actually born and preach about his incarnation at that time? And do the same for his death and resurrection? These subjects are very important to preach about and I think it would be a good thing to do so near the time they actually happened.


----------



## MW (Nov 30, 2012)

Goodcheer68 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday.
> ...



We are Christians and we are Protestants. As Christians we have a duty to confess Christ before men, and as Protestants we have a duty to protest against the corruptions of Christianity. Now, either the church has power to appoint such a day or it doesn't. If it does, then the Christian has a responsibility to join with the church as it professes Christ before the world on that day. If it doesn't have such power, and it is an imposition on the faith and practice of God's people, the true church should "PROTEST" against it.


----------



## Tim (Nov 30, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> I think it would be a good thing to do so near the time they actually happened



Why?


----------



## Afterthought (Nov 30, 2012)

Hello, Mr. Winzer. I don't know if you had planned on keeping up with this thread or not, but if you did, please feel free to ignore my reply. It looks like there's plenty of other things for you to reply to, should you so choose, and if you replied to them, my own question would probably be answered as well. But further, my own activity may soon drop off for a little while; I might still be able to read threads, but I might not be replying to posts. Regardless, I know I'll keep thinking about that argument you made until I at least can see what you were getting at. And for the record again, I too agree the day should be abandoned, I just wasn't sure whether your particular argument would do for such, because I didn't (and still don't) quite understand it yet. Thank you for the interaction!

(edit: Though I must mention, that I do understand your argument from the meaning of "Protestant.")


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 30, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Goodcheer68 said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



This argument too, may hinge on an equivocation. For before we are Protestants and before we are Christians we are subject to the teaching of Scripture on the nature of "the church". If "the church" is all "elders" (presbuteroi) of all Protestant churches meeting in council and they set forth a teaching proving their case that such meetings are unscriptural, either from explicit Scriptural statement or GNC deductions from the same, that's one thing. If the "elders" are, as pastoral leaders of individual local churches or Protestant denominations, setting out to capitalize on opportunities presented the secularly instituted holidays as they see best, (while premising that the scheduling of such meetings are not Scripturally prohibited but adiaphora), that's another thing. If the former situation obtained, your argument would be correct, but it is the latter situation that obtains today as those arguing for Divine prohibition of such use have failed to present a case that convinces most of the Protestant church that the former alternative is correct.


----------



## JohnGill (Dec 1, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday. Neither Christ nor Mass can be taken out of it. You might change the "Christ" to "X," but it still stands for "Christ." You might choose to remove all religious significance in the holiday and celebrate it irreligiously, but then you join with pagans in failing to honour a religious festival, which is sacrilege. The only possible option for those who maintain the regulative principle of worship is to abandon Christmas and raise a testimony against its practice by professing Christians and pagans alike. "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry," 1 Corinthians 10:14. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols," 1 John 5:21.





armourbearer said:


> Goodcheer68 said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



Thanks for expressing my sentiments so well Rev. Winzer. And I hope you are doing much better and the Lord allows you to tarry for years to come.


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 1, 2012)

Tim said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > I think it would be a good thing to do so near the time they actually happened
> ...



Because I think it's important to set aside a time in church to talk about what he did for us on these subjects specifically and in detail...not only spiritually but historically. So teaching us historical details that we might not be aware of if there are some. The Bible set aside some pages to speak of these things in a historical fashion, so I don't see why we can't in church.


----------



## Tim (Dec 1, 2012)

Yes, the Bible includes the events of the incarnation and these will be preached on in due time. 

But you said it would be good to do so near the time [of the year] it actually happened. Why?


----------



## Tyrese (Dec 1, 2012)

Tim said:


> Yes, the Bible includes the events of the incarnation and these will be preached on in due time.
> 
> But you said it would be good to do so near the time [of the year] it actually happened. Why?



I don't believe Jesus was born December 25 simply because the Bible doesn't say so. So your right if you would say we should touch on the incarnation all year around depending on when your church gets to that topic. But if People want to focus on this topic around this time of the year no matter what their perspective why cant they? Im sensing some Christians do nothing for Christmas not because they find no biblical warrant to do so, but because they really feel they are not at liberty.


----------



## Tim (Dec 1, 2012)

Tyrese said:


> Im sensing some Christians do nothing for Christmas not because they find no biblical warrant to do so, but because they really feel they are not at liberty.



This is the same thing. If there is no Biblical warrant, we are not at liberty.


