By perhaps suggesting that those who do not do likewise are not in sin? To assert it as a requirement is to suggest that to do otherwise is sinful. However, I maintain that the observance or non-observance of resurrection Sunday is a thing indifferent and those who partake or refuse to partake in this tradition may be equally free from moral blame.
Is Celebrating Easter Pagan?
- Thread starter Romans922
- Start date
- Status
By perhaps suggesting that those who do not do likewise are not in sin? To assert it as a requirement is to suggest that to do otherwise is sinful. However, I maintain that the observance or non-observance of resurrection Sunday is a thing indifferent and those who partake or refuse to partake in this tradition may be equally free from moral blame.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
If it is not a big deal then why not hold "Resurrection Sunday" in July? What Biblical reason is there that it must be held in March/April depending on the "non-binding" church calendar of denominations that do not hold to the Regulative Principle?
I'd love to see a church demonstrate that it's not a requirement that it be held when the other church's are celebrating Easter and other unbiblical holy days.
I'd love to see a church demonstrate that it's not a requirement that it be held when the other church's are celebrating Easter and other unbiblical holy days.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
We're actually going to celebrate 5 of those this July!!!
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
There are some things I am just not able to connect the dots concerning in this discussion of “Easter”.
The word “Easter” itself did not exist before approximately 1525, when Tyndale coined it and it appeared in his NT, although the various “celebrations” antedated it by many centuries, going back to maybe the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] century, and all these “Resurrection-celebration” events are mired in disputes and unbiblical activity. So there really is no Biblical warrant for “Resurrection-celebrations”; all there is are the traditions of various church fathers, and Roman and Eastern practices. And, as with the birth of our Lord, there really are no reliable dates (that I can trust, at any rate). So all such celebrations, whatever one might call them, are without any real substance. Oh well, I guess it must go the way of the tooth fairy.
That said, it remains that the Book of Acts lists the day of the Passover after the Resurrection as Easter and not Passover. I am left with gratitude that the angel of death has passed over me because of the blood of the Lamb, and that in the resurrection of Christ I am justified in Him before God – I know that it did indeed happen on a certain day, but being uncertain when that actually is, and that it has accrued so much nonsense around it, I will keep it simple and pure, and be grateful every day.
I suppose one reason I have been loath to let go of Easter, is that ours is a faith grounded in an historical reality – Christ Jesus lived and died and rose again in time and space – and to let go of the precise historical facticity of it all (down to the very days) veers near the non-historical myth-religions which have no basis but in imagination. Perhaps I will hunt to see if I can find the actual day, even if I don’t celebrate it.
The word “Easter” itself did not exist before approximately 1525, when Tyndale coined it and it appeared in his NT, although the various “celebrations” antedated it by many centuries, going back to maybe the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] century, and all these “Resurrection-celebration” events are mired in disputes and unbiblical activity. So there really is no Biblical warrant for “Resurrection-celebrations”; all there is are the traditions of various church fathers, and Roman and Eastern practices. And, as with the birth of our Lord, there really are no reliable dates (that I can trust, at any rate). So all such celebrations, whatever one might call them, are without any real substance. Oh well, I guess it must go the way of the tooth fairy.
That said, it remains that the Book of Acts lists the day of the Passover after the Resurrection as Easter and not Passover. I am left with gratitude that the angel of death has passed over me because of the blood of the Lamb, and that in the resurrection of Christ I am justified in Him before God – I know that it did indeed happen on a certain day, but being uncertain when that actually is, and that it has accrued so much nonsense around it, I will keep it simple and pure, and be grateful every day.
I suppose one reason I have been loath to let go of Easter, is that ours is a faith grounded in an historical reality – Christ Jesus lived and died and rose again in time and space – and to let go of the precise historical facticity of it all (down to the very days) veers near the non-historical myth-religions which have no basis but in imagination. Perhaps I will hunt to see if I can find the actual day, even if I don’t celebrate it.
