-

Status
Not open for further replies.
But then there is also this:

"One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind." (Romans 14:5), which also seems applicable. So we consider all of Scripture.
 
The Jews spontaneously decided to celebrate their deliverance from Haman at the time of Esther. It was not mandated and it was acceptable. Also, Jesus attended an unnamed feast in Jerusalem, and He attended the wedding in Cana. Are weddings celebrations in the same category as Christmas?
 
On Romans 14:5
Two other reasons the apostle gives in this place against festival days. One ([Col. 2] v. 17), What should we do with the shadow, when we have the body? Another (v. 20), Why should we be subject to human ordinances, since through Christ we are dead to them, and have nothing ado with them? Now, by the same reasons are all holy days to be condemned, as taking away Christian liberty; and so, that which the apostle says militates as well against them as against any other holy days. For whereas it might be thought that the apostle does not condemn all holy days, because both he permits others to observe days (Rom. 14:5), and he himself also did observe one of the Jewish feasts (Acts 18:21), it is easily answered, that our holy days have no warrant from these places, except our opposites will say that they esteem their festival days holier than other days, and that they observe the Jewish festivities, neither of which they do acknowledge. And if they did, yet they must consider, that that which the apostle either said or did hereanent [hereabout], is to be expounded and understood of bearing with the weak Jews, whom he permitted to esteem one day above another, and for whose cause he did, in his own practice, thus far apply himself to their infirmity at that time when they could not possibly be as yet fully and thoroughly instructed concerning Christian liberty, and the abrogation of the ceremonial law, because the gospel was as yet not fully propagated; and when the Mosaical rites were like a dead man not yet buried, as Augustine’s simile runs [Cf. Augustine’s Letter 82 to Jerome, NPNF1 1.355; cf. Migne, PL 33.282.]. So that all this can make nothing for holy days after the full promulgation of the gospel, and after that the Jewish ceremonies are not only dead, but also buried, and so deadly to be used by us. Hence it is, that the apostle will not bear with the observation of days in Christian churches who have known God, as he speaks. George Gillespie, Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies (Naphtali Press, 2013) 53.
​
On Esther 9 and John 10 (See more fully, Gillespie, 245–254).
There are further two examples alleged against us for holy days, out of Esther 9:17–18, 27–28, and John 10:22.
Whereunto we Answer: 1. That both those feasts were appointed to be kept with the consent of the whole congregation of Israel and body of the people, as is plain from Esther 9:32, and 1 Maccabees 4:59. Therefore, they have no show of making aught of such feasts as ours, which are tyrannically urged upon such as in their consciences do condemn them.
2. It appears, that the days of Purim were only appointed to be days of civil mirth and gladness, such as are in use with us, when we set out bonfires, and other tokens of civil joy, for some memorable benefit which the kingdom or commonwealth has received. For they are not called the holy days of Purim, but simply the days of Purim, “days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions one to another” (Esther 9:19, 22). No word of any worship of God in those days. And whereas it seems to Bishop Lindsay, that those days were holy, because of that rest which was observed upon them; he must know that the text interprets itself, and it is evident from vs. 16 and 22, that this rest was not a rest from labor, for waiting upon the worshipping of God, but only a rest from their enemies.3
1. Lib. 5, cap. 22. [Cf. NPNF2 2.130; Historia Ecclesiastica, Lib. V, Cap XXII, Migne, PG 67.627.]
2. In Epistola ad quendam qui à Reformata Relig. ad Papismum defecerat. [Elenchus Papisticaæ Religionis In Quo Probatur Neque Apostolicam, Neque Catholicam, in my opinion Neque Romanam Este, (Amsterdam: 1634), Epistle appended at the end of the book, page 283. “Si in diebus festis incuriose habitis traditionem læsam dolent; Dei edictum protervè conculcatum ipsis exprobramus. Sex dies laborabis.”].
3. Proc. in Perth Assembly, part. 3, p. 30. [Lindsay, Proceedings, third pagination (1625 ed.), 30.]
…

But to let this pass, whereas the Rhemists allege,2 that Christ approved this feast, because He was present at it; Cartwright and Fulke answer them, that Christ’s being present at it proves not His approving of it.3 Christ did not honor the feast day specifically, says Junius, but the assembly of the righteous gathering on a feast day; for all opportunities of that kind for sowing his Gospel Christ pays attention to and seizes.4
As if indeed (says Hospinian) Christ left for Jerusalem for the sake of the Feast of Dedication. Nay, but He saw He had a convenient occasion, to teach a multitude of men who had come together for that feast day.5
2. In John 10:22 [Bullinger, In Divinum Jesu Christi Domini Nostri Evangelium Secundum Joannem, Commentariorum libri X (Tiguri: 1543) Book V, 123r]. Maldonatus, Com., ibid. [cf. Juan de Maldonado, Commentarii in Quatuor Evangelistas, volume 5 (Paris, 1844) 255]. Rhemists, Annot., ibid. [Cartwright, Confutation, 233].
3. [Cartwright, Confutation, 234; Fulke, Confutation of the Rhemish Testament (1834) 128.]
4. Animad. in Bell., contr. 3, lib. 4, cap. 17, nota. 6. Non festum proprie honoravit Christus sed cætum piorum convenientem festo; nam omnes ejusmodi occasiones seminandi evangelii sui observabat et capiebat Christus. [Cf. Opera Theologica (1607) 2.857]
5. De Orig. Templ., lib. 4, cap. 22. [sic cap. 2.] Quasi vero Christus Encænoirum casuâ Hierosloymam abierit. ad instituendam hominum multitudenem, ad illud festum confluentiam. [Cf. “De Templis hoc est, de Origine, Progressu, usu et abusu Templorum & Rerum ad Templa pertinentium,”in Opera omnia in septem tomos distributa, volume 1 (Geneva: Samuel de Tournes, 1672) 381.]

