heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
I agree, Peter. Silly thread. And I say it again, this nothing more than "disputes and arguments over words, from which comy envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings" (1 Tim. 6:4-5)
Easter or "Resurrection Sunday?"
- Thread starter Puritanhead
- Start date
- Status
I agree, Peter. Silly thread. And I say it again, this nothing more than "disputes and arguments over words, from which comy envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings" (1 Tim. 6:4-5)
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
The subject of how to worship God is never "silly." It is -- or ought to be -- a matter of chief concern for all Christians.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Neither are Sunday Schools, but I bet most of our churches have them. I know, I know...teaching is commanded, but I think we may be throwing the liturgial baby out with the Roman bathwater here.
First consider that the Resurrection is an issue of historical fact. It happened. Not only that but it has enormous implications for our faith. While we worship on Sun(!)day because it commeroates the Ressurrection, I daresay very few churches call their bodies to reflect on the importance of the Resurrection each Sun(!)day. It is altogether fitting that we set aside a day of Fasting (Good Friday?) and Thanksgiving (Easter?) to bring to the front of our attention those events which redeemed us.
BTW, WCF 21:5 mentions that special observances are fine and in accord with Scripture, citing appropriate Scriptural proofs. I was just reading Lloyd-Jones this evening and he mentioned this very thing: e.g. Puritan aversion to such observances, fearing it was the slipper slope back to Rome. To which he says balderdash and to which I reply, Amen!
BTW, I prefer "Easter," simply for an economy of speech.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Imprtant thread. Can we still eat the bunnies?
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
Right- what is silly is presuming to know the thoughts, motivations and heart attitudes of other believers, petty bickering and shameless strawmen.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
To clarify, the Westminster Confession in no way lends credence to the observance of Roman Catholic holidays such as Easter. The citation referred to has in view special providential days of thanksgiving, much like the Pilgrims' first Thanksgiving. To know what the Westminster Divines thought of Roman Catholic holidays, let's look at the Westminster Directory for Publick Worship:
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
I couldn't get anyone at RTS to buy my kid's chocolate bunnies...
Should have seen those big blue eyes well up...Authorised, I'd prefer you would not call me a liar. You may believe I am mistaken, however there is a vast between this and willful supression of the truth. Also please do not snobbishly tell me what I am or am not seeing. That is another false accusation of lying.
Easter is a holy day invented by man. God alone may sanctify days. If you say your minister is only preaching on the resurrection and not otherwise attributing any holiness to the festival he is nonetheless paying homage to a "monument of idolatry". Millions worldwide believe and honor the day as a day especially consecrated for celebration of the resurrection.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
I'm aware of what the (non-binding but useful) Directory says. I just disagree...and probably more with our interpretation of it than anything. There is no resemblance between what most churches do to observe Easter and what the RCC does. So, when we have our Good Friday service this week (with Communion) and a special time of reflection on Christ's resurrection on Sunday, we wil do so with clear consciences.
You know what is silly about this whole discussion? Some seem to be arguing that is unbiblical to preach on the Resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox, BUT it may be done any of the other Sundays of the year. It hasn't been explicitly said...but it seems to be implied.
I'll stick with Lloyd-Jones' "balderdash."
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
So you agree that the Westminster Divines did not write anything to justify Easter observance? Good. That was my point. Easter observance itself is Roman, even if Protestant churches don't acknowledge the source.
Edit: The DPW is binding in my church, BTW.
I have not said this nor has anyone else on this thread to my knowledge. The word "silly" keeps getting used in a condescending way to demean the arguments of those opposed to Easter observance. I would appreciate a more respectful approach to the dialogue, personally.
Ok.
[Edited on 3-22-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Sure, they taste like chicken
As for Easter, perhaps this would be better to treat it like Christmas, as a voluntary celebration, not a mandatory one. It is wrong to celebrate our Lord's resurrection? Absolutely not. Is it wrong to impose that liturgy on the Lord's day? You bet it is. Unless there's is warrant in Scripture to worship in that calendar manner, we must forbid the practice as a church. I wish our churches would not treat easter special. But I also wish there was more preaching on the resurrection throughout the year. We too often forget the significance of that message.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Good morning. A few things. First, "Easter" may be Roman but the Resurrection is not. I stand by my remarks. My point on the preaching part is that some seem to be argue that it is unbiblical to acknowledge the Resurrection on the day that most of the rest of the world does. It is an implicit undercurrent in the arguments of those who are arguing against Easter observance. For us to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that this day does not present a unique opportunity to proclaim the gospel is, in my opinion, irresponsible. Many people (for wrong reasons) only come to church on Christmas and Easter. We should take advantage of that. It's called contextualization.
