Those "weak in the faith" in Romans 14 probably didn't think it was weakness to esteem one day above another; nevertheless, that is what the apostle calls them.
Celebrating Christmas?
- Thread starter Moireach
- Start date
- Status
Those "weak in the faith" in Romans 14 probably didn't think it was weakness to esteem one day above another; nevertheless, that is what the apostle calls them.
God is Most High, the Searcher of hearts, and the Judge of all men. Once religious significance is invested in any action the conscience is bound. Not just the consciences of others; our own is included. The only way one can speak about a religiously significant action failing to bind the conscience is to suppose that the conscience itself is free from the obligations of religion. This, of course, would only serve to destroy man's chief end -- to glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever.
Here's what Claude Fischer, professor of sociology from University of California, Berkeley has to say in the "Christmas Struggle": Christmas struggle « The Berkeley Blog
Specifically, under "Puritan Christmases" he writes, "Reacting against the drunken celebrations common to the English Christmases of the 17th century, the Pilgrims and Puritans simply banned the holiday – temporarily — by legislation in 1659. Even without a law, the custom of ignoring Christmas held sway in New England, according to historians (including this one) for about 200 years. The Episcopalians and then the Catholics managed to sneak in their celebrations in later generations. Then, as gift-giving grew among these other faiths, Congregationalist children – descendants of the Puritans – found the holiday yet more tempting. One minister fought a rear-guard battle, writing in 1835 that no one knew the real date of Christ’s birth, that the Bible countenanced no such holiday, and that it led to “a fearful amount of reckless mirth and impious feasting.” But, by the mid-19th-century, New England had caved. For example, state offices closed on the date and Santa Claus showed up in the newspapers."
Specifically, under "Puritan Christmases" he writes, "Reacting against the drunken celebrations common to the English Christmases of the 17th century, the Pilgrims and Puritans simply banned the holiday – temporarily — by legislation in 1659. Even without a law, the custom of ignoring Christmas held sway in New England, according to historians (including this one) for about 200 years. The Episcopalians and then the Catholics managed to sneak in their celebrations in later generations. Then, as gift-giving grew among these other faiths, Congregationalist children – descendants of the Puritans – found the holiday yet more tempting. One minister fought a rear-guard battle, writing in 1835 that no one knew the real date of Christ’s birth, that the Bible countenanced no such holiday, and that it led to “a fearful amount of reckless mirth and impious feasting.” But, by the mid-19th-century, New England had caved. For example, state offices closed on the date and Santa Claus showed up in the newspapers."
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
First of all let us not get upset concerning some people in here that celebrate Christmas, but instead restraint.
I wrote a little of the history of Christmas here for those that are interested, at http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/what-about-christmas-decorations-church-64701-post833155/#post833155 .
Now regarding should we celebrate Christmas? I think before answering this question we should ask two questions, the first is whether Christians can celebrate any civil holiday, which Christmas is officially here in the U.S.? The second is whether or not the church has any governed holidays to celebrate?
Let us first deal with the first of the two questions. We know the Jews had civil holidays in which the people of God would come to together to worship God (see Psalm 87:3 and Isaiah 66:23 in regarding to new moons, and John 10:22 regarding the Feast of Dedication). I cannot think of anywhere where God condemned the new moon practices in scripture and instead we see it’s integratedness into worship with maybe the exception of Colossians 2:16-7; however the context here of such festivals/sabbaths being a shadow of the fulfilling Christ an thus a NT vs. OT application. Romans 14:5-11 must also be added to the discussion, because we see there a similar quarrel that we are having here:
I will use this passage to answer both of the two questions. The passage was given in the context of passing judgment on your brother. When your blood is boiling by your brothers practicing Christmas, and you are saying it in this forum then you are passing judgment by your own opinion (Romans 14:1) on your brother and his conscience. The use of holy days I think were in Paul’s mind. The holy days in the Jewish Calendar would not just be with the Sabbaths, but also patterned out festivals through out the entire year, the majority in which was given by scripture. There was not a clear civil and religious distinction in the minds of the majority of the Jews like what we have in our minds today. If you were Jewish then you would celebrate the Jewish festivals, and the civil and religious were merged into one. In the Christian context, the Christian Jews would be celebrate things