----------



## Tyrese (Dec 1, 2012)

Tim said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > Im sensing some Christians do nothing for Christmas not because they find no biblical warrant to do so, but because they really feel they are not at liberty.
> ...



I mean I get what your saying. I guess what I'm asking is are we as Christians not allowed to celebrate the incarnation of Christ? Even if its on Dec 25th? I don't believe that anyone has the right to command anyone to do it (which is why I completely respect your views).


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 1, 2012)

Tim said:


> Yes, the Bible includes the events of the incarnation and these will be preached on in due time.
> 
> But you said it would be good to do so near the time [of the year] it actually happened. Why?



Near the month not year since we can't go back in time lol. My reasoning is what I posted. The only reason why some ppl want it kept out of the churches is bc it's associated with xmas which i agree with, but we shouldn't get so superstitious that we can't find out when Christ was actually born and preach about his birth both spiritually and historically....same with his death and resurrection. I understand that sermons speak of this all year but the main topic isn't about these two subjects in detail and with also a historical inclusion.


----------



## Tyrese (Dec 1, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the Bible includes the events of the incarnation and these will be preached on in due time.
> ...



I wouldn't say they are being superstitious. I would say it seems they are being overly strict were God hasn't been. But they really don't have to celebrate Christmas if they don't want being that its not in the Bible.


----------



## Tim (Dec 1, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> Near the month not year since we can't go back in time lol. My reasoning is what I posted. The only reason why some ppl want it kept out of the churches is bc it's associated with xmas which i agree with, but we shouldn't get so superstitious that we can't find out when Christ was actually born and preach about his birth both spiritually and historically....same with his death and resurrection. I understand that sermons speak of this all year but the main topic isn't about these two subjects in detail and with also a historical inclusion.



I am sorry, I must not have made my question clear. Let me try again.

When you say that it is good to focus on the incarnation at that particular time of year, you are saying that it would be prudent to establish a regularity of this focus, that is repeated every 365 days. In other words, you are promoting the following two principles:

- *focus*: Christ's incarnation
- *frequency*: once per calendar year

My question is, why this focus? why this frequency? Where does this come from? Why is the incarnation, above all other events (ignoring Easter debates for the time being) to be given this pattern?

My suggestion is that we already have the following two foci, which are entirely sufficient:

Sabbath:

- *focus*: Christ, in general*
- *frequency*: once every seven days

Lord's Supper

- *focus*: Christ's death
- *frequency*: regularly, some say weekly

*or, if we consider that it this is on the first day of the week, the resurrection might be a key focus


----------



## Miss Marple (Dec 1, 2012)

It seems like there are two issues on this thread:

1. Should the church have an official day, or a special Sunday, with particular Christmas attachments like preaching on the nativity, a tree in the lobby, a gift exchange, pointsettas in the foyer?

2. Should a Christian refuse to decorate his home, purchase or make Christmas presents, have a special Christmas dinner, go to a Christmas parade, go Christmas caroling, wrap and give gifts to others, or decorate a Christmas tree?

I think #1 is pretty well answered by the regulative principle. But I think Christian liberty completely applies to #2, and many of the responses on this board seem to be comingling the two.


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 1, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> 1. Should the church have an official day, or a special Sunday, with particular Christmas attachments like preaching on the nativity, a tree in the lobby, a gift exchange, pointsettas in the foyer?
> 
> 2. Should a Christian refuse to decorate his home, purchase or make Christmas presents, have a special Christmas dinner, go to a Christmas parade, go Christmas caroling, wrap and give gifts to others, or decorate a Christmas tree?


I see a few more issues than that in this thread (though there are plenty more issues concerning these topics that have not come up in this thread yet). There's the difference between the celebration of a holiday/participation in it, and the making use of a day on which a holiday falls. Similarly, there's the difference between celebrating/participating in the holiday, and happening to do some things on the day that by pure accident appear to be celebrating the day, though they are not (to use an example from a past thread, there's a difference between happening to fast during Lent and fasting to celebrate/participate in Lent). There's the issue of Church authority: whether it has authority to appoint regular days of thanksgiving (or fasting) for works of Redemption or Providence, and whether it can call non-mandatory services. There's the issue of religious importance: whether it is possible to attach religious importance to something without binding the conscience of oneself and/or others.

