Christmas and the Christian

Status
Not open for further replies.

stephen2

Puritan Board Freshman
I don't celebrate Christmas but I also have no problem being given the day off from work, or remembering Christ's birth on that day. I also thoroughly enjoy the Thanksgiving holiday, even though it is not commanded in Scripture.

I've seen it as an issue of not binding consciences and requiring religious exercises on these days. Am I mistaken?

I tend to look at it the same though our family does celebrate (and enjoy!) Christmas (including lights and tree, etc.). I think that we have to recognize how different it was at the time that Gillespie was writing. It was in those days treated as a holy day and people were expected to treat it as such. The puritans rightly responded by saying that it was wrong to bind them to obedience to a day that God had not given them. I just don't know that there are all that many situations where people are actually expected to sanctify the day. In fact, I don't know all that man situations where people even set out to sanctify the day. The Catholics certainly carry on as they have for centuries, but for most people Christmas is something altogether different. How many in the Church even know that the word stands for Christ mass?
 

Fogetaboutit

Puritan Board Freshman
OK, so if it were determined that no worship day should be observed by the church appart from the Lord's Day, would it be OK for church members to keep observing these extra days of worship in the comfort of their home?

Not as days of worship, no. Cultural celebrations? Maybe (think Thanksgiving, but with presents).

hmm, the difference being that Thanksgiving was never established as a worship day, Christmas on the other hand has been for a very long time and is done during the winter solstice which is tied in to pagan sun gods worship, I believe it would be hard to separate the two. Of course I see no issue with people taking advantage of a civic holiday to get together, I would still have issues with pagan practices rooted in pagan worship.
 

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
Of course I see no issue with people taking advantage of a civic holiday to get together, I would still have issues with pagan practices rooted in pagan worship.

The pagan associations are so far in the past that they can be considered adiaphora outside a worship context (within may be another matter). Note that I am not here making a judgment about whether or not the church may institute such a day.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
Everyone please read Zechariah 7 to see God's response to following the "church's (not His) calendar". The people had created 4 special days (2 mentioned in ch 7 on the 5th and 7th months), and they were asking if they should continue worshipping God with these days. And He responds by asking them if it was for Him that they had been doing such things. Implying they had been doing it for themselves and not Him, that it was man made worship and not true worship.

It is all too applicable to those who celebrate chrismass in the public worship of God.

Calvin would disagree with your interpretation of Zechariah here, arguing that it was appropriate for the priests to encourage the people (by common consent) to humble themselves annually on the anniversaries of these significant events in the history of God's people. The issue was not with their fasting on particular days but the reasons why they were doing so: they had lost touch with the meaning of these celebrations so that they had become mere religious ritual.

Our books of church order typically allow the church (or the state!) to call for such days of fasting or thanksgiving in response to particular providences (see PCA BCO ch 62). It is not clear to me whether that covers annual recurrences of such feasts or fasts, such as the annual services of thanksgiving were mandated in England every November 5th in the years following the uncovering of the Guy Fawkes plot, but if so Zechariah 7 (and Purim) would likely be appealed to for the Scriptural warrant, and it appears that Calvin would in principle approve. Certainly, that is what is done in those churches that observe Reformation Day (which we do not observe, nor do we particularly observe Christmas). In any event, it is not self-evident that Zechariah 7 has a bearing on Christmas, one way or another, except in supporting the argument that if Christians can mutually agree to celebrate an historical act of providence, then perhaps they may also agree (by consensus, without binding anyone's conscience) to focus their thanksgiving on a particular day on a particular aspect of redemptive history.

First, I'm fine with disagreeing with Calvin. Hesitant, but fine.

Second, the priests ought not encourage the people to do so if it isn't commanded in the word (see Nadab/Abihu). And here the delegates from Bethel came to the priests and the prophets (Zechariah and Haggai), and Yahweh of hosts answered the Bethelites through the prophets. And He spoke to them. So it is very clear what the true answer is. If Calvin goes against that, on this point he goes against Yahweh of hosts.

Third, the reason they did fast on the fifth month was because that was the month that the temple was destroyed. The reason they did so in the seventh month was because their governor was assassinated in the 7th month. And so they themselves created fast days to remember and pray about these things, but it was not at the Lord's command. Yahweh only commanded one fast and that was the Day of Atonement. They had not lost touch with the meaning of the rituals. The context shows that. The rebuilding of the temple was occuring, in 2 years it would be rebuilt. The question they bring sounds like a good one (even though wrong). Should we keep fasting on the 5th month (remembering the destruction of the temple) as we have done these many (70) years (given that the temple is being rebuilt)? They had not lost the meaning of the celebrations. They were external acts that they created themselves. The wanted to worship Yahweh in a false way, and Yahweh calls them out here.

