As if we need one more reason NOT to buy a Christ-mass tree

Status
Not open for further replies.
Civil days of thanksgiving are okie dokie. I celebrate Reformation Day and Thanksgiving within the realm of the Westminster Confession:

V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear,[17] the sound preaching [18] and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence,[19] singing of psalms with grace in the heart;[20] as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God:[21] beside religious oaths,[22] vows,[23] solemn fastings,[24] and thanksgivings upon special occasions,[25] which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.[26]

17. Luke 4:16-17; Acts 15:21; Col. 4:16; I Thess. 5:27; Rev. 1:3
18. II Tim. 4:2; Acts 5:42
19. James 1:22; Acts 10:33; Matt. 13:19; Heb. 4:2; Isa. 66:2
20. Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19; James 5:13; I Cor. 14:15

21. Matt. 28:19; I Cor. 11:23-29; Acts 2:42
22. Deut. 6:13; Neh. 10:29; II Cor. 1:23
23. Psa. 116:14; Isa. 19:21; Eccl. 5:4-5
24. Joel 2:12; Est. 4:16; Matt. 9:15; Acts 14:23
25. Exod. 15:1-21; Psa. 107:1-43; Neh. 12:27-43; Est. 9:20-22
26. Heb. 12:28.

However, I also reject man-made holy days that is thought to be set-apart. Here I agree with the Westminster Divines as well:

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.

As no place is capable of any holiness, under pretence of whatsoever dedication or consecration; so neither is it subject to such pollution by any superstition formerly used, and now laid aside, as may render it unlawful or inconvenient for Christians to meet together therein for the publick worship of God. And therefore we hold it requisite, that the places of publick assembling for worship among us should be continued and employed to that use.

The distinction comes down to: Is the day a civil day of thanksgiving (lawful) or a religous holy day (unlawful).
 
Pretty much the only holydays I'm against the celebration of (and integration with the Christian Church as worship or sacred) are Easter and Christmass, both of which were originally days to honor pagan deities in the Greco-Roman world. The Roman Empire was wrong to "take them over for Christ."
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Civil days of thanksgiving are okie dokie. I celebrate Reformation Day and Thanksgiving within the realm of the Westminster Confession:

:ditto:V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear,[17] the sound preaching [18] and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence,[19] singing of psalms with grace in the heart;[20] as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God:[21] beside religious oaths,[22] vows,[23] solemn fastings,[24] and thanksgivings upon special occasions,[25] which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.[26]

17. Luke 4:16-17; Acts 15:21; Col. 4:16; I Thess. 5:27; Rev. 1:3
18. II Tim. 4:2; Acts 5:42
19. James 1:22; Acts 10:33; Matt. 13:19; Heb. 4:2; Isa. 66:2
20. Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19; James 5:13; I Cor. 14:15

21. Matt. 28:19; I Cor. 11:23-29; Acts 2:42
22. Deut. 6:13; Neh. 10:29; II Cor. 1:23
23. Psa. 116:14; Isa. 19:21; Eccl. 5:4-5
24. Joel 2:12; Est. 4:16; Matt. 9:15; Acts 14:23
25. Exod. 15:1-21; Psa. 107:1-43; Neh. 12:27-43; Est. 9:20-22
26. Heb. 12:28.

Would you explain exactly what is meant by "to be used in an holy and religious manner"?

And I am not seeing where the context of Romans 14 is about Jewish festivals. It appears right smack in the middle of Paul's comments about eating food offered to idols.

Help me out, please.
 
We don't have to "take over for Christ" Christmas and Easter. We may, within the bounds of Scripture, offer up thanks to God for His feats of fulfilling prophesy regarding His birth and His resurrection on traditional days each year in so far as they are not set apart as holy religious days, but instead commemorated as non-binding days of thanksgiving to God.
 
Originally posted by piningforChrist
A religious day of thanksgiving does not imply either a civil day of thanksgiving or a religious holy day, therefore it is lawful.

I disagree.
 
Originally posted by piningforChrist
We don't have to "take over for Christ" Christmas and Easter. We may, within the bounds of Scripture, offer up thanks to God for His feats of fulfilling prophesy regarding His birth and His resurrection on traditional days each year in so far as they are not set apart as holy religious days, but instead commemorated as non-binding days of thanksgiving to God.

Where do Christ-mass carols, exchanging of gifts, mistle toe, holly, lights, candles, incense, egg nog, trees, tinsel, nativity scenes, pageants, passion plays, images of Christ and His crucifixion, eggs, bunny rabbits, chocolates, Satan Claus (whoops, Santa, not Satan.. my mistake), and Charlie Brown specials fit "within the bounds of Scripture" for a non-binding day of thanksgiving to God, considering the fact that most-if-not-all of these wind up within on Church buildings during this time of the year, and take center place in our homes rather than, say, a posted copy of the Ten Commandments?
 