And more pertinent to the two issues you brought up: there's the issue of whether the secular parts can be celebrated, given the ecclesiastical nature of the day and that we are Protestant Christians; that is, the issue of whether there can be such a separation between the two aspects of the day as you brought up such that Protestants can celebrate one while abandoning and testifying against the other. (And Josh also somewhat brought up the issue of putting away monuments of idolatry)


----------



## matt01 (Dec 1, 2012)

> Christmas parades...



Liberty. Enjoyed one with the kids this morning.


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 1, 2012)

Tim said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > Near the month not year since we can't go back in time lol. My reasoning is what I posted. The only reason why some ppl want it kept out of the churches is bc it's associated with xmas which i agree with, but we shouldn't get so superstitious that we can't find out when Christ was actually born and preach about his birth both spiritually and historically....same with his death and resurrection. I understand that sermons speak of this all year but the main topic isn't about these two subjects in detail and with also a historical inclusion.
> ...



Normally, a preacher will say something like this, "Because of the sins of mankind, God in his infinite wisdom decided to come in flesh that we might be justified...." and so on. But they don't really talk about just the verses of his conception, his birth, and other events surrounding it in a detailed historical account making it one of the main topics along with the reason for his coming. I don't see the problem in doing this.


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 1, 2012)

Tyrese said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > Tim said:
> ...



Superstitious has more than one meaning and the meaning I meant was superstitious in their ideology or another word you could use is "irrational" or "groundless".


----------



## Tyrese (Dec 1, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > OPC'n said:
> ...



I knew what you meant. Tim said above, "If there is no Biblical warrant, we are not at liberty." This is their ground.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 1, 2012)

Liberty is not the freedom to do what we want, but to do what God wants.


----------



## Tyrese (Dec 1, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Liberty is not the freedom to do what we want, but to do what God wants.



Very true, but how does this apply to Christmas being that God never tells us to do or not to do it? Are people not able to observe the day in honor of the Lord?


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 1, 2012)

Tyrese said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > Tyrese said:
> ...



Which is why i'm saying it is superstitious ideology bc the Bible doesn't forbid pastors to preach on his birth in detail both spiritually and historically since it does. What I find superstitious about ppl not wanting to dedicate one day out of the year to go in detail about his birth is bc they associate it with xmas. They want to run so far away from xmas that they run away from the example set in Scripture. I've never heard a sermon that talked about Mary conceiving through the Holy Spirit, Joseph and Mary receiving the three wise men for the worship of Christ, them fleeing to Egypt and so on. Just bc some ppl ruined this as a sermon bc they preached it on xmas doesn't mean we couldn't find the real month in which Christ was born and preach it in detail with all that happened etc etc.


----------



## Tim (Dec 1, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> Normally, a preacher will say something like this, "Because of the sins of mankind, God in his infinite wisdom decided to come in flesh that we might be justified...." and so on. But they don't really talk about just the verses of his conception, his birth, and other events surrounding it in a detailed historical account making it one of the main topics along with the reason for his coming. I don't see the problem in doing this.



Thanks for your continued comments, Sarah. I fully understand what you are saying - please understand that we are in full agreement that it is important to preach on the story of Christ's birth. I want to "experience" the fullness of this story, through the preached Word of God, just like you. 

I think where we depart, however, is that you wish to use Christmas to make the preaching of this true story an annual occurrence. I, on the other hand, don't see that the church is commanded to institute a day/season for this. Instead, the pastors should simply preach these things in accordance with the needs of the congregation. 

God says we need one day in seven to be the day of the Lord, and a regular meal for remembrance of Christ's death. But, there is no other designation given by the Lord for how we are to order our times and seasons. We should be content with this. 

Imagine an extreme example where a group promotes hundreds of designated days per year: Justification Day, Forgiveness Day, Exodus Day, Temple Rebuilding Day, Sermon on the Mount Day, etc). In answer to protest, this group replies, "are we not permitted to preach on topic/event A/B/C/D, etc. on such a day?" But, the answer remains that it is not within the authority of the church to institute such a regulation of the times and seasons. That is the prerogative of God alone. He instituted many such days and festivals in Old Testament time. Now, we are given a more simple practice: one day, and one meal.

Those who wish instruction/preaching on the incarnation of Christ are not prevented from this in any way under the traditional Presbyterian practice of "no holy days but the Lord's Day".


----------



## Tim (Dec 1, 2012)

Tyrese said:


> Very true, but how does this apply to Christmas being that God never tells us to do or not to do it? Are people not able to observe the day in honor of the Lord?



