# Continental Reformed and Festivals



## AV1611 (Jun 13, 2008)

Upon what grounds did many of the Continental Reformed 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" of which the Second Helvetic Confession (written by Heinrich Bullinger) said, "we approve of it highly"?

Turretin noted: "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".

*NOTE:* I don't wish to discuss whether they are right or wrong, I simply wish to understand their arguments.


----------



## dannyhyde (Jun 13, 2008)

Hello Richard. Your quotation from Turretin expresses the main point, namely, that the church is freed from any Mosaic obligation to worship on feast days, but is freed to worship. So, the first reason is Christian liberty. Second, the example of the apostles in Acts is that they worshipped on more than just the Lord's Day. The history of the early church's daily services (think, Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom preaching daily) stems from this apostolic practice.

I will have an article in the January 2009 issue of American Theological Inquiry, which explains Lutheran adiaphora, but also scratches the surface of how that doctrine was appropriated by the Reformed in the area of feast days.

Blessings.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 15, 2008)

dannyhyde said:


> Hello Richard. Your quotation from Turretin expresses the main point, namely, that the church is freed from any Mosaic obligation to worship on feast days, but is freed to worship. So, the first reason is Christian liberty. Second, the example of the apostles in Acts is that they worshipped on more than just the Lord's Day. The history of the early church's daily services (think, Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom preaching daily) stems from this apostolic practice.
> 
> I will have an article in the January 2009 issue of American Theological Inquiry, which explains Lutheran adiaphora, but also scratches the surface of how that doctrine was appropriated by the Reformed in the area of feast days.
> 
> Blessings.



Thanks for this. I read Ursinus' _Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism_ earlier to see what he said on the 2nd and 4th commandments. Unfortunately he did not seem to deal with Christmas and Easter however he did lay out some general principles. I don't have a problem with Easter at all although I am still unsure of Christmas. Ursinus was good in pointing out that the Church can legislate ceremonies provided that they tend to piety, are not superstitious and are not forced upon people. I can go along with that.


----------



## BertMulder (Jun 16, 2008)

In the Dutch churches, the idea was, that as the people did not work on Christmas day, as well as days such as the day after Easter, Pentacost and Boxing Day, they might as well be in church worshipping, rather than partying with the world.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 16, 2008)

BertMulder said:


> In the Dutch churches, the idea was, that as the people did not work on Christmas day, as well as days such as the day after Easter, Pentacost and Boxing Day, they might as well be in church worshipping, rather than partying with the world.



Should people not be working? Why not? God has appointed 52 holy days a year, that is all I need. 

Personally, I would prefer people to party with the world than bring such inventions into God's house.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 16, 2008)

I would add also I believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with Christians celebrating secular holidays.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 17, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Should people not be working? Why not? God has appointed 52 holy days a year, that is all I need.



Can we worship God on Wednesday? If so then how does the RPW affect that? Well it will set what elements take place. It will not say that such a worship is wrong. How can it be wrong to celebrate the death of Christ on Friday and his resurrection on Sunday?

Was Israel wrong to celebrate harvest in the Autumn? No. Were they wrong to compose a hymn for this (Ps. 65)? No. Did they have any direct command from God to do this? No. Is it wrong for the church to celebrate harvest in the Autumn and sing Psalm 65?

What about Israel's annual celebration of the Purim and the Feast of Dedication/Feast of Lights? If it was right for Israel to celebrate their national deliverances how can it be wrong to celebrate the greatest deliverance the world has ever known, and will ever know, the birth of our Saviour annually?

And yes, I am thinking out loud.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Should people not be working? Why not? God has appointed 52 holy days a year, that is all I need.
> ...



Richard

1. I am not saying it is wrong to worship God on a day other than a Sabbath, only that _the whole day_ should not be set aside for such - i.e. be a festival day.

2. We celebrate the death and resurrection of Christ every Lord's Day, we do not need a sacred season apart from the Sabbath in which to do this.

3. Issues concerning the harvest are complex; firstly, how do you know that the harvest was not commanded, but the command was not explicitly recorded - i.e. it was something based on a legitimate historical example. Secondly, some would argue that a harvest celebration is a time of thanksgiving for God's providential goodness, not a holy day as such (though I remain unconvinced by this).

4. Again the Feast of Purim comes under the second part of point three - it is Biblical to have times of thanksgiving for national deliverances. However, it is not Biblical to set apart annual Holy Days to remember specific times in Christ's earthly life as we do this every Lord's Day. Should we have holy days to commemorate Christ's circumcision, partaking of the passover, baptism, temptation, transfiguration miracles etc, etc? If so, then we are the road to Romanism.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 17, 2008)

Daniel,

These are the same answers to the above questions I would have used. Now if I may attempt a rebut to tease out these arguments.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> 1. I am not saying it is wrong to worship God on a day other than a Sabbath, only that _the whole day_ should not be set aside for such - i.e. be a festival day.



Two things come to mind here. *(1)* the biblical foundation for such an argument. Now I would assume we would go to Jeroboam in 1 Kings 12:32. Now it can be argued that the sin was that he set aside a holy day not commanded by YHWH. _However_, it is not certain. Indeed, one could argue that the sin was that YHWH had commanded his worship to be done _as per_ his ceremonial laws whilst Jeroboam did his own thing, hence Jeroboam was worshipping YHWH in a way YHWH had forbidden. *(2)* If it is not wrong to worship God on a day other than a Sabbath then what is the maximum length of time that is allowed for worship on a day other than the sabbath? What about Turretin's point that that these days other than the Sabbath upon which the worship of God takes place are in themselves no more holy than others? 



Daniel Ritchie said:


> 2. We celebrate the death and resurrection of Christ every Lord's Day, we do not need a sacred season apart from the Sabbath in which to do this.



Whilst this is true it does not mean that a season set apart to focus on the worship of God, in a particular direction (e.g. the birth of the NT church), is wrong.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> 3. Issues concerning the harvest are complex;



Indeed, the more I look into the Autumnal festival*s* of Israel the more I find the Puritan understanding of the RPW wanting. By which I mean, the Feast of Tabernacles was commanded, what takes place within it was but minimally. Hence we find the ceremony of drawing and pouring water. Not commanded hence, according to your rule, it should be forbidden. The Jews took it as being a tradition of Moses from Mount Sinai yet can you show me where it took place? 



