Christmas

Status
Not open for further replies.

NickCamp

Puritan Board Freshman
Do you celebrate any days? Such as the forth of July? Are you worshipping the forth of July then? "Sure seems like", is a hard leap. I celebrate the day I was born again, is this wrong? Not to mention, why avoid the definition of the word? It doesn't exactly fit your position, not to mention, semantics? Bad form. The sabbath is for rest, and worship is included, but you're misrepresenting the purpose of the sabbath. What does this have to do with strange fire? You also fail to actually explain how scripture is being misapplied, but instead presuppose your position. You also fail to explain how celebration of the incarnation or birth of Christ is worshipping contrary to that of scripture. I didn't say anything about Romans 14 dictating "how" we worship God, that's an assumption that changes the discussion.

Regardless, nobody here is going to change their position. In the end, though, my position stands. If your conviction is to reject or abstain from Christmas, than so be it. Most of the problems come from people applying what they think Christmas is and how it is executed and assuming that is how everyone does it. Especially in terms of the propogated secular portrait painted by the media.

Have a great weekend everyone.
 
Last edited:

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
I've put up a laser that flashes xmas lights on my house so it looks like I've put up lights.....sooooooo cool! Got my xmas tree all decorated and other xmas decorations up. I LOVE xmas!!! I love the lights, the songs, the movies, the food, and most of all getting together with my family to have time with them and open presents. God is in xmas like he is in every other day of the year. I don't think of it as a pagan holiday which it started out as, and I don't think of it as Christ's birthday which it isn't. "It's just beginning to look a lot like Christmas....."
 

Rich Koster

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
If God the Father wanted us to mark & celebrate Dec 25th (or should I say the dating in the Hebrew calendar), don't you think he would have detailed the dating and festival by the Apostles & Christ our Lord, in His Holy Writ?
 

Inactiver user19912

Puritan Board Freshman
I said, "Sure seems like" because I can't know your, or anyone else's, hearts for certain.

If you are certain that no one is going to change their position, and that in the end your position stands, I'd wonder why you bothered asking the question in the first place. I said, "I'd wonder" because frankly, I'm just as uninterested in continuing this conversation as you seem to be. So I'll leave your accusations that I engaged in "bad form," am "misrepresenting the sabbath," and all of the other things you've concluded about my reply to stand for posterity.

I happen to agree with Chris, and while I haven't dealt with this issue nearly as long as he has, it's tiresome to hear the same kind of argumentation every year for wanting to be just like the world in how we function as the Church. The reasoning is the same, the pushback on the opinion's of those of us who try to engage is the same, and the end result is consternation and exasperation.

You want to "do Christmas"; fine, go ahead. No one here's going to stop you or labor to bind your conscience. But don't be surprised when you arrive at a message board called "PuritanBoard" and find that people actually believe as they believed, even if they don't write a 300-page treatise in every defense of their convictions. Perhaps the summation in my response left much to be desired, and if that's the case, then I certainly apologize for the lack of clarity.
 
Last edited:

NickCamp

Puritan Board Freshman
My issue was your semantics, and approach which was fallacious. That is all. Only using pieces that cater to your position is indeed bad form. It's intellectually dishonest. And again, knowing people's hearts, has nothing to do with the point I made in regards to your word. You jumped to "celebration" meaning "worship" based off of poor reasoning. And yes, you very well know what the sabbath is, I have no doubt about that. Other than that, I have no issue with your conviction. Your conviction is fine, but please, let's be reasonable and honest with discussion. I don't know your intentions, I just pointed out the flaws in your presentation. Anyway, from my experience people don't tend to change their position on this topic is what I meant. And you're right as I'm not sure why I bothered jumping in the discussion.
 

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
The materialism, lack of a break on a good holiday (Thanksgiving) has made me look into the Bah Humbug group, so to speak.
 

NickCamp

Puritan Board Freshman
The materialism, lack of a break on a good holiday (Thanksgiving) has made me look into the Bah Humbug group, so to speak.

