Three Books on "Christmas" - and a 33% off Black Friday Sale

Status
Not open for further replies.

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
[video=vimeo;192523402]https://vimeo.com/192523402[/video]

We are offering 3 books bundled together in 3 formats, mobi, PDF and ePub. They all cover the issue of Christmas, and whether Christians ought to participate in that holiday.
The bundle is only for eBooks at Puritan Publications. You can get the print books at a discount with the coupon below.

The Christian’s Duty to Reject Christmas, by Thomas Mockett (or Mocket) (1602-1670) (109 Pages, print version)
Mockett’s argument in this work is directed to well-meaning Christians who are defiling the Regulative Principle – that God alone determines the manner and time in which sinners are to approach him. Writing against the, “observation of Christ’s nativity,” Mockett shows the Christian how he is to reject, whole-heartily, adding Christ into Christmas as a religious or worship observance. (This is not a scan or facsimile, has been updated in modern English for easy reading and has an active table of contents for electronic versions.)

A Biblical Response to Superstition, Will-Worship and the Christmas Holiday, by Daniel Cawdrey (1588-1664) (200 pages, print version)
In this work, Cawdrey exegetically and biblically demonstrates that worship to God is accomplished through God’s prescription alone. Anything less is man’s invention which leads to superstition and will-worship. He ably defends the regulative principle of worship (that God alone determines the manner in which sinners are to approach him) and demonstrates that even the holiday of Christmas, in the manner that people use it as a “holy day,” is in fact filled with superstition, and must be considered will-worship. This is a powerful and scholarly treatise on holding steadfastly to God’s prescribed manner of worship, and an exhortation to throw out all man-made inventions that hinder communion with God. This is not a facsimile or scanned document. It is newly typeset with an active table of contents for electronic versions.

Bah Humbug: How Christians Should Think About the Christmas Holiday, by C. Matthew McMahon, Ph.D., Th.D. (120 pages, print version)
When it comes to the Christmas Holiday, Christians fall on one of two sides: either they abandon it altogether as pagan and idolatrous, or they celebrate it all together as the most wonderful time of the year. Some have nothing to do with Christmas at all, and others invite Christmas into sermons, Sunday worship, family gatherings and the like. People who believe Christmas is idolatrous quote church history and expound the Regulative Principle of worship. Those who want to celebrate Christmas want to reclaim Christmas as eminently Christian since “Jesus is the Reason for the Season.” What is the biblical view? Is it one or the other, or is there a view more accommodating to both sides? What if both of those extreme views are wrong, and there is another option that is less thought about but more biblically based? Can Christians partake in Christmas…or not?

We have a sale for Black Friday on all our Printed Reformed and Puritan books at our spotlight page with code BFRIDAY33 at checkout. 33% off everything across the board for one day only.

33offblackfriday2016.jpg


 
If I may ask a sincere question....why does one consider Christmas less a day for celebration than Reformation Day?
 
Even our days of the week were named after pagan beings, as was easter, so would we as Christians not take over Christmas and celebrate it as God intended, so would still be honoring Jesus?
 
How would we approach this passage in Romans?

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
ROM 14:5*-‬9
 
I'm not much of a Reformation day guy but if my church were to have a conference or something about that time I would support that; but Christmas and pretended holy days and the 'church calendar' are monuments of idolatry. Like a lot of things the way how Presbyterians came to observe them was not honest (during a liberal decline and abandonment of their principles etc.). See Gillespie regarding such monuments, things indifferent and holy days
https://www.naphtali.com/articles/g...n-the-rule-for-purging-monuments-of-idolatry/
See two other articles under my name at this link and more Gillespie under his name:
https://www.naphtali.com/articles/


 
Would this not fall under ones personal conviction on if the Lord can still be honored by the Holiday being observed or not?
 
Last edited:
Would this not fall under ones personal conviction on if the Lord casn still be honored by the Holiday being observed or not?

Fast days or days of Thanksgiving would.
But on Christmas, no. If you lived in Calvin's Geneva, they would have arrested someone for celebrating it. The Puritans repudiated the day.
 
So, Geneva would have arrested Bullinger, then? The Puritan view of holidays was a view on holidays, same goes for things indifferent. Some Reformed on the continent (ala Bullinger) had different views on these things.

I don't say this to argue for the merits of either position, though I certainly have a position. I say it only to prevent Reformed worship and liturgical practices to seem like a monolith, as it is sometimes portrayed.
 
How would we approach this passage in Romans?

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
ROM 14:5*-‬9

Do not forget verse one....Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

Now I understand that this part of Romans pertained to the Jews who had a hard time getting over days and food Our Lord prescribed in times past and this hardly is an endorsement of man made holy-days that Our Lord never prescribed. Also even IF it did verse one says those that do such are weak in the faith.
 
Geneva's magistrates brought back the holiday; that is the only reason Calvin preached on xmas in the 1550s. It was not a great move for the worship of God but as Calvin might say you put up with fooleries for the good of the church. But that's not an endorsement for foolishness.*
I mean, now we're talkin 'bout embracing things by choice that Calvin thought best if they were on the garbage heap of history.
 
Isn't the enttire thrust of the Biblical principle given to us here though that Christians can freely choose to observe or not, and let each be persuaded in own mind, but do not judge those holding contery position?
 
On things indifferent in nature (AND in use); but that is sort of the question here. Please see the several links I gave above. This is way beyond one line questions and one line answers.
Isn't the enttire thrust of the Biblical principle given to us here though that Christians can freely choose to observe or not, and let each be persuaded in own mind, but do not judge those holding contery position?
 
