Is Celebrating Easter Pagan?

[he beholds]

So if I'm a Christian and I dye Easter eggs, am I not a Christian dyeing Easter eggs? And thus is it not me doing a Pagan ritual but it is a Christian dyeing eggs?

The objects are neutral, but our motivations never are. Do we not call Sunday "the Lord's Day," regardless of how others may observe it? Is it then possible that Easter can be pagan if Christians attach elements to the day that are contrary to scripture? It's one thing to mark spring's arrival with flowers, dyed eggs, etc. just as we might mark fall with hay bales and pumpkins, but if the former is attached to the work of Christ, is that not problematic?

I guess I can't think of anything Pagan or inherently sinful that is attached to celebrating Easter. What do most people do?

If it is not a big deal then why not hold "Resurrection Sunday" in July? What Biblical reason is there that it must be held in March/April depending on the "non-binding" church calendar of denominations that do not hold to the Regulative Principle?

I'd love to see a church demonstrate that it's not a requirement that it be held when the other church's are celebrating Easter and other unbiblical holy days.

Well, any church that has Sunday church is holding Resurrection Sunday on a Sunday in July, right? What are we talking about? What do churches do on Easter Sunday that they wouldn't do in July?

I tried to condense my questions into one post. I am really severely confused over what people are doing that is sinful on April 8th that they aren't doing on April 1. Not what are Pagans doing, but what are our PCA, ARP, RPCNA, Reformed Baptist, OPC, etc, churches doing that is sinful? What are you all saying is sinful? If it is stuff that shouldn't be done on the Lord's day (like petting zoos or something), OK, gotcha. If it's eating at grandma's, I definitely do NOT get it. If it's a sermon that mentions the fact that our Lord is risen, you are going to have to do a better job at telling me why that is forbidden.

And if it's binding the consciences of some, to what are they being bound? Perhaps I've been extremely blessed to never have been to a church that does these crazy Pagan rituals a few times a year that you guys are so worried about. Can anyone tell me how their own conscience has been bound by Easter? I can say that the people who are worried about these bound consciences seem to be the ones who'd be more likely to bind my own conscience. I feel like if you were my pastor you'd be making me feel guilty for...well, I'm still not exactly what we aren't allowed to do on Easter because no one has really given any examples of these Pagan rituals.

So what is it exactly that we shouldn't be doing? I'm not being a jerk, I honestly have no clue what I'm even defending and I'm actually a little confused by the lack of examples. (I left Anna's quote there because she did attempt to answer me, but I don't get what Easter has to do with adding to the work of Christ. I seriously have no clue what I should not be doing. Saying the word Easter?)

 

[Mushroom]

Don't give up the fight for the purity of worship, dear sir! Pray for your elders, give them relevant materials, entreat them as fathers in the Lord, kindly, humbly.

Dear Rev. Ruddell,

Thank you for your gracious response. I'm sure it is I who needs to ask forgiveness for my less-than-gracious post. I did not demonstrate proper respect in my words to you, and I apologize.

As for the encouragement above, the first part is no problem, although I've never done so as I ought, but the last I find to be an art I am not greatly blessed with the ability to carry out. It's too easy for me to grow disdainful of men I perceive to handle these matters with such cavalier sin who have presumed themselves to be teachers. The best way for me to count them as fathers in the Lord is to bear with these infirmities and focus instead on those characteristics I see in them that reflect my Savior.

As useless as I may be in this fight, I find myself fully convinced of your position in the matter. May the Lord soon purge His Bride of these corruptions.

---------- Post added at 03:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------

Can anyone tell me how their own conscience has been bound by Easter?

Not sure if this is what you're looking for, Jessica, but I can give an example regarding Christmas. We stopped celebrating it several years ago, but after returning to our local PCA Church it has been a struggle. They do advent candles - but before the call to worship, so I ignore it. They hold a 'lessons and carols' Christmas Eve service. It entails a call to worship, then congregants read a portion of scripture and introduce a carol. All are invited, and many women volunteer. So we have a called worship service, centered around a Roman 'church calendar', that is carried out in flagrant violation of the Confession and the RPW. We went this last year. It was a miserable experience. So, we have to choose between not going and thus denigrating the call to worship, or going and particpating in denigrating worship. If my Session tells me I must come, they are binding my conscience to do the latter, if they suggest I skip it they are binding my conscience to do the former.