According to some others' logic here; Thanksgiving wouldn't be a good holiday either since it isn't expressed in scripture.
 

Tirian

Puritan Board Sophomore
Brothers and Sisters,

We put Christmas aside around 4 years ago after growing increasingly uncomfortable with it over the prior 5 years. Christ Jesus is enough as is His appointed day to celebrate his life, death, burial and resurrection :D

Aside from that, I'd like to point out that we have found many other blessings. We've been able to give comfort to others who are struggling to buy all the plastic stuff for their children they can't afford that it's ok not to get caught up in the hype. We've been able to comfort divorced or seperated friends who go through agony at this time of "universal peace and blessing". We've found ourselves far more relaxed.

As for men, we truly have NO IDEA how much we force our wives to go through at this time of year. We're happy enough to get home from work, have a beer or a whiskey and be totally ignorant to the misery we can cause our wives in making the whole thing possible. Have we bought for everyone? Do the presents match in value? Who should we have for Christmas meal? Who's turn is it this year to host? How do I handle Christmas celebrations when my children form romantic relationships and have increasing responsibilities outside the damily? How can we tithe during December/Jan and still provide the kind of indulgent experience the world tells us we have to to "celebrate Christmas".

As they say in Bollywood - Happy wife, happy life! In all seriousness though, I tip my hat to all the women that cope let alone shine through this time of year. For all those men struggling to put this tradition aside - consider giving your wives this Christmas off. Don't make her organise one party, one present, one pastry, one eggnog, one meal for you during the week before and after Christmas, one cleanup before or after - you do it all and let her cherish her time of peace with the Lord.

Cheers,
Matt
 

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
As they say in Bollywood - Happy wife, happy life! In all seriousness though, I tip my hat to all the women that cope let alone shine through this time of year. For all those men struggling to put this tradition aside - consider giving your wives this Christmas off. Don't make her organise one party, one present, one pastry, one eggnog, one meal for you during the week before and after Christmas, one cleanup before or after - you do it all and let her cherish her time of peace with the Lord.

Cheers,
Matt


The "trick" is be patient with other who holds a conviction that is different than oneself, which works both ways, in that I know love covers a multitude of sin, and this is not an issue of adiaphora. :)
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
The materialism, lack of a break on a good holiday (Thanksgiving) has made me look into the Bah Humbug group, so to speak.

According to some others' logic here; Thanksgiving wouldn't be a good holiday either since it isn't expressed in scripture.

Nick, I'm asking you to be careful about your approach on this subject. I see this as introducing something completely different.

To be clear, more than "some" defend very vigorously the regulative principle of worship. And, also to be clear, when we do so, we are talking about worship, not the idea of a national secular holiday focused on thankfulness (or for that matter, the founding of a nation, etc.).

But it gets confusing all over when it comes to Christmas. I suppose I could not,on regulative principle grounds, strictly oppose a national holiday called "National Winter shop-until-you-drop-and-eat-all-you-want Day." But if shop-until-you-drop Day started taking over worship, especially if it falls on the Lord's Day, then there is a legitimate issue.

But there also is that baggage Chris was talking about. This approach recognizes the idea that something may have served a purpose once, but its purpose is long since past. The ritual has overtaken the meaning. The Christmas "holy-day" comes from very suspect roots. It has grown to the point that the secular world has two attitudes toward it at the same time: (1) It's fun for everyone so everyone can and should celebrate it and (2) if you do not celebrate it, you must not be a Christian.

I'm not saying anyone here is arguing along these lines. It's just a description of the context we live in. Most of us on the board are convinced that we shouldn't have Christmas pageants and the like in worship on the Lord's Day. The practice of private celebration is indeed a matter of conscience, but we often discuss what is informing that conscience. And then there is the issue of national holidays decreed by the government that, to some extent, mock or undermine faith. We have a lot of issues swirling around us and clarity is needed when discussion gets heated.

Only using pieces that cater to your position is indeed bad form. It's intellectually dishonest. And again, knowing people's hearts, has nothing to do with the point I made in regards to your word. You jumped to "celebration" meaning "worship" based off of poor reasoning.

