Celebrating Christmas

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Peter
Fred,
I just dont see that distinction in Scripture.

To the idea: "Remember that the elements of worship are not optional. It is not just that we cannot have drama in worship"

True, but remember, every particular duty does *not* need to be done at all times (WLC). Eg. it is a duty to honor our parents, yet we do not need to be thanking them continually (though what is forbidden is never to be done, eg, disrespecting parents or drama in worship). The point is none of the elements of worship are to be neglected yet every time we worship we dont need to preform every single element. So when I kneel to pray at night alone, it must still be regulated, i.e. to God alone, through Christ alone, for things that are His will alone, etc. And supposing you are right, what about congregations w/o ministers, persecuted lands, and such, they're not subject to RWP? Many times in the history of the RPC they were without a minister, yet they united together in societies for worship, and out of conviction they always sung EPs.

Peter,

First, let me say that I appreciate your zeal for protecting the worship of God and the upholding of the 2nd commandment. (As an aside, I also want to say - apart from Paul's and my joke about beer - this discussion has been fruitful and gracious. And it has borne fruit: two threads already!

Second, I think your argument is flawed. Here is why:

1. There is absolutely a distinction in Scripture between private and public worship. All one needs to do is to think about worship in the days of David (for example). Could a family worship outside the temple? Could they do so without recourse to the ceremonial law? Of course. But that would clearly have been a violation of the RPW in the OT with respect to corporate worship. If your principle is to be applied, then every family (and every individual in his closet - private worship) would have had to follow the cultus worship in the tabernacle temple at all times.

2. It is the reason that, as David Clarkson so aptly wrote, "Public Worship is to be Preferred to Private":

6. Public ordinances are a better security against apostasy than private, and therefore to be preferred: an argument worthy our observation in these backsliding times. He that wants the public ordinances, whatever private means he enjoy, is in danger of apostasy. David was as much in the private duties of God's worship as any, while he was in banishment; yet, because he was thereby deprived of the public ordinances, he looked upon himself as in great danger of idolatry. Which is plain from his speech, 1 Sam. xxvi. 19, "˜They have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord, saying, Go serve other gods.' There was none about Saul so profane as to say expressly unto him, Go serve other gods. Why then does he thus charge them? Why, but because by banishing him from the inheritance of the Lord, and the public ordinances, which were the best part of that inheritance, they exposed him to temptations which might draw him to idolatry, and deprive him of that which was his great security against it. They might as well have said plainly, Go and serve other gods, as drive him out from the public worship of the true God, which he accounted the sovereign preservative from idolatry.

But we have too many instances nearer home to confirm this. Is not the rejecting of public ordinances the great step to the woful apostasies amongst us? Who is there falls off from the truth and holiness of the gospel into licentious opinions and practices, that has not first fallen off from the public ordinances? Who is there in these times that has made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, who has not first cast the public worship of God overboard? The sad issue of forsaking the public assemblies (too visible in the apostasy of divers professors) should teach us this truth, that public ordinances are the great security against apostasy, a greater security than private duties, and therefore to be preferred.

For this end were they given, that we might not be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine, Eph. iv. 14. No wonder if those that reject the means fall so wofully short of the end; no wonder if they be tossed to and fro, till they have nothing left but wind and froth. This was the means which Christ prescribed to the church, that she might not turn aside to the flocks of those companions, hypocrites, or idolaters: Cant. i., 'Feed by the shepherds' tents.' No wonder if those who shun those tents become a prey to wolves and foxes, to seducers and the destroyer. Public ordinances are a more effectual means to preserve from apostasy, and therefore to be preferred before private.

3. Your point from the 5th commandment is misplaced. It is very true that we are not required to do every duty at all times, at least positively. I agree that we can at all times abide by a prohibition. But the issue with the RPW is not whether the 5th commandment or the 2nd commandment applies. It is with how we are to obey the commandment when we act. So when we are honoring our parents, we are to give:

all due reverence in heart, word, and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels; due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defence and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honor to them and to their government

So we may not give unwilling obedience at any time, or grudging bearing with their infirmities, etc. In the same manner, when we worship God as regulated by the 2nd commandment, we may not neglect the duties set forth therein. This has been the principle of the Reformed with respect to the RPW, and is the reason for the clashes in the Church of England in the 16h century - because preaching was neglected.

3. While it may have been the practice of the RPC to continue without a minister for an indefinite period of time, that is not the practice of other Reformed bodies. In fact, it is the reason that many ministers were condemned and punished after 1662 - because they refused to leave their people without a minister for worship.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

You say you don't see a Scriptural distinction between private and corporate worship, and you instead seem to be asserting a distinction between the parts of our life that are worship (based on our conscious intent to be worshipping at the time) and the parts that are not. What then do you make of 1 Cor. 10:31?