like Passover( a much debated practice in the second century church) or Pentecost to the Lord and giving thanks to God. Such practices would not to be condemned by Paul or by the stronger brother. If one condemned such practice then you are showing hatred towards your brother. Civil festivals are permissible, which Christmas is, but only if it is to the Lord and justifiable in our own conscience. The church has the Lord’s day to celebrate, but if you have a group of like-minded Christians gather together to worship and celebrate our Lord during a festival, at home or where ever they gather outside of the Lord’s day, such is not condemned in scripture, because it is to the Lord. Most people who think of Christmas do not have in mind the pagan roots unless it brought out by a liberal that hates Christmas or a strict Puritan. Most people are not thinking about the symbol of the Christmas Tree or the decorations that are placed on the tree. Even Pentecost isn’t necessarily or clearly required for us to celebrate, however Paul did (Acts 20:16 and 1 Cor 16:8) and many Christians, including non-Jewish, did in the second century through now. Are we going to condemn Paul for celebrating Pentecost? I hope not. Is it alright for Christians? The Holy Sprit came that day, do we not have a reason to celebrate? Of course we do as we look back at redemptive history and remember what the Lord our God did. Likewise the same is applied to Christmas, we are not remembering a pagan holiday, but what Christ has done; that is becoming flesh so that he could lay down his life and be the perfect sacrifice for our sins. This is a perfect time I see for people who would not normally attend church to hear the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. The problem isn’t necessarily the holiday, but is how it is practiced and preached from the pulpit. The construction of Christmas is partially based in my opinion to the Old Law ideal, where there are Christian festivals that has replaced the Jewish festivals with the purpose of us teaching (children or new converts) and remembering what our Lord has done (ex: Passover to Easter).
Now should we celebrate Christmas? That based on your own conscience, but don’t get angry or condemn those that do.
Now to address some criticisms of Christmas:
1) It does not diminish the Lord’s Day experience, instead it complements it and allows for more time towards family devotion and worship, because the head of the household has the day off which he can spend teaching his children and praying over them. Also to devote the day to good deeds towards his fellow man
2) Most people do not have the pagan festivals in mind as I have indicated, and most protestants do not think of Christ’s mass or even have a solid understanding what a mass is to begin with.
3) With the expectation of the baby Jesus in a naiveté scene, I think the application of idols is debatable and we know most Christians do not see images of Jesus as a violation of the second commandment. Besides anything can be seen as an idol, even American football and rugby.
4) God does command us to work each day, but sometimes we have bosses that will give us the day off. You might as well spend that time enjoying the family that God has given you. Besides even in the OT they didn’t have to work every six days and rest on the seventh, there were festival days that allowed for extra rest.
5) Even though there are pagan elements in Christmas, let me remind you that God is a God of accommodation to our needs and our understanding. There are pagan elements in the covenant ritual between God and Abraham and with the two tablets given to Israel, to be keep in the Ark of the Covenant and eventually the Temple.
6) The reason why Christmas may seem more solemn then a Lord’s Day isn’t the fault of Christmas but those that make it more solemn, which really tells you a view of how the Lord’s Day is conducted by Christians, even within our own traditions
7) In regards to Drake’s seventh point that he has above, Paul the Apostle participated in both the Lord’s Day and Pentecost. Here we see an example of a day being commemorated other then the Lord’s Day. And the major controversy regarding the Passover in the second century of the church of the East does indicate that the Apostle, like John, also participated in Passover.
8) The next is also directed at Drake, we are not to be a grinch and go around destroying people’s Christmas trees or the one in the community. That destruction of private property and besides who is worshipping in their churches a Christmas tree? There a bigger issue at hand if people are bowing down and giving homage to their Christmas tree.
9) Most people realize it is unlikely that Christ was born on Christmas day. The point is not that it is the day, but instead the reality that God has become flesh to dwell with his people in a unique way that has never been experience before in the world of sinful man. It is the miraculous that a virgin has given birth and that God keep his promise to Adam for a savior to come to bruise the head of the serpent.
You all have a good day and a merry Christmas, which I will celebrate by translating some of the Septuagint.
Moderation.
Second of all, let's not impute an emotion that isn't necessarily there. I don't read "upset" in the post you were responding to.