A practical request: when engaging someone's opinion, use the quote function. It really helps all of us know whom you are addressing and what your point is.

For example, when you throw out "some other's logic", I don't know if you are talking about the regulative principle, about the proper role of government, or whether someone's conscience is logically flawed. There's nothing to go by.

Or when you accuse someone of being intellectually dishonest without a specific reference, it takes a while for the rest of us to judge who your target is and what your point is. As for USNCerGuard's use of synonyms to flesh out a point, once I realized that was your referent, I was able to judge that his approach was a reasonable one to express what he had in mind. It does not strike me as being intellectually dishonest at all.

The "Christmas Issue" has come up every year for many years. There are a lot of threads on it. Before throwing out inflammatory accusations, please take some time to see the background.
 

NickCamp

Puritan Board Freshman
The materialism, lack of a break on a good holiday (Thanksgiving) has made me look into the Bah Humbug group, so to speak.

According to some others' logic here; Thanksgiving wouldn't be a good holiday either since it isn't expressed in scripture.

Nick, I'm asking you to be careful about your approach on this subject. I see this as introducing something completely different.

To be clear, more than "some" defend very vigorously the regulative principle of worship. And, also to be clear, when we do so, we are talking about worship, not the idea of a national secular holiday focused on thankfulness (or for that matter, the founding of a nation, etc.).

But it gets confusing all over when it comes to Christmas. I suppose I could not,on regulative principle grounds, strictly oppose a national holiday called "National Winter shop-until-you-drop-and-eat-all-you-want Day." But if shop-until-you-drop Day started taking over worship, especially if it falls on the Lord's Day, then there is a legitimate issue.

But there also is that baggage Chris was talking about. This approach recognizes the idea that something may have served a purpose once, but its purpose is long since past. The ritual has overtaken the meaning. The Christmas "holy-day" comes from very suspect roots. It has grown to the point that the secular world has two attitudes toward it at the same time: (1) It's fun for everyone so everyone can and should celebrate it and (2) if you do not celebrate it, you must not be a Christian.

I'm not saying anyone here is arguing along these lines. It's just a description of the context we live in. Most of us on the board are convinced that we shouldn't have Christmas pageants and the like in worship on the Lord's Day. The practice of private celebration is indeed a matter of conscience, but we often discuss what is informing that conscience. And then there is the issue of national holidays decreed by the government that, to some extent, mock or undermine faith. We have a lot of issues swirling around us and clarity is needed when discussion gets heated.

Only using pieces that cater to your position is indeed bad form. It's intellectually dishonest. And again, knowing people's hearts, has nothing to do with the point I made in regards to your word. You jumped to "celebration" meaning "worship" based off of poor reasoning.

A practical request: when engaging someone's opinion, use the quote function. It really helps all of us know whom you are addressing and what your point is.

For example, when you throw out "some other's logic", I don't know if you are talking about the regulative principle, about the proper role of government, or whether someone's conscience is logically flawed. There's nothing to go by.

Or when you accuse someone of being intellectually dishonest without a specific reference, it takes a while for the rest of us to judge who your target is and what your point is. As for USNCerGuard's use of synonyms to flesh out a point, once I realized that was your referent, I was able to judge that his approach was a reasonable one to express what he had in mind. It does not strike me as being intellectually dishonest at all.

The "Christmas Issue" has come up every year for many years. There are a lot of threads on it. Before throwing out inflammatory accusations, please take some time to see the background.

He didn't "flesh out" a point, he used a words synonyms to push his position when the definition of the word alone failed to fit his conclusion. Why not just use the definition? Words have more than one meaning and synonyms play off of all of those meanings. And since when is semantics intellectually honest? It's not. Some synonyms of accusations consist of "incrimination", "slur", and "blast" and so I can conclude that I didn't have accusations according to my choice of synonyms, correct? I'm sorry, but it doesn't work. However, i did charge him, as per the definition of the word accusation, with wrongdoing, which should be sufficiently expressed here.