Furthermore, from your statement that there is a distinction between worship and non-worship based on our intent and focus at the moment, but no distinction between corporate worship, you then say that there are both worship and non-worship times in our personal lives, and thus times at which we should only sing Psalms in our personal time, and times and which we can sing other songs. In order to be consistent, you must then also hold that it is appropriate to have distinguished worship and non-worship times during the church service, and thus times in church when drama is appropriate, and times when it is not.

Whatever we do is to advance the glory of God, whatever advances the glory of God is not necessarily worship. Do you believe eating and drinking is worship? Yes there are times when drama is appropriate in church. There is nothing sacrosanct about the church building. Feel free to have dramas, boy scout gatherings, AA meetings, whatever you want under the roof of your church. Its just mortar and brick. The idea only the sacred may be preformed in the church is what Williamson calls "Cathedral mentality." During the time of the apostles, christians met in their houses. However, somethings are not appropriate on the Sabbath when the congregation is called together for worship. BTW, thanks for clarifying by beliefs and trying & refining them.

[Edited on 26-11-2004 by Peter]

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Peter,

Fair enough.

p.s. I do celebrate it "religiously," though. I religiously eat, drink, give/receive gifts and see my childs excitment. "If earthly fathers know how to give good gifts how much your father in heaven?"

[Edited on 11-26-2004 by Paul manata]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Peter

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

You say you don't see a Scriptural distinction between private and corporate worship, and you instead seem to be asserting a distinction between the parts of our life that are worship (based on our conscious intent to be worshipping at the time) and the parts that are not. What then do you make of 1 Cor. 10:31?

Furthermore, from your statement that there is a distinction between worship and non-worship based on our intent and focus at the moment, but no distinction between corporate worship, you then say that there are both worship and non-worship times in our personal lives, and thus times at which we should only sing Psalms in our personal time, and times and which we can sing other songs. In order to be consistent, you must then also hold that it is appropriate to have distinguished worship and non-worship times during the church service, and thus times in church when drama is appropriate, and times when it is not.

Whatever we do is to advance the glory of God, whatever advances the glory of God is not necessarily worship. Do you believe eating and drinking is worship?

Absolutely. You said above, "Only what we consciously offer to God is worship." Well, I certainly don't see a biblical distinction between "doing something to the glory of God" (in 1 Cor. 10:31) and "consciously offering something to God."

Originally posted by Peter
Yes there are times when drama is appropriate in church. There is nothing sacrosanct about the church building. Feel free to have dramas, boy scout gatherings, AA meetings, whatever you want under the roof of your church. Its just mortar and brick. The idea only the sacred may be preformed in the church is what Williamson calls "Cathedral mentality." During the time of the apostles, christians met in their houses. However, somethings are not appropriate on the Sabbath when the congregation is called together for worship.

Sorry for the confusion - when I said "in church" I meant the called congregational worship on the Sabbath, not the church building. In your last sentence here, you seem to be acknowledging the very distinction we are making - that there is a biblical distinction between corporate worship (which is the called congregational worship on the Sabbath) and individual worship.

 

[luvroftheWord]

One thing that needs to be defined is "holy day". The Catholics define a holy day as a day of obligation that can damn your soul if you don't attend. Protestants do not define Christmas that way.

I would agree with you, Fred, that if your church calls a worship service that you should go. But if you don't agree with the celebration of Christmas, and it bothers you that much that your church does it, then one solution would be to find another church that you feel doesn't dishonor God in its worship. But Acts 2 records that the church met together daily breaking bread in their homes and meeting in the temple. So holding services on days other than the Sabbath is another freedom the church has.

To address Peter's post, first, why would you even think Jesus would have disapproved of this holiday? That would only be if you had a presupposition that led you to make all sorts of arguments from silence, since the Bible nowhere tells us that God was displeased by this holiday.

And second, concerning Reformation Day, you could celebrate Christmas in the same manner if you wanted to (that is, a "non-worshipful" way). But I have yet to be convinced that having a time every year where prayers, singing, and preaching takes place around the theme of Christ's birth is contrary to the RPW. I know you disagree, but I am content to stand beside Calvin, Turretin, Bullinger, the Synod of Dordt, and other Continential Reformers who saw the observance of the ecclesiastical holidays as a freedom of the church.

I do appreciate Meg and Phillip for bringing up Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14. I think it is relevant (and yes, I have read Schwertley and all the others on this).

Alright, I'm going to bed. Happy Thanksgiving.

[Edited on 26-11-2004 by luvroftheWord]

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by houseparent
Could you elaborate on how it does "violence"?

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also." (WCF XX:2)

The matter of celebrating Christmas in the Church is a "doctrine of man" that is at best "beside it (the word of God)" or at worst "contrary to his Word".

