# Easter or "Resurrection Sunday?"



## Puritanhead (Mar 20, 2005)

*Easter or \"Resurrection Sunday?\"*

*What does your church refer to the holiday in honor of Christ's passion and resurrection as? (assuming of course that they observe it)*

Does your church refer to holiday celebrating Christ's atoning, death, and resurrection as Easter or "Resurrection Sunday?" 

Etymologically Easter is essentially a pagan word attributable to a ancient pagan deity originating in the Middle East. Easter takes its name from Ishtar, the Babylonian and Assyrian goddess of fertility. The maritime Phoenicians and the Romans helped spread Easter through Europe. The goddess known as Ishtar became Ostara, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring and fertility. Should we include "Easter" in our lexicon and worship services? I've heard hymns with "Easter" in them even... 

Do you think observing the holiday under the name "Easter" is wrong? 

[Edited on 3-20-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Peter (Mar 20, 2005)

Every sunday is resurrection sunday ie the Lord's Day. There's no need or reason to commemorate the actual day of the year.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 20, 2005)

I once heard a minister say, "Eater is the worse thing that has happenned to Christ" WHat he meant was we are to live as resurrection people every day, and yet we only talk about it once a year. 

I agree. 



In His Grace


Joseph


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 20, 2005)

Our church celebrates the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ every Lord's Day. We do not celebrate the pagan/Roman holiday of Easter so-called.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 20, 2005)

No to Easter. My children will tell you that Easter is a pagan holiday. They know of Ressurrection Sunday and Passover.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 20, 2005)

Let's all celebrate "Psalm" Sunday today!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Let's all celebrate "Psalm" Sunday today!




The church where I work handed out the little peices of Palm leaves today.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 20, 2005)

My church refers to it as "Easter Sunday".


----------



## jon_b (Mar 20, 2005)

How about pascha in Acts 12:4? It's the only place in the KJV that is translated Easter. Many call it an error. What do you think? I'm goin with the KJV.


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 20, 2005)

Yes, every Sunday is a resurrection Sunday, but should we really be using the term "_Sun_day" in such close connection? What's the Sun got to do with it? It's also March right now-- should we really be using this term, considering the implications for Mars worship? The Roman god of war?

[Edited on 3-20-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 20, 2005)

Act 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

pascha : More properly rendered as 'passover'.

[Edited on 3-20-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Puritanhead (Mar 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> It's also March right now-- should we really be using this term, considering the implications for Mars worship? The Roman god of war?



Beware of the Ides of March Julius Caesar.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Our church celebrates the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ every Lord's Day. We do not celebrate the pagan/Roman holiday of Easter so-called.



*THIS* should be our main point in my opinion. Rather than getting side tracked by "names" etc. The question is, should we celeberate this holiday in the way many do? The quote above answers that question in my opinion.


----------



## Peter (Mar 20, 2005)

Rick, though I believe you were being facetious you do make a good point. First, my objection to the 'holy day' Easter is not its pagan name but the fact it's observation is no where commanded in God's word. Christ's resurrection is to be celebrated every Lord's Day. 2nd, similarly I have no problem with the pagan name March. However, what I have done, calling the Sabbath "sunday", _is_ a questionable practice. "Sunday" is a pagan name, the Sabbath is the Holy Day of the Lord. From the beginning God blessed the day and called it a holy rest. God has appointed the name Sabbath for His day, who are we to give it nicknames? And what a supreme insult to call His Day by a name which denotes principles completely averse to its meaning and purpose! Imagine calling the 4th of July Yankee Rebel Scum Day! Moreover, consideration needs to be taken to the relationship between language and thought. Undoubtedly the words we use influence the ideas we have. Calling the Sabbath Sunday weakens us to the world's secular view of this Religious day.