Moderation Off
seajayrice
Puritan Board Sophomore
Don't let it bring you down brother,’ He can't be risen if He wasn't born. Merry Christmas.
1. Many of my brethren in Scotland fought and died over this and other issues regarding the RP in the 17th century, quite frankly my blood boils over it and rightly so.
2. Straw man. First “civil holiday” is like saying, squared circle. It’s either civil or sacred. Seeing that the definition of Christmas refers to a day set apart in honor of the God-man Jesus Christ this day is not civil it is sacred and therefore demands scriptural warrant.
I am curious about the official status you predicate of the day. This may make a prepared accusation much easier a bit later.
3. Lev 23 and 1Ch 23:31 And to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the LORD in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded unto them, continually before the LORD:
make very clear these sabbaths or holy days were commanded by God. Christ’s oblation abrogated the ceremonial Sabbaths as much of the NT and the Col 2 passage makes clear.
4. This has been dealt with so many times so thoroughly I cannot believe you re using this argument. Calderwood dealt with this in detail. Yes Romans 14 gives liberty for days but Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. Gal 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. clearly condemns them.
Calderwood says that the Romans did not understand how Christ fulfilled all these things and allows them a space of time to understand. The Galatians fully understood how these days were fulfilled by Christ which is why he keeps chiding them for going back to the beggarly elements of bondage. (Gal 1:6) Paul says, Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Calderwood’s point is that we should be where the Galatians were. Understanding that Christ has abrogated all ceremonial days. Your diatribe was a class A example of the absolute failure of the American system in general, and why pluralism is such a bad idea. People need to be schooled in these things from their youth and here everyone is a religion unto himself. Your conscience diatribe was also an article of Anglican theology and Free Disputation by Rutherford should cure you of that or you can read my summary: One Holy Catholic Church by Drake Shelton - The Kings Parlor
5. This would be needless if the weekly Sabbath is maintained.
6. God commands that those things that are associated with idolatry be destroyed. Duet 12:29-32, Isa 30:22, Jude 23, Exo 34:13, Duet 7:25, Num 33:52, Rev 2:14, 20 (knowingly), Gen 35:4, 2 Kings 10:22-28, 2 Kings 23: 4, 5, 6, 7 ,2 Chron 23:15, Dan 1:8, 2 Kings 16:4, 10, 2 Chron 13:9, Exo 23:13, Duet 12:3,30, Josh 23:7. The purpose of this is so these religions will be forgotten and God's people will not ensnared by them. So, we determine what needs to be destroyed by this standard: could this thing that was used for idolatry of itself remind some person to return to that idolatry or of itself be a path back to it. Historical Examples: Chrysostom had temples of idols destroyed in Phoenicia; Constantine did not destroy the temples of the idols when he came into power and because of this Julian the Apostate was able to resurrect these idolatries. [EPC, 165] Angelic Virginity They say that they do that which the fathers have done. Yet Hezekiah breaks the brazen serpent which Moses had made. [2 Kings 18:4.]
I used to date a girl many years ago who practiced witchcraft and she celebrated Christmas the old Bohemian way every year. I was not raised in a Christian family.
7. Jesus Christ is the God man and people worshipped his body on account of his divine hypostasis. Whether people understand it that way or not is irrelevant. Deut 4:15-18 forbids images of God, Jesus is God, end of debate.
8. I am trying to figure out if you agree with me or not. You first give an admission and then you try to introduce ambiguity.
9. Blood sacrifice began with the first couple families on the planet. How is that pagan? God did accommodate the Roman Christian in Chap 14 but that is different. In Rom 14 the misunderstanding was over the Christians relationship to something clearly commanded and practiced by God’s people for centuries. You want to make that applicable to Pagan monuments of idolatry. Nonsense!
10. Here we go: But you said earlier that the day had one official meaning. You cannot escape by citing inconsistencies in most Christians. The reason why it is more solemn than the Lord’s day is inherent in the day itself.
11. I already answered this in my common objections post.
12. Well, the civil magistrate should do it.
13. This day is a product of Antichrist and speaking of his religion 1Ti 4:2 says Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; I have had conversations with Anchoretic Christians over Christmas and they are dogmatic about the dating though there are some issues concerning what Calendar you use.