The violence comes in when officers of the church impose even "voluntary" celebrations such as Christmas eve services. The message that is sent is that these "voluntary" celebrations are sanctified because they are directed to the corporate life of the Church. As the confession says, "to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience". If my congregation sets up a special time of worship based on a pretense of justification from God's Word or ecclesiastical authority, then to participate in such activity does violence to Christian liberty.

 

[turmeric]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
is is a huge can of worms.

See, I said we need a "Can of Worms" smilie!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

So many things have been said on this thread since I last posted, it's hard to know where to start. I'll try to make a few general points.

1. There are two issues involved in Christ-mass keeping, which are distinct but related, under consideration in this thread. The first is whether it is lawful to observe Christ-mass in some manner in the church; the second is whether it is lawful to observe Christ-mass in some manner outside the church. The first clearly involves the regulative principle of worship; the second may involve the regulative principle of worship or it may involve other considerations from God's moral law.

2. Craig has been arguing for the lawful observance of Christ-mass in the church. Our discussion about that we have considered the RPW and how narrowly that should be defined. We have also looked at Purim and the feast of dedication. Much has been said and there is no need to repeat it, but suffice to say that our positions are exegetically, semantically, historically and practically poles apart (his is the North Pole, so to speak). He has attempted to argue that Purim and the feast of dedication authorize Christians today to invent new religious holidays. He has not argued that there is a specific command in Scripture to celebrate Christ-mass, because he cannot do so, and therefore the RPW strictly applied cannot justify his position so he has chosen to redefine the RPW in a way that opens the barn door to Anglican, Lutheran and Catholic worship and he seems ok with that. He and others on this thread have expressed a low opinion of the Reformers' views on the RPW though he and others have not hesitated to appeal to the looser application of it by the Continentals when necessary. The RPW in Craig's hands, I fear, is nothing but a ball of wax.

3. Paul has accused Peter and myself of sin for saying that it is wrong to celebrate Christ-mass outside the church. He has not responded to my posts on the subject where I asked him to specify his position although I have stated that my criticism of Christ-mass keeping outside the church is dependant in part on the practices under consideration. He did list some practices that he "religiously" observes but ignored my questions regarding other specifics (and he has put forth Continental Reformer and Creedal statements in favor of Christ-mass keeping inside the church to justify Christ-mass keeping outside the church). As I have mentioned previously on this thread, eating candy canes per se is not the issue for me; it is eating candy canes religiously for the sake of the holiday that I object to (or any other such custom). When it comes to eating foods on December 25, Christian liberty as taught in the Scriptures has a great deal to say to Christians today of which I am mindful. Doing so religiously, however, moves the issue of eating from one of Christian liberty to the RPW. But my primary objections to Christ-mass keeping outside the church have to do with such things as Santa Claus idolatry (ie., ascribing attributes to him which belong to God, elevating a Roman Catholic saint to the status of Diety, lying to one's children about this mythical being, etc.) and choosing to practice all the customs from Saturnalia on December 25, the day appointed by the RCC for the observance of Christ's nativity. Paul didn't address those things though I have brought up this issue on the thread repeatedly. For example, I challenged MBD to celebrate Christ-mass in a secular way on June 25 instead of December 25. I have argued that all of the customs, traditions and practices associated with pagan and RCC observance are yoked to the holiday and therefore, when observed on the day appointed by the pagan and RCC authorities, a Christian's so-called secular observance is not an act of Christian liberty but rather bondage to an idol set up by Babylon.

4. The RPW applies, in my view, to all worship, whether corporate, family or private. Nevertheless, there are distinctions between the three. For example, the sacraments are not to be privately administered and preaching as well belongs to the church. All of life is to be worked out to the glory of God, but worship is an act distinct from all other acts in human life to which the RPW (as an extension of the Second Commandment) applies.

5. Holy days do need to be defined more properly. I have argued repeatedly that only God has the prerogative to declare a day to be holy and that only the Lord's Day in the Christian era has been so appointed. Philip, in particular, has argued that any Christian can choose to declare a day holy and celebrate it that way. When pressed about what that means, however, Philip never responded. I believe that a holy day necessarily requires people to abstain from work among other things (cf. the Fourth Commandment). Hence, I see Christ-mass keeping (both inside and outside the church) as a violation not only of the Second but also the Fourth Commandments). The passages in Colossians, Galatians, and Romans dealing with "days" have been debated and one's understanding of these passages has a clear bearing on one's view as to whether one may privately choose to celebrate a "holy" day or not. It makes a huge difference when one considers the audience to whom Paul was writing. Related to this issue is whether the church may hold a worship service which is optional for members. I say that the church may not legislate a holy day and if they do such legislation may not be considered optional and such legislation does indeed violate the conscience of Christians. Church authority, as understood historically by Presbyterians, is ministerial, not legislative. If so, then the church may only declare what God has declared and may not go or legislate beyond what God has declared. The implications for Christ-mass keeping should be clear to all.

