VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
My view is that it should not be celebrated by Christians at all, but especially not in the church.
Celebrating Christmas
- Thread starter ABondSlaveofChristJesus
- Start date
- Status
My view is that it should not be celebrated by Christians at all, but especially not in the church.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Religious celebration of Christ-mass in the church is the epitome of man-made legalism.
It seems to me there is a streak within Reformed Christianity (in the broad sense), and represented in this message board, that claims the label "regulative principle of worship", but infact rejects its true historical meaning. These people have hijacked the term and changed it to narrow what scripture must regulate and broaden what man may innovate. I'm beginning to wonder, if they believe whatever isnt commanded is forbidden, what exactly ISNT commanded? B/c it seems like there is no human fancie profane enough to be forbidden from use in worship. I think their only use of the RPW is to excuse themselves from its implications. What they do is charge anyone who attempts to regulate worship by scripture with unlawfully binding the conscience,ie, turning the principle upon itself. They should examine the original intent of the Assembly. Look over documents written by the Assembly or its members such as, "The Directory for Public Worship" and George Gillespie's "Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies." These works explicitly condemn holy-days, candles, robes, hymn singing, and other popish superstitions. This was not a secondary issue to our Puritan fathers either. And their interest in it was not confined to some ethereal principle w/o tangible consequences. Opposition to english popish ceremonies (high church anglicanism) was what the reason for the Westminster Assembly. The Scots endured decades of prelacy and arminianism imposed upon them by the English but it was that disgusting mass book (Laud's prayerbook) that caused them to rebel. If you dont like the RPW at least have the honesty to officially repudiate it, there are other neo-Presbyterians who have done this so you wont feel alone. And I think im beginning to see this on the PB, which is encouraging b/c once that is done, the verbal clutter removed, we can sincerely debate the principle.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
The church does not have the warrant to impose a religious Christ-mass celebration. When it does, as I stated, it violating the consciences of men and it does constitute legalism (cf. Matthew 15.9). It is false to suggest otherwise.
It violates this principle:
"But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture."
And this one:
"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship."
As to celebration of Christ-mass outside the church, this too has already been much-discussed on this and other threads. Everyone seems to have different perspectives on what it means to celebrate a religious holy day in a secular way if that is one's intent. However, my position is simply that of the Westminster Divines who wrote: "Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued."
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
PRESBYTERIANS DO NOT OBSERVE HOLY-DAYS
Samuel Miller, D.D.
Copyright © 1999 The Blue Banner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an extract from: Samuel Miller, D. D, Presbyterianism the truly primitive and Apostolical Constitution of the Church of Christ (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1835) 73-78. Miller is discussing "œThe Worship of the Presbyterian Church." There are some minor editing and spelling changes to conform to modern American usage. Miller made some very similar comments regarding Christmas observance ten years earlier in a letter to the editor of The Commercial Advertiser in New York.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presbyterians Do Not Observe Holy Days
We believe, and teach, in our public formularies, that there is no day, under the Gospel dispensation, commanded to be kept holy, except the Lord's day, which is the Christian Sabbath."
We believe, indeed, and declare, in the same formula, that it is both scriptural and rational, to observe special days of Fasting and Thanksgiving, as the extraordinary dispensations of Divine Providence may direct. But we are persuaded, that even the keeping of these days, when they are made stated observances, recurring, of course, at particular times, whatever the aspect of Providence may be, is calculated to promote formality and superstition, rather than the edification of the body of Christ.
Our reasons for entertaining this opinion, are the following:
1. We are persuaded that there is no scriptural warrant for such observances, either from precept or example. There is no hint in the New Testament that such days were either observed or recommended by the Apostles, or by any of the churches in their time. The mention of Easter, in Acts 12:4, has no application to this subject. Herod was a Jew, not a Christian; and, of course, had no desire to honor a Christian solemnity. The real meaning of the passage is, as the slightest inspection of the original will satisfy every intelligent reader; "œ intending after the Passover to bring him forth to lie people."
2. We believe that the Scriptures not only do not warrant the observance of such days, but that they positively discountenance it. Let any one impartially weigh Colossians 2:16 and also, Galatians 4:9-11 and then say whether these passages do not evidently indicate, that the inspired Apostle disapproved of the observance of such days.
3. The observance of Fasts and Festivals, by divine direction, under the Old Testament economy, makes nothing in favor of such observances under the New Testament dispensation. That economy was no longer binding, or even lawful after the New Testament Church was set up. It were just as reasonable to plead for the present use of the Passover, the incense, and the burnt offerings of the Old economy, which were confessedly done away by the coming of Christ, as to argue in favor of human inventions, bearing some resemblance to them, as binding in the Christian Church.
4. The history of the introduction of stated Fasts and Festivals by the early Christians, speaks much against both their obligation, and their edifying character. Their origin was ignoble. They were chiefly brought in by carnal policy, for the purpose of drawing into the Church Jews and Gentiles, who had both been accustomed to festivals and holy-days. And from the moment of their introduction, they became the signal for strife, or the monuments of worldly expedient, and degrading superstition.
As there were no holy-days, excepting the Lord's day, observed in the Christian Church while the Apostles lived; and no hint given that they thought any other expedient or desirable; so we find no hint of any such observance having been adopted until towards the close of the second century. Then, the celebration of Easter gave rise to a controversy; the Asiatic Christians pleading for its observance at the same time which was prescribed for the Jewish Passover, and contending that they were supported in this by apostolic tradition; while the Western Church contended for its stated celebration on a certain Sunday, and urged, with equal confidence, apostolic tradition in favor of their scheme. Concerning this fierce and unhallowed controversy, Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, who wrote soon after the time of Eusebius, and begins his history where the latter closes his narrative; speaking on the controversy concerning Easter, expresses himself thus: "œNeither the ancients, nor the fathers of later times, I mean such as favored the Jewish custom, had sufficient cause to contend so eagerly about the feast of Easter; for they considered not within themselves, that when the Jewish religion was changed into Christianity, the literal observance of the Mosaic law, and the types of things to come, wholly ceased. And this carries with it its own evidence. For no one of Christ's laws permits Christians to observe the rites of the Jews. Nay, the Apostle hath in plain words forbidden it, where he abrogates Circumcision, and exhorts us not to contend about feasts and holy-days. For, writing to the Galatians, he admonishes them not to observe days, and months, and times, and years. And unto the Colossians, he is as plain as may be, declaring, that the observance of such things was but a shadow. Neither the Apostles nor the Evangelists have enjoined on Christians the observance of Easter; but have left the remembrance of it to the free choice and discretion of those who have been benefited by such days. Men keep holy-days, because thereon they enjoy rest from toil and labor Therefore, it comes to pass, that in every place they do celebrate, of their own accord, the remembrance of the Lord's passion. But neither our Savior nor his Apostles have any where commanded us to observe it." Socrates, Lib. 5, cap. 21.
Here, then, is an eminent Christian writer who flourished early in the fifth century, who had made the history of the Church his particular study; who explicitly declares, that neither Christ nor his Apostles gave any command, or even countenance to the observance of festival days; that it was brought into the Church by custom; and that in different parts of the Church there was diversity of practice in regard to this matter. With respect to Easter, in particular, this diversity was striking. We no sooner hear of its observance at all, than we begin to hear of contest, and interruption of Christian fellowship on account of it; some quoting the authority of some of the Apostles for keeping this festival on one day; and others, with equal confidence, quoting the authority of other Apostles for the selection of a different day: thereby clearly demonstrating, that there was error somewhere, and rendering it highly probable that all parties were wrong, and that no such observances at all, were binding on Christians.
The festival of Easter, no doubt, was introduced in the second century, in place of the Passover, and in accommodation to the same Jewish prejudice which had said, even during the apostolic age, "œExcept ye be circumcised, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Hence, it was generally called pascha, and pasch, in conformity with the name of the Jewish festival, whose place it took. It seems to have received the title of Easter in Great Britain, from the circumstance, that, when Christianity was introduced into that country, a great Pagan festival, celebrated at the same season of the year, in honor of the Pagan goddess Eostre, yielded its place to the Christian festival, which received, substantially, the name of the Pagan deity. The title of Easter, it is believed, is seldom used but by Britons and their descendants.
Few festivals are celebrated in the Romish Church, and in some Protestant Churches, with more interest and zeal than Christmas. Yet when Origen, about the middle of the third century, professes to give a list of the fasts and festivals which were observed in his day, he makes no mention of Christmas. From this fact, Sir Peter King, in his Inquiry into the Constitution and worship, &c. of the Primitive Church, &c. infers, that no such festival was then observed; and adds, "œIt seems improbable that they should celebrate Christ's nativity, when they disagreed about the mouth and the day when Christ was born." Every month in the year has been assigned by different portions and writers of the Christian Church as the time of our Lord's nativity; and the final location of this, as well as other holy-days, in the ecclesiastical calendar, was adjusted rather upon astronomical and mathematical principles, than on any solid calculations of history.
5. But the motives and manner of introducing Christmas into the Christian Church, speak more strongly against it. Its real origin was this. Like many other observances, it was borrowed from the heathen. The well known Pagan festival among the Romans, distinguished by the title of Saturnalia, because instituted in honor of their fabled deity, Saturn, was celebrated by them with the greatest splendor, extravagance, and debauchery. It was, during its continuance, a season of freedom and equality; the master ceased to rule, and the slave to obey; the former waiting at his own table, upon the latter, and submitting to the suspension of all order, and the reign of universal frolic. The ceremonial of this festival was opened on the 19th of December, by lighting profusion of waxen candles in the temple of Saturn; and by suspending in their temple, and in all their habitations, boughs of laurel, and various kinds of evergreen. The Christian Church, seeing the unhappy moral influence of this festival; perceiving her own members too often partaking in its licentiousness; and desirous, if possible, of effecting its abolition, appointed a festival, in honor of her Master's birth, nearly about the same time, for the purpose of superseding it. In doing this, the policy was to retain as many of these habits which had prevailed in the Saturnalia as could in any way be reconciled with the purity of Christianity. They made their new festival, therefore, a season of relaxation and mirth, of cheerful visiting, and mutual presents. They lighted candles in their places of worship and adorned them with a profusion of evergreen boughs. Thus did the Romish Church borrow from the Pagans some of her most prominent observances; and thus have some observances of this origin been adopted and continued by Protestants.