> _Nicknaming the Sabbath
> THOMAS MELVILLE SLATER, Minister_
> http://www.covenanter.org/Sabbath/sabbathnicknames.htm
> And while we are unwilling to sit in judgment upon, or to bring a railing accusation against any Christian who, after a prayerful consideration of this subject, persists in calling the Lord´s day "Sunday;" we cannot but feel that, as expressing any thought a Christian should have regarding the Sabbath, "Sunday" is a misnomer; that nicknames are a poor evidence of esteem; that professed loyalty to the Sabbath in other respects will hardly atone for abuse in this; that however popular the custom, or however sincere one may be in following it, they who do so have something yet to learn regarding the purpose, the spirit, and the delightsomeness of the Sabbath; and that when these mistaken brethren are more fully instructed in the way of God, Scriptural conceptions of the Sabbath will constrain them to speak of it in corresponding terms.



Another important point is that we are not to be conformed unto the world. The author rightly states the designation "Sabbath" is an ensign of Christianity.


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



It depends on what you mean by "celebrating the holiday the way many do". If you mean engaging in some type of pagan fertility god ritual, then obviously the answer is no. If you mean specifically recalling our Lord's week of passion, his crucifixion and resurrection, then I personally don't have a problem with it.
Fixing a particular time during the year to bring these matters to rememberance doesn't _de facto_ imply that we are ignorant of or unappreciative of these matters the 51 other weeks. 

But, in my opinion, wasting too much energy on this subject is akin to being "obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which comy envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings" (1 Tim. 6:4-5) instead of "godly edification which is by faith" (1 Tim. 1:4). There are certainly more pressing matters that concern us, bigger fish to fry, more we should be doing _positively_ to edify-- rather than wasting time wondering whether so-and-so calls it Easter or Resurrection Sunday, or whether they should be observing it at all. 



[Edited on 3-20-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 20, 2005)

> But, in my opinion, wasting too much energy on this subject is akin to being "obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which comy envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings" (1 Tim. 6:4-5) instead of "godly edification which is by faith" (1 Tim. 1:4). There are certainly more pressing matters that concern us, bigger fish to fry, more we should be doing positively to edify-- rather than wasting time wondering whether so-and-so calls it Easter or Resurrection Sunday, or whether they should be observing it at all.



AGREED!


----------



## Authorised (Mar 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jon_b_
> How about pascha in Acts 12:4? It's the only place in the KJV that is translated Easter. Many call it an error. What do you think? I'm goin with the KJV.




The word "passover" was coined by William Tyndale, who translated "pascha" in every instance (except Acts 12:4) as passover. He must have had some reason to translate as "easter."



Edit: For clarity, I didn't mean to suggest in my post that Tyndale had anything to do with the King James (as he was dead). It's just that the KJV translators chose to follow Tyndale in this aspect as well.

[Edited on 3-20-2005 by Authorised]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 20, 2005)

In the case of Acts 12.4, _pascha_ must mean either the Passover or the pagan holiday known as Easter, which had been celebrated since before the birth of Christ. The Geneva Bible used Passover; the KJV used Easter. Neither one gives credence for Christians to observe the holiday referred to.



> When considering the single use of "Easter" in the 1611 A.V., it is imperative that one also consider its multiple occurrences in the English Bibles which preceded it. Following the transmission of the word "Easter" in these early Bibles, it becomes apparent that the A.V. translators were helping to phase out this mistranslation...
> 
> In the Textus Receptus, the Greek word "pascha" is found in the following verses:
> 
> ...


----------



## Augusta (Mar 20, 2005)

We must also remember that alot of this old Pagan stuff was ripped off or copies from the Hebrew religion and the star names given before the tower of Babel. These star names all correspond in their meanings with various parts of the story of redemption. Even in the order they come around the earth during their seasons. The star names and signs were named long before the Egyptians and other cultures ripped them off and gave them their own meanings. God's ordained holy days like passover were there first.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 21, 2005)

> These star names all correspond in their meanings with various parts of the story of redemption. Even in the order they come around the earth during their seasons.



The "œGospel in the Stars" Theory


----------



## kceaster (Mar 21, 2005)

*Believe it or not...*

...I have an opinion on this.

I have had to bear the brunt of many questions over the course of my life because of my unique last name. I don't prefer Easter, either.