Even as Paul chose to be present at certain Jewish feasts,1 not for any respect
to the feasts themselves, nor for any honor which he meant to give
them, but for the multitudes’ cause who resorted to the same, among whom
he had a more plentiful occasion to spread the gospel at those festivities
than at other times in the year.
1. Calv. in Acts 18:21. [Cf. Commentaries, vol. XIX, 1.197]
​
 
My children continued with their home education today. I must be the meanest Mum on earth. LOL Not that they minded. It is after all, just Wednesday and on Wednesdays they work. :)
 
NaphtaliPress said:
On Romans 14:5
Two other reasons the apostle gives in this place against festival days. One ([Col. 2] v. 17), What should we do with the shadow, when we have the body? Another (v. 20), Why should we be subject to human ordinances, since through Christ we are dead to them, and have nothing ado with them? Now, by the same reasons are all holy days to be condemned, as taking away Christian liberty; and so, that which the apostle says militates as well against them as against any other holy days. For whereas it might be thought that the apostle does not condemn all holy days, because both he permits others to observe days (Rom. 14:5), and he himself also did observe one of the Jewish feasts (Acts 18:21), it is easily answered, that our holy days have no warrant from these places, except our opposites will say that they esteem their festival days holier than other days, and that they observe the Jewish festivities, neither of which they do acknowledge. And if they did, yet they must consider, that that which the apostle either said or did hereanent [hereabout], is to be expounded and understood of bearing with the weak Jews, whom he permitted to esteem one day above another, and for whose cause he did, in his own practice, thus far apply himself to their infirmity at that time when they could not possibly be as yet fully and thoroughly instructed concerning Christian liberty, and the abrogation of the ceremonial law, because the gospel was as yet not fully propagated; and when the Mosaical rites were like a dead man not yet buried, as Augustine’s simile runs [Cf. Augustine’s Letter 82 to Jerome, NPNF1 1.355; cf. Migne, PL 33.282.]. So that all this can make nothing for holy days after the full promulgation of the gospel, and after that the Jewish ceremonies are not only dead, but also buried, and so deadly to be used by us. Hence it is, that the apostle will not bear with the observation of days in Christian churches who have known God, as he speaks. George Gillespie, Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies (Naphtali Press, 2013) 53.
​
On Esther 9 and John 10 (See more fully, Gillespie, 245–254).
There are further two examples alleged against us for holy days, out of Esther 9:17–18, 27–28, and John 10:22.
Whereunto we Answer: 1. That both those feasts were appointed to be kept with the consent of the whole congregation of Israel and body of the people, as is plain from Esther 9:32, and 1 Maccabees 4:59. Therefore, they have no show of making aught of such feasts as ours, which are tyrannically urged upon such as in their consciences do condemn them.
2. It appears, that the days of Purim were only appointed to be days of civil mirth and gladness, such as are in use with us, when we set out bonfires, and other tokens of civil joy, for some memorable benefit which the kingdom or commonwealth has received. For they are not called the holy days of Purim, but simply the days of Purim, “days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions one to another” (Esther 9:19, 22). No word of any worship of God in those days. And whereas it seems to Bishop Lindsay, that those days were holy, because of that rest which was observed upon them; he must know that the text interprets itself, and it is evident from vs. 16 and 22, that this rest was not a rest from labor, for waiting upon the worshipping of God, but only a rest from their enemies.3
1. Lib. 5, cap. 22. [Cf. NPNF2 2.130; Historia Ecclesiastica, Lib. V, Cap XXII, Migne, PG 67.627.]
2. In Epistola ad quendam qui à Reformata Relig. ad Papismum defecerat. [Elenchus Papisticaæ Religionis In Quo Probatur Neque Apostolicam, Neque Catholicam, in my opinion Neque Romanam Este, (Amsterdam: 1634), Epistle appended at the end of the book, page 283. “Si in diebus festis incuriose habitis traditionem læsam dolent; Dei edictum protervè conculcatum ipsis exprobramus. Sex dies laborabis.”].
3. Proc. in Perth Assembly, part. 3, p. 30. [Lindsay, Proceedings, third pagination (1625 ed.), 30.]
…