6. It being evident, then, that stated fasts and festivals have no divine warrant, and that their use under the New Testament economy is a mere human invention; we may ask those who are friendly to their observance, what limits ought to be set to their adoption and use in the Christian Church? If it be lawful to introduce five such days for stated observance, why not ten, twenty, or five score? A small number were, at an early period, brought into use by serious men, who thought they were thereby rendering God service, and extending the reign of religion. But one after another was added, as superstition increased, until the calendar became burdened with between two and three hundred fasts and festivals, or saint's days, in each year; thus materially interfering with the claims of secular industry, and loading the worship of God with a mass of superstitious observances, equally unfriendly to the temporal and the eternal interests of men. Let the principle once be admitted, that stated days of religious observance, which God has no where commanded, may properly be introduced into the Christian ritual, and, by parity of reasoning, every one who, from good motives, can effect the introduction of a new religious festival, is at liberty to do so. Upon this principle was built up the enormous mass of superstition which now distinguishes and corrupts the Romish Church.
7. The observance of uncommanded holy-days is ever found to interfere with the due sanctification of the Lord's day. Adding to the appointments of God is superstition. And superstition has ever been found unfriendly to genuine obedience. Its votaries, like the Jews of old, have ever been found more tenacious of their own inventions, of traditionary dreams, than of God's revealed code of duty. Accordingly, there is, perhaps, no fact more universal and unquestionable, than that the zealous observers of stated fasts and festivals are characteristically lax in the observance of that one day which God has eminently set apart for himself, and on the sanctification of which all the vital interests of practical religion are suspended. So it was among the Israelites of old. As early as the fifth century, Augustine complains that the superstitious observance of uncommanded rites, betrayed many in his time, into a spirit of irreverence and neglect towards those which were divinely appointed. So it is, notoriously, among the Romanists at the present day. And so, without any breach of charity, it may be said to be in every religious community in which zeal for the observance of uncommanded holy-days prevails. It is true, many in those communities tell us, that the observance of holy-days, devoted to particular persons and events in the history of the Church, has a manifest and strong tendency to increase the spirit of piety. But if this be so, we might expect to find much more scriptural piety in the Romish Church than in any other, since holy-days are ten times more numerous in that denomination than in the system of any Protestant Church. But is it so? Let those who have eyes to see, and ears to hear, decide.
If the foregoing allegations be in any measure well founded; if there be no warrant in God's word for any observances of this kind; if, on the contrary, the Scriptures positively discourage them; if the history of their introduction and increase mark an unhallowed origin; if, when we once open the door to such human inventions, no one can say how or when it may be closed; and if the observance of days, not appointed of God, has ever been found to exert an unfriendly influence on the sanctification of that holy-day which God has appointed, surely we need no further proof that it is wise to discard them from our ecclesiastical system.
Samuel Miller, D.D.
Copyright © 1999 The Blue Banner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an extract from: Samuel Miller, D. D, Presbyterianism the truly primitive and Apostolical Constitution of the Church of Christ (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1835) 73-78. Miller is discussing "œThe Worship of the Presbyterian Church." There are some minor editing and spelling changes to conform to modern American usage. Miller made some very similar comments regarding Christmas observance ten years earlier in a letter to the editor of The Commercial Advertiser in New York.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presbyterians Do Not Observe Holy Days
We believe, and teach, in our public formularies, that there is no day, under the Gospel dispensation, commanded to be kept holy, except the Lord's day, which is the Christian Sabbath."
We believe, indeed, and declare, in the same formula, that it is both scriptural and rational, to observe special days of Fasting and Thanksgiving, as the extraordinary dispensations of Divine Providence may direct. But we are persuaded, that even the keeping of these days, when they are made stated observances, recurring, of course, at particular times, whatever the aspect of Providence may be, is calculated to promote formality and superstition, rather than the edification of the body of Christ.
Our reasons for entertaining this opinion, are the following:
1. We are persuaded that there is no scriptural warrant for such observances, either from precept or example. There is no hint in the New Testament that such days were either observed or recommended by the Apostles, or by any of the churches in their time. The mention of Easter, in Acts 12:4, has no application to this subject. Herod was a Jew, not a Christian; and, of course, had no desire to honor a Christian solemnity. The real meaning of the passage is, as the slightest inspection of the original will satisfy every intelligent reader; "œ intending after the Passover to bring him forth to lie people."
2. We believe that the Scriptures not only do not warrant the observance of such days, but that they positively discountenance it. Let any one impartially weigh Colossians 2:16 and also, Galatians 4:9-11 and then say whether these passages do not evidently indicate, that the inspired Apostle disapproved of the observance of such days.
3. The observance of Fasts and Festivals, by divine direction, under the Old Testament economy, makes nothing in favor of such observances under the New Testament dispensation. That economy was no longer binding, or even lawful after the New Testament Church was set up. It were just as reasonable to plead for the present use of the Passover, the incense, and the burnt offerings of the Old economy, which were confessedly done away by the coming of Christ, as to argue in favor of human inventions, bearing some resemblance to them, as binding in the Christian Church.
4. The history of the introduction of stated Fasts and Festivals by the early Christians, speaks much against both their obligation, and their edifying character. Their origin was ignoble. They were chiefly brought in by carnal policy, for the purpose of drawing into the Church Jews and Gentiles, who had both been accustomed to festivals and holy-days. And from the moment of their introduction, they became the signal for strife, or the monuments of worldly expedient, and degrading superstition.
As there were no holy-days, excepting the Lord's day, observed in the Christian Church while the Apostles lived; and no hint given that they thought any other expedient or desirable; so we find no hint of any such observance having been adopted until towards the close of the second century. Then, the celebration of Easter gave rise to a controversy; the Asiatic Christians pleading for its observance at the same time which was prescribed for the Jewish Passover, and contending that they were supported in this by apostolic tradition; while the Western Church contended for its stated celebration on a certain Sunday, and urged, with equal confidence, apostolic tradition in favor of their scheme. Concerning this fierce and unhallowed controversy, Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, who wrote soon after the time of Eusebius, and begins his history where the latter closes his narrative; speaking on the controversy concerning Easter, expresses himself thus: "œNeither the ancients, nor the fathers of later times, I mean such as favored the Jewish custom, had sufficient cause to contend so eagerly about the feast of Easter; for they considered not within themselves, that when the Jewish religion was changed into Christianity, the literal observance of the Mosaic law, and the types of things to come, wholly ceased. And this carries with it its own evidence. For no one of Christ's laws permits Christians to observe the rites of the Jews. Nay, the Apostle hath in plain words forbidden it, where he abrogates Circumcision, and exhorts us not to contend about feasts and holy-days. For, writing to the Galatians, he admonishes them not to observe days, and months, and times, and years. And unto the Colossians, he is as plain as may be, declaring, that the observance of such things was but a shadow. Neither the Apostles nor the Evangelists have enjoined on Christians the observance of Easter; but have left the remembrance of it to the free choice and discretion of those who have been benefited by such days. Men keep holy-days, because thereon they enjoy rest from toil and labor Therefore, it comes to pass, that in every place they do celebrate, of their own accord, the remembrance of the Lord's passion. But neither our Savior nor his Apostles have any where commanded us to observe it." Socrates, Lib. 5, cap. 21.
Here, then, is an eminent Christian writer who flourished early in the fifth century, who had made the history of the Church his particular study; who explicitly declares, that neither Christ nor his Apostles gave any command, or even countenance to the observance of festival days; that it was brought into the Church by custom; and that in different parts of the Church there was diversity of practice in regard to this matter. With respect to Easter, in particular, this diversity was striking. We no sooner hear of its observance at all, than we begin to hear of contest, and interruption of Christian fellowship on account of it; some quoting the authority of some of the Apostles for keeping this festival on one day; and others, with equal confidence, quoting the authority of other Apostles for the selection of a different day: thereby clearly demonstrating, that there was error somewhere, and rendering it highly probable that all parties were wrong, and that no such observances at all, were binding on Christians.
The festival of Easter, no doubt, was introduced in the second century, in place of the Passover, and in accommodation to the same Jewish prejudice which had said, even during the apostolic age, "œExcept ye be circumcised, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Hence, it was generally called pascha, and pasch, in conformity with the name of the Jewish festival, whose place it took. It seems to have received the title of Easter in Great Britain, from the circumstance, that, when Christianity was introduced into that country, a great Pagan festival, celebrated at the same season of the year, in honor of the Pagan goddess Eostre, yielded its place to the Christian festival, which received, substantially, the name of the Pagan deity. The title of Easter, it is believed, is seldom used but by Britons and their descendants.
Few festivals are celebrated in the Romish Church, and in some Protestant Churches, with more interest and zeal than Christmas. Yet when Origen, about the middle of the third century, professes to give a list of the fasts and festivals which were observed in his day, he makes no mention of Christmas. From this fact, Sir Peter King, in his Inquiry into the Constitution and worship, &c. of the Primitive Church, &c. infers, that no such festival was then observed; and adds, "œIt seems improbable that they should celebrate Christ's nativity, when they disagreed about the mouth and the day when Christ was born." Every month in the year has been assigned by different portions and writers of the Christian Church as the time of our Lord's nativity; and the final location of this, as well as other holy-days, in the ecclesiastical calendar, was adjusted rather upon astronomical and mathematical principles, than on any solid calculations of history.