If I had a nickel for everytime I have been asked if I was born on Easter, I could probably pay my tuition at school.

I do like my name in Italian, and it happens to be my favorite food, both to consume and to cook. Had my life gone another way, I was going to open a Ristorante named Pasqua d' Journi's.

But, I am much in favor of the Lord's Day, every Lord's Day, to worship the risen Christ. The liturgy calendar is not my preference, but that is for my elders to decide.

In Christ,

Kalvino Carlos Pasqua d' Journi


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...I have an opinion on this.
> 
> I have had to bear the brunt of many questions over the course of my life because of my unique last name. I don't prefer Easter, either.
> ...



Wouldn't it be something like "il giorno di Pasqua"?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 21, 2005)

No liturgical calendar / holy day observance here either; so I guess for the poll it's another "other".
For Presbyterian's interested (or others) in how we started using the "Christian" calendar, see "The Religious Observance of Christmas and 'Holy Days' in American Presbyterianism" at: http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/americanxmas.htm

[Edited on 3-21-2005 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...I have an opinion on this.
> 
> I have had to bear the brunt of many questions over the course of my life because of my unique last name. I don't prefer Easter, either.
> ...



Well Kevin. That is what happens to us who have had name changes at ellis island. Your forefather tried to muble out Pasqua d' Journi , it became easterday. That is why there are so many Tony's they would stamp them TO NY !!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> No liturgical calendar / holy day observance here either; so I guess for the poll it's another "other".
> For Presbyterian's interested (or others) in how we started using the "Christian" calendar, see "The Religious Observance of Christmas and 'Holy Days' in American Presbyterianism" at: http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/americanxmas.htm
> 
> [Edited on 3-21-2005 by NaphtaliPress]



Easter is a mix of Greek paganism and Jewish paganism. The Passover, like all the OT liturgical feast days, was completed in Christ. The Passover that exists today in various quarters is a denial of the finished work of Jesus Christ. 

Old Covenant Passover was replaced with the Lord's Supper which we are to celebrate often. Every Christian Sabbath is the day we remember our Passover, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 5:7)


----------



## Authorised (Mar 21, 2005)

Does this really matter?

Of course we celebrate the resurrection every Lord's day. But do you hear your pastor preach concerning the resurrection every Lord's day? I'm not so sure what the problem is with names like "Easter" and "Christmas." A rose by any other name... What's wrong having one day of the year in which the central topic concerns the endings of the Gospels and I Corinthians 15? 

This is a silly thread.

What next? Ix-nay on the chocolate bunnies and cadbury eggs?


----------



## Peter (Mar 21, 2005)

Very important thread

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

Col 2:20-23, Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using) after the *commandments and doctrines of men*? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in *will worship*, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

Holy Days other than the Sabbath are "the commandments and doctrines of men" and "will worship."

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7102#pid109307

[Edited on 3-22-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Authorised (Mar 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Very important thread
> 
> Gal 4:10-11 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
> ...



Peter, I'd prefer you stop the misrepresentation; it is a total lie to say that I have advocated doctrines and commandments of men. 

The Lord's day this coming Sunday will be used to strategically focus on Christ's resurrection during the sermon. Tell me, in which way is this a commandment of men? 

Is it that we, as Christians, are worshipping as a corporate body on the Lord's day?
No.
Is it that the preacher is preaching concerning the resurrection?
No.

Hmm, I'm not seeing any doctrines or commandments of men here, and frankly, you aren't either. What's the problem here?

[Edited on 3-22-2005 by Authorised]


----------



## kceaster (Mar 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> Well Kevin. That is what happens to us who have had name changes at ellis island. Your forefather tried to muble out Pasqua d' Journi , it became easterday. That is why there are so many Tony's they would stamp them TO NY !!!!!!!!!!!



Yeah, unfortunately, the name change at Ellis was from Ostertag to Easterday. I'm only Italian by wishing it were so. I should enjoy liverwurst, but I don't.