Originally posted by gwine
Would you explain exactly what is meant by "to be used in an holy and religious manner"?
Better men than I have answered your questions better than I could, so I will just point them out to you.

Robert Shaw's Commentary on the Confession
6. Solemn fastings and thanksgivings. Stated festival-days, commonly called holy-days, have no warrant in the Word of God; but a day may be set apart, by competent authority, for fasting or thanksgiving, when extraordinary dispensations of Providence administer cause for them. When judgments are threatened or inflicted, or when some special blessing is to be sought and obtained, fasting is eminently seasonable. When some remarkable mercy or deliverance has been received, there is a special call to thanksgiving. The views of the compilers of our Confession respecting these ordinances may be
found in "The Directory for the Public Worship of God."

Originally posted by gwine
And I am not seeing where the context of Romans 14 is about Jewish festivals. It appears right smack in the middle of Paul's comments about eating food offered to idols.

Help me out, please.

John Gill on Romans 14:5:

Rom 14:5 - One man esteemeth one day above another,.... This is another instance of the difference of sentiments in this church, about the observation of rituals; and is not to be understood of days appointed by the Christian churches for fasting, or abstinence from certain meats, either once a year, as the "Quadragesima", or Lent; or twice a week, as Wednesdays and Fridays; for these are things of much later observation, and which had never been introduced into the church of Rome in the apostle's time; nor were there any disputes about them: much less of days of Heathenish observation, as lucky or unlucky, or festivals in honour of their gods; for the apostle would never say, that a man who regarded such a day, regarded it to the Lord; nor would have advised to a coalition and Christian conversation with such a man, but rather to exclude him from all society and communion: it remains, therefore, that it must be understood of Jewish days, or of such as were appointed to be observed by the Jews under the former dispensation, and which some thought were still to be regarded; wherefore they esteemed some days in the year above others, as the days of unleavened bread, or the passover; particularly the first night, which was a night to be observed throughout their generations; and in their service for it to this day, use these words, הזה מכל הלילות מה נשתנה הלילה, "how different is this night from every other night" (n)? and the feast of tabernacles, especially the last and great day of the feast, and the day of Pentecost; also one day in a month above others, the first day of the month, or new moon; and one day in a week, the seventh day sabbath: now there were some, who thought that the laws respecting these days were still in force, particularly the latter, and therefore esteemed it above another: but let it be observed, that the man that did so was one that was weak in faith; the same man that ate herbs, because he would not be guilty of violating those laws, which ordered a distinction of meats to be observed, the same weak man esteemed one day above another, imagining the laws concerning the distinction of days were still obligatory, not rightly understanding the doctrine of Christian liberty, or freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law:

And Matthew Henry:

Concerning days, Rom_14:5. Those who thought themselves still under some kind of obligation to the ceremonial law esteemed one day above another - kept up a respect to the times of the passover, pentecost, new moons, and feasts of tabernacles; thought those days better than other days, and solemnized them accordingly with particular observances, binding themselves to some religious rest and exercise on those days. Those who knew that all these things were abolished and done away by Christ's coming esteemed every day alike. We must understand it with an exception of the Lord's day, which all Christians unanimously observed; but they made no account, took no notice, of those antiquated festivals of the Jews. Here the apostle speaks of the distinction of meats and days as a thing indifferent, when it went no further than the opinion and practice of some particular persons, who had been trained up all their days to such observances, and therefore were the more excusable if they with difficulty parted with them. But in the epistle to the Galatians, where he deals with those that were originally Gentiles, but were influenced by some judaizing teachers, not only to believe such a distinction and to practise accordingly, but to lay a stress upon it as necessary to salvation, and to make the observance of the Jewish festivals public and congregational, here the case was altered, and it is charged upon them as the frustrating of the design of the gospel, falling from grace, Gal_4:9-11. The Romans did it out of weakness, the Galatians did it out of wilfulness and wickedness; and therefore the apostle handles them thus differently. This epistle is supposed to have been written some time before that to the Galatians. The apostle seems willing to let the ceremonial law wither by degrees, and to let it have an honourable burial; now these weak Romans seem to be only following it weeping to its grave, but those Galatians were raking it out of its ashes.

