Do you plan on celebrating Christmas?

[Username3000]

I have a question for those of you who don't celebrate Christmas in any way, shape or form: Do you believe that, if kept entirely out of the church, Christmas can exist in a private home without it being sinful? Does the answer hinge on whether the day is considered holy by the family or not? Can a family have the music, decorations, etc. and be free from sin if the season and day are free from any ascribed holiness?

 

[Captain Picard]

Not so with Christmas.

What would Christmas need to look like for it to qualify as being 'severed' from religion?

It would have to cease being observed as any kind of religious holiday in a society. All religious associations with it would have to be put to an end for a long time on a broad scale, so that no even thinks of it as having anything to do with religion.

So, if it was only Santa without the Nativity, it would be 'severed' from religion. It appears to be moving in that direction.

It is mystifying to me.

We are usually in the mode of "taking all captive for Christ."

Having a birthday party? Sing the Jesus oriented birthday song, have a time of devotions, pray for the birthday boy.

Having a baby shower? Have a devotional time, a time of prayer for mother, have everyone pass around a book putting in their favorite Bible verse as a keepsake.

Starting a business? Dedicate it to the Lord, put Scripture on the walls, print a Bible verse on the receipts.

Sanctify everything by the word of God and prayer. . .

except Christmas, which must be made holy in a reverse way, by keeping it all snowmen and seasonal holly.

It is contradictory, to me.

You'd be surprised. Some people appear to think anything that takes place outside of the four walls of a church is evil and irredeemable.

Plenty of Reformed folks seem to think the goal is to avoid things rather than redeem them, or that many things just aren't redeemable.

 

[Rom]

We are usually in the mode of "taking all captive for Christ."

Having a birthday party? Sing the Jesus oriented birthday song, have a time of devotions, pray for the birthday boy.

Having a baby shower? Have a devotional time, a time of prayer for mother, have everyone pass around a book putting in their favorite Bible verse as a keepsake.

Starting a business? Dedicate it to the Lord, put Scripture on the walls, print a Bible verse on the receipts.

Sanctify everything by the word of God and prayer. . .

except Christmas, which must be made holy in a reverse way, by keeping it all snowmen and seasonal holly.

It is contradictory, to me.

When it comes to idolatry, the proper response isn't to sanctify it. It is to remove it. The mistake that the Roman Catholic Church made, which led to her demise was the fact that she was quite happy to sanctify idolatry and pagan practices. Also, read the sad history of Israel's idolatry in the books of history in the Bible.

The question that has yet to be answered by the pro-Christmas crowd is whether or not Christmas has its foundation in the Scriptures. So far, the silence has been truly deafening. All we have seen thus far is a list of "I like it", "it suits me", "I enjoy it", and "I think it honors Christ because we should celebrate the Incarnation". But friends, all you have to do to find the the origin of Christmas is ask yourself why it is called "Christmas" to begin with.

Ask yourselves the same question any decent reporter would. Be like the Bereans. Search the Scriptures. Why was this day instituted? Why Dec. 25th? Why is it called Christmas? What churches opposed this day, and on what grounds? What churches push the day, and on what grounds?

Does the very name of the thing break the 3rd commandment? Yes.
Does stating that Jesus was born on Dec. 25th break the 9th commandment? Yes.

Ask yourself, on what basis do I celebrate the day? And why do I do so on Dec. 25th? If you take a hard look at it from that perspective, it would be very hard to claim there is a legitimate basis for its observance.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

When it was treated idolatrously, the bronze serpent was not repatriated to a redeemed use, it was destroyed. This is a reformation principle to destroy monuments of idolatry. If I can forecast a revision of my xmas in American Presbyterian research which may run in this year's The Confessional Presbyterian v11 (working to get it out but it will likely hit mail boxes in January)....

