WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Paul was referring to feast days already COMMANDED by God in the OT in Romans 14, not man-made holy days.
Advent
- Thread starter Semper Fidelis
- Start date
- Status
OK. So does that mean that a Church can celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles during worship but not a season where Christ's birth is memorialized? I wouldn't even commend the former during worship because that seems very strange on its face as a feast that has passed since the coming of Christ.
You keep using the term holy days. I'm not using that term.
I know Paul has in mind Jews here who still set aside as holy some days out of the calendar. Paul is even saying that the days aren't really holy any more except to that person. Seems precisely what I'm arguing. The principle is that the Christian has the liberty to set a side a day for the Lord in the same way he has the liberty to fast on a day he sets his heart to do unto the Lord. Are you also saying that we no longer have the liberty to fast because he was speaking of only OT fasts?
[Edited on 12-1-2005 by SemperFideles]
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Amen.
Actually, I think we are to set aside every day, every minute, unto the Lord, in remembrance of His mercies and goodness. We can make every day a holiday, personally, existentially, and corporately if we so please.
So long as we do not forsake gathering on the Lord's day. Did not the disciples in Acts meet daily ?
[Edited on 12-1-2005 by Saiph]
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Rich, I've already come to a conclusion regarding the celebration of holy days, my question was purely historical. in my opinion celebration of holy days by protestants is "popish", so did the puritans. I think you should try and understand your own traditon a little better before investigating others. If you did you wouldnt condemn my use of the epithet.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
Nadab and Abihu uttered the same exact words just before offering "profane fire" to the Lord.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
What else would you call a day that is set apart from other days for ostensibly religious purposes?
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Nadab and Abihu were administering the gospel as shadows on the cave wall. We have the reality, and are no longer under those strict levitical boundaries. Evident by the fact that Christ interprets the Sabbath as being made for man, not contrariwise, and gives His apostles the freedom to start a "new day" of creation by celebrating Sabbath on the first day of the week, marking the resurrection.
The veil is rent brother.
How about a day that I esteem better than another day (Rom 14:5)? Does that work for you.
I'm distinguishing between the Confessional meaning of the term holy day which I've been encouraging people to read about and understand. To me the term "holy day" carries with it much baggage from Roman Catholicism in terms of obligatory participation and mortal sin if you do not.
Within Presbyterianism the only stated worship event is Morning and/or Evening Worship by a particular session. All other events the community has the liberty to attend or not attend (including Sunday School) without breaking the command to come together for worship. What happens in those times of liberty are times of liberty. Others seem to want to make every second of every day, including the times not designated as stated worship times, to fall under the RPW. If so, then I must conclude that even Sunday School violates the RPW because some are under the mistaken notion that it is a special time of the week to learn about God.
In my home church in Temecula (Providence OPC) once a year we would celebrate Reformation Day (not during worship) every year. I suppose there are some that would find that a violation of the RPW as well. You might want to bring the whole Presbytery there up on charges because the abuse seems rampant. For that matter, birthdays are special days that I noticed many there were marking once a year. Yet another example of Nadab and Abihu perhaps?
[Edited on 12-2-2005 by SemperFideles]
Hey Doug! You should go to the OPC Church in Temecula, CA. That's my home Church that I hope to end up at when I retire.
I haven't practiced either since I left Roman Catholicism as well. I'm indifferent to the practice frankly but I do lament a loss of "seasonality" in some circles. It's as if the Church is doing everything it can to pretend like the season is not at hand in its fear that it's going to slip and violate the RPW. I think there is a healthy way to recognize a season without making it into a religious observance.
[Edited on 12-2-2005 by SemperFideles]
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
I'm quite alright with using words like Papist and Romish, and you should be too, Gerry. They are not our brothers.
So because they're not our brothers in Christ and merely our neighbors we have Scriptural approval to offer unnecessary offense? What principle of Scripture does that idea uphold?