Daniel Ritchie said:


> firstly, how do you know that the harvest was not commanded, but the command was not explicitly recorded - i.e. it was something based on a legitimate historical example.



This argument just does not work, and it is really just an attempted defense of the principle from a very serious criticism. Not least, it is assuming what you are attempting to prove. But that aside; if the command was given and was not recorded then your argument breaks down. If Scripture is the sole rule of faith and we are unable to do that which has not been commanded by God then unless it has been recorded for us in Scripture there was no command (whether precept, historical example or inference). 



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Secondly, some would argue that a harvest celebration is a time of thanksgiving for God's providential goodness, not a holy day as such (though I remain unconvinced by this).



If it was not wrong for Israel to set aside a time of thanksgiving for God's providential goodness at harvest then how can it be wrong for the church to set aside a time of thanksgiving for God's providential goodness at harvest? 

Let's not forget, that Israel's celebration of the harvest took place during the Feast of Tabernacles which took place at the same time as the Canaanite new year festival! Note, this was not commanded and it was not wrong for them to do this. Just read the Psalms which were written to be used here and note that these were written for an uncommanded festival which then were used in the Temple to worship YHWH!

They gave thanks to YHWH for the harvest and prayed for rain for "at the feast of tabernacles judgment is made concerning the waters" (Mishnah Roshhashana). Upon which the Gemara says, "wherefore does the law say pour out water on the feast of tabernacles? Says the holy blessed God, pour out water before me, that the rains of the year may be blessed unto you.'' 



Daniel Ritchie said:


> 4. Again the Feast of Purim comes under the second part of point three - it is Biblical to have times of thanksgiving for national deliverances.



Is not YHWH worshipped at these thanksgivings for national deliverances?



Daniel Ritchie said:


> However, it is not Biblical to set apart annual Holy Days to remember specific times in Christ's earthly life as we do this every Lord's Day. Should we have holy days to commemorate Christ's circumcision, partaking of the passover, baptism, temptation, transfiguration miracles etc, etc? If so, then we are the road to Romanism.



Is it wrong to have a service to commemorate Christ's circumcision, partaking of the passover, baptism, temptation, transfiguration miracles etc, etc?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

> Two things come to mind here. (1) the biblical foundation for such an argument. Now I would assume we would go to Jeroboam in 1 Kings 12:32. Now it can be argued that the sin was that he set aside a holy day not commanded by YHWH. However, it is not certain. Indeed, one could argue that the sin was that YHWH had commanded his worship to be done as per his ceremonial laws whilst Jeroboam did his own thing, hence Jeroboam was worshipping YHWH in a way YHWH had forbidden. (2) If it is not wrong to worship God on a day other than a Sabbath then what is the maximum length of time that is allowed for worship on a day other than the sabbath? What about Turretin's point that that these days other than the Sabbath upon which the worship of God takes place are in themselves no more holy than others; rather all days are equal?



1. Part of Jeroboam's sin was inventing his own holy days. Doing whatever is not authorized in worship is forbidden.

2. The Sabbath is distinguished from other days in that the _whole_ day is set aside for worship, while we may have worship on other days, we may not set apart holy days. How long we can engage in worship for is a cricumstance guided by the general rules of the Word - i.e. it does not unduly keep people from work or hinder other responsibilities.
I have not read Turretin's argument, and so I cannot comment.



> This argument just does not work, and it is really just an attempted defense of the principle from a very serious criticism. Not least, it is assuming what you are attempting to prove. But that aside; if the command was given and was not recorded then your argument breaks down. If Scripture is the sole rule of faith and we are unable to do that which has not been commanded by God then unless it has been recorded for us in Scripture there was no command (whether precept, historical example or inference).



No it is not. This is a straw-man of the RPW. The RPW does not only refer to explicit commands but legitimate historical examples (i.e. synagogue attendance). People who make this kind of criticism do not realize that every command did not have to be explicitly written down, as legitimate historical examples are Biblically sufficient to show us that something is acceptable. However, if we assert that we can worship God in a manner that he has not commanded, then you violate the analogy of Scripture, as it is as plain as day that divine authorization is necessary for a worship practice to be legitimate. Your instability on this issue surprises me, and suggests that you simply do not understand the principle properly.




> If it was not wrong for Israel to set aside a time of thanksgiving for God's providential goodness at harvest then how can it be wrong for the church to set aside a time of thanksgiving for God's providential goodness at harvest?



Maybe it's not. This depends on whether or not it can be shown that the harvests were part of the OT feasts. If you believe harvest are legitimate, I would not have a problem with the methodology upon which you are using to justify this argument



> Is not YHWH worshipped at these thanksgivings for national deliverances?



Yes, but since that has divine authorization it is not a problem.


> Is it wrong to have a service to commemorate Christ's circumcision, partaking of the passover, baptism, temptation, transfiguration miracles etc, etc?



Yes. It is not authorized.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 17, 2008)

Hi Daniel, thanks for the response. If we could focus on the sin of Jeroboam for the immediate future.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Part of Jeroboam's sin was inventing his own holy days. Doing whatever is not authorized in worship is forbidden.



The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Yes part of Jeroboam's sin was the invention of his own holy days however that does not mean doing whatever is not authorized in worship is forbidden. Why? Simply because YHWH has commanded thus:

"Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God *in the place which he shall choose*; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles" (*Deuteronomy 16:16*)​
Hence the sin of Jeroboam stems from 1 Kings 12:27 

"If this people go up to do sacrifice *in the house of the LORD [YHWH] at Jerusalem*, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah."​
By setting up his own holy day in Bethel and Dan Jeroboam broke with an explicit command of God. Hence this is not a case of something being a sin because it was not commanded but rather it was sinful because it was a transgression of a divine law concerning the worship of YHWH. The sin was *a.* they did not worship on the feasts prescribed by YHWH (unleavened bread, weeks, tabernacles) and *b.* they did not worship in Jerusalem at the Temple of YHWH's presence.

I will respond to the below later:



Daniel Ritchie said:


> No it is not. This is a straw-man of the RPW. The RPW does not only refer to explicit commands but legitimate historical examples (i.e. synagogue attendance). People who make this kind of criticism do not realize that every command did not have to be explicitly written down, as legitimate historical examples are Biblically sufficient to show us that something is acceptable. However, if we assert that we can worship God in a manner that he has not commanded, then you violate the analogy of Scripture, as it is as plain as day that divine authorization is necessary for a worship practice to be legitimate. Your instability on this issue surprises me, and suggests that you simply do not understand the principle properly.