Tyrese, we have already been given a day to observe in honor of the Lord. Is this not enough? There are 52 or 53 each year. 

Let us make use of what God has already given.


----------



## Tyrese (Dec 1, 2012)

Tim said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > Very true, but how does this apply to Christmas being that God never tells us to do or not to do it? Are people not able to observe the day in honor of the Lord?
> ...



I think Romans 14:5-6 is very clear on issues like Christmas. You may have a different interpretation of that passage, but its very straight forward. But as I said before I have no problems at all with your point of view. To be totally honest some of the post here have been extremely challenging to read because I never really thought about this. I no longer feel obligated to observe these days if I choose not to. Lol I guess I would just have to expect family members accusing me of being in some kind of cult.


----------



## Tim (Dec 1, 2012)

Tyrese said:


> But as I said before I have no problems at all with your point of view. To be totally honest some of the post here have been extremely challenging to read because I never really thought about this. I no longer feel obligated to observe these days if I choose not to.



And I appreciate this, brother.


----------



## Martin (Dec 1, 2012)

Out of curiosity, if you do not celebrate Christmas would you accept a Christmas bonus from work or days off from work for a Christmas break?

I am still sorting this whole topic out myself. Very interesting thread.


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 1, 2012)

Tim said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > Normally, a preacher will say something like this, "Because of the sins of mankind, God in his infinite wisdom decided to come in flesh that we might be justified...." and so on. But they don't really talk about just the verses of his conception, his birth, and other events surrounding it in a detailed historical account making it one of the main topics along with the reason for his coming. I don't see the problem in doing this.
> ...



No, I don't want to use xmas as the time to preach it. I've stated that before...xmas has nothing to do with his birth. That's why it would be nice if we could find the month that he actually was born. The Bible doesn't state how many times we can or cannot preach about his birth or any other subject. It doesn't give us a command to preach about it on such and such a day, but then again it doesn't say we can't preach about it on such and such a day. My point is this....not many ppl know the in's and out's (if there are any to be had) of the known (known to learned men) historical aspects of this subject. I don't think it needs to be taught all the time, but a once a year reminder would be beneficial in my opinion.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2012)

Tyrese said:


> I think Romans 14:5-6 is very clear on issues like Christmas.



Romans 14 is very clear on issues relating to ceremonial observances required by the Old Testament which are no longer binding because of the coming of Jesus Christ. It does not relate to human additions like Christmas.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 2, 2012)

Tyrese said:


> Very true, but how does this apply to Christmas being that God never tells us to do or not to do it? Are people not able to observe the day in honor of the Lord?



That is the vital question, isn't it?  And in order to answer it we first have to ask who decides what is honoring to God? Is it the individual believer following the impulses of his heart? Is it the church deliberating and coming to an agreement? Is it God alone?


----------



## earl40 (Dec 2, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > I think Romans 14:5-6 is very clear on issues like Christmas.
> ...



Rev. Winzer do you see that this issue is in no way adiaphora even if our Pastor allows optional attendance on December 25th? In other words, is the church not allowed to have an optional day to gather for worship along with Sunday every now and then? 

Of course the above in no way insinuates that we are required to attend service on any other day than Sunday, but allowed to attend a service on another day while still keeping Sunday as His day. What is interesting is as I write this I realize that saying attending a service on any other day than Sunday as being adiaphoruous seems simply wrong. I think I will stick with what scripture says.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2012)

earl40 said:


> Rev. Winzer do you see that this issue is in no way adiaphora even if our Pastor allows optional attendance on December 25th? In other words, is the church not allowed to have an optional day to gather for worship along with Sunday every now and then?



There are numerous issues involved with this question. To name but two of them. First, "optional" needs to be defined. If it is optional in the sense that God's providence might hinder one from attending a lawfully called gathering, then sure, one might rightly regard other matters as more important. But if it is optional in the sense that the individual is left to choose for himself whether the gathering is lawful or not, this is simply schism and divides the body of Christ, which should be shunned by all Christians. Secondly, the choice to gather revolves around a particular purpose. Why would anyone think of meeting on Dec. 25 (excluding ordinary Lord's day worship) except for the fact that the day has been afforded special significance in the ecclesiastical calendar? Why this day every year? Who gave this day its special significance? and what makes the individual or group of individuals so important that they should be afforded the honour to give significance to such a day, when the Bible is clear that the honour of appointing days belongs to God alone? Hopefully framing the questions in this way will bring home the fact that something which imitates the authority of God is not adiaphora, but is moral to the core, because it infringes on divine prerogative, and "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is a moral commandment.