And the learned Calvin:

5. One indeed, etc. He had spoken before of scruples in the choice of meats; he now adds another example of difference, that is, as to days; and both these arose from Judaism. For as the Lord in his law made a difference between meats and pronounced some to be unclean, the use of which he prohibited, and as he had also appointed festal and solemn days and commanded them to be observed, the Jews, who had been brought up from their childhood in the doctrine of the law, would not lay aside that reverence for days which they had entertained from the beginning, and to which through life they had been accustomed; nor could they have dared to touch these meats from which they had so long abstained. That they were imbued with these notions, was an evidence of their weakness; they would have thought otherwise, had they possessed a certain and a clear knowledge of Christian liberty. But in abstaining from what they thought to be unlawful, they evidenced piety, as it would have been a proof of presumption and contempt, had they done anything contrary to the dictates of conscience.
 
Where do Christ-mass carols, exchanging of gifts, mistle toe, holly, lights, candles, incense, egg nog, trees, tinsel, nativity scenes, pageants, passion plays, images of Christ and His crucifixion, eggs, bunny rabbits, chocolates, Satan Claus (whoops, Santa, not Satan.. my mistake), and Charlie Brown specials fit "within the bounds of Scripture" for a non-binding day of thanksgiving to God, considering the fact that most-if-not-all of these wind up within on Church buildings during this time of the year, and take center place in our homes rather than, say, a posted copy of the Ten Commandments?

I deny that all these things must be necessarily present. Therefore, I will rephrase my postulation as a question:

May we, within the bounds of Scripture, offer up thanks to God for His feats of fulfilling prophesy regarding His birth and His resurrection on traditional days each year in so far as they are not set apart as holy religious days, but instead commemorated as non-binding days of thanksgiving to God?
 
Originally posted by piningforChrist
May we, within the bounds of Scripture, offer up thanks to God for His feats of fulfilling prophesy regarding His birth and His resurrection on traditional days each year in so far as they are not set apart as holy religious days, but instead commemorated as non-binding days of thanksgiving to God?

This is tricky. I have problems with parts of this, but not all.

First of all, how would you define a "holy" day? How is your hypothetical NOT a "holy" day?

Secondly, this reasoning does not justify the celebration of Christmas. From Matthew MacMahon's article on the subject:

Some appeal to The Westminster Confession in their statement concerning lawful days of "œthanksgiving" in order to appeal to a day of thanksgiving for Christmas. However, The Westminster Confession says the following, "œThe reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner. (WCF Chapter 21, Section 5; They use Esther 9:20-22 as a proof text for "œand thanksgivings upon special occasions", not for worship.) The Westminster Confession makes the distinction between worship which appears in the first part of the paragraph, and then separates other days of spiritual edification by the word "œbesides." They are not the same, and appeal to them is unwarranted.

The problem is, is that you are making a religious day of celebration (this is where the term "holy" comes in). The distinction that the Westminster Confession is making is between religous "holy" days (such as Christ-mass and easter) and civil days of thanksgiving. The former that deny based upon the regulative principle, and God's instituting the Sabbath as a day to celebrate God and his work in salvation. The latter they affirm based upon the texts provided.

I see the distinction they are making and think it is vital to the correct worship of God.

:2cents:
 
I been keeping up with the debate and In my humble opinion it's silly to get so hung up on this. Everything is permisable and as Peter was shown nothing is now unclean. If someone doesn't celebrate Christmas so be it, if someone does so be it too. Let us not get caught up in leagelism over one tiny thing, but let us do all to the glory of God :2cents:
 
Originally posted by historyb
I been keeping up with the debate and In my humble opinion it's silly to get so hung up on this. Everything is permisable and as Peter was shown nothing is now unclean. If someone doesn't celebrate Christmas so be it, if someone does so be it too. Let us not get caught up in leagelism over one tiny thing, but let us do all to the glory of God :2cents:

Doug,

Have you read any of the articles provided in this thread?

This debate only becomes "silly" if you do not take the Sabbath and/or the Regulative Principle seriously.
 
Originally posted by historyb
I been keeping up with the debate and In my humble opinion it's silly to get so hung up on this. Everything is permisable and as Peter was shown nothing is now unclean. If someone doesn't celebrate Christmas so be it, if someone does so be it too. Let us not get caught up in leagelism over one tiny thing, but let us do all to the glory of God :2cents:

Doug, I understand your point; however, as some have said, they do not see this a s a freedom issue, but a direct command given to us in scripture. From their perspective they are saying something akin to [say] abstain from sexual immorality, to which you reply, "It's silly to get so hung up on this. Everything is permisable and nothing is now unclean. If someone doesn't abstain from sexual immorality so be it, if someone does so be it too. Let us not get caught up in leagelism over one tiny thing, but let us do all to the glory of God."

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by ChristopherPaul]
 
They aren't the same. If someone started espousing that sexual immoratlity was acceptable they would be banned.
 
