Thread: Continental Reformed and Festivals

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.

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.

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BertMulder

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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

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.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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

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

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,

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.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

3. Issues concerning the harvest are complex;

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?

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

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).

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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).

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.''

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

Is not YHWH worshipped at these thanksgivings for national deliverances?

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

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

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; rather all days are equal?

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.

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).

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.

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?

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

Is not YHWH worshipped at these thanksgivings for national deliverances?

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

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

Yes. It is not authorized.

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

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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?

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.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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?

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

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.

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. Lev. 10:1-2

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.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

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.

You do not seem to realize that as soon as you add to what God commands in worship you automatically detract from what He has commanded. Hence, people will say "yes God has told us to sing psalms, but since we are not forbidden to sing hymns we can do that instead." Moreover, since he was not expressly forbidden from changing the location, then he was perfectly justified in doing so if one accepts this liturgical antinomian hermenutic. Yes, the people were told to worship in the place that God appointed, but since they were not explicitly forbidden from going elsewhere, then, according to the NPW, they could. Jeroboam could easily have reasoned that since there was nothing forbidding him from appointing Dan and Beersheba as holy places, then he was entitled to move the feast to those locations.

Enough of this double-talk; the Scriptures explicitly tell us that the whole Jeroboam style of worship was wrong because he had invented it:

Jeroboam ordained a feast on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the feast that was in Judah, and offered sacrifices on the altar. So he did at Bethel, sacrificing to the calves that he had made. And at Bethel he installed the priests of the high places which he had made. So he made offerings on the altar which he had made at Bethel on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, in the month which he had devised in his own heart. And he ordained a feast for the children of Israel, and offered sacrifices on the altar and burned incense. 1 Kings 12:32-33

The main thrust of this passage is that Jeroboam took it upon himself to ordain things in the worship of God without authorization from God. Those who think they have the ability to invent holy days and sacred seasons fall into the same category. Their worship is something which they have devised from their own heart, it is not what God has sovereignly commanded. It is the height of arrogance to think that we can invent rites, ceremonies and festivals which are pleasing to God when He has not authorized them.

We can look at that text (Lev. x.1-3) once we have come to some conclusions regarding the issue of Jeroboam's sin. What I am at pains to point out is that if one reads the narrative one sees that this cannot be used as a proof-text to support the statement, "If it is not commanded it is forbidden".

The narrative is clear in showing that the sin of Jeroboam (with regards to the holy day itself) was not his inventing another holy day, but his changing the day upon which Israel kept the Feast of Tabernacles. That is, he moved it back a month. One could guess that the reason was because the harvest ripened later in the north. Jeroboam's sin was then the doing of something contrary to the command of YHWH. Instead of the feast being held on the fifteenth day of the seventh month as YHWH commanded, Jeroboam holds it on the fifteenth day of the eighth month.

This text then does not exclude Israel from setting aside special days to worship God, it only excludes the omission of something God has commanded.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. Lev. 10:1-2

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.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

The main thrust of this passage is that Jeroboam took it upon himself to ordain things in the worship of God without authorization from God. Those who think they have the ability to invent holy days and sacred seasons fall into the same category. Their worship is something which they have devised from their own heart, it is not what God has sovereignly commanded. It is the height of arrogance to think that we can invent rites, ceremonies and festivals which are pleasing to God when He has not authorized them.

You are failing to note that Jeroboam took it upon himself to change the worship of God without God's authorisation. YHWH had commanded his feast to take place in Jerusalem on the fifteenth day of the seventh month. Jeroboam changed this hence he broke God's command. This is in a different category from celebrating the birth of Christ on the 25th December about which God is silent.

Has God commanded that we set aside a special day to Worship the Incarnation?

(Especially since that day in no way corresponds to the Birth of Christ and is the continuance of a Pagan Holiday?)

You ask:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Has God commanded that we set aside a special day to Worship the Incarnation?

I Respond:

No

You will say:

Then it is forbidden.

I respond:

Prove it.

You will say:

Look at Jeroboam in 1 Kings 12.

I respond:

Read post 17 above.

Though I would save the time

Actually I would not cite Jeroboam but Nadab and Abihu who were trying to please God with strange fire. Also I would ask where in the New Testament God tells us to celebrate Christ's birth with a special festival?

Originally Posted by AV1611

We can look at that text (Lev. x.1-3) once we have come to some conclusions regarding the issue of Jeroboam's sin. What I am at pains to point out is that if one reads the narrative one sees that this cannot be used as a proof-text to support the statement, "If it is not commanded it is forbidden".