5. But the motives and manner of introducing Christmas into the Christian Church, speak more strongly against it. Its real origin was this. Like many other observances, it was borrowed from the heathen. The well known Pagan festival among the Romans, distinguished by the title of Saturnalia, because instituted in honor of their fabled deity, Saturn, was celebrated by them with the greatest splendor, extravagance, and debauchery. It was, during its continuance, a season of freedom and equality; the master ceased to rule, and the slave to obey; the former waiting at his own table, upon the latter, and submitting to the suspension of all order, and the reign of universal frolic. The ceremonial of this festival was opened on the 19th of December, by lighting profusion of waxen candles in the temple of Saturn; and by suspending in their temple, and in all their habitations, boughs of laurel, and various kinds of evergreen. The Christian Church, seeing the unhappy moral influence of this festival; perceiving her own members too often partaking in its licentiousness; and desirous, if possible, of effecting its abolition, appointed a festival, in honor of her Master's birth, nearly about the same time, for the purpose of superseding it. In doing this, the policy was to retain as many of these habits which had prevailed in the Saturnalia as could in any way be reconciled with the purity of Christianity. They made their new festival, therefore, a season of relaxation and mirth, of cheerful visiting, and mutual presents. They lighted candles in their places of worship and adorned them with a profusion of evergreen boughs. Thus did the Romish Church borrow from the Pagans some of her most prominent observances; and thus have some observances of this origin been adopted and continued by Protestants.
6. It being evident, then, that stated fasts and festivals have no divine warrant, and that their use under the New Testament economy is a mere human invention; we may ask those who are friendly to their observance, what limits ought to be set to their adoption and use in the Christian Church? If it be lawful to introduce five such days for stated observance, why not ten, twenty, or five score? A small number were, at an early period, brought into use by serious men, who thought they were thereby rendering God service, and extending the reign of religion. But one after another was added, as superstition increased, until the calendar became burdened with between two and three hundred fasts and festivals, or saint's days, in each year; thus materially interfering with the claims of secular industry, and loading the worship of God with a mass of superstitious observances, equally unfriendly to the temporal and the eternal interests of men. Let the principle once be admitted, that stated days of religious observance, which God has no where commanded, may properly be introduced into the Christian ritual, and, by parity of reasoning, every one who, from good motives, can effect the introduction of a new religious festival, is at liberty to do so. Upon this principle was built up the enormous mass of superstition which now distinguishes and corrupts the Romish Church.
7. The observance of uncommanded holy-days is ever found to interfere with the due sanctification of the Lord's day. Adding to the appointments of God is superstition. And superstition has ever been found unfriendly to genuine obedience. Its votaries, like the Jews of old, have ever been found more tenacious of their own inventions, of traditionary dreams, than of God's revealed code of duty. Accordingly, there is, perhaps, no fact more universal and unquestionable, than that the zealous observers of stated fasts and festivals are characteristically lax in the observance of that one day which God has eminently set apart for himself, and on the sanctification of which all the vital interests of practical religion are suspended. So it was among the Israelites of old. As early as the fifth century, Augustine complains that the superstitious observance of uncommanded rites, betrayed many in his time, into a spirit of irreverence and neglect towards those which were divinely appointed. So it is, notoriously, among the Romanists at the present day. And so, without any breach of charity, it may be said to be in every religious community in which zeal for the observance of uncommanded holy-days prevails. It is true, many in those communities tell us, that the observance of holy-days, devoted to particular persons and events in the history of the Church, has a manifest and strong tendency to increase the spirit of piety. But if this be so, we might expect to find much more scriptural piety in the Romish Church than in any other, since holy-days are ten times more numerous in that denomination than in the system of any Protestant Church. But is it so? Let those who have eyes to see, and ears to hear, decide.
If the foregoing allegations be in any measure well founded; if there be no warrant in God's word for any observances of this kind; if, on the contrary, the Scriptures positively discourage them; if the history of their introduction and increase mark an unhallowed origin; if, when we once open the door to such human inventions, no one can say how or when it may be closed; and if the observance of days, not appointed of God, has ever been found to exert an unfriendly influence on the sanctification of that holy-day which God has appointed, surely we need no further proof that it is wise to discard them from our ecclesiastical system.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
God's Word and the Church Calendar
by Douglas W. Comin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without a doubt, the two most significant events in human history were the birth of Christ and His resurrection. In the first event we behold the fulfillment of the promise of God to send a Redeemer who would deliver us from sin and death. In the wretched filth of a stable a child was born who was the living embodiment of God's grace. He was fully man, so that He could be a fitting substitute for lost human sinners. He was fully God, so that His one sacrifice might be sufficient for all of His elect throughout history. In the second event we behold the power of His accomplished work and the glorious result. Death is swallowed up in victory! The power of sin is vanquished! God's wrath is satisfied, fallen sinners are justified, and Jesus Christ is glorified to receive a kingdom and a throne that will last forever.
In light of these truths, it may seem odd (or even foolish) to some that in the Reformed Presbyterian Church the traditional commemorations of these two events known as Christmas and Easter come and go each year without fanfare and special services. In fact, it is not uncommon for my family to take a week of vacation at Christmas time and we are inevitably asked, "How in the world did you get away from the church at this time of year?" The very idea of Christians not "celebrating" Christmas and Easter seems strange, at the very least. Do we think the advent and the resurrection are unimportant? Perish the thought! Why then do we not join with the vast majority of the visible Christian Church in annually celebrating these "holy days"? Believe it or not, there are reasons. You may or may not agree with what follows, and to disagree is certainly your prerogative. I ask only this: that you consider the issue with the spirit of the noble Bereans of Acts 17, who listened to the words of the Apostle Paul, and examined the Scriptures daily to see if his words were true. May God grant us all to know His will for His Church and to resolve to take every thought (and every practice) captive to the obedience of Christ.
God's Word: The First Consideration
The explanation for any practice must always be rooted in the only certain light that God has given to men: His revealed written Word. There is only one standard of truth. In all the world, there is only one book which can be said to be absolutely infallible, inerrant, and authoritative. That book, of course, is the Bible. Too often the first consideration in our decision making processes is something other than the Bible. We look instead to emotion: "How does this make me feel?" Or, perhaps, we look to tradition: "How have people done this in the past?" We may look to reason: "What do I think should be done?"
All of these considerations are subject to error. We cannot trust our emotions, our traditions, or our intellect to guide us into all truth. Only God's Spirit operating through His clear and certain Word can do that. When we start with any of these other considerations, we end up coming to a conclusion, and then bringing our conclusion to the Bible in order to find some justification there for what we have already decided. This is exactly the opposite of how we should proceed. In all matters of faith and life, our first consideration must always be Scripture: "What does the Word of God say about this?" The teaching of the Bible, then, must shape our emotions, our traditions, and our intellect. It is essential to lay this out as the starting point for any discussion - especially the discussion of a practice which is so deeply rooted in tradition and which is laden with so much emotional attachment. We must be able to put these things aside and answer the question on the basis of God's Word alone.
The Absence of a Clear Scriptural Warrant
The Word of God makes it clear that God alone is the Director of His people's practice of worship. Deuteronomy 12:32 summarizes the Reformed view of worship, commonly known as the Regulative Principle: "Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it." The authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith, in seeking to explain this doctrine, wrote: "But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." (WCF 21:1).
In other words, any practice introduced into the public worship of God's people must be clearly prescribed in God's revealed Word. We are not free to do anything we like in the worship of God. This idea is largely lost on the modern evangelical church, which views worship as a man-centered experience. In the view of modern evangelicalism, the elements of worship are to be determined on the basis of what makes people feel a certain way and what will tend to attract people to the church. The Biblical view of worship is not man-centered, but God-centered. God is a holy God who is to be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth. He has always been jealous concerning the way in which He is to be approached by sinful men. In deciding whether or not a particular practice is proper in the church, again, God defines the parameters. What does He command in His perfect Word?
As we apply this basic principle to the question of holy days, what do we find in the pages of Scripture? Is there a command from the Lord that His Church set aside one day in each year to remember and celebrate His birth and another to remember and celebrate His resurrection? The birth of Christ is recorded for us in the form of an historical narrative, but nowhere is there a commandment (or even a suggestion) from Jesus that His disciples annually commemorate this event. The same is true of His resurrection. Can we not assume that if Jesus intended for the Church throughout all ages to keep these days holy, He would have said so? The absence of a clear Scriptural command for such a practice should make us stop and consider it carefully.
Two Passages Concerning Holy Days
Let us take a moment to examine two passages of Scripture which refer directly to the observance of particular days as special holy days. The first passage is Romans 14:5-6 which reads,
One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord...
The second passage is Galatians 4:8-11 which says,
However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.
A quick reading of these two passages seems to reveal a contradiction. In Romans 14, Paul leaves the observance of holy days to the discretion of the individual, while in Galatians 4, he seems to be condemning the observance of holy days altogether. Of course, we know that there are no contradictions in the Word of God. What then, is the explanation? Let's examine the context of each passage.
The book of Romans was written to an audience which was predominantly composed of Jewish converts to the Christian faith, as is apparent from the first seven chapters. These people had been raised with the festivals and holy days of the Old Testament era. These holy days had been instituted by God as shadows and types of Christ who was to come. With the coming of Christ, they had been fulfilled and were no longer necessary, and yet it is easy to imagine how difficult it must have been for those who had been immersed in these traditions for generations to leave them behind. Paul, in writing to the church at Rome, was indicating that those who continued privately to observe particular days unto the Lord should not be judged by those who did not (so long as those who observed them did not require others to join them, which would have made them Judaizers). Paul seemed to assume that in time they would all realize that these special days were no longer necessary in light of Christ's fulfillment, but in the mean time there was a need for forbearance.
The book of Galatians is quite different. It was written to an audience which was predominantly composed of converts from Gentile paganism, as is apparent from the passage cited above. The special days and months and seasons and years that they were celebrating were never commanded by God. They were the products of pagan worship. As such, Paul condemns them in the strongest terms and urges the Galatian Christians to leave them behind. There was no room for tolerance where pagan worship practices were concerned. Further, these pagan holy days were being imposed upon the church as though they were necessary elements of Christian worship. Such an imposition of rituals not commanded by God could not be glossed over by the Apostle.
How does all of this relate to our discussion of the observance of Christmas and Easter in the Christian Church today?