Our BCO is under the authority of Scripture (I'm not of the opinion that in this place it breaks what Scripture teaches).
 

Hemustincrease

Puritan Board Freshman
For those who listened to the sermons by Al Martin, is there anything within them you would disagree with?

I haven’t celebrated Christmas since I was saved, however, I did find these sermons very challenging insofar as the tendency (of those holding to either position) to bind another’s conscience to one’s own position.

It should be clear (though sadly it is not.......my own church, along with many others, brings Christmas into corporate worship by means of a tree at church and continual mention of it for a month etc) that Christmas has no place in the worship of God or the gathered, corporate assemblies. There is no Biblical argument which could contend with that.

I feel strongly in my opposition to everything related to Christmas, but I also feel strongly (even more so after listening to the sermons linked to in the O.P) that we must be careful not to set ourselves up as the judge of our brethren in matters which the Lord has not provided an absolute for. No doubt we (who do not celebrate) can bring to the debate all manner of good reasons why a tree is not a great idea (and will likely be able to eloquently express the pagan origins of such a thing......at tedious length ;)) but can we bring even one thing from the plain commands of Scripture which forbids it? If we cannot (and the same applies to whatever other aspect of Christmas we wish to discuss) then perhaps we ought to stand back and be careful not to in anyway seek to bind our fellow believer’s consciences to our opinions.

Equally, if we (again, those who do not partake) are asking our brethren to set forth their Biblical justification to partake in Christmas in any way shape or form, might we not want to first consider what our Biblical justification is for asking them that question in the first place?

If the observance of such a day (in individual family life, not the corporate church) as Christmas day is strictly forbidden in Scripture, then surely this matter would need to be dealt with by means of church discipline? How can we speak against a thing as blatantly transgressing the law of God and then just permit the majority of the church to continue on in it without rebuke leading to discipline if they do not repent? If, on the other hand, the observance of it is not strictly forbidden in Scripture, then surely we need to all (whatever position we take) apply the principles of Romans 14 and cease judging one another on this matter or else we will make it a means of our own disobedience?
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
Everyone please read Zechariah 7 to see God's response to following the "church's (not His) calendar". The people had created 4 special days (2 mentioned in ch 7 on the 5th and 7th months), and they were asking if they should continue worshipping God with these days. And He responds by asking them if it was for Him that they had been doing such things. Implying they had been doing it for themselves and not Him, that it was man made worship and not true worship.

It is all too applicable to those who celebrate chrismass in the public worship of God.

Calvin would disagree with your interpretation of Zechariah here, arguing that it was appropriate for the priests to encourage the people (by common consent) to humble themselves annually on the anniversaries of these significant events in the history of God's people. The issue was not with their fasting on particular days but the reasons why they were doing so: they had lost touch with the meaning of these celebrations so that they had become mere religious ritual.

Our books of church order typically allow the church (or the state!) to call for such days of fasting or thanksgiving in response to particular providences (see PCA BCO ch 62). It is not clear to me whether that covers annual recurrences of such feasts or fasts, such as the annual services of thanksgiving were mandated in England every November 5th in the years following the uncovering of the Guy Fawkes plot, but if so Zechariah 7 (and Purim) would likely be appealed to for the Scriptural warrant, and it appears that Calvin would in principle approve. Certainly, that is what is done in those churches that observe Reformation Day (which we do not observe, nor do we particularly observe Christmas). In any event, it is not self-evident that Zechariah 7 has a bearing on Christmas, one way or another, except in supporting the argument that if Christians can mutually agree to celebrate an historical act of providence, then perhaps they may also agree (by consensus, without binding anyone's conscience) to focus their thanksgiving on a particular day on a particular aspect of redemptive history.

First, I'm fine with disagreeing with Calvin. Hesitant, but fine.

Second, the priests ought not encourage the people to do so if it isn't commanded in the word (see Nadab/Abihu). And here the delegates from Bethel came to the priests and the prophets (Zechariah and Haggai), and Yahweh of hosts answered the Bethelites through the prophets. And He spoke to them. So it is very clear what the true answer is. If Calvin goes against that, on this point he goes against Yahweh of hosts.

