Rom
Puritan Board Junior
As the content of gospel preaching is "to preach Christ and Him crucified" it requires meditating on the incarnation of Christ more than once a year.
- Status
As the content of gospel preaching is "to preach Christ and Him crucified" it requires meditating on the incarnation of Christ more than once a year.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
My response assumed a background knowledge to the debate that your response shows that you do not have or wish to force me to elucidate in this thread. A little common sense will go a long way too. I'll leave it at that, since I had only intended to interact with the OP, and you obviously have the resources to study if you wish.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
In that case, you’ve drastically walked back your thesis. You first claimed no liberty, even calling the practice idolatrous. Now it’s a question of whether it’s appropriate? At the very least, let’s not confuse the subjective “appropriateness” of something with the question of whether something is permissible.
But the question in the Original post is wondering if Christmas services can be equated to prayer meeting nights. I actually thought he was trying to post something relevant to the question when he quoted McCrie.
From McCrie (on days of thanksgiving and fasting, but the same principle applies to midweek meetings that are not tied to special acts of God's providence): "There are times when God calls, on the one hand, to religious fasting, or, on the other, to thanksgiving and religious joy; and it is our duty to comply with these calls, and to set apart time for the respective exercises. But this is quite a different thing from recurrent or anniversary holidays. In the former case the day is chosen for the duty, in the latter the duty is performed for the day; in the former case there is no holiness on the day but what arises from the service which is performed on it, and when the same day afterwards recurs, it is as common as any other day; in the latter case the day is set apart on all following times, and may not be employed for common or secular purposes."
Then his question was......,
"Ask yourself: What is special about Dec 25th that we have these meetings year after year? Who appointed it? Who decided that we should have worship and worship of a particular nature each year? Who decided that the 25th should be so special? And you will soon see there is a world of difference between a Christmas service on the 25th and a midweek meeting appointed on a Wednesday. And perhaps in finding the answers to those questions, you will also see that, even if it were indifferent for the church to appoint an annual ecclesiastical holy day, this day is a monument to past and present idolatry that must be put away."
I stated, "I can't understand how you equate the mid week prayer meeting with this kind of will worship. They are two totally different things."
I do think we are talking about Christmas the Worship Service in relation to a prayer meeting, correct? They are two different things aren't they? He did point out it was Idolatrous did he not?
Here is where I am having problems.
He asked, “Who decided that the 25th should be so special?”
Then you answer, "The same sorts of people who decided Wednesdays are special.
Really? Can you truly be saying that? This discussion does have a historical context and background. Are you neglecting that? There are more issues tied up in this than what you seem to be suggesting. And if the 25th of December is decided to be special by the same sort of people, who called it special the same way mid week prayer meetings where, shouldn't we be cautious about those guys who did?
Last edited:
B.L.
Puritan Board Sophomore
Amen to that my friend! Have a joyful day and glorify God in the way you choose to spend it.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
in the former case there is no holiness on the day but what arises from the service which is performed on it, and when the same day afterwards recurs, it is as common as any other day; in the latter case the day is set apart on all following times, and may not be employed for common or secular purposes.
That is a most confused sentiment, hence the problem.
What are you talking about? If you mean that I say that there is no liberty to practice idolatry... Well, yes.
Sure. Christmas is neither appropriate or permissible. It is idolatrous, after all.
You might want to read my posts more carefully.
I'm out of this discussion for the next little while. Bedtime. It's already Wednesday here.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Those Presbyterians who would avoid all seasonal activities probably should take exception to at least a portion of the Westminster Confession Chapter 21.
"...thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner"
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Tom,
I don't desire to flesh out a long debate here. I've remained charitable toward you in not judging you for your refraining from any religious overtones of the day. But I'm a recipient of your disapproval as one participating in idolatry. Is that this a correct assessment? Does that phase me? Not really. I'm not accountable to you and am not overly concerned about it. Not because I don't care about you, but because I've resolved that I'm not going to agree with everyone I meet on the internet, even on a Reformed forum.
As for Calvin, yes, I like him. The fact that we may disagree over something is nothing new to me. Christmas in Calvin's day is not equivalent to modern Christmas. That is one of the effects of 500 years.
If you have the desire and energy to contribute as much as you do to these threads, go for it. It is my opinion that multiplicity of words on this subject and in this setting quickly borders fruitless wrangling.
Blessings,
Tim
Though it may go without saying, just in case there is any confusion, the assembly explains what those times are and they do not include pretended holy days which they explicitly rejected at the end of their directory for the public worship of God.
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.
Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.
Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for publick fasting or thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God's providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people.
George Gillespie, one of the authors of the above gives the back drop to this in his Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies.
Set anniversary days are no necessary or even expedient means for conserving the commemoration of the benefits of redemption
§6. The Bishop has yet a third dart to throw at us: If the church (he says)[1] 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.[2]
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 Zech. 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.