But to let this pass, whereas the Rhemists allege,2 that Christ approved this feast, because He was present at it; Cartwright and Fulke answer them, that Christ’s being present at it proves not His approving of it.3 Christ did not honor the feast day specifically, says Junius, but the assembly of the righteous gathering on a feast day; for all opportunities of that kind for sowing his Gospel Christ pays attention to and seizes.4
As if indeed (says Hospinian) Christ left for Jerusalem for the sake of the Feast of Dedication. Nay, but He saw He had a convenient occasion, to teach a multitude of men who had come together for that feast day.5
2. In John 10:22 [Bullinger, In Divinum Jesu Christi Domini Nostri Evangelium Secundum Joannem, Commentariorum libri X (Tiguri: 1543) Book V, 123r]. Maldonatus, Com., ibid. [cf. Juan de Maldonado, Commentarii in Quatuor Evangelistas, volume 5 (Paris, 1844) 255]. Rhemists, Annot., ibid. [Cartwright, Confutation, 233].
3. [Cartwright, Confutation, 234; Fulke, Confutation of the Rhemish Testament (1834) 128.]
4. Animad. in Bell., contr. 3, lib. 4, cap. 17, nota. 6. Non festum proprie honoravit Christus sed cætum piorum convenientem festo; nam omnes ejusmodi occasiones seminandi evangelii sui observabat et capiebat Christus. [Cf. Opera Theologica (1607) 2.857]
5. De Orig. Templ., lib. 4, cap. 22. [sic cap. 2.] Quasi vero Christus Encænoirum casuâ Hierosloymam abierit. ad instituendam hominum multitudenem, ad illud festum confluentiam. [Cf. “De Templis hoc est, de Origine, Progressu, usu et abusu Templorum & Rerum ad Templa pertinentium,”in Opera omnia in septem tomos distributa, volume 1 (Geneva: Samuel de Tournes, 1672) 381.]

Even as Paul chose to be present at certain Jewish feasts,1 not for any respect
to the feasts themselves, nor for any honor which he meant to give
them, but for the multitudes’ cause who resorted to the same, among whom
he had a more plentiful occasion to spread the gospel at those festivities
than at other times in the year.
1. Calv. in Acts 18:21. [Cf. Commentaries, vol. XIX, 1.197]
​
Click to expand...

Would this quote perhaps allow for the cultural observance of Christmas etc... (i.e. viewing it in the same light as Fourth of July, New Years, Thanksgiving, etc...)? My own view is that we violate God's Word when we build our worship around these man-made days but that there is room for private observance of such days as cultural celebrations.
 
Luke 2:10-11 says, "And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord." I posted this for those who celebrate Christmas and for those who do not. Whatever your view I would encourage all of us to rejoice in the good news that Christ came to save His people from there sins. This good news should bring great joy to all of us whether its Sept 10 or Dec 25.
 
The long-running discussion of "should" we or "may" we celebrate Christmas. Sigh.

I "may" and I do. Just sayin'.

AMR
 
Last edited:
The situations of then and now are different; but that said, the cultural is so bound to the religious, I think, judging by his full case, Gillespie would say get rid of what would be a continual trap to slide again into superstition and will worship. Reform by removing it like with the bronze serpent.
those,
Hamalas said:
NaphtaliPress said:
On Romans 14:5
Two other reasons the apostle gives in this place against festival days. One ([Col. 2] v. 17), What should we do with the shadow, when we have the body? Another (v. 20), Why should we be subject to human ordinances, since through Christ we are dead to them, and have nothing ado with them? Now, by the same reasons are all holy days to be condemned, as taking away Christian liberty; and so, that which the apostle says militates as well against them as against any other holy days. For whereas it might be thought that the apostle does not condemn all holy days, because both he permits others to observe days (Rom. 14:5), and he himself also did observe one of the Jewish feasts (Acts 18:21), it is easily answered, that our holy days have no warrant from these places, except our opposites will say that they esteem their festival days holier than other days, and that they observe the Jewish festivities, neither of which they do acknowledge. And if they did, yet they must consider, that that which the apostle either said or did hereanent [hereabout], is to be expounded and understood of bearing with the weak Jews, whom he permitted to esteem one day above another, and for whose cause he did, in his own practice, thus far apply himself to their infirmity at that time when they could not possibly be as yet fully and thoroughly instructed concerning Christian liberty, and the abrogation of the ceremonial law, because the gospel was as yet not fully propagated; and when the Mosaical rites were like a dead man not yet buried, as Augustine’s simile runs [Cf. Augustine’s Letter 82 to Jerome, NPNF1 1.355; cf. Migne, PL 33.282.]. So that all this can make nothing for holy days after the full promulgation of the gospel, and after that the Jewish ceremonies are not only dead, but also buried, and so deadly to be used by us. Hence it is, that the apostle will not bear with the observation of days in Christian churches who have known God, as he speaks. George Gillespie, Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies (Naphtali Press, 2013) 53.
​
On Esther 9 and John 10 (See more fully, Gillespie, 245–254).
There are further two examples alleged against us for holy days, out of Esther 9:17–18, 27–28, and John 10:22.
Whereunto we Answer: 1. That both those feasts were appointed to be kept with the consent of the whole congregation of Israel and body of the people, as is plain from Esther 9:32, and 1 Maccabees 4:59. Therefore, they have no show of making aught of such feasts as ours, which are tyrannically urged upon such as in their consciences do condemn them.
2. It appears, that the days of Purim were only appointed to be days of civil mirth and gladness, such as are in use with us, when we set out bonfires, and other tokens of civil joy, for some memorable benefit which the kingdom or commonwealth has received. For they are not called the holy days of Purim, but simply the days of Purim, “days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions one to another” (Esther 9:19, 22). No word of any worship of God in those days. And whereas it seems to Bishop Lindsay, that those days were holy, because of that rest which was observed upon them; he must know that the text interprets itself, and it is evident from vs. 16 and 22, that this rest was not a rest from labor, for waiting upon the worshipping of God, but only a rest from their enemies.3
1. Lib. 5, cap. 22. [Cf. NPNF2 2.130; Historia Ecclesiastica, Lib. V, Cap XXII, Migne, PG 67.627.]
2. In Epistola ad quendam qui à Reformata Relig. ad Papismum defecerat. [Elenchus Papisticaæ Religionis In Quo Probatur Neque Apostolicam, Neque Catholicam, in my opinion Neque Romanam Este, (Amsterdam: 1634), Epistle appended at the end of the book, page 283. “Si in diebus festis incuriose habitis traditionem læsam dolent; Dei edictum protervè conculcatum ipsis exprobramus. Sex dies laborabis.”].
3. Proc. in Perth Assembly, part. 3, p. 30. [Lindsay, Proceedings, third pagination (1625 ed.), 30.]
…