Your usage is antiquated at best here. I don't esteem Christmas as holy, but as special: a time to reflect upon one aspect of the life of our Lord. Is this really so different from, say, an individual church going through the Gospels in their readings every year?
All things are sacred in Christ.
What exactly is Paul addressing here? Righteousness through the law and not through the work of Christ. Observance of holy days, Paul would argue, is beside the point---it's extra, it doesn't save. The churches of Galatia were observing them as moral obligations binding the conscience, which they no longer were because of the work of Christ.
Wherever you fall on this issue, I would urge you to consider this: your reason should be Christ. If you decide to celebrate, celebrate joyfully in Christ because He has freed you to do so. If you refrain from doing so, refrain joyfully because Christ has freed you to refrain.
This is one of the best explanations I've seen on why Christians should not be participants in the celebration of Christmas. The title is: What Fellowship Hath Christ With Belial? The sub-title is: An examination of the religious celebration of Christmas in light of the Scriptural duty of separation and the Regulative Principle of worship.
Here's the link for it: What Fellowship Hath Christ With Belial? « Comin Sense
Here's the link for it: What Fellowship Hath Christ With Belial? « Comin Sense
May I suggest the following from Pastor Danny Hyde who is also a PB member:
http://www.oceansideurc.org/ - Pilgrims & Parish (Danny Hyde) - - Not Holy But Helpful: Thoughts on the Church Calendar
http://www.oceansideurc.org/ - Pilgrims & Parish (Danny Hyde) - - About Advent
Why is Reformed defined so narrowly as to mean Puritan only? There are clearly differences between the Puritan (British Reformed) and the Continental Reformed on worship practices. My question is: for those who take the Puritan view to this issue, do you see the continental reformed as less reformed than the Puritans or perhaps not reformed at all (on worship)?
The continental reformed seemed to have more balance in that they said churches may celebrate the evangelical feast days. Whereas Rome and Anglicanism said one must practice, the continental side said you don't have to but you may, and the Puritans put it in terms of you may not. I think these distinctions are important and seem overlooked.
http://www.oceansideurc.org/ - Pilgrims & Parish (Danny Hyde) - - Not Holy But Helpful: Thoughts on the Church Calendar
http://www.oceansideurc.org/ - Pilgrims & Parish (Danny Hyde) - - About Advent
Why is Reformed defined so narrowly as to mean Puritan only? There are clearly differences between the Puritan (British Reformed) and the Continental Reformed on worship practices. My question is: for those who take the Puritan view to this issue, do you see the continental reformed as less reformed than the Puritans or perhaps not reformed at all (on worship)?
The continental reformed seemed to have more balance in that they said churches may celebrate the evangelical feast days. Whereas Rome and Anglicanism said one must practice, the continental side said you don't have to but you may, and the Puritans put it in terms of you may not. I think these distinctions are important and seem overlooked.
PuritanZealot
Puritan Board Freshman
As I am writing this there is a Nimrod tree sat next to me, with decorations and presents beneath it, because until last night my wife and I were going to celebrate christmas.
My daughter is three months old and in a vain sense of tradition we felt our experiences as secular children at christmas were warmly remembered and didn't want to take that experience away from our children, so begrudgingly, and knowing in my heart I felt it was wrong I decided to go along with it.
The other day we went to a local Church of England chapel down the road from us, picturesque, snow everywhere, then I opened the door and was assaulted with a Nimrod tree by the altar (not to mention the altar itself), a nativity scene, decorations everywhere and some kind of leafless tree with cards and bits of ribbon hanging off! My initial reaction was to run in and tear it all down, but I chewed my lip and left. It was as far removed from biblical christianity as possible and as different from my own church as I could imagine.
Then I read Dr Ian Sadler's chapter on Christmas in "Mystery Babylon", how the tree is Nimord, the decorations are the remnants of sacrifices, the presents were usually offerings to nimrod, he ended the chapter on how in 1644 Christmas was banned along with the other popish ceremonies.
My wife and I discussed and last night decided to not 'do' christmas.
Much like my Scottish family, we will celebrate New Year instead.
I was heavily convicted by 'whatever is not of faith is of sin'. My decision to 'give' my daughter christmas as a secular festival was not of faith, so was therefore a sin.
I don't know where I stand on others celebrating the day, it must be hard with children who have known it for some years.
