Xmas is almost upon us again...you need to watch this...read this...

[matt01]

I love Christmastime!

I am looking forward to the season. Hopefully will be able to get the tree set up on Saturday.

 

[MW]

No presents or honey baked ham for you! lol

That's the spirit!

 

[earl40]

Just a quick question. Would most that adhere to RPW believe that it would be a sin to attend a service on any day besides Sunday, which would of course include Dec. 25th? If so is this not taking the narrative portions of scripture and applying didactic applications?

I am simply asking because I do believe Sunday is the proper day to worship and only ask because I could imaging the early church (the gathering of the believers) on some other days occasionally along with Sunday.

 

[Afterthought]

Absolutely, it is not sacrilege, but then the only option is to abandon the day. Relatively, however, where an individual implicitly accepts the authority to appoint the day by his own observance of it, he effectively commits sacrilege because the authority which appointed the day did so for a religious purpose.

Thank you. Those I know who celebrate the day religiously often sharply get upset with the pagans and unbelievers who celebrate the day irreligiously; I never thought about it in those terms before, but the thing that upsets them could be the sacrilege commited by unbelievers: they are upset by the hatred of Christ that pagans show by their rejection of the religious elements of the festival. One prominent reason pagans and unbelievers celebrate the day irreligiously (if they celebrate it at all) is because they hate Christ, and indeed, even get offended at calling the day "Christmas"; it seems it might be encouraging them in that true sacrilege of rejecting Christ by saying, "You're right. Christ shouldn't be in Christmas, so it should only be celebrated irreligiously, if at all", which, among other things, doesn't seem to be acting in a loving manner to them (edit: although actually, I wonder if the same thing could be charged against those who do not celebrate the day; the charge being they encourage unbelievers that do not observe it).

Having said all that, I may almost have your argument, but not quite. I think you are saying that if a person celebrates the day in a secular way, one is stating by one's actions that the day was given by proper authority. Then, because the day was intended for religious purposes, one's actions then deny that the day should be celebrated religiously. But because the person accepted the authority of the day, which purpose was religious, one is thwarting the purpose of the day one already recognized as legitimately established. But then I get stuck here, and have difficulty continuing the argument to the conclusion of "They are therefore effectively committing sacrilege." The best conclusion I can reach from the above is that such a person is stating that the day had no authority to be established religiously, but insofar as it is irreligious, the day has proper authority.

I'm also having difficulty understanding why if, "absolutely, it is not sacrilege", the only option is to abandon the day. Would you be willing to elaborate on that a bit? And finally, what is the reason that we should care about effectively commiting sacrilege, considering that absolutely speaking, it is not sacrilege anymore than not fasting during Ramadan is sacrilege (absolutely speaking)?

If your argument is good, there is a rather interesting insight connecting to the comments I made earlier in this post: "You can't take Christ out of Christmas" is both the reason to not celebrate it religiously and to not celebrate it irreligiously; indeed, the non-celebration of the day on this basis really does become a testimony against both kinds of observances of it, as you mentioned in your initial post.

Just a quick question. Would most that adhere to RPW believe that it would be a sin to attend a service on any day besides Sunday, which would of course include Dec. 25th? If so is this not taking the narrative portions of scripture and applying didactic applications?

I am simply asking because I do believe Sunday is the proper day to worship and only ask because I could imaging the early church (the gathering of the believers) on some other days occasionally along with Sunday.

That's something I'd also be interested in seeing an answer to. The two answers I can think of and/or have seen are that (1) We are told in Hebrews to exhort one another daily, so there's authority for meeting outside of the Lord's Day (though this argument seems to prove too much; namely, that we should all meet every day), and (2) time of meetings is a circumstance of worship, and so may be done when desired according to the general rules of the word and Christian prudence; hence, other meetings may be held at any time during the week, though the meeting on the Lord's Day is mandatory because in that case, the time is not completely a circumstance (cause a specific day is commanded); the trouble I have with this argument is that, I'm not sure how a meeting of public worship can be non-mandatory, given the authority of the elders, though I suppose if religious instruction outside of the public worship setting is justified, it would be justified on the same grounds as Sunday School is justified (and so such non-public-worship meetings for religious instruciton/prayer/praise would seem to be okay during the week).