The narrative is clear in showing that the sin of Jeroboam (with regards to the holy day itself) was not his inventing another holy day, but his changing the day upon which Israel kept the Feast of Tabernacles. That is, he moved it back a month. One could guess that the reason was because the harvest ripened later in the north. Jeroboam's sin was then the doing of something contrary to the command of YHWH. Instead of the feast being held on the fifteenth day of the seventh month as YHWH commanded, Jeroboam holds it on the fifteenth day of the eighth month.

This text then does not exclude Israel from setting aside special days to worship God, it only excludes the omission of something God has commanded.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. Lev. 10:1-2

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.

Richard that is rubbish. The grounds for their condemnation was that they had done something in worship which God had not commanded them. That is what the text says. You cannot hold to the NPW without doing violence to the text of Scripture.

Prove to me why I should not have a clown-show in worship on the basis of the NPW?

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

The main thrust of this passage is that Jeroboam took it upon himself to ordain things in the worship of God without authorization from God. Those who think they have the ability to invent holy days and sacred seasons fall into the same category. Their worship is something which they have devised from their own heart, it is not what God has sovereignly commanded. It is the height of arrogance to think that we can invent rites, ceremonies and festivals which are pleasing to God when He has not authorized them.

You are failing to note that Jeroboam took it upon himself to change the worship of God without God's authorisation. YHWH had commanded his feast to take place in Jerusalem on the fifteenth day of the seventh month. Jeroboam changed this hence he broke God's command. This is in a different category from celebrating the birth of Christ on the 25th December about which God is silent.

Actually all he did was add an additionally holy day - one on the 8th month instead of the seventh. Which is basically what you do when you try to force the rest of us to keep that Pagan and Popish holy day Christ-Mass. You subtract from God's Holy Day (the Sabbath) by inventing your own (Christ-Mass).

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Actually I would not cite Jeroboam but Nadab and Abihu who were trying to please God with strange fire.

Is this not related to how we worship God rather than the day which we do it?

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Also I would ask where in the New Testament God tells us to celebrate Christ's birth with a special festival?

This question only works is you accept the underlying assumptions.

Where in the New Testament God tells us to celebrate him on a mid-week meeting? Where did YHWH command water to be used at the feast of Tabernacles which Christ attended in John 7?

Let me restate that was rash and silly.

Richard do you understand the concept of "stated service"

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Richard that is rubbish. The grounds for their condemnation was that they had done something in worship which God had not commanded them. That is what the text says.

The issue is that Jeroboam had done somthing against the explicit command of YHWH. That is what the text says.

And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD 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. Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan. And he made an house of high places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi. And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made. So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered upon the altar, and burnt incense.

It is indeed true that Jeroboam invented the date, but the festival was not an innovation. The sin was that he went against what YHWH commanded.

Why would Jeroboam be sacared that the people go to Jerusalem? What was the festival "like unto the feast that is in Judah"?

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Richard do you understand the concept of "stated service"

Assume I don't.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Richard that is rubbish. The grounds for their condemnation was that they had done something in worship which God had not commanded them. That is what the text says.

The issue is that Jeroboam had done somthing against the explicit command of YHWH. That is what the text says.

And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD 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. Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan. And he made an house of high places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi. And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made. So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered upon the altar, and burnt incense.

It is indeed true that Jeroboam invented the date, but the festival was not an innovation. The sin was that he went against what YHWH commanded.

He invented the date of the festival, therefore, it was a human invention and a breach of the RPW. On an NPW basis you have no grounds for condemning him. Besides my comment was directed towards what you were saying in relation to Nadab and Abihu.

To change your position on a subject as serious as this so quickly strikes me as rash. Perhaps you should think for a longer period about matters before stating them publicly (that is not a command, just a suggestion). It is not good to be always changing your mind as it suggests instability.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

He invented the date of the festival, therefore, it was a human invention and a breach of the RPW.

The point is that whilst he invented the date of the festival, and yes it was a human invention, the problem was that it went against God's express commands about where and when males were to go to worship YHWH on the Feast of Tabernacles.

Hence this cannot be used to say that humans cannot set aside days to worship God. The parrallel is not setting aside the 25th Dec but rather Gordon Brown suddenly deciding that the sabbath was Tuesday.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

On an NPW basis you have no grounds for condemning him.

Not convinced, after all he has transgressed a direct command from God.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

To change your position on a subject as serious as this so quickly strikes me as rash.

Apologies for the confusion, I am still thinking it through. I have not yet changed my mind hence in post 9:

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.

One can only argue with oneself to a degree, after all, the easiest person to convince is oneself.

I still don't think that your argument regarding Jeroboam works. Incidently, what books have you read on the worship of Israel?

The point is thatwhilst he invented the date of the festival, and yes it was a human invention, the problem was that it went against God's express commands about where and when males were to go to the temple.

Hence this cannot be used to say that humans cannot set aside days to worship God. The parrallel is not setting aside the 25th Dec but rather Gordon Brown suddenly deciding that the sabbath was Tuesday.