Further, the adjectives in this forum have primarily been applied to Protestants who celebrate seasons such as Anglicans, Lutherans, and even some Reformed congregations. Do you also alright in using such derogatory terms when talking to them?
gwine
Puritan Board Sophomore
The Word of God
Luk 10:27 And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."
Luk 10:28 And he said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live."
Luk 10:29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
Thus ends the Word of God
Well, I'm not all right with using the words, especially in the tone that many have used. There may be times when such name-calling is warranted, since even Christ called the Pharisees and Sadducees a brood of vipers. But Christ has one advantage we do not in that he can see into the heart of men, and for all of us that heart is deceitful and desperately sick.
Let us all remember that we have come from the City of Destruction and it is only by the grace of God that we have entered through the narrow gate.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
I have some good friends who are Roman Catholics. I want to see them get saved, just as I would like to see any of my other friends saved. And there is no way that I'm going to call my Catholic friends derogatory names such as "Romish" or "Papists".
Some people on this board need to learn a lesson from the Apostle Paul's address to the Areopagus in Acts 17. They were immersed in gross idolatry. And yet Paul did not lambast them and call them names. Rather, he gently used one of their idols to point them to the One True God, and to His Son, Jesus Christ.
Nonchristians may be flies. But so were we. And flies are much more attracted to honey than to vinegar, as the wise old saying goes.
Gentleness and patience with the lost can go a long way!
[Edited on 12-2-2005 by biblelighthouse]
From Noah Webster\'s 1828 Dictionary
Romish
RO'MISH, a. [from Rome.] Belonging or relating to Rome, or to the religion professed by the people of Rome and of the western empire, of which Rome was the metropolis; catholic; popish; as the Romish church; the Romish religion, ritual or ceremonies.
Papist
PA'PIST,n. A Roman catholic; one that adheres to the church of Rome and the authority of the pope.
These are no more derogotory than calling something Catholic (as in the Roman sense), or calling something Protestant or Puritan.
We might as well rename the PuritanBoard because to call something Puritan might be derogotory.
Truth is truth. If a RC is ashamed to be called Romish or Papist, maybe they should rethink their religion.
Romish
RO'MISH, a. [from Rome.] Belonging or relating to Rome, or to the religion professed by the people of Rome and of the western empire, of which Rome was the metropolis; catholic; popish; as the Romish church; the Romish religion, ritual or ceremonies.
Papist
PA'PIST,n. A Roman catholic; one that adheres to the church of Rome and the authority of the pope.
These are no more derogotory than calling something Catholic (as in the Roman sense), or calling something Protestant or Puritan.
We might as well rename the PuritanBoard because to call something Puritan might be derogotory.
Truth is truth. If a RC is ashamed to be called Romish or Papist, maybe they should rethink their religion.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
If you really believe that, then you obviously need to read some more Reformed and Puritan literature. Such terms most certainly ARE usually used in a derogatory sense.
We are talking about context, context, context. I just looked up one particular word on dictionary.com, and the first definition I got was, "A female canine animal, especially a dog." I'll let you guess what word it is that I looked up. But I guarantee that you would consider it derogatory.
Regardless of the dictionary definitions, you need to be sensitive about how a particular word will be received by the hearers.
Wrong. There is a good way to convey truth, and there is an evil way to convey truth. Not all forms of communicating truth are equally appropriate.
Do you think a Roman Catholic is more likely to listen to you if you are kind, gentle, and patient, or do you think you are more likely to win them over by calling them "Romish papists"?
I have read plenty of Puritan/reformed works that use "romish" and "papist." Yes, they are using them in a context that it is NOT a good thing to be. Does that make it "calling names" or "not loving"? The definitions above are legit uses of the word, and there is no problem with using them today.
If a Roman Catholic came up to me and called me a Calvinist/Puritan, it would probably mean something derogatory in their world, but to me, it is a compliment, and a legit name for who I am and what I believe. I would take no offense at all to such a name, and I don't see why the RC's should take offense when it comes to their counterpart names.
