Protestants and Lent

[Berean]

Anyone who went to Catholic grade school in the 50's or 60's should remember "buying pagan babies" during lent. You'd save up your pocket change and then give it to the nun or teacher who sent it to the "Pontifical Association of the Holy Childhood" to buy pagan babies (they later changed it to "adopt"). Then you'd get a certificate (can be found online with a 2C violation image) "...as a souvenir of the Ransom and Baptism of an adopted Pagan Baby named..."

The same Holy Childhood organization sold the RC version of Christmas Seals which we had to peddle on the streets and to relatives.

I think this is one of the most insane sentences I've ever read. Does the RC really do these things???!

Which sentence was that, Craig? I don't know if they still do these things, but they were doing them in the 60's.
Edited evidence:

 

[Augusta]

Lent and other man-made holidays or holy seasons are violations of the 4th and 2nd Commandments, and are likewise Judaizing, by observing "days and times and seasons." If Paul feard for the Galatians for observing such beggardly elements which God HAD ordained, how much more those that never entered into God's mind?

I just read Galatians and had that EXACT same thought. They were ordained by God but they were beggarly in comparison to Christ and all his benefits.

 

[itsreed]

Maybe an answer to the original question:

There has been a growing unease on the part of many Evangelicals with the loose "anything goes" approach to ministry in their churches. Couple that with shallow teaching on both the utter depravity of man and the utter sufficiency of Christ, and you've got a formula for the pursuit of "fleshy" efforts.

Lent, with its sound biblical roots (a faith practrice of "fasting" for the sake of seeking Christ's formation in life), and the lack of any degree of historical and doctrinal shrewdness, and one ends up with a return to Galatianized slavery.

 

[Philip]

Lent, with its sound biblical roots (a faith practrice of "fasting" for the sake of seeking Christ's formation in life), and the lack of any degree of historical and doctrinal shrewdness, and one ends up with a return to Galatianized slavery.

One ends up with that only if one views it as normative for all believers. In an RC or EO context, you are correct that this is exactly what Paul was speaking against. However, if one takes it as a matter of personal devotional practice no holier than anyone else's, then it may be useful.

 

[Ivan]

No observance of lent here. I am preaching a series of sermons on Psalm 51. Last Sunday I preached about the events that caused the writing of that Psalm.

 

[Curt]

I'll take any opportunity I can get to teach about repentance, without binding anyone's conscience regarding the ritual aspects of the occasion.

 

[Ivan]

I'll take any opportunity I can get to teach about repentance, without binding anyone's conscience regarding the ritual aspects of the occasion.

The "thank you" option wasn't available with this post...anyway...I agree...Thank you!

 

[Marrow Man]

No observance of lent here. I am preaching a series of sermons on Psalm 51. Last Sunday I preached about the events that caused the writing of that Psalm.

That is good idea for a sermon series. I just might have to steal that in the future.

 

[Ivan]

No observance of lent here. I am preaching a series of sermons on Psalm 51. Last Sunday I preached about the events that caused the writing of that Psalm.

That is good idea for a sermon series. I just might have to steal that in the future.

Go for it. I love sermon series.

 

[ooguyx]

Thanks for the great discussion. I am glad to learn from the efforts of men more humble than I.

 

[jrdnoland]

I agree with what you all are saying, but my mind goes back to 2 Thessalonians 2:15; especially the part about traditions by word of mouth. If a RC uses that to support "traditions" what is the reformed defense?

 

[Blue Dog]

Lent is just a time in Christian tradition when folks do some additional "fasting". Sometimes I do and some times I don't. If one has a problem with the "Christian Calendar" like the season of Lent and Advent, then they definately should not ascribe to the "holy days" of Easter and Christmas. In my opinion there is no other Holy Day than the Lord's Day; but I also believe that there is nothing wrong with focusing on certain aspects of Christ's ministry and sacrifice during certain times of the year, as long as it is not mandated by the Church nor participated in an unsacrifical and feign manner.

ito

 

[py3ak]

I agree with what you all are saying, but my mind goes back to 2 Thessalonians 2:15; especially the part about traditions by word of mouth. If a RC uses that to support "traditions" what is the reformed defense?