But to let this pass, whereas the Rhemists allege,2 that Christ approved this feast, because He was present at it; Cartwright and Fulke answer them, that Christ’s being present at it proves not His approving of it.3 Christ did not honor the feast day specifically, says Junius, but the assembly of the righteous gathering on a feast day; for all opportunities of that kind for sowing his Gospel Christ pays attention to and seizes.4
As if indeed (says Hospinian) Christ left for Jerusalem for the sake of the Feast of Dedication. Nay, but He saw He had a convenient occasion, to teach a multitude of men who had come together for that feast day.5
2. In John 10:22 [Bullinger, In Divinum Jesu Christi Domini Nostri Evangelium Secundum Joannem, Commentariorum libri X (Tiguri: 1543) Book V, 123r]. Maldonatus, Com., ibid. [cf. Juan de Maldonado, Commentarii in Quatuor Evangelistas, volume 5 (Paris, 1844) 255]. Rhemists, Annot., ibid. [Cartwright, Confutation, 233].
3. [Cartwright, Confutation, 234; Fulke, Confutation of the Rhemish Testament (1834) 128.]
4. Animad. in Bell., contr. 3, lib. 4, cap. 17, nota. 6. Non festum proprie honoravit Christus sed cætum piorum convenientem festo; nam omnes ejusmodi occasiones seminandi evangelii sui observabat et capiebat Christus. [Cf. Opera Theologica (1607) 2.857]
5. De Orig. Templ., lib. 4, cap. 22. [sic cap. 2.] Quasi vero Christus Encænoirum casuâ Hierosloymam abierit. ad instituendam hominum multitudenem, ad illud festum confluentiam. [Cf. “De Templis hoc est, de Origine, Progressu, usu et abusu Templorum & Rerum ad Templa pertinentium,”in Opera omnia in septem tomos distributa, volume 1 (Geneva: Samuel de Tournes, 1672) 381.]

Even as Paul chose to be present at certain Jewish feasts,1 not for any respect
to the feasts themselves, nor for any honor which he meant to give
them, but for the multitudes’ cause who resorted to the same, among whom
he had a more plentiful occasion to spread the gospel at those festivities
than at other times in the year.
1. Calv. in Acts 18:21. [Cf. Commentaries, vol. XIX, 1.197]
​
Click to expand...

Would this quote perhaps allow for the cultural observance of Christmas etc... (i.e. viewing it in the same light as Fourth of July, New Years, Thanksgiving, etc...)? My own view is that we violate God's Word when we build our worship around these man-made days but that there is room for private observance of such days as cultural celebrations.
Click to expand...
 
I am not afraid to say Merry Christmas to someone who doesn't carry the baggage of Superstition. I did find a question posed by a URC Minister to be quite eye opening that there may be confessional stances that I fully don't understand. I have learned to take Gillespie and Calvin rather serious when they write about the topic, so when I read what I will quote below I was kind of taken back.

If the Heidelberg Catechism rejects the celebration of Christmas because of the "regulative principle," then why did the same authors write this:

"Order of Holy Days:

Holy days shall be kept in the same manner as Sunday. These holy days shall be observed: all Sundays, Christmas and the day following, New Year’s day, Easter and the day following, Ascension day, Pentecost and the Monday following.