All I could say is only God knows the heart and we will all answer to the judge alone.
Again
and apologies if any of this had been said before.
seajayrice
Puritan Board Sophomore
Another seasonal reflection from Carl Truman at Reformation 21 Seasonal Reflections II - Reformation21
I would give a little contribution to this debate saying that we celebrate Christ's Nativity on that day and not the day itself. Besides, there's nothing inherently holy in Dec 25 and we can say with confidence that our Lord was not born on the given date. What it matters is that he was born indeed and the Church in her wisdom and freedom appointed that day to remember His Nativity. Now, those who don't want to celebrate Nativity on that day will certainly read the Nativity stories on some other day and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't think that we should judge and condemn each other based on what verses we read on a particular day. Here I exclude excesses of RCC and some other churches which may reckon those holy days as something holy of itself.
Couldn't be further from the truth man. It was appointed by an early pope of the roman catholic church. So it was appointed by the anti-Christ. Why would the anti-Christ do that if it wasn't a further departure from scripture, departures which were and would continue to pile up in the catholic church.
Dear Moireach,
first mention of Christmas was found in a manuscript produced in Rome about 336AD. Nevertheless Christmas was introduced to Constantinople in 379, and to Antioch in about 380 and subsequently throughout the whole Church. It's important to notice that at that time THERE WAS NO ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND PAPACY AS WE KNOW IT NOW and which was a much later development and in those days Roman bishops could not impose it on the entire Church. Many popes of those days were holy men who valiantly fought against Arian heresy and preserved the torch of true faith while the East was under the heretics so I don't think we can talk about anti-Christ popes of those days with all due respect
first mention of Christmas was found in a manuscript produced in Rome about 336AD. Nevertheless Christmas was introduced to Constantinople in 379, and to Antioch in about 380 and subsequently throughout the whole Church. It's important to notice that at that time THERE WAS NO ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND PAPACY AS WE KNOW IT NOW and which was a much later development and in those days Roman bishops could not impose it on the entire Church. Many popes of those days were holy men who valiantly fought against Arian heresy and preserved the torch of true faith while the East was under the heretics so I don't think we can talk about anti-Christ popes of those days with all due respect
PuritanZealot
Puritan Board Freshman
But St Paul said in many of the epistles that error was already creeping into the Church at the time of his persecution in Rome. So to say the Church was some golden perfect idolatry free utopian being between 33ad and 400ad is ridiculous. Many of those Church elders you mentioned (so called 'Church Fathers') wrote against Christmas and said it was a pagan ceremony.
Heathens have been celebrating the rebirth of the Sun on December 25th since the time of Babylon. It is an ancient ceremony, the Papists just nicked it, covered it with the gaudy workings of a false Christianity and called it the birth of the Son of God.
I cannot recommend "Mystery Babylon the Great" by Dr Ian Sadler enough in these aspects. The Roman Church of Ant-Christ is doing nothing new, otherwise Daniels vision was wrong.
Heathens have been celebrating the rebirth of the Sun on December 25th since the time of Babylon. It is an ancient ceremony, the Papists just nicked it, covered it with the gaudy workings of a false Christianity and called it the birth of the Son of God.
I cannot recommend "Mystery Babylon the Great" by Dr Ian Sadler enough in these aspects. The Roman Church of Ant-Christ is doing nothing new, otherwise Daniels vision was wrong.
Semiomniscient
Puritan Board Freshman
If we believe that we are still bound by the Torah to observe them (for it has been generally observed and noted--and not contested--that Paul refers to the festivals and days appointed to the Jews to observe), then yes, it IS weakness, and a dreadful misunderstanding of our Christian freedom in our justified state. But this is not the case with which we choose to observe Christmas. When Paul is speaking of "fearing for" the brethren in Galatians, he is discussing how they still think of themselves bound to the Torah. And he even goes so far as to draw analogy to the Law as being of Ishmael and not of Isaac. The point he's making is that bondage to the Jewish Law is weakness and folly because there is unprecedented freedom in Christ.
I do also think it's rather haughty to insinuate that I and my fellow Christmas-observers are "weaker" than you non-Christmas observers. Although, no doubt I am weaker than I wish I was--I doubt highly it has much to do with my celebrating the Incarnation of God the Son.