Third, the reason they did fast on the fifth month was because that was the month that the temple was destroyed. The reason they did so in the seventh month was because their governor was assassinated in the 7th month. And so they themselves created fast days to remember and pray about these things, but it was not at the Lord's command. Yahweh only commanded one fast and that was the Day of Atonement. They had not lost touch with the meaning of the rituals. The context shows that. The rebuilding of the temple was occuring, in 2 years it would be rebuilt. The question they bring sounds like a good one (even though wrong). Should we keep fasting on the 5th month (remembering the destruction of the temple) as we have done these many (70) years (given that the temple is being rebuilt)? They had not lost the meaning of the celebrations. They were external acts that they created themselves. The wanted to worship Yahweh in a false way, and Yahweh calls them out here.

Our BCO is under the authority of Scripture (I'm not of the opinion that in this place it breaks what Scripture teaches).

The reason I cited Calvin here is to show that, as far as I am aware, the legitimacy of these fasts in Zechariah 7 in principle is standard reformed exegesis. Your view disagrees with Matthew Henry, Thomas Brooks, Jonathan Edwards, as well as more modern exegesis. I'm afraid I think that you have misunderstood the passage. The Jews fasted regularly, not just one day a year, and such humbling themselves on the remembrance of these national disasters was thoroughly in line with 2 Chronicles 7:14. The Lord's rebuke in Zechariah 7 was not that these men fasted, or that they ate and drank, but that these rituals of fasting and feasting were not "for me" (v.5-6). The proof of that is that what he commands them to do is not to stop fasting on man made days but to do the works that flow from true repentance (vv. 9-14).

Of course, none of that directly impinges on the main question of this thread, but I don't think Zechariah 7 helps your case.
 

Miss Marple

Puritan Board Junior
I would not place a Buddha anywhere in my home, because it is a false god. It is a cast image meant for worshipping.

I don't think a Christmas wreath, lights, egg nog, or gifts are gods of any kind. I have never seen anyone worship these things, nor have I ever been encouraged or told to do so.

So I think you are comparing apples and oranges.


Ok, but are gathering for nog and carols, or exchanging gifts on Christmas eve, or decorating a Christmas tree, "worship events?"

The fact and the matter is that the Christmas tree "tradition" can be rooted back to pagan worship practices. Would you place a statue of Buddha with candles setup in front of it just because you find it beautiful and like the ambiance the setup brings to your living room? What about setting up your "christmas" gift around it?
 

Tirian

Puritan Board Sophomore
No. We should not rejoice and go "way to go" when atheists and God haters get xmas customs removed; because they are not doing it for love of the pure worship of God, but from malice against the true God. That was the analogy I was trying to make with the prophet's behavior as explained by Poole.

Thanks Chris. I thought that was what you were saying but my grey cells were being sluggish - it's a really helpful comment. While I don't celebrate Christmas, this year I am trying to be more gracious towards those in my family and friends that do. How we react to blatant anti-Christ reaction to Christmas is really important.
 

nick

Puritan Board Freshman
The fact and the matter is that the Christmas tree "tradition" can be rooted back to pagan worship practices.

While we're at it, let's find new names for the days of the week and melt down our wedding rings. Because those customs are rooted in pagan worship practices too.

If it is shown to be wrong biblically, then yes, let us joyfully melt are rings and come up with 7 new words in obedience to our Lord. The keyword is "if".
 
Last edited:

Reepicheep

Puritan Board Freshman
I appreciate my brother's attempt at discrediting Christmas/Advent/Church Calendar observations/celebrations/considerations with the use of Zechariah 7, but the connection is very difficult for me to see.

Christmas/Advent/Church Calendar related things mean different things for different folks.

Certainly it is completely reasonable for those seeking to emulate the Puritans to abstain from any kind of Christmas observation. Calvin didn't abstain completely, and he seemed to regret the total jettisoning of Advent related observation in Geneva, but alas.

Against the backdrop of the Puritan's time, I think I would have probably aligned with them. Their situation was stark, much more so than ours.

But we don't live in those times and many, if not most, people have no clue about Romish excesses or practices related to Christmas/Advent, etc.

Pastors- it's a matter of Christian Liberty how you use the "Church Calendar". If you feel a twinge of guilt or discomfort about acknowledging/observing/thinking about Christmas, then by all means, stop your thoughts immediately. Just as long as you don't think you're some how more obedient and holy than others, its fine for you to not participate in any way.