The sad reality is that if my Session repented and threw all this C-E stuff out the window, we'd probably lose more than half the congregation. I approvingly call that a Scottish revival, my Session would however not likely agree.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Dear Jessica,

Those of us "guys who are so worried" are zealous for the Lord and His worship. Keep the Lord's Day holy, follow the 4th Commandment to the best of your ability, read Isaiah 58.13ff, and understand that coloring eggs, having a egg hunt, on the Lord's Day is not appropriate. A sermon on the resurrection of Christ is appropriate 52 Lord's Day per year. Elevating one Lord's Day above another, calling it resurrection Sunday, or whatever, is not Biblical. The Lord's Day itself was, by Apostolic authority and practice changed to the first day of the week in order that it might commemorate the Lord's resurrection every week, as well as the entirety of His work for us, as the resurrection is the capstone of that work. If we say this Lord's Day is somehow more significant than another we detract from the Lord's pressing the resurrection to us every week. In answer to your question, "So what is it exactly that we shouldn't be doing?" the answer is in WCF 21.1:

"But 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." Whatever He has not required us to do in His worship, that's what we're not supposed to do. Having an Easter pageant, a Christ-Mass cantata, a special soloist singing about the resurrection and how meaningful it is to him/her, or any other way the Lord's Day is polluted by un-commanded rites. The list is long in today's Churches--as I said in an earlier thread, these things come in little by little.

If you desire to color eggs with your children on Saturday, I would be the last one to tell you that you're sinning. I would however question the wisdom of such an activity, as I have questioned many of my former practices As an older adult with grown children, I often see my own shortcomings as a parent in allowing these "harmless" things while they were small, when I didn't know better, as they then take them the next step later with their children. They are responsible, I know that, but I too will answer for introducing them to corruption in the first place.

---------- Post added at 07:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 PM ----------

Don't give up the fight for the purity of worship, dear sir! Pray for your elders, give them relevant materials, entreat them as fathers in the Lord, kindly, humbly.

Dear Rev. Ruddell,

Thank you for your gracious response. I'm sure it is I who needs to ask forgiveness for my less-than-gracious post. I did not demonstrate proper respect in my words to you, and I apologize.

As for the encouragement above, the first part is no problem, although I've never done so as I ought, but the last I find to be an art I am not greatly blessed with the ability to carry out. It's too easy for me to grow disdainful of men I perceive to handle these matters with such cavalier sin who have presumed themselves to be teachers. The best way for me to count them as fathers in the Lord is to bear with these infirmities and focus instead on those characteristics I see in them that reflect my Savior.

As useless as I may be in this fight, I find myself fully convinced of your position in the matter. May the Lord soon purge His Bride of these corruptions soon.

Dear Brad,

I would not say you're useless--I'm commanded against doing that in the Sermon on the Mount. Your prayers for your session are indeed commendable, and your silent witness to the truth probably does more that you know. Be encouraged brother, keep the faith. And, if you can get down here to Texas, I'll buy your dinner.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Dear Brad,

I would not say you're useless--I'm commanded against doing that in the Sermon on the Mount. Your prayers for your session are indeed commendable, and your silent witness to the truth probably does more that you know. Be encouraged brother, keep the faith. And, if you can get down here to Texas, I'll buy your dinner.

This is a very generous offer, Rev. Ruddell, but Brad and Mindy and their delightful progeny would be visiting New Braunfels first if they visited Texas. You might have to drive down here.

Sez you!

 

[Philip]

Whatever He has not required us to do in His worship, that's what we're not supposed to do. Having an Easter pageant, a Christ-Mass cantata, a special soloist singing about the resurrection and how meaningful it is to him/her, or any other way the Lord's Day is polluted by un-commanded rites.

Let's grant this: for most of the churches I've been at, this is not what Resurrection Sunday worship involves (except maybe the solo during offertory---but that would not have been unusual anyway, and that's a separate discussion). I'm not sure I see the objection here. Is the objection to a particular emphasis on a particular day? I can fully imagine a Resurrection Sunday service that did not violate the RPW in the way you are suggesting. Indeed, I have attended services on Resurrection Sunday that, apart from the emphasis in the hymns chosen and the sermon preached, were indistinguishable from Lord's Day worship at other times. The main difference at my current (at school) church is the fact that there's a fellowship brunch in lieu of Sunday School.