----------



## JoannaV (Dec 2, 2012)

I suppose a congregation might choose to gather on public holidays as they are days many people don't have to work. Do I recall a previous discussion of Wednesday night services?


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 2, 2012)

This is an important debate and Rev. Winzer raises some important issues. I think that there are some cogent arguments against celebrating Christmas in church. However, it seems strange to me to suggest than a Session deciding to arrange an optional service is, by definition "schismatic." Could a church not hold a Sunday afternoon service in a retirement home or at Children's Hospital and encourage members to attend while leaving it entirely to their consciences? Or do the same thing on a Wednesday night? Surely the issue is more directly the holding of these services on December 25th, and all of the historic associations of that date?

Also, as my earlier quote from the Westminster Directory of Public Worship showed, while the Westminster Divines clearly were against the observation of festivals and so-called holy days, the issue was not whether humans had the power to appoint special days for worship. As the following sentences show, they quite clearly believed that the State and local Sessions had exactly that power (given to them by God) to call people together for services of thanksgiving or repentance according to particular providences. Hence the annual celebrations in church of Guy Fawkes day (November 5th, which has now become an entirely secular festival in Britain). Presumably a local church could call a worship service next Wednesday in response to a flood, or perhaps a fiscal crisis within the congregation. And they would probably have thought that the Government might do well to call the churches to pray on a particular day before undertaking any military action.

Part of the issue is how you interpret the Scriptural data on such human-initiated festivals such as Purim and Hanukkah that come in response to particular movements of God in redemptive history. Are these wrong and to be disavowed? As Christians we don't observe them, but do they perhaps provide a model whereby churches might choose to set apart particular times to focus on particular acts of redemption, such as the incarnation and the death and resurrection? I understand the reasons why our Reformed forbears have in general been averse to such celebrations, especially given the superstition that such events attract. However, it is important that we formulate their reasons correctly, if we are to understand the strength of their arguments and alternative understandings of the Biblical data.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Dec 2, 2012)

"In the Old Testament, the ancient church was allowed to celebrate syncretistic holy days as long as they kept them out of the temple/synagogue and celebrated them privately with family and friends in the home." -Said no Bible scholar ever.


----------



## timmopussycat (Dec 2, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> There are numerous issues involved with this question. To name but two of them. First, "optional" needs to be defined. If it is optional in the sense that God's providence might hinder one from attending a lawfully called gathering, then sure, one might rightly regard other matters as more important. But if it is optional in the sense that the individual is left to choose for himself whether the gathering is lawful or not, this is simply schism and divides the body of Christ, which should be shunned by all Christians.



How are you defining the word schism and from where are you getting your definition?


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 2, 2012)

I wonder how many ppl are really going to change their minds about celebrating xmas bc of this thread? I feel like I'm back in the cult which in I was raised...we weren't allowed to celebrate xmas or our birthdays lol. The next thread will be whether or not women can wear pants/shorts and after that NO secular music bc the devil is speaking through it if you play it backwards. Manmade rules are boring and gets no one anywhere.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 2, 2012)

Christmas is the definition of a man made rule.


----------



## JohnGill (Dec 3, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> I wonder how many ppl are really going to change their minds about celebrating xmas bc of this thread? I feel like I'm back in the cult which in I was raised...we weren't allowed to celebrate xmas or our birthdays lol. The next thread will be whether or not women can wear pants/shorts and after that NO secular music bc the devil is speaking through it if you play it backwards. Manmade rules are boring and gets no one anywhere.



Christmas is a manmade rule. The principles behind RPW are not. It's the logical fallacy of equivocation to equate not celebrating Christmas to manmade rules. Following such reasoning is dangerous in its end result.


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 3, 2012)

JohnGill said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many ppl are really going to change their minds about celebrating xmas bc of this thread? I feel like I'm back in the cult which in I was raised...we weren't allowed to celebrate xmas or our birthdays lol. The next thread will be whether or not women can wear pants/shorts and after that NO secular music bc the devil is speaking through it if you play it backwards. Manmade rules are boring and gets no one anywhere.
> ...



Xmas is not a manmade rule bc no one says you have to celebrate it and it doesn't break RPW if you leave it out of church


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 3, 2012)

i think we should think of it as we would July 4th....do you celebrate it do you care if others do? probably don't care as long as it's not in church.....