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
Well, any church that has Sunday church is holding Resurrection Sunday on a Sunday in July, right? What are we talking about? What do churches do on Easter Sunday that they wouldn't do in July?
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Sunday after passover.
You are perfectly free to do so if you wish. I have no problem with this.
It's not a biblical reason so much as a (somewhat inaccurate) following of the Jewish Calendar.
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
Perhaps wiser minds than mine can explain the following event in light of the discussion of Christians holding one day above another in their conduct, thought, planning, and perhaps even worship.
Me, I'm an anti-any celebration anytime kinda guy. I want things to continue as regulary and uneventfully as possible. I prefer to hear expositional sermons that move carefully and steadily through one book at a time. I get some of that, but not as much as I'd like. I'd be happiest if there were no mentions of christmas or thanksgiving or easter or independence day, simply because they are tediously unimportant to me. But I find that to strangely not be so in the hearts of many of my beloved brethren whom I believe to be sincere in their profession, and some of them are Church Officers and I am not, so I commit it unto the Lord. We will attend our Church's Easter breakfast, and hear a sermon related in some way to That Day. When brothers say "Happy Easter" to me, I will respond with "Happy Resurrection Day", when they say "He is risen!", I will reply "He is risen indeed!" That sort of submission is easy.
In my Church, I am considered the epitome of the hardshell, legalistic, Confessionally over-strident, theological nit-picker; here I'm probably considered an antinomian. Maybe that means I'm lukewarm, but I can also tell you it means I'm tired of fighting these old battles.
Regardless of anything else we may say, it is evident that Paul attached some importance to a particular day of the year, and not for any purely secular reason. Pentecost was a decidedly Christian event, and it appears Paul thought it perfectly acceptable to cherish its annual remembrance on some level. If we as Christians determine to turn our attention toward the pivotal moment in all of history past and future at a particular time of year we think might correspond with the time in the year the event occured, if that fact intrudes into our worship in any way is that to be counted sin? Is the acknowledgement of any anniversary of any event during the service of worship contrary to the RPW? If not, then where does the dividing line lie between acceptable acknowledgement and unacceptable celebration?
Me, I'm an anti-any celebration anytime kinda guy. I want things to continue as regulary and uneventfully as possible. I prefer to hear expositional sermons that move carefully and steadily through one book at a time. I get some of that, but not as much as I'd like. I'd be happiest if there were no mentions of christmas or thanksgiving or easter or independence day, simply because they are tediously unimportant to me. But I find that to strangely not be so in the hearts of many of my beloved brethren whom I believe to be sincere in their profession, and some of them are Church Officers and I am not, so I commit it unto the Lord. We will attend our Church's Easter breakfast, and hear a sermon related in some way to That Day. When brothers say "Happy Easter" to me, I will respond with "Happy Resurrection Day", when they say "He is risen!", I will reply "He is risen indeed!" That sort of submission is easy.
In my Church, I am considered the epitome of the hardshell, legalistic, Confessionally over-strident, theological nit-picker; here I'm probably considered an antinomian. Maybe that means I'm lukewarm, but I can also tell you it means I'm tired of fighting these old battles.
Last edited:
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
Your commiting a fallacy here, The either/or fallacy. Either you do not emphasize Christ's resurrection on easter or you are saying that it must be held on easter making it a popish demand. But there is a third option that churchs are free to choose not to make it a demand but to emphasize that doctrine on that day without making it a requirment.
Scottish Lass
Puritan Board Doctor
If I asked ten members of your congregation about important days at your church, how many would mention Easter or Christmas?
While you say you can't affect what people believe, isn't that precisely the job of any church's leadership?
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
Sure I agree with that. But the problem that I pointed out was one with the argument. None of us, as far as I can tell, who see no problem with easter have advocated that the church must make the celebration of this holiday mandatory for beleivers, hence binding their consciense. So when anyone responds that we are asserting that it is therefore binding on everyones conscience than that is unfactual but the arguement if true rests upon a false distinction that you are are either on their side or you agree with Rome. But we have advocated a third way that is not in either camp.