KC


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> Does this really matter?
> 
> Of course we celebrate the resurrection every Lord's day. But do you hear your pastor preach concerning the resurrection every Lord's day? I'm not so sure what the problem is with names like "Easter" and "Christmas." A rose by any other name... *What's wrong having one day of the year in which the central topic concerns the endings of the Gospels and I Corinthians 15*?
> ...



Is that all your church does? I find very few churches, even supposedly reformed churches that use this excuse for celebrating Easter actually limit their one-day-in-52 worship to a sermon on the resurrection. They usually have special music, the choir is especailly in tune that day, perhaps other subtle or not-so-subtle changes to the order of worship, in order to make the day seem more "special".

If your church does not, it is the exception.

"I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if at variance with his command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9). Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere "will worship" (_ethelothreeskeia_) is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate." (John Calvin, _The Necessity of Reforming the Church_)


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Authorised_
> ...



I agree, Peter. Silly thread. And I say it again, this nothing more than "disputes and arguments over words, from which comy envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings" (1 Tim. 6:4-5)


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 21, 2005)

The subject of how to worship God is never "silly." It is -- or ought to be -- a matter of chief concern for all Christians.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Rick, though I believe you were being facetious you do make a good point. First, my objection to the 'holy day' Easter is not its pagan name but the fact it's observation is no where commanded in God's word.



Neither are Sunday Schools, but I bet most of our churches have them. I know, I know...teaching is commanded, but I think we may be throwing the liturgial baby out with the Roman bathwater here.

First consider that the Resurrection is an issue of historical fact. It happened. Not only that but it has enormous implications for our faith. While we worship on Sun(!)day because it commeroates the Ressurrection, I daresay very few churches call their bodies to reflect on the importance of the Resurrection each Sun(!)day. It is altogether fitting that we set aside a day of Fasting (Good Friday?) and Thanksgiving (Easter?) to bring to the front of our attention those events which redeemed us.

BTW, WCF 21:5 mentions that special observances are fine and in accord with Scripture, citing appropriate Scriptural proofs. I was just reading Lloyd-Jones this evening and he mentioned this very thing: e.g. Puritan aversion to such observances, fearing it was the slipper slope back to Rome. To which he says balderdash and to which I reply, Amen!

BTW, I prefer "Easter," simply for an economy of speech.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 21, 2005)

Imprtant thread. Can we still eat the bunnies?


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> The subject of how to worship God is never "silly." It is -- or ought to be -- a matter of chief concern for all Christians.



Right- what is silly is presuming to know the thoughts, motivations and heart attitudes of other believers, petty bickering and shameless strawmen.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> BTW, WCF 21:5 mentions that special observances are fine and in accord with Scripture, citing appropriate Scriptural proofs. I was just reading Lloyd-Jones this evening and he mentioned this very thing: e.g. Puritan aversion to such observances, fearing it was the slipper slope back to Rome. To which he says balderdash and to which I reply, Amen!



To clarify, the Westminster Confession in no way lends credence to the observance of Roman Catholic holidays such as Easter. The citation referred to has in view special providential days of thanksgiving, much like the Pilgrims' first Thanksgiving. To know what the Westminster Divines thought of Roman Catholic holidays, let's look at the Westminster Directory for Publick Worship:



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


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Imprtant thread. Can we still eat the bunnies?



I couldn't get anyone at RTS to buy my kid's chocolate bunnies... Should have seen those big blue eyes well up...


----------



## Peter (Mar 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> Peter, I'd prefer you stop the misrepresentation; it is a total lie to say that I have advocated doctrines and commandments of men.
> 
> The Lord's day this coming Sunday will be used to strategically focus on Christ's resurrection during the sermon. Tell me, in which way is this a commandment of men?
> ...



Authorised, I'd prefer you would not call me a liar. You may believe I am mistaken, however there is a vast between this and willful supression of the truth. Also please do not snobbishly tell me what I am or am not seeing. That is another false accusation of lying.