----------



## JohnGill (Dec 3, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > OPC'n said:
> ...



I refer you to Rev. Winzer's earlier posts which effectually killed such notions.


----------



## MW (Dec 3, 2012)

timmopussycat said:


> How are you defining the word schism and from where are you getting your definition?



James Durham, A Treatise Concerning Scandal (Naphtali Press, 1990): "Schism may be where no heresy in doctrine is, but is a breaking of the union of the church, and that communion which ought to be among the members thereof, and is either in government, or worship." "Schism may be in worship, that is when, it may be, both the same doctrine and government is acknowledged, yet there is not communion kept in church ordinances, as in Prayer, Word and Sacraments, *but a separate way of going about these is followed*."


----------



## MW (Dec 3, 2012)

iainduguid said:


> Also, as my earlier quote from the Westminster Directory of Public Worship showed, while the Westminster Divines clearly were against the observation of festivals and so-called holy days, the issue was not whether humans had the power to appoint special days for worship. As the following sentences show, they quite clearly believed that the State and local Sessions had exactly that power (given to them by God) to call people together for services of thanksgiving or repentance according to particular providences. Hence the annual celebrations in church of Guy Fawkes day (November 5th, which has now become an entirely secular festival in Britain). Presumably a local church could call a worship service next Wednesday in response to a flood, or perhaps a fiscal crisis within the congregation. And they would probably have thought that the Government might do well to call the churches to pray on a particular day before undertaking any military action.



Jeremiah Burroughs, a member of the Westminster Assembly, preaching on Hosea at the time the Assembly was sitting, quite clearly stated in what sense November 5th might be kept as a day of civil thanksgiving:



> Their civil feasts were times wherein they took a more liberal use of the creature, in rejoicing one with another upon some special occasion, this they called a good day, not a holy day; Esth. 8:17, “The Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day.” It will appear by examining that text, that though the day was appointed to be kept every year, yet it was but as a good day to them, and could not be said to be a holy-day; we do not read of any religious solemn exercise that they had for the day. Such a day I take to be our fifth of November, a good day, not a holy-day, wherein we have a more liberal use of the creature than at other times, and remember the mercies of God with thanksgiving. But we know the day is not set apart for this end, so that it is unlawful to be exercised in any other thing.



The same divine also rejected the celebration of Christ's nativity as a presumptuous imitation of God in appointing days:



> Surely, if it were such a great matter to observe, for instance, the festival of Christ’s nativity, we would have some hint of it from the beginning of Matthew to the end of the Revelation, but God no where mentions it. And mark, those people that stand most upon such festivals, stand least upon God’s sabbaths. Many think it a strange thing for men not to pay regard to such festivals; Why may not we keep the birth of our Saviour? Now, that you may not think it so, do but consider this, that when God has set apart any thing for a holy use, it is no strange thing; but it would be strange in man to venture to imitate God in the things of his worship, to do that in God’s worship which God himself has done before. Thus God has set apart a holy time, viz. the sabbath; it is set apart to solemnise the whole work of redemption, the nativity of Christ, his life, death, resurrection, ascension, and the coming of the Holy Ghost; God, I say, has set the sabbath apart that we might have a holy-day to keep the remembrance of them all. Now, when God has appointed one day, for man to dare to venture to set another apart, this is presumption. So, because Christ has set outward elements and sacraments to be a remembrance for his body and blood, for man to say, Christ has named bread and wine, why may not I also appoint something? this you would all say were a great presumption. Certainly the presumption is the same in the former.


----------



## Tyrese (Dec 3, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > I think Romans 14:5-6 is very clear on issues like Christmas.
> ...



No brother it does deal with this issue. Why? Because nowhere around this verse does it deal with what you just said. It sound like your telling Paul what he should have said, or filling in the blanks. This passage is about passing judgment whether it be in the context of the book of Romans or Christians today. Your interpretation of this text in relationship to Christmans doesn't account for all the days of the year that are not occupied by Jewish holy days.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 3, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> I wonder how many ppl are really going to change their minds about celebrating xmas bc of this thread? I feel like I'm back in the cult which in I was raised...we weren't allowed to celebrate xmas or our birthdays lol. The next thread will be whether or not women can wear pants/shorts and after that NO secular music bc the devil is speaking through it if you play it backwards. Manmade rules are boring and gets no one anywhere.