God is not opposed to liturgy or "calendars." The OT is replete with them, Jesus observed them, and so did the early NT Church.Second, not even the Divines were opposed to the Roman holiday of Easter, not the occasional rememberance of the Resurrection. If we were to have a compulsory holy day and a Mass, then sure it would be a violation of the standards and, more importantly the Bible. But that is not what it is going on in churches.
Third, while I commend your church's adherence to tradition (key word), not even the Divines made the directory compulsory. They did not want to create another Book of Common Prayer because, in their minds it smacked of Romanism, which they were reacting against. We need to read the Standards with authorial intent in mind.
Fourth, you and I were posting at the same time last night and I realize someone else had got your hackles up. I was not dialoging with you in the same spirit as Authorized and the timimg of my post and your mood was unfortunate. I meant no insult at all and if I gave offense, I apologize.
Finally, I love your quote. That is one of the best movies I have ever seen.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Whoops! I haven't had my coffee yet and that was an unforutnate cut and post. I meant to say that "The Divines were opposed to the Roman holiday..."
Sorry about that.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Thanks for your comments, Kevin. My apologies if I over-reacted to what you said earlier.
I appreciate your thoughts even if I disagree with your perspective on liturgy and the church calendar. I happen to think that it is entirely appropriate for ministers to preach the gospel on any or every Lord's Day of the year, including the part about the Resurrection, even on "Easter Sunday." I also think that a church's Easter observance (which I recognize varies widely in practical terms amongst Protestant churches) is not just preaching the Resurrection, nor it is mere Lord's Day observance, but rather an honoring of a man-made holy day and thus a violation of liberty of conscience.
Easter is not in fact one holiday, it is a whole host of holidays for many Protestant churches let alone Rome (Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Good Friday, etc.). Furthermore, there is a Roman way to calculate the dates and there is an Orthodox way -- guess which method most Protestant churches use? The former.
Regardless of all the Easter bunnies, eggs, cantatas, choirs, sunrise services and special "opportunities" for preaching to the unconverted, all of which have good intentions (and some of which have pagan or Roman origins), the real heart of my objection is that there is only one holy day, the Lord's Day, and man-made holy days having no warrant in God's Word necessarily have the effect of exalting the traditions of men to the detriment of God's one holy day.
The Reformers and Puritans (although I recognize that many Continentals did not hold to the same application of the Regulative Principle of Worship) were united in their opposition to man-made holy days, including and especially Easter. Many wrote against Easter specifically. There is a reason why the Puritans were opposed to these holidays and it's not just a knee-jerk reaction to Roman "abuses." It's because the church calendar can only lead to superstition and pure religion is that by which men worship God according to his commandments, and thus Easter and all the other man-made holidays fail to meet the test of Scripture. Let the Resurrection be preached all through the year, but let not anything be added to that which God has commanded in his worship.
I appreciate your thoughts even if I disagree with your perspective on liturgy and the church calendar. I happen to think that it is entirely appropriate for ministers to preach the gospel on any or every Lord's Day of the year, including the part about the Resurrection, even on "Easter Sunday." I also think that a church's Easter observance (which I recognize varies widely in practical terms amongst Protestant churches) is not just preaching the Resurrection, nor it is mere Lord's Day observance, but rather an honoring of a man-made holy day and thus a violation of liberty of conscience.
Easter is not in fact one holiday, it is a whole host of holidays for many Protestant churches let alone Rome (Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Good Friday, etc.). Furthermore, there is a Roman way to calculate the dates and there is an Orthodox way -- guess which method most Protestant churches use? The former.
Regardless of all the Easter bunnies, eggs, cantatas, choirs, sunrise services and special "opportunities" for preaching to the unconverted, all of which have good intentions (and some of which have pagan or Roman origins), the real heart of my objection is that there is only one holy day, the Lord's Day, and man-made holy days having no warrant in God's Word necessarily have the effect of exalting the traditions of men to the detriment of God's one holy day.