Easter is a holy day invented by man. God alone may sanctify days. If you say your minister is only preaching on the resurrection and not otherwise attributing any holiness to the festival he is nonetheless paying homage to a "monument of idolatry". Millions worldwide believe and honor the day as a day especially consecrated for celebration of the resurrection.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



I'm aware of what the (non-binding but useful) Directory says. I just disagree...and probably more with our interpretation of it than anything. There is no resemblance between what most churches do to observe Easter and what the RCC does. So, when we have our Good Friday service this week (with Communion) and a special time of reflection on Christ's resurrection on Sunday, we wil do so with clear consciences.

You know what is silly about this whole discussion? Some seem to be arguing that is unbiblical to preach on the Resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox, BUT it may be done any of the other Sundays of the year. It hasn't been explicitly said...but it seems to be implied.

I'll stick with Lloyd-Jones' "balderdash."


----------



## Peter (Mar 21, 2005)

I'll stick with the Reformers and say "Popery"


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> I'm aware of what the (non-binding but useful) Directory says. I just disagree...and probably more with our interpretation of it than anything. There is no resemblance between what most churches do to observe Easter and what the RCC does. So, when we have our Good Friday service this week (with Communion) and a special time of reflection on Christ's resurrection on Sunday, we wil do so with clear consciences.



So you agree that the Westminster Divines did not write anything to justify Easter observance? Good. That was my point. Easter observance itself is Roman, even if Protestant churches don't acknowledge the source. 

Edit: The DPW _is_ binding in my church, BTW.



> You know what is silly about this whole discussion? Some seem to be arguing that is unbiblical to preach on the Resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox, BUT it may be done any of the other Sundays of the year. It hasn't been explicitly said...but it seems to be implied.



I have not said this nor has anyone else on this thread to my knowledge. The word "silly" keeps getting used in a condescending way to demean the arguments of those opposed to Easter observance. I would appreciate a more respectful approach to the dialogue, personally. 



> I'll stick with Lloyd-Jones' "balderdash."



Ok.

[Edited on 3-22-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Important thread. Can we still eat the bunnies?



Sure, they taste like chicken  


As for Easter, perhaps this would be better to treat it like Christmas, as a voluntary celebration, not a mandatory one. It is wrong to celebrate our Lord's resurrection? Absolutely not. Is it wrong to impose that liturgy on the Lord's day? You bet it is. Unless there's is warrant in Scripture to worship in that calendar manner, we must forbid the practice as a church. I wish our churches would not treat easter special. But I also wish there was more preaching on the resurrection throughout the year. We too often forget the significance of that message.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 22, 2005)

> So you agree that the Westminster Divines did not write anything to justify Easter observance? Good. That was my point. Easter observance itself is Roman, even if Protestant churches don't acknowledge the source.
> 
> Edit: The DPW _is_ binding in my church, BTW.
> 
> ...



Good morning. A few things. First, "Easter" may be Roman but the Resurrection is not. I stand by my remarks. My point on the preaching part is that some seem to be argue that it is unbiblical to acknowledge the Resurrection on the day that most of the rest of the world does. It is an implicit undercurrent in the arguments of those who are arguing against Easter observance. For us to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that this day does not present a unique opportunity to proclaim the gospel is, in my opinion, irresponsible. Many people (for wrong reasons) only come to church on Christmas and Easter. We should take advantage of that. It's called contextualization.  God is not opposed to liturgy or "calendars." The OT is replete with them, Jesus observed them, and so did the early NT Church.

Second, not even the Divines were opposed to the Roman holiday of Easter, not the occasional rememberance of the Resurrection. If we were to have a compulsory holy day and a Mass, then sure it would be a violation of the standards and, more importantly the Bible. But that is not what it is going on in churches.

Third, while I commend your church's adherence to tradition (key word), not even the Divines made the directory compulsory. They did not want to create another Book of Common Prayer because, in their minds it smacked of Romanism, which they were reacting against. We need to read the Standards with authorial intent in mind.

Fourth, you and I were posting at the same time last night and I realize someone else had got your hackles up. I was not dialoging with you in the same spirit as Authorized and the timimg of my post and your mood was unfortunate. I meant no insult at all and if I gave offense, I apologize.