Jeff, you might want to start another thread on this point, as it would take us pretty far afield. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 gives no countenance to the papists, because the content of the tradition, whether oral or written, is simply apostolic teaching, which is preserved for us in the NT. So John Gill on this place:

....these doctrines, ordinances, and rules of discipline were communicated to them, both by word of mouth, when the apostles were in person among them, and by writing afterwards to them; for what the apostles delivered in the ministry of the word to the churches, they sent them in writing, that they might be a standing rule of faith and practice; so that this does not in the least countenance the unwritten traditions of the Papists; and since these were what were taught them, “viva voce”, and they received them from the mouth of the apostles, or by letters from them, or both, it became them to hold and retain them fast, and not let them go, either with respect to doctrine or practice.

The papist would have to establish, A. that these oral traditions were something other than what was written down (in the face of the NT representations that the Apostles' preaching and writing transmitted the same teaching), B. that these oral traditions have been preserved outside the NT. They cannot maintain either claim, let alone both.

 

[jrdnoland]

I agree with what you all are saying, but my mind goes back to 2 Thessalonians 2:15; especially the part about traditions by word of mouth. If a RC uses that to support "traditions" what is the reformed defense?

Jeff, you might want to start another thread on this point, as it would take us pretty far afield. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 gives no countenance to the papists, because the content of the tradition, whether oral or written, is simply apostolic teaching, which is preserved for us in the NT. So John Gill on this place:

....these doctrines, ordinances, and rules of discipline were communicated to them, both by word of mouth, when the apostles were in person among them, and by writing afterwards to them; for what the apostles delivered in the ministry of the word to the churches, they sent them in writing, that they might be a standing rule of faith and practice; so that this does not in the least countenance the unwritten traditions of the Papists; and since these were what were taught them, “viva voce”, and they received them from the mouth of the apostles, or by letters from them, or both, it became them to hold and retain them fast, and not let them go, either with respect to doctrine or practice.

The papist would have to establish, A. that these oral traditions were something other than what was written down (in the face of the NT representations that the Apostles' preaching and writing transmitted the same teaching, B. that these oral traditions have been preserved outside the NT. They cannot maintain either claim, let alone both.

Thanks, Ruben; you explained it quite well and it makes sense to me. If anyone wants to use the idea to start another thread, please do so.

 

[AVT]

I was a Roman Catholic but have departed from the practice of Lent. Now that I have the Holy Spirit, conviction of sins
and the need to repent is a day to day event.

I only use the Ten Commandments to teach and guide me as to what is right and wrong.

We don't worship days, we worship God. The truth made me free indeed...and I eat pork barbecue during Lent.

 

[py3ak]

Thanks, Ruben; you explained it quite well and it makes sense to me. If anyone wants to use the idea to start another thread, please do so.

You're welcome, Jeff. Glad I could help.

 

[reformedminister]

I gave up smokeless tobacco (snuff) for Lent. I have been hooked on it for about four years. It has been two weeks and I don't miss it a bit. The first couple of days were a little rough. Of course, when Lent is over I don't plan on ever touching the stuff again. It is a "nasty" habit and I hate it.

 

[Andres]

I gave up smokeless tobacco (snuff) for Lent. I have been hooked on it for about four years. It has been two weeks and I don't miss it a bit. The first couple of days were a little rough. Of course, when Lent is over I don't plan on ever touching the stuff again. It is a "nasty" habit and I hate it.

So then didn't you just give up the tobacco period? I certainly commend the fact you have dropped this habit, but was Lent really neccessary for it to happen?

 

[reformedminister]

I gave up smokeless tobacco (snuff) for Lent. I have been hooked on it for about four years. It has been two weeks and I don't miss it a bit. The first couple of days were a little rough. Of course, when Lent is over I don't plan on ever touching the stuff again. It is a "nasty" habit and I hate it.

So then didn't you just give up the tobacco period? I certainly commend the fact you have dropped this habit, but was Lent really neccessary for it to happen?

Lent is not necessary to fast either. Most of the time I fast, it is not during Lent. I felt compelled during this Lenten season to give up a nasty and carnal habit for good. I think Lent can be what you make of it. This particular Lenten season for me has been a time to deal with an addictive habit and a point of victory over the flesh.