# Three Books on "Christmas" - and a 33% off Black Friday Sale



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 24, 2016)

[video=vimeo;192523402]https://vimeo.com/192523402[/video]

We are offering 3 books bundled together in 3 formats, mobi, PDF and ePub. They all cover the issue of Christmas, and whether Christians ought to participate in that holiday.
The bundle is only for eBooks at Puritan Publications. You can get the print books at a discount with the coupon below.
_The Christian’s Duty to Reject Christmas_, by Thomas Mockett (or Mocket) (1602-1670) (109 Pages, print version)
Mockett’s argument in this work is directed to well-meaning Christians who are defiling the Regulative Principle – that God alone determines the manner and time in which sinners are to approach him. Writing against the, “observation of Christ’s nativity,” Mockett shows the Christian how he is to reject, whole-heartily, adding Christ into Christmas as a religious or worship observance. (This is not a scan or facsimile, has been updated in modern English for easy reading and has an active table of contents for electronic versions.)
_A Biblical Response to Superstition, Will-Worship and the Christmas Holiday_, by Daniel Cawdrey (1588-1664) (200 pages, print version)
In this work, Cawdrey exegetically and biblically demonstrates that worship to God is accomplished through God’s prescription alone. Anything less is man’s invention which leads to superstition and will-worship. He ably defends the regulative principle of worship (that God alone determines the manner in which sinners are to approach him) and demonstrates that even the holiday of Christmas, in the manner that people use it as a “holy day,” is in fact filled with superstition, and must be considered will-worship. This is a powerful and scholarly treatise on holding steadfastly to God’s prescribed manner of worship, and an exhortation to throw out all man-made inventions that hinder communion with God. This is not a facsimile or scanned document. It is newly typeset with an active table of contents for electronic versions.
_Bah Humbug: How Christians Should Think About the Christmas Holiday_, by C. Matthew McMahon, Ph.D., Th.D. (120 pages, print version)
When it comes to the Christmas Holiday, Christians fall on one of two sides: either they abandon it altogether as pagan and idolatrous, or they celebrate it all together as the most wonderful time of the year. Some have nothing to do with Christmas at all, and others invite Christmas into sermons, Sunday worship, family gatherings and the like. People who believe Christmas is idolatrous quote church history and expound the Regulative Principle of worship. Those who want to celebrate Christmas want to reclaim Christmas as eminently Christian since “Jesus is the Reason for the Season.” What is the biblical view? Is it one or the other, or is there a view more accommodating to both sides? What if both of those extreme views are wrong, and there is another option that is less thought about but more biblically based? Can Christians partake in Christmas…or not?

We have a sale for Black Friday on all our Printed Reformed and Puritan books at our spotlight page with code *BFRIDAY33 *at checkout. 33% off everything across the board for one day only.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 25, 2016)

If I may ask a sincere question....why does one consider Christmas less a day for celebration than Reformation Day?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 25, 2016)

Even our days of the week were named after pagan beings, as was easter, so would we as Christians not take over Christmas and celebrate it as God intended, so would still be honoring Jesus?


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 25, 2016)

How would we approach this passage in Romans?

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
ROM 14:5*-‬9


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 25, 2016)

I'm not much of a Reformation day guy but if my church were to have a conference or something about that time I would support that; but Christmas and pretended holy days and the 'church calendar' are monuments of idolatry. Like a lot of things the way how Presbyterians came to observe them was not honest (during a liberal decline and abandonment of their principles etc.). See Gillespie regarding such monuments, things indifferent and holy days
https://www.naphtali.com/articles/g...n-the-rule-for-purging-monuments-of-idolatry/
See two other articles under my name at this link and more Gillespie under his name:
https://www.naphtali.com/articles/


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 25, 2016)

Wonder if reformed Baptists view this issue in same fashion?


----------



## deathtolife (Nov 25, 2016)

Looks like helpful books to read. 

As a side note, I highly recommend Pastor Albert Martin's 7 part series "Christmas and the Christian".
Whatever your position you will find great benefit. Highly recommended. 

Here: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12302222845


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 25, 2016)

Would this not fall under ones personal conviction on if the Lord can still be honored by the Holiday being observed or not?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 25, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Would this not fall under ones personal conviction on if the Lord casn still be honored by the Holiday being observed or not?