The point of my thanksgiving comment is that it is a holiday formed by the puritans. However, it is not scripturally permitted as some in the Christmas debate use against Christmas. There is no mention in acts or to the apostles about thanksgiving, and yet the puritans held serval sermons and worship services around a day for thanksgiving. Ultimately, USN's comment that people here believe as the puritans do as per the name "puritan board', contradicts his view on Christmas as it does others views if they share his position. Of course while there is respect in the piety of the puritans, should I expect a call to stoning or persecuting Quakers as the puritans did? OF course not. So yes, the appeals by USN were both dishonest, and irrelevant, or logically fallacious.

How the secular world views something does not dictate how we view things. Or are we living by their standards? Your point is irrelevant. I've already addressed the fact that everyone has their picture of Christmas in their mind, but that is merely an assumption on their part when declaring that their image is to be abstained from.

Inflammatory, from my view, can be seen from the semantic and dishonest approach of addressing the topic. Regardless, I cannot control how emotions of others bubble up on the internet. Nothing which I have said has attacked anyone's character, but only the arguments. You can be intellectually dishonest out of ignorance, but just because you are "being" intellectually dishonest doesn't mean I said he is an intellectually dishonest person.

If anyone is offended by my words, I do apologize. I am in no way riled up or angry. I am simply pointing out what I see as being poor arguments. I will leave said discussion as I didn't realize how sensitive this discussion was. I will however, learn how to use the quote function and I apologize for that as well. On mobile it seems to be difficult to use such functions.
 

TheOldCourse

Puritan Board Sophomore
The materialism, lack of a break on a good holiday (Thanksgiving) has made me look into the Bah Humbug group, so to speak.

According to some others' logic here; Thanksgiving wouldn't be a good holiday either since it isn't expressed in scripture.

Nick, I'm asking you to be careful about your approach on this subject. I see this as introducing something completely different.

To be clear, more than "some" defend very vigorously the regulative principle of worship. And, also to be clear, when we do so, we are talking about worship, not the idea of a national secular holiday focused on thankfulness (or for that matter, the founding of a nation, etc.).

But it gets confusing all over when it comes to Christmas. I suppose I could not,on regulative principle grounds, strictly oppose a national holiday called "National Winter shop-until-you-drop-and-eat-all-you-want Day." But if shop-until-you-drop Day started taking over worship, especially if it falls on the Lord's Day, then there is a legitimate issue.

But there also is that baggage Chris was talking about. This approach recognizes the idea that something may have served a purpose once, but its purpose is long since past. The ritual has overtaken the meaning. The Christmas "holy-day" comes from very suspect roots. It has grown to the point that the secular world has two attitudes toward it at the same time: (1) It's fun for everyone so everyone can and should celebrate it and (2) if you do not celebrate it, you must not be a Christian.

I'm not saying anyone here is arguing along these lines. It's just a description of the context we live in. Most of us on the board are convinced that we shouldn't have Christmas pageants and the like in worship on the Lord's Day. The practice of private celebration is indeed a matter of conscience, but we often discuss what is informing that conscience. And then there is the issue of national holidays decreed by the government that, to some extent, mock or undermine faith. We have a lot of issues swirling around us and clarity is needed when discussion gets heated.

Only using pieces that cater to your position is indeed bad form. It's intellectually dishonest. And again, knowing people's hearts, has nothing to do with the point I made in regards to your word. You jumped to "celebration" meaning "worship" based off of poor reasoning.

A practical request: when engaging someone's opinion, use the quote function. It really helps all of us know whom you are addressing and what your point is.

For example, when you throw out "some other's logic", I don't know if you are talking about the regulative principle, about the proper role of government, or whether someone's conscience is logically flawed. There's nothing to go by.

Or when you accuse someone of being intellectually dishonest without a specific reference, it takes a while for the rest of us to judge who your target is and what your point is. As for USNCerGuard's use of synonyms to flesh out a point, once I realized that was your referent, I was able to judge that his approach was a reasonable one to express what he had in mind. It does not strike me as being intellectually dishonest at all.