On Christmas and the day after, the basis of our salvation, namely the two natures in Christ with the benefit we obtain therefrom, shall be expounded in the narratives of the birth of Christ, as that is dealt with in the end of Part I and the beginning of Part II of the Catechism."

—The Church Order of the Palatinate, 1563
Click to expand...
 
The Reformed retained some days to have services (but with no superstition). Zanchius probably represents that position as well as any and you can see citations translated in the new Gillespie. Someone from that suasion should translate Zanchi on the fourth commandment. The Scots and Puritans took the position they should not at all be retained being monuments of idolatry which position Gillespie explains at length.
 
I am not afraid to say Merry Christmas to someone who doesn't carry the baggage of Superstition. I did find a question posed by a URC Minister to be quite eye opening that there may be confessional stances that I fully don't understand. I have learned to take Gillespie and Calvin rather serious when they write about the topic, so when I read what I will quote below I was kind of taken back.
If the Heidelberg Catechism rejects the celebration of Christmas because of the "regulative principle," then why did the same authors write this:

"Order of Holy Days:

Holy days shall be kept in the same manner as Sunday. These holy days shall be observed: all Sundays, Christmas and the day following, New Year’s day, Easter and the day following, Ascension day, Pentecost and the Monday following.

On Christmas and the day after, the basis of our salvation, namely the two natures in Christ with the benefit we obtain therefrom, shall be expounded in the narratives of the birth of Christ, as that is dealt with in the end of Part I and the beginning of Part II of the Catechism."

—The Church Order of the Palatinate, 1563
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yes, illumination please!
 
Hemustincrease said:
My children continued with their home education today. I must be the meanest Mum on earth. LOL Not that they minded. It is after all, just Wednesday and on Wednesdays they work.
Click to expand...

Praise God for your faithfulness to your children! I was just reflecting today how I tried to communicate lovingly to relatives that I work on Wednesdays and so we weren't available to attend long lunches etc (we did go to my folks for a BBQ dinner late in the day) and how their reaction was one of distain at my sin for working on Christmas!
 
PS. Our kids have actually grown to love not being caught up in the stress of seeing their mother implode around "Christmas" as well as not being bombarded with lots of cheap toys they don't want as well!
 
Having listened to the "Holy Days of God, Holy Days of Men" sermons that Josh linked to in his opening post, I would definitely recommend them - I particularly enjoyed the treatment of Hebrews 4 in relation to the weekly Sabbath.
Thanks Pastor Ruddell!
 
Hamalas said:
NaphtaliPress said:
On Romans 14:5
Two other reasons the apostle gives in this place against festival days. One ([Col. 2] v. 17), What should we do with the shadow, when we have the body? Another (v. 20), Why should we be subject to human ordinances, since through Christ we are dead to them, and have nothing ado with them? Now, by the same reasons are all holy days to be condemned, as taking away Christian liberty; and so, that which the apostle says militates as well against them as against any other holy days. For whereas it might be thought that the apostle does not condemn all holy days, because both he permits others to observe days (Rom. 14:5), and he himself also did observe one of the Jewish feasts (Acts 18:21), it is easily answered, that our holy days have no warrant from these places, except our opposites will say that they esteem their festival days holier than other days, and that they observe the Jewish festivities, neither of which they do acknowledge. And if they did, yet they must consider, that that which the apostle either said or did hereanent [hereabout], is to be expounded and understood of bearing with the weak Jews, whom he permitted to esteem one day above another, and for whose cause he did, in his own practice, thus far apply himself to their infirmity at that time when they could not possibly be as yet fully and thoroughly instructed concerning Christian liberty, and the abrogation of the ceremonial law, because the gospel was as yet not fully propagated; and when the Mosaical rites were like a dead man not yet buried, as Augustine’s simile runs [Cf. Augustine’s Letter 82 to Jerome, NPNF1 1.355; cf. Migne, PL 33.282.]. So that all this can make nothing for holy days after the full promulgation of the gospel, and after that the Jewish ceremonies are not only dead, but also buried, and so deadly to be used by us. Hence it is, that the apostle will not bear with the observation of days in Christian churches who have known God, as he speaks. George Gillespie, Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies (Naphtali Press, 2013) 53.
​
On Esther 9 and John 10 (See more fully, Gillespie, 245–254).
There are further two examples alleged against us for holy days, out of Esther 9:17–18, 27–28, and John 10:22.
Whereunto we Answer: 1. That both those feasts were appointed to be kept with the consent of the whole congregation of Israel and body of the people, as is plain from Esther 9:32, and 1 Maccabees 4:59. Therefore, they have no show of making aught of such feasts as ours, which are tyrannically urged upon such as in their consciences do condemn them.
2. It appears, that the days of Purim were only appointed to be days of civil mirth and gladness, such as are in use with us, when we set out bonfires, and other tokens of civil joy, for some memorable benefit which the kingdom or commonwealth has received. For they are not called the holy days of Purim, but simply the days of Purim, “days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions one to another” (Esther 9:19, 22). No word of any worship of God in those days. And whereas it seems to Bishop Lindsay, that those days were holy, because of that rest which was observed upon them; he must know that the text interprets itself, and it is evident from vs. 16 and 22, that this rest was not a rest from labor, for waiting upon the worshipping of God, but only a rest from their enemies.3
1. Lib. 5, cap. 22. [Cf. NPNF2 2.130; Historia Ecclesiastica, Lib. V, Cap XXII, Migne, PG 67.627.]
2. In Epistola ad quendam qui à Reformata Relig. ad Papismum defecerat. [Elenchus Papisticaæ Religionis In Quo Probatur Neque Apostolicam, Neque Catholicam, in my opinion Neque Romanam Este, (Amsterdam: 1634), Epistle appended at the end of the book, page 283. “Si in diebus festis incuriose habitis traditionem læsam dolent; Dei edictum protervè conculcatum ipsis exprobramus. Sex dies laborabis.”].
3. Proc. in Perth Assembly, part. 3, p. 30. [Lindsay, Proceedings, third pagination (1625 ed.), 30.]
…