 

[jandrusk]

You can celebrate the holiday, but I do not think you have any biblical basis for it. My own personal view is that it is simply a time to reflect on the goodness of God in the gift of His Son our Lord Jesus Christ. There is nothing biblically holy about December 25th. The only "holy-days" that I recogize is the Sabbath as well as the sacrements.

 

[iainduguid]

There seems some confusion here over whether churches that follow the RPW can appoint special days for worship services.
[A separate pet peeve: the RPW in itself says nothing for or against any particular worship practice: it merely says that we must have positive warrant for our worship practices from the Scriptures. To determine what practices are or are not Biblical requires actual exegesis of the Biblical passages. But I digress...]

According to the 1645 Westminster Directory of Public Worship “Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued. Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for publick fasting and thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispositions of God’s providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people”.

So, according to the Westminster divines, Christmas and Easter are out, along with the vast number of saints days that had completely overrun the calendar in their day. [the equivalent in our own day are all of the special Sundays in the evangelical calendar, such as "Sanctity of Life Sunday", etc. However, they believed that the elders (or even the state) could appoint a day of fasting or thanksgiving in response to particular acts of God's providence. Thus, according to Horton Davies, the Puritans in England held annual services celebrating the discovery of Guy Fawkes plot to blow up parliament every November 5th, a date that has no direct Biblical warrant but rather was one that flowed from a reading of God's acts of providence. So the Westminster divines would have been quite happy in principle with the state appointing a day for Thanksgiving, or perhaps a day of fasting every September 11th. The Biblical principle they though they were following was that in the OT, when God blessed his people, the kings appointed times of thanksgiving, and in times of trial, they called a fast.

Not all of us would be comfortable with the exegetical continuity that they saw between Israel and Britain (America) as nations in covenant with God, yet the PCA directory of worship has similar provision for the state to call the church to a day of prayer or praise in response to particular national experiences.

The question is whether the argument can be pressed further on Biblical grounds. The feast of Purim is not commanded by God, but is instituted by Esther in response to God's providential redemption of his people. Likewise, though not part of the canonical text, Hannukah, which Jesus appears to be celebrating in some sense in the NT. And if Christians are free to gather at any time to worship God and give thanks for his acts of providence, why may a group of Christians in a particular place not agree to meet on a particular day to celebrate his acts of redemption. To be sure, they will want to protect the consciences of those who may not feel that same freedom, and so it should be clear that this is not a service at which God's people are required to be present. But can I only give thanks for the incarnation on a Sunday? Must I avoid December 25th just because the culture in which I live has attached confused ideas to that date? It would seem that these are matters of wisdom in which different Christians (and different sessions of elders) may reach different conclusions, while still acting appropriately within the bounds of Biblical truth.

 

[CuriousNdenver]

I tend towards total rejection of the holiday. I believe that there is an appropriate celebration of Christmas, but I tend toward thinking rather negatively of it because of the way our culture celebrates it. Materialism and hedonism are great enemies of the Christian faith, and both of these tend to be not only practiced but encouraged around the holiday season. Black Friday is an example of how our culture makes holidays about the purchasing of material goods. Even the giving of gifts to others, what ought to be reflective of the love we were given by Christ, has become about finding a great deal and getting the perfect material thing to please someone you care about. If there were ever a time for a Christian to begin to question their whole-hearted acceptance of "free market enterprise" the holiday season is that time. This is not a socialist position I am crafting, but rather a support for a certain kind of removal from embracing that which the world embraces. The birth of Christ can and should be celebrated always, and not in a fashion that co-opts pagan superstitions, values, and pleasures.

All this to say: If we are, as Christians, to celebrate Christmas, then we ought to do so with great caution.

Well said.

I have wondered what it would be like, if instead of giving gifts to our family and friends, we used the money to give to missions and the poor.

 

[Jackie Kaulitz]

Great info, Iain. It's good to know where the Divines stood on the issue and also about adding special days.

 

[bookslover]

Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday? Do you mean a formal, official ecclesiastical holiday? Not anywhere I know of. Certainly not in the United States...

 

[davenporter]

I will be celebrating the social-day of Christmas with family and worship the Lord Jesus Christ in family worship as every other day of the year, although I would not find a focus on his incarnation to be inappropriate. I have no qualms about enjoying gift-giving and other adiaphorous societal traditions. I probably won't be attending a Christmas service at church but I won't condemn those who do.