All my post really amounts to is this. The argument being presented is underdeveloped. Thats all. It doesn't mean that my brothers and sisters in Christ whom I respectfully disagree with here are wrong, only that their argument for their position doesn't seem to me (for the reasons I and others have given) to be sound. This thread has been very enlightening to me. I am thinking if its more appropriate to do easter baskets, if you are, on the saturday night before easter so as to not break the sabbath? I am confident that my church's decision to do an easter egg hunt on the saturday before easter is perfectly fine and amounts to no more than community outreach.
Tripel
Puritan Board Senior
I'd like to see Jessica's question addressed.
There is nothing wrong with singing "Christ the Lord is Risen Today" on Easter Sunday. Nor is there anything wrong with preaching about the resurrection. I find it incredible that some are arguing that certain topics are off-limits on particular Sundays.
Many of you argue that the topic of resurrection is derived from a man-made holiday, but how is that a problem? I'm not aware of the RPW addressing the exact way that a topic or passage is to be chosen. I think it is GOOD for the church to occasionally address a topic that is culturally relevant. On an election week in Novemeber, it is GOOD (but by no means mandatory) to have corporate prayer for our nation and leaders. On Thanksgiving week it is GOOD (but by no means mandatory) to corporately give thanks for our many blessings. During the first week of January it is GOOD (but by no means mandatory) to emphasize our dependence on God for all things and to pray for his church in the new year.
I don't see how Easter (despite its origins) is any different. It is a week where many emphasize the resurrection, and that's not a bad thing. And it doesn't mean that we neglect the resurrection all of the other 51 Sundays on the calendar either. And when you factor in that Easter Sunday is the one week when a lot of non-church-goers attend worship, I can't think of a better topic to preach.
I've no problem with the pastor taking events into account as far as what he covers in the preaching of the Word; that is his job, and he should not be constrained by custom or expectations in faithfully performing his duty. The call of "events" however, is just as much to address the overwhelming idolatry and will worship that goes on as much as to deliver sound doctrine on whatever the topic is. I think that can be done in keeping with the ultimate goal of seeing this idolatry buried as the church reforms and jettisons this throw back to the cyclical nature of the Jewish observation of days.
I would also add to this and say that to some degree, I wish that more churches would be intentional about preaching on topics like the resurrection, the trinity, and the incarnation. I think that a church following the traditional calendar can be an aid to making sure these topics get preached. Even in those churches that don't deviate from the series they're preaching at these times will nonetheless emphasize these doctrines at those times.
I'm curious (for those whose churches don't follow the calendar) as to how many times the resurrection warrants a mention or a sermon in your churches. It's the central doctrine of Christianity and the Church stands or falls on it (I'm genuinely curious---maybe it's more often than in the churches I grew up in).
"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.” George Gillespie, EPC, 1-7-6.
Rev. Todd Ruddell
Puritan Board Junior
It requires a myriad of assumptions to interpret the in Acts 20.16 to say that Paul "attached some importance to a particular day of the year, and not for any purely secular reason. Pentecost was a decidedly Christian event..."