Originally posted by Rick Larson
They aren't the same. If someone started espousing that sexual immoratlity was acceptable they would be banned.

Well, from our perspective (and that of many Reformed throughout history), this issue is spoken of as clearly in Scripture as a command as abstinence from sexual immorality is.
 
Originally posted by Rick Larson
They aren't the same. If someone started espousing that sexual immoratlity was acceptable they would be banned.

I realize that. My point is, some of those who are abstaining from celebrating Christmas are doing so for the very same reason they abstain from sexual immorality - it is expressly warned and commanded against in Holy Scripture.

See such posts from this thread:

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Originally posted by Saiph
Many Godly men disagree with me Gabriel. So allow those of us who celebrate within our liberty, to enjoy Advent, 12 days of Christmas, and Epiphany in good conscience and faith towards God.

I will gladly allow anyone their liberty in Christ to do as they wish by faith, so long as it is not expressly warned and commanded against in God's Word.

Originally posted by Augusta
Originally posted by historyb
I like Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, etc. Withouth these things we might as well just all be hating family get togethers and celebrating Christ. my :2cents:

This is which was actually a reason I was told to stay away from reformed type stuff, to legalistic.:chained: I don't listen too good. :lol:

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by historyb]


Doug, is it legalistic to believe that the revealed word of God is our only rule for faith and practice?? God's commands are not to be taken lightly. Think of the most powerful earthly sovereign king, who can take your life or your livelyhood from you with a word. Now times that by infinity. He is not only all of those things but instead of just killing you and taking away your livelyhood he can take your very soul and justly torment you for eternity. Would you not tremble before him.

Would you try his long-suffering of your sin with parties and traditions that he has not commanded? And if that doesn't sound so bad what if these parties and revelries mirrored pagan ones of old that are still practiced by modern day pagans but you whitewash them and call them something different to make is sound good. Would you do them anyway after all that this wonderful God had done for you?
 
I will do as I've always done. I can do no other so help me God. I will celebrate Christmas and keep Christ at the center. Yes not do it because you want to perserve every little jot and tittle of the law is legalistic.

Then again I'm not hung up on the non essentials.
 
Originally posted by historybYes not do it because you want to perserve every little jot and tittle of the law is legalistic.

That is NOT legalism. See here for a treatment of the term. Here is an excerpt:

Simply put, legalism is belief, stated or supposedly implied, that law, not faith, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption.

Therefore your charge of legalism is unwarranted.
 
Originally posted by webmaster

Remmber though, I am all for XMAS. Trees, yule logs, Jack Frost nipping at your nose, Santa, the Bumble, etc. - bring it on. We love the festivities of the season to be jolly.

Jolly - 1 a (1) : full of high spirits : JOYOUS (2) : given to conviviality : JOVIAL b : expressing, suggesting, or inspiring gaiety : CHEERFUL.

I find Thanksgiving through New Years to be a very jolly time of the year!

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by webmaster]


Matt, I've been thinking more about your statement here, and I have a question. What is the difference in celebrating Xmas in a secular fashion from celebrating Halloween in a secular fashion?
 
Originally posted by Rick Larson
Originally posted by webmaster

Remmber though, I am all for XMAS. Trees, yule logs, Jack Frost nipping at your nose, Santa, the Bumble, etc. - bring it on. We love the festivities of the season to be jolly.

Jolly - 1 a (1) : full of high spirits : JOYOUS (2) : given to conviviality : JOVIAL b : expressing, suggesting, or inspiring gaiety : CHEERFUL.

I find Thanksgiving through New Years to be a very jolly time of the year!

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by webmaster]


Matt, I've been thinking more about your statement here, and I have a question. What is the difference in celebrating Xmas in a secular fashion from celebrating Halloween in a secular fashion?

That's exactly my question for the webmaster. ;) (See earlier post where I quoted him)
 
Originally posted by historyb
I will do as I've always done. I can do no other so help me God. I will celebrate Christmas and keep Christ at the center. Yes not do it because you want to perserve every little jot and tittle of the law is legalistic.

Then again I'm not hung up on the non essentials.

Doug, My household will be celebrating Christmas . We will have a tree, presents, mistle toe, etc. I am just pointing out to you that a simple accusation of legalism will not work. You need to show how such sins as sexual immorality are forbidden, but celebrating Christmas is not.
 
Originally posted by Rick Larson
Originally posted by webmaster

Remmber though, I am all for XMAS. Trees, yule logs, Jack Frost nipping at your nose, Santa, the Bumble, etc. - bring it on. We love the festivities of the season to be jolly.

