Celebrating Christmas?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

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.

I'll just say that I admire the Puritans and Presbyterians as much as I admire the magisterial Reformed, but I think there are legitimate differences (diversity) within the Reformed family (unity). I do not believe either/or is the proper distinction on this issue, but both/and is appropriate. So I would not consider the Puritan stream more advanced or more Reformed, just different on specific points but the same on basic principles/ethos, etc. A basis for my understanding on this would be Richard Muller's article: "Confessing the Reformed Faith: Our Identity in Unity and Diversity". The link is below.

Westminster Seminary California

With that I'll bow out of the discussion, no need to go any further. Thanks again for your gracious interaction Matthew.
 
Should Christians celebrate Christmas? - Desiring God

The PCA church I go to doesn't have a Christmas worship service. This is the first year I have been reformed and I'm still struggling with issues like this.

As a church, they never discussed why or whether a private observance was considered OK.

I don't want to derail the discussion, but what do you do privately? do you celebrate?

I'm tending to agree with John Piper, that we should celebrate Christmas.
 
It does seem notable that arguably the greatest continental Reformed theologian contemporary to Westminster era Puritanism took a relatively moderate stance on the observance of festivals.

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 11.15.13-15

XIII. If some Reformed churches still observe some festivals (as the conception, nativity, passion and ascension of Christ), they differ widely from the papists because they dedicate these days to God alone and not to creatures. (2) No sanctity is attached to them, nor power and efficacy believed to be in them (as if they are much more holy than the remaining days). (3) They do not bind believers to a scrupulous and too strict abstinence on them from all servile work (as if in that abstinence there was any moral good or any part of religion placed and on the other hand it would be a great offense to do any work on those days). (4) The church is not bound by any necessity to the unchangeable observance of those days, but as they were instituted by human authority, so by the same they can be abolished and changed, if utility and the necessity of the church should demand it. “For everything is dissolved by the same causes by which it was produced,” the lawyers say. In one word, they are considered as human institutions. Superstition and the idea of necessity are absent.

XIV. If some days with certain churches are designated by the names of apostles or martyrs, it is not to be supposed that they were instituted for their worship or should be terminated on their honor, as the papists do. Hence Bellarmine asserts “that the honor of the festivals immediately and terminatively pertains to the saints” (De Cultu Sanctorum,” 3.16 Opera [1857], 2:555). Rather they are referred to the memory of the saints by whom Christ built up his church for our advantage (to the worship, however, and honor God alone, who conferred upon the apostles and martyrs whatever thing worthy of praise they possessed, did or underwent). They neither invoke nor burn incense t them, but to God alone, whom they invoke. They give thanks on account of the benefits redounding to us by their ministry and example. Hence we cannot approve the rigid judgment of those who charge such churches with idolatry (in which those days are still kept, the name of the saints being retained), since they agree with us in doctrine concerning the worship of God alone and detest the idolatry of the papists.

XV. However although our churches do not condemn that practice simply as evil, yet since sad experience has shown that the institution of festival days received into the papacy from a false jealousy (kakozēlia) of the Jews or of the heathen gave occasion to the abominable idolatry which continues and increases in the papacy, not without weighty reasons have they preferred to abolish that usage in their reformation (that no contagion might be contracted, but that they might carefully shun the danger from that source). For in religion, when even the slightest departure takes place from the commands of God and men wish or suppose a thing to be lawful for them, all safe things are to be feared. Indeed it has been found by experience that from insignificant beginnings wonderful progress was made in superstition and idolatry in the papacy as to the worship of images, invocation of saints, purgatory, the sacrifice of the mass, prayers for the dead, etc. Thus it seems better to lack some useful good (but less necessary), than from the use of it to incur the imminent danger of any great evil.
 
It does seem notable that arguably the greatest continental Reformed theologian contemporary to Westminster era Puritanism took a relatively moderate stance on the observance of festivals.

Taken from a recent article written by Andrew Myers entitled "Nadere Reformatie Contra Christmas" (complete article here: Virginia is for Huguenots: Nadere Reformatie Contra Christmas)

...

The conclusion that the toleration and promotion of the man-made ecclesiastical calendar (including even Saint Nicholas Day) is good for piety was not shared, however, by the Nadere Reformatie, which sought to limit the observation of such holidays to that alone which had warrant from Scripture -- the Lord's Day, and occasional extraordinary days of fasting and thanksgiving -- as will be seen by these quotes from leading representatives of the movement.

