A Thought on the Date of Easter

Status
Not open for further replies.

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
Instead of us Protestants (especially us Reformed) allowing the Roman Catholic Church to determine when Easter falls every year (since, of course, we are not part of that communion), maybe NAPARC, as an organization, should unilaterally declare that, say, the second Sunday in April (just to pick a Sunday in the spring) will be the permanent date for Easter. Or perhaps one of our denominations (OPC, anyone?) could do it to get the ball rolling.

The problem, of course, is that the entire secular culture has bought into the fact that the RCC chooses the date and so, if NAPARC (or the OPC, etc.) were to make that move, there would then be TWO dates for Easter every year - one for us and one for virtually everyone else.

And, of course, non-Reformed Christians (the SBC, etc.) probably would not want to go along with us, and pick their own date. So now there's THREE different dates for Easter.

Now I'm sorry I brought the whole thing up. LOL
 
The EO don’t have the same date right? Their Easter is this coming Sunday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There are different dates in the east and west.

Obviously the church started debating the date of "Easter" quite early on – I tend to think it's quite purposeful that we know the day of the week rather than the date of Christ's resurrection in Scripture.
 
Not sure, the appropriate answer is 1. the date the Lord set, which is every first day of the week or 2. the date the Presbyterians chose in 1560 in the Confession of Faith, or even the date the Westminster Assembly chose in 1645 in the directory for public worship.
 
Assuming an annual celebration of the resurrection is allowable, I fail to see why it would be necessary to pick a new date just to separate ourselves from Rome. Separation from Rome is not what defines us, and we should not let it define us. The Reformed church is not chiefly a break from Rome, but rather a return to the true faith and the gospel of Christ. It is Rome, not us, who are the separatists.
 
Assuming an annual celebration of the resurrection is allowable, I fail to see why it would be necessary to pick a new date just to separate ourselves from Rome. Separation from Rome is not what defines us, and we should not let it define us. The Reformed church is not chiefly a break from Rome, but rather a return to the true faith and the gospel of Christ. It is Rome, not us, who are the separatists.
Another example of...
babybathwater1.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top