But to let this pass, whereas the Rhemists allege,2 that Christ approved this feast, because He was present at it; Cartwright and Fulke answer them, that Christ’s being present at it proves not His approving of it.3 Christ did not honor the feast day specifically, says Junius, but the assembly of the righteous gathering on a feast day; for all opportunities of that kind for sowing his Gospel Christ pays attention to and seizes.4
As if indeed (says Hospinian) Christ left for Jerusalem for the sake of the Feast of Dedication. Nay, but He saw He had a convenient occasion, to teach a multitude of men who had come together for that feast day.5
2. In John 10:22 [Bullinger, In Divinum Jesu Christi Domini Nostri Evangelium Secundum Joannem, Commentariorum libri X (Tiguri: 1543) Book V, 123r]. Maldonatus, Com., ibid. [cf. Juan de Maldonado, Commentarii in Quatuor Evangelistas, volume 5 (Paris, 1844) 255]. Rhemists, Annot., ibid. [Cartwright, Confutation, 233].
3. [Cartwright, Confutation, 234; Fulke, Confutation of the Rhemish Testament (1834) 128.]
4. Animad. in Bell., contr. 3, lib. 4, cap. 17, nota. 6. Non festum proprie honoravit Christus sed cætum piorum convenientem festo; nam omnes ejusmodi occasiones seminandi evangelii sui observabat et capiebat Christus. [Cf. Opera Theologica (1607) 2.857]
5. De Orig. Templ., lib. 4, cap. 22. [sic cap. 2.] Quasi vero Christus Encænoirum casuâ Hierosloymam abierit. ad instituendam hominum multitudenem, ad illud festum confluentiam. [Cf. “De Templis hoc est, de Origine, Progressu, usu et abusu Templorum & Rerum ad Templa pertinentium,”in Opera omnia in septem tomos distributa, volume 1 (Geneva: Samuel de Tournes, 1672) 381.]

Even as Paul chose to be present at certain Jewish feasts,1 not for any respect
to the feasts themselves, nor for any honor which he meant to give
them, but for the multitudes’ cause who resorted to the same, among whom
he had a more plentiful occasion to spread the gospel at those festivities
than at other times in the year.
1. Calv. in Acts 18:21. [Cf. Commentaries, vol. XIX, 1.197]
​
Click to expand...

Would this quote perhaps allow for the cultural observance of Christmas etc... (i.e. viewing it in the same light as Fourth of July, New Years, Thanksgiving, etc...)? My own view is that we violate God's Word when we build our worship around these man-made days but that there is room for private observance of such days as cultural celebrations.
Click to expand...

This is what led me to the question in another thread of whether those who would observe the holiday attempt to disassociate Christ from it.
 
Tirian said:
PS. Our kids have actually grown to love not being caught up in the stress of seeing their mother implode around "Christmas" as well as not being bombarded with lots of cheap toys they don't want as well!
Click to expand...

My children have never experienced Christmas so it is just a ‘whatever’ to them, but I can totally understand their (your children’s) growing appreciation of the stillness and total lack of stress which comes from treating the day like any other. Prior to salvation, I did used to celebrate and every year I relish more and more the stillness I enjoy and the freedom from all the unnecessary busyness and expectations etc. ‘Be still and know that I am God’.

It tickled my eldest (9 year old DD) to know that there are other children at the opposite end of the world who not only don’t celebrate Christmas, but don’t celebrate it in hot, sunny weather. :)
 
PaulMc said:
Having listened to the "Holy Days of God, Holy Days of Men" sermons that Josh linked to in his opening post, I would definitely recommend them - I particularly enjoyed the treatment of Hebrews 4 in relation to the weekly Sabbath.
Thanks Pastor Ruddell!
Click to expand...
Thank you for the encouragement, brother. Praise the Lord.
 