And as for particularities, all the particular causes, occasions, and times of fasting could not be determined in Scripture, because they are infinite, as Camero says.[3] But all the particular causes of set festivities, and the number of the same, might have been easily determined in Scripture, since they are not, nor may not be infinite; for the Bishop himself acknowledges that to appoint a festival day for every week cannot stand with charity, the inseparable companion of piety.[4] And albeit so many were allowable, yet who sees not how easily the Scripture might have comprehended them, because they are set, constant, and anniversary times, observed for permanent and continuing causes, and not moveable or mutable, as fasts which are appointed for occurring causes, and therefore may be infinite.
I conclude that, since God’s Word has given us a general command for occasional fasts, and likewise particularly determined sundry things about the causes, occasions, nature, and manner of fastings, we may well say with Cartwright,[5] that days of fasting are appointed at such times, and upon such occasions [causes], as the Scripture does set forth; wherein because the church commands nothing but that which God commands, the religious observation of them falls unto the obedience of the fourth commandment, as well as of the seventh day itself.
…
§2. Tilen sets out the expediency of holy days for imprinting in the minds of people the sense and knowledge of the benefits of redemption.[6] Answer. 1. There is no means so good for this purpose as catechizing and preaching, out of season and in season. 2. What could he say unto them who have attained his end without his means? I find people better instructed and made more sensible of those benefits where the feasts are not kept than where they are. 3. Think they their people sufficiently instructed in the grounds of religion, when they hear of the nativity, passion, etc. — what course will they take for instructing them in other principles of faith? Why do they not keep one way, and institute a holy day for every particular head of catechism?
But Bishop Lindsay thinks yet to let us see a greater expediency for observing holy days. Certainly (he says) nothing is so powerful to abolish profaneness and to root superstition out of men’s hearts, as the exercise of divine worship, in preaching, praying and thanksgiving, chiefly then when the superstitious conceits of merit and necessity are most pregnant in the heads of people—as doubtless they are when the set times of solemnities return—for then it is meet to lance the aposteme [abscess] when it is ripe.[7]
Answer. This is a very bad cure, and is not only to heal the wound of the people slightly, but to make it the more inveterate and festered. I might object that little or nothing is preached or spoken, by him and his companions, at the revolution [course] of those festivities, against the superstitious keeping of them; but though they should speak as much as can be against this superstition, their lancing being in word only, and not in deed, the recidivation [relapse] will prove worse than the disease. The best lancing of the aposteme was not to observe them at all, or to preach against them, which are tried [proved] to work this effect more powerfully than the Bishop’s cure has done; for all know that there is none so free of this superstition as those who observe not the holy days.
George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies (Naphtali Press, 2013) 50–51; 82–83. Footnotes renumbered for this extract. https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/a-dispute-against-the-english-popish-ceremonies-gillespie.html
----------------------
[1] Ibid. [Lindsay, part 3,] p. 26, 27.
[2] Apud [cited in] Balduin, de Cas. Consc., lib. 2, cap. 12, cas. 1. Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo judicoque, quotidie nobis in evangelii prædicatione nascitur, circumciditur, moritur, resurgit Christus. [Cf. Balduin, Tractatus Luculentus (1654), 348.]
[3]Cameron, Prælectiones, tom. 1, de Potest. Eccl., contr. 2. [Cf. vol. 1, page 369.]
[4]Lindsay, ubi supra, [part 3] p. 16.
[5]Cartwright, Ag. the Rhem. annot. on Gal. 4:10. [Cartwright has causes at occasions.]
[6]Parænesis ad Scotos, cap. 16, p. 65 [Andreapoli: Rabanus, 1620].
[7] Proceedings in Perth Assembly, part 3, p. 7. [Cf. 1625 ed., “Answer . . . Festivall Dayes,” 7. The 1625 text reads “and root out superstition.” The dashes for semicolons were added in Works.]
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.
Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.
Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for publick fasting or thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God's providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people.
George Gillespie, one of the authors of the above gives the back drop to this in his Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies.
Set anniversary days are no necessary or even expedient means for conserving the commemoration of the benefits of redemption
§6. The Bishop has yet a third dart to throw at us: If the church (he says)[1] 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.[2]
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 Zech. 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.
And as for particularities, all the particular causes, occasions, and times of fasting could not be determined in Scripture, because they are infinite, as Camero says.[3] But all the particular causes of set festivities, and the number of the same, might have been easily determined in Scripture, since they are not, nor may not be infinite; for the Bishop himself acknowledges that to appoint a festival day for every week cannot stand with charity, the inseparable companion of piety.[4] And albeit so many were allowable, yet who sees not how easily the Scripture might have comprehended them, because they are set, constant, and anniversary times, observed for permanent and continuing causes, and not moveable or mutable, as fasts which are appointed for occurring causes, and therefore may be infinite.