You are correct that Jeroboam's intention was to keep people away from the true worship; but by merely setting apart the 15th day of the 8th month he was not going against God's commands from an NPW perspective. Moreover, the text teaches us that whenever men invent worship practices devised from their own hearts they will subtract from worship that has been appointed. Hence the invention of Christ-Mass detracts from the Sabbath as God's Holy Day.

Incidently, what books have you read on the worship of Israel?

Alfred Eerdsheim's book on the Temple, but that was years ago. However, Douglas Comin's book Worship: From Genesis to Revelation goes through each book the OT and NT so as to adequately cover it.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

by merely setting apart the 15th day of the 8th month he was not going against God's commands from an NPW perspective.

If NPW argues that "What is not forbidden (incl. by the implied negative of a possitive precept) is allowed" and YHWH set the feast of tabernacles for the 15th day of the 7th month then Jeroboam sins by changing the day from the 7th month to the 8th according to the NPW.

The question is not so much what does the text mean to NPW but what does it mean for the RPW. After all, Ursinus uses the case of Jeroboam to show that we cannot invent worship yet he does not see that this example forbids our celebrating 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.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Moreover, the text teaches us that whenever men invent worship practices devised from their own hearts they will subtract from worship that has been appointed. Hence the invention of Christ-Mass detracts from the Sabbath as God's Holy Day.

To be fair, that is your application of the text. The text does show that Jeroboam purposefully changed the worship of YHWH for his own political gains and introduces idolatry into the northern tribes.

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".

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Alfred Eerdsheim's book on the Temple, but that was years ago. However, Douglas Comin's book Worship: From Genesis to Revelation goes through each book the OT and NT so as to adequately cover it.

I was thinking more along the lines of an historical book, including the analysis of their worship especially in its ANE context. Scripture is silent on what Israel were to do at many of these feasts hence we cannot say that the bible clearly teaches that a practice must be commanded in order for it to be acceptable. To argue that the water being poured out must have been commanded is simply assuming what you are defending. It can be easily shown that the vast majority of the Psalms originate from an autumnal festival (Mowinckel, Kraus and Weiser) and I would say specifically a festival celebrating the enthronement of YHWH including some form of covenant renewal.

OK, fellows...

HOLD IT!

The Dutch did not set aside HOLYdays for the days of Boxing day, Easter monday, etc, etc.

The Dutch decided it was a good idea to have worship services on those days. Those days, however, never did have, and where never meant to have the status of a 'sabbath'. Not much different than the practice in Geneva, where they had worship services pretty much every day of the week....

If NPW argues that "What is not forbidden (incl. by the implied negative of a possitive precept) is allowed" and YHWH set the feast of tabernacles for the 15th day of the 7th month then Jeroboam sins by changing the day from the 7th month to the 8th according to the NPW.

The question is not so much what does the text mean to NPW but what does it mean for the RPW. After all, Ursinus uses the case of Jeroboam to show that we cannot invent worship yet he does not see that this example forbids our celebrating 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.

Jerobaom was not forbidden from setting up alternative holy days. Yet the setting up of a holy day which he devised in his own heart was a sin. The Lord's Day is sufficient for celebrating the events in the life of Christ. Why can't people be satisfied with God's provision instead of resorting to Arminianism in worship?

To be fair, that is your application of the text. The text does show that Jeroboam purposefully changed the worship of YHWH for his own political gains and introduces idolatry into the northern tribes.

A bit like your beloved Stuart Kings.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Jerobaom was not forbidden from setting up alternative holy days.

Jeroboam did not set up an alternative Holy Day. He ensured that the Feast of Tabernacles was moved back four weeks. It was not a new feast it was a different date. In so doing he transgressed God's law hence he sinned. It was as if he changed the sabbath from a sunday to a tuesday, not as if he devised a new day called Mayday.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Jerobaom was not forbidden from setting up alternative holy days.

Jeroboam did not set up an alternative Holy Day. He ensured that the Feast of Tabernacles was moved back four weeks. It was not a new feast it was a different date. In so doing he transgressed God's law hence he sinned. It was as if he changed the sabbath from a sunday to a tuesday, not as if he devised a new day called Mayday.

But he did; that is exactly what he did in order to corrupt the worship of God. Jeroboam did not forbid them to go down to Judah, instead by devising his own inventions he knew that would be enough to stop them going down, as corrupt worship triumphed over true worship. Much the same happens today as the significance of the Lord's Day is destroyed by Popish inventions like Christ-Mass.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

But he did

What new day did he set up? I am not talking about a new date but the day or festival.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

But he did

What new day did he set up? I am not talking about a new date but the day or festival.

Since it was on a new date it was a new day, since days fall on dates (I mean calender dates, not the pagan practice which is the opposite of courtship ).