As covered in the historical review above, the church in Scotland rejected any countenancing of the old pretended holy days, because they were notoriously part of the idolatrous worship of Roman Catholicism. It was determined that these were no longer indifferent observances to be retained or rejected at our good pleasure. They must be rejected according to the argument Gillespie framed in his Dispute:

All things and rites which have been notoriously abused to idolatry, if they are not such as either God or nature has made to be of a necessary use, should be utterly abolished and purged away from divine worship, in such sort that they may not be accounted nor used by us as sacred things or rites pertaining to the same….[1]


​

I say, all things and rites, for they are alike forbidden, as I shall show. I say, which have been notoriously abused to idolatry, because if the abuse is not known, we are blameless for retaining the things and rites which have been abused. I say, if they are not such as either God or nature has made to be of a necessary use, because if they are of a necessary use, either through God’s institution, as the sacraments, or through nature’s law, as the opening of our mouths to speak …, then the abuse cannot take away the use. I say, they may not be used by us as sacred things, rites pertaining to divine worship, because without [outside] the compass of worship they may be used to a natural or civil purpose. If I could get no other meat to eat than the consecrated host, which papists idolatrise [idolize] in the circumgestation[2] of it, I might lawfully eat it; and if I could get no other clothes to put on than the holy garments wherein a priest has said mass, I might lawfully wear them. Things abused to idolatry are only then unlawful when they are used no otherwise than religiously, and as things sacred.
​

Gillespie pursues five proofs for this rule for dealing with monuments to idolatry (3.2.3–6):

1. From God’s own precept out of Isaiah 30:22; Jude 23; Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:25, 26; Numbers 33:52; Deuteronomy 7:5; 12:2, 3.

2. From Numbers 33:52, 53 and Isaiah 27:9 that the abolishing of relics of idolatry is clearly acceptable service toward God.

3. From the negative example in Revelation 2:14–20 where the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira were reproved for tolerating idolothites.

4. From the approved examples of Jacob (Gen. 35:4); Elijah (1 Kings 18:30); Jehu (2 Kings 10:22–28); Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4); Josiah (2 Kings 23); Manasseh (2 Chron. 23:15); Moses (Exod. 32:17–20); and Daniel (Dan. 1:8).

In a fifth proof Gillespie supports this proposition necessitating the purging away of monuments of idolatry with a twofold reason, that such things preserve the memory of idols (cf. Exod. 23:13; Deut. 12:3; Josh. 23:7; Esth. 3:2; Deut. 25:19), and “such idolatrous remainders move us to turn back to idolatry.” “God would have Israel to overthrow all idolatrous monuments, lest thereby they should be snared (Deut. 7:25; 12:30).

While they were more consistent in applying it to the matter at hand, this necessity to destroy and remove monuments or marks of idolatry was not some strange doctrine invented by Scottish Presbyterians. The Debrecen Synod (1567) stated that “all marks and organs of idolatry and the Mass are totally forbidden in the second commandment— indeed, everywhere in the New Testament,” and with several proofs from Scripture prove that “idols and the marks and purposes of idolatry are to be avoided.” Indeed, “the defilements of the Antichrist (the Mass, the wafer, the idols, and every tradition of the doctrine of the Antichrist) are condemned because they are fornication, the tokens of idolatry, pretences, sins, scandals, offenses, darkness, dung, deceptions, tohu bohu (i.e. keni apati, that is ‘vain deceptions’), skeletons, basilisks’ eggs, spider’s webs, scorpions, frogs, toads, poisonous things (Isa. 59; Rev. 8–9, 16–17).”[3]

The Synod at Szikszo (1568) rejected the use of the host because it could not by its nature be converted to pious use, as “it is the head and cause sine qua non of an idolatrous Mass;” and “Scripture commands the name, memory, figure, use, and signs of idolatry to be abolished.”[4]

The Nassau Confession (1578) remarks, “It were much to be wished that suitable steps against this evil [of idolatrous images] had been taken in the Protestant churches soon upon the initial purification of doctrine. And moreover, that the idolatrous images, which have been and still are one of the principal abominations under the Papacy, had been everywhere abolished by the Protestant estates for the recovery and preservation of the proper service of worship and for the possible prevention of various disgraces to the Christian religion and to its reputation…”

And even if all the people of this age had their eyes opened so widely that there would now be no more residue of offence or scandal on account of images, nevertheless all manner of injury could be sustained among their descendents no less than formerly as a result of the surviving idols.
​