The "Christmas Issue" has come up every year for many years. There are a lot of threads on it. Before throwing out inflammatory accusations, please take some time to see the background.

He didn't "flesh out" a point, he used a words synonyms to push his position when the definition of the word alone failed to fit his conclusion. Why not just use the definition? Words have more than one meaning and synonyms play off of all of those meanings. And since when is semantics intellectually honest? It's not. Some synonyms of accusations consist of "incrimination", "slur", and "blast" and so I can conclude that I didn't have accusations according to my choice of synonyms, correct? I'm sorry, but it doesn't work. However, i did charge him, as per the definition of the word accusation, with wrongdoing, which should be sufficiently expressed here.

The point of my thanksgiving comment is that it is a holiday formed by the puritans. However, it is not scripturally permitted as some in the Christmas debate use against Christmas. There is no mention in acts or to the apostles about thanksgiving, and yet the puritans held serval sermons and worship services around a day for thanksgiving. Ultimately, USN's comment that people here believe as the puritans do as per the name "puritan board', contradicts his view on Christmas as it does others views if they share his position. Of course while there is respect in the piety of the puritans, should I expect a call to stoning or persecuting Quakers as the puritans did? OF course not. So yes, the appeals by USN were both dishonest, and irrelevant, or logically fallacious.

How the secular world views something does not dictate how we view things. Or are we living by their standards? Your point is irrelevant. I've already addressed the fact that everyone has their picture of Christmas in their mind, but that is merely an assumption on their part when declaring that their image is to be abstained from.

Inflammatory, from my view, can be seen from the semantic and dishonest approach of addressing the topic. Regardless, I cannot control how emotions of others bubble up on the internet. Nothing which I have said has attacked anyone's character, but only the arguments. You can be intellectually dishonest out of ignorance, but just because you are "being" intellectually dishonest doesn't mean I said he is an intellectually dishonest person.

If anyone is offended by my words, I do apologize. I am in no way riled up or angry. I am simply pointing out what I see as being poor arguments. I will leave said discussion as I didn't realize how sensitive this discussion was. I will however, learn how to use the quote function and I apologize for that as well. On mobile it seems to be difficult to use such functions.

A few points: semantics do matter. The words we use have meaning and clearly articulating that meaning is core to any debate. Especially when the referent of celebrate is God, it's almost impossible to escape an implication of worship when using it and that was his point. It is a fair one.

Secondly: when you say "Thanksgiving was a day formed by the puritans" you're opening up a bit of a can of worms. "Puritan" is a broad category that encompasses a range of piety and practice that includes much that wouldn't be considered "Reformed" in the historical, confessional sense. This board is explicitly confessional and even requires a testament to confessional subscription to join. Thus, the puritanism which forms the common ground of this board is confessional puritanism. Later declensions from confessional piety and practice within broader puritanism is not viewed as normative here any more than Richard Baxter's views on justification would be.

Finally, secular worldviews are not so much view here (although Paul's words to the Corinthians suggest that is a consideration as well). Religious idolatry within the Christian church is what is in view and is according to the analogy of the golden serpent and the actions of Nehemiah.

I would encourage you to read the article Chris posted by George Gillespie (a puritan whose orthodoxy is beyond question). This is a good historical overview of the question too: https://www.naphtali.com/articles/c...as-and-holy-days-in-american-presbyterianism/ Confessional Reformed orthodoxy has been consistently against the celebration of holy days throughout history and I would encourage you to study it further before dismissing it cavalierly. Most of the objections you've raised have been made and answered many times before.
 

Ryan&Amber2013

Puritan Board Junior
Be not overly righteous, and do not make yourself too wise. Why should you destroy yourself?
ECC 7:16 ESV

In the morning sermon, our pastor used this in reference about how Christians try to tell others they can't drink, put on a costume and receive candy, or set up a tree and put presents under it. He believes in keeping Christ OUT of Christmas, but says we shouldn't make rules where the Bible doesn't. So if we want to do the fun things of Christmas without attaching the church to it or saying Christ has to be the center of the holiday, I don't see the issue I suppose. Let's give thanks to the Lord for all the good things He gives us.
 