Application to Christmas and Easter
In the light of Romans 14, we must recognize that the individual voluntary continuance of certain Old Testament celebrations was not to be condemned or made a matter of division between brothers. But neither is there any justification here for the insistence that the Church must set aside particular days as holy days. On the contrary, Paul deals with the celebration of holy days from the standpoint of individual conscience.
The celebration of Easter seems to have arisen in the early Church as a carry over of the Passover celebration among Jewish converts to Christianity. It was seen in the light of the resurrection and the commemoration of Christ's celebration of the Last Supper with His disciples. At the very least, we can conclude from Romans 14 that such a celebration should not be imposed upon the whole Church.
The celebration of Christmas is of much later origin, apparently sometime in the fourth century. Much historical evidence points to the fact that the Christmas celebration of the Church was the result of the incorporation of pagan practices. The pagan celebration known as Saturnalia (the celebration of the victory of the unconquerable sun-god over darkness at the winter solstice) was simply recast in an outwardly Christian form in order to appease pagan converts to the Church who were not willing to leave this part of their past behind them. Instead of insisting, as Paul did to the Galatians, that these pagan days be forsaken, the fourth century Church simply compromised.
God's Holy Day
What did our Lord command for His Church to do in memory of Him? "And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is My body, which is given for you; do this is remembrance of Me.'" God has not left His Church without a commemoration of the life and death and resurrection of His Son. We have the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which is clearly given to the Church as an institution to be upheld until He comes. He has commanded us to gather together each week on His holy day and to remember Him in the bread and the cup. Not one or two days each year, but one day each week is given to the Church by God's command for the celebration of the person and work of Christ. Our constant focus should be upon the beauty of His person and the merit of His work for us.
It is generally known that there are certain individuals who make two appearances annually in the worship of the Church. They have been referred to as "Christmas and Easter Christians" (The term "Christian" is applied loosely). Is this not a natural result of the artificial exaltation of two particular days in the Church calendar? What makes these two days any more special than the other 50 Lord's Days in the year? Certainly, as we have seen, God did not set these two days apart. God has set apart one day in seven, and sanctified it, and commanded us to observe it and to keep it holy. We cannot exalt one or two Sabbaths within the year without implying that the other 50 Sabbaths are somehow less holy.
Do we have the freedom to determine that on this or that Lord's Day we will focus our attention upon a particular aspect of the person or work of Christ? Certainly we do, but the Church ought never to be bound by the expectations of men that this or that particular Lord's Day must always focus upon a particular theme. When this occurs, then a tradition of men has been allowed to dictate the worship of God where God Himself has given no command.
Let us avoid the stumbling block of incorporating into the worship of the Church a practice which is based upon no direct command from God and which tends to detract from the holiness of God's weekly Sabbath. Let us instead make the most of what God has given to us: One holy day in seven to glory in the worship of His name and the celebration of His grace through Jesus Christ, and the commemoration of the suffering and victory of our Savior who said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me...." (1 Cor. 11:24,25).
by Douglas W. Comin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without a doubt, the two most significant events in human history were the birth of Christ and His resurrection. In the first event we behold the fulfillment of the promise of God to send a Redeemer who would deliver us from sin and death. In the wretched filth of a stable a child was born who was the living embodiment of God's grace. He was fully man, so that He could be a fitting substitute for lost human sinners. He was fully God, so that His one sacrifice might be sufficient for all of His elect throughout history. In the second event we behold the power of His accomplished work and the glorious result. Death is swallowed up in victory! The power of sin is vanquished! God's wrath is satisfied, fallen sinners are justified, and Jesus Christ is glorified to receive a kingdom and a throne that will last forever.
In light of these truths, it may seem odd (or even foolish) to some that in the Reformed Presbyterian Church the traditional commemorations of these two events known as Christmas and Easter come and go each year without fanfare and special services. In fact, it is not uncommon for my family to take a week of vacation at Christmas time and we are inevitably asked, "How in the world did you get away from the church at this time of year?" The very idea of Christians not "celebrating" Christmas and Easter seems strange, at the very least. Do we think the advent and the resurrection are unimportant? Perish the thought! Why then do we not join with the vast majority of the visible Christian Church in annually celebrating these "holy days"? Believe it or not, there are reasons. You may or may not agree with what follows, and to disagree is certainly your prerogative. I ask only this: that you consider the issue with the spirit of the noble Bereans of Acts 17, who listened to the words of the Apostle Paul, and examined the Scriptures daily to see if his words were true. May God grant us all to know His will for His Church and to resolve to take every thought (and every practice) captive to the obedience of Christ.
God's Word: The First Consideration
The explanation for any practice must always be rooted in the only certain light that God has given to men: His revealed written Word. There is only one standard of truth. In all the world, there is only one book which can be said to be absolutely infallible, inerrant, and authoritative. That book, of course, is the Bible. Too often the first consideration in our decision making processes is something other than the Bible. We look instead to emotion: "How does this make me feel?" Or, perhaps, we look to tradition: "How have people done this in the past?" We may look to reason: "What do I think should be done?"
All of these considerations are subject to error. We cannot trust our emotions, our traditions, or our intellect to guide us into all truth. Only God's Spirit operating through His clear and certain Word can do that. When we start with any of these other considerations, we end up coming to a conclusion, and then bringing our conclusion to the Bible in order to find some justification there for what we have already decided. This is exactly the opposite of how we should proceed. In all matters of faith and life, our first consideration must always be Scripture: "What does the Word of God say about this?" The teaching of the Bible, then, must shape our emotions, our traditions, and our intellect. It is essential to lay this out as the starting point for any discussion - especially the discussion of a practice which is so deeply rooted in tradition and which is laden with so much emotional attachment. We must be able to put these things aside and answer the question on the basis of God's Word alone.
The Absence of a Clear Scriptural Warrant
The Word of God makes it clear that God alone is the Director of His people's practice of worship. Deuteronomy 12:32 summarizes the Reformed view of worship, commonly known as the Regulative Principle: "Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it." The authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith, in seeking to explain this doctrine, wrote: "But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." (WCF 21:1).
In other words, any practice introduced into the public worship of God's people must be clearly prescribed in God's revealed Word. We are not free to do anything we like in the worship of God. This idea is largely lost on the modern evangelical church, which views worship as a man-centered experience. In the view of modern evangelicalism, the elements of worship are to be determined on the basis of what makes people feel a certain way and what will tend to attract people to the church. The Biblical view of worship is not man-centered, but God-centered. God is a holy God who is to be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth. He has always been jealous concerning the way in which He is to be approached by sinful men. In deciding whether or not a particular practice is proper in the church, again, God defines the parameters. What does He command in His perfect Word?
As we apply this basic principle to the question of holy days, what do we find in the pages of Scripture? Is there a command from the Lord that His Church set aside one day in each year to remember and celebrate His birth and another to remember and celebrate His resurrection? The birth of Christ is recorded for us in the form of an historical narrative, but nowhere is there a commandment (or even a suggestion) from Jesus that His disciples annually commemorate this event. The same is true of His resurrection. Can we not assume that if Jesus intended for the Church throughout all ages to keep these days holy, He would have said so? The absence of a clear Scriptural command for such a practice should make us stop and consider it carefully.
Two Passages Concerning Holy Days
Let us take a moment to examine two passages of Scripture which refer directly to the observance of particular days as special holy days. The first passage is Romans 14:5-6 which reads,
One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord...
The second passage is Galatians 4:8-11 which says,
However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.
A quick reading of these two passages seems to reveal a contradiction. In Romans 14, Paul leaves the observance of holy days to the discretion of the individual, while in Galatians 4, he seems to be condemning the observance of holy days altogether. Of course, we know that there are no contradictions in the Word of God. What then, is the explanation? Let's examine the context of each passage.
The book of Romans was written to an audience which was predominantly composed of Jewish converts to the Christian faith, as is apparent from the first seven chapters. These people had been raised with the festivals and holy days of the Old Testament era. These holy days had been instituted by God as shadows and types of Christ who was to come. With the coming of Christ, they had been fulfilled and were no longer necessary, and yet it is easy to imagine how difficult it must have been for those who had been immersed in these traditions for generations to leave them behind. Paul, in writing to the church at Rome, was indicating that those who continued privately to observe particular days unto the Lord should not be judged by those who did not (so long as those who observed them did not require others to join them, which would have made them Judaizers). Paul seemed to assume that in time they would all realize that these special days were no longer necessary in light of Christ's fulfillment, but in the mean time there was a need for forbearance.
The book of Galatians is quite different. It was written to an audience which was predominantly composed of converts from Gentile paganism, as is apparent from the passage cited above. The special days and months and seasons and years that they were celebrating were never commanded by God. They were the products of pagan worship. As such, Paul condemns them in the strongest terms and urges the Galatian Christians to leave them behind. There was no room for tolerance where pagan worship practices were concerned. Further, these pagan holy days were being imposed upon the church as though they were necessary elements of Christian worship. Such an imposition of rituals not commanded by God could not be glossed over by the Apostle.
How does all of this relate to our discussion of the observance of Christmas and Easter in the Christian Church today?
Application to Christmas and Easter
In the light of Romans 14, we must recognize that the individual voluntary continuance of certain Old Testament celebrations was not to be condemned or made a matter of division between brothers. But neither is there any justification here for the insistence that the Church must set aside particular days as holy days. On the contrary, Paul deals with the celebration of holy days from the standpoint of individual conscience.
The celebration of Easter seems to have arisen in the early Church as a carry over of the Passover celebration among Jewish converts to Christianity. It was seen in the light of the resurrection and the commemoration of Christ's celebration of the Last Supper with His disciples. At the very least, we can conclude from Romans 14 that such a celebration should not be imposed upon the whole Church.
The celebration of Christmas is of much later origin, apparently sometime in the fourth century. Much historical evidence points to the fact that the Christmas celebration of the Church was the result of the incorporation of pagan practices. The pagan celebration known as Saturnalia (the celebration of the victory of the unconquerable sun-god over darkness at the winter solstice) was simply recast in an outwardly Christian form in order to appease pagan converts to the Church who were not willing to leave this part of their past behind them. Instead of insisting, as Paul did to the Galatians, that these pagan days be forsaken, the fourth century Church simply compromised.