And even if this were not encountered, still it is right in itself. And, as has previously been often stated, it is commanded by God that one should do away with the monuments of idolatry or memorials by means of which great idolatry was being promoted a few years ago. And this accords with the approved example of Holy Scripture.
​

For King Hezekiah broke up the brazen serpent after the children of Israel had burned incense to it, though Moses had made it at God’s command as a type of Christ, 2 Kgs. 18[:4]….[5]
​

And the Bremen Consensus (1595), while not using the term, elaborates,

II. Some ceremonies are devised and established by men are properly called adiaphora, that is, a thing neither evil nor good, or an act which is left free, or an ecclesiastical rule. … They do not take the place of the indispensable worship service, such as the use of the holy sacraments and the hearing of God’s Word. Rather, they are external ordinances of men and thus they serve only for a convenient performance of the worship service. Beyond this, no necessity should be placed in them for conscience sake, nor any confidence or special reverence or sanctity, for as soon as that occurs such ceremonies will be much too highly elevated above their ordinary allowed use and are made into an evident superstition….

​

5. Fifth and similarly, should the ceremonies ordained by men come to be regarded no longer as something left free, and if one makes them to be a service especially pleasing to God or wants to insist upon them as if they were necessary for conscience sake, or if one wants to persuade the people that it would be meritorious or an action by which one could obtain grace with God, reconciliation, the forgiveness of sins, or satisfaction from some transgression, then on that account and in such circumstances they should be entirely abolished. This should be done regardless of the preceding custom and regardless of its past beneficial use because by this time they have been so greatly altered that they henceforth are a thing repugnant to the truth and liberty of the gospel and rob Christ of His glory.

​

6. Sixth, if the ordinances of men in the church assume a form that, for the sake of similarity, is closer in these matters to the enemies of the truth than to the orthodox so that the weak are offended by this and kept in error and the enemies would become more stiff-necked, then it is best to remove them, in part to obviate offence and in part to avoid dangers either present or apprehended as future. When there is a form with fasts, days of the deceased saints, vestments, wafers, elevation, images and the like, these are nothing other than papal ensigns and the colors of his court. They should no more be retained than a respectable woman should be accustomed to going thoughtlessly clothed among immodest people or than soldiers should undertake to carry the ensigns of the enemy.[6]
​

And in answering a significant objection to the necessity of removing such monuments (that it is sufficient to restore such things to a right use), Gillespie adduces Calvin himself.

Calvin, answering that which Cassander alleges out of an Italian writer, abusu non tolli bonum usum [abuse does not take away the good use], he admits it only to be true in things which are instituted by God Himself, not so in things ordained by men, for the very use of such things or rites as have no necessary use in God’s worship, and which men have devised only at their own pleasure, is taken away by idolatrous abuse. Pars tutior [The safer part] here, is to put them wholly away, and there is, by a great deal, more danger in retaining than in removing them.
​

In that tract against Cassander, Calvin, drawing on the example of Hezekiah, wrote:

Similarly, what is alleged of an Italian writer, that abuse does not take away good use, will not be true if one holds to it without exception: because it is clearly commanded to us to prudently watch that we would not offend the infirm brothers by our example, and that we should never undertake what would be illicit. For Saint Paul prohibits offending the brothers in eating flesh that was sacrificed to idols [1 Cor. 10:28], and speaking to this particular issue he shows a general rule that we are to keep ourselves from troubling the consciences of the weak by a bad or damaging example. One might speak better and more wholesomely if he were to say that what God himself ordains may not be abolished for wrong use or abuse that is committed against it. But even here, it is necessary to abstain from these things if, by later human ordinance, they have become corrupt with error, and if their use is harmful or scandalizes the brothers.