First, Pentecost was not a decidedly Christian event, but one of the three feasts of the Jews in which all the males were required to appear at Jerusalem. (See Leviticus 23) So, to say that Paul wanted to be in Jerusalem at Pentecost as a Christian celebration is to assume what is not stated in the text. All his life the Apostle was in Jerusalem on Pentecost, and if he continued to do so while the Temple stood, there are many reasons apart from commemorating a Christian calendar that seem more likely. 1) There would be a multiplicity of Jews there to hear the Gospel. 2) So as not to incite the Sanhedrin against him unnecessarily. 3) To bring an offering to the Temple according to the Law of Moses. (which would have been acceptable during that transition period, just as the taking of a vow was. See Acts 21.23-26). Note the words of the Apostle himself on this matter: (Acts 18.21) "I must by all means keep this feast which cometh in Jerusalem." Being a period of transition between the Old and New Testaments, and the changing of worship practice over that transition period, it would be quite appropriate for the Apostle to desire to be in Jerusalem at that time, to keep the feast, and to use that providential circumstance to advance his ministerial agenda. However, all such yearly celebrations passed away with the Old Testament ceremonial Law and the destruction of the temple in 70AD, as did the monthly sacrifices, blowing of trumpets, etc. If we look to the Scriptures, there is one day Holy, called so by the only One who has the authority to call a day Holy, and to set it apart for the worship of Himself.
As for the "Easter Days" quotation from Calvin above, this is not an unknown use of that terminology to those who read 16th and 17th century literature in English. However, it is incorrect to attribute to that word "Easter" as it used in the Puritan and Proto-Puritan writings to any kind of resurrection festival day. It simply meant the days of Passover, that is, that decidedly Jewish, ceremonial feast day wich was also accompanied by a 7 day fast from leaven. As Dr. Gordon Clark said, place the glossary in the front of the book, not the end. When we read the word "Easter" we think of the resurrection festival of the Roman Church rather than what the puritan writers intended--which was the Jewish Passover.
With you, Brad, I am an anti celebration kind of guy. I'm not particularly into birthdays, etc. And, at CCRPC we do not observe man made days of worship such as Easter, Christ-Mass, etc. We also do not celebrate Mother's Day, Father's Day, etc. on the Lord's Day. If children want to honor their fathers and mothers specially one day other than on the Lord's Day, that's fine. But on the Lord's Day we honor the Lord alone, (Isaiah 58.13) and to the best of our meager understanding and ability, in the way that He has commanded us. I do however love Thanksgiving as a civil holiday, celebrated not-on-the-Lord's-Day because I do believe that the civil magistrate has the authority to call for a day of Thanksgiving to God within his realms, as did Queen Esther and Mordecai in Esther 9. I do give thanks to God on that day as enjoined by my civil governors.
---------- Post added at 03:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 PM ----------
If I might indulge the patience of the board for one more comment: Our brother above said that he was "tired of fighting these old battles." While I understand the sentiment, there are a few things that come to mind. First, our weariness or strength is not a good indicator of what is important. Second, while there are things not worth fighting for, remember that the accretions of men obtruding themselves into the worship service of the God is one of the foundational reasons for our separation from Rome (it's not *only* a Gospel issue) and many of us today see the clamoring for extra-Biblical additions to the worship of God as a return to those principles which led to those grand perversions. Remember "Rome wasn't built in a day", which is to say that apostasy from the truth takes place little by little, not all at once, and it begins with little sentimentalities. If a Church today declares that they're going to put on an "Easter Pageant" it does bind the consciences of their membership because according to our Church standards we are required to answer the call to worship as authoritative. If the Church then says, "OK, you don't have to come when we have an Easter Pageant, or a Christ-Mass cantata" then they begin tearing down the authoritative call to worship, and teach that sometimes worship is optional. I guess what I'm trying to say is first, that I too am weary of explaining the same things over and again several times a year to people when they come asking. But rarely in the history of men have important battles come at convenient times. Many times the weary soldiers of the King have had to "lace 'em up one more time" and ride to the sound of the guns. We don't get to choose whether or not we will engage in such battles--the Lord chooses the battles for us, and it is our duty to answer the call faithfully according to our places and stations.