But don't be Scrooge for us Reformed Christians who see it as a matter of liberty and enjoy using the occasion for some special focus on the incarnation and it's beautiful ramifications. Yes, we pay regular attention to the incarnation in our liturgy in preaching all year long, but it's especially joyous to do it in a more focused way during this time of the year. Horrors!!

Most of Christendom participates in some kind of Christmas/Advent observation. Beyond that, many in the wider culture, who don't see themselves as tied officially to a particular church have a certain openness to teaching about Christ at this time. Every year we see at least a few new members who came for the first time during Advent. What an opportunity!

Absolutely, don't participate/think about/observe/celebrate/whisper about Christmas/Advent if you don't want to or if it violates your conscience. But, if you want to take advantage of the one time of the year when there is a pretty open opportunity to share Christ with almost everyone you meet, go for it. If you think a constant drumbeat about Christmas consideration/observation as idolatry is honoring Christ and edifying the body, that's your call, along with your elders. I sincerely try to appreciate that view and practice. Admittedly, I haven't succeeded in appreciating it, but I have genuinely tried.

With a local church's liturgy/worship order, pastors/elders make regular, yes weekly, decisions based on their personal judgment and authority. You may not choose to spend four weeks focusing on the Incarnation, but you choose other things, probably a series of things. That's OK, but choosing to spend four weeks considering the biblical doctrine of the Incarnation (not to mention associated biblical themes) is not OK or a violation of the RPW? Come on.

If you oppose Christmas/Advent, you can stop reading here.

Merry Christmas to the rest of you!!

Yeah, fire away. I expect it. It's the Puritan Board after all…where I have stayed a Freshman for 5 years.
 
Last edited:

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
If it is shown to be wrong biblically, then yes, let us joyfully melt are rings and come up with 7 new words in obedience to our Lord. The keyword is "if".

Well quite. My only point was that simply because these things originated in the pagan world does not make them illegitimate customs. If we are to argue against something, it should be on Scriptural basis, not a fallacious appeal to origin.
 

stephen2

Puritan Board Freshman
Christmas/Advent/Church Calendar related things mean different things for different folks.

Certainly it is completely reasonable for those seeking to emulate the Puritans to abstain from any kind of Christmas observation. Calvin didn't abstain completely, and he seemed to regret the total jettisoning of Advent related observation in Geneva, but alas.

Against the backdrop of the Puritan's time, I think I would have probably aligned with them. Their situation was stark, much more so than ours.

But we don't live in those times and many, if not most, people have no clue about Romish excesses or practices related to Christmas/Advent, etc.

Pastors- it's a matter of Christian Liberty how you use the "Church Calendar".

Well said. Appreciated your post Tony. Outside the Reformed community Romans 14.5, 6 is mistakenly applied to the Sabbath. Within the Reformed community I think we sometimes forget to apply it at all.
 
Last edited:

Phil D.

Puritan Board Junior
if you want to take advantage of the one time of the year when there is a pretty open opportunity to share Christ with almost everyone you meet, go for it.

Isn't this akin to how most modern church practices associated with the Normative Principle of Worship are rationalized - (e.g. using plays, clowns, other entertainment to "draw" people in)?

I can see this approach being valid if one is already fully convinced that the religious observance of Christmas is scriptural, but it certainly wouldn't be an acceptable "reason" to start practicing Christmas rituals in a church.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
The reason I cited Calvin here is to show that, as far as I am aware, the legitimacy of these fasts in Zechariah 7 in principle is standard reformed exegesis. Your view disagrees with Matthew Henry, Thomas Brooks, Jonathan Edwards, as well as more modern exegesis. I'm afraid I think that you have misunderstood the passage.

I think that you will find that the likes of Knox (Geneva Notes) and John Gill would disagree with you, but we should get into a who has the most or what reformed commentators said what. It really makes absolutely no difference, though such men should be read and taken into account. Feel free to continue to add to your list but it is not needed. I must ask the most important question: what right found in Scripture gives man the ability to create their own fast days? I'm asking of Scripture, not Calvin or BCO or any such lesser writing. In this question, I am not implying that we ought not to fast. I believe we ought to fast as it is implied by Jesus in Scripture, "When you fast..." There are appropriate times to fast. It would seem that even Judah when Jerusalem was destroyed and more importantly the temple was destroyed that such times would encourage fasting, especially for the reason it happened...their sin. But where Scripture shows that fasting is right and good at appropriate times, we also see in Scripture that making set days each year, making traditions of men, making rituals is contrary to RPW and God's command.