Fast days or days of Thanksgiving would.
But on Christmas, no. If you lived in Calvin's Geneva, they would have arrested someone for celebrating it. The Puritans repudiated the day.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 25, 2016)

Would that fit in with Romans/Collossians though?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 25, 2016)

Yes on fast and days of thanks, though not prudent not to attend a stated meeting. 

On the regulative principle, no.


----------



## Justified (Nov 25, 2016)

So, Geneva would have arrested Bullinger, then? The Puritan view of holidays was _a_ view on holidays, same goes for things indifferent. Some Reformed on the continent (ala Bullinger) had different views on these things.

I don't say this to argue for the merits of either position, though I certainly have a position. I say it only to prevent Reformed worship and liturgical practices to seem like a monolith, as it is sometimes portrayed.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 25, 2016)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> How would we approach this passage in Romans?
> 
> One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
> ROM 14:5*-‬9



Do not forget verse one....Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

Now I understand that this part of Romans pertained to the Jews who had a hard time getting over days and food Our Lord prescribed in times past and this hardly is an endorsement of man made holy-days that Our Lord never prescribed. Also even IF it did verse one says those that do such are weak in the faith.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 25, 2016)

Geneva's magistrates brought back the holiday; that is the only reason Calvin preached on xmas in the 1550s. It was not a great move for the worship of God but as Calvin might say you put up with fooleries for the good of the church. But that's not an endorsement for foolishness.*
I mean, now we're talkin 'bout embracing things by choice that Calvin thought best if they were on the garbage heap of history.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 26, 2016)

Isn't the enttire thrust of the Biblical principle given to us here though that Christians can freely choose to observe or not, and let each be persuaded in own mind, but do not judge those holding contery position?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 26, 2016)

Wasn't this issue, on regulated worship, one of the areas that got Dr Frame in hot water with some?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 26, 2016)

I don't know what you mean by "in trouble" but he does reject the rpw. https://www.cpjournal.com/articles-...frank-j-smith-phd-dd-and-david-c-lachman-phd/


Dachaser said:


> Wasn't this issue, on regulated worship, one of the areas that got Dr Frame in hot water with some?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 26, 2016)

On things indifferent in nature (AND in use); but that is sort of the question here. Please see the several links I gave above. This is way beyond one line questions and one line answers.


Dachaser said:


> Isn't the enttire thrust of the Biblical principle given to us here though that Christians can freely choose to observe or not, and let each be persuaded in own mind, but do not judge those holding contery position?


----------



## Parakaleo (Nov 26, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Isn't the enttire thrust of the Biblical principle given to us here though that Christians can freely choose to observe or not, and let each be persuaded in own mind, but do not judge those holding contery position?



At the time of Paul's writing, the question was about Jewish feast days and sabbaths that were instituted by God Himself (though now fulfilled). Paul was willing to abide with Jewish believers observing these things privately, for the time being. Paul's instructions contain no endorsement of man-made religious festivals and feasts.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 26, 2016)

Parakaleo said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the enttire thrust of the Biblical principle given to us here though that Christians can freely choose to observe or not, and let each be persuaded in own mind, but do not judge those holding contery position?
> ...



How do we know this was what Paul was referring to? I don't have the time to study that right now, but is there a verse that would solidify that stance? Was the book written to the Jews? Thanks.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 26, 2016)

earl40 said:


> Ryan&Amber2013 said:
> 
> 
> > How would we approach this passage in Romans?
> ...



Where did the Jews come up with the idea of being vegetarians? Was that Jewish?

One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.
ROM 14:2


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 26, 2016)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan&Amber2013 said:
> ...



This was a question of the lawfulness of eating ceremonially unclean meats, not meats in general. So say Poole, Gill, Calvin, and the Geneva Bible.


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 26, 2016)

Calvin puts Romans 14 in context:


> He passes on now to lay down a precept especially necessary for the instruction of the Church, -- that they who have made the most progress in Christian doctrine should accommodate themselves to the more ignorant, and employ their own strength to sustain their weakness; for among the people of God there are some weaker than others, and who, except they are treated with great tenderness and kindness, will be discouraged, and become at length alienated from religion. And it is very probable that this happened especially at that time; for the Churches were formed of both Jews and Gentiles; some of whom, having been long accustomed to the rites of the Mosaic law, having been brought up in them from childhood, were not easily drawn away from them; and there were others who, having never learnt such things, refused a yoke to which they had not been accustomed.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 26, 2016)

Dr Frame has gotten in trouble with some on his views on things such as worship, unity in the Church, and allowance for those teaching things such as Dispensational theology a wider lattitude of acceptance than some would have him to, as he sees them as wrong . but not holding to Heresy as some see them...