​

Here I marvel how this “Reformer,” after granting that superstitions sometimes have such strong popularity that it is necessary to remove from the realm of man those things once ordained by public authority (as we read of Hezekiah doing with the bronze serpent), finally does not consider even a little that his shrewdness is a horror to the ways of good action: as if in defending supportable rituals, he would oblige that all superstitions should be considered as safe and whole because they are weighty. For what is there in the papacy now that would not resemble the bronze serpent, even if it did not begin that way [Num. 21:9]? Moses had it made and forged by the commandment of God: he had it kept for a sign of recognition. Among the virtues of Hezekiah told to us is that he had it broken and reduced to ash [2 Kings 18:4]. The superstitions for the most part, against which true servants of God battle today, are spreading from here to who knows where as covered pits in the ground. They are filled with detestable errors that can never be erased unless their use is taken away. Why, therefore, do we not confess simply what is true, that this remedy is necessary for taking away filth from the church” [7]
​

This necessity of removing monuments of idolatry was also brought forward by the Westminster Assembly both in its first petition to parliament and later in its work on the Larger Catechism. In its petition of 19 July 1643 (before the arrival of Gillespie and the Scots commissioners), the assembly requested the parliament, “That all monuments of Idolatry and Superstition, but especially the whole body and practice of Popery may be totally abolished.”[8] And in their detailing the moral duties of the second commandment in their larger catechism, the divines included, “the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.”[9]

Following the adducing of Calvin’s answer to Cassander, Gillespie continued his argument to put completely away practices notoriously abused to idolatry lacking any necessary use in the worship of God.

(2) The proofs which I have produced for the proposition about which now we debate, do not only infer that things and rites which have been notoriously abused to idolatry should be abolished, in case they be not restored to a right use, but simply and absolutely that in any wise they are to be abolished. God commanded to say to the covering, and the ornaments of idols, “Get thee hence” (Isa. 30:22). It is not enough they be purged from the abuse, but simpliciter they themselves must pack them and be gone. How did Jacob with the earrings of the idols; Elijah with Baal’s altar; Jehu with his vestments; Josiah with his houses; Manasseh with his altars; Moses with the golden calf; Joshua with the temples of Canaan; Hezekiah with the brazen serpent? Did they retain the things themselves, and only purge them from the abuse? Belike [Suppose], if these our opposites had been their counselors, they had advised them to be contented with such a moderation; yet we see they were better counseled when they destroyed utterly the things themselves, whereby we know that they were of the same mind with us, and thought that things abused to idolatry, if they have no necessary use, are far better away than a-place [in place]. Did Daniel refuse Bel’s meat because it was not restored to the right use? Nay, if that had been all, it might have been quickly helped, and the meat sanctified by the Word of God and prayer. Finally, were the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira reproved because they did not restore things sacrificed to idols to their right use? Or, were they not rather reproved for having anything at all to do with the things themselves?

​

§8. (3) As for that which Dr. Forbes objects to us, we answer, that temples, places of prayer, chairs, vessels, and bells, are of a necessary use, by the light and guidance of nature itself; and matrimonial benediction is necessary by God’s institution (Gen. 1:28); so that all those examples do except themselves from the argument in hand. But the Doctor intends to bring those things within the category of things indifferent;[10] and to this purpose he alleges, that it is indifferent to use this or that place for a temple, or a place of prayer; also to use these vessels, and bells, or others. And of matrimonial benediction to be performed by a pastor, he says there is nothing commanded in Scripture.

​

Answer. Though it be indifferent to choose this place, etc., also to use these vessels or other vessels, etc.; yet the Doctor, I trust, will not deny that temples, houses of prayer, vessels and bells, are of a necessary use (which exeems [exempts] them from the touch of our present argument); whereas, beside that it is not necessary to kneel in the communion in this place more than in that place, neither to keep the feast of Christ’s nativity, passion, etc., upon these days more than upon other days, etc. The things themselves are not necessary in their kind; and it is not necessary to keep any festival day, nor to kneel at all in the act of receiving the communion.
​

---

[1] See the argument in EPC, part 3, chapter 2.

[SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][/SUP] . [Meaning to carry around; obviously a scornful remark respecting the papal practice of uplifting, displaying, and carrying the elements around to be adored by the people.]

[3] Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison, 4 vols. (Reformation Heritage books, 2008–2014), 3.12, 14–15.

[4] Reformed Confessions, 3.155.

[5] Reformed Confessions, 3.529, 531.