NickCamp

Puritan Board Freshman
I am retiring from this thread and I sincerely apologize for offense if any was taken. I wish not to jeopardize my involvement on PuritanBoards as I find it to be a very special place. I wish not to have any issues with the brothers here and so I apologize again. God bless you and I will see you all around.

-N.S.C.
 

TheOldCourse

Puritan Board Sophomore

You edited your post and so I have done so to mine here as well so as not to preserve what you wished deleted. I wish you well in your time here and would urge you to give careful consideration to the resources given already as they outline part of a system of doctrine that underlies the theological standards that you have avowed subscription to in your membership here. Something to consider as you wrestle with this issue is that concerns for idolatry lead many of us to have less concern for a secularized Christmas (though the name remains an issue) than we do for a careful religious observance of the day.
 

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
Be not overly righteous, and do not make yourself too wise. Why should you destroy yourself?
ECC 7:16 ESV

In the morning sermon, our pastor used this in reference about how Christians try to tell others they can't drink, put on a costume and receive candy, or set up a tree and put presents under it. He believes in keeping Christ OUT of Christmas, but says we shouldn't make rules where the Bible doesn't. So if we want to do the fun things of Christmas without attaching the church to it or saying Christ has to be the center of the holiday, I don't see the issue I suppose. Let's give thanks to the Lord for all the good things He gives us.

May I ask what exactly does your pastor call this time a year? Festivus? :)
 

Andrew P.C.

Puritan Board Junior
A few things should be observed:

1) The second commandment is violated by Christmas.

2) The third commandment is violated by Christmas.

3) The fourth commandment is violated by Christmas.

4) and by extension, the first commandment is violated.


Many focus on the 2nd commandment (which is good). However, we should give credence to the fact that the other three, of the first table, are violated as well.

Third Commandment: Many might not first recognize the issue here, but let's think about. The Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC) rightly defines (not exhaustively) what the duties are and the sins forbidden in the third commandment:

Q. 112. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requires, that the name of God, his titles, attributes, ordinances, the word, sacraments, prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works, and whatsoever else there is whereby he makes himself known, be holily and reverently used in thought, meditation, word, and writing; by an holy profession, and answerable conversation, to the glory of God, and the good of ourselves and others.

Matt. 6:9; Deut. 28:58; Ps. 29:2; Ps. 68:4; Rev. 15:3-4; Mal. 1:14; Ecc. 5:1; Ps. 138:2; 1 Cor. 11:24-25, 28-29; 1 Tim. 2:8; Jer. 4:2; Ecc. 5:2, 4-6; Acts 1:24, 26; Job 36:24; Mal. 3:16; Ps. 8:1, 3-4, 9; Col. 3:17; Ps. 105:2, 5; Ps. 102:18; 1 Pet. 3: 15; Mic. 4:5; Phil. 1:27; 1 Cor. 10:31; Jer. 32:39; 1 Pet. 2:12.

Q. 113. What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots; violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful; and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful; murmuring and quarreling at, curious prying into, and misapplying of God’s decrees and providences; misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or any thing contained under the name of God, to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or any wise opposing of God’s truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by unconformable, unwise, unfruitful and offensive walking, or backsliding from it.

