Upon what grounds did many of the Continental Reformed celebrate "the memory of the Lord's nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples" of which the Second Helvetic Confession (written by Heinrich Bullinger) said, "we approve of it highly"?

Turretin noted: "The question is not whether anniversary days may be selected on which either the nativity, or circumcision, or passion, or ascension of Christ, and similar mysteries of redemption, may be commemorated, or even on which the memory of some remarkable blessing may be celebrated. For this the orthodox think should be left to the liberty of the church. Hence some devote certain days to such festivity, not from necessity of faith, but from the counsel of prudence to excite more to piety and devotion. However, others, using their liberty, retain the Lord’s day alone, and in it, at stated times, celebrate the memory of the mysteries of Christ…we deny that those days are in themselves more holy than others; rather all are equal. If any sanctity is attributed to them, it does not belong to the time and the day, but to the divine worship. Thus, the observance of them among those who retain it, is only of positive right and ecclesiastical appointment; not, however, necessary from a divine precept".

NOTE: I don't wish to discuss whether they are right or wrong, I simply wish to understand their arguments.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

Hello Richard. Your quotation from Turretin expresses the main point, namely, that the church is freed from any Mosaic obligation to worship on feast days, but is freed to worship. So, the first reason is Christian liberty. Second, the example of the apostles in Acts is that they worshipped on more than just the Lord's Day. The history of the early church's daily services (think, Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom preaching daily) stems from this apostolic practice.

I will have an article in the January 2009 issue of American Theological Inquiry, which explains Lutheran adiaphora, but also scratches the surface of how that doctrine was appropriated by the Reformed in the area of feast days.

Blessings.

__________________
Rev. Daniel R. Hyde
Pastor, Oceanside United Reformed Church
www.oceansideurc.org
Carlsbad/Oceanside, California

Thanks for this. I read Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism earlier to see what he said on the 2nd and 4th commandments. Unfortunately he did not seem to deal with Christmas and Easter however he did lay out some general principles. I don't have a problem with Easter at all although I am still unsure of Christmas. Ursinus was good in pointing out that the Church can legislate ceremonies provided that they tend to piety, are not superstitious and are not forced upon people. I can go along with that.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

In the Dutch churches, the idea was, that as the people did not work on Christmas day, as well as days such as the day after Easter, Pentacost and Boxing Day, they might as well be in church worshipping, rather than partying with the world.

__________________
Bert Mulder
Elder of the First Protestant Reformed Church of Edmonton
Edmonton Alberta Canada

Should people not be working? Why not? God has appointed 52 holy days a year, that is all I need.

Personally, I would prefer people to party with the world than bring such inventions into God's house.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

I would add also I believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with Christians celebrating secular holidays.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairmount ARP Church
Student of Theology
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
My Blog

"Nothing is sweet to me without the enjoyment of Christ in it." -- Thomas Brooks

Can we worship God on Wednesday? If so then how does the RPW affect that? Well it will set what elements take place. It will not say that such a worship is wrong. How can it be wrong to celebrate the death of Christ on Friday and his resurrection on Sunday?

Was Israel wrong to celebrate harvest in the Autumn? No. Were they wrong to compose a hymn for this (Ps. 65)? No. Did they have any direct command from God to do this? No. Is it wrong for the church to celebrate harvest in the Autumn and sing Psalm 65?

What about Israel's annual celebration of the Purim and the Feast of Dedication/Feast of Lights? If it was right for Israel to celebrate their national deliverances how can it be wrong to celebrate the greatest deliverance the world has ever known, and will ever know, the birth of our Saviour annually?

And yes, I am thinking out loud.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

Richard

1. I am not saying it is wrong to worship God on a day other than a Sabbath, only that the whole day should not be set aside for such - i.e. be a festival day.

2. We celebrate the death and resurrection of Christ every Lord's Day, we do not need a sacred season apart from the Sabbath in which to do this.

3. Issues concerning the harvest are complex; firstly, how do you know that the harvest was not commanded, but the command was not explicitly recorded - i.e. it was something based on a legitimate historical example. Secondly, some would argue that a harvest celebration is a time of thanksgiving for God's providential goodness, not a holy day as such (though I remain unconvinced by this).

4. Again the Feast of Purim comes under the second part of point three - it is Biblical to have times of thanksgiving for national deliverances. However, it is not Biblical to set apart annual Holy Days to remember specific times in Christ's earthly life as we do this every Lord's Day. Should we have holy days to commemorate Christ's circumcision, partaking of the passover, baptism, temptation, transfiguration miracles etc, etc? If so, then we are the road to Romanism.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Daniel,

These are the same answers to the above questions I would have used. Now if I may attempt a rebut to tease out these arguments.