 

[Goodcheer68]

Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday.

If it is simply an ecclesiastical holiday, and not biblically mandated couldn't one just celebrate it however they choose then?
Why is Christmass/Xmass wrong if you don't celebrate it as a holy day? Could not one look at it as a time to get together with family and have a happy jolly time. I am willing to listen.

Thanks,

Patrick

 

[JonathanHunt]

I have to say, this 'debate' took longer to start up than in recent years, when it has started about Reformation Day!

I'll be preaching on 'Christmas Day'. I'd honestly rather that I wasn't, but Rome was not built in a day (perhaps an unfortunate phrase) and it behooves us to exercise great care and love when we address the whole subject with the vast majority of sincere Christians who do not understand where we are coming from.

 

[OPC'n]

I agree that all things should be taught in humility and grace in kindness and gentleness in understanding and patience but also in truth and boldness. Not fearing either side (the reformed nor the unreformed person), and thus staying balanced in all things. Throwing out superstition on both sides of the aisle. Although xmas should be kept out of the church as a holy day, the birth of Christ is taught in the Bible and is an example of just one teaching that is to be taught. I wonder if pastors could find a day that comes closest to the time when Christ was actually born and preach about his incarnation at that time? And do the same for his death and resurrection? These subjects are very important to preach about and I think it would be a good thing to do so near the time they actually happened.

 

[MW]

Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday.

If it is simply an ecclesiastical holiday, and not biblically mandated couldn't one just celebrate it however they choose then?

We are Christians and we are Protestants. As Christians we have a duty to confess Christ before men, and as Protestants we have a duty to protest against the corruptions of Christianity. Now, either the church has power to appoint such a day or it doesn't. If it does, then the Christian has a responsibility to join with the church as it professes Christ before the world on that day. If it doesn't have such power, and it is an imposition on the faith and practice of God's people, the true church should "PROTEST" against it.

 

[Tim]

I think it would be a good thing to do so near the time they actually happened

Why?

 

[Afterthought]

Hello, Mr. Winzer. I don't know if you had planned on keeping up with this thread or not, but if you did, please feel free to ignore my reply. It looks like there's plenty of other things for you to reply to, should you so choose, and if you replied to them, my own question would probably be answered as well. But further, my own activity may soon drop off for a little while; I might still be able to read threads, but I might not be replying to posts. Regardless, I know I'll keep thinking about that argument you made until I at least can see what you were getting at. And for the record again, I too agree the day should be abandoned, I just wasn't sure whether your particular argument would do for such, because I didn't (and still don't) quite understand it yet. Thank you for the interaction!

(edit: Though I must mention, that I do understand your argument from the meaning of "Protestant.")

 

[timmopussycat]

Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday.

If it is simply an ecclesiastical holiday, and not biblically mandated couldn't one just celebrate it however they choose then?

We are Christians and we are Protestants. As Christians we have a duty to confess Christ before men, and as Protestants we have a duty to protest against the corruptions of Christianity. Now, either the church has power to appoint such a day or it doesn't. If it does, then the Christian has a responsibility to join with the church as it professes Christ before the world on that day. If it doesn't have such power, and it is an imposition on the faith and practice of God's people, the true church should "PROTEST" against it.

This argument too, may hinge on an equivocation. For before we are Protestants and before we are Christians we are subject to the teaching of Scripture on the nature of "the church". If "the church" is all "elders" (presbuteroi) of all Protestant churches meeting in council and they set forth a teaching proving their case that such meetings are unscriptural, either from explicit Scriptural statement or GNC deductions from the same, that's one thing. If the "elders" are, as pastoral leaders of individual local churches or Protestant denominations, setting out to capitalize on opportunities presented the secularly instituted holidays as they see best, (while premising that the scheduling of such meetings are not Scripturally prohibited but adiaphora), that's another thing. If the former situation obtained, your argument would be correct, but it is the latter situation that obtains today as those arguing for Divine prohibition of such use have failed to present a case that convinces most of the Protestant church that the former alternative is correct.

 

[JohnGill]

Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday. Neither Christ nor Mass can be taken out of it. You might change the "Christ" to "X," but it still stands for "Christ." You might choose to remove all religious significance in the holiday and celebrate it irreligiously, but then you join with pagans in failing to honour a religious festival, which is sacrilege. The only possible option for those who maintain the regulative principle of worship is to abandon Christmas and raise a testimony against its practice by professing Christians and pagans alike. "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry," 1 Corinthians 10:14. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols," 1 John 5:21.

Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday.

If it is simply an ecclesiastical holiday, and not biblically mandated couldn't one just celebrate it however they choose then?

We are Christians and we are Protestants. As Christians we have a duty to confess Christ before men, and as Protestants we have a duty to protest against the corruptions of Christianity. Now, either the church has power to appoint such a day or it doesn't. If it does, then the Christian has a responsibility to join with the church as it professes Christ before the world on that day. If it doesn't have such power, and it is an imposition on the faith and practice of God's people, the true church should "PROTEST" against it.

Thanks for expressing my sentiments so well Rev. Winzer. And I hope you are doing much better and the Lord allows you to tarry for years to come.

 

[OPC'n]

I think it would be a good thing to do so near the time they actually happened

Why?

Because I think it's important to set aside a time in church to talk about what he did for us on these subjects specifically and in detail...not only spiritually but historically. So teaching us historical details that we might not be aware of if there are some. The Bible set aside some pages to speak of these things in a historical fashion, so I don't see why we can't in church.

 

[Tim]

Yes, the Bible includes the events of the incarnation and these will be preached on in due time.

But you said it would be good to do so near the time [of the year] it actually happened. Why?

 

[Tyrese]

Yes, the Bible includes the events of the incarnation and these will be preached on in due time.

But you said it would be good to do so near the time [of the year] it actually happened. Why?

I don't believe Jesus was born December 25 simply because the Bible doesn't say so. So your right if you would say we should touch on the incarnation all year around depending on when your church gets to that topic. But if People want to focus on this topic around this time of the year no matter what their perspective why cant they? Im sensing some Christians do nothing for Christmas not because they find no biblical warrant to do so, but because they really feel they are not at liberty.

 

[Tim]

Im sensing some Christians do nothing for Christmas not because they find no biblical warrant to do so, but because they really feel they are not at liberty.

This is the same thing. If there is no Biblical warrant, we are not at liberty.

 

[Tyrese]

Im sensing some Christians do nothing for Christmas not because they find no biblical warrant to do so, but because they really feel they are not at liberty.

This is the same thing. If there is no Biblical warrant, we are not at liberty.

I mean I get what your saying. I guess what I'm asking is are we as Christians not allowed to celebrate the incarnation of Christ? Even if its on Dec 25th? I don't believe that anyone has the right to command anyone to do it (which is why I completely respect your views).

 

[OPC'n]

Yes, the Bible includes the events of the incarnation and these will be preached on in due time.

But you said it would be good to do so near the time [of the year] it actually happened. Why?

Near the month not year since we can't go back in time lol. My reasoning is what I posted. The only reason why some ppl want it kept out of the churches is bc it's associated with xmas which i agree with, but we shouldn't get so superstitious that we can't find out when Christ was actually born and preach about his birth both spiritually and historically....same with his death and resurrection. I understand that sermons speak of this all year but the main topic isn't about these two subjects in detail and with also a historical inclusion.

 

[Tyrese]

Yes, the Bible includes the events of the incarnation and these will be preached on in due time.

But you said it would be good to do so near the time [of the year] it actually happened. Why?

Near the month not year since we can't go back in time lol. My reasoning is what I posted. The only reason why some ppl want it kept out of the churches is bc it's associated with xmas which i agree with, but we shouldn't get so superstitious that we can't find out when Christ was actually born and preach about his birth both spiritually and historically....same with his death and resurrection. I understand that sermons speak of this all year but the main topic isn't about these two subjects in detail and with also a historical inclusion.

I wouldn't say they are being superstitious. I would say it seems they are being overly strict were God hasn't been. But they really don't have to celebrate Christmas if they don't want being that its not in the Bible.

 

[Tim]

Near the month not year since we can't go back in time lol. My reasoning is what I posted. The only reason why some ppl want it kept out of the churches is bc it's associated with xmas which i agree with, but we shouldn't get so superstitious that we can't find out when Christ was actually born and preach about his birth both spiritually and historically....same with his death and resurrection. I understand that sermons speak of this all year but the main topic isn't about these two subjects in detail and with also a historical inclusion.

I am sorry, I must not have made my question clear. Let me try again.

