Christmas and the Christian

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jack K

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

If the church could see that a practice is supported biblically, would not the church and Christ be in agreement even if we don't have a direct command from Christ regarding the practice?

We don't need a direct command from Christ in order to seasonally celebrate the nativity. Christ didn't give direct commands, that we know of, on many aspects of worship and godly life that the church carries over due to a "big picture" understanding of the rest of Scripture (applying baptism to infants is one example I know you and I could agree on).

-----------------

Since it hasn't been done yet on this thread, allow me to show that Christmas observance can be supported biblically. This isn't a direct response to Andrew's question, but more of a general response to many questions raised here. The question of biblical support is a good one that deserves an answer.

First, the approach: There is abundant scriptural mandate for the seasonal celebration of landmark acts of redemption, and for the celebration of the nativity in particular. Some of the most prominent of these passages are huge chunks of Exodus, Leviticus, Psalms, Nehemiah, Esther, and Luke. But as with any matter, a “big picture” understanding of Scripture and how it fits together is necessary. We want a general understanding of worship through the centuries of biblical history, not just a proof text.

The issue, as it is with certain other matters like the use of musical instruments in worship, is not whether one can find evidence in Scripture but rather how specific and direct a New Testament mandate one requires.

That stated, a brief argument from Scripture in favor of Christmas observance, using more of a “big picture” approach, might go as follows:

— It is good to celebrate the incarnation and the nativity as a part of our worship of God because these are special, landmark acts in redemptive history. The psalms give us ample examples of celebrating landmark redemptive acts. The four songs in Luke 1 and 2 are examples of worship focused on the incarnation/nativity and on the fact that these are landmark acts of redemption too.

— God has repeatedly had his people set aside days and seasons in addition to the Sabbath for the celebration of landmark acts of redemption (see Exodus, Leviticus, Nehemiah, Esther, and more). We have no reason to think that this principle of worship should end with the New Testament, as if God’s way of dealing with his people has changed that fundamentally. A covenant theology understanding of Scripture asserts that it hasn’t. We put aside observance of those looking-ahead-to-Jesus days that have been fulfilled, but this doesn’t mean the principle is changed.

— We have no need for detailed commands to seasonally remember this or that New Testament redemptive act such as existed with many of the Old Testament redemptive acts. New Testament instruction on worship gives us far less detail in general than was given to Old Testament believers—yet we carry over Old Testament instructions and freely apply them in ways that fit us on this side of Christ’s first coming. If special acts of redemption were to be seasonally observed in Old Testament days, how much more now that Christ has come and the redemptive acts we celebrate are that much greater!

Now, we can agrue over this line of reasoning. Certainly, those who don’t accept it on matters such as musical instruments are going to be less likely to accept it when it comes to Christmas as well. I understand that. But I did want to show that Christmas can be observed by churches that are trying to be biblical and have Bible-based reasons for their position on the matter.
 

davdavis

Puritan Board Freshman
I_HATE_CHRISTMAS_by_Non_Sum_Pisces-e1269157799673-280x280.jpg Back about 11 years ago when I was living in New Hampshire I had a night stock Job at toys R us locked in all night with Christmas Musak, the kind that makes John Denver sound like Motley Crue, I never recovered. The retailers wish you a merry Crassmass!

Sadly my current Church is heavily into the whole high Church Advent season thing, Ugh! Popish Frummery alert!

David Davis
PCA Montgomery, AL
Dave,s Ravings
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Personally,

I appreciate it anytime the Church focuses on this portion of Scripture.

(Luk 2:1) And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

(Luk 2:2) (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)


(Luk 2:3) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.


(Luk 2:4) And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)


(Luk 2:5) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.


(Luk 2:6) And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.


(Luk 2:7) And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.


(Luk 2:8) And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.


(Luk 2:9) And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.


(Luk 2:10) And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.


(Luk 2:11) For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.


(Luk 2:12) And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.


(Luk 2:13) And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,


(Luk 2:14) Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.


(Luk 2:15) And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.


(Luk 2:16) And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.


(Luk 2:17) And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.


(Luk 2:18) And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.


(Luk 2:19) But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.


(Luk 2:20) And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I don't have power and am in the church parking lot so am not going to engage this. But I have to ask; have you not just made the Anglican argument Jack?
So Jack you admit that the Church, not Christ, named (invented) the day and began to celebrate it regularly?