----------



## Parakaleo (Nov 26, 2016)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> How do we know this was what Paul was referring to? I don't have the time to study that right now, but is there a verse that would solidify that stance? Was the book written to the Jews? Thanks.



Col. 2:16, "holyday, or if the new moon, or of the sabbath days," would have been a very recognizable summary of the Jewish feast calendar, which was based on the lunar month.

Here's what G. I. Williamson says about the Rom. 14 and Col. 2 passages that are always brought up in favor of man-made holy days:



> "Here the Apostle instructed the strong to be patient with the weak, because the weak did not yet understand the liberty they had in Jesus. As a matter of fact they were no longer under any obligation to observe even the special days that God had once appointed through Moses. But the problem was that some of the members of the Church in Rome did not yet understand this. And, as long as it was only a particular member of the Church who was afflicted with this lamentable weakness, Paul was willing to patiently bear with him. He was willing, in other words, to tolerate church membership for a person who felt constrained — by a misinformed conscience — to observe these days. In Galatians 4, however, the Apostle had a different concern in view. In this instance the Church as a whole had submitted itself to a yoke of bondage. The Galatian church, as a corporate body, had yielded to the demands of ‘the weak’ by observing these days. And when this happened the Apostle was quite uncompromising in his opposition. The reason is that it is wrong for the Church to include in its corporate worship anything that Christ has not commanded. It is one thing, in other words, to tolerate weakness in individual members. But it is something else again when this errant view is imposed on the whole congregation. Yet this is exactly what we see today in most Reformed Churches."


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 26, 2016)

I now understand better. Thank you. So we can celebrate these days but we cannot bound the church to them?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 26, 2016)

It depends what you mean by celebrate. Yes, there is a liberty of conscience issue that I wish more 'Presbyterians' would recall their heritage concerning, but even privately we cannot commit will worship or behave superstitiously in assigning some kind of sacred significance to such days.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 26, 2016)

Isn't the Biblical truth though that when and if we observe the holiday in its rightful meaning intended, that we have thus transformed it, taking it over for God?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 26, 2016)

We have achristmas Tree in church and have kids bring in gifts to put under it to send them off to Good Samartian's Purse?


----------



## Parakaleo (Nov 26, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Isn't the Biblical truth though that when and if we observe the holiday in its rightful meaning intended, that we have thus transformed it, taking it over for God?



Brother, please forgive me if this comes off as too blunt, but do you hear the man-centeredness in that question? What reason would Christians have to "take over" a pagan holiday other than it appeals to them in their flesh? If God had wanted us to "take over" this or that, He would have instructed us to do so. As it is, Christ has established a kingdom that is advancing throughout the world and the evidence of it is that people are being baptized, disciples are being made, and they are being taught to obey all His commandments--including the reverence of the Lord's Day alone as the day for ecclesiastical worship. That's how Christ exerts His dominion over an unbelieving land; not by accommodating or assimilating pagan practices, but obliterating them in favor of His pure ordinances.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 26, 2016)

I guess Hezekiah missed the boat and should have done that instead of destroying the bronze serpent which actually had the distinction of being appointed by God, whereas these old pretended holy days of idolatry don't even have that (who has the authority to make a day special for the Lord, but the Lord?). Argue the greater to the lesser. Please do read the linked material I've posted. Also, nothing that has been raised here that has not been discussed time after time on many many threads on this forum. 


Dachaser said:


> Isn't the Biblical truth though that when and if we observe the holiday in its rightful meaning intended, that we have thus transformed it, taking it over for God?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 26, 2016)

Pagan origins is not really the issue; not today at least because no one has any regard to the old idol days being appropriated than we do for the fact much of the week has names of days for old idol gods. The question as you note is God's appointment, but also what we do with idolatrous things (like the bronze serpent) and as to just the general idea of appropriating the topics from the old idol calendar for a preaching schedule, whether or not cycle recapitulating ("as it were") worship is biblical? The last point i think needs a great deal more exploration, but Dr. Fesko sketches the topic in a brief article at the link. http://www.genevaopc.org/articles/means/45-why-dont-we-use-the-church-calendar.html


Parakaleo said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the Biblical truth though that when and if we observe the holiday in its rightful meaning intended, that we have thus transformed it, taking it over for God?
> ...