When you say that it is good to focus on the incarnation at that particular time of year, you are saying that it would be prudent to establish a regularity of this focus, that is repeated every 365 days. In other words, you are promoting the following two principles:

- focus: Christ's incarnation
- frequency: once per calendar year

My question is, why this focus? why this frequency? Where does this come from? Why is the incarnation, above all other events (ignoring Easter debates for the time being) to be given this pattern?

My suggestion is that we already have the following two foci, which are entirely sufficient:

Sabbath:

- focus: Christ, in general*
- frequency: once every seven days

Lord's Supper

- focus: Christ's death
- frequency: regularly, some say weekly

*or, if we consider that it this is on the first day of the week, the resurrection might be a key focus

 

[Miss Marple]

It seems like there are two issues on this thread:

1. Should the church have an official day, or a special Sunday, with particular Christmas attachments like preaching on the nativity, a tree in the lobby, a gift exchange, pointsettas in the foyer?

2. Should a Christian refuse to decorate his home, purchase or make Christmas presents, have a special Christmas dinner, go to a Christmas parade, go Christmas caroling, wrap and give gifts to others, or decorate a Christmas tree?

I think #1 is pretty well answered by the regulative principle. But I think Christian liberty completely applies to #2, and many of the responses on this board seem to be comingling the two.

 

[Afterthought]

1. Should the church have an official day, or a special Sunday, with particular Christmas attachments like preaching on the nativity, a tree in the lobby, a gift exchange, pointsettas in the foyer?

2. Should a Christian refuse to decorate his home, purchase or make Christmas presents, have a special Christmas dinner, go to a Christmas parade, go Christmas caroling, wrap and give gifts to others, or decorate a Christmas tree?

I see a few more issues than that in this thread (though there are plenty more issues concerning these topics that have not come up in this thread yet). There's the difference between the celebration of a holiday/participation in it, and the making use of a day on which a holiday falls. Similarly, there's the difference between celebrating/participating in the holiday, and happening to do some things on the day that by pure accident appear to be celebrating the day, though they are not (to use an example from a past thread, there's a difference between happening to fast during Lent and fasting to celebrate/participate in Lent). There's the issue of Church authority: whether it has authority to appoint regular days of thanksgiving (or fasting) for works of Redemption or Providence, and whether it can call non-mandatory services. There's the issue of religious importance: whether it is possible to attach religious importance to something without binding the conscience of oneself and/or others.

And more pertinent to the two issues you brought up: there's the issue of whether the secular parts can be celebrated, given the ecclesiastical nature of the day and that we are Protestant Christians; that is, the issue of whether there can be such a separation between the two aspects of the day as you brought up such that Protestants can celebrate one while abandoning and testifying against the other. (And Josh also somewhat brought up the issue of putting away monuments of idolatry)

 

[matt01]

Christmas parades...

Liberty. Enjoyed one with the kids this morning.

 

[OPC'n]

Near the month not year since we can't go back in time lol. My reasoning is what I posted. The only reason why some ppl want it kept out of the churches is bc it's associated with xmas which i agree with, but we shouldn't get so superstitious that we can't find out when Christ was actually born and preach about his birth both spiritually and historically....same with his death and resurrection. I understand that sermons speak of this all year but the main topic isn't about these two subjects in detail and with also a historical inclusion.

I am sorry, I must not have made my question clear. Let me try again.

When you say that it is good to focus on the incarnation at that particular time of year, you are saying that it would be prudent to establish a regularity of this focus, that is repeated every 365 days. In other words, you are promoting the following two principles:

- focus: Christ's incarnation
- frequency: once per calendar year

My question is, why this focus? why this frequency? Where does this come from? Why is the incarnation, above all other events (ignoring Easter debates for the time being) to be given this pattern?

My suggestion is that we already have the following two foci, which are entirely sufficient:

Sabbath:

- focus: Christ, in general*
- frequency: once every seven days

Lord's Supper

- focus: Christ's death
- frequency: regularly, some say weekly

*or, if we consider that it this is on the first day of the week, the resurrection might be a key focus

Normally, a preacher will say something like this, "Because of the sins of mankind, God in his infinite wisdom decided to come in flesh that we might be justified...." and so on. But they don't really talk about just the verses of his conception, his birth, and other events surrounding it in a detailed historical account making it one of the main topics along with the reason for his coming. I don't see the problem in doing this.