If the church could see that a practice is supported biblically, would not the church and Christ be in agreement even if we don't have a direct command from Christ regarding the practice?

We don't need a direct command from Christ in order to seasonally celebrate the nativity. Christ didn't give direct commands, that we know of, on many aspects of worship and godly life that the church carries over due to a "big picture" understanding of the rest of Scripture (applying baptism to infants is one example I know you and I could agree on).

-----------------

Since it hasn't been done yet on this thread, allow me to show that Christmas observance can be supported biblically. This isn't a direct response to Andrew's question, but more of a general response to many questions raised here. The question of biblical support is a good one that deserves an answer.

First, the approach: There is abundant scriptural mandate for the seasonal celebration of landmark acts of redemption, and for the celebration of the nativity in particular. Some of the most prominent of these passages are huge chunks of Exodus, Leviticus, Psalms, Nehemiah, Esther, and Luke. But as with any matter, a “big picture” understanding of Scripture and how it fits together is necessary. We want a general understanding of worship through the centuries of biblical history, not just a proof text.

The issue, as it is with certain other matters like the use of musical instruments in worship, is not whether one can find evidence in Scripture but rather how specific and direct a New Testament mandate one requires.

That stated, a brief argument from Scripture in favor of Christmas observance, using more of a “big picture” approach, might go as follows:

— It is good to celebrate the incarnation and the nativity as a part of our worship of God because these are special, landmark acts in redemptive history. The psalms give us ample examples of celebrating landmark redemptive acts. The four songs in Luke 1 and 2 are examples of worship focused on the incarnation/nativity and on the fact that these are landmark acts of redemption too.

— God has repeatedly had his people set aside days and seasons in addition to the Sabbath for the celebration of landmark acts of redemption (see Exodus, Leviticus, Nehemiah, Esther, and more). We have no reason to think that this principle of worship should end with the New Testament, as if God’s way of dealing with his people has changed that fundamentally. A covenant theology understanding of Scripture asserts that it hasn’t. We put aside observance of those looking-ahead-to-Jesus days that have been fulfilled, but this doesn’t mean the principle is changed.

— We have no need for detailed commands to seasonally remember this or that New Testament redemptive act such as existed with many of the Old Testament redemptive acts. New Testament instruction on worship gives us far less detail in general than was given to Old Testament believers—yet we carry over Old Testament instructions and freely apply them in ways that fit us on this side of Christ’s first coming. If special acts of redemption were to be seasonally observed in Old Testament days, how much more now that Christ has come and the redemptive acts we celebrate are that much greater!

Now, we can agrue over this line of reasoning. Certainly, those who don’t accept it on matters such as musical instruments are going to be less likely to accept it when it comes to Christmas as well. I understand that. But I did want to show that Christmas can be observed by churches that are trying to be biblical and have Bible-based reasons for their position on the matter.
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't have power and am in the church parking lot so am not going to engage this. But I have to ask; have you not just made the Anglican argument Jack?
So Jack you admit that the Church, not Christ, named (invented) the day and began to celebrate it regularly?

If the church could see that a practice is supported biblically, would not the church and Christ be in agreement even if we don't have a direct command from Christ regarding the practice?

We don't need a direct command from Christ in order to seasonally celebrate the nativity. Christ didn't give direct commands, that we know of, on many aspects of worship and godly life that the church carries over due to a "big picture" understanding of the rest of Scripture (applying baptism to infants is one example I know you and I could agree on).

-----------------

Since it hasn't been done yet on this thread, allow me to show that Christmas observance can be supported biblically. This isn't a direct response to Andrew's question, but more of a general response to many questions raised here. The question of biblical support is a good one that deserves an answer.

First, the approach: There is abundant scriptural mandate for the seasonal celebration of landmark acts of redemption, and for the celebration of the nativity in particular. Some of the most prominent of these passages are huge chunks of Exodus, Leviticus, Psalms, Nehemiah, Esther, and Luke. But as with any matter, a “big picture” understanding of Scripture and how it fits together is necessary. We want a general understanding of worship through the centuries of biblical history, not just a proof text.

The issue, as it is with certain other matters like the use of musical instruments in worship, is not whether one can find evidence in Scripture but rather how specific and direct a New Testament mandate one requires.