Two things come to mind here. (1) the biblical foundation for such an argument. Now I would assume we would go to Jeroboam in 1 Kings 12:32. Now it can be argued that the sin was that he set aside a holy day not commanded by YHWH. However, it is not certain. Indeed, one could argue that the sin was that YHWH had commanded his worship to be done as per his ceremonial laws whilst Jeroboam did his own thing, hence Jeroboam was worshipping YHWH in a way YHWH had forbidden. (2) If it is not wrong to worship God on a day other than a Sabbath then what is the maximum length of time that is allowed for worship on a day other than the sabbath? What about Turretin's point that that these days other than the Sabbath upon which the worship of God takes place are in themselves no more holy than others?

Whilst this is true it does not mean that a season set apart to focus on the worship of God, in a particular direction (e.g. the birth of the NT church), is wrong.

Indeed, the more I look into the Autumnal festivals of Israel the more I find the Puritan understanding of the RPW wanting. By which I mean, the Feast of Tabernacles was commanded, what takes place within it was but minimally. Hence we find the ceremony of drawing and pouring water. Not commanded hence, according to your rule, it should be forbidden. The Jews took it as being a tradition of Moses from Mount Sinai yet can you show me where it took place?

This argument just does not work, and it is really just an attempted defense of the principle from a very serious criticism. Not least, it is assuming what you are attempting to prove. But that aside; if the command was given and was not recorded then your argument breaks down. If Scripture is the sole rule of faith and we are unable to do that which has not been commanded by God then unless it has been recorded for us in Scripture there was no command (whether precept, historical example or inference).

If it was not wrong for Israel to set aside a time of thanksgiving for God's providential goodness at harvest then how can it be wrong for the church to set aside a time of thanksgiving for God's providential goodness at harvest?

Let's not forget, that Israel's celebration of the harvest took place during the Feast of Tabernacles which took place at the same time as the Canaanite new year festival! Note, this was not commanded and it was not wrong for them to do this. Just read the Psalms which were written to be used here and note that these were written for an uncommanded festival which then were used in the Temple to worship YHWH!

They gave thanks to YHWH for the harvest and prayed for rain for "at the feast of tabernacles judgment is made concerning the waters" (Mishnah Roshhashana). Upon which the Gemara says, "wherefore does the law say pour out water on the feast of tabernacles? Says the holy blessed God, pour out water before me, that the rains of the year may be blessed unto you.''

Is not YHWH worshipped at these thanksgivings for national deliverances?

Is it wrong to have a service to commemorate Christ's circumcision, partaking of the passover, baptism, temptation, transfiguration miracles etc, etc?

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

1. Part of Jeroboam's sin was inventing his own holy days. Doing whatever is not authorized in worship is forbidden.

2. The Sabbath is distinguished from other days in that the whole day is set aside for worship, while we may have worship on other days, we may not set apart holy days. How long we can engage in worship for is a cricumstance guided by the general rules of the Word - i.e. it does not unduly keep people from work or hinder other responsibilities.
I have not read Turretin's argument, and so I cannot comment.

No it is not. This is a straw-man of the RPW. The RPW does not only refer to explicit commands but legitimate historical examples (i.e. synagogue attendance). People who make this kind of criticism do not realize that every command did not have to be explicitly written down, as legitimate historical examples are Biblically sufficient to show us that something is acceptable. However, if we assert that we can worship God in a manner that he has not commanded, then you violate the analogy of Scripture, as it is as plain as day that divine authorization is necessary for a worship practice to be legitimate. Your instability on this issue surprises me, and suggests that you simply do not understand the principle properly.


Maybe it's not. This depends on whether or not it can be shown that the harvests were part of the OT feasts. If you believe harvest are legitimate, I would not have a problem with the methodology upon which you are using to justify this argument

Yes, but since that has divine authorization it is not a problem.
Yes. It is not authorized.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Hi Daniel, thanks for the response. If we could focus on the sin of Jeroboam for the immediate future.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Yes part of Jeroboam's sin was the invention of his own holy days however that does not mean doing whatever is not authorized in worship is forbidden. Why? Simply because YHWH has commanded thus:

"Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles" (Deuteronomy 16:16)

Hence the sin of Jeroboam stems from 1 Kings 12:27

"If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD [YHWH] at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah."

By setting up his own holy day in Bethel and Dan Jeroboam broke with an explicit command of God. Hence this is not a case of something being a sin because it was not commanded but rather it was sinful because it was a transgression of a divine law concerning the worship of YHWH. The sin was a. they did not worship on the feasts prescribed by YHWH (unleavened bread, weeks, tabernacles) and b. they did not worship in Jerusalem at the Temple of YHWH's presence.