Jolly - 1 a (1) : full of high spirits : JOYOUS (2) : given to conviviality : JOVIAL b : expressing, suggesting, or inspiring gaiety : CHEERFUL.

I find Thanksgiving through New Years to be a very jolly time of the year!

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by webmaster]


Matt, I've been thinking more about your statement here, and I have a question. What is the difference in celebrating Xmas in a secular fashion from celebrating Halloween in a secular fashion?

I don't know webmaster's answer, but I gather from his post it has something to do with the promotion of joy and cheer rather than evil and mischief.
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Civil days of thanksgiving are okie dokie. I celebrate Reformation Day and Thanksgiving within the realm of the Westminster Confession:

V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear,[17] the sound preaching [18] and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence,[19] singing of psalms with grace in the heart;[20] as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God:[21] beside religious oaths,[22] vows,[23] solemn fastings,[24] and thanksgivings upon special occasions,[25] which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.[26]

...

The distinction comes down to: Is the day a civil day of thanksgiving (lawful) or a religious holy day (unlawful).

I don't see how annual days such as the so-called Reformation day or Thanksgiving fall into the category of thanksgivings upon special occasions. I believe the Westminster divines had in mind those particular occasions where God's immediate providence is in view, e.g., after some "natural disaster" (humanly speaking) where God preserved His people. Setting up annual days to recall these things don't seem to fit within the context. In other words,, the first "thanksgiving" in 1621 celebrated by those Puritans was OK. God brought those people to the new world and preserved then during hard days. Turning it into an annual event hundreds of years later is not at the behest of the state is not.

If you do it annually it is no longer a "special occasion".

Besides, WCF XXI is speaking of divine worship. The civil authority has no place in defining days of divine worship. in my opinion, annual civil days precipitate a false civil religion.
 
Originally posted by tcalbrecht
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Civil days of thanksgiving are okie dokie. I celebrate Reformation Day and Thanksgiving within the realm of the Westminster Confession:

V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear,[17] the sound preaching [18] and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence,[19] singing of psalms with grace in the heart;[20] as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God:[21] beside religious oaths,[22] vows,[23] solemn fastings,[24] and thanksgivings upon special occasions,[25] which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.[26]

...

The distinction comes down to: Is the day a civil day of thanksgiving (lawful) or a religious holy day (unlawful).

I don't see how annual days such as the so-called Reformation day or Thanksgiving fall into the category of thanksgivings upon special occasions. I believe the Westminster divines had in mind those particular occasions where God's immediate providence is in view, e.g., after some "natural disaster" (humanly speaking) where God preserved His people. Setting up annual days to recall these things don't seem to fit within the context. In other words,, the first "thanksgiving" in 1621 celebrated by those Puritans was OK. God brought those people to the new world and preserved then during hard days. Turning it into an annual event hundreds of years later is not at the behest of the state is not.

If you do it annually it is no longer a "special occasion".

I think there is validity to this critique of modern Thanksgiving compared with the days of thanksgiving envisioned (and practiced) by the Westminster Assembly. I personally observe Thanksgiving -- though I believe it is far from what the Pilgrims and Puritans observed and stands in great need of Reformation. The current date is chosen merely to inaugurate the Christmass shopping season.

Reformation Day (and Guy Fawke's Day) for me are historical commemorations of providential events. I don't believe the church should have Reformation Sunday services or do anything to alter her Lord's Day observances. Historical anniversaries are like birthdays to me, just anniversaries worth remembering.

That said, and being well cognizant of the tendency of our hearts to turn things good or indifferent into idols, I don't think annual days of thanksgiving are necessarily unBiblical. Purim was an annual event and it is specifically cited (Est. 9.22) as a proof text by the Assembly in support of days of thanksgiving.

Matthew Henry notes regarding this verse how Purim was instituted well but degenerated in its observance by the Jews. He refers to a truism: "Nothing more purifies the heart and adorns religion than holy joy; nothing more pollutes the heart and reproaches religion than carnal mirth and sensual pleasure. Corruptio optimi est pessima--What is best becomes when corrupted the worst." This should serve as a warning to all Christians regarding all holiday observances.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
Originally posted by tcalbrecht
Besides, WCF XXI is speaking of divine worship.

I'm not sure that I agree entirely. See Matt's treatment of this section (see quoted above) :

However, The Westminster Confession says the following, "œThe reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner. (WCF Chapter 21, Section 5; They use Esther 9:20-22 as a proof text for "œand thanksgivings upon special occasions", not for worship.) The Westminster Confession makes the distinction between worship which appears in the first part of the paragraph, and then separates other days of spiritual edification by the word "œbesides." They are not the same, and appeal to them is unwarranted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top