Daniel Ritchie said:


> Maybe it's not. This depends on whether or not it can be shown that the harvests were part of the OT feasts. If you believe harvest are legitimate, I would not have a problem with the methodology upon which you are using to justify this argument


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

> The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Yes part of Jeroboam's sin was the invention of his own holy days however that does not mean doing whatever is not authorized in worship is forbidden. Why? Simply because YHWH has commanded thus:
> 
> "Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles" (Deuteronomy 16:16)
> 
> ...



But where do those texts state that someone could not observe their own holy days in addition to the ones which God has given or even at places where the Lord has not appointed? Tell me, do fallen sinners get to dictate to the sovereign God how he can be worship acceptably (i.e. the NPW)? If so, then that is Arminianism in Christian worship.

The incident with Jeroboam shows us that Erastianism and a denial of the RPW often go together - hence Anglicans have traditionally been both.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

It should also be noted that the NPW involves imposing on people's consciences rites which God has not commanded. Thus it is an enemy of Christian liberty and a handmaid of arbitrary power, as the church may arbitrarily invent rites which God has not commanded and enforce them on its membership....Little wonder the Stuart Kings liked it.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 17, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> But where do those texts state that someone could not observe their own holy days in addition to the ones which God has given or even at places where the Lord has not appointed?



My apologies, I don't quite understand your point here. The text I provided is an explicit command from YHWH that Israel are to worship him three times a year in Jerusalem; at the feast of unleavened bread, the feast of weeks, and the feast of tabernacles. And really the 1 Kings text is refering to the feast of tabernacles. The point is that the sin of Jeroboam is not so much the creation of holy days but the perversion of the worship YHWH commanded. Instead of male Israelites going to Jerusalem to worship before YHWH at the Feast of Tabernacles, Jeroboam caused male Israelites to go to Bethel or Dan to worship YHWH at a feast immitating Tabernacles a month later. The sin of Jeroboam then, is a transgression of an _explicit_ command of God.

The implication of this is that a _rival_ worship is forbidden, not that we can _only_ worship as he has commanded. If God commands us to worship him on Sunday then we must worship him on Sunday, but it does not therein follow that we must not worship him on Monday. That is, we must not transgress an explicit command of God as regarding his worship.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > But where do those texts state that someone could not observe their own holy days in addition to the ones which God has given or even at places where the Lord has not appointed?
> ...



This exegesis cannot hold, because if the NPW is correct then there is nothing to stop Jeroboam from appointing rival holy days *in addition* to what God has prescribe just as long as those holy days are not forbidden.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

If holy days are to be permitted, then why can we not have a holy day every day?

The bottom line is that holy days have two purposes:

1. To kill a Protestant and Puritan work ethic.

2. To regulate the importance of the Sabbath and promote its profanation.

Hence Popish nations tend to be full of idlers and Sabbath breakers.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 17, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> This exegesis cannot hold, because if the NPW is correct then there is nothing to stop Jeroboam from appointing rival holy days *in addition* to what God has prescribe just as long as those holy days are not forbidden.



But what is going on with Jeroboam? He is not appointing rival holy days *in addition* to what God has prescribed rather he is appointing a rival day to the exclusion of true worship upon which days YHWH is to be worshipped by means of golden calves (direct transgression of 2nd Commandment). Jeroboam is not using a NPW, he is not saying to himself, "I can do whatever YHWH has not commanded" but rather "I know what YHWH has commanded but I will do this instead". YHWH commands the feast of Tabernacles in the seventh month. Jeroboam breaks that command. YHWH commands his worship to take place at Jerusalem. Jeroboam breaks that command.

It is not that Jeroboam has invented a new feast, the feast is the feast of tabernacles. The problem is that Jeroboam has changed the day in which that is to be kept and the location where it is to be kept. When we look in detail at Jeroboam's worship it is wholly against the worship that YHWH expressly commanded. 

Jeroboam's day, not that prescribed by YHWH.
Jeroboam's location, not that prescribed by YHWH.
Jeroboam's priesthood, not that prescribed by YHWH.
Jeroboam's sacrifices to Golden Calves, expressly forbidden by YHWH.

The worship prescribed by Jeroboam is wholly set in opposition to the true worship of YHWH. It is not that Jeroboam has invented a _new_ feast, the feast is the feast of tabernacles. The problem is that Jeroboam has changed the day in which that feast is to be kept as well as the location where it is to be kept, hence he has gone against the explicit command of YHWH.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

> Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered *unauthorized fire* before the LORD, which he had *not commanded them*. Lev. 10:1-2



If something in the worship of God is not authorized, it is not commanded, and thus falls under divine condemnation. Holy days are not commanded, therefore, holy days are divinely condemned. 

Really this issue does not need to be debated. What we need is repentance for daring to impose our man-made inventions upon the worship of God, and thus denying the sufficiency of Scripture for worship.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > This exegesis cannot hold, because if the NPW is correct then there is nothing to stop Jeroboam from appointing rival holy days *in addition* to what God has prescribe just as long as those holy days are not forbidden.
> ...



You do not seem to realize that as soon as you add to what God commands in worship you automatically detract from what He has commanded. Hence, people will say "yes God has told us to sing psalms, but since we are not forbidden to sing hymns we can do that instead." Moreover, since he was not expressly forbidden from changing the location, then he was perfectly justified in doing so if one accepts this liturgical antinomian hermeneutic. Yes, the people were told to worship in the place that God appointed, but since they were not explicitly forbidden from going elsewhere, then, according to the NPW, they could. Jeroboam could easily have reasoned that since there was nothing forbidding him from appointing Dan and Beersheba as holy places, then he was entitled to move the feast to those locations.

Enough of this double-talk; the Scriptures explicitly tell us that the whole Jeroboam style of worship was wrong because he had invented it:



> *Jeroboam ordained* a feast on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the feast that was in Judah, and offered sacrifices on the altar. So he did at Bethel, sacrificing to the calves *that he had made*. And at Bethel he installed the priests of the high places *which he had made*. So he made offerings on the altar which he had made at Bethel on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, in the month which* he had devised in his own heart*. And *he ordained *a feast for the children of Israel, and offered sacrifices on the altar and burned incense. 1 Kings 12:32-33



The main thrust of this passage is that Jeroboam took it upon himself to ordain things in the worship of God without authorization from God. Those who think they have the ability to invent holy days and sacred seasons fall into the same category. Their worship is something which they have devised from their own heart, it is not what God has sovereignly commanded. It is the height of arrogance to think that we can invent rites, ceremonies and festivals which are pleasing to God when He has not authorized them.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 17, 2008)

We can look at that text (Lev. x.1-3) once we have come to some conclusions regarding the issue of Jeroboam's sin. What I am at pains to point out is that if one reads the narrative one sees that this cannot be used as a proof-text to support the statement, "If it is not commanded it is forbidden".