The Reformers and Puritans (although I recognize that many Continentals did not hold to the same application of the Regulative Principle of Worship) were united in their opposition to man-made holy days, including and especially Easter. Many wrote against Easter specifically. There is a reason why the Puritans were opposed to these holidays and it's not just a knee-jerk reaction to Roman "abuses." It's because the church calendar can only lead to superstition and pure religion is that by which men worship God according to his commandments, and thus Easter and all the other man-made holidays fail to meet the test of Scripture. Let the Resurrection be preached all through the year, but let not anything be added to that which God has commanded in his worship.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
I don't know that most Protestants would call Easter Sunday a holy day or treat it as such. Most would treat it like an annual commemoration. Nor would most churches impose observance on those who objected to it...so I don't see how conscience is violated.
I will agree with you however that many churches get carried away and do things that are unbiblical. My brother just went to a passion play at a mega-church in Colorado. My views on the 2nd Commandment stand well left of say Fred's...BUT even that was too much for me...and I lectured him on it.
Anyhow, I appreciate your comments. I have much to learn yet and appreciate your remarks. Our church is something of a bizarre Presbyterian-Baptist hybrid, a thing that seems a good fit for me now but may not be over the long term. I've come a long way, baby, as they say. Two years ago I wouldn't have been quoting the standards to make a point (even if we disagreed on the application!). There may be Reformed hope for me! :bigsmile:
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
I don't know that most Protestants would call Easter Sunday a holy day or treat it as such. Most would treat it like an annual commemoration. Nor would most churches impose observance on those who objected to it...so I don't see how conscience is violated.
I will agree with you however that many churches get carried away and do things that are unbiblical. My brother just went to a passion play at a mega-church in Colorado. My views on the 2nd Commandment stand well left of say Fred's...BUT even that was too much for me...and I lectured him on it.
Anyhow, I appreciate your comments. I have much to learn yet and appreciate your remarks. Our church is something of a bizarre Presbyterian-Baptist hybrid, a thing that seems a good fit for me now but may not be over the long term. I've come a long way, baby, as they say. Two years ago I wouldn't have been quoting the standards to make a point (even if we disagreed on the application!). There may be Reformed hope for me! :bigsmile:
If you mark the day with special music, special sermon, and give it a special name (doesn't matter if you call it "Easter" or "Resurrection Sunday"), how can you avoid not imposing your observance on others?
One of the responsibilities of church officers is to guard the public worship of the church so that individual consciences are not violated by any practice. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, in matters of faith, or worship." As soon as we use the excuse "no one is being forced" that should send up an immediate red flag based on WCF XX. It means, we don't have a good biblical reason for what we are about to do, so you don't have to participate if your conscience is violated.
We are neither Anglican nor Luthern. We do not permit what is not forbidden. We do only what is commanded.
When your children ask, why is this one Sunday more special than other Sundays, what do you tell them?
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
You call it "my observance" as if I am the only Protestant in the world to place special emphasis on the Resurrection on that particular day. If that were so, then I would have to agree with you. Since it is not, since in fact that vast majority of believers (and a good deal of unbelievers) acknowledge the event we commemorate on Easter Sunday, I fail to see how anyone's conscience is violated. Yours would be...but then again you don't worship with us...so the point is irrelevant.
Prove that such an observance is forbidden. You can't. All you can do is rightly rail against the abuses of the RCC. We do not have a Mass...but if you want to try and prove that preaching "He is not here; He is risen," is somehow sinful on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox, knock yourself out. I'm listening.
If my child were to ask why this day were more special than others, I would reply that the day isn't more special. We are simply setting aside a day (with most other Christians) to acknowledge the importance of the Resurrection.
As I sit here and type this, I am in fresh receipt of an email from a PCA minister who has invited me to their Maundy Thursday service...with Communion! Heaven forbid!!!!
I think I'll go.