Willem Teelinck, The Path of True Godliness, p. 101:

[Rules that help distinguish between truth and lies, walking in divine truth promotes godliness] For example when debating whether to maintain Lenten Eve (Fat Tuesday), Epiphany (when the wiseman saw Christ), and other Roman Catholic holidays or to radically abolish them, some people may say yes and others no. However, the godly immediately know the right way, for they understand that Roman Catholic holidays have no basis in Holy Scripture and that regular observance of them offers occasion for much sin. The celebrations cause great disorder in the places or homes where they are observed and become a stumbling block to real holiness as they strengthen the old man. The godly swiftly conclude that Reformed Christians who would gladly abolish or ignore the feast days have the truth on their side.


Jacobus Koelman (who, it is reported, coined the term 'Nadere Reformatie'), The Duties of Parents, p. 73:

100. Do not allow your children to celebrate the days on which unbelief and superstition are being catered to. They are admittedly inclined to want this because they see that the children of Roman Catholic parents observe those days. Do not let them attend carnivals, observe Shrove Tuesday (Mardi Gras), see Santa Claus, or observe Twelfth Night, because they are all remnants of an idolatrous papacy. You must not keep your children out of school or from work on those days nor let them play outside or join in the amusement. The Lord has said, "After the doings of the land of Egypt, where you lived, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, where I bring you, you shall not do: neither shall you walk in their ordinances" (Lev. 18:3). The Lord will punish the Reformed on account of the days of Baal (Hosea 2:12-13), and he also observes what the children do on the occasion of such idolatry (Jer. 17:18). Therefore, do not let your children receive presents on Santa Claus day, nor let them draw tickets in a raffle and such things. Pick other days on which to give them the things that amuse them, and because the days of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost have the same character, Reformed people must keep their children away from these so-called holy days and feast days.


Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service, Vol. I, pp. 38-39:

Objection #4:

The Jewish church also instituted various practices passing them on to subsequent generations which nevertheless were not commanded, such as fasting in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth month (Zec. 7:5 and 8:19); the days of Purim (Est. 9:21-26); the feast of the dedication (John 10:22). In similar fashion the Reformed Church also has her traditions, which implies that also now we may and must uphold tradition.

Answer:

The practice of fasting was commanded by God; the determination of necessity, time, and circumstances was left to the church (Joel 2). Special days of thanksgiving are also commanded, the occurrence and frequency of which are to be determined by the church. There is no basis in the Word, however, upon which the church may legislate the observation of such days for subsequent generations. Such practices should be denounced and the church should not observe them. This is true also for our so-called feast days which ought to be eliminated. Regarding feast days consult Res Judicata by [Jacobus] Koelman, as well as his other scholarly and devotional writings. Other external religious ordinances and circumstances are principally commanded in the Word of God, the stipulations of which are left to each individual church, and consequently are alterable according to time and place. In doing so, however, all superstition must be avoided and such practices must not have an adverse effect upon doctrine and practice. Thus, the perfection of the rule of Scripture will not be violated, nor will the use of unwritten traditions be advocated.
 
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.

I'm not quite getting what you're trying to say. What has the above to do with the celebration of Christ's birth?

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.

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)?

Actually, Christmas is focusing on a particular aspect of the Gospel--the Incarnation. Just as on Good Friday we contemplate Christ's suffering and death and on Easter celebrate his triumph over death. We are always focusing on the Gospel of course, but while the Good News is a simple message, it has multiple facets, and we emphasize certain facets at different times... but this is not to say that we forget the Gospel in them, but rather come to a greater understanding of the whole by contemplating the parts.
For instance, before you can understand how a computer really works, it's best to study how the component parts work.
 
Actually, Christmas is focusing on a particular aspect of the Gospel--the Incarnation. Just as on Good Friday we contemplate Christ's suffering and death and on Easter celebrate his triumph over death. We are always focusing on the Gospel of course, but while the Good News is a simple message, it has multiple facets, and we emphasize certain facets at different times...

However, "we" don't all set aside specific days for emphasis.
 
James, do you exclude santa from celebrating Christmas?
Same question to others.

Exclude him? No. I don't. But I don't include him in any religious capacity. I do see a problem with telling your children about an apparently omniscient and close-to-omnipresent being who punishes and rewards behavior that isn't God. Albeit, it all depends on how the Santa issue is handled. One way or the other though, to me, it's a cultural aspect of the festivities that should be left separate from the religious teachings.
 