God's Holy Day
What did our Lord command for His Church to do in memory of Him? "And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is My body, which is given for you; do this is remembrance of Me.'" God has not left His Church without a commemoration of the life and death and resurrection of His Son. We have the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which is clearly given to the Church as an institution to be upheld until He comes. He has commanded us to gather together each week on His holy day and to remember Him in the bread and the cup. Not one or two days each year, but one day each week is given to the Church by God's command for the celebration of the person and work of Christ. Our constant focus should be upon the beauty of His person and the merit of His work for us.
It is generally known that there are certain individuals who make two appearances annually in the worship of the Church. They have been referred to as "Christmas and Easter Christians" (The term "Christian" is applied loosely). Is this not a natural result of the artificial exaltation of two particular days in the Church calendar? What makes these two days any more special than the other 50 Lord's Days in the year? Certainly, as we have seen, God did not set these two days apart. God has set apart one day in seven, and sanctified it, and commanded us to observe it and to keep it holy. We cannot exalt one or two Sabbaths within the year without implying that the other 50 Sabbaths are somehow less holy.
Do we have the freedom to determine that on this or that Lord's Day we will focus our attention upon a particular aspect of the person or work of Christ? Certainly we do, but the Church ought never to be bound by the expectations of men that this or that particular Lord's Day must always focus upon a particular theme. When this occurs, then a tradition of men has been allowed to dictate the worship of God where God Himself has given no command.
Let us avoid the stumbling block of incorporating into the worship of the Church a practice which is based upon no direct command from God and which tends to detract from the holiness of God's weekly Sabbath. Let us instead make the most of what God has given to us: One holy day in seven to glory in the worship of His name and the celebration of His grace through Jesus Christ, and the commemoration of the suffering and victory of our Savior who said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me...." (1 Cor. 11:24,25).
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
The compelling case has already been presented. Some people just prefer Anglican worship to Puritan worship.
I personally have no problem with having secular holidays outside of worship and the Church. As for the Church calendar, all one has to do is see the horro that crosses the average Church member with the concept of not having a Christmas Eve service, and the same person's general trampling of the Lord's Day, to see the result. Go ask 25 people in you Church the following two questions:
1. What would you think if our Church did not have a Christmas Eve service? (assuming you have one)
2. How often in the year do you attend Sunday evening worship? (assuming you have one)
the results will speak for themselves.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
This too has been addressed in full in this thread. *Read the thread.* You have only asserted your disagreement. You have not responded to any points previously made. Either you don't want to discuss the issue, which is fine (but then why insert yourself into the debate?), or you can't think of anything to say except that you disagree. You haven't even stated what it is that you believe in terms of celebrating Christ-mass. There is nothing for me to respond to. Either make your case or give it a rest.
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
You should see the evening service at my church in Toronto.. it's "youth-oriented" (which is apparently Presbyterian for "BAD"). It's scary. Guitars, big screen TVs, rock music.. It was like a whole different church.. I almost didn't want to go back to the morning service after that! I'm still trying to reconcile the night-and-day differences.. I've basically decided that since all of the services at other churches in Toronto are like the evening one, it's good morning or nothing.
However, it does still bring a (horrified) smile to my face to recall the first lines of the closing hymn (Kurt Cobain-esque drone):
I believe in Jessuuuuuuuuuus.
I believe he saaaaaved the world...
However, it does still bring a (horrified) smile to my face to recall the first lines of the closing hymn (Kurt Cobain-esque drone):
I believe in Jessuuuuuuuuuus.
I believe he saaaaaved the world...
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Take Christ out of Christmas altogether and the problem disappears.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Exactly - it seems pretty simple to me.I missed the part in this thread where this was addressed (by your side of the debate). I see a lot of debate about the RPW and whether it is acceptable to bring Christmas into the church (and I agree that it should not be, and that to do so it to violate the RPW). But I've missed where you have address the 25th of December apart from the context of worship. Maybe I over-looked it. Can you point some quotes out for me? I would appreciate it.
Thank you.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Give me the little fat man with 8 tiny reigndeer, Frosty the Snowman, Jack Frost, Chesnut Roasting on an open fire, the Bumble, and Andy Williams, and I'm a happy camper.
Agreed. And so others know - I never desired to imply anything else. I actually don't even want to be overly critical of the average believer who thinks thus; it is more a product of teaching in the church than anything else. The point is that we have made the non-obligatory impinge on the obligatory.
Here's another one (that I have probably posted before):
in the Church, everyone is entitled to be with family and enjoy Christmas in this fashion - EXCEPT the pastor, for heaven forbid he be able to have his children spend time with their grandparents during that time of year -- tehn we couldn't have a Christmas Eve service, and the world might cave in...
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes, it's true that we view the RPW differently. But I critiqued your view of the RPW. All you have said about my view is essentially, "looks like you prefer Anglican worship to Puritan worship". Simply appealing to the Puritans doesn't vindicate anybody's view of worship. I will make my argument again by asking some questions:
1. If the RPW is an extension and application of the second commandment, which is universally binding on all people at all times, then why is the RPW applied only in corporate worship, but not the rest of life? If lust is an extension of adultery, are we only to abstain from lust during corporate worship?
2. If we are only permitted to do what God has commanded us in worship, then where has God commanded us to make distinctions between elements and circumstances in our worship, and where has he laid out a criteria for determining one from the other?
Similarity between Christmas and Purim isn't the point at all. The point is that both are holidays not instituted by God, but are both devised by the minds of men. Schwertley is correct to say that Purim is not connected to the ceremonial holy days of the OT. But that doesn't help his position at all. In fact, that was my point in even bring Purim up to being with! The celebration of holidays in general is not something that passed away with the OT ceremonial system, which refutes Schwertley's second point. And his third point is nothing more than a prime example of the genetic fallacy. "Christmas is wrong because the Catholics invented it!" Not impressive.
Really bad stuff Craig. (Although I do agree with Paul that your other points have merit. This stuff was bad when our famous brother posited it in his really bad book, and it is bad now.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Santa.
Satan.
Same letters, different order.
Thoughts?
Satan.
Same letters, different order.
Thoughts?
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
Fred,
Actually, I didn't learn that from Frame.
I find myself agreeing more with Jeffrey Myers than John Frame.
But if you notice, my argument doesn't run like Frame's does. I don't start with, "Well technically, worship is ALL of life and not just in church, and since Scripture doesn't give us a to do list for all of life, we need to rethink the RPW". I started with the second commandment itself. If worshipping God through the inventions of man is making a graven image, then we need an RPW for outside the church and not just inside. The second commandment applies across the board.
Actually, I didn't learn that from Frame.
I find myself agreeing more with Jeffrey Myers than John Frame. But if you notice, my argument doesn't run like Frame's does. I don't start with, "Well technically, worship is ALL of life and not just in church, and since Scripture doesn't give us a to do list for all of life, we need to rethink the RPW". I started with the second commandment itself. If worshipping God through the inventions of man is making a graven image, then we need an RPW for outside the church and not just inside. The second commandment applies across the board.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
On page 2 of this thread, MBD and I discussed the "secular" "celebration" of the Christ-mass holiday. The above excerpt is a portion of the discussion. If anyone wishes to review the discussion in more detail, please see the rest of the discussion that he and I had starting at page 2 of this thread.
I also discussed my reasons for abstaining from Christ-mass celebration both inside and outside the church in an earlier thread called "Holidays." See: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=6417
I hope this helps in clarifying what has been said previously.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
I will try to respond to some of your points, Craig. The reason I described your earlier statement as "self-condemning" is not just because of your heavy sarcasm but because your suggestion that the RPW should apply to all of life is an idea that just seems so far out in left field that we are not even on the same page at all which means it is not going to be profitable to discuss this. You have said previously that you understand the RPW "full well." I beg to differ. The Second Commandment is the basis for the RPW. The Second Commandment applies to worship, therefore so does the RPW. That's why it's called the Regulative Principle of Worship, not the Regulative Principle of Life. The Second Commandment is most definitely a part of God's moral law, but it relates specifically to worship -- that is the focus of this Commandment. Rather than belabor our point of disagreement, as I stated earlier, since we have apparently little, if any, common understanding about the RPW and the folly of your argument should be evident to all, I don't feel compelled to address this issue further. If someone else who upholds the RPW wishes to respond to your position, that's fine, but I have other things which I must address more profitably.
I will address a couple of other points that you made.
You said that "appealing to the Puritans" doesn't prove anything. You're right, of course. Biblical worship is defined by Scripture. I have appealed to Scripture many times in this debate. I happen to believe that the Puritans were right about their application of Biblical principles to worship and that the Anglicans, Lutherans and Catholics were wrong. The dismissive approach that you and *some* others on the Puritan Board take to Puritan worship as well as the teaching of the Westminster Standards, and the Anglo-Catholic worship that your church practices reveal that we stand on opposite sides of the Reformation when it comes to worship.
As to the difference between elements of worship and circumstances around worship, I refer you to the Westminster Confession, Chap. I.VI: "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man´s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed." This teaching which is supported by the Scripture proof texts used by the Divines, is also an application of basic common sense. Rules for worship are applicable to all, but God has not decreed specific start times for worship on the Lord's Day or the type of building that Christians are to assemble in. Such things which are tangential to worship are left to wise discretion and Christian prudence. The Confession lists the elements of worship (including special days of thanksgiving or fasting) in Chap. XXI. Those elements are derived from Scripture. Since a basic principle encapsulated in the Second Commandment and the RPW (defined before from the Confession) is that we may not worship God in ways that He has not commanded, then it follows that we may not add elements that He has not commanded. Elements and circumstances have different meanings. This should not be a hard distinction to follow.