Isn't the enttire thrust of the Biblical principle given to us here though that Christians can freely choose to observe or not, and let each be persuaded in own mind, but do not judge those holding contery position?

At the time of Paul's writing, the question was about Jewish feast days and sabbaths that were instituted by God Himself (though now fulfilled). Paul was willing to abide with Jewish believers observing these things privately, for the time being. Paul's instructions contain no endorsement of man-made religious festivals and feasts.
 
Isn't the enttire thrust of the Biblical principle given to us here though that Christians can freely choose to observe or not, and let each be persuaded in own mind, but do not judge those holding contery position?

At the time of Paul's writing, the question was about Jewish feast days and sabbaths that were instituted by God Himself (though now fulfilled). Paul was willing to abide with Jewish believers observing these things privately, for the time being. Paul's instructions contain no endorsement of man-made religious festivals and feasts.

How do we know this was what Paul was referring to? I don't have the time to study that right now, but is there a verse that would solidify that stance? Was the book written to the Jews? Thanks.
 
How would we approach this passage in Romans?

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
ROM 14:5*-‬9

Do not forget verse one....Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

Now I understand that this part of Romans pertained to the Jews who had a hard time getting over days and food Our Lord prescribed in times past and this hardly is an endorsement of man made holy-days that Our Lord never prescribed. Also even IF it did verse one says those that do such are weak in the faith.

Where did the Jews come up with the idea of being vegetarians? Was that Jewish?

One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.
ROM 14:2
 
How would we approach this passage in Romans?

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
ROM 14:5*-‬9

Do not forget verse one....Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

Now I understand that this part of Romans pertained to the Jews who had a hard time getting over days and food Our Lord prescribed in times past and this hardly is an endorsement of man made holy-days that Our Lord never prescribed. Also even IF it did verse one says those that do such are weak in the faith.

Where did the Jews come up with the idea of being vegetarians? Was that Jewish?

One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.
ROM 14:2

This was a question of the lawfulness of eating ceremonially unclean meats, not meats in general. So say Poole, Gill, Calvin, and the Geneva Bible.
 
Calvin puts Romans 14 in context:
He passes on now to lay down a precept especially necessary for the instruction of the Church, -- that they who have made the most progress in Christian doctrine should accommodate themselves to the more ignorant, and employ their own strength to sustain their weakness; for among the people of God there are some weaker than others, and who, except they are treated with great tenderness and kindness, will be discouraged, and become at length alienated from religion. And it is very probable that this happened especially at that time; for the Churches were formed of both Jews and Gentiles; some of whom, having been long accustomed to the rites of the Mosaic law, having been brought up in them from childhood, were not easily drawn away from them; and there were others who, having never learnt such things, refused a yoke to which they had not been accustomed.
 
Dr Frame has gotten in trouble with some on his views on things such as worship, unity in the Church, and allowance for those teaching things such as Dispensational theology a wider lattitude of acceptance than some would have him to, as he sees them as wrong . but not holding to Heresy as some see them...
 
How do we know this was what Paul was referring to? I don't have the time to study that right now, but is there a verse that would solidify that stance? Was the book written to the Jews? Thanks.

Col. 2:16, "holyday, or if the new moon, or of the sabbath days," would have been a very recognizable summary of the Jewish feast calendar, which was based on the lunar month.

Here's what G. I. Williamson says about the Rom. 14 and Col. 2 passages that are always brought up in favor of man-made holy days:

"Here the Apostle instructed the strong to be patient with the weak, because the weak did not yet understand the liberty they had in Jesus. As a matter of fact they were no longer under any obligation to observe even the special days that God had once appointed through Moses. But the problem was that some of the members of the Church in Rome did not yet understand this. And, as long as it was only a particular member of the Church who was afflicted with this lamentable weakness, Paul was willing to patiently bear with him. He was willing, in other words, to tolerate church membership for a person who felt constrained — by a misinformed conscience — to observe these days. In Galatians 4, however, the Apostle had a different concern in view. In this instance the Church as a whole had submitted itself to a yoke of bondage. The Galatian church, as a corporate body, had yielded to the demands of ‘the weak’ by observing these days. And when this happened the Apostle was quite uncompromising in his opposition. The reason is that it is wrong for the Church to include in its corporate worship anything that Christ has not commanded. It is one thing, in other words, to tolerate weakness in individual members. But it is something else again when this errant view is imposed on the whole congregation. Yet this is exactly what we see today in most Reformed Churches."
 
It depends what you mean by celebrate. Yes, there is a liberty of conscience issue that I wish more 'Presbyterians' would recall their heritage concerning, but even privately we cannot commit will worship or behave superstitiously in assigning some kind of sacred significance to such days.
 
Isn't the Biblical truth though that when and if we observe the holiday in its rightful meaning intended, that we have thus transformed it, taking it over for God?
 
We have achristmas Tree in church and have kids bring in gifts to put under it to send them off to Good Samartian's Purse?
 
Isn't the Biblical truth though that when and if we observe the holiday in its rightful meaning intended, that we have thus transformed it, taking it over for God?

Brother, please forgive me if this comes off as too blunt, but do you hear the man-centeredness in that question? What reason would Christians have to "take over" a pagan holiday other than it appeals to them in their flesh? If God had wanted us to "take over" this or that, He would have instructed us to do so. As it is, Christ has established a kingdom that is advancing throughout the world and the evidence of it is that people are being baptized, disciples are being made, and they are being taught to obey all His commandments--including the reverence of the Lord's Day alone as the day for ecclesiastical worship. That's how Christ exerts His dominion over an unbelieving land; not by accommodating or assimilating pagan practices, but obliterating them in favor of His pure ordinances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top