 

[Dan....]

Andrew,

You said,

I believe that a holy day necessarily requires people to abstain from work among other things (cf. the Fourth Commandment). Hence, I see Christ-mass keeping (both inside and outside the church) as a violation not only of the Second but also the Fourth Commandments).

Your statement implies that failure to labour on any particular day between Monday and Saturday is a violation of the 4th commandment. Am I understanding you correctly on this point?

I remember while reading Joey Pipa's book that he understood the phrase, "Six days thou shalt labour and do all thy work" to mean that all of our work for the week must be accomplished within that six day period. Hence how our labours are proportioned within the six days is not what is being regulated, only that whatever labour we do must not be on the Sabbath.

Per your view, are you saying that it is wrong for me (or anyone else) to take a few days off from work in the summer and take my family to see the Grand Tetons?

 

[luvroftheWord]

This will be my last post on this subject. I was hoping to launch into a discussion of Romans 14 next, but I´ve changed my mind. It is obvious to me at this point that those who are opposed to the celebration of Christmas do so not because they are really concerned with the RPW, but because they just want to worship like the Puritans, who apparently achieved some kind of theological nirvana on the issue of worship.

If my arguments from Purim and Hanukkah are valid, then the celebration of Christmas is not contrary to the RPW, since it is a freedom given to the church by God himself through his Holy Scriptures to do so. But even in showing this from Scripture, I am still criticized because I have not provided an explicit command to celebrate Christmas. But if Scripture itself gives us this kind of freedom concerning holidays, then there doesn´t need to be an explicit command telling us to observe them! It is a freedom! Furthermore, I have never met anybody that holds to the RPW who says that we can ONLY do what is EXPLICITY commanded in Scripture. This, of course, is because such a principle isn't even workable to begin with since there aren't enough explicit commands. The responses to my arguments have not been based on anything in Scripture, but have been arguments from silence built upon a precommitment against Christmas. Anybody can make arguments from silence when they have the right presuppositions.

My opponents have been inconsistent in their argumentation because on the one hand, they accept my argument from Purim as being valid if it is granted that Purim was a day of thanksgiving and not a religious holiday. But the exact same argument for a religious holiday just doesn´t cut it, for some reason. Where were all the arguments from silence concerning Purim? Where was the, "œWell, just because the Bible doesn´t tell us that God disapproved of this day of thanksgiving doesn´t mean he approved of it"? I´ll tell you why these questions weren´t asked. It´s because the Puritans didn´t oppose days of thanksgiving. But even on this inconsistency, I could still argue for Christmas by playing the semantic game of calling Christmas a day of thanksgiving. But that wouldn´t work either, I´m sure.

In addition, the responses have been plagued with the genetic fallacy. Evidently, "œChristmas is wrong because the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Catholics celebrate it" is a convincing argument to many, since those who are really Reformed don´t do the things that these other churches do. If that argument satisfies you, then I guess that´s your business. But don´t view me as a Papist because I don´t find logical fallacies to be persuasive. Furthermore, it is just dishonest to lump me with this group to begin with because, as it has even been admitted, the Continental Reformers allowed for the observance of Christmas and the other ecclesiastical holidays as well. Is anyone really going to argue that the Synod of Dordt was too Catholic? No Reformed person is being untrue to the legacy of Reformed theology by celebrating Christmas.

So this year, as I stand with Calvin, Turretin, Bullinger, the Synod of Dordt and others, if I may borrow the words of another writer, I will be celebrating a Calvinist Christmas with a clear conscience.

[Edited on 27-11-2004 by luvroftheWord]

 

[Ianterrell]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by Peter

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by Peter
I just dont see that distinction in Scripture.

Peter, assuming you mean the distinction between private and corporate worship, in light of your view, I also know that you hold to Exclusive Psalmody. Thus, since all of life is to be lived in worship to God, do you consider it a sin for us to ever play or sing any songs at any time, in any setting, other than songs from the Psalter?

I dont see all of life as worship. If thats what you thought I said Im sorry. Only what we consciencely offer to God is worship. So I see a distinction between life and worship but none between private at home and together at church. When one eucharistically sacrifices calves of singing lips it must be psalms ANYWHERE, but if youre just relaxing or something sing whatever (the "normative" rule applies).

[Edited on 26-11-2004 by Peter]

You say you don't see a Scriptural distinction between private and corporate worship, and you instead seem to be asserting a distinction between the parts of our life that are worship (based on our conscious intent to be worshipping at the time) and the parts that are not. What then do you make of 1 Cor. 10:31?

Furthermore, from your statement that there is a distinction between worship and non-worship based on our intent and focus at the moment, but no distinction between corporate worship, you then say that there are both worship and non-worship times in our personal lives, and thus times at which we should only sing Psalms in our personal time, and times and which we can sing other songs. In order to be consistent, you must then also hold that it is appropriate to have distinguished worship and non-worship times during the church service, and thus times in church when drama is appropriate, and times when it is not.