"For they thought they had gained favour with God because of this fast, which they invented by themselves: and though fasting of itself is good, yet because they thought it a service toward God, and trusted in it, it is here reproved."



Pastors- it's a matter of Christian Liberty how you use the "Church Calendar".

Brother, you need to be deer hunting. :)

Who decides what the Church Calendar is? Man or Christ who is the head? And if it be Christ He has given the Church 52 days a year to celebrate His coming, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and now Session looking forward to His second coming with all eagerness. I say that as an aspiring 'Puritan", hence the name of the message board we are on.
 

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
I would not place a Buddha anywhere in my home, because it is a false god. It is a cast image meant for worshipping.

I don't think a Christmas wreath, lights, egg nog, or gifts are gods of any kind. I have never seen anyone worship these things, nor have I ever been encouraged or told to do so.

So I think you are comparing apples and oranges.



The fact and the matter is that the Christmas tree "tradition" can be rooted back to pagan worship practices. Would you place a statue of Buddha with candles setup in front of it just because you find it beautiful and like the ambiance the setup brings to your living room? What about setting up your "christmas" gift around it?
[/QUOTE]

Though the comparison can be made with the golden calf? No doubt they did not really worship a cow but made an image to represent what God did for them in Egypt.
 

THE W

Puritan Board Freshman
The principle that can be gleaned from scripture is that we are not to participate in pagen cultural practices. from that principle we must then figure out whether Xmas falls into that category.

We have a holiday in Xmas that is based on gross consumerism and humanism, puts santa in the place of Christ, and whose day and practices are derived from sun worship, mithraism, winter solstice which are completely pegan. You don't have to worship the tools of celebration to be in error(egg nog, trees, carols, gifts, etc). One will use these tools in order to participate in(and co-sign) holiday traditions that are pagen in origin and humanistic and consumerist in practice, all in a horrendous attempt to point to our Lord and Savior. Why would God's people think it ok to honor our Lord with pagen customs?

I certainly will not accuse people who do all the "Xmas stuff" of worshipping the sun or mithra. The question that needs to be asked by those who partake in all the traditions of Xmas is what is it all pointing to and what is he purpose of participation?

it is fine for people who want to take advantage of the fact that Xmas allows for certain topics to be discussed to expound upon things like the incarnation and the gospel. you should do that all year but i completely understand the extra opportunity to do so afforded by such a holiday. I am not opposing that, I am opposing God's people participating in the traditions and customs of the holiday. using the opportunity afforded by the error of Xmas to expound truth is not participating in it.

The defense of the observance seems to be that since no one knows the pegan origins of these traditions, thus no one does them for those reasons, that its okay to continue them. Well, we know now. I did not know that watching football on the Lord's day was a violation of the Lord's day until i went to my RP church. when i found out, i stopped doing it. It was not okay for me to do it even when i did not know. Sins of ignorance committed by the people of israel required sacrifices in scripture.

There is still the defense that people do not do these things to worship the sun, or mithra, or saturnalia, etc. Again i would ask, why are you doing it and what is it for? You want to participate in the holiday...a holiday about what?

We know what this holiday was and has become. Do you think its something God's people should promote?


I could certainly be wrong about all this and this could indeed be a matter of liberty along the lines of video games, TV, sports, and dating. Let's try to keep things civil and respect disagreements.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
The principle that can be gleaned from scripture is that we are not to participate in pagen cultural practices. from that principle we must then figure out whether Xmas falls into that category.

I thought this was the principle that can be gleaned from Scripture: "But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture."

And thus we must figure out whether chrismass falls into that principle or not. That principle would include the condemnation of all pagan cultural practices.
 

THE W

Puritan Board Freshman
The principle that can be gleaned from scripture is that we are not to participate in pagen cultural practices. from that principle we must then figure out whether Xmas falls into that category.

I thought this was the principle that can be gleaned from Scripture: "But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture."

And thus we must figure out whether chrismass falls into that principle or not. That principle would include the condemnation of all pagan cultural practices.

Yes sir, Elder Barnes
 

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
The defense of the observance seems to be that since no one knows the pegan origins of these traditions, thus no one does them for those reasons

That's simply not true. The defence is that these practices may have begun as Pagan practices, but they are Pagan no longer. In argumentation, this is called a genetic argument and is a fallacy. Do you believe Christian couples should wear wedding rings? Do you believe that we should change the names of our days of the week? How about our months? Solar calendars established by pagan dictators and by popes?