That stated, a brief argument from Scripture in favor of Christmas observance, using more of a “big picture” approach, might go as follows:

— It is good to celebrate the incarnation and the nativity as a part of our worship of God because these are special, landmark acts in redemptive history. The psalms give us ample examples of celebrating landmark redemptive acts. The four songs in Luke 1 and 2 are examples of worship focused on the incarnation/nativity and on the fact that these are landmark acts of redemption too.

— God has repeatedly had his people set aside days and seasons in addition to the Sabbath for the celebration of landmark acts of redemption (see Exodus, Leviticus, Nehemiah, Esther, and more). We have no reason to think that this principle of worship should end with the New Testament, as if God’s way of dealing with his people has changed that fundamentally. A covenant theology understanding of Scripture asserts that it hasn’t. We put aside observance of those looking-ahead-to-Jesus days that have been fulfilled, but this doesn’t mean the principle is changed.

— We have no need for detailed commands to seasonally remember this or that New Testament redemptive act such as existed with many of the Old Testament redemptive acts. New Testament instruction on worship gives us far less detail in general than was given to Old Testament believers—yet we carry over Old Testament instructions and freely apply them in ways that fit us on this side of Christ’s first coming. If special acts of redemption were to be seasonally observed in Old Testament days, how much more now that Christ has come and the redemptive acts we celebrate are that much greater!

Now, we can agrue over this line of reasoning. Certainly, those who don’t accept it on matters such as musical instruments are going to be less likely to accept it when it comes to Christmas as well. I understand that. But I did want to show that Christmas can be observed by churches that are trying to be biblical and have Bible-based reasons for their position on the matter.

No, he made the form of argument that one of the framers of the Westminster Confession, Jeremiah Burroughs, approves in Gospel Worship, where he says:

I have told you before that in matters of worship we must have warrant from the Word, but it does not follow that we must have a direct, expressed warrant in everything. As it is many times in some kind of picture, the great art is in the cast of the looks. You cannot say it’s in the drawing of this line or the other line, but altogether. It is the cast of the looks that causes the beauty of the picture. So in the Scripture you cannot say that this one line or the other line proves it, but let them all be laid together and there will be a kind of aspect of God’s mind. We may see that this is the mind of God rather than the other and we are bound to go that way.

Many (though certainly not all) of the issues that divide us in reformed worship boil down to questions of hermeneutics. Some people are looking for a proof text, but as Burroughs says, God doesn't always guide our worship in that way. It makes life more complicated, but we need to wrestle through the proper application of the whole of the Scriptures to our worship. It's the mirror image of the demands of our Baptist friends to show them where in the New Testament God tells us to baptize children.
 

Jack K

Puritan Board Professor
I don't have power and am in the church parking lot so am not going to engage this. But I have to ask; have you not just made the Anglican argument Jack?

Iain said what I was thinking far better than I might manage to say it. I've always thought it was a way to determine what is prescribed in Scripture that fits the Reformed tradition. Still I have little doubt, Chris, that you have studied this issue in far more depth than I have and that you raise good challenges that are worthy of contemplation.
 

Miss Marple

Puritan Board Junior
Many posters seem to keep conflating Christmas activities during worship (liturgy, decorations, etc.) with Christmas activities in the home or personally or at work (a tree, decorating, a gift exchange, a special dinner).