The thing that must be understood is that there are various opinions on this matter. Love and patience must be shown on both sides of this matter. Although I heartily disagree with particulars on this subject with a few of my Christian bothers, I find that certain aspects of this time of year is of Christian liberty, if it does not go against God's Law. I find the OPC's response very edifying.

Christmas and the Regulative Principle

Question:

My family has been struggling with the issue of the proper Christian attitude towards Christmas. I saw that you briefly addressed the issue in a previous question and answer. You acknowledge in your answer that Christmas is nowhere commanded in Scripture but you do not address how the regulative principle of worship relates to Christmas. In attaching homage to Jesus Christ and by honoring his incarnation on a specific day of the year whether in church or family observance, men are declaring a solemn day of worship by their own accord. The only day set by God in the Scriptures for solemn worship and remembrance of Christ is the Lord's Day. Isn't creating another day a violation of the regulative principle?

Answer:

It is always encouraging to hear of Christians "struggling" to be faithful to Christ in every area of life. As was said in the previous answer re: "Christmas Celebration," "The OPC does not have a position on the celebration of Christmas."

It is important, in answering this controversial question, to distinguish between private and public practice. The regulative principle applies to the worship and government of the church, not private practice. Westminster Confession of Faith 20:4 states:

... the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.

The regulative principle forbids adding symbols or ceremonies not expressly commanded in Scripture when they have religious significance attached to them. Each local church session (minister and elders) must decide how to apply the regulative principle to their worship service. For example, if we attach religious significance to creches and Christmas trees, then they would be deemed inappropriate in the place of public worship.

Regarding preaching, it is never wrong, and is usually wise, to preach on the subject of the incarnation, since it is, in some fashion, on the minds of the general populace, and especially the mind of the church. We should encourage regular preaching on the great events of redemptive history. There is nothing wrong with attaching those to certain seasons, as long as we do not demand that preachers preach on certain topics or texts at certain seasons or that we forbid them to preach on those texts at other times. I always preach on the incarnation on the Lord's day before Christmas day. In our congregation we do not have a special service on Christmas or Christmas Eve, but many sessions deem it wise to do so.

On the matter of special days of worship, while the Lord's day is the only mandated day of worship, this does not forbid churches from gathering for worship at other times as deemed wise by the local session. Such gatherings would not be required in the same way the keeping of the Lord's Day is.

The Westminster Confession of Faith 21:5 addresses this in the context of enumerating the elements of public worship:

The reading of Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of Psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.

Family gatherings are in an entirely different category. Family and private devotions are regulated by God's Word in that no elements or means of worship invented by men are to be used, e.g. rosary beads. But unlike public worship all the elements are not required at any one time, and several would be forbidden. Without a minister of the Word present, preaching, benediction, and the sacraments could not be administered. Family gatherings, whether for worship or festivity, are informal and not subject to the same regulations as public worship.

Thus, Christians have the freedom to treat Christmas day as merely a time for family gatherings and gift giving. On the other hand a family might choose to read the Scripture narratives of our Savior's birth. This is a matter of Christian liberty. The church, as the church, is not commanding something other than the Lord's Day for public worship.

While we should consider the dangers of the covetousness involved in much of the modern commercialism surrounding Christmas, it would seem that giving and family festivity is a healthy enjoyment, allowed and even encouraged by Scripture. "Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy" (1 Tim. 6:17). "For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving...." (1 Tim. 4:3). The degree of religious importance a Christian may attach to Christmas or any holiday is a matter of liberty as long as he does not seek to impose his or her view on other Christians.

Our "proper attitude" toward those with whom we differ on this subject is also a very important concern of Scripture. This is sometimes sadly neglected by those of us with strong convictions. While strong convictions are very important on important matters, we sometimes forget that not all of our convictions are in that category.

If the Regulative Principle is being undermined then the issue needs to be humbly addressed to the leadership of the congregation. In our approach we should be open to growing in our understanding of how to apply the principle, and not just going to teach the leaders. However, what one does privately, as long as it does not transgress a moral commandment or principle of God's Word, is a matter of Christian liberty, love, and prudence. We must be very careful in our attitude toward others, both Christians and non-Christians, with whom we may disagree over this issue to exercise forbearance, love, and kindness. The Bible commands this in the strongest terms.

Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.... But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." (Rom. 14:3-6, 10)
Click to expand...
 
Andrew P.C. said:
The thing that must be understood is that there are various opinions on this matter. Love and patience must be shown on both sides of this matter. Although I heartily disagree with particulars on this subject with a few of my Christian bothers, I find that certain aspects of this time of year is of Christian liberty, if it does not go against God's Law. I find the OPC's response very edifying.
Click to expand...

Love and patience are Christian virtues regardless of the issue under discussion. A Christian desires to keep all God's commandments ([KJV]Psalm 119:6[/KJV]), which means he wants to do rightly with regards to love and patience and he wants to do rightly with regards to Christmas, too. The one does not invalidate or obscure the need for the other.