The narrative is clear in showing that the sin of Jeroboam (with regards to the holy day itself) was not his inventing another holy day, but his changing the day upon which Israel kept the Feast of Tabernacles. That is, he moved it back a month. One could guess that the reason was because the harvest ripened later in the north. Jeroboam's sin was then the doing of something contrary to the command of YHWH. Instead of the feast being held on the fifteenth day of the seventh month as YHWH commanded, Jeroboam holds it on the fifteenth day of the eighth month.

This text then does not exclude Israel from setting aside special days to worship God, it only excludes the omission of something God has commanded.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> > Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered *unauthorized fire* before the LORD, which he had *not commanded them*. Lev. 10:1-2
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 17, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The main thrust of this passage is that Jeroboam took it upon himself to ordain things in the worship of God without authorization from God. Those who think they have the ability to invent holy days and sacred seasons fall into the same category. Their worship is something which they have devised from their own heart, it is not what God has sovereignly commanded. It is the height of arrogance to think that we can invent rites, ceremonies and festivals which are pleasing to God when He has not authorized them.



You are failing to note that Jeroboam took it upon himself to _change the worship of God_ without God's authorisation. YHWH had commanded his feast to take place in Jerusalem on the fifteenth day of the seventh month. Jeroboam changed this hence he broke God's command. This is in a different category from celebrating the birth of Christ on the 25th December about which God is silent.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 17, 2008)

Has God commanded that we set aside a special day to Worship the Incarnation? 

(Especially since that day in no way corresponds to the Birth of Christ and is the continuance of a Pagan Holiday?)


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 17, 2008)

*You ask:*


Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Has God commanded that we set aside a special day to Worship the Incarnation?


*
I Respond: *


> No



*You will say:*


> Then it is forbidden.



*I respond: *


> Prove it.



*You will say:*


> Look at Jeroboam in 1 Kings 12.



*I respond:*


> Read post 17 above.



Though I would save the time


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 17, 2008)

Actually I would not cite Jeroboam but Nadab and Abihu who were trying to please God with strange fire. Also I would ask where in the New Testament God tells us to celebrate Christ's birth with a special festival?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> We can look at that text (Lev. x.1-3) once we have come to some conclusions regarding the issue of Jeroboam's sin. What I am at pains to point out is that if one reads the narrative one sees that this cannot be used as a proof-text to support the statement, "If it is not commanded it is forbidden".
> 
> The narrative is clear in showing that the sin of Jeroboam (with regards to the holy day itself) was not his inventing another holy day, but his changing the day upon which Israel kept the Feast of Tabernacles. That is, he moved it back a month. One could guess that the reason was because the harvest ripened later in the north. Jeroboam's sin was then the doing of something contrary to the command of YHWH. Instead of the feast being held on the fifteenth day of the seventh month as YHWH commanded, Jeroboam holds it on the fifteenth day of the eighth month.
> 
> ...



Richard that is rubbish. The grounds for their condemnation was that they had done something in worship which God had not commanded them. That is what the text says. You cannot hold to the NPW without doing violence to the text of Scripture. 

Prove to me why I should not have a clown-show in worship on the basis of the NPW?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > The main thrust of this passage is that Jeroboam took it upon himself to ordain things in the worship of God without authorization from God. Those who think they have the ability to invent holy days and sacred seasons fall into the same category. Their worship is something which they have devised from their own heart, it is not what God has sovereignly commanded. It is the height of arrogance to think that we can invent rites, ceremonies and festivals which are pleasing to God when He has not authorized them.
> ...



Actually all he did was add an additionally holy day - one on the 8th month instead of the seventh. Which is basically what you do when you try to force the rest of us to keep that Pagan and Popish holy day Christ-Mass. You subtract from God's Holy Day (the Sabbath) by inventing your own (Christ-Mass).


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 17, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Actually I would not cite Jeroboam but Nadab and Abihu who were trying to please God with strange fire.



Is this not related to how we worship God rather than the day which we do it?



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Also I would ask where in the New Testament God tells us to celebrate Christ's birth with a special festival?



This question only works is you accept the underlying assumptions. 

Where in the New Testament God tells us to celebrate him on a mid-week meeting? Where did YHWH command water to be used at the feast of Tabernacles which Christ attended in John 7?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 17, 2008)

Let me restate that was rash and silly. 

Richard do you understand the concept of "stated service"


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 17, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Richard that is rubbish. The grounds for their condemnation was that they had done something in worship which God had not commanded them. That is what the text says.



The issue is that Jeroboam had done somthing against the explicit command of YHWH. That is what the text says.

And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: *If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem*, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah. Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the *one in Bethel*, and *the other put he in Dan*. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan. And he made an house of high places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi. And *Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah*, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made. So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered upon the altar, and burnt incense.​
It is indeed true that Jeroboam invented the date, but the festival was not an innovation. The sin was that he went against what YHWH commanded.

Why would Jeroboam be sacared that the people go to Jerusalem? What was the festival "like unto the feast that is in Judah"?


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 17, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Richard do you understand the concept of "stated service"



Assume I don't.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Richard that is rubbish. The grounds for their condemnation was that they had done something in worship which God had not commanded them. That is what the text says.
> ...



He invented the date of the festival, therefore, it was a human invention and a breach of the RPW. On an NPW basis you have no grounds for condemning him. Besides my comment was directed towards what you were saying in relation to Nadab and Abihu.

To change your position on a subject as serious as this so quickly strikes me as rash. Perhaps you should think for a longer period about matters before stating them publicly (that is not a command, just a suggestion). It is not good to be always changing your mind as it suggests instability.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 17, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> He invented the date of the festival, therefore, it was a human invention and a breach of the RPW.



The point is that whilst he invented the date of the festival, and yes it was a human invention, the problem was that it went against God's express commands about where and when males were to go to worship YHWH on the Feast of Tabernacles. 