This is not helpful.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
What I was keying on was the argument that because God did something by His authority and divine prerogative, the church may imitate and do similar, which was one of the Anglican arguments. Here is what Burroughs says elsewhere.
Their religious feasts which they presumed themselves to make holy, were [their] feasts rather than God’s, and for that you have the example of Jeroboam, he appointed a feast even of his own head, which here the Prophet speaks of; it is in 1 Kings 12:32, 33 [cited].
Side head: We must not presume in way of imitation to God to devise things in his worship like to his former institutions.
Mark here, Jeroboam is rebuked for appointing a feast of his own heart, like the feast God had appointed; this is no excuse that he would be an imitator of God. This reason many think will justify their superstitious way, they do but imitate what God did, as thus, God had an Ephod for the priests, therefore they will have a holy garment; God had a temple consecrated, they will have one so too; God had his feasts days and holy days, they will have theirs too in imitation of God. This very thing that Jeroboam did, he is rebuked for, that he would set up a thing like unto God’s…. Just such a plea is this, they will do such and such things in God’s worship, why? God has done so before, and they do but imitate God…. Exposition of Hosea 1–3 (1643) 401–402.
And Gillespie makes an entirely different use of the fact that no days are set aside to commemorate NT acts of redemption (which being few could easily have been enumerated).
§6. The Bishop has yet a third dart to throw at us: If the church (he says)[SUP][SUP][1][/SUP][/SUP] has power, upon occasional motives, to appoint occasional fasts or festivities, may not she, for constant and eternal blessings, which do infinitely excel all occasional benefits, appoint ordinary times of commemoration or thanksgiving? Answer. There are two reasons for which the church may and should appoint fasts or festivities upon occasional motives, and neither of them agrees with ordinary festivities. 1. Extraordinary fasts, either for obtaining some great blessing, or averting some great judgment, are necessary means to be used in such cases; likewise, extraordinary festivities are necessary testifications [testimonies] of our thankfulness for the benefits which we have impetrate [procured] by our extraordinary fasts; but ordinary festivities, for constant and eternal blessings, have no necessary use. The celebration of set anniversary days is no necessary mean for conserving the commemoration of the benefits of redemption, because we have occasion, not only every Sabbath day, but every other day, to call to mind these benefits, either in hearing, or reading, or meditating upon God’s Word. I esteem and judge that the days consecrated to Christ must be lifted, says Danæus: Christ is born, is circumcised, dies, rises again for us every day in the preaching of the Gospel.[SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][/SUP]
2. God has given His church a general precept for extraordinary fasts (Joel 1:14; 2:15), as likewise for extraordinary festivities to praise God, and to give Him thanks in the public assembly of His people, upon the occasional motive of some great benefit which by the means of our fasting and praying we have obtained (Zech. 8:19 with Zech. 7:3). If it is said that there is a general command for set festivities, because there is a command for preaching and hearing the Word, and for praising God for His benefits; and there is no precept for particular fasts more than for particular festivities, I Answer: Albeit there is a command for preaching and hearing the Word, and for praising God for His benefits, yet is there no command (no, not in the most general generality) for annexing these exercises of religion to set anniversary days more than to other days; whereas it is plain that there is a general command for fasting and humiliation at some times more than at other times.
And as for particularities, all the particular causes, occasions, and times of fasting could not be determined in Scripture, because they are infinite, as Camero says.[SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][/SUP] But all the particular causes of set festivities, and the number of the same, might have been easily determined in Scripture, since they are not, nor may not be infinite; for the Bishop himself acknowledges that to appoint a festival day for every week cannot stand with charity, the inseparable companion of piety.[SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][/SUP] And albeit so many were allowable, yet who sees not how easily the Scripture might have comprehended them, because they are set, constant, and anniversary times, observed for permanent and continuing causes, and not moveable or mutable, as fasts which are appointed for occurring causes, and therefore may be infinite.
I conclude that, since God’s Word has given us a general command for occasional fasts, and likewise particularly determined sundry things about the causes, occasions, nature, and manner of fastings, we may well say with Cartwright,[SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][/SUP] that days of fasting are appointed at such times, and upon such occasions [causes], as the Scripture does set forth; wherein because the church commands nothing but that which God commands, the religious observation of them falls unto the obedience of the fourth commandment, as well as of the seventh day itself.



[SUP][SUP][1][/SUP][/SUP] Ibid. [Lindsay, part 3,] p. 26, 27.

[SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][/SUP] Apud [cited in] Balduin, de Cas. Consc., lib. 2, cap. 12, cas. 1. Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo judicoque, quotidie nobis in evangelii prædicatione nascitur, circumciditur, moritur, resurgit Christus. [Cf. Balduin, Tractatus Luculentus (1654), 348.]

[SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][/SUP] Cameron, Prælectiones, tom. 1, de Potest. Eccl., contr. 2. [Cf. vol. 1, page 369.]

[SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][/SUP] Lindsay, ubi supra, [part 3] p. 16.

[SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][/SUP] Cartwright, Ag. the Rhem. annot. on Gal. 4:10. [Cartwright has causes at occasions.]