How can it possibly be handled but to be totally excluded?
It is a nationwide annual lie, that leads to more lies.
And I could go into the problems with santa like the ones you have mentioned but ultimately it's a lie, so how can santa be included at all by a Christian?
 
No-one in the New Covenant phase of Israel, should feel obliged before God, as by Divine command, to keep Christmas or Easter, or wear a dog collar, sing non-Psalmodic Scripture songs, paraphrases or hymns, or use musical instruments in worship, or gyrate in the pews or pulpits in Davidic dancing, shouting and clapping etc.

We are free in Christ! Let's taste that freedom!

There may be reasons to justify these things at certain times and places (e.g. John "Rabbi" Duncan danced a jig on the Brig o'Dee when he got assurance), or going along with them to facilate our love to, and fellowship with, our brethren, and families, but Christians aren't under a moral obligation from God to do them.

A Christian could live a perfectly acceptable life before God, and never keep Christmas in any way throughout that life and have a clear conscience before God and man, just as he could live without keeping St Swithin's Day with a clear conscience.
 
Last edited:
How can it possibly be handled but to be totally excluded?
It is a nationwide annual lie, that leads to more lies.
And I could go into the problems with santa like the ones you have mentioned but ultimately it's a lie, so how can santa be included at all by a Christian?

There is a lack of teaching of Church history to our children. I think Christmas is a good time for Christians to talk and teach on the life of Nikolaos of Myra, also known as Nikolaos the Wonderworker the Bishop of Myra. He also had a feast day dedicated to him in the month of december. He was the bishop that the legend of Santa Claus is based on. So instead of telling lies to children of a fictional man speak of the real man that lived and gave service to God. That is how Santa may be included by all Christians.
 
Last edited:
How can it possibly be handled but to be totally excluded?
It is a nationwide annual lie, that leads to more lies.
And I could go into the problems with santa like the ones you have mentioned but ultimately it's a lie, so how can santa be included at all by a Christian?

There is a lack of teaching of Church history in our teachers. I think Christmas is a good time for Christians to talk and teach on the life of Nikolaos of Myra, also known as Nikolaos the Wonderworker the Bishop of Myra. He also had a feast day dedicated to him in the month of december. He was the bishop that the legend of Santa Claus is based on. So instead of telling lies to children of a fictional man speak of the real man that lived and gave service to God. That is how Santa may be included by all Christians.

Except he isn't Santa, and he certainly isn't the current Americanized/Coca-Cola-inspired version.
 
How can it possibly be handled but to be totally excluded?
It is a nationwide annual lie, that leads to more lies.
And I could go into the problems with santa like the ones you have mentioned but ultimately it's a lie, so how can santa be included at all by a Christian?

There is a lack of teaching of Church history to our children. I think Christmas is a good time for Christians to talk and teach on the life of Nikolaos of Myra, also known as Nikolaos the Wonderworker the Bishop of Myra. He also had a feast day dedicated to him in the month of december. He was the bishop that the legend of Santa Claus is based on. So instead of telling lies to children of a fictional man speak of the real man that lived and gave service to God. That is how Santa may be included by all Christians.

Except he isn't Santa, and he certainly isn't the current Americanized/Coca-Cola-inspired version.

Your right that this is not the Santa Claus of Coca-Cola, but that does not mean we shouldn’t correct children of who the real Santa Claus was. Santa Claus as historically been recognized as Nikolaos of Myra. Examples of this is from the poem “The night before Christmas” to the song “Jolly Old Saint Nicolas.” Even if you break down the name one would see Santa Claus. Santa is Saint and Claus comes from Nikolaus, or combining the two together Saint Nicholas. The similarity can be also seen in the Dutch between klaas and nikolaas. What society defines as Santa Claus does not imply we shouldn’t teach the historical Santa Claus. Would you let society say that Jesus was only a good moral teacher? Of course not. As it is we do not teach church history to children, with maybe the exception being of the life of Luther and Calvin. Our history does not begin at the Reformation. If we desire the truth then we should be willing to correct our children to the modern day myth or definition of Santa Claus, and instead teach of the real man; because to say to children that Santa Claus was not real would also equally be a lie. We should be truthful about our history and be willing to communicate it, otherwise it will be lost in time and the myth or legends will overcome the truth. So in short Nikolaos of Myra was Santa and we should be willing to teach our children about him. I think part of the problem is that we see today Santa as a first name, when in reality it should be seen as a title, like Saint John or Saint Peter. Who going to say that Saint is the first name of John or Peter? You don’t have to answer the question, the point is we lack understanding of our historical roots and we should be more willing and knowledgable about such things for the sake of our children.
 