I conclude that, since God’s Word has given us a general command for occasional fasts, and likewise particularly determined sundry things about the causes, occasions, nature, and manner of fastings, we may well say with Cartwright,[5] that days of fasting are appointed at such times, and upon such occasions [causes], as the Scripture does set forth; wherein because the church commands nothing but that which God commands, the religious observation of them falls unto the obedience of the fourth commandment, as well as of the seventh day itself.
…
§2. Tilen sets out the expediency of holy days for imprinting in the minds of people the sense and knowledge of the benefits of redemption.[6] Answer. 1. There is no means so good for this purpose as catechizing and preaching, out of season and in season. 2. What could he say unto them who have attained his end without his means? I find people better instructed and made more sensible of those benefits where the feasts are not kept than where they are. 3. Think they their people sufficiently instructed in the grounds of religion, when they hear of the nativity, passion, etc. — what course will they take for instructing them in other principles of faith? Why do they not keep one way, and institute a holy day for every particular head of catechism?
But Bishop Lindsay thinks yet to let us see a greater expediency for observing holy days. Certainly (he says) nothing is so powerful to abolish profaneness and to root superstition out of men’s hearts, as the exercise of divine worship, in preaching, praying and thanksgiving, chiefly then when the superstitious conceits of merit and necessity are most pregnant in the heads of people—as doubtless they are when the set times of solemnities return—for then it is meet to lance the aposteme [abscess] when it is ripe.[7]
Answer. This is a very bad cure, and is not only to heal the wound of the people slightly, but to make it the more inveterate and festered. I might object that little or nothing is preached or spoken, by him and his companions, at the revolution [course] of those festivities, against the superstitious keeping of them; but though they should speak as much as can be against this superstition, their lancing being in word only, and not in deed, the recidivation [relapse] will prove worse than the disease. The best lancing of the aposteme was not to observe them at all, or to preach against them, which are tried [proved] to work this effect more powerfully than the Bishop’s cure has done; for all know that there is none so free of this superstition as those who observe not the holy days.
George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies (Naphtali Press, 2013) 50–51; 82–83. Footnotes renumbered for this extract. https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/a-dispute-against-the-english-popish-ceremonies-gillespie.html
----------------------
[1] Ibid. [Lindsay, part 3,] p. 26, 27.
[2] Apud [cited in] Balduin, de Cas. Consc., lib. 2, cap. 12, cas. 1. Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo judicoque, quotidie nobis in evangelii prædicatione nascitur, circumciditur, moritur, resurgit Christus. [Cf. Balduin, Tractatus Luculentus (1654), 348.]
[3]Cameron, Prælectiones, tom. 1, de Potest. Eccl., contr. 2. [Cf. vol. 1, page 369.]
[4]Lindsay, ubi supra, [part 3] p. 16.
[5]Cartwright, Ag. the Rhem. annot. on Gal. 4:10. [Cartwright has causes at occasions.]
[6]Parænesis ad Scotos, cap. 16, p. 65 [Andreapoli: Rabanus, 1620].
[7] Proceedings in Perth Assembly, part 3, p. 7. [Cf. 1625 ed., “Answer . . . Festivall Dayes,” 7. The 1625 text reads “and root out superstition.” The dashes for semicolons were added in Works.]
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
I think not Edward, if it relates to the man made holy-days. Read the DOPW for those same standards:
Rom
Puritan Board Junior
Are you sure you are apprehending their meaning?
The same divines that approved WCF 21 also approved the following statement in the Directory for the Public Worship of God which serves to demonstrate their intent:
"THERE is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord’s day, which is the Christian Sabbath.
Festival-days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.
Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for public fasting or thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God’s providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people."
The days that WCF refers to are the special emergent occasions, as the divine were clear that the festival-days have no warrant in the word of God are not to be continued.
I hope that helps.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
If the “roots” pertain to a man made “holy day” (which is forbidden), does that logically imply that any implementation of the day or tradition carries with it a holy day implication? Of course not.
I understand it as saying in the former is a day where... 'there is no holiness on the day but what arises from the service which is performed on it.' The duty of prayer is what is holy. In the second phrase it seems to be speaking of a day like December the 25th. 'in the latter case the day is set apart on all following times, and may not be employed for common or secular purposes.' That is what is concluded to be wrong.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes, it does indeed have historical baggage. But what I’m waiting for is someone to distribute that (historical) premise of the argument into a syllogism that would conclude that the practice is, therefore, idolatrous today. The missing premise of the argument is that the practice, ipso facto, is sinful regardless of intent. That needed premise is indefensible. What makes many practices sin is intent. Circumcision for instance. Halloween too. Even Christmas.