 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
— God has repeatedly had his people set aside days and seasons in addition to the Sabbath for the celebration of landmark acts of redemption (see Exodus, Leviticus, Nehemiah, Esther, and more). We have no reason to think that this principle of worship should end with the New Testament, as if God’s way of dealing with his people has changed that fundamentally. A covenant theology understanding of Scripture asserts that it hasn’t. We put aside observance of those looking-ahead-to-Jesus days that have been fulfilled, but this doesn’t mean the principle is changed.

God did not have his people set aside days and seasons. God set aside (that is set apart; sanctified; made holy) holy days and seasons. God alone sanctifies holy days and seasons. This principle carries over to the New Testament. Thus, we have one holy day, the Lord's Day. It is the only one the Lord sanctified.
 

Tim

Puritan Board Graduate
God did not have his people set aside days and seasons. God set aside (that is set apart; sanctified; made holy) holy days and seasons. God alone sanctifies holy days and seasons. This principle carries over to the New Testament. Thus, we have one holy day, the Lord's Day. It is the only one the Lord sanctified.

Quite right. When we take it upon ourselves to add to the one-in-seven pattern of work and rest/worship, we necessarily demonstrate that what God has established is insufficient. One must necessarily think there is something spiritual to be gained when they add Christmas to God's commanded pattern. Otherwise, they would not have that practice.
 

THE W

Puritan Board Freshman
For those in favor of observing this holiday, do you disassociate Christ from the holiday?


BTW about pegan wedding rings. providing jewelry for the bride is warranted in scripture(genesis 24 with rebekah). also, days of the week we have no control over, sort of like working for a company that is open on the Lord's day.
 

Wynteriii

Puritan Board Freshman
Let me add my current experience with Christmas. Since I work in the audio/visual of the church, I get alot of request (majority from the youth pastor) for christmas backgrounds. I won't do it so he gets his son to do it since we work together. We also have a christmas tree in front of the sanctuary. If I speak up, I'm considered worse the Ebenezer Scrooge.

One more month and I will be attending a reformed baptist church and be in their congregation for the time being.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4
 

Miss Marple

Puritan Board Junior
You think Uzza's grip on the Ark was a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship?

I don't see it that way. Obviously, it was a sin. All were forbidden to touch the ark. A violation of ceremonial law? A lack of reverence, violating the 1st commandment? I am not sure. But I don't see it as a Regulative Principle issue.

At church worship, I don't read the Bible out loud. But in family devotions, I (female, unordained) do. At church worship, I don't eat a sandwich. At home, I do. At church worship, I don't do a little jig if I feel happy. At home, I do. At church, I don't argue points of doctrine. At home, I might.

What is commanded/forbidden in worship does not at all necessarily apply to home or personal life.
 

Pilgrim Standard

Puritan Board Sophomore
The point was not that Uzza touching the ark was a violation of the rpw. It was the way of thinking. Celebration of christmass as a passive thing, taken lightly, as if we were making some civil offering to God. I think Uzza felt he had very good intentions in attempting to steady the ark.

Elijah did not make his offering on the alter that the pagan baal worshippers utilized.
 

Miss Marple

Puritan Board Junior
I don't see anyone here promoting Christmas as a civil offering to God.

Perhaps I don't understand all who are posting, but I am not seeing that advocated.
 

Free Christian

Puritan Board Sophomore
Because Christ-mass is not considered pagan anymore, should we also view other things that are in our modern times "not pagan anymore" as now ok?
Because our views change, does that just follow as a give in that God's do as well? That what God told us is pagan or wrong, say like witchcraft, but now is just seen as "cool" or "just a fun thing to do" as many who do that sort of thing like tarot readers and so on. Now is all fine and dandy? Because hey, it once was not good but now we have changed and don't see it like that now, now its just a tradition? Fun? Harmless?
 

Elizabeth

Puritan Board Sophomore
Because hey, it once was not good but now we have changed and don't see it like that now, now its just a tradition? Fun? Harmless?

Huh?

I don't think early Christians considered their celebration and honoring of Christ's birth pagan. They didn't see it as 'not good', then changed it to something 'good'. To them it was always good and appropriate. Church history does go back beyond the Puritans, you know.

So we who celebrate Christ's birth this month, in or out of the church, are sorcerers practicing witchcraft? That's some strong medicine there, for sure.