Finally, I love your quote. That is one of the best movies I have ever seen.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 22, 2005)

> Second, not even the Divines were opposed to the Roman holiday of Easter, not the occasional rememberance of the Resurrection. If we were to have a compulsory holy day and a Mass, then sure it would be a violation of the standards and, more importantly the Bible. But that is not what it is going on in churches.



Whoops! I haven't had my coffee yet and that was an unforutnate cut and post. I meant to say that "The Divines were opposed to the Roman holiday..."

Sorry about that.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 22, 2005)

Thanks for your comments, Kevin. My apologies if I over-reacted to what you said earlier. 

I appreciate your thoughts even if I disagree with your perspective on liturgy and the church calendar. I happen to think that it is entirely appropriate for ministers to preach the gospel on any or every Lord's Day of the year, including the part about the Resurrection, even on "Easter Sunday." I also think that a church's Easter observance (which I recognize varies widely in practical terms amongst Protestant churches) is not just preaching the Resurrection, nor it is mere Lord's Day observance, but rather an honoring of a man-made holy day and thus a violation of liberty of conscience. 

Easter is not in fact one holiday, it is a whole host of holidays for many Protestant churches let alone Rome (Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Good Friday, etc.). Furthermore, there is a Roman way to calculate the dates and there is an Orthodox way -- guess which method most Protestant churches use? The former. 

Regardless of all the Easter bunnies, eggs, cantatas, choirs, sunrise services and special "opportunities" for preaching to the unconverted, all of which have good intentions (and some of which have pagan or Roman origins), the real heart of my objection is that there is only one holy day, the Lord's Day, and man-made holy days having no warrant in God's Word necessarily have the effect of exalting the traditions of men to the detriment of God's one holy day.

The Reformers and Puritans (although I recognize that many Continentals did not hold to the same application of the Regulative Principle of Worship) were united in their opposition to man-made holy days, including and especially Easter. Many wrote against Easter specifically. There is a reason why the Puritans were opposed to these holidays and it's not just a knee-jerk reaction to Roman "abuses." It's because the church calendar can only lead to superstition and pure religion is that by which men worship God according to his commandments, and thus Easter and all the other man-made holidays fail to meet the test of Scripture. Let the Resurrection be preached all through the year, but let not anything be added to that which God has commanded in his worship.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Thanks for your comments, Kevin. My apologies if I over-reacted to what you said earlier.
> 
> I appreciate your thoughts even if I disagree with your perspective on liturgy and the church calendar. I happen to think that it is entirely appropriate for ministers to preach the gospel on any or every Lord's Day of the year, including the part about the Resurrection, even on "Easter Sunday." I also think that a church's Easter observance (which I recognize varies widely in practical terms amongst Protestant churches) is not just preaching the Resurrection, nor it is mere Lord's Day observance, but rather an honoring of a man-made holy day and thus a violation of liberty of conscience.
> ...



I don't know that most Protestants would call Easter Sunday a holy day or treat it as such. Most would treat it like an annual commemoration. Nor would most churches impose observance on those who objected to it...so I don't see how conscience is violated.

I will agree with you however that many churches get carried away and do things that are unbiblical. My brother just went to a passion play at a mega-church in Colorado. My views on the 2nd Commandment stand well left of say Fred's...BUT even that was too much for me...and I lectured him on it. 

Anyhow, I appreciate your comments. I have much to learn yet and appreciate your remarks. Our church is something of a bizarre Presbyterian-Baptist hybrid, a thing that seems a good fit for me now but may not be over the long term. I've come a long way, baby, as they say. Two years ago I wouldn't have been quoting the standards to make a point (even if we disagreed on the application!). There may be Reformed hope for me! :bigsmile:


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> I don't know that most Protestants would call Easter Sunday a holy day or treat it as such. *Most would treat it like an annual commemoration. Nor would most churches impose observance on those who objected to it...so I don't see how conscience is violated.*
> 
> ...