Last edited:
Of note: the historical Nikolaos of Myra, in addition to dropping the family wealth down the chimneys of poor people, also (according to legend) punched Arius of Alexandria in the face during the Council of Nicaea for denying the deity of Christ.
 
How can it possibly be handled but to be totally excluded?
It is a nationwide annual lie, that leads to more lies.
And I could go into the problems with santa like the ones you have mentioned but ultimately it's a lie, so how can santa be included at all by a Christian?

There is a lack of teaching of Church history to our children. I think Christmas is a good time for Christians to talk and teach on the life of Nikolaos of Myra, also known as Nikolaos the Wonderworker the Bishop of Myra. He also had a feast day dedicated to him in the month of december. He was the bishop that the legend of Santa Claus is based on. So instead of telling lies to children of a fictional man speak of the real man that lived and gave service to God. That is how Santa may be included by all Christians.

Except he isn't Santa, and he certainly isn't the current Americanized/Coca-Cola-inspired version.

Your right that this is not the Santa Claus of Coca-Cola, but that does not mean we shouldn’t correct children of who the real Santa Claus was. Santa Claus as historically been recognized as Nikolaos of Myra. Examples of this is from the poem “The night before Christmas” to the song “Jolly Old Saint Nicolas.” Even if you break down the name one would see Santa Claus. Santa is Saint and Claus comes from Nikolaus, or combining the two together Saint Nicholas. The similarity can be also seen in the Dutch between klaas and nikolaas. What society defines as Santa Claus does not imply we shouldn’t teach the historical Santa Claus. Would you let society say that Jesus was only a good moral teacher? Of course not. As it is we do not teach church history to children, with maybe the exception being of the life of Luther and Calvin. Our history does not begin at the Reformation. If we desire the truth then we should be willing to correct our children to the modern day myth or definition of Santa Claus, and instead teach of the real man; because to say to children that Santa Claus was not real would also equally be a lie. We should be truthful about our history and be willing to communicate it, otherwise it will be lost in time and the myth or legends will overcome the truth. So in short Nikolaos of Myra was Santa and we should be willing to teach our children about him. I think part of the problem is that we see today Santa as a first name, when in reality it should be seen as a title, like Saint John or Saint Peter. Who going to say that Saint is the first name of John or Peter? You don’t have to answer the question, the point is we lack understanding of our historical roots and we should be more willing and knowledgable about such things for the sake of our children.

I agree we should teach about the historical man--where did I say otherwise? My point is that what kids see on television, at the mall, etc. is how Santa generally is viewed in America. That version has no place in the Christian home, much less the church.
 
How can it possibly be handled but to be totally excluded?
It is a nationwide annual lie, that leads to more lies.
And I could go into the problems with santa like the ones you have mentioned but ultimately it's a lie, so how can santa be included at all by a Christian?

I question the general treatment of the "Santa Claus" phenomenon in our country. I've wavered back and forth on how to deal with it whenever, Lord willing, I have my own children. It is a story, a legend, and yes, a lie. It's a cultural thing, and having been a child who believed in Santa Claus, I appreciated the lie. It's unfortunate I suppose. But anyway, when I discussed whether or not I include or exclude Santa, I really was only referring to decorations and the like. There are no children in my family currently who believe in Santa. My niece figured it out and my nephew asked his mother too many questions and she fessed up. He was outraged at being lied to. When I discovered the truth, I wasn't upset about the lie, but only that it wasn't all real and supernatural. It's sort of like a cultural game (and no, I'm not arguing it's not a lie) and the non-belief in Santa is a sort of coming-of-age thing. Silly I suppose, but that's the fact of the culture. And while I understand disagreeing with the practice on a multitude of levels, (I agree with some of them), whether little kids believe in Santa for a few short years is not high on my worries list. I work in an inner-city alternative school, and I'm more worried about kids on drugs, being gunned down, etc.
 
We cannot at anytime condone sin, never mind openly and willingly commit it. No Christian should ever lie to their children like this and that's the bottom line.
I'm sure Lot would have had similar cultural problems while raising his kids but he could never condone joining in with them.

Leviticus 20:23 "And you shall not walk in the statutes of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they commit all these things, and therefore I abhor them."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top