I will respond to the below later:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie No it is not. This is a straw-man of the RPW. The RPW does not only refer to explicit commands but legitimate historical examples (i.e. synagogue attendance). People who make this kind of criticism do not realize that every command did not have to be explicitly written down, as legitimate historical examples are Biblically sufficient to show us that something is acceptable. However, if we assert that we can worship God in a manner that he has not commanded, then you violate the analogy of Scripture, as it is as plain as day that divine authorization is necessary for a worship practice to be legitimate. Your instability on this issue surprises me, and suggests that you simply do not understand the principle properly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie Maybe it's not. This depends on whether or not it can be shown that the harvests were part of the OT feasts. If you believe harvest are legitimate, I would not have a problem with the methodology upon which you are using to justify this argument

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

But where do those texts state that someone could not observe their own holy days in addition to the ones which God has given or even at places where the Lord has not appointed? Tell me, do fallen sinners get to dictate to the sovereign God how he can be worship acceptably (i.e. the NPW)? If so, then that is Arminianism in Christian worship.

The incident with Jeroboam shows us that Erastianism and a denial of the RPW often go together - hence Anglicans have traditionally been both.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

It should also be noted that the NPW involves imposing on people's consciences rites which God has not commanded. Thus it is an enemy of Christian liberty and a handmaid of arbitrary power, as the church may arbitrarily invent rites which God has not commanded and enforce them on its membership....Little wonder the Stuart Kings liked it.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

My apologies, I don't quite understand your point here. The text I provided is an explicit command from YHWH that Israel are to worship him three times a year in Jerusalem; at the feast of unleavened bread, the feast of weeks, and the feast of tabernacles. And really the 1 Kings text is refering to the feast of tabernacles. The point is that the sin of Jeroboam is not so much the creation of holy days but the perversion of the worship YHWH commanded. Instead of male Israelites going to Jerusalem to worship before YHWH at the Feast of Tabernacles, Jeroboam caused male Israelites to go to Bethel or Dan to worship YHWH at a feast immitating Tabernacles a month later. The sin of Jeroboam then, is a transgression of an explicit command of God.

The implication of this is that a rival worship is forbidden, not that we can only worship as he has commanded. If God commands us to worship him on Sunday then we must worship him on Sunday, but it does not therein follow that we must not worship him on Monday. That is, we must not transgress an explicit command of God as regarding his worship.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

This exegesis cannot hold, because if the NPW is correct then there is nothing to stop Jeroboam from appointing rival holy days in addition to what God has prescribe just as long as those holy days are not forbidden.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

If holy days are to be permitted, then why can we not have a holy day every day?

The bottom line is that holy days have two purposes:

1. To kill a Protestant and Puritan work ethic.

2. To regulate the importance of the Sabbath and promote its profanation.

Hence Popish nations tend to be full of idlers and Sabbath breakers.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

But what is going on with Jeroboam? He is not appointing rival holy days in addition to what God has prescribed rather he is appointing a rival day to the exclusion of true worship upon which days YHWH is to be worshipped by means of golden calves (direct transgression of 2nd Commandment). Jeroboam is not using a NPW, he is not saying to himself, "I can do whatever YHWH has not commanded" but rather "I know what YHWH has commanded but I will do this instead". YHWH commands the feast of Tabernacles in the seventh month. Jeroboam breaks that command. YHWH commands his worship to take place at Jerusalem. Jeroboam breaks that command.

It is not that Jeroboam has invented a new feast, the feast is the feast of tabernacles. The problem is that Jeroboam has changed the day in which that is to be kept and the location where it is to be kept. When we look in detail at Jeroboam's worship it is wholly against the worship that YHWH expressly commanded.

Jeroboam's day, not that prescribed by YHWH.
Jeroboam's location, not that prescribed by YHWH.
Jeroboam's priesthood, not that prescribed by YHWH.
Jeroboam's sacrifices to Golden Calves, expressly forbidden by YHWH.

The worship prescribed by Jeroboam is wholly set in opposition to the true worship of YHWH. It is not that Jeroboam has invented a new feast, the feast is the feast of tabernacles. The problem is that Jeroboam has changed the day in which that feast is to be kept as well as the location where it is to be kept, hence he has gone against the explicit command of YHWH.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

If something in the worship of God is not authorized, it is not commanded, and thus falls under divine condemnation. Holy days are not commanded, therefore, holy days are divinely condemned.

Really this issue does not need to be debated. What we need is repentance for daring to impose our man-made inventions upon the worship of God, and thus denying the sufficiency of Scripture for worship.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)