Mal. 2:2; Acts 17:23; Prov. 30:9; Mal. 1:6-7, 12; Mal. 3:14; 1 Sam. 4:3-5; Jer. 7:4, 9-10, 14, 31; Col. 2:20-22; 2 Kings 18:30, 35; Ex. 5:2; Ps. 139:20; Ps. 1:16-17; Isa. 5:12; 2 Kings 19:22; Lev. 24:11; Zech. 5:4; Zech. 8:17; 1 Sam. 17:43; 2 Sam. 16:5; Jer. 5:7; Jer. 23:10; Deut. 23:18; Acts 23:12, 14; Esther 3:7; Esther 9:24; Ps. 22:18; Ps. 24:4; Ezek. 17:16, 18-19; Mark 6:26; 1 Sam. 25:22, 32-34; Rom. 9:14, 19-20; Deut. 29:29; Rom. 3:5, 7; Rom. 6:1-2; Ecc. 8:11; Ecc. 9:3; Ps. 39:1-13; Matt. 5:21-28; Ezek. 13:22; 2 Pet. 3:16; Matt. 22:24-31; Isa. 22:13; Jer. 23:34, 36, 38; 1 Tim. 1:4, 6-7; 1 Tim. 6:4-5, 20; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; Rom. 13:13-14; 1 Kings 21:9-10; Jude 1:4: Acts 13:45; 1 John 3:12; Ps. 1:1; 2 Pet. 3:3; 1 Pet. 4:4; Acts 13:45-46, 50; Acts 4:18; Acts 19:9; 1 Thess. 2:16; Heb. 10:29; 2 Tim. 3:5; Matt. 23:14; Matt. 6:1-2, 5, 16; Mark 8:38; Ps. 73:14-15; 1 Cor. 6:5-6; Eph. 5:15-17; Isa. 5:4; 2 Pet. 1:8-9; Rom. 2:23-24; Gal. 3:1, 3; Heb. 6:6; 2 Tim. 2:14; Titus 3:9; Deut. 18:10-14; Acts 19:13.

The issue is this: there is a day that bears the name "Christ". If you do not worship on such a day that bears His name or title, you are not giving the proper reverence "due his name". Remember, this is an argument against Christmas. This leads into the fourth commandment.

The fourth commandment specifically states: "Remember the sabbath-day, to keep it holy". With this emphasis added, we should be reminded what we are required to do, and what is forbidden.

Q. 116. What is required in the fourth commandment?
A. The fourth commandment requireth of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his word, expressly one whole day in seven; which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian sabbath, and in the New Testament called The Lord’s Day.

Deut. 5:12-14; Gen. 2:2-3; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Acts 20:7; Matt. 5:17-18; Isa. 56:2, 4, 6-7; Rev. 1:10.

Q. 117. How is the sabbath or the Lord’s day to be sanctified?
A. The sabbath or Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship: and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose, and seasonably to despatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day.

Ex. 20:8, 10; Ex. 16:25-28; Neh. 13:15-22; Jer. 17:21-22; Matt. 12:1-13; Isa. 58:13; Luke 4:16; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Ps. 92 title; Isa. 66:23; Lev. 23:3; Ex. 20:8;Luke 23:54, 56; Ex. 16:22, 25-26, 29; Neh. 13:19.

The point is this: If we are commanded to only have one day out of the week (52 a year) sanctified for religious worship or of religious significance, then to have any other day that is of religious significance is a violation of what God commands in the fourth commandment. What does it mean to sanctify? Nothing more then to "set apart" or "set apart for special use". If one sanctifies a day out of the year for the birth of our Savior, they are directly opposing God in the moral law. One sanctifies a day by having that day in honoring the birth of Christ.

Just a few thoughts to consider.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Our church follows that Normative worship style... Are all Reformed churches requred to follow the same worship style then?
 

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
Our church follows that Normative worship style... Are all Reformed churches requred to follow the same worship style then?

According to our confessions they should be very similar. I read recently how The Normative Principle is nothing more than human preference which is SOOOO true.
 

Andrew P.C.

Puritan Board Junior
So both traditions would be allowed, but the Normative way is much preferred?

The Normative principle is contra confessional and contra biblical. So no. The normative principle shouldn't be in the picture. However, people in different reformed circles are inconsistent on some points.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Earl means, if I can speak for him, that reformed churches should be similar if they all followed their confessional principle which is the regulative not normative principle. The normative principle is not reformed.
Our church follows that Normative worship style... Are all Reformed churches requred to follow the same worship style then?

According to our confessions they should be very similar. I read recently how The Normative Principle is nothing more than human preference which is SOOOO true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top