First, Pentecost was not a decidedly Christian event, but one of the three feasts of the Jews in which all the males were required to appear at Jerusalem. (See Leviticus 23) So, to say that Paul wanted to be in Jerusalem at Pentecost as a Christian celebration is to assume what is not stated in the text. All his life the Apostle was in Jerusalem on Pentecost, and if he continued to do so while the Temple stood, there are many reasons apart from commemorating a Christian calendar that seem more likely. 1) There would be a multiplicity of Jews there to hear the Gospel. 2) So as not to incite the Sanhedrin against him unnecessarily. 3) To bring an offering to the Temple according to the Law of Moses. (which would have been acceptable during that transition period, just as the taking of a vow was. See Acts 21.23-26). Note the words of the Apostle himself on this matter: (Acts 18.21) "I must by all means keep this feast which cometh in Jerusalem." Being a period of transition between the Old and New Testaments, and the changing of worship practice over that transition period, it would be quite appropriate for the Apostle to desire to be in Jerusalem at that time, to keep the feast, and to use that providential circumstance to advance his ministerial agenda. However, all such yearly celebrations passed away with the Old Testament ceremonial Law and the destruction of the temple in 70AD, as did the monthly sacrifices, blowing of trumpets, etc. If we look to the Scriptures, there is one day Holy, called so by the only One who has the authority to call a day Holy, and to set it apart for the worship of Himself.
As for the "Easter Days" quotation from Calvin above, this is not an unknown use of that terminology to those who read 16th and 17th century literature in English. However, it is incorrect to attribute to that word "Easter" as it used in the Puritan and Proto-Puritan writings to any kind of resurrection festival day. It simply meant the days of Passover, that is, that decidedly Jewish, ceremonial feast day wich was also accompanied by a 7 day fast from leaven. As Dr. Gordon Clark said, place the glossary in the front of the book, not the end. When we read the word "Easter" we think of the resurrection festival of the Roman Church rather than what the puritan writers intended--which was the Jewish Passover.
With you, Brad, I am an anti celebration kind of guy. I'm not particularly into birthdays, etc. And, at CCRPC we do not observe man made days of worship such as Easter, Christ-Mass, etc. We also do not celebrate Mother's Day, Father's Day, etc. on the Lord's Day. If children want to honor their fathers and mothers specially one day other than on the Lord's Day, that's fine. But on the Lord's Day we honor the Lord alone, (Isaiah 58.13) and to the best of our meager understanding and ability, in the way that He has commanded us. I do however love Thanksgiving as a civil holiday, celebrated not-on-the-Lord's-Day because I do believe that the civil magistrate has the authority to call for a day of Thanksgiving to God within his realms, as did Queen Esther and Mordecai in Esther 9. I do give thanks to God on that day as enjoined by my civil governors.
---------- Post added at 03:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 PM ----------
If I might indulge the patience of the board for one more comment: Our brother above said that he was "tired of fighting these old battles." While I understand the sentiment, there are a few things that come to mind. First, our weariness or strength is not a good indicator of what is important. Second, while there are things not worth fighting for, remember that the accretions of men obtruding themselves into the worship service of the God is one of the foundational reasons for our separation from Rome (it's not *only* a Gospel issue) and many of us today see the clamoring for extra-Biblical additions to the worship of God as a return to those principles which led to those grand perversions. Remember "Rome wasn't built in a day", which is to say that apostasy from the truth takes place little by little, not all at once, and it begins with little sentimentalities. If a Church today declares that they're going to put on an "Easter Pageant" it does bind the consciences of their membership because according to our Church standards we are required to answer the call to worship as authoritative. If the Church then says, "OK, you don't have to come when we have an Easter Pageant, or a Christ-Mass cantata" then they begin tearing down the authoritative call to worship, and teach that sometimes worship is optional. I guess what I'm trying to say is first, that I too am weary of explaining the same things over and again several times a year to people when they come asking. But rarely in the history of men have important battles come at convenient times. Many times the weary soldiers of the King have had to "lace 'em up one more time" and ride to the sound of the guns. We don't get to choose whether or not we will engage in such battles--the Lord chooses the battles for us, and it is our duty to answer the call faithfully according to our places and stations.