Christmas is a sanctioned worship service day for most of Christianity today. Many use this day to recognize and worship God in their sanctuaries. Many use the Advent calendar. Do they not? Give me that Premise to start with.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Let's narrow the argument down to just Christmas. Most Baptist churches have celebrated Christmas but have never heard of Advent. But back to Ron's point: where is the premise that says the act itself is sinful? Here is what Ron is saying:
In a syllogism, the middle premise must be distributed in both the Major Premise and the conclusion. For example:
In an undistributed middle, which is a fallacy, we see:
All P are M
All S are M
Therefore, All S or P
We have yet to see the premise that says the act itself is sinful.
I know what you are saying Jacob. The OP is wondering about the differences between the mid week prayer service and that of what is called Christmas. It is mentioned that they may be similar. The problem with this discussion is that we have to define what Christmas is in the context of the OP. If we can't do that we will be speaking past each other. Our syllogisms will mean absolutely nothing if the terminology is not understood to be the same in meaning. In both of the situations concerning the Op I understand it to be in reference to worship in service to God that is sanctioned by the Church. The kind of day matters as was pointed out by a reference to what McCrie states.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
First I’ll address that point, then I’ll review the bidding.
1. As it relates here, one can break the law without intention when the act itself is sinful, which in this case would presuppose that Christmas worship services are intrinsically sinful. In which case the historical context is neither here nor there.
2. Your earlier point was the “historical” sinfulness of the Holy Day implies that the practice is necessarily sinful today.
Accordingly, your conclusion rests on one of two additional premises. Either (a), the act is intrinsically sinful or else (b), the historical sinful baggage as it pertains to the intent of the day carries through to today necessarily. If (a), then the act is intrinsically sinful aside from intent and consequently the historical sinful baggage as it relates to intent is logically irrelevant, (though you have already suggested otherwise by invoking the premise that “Christmas does have a sanctioned Holy Day implication historically”).
But if your position is (b), the historical sinful baggage must necessarily be imposed upon today’s practice, I’d like to know how you defend that premise.
Either way you turn, you’ve begged the question as it relates to today’s practice among Protestants who do not consider the day holy. Either defend (i) the practice is sinful regardless of intent, or defend (ii) the practice is sinful because the original superstitious intent carries through even to those who don’t consider the day holy.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
That’s a good example. Perhaps this gets more to my point or illustrates it another way.
1. All historical practices were sinful
2. Some contemporary practices resemble historical practices
3. Therefore, all contemporary practices are sinful
Historical practices are distributed but what’s not distributed is all contemporary practices.
I don’t think one can defend that intent is not critical to this discussion. If it is, then it’ll be difficult to prove all...
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
May I wish everyone a Merry Christmas? 
(I’m attending no special services this year, allegedly “Holy” or otherwise.)
(I’m attending no special services this year, allegedly “Holy” or otherwise.)
First off we gain our understanding based upon historical context. Words have meaning contextually based upon historical and grammatical context. 'Diggit man,' means something different in the 70's than it did in the 40's.
As the OP presents a question of relationship to worship a context is set. Idolatry and the issue of the Regulative Principle of Worship are issues being addressed. Those issues have a basic reference that has not changed for the most part. My most popular blog that gets hit multiple times daily is on images of Christ. Many in Evangelical Christianity do not even know it is sinful Idolatry to use pictures to stir up devotion of Christ in worship. That is the problem I present to you concerning your previous mention and implication concerning intent. I also present that situation to prove to you that this yearly Christmas Worship is of similar vein. If it is a yearly sanctioned worship by a Church it is something other than is prescribed by God and therefore it is sinful. It is not the same thing as a prayer meeting either. It is not the same thing as a spontaneous calling together for fasting, prayer, or thanksgiving which are singular events usually. That is what the Original Post was asking about.
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
That simply restates the problem. It doesn't give a non-question begging solution. 2CV violations are inherently sinful. What we have yet to see established is that celebrating Christmas today is necessarily sinful.
Jacob, You are going in circles still. As your reference to the flawed syllogism process (due to lack of precise terminology) has problems so does your restating the above. We can debate the signing of the cross or any historically flawed will worship directed toward God and intent if you like. They have the same problem.
As the OP had a question concerning a yearly appointed sanctioned Worship service and a midweek Prayer meeting I think the matter is settled. They are different. How do you want to define a Church's Yearly Sanctioned Worship Service? Is it prescribed by God to be an annually ordained worship service or not? I think the McCrie reference above hit the head on the nail when he spoke about the two situations as they relate to the Original Post.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
It depends. If you will define what you mean by this I may take a stab.
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I am not going in circles. You say that whenever I bring up logical points. It doesn't count for a logical rebuttal, much less refutation.
- Status