If you think it is unloving to call a snake a snake, then you have charged Christ and the prophets with sin.
If a Roman Catholic came up to me and called me a Calvinist/Puritan, it would probably mean something derogatory in their world, but to me, it is a compliment, and a legit name for who I am and what I believe. I would take no offense at all to such a name, and I don't see why the RC's should take offense when it comes to their counterpart names.
If you think it is unloving to call a snake a snake, then you have charged Christ and the prophets with sin.
Rich and Joe make a point about being loving in our language I will have to consider. We are admonished to be as peaceful as doves. On the other hand these are terms the Reformers, Calvin, especially Luther, and many others used freely. I see derogatory and scathing language used against other groups on this board without a wimper from the Newspeak P.C. police though. Is "evangellyfish" a term non-reformed evangelicals like to be called? Or Fundies? Leftist, Leftwing are also a derogatory terms for someone with liberal political persuasion. Please don't call someone of the Islamic faith a Mohammedan, an Islamicist, or Jihadist. Homosexuals are not queers, homos, fags or sodomites. I'm from the North but please dont call me a Yankee, you might hurt my feelings. You cant call an abortionist a baby killer, they're "pro-choice." I'm sure Futurists dislike the terms paranoied or mad. Examples could be multiplied ad nauseum. Jesus called the Pharisees fools, vipers, hypocrites, and wolves. And What term is more proper to a worshiper of the Papal Antichrist then "papist"? But I suspect the sensitivity to anti-RC epithets has the same source as the love for Xmass. Popery was and remains the greatest enemy and danger to the Church. The reason is that she has infiltrated the temple of God 2 Thess 2 and continues to corrupt it. Even those who have allegedly broken from her whoredoms are gradually returning to her.
Kaalvenist
Puritan Board Sophomore
"No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God. In which respects, POPISH monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself." (Westminster Confession, 22.7)
"It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet is it the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord: and therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, PAPISTS, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies." (Westminster Confession, 24.3)
"In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same: so that the POPISH sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect." (Westminster Confession, 29.2)
Are there any confessional Presbyterians out there who will refuse to use the language of their Confession?
For that matter, consult the Three Forms of Unity:
"Q. What difference is there between the Lord's supper and the POPISH mass? A. The Lord's supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; and, that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ, who, according to his human nature is now not on earth, but in heaven, at the right hand of God his Father, and will there be worshipped by us:--but the mass teaches, that the living and the dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests; and further, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshipped in them; so that the mass, at bottom, is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry." (Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 80)
"The true doctrine having been explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those...Who teach: That without a special revelation we can have no certainty of future perseverance in this life. For by this doctrine the sure comfort of all believers is taken away in this life, and the doubts of the PAPIST are again introduced into the church, while the Holy Scriptures constantly deduce this assurance, not from a special and extraordinary revelation, but from the marks proper to the children of God and from the constant promises of God. So especially the Apostle Paul: 'No creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord,' Romans 8:39. And John declares: 'And he that keepeth his commandments abideth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he gave us,' 1 John 3:24." (Canons of Dordt, 5th Head, Error 5)
"It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet is it the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord: and therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, PAPISTS, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies." (Westminster Confession, 24.3)
"In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same: so that the POPISH sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect." (Westminster Confession, 29.2)
Are there any confessional Presbyterians out there who will refuse to use the language of their Confession?