Todd, if a church were to do this in lieu of ordinary worship, or as a part of the worship service, then yes I would have a problem. I have a problem with additions to Lord's Day worship---I don't have a problem with such a pageant being held during Sunday School, given that Sunday School does not fall under the RPW. Likewise, I do not take issue with tenebrae or Christmas Eve services as these are not ordinary Lord's Day worship and therefore are not binding on the conscience.
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
I can amen much of what you say here (being on the otherside of this issue), we should never abandon the good fight. This thread has taught me at least one thing. Is there any studies or books out there that address this issue form a contemporary perspective? And would deal specifically with the issues and unanswered questions that I mentioned before? If not than it is badly needed. I think it is only when we realize that we live in a different culture and set out to redevelop those arguments in this culture will we make much headway on this issue.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
I could very well be missing something, but is it even possible to attach religious significance to something without it becoming binding? To my mind, there seems something funny about doing such, though I have difficulty articulating what it is. Romans 14 may show it is possible to some extent, though of course, the weaker brethren are to become strong brethren eventually and leave such things aside, so perhaps Romans 14 does not show that.
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
Rev. Ruddell, I agree whole-heartedly with what you say concerning the accretions of men into worship and the direction they always tend to take us. I agree that every instance of this stuff, whether Easter, advent candles, lessons and carols services, etc. are all sentimentarian toe-dabbling in the Tiber. Were I given the authority I would abolish them immediately. But I don't have that authority. I am a member of a PCA Church that is by far the most doctrinally sound in my area. I have been a member since 1996, except for a hiatus of 6 years where I was 'erased' from the roll by a Session unwilling to pursue proper discipline if their position was valid, brought on by my raising this and other related issues. I've had quite enough of the heartache those battles entail, and their detrimentall affects upon my family what with broken relationships and animosities that arise. My Father has ordained that I am not qualified, as a divorced man, to occupy Church Office, and has set over me men who don't agree with you and me in these matters. My life is a miserable road as it is. Am I commiting a sin of ommission by laying aside these conflicts and trusting the Lord to convict those set over me when and how He sees fit? Is it sin for me to have learned the lesson that putting my trust in these men may in some matters prove unwise, but a thing I am called to do anyway? I try to think the best of Church Officers, including yourself, but I can count a good number of men who have occupied said Offices who have in the past taught me quasi-Federal Vision concepts, hold to evolution, left to start home churches, left to start their own 'independent presbyterian' (?!) churches, and even the PCA Pastor who baptized all 4 of my children has since repudiated his stance on the covenant and become a credo-baptist Pastor. I am no babe in the woods concerning these things. I trust them, and you, with a distinct level of reservation that experience has dictated to be necessary.
So while you, my beloved brother, may think it a Christian duty to fight such wars, to divide Churches, to wreak sorrow upon my family over discord with people they love, I will tell you it's not mine. Been there, done that, and bear the scars. I get to sit on the sidelines and let you official fellas duke it out, and say to my family that while we don't agree with them on every issue, we are called to love and submit to our Session, and that they will be the ones to answer for the error they promulgate - not us. I am not going to harass them for, nor am I going to leave my Church over, the fact that they celebrate Easter and Christmas. I providentially must spend the bulk of my time figuring out how to pay the electric bill and still afford to have a bad tooth pulled and pay my daughter's college tuition. Sniping at laymen may not be the solution, since from my perspective the failing has been most prevalent in those who have presumed to be teachers - the Officers of our Churches. Please go harangue them for their failures before turning your sights this way, brother. If you are as faithful as you imply, your efforts should bear much fruit.