I will say this I no longer will feel guilty if I choose to skip many traditions we have participated in the past because of this thread. Though I will admit as I got older and am afraid to climb up on the roof to hang lights, my guilt also dissipated quite easily.


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 3, 2012)

JohnGill said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > JohnGill said:
> ...



Yep, I once again disagree with his notion that xmas is wrong to celebrate outside of church. However, if you have been reading everyone's posts you will see that from the first I have been against having it in church but celebrate it in my home.


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 3, 2012)

earl40 said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many ppl are really going to change their minds about celebrating xmas bc of this thread? I feel like I'm back in the cult which in I was raised...we weren't allowed to celebrate xmas or our birthdays lol. The next thread will be whether or not women can wear pants/shorts and after that NO secular music bc the devil is speaking through it if you play it backwards. Manmade rules are boring and gets no one anywhere.
> ...



Not sure why anyone would feel guilty about not celebrating a holiday when it's not commanded in the Bible to celebrate it. This is what I'm talking about....manmade rules which state "You cannot do such and such" or "You must do such and such". They put heavy burdens on ppl that they are not allowed to do and cause them to have guilty consciouses if they don't follow that manmade law. One rule I normally follow is this: "If they can't support it from a Biblical standpoint using multiple Scriptures, then it's probably a manmade law and I don't buy into it."


----------



## earl40 (Dec 3, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> Not sure why anyone would feel guilty about not celebrating a holiday when it's not commanded in the Bible to celebrate it. This is what I'm talking about....manmade rules which state "You cannot do such and such" or "You must do such and such". They put heavy burdens on ppl that they are not allowed to do and cause them to have guilty consciouses if they don't follow that manmade law. One rule I normally follow is this: "If they can't support it from a Biblical standpoint using multiple Scriptures, then it's probably a manmade law and I don't buy into it."



As a father of 3 sons I look forward to explaining why we may not go to church this year on Dec. 24th.


----------



## timmopussycat (Dec 3, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> James Durham, A Treatise Concerning Scandal (Naphtali Press, 1990): "Schism may be where no heresy in doctrine is, but is a breaking of the union of the church, and that communion which ought to be among the members thereof, and is either in government, or worship." "Schism may be in worship, that is when, it may be, both the same doctrine and government is acknowledged, yet there is not communion kept in church ordinances, as in Prayer, Word and Sacraments, *but a separate way of going about these is followed*."



Thank's for your reply.



armourbearer said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > I think Romans 14:5-6 is very clear on issues like Christmas.
> ...



Durham's definition of schism misses an essential element. It does not, (as Romans 14:5, 6 does), allow for a legitimate measure of disagreements within the church over non-essentials. What Rom 14:5, 6 teaches us is that the observance or unnamed "days" or the lack thereof falls into the category of things indifferent. The days are not specifically named and both their observance and their non-observance are legitimate options for the Roman Christians (which argues against the days being the special Jewish holidays as Paul says that observing these days was not legitimate for Gentile Christians, Gal. 4:10). 

And even if we conclude on good and sufficient reason that the "days" here were the Jewish holidays, those holidays must be presumed to include (since Paul does not exempt them) the two humanly instituted feasts of Purim and Dedication which were unquestioned elements of the Jewish religious calendar. Therefore, these verses seem to give scriptural support to the premise that a humanly instituted religious festival memorializing significant events in the true religion is a thing indifferent and may be held or not held as individual members deem best. The corollary would be that if a local church wants to hold such festivals it may, but it must not judge those members who consciences deem such festivals lacking in scriptural support.


----------



## jandrusk (Dec 3, 2012)

I think if we contrast July 4th with Xmas we see there are different objects represented in the two. For July 4th the objects represented are America's liberation from the tyranny of England and the citizens recognizing this important event in relation to the continued freedom that they enjoy. For xmas the object of reference (For Christians at least) is the incarnation of Jesus Christ and everything that represents for the Christian. Where this gets sticky is when this event falls on the Sabbath. It may be argued that it may be a lawful exercise during non-Sabbath days since it's not forbidden in Scripture. If it does fall on the Sabbath then I think it falls under the realm of the regulative principle and should not be celebrated. 

The other argument I would make is if worship is truly just restricted to the Lord's Day and _knowing_ there is no warrant in scripture for it, well you be the judge....


----------



## Miss Marple (Dec 3, 2012)

I find myself in agreement with you, Sarah, the whole argument strikes at Christian liberty, to me, and the ability of the Christian to be part of his culture as long as it is not in and of itself sinful. I appreciate Pastor Winzer's and others' posts, but the heart of the matter seems to be that those opposed see it as a violation of the RPW; or a 'rule of man' which it is wrong for us to 'obey' - and I don't see it as either.