Lastly, on the subject of Purim, it was a civil holiday, not a religious holiday. I have never argued (see my earlier discussion with MBD on this point) that the civil magistrate may not lawfully call a holiday for special occasions. The Westminster Assembly (sorry to keep bringing them up) made a point of showing from Scripture, using the Purim festival as an example, that days of thanksgiving were lawful. A day of thanksgiving or fasting is not a holy day per se. Civil holidays like the Fourth of July (and Thanksgiving) are entirely lawful. Religious holidays need Biblical warrant because of the Second Commandment and the RPW. The only day that is holy for Christians since the abrogation of the ceremonial law of the Jews is the Lord's Day. Purim was a civil holiday, Christ-mass is a religious holiday. The difference between the two shows clearly that the example of Purim does not give any weight to your argument that we may devise new religious holidays.
Here are David Calderwood's (a Puritan, sorry) comments on Purim:
3. We come from privilege to fact. As de jure none may, so de facto none did appoint holy days under the law but God, and that either by himself, or by some extraordinary direction. Therefore none can be allowed under the Gospel without the like warrant; seeing the times under the Gospel are not so ceremonious as the times under the Law. Against this reason two instances are commonly alleged; the one of the days of Purim instituted by Mordecai; the other of the feast of dedication instituted by Judas Maccabees, and graced by Christ's presence, as is alleged [in] John 10. But the answer is easy.
The days of Purim were simply called the days of Purim; not the holy days of Purim. They are neither called Chag, nor Mogned, nor Gnatsarah as the other anniversary feasts are called in the Old Testament. No mention is made of holy convocations on these days, nor divine service proper to them, notwithstanding of their return to the temple, and promise that the memorial of the days of Purim should not fall from among them, nor perish from their seed (Esther 9:27-28). It is true that now a days they read the book of Esther, and therefore call it the feast of Megilla, after the reading whereof they spend the rest of the time in revelling, more mad than the Gentiles were in their Bacchanals. This reading was not the first institution, but an addition of the later Jews. The days of Purim were instituted only for civil days, and the ordinance required nor further, but that they should make them days of feasting and joy, and sending of portions one to another, and gifts to the poor (Esther 9:19) to be documents and testimonies of their fasting and crying, that is in remembrance of their fasting and prayers, by which they obtained that deliverance. At the instant time of their delivery, it is said they rested, but in the edict when the days were made anniversary, rest from all kind of work was not forbidden; therefore Hospinian (De Orig.....) says In festo Phurim operari prohibitum non est [On the feast day Purim work was not forbidden]: they were not forbidden to work. And Willet (Synopsis, Controversie of Holy Days) compares it with the fifth of November, and affirms the like.
Next, it is to be considered that Mordecai is thought to be the penman of the book of Esther, and consequently a Prophet. He was one of the 120 masters of the great Synagogue, amongst whom were both priests and prophets, Ezra and his society, Daniel and his companions, Zachary, Malachy, etc.
Thirdly, it appears (Esther 9:28) that it was an order to endure, as long as the feast days appointed by the Lord himself, and in no case to be altered. Holy days of ecclesiastical constitution are not of such a nature, as D. Fulk acknowledges (Against the Rhemists, Apoc. 1:10.). Whatsoever therefore was the quality of these days, whether holy or civil, the warrant was more than ordinary.
Source: http://www.naphtali.com/days.htm
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
I think the debate here is over the fundamental problem of NOT making a distinction between "what I do in life" and "what God requires of me in corporate worship."
Our Bibles start in Genesis. From that time, God has ALWAYS made a distinction between what I do at home and what I do in corporate worship onn various levels.
Craig is right in that I should not lust at home, and not lust at church. But I think he is fundamentally wrong in assuming that the object, manner, mode, and time of worhsip is the same at home and in the corproate body. The overarching "application" of "worship" in the generic sense to "all of life" is an exegetical fallacy in determining that corporate worship is somehow the same as worship at home.
I think it would be helfpul to outline worship at home and worship at church and what the differences would be. What makes corporate worship different? How does "the covenant community" work differently than the covenant household?
If those lines are blurred, then there is no distinction, at all, no matter how much exegetical hoop jumping you do, to distinguish with what teh father does with his family at home and what the officers of the church do in church.
Our Bibles start in Genesis. From that time, God has ALWAYS made a distinction between what I do at home and what I do in corporate worship onn various levels.
Craig is right in that I should not lust at home, and not lust at church. But I think he is fundamentally wrong in assuming that the object, manner, mode, and time of worhsip is the same at home and in the corproate body. The overarching "application" of "worship" in the generic sense to "all of life" is an exegetical fallacy in determining that corporate worship is somehow the same as worship at home.
I think it would be helfpul to outline worship at home and worship at church and what the differences would be. What makes corporate worship different? How does "the covenant community" work differently than the covenant household?
If those lines are blurred, then there is no distinction, at all, no matter how much exegetical hoop jumping you do, to distinguish with what teh father does with his family at home and what the officers of the church do in church.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Paul,
I trust that you can look at the earlier posts on the subject of "celebrating" Christ-mass outside the church now that I have pointed out where to find them.
You have criticized my position contra celebrating Christ-mass outside the church, but you have not as requested specified what your position is exactly. As I mentioned, different people have different understandings of what it means to "celebrate" Christ-mass in a "secular" way. I addressed certain aspects of this so-called secular celebration in my discussion with Chris, but it does not follow necessarily that you have the same point of view. I rather suspect you don't. But until you come forward with your view, you are merely asserting that I am wrong with no position that I can address in response.
To hopefully advance this discussion, I would ask you to clarify specifically what you mean by celebrating Christ-mass outside the church. Do you mean having a Christ-mass tree in your house? Teaching your children that Santa Claus "knows if you've been bad or good"? Observing the day on December 25 or January 6 or some other day appointed by a church? Ceasing from your normal work responsibilities on that day? Singing songs about Winter or Christ's nativity? Watching holiday movies? Lighting candles? Until you get into the specifics, I can't reasonably be expected to address your point of view. In my discussion with Chris, we talked about specifics which made for a profitable discussion even though we disagree. In your case, I am still waiting what it is you advocate.
Regarding Calvin's view on the celebration of Christ-mass, your source quotes his letter to Haller but leaves out this quote: "Although I have neither been the mover or instigator to it [Geneva's ban on the celebration of Christ-mass and other Roman Catholic festival days], yet, since it has so happened, I am not sorry for it." My understanding of the (potential) ambiguity surrounding Calvin's statements on this subject is that he *might* have preferred to go slower in terms of teaching the people why it was wrong before these holidays were altogether abolished because he feared a violent reaction from the people if the Reformation moved too fast, but that he certainly supported abolishing all of the dredges of Roman Catholic superstitious holidays. He elsewhere referred to Roman Catholic "ceremonies" as a "new Judaism" of "impious rites, partly borrowed from the heathen" (Tracts, Vol. I, pp. 131-132). If a form of religious worship lacked Scriptural warrant, Calvin was most assuredly against it. Calvin was not by any means a Christ-mass keeper.
William Bradford, leader of the Pilgrims, wrote this relevant passage about the observance of December 25:
On the day called "Christmas Day" the Governor called them out to work as was used. But the most part of this new company excused themselves and said that it went against their consciences to work on that day. So the Governor told them that if they made it a matter of conscience he would spare them till they were better informed. So he led away the rest and left them. But when they came home at noon from their work, they found them in the street at play openly, some pitching the bar and some at stool ball and such like sports. So he went to them and took away their implements and told them that was against his conscience, that they should play and others work. If they made the keeping of it a matter of devotion, let them keep to their houses. But there should be no gaming or reveling in the streets, since which time nothing has been attempted that way, at least openly.
Your source also cited some statements from Continental Reformers and Creeds in support of Christ-mass. Clearly, these have to do with celebrating Christ-mass inside the church. Are you now trying to defend celebration of Christ-mass in the church? They don't address celebrating Christ-mass outside the church, so I assume you are now arguing for both positions unless you clarify otherwise. It is true that the Continentals were less strict about applying the RPW to holidays than the Scottish Presbyterians and Puritans. I don't deny that historical fact. That does not convince me, however, that the Continentals were right to celebrate Christ-mass and the Presbyterians and Puritans were wrong to forbid it.
You have cited these Continental statements apparently in order to suggest that I should "tone it down." You also suggest (rather arrogantly, in my view) that you are the stronger brother and I am the weaker brother. Let me make something clear, which I have stated previously in this thread. I am not judging anybody personally as to whether they celebrate Christ-mass or not. I happen to think it is wrong and I believe that I stand on Biblical and Puritan ground in doing so. I am speaking about principles and practices and whether there is Biblical warrant for them. I am not interested in making any personal judgments about anybody. Let's try to stick with issues in this discussion. The Romans 14 passage (speaking of Jewish ceremonial days prior to the destruction of the Temple and the full abrogration of the ceremonial law) to which you are presumably referring does not give any credence to the idea that celebration or not of man-made holidays is an issue of Christian liberty. Christ-mass-keepers might take heed, however, to the Galatians 4:9-10 passage in which Paul writing to Galatians (Gentiles) warns them not to observe "days, months, seasons and years" which relate to pagan festivities.
I quote Doug Comin:
Two Passages Concerning Holy Days
Let us take a moment to examine two passages of Scripture which refer directly to the observance of particular days as special holy days. The first passage is Romans 14:5-6 which reads,
One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord...
The second passage is Galatians 4:8-11 which says,
However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.
A quick reading of these two passages seems to reveal a contradiction. In Romans 14, Paul leaves the observance of holy days to the discretion of the individual, while in Galatians 4, he seems to be condemning the observance of holy days altogether. Of course, we know that there are no contradictions in the Word of God. What then, is the explanation? Let's examine the context of each passage.