So while you, my beloved brother, may think it a Christian duty to fight such wars, to divide Churches, to wreak sorrow upon my family over discord with people they love, I will tell you it's not mine. Been there, done that, and bear the scars. I get to sit on the sidelines and let you official fellas duke it out, and say to my family that while we don't agree with them on every issue, we are called to love and submit to our Session, and that they will be the ones to answer for the error they promulgate - not us. I am not going to harass them for, nor am I going to leave my Church over, the fact that they celebrate Easter and Christmas. I providentially must spend the bulk of my time figuring out how to pay the electric bill and still afford to have a bad tooth pulled and pay my daughter's college tuition. Sniping at laymen may not be the solution, since from my perspective the failing has been most prevalent in those who have presumed to be teachers - the Officers of our Churches. Please go harangue them for their failures before turning your sights this way, brother. If you are as faithful as you imply, your efforts should bear much fruit.
Yes. I find much edification in my church's observance of these times and seasons but I will not judge those who believe otherwise. I do not judge them to be less spiritual but would ask their indulgence in my weakness here. On this point I trust the judgment of my church that this is a good thing to observe, but I do not believe, nor, I think, do they, that this is a commandment binding on all believers.
Ok. In this case, then, you would agree that Sunday School times are not commanded and are therefore forbidden (they were a 19th-century invention) and therefore should be forbidden? Part of the trouble here is that the most that we can support from Scripture on the Sabbath is a) corporate worship b) abstention from ordinary labour aside from works of mercy and necessity in favour of devoting time to the Lord. How, then, would an "Easter Pageant" outside corporate worship not fall into the second category. If Sunday School would fall into the second category, then so, I think, would things of that nature.
Rev. Todd Ruddell
Puritan Board Junior
Dear Brad,
Your reply points up a most important consideration, which I tried to address in my post--that we pursue the truth in accord with our place and stations. Forgive me if I did not place enough emphasis upon your good point. However, I will say that the abuse of Church authority that you have described does not negate the proposition itself, which our Lord gave us, that He has placed the leadership of the Church in the hands of fallible men who will give account to the Great and Chief Shepherd. Ezekiel 34 is a passage with which I refresh myself often, that the Lord does call to account those shepherds who abuse His flock. As far as my own faithfulness is concerned, it is an easy matter to say that I fail in my duties, like we all do, and understand that the best of my efforts are imperfect and tainted with sin, and that, in Christ alone, is found acceptance of my person and services. I also understand the difficulty of being a layman or assistant pastor in a Church where I had strong disagreement with the rest of the leadership. I know what it means to long for another country. My great desire for you, for me, and all those who name the Name of Christ is that we depart from iniquity. And, dear brother, we know not the extent to which we are ill-affected by false worship. A friend of mine once said, "why did God cast off His ancient people? Because they refused to keep the first table of the Law." I think that's a good point. If we read of the 7 churches in Revelation 2-3 we see the Lord calling them to account for violations of the first table of the Law. Dear brother, worship issues (and if I read you correctly you agree with me) are egregious sins for which the Lord has cast off Churches, put people to death, even if the authorities of the day refused to do so, etc. Don't give up the fight for the purity of worship, dear sir! Pray for your elders, give them relevant materials, entreat them as fathers in the Lord, kindly, humbly. If they abuse you because you have acted righteously toward them, the Chief Shepherd will call them to account.
OK--I'm off to read Ezekiel 34 again. Please, my dear brother, I'm not after you. I want *all* who read to consider the abominable nature of the corruption of worship. The Lord Himself calls it abominable.