We will just have to agree to disagree here. My conscience is clean. My Session is all for it. It is appropriate for us. It would be inappropriate for you, since your conscience would be violated. I can live with that tension.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Kevin,
Your argument in favor of Easter observance is: "Prove that such an observance is forbidden." The argument against Easter observance (as distinct from merely preaching the Resurrection or keeping the Lord's Day holy) based on the Regulative Principle of Worship is: Prove that it is commanded. The difference between these two positions (with respect to what sort of worship is Biblical) is what it all boils down to. And thus, you're right, we'll have to agree to disagree on the principle underlying what constitutes worship that is acceptable to God.
Your argument in favor of Easter observance is: "Prove that such an observance is forbidden." The argument against Easter observance (as distinct from merely preaching the Resurrection or keeping the Lord's Day holy) based on the Regulative Principle of Worship is: Prove that it is commanded. The difference between these two positions (with respect to what sort of worship is Biblical) is what it all boils down to. And thus, you're right, we'll have to agree to disagree on the principle underlying what constitutes worship that is acceptable to God.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Give me time.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Give me time.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
I'm sorry. I forget sometimes that we're not all Puritans on the Puritan board. :bigsmile:
As I understand it, the reason for chapter XX in the WCF is to protect against the tyranny of the majority. As Presbyterian I would be concerned about anyone coming into the congregation who might have confessional scruples. As a Presbyterian elder I'm not permitted to do anything in worship beyond what God has commanded of His people because of those under my care. It's not a matter of, "well you don't worship with us". Such a statement looks like a denial of the universal nature of God's people and the nature of biblical worship. It's not a matter of taste, or whether someone objects or agrees. It's a matter of "thus saith the Lord." The principle is that God alone gets to say what goes on in His worship.
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Prove that such an observance is forbidden. You can't. All you can do is rightly rail against the abuses of the RCC. We do not have a Mass...but if you want to try and prove that preaching "He is not here; He is risen," is somehow sinful on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox, knock yourself out. I'm listening.
If my child were to ask why this day were more special than others, I would reply that the day isn't more special. We are simply setting aside a day (with most other Christians) to acknowledge the importance of the Resurrection.
As I sit here and type this, I am in fresh receipt of an email from a PCA minister who has invited me to their Maundy Thursday service...with Communion! Heaven forbid!!!!
I think I'll go.
We will just have to agree to disagree here. My conscience is clean. My Session is all for it. It is appropriate for us. It would be inappropriate for you, since your conscience would be violated. I can live with that tension.
How Presbytyerians got to the point that we accept without question the practices of Roman Catholics and non-reformed protestants is beyond me. The testimony of the Westminster divines and American Presbyterian up through the 19th century is clear. At some point Presbyterians started acting like Anglicans in the way they conduct their worship.
In 1899 the old PCUS, forerunner of the PCA, could still declare, "There is no warrant in Scripture for the observance of Christmas and Easter as holy days, rather the contrary (see Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:16-21), and such observance is contrary to the principles of the Reformed Faith, conducive to will worship, and not in harmony with the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
It's as it that understanding of the Bible never existed in Presbyterianism.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by tcalbrecht
I'm sorry. I forget sometimes that we're not all Puritans on the Puritan board. :bigsmile:
As I understand it, the reason for chapter XX in the WCF is to protect against the tyranny of the majority. As Presbyterian I would be concerned about anyone coming into the congregation who might have confessional scruples. As a Presbyterian elder I'm not permitted to do anything in worship beyond what God has commanded of His people because of those under my care. It's not a matter of, "well you don't worship with us". Such a statement looks like a denial of the universal nature of God's people and the nature of biblical worship. It's not a matter of taste, or whether someone objects or agrees. It's a matter of "thus saith the Lord." The principle is that God alone gets to say what goes on in His worship.
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Prove that such an observance is forbidden. You can't. All you can do is rightly rail against the abuses of the RCC. We do not have a Mass...but if you want to try and prove that preaching "He is not here; He is risen," is somehow sinful on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox, knock yourself out. I'm listening.
If my child were to ask why this day were more special than others, I would reply that the day isn't more special. We are simply setting aside a day (with most other Christians) to acknowledge the importance of the Resurrection.
As I sit here and type this, I am in fresh receipt of an email from a PCA minister who has invited me to their Maundy Thursday service...with Communion! Heaven forbid!!!!
I think I'll go.
We will just have to agree to disagree here. My conscience is clean. My Session is all for it. It is appropriate for us. It would be inappropriate for you, since your conscience would be violated. I can live with that tension.