The book of Romans was written to an audience which was predominantly composed of Jewish converts to the Christian faith, as is apparent from the first seven chapters. These people had been raised with the festivals and holy days of the Old Testament era. These holy days had been instituted by God as shadows and types of Christ who was to come. With the coming of Christ, they had been fulfilled and were no longer necessary, and yet it is easy to imagine how difficult it must have been for those who had been immersed in these traditions for generations to leave them behind. Paul, in writing to the church at Rome, was indicating that those who continued privately to observe particular days unto the Lord should not be judged by those who did not (so long as those who observed them did not require others to join them, which would have made them Judaizers). Paul seemed to assume that in time they would all realize that these special days were no longer necessary in light of Christ's fulfillment, but in the mean time there was a need for forbearance.
The book of Galatians is quite different. It was written to an audience which was predominantly composed of converts from Gentile paganism, as is apparent from the passage cited above. The special days and months and seasons and years that they were celebrating were never commanded by God. They were the products of pagan worship. As such, Paul condemns them in the strongest terms and urges the Galatian Christians to leave them behind. There was no room for tolerance where pagan worship practices were concerned. Further, these pagan holy days were being imposed upon the church as though they were necessary elements of Christian worship. Such an imposition of rituals not commanded by God could not be glossed over by the Apostle.
To sum up, I am still waiting to hear what your actual position is. Citing ambiguities in Calvin's statements (which I have addressed, noting that Geneva did in fact ban Christ-mass keeping and Calvin did not attempt to restore it) and the views of the Continental Reformers in favor of Christ-mass celebration inside the church, fails to show that celebrating Christ-mass outside the church is warranted. Your reference that you are the stronger brother and I am the weaker shows a significant misunderstanding of the Biblical text and tries to make the issue of Christ-mass keeping a matter of individual conscience and Christian liberty whereas I argue that Christmas-keeping (whether inside or outside the church, though, depending on the practice involved, I view the former much more seriously than the latter) is inherently religious and as such -- given that God alone may ordain worship that it is acceptable to Him -- prohibited by the Second Commandment, the RPW, and the Westminster Standards.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
I'm a little confused about the practice in Geneva vs. the other cities.
Was Calvin advocating that the state had the right to close shops for half a day at the behest of the church? The context for this Calvin quote seems to suggest just such a position.
Are these "certain inflexible individuals" the ones who wish to keep their shops open in spite of the "common custom"?
I'm not sure that this squares well with the reformed idea that the church has no business legislating in areas where the Scripture is silent, esp. when such legislation does violence to individual liberty.
Does the state have the right to use the power of the sword to enforce church legislation that is contrary to or beside the clear commands of Scripture?
Calvin's position seems to go against what has been argued here by some, namely, the church can implement "optional" holy days. If this quote accurately conveys the context, then Calvin wasn't an "optional" guy. He is saying that those "inflexible individuals" ought to get in line with the (extrabiblical) declarations of the church.
"It's a poor excuse for picking a man's pocket every 25th of December." -- Scrooge
[Edited on 24-11-2004 by tcalbrecht]
[Edited on 24-11-2004 by tcalbrecht]
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Fred,
Actually, I didn't learn that from Frame.
But if you notice, my argument doesn't run like Frame's does. I don't start with, "Well technically, worship is ALL of life and not just in church, and since Scripture doesn't give us a to do list for all of life, we need to rethink the RPW". I started with the second commandment itself. If worshipping God through the inventions of man is making a graven image, then we need an RPW for outside the church and not just inside. The second commandment applies across the board.
Craig,
You may have expected this, but I am sorry to hear that. I would (yes!
) actually rather you read Frame than Myers. The next thing you know, you will be baptizing whole tribes on the mission field against their will.The problem with this logic with respectto the 2nd commandment (which is practically indistinguishable from Frame's, is that you are only left with two options:
1. A complete tyranny that seeks to prescribe EVERYTHING we do in minute detail from Biblical warrant
OR
2. An RPW that is essentially meaningless.
That is where Frame ends up. It denies the reality of OT worship, which was clearly distinct, with distinct commands from all of life. Think about everything that is forbidden in the tabernacle and temple - even to the point of death - that is perfectly permissible outside of the worship context. Every instance of that destroys Meyer's position.
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
Fred and Matt, I appreciate your posts. Not to take away from others, but I felt your points were valid.
I was doing some more reading on this issue and I stumbled upon another helpful example from Scripture. In John 10:22-23, Jesus attends the Feast of Dedication, more commonly known as Hanukkah today. Calvin says:
"...which we have translated dedication, properly signifies renovations; because the temple, which had been polluted, was again consecrated by the command of Judas Maccabaeus; and at the time it was enacted that the day of the new dedication or consecration should be celebrated every year as a festival, that the people might recall to remembrance the grace of God, which had put an end to the tyrrany of Antiochus. Christ appeared in the temple at that time, according to custom, that his preaching might yield more abundant fruit amidst a large assembly of men." (Commentary on John, p. 412, Baker)
Notice two things from this:
1. The origin of this holiday was not the divine command of God, but the command of the fallible, sinful Judas Maccabaeus. Thus, this holiday is not directly linked to the OT ceremonial law.
2. This holiday was a time to recall God's grace and the purification of the temple which had formerly been polluted under Antiochus Epiphanes. Thus, this holiday was a RELIGIOUS holiday, not simply a political holiday, as was suggested concerning Purim. Even Jews will tell you that Hanukkah is a religious holiday.
So every year, the people of God celebrated a man-made religious holiday. Jesus himself attended this celebration according to John 10:22-23. Yet there is not the slightest bit of evidence, not one smidgen, that the celebration of this holiday was an offense to God. In fact, if the celebration of man-made religious holidays is sinful in itself, then Jesus could not have attended because he would have been sinning himself. And there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that the reason Jesus went to the feast was so he could condemn the Jews for their observance of the holiday, since the Scriptures are never shy to tell us when Jesus lambasted the Jews for overturning the Law with their traditions.
What does this have to do with Christmas? Well, I think what is abundantly clear is that God has given his people freedom to create and celebrate religious holidays. Now of course, nobody is forced to celebrate Christmas. Nobody's conscience is bound to it. Neither I nor anyone else who promotes the celebration of Christmas are Roman Catholics. Catholics bind the consciences of men by making Christmas a "holy day of obligation". Of these days, The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "these are the days in which it is required that members of the Catholic faith who have attained the age of reason rest from servile work and attend holy mass." (p. 267) Failure to attend mass held on one of these "holy days" is a mortal sin, according to Catholic theology. I, with the rest of the Reformed church, heartily reject such legalism and idolatry. But to take one day out of the year to remember Christ's coming into the world with prayer, singing, and preaching, is permissable and does not establish any form of worship that has not been instituted by God himself.
There is much more to be said and dealt with, but that will do for now.
[Edited on 24-11-2004 by luvroftheWord]
I was doing some more reading on this issue and I stumbled upon another helpful example from Scripture. In John 10:22-23, Jesus attends the Feast of Dedication, more commonly known as Hanukkah today. Calvin says:
"...which we have translated dedication, properly signifies renovations; because the temple, which had been polluted, was again consecrated by the command of Judas Maccabaeus; and at the time it was enacted that the day of the new dedication or consecration should be celebrated every year as a festival, that the people might recall to remembrance the grace of God, which had put an end to the tyrrany of Antiochus. Christ appeared in the temple at that time, according to custom, that his preaching might yield more abundant fruit amidst a large assembly of men." (Commentary on John, p. 412, Baker)
Notice two things from this:
1. The origin of this holiday was not the divine command of God, but the command of the fallible, sinful Judas Maccabaeus. Thus, this holiday is not directly linked to the OT ceremonial law.
2. This holiday was a time to recall God's grace and the purification of the temple which had formerly been polluted under Antiochus Epiphanes. Thus, this holiday was a RELIGIOUS holiday, not simply a political holiday, as was suggested concerning Purim. Even Jews will tell you that Hanukkah is a religious holiday.
So every year, the people of God celebrated a man-made religious holiday. Jesus himself attended this celebration according to John 10:22-23. Yet there is not the slightest bit of evidence, not one smidgen, that the celebration of this holiday was an offense to God. In fact, if the celebration of man-made religious holidays is sinful in itself, then Jesus could not have attended because he would have been sinning himself. And there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that the reason Jesus went to the feast was so he could condemn the Jews for their observance of the holiday, since the Scriptures are never shy to tell us when Jesus lambasted the Jews for overturning the Law with their traditions.
What does this have to do with Christmas? Well, I think what is abundantly clear is that God has given his people freedom to create and celebrate religious holidays. Now of course, nobody is forced to celebrate Christmas. Nobody's conscience is bound to it. Neither I nor anyone else who promotes the celebration of Christmas are Roman Catholics. Catholics bind the consciences of men by making Christmas a "holy day of obligation". Of these days, The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "these are the days in which it is required that members of the Catholic faith who have attained the age of reason rest from servile work and attend holy mass." (p. 267) Failure to attend mass held on one of these "holy days" is a mortal sin, according to Catholic theology. I, with the rest of the Reformed church, heartily reject such legalism and idolatry. But to take one day out of the year to remember Christ's coming into the world with prayer, singing, and preaching, is permissable and does not establish any form of worship that has not been instituted by God himself.
There is much more to be said and dealt with, but that will do for now.