Your reply points up a most important consideration, which I tried to address in my post--that we pursue the truth in accord with our place and stations. Forgive me if I did not place enough emphasis upon your good point. However, I will say that the abuse of Church authority that you have described does not negate the proposition itself, which our Lord gave us, that He has placed the leadership of the Church in the hands of fallible men who will give account to the Great and Chief Shepherd. Ezekiel 34 is a passage with which I refresh myself often, that the Lord does call to account those shepherds who abuse His flock. As far as my own faithfulness is concerned, it is an easy matter to say that I fail in my duties, like we all do, and understand that the best of my efforts are imperfect and tainted with sin, and that, in Christ alone, is found acceptance of my person and services. I also understand the difficulty of being a layman or assistant pastor in a Church where I had strong disagreement with the rest of the leadership. I know what it means to long for another country. My great desire for you, for me, and all those who name the Name of Christ is that we depart from iniquity. And, dear brother, we know not the extent to which we are ill-affected by false worship. A friend of mine once said, "why did God cast off His ancient people? Because they refused to keep the first table of the Law." I think that's a good point. If we read of the 7 churches in Revelation 2-3 we see the Lord calling them to account for violations of the first table of the Law. Dear brother, worship issues (and if I read you correctly you agree with me) are egregious sins for which the Lord has cast off Churches, put people to death, even if the authorities of the day refused to do so, etc. Don't give up the fight for the purity of worship, dear sir! Pray for your elders, give them relevant materials, entreat them as fathers in the Lord, kindly, humbly. If they abuse you because you have acted righteously toward them, the Chief Shepherd will call them to account.
OK--I'm off to read Ezekiel 34 again. Please, my dear brother, I'm not after you. I want *all* who read to consider the abominable nature of the corruption of worship. The Lord Himself calls it abominable.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Philip,
The very fact that you are a member of a church that celebrates this is an attempt to bind your conscience in celebrating it too. If you didn't believe in celebrating these things, then you would be in some sense torn between submission to your session or submitting to the Lord. But as it is, the very fact of a congregation celebrating something not commanded in Scripture (adding religious significance to something) automatically makes it binding upon its membership. The church is acting in binding the conscience instead of allowing the Lord to bind the conscience with His Word.
The church is attempting to usurp the Lord's authority, and it drags its members (consciously and/or ignorantly) with them.
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
Probably because we don't view it the same way you do. To you it is automatically binding, to us it isn't until the Lord binds our conscience and we are compelled to go to another church that does not practice such things.
But let's take the converse: are you not also binding the conscience in forbidding such celebrations? It seems to me that if you say that the individual must not observe and must not attach significance to such things, you are thereby also binding his conscience. Further, it does not seem to me that the practice of preaching on the resurrection on a certain Lord's Day and altering the liturgy within reasonable bounds to fit this emphasis is in any way adding to the elements of worship.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
[EBAY][/EBAY]
In such a case, I am not the one binding the conscience but rather speaking God's Word. The Lord binds the conscience.
---------- Post added at 12:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 PM ----------
I am still a minister in the PCA because I have not been forced to do/say anything that is against my conscience. I don't bring charges because I am not currently in a position to so.
In such a case, I am not the one binding the conscience but rather speaking God's Word. The Lord binds the conscience.
---------- Post added at 12:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 PM ----------
.
I am still a minister in the PCA because I have not been forced to do/say anything that is against my conscience. I don't bring charges because I am not currently in a position to so.
Rev. Todd Ruddell
Puritan Board Junior
The conscience is not an arbitrary thing. The section in the WCF on conscience is very clear that to require something that the Lord has not required is binding the conscience. To forbid something in the worship of God that the Lord has not commanded is not binding the conscience. WCF 20.2:
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, in matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
Note the statement "or beside it". This puts away all extra-biblical stuff that passes for worship, and to obey such out of conscience betrays true liberty of conscience. The best work on this topic I have ever read is Samuel Rutherford's "Pretended Liberty of Conscience", which is the view espoused in WCF 20. It is not binding the conscience to forbid corrupt worship practices as a Church guide. Rather, it is to set the boundaries that the Lord Himself has set.
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, in matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
Note the statement "or beside it". This puts away all extra-biblical stuff that passes for worship, and to obey such out of conscience betrays true liberty of conscience. The best work on this topic I have ever read is Samuel Rutherford's "Pretended Liberty of Conscience", which is the view espoused in WCF 20. It is not binding the conscience to forbid corrupt worship practices as a Church guide. Rather, it is to set the boundaries that the Lord Himself has set.
Last edited:
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Rev. Ruddell- Status
Similar threads
- Locked