Chris,

There are congregations that do just this! They start off there services singing "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" and then start "worship time"...

This thread really mushroomed by the way!

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Per your view, are you saying that it is wrong for me (or anyone else) to take a few days off from work in the summer and take my family to see the Grand Tetons?

Grand Tetons is fine. Disneyland/world is not. Everyone knows that Mickey Mouse is an undercover papist. His magic tricks in fantasia show the pagan history of disneyland/world. And not being married to Minnie approves of pre-marital relationships. Furthermore, if one watches the original Lion King one may find the word "sex" in the smoke.

Oh yeah, to all those who like "Christmas movies." Please through them away and don't watch them since Christ is in the title and that is blasphemous. Anyone heard of that old reformed lady, Consist Ency?


[Edited on 11-27-2004 by Paul manata]

You're right Paul. So in the spirit of Consist Ency, I'll expect to hear that you are speaking with your Session to charge each person who does not attend the Christmas worship service with sin. :bigsmile:

 

[ReformedWretch]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Per your view, are you saying that it is wrong for me (or anyone else) to take a few days off from work in the summer and take my family to see the Grand Tetons?

Grand Tetons is fine. Disneyland/world is not. Everyone knows that Mickey Mouse is an undercover papist. His magic tricks in fantasia show the pagan history of disneyland/world. And not being married to Minnie approves of pre-marital relationships. Furthermore, if one watches the original Lion King one may find the word "sex" in the smoke.

Oh yeah, to all those who like "Christmas movies." Please through them away and don't watch them since Christ is in the title and that is blasphemous. Anyone heard of that old reformed lady, Consist Ency?


[Edited on 11-27-2004 by Paul manata]

OH NO!!!!

My avatar (picture here) is from Disney! I am in trouble now!!

I could still argue for Christmas by playing the semantic game of calling Christmas a day of thanksgiving.

This is EXACTLY what our church is calling it's Christmas Eve service!

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
This will be my last post on this subject. I was hoping to launch into a discussion of Romans 14 next, but I´ve changed my mind. It is obvious to me at this point that those who are opposed to the celebration of Christmas do so not because they are really concerned with the RPW, but because they just want to worship like the Puritans, who apparently achieved some kind of theological nirvana on the issue of worship.

If my arguments from Purim and Hanukkah are valid, then the celebration of Christmas is not contrary to the RPW, since it is a freedom given to the church by God himself through his Holy Scriptures to do so. But even in showing this from Scripture, I am still criticized because I have not provided an explicit command to celebrate Christmas. But if Scripture itself gives us this kind of freedom concerning holidays, then there doesn´t need to be an explicit command telling us to observe them! It is a freedom! Furthermore, I have never met anybody that holds to the RPW who says that we can ONLY do what is EXPLICITY commanded in Scripture. This, of course, is because such a principle isn't even workable to begin with since there aren't enough explicit commands. The responses to my arguments have not been based on anything in Scripture, but have been arguments from silence built upon a precommitment against Christmas. Anybody can make arguments from silence when they have the right presuppositions.

My opponents have been inconsistent in their argumentation because on the one hand, they accept my argument from Purim as being valid if it is granted that Purim was a day of thanksgiving and not a religious holiday. But the exact same argument for a religious holiday just doesn´t cut it, for some reason. Where were all the arguments from silence concerning Purim? Where was the, "œWell, just because the Bible doesn´t tell us that God disapproved of this day of thanksgiving doesn´t mean he approved of it"? I´ll tell you why these questions weren´t asked. It´s because the Puritans didn´t oppose days of thanksgiving. But even on this inconsistency, I could still argue for Christmas by playing the semantic game of calling Christmas a day of thanksgiving. But that wouldn´t work either, I´m sure.

In addition, the responses have been plagued with the genetic fallacy. Evidently, "œChristmas is wrong because the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Catholics celebrate it" is a convincing argument to many, since those who are really Reformed don´t do the things that these other churches do. If that argument satisfies you, then I guess that´s your business. But don´t view me as a Papist because I don´t find logical fallacies to be persuasive. Furthermore, it is just dishonest to lump me with this group to begin with because, as it has even been admitted, the Continental Reformers allowed for the observance of Christmas and the other ecclesiastical holidays as well. Is anyone really going to argue that the Synod of Dordt was too Catholic? No Reformed person is being untrue to the legacy of Reformed theology by celebrating Christmas.

So this year, as I stand with Calvin, Turretin, Bullinger, the Synod of Dordt and others, if I may borrow the words of another writer, I will be celebrating a Calvinist Christmas with a clear conscience.