[6] Reformed Confessions, 3.700–701. See also for other examples, The Synod of Gönc (1566), “21. The relics of idolatry are to be thrown out,” 2.898; The Second Confession of the London-Amsterdam Church (1596), 3.761, and The Points of Difference (1603), 4.4.

[7] Responsio Ad Versipellem Quendam Mediatorem, p. 41–44. [Cf. CR 37 (CO 9), 542. Cf. [French]“Response a Un Certain Moyenneur Ruse,” Recueil des Opuscules (Geneva: Stoer, 1611), 2191–2192. This tract was published in English translation for the first time in a past issue. See R. Victor Bottomly, “In Translatiōne: Calvin’s Response to a Certain Tricky Middler,” The Confessional Presbyterian 8 (2012).

[8] CVD, Minutes, 5.12

[9] CVD, Minutes, 4.664.

[SUP][SUP][10][/SUP][/SUP] . Ubi Supra [Forbes, Irenicum].

 

[TylerRay]

Not so with Christmas.

What would Christmas need to look like for it to qualify as being 'severed' from religion?

It would have to cease being observed as any kind of religious holiday in a society. All religious associations with it would have to be put to an end for a long time on a broad scale, so that no even thinks of it as having anything to do with religion.

So, if it was only Santa without the Nativity, it would be 'severed' from religion. It appears to be moving in that direction.

Actually, Santa is one of the great idols of our day. I remember saying prayers of thanksgiving to him as a child on Christmas morning (after all, he sees me when I'm sleeping, he knows when I'm awake, etc). When my parents heard me doing that, they decided it was time to let me know that the whole thing was a hoax.

Nope, Santa superstition would have to be put away as well as statues of "baby Jesus."

 

[Miss Marple]

"The question that has yet to be answered by the pro-Christmas crowd is whether or not Christmas has its foundation in the Scriptures. "

No.

But neither is Thanksgiving day, 4th of July, baby showers, birthday parties, etc. as mentioned.

I have no issue keeping the RPW in the formal worship of the church. But I feel like it's being applied to activities/events/celebrations/rememberances/occasions OUTSIDE the church, and that is where I find myself taking issue.

 

[Username3000]

"The question that has yet to be answered by the pro-Christmas crowd is whether or not Christmas has its foundation in the Scriptures. "

No.

But neither is Thanksgiving day, 4th of July, baby showers, birthday parties, etc. as mentioned.

I have no issue keeping the RPW in the formal worship of the church. But I feel like it's being applied to activities/events/celebrations/rememberances/occasions OUTSIDE the church, and that is where I find myself taking issue.

I am still working my way through the issue, but I tend to agree with you. God did not authorize a day to be set apart for formal worship of His church on Christmas, I get that. But how far does that apply? Into one's home? I am still wanting someone to elaborate on the private aspect of Christmas. Is it sin to decorate your house, listen to Christmas music, and exchange gifts without calling the day itself holy? What if these things are done, not to commemorate the exact day of Christ's birth, but for the enjoyment of the things themselves? Is that any different than any other man-made holiday on our calendar, such as Thanksgiving? If I separate Christmas from the 'holiness' ascribed to it by men, isn't the leftover a matter which falls into the realm of conscience?

If, as the head of my household, I decide that in addition to our regular worship, we will have a special emphasis on the Incarnation at one point of the year, the Resurrection at another, am I in sin? Can this emphasis only exist apart from any of the Christmas flair?

 

[Toasty]

"The question that has yet to be answered by the pro-Christmas crowd is whether or not Christmas has its foundation in the Scriptures. "

No.

But neither is Thanksgiving day, 4th of July, baby showers, birthday parties, etc. as mentioned.

I have no issue keeping the RPW in the formal worship of the church. But I feel like it's being applied to activities/events/celebrations/rememberances/occasions OUTSIDE the church, and that is where I find myself taking issue.

I think the point was that the celebration of Christmas should not be included in the worship of God. The 4th of July, baby showers, and birthday parties do not violate the RPW because they were not intended to be elements of worship. They were not intended to be a way to worship God.

One could celebrate Christmas without worshipping God, but that would go against the purpose of celebrating Christmas.