Btw: christmas trees in the sanctuary bother me, too, and I'd rather not have them....I'd like the American flag removed, as well. I am a scrooge and unpatriotic.
 

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
Btw: christmas trees in the sanctuary bother me, too, and I'd rather not have them....I'd like the American flag removed, as well. I am a scrooge and unpatriotic.

I would concur. Frankly, even an advent wreath is a step too far.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
As far as the arguments about the pagan roots of Christmas, I'm not too concerned about them. It's the Roman Catholic idolatry that I'm concerned about.

The idolatrous parts of Christmas include, but are not limited to:
1. The introduction of a new, man-made holy day
2. Images of Christ (nativity scenes, etc.)
3. Worship of Christkindl (the non-existent "Christ Child")--"Oh, come let us adore him"
4. Introduction of man-made worship songs
5. Appointment of false means of grace (like the Christmas tree and the candy cane, which are pseudo-sacramental)
6. The keeping of monuments of idolatry, which are gateways into the perversion of worship
 

Wynteriii

Puritan Board Freshman
I have been the task of preaching on Christmas day, and I am using it to proclaim the gospel that is lost in the season and out. It will be on "The gift we do not deserve". Why would we think we deserve a gift from one we have sinned against, cursed, and if that was not enough we killed His Son, we were the reason why he had to die? Yet, we are given the gift of mercy and the gift of grace, we are given salvation, we are given Jesus Christ.

Please correct if you feel led, try to refrain from grammatical correction.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
It's good anyway that the Reformation seems to have reduced the Church Calendar in the hearts and minds of Protestants of most persuaisions to only two days in the year - Christmas and Easter.

Can you think of any other "problem days"? That would be a subject for another thread.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
It's good anyway that the Reformation seems to have reduced the Church Calendar in the hearts and minds of Protestants of most persuaisions to only two days in the year - Christmas and Easter.

Can you think of any other "problem days"? That would be a subject for another thread.
It is not my experience that most Protestants have only two Holy Days in addition to the Lord's Day.
Maundy Thursday and Good Friday are widely celebrated.
Actually I think many Protestants now celebrate Pentecost Sunday for all of the wrong reasons.
When I was growing up the only Protestants to celebrate Advent and Lent were Lutherans and Episcopalians. Now these penitential seasons are commonly celebrated by liberal Methodists and liberal Presbyterians.
 

Pilgrim Standard

Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't see anyone here promoting Christmas as a civil offering to God.
It is either a civil or religious holiday. If taken as religious then it certainly falls under the rpw. If it is not religious then it is not only civil, but also a falsification of biblical truth and a false witness to the lost. This business about the rpw not applying to realms outside of four walls on a specific day is dangerous. We must not worship God in a way he has not proscribed us to do. He dictates the manner in which he will be remembered. We don't get to make it up and be light hearted about it. God really does own these things sister.
 

Miss Marple

Puritan Board Junior
I don't see anyone here promoting Christmas as a civil offering to God.
It is either a civil or religious holiday. If taken as religious then it certainly falls under the rpw. If it is not religious then it is not only civil, but also a falsification of biblical truth and a false witness to the lost. This business about the rpw not applying to realms outside of four walls on a specific day is dangerous. We must not worship God in a way he has not proscribed us to do. He dictates the manner in which he will be remembered. We don't get to make it up and be light hearted about it. God really does own these things sister.

Why must it either be civil or religious? Why can it not be personal?
 

Backwoods Presbyterian

Puritanboard Amanuensis
It's good anyway that the Reformation seems to have reduced the Church Calendar in the hearts and minds of Protestants of most persuaisions to only two days in the year - Christmas and Easter.

Can you think of any other "problem days"? That would be a subject for another thread.
It is not my experience that most Protestants have only two Holy Days in addition to the Lord's Day.
Maundy Thursday and Good Friday are widely celebrated.
Actually I think many Protestants now celebrate Pentecost Sunday for all of the wrong reasons.
When I was growing up the only Protestants to celebrate Advent and Lent were Lutherans and Episcopalians. Now these penitential seasons are commonly celebrated by liberal Methodists and liberal Presbyterians.

Around me I have started to see SBC churches beginning to adopt Ash Wednesday and Lenten services.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top