[Edited on 27-11-2004 by luvroftheWord]

Craig,

There is a substantive difference between a day of worship and a day of public thanksgiving. The former is mandatory to the congregaton. The latter is not. In the end that is why the Puritans and others did not celebrate Christmas - because of Chapter 20 of the Confession, not Chapter 21.

Finally, you were better off with your arguments than your attempts at chiding logic. I could just as easily - more easily in fact - state that you, your church and Myers simply want to worship with the comfortable trappings of Christmas and smells and bells. I have not.

Oh, and by the way, your last sentence is the definition of a genetic fallacy.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Dan....
Andrew,

You said,

I believe that a holy day necessarily requires people to abstain from work among other things (cf. the Fourth Commandment). Hence, I see Christ-mass keeping (both inside and outside the church) as a violation not only of the Second but also the Fourth Commandments).

Your statement implies that failure to labour on any particular day between Monday and Saturday is a violation of the 4th commandment. Am I understanding you correctly on this point?

I remember while reading Joey Pipa's book that he understood the phrase, "Six days thou shalt labour and do all thy work" to mean that all of our work for the week must be accomplished within that six day period. Hence how our labours are proportioned within the six days is not what is being regulated, only that whatever labour we do must not be on the Sabbath.

Per your view, are you saying that it is wrong for me (or anyone else) to take a few days off from work in the summer and take my family to see the Grand Tetons?

Dan,

I have addressed this point previously in the thread during my discussion with MBD. There are some reasons when it is lawful to not be occupied with one's normal calling (vocation) Monday through Saturday and reasonable vacations are among them. As I stated earlier, the Sixth Commandment is another consideration and we all need breaks from time to time for our well-being. We also have duties to our families that sometimes override our duties to work. In fact, I highly commend vacations for families. We all need them and there is nothing inconsistent with taking a vacation and keeping the Fourth Commandment - unless one avoids religious duties on the Lord's Day while on travel.

However, a day that is truly holy as defined by God's Word necessarily requires a cessation from our normal labors for the purpose of engaging in religious duties instead. The Fourth Commandment has this requirement built in. This is a crucial aspect of what it means for a day to be considered holy in Biblical terms.

 

[luvroftheWord]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Oh, and by the way, your last sentence is the definition of a genetic fallacy.

Yes, I know. It was an intentional fallacy that had a rhetorical purpose.

Now I'm done, I promise.

[Edited on 27-11-2004 by luvroftheWord]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by luvroftheWord

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Oh, and by the way, your last sentence is the definition of a genetic fallacy.

Yes, I know. It was an intentional fallacy that had a rhetorical purpose.

Now I'm done, I promise.

[Edited on 27-11-2004 by luvroftheWord]

Ok, I get it.

And I won't hold it against you if you post again. I know what it is like to want to get out {Michael Corleone voice} "but they keep sucking me back in..."

 

[luvroftheWord]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The sarcasm on the pro-Christ-mass side of this debate has been the most unpleasant and unprofitable aspect of the discussion in my opinion.

 

[Peter]

Craig,
There is some truth to your accusation, "you just want to worship like the puritans." The Puritan's attained the highest level of reformation ever next to the apostoles, since then there as been some theological progress but overwhelmingly the church has experienced declension. The fact the puritans rejected Xmass definiately influenced my stance on this issue. But it is that Scripture no where commands any day of observation for worship, except the Lords Day, that made my decision. And as long as we're examining the psychology behind our opponents arguments, you have your own presuppositions Craig, you didnt come into this debate a blank slate. You look at the question as someone with love for the granduer and splendor of high church ceremonialism, and follow the view lock step with regard to holy days.

You dont need an explicit command to prove divine command for a worship practice. You do need at least good and necessary consequence though, and that Jesus walked in the temple on Hanukkah doesnt prove Christmas. First, simply walking somewhere does not necessarily mean he gave his assent. Every teaching must be tested with the rule of scriptural necessity, this is the standard you put me to not long ago now you must stand to it. Besides that the resemblance of Xmass to Hanukkah is strained. As for the inconsitancy with Purim, you make a good point, but there is something to be said that it is the confessional view (me being a puritan again) and the fact the celebrations institution and description is thoroughly inscripturated and not just a passing reference, and the fact it is not the only proof text for days of thanksgiving. With that said I acknowledge it is still something to be considered.

Proving Xmass's origin is popish and pagan is not fallacious. We are exhorted to "Learn not the way of the heathen" Jer. 10:2. We should not be imitating evil customs in the worship of the true God. Further, you're wrong in claiming all those people. As shown the quote from Calvin read in context actually shows his disapproval. The Synod of Dort infact was too Catholic. While a godly council which did accomplish much to the advancement of Reformation and the reformed religion, there was a prelatist element in it. The council was called at the urging of James I, and all British representatives were English prelates. Also, it assembled nearly a half century before the W.A. when the scots were under prelactical tyranny, and so it represent reformed theology in its youthful stages while the W.A. is it in its maturity.