If we say this Lord's Day is somehow more significant than another we detract from the Lord's pressing the resurrection to us every week.

I don't think that. The Lord's Day is my favourite day of the week whether it's a feast of the church or not. It's a built-in holy day every week! Maybe I'm just missing an inconsistency in my position.

 

[au5t1n]

Dear Brad,

I would not say you're useless--I'm commanded against doing that in the Sermon on the Mount. Your prayers for your session are indeed commendable, and your silent witness to the truth probably does more that you know. Be encouraged brother, keep the faith. And, if you can get down here to Texas, I'll buy your dinner.

This is a very generous offer, Rev. Ruddell, but Brad and Mindy and their delightful progeny would be visiting New Braunfels first if they visited Texas. You might have to drive down here.

Sez you!

The kids will mutiny if they don't get to see their big brother!


Incidentally, we had visitors on December 25 last year and they left before the first Scripture reading. I'm not sure what they were expecting, but whatever it was, they didn't see it. Evidently at least their conscience was bound that holy days should be acknowledged.

 

[MW]

I guess I can't think of anything Pagan or inherently sinful that is attached to celebrating Easter. What do most people do?

The inherent sinfulness is in the refusal to acknowledge the sovereign, righteous, and beneficent prerogative of God to regulate His own worship. Without this right and prerogative of God there would be nothing inherently sinful in anything.

 

[Gesetveemet]

Whatever He has not required us to do in His worship, that's what we're not supposed to do.

Would this include the tradition of singing psalms "Hallel" (Psalms 113-118) both before and after the passover Seder as was the tradition when Jesus celebrated the Passover when He worshiped?

And the Scotts custom of singing Psalm 23 beginning the communion service and ending it with psalm 103 which may go back to John Knox?

Just asking and thank you in advance.



.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

The singing of Psalms is a commanded element of worship. Which Psalm is sung and how many is circumstantial.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Dear Phillip,

What in Scripture gives you the idea that you should call one Lord's Day out of 52 in the year "Resurrection Sunday" and that you should do so every year? This is exactly my point. Every first day of the week is the Lord's Day, the Day He claims for His own. When we call one Lord's Day Resurrection Sunday, or Epiphany, or Advent, or Pentecost, etc. we add to the Scriptures concerning that Day the Lord calls His own--we must take care to keep our foot off of His Holy Day, by calling it something that pertains to a man-made holy-day. Over and again in the Scripture, the ability to name something corresponds to authority over it. Adam names the animals, Nebuchadnezzar names the captives. Why do we want to name the Lord's Day something other than what He calls it, and to elevate one of those days above another with that name, as if we had authority to do so?

I do not desire to be combative here. These are the questions our Puritan fathers asked, and they answered by rejecting all man-made celebrations such as Easter, Christ-Mass, Epiphany, Pentecost Sunday. I only wish to point out the history and reasoning of the Puritan understanding on this, the Puritan-Board.

Whatever He has not required us to do in His worship, that's what we're not supposed to do. Having an Easter pageant, a Christ-Mass cantata, a special soloist singing about the resurrection and how meaningful it is to him/her, or any other way the Lord's Day is polluted by un-commanded rites.

Let's grant this: for most of the churches I've been at, this is not what Resurrection Sunday worship involves (except maybe the solo during offertory---but that would not have been unusual anyway, and that's a separate discussion). I'm not sure I see the objection here. Is the objection to a particular emphasis on a particular day? I can fully imagine a Resurrection Sunday service that did not violate the RPW in the way you are suggesting. Indeed, I have attended services on Resurrection Sunday that, apart from the emphasis in the hymns chosen and the sermon preached, were indistinguishable from Lord's Day worship at other times. The main difference at my current (at school) church is the fact that there's a fellowship brunch in lieu of Sunday School.

If we say this Lord's Day is somehow more significant than another we detract from the Lord's pressing the resurrection to us every week.