If you mark the day with special music, special sermon, and give it a special name (doesn't matter if you call it "Easter" or "Resurrection Sunday"), how can you avoid not imposing your observance on others? 

One of the responsibilities of church officers is to guard the public worship of the church so that individual consciences are not violated by any practice. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; *or beside it*, in matters of faith, or worship." As soon as we use the excuse "no one is being forced" that should send up an immediate red flag based on WCF XX. It means, we don't have a good biblical reason for what we are about to do, so you don't have to participate if your conscience is violated. 

We are neither Anglican nor Luthern. We do not permit what is not forbidden. We do only what is commanded. 

When your children ask, why is this one Sunday more special than other Sundays, what do you tell them?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> If you mark the day with special music, special sermon, and give it a special name (doesn't matter if you call it "Easter" or "Resurrection Sunday"), how can you avoid not imposing your observance on others?
> 
> One of the responsibilities of church officers is to guard the public worship of the church so that individual consciences are not violated by any practice. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; *or beside it*, in matters of faith, or worship." As soon as we use the excuse "no one is being forced" that should send up an immediate red flag based on WCF XX. It means, we don't have a good biblical reason for what we are about to do, so you don't have to participate if your conscience is violated.
> ...



You call it "my observance" as if I am the only Protestant in the world to place special emphasis on the Resurrection on that particular day. If that were so, then I would have to agree with you. Since it is not, since in fact that vast majority of believers (and a good deal of unbelievers) acknowledge the event we commemorate on Easter Sunday, I fail to see how anyone's conscience is violated. Yours would be...but then again you don't worship with us...so the point is irrelevant.

Prove that such an observance is forbidden. You can't. All you can do is rightly rail against the abuses of the RCC. We do not have a Mass...but if you want to try and prove that preaching "He is not here; He is risen," is somehow sinful on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox, knock yourself out. I'm listening.

If my child were to ask why this day were more special than others, I would reply that the day isn't more special. We are simply setting aside a day (with most other Christians) to acknowledge the importance of the Resurrection.

As I sit here and type this, I am in fresh receipt of an email from a PCA minister who has invited me to their Maundy Thursday service...with Communion! Heaven forbid!!!!

I think I'll go. 

We will just have to agree to disagree here. My conscience is clean. My Session is all for it. It is appropriate for us. It would be inappropriate for you, since your conscience would be violated. I can live with that tension.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 23, 2005)

Kevin,

Your argument in favor of Easter observance is: "Prove that such an observance is forbidden." The argument against Easter observance (as distinct from merely preaching the Resurrection or keeping the Lord's Day holy) based on the Regulative Principle of Worship is: Prove that it is commanded. The difference between these two positions (with respect to what sort of worship is Biblical) is what it all boils down to. And thus, you're right, we'll have to agree to disagree on the principle underlying what constitutes worship that is acceptable to God.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Kevin,
> 
> Your argument in favor of Easter observance is: "Prove that such an observance is forbidden." The argument against Easter observance (as distinct from merely preaching the Resurrection or keeping the Lord's Day holy) based on the Regulative Principle of Worship is: Prove that it is commanded. The difference between these two positions (with respect to what sort of worship is Biblical) is what it all boils down to. And thus, you're right, we'll have to agree to disagree on the principle underlying what constitutes worship that is acceptable to God.



Give me time.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> You call it "my observance" as if I am the only Protestant in the world to place special emphasis on the Resurrection on that particular day. If that were so, then I would have to agree with you. Since it is not, since in fact that vast majority of believers (and a good deal of unbelievers) acknowledge the event we commemorate on Easter Sunday, I fail to see how anyone's conscience is violated. Yours would be...but then again you don't worship with us...so the point is irrelevant.