G. I. Williamson (not a relative of mine, as far as I know), a minister in the OPC, wrote a different perspective than the OPC response you shared, which I think also deserves consideration: Is Christmas Scriptural?. I agree with the gist of the article, but I am increasingly unsure that I agree with his perspective on private celebrations. Nevertheless, it is a helpful paper.
 
Andrew P.C. said:
It is important, in answering this controversial question, to distinguish between private and public practice. The regulative principle applies to the worship and government of the church, not private practice.
Click to expand...

dealing with this misunderstanding is critical in proper application of the RPW.

I'll just go ahead and put my thoughts out there..

I had lunch with my pastor a few weeks back and we discussed this subject. He made a very interesting comment that many attempt to turn the RPW into the RPPW, the regulative principle of public worship. It seems some believe that the RPW's application to our lives ends once the Lord's day service is concluded. while the RPW differs in its application from public to private worship, the principle still applies.

One may need to ask the question: what exactly is worship? when do we go from worshipping the LORD to not worshipping the LORD?

the LORD says in His Word that one of the two greatest commandments is to love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Jesus tells his disciples that those who love Him will follow his commandments. the LORD God commands abraham to walk blameless before Him and to be perfect. How are we to be perfect? By following all of the LORD's commandments perfectly(obviously no one can do this which is why we need a savior). the nation of Israel is told over and over again by the LORD to follow all of his commandments, laws, decrees, statutes, and judgements.

This is all said to establish that we do not get to make up the way in which to please the LORD or be seen as blameless before Him. He has revealed and commanded the way in which we are to do this. we render worship, adoration, and praise to the LORD by loving His law and seeking eagerly(through the sanctification of the Holy Spirit) to follow it perfectly, even though we will not be perfect in doing this on this side of eternity(praise God for His mercy in Jesus Christ!!!). doing this encompasses every part of our lives whether it be at our Lord's Day services, our prayer meetings, our time with family, or our time in private devotion. all of these things are subject to the commands of the LORD in scripture.

Many feel that since there is no command prohibiting this holiday celebration that its observance falls under christian liberty. As I hope I have explained clearly, the LORD in fact has commanded what his worship is to be and how it to be done and this holiday is not included within that command. As it has probably been mentioned many times regarding this subject, one needs to examine Deuteronomy 12 taking special note of verse 32 to see that when the LORD makes a command regarding something he expects us to follow exactly what He says without falling short of it or going beyond it. such a theme is consistent throughout the books of the law with the plethora of detail regarding the construction of the temple, feast days, and the various civil ordinances. This does not leave us room for creativity, only obedience. As has also been said many times, if steak is ordered, steak better be served. no side dishes, no equivalent alternatives.

Now, there are certain things that the LORD has not given a command on. however, the way in which we engage in these things is still regulated by the RPW.

for example, watching TV is not inherently sinful or a violation of the LORD's commands. However, the things which we watch on TV are indeed regulated by God's law.

It is not inherently sinful or against God's law to attend a sporting event or play videogames but the commands of God will regulate which sporting events we attend and videogames we play and how long/frequently we do.

Its is not inherently sinful to own a car but because of the law of God you may not strive to get the most expensive car and you may take better care of your car in honoring the LORD for blessing you with a form of transportation.

there are no commands in scripture telling us whether or not we can use/engage in these things but God's law regulates how we will use/engage in these things.

To be Christ focused and be an all-of-life Christian is to do all things in obedience to God's law. This is how we "do all to the glory of God" and it is God who decides how He is to be glorified. We don't get a say, we just obey.

We should seek to keep Jesus in mind in all that we do whether we are at our Lord's Day services or at home. The LORD has commanded the way in which we are to keep Him in mind and that is to love His law and seek to obey it with all the grace and power the Triune God gives us through His sanctifying Spirit.



That is my understanding of the RPW. I certainly could be completely wrong.
 
We celebrate "Winter". It begins with turkey and ends with fireworks - there are presents and a pine tree in between. My employer gives me 3 weeks off of work. That's enough to celebrate right there!
 
No HoHo for me either, as a non celebration is in keeping of The Regulative Principle as espoused by Our Lord & Saviour,
Jesus Christ when he rebuked the religious leaders of the then Established Religion for their keeping of the Commandments
of men to the exclusion & disregard of The Commandments of God.

though my employer some years insists on paying me double time & a half when I'm rostered to work & at other times
insists I have a day off on full pay,ah well :wink: need a shrug smilie. :cheers:my glass is half full
 
"It is important, in answering this controversial question, to distinguish between private and public practice. The regulative principle applies to the worship and government of the church, not private practice."
OPC position on celebration of Christmas


Well, no wonder why so many people get confused. The Regulative Principle of Worship seems to stop as we exit the Church Foyer. I think I understand what is being said here. Public Worship in the Sanctuary is one thing. Private Worship is another. But Idolatry doesn't stop being Idolatry as we exit the Church Building.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top