Hence this cannot be used to say that humans cannot set aside days to worship God. The parrallel is not setting aside the 25th Dec but rather Gordon Brown suddenly deciding that the sabbath was Tuesday.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> On an NPW basis you have no grounds for condemning him.



Not convinced, after all he has transgressed a direct command from God.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> To change your position on a subject as serious as this so quickly strikes me as rash.



Apologies for the confusion, I am still thinking it through. I have not yet changed my mind hence in post 9:



> Daniel, These are the same answers to the above questions I would have used. Now if I may attempt a rebut to tease out these arguments.



One can only argue with oneself to a degree, after all, the easiest person to convince is oneself.

I still don't think that your argument regarding Jeroboam works. Incidently, what books have you read on the worship of Israel?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

> The point is thatwhilst he invented the date of the festival, and yes it was a human invention, the problem was that it went against God's express commands about where and when males were to go to the temple.
> 
> Hence this cannot be used to say that humans cannot set aside days to worship God. The parrallel is not setting aside the 25th Dec but rather Gordon Brown suddenly deciding that the sabbath was Tuesday.



You are correct that Jeroboam's intention was to keep people away from the true worship; but by merely setting apart the 15th day of the 8th month he was not going against God's commands from an NPW perspective. Moreover, the text teaches us that whenever men invent worship practices devised from their own hearts they will subtract from worship that has been appointed. Hence the invention of Christ-Mass detracts from the Sabbath as God's Holy Day.



> Incidently, what books have you read on the worship of Israel?



Alfred Eerdsheim's book on the Temple, but that was years ago. However, Douglas Comin's book _Worship: From Genesis to Revelation_ goes through each book the OT and NT so as to adequately cover it.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 17, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> by merely setting apart the 15th day of the 8th month he was not going against God's commands from an NPW perspective.



*If* NPW argues that "What is not forbidden (incl. by the implied negative of a possitive precept) is allowed" *and* YHWH set the feast of tabernacles for the 15th day of the 7th month *then* Jeroboam sins by changing the day from the 7th month to the 8th according to the NPW. 

The question is not so much what does the text mean to NPW but what does it mean for the RPW. After all, Ursinus uses the case of Jeroboam to show that we cannot invent worship yet he does not see that this example forbids our celebrating 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.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Moreover, the text teaches us that whenever men invent worship practices devised from their own hearts they will subtract from worship that has been appointed. Hence the invention of Christ-Mass detracts from the Sabbath as God's Holy Day.



To be fair, that is your application of the text. The text does show that Jeroboam purposefully changed the worship of YHWH for his own political gains and introduces idolatry into the northern tribes.

*Turretin* noted: 
"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".​



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Alfred Eerdsheim's book on the Temple, but that was years ago. However, Douglas Comin's book _Worship: From Genesis to Revelation_ goes through each book the OT and NT so as to adequately cover it.



I was thinking more along the lines of an historical book, including the analysis of their worship especially in its ANE context. Scripture is silent on what Israel were to do at many of these feasts hence we cannot say that the bible clearly teaches that a practice must be commanded in order for it to be acceptable. To argue that the water being poured out must have been commanded is simply assuming what you are defending. It can be easily shown that the vast majority of the Psalms originate from an autumnal festival (Mowinckel, Kraus and Weiser) and I would say specifically a festival celebrating the enthronement of YHWH including some form of covenant renewal.


----------



## BertMulder (Jun 17, 2008)

OK, fellows...

HOLD IT!

The Dutch did not set aside HOLYdays for the days of Boxing day, Easter monday, etc, etc.

The Dutch decided it was a good idea to have worship services on those days. Those days, however, never did have, and where never meant to have the status of a 'sabbath'. Not much different than the practice in Geneva, where they had worship services pretty much every day of the week....


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

> If NPW argues that "What is not forbidden (incl. by the implied negative of a possitive precept) is allowed" and YHWH set the feast of tabernacles for the 15th day of the 7th month then Jeroboam sins by changing the day from the 7th month to the 8th according to the NPW.
> 
> The question is not so much what does the text mean to NPW but what does it mean for the RPW. After all, Ursinus uses the case of Jeroboam to show that we cannot invent worship yet he does not see that this example forbids our celebrating 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.



Jerobaom was not forbidden from setting up alternative holy days. Yet the setting up of a holy day which he devised in his own heart was a sin. The Lord's Day is sufficient for celebrating the events in the life of Christ. Why can't people be satisfied with God's provision instead of resorting to Arminianism in worship?



> To be fair, that is your application of the text. The text does show that Jeroboam purposefully changed the worship of YHWH for his own political gains and introduces idolatry into the northern tribes.



A bit like your beloved Stuart Kings.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 17, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Jerobaom was not forbidden from setting up alternative holy days.



Jeroboam did not set up an alternative Holy Day. He ensured that the Feast of Tabernacles was moved back four weeks. It was not a new feast it was a different date. In so doing he transgressed God's law hence he sinned. It was as if he changed the sabbath from a sunday to a tuesday, not as if he devised a new day called Mayday.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Jerobaom was not forbidden from setting up alternative holy days.
> ...



But he did; that is exactly what he did in order to corrupt the worship of God. Jeroboam did not forbid them to go down to Judah, instead by devising his own inventions he knew that would be enough to stop them going down, as corrupt worship triumphed over true worship. Much the same happens today as the significance of the Lord's Day is destroyed by Popish inventions like Christ-Mass.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 17, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> But he did



What _new_ day did he set up? I am not talking about a new _date_ but the day or festival.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > But he did
> ...



Since it was on a new date it was a new day, since days fall on dates (I mean calendar dates, not the pagan practice which is the opposite of courtship ).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

BertMulder said:


> OK, fellows...
> 
> HOLD IT!
> 
> ...



But they set aside sacred seasons to celebrate events in Christ's life; whether or not you call these holy days is not relevant, because that is what they are (even if done under another name).


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 18, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Since it was on a new date it was a new day, since days fall on dates.



Did Jeroboam, in moving the Feast of Tabernacles from the seventh month to the eighth month, violate an explicit command from God?

*Lev 23:34-43* "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the LORD. On the first day shall be an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD: on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a solemn assembly; and ye shall do no servile work therein. These are the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, every thing upon his day: Beside the sabbaths of the LORD, and beside your gifts, and beside all your vows, and beside all your freewill offerings, which ye give unto the LORD. Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD seven days: on the first day shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath. And ye shall take you on the first day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days. And ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month. Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths: That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."​
Did Jeroboam, in moving the location of the Feast of Tabernacles from Jerusalem to Bethel and Dan, violate an explicit command from God?