I don't think that. The Lord's Day is my favourite day of the week whether it's a feast of the church or not. It's a built-in holy day every week! Maybe I'm just missing an inconsistency in my position.

 

[jwright82]

What in Scripture gives you the idea that you should call one Lord's Day out of 52 in the year "Resurrection Sunday" and that you should do so every year?

What in scripture gives you the right to say that a church may not emphasize a particuler doctrine on a particuler Lord's day if that happens to be Easter or Ressurection Sunday?

Every first day of the week is the Lord's Day, the Day He claims for His own. When we call one Lord's Day Resurrection Sunday, or Epiphany, or Advent, or Pentecost, etc. we add to the Scriptures concerning that Day the Lord calls His own--we must take care to keep our foot off of His Holy Day, by calling it something that pertains to a man-made holy-day.

What about the birth of Jesus or his ressurection is man made?

Over and again in the Scripture, the ability to name something corresponds to authority over it. Adam names the animals, Nebuchadnezzar names the captives. Why do we want to name the Lord's Day something other than what He calls it, and to elevate one of those days above another with that name, as if we had authority to do so?

If we decided to celebrate super bowl sunday at church than you would have a point. But we are taking God's word and emphasizing different doctrines on certian sundays. It is not clear to me why that is wrong?

I do not desire to be combative here. These are the questions our Puritan fathers asked, and they answered by rejecting all man-made celebrations such as Easter, Christ-Mass, Epiphany, Pentecost Sunday. I only wish to point out the history and reasoning of the Puritan understanding on this, the Puritan-Board.

Neither are we who disagree with you. I have much respect for you and anyone else who holds to your view, you cannot fault someone for wishing to keep the Sabbath holy. Might I suggest a couple of things to think about.

1. If we are faithful to our reformed heretage than we must also admit that we, like all totally depraved people, can become pharasee like in our thinking. We can add to God's law even for "good reasons". Like some baptists and non-denomanational churchs here in the south, who forbid dancing, smoking, drinking, etc..., we can also over protect things to a fault. Not to offend or accuse anyone here of anything but it seems to me, In my humble opinion, that that may be what is going on here. We have asked over and over again why such practices today in our culture are pagan. The response we get in no way argues why such things are pagan, for the most part, but simply assumes that they are. This is in effect, even if unintetionally, to make a straw man of our side. As much as I respect the Puritans, I must point out that they were arguing against a different thing back then and their arguments cannot be that easily applied to anything today.

2. That the "logic" of what is going on here is no so simple as being presented by some of my brothers and sisters in Christ on the other side of this discussion. As I see it there are three different problems to be solved here. For one is the sabbath to be regarded as holy? Yes, both sides overtly agree on this (we may be implicitly disregarding it but that has not been shown yet). So simply replying that "we should regard the sabbath as holy and not add manmade things to it" doesn't get us very far in the discussion. In fact it ignores the questions that we have pointed out with regards to this. For two what freedoms do a individual congragation have in what is emphasized in worship? This is not to suggest that we can add anything but asks what can be changed if anything? For three what makes what we call Easter today manmade and pagan? I am not saying that we should do easter baskets at church but why is it pagan or manmade to celebrate Christ's ressurection on this day?

---------- Post added at 11:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 AM ----------

The singing of Psalms is a commanded element of worship. Which Psalm is sung and how many is circumstantial.

The teaching of the whole counsel of God is a commanded element of worship. Which doctrine on which sunday is circumstantial.

 

[Romans922]

What in scripture gives you the right to say that a church may not emphasize a particuler doctrine on a particuler Lord's day if that happens to be Easter or Ressurection Sunday?

James,

Why do you celebrate Easter? What will you do on Easter that is different than any other Lord's Day?

 

[jwright82]

What in scripture gives you the right to say that a church may not emphasize a particuler doctrine on a particuler Lord's day if that happens to be Easter or Ressurection Sunday?

James,

Why do you celebrate Easter? What will you do on Easter that is different than any other Lord's Day?

Because I wish to emphasize the doctrine of Christ's ressurection on this day of my own free will. I may go to my grandmothers house if the family is getting together. If I have my daughter than sometime that weekend I will give her a basket with candy in it. That saturday I will take her to my church to do the easter egg hunt.