Romans 14 is refering to the commanded holy days of the OT not popish holy days of the popes inventing. If you can celebrate the day with good faith, and cannot be convinced otherwise, then merry Christmas.

[Edited on 27-11-2004 by Peter]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
The sarcasm on the pro-Christ-mass side of this debate has been the most unpleasant and unprofitable aspect of the discussion in my opinion.

becaue I don't take people serious who tell me I'm sinning for eating turkey and drinking egg nog and giving/receiving gifts on a day call Christmas.

Sarcasm is a complete avoidance of the debate. You have mischaracterized my position and so you are sarcastically dismissing a straw man.

 

[cupotea]

Originally posted by Paul manata
I don't take people serious who tell me I'm sinning for eating turkey and drinking egg nog and giving/receiving gifts on a day call Christmas.

But would you consider that passive sinning? I mean, sinning by not specifically and intentionally glorifying God? But who here can claim to have never done something that wasn't glorifying God, anyway?

On the other hand, you could argue that giving gifts is being charitable, and glorifies God. You could further argue that spending time with family is glorifying God.

Anyway, I'm just tossing this one out there... Feel free to ignore it if you think it's silly.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Paul manata

Per your view, are you saying that it is wrong for me (or anyone else) to take a few days off from work in the summer and take my family to see the Grand Tetons?

Grand Tetons is fine. Disneyland/world is not. Everyone knows that Mickey Mouse is an undercover papist. His magic tricks in fantasia show the pagan history of disneyland/world. And not being married to Minnie approves of pre-marital relationships. Furthermore, if one watches the original Lion King one may find the word "sex" in the smoke.

Oh yeah, to all those who like "Christmas movies." Please through them away and don't watch them since Christ is in the title and that is blasphemous. Anyone heard of that old reformed lady, Consist Ency?


[Edited on 11-27-2004 by Paul manata]

You're right Paul. So in the spirit of Consist Ency, I'll expect to hear that you are speaking with your Session to charge each person who does not attend the Christmas worship service with sin. :bigsmile:

Fred, that is interesting. I'm wondering where you get that info from? Is there a verse that says that everytime service is called you must attend? If so, I will tell that to some elders.

Do not forsake he assembling...

Obey them that have the rule over you...

Since when is the corporate gathered worship of the saints optional? Even Rome for centuries has recognized this. Just because we don't discipline and excommunicate people for that doesn't make it less a sin. Hey - we don't do anything about commands to give either...

Just because some elders have weak ecclesiology does not mean you should either.

By the way, this is not a proof text issue, but an ecclesiological and biblical issue.

[Edited on 11/27/2004 by fredtgreco]

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Do not forsake he assembling...

Obey them that have the rule over you...

Since when is the corporate gathered worship of the saints optional? Even Rome for centuries has recognized this. Just because we don't discipline and excommunicate people for that doesn't make it less a sin. Hey - we don't do anything about commands to give either...

Just because some elders have weak ecclesiology does not mean you should either.

By the way, this is not a proof text issue, but an ecclesiological and biblical issue.

[Edited on 11/27/2004 by fredtgreco]

Fred,

You're speaking just of the sabbath day, correct?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
The sarcasm on the pro-Christ-mass side of this debate has been the most unpleasant and unprofitable aspect of the discussion in my opinion.

becaue I don't take people serious who tell me I'm sinning for eating turkey and drinking egg nog and giving/receiving gifts on a day call Christmas.

Sarcasm is a complete avoidance of the debate. You have mischaracterized my position and so you are sarcastically dismissing a straw man.

No Andrew, that's my position. My only point in this was to ask if you thought all celebration of Christmas, even outside of Church, was a sin. You said yes. I conclude that I have nothing serious to say to one that tells me those things are wrong?

I cited Reformers who didn't disagree with celebration (Turretin et al) and you played semantics, saying: w ell that says they didn;t mind it *in* a Chruch but not *outside* Church. If the didn't mind it *in* then how much greater would they not mind it *outside?*

So, that's my position. If you care to tell me that I am sinning for doing that, or that getting my son presents is a pagan practice, then I challenge you to bind my conscious from Scripture. To assert that you have is disingenuous. You have not and I know no one who thinks you have shown that those things I listed can be shown wrong. if you don't think that it's wrong then wee have no beef.

Sarcasim is a way to break the monotany on these boards. I couldn't use it to avoid debate since I don't think there's a debate. If you think what I listed is sin then all I can do is shrug my shoulders and wish you well.

I don't think you've done a bad job debating the other issue (in church) and the jury is still out for me on that, that's why I didn't discuss it.