How Presbytyerians got to the point that we accept without question the practices of Roman Catholics and non-reformed protestants is beyond me. The testimony of the Westminster divines and American Presbyterian up through the 19th century is clear. At some point Presbyterians started acting like Anglicans in the way they conduct their worship.
In 1899 the old PCUS, forerunner of the PCA, could still declare, "There is no warrant in Scripture for the observance of Christmas and Easter as holy days, rather the contrary (see Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:16-21), and such observance is contrary to the principles of the Reformed Faith, conducive to will worship, and not in harmony with the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
It's as it that understanding of the Bible never existed in Presbyterianism.
I agree with most of what you say. I think where we would disagree is in the nature of what God has commanded. Some hold the position that we only do what is commanded. Others hold the position that we only do not do what is forbidden. Both positions are a little simplistic since the Bible contains both positive and negative commands. We must observe both.
I think, too, we need to qualify how we define the word "holy day." That might make the discussion clearer. BTW, I love the avitar.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Not to 
, however, I find it a curious thing, given the recent discussion, to look at the bulletin sheet for today, printed and produced by the PCA.
The obverse sports a lilly and a bible open to a resurrection passage. The reverse has an article entitled "He has Risen!"
It would seem that not all Presbyterians see focusing on the Resurrection today as a violation of RPW...
Have a great Lord's Day everyone!
, however, I find it a curious thing, given the recent discussion, to look at the bulletin sheet for today, printed and produced by the PCA.The obverse sports a lilly and a bible open to a resurrection passage. The reverse has an article entitled "He has Risen!"
It would seem that not all Presbyterians see focusing on the Resurrection today as a violation of RPW...
Have a great Lord's Day everyone!
I've been following this thread, and in about 15 minutes I'm headed off to church. The order of worship has been tweaked to be a little more special, regular attenders have been asked to use the rear parking lot to allow for the large number of "guests" (ie. one time a year attenders), thankfully we have no choir (although the children's choir will be singing), and I leaving my house with reservations about this celebration of Easter.
My wife toiled to find just the right outfits for the kids and herself. There's a special lunch in the crockpot, and everything has been tidyed up for expected guests.
I however and wearing the same khaki pants and plaid shirt I wear every Sunday. I will enter worship with the same reverance and awe that I do every Sunday. I will sing praise to God with the same exuberance that I do every Sunday. But unfortunatly this particular Sunday is being turned into a Hallmarl greeting card holiday. In many respects it feels like the more we try to exalt this one day, we profane it.
Resurrection Sunday is/should be celebrated each Lord's Day. But I think as a church, and society, we have moved away from this, and have now setup a "straw" holiday to make us feel like we are paying tribute God for the sacrifice of His Son.
Now that I'm typing this I remember one of the first posts that talked about remembering the resurrection every day. I really like that.
Just some random thoughts before this Lord's day worship.
My wife toiled to find just the right outfits for the kids and herself. There's a special lunch in the crockpot, and everything has been tidyed up for expected guests.
I however and wearing the same khaki pants and plaid shirt I wear every Sunday. I will enter worship with the same reverance and awe that I do every Sunday. I will sing praise to God with the same exuberance that I do every Sunday. But unfortunatly this particular Sunday is being turned into a Hallmarl greeting card holiday. In many respects it feels like the more we try to exalt this one day, we profane it.
Resurrection Sunday is/should be celebrated each Lord's Day. But I think as a church, and society, we have moved away from this, and have now setup a "straw" holiday to make us feel like we are paying tribute God for the sacrifice of His Son.
Now that I'm typing this I remember one of the first posts that talked about remembering the resurrection every day. I really like that.
Just some random thoughts before this Lord's day worship.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
It would seem that not all Presbyterians see focusing on the Resurrection today as a violation of RPW...
Actually, most presbyterians today haven't a clue what the RPW is. That is in part due to the failure of elders to instruct the church in her historic faith, and also due to the huge immigration of historically non-reformed folk into the fold, who despite their new found love of the doctrines of grace, bring their anti-RPW ideas with them. I'm not saying this immigration is a bad thing, but ignorance of our history and doctrine is one reason why the Presbyterian churches today are looking more and more like non-reformed churches and becoming more man-centered in their worship.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