 

[Romans922]

Because I wish to emphasize the doctrine of Christ's ressurection on this day of my own free will.

But I don't see how that is not emphasized every Lord's Day, especially since He rose on the first day of the week.

Doing so by your own free will isn't really helping your case because the question is has God commanded it.


Deut. 12 says in the context of worship, "Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it."

James you said,

If we are faithful to our reformed heretage than we must also admit that we, like all totally depraved people, can become pharasee like in our thinking. We can add to God's law even for "good reasons".

That seems like exactly what you are doing, especially in the context of Deut. 12 that is quoted. What did the Pharisees do? They added to the commandment of God.

You are adding, not by God's command, but by your own free will an emphasis that God Himself has not commanded or made distinct from any other Lord's Day. Josh has said this before, putting emphasis on one particular Lord's Day in contrast to others is showing the lack of zeal for the other Lord's Days. If you are not giving all of yourself in every Lord's Day to rest in the Lord then you are in sin.

The question is where has the Lord commanded to emphasize, at the determination of the Roman Catholics, the resurrection in a greater way than any other Lord's Day?

It is really offensive to God's divinity to suggest that man's designation could somehow super-add specialness to something that is holy by His prescription and peculiar presence in it.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Let's watch the charges of sin and who is the Pharisee and deal with the questions that come up as far as these observances without making it personal or taking it personally. To that end I really think the many questions involved here need separating out and answering distinctly based upon the principles involved. Lumping various questions of going to grandma's house on a holiday, egg hunts on week days, eating holiday candy, countenancing the church calendar and the freedom the pastor has to choose his sermon subjects, under whether Easter has pagan ties, ultimately is not helpful.

 

[jwright82]

But I don't see how that is not emphasized every Lord's Day, especially since He rose on the first day of the week.

Doing so by your own free will isn't really helping your case because the question is has God commanded it.


Deut. 12 says in the context of worship, "Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it."

James you said,

Who says it can't be? Your point really backfires in a way. If I understand you correctly, and please correct me if I am not, we should not tie it down to one day, agreed. What in any of our posts has suggested that you either:
A. Must emphasize the ressurection on this particuler day
b. Cannot celebrate it on anyother day

This is the straw man that I mentioned. If you take your point to its logical conclusion than it suggests that you must not, man binding the conscience, celebrate the ressurection on this day. How is that not a manmade law upon God's people?

That seems like exactly what you are doing, especially in the context of Deut. 12 that is quoted. What did the Pharisees do? They added to the commandment of God.

In what way have we added to the commandment of God? We have uniformally said that it is not binding on all christians to emphasize this doctrine on this day. That is again a straw man argument.

You are adding, not by God's command, but by your own free will an emphasis that God Himself has not commanded or made distinct from any other Lord's Day. Josh has said this before, putting emphasis on one particular Lord's Day in contrast to others is showing the lack of zeal for the other Lord's Days. If you are not giving all of yourself in every Lord's Day to rest in the Lord then you are in sin.

So we are never to mention or emphasize either the Lord's birth or ressurection because there are Roman Catholic rituals associated with them? Or that we must not emphasize or mention them on those days? That is very much a manmade law upon God's people. Would it be wrong for a church to emphasize the TULIP on all the sundays in July? So sermon series and emphasizing one book of the bible for a time is wrong? I think that we can all agree that that is absurd. But as soon as you admit that you leave open the question of If it is up to the particuler church to emphasize which books or doctrines on which sabbath days, than why would it be wrong to emphasize those doctrines on those days?

The question is where has the Lord commanded to emphasize, at the determination of the Roman Catholics, the resurrection in a greater way than any other Lord's Day?

It is really offensive to God's divinity to suggest that man's designation could somehow super-add specialness to something that is holy by His prescription and peculiar presence in it.

Again straw man arguments. We are not saying that you must or are commanded by God to do so. We are saying that you are commanded to teach the whole counsel of God. Which of that counsel you teach on which sabbath day is up to the local church. This is not a matter of command but one of circumstance.

---------- Post added at 12:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------

Let's watch the charges of sin and who is the Pharisee and deal with the questions that come up as far as these observances without making it personal or taking it personally. To that end I really think the many questions involved here need separating out and answering distinctly based upon the principles involved. Lumping various questions of going to grandma's house on a holiday, egg hunts on week days, eating holiday candy, countenancing the church calendar and the freedom the pastor has to choose his sermon subjects, under whether Easter has pagan ties, ultimately is not helpful.