*Deut 16:16* "Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the LORD empty: Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee."​
Jeroboam knew what YHWH had commanded and did his own thing, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" (*1 John 3:4*).


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 18, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > If it was not wrong for Israel to set aside a time of thanksgiving for God's providential goodness at harvest then how can it be wrong for the church to set aside a time of thanksgiving for God's providential goodness at harvest?
> ...



If it is not wrong for the church to set aside a time of thanksgiving for God's providential goodness at harvest then how can it be wrong for the church to set aside a time of thanksgiving for God's love demonstrated through the birth of Christ?

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." (*Luke 2:10, 14*)



Daniel Ritchie said:


> The RPW does not only refer to explicit commands but legitimate historical examples (i.e. synagogue attendance). People who make this kind of criticism do not realize that every command did not have to be explicitly written down, as legitimate historical examples are Biblically sufficient to show us that something is acceptable.



How do you know that Easter was not commanded, but the command was not explicitly recorded - i.e. it was something based on a legitimate historical example?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 18, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > AV1611 said:
> ...



Point 1 - we celebrate events in the life of Christ every Lord's Day, therefore, there is no need to have different holy days to celebrate them. 52 holy days a year is enough. Moreover, on what authority do you presume to impose the observance of such festivals upon my conscience? Are you saying that I am sinning by refusing to observe them and by spending my time in dominion duties?

Point 2 - since there is not record of Easter being observed by the apostles, it is not a legitimate historical example. Easter (Passover) has been replaced with the Lord's Supper (which should be celebrated every Lord's Day).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 18, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Since it was on a new date it was a new day, since days fall on dates.
> ...



In short, he was not violating an explicit command but adding an additional date.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 18, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> In short, he was not violating an explicit command but adding an additional date.



It is clear from the biblical evidence I posted that he was violating an explicit command.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 18, 2008)

George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies (Naphtali Press, 1993). The below is from sections online on the subject of holy days.
English Popish Ceremonies (Against Holy Days) | Naphtali Press
Part 1: Holy Days take away our Christian Liberty Proved Out of the Law (EPC 1.7 31-36) | Naphtali PressThe Bishop has yet a third dart to throw at us: _If the church_ (he says)*7* _has power, upon occasional motives, to appoint occasional fasts or festivities, may not she, for constant and eternal blessings, which do infinitely excel all occasional benefits, appoint ordinary times of commemoration or thanksgiving?_ ANSWER. There are two reasons for which the church may and should appoint fasts or festivities upon occasional motives, and neither of them agrees with ordinary festivities. 1. Extraordinary fasts, either for obtaining some great blessing, or averting some great judgment, are necessary means to be used in such cases; likewise, extraordinary festivities are necessary testifications [_testimonies_] of our thankfulness for the benefits which we have impetrate [_procured_] by our extraordinary fasts; but ordinary festivities, for constant and eternal blessings, have no necessary use. The celebration of set anniversary days is no necessary mean for conserving the commemoration of the benefits of redemption, because we have occasion, not only every Sabbath day, but every other day, to call to mind these benefits, either in hearing, or reading, or meditating upon God’s word. _I esteem and judge that the days consecrated to Christ must be lifted, _says Danæus:_ Christ is born, is circumcised, dies, rises again for us every day in the preaching of the Gospel_.*8*​2. God has given his church a general precept for extraordinary fasts (Joel 1:14; 2:15), as likewise for extraordinary festivities to praise God, and to give him thanks in the public assembly of his people, upon the occasional motive of some great benefit which, by the means of our fasting and praying, we have obtained (Zech. 8:19 with 7:3). If it is said that there is a general command for set festivities, because there is a command for preaching and hearing the word, and for praising God for his benefits; and there is no precept for particular fasts more than for particular festivities, I answer: Albeit there is a command for preaching and hearing the word, and for praising God for his benefits, yet is there no command (no, not in the most general generality) for annexing these exercises of religion to set anniversary days more than to other days; whereas it is plain that there is a general command for fasting and humiliation at some times more than at other times.

7. Ib. p. 26, 27 [i.e. _Pro. in Perth Assem.,_ part 3, p. 13). 

8. Apud. Bald., _de Cas. Consc., _lib. 2, cap. 12, cas. 1. _Dies _Christo dicatos tollendos existimo judicoque, says Danæus: quotidie nobis in evangelii _prædicatione nascitur, circumciditur, moritur, resurgit Christus._​This is why Gillespie and the Westminster Assembly of divines classed occasions for fastings and thanksgivings as part of the special (occasional vs. regular) worship of God (WCF 21.5). The distinction between these valid and authorized aspects of public worship and the imposed holy days against which Presbyterians and Puritans contended is common Presbyterian doctrine, as a quote from Southern Presbyterian, William S. Plumer makes clear (William S. Plumer, _The Law of God, As Contained in the Ten Commandments_ [Philadelphia, 1864]):Even days of fasting or thanksgiving are not holy days; but they are a part of secular time voluntarily devoted to God’s service. And if we are to perform these things at all, we must take some time for them. Yet none but God can sanctify a day so as to make it holy. The attempt to do this was one of the sins of Jeroboam, 1 Kings 12:33.​See also, The Religious Observance of Christmas and â€˜Holy Daysâ€™ in American Presbyterianism | Naphtali Press


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 18, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > In short, he was not violating an explicit command but adding an additional date.
> ...



On an NPW basis there was nothing to stop him from adding another date. However, you are right that in some sense he was violating an explicit command, as to add to God's word in worship by inventing our own rites which God did not authorize, was explicitly condemned.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 18, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> we celebrate events in the life of Christ every Lord's Day, therefore, there is no need to have different holy days to celebrate them.



This does not mean that we are forbidden from setting aside days to celebrate specific events in the life of Christ.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> on what authority do you presume to impose the observance of such festivals upon my conscience?



They are not to be imposed, you are at liberty to keep them or not.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> since there is no record of Easter being observed by the apostles, it is not a legitimate historical example.



There is no biblical record for the pouring out of water during the Feast of Tabernacles yet it happened. How then is this a legitimate historical example?

Just because there is no record of Easter being observed by the apostles does not mean they did not do so.