Paul,

I asked you to state your postion so I could interact with it. You never did. You completely avoided answering all of my questions. The only time you have ever attempted to interact substantively with me on this thread is when you brought forth arguments which had to do with celebrating Christ-mass inside the church as justification for celebrating it oustide the church. You are apparently extrapolating from their position to assume that they condone secular observation of Christ-mass and the glorification of Santa Claus, etc., but that is not implied in their statements. You call my pointing out that fact semantics; I say you are conducting a disorganized and intellectually impoverished discussion at best and at worst you have made sarcasm your mode of attack which is unworthy of a Christian discussion board.

I have repeatedly indicated specific nuances to my position that are of the utmost significance (for example, I don't care what a person eats on December 25, but if their intent is to do so religiously then the eating in question is not a matter of indifference and the subject must therefore move from the realm of Christian liberty to religious worship under the Second Commandment/RPW). I have said that my concern has more to do with Santa Claus and the day appointed by the church for this observation and you completely ignored my comments to that effect. Your responses fail to interact with these points and distinctions and so you paint me with an exceeding broad brush as a Grinch or Scrooge and accuse me of sin in binding another's conscience. I still don't even know what it is you are advocating precisely despite repeated requests. I haven't condemned you but you have condemned me. You have mishandled my statements and abused this thread with your cavalier and inappropriate comments about a serious subject. Your sarcasm has been insulting to me and others and demeans your position, whatever it is.

I don't see any more reason to discuss Christ-mass with you, period.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Do not forsake he assembling...

Obey them that have the rule over you...

Since when is the corporate gathered worship of the saints optional? Even Rome for centuries has recognized this. Just because we don't discipline and excommunicate people for that doesn't make it less a sin. Hey - we don't do anything about commands to give either...

Just because some elders have weak ecclesiology does not mean you should either.

By the way, this is not a proof text issue, but an ecclesiological and biblical issue.

[Edited on 11/27/2004 by fredtgreco]

Fred,

You're speaking just of the sabbath day, correct?

Not really Tom. That is why I don't espouse Church holy days. Because I think if the Church calls a gathered corporate worship service and presents the means of grace, I am obligated to be there (other than by providential hindrance). If we say that the Church has no right to require non-Sabbath worship, then it should not impose it on the people.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Do not forsake he assembling...

Obey them that have the rule over you...

Since when is the corporate gathered worship of the saints optional? Even Rome for centuries has recognized this. Just because we don't discipline and excommunicate people for that doesn't make it less a sin. Hey - we don't do anything about commands to give either...

Just because some elders have weak ecclesiology does not mean you should either.

By the way, this is not a proof text issue, but an ecclesiological and biblical issue.

[Edited on 11/27/2004 by fredtgreco]

Fred,

You're speaking just of the sabbath day, correct?

Not really Tom. That is why I don't espouse Church holy days. Because I think if the Church calls a gathered corporate worship service and presents the means of grace, I am obligated to be there (other than by providential hindrance). If we say that the Church has no right to require non-Sabbath worship, then it should not impose it on the people.

I'm still not sure I understand.

If your church session determined to hold worship services every day of the week you feel you would be obligated to attend every service? And it would be a sin to not attend unless providentially hindered?

 

[pastorway]

Philip, in particular, has argued that any Christian can choose to declare a day holy and celebrate it that way. When pressed about what that means, however, Philip never responded.

Yeah...two full time jobs, a family, and church.......go figure this forum is on the back burner. In my second job I work at a grocery store so we were busy this week for Thanksgiving. I had to work 8 to 5 in fact on Thanksgiving. Guess it was not a holy day for me.

According to Col 2 I can decide to set aside any day as a "holy day" and observe it however I wish - the Spirit of God through the Word of God informing my conscience, my heart not condemning me, I am free to do this even on December 25th. Also according to Col 2 and Rom 14, if one JUDGES me (says I am sinning against God and therefore worthy of chastisement from Him) regarding the keeping or not keeping of days, then they have committed the sin. That is what the Bible says. Their encroachment upon my liberty in Christ is sinful.

I am not arguing for church services, but see nothing wrong with a service dedicated to the theme of Christ's birth, no matter the time of year.

And I know now who to invite and not invite to the Christmasssssss party that all the members of our congregation will be attedning in a few weeks at a members home. Party - food - gifts - oh, and fellowship - Bible reading - singing - prayer......hey, maybe it is a church service!

And as for the can of worms mentioned earlier in this thread - let the horse sit out a few days and we will get the worms.....anybody got a can?



Phillip

 

[ReformedWretch]

Just to back Phillip up here a tiny bit;

Col 2:
16Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions,[4] puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
20If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations-- 21"Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" 22(referring to things that all perish as they are used)--according to human precepts and teachings? 23These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

 

[Goosha]

As I was worshipping Christ this past sabbath, I thought of this discussion board as I noticed the several large Christmas trees up against the wall behind the pulpit of our church. I am thinking of taking a picture of it and making it my avatar for the sake of this discussion