I also find it highly amusing that you would choose the abbreviation "Xmas" when the "X" there is a Greek "Chi" and the first letter of "Christ" in Greek (the origin of the abbreviation).

Elder Barnes is quite right to point out that this is not the operative question in regard to whether we may observe Christmas, but whether the church is given leave to establish feasts apart from the Lord's Day.
 

THE W

Puritan Board Freshman
That's simply not true. The defence is that these practices may have begun as Pagan practices, but they are Pagan no longer.

Why?


I also find it highly amusing that you would choose the abbreviation "Xmas" when the "X" there is a Greek "Chi" and the first letter of "Christ" in Greek (the origin of the abbreviation).

well here in the US of A an 'X' is not a 'C'.


Elder Barnes is quite right to point out that this is not the operative question in regard to whether we may observe Christmas, but whether the church is given leave to establish feasts apart from the Lord's Day.

What question?

What feasts?
 

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
I also find it highly amusing that you would choose the abbreviation "Xmas" when the "X" there is a Greek "Chi" and the first letter of "Christ" in Greek (the origin of the abbreviation).

well here in the US of A an 'X' is not a 'C'.

Quite right. The meaning of the abbreviation "Xmas" has changed. Also, here in the US a Christmas tree is not a pagan worship symbol.

Elder Barnes is quite right to point out that this is not the operative question in regard to whether we may observe Christmas, but whether the church is given leave to establish feasts apart from the Lord's Day.

What question?

What feasts?

The question is whether Christians are free to observe the feast of Christmas. If so, it is because the church is permitted to celebrate the birth of Christ on a particular day that is not the Lord's Day. If not it is because the church has not been given the freedom to ordain such feast days. The relevant question of this thread concerns the regulative principle. Nothing more nothing less.
 

Jack K

Puritan Board Professor
The claim that Christmas is of pagan origin is weak, plus it misses the main point. Sure, some Christmas traditions incorporate some elements borrowed from pagan practices. But it is, after all, CHRISTmas. Once the church named the day and began to celebrate it regularly, it was done in a deliberate attempt to celebrate Christ. The whole world knows Christmas is Christian. In America, it's the main argument against governmental support of Christmas.

Where consumerism and Santa and toy-making elves have taken over the day, they have supplanted elements that used to be Christ-focused. That's cause to resist what is wrong about the day and maybe even to skip celebrating it altogether if one can't do it in a godly manner. But it's hardly necessary to refrain based on the principle that the celebration is pagan in origin. The church through the centuries has redeemed much that was wrong in the world and put such things to use for godly purposes, and created Christmas (albeit adapting some pagan traditions) as a Christian observance.

The concern that Christmas observance is a self-pleasing form of worship invented out of a desire to worship how we like rather than how God has shown us to worship him is a far more serious concern. I believe appropriate celebration of the nativity for a season fits what God has shown us about worship, even if the Catholic church did it inappropriately before Protestants ever joined in. But the question of whether or not our Christmas observance really is a celebration of Christ or is just a self-pleasing exercise—well, that is an excellent and important question to ask this month, just as it's good to ask that about our worship all year long.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
So Jack you admit that the Church, not Christ, named (invented) the day and began to celebrate it regularly?
 

THE W

Puritan Board Freshman
Just to clarify,

Are you guys saying that you do see Xmas as legit for worship or celebration of Christ?
 

THE W

Puritan Board Freshman
Quite right. The meaning of the abbreviation "Xmas" has changed. Also, here in the US a Christmas tree is not a pagan worship symbol

Again, why?

What's "Chimas"?

The question is whether Christians are free to observe the feast of Christmas. If so, it is because the church is permitted to celebrate the birth of Christ on a particular day that is not the Lord's Day. If not it is because the church has not been given the freedom to ordain such feast days. The relevant question of this thread concerns the regulative principle. Nothing more nothing less.


So it would be your position that Xmas and the traditions thereof would not be a violation of the RPW?
 

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
So it would be your position that Xmas and the traditions thereof would not be a violation of the RPW?

That is correct. I have not, though, made that argument as such. I have left it to others with more knowledge on the subject. My object is to refine the question and get to the heart of the objections to Christmas from a reformed perspective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top