Recall our previous conversation:



> Was Israel wrong to celebrate harvest in the Autumn? No. Were they wrong to compose a hymn for this (Ps. 65)? No. Did they have any direct command from God to do this? No.
> 
> 
> > Issues concerning the harvest are complex; firstly, how do you know that the harvest was not commanded, but the command was not explicitly recorded - i.e. it was something based on a legitimate historical example.



There are no biblical commands for what Israel did content wise, yet you say it must have been commanded just not recorded. Well I could argue the very same thing about easter. It was commanded, it was just not recorded.

This is one of the big problems with your position as I see it. How do we know what Israel did in worship? How do we know what the apostolic church did in worship?

I certainly hope that you are consistent in your argument and so forbid the celebration of Reformation Day on the 31st October. After all, that was not commaned and it falls on the same day as Halloween!


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 18, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> On an NPW basis there was nothing to stop him from adding another date.



Yes there was, YHWH commanded that the Feast of Tabernacles be held on the 15th day of the 7th month. therefore by changing the day Jeroboam went against the command of YHWH, and this the NPW would forbid.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> However, you are right that in some sense he was violating an explicit command



I have demonstrated that YHWH gave Israel an explicit command. I have demonstrated that Jeroboam violated that explicit command.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 18, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Yet none but God can sanctify a day so as to make it holy. The attempt to do this was one of the sins of Jeroboam, 1 Kings 12:33.



I find this interpretation of the text mistaken. The sin of Jeroboam was the moving a Feast of YHWH. YHWH commanded that the Feast of Tabernacles be held on the 15th day of the 7th month. Therefore by changing the day to the 15th day of the 8th month Jeroboam went against an explicit command of YHWH and thereby sinned. This does not therefore prove that only God can sanctify a day. Furthermore, as Turretin points out, "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."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 18, 2008)

> This is one of the big problems with your position as I see it. How do we know what Israel did in worship? How do we know what the apostolic church did in worship?



Richard, I am not going to waste my time going over the same old arguments again and again. I have had enough. You have been repeatedly given sound Biblical arguments and have refused to heed them.

The above quote shows that you simply do not understand the regulative principle; all we need in order to know how to worship the Lord has been recorded for us in Scripture. We do not need to go to extra-biblical sources to decide Christian doctrines. As I pointed out to you before in another thread on creation, your reliance upon extra-biblical literature is dangerous for the formulation of doctrine. After all, how do we know the apostles did not ascribe a lower form of worship to Mary? It is not explicitly forbidden and if you found some supposed historical evidence that they did, then you would have to say that this was acceptable. I exhort you as a brother in Christ to reconsider where you are going in your theology and tread more carefully.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 18, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > On an NPW basis there was nothing to stop him from adding another date.
> ...



Look I have repeatedly pointed out that there was nothing to stop him from inventing an alternative date on an NPW basis as long as he did not abolish the date originally given. You are clearly clutching at straws.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 18, 2008)

Jeroboam did not move a feast appointed by God, he set up a competing system.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 18, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Jeroboam did not move a feast appointed by God, he set up a competing system.



That would be the way I have always read the passage myself. But it seems that Richard differs.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 18, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> all we need in order to know how to worship the Lord has been recorded for us in Scripture



I agree. The problem is where the WCF states that God "may not be worshipped... [in] any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture". By making the Scripture the sole rule of what we can do in worship, in terms of prescription, you run into all sorts of problems. Why? Because Israel did things in the worship of God that are unrecorded in Scripture and yet you yourself would not say was wrong. To my mind that is a major problem.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 18, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Jeroboam did not move a feast appointed by God, he set up a competing system.



*Matthew Henry* notes that "The feast of tabernacles, which God had appointed on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, he adjourned to the fifteenth day of the eighth month (1 Kings 12:32), _the month which he devised of his own heart_, to show his power in ecclesiastical matters, 1 Kings 12:33. The passover and pentecost he observed in their proper season, or did not observe them at all, or with little solemnity in comparison with this."

*Jamieson, Fausset and Brown* write "he changed the feast of tabernacles from the fifteenth of the seventh to the fifteenth of the eighth month".

*Keil and Delitzsch* note that "Jeroboam also transferred to the eighth month the feast which ought to have been kept in the seventh month (the feast of tabernacles, Leviticus 23:34.)."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 18, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Jeroboam did not move a feast appointed by God, he set up a competing system.
> ...



Those quotes do not prove your point as they do not prove what they say from the text of Scripture. Moroever, the Matthew Henry quote is not consistent with your own Erastianism.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 18, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > all we need in order to know how to worship the Lord has been recorded for us in Scripture
> ...


Moderator hat on. On that note, it may be worth a reminder that while we often, seasonally it seems, discuss the church calendar, holy days, etc. the regulative principle of worship itself is accepted reformed doctrine on the Puritanboard. In discussing it be careful and don't pee in the pool (see http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/what-reformed-board-24779/).


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 18, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Those quotes do not prove your point as they do not prove what they say from the text of Scripture.



My point is simply that Jeroboam's sin is that he violated YHWH's commands regarding his worship. That what 1 Kings 12:32 is speaking about is his moving the Feast of Tabernacles. Those quotes prove that my view is not a novelty in reading it that way, indeed a Puritan and respected conservative scholars read it that way too.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 18, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Those quotes do not prove your point as they do not prove what they say from the text of Scripture.
> ...



That may well be the case, but this view has not been shown to be Biblical. And even on an NPW basis there is nothing to stop Jeroboam setting up a rival Feast of Tabernacles as long as he did not stop the original.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 18, 2008)

I accept the RPW, what I am trying to figure out is how it responds to certain problems. What I find is that, with respect to Holy Days, the Presbyterian doctrine rests upon a very specific reading of 1 Kings 12 which it not clear cut. 

I have been reading a number of books on how the psalms were used by Israel in its worship. One idea is that at the Feast of Tabernacles a festival took place celebrating the enthronement of YHWH. Now, did that happen or not? Well it is not recorded in the OT, however many things that Israel did in its worship are not recorded in the OT. So we find alot of Israel's worship was uncommanded and yet acceptable to YHWH. 



NaphtaliPress said:


> Moderator hat on. On that note, it may be worth a reminder that while we often, seasonally it seems, discuss the church calendar, holy days, etc. the regulative principle of worship itself is accepted reformed doctrine on the Puritanboard. In discussing it be careful and don't pee in the pool (see http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/what-reformed-board-24779/).


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 18, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> That may well be the case, but this view has not been shown to be Biblical.