For that matter, consult the Three Forms of Unity:
"Q. What difference is there between the Lord's supper and the POPISH mass? A. The Lord's supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; and, that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ, who, according to his human nature is now not on earth, but in heaven, at the right hand of God his Father, and will there be worshipped by us:--but the mass teaches, that the living and the dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests; and further, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshipped in them; so that the mass, at bottom, is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry." (Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 80)
"The true doctrine having been explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those...Who teach: That without a special revelation we can have no certainty of future perseverance in this life. For by this doctrine the sure comfort of all believers is taken away in this life, and the doubts of the PAPIST are again introduced into the church, while the Holy Scriptures constantly deduce this assurance, not from a special and extraordinary revelation, but from the marks proper to the children of God and from the constant promises of God. So especially the Apostle Paul: 'No creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord,' Romans 8:39. And John declares: 'And he that keepeth his commandments abideth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he gave us,' 1 John 3:24." (Canons of Dordt, 5th Head, Error 5)
Sean and Peter!
gwine
Puritan Board Sophomore
Just because they did use the words does not make it correct. I would venture to say that the Puritan divines weighed their words carefully. I question whether it is done often enough here.
I don't know what to say, except that there is more to this than merely taking offense. It's the tone of the language and your own attitude. Why not speak the truth in love and win those over? If the motive is wrong then the words become sinful. Are we trying to win the praises of men or are we seeking to glorify God?
Please re-read my comments above and my earlier post. At least Christ knew intimately what was in the hearts of those he castigated. And I believe John the Baptizer and the OT prophets knew as well. Christ was sinless in all that he did, including his condemnation of the Pharisees. And his heart was right too, something that all of us can not say.
And in response to Peter Gray I will say that I am not advocating the use of PC talk. But if your church was trying to reach out to the homosexual community or to prostitutes from the red light district, would you use the terms "fags" and "whores" to to invite them to church? I would hope not.
You suspect wrong for me. I know that I have far to go in learning how to communicate graciously with people, here and face-to-face.
But forgive me, all of you, for hijacking this thread, although I believe what I have to say is worth taking the time to ponder. Someday I will learn to keep my fingers closed.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Thanks for the quote, Peter. Praise God for the Nadere Reformatie!
I wish more people posted their birth dates in their profiles so I can get a feeling on how old they are. Unfortunately although the word prudence can be found in the dictionary it is not as easy to practice it as to define it.
I'm unafraid to use the terms and have even used them myself but under the circumstances warranted. If you would take the time to nuance the issue and the objections to it you would see why I think it inappropriate to use the term when referring to other Protestants as has been done repeatedly in this forum.
Gosh it is really hard not to walk up to people we barely know and have the first words out of our mouth be "How's it going you baby killer?!"
"What? You're offended. Well that's what you are. The truth hurts doesn't it?! Now let's sit down and have a dialogue about Christ...."
I really don't understand what you're advocating. You can't be in a more blunt profession than I'm in. We care little about feelings in our normal day to day work and I have no problem confronting people to their face unlike the theoretically brave who claim to be blunt but rarely actually interact with the world. Such people are miserable leaders both outside and in the Church because they know little about people and lack the even hand that can be firm yet soft in the use of tact. An elder of the Church is not to be pugilistic.
This isn't about thought police or word police and only an insincere reading of the posts would conclude that. Do you suppose, however, that what Paul meant by "becoming a Jew among the Jews" in order to spread the Gospel is that he spent the first five minutes labelling them with epithets in order to win them to the faith?
In answer to your specific question:
For me, Mom for one worshipper, Sir to the Colonel I work for, and friend to many others who have shown more character in rough times than some I share the true worship in Christ with.
It's almost sad to me that this has to be explained in, yes, a blunt way. Perhaps I might have labelled you and others with epithets in my response to determine if you responded by saying "Yeah, you're right, you're just speaking the truth man and the truth is the truth after all...."
[Edited on 12-3-2005 by SemperFideles]
Fair enough Peter. 
I understand you wouldn't call your grandma a Papist which only makes the point that we ought to be circumspect in the use of terms and that dictionaries do not always inform us of propriety of use.
I understand you wouldn't call your grandma a Papist which only makes the point that we ought to be circumspect in the use of terms and that dictionaries do not always inform us of propriety of use.
- Status