I'm sorry. I forget sometimes that we're not all Puritans on the Puritan board. :bigsmile:

As I understand it, the reason for chapter XX in the WCF is to protect against the tyranny of the majority. As Presbyterian I would be concerned about anyone coming into the congregation who might have confessional scruples. As a Presbyterian elder I'm not permitted to do anything in worship beyond what God has commanded of His people because of those under my care. It's not a matter of, "well you don't worship with us". Such a statement looks like a denial of the universal nature of God's people and the nature of biblical worship. It's not a matter of taste, or whether someone objects or agrees. It's a matter of "thus saith the Lord." The principle is that God alone gets to say what goes on in His worship. 




> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> Prove that such an observance is forbidden. You can't. All you can do is rightly rail against the abuses of the RCC. We do not have a Mass...but if you want to try and prove that preaching "He is not here; He is risen," is somehow sinful on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox, knock yourself out. I'm listening.
> 
> ...



How Presbytyerians got to the point that we accept without question the practices of Roman Catholics and non-reformed protestants is beyond me. The testimony of the Westminster divines and American Presbyterian up through the 19th century is clear. At some point Presbyterians started acting like Anglicans in the way they conduct their worship. 

In 1899 the old PCUS, forerunner of the PCA, could still declare, "There is no warrant in Scripture for the observance of Christmas and Easter as holy days, rather the contrary (see Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:16-21), and such observance is contrary to the principles of the Reformed Faith, conducive to will worship, and not in harmony with the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

It's as it that understanding of the Bible never existed in Presbyterianism.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



I agree with most of what you say. I think where we would disagree is in the nature of what God has commanded. Some hold the position that we only do what is commanded. Others hold the position that we only do not do what is forbidden. Both positions are a little simplistic since the Bible contains both positive and negative commands. We must observe both.

I think, too, we need to qualify how we define the word "holy day." That might make the discussion clearer. BTW, I love the avitar.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 23, 2005)

Samuel Miller once wrote that "Presbyterians do not observe holy days" (excepting of course the Christian Sabbath). This article from the PCA News website provides some good background on the theological shift that has occurred in the Presbyterian church at large since Miller wrote those words.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 27, 2005)

Not to , however, I find it a curious thing, given the recent discussion, to look at the bulletin sheet for today, printed and produced by the PCA.

The obverse sports a lilly and a bible open to a resurrection passage. The reverse has an article entitled "He has Risen!"

It would seem that not all Presbyterians see focusing on the Resurrection today as a violation of RPW...

Have a great Lord's Day everyone!


----------



## dkicklig (Mar 27, 2005)

I've been following this thread, and in about 15 minutes I'm headed off to church. The order of worship has been tweaked to be a little more special, regular attenders have been asked to use the rear parking lot to allow for the large number of "guests" (ie. one time a year attenders), thankfully we have no choir (although the children's choir will be singing), and I leaving my house with reservations about this celebration of Easter.

My wife toiled to find just the right outfits for the kids and herself. There's a special lunch in the crockpot, and everything has been tidyed up for expected guests.

I however and wearing the same khaki pants and plaid shirt I wear every Sunday. I will enter worship with the same reverance and awe that I do every Sunday. I will sing praise to God with the same exuberance that I do every Sunday. But unfortunatly this particular Sunday is being turned into a Hallmarl greeting card holiday. In many respects it feels like the more we try to exalt this one day, we profane it.

Resurrection Sunday is/should be celebrated each Lord's Day. But I think as a church, and society, we have moved away from this, and have now setup a "straw" holiday to make us feel like we are paying tribute God for the sacrifice of His Son.

Now that I'm typing this I remember one of the first posts that talked about remembering the resurrection every day. I really like that. 

Just some random thoughts before this Lord's day worship.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> It would seem that not all Presbyterians see focusing on the Resurrection today as a violation of RPW...



Actually, most presbyterians today haven't a clue what the RPW is. That is in part due to the failure of elders to instruct the church in her historic faith, and also due to the huge immigration of historically non-reformed folk into the fold, who despite their new found love of the doctrines of grace, bring their anti-RPW ideas with them. I'm not saying this immigration is a bad thing, but ignorance of our history and doctrine is one reason why the Presbyterian churches today are looking more and more like non-reformed churches and becoming more man-centered in their worship.


----------