Verse 32 is pretty clear, "And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah". What was the feast in Judah that is being refered to here? The commentators I have read are unanimous all attesting to the fact that it was the Feast of Tabernacles.

But even let us assume that it was not Tabernacles, where does Scripture say that it was sinful?

"Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan." (*1 Kings 28-30*)

The fact is, the worship of Israel was limited to YHWH's commands, the same is not necessarily true for the NT church.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 18, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > That may well be the case, but this view has not been shown to be Biblical.
> ...



The text says it was like the Feast in Judah, but does not say that it was an absolute replacement. The main argument of the inspired writer is that Jeroboam devised such worship from his own heart. Which is what Papists and Prelates do when they invent holy days for themselves.

Moreover the Presbyterian position rests on more than this text.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 18, 2008)

We are certainly free to discuss "problems" of understanding accepted doctrine like the RPW. I can't promise you will find answers to such satisfactory; I have no control of that. I will say that a campaign against the RPW under the guise of asking questions will certainly be found unacceptable. 



AV1611 said:


> I accept the RPW, what I am trying to figure out is how it responds to certain problems. What I find is that, with respect to Holy Days, the Presbyterian doctrine rests upon a very specific reading of 1 Kings 12 which it not clear cut.
> 
> I have been reading a number of books on how the psalms were used by Israel in its worship. One idea is that at the Feast of Tabernacles a festival took place celebrating the enthronement of YHWH. Now, did that happen or not? Well it is not recorded in the OT, however many things that Israel did in its worship are not recorded in the OT. So we find alot of Israel's worship was uncommanded and yet acceptable to YHWH.
> 
> ...


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 18, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The text says it was like the Feast in Judah, but does not say that it was an absolute replacement.



The Feast has to have been one of those that required the Israelites to go to Jerusalme otherwise verse 27 is pointless. Of these three great feasts (Deut 16) Tabernacles was on the similar day (Lev 23) hence we can reasonably infer that the Feast of Tabernacles is the feast under question. Further, this is how the Jews themselves understood it (e.g. Abarbinel).



Daniel Ritchie said:


> The main argument of the inspired writer is that Jeroboam devised such worship from his own heart.



I think that it is more than that; The Deuteronomistic history shows how YHWH told Moses how he was to be worshipped and narrates how Jeroboam broke with this divinely instituted worship for his own political ends. He set up a rival system of worship corrupting the worship that YHWH set up, not by his additions _per see_ but by going against the explicit instructions YHWH gave to Moses the law-giver. We have Golden Calves, contrary to the _explicit_ commandment of YHWH; we have a priesthood, against the _explicit_ commanded by YHWH; we have a new location, contrary to the _explicit_ commandment of YHWH; and we have the feasts of YHWH changed against the _explicit_ commanded by YHWH. So Jeroboam sets up a rival system of worship, a system explicitly forbidden by YHWH, and so sins against YHWH.

To celebrate Easter is not to set up a rival system of worship, nor does it break any explicit commands of YHWH. The one true living God is worshipped and glorified. There is just no comparison. Hence, it seems that the Continental Reformed saw that whilst the example of Jeroboam forbade innovations in the worship of God, the keeping of days to celebrate key events in the life of Christ and the Church did no violation to the RPW. Hence the Second Helvetic Confession states:

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...​


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 18, 2008)

> The Feast has to have been one of those that required the Israelites to go to Jerusalme otherwise verse 27 is pointless. Of these three great feasts (Deut 16) Tabernacles was on the similar day (Lev 23) hence we can reasonably infer that the Feast of Tabernacles is the feast under question. Further, this is how the Jews themselves understood it (e.g. Abarbinel).



You are correct to say that in setting up a rival feast Jeroboam desired to keep people from the true service, but on an NPW basis he cannot be condemned _merely_ for setting up a rival feast. 

Besides as I have said before, Popish and Prelatic holy days do deflect from God's appointed holy day (the Sabbath). Just as all man-made inventions devised under the NPW detract from the elements of worship which God has ordained.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 18, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> You are correct to say that in setting up a rival feast Jeroboam desired to keep people from the true service, but on an NPW basis he cannot be condemned _merely_ for setting up a rival feast.



I think he can, but then that is a completely different issue.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Besides as I have said before, Popish and Prelatic holy days do deflect from God's appointed holy day (the Sabbath).



The Continental Reformed obviously didn't share your opinion.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 18, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > You are correct to say that in setting up a rival feast Jeroboam desired to keep people from the true service, but on an NPW basis he cannot be condemned _merely_ for setting up a rival feast.
> ...



The Continental Reformed did not, but I don't care.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 18, 2008)

Willem Teelinck (Continental Reformed), _The Path of True Godliness_, p. 101:



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



Jacobus Koelman (Continental Reformed), _The Duties of Parents_, p. 73:



> 100. Do not allow your children to celebrate the days on which unbelief and superstition are being catered to. They are admittedly inclined to want this because they see that the children of Roman Catholic parents observe those days. Do not let them attend carnivals, observe Shrove Tuesday (Mardi Gras), see Santa Claus, or observe Twelfth Night, because they are all remnants of an idolatrous papacy. You must not keep your children out of school or from work on those days nor let them play outside or join in the amusement. The Lord has said, "After the doings of the land of Egypt, where you lived, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, where I bring you, you shall not do: neither shall you walk in their ordinances" (Lev. 18:3). The Lord will punish the Reformed on account of the days of Baal (Hosea 2:12-13), and he also observes what the children do on the occasion of such idolatry (Jer. 17:18). Therefore, do not let your children receive presents on Santa Claus day, nor let them draw tickets in a raffle and such things. Pick other days on which to give them the things that amuse them, and because the days of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost have the same character, Reformed people must keep their children away from these so-called holy days and feast days.



Wilhelmus a Brakel (Continental Reformed), _The Christian's Reasonable Service_, Vol. I, pp. 38-39:



> Objection #4:
> 
> The Jewish church also instituted various practices passing them on to subsequent generations which nevertheless were not commanded, such as fasting in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth month (Zec. 7:5 and 8:19); the days of Purim (Est. 9:21-26); the feast of the dedication (John 10:22). In similar fashion the Reformed Church also has her traditions, which implies that also now we may and must uphold tradition.
> 
> ...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 18, 2008)

Brilliant quotes Andrew (the second in particular), it seems that all the Continental Reformed did not observe Popish festivals.


----------

