wturri78
Puritan Board Freshman
I think the issue really is the observance of Lent, Advent, etc. in the context of public worship, and not observance by individual Christians. I think Romans 14 would address the matter of private observance--one will call a day holy, and another will not, but both do so "unto the Lord" and according to conscience. Now, I think there's great benefit in Christians observing fasts, vigils, etc. corporately rather than just as individuals. Certainly the pattern of fasting for 40 days has historical and biblical precedent. Sooooooo...if a whole bunch of Christians corporately observe a 40 day period of prayer and fasting, I think you basically get Lent. Having said that, the question arises as to whether it's proper for the church to incorporate such a season in its public worship. To me that gets dicey. Our presbytery in the OPC has called for days of fasting and prayer before, though these weren't mandated or reflected in the Lord's day worship. I would think that a denomination could observe something like Lent without violating Scripture. If it were observed as part of worship, though, it immediately would create a situation in which someone who doesn't wish to observe it for reasons of conscience would basically be excluded from the corporate worship.
So I would say that individuals can observe fasts, vigils, Lenten seasons, or whatever if these serve to strengthen them spiritually and bring order into their spiritual lives. I'm not so sure about a church observing this formally. I'm certain that to require such observance, ala Rome or the East, as "holy days of obligation" goes far beyond Scripture and in fact violates Romans 14 and a host of others.
As a last thought, I believe the practice of observing formal feast days, seasons, etc. was part of the larger throwback of the church toward the Old Covenant structure, which went together with moving back toward a sacerdotal priesthood, keeping Eucharistic elements in a "tabernacle," etc. I think the NT is pretty clear that to go back to the old system is to return to a time before Christ had come, and therefore to fall from grace and impose upon yourself a yoke of slavery again. Whenever justification is given to these things from Catholic apologists etc., it frequently finds precedent in the Old Testament. Why return to slavery when you're given freedom? Why return to shadows when you've been given the fulfillment?
So I would say that individuals can observe fasts, vigils, Lenten seasons, or whatever if these serve to strengthen them spiritually and bring order into their spiritual lives. I'm not so sure about a church observing this formally. I'm certain that to require such observance, ala Rome or the East, as "holy days of obligation" goes far beyond Scripture and in fact violates Romans 14 and a host of others.
As a last thought, I believe the practice of observing formal feast days, seasons, etc. was part of the larger throwback of the church toward the Old Covenant structure, which went together with moving back toward a sacerdotal priesthood, keeping Eucharistic elements in a "tabernacle," etc. I think the NT is pretty clear that to go back to the old system is to return to a time before Christ had come, and therefore to fall from grace and impose upon yourself a yoke of slavery again. Whenever justification is given to these things from Catholic apologists etc., it frequently finds precedent in the Old Testament. Why return to slavery when you're given freedom? Why return to shadows when you've been given the fulfillment?