Will do. I was writing my last post when you posted this. But I will abide by this in the future.

 

[he beholds]

Let's watch the charges of sin and who is the Pharisee and deal with the questions that come up as far as these observances without making it personal or taking it personally. To that end I really think the many questions involved here need separating out and answering distinctly based upon the principles involved. Lumping various questions of going to grandma's house on a holiday, egg hunts on week days, eating holiday candy, countenancing the church calendar and the freedom the pastor has to choose his sermon subjects, under whether Easter has pagan ties, ultimately is not helpful.

But to so many of us, that's ALL that celebrating Easter is. So I'm asking how are those things pagan? If you are allowed to do it on ANY other Sunday, so it passes the RPW test, then it can't suddenly become Pagan if it's on April 8th, is my understanding. When this thread was started, "Celebrating Easter is Pagan," my question became, what am I doing that is Pagan? If that cannot be answered, then the thread is too broad and it isn't celebrating Easter that is Pagan but it is doing such and such that is Pagan and I'm looking for the such and such. Is preaching on Christ resurrected Pagan? Are eggs Pagan? Is the color yellow Pagan? Are bunnies Pagan? Are ducklings Pagan? Is "He is Risen" Pagan? Are sunrise services Pagan? Are breakfasts Pagan? Are fellowship meals Pagan? Is Grandma's house Pagan? Is ham Pagan? Is special music Pagan? Are lilies Pagan?
AND, if any of those ARE Pagan, then the issue still isn't April 8th, but every Lord's day.

 

[Philip]

Would it be wrong for a church to emphasize the TULIP on all the sundays in July?

To add to this, would any of you celebrate Reformation Sunday? Would you at least reference to the 95 theses in a sermon around the 31st of October?

 

[jwright82]

But to so many of us, that's ALL that celebrating Easter is. So I'm asking how are those things pagan? If you are allowed to do it on ANY other Sunday, so it passes the RPW test, then it can't suddenly become Pagan if it's on April 8th, is my understanding. When this thread was started, "Celebrating Easter is Pagan," my question became, what am I doing that is Pagan? If that cannot be answered, then the thread is too broad and it isn't celebrating Easter that is Pagan but it is doing such and such that is Pagan and I'm looking for the such and such. Is preaching on Christ resurrected Pagan? Are eggs Pagan? Is the color yellow Pagan? Are bunnies Pagan? Are ducklings Pagan? Is "He is Risen" Pagan? Are sunrise services Pagan? Are breakfasts Pagan? Are fellowship meals Pagan? Is Grandma's house Pagan? Is ham Pagan? Is special music Pagan? Are lilies Pagan?
AND, if any of those ARE Pagan, then the issue still isn't April 8th, but every Lord's day.

I think his point is that we are dealing with two different questions here. The questions raised about what is permissable on the sabbath have nothing per se to do with whether or not Easter is pagan. If we determined that Easter is pagan it would in no way affect those broader questions. Like you and Phillip I see them as connected in a broader way but they get us off on a tangent that has nothing to do with whether or not Easter is pagan, which is the point of this thread. We could start another thread to hash all that out if we wanted to.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Todd, you asked (post 142),

“What in Scripture gives you the idea that you should call one Lord's Day out of 52 in the year ‘Resurrection Sunday’ and that you should do so every year?”

How would you unpack these verses:

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.​

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your specific and thoughtful question. I understand that verse, following our Reformation Fathers, as speaking of whether or not the first century Jews in the Roman Church had the freedom to celebrate a Saturday Sabbath or other particularly Jewish festivals. Because these were commanded to the OT Church, but were no longer binding on the NT Church, there arose an appreciable difficulty in first century congregations that were comprised of Jews and Gentiles. The context also speaks of clean and unclean foods, helping us with the context, pointing us toward the ceremonial laws. I would also add that the "other days" spoken of there with regard to non-observance were in no way the Christian Sabbath, as the 4th Commandment is the Moral Law, forever binding upon all. So, being Jews, there was an attachment