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 28, 2016)

Paul stated to us did he not that it sepends on our own conscience and faith, as some could not eat meat dedicated to false gods, while others could without any problem?

If you and your family choose not to observe at all a Christian holiday of Christmas, that is tour grace choice, but would not the scriptures allow for others to decide to observe it, in a way that would honor the coming of Jesus into this world?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 28, 2016)

It is not an area of indifference. Did God ask that you so celebrate Christ's birth on December 25? He didn't; so how do you know He wants you to worship Him this way? The 'Christian calendar' is an idol which Presbyterians jettisoned at the Reformation and did not observe again until the liberal decline at the end of the 19th century. It was jettisoned because it was an idol not to be treated any better than Hezekiah did the bronze serpent. Have you read any of the material I linked to?


----------



## Stope (Nov 29, 2016)

NaphtaliPress said:


> It is not an area of indifference. Did God ask that you so celebrate Christ's birth on December 25? He didn't; so how do you know He wants you to worship Him this way?



Can the same be said about posting on the PB? or perhaps using some medium, like a harmonica, to use as an aid to worshipping Jesus?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 29, 2016)

Things that are notorious in their idolatry are not a matter of indifference. Please read the links I provided above.


----------



## Stope (Nov 29, 2016)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Things that are notorious in their idolatry are not a matter of indifference.


---I humbly ask "is this circular reasoning?"



NaphtaliPress said:


> Please read the links I provided above


---Will do!
---FYI, I yesterday listened to the following link that someone listed here, and to be honest, I found it just a fancy of the teacher rather than scriptural... http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12302222845


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 29, 2016)

No; something either meets the def or it doesn't; or consider this, we don't do stuff of bad report or reputation because of scandal and offense. The facets of the xmas debate are many.


----------



## deathtolife (Nov 29, 2016)

Stope said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Things that are notorious in their idolatry are not a matter of indifference.
> ...



Hey Jason-

I would recommend you listen to the entire series. It is not what you may be thinking. What is it exactly that is "...just a fancy of the teacher..."? In the entire series he gives proper biblical perspective on celebration of Christmas and Christian liberty. Pastor Albert Martin handles the Word of God very well, rightly dividing the Word of truth. As one comment says there "Listening to this sermon in conjunction with part 1 is an absolute must".


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Dec 1, 2016)

To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Frame is not under church discipline of any kind. He does have a non-Confessional view of the RPW, and has advocated for a more informal manner of public worship. If by "hot water" you mean the opprobrium of some, then, yes, he's landed in the jacuzzi a few times.


Dachaser said:


> Wasn't this issue, on regulated worship, one of the areas that got Dr Frame in hot water with some?


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Dec 1, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> We have achristmas Tree in church and have kids bring in gifts to put under it to send them off to Good Samartian's Purse?




This truly heightens the sentimentality of the "season" and the folksy-sentiment is major cause of weakness in the American church. We do Operation Christmas child. BUT, it's not in the sanctuary, not part of the liturgy, the boxes are packed by the kids on Saturday, and I always stress the alleviation of poverty and the need for gratitude to the children. Never mention the "season". Better to have a child bite a chocolate bar, hold it on his tongue and remind him that somewhere some fellow Christian boy is starving to death. Not as a means of guilt-inducement, but as an instrument to encourage gratitude.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Dec 1, 2016)

Stope said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > It is not an area of indifference. Did God ask that you so celebrate Christ's birth on December 25? He didn't; so how do you know He wants you to worship Him this way?
> ...




Posting on PB is not an act of corporate, Lord's Day worship.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Dec 1, 2016)

It is always refreshing to have these conversations on the PB during "the most hap-happiest time of the year"! I was in Barnes and Noble the other day and the secular "carols" are even more nauseating, although, in my view, not an RPW issue--they're simply talking about snow and sleigh rides, which I'm all for. Take Jesus out of Christmas and have a grand ole winter party in your home--no problem. Bring on the eggnog and cognac.


----------

