Here are some of my thoughts on some of the issues in this thread up to this point.
Concerning Christmas, my position, as stated before, is that it is permissible for Christians to celebrate Christmas. I believe to forbid Christians from celebrating Christmas in the name of the RPW is to go beyond Scripture and to unnecessarily bind the consciences of Christians, thereby undermining the principle itself.
Here is an interesting passage from the book of Esther 9:20-32:
Then Mordecai recorded these events and he sent letters to all the Jews who were in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, both near and far, obliging them to celebrate the fourteenth day of the month Adar, and the fifteenth day of the same month, annually, because on those days the Jews rid themselves of their enemies, and it was a month which was turned for them from sorrow into gladness and from mourning into a holiday; that they should make them days of feasting and rejoicing and sending portions of food to one another and gifts to the poor. Thus the Jews undertook what they had started to do, and what Mordecai had written to them. For Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, the adversary of all the Jews, had schemed against the Jews to destroy them, and had cast Pur, that is the lot, to disturb them and destroy them. But when it came to the king's attention, he commanded by letter that his wicked scheme which he has devised against the Jews, should return on his own head, and that he and his sons should be hanged on the gallows. Therefore they called these days Purim after the name of Pur. And because of the instructions in this letter, both what they had seen in this regard and what had happened to them, the Jews established and made a custom for themselves, and for their descendents, and for all those who allied themselves with them, so that they should not fail to celebrate these two days according to their regulation, and according to their appointed time annually. So these days were to be remembered and celebrated throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city; and these days of Purim were not to fail from among the Jews, or their memory fade from their descendents.
Then Queen Esther, daughter of Abihail, with Mordecai the Jew, wrote with full authority to confirm this second letter about Purim. And he sent letters to all the Jews, to the 127 provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, namely, words of peace and truth, to establish these days of Purim at their appointed times, just as Mordecai the Jew and Queen Esther had established for them, and just as they had established for themselves and for their descendents with instructions for their times of fasting and their lamentations. And the command of Esther established these customs for Purim, and it was written in the book.
Here in the book of Esther we have an example of the people of God instituting and celebrating annually the holiday of Purim. How is this any different from the celebration of Christmas??? This holiday was NOT positively instituted by God, but was devised by the minds of fallen humans... kinda like Christmas, right? But yet the celebration of Purim, which was, again, NOT instituted by God, is nowhere in Scripture condemned by God. God did not say to the Jews, "You are violating the RPW because I did not command you to create this holiday." This was a holiday that was in no way connected to the OT ceremonial system, so you cannot say that this day would have been permitted in the OT, but is no longer permitted today in the NT era. Purim is completely UNRELATED to the OT holy days!
So here is a Biblical example of those ol' Papists, the Jews, celebrating a man-made holiday. Based upon this passage alone I believe we can conclude that the celebration of man-made holidays is a practice that is permitted (though not required) by Scripture, and is thus not a violation of the RPW. So if you're going to argue against celebrating Christmas, you need to find a different argument besides, "Where are we commanded to celebrate it?" According to Scripture, we have freedom.
This is also relevant to the issue of the ecclesiastical calendar. The calendar does not add any new rituals or rites to the worship of God. All it does is direct our Scripture readings, songs, prayers, and sermons (all things that are commanded in Scripture) according to the life of Christ. Each of the ecclesiastical "holidays" are representative of different times in Christ's life (Lent represents Christ's sufferings, Advent represents Christ's coming into the world, etc.). If you have a problem with ordering your worship services throughout the year according to the life of Christ, then you should also have a problem when your pastor decides he wants to spend a year preaching through Romans, and then orders the music, prayer, and preaching around the themes of the book of Romans. There is no difference.
Concerning the RPW, I have a few criticisms. Of course, none of what I'm about to say will be taken seriously by truly Reformed folk, since what I am saying will appear as contrary to the WCF, which means it's automatically wrong. I will be called "not Reformed" more than once I'm sure, and I will be reminded that I'm at odds with Calvin and the Divines (which is funny, since most of you Sabbatarians have no problem telling Calvin and all the Continental Reformers that they were out to lunch on their doctrine of the Sabbath). But I assure you in return I will not pay attention to this particular criticism, since I believe the WCF needs work in some areas. Also, I'm not denying that worship should be regulated. I'm just questioning the way many people have tried to regulate it.
I have heard on more than one occasion that the whole "if it's not commanded, it's forbidden" principle is an application and extension of the second commandment, "You shall not make for yourselves any graven images." Now I certainly do not desire to overthrow the law of God, but I want to suggest that this line of reasoning as it is applied to the corporate worship of God is flawed.
First, it should be pointed out that because the second commandment is part of the moral law of God, it is therefore universally binding in all places at all times. Therefore, the second commandment applied just as much outside the church as inside. Now consider the issue of Exclusive Psalmody. EPers always argue that since God has (allegedly) only commanded the Psalms to be sung in corporate worship, that therefore the singing of uninspired hymns is forbidden in worship. But what about outside of corporate worship? When I'm in my car all by myself, am I permitted to sing an uninspired hymn to God worshipping him as I drive? I have never met an EPer that argued that uninspired hymns could not be sung in our "free time". But if the RPW is an application of the second commandment, and the second commandment applies to all of life, not just the church, then uninspired hymns are not to be sung EVER, not even in our free time.
Again, the point here is only to demonstrate that the way the RPW is being enforced is inconsistent and arbitrary. If the RPW is truly an application of the second commandment, it must also of necessity be applied to all of life, rather than just the corporate worship of God. If for corporate worship we must say, "We can only do what God has commanded", we must also say this of the rest of life as well. This means that not only during the corporate worship of God is written prayer a forbidden practice, but in our personal devotion time as well, which means that if we journal our prayers during our daily devotions we are breaking the RPW. If the RPW only applies to corporate worship, then does the command of Jesus against hatred (an application of the sixth commandment) only apply to corporate worship as well? Of course not. Let's not be arbitrary in our application of the law of God.
Second, the distinction between elements and circumstances is confusing and even arbitrary at times. Furthermore, God has nowhere in Scripture commanded us to make the distinction between element and circumstance, which means the principle undermines itself on this point. But I suspect that the reason the element/circumstance distinction was developed is because the rigid application of the whole "if it's not commanded, it's forbidden" principle is just flat unworkable to being with. The element/circumstance distinction gives it a bit more workability.
Also, nobody has shown me where God has commanded that we only pray extemporaneous prayers. Only mere assertions have been offered in response. To say that reading and praying are two different things that are to remain seperate, then what in the world is Psalm 51 doing in the Bible? And where does Scripture create this sharp distinction that seperates prayer from reading?
And anyone who thinks high church liturgy leads to dead worship has obviously never been to St Paul's PCA. It is not the outward that makes us filthy, but the inward. Liturgy is an expression of the transcendent nature of worship.
Sincerely,
Your friendly neighborhood Anglo-Presbyterian.
P.S. - To whom should I pay my fine of five schillings this Christmas?
[Edited on 23-11-2004 by luvroftheWord]
to the dark side Pastor Way. Next thing you know you'll be over at my house drinking beer and watching the Passion 
(just a joke).
)