Good points. Now let's think them through to the full effect of their meaning. The law was a shadow of good things to come. It at least had the virtue for the time before Christ came of really exhibiting Christ and His benefits to believers through the medium of earthly things. The apostle now rejects the use of such earthly things as truly exhibiting Christ now that He has come. Therefore it is folly and weakness to observe such earthly things. How much more foolish and weak to observe days which God has not instituted? Besides converting the worship of Christ back into "the elements of the world," it has the further disadvantage of imposing man's will as the author of an act of religious significance.
There is no intention to call one weak nor to arrogate a position of strength. My statements, please recall, were written in response to the person urging Romans 14 as a reason for considering Christmas "acceptable." That chapter speaks of accepting the weak. My only point has been to show that a weak person needs to be further instructed in the faith even while he himself is accepted as a justified believer. That is all. Please do not try to turn my words into something they were plainly never intended to convey.
Rev. Hyde is a good brother and I am loathe to say anything which might undermine his usefulness as a minister of Christ. Please do not take what I say as an attack against him but merely as an encouragement to consider further the true nature of festival days.
First, it simply is not the case that a religiously significant act can be encouraged under the consideration that it is "useful." In both continental and British reformed confessions, all religiously significant actions depend upon the will and appointment of God for their validity. The concept of "useful" does not enter into it. The only time that "useful" is a valid consideration is when something is "indifferent." But religiously significant actions are by definition "different," not "indifferent."
Secondly, even if "useful" were a valid consideration in religiously significant actions, it could not be presented as something which may or may not be done. In 1 Cor. 9, we are laid under obligation to be all things to all men that we might by any means save some. That creates a "necessity" on whatever is useful in the salvation of souls. If it is practically good, and is not contrary to moral goodness, then it must be followed. James 4:17, "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."
Thirdly, under what consideration do some of the reformed churches practise the celebration of festival days like Christmas? It is under the conviction that the church has authority to institute days of religious thanksgiving. But once the day is so appointed it is obligatory. Furthermore, once the day is set apart in this way it is to be observed "religiously." Those who advocate the keeping of the day as a religious holiday are therefore binding men's consciences to spend the day in religious activity. It is not any more a public holiday for the purpose of a family get-together and outing. It belongs to God. I wonder how many people would find the observance of the day to be useful under these conditions?
Semiomniscient
Puritan Board Freshman
I do first, apologize for my presumption of your haughtiness. I think sometimes frank debate can make me read things a bit more rashly. I'm used to arguing with liberals, so I look for the "attack through insinuation" too often.
Now, back to the argument at hand. Adding a religious significance to your morning commute by making it a time of religious reflection or making every Thursday night family-bible time would not be offenses to God, because he has commanded that we worship Him and study the Scriptures and ponder upon them. What about missionaries in Muslim countries who take the time to pray five times a day for the conversion of Muslims--whilst they pray to their false Allah? Is making that a daily or weekly religious observance somehow an affront to God because He hasn't explicitly commanded such routines? What disservice do we do God through worshipping Him and teaching and recalling the Incarnation on and leading up to December 25th? Just because he commanded no specific time frame with which to recognize specific things, does not mean that we are not at liberty to do so. (Albeit, those who view the Gospels as having been written with a liturgy in mind would argue that it is significant that the narrative of Lord Christ's birth is so detailed and that the structure of the Scriptures at least command SOME sort of regular observance of the Incarnation. It's something my dad posed to me--he's "High Church Anglican". I haven't studied the concept, but it's intriguing and I figured I'd introduce it.) Besides, all of this, observance of days--even if it makes us "weak"--isn't forbidden. Elsewhere (Col.2), the same apostle tells us not to let anyone judge us by such observances--albeit he affirms that we need not feel obliged to do so.
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
You can argue that Christmas doesn't even apply because it's not a Jewish holiday commanded in the Torah and is a man-made festival... but then again, it appears as though the Apostle refers to all those Jewish observances as being based on teachings of men in that same chapter:
20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings.
If all these God-commanded rules and observances of the OT are called by the Apostle Paul to be based on human commands and teachings, Christmas, which is also a man-made festival, is (or rather should be) honoring Christ--and is perhaps better than those that only foreshadow Him. But perhaps "better" is a bit presumptive.