[Edited on 24-11-2004 by luvroftheWord]
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
This is a good effort, especially in quoting Calvin to try to justify the invention of religious holidays which God has not commanded, but it is not a new idea, and you misunderstand what Calvin was saying when you imply that he would have approved of inventing new religious holidays based on this text. Furthermore, if this is the sole justification you can find in Scripture to invent new religious holidays, since I have shown earlier that Purim was a civil holiday, it is a dangerous thing to build your doctrine on so tenuous a text. The general rule is for good hermeneutics is, start from the Scriptures that are clear and then interpret the Scriptures that are less clear. The feast you are building your doctrine on was instituted during the intertestament period. It is rash to overthrow the well-established principle of worship found in Deut. 4.1-2; 12:30-32 on the basis of an uncertain feast founded between the Old and New Testaments. I myself first made reference to this objection in an earlier post on this thread but did not take the time to refute it. I will now quote David Calderwood and George Gillespie who addressed this issue more thoroughly than Calvin:
Calderwood:
The feast of dedication whereof mention is made [in] John 10, some take for the dedication of the Temple in Zerubbabel's time, as the Magedeburg Centuries (Cent. 1 Col. 244.). So likewise Chrysostome, Theophilactus, Cajetanus, Abulensis, Euthymius, and others, as Barradius reports (Comment. in Evangel. Tom 3 lib. 4. cap. 16.). But let it be meant as is alleged. If the feast of dedication in Solomon and Zerubbabels time was anniversary, then the Maccabees did follow the example of these who had prophetical direction. If they were not anniversary, as indeed Toletus (In John 10) leaves it as uncertain, then this annual memory was an addition of the Pharisees, who enlarged the glory of this feast, as they did their Phylacteries. Junius (In John 10) relates out of the Talmud, that the wise men decreed that the eight days of that feast should be yearly days of joy. By the wise men are meant the Pharisees, who were called Sapientes Israelis [Wise men of Israel]. The renewment of the Altar, and of certain other decayed places, was honored by them with an annual memory, whereas the whole Temple, with all the implements and furniture thereof in Solomon and Zerubbabel's time had not the like honor. Neither do we read that any annual memory was instituted by Hezekiah after the profanation of the Temple by Manasses and Amon. Christ's walking in Solomon's Porch, makes nothing for approbation of this feast. He had remained in Jerusalem from the feast of the Tabernacles, and came not up of purpose to keep that feast. He takes hold of the present opportunity to thrust his sickle into a thick harvest.
We have to consider for a general answer to all instances alleged from the Jewish Kirk, first that they had extraordinary directions which we want [lack]. They had prophets by office, or commission, who ended in Malachi. They had prophets who were only prophets by the Spirit, as Daniel, David, and Solomon, who endured after the days of Malachi, as Drusius (In 2 Peter 1:21) affirms. They had Urim and Thummim under the first Temple, and in place thereof, a slender voice sounding from heaven, called Bathkol under the second Temple, as Tremellius (in Acts 12:22) has observed. Next the Pharisees and degenerating Jews filled their calendar with fond feasts of their own invention, as the festivities of the Equinoctial and festival days, other ways called the feasts of the Tekuphas: or converted any ancient order into a solemn feast, as the day appointed for carrying wood to the Temple to maintain the fire of the altar (Neh. 10:34) they turned into a feast called the feast of Xylophoria. A holy day is to be observed not by a few but by all; but all were not appointed to bring wood, but those only who were designed by lot. It is no wonder therefore that they took the like course with the days of Purim. But we are not to imitate the Pharisees and fond Jews.
Source: http://www.naphtali.com/days.htm
Gillespie:
Fourthly, as touching the feast of the dedication of the altar by Judas Maccabeus, 1. Let us hear what Cartwright very gravely and judiciously propounds:36 That this feast was unduly instituted and ungroundly, it may appear by conference of the dedication of the first temple under Solomon, and of the second after the captivity returned from Babylon. In which dedication, seeing there was no yearly remembrance by solemnity of feasts, not so much as one day, it is evident that the yearly celebration of this feast for eight days, was not compassed by that Spirit that Solomon and the captivity were directed by; which Spirit, when it dwelt more plentifully in Solomon, and in the prophets that stood at the stern of the captivity's dedication, than it did in Judas, it was in him so much the more presumptuous, as having a shorter leg than they, he durst in that matter overstride them. And his rashness is so much the more aggravated, as each of them, for the building of the whole temple, with all the implements and furniture thereof, made no feast to renew the annual memory, where Judas only for renewment of the altar, and of certain other decayed places of the temple, instituted this great solemnity.
2. The feast of the dedication was not free of Pharisaical invention. For as Tremellius observes out of the Talmud, the wise men of that era established that in the recurring years, those eight days, etc.37 Yet albeit the Pharisees were called sapiantes Isrællis [wise men of Israel], Bishop Lindsey will not grant that they were the wise men of whom the Talmud speaks; for, he says, it behoved those who appointed festivities, not only to be wise men, but men of authority also.38
But what do we hear? Were not the Pharisees men of authority? Why, says not Christ they sat in Moses' chair (Matt. 23:2)? Says not Calvin, in the governing of the church and interpretation of scripture, this sect held primacy?39 Says not Camero, since the authority of the Pharisees was superior (as Josephus teaches everywhere)? etc.40
Does not Josephus speak so much of their authority that in one place he says, So the name of the government was in the queen's power, but the administration of it was in the Pharisees' power?41 And in another place, for there was a certain sect of the Jews which claimed for itself a more exact knowledge of the law of the country? etc. These were called the Pharisees, an astute, arrogant kind of man, and occasionally even dangerous for the kings, as they were not afraid even to provoke them openly? 42
There is nothing alleged which can prove the lawfulness of this feast of the dedication.
It is but barely and boldly affirmed by Bishop Lindsey, that the Pharisees were not rebuked by Christ for this feast,43 because we read not so much in scripture; for there were many things which Jesus did and said that are not written in scripture (John 21:25). And whereas it seems to some, that Christ did countenance and approve this feast, because he gave his presence unto the same (John 10:22, 23), we must remember, that the circumstances only of time and place are noted by the evangelist, for evidence to the story, and not for any mystery. Christ had come up to the feast of tabernacles (John 7), and tarried still all that while, because then there was a great confluence of people in Jerusalem. Whereupon he took occasion to spread the net of the gospel for catching of many souls. And whilst John says, "œIt was at Jeusalem the feast of the dedication," he gives a reason only of the confluence of many people at Jerusalem, and shows how it came to pass that Christ had occasion to preach to such a great multitude; and whilst he adds, "œand it was winter," he gives a reason of Christ's walking in Solomon's porch, whither the Jews resort was. It was not thought beseeming to walk in the temple itself, but in the porch men used to convene either for talking or walking, because in the summer the porch shadowed them from the heat of the sun, and in winter it lay open to the sunshine and to heat. Others think, that whilst he says, it was winter, imports that therefore Christ was the more frequently in the temple, knowing that his time was short which he had then for his preaching; for in the entry of the next spring he was to suffer.
Howsoever, it is not certain of what feast of dedication John speaks. Bullinger leaves it doubtful;44 and Maldonat says that this opinion which takes the dedication of the altar by Judus Maccabeus to be meant by John, has fewest authors.45 But to let this pass, whereas the Rhemists allege,46 that Christ approved this feast, because he was present at it; Cartwright and Fulk answer them, that Christ's being present at it proves not his approving of it. Christ did not honor the feast day specifically, says Junius, but the harmonious gathering of the righteous on a feast day; for all opportunities of that kind for sowing his Gospel Christ pays attention to and seizes.47
As if indeed (says Hospinian) Christ left for Jerusalem for the sake of the Feast of Dedication.48 Nay, but he saw he had a convenient occasion, to teach a multitude of men who had come together for that feast day.49
Even as Paul chose to be present at certain Jewish feasts,50 not for any respect to the feasts themselves, nor for any honor which he meant to give them, but for the multitudes' cause who resorted to the same, among whom he had a more plentiful occasion to spread the gospel at those festivities than at other times in the year.
Source: http://www.naphtali.com/GGhodays8.htm
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
I think the important thing to keep in mind here is that Christ came to this world. Whether or not we should have a holyday to celebrate it is a much more complicated issue, but it is wonderful to be able to believe in our living God and risen Lord, by His grace.
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
A couple of things.
First, you say to interpret the unclear texts in light of the clear. That's all good and well. The text seems pretty clear to me. The issue you have with the text is not what it actually says, but its how you try to fit it with your application of the RPW.
Second, I know without having to read Gillespie and Calderwood that the Feast of Dedication, regardless of exactly which feast it was referring to, was a man-invented holiday with Pharisaical influence. Gillespie specifically says that the feast was not free of Pharisaical invention, even though that point in itself says nothing to the real issue. But the thing is, that's part of my argument to being with. The feast is not of divine origin, but of the minds of men. But yet the Jews still celebrated it and Jesus still attended it. Of course, Gillespie says that the fact that Jesus attended the feast doesn't mean he approved it. But that is an implicit begging of the question because the only reason you would even suggest such a thing was if you were precommitted to opposing holidays, since there is nothing in the text itself to suggest that Christ opposed the holiday.
So when and how are you going to prove to me that the holiday the Jews were celebrating in John 10:22-23 was sinful in the eyes of God?
Here is a helpful article by Jeffrey Meyers in defense of Christmas:
A Defense of Christmas
[Edited on 25-11-2004 by luvroftheWord]
First, you say to interpret the unclear texts in light of the clear. That's all good and well. The text seems pretty clear to me. The issue you have with the text is not what it actually says, but its how you try to fit it with your application of the RPW.
Second, I know without having to read Gillespie and Calderwood that the Feast of Dedication, regardless of exactly which feast it was referring to, was a man-invented holiday with Pharisaical influence. Gillespie specifically says that the feast was not free of Pharisaical invention, even though that point in itself says nothing to the real issue. But the thing is, that's part of my argument to being with. The feast is not of divine origin, but of the minds of men. But yet the Jews still celebrated it and Jesus still attended it. Of course, Gillespie says that the fact that Jesus attended the feast doesn't mean he approved it. But that is an implicit begging of the question because the only reason you would even suggest such a thing was if you were precommitted to opposing holidays, since there is nothing in the text itself to suggest that Christ opposed the holiday.
So when and how are you going to prove to me that the holiday the Jews were celebrating in John 10:22-23 was sinful in the eyes of God?
Here is a helpful article by Jeffrey Meyers in defense of Christmas:
A Defense of Christmas
[Edited on 25-11-2004 by luvroftheWord]
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
To clarify, here is what the text (John 10:22-23) actually says:
And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
The text is very brief. It does not say that Jesus celebrated the feast. It only says that Jesus "walked in the temple in Solomon's porch." To argue from that that Jesus was celebrating the feast or that He approved of the feast, much less that we today have warrant to make up new religious holidays, is going beyond the text of Scripture.
- Status
Similar threads