I see Christmas as an overall positive, fun, and edifying holiday (using 'holiday in its current sense, not as a 'holy day' - word meanings do change over time). If anyone does not desire to celebrate it, it is his right. But I say it is wrong to afflict the consciences of others over it.


----------



## Somerset (Dec 3, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> > OPC'n said:
> ...



The birth would be preached upon whilst preaching through the gospel accounts of it - also when preaching on the relevant portions of the prophets.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 3, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> iainduguid said:
> 
> 
> > Also, as my earlier quote from the Westminster Directory of Public Worship showed, while the Westminster Divines clearly were against the observation of festivals and so-called holy days, the issue was not whether humans had the power to appoint special days for worship. As the following sentences show, they quite clearly believed that the State and local Sessions had exactly that power (given to them by God) to call people together for services of thanksgiving or repentance according to particular providences. Hence the annual celebrations in church of Guy Fawkes day (November 5th, which has now become an entirely secular festival in Britain). Presumably a local church could call a worship service next Wednesday in response to a flood, or perhaps a fiscal crisis within the congregation. And they would probably have thought that the Government might do well to call the churches to pray on a particular day before undertaking any military action.
> ...


----------



## MW (Dec 3, 2012)

iainduguid said:


> Isn't that exactly how some people at least on this thread have been arguing for observing Christmas, as "a good day, not a holy-day, wherein we have a more liberal use of the creature than at other times, and remember the mercies of God with thanksgiving"? If the Jews were permitted to choose their own day to celebrate their deliverance from Haman, and we can do that on November 5th, in remembrance of a historical act of God's providence (in which Guy Fawkes may conceivably have been framed anyway), how much more might Christians voluntarily choose on any convenient day to celebrate the mighty works of redemptive history? No one here is arguing for appointing it a holy day, of equivalent weight to the Sabbath (which was precisely the context in which Jeremiah Burroughs was operating). So while I would agree with Burroughs in many respects in his context, the quote doesn't really address the precise issues being raised in this thread.



I only provided the perspective of Jeremiah Burroughs because an argument was being made from a principle of the Westminster divines, and I knew in fact that the divines themselves did not allow for the kind of application which was being made of that principle. If one disagrees with Burroughs, then by all means, voice the disagreement; but one should also be aware of the historical factors involved in the handling of certain historical statements.


----------



## MW (Dec 3, 2012)

Calvin on Romans 14:5.



> 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.



Those who observed such days were regarded as weak because they did not understand the full force of Christian liberty. As this thread has shown, those who claim a privilege to observe a man-made holiday, do it on the grounds that they have Christian liberty to do so. It is obvious that the fundamental meaning of the text and the current application being made of it are diametrically opposed to one another.


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 3, 2012)

Somerset said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > Tim said:
> ...



Yep, that's how it's normally done throughout the year. I'm talking about something more along with the Gospel and that's a historical teaching on all the events surrounding his birth. I'm not sure why ppl are not understanding what I'm talking about so I'll try to put it more simply. Let's take for an example just a regular man like Calvin. You have where he is born, his ancestry, historical events going on when he was born, places his family might have moved to while he was a baby....those sort of thing. Then one could talk about his spiritual contributions he made when he became an adult. Does that make more sense? Normally, this type of historical info isn't given throughout the year on Christ and I think historical info on him is important to know .


----------



## Tim (Dec 3, 2012)

Sarah, it sounds like you really desire to learn more on this topic (Christ's life). If you think that teaching on important issues is being neglected in your congregation, then why not simply ask your pastor to include it? I still fail to see why you think it necessary to institute specific annual seasons of teaching to accomplish this.


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 4, 2012)

Tim said:


> Sarah, it sounds like you really desire to learn more on this topic (Christ's life). If you think that teaching on important issues is being neglected in your congregation, then why not simply ask your pastor to include it? I still fail to see why you think it necessary to institute specific annual seasons of teaching to accomplish this.



Nvm I'm almost out of breath explaining why lol


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 4, 2012)

Folks, I'm closing this thread as it seems to be at a point for that, and being an informational thread it probably was not a great idea to let discussion continue here. If you want to discuss more specific aspects of the subject of xmas feel free to start new threads in the appropriate forum.


----------