As an aside, sometimes, I honestly think that the great angst against Christmas is simply channeling anger at Roman Catholicism. This is not to say that everyone does so for this reason, but sometimes it appears that way.
Last edited:
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
In my honest opinion, celebrating Christ's birth on a specific day of the year gives people a very low view of our need to preach the Gospel in every day of our life, because it is something we MUST "celebrate" in our hearts in every moment of our life, because it is the only antidote to sin. For those who are a little slow, "Why do Christians celebrate Christ's birth?" Because he would take our sins away! Thus, celebrating Christ's birth should be a common act of our everyday life.
Semiomniscient
Puritan Board Freshman
...and more importantly, His death and resurrection. But just because you have a day celebrating the day of your own birth doesn't make you unthankful to be alive the rest of the year.
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not quite getting what you're trying to say. What has the above to do with the celebration of Christ's birth?
Semiomniscient
Puritan Board Freshman
Only that having a particular focus on a particular day does not mean that you aren't going to acknowledge something for the rest of the year too.
Matthew,
I appreciate your interaction. Thanks. I certainly understand where you are coming from. I disagree with several of your premises but I am not willing to go into those things at this time due to the fact that I think it would lead us into a tangential battle over logic itself. Plus, the intent of my initial post was simply to point out that there is another viewpoint within the Reformed family that seems downplayed by some of those in the Puritan stream. Others may not be aware of the continental stream. I posted these as evidence that the Puritan understanding on this issue is not the only accepted understanding within the Reformed family. I anticipate the objection that I am trying to pit the magisterial reformers against the puritans (similar to the neo-orthodox calvin vs. the calvinists false dilemma). That is not my intention. Again, my intention is simply to show that there were/are differences that are accepted within the Reformed family. Thus, my question, does the Puritan side (or do you Matthew) see the continental side on this point as not fully reformed or perhaps not even reformed at all?
I will respond to something you stated in your third point. The conviction that a church can call an assembly of worship that would emphasize a particular doctrinal point (in this case the incarnation) is not even close to the same thing as a "holy" day or holiday. Is anyone here advocating making or assuming that "christmas day" is a "holy" day? I personally am against allowing the culture to form our worship and to the degree this is done I reject "christmas". But if by "christmas" we simply mean a worship service focused on the incarnation, what is so unbiblical about that?
There are layers to the answer of that question. I obviously consider my brethren reformed who maintain the reformed faith. Are they reformed on this point? Yes and no. So far as the continent is concerned, the reformation only proceeded so far. I accept that the Order of Dordt requires the observance. I would say, if they follow their church order, they are being consistent with the reformation to the point it has taken place in their context. But then, I would maintain, that while the festival day is optional so far as their own understanding is concerned, it is binding at the point the church has adopted it.
But here we are in lands where presbyterian churches represent a further advance in reformation. They are not to turn back from past attainments, but are to press forward and to witness to their brethren of the reasons why they differ from them. It is probably that witness to which you are alluding when you suggest the Puritan tradition seems to be represented as the only genuine reformed tradition. I make no apologies for striving together with my brethren for the faith of the gospel. It would be a sad day for the reformed faith if such striving were to be considered offensive in and of itself.
ReformedChristian
Puritan Board Freshman
The main problem I have with Christmas is lying to children about Santa Clause telling them he brings gifts when in reality its the parents bearing gifts..
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
But you see, it is THE GOSPEL that is being given "a particular focus on a particular day". Don't you see how FOOLISH this is? Shouldn't we be giving ALL our focus in EVERY day of our lives to the Gospel of Christ, to grasp the depth of the love of Christ which passes all knowledge? I say, we belittle the Gospel of Christ, if we do not give it ABSOLUTELY ALL our attention in EVERY MOMENT (Yes, NOT days! MOMENTS!) of our lives! And this is all due to the fact that all things should ultimately lead to Christ, for He IS the Word of God, what all the Bible is ABOUT and POINTING TO. And if ALL God's focus has been, is and will ever be on His Son, how much more should ALL our focus be on Christ (now and forever)?
Last edited:
Gesetveemet
Puritan Board Sophomore
Celebrating Christmas and a call to remembrance of the Lord's birth on December 25th that He may indeed be born in our hearts are two different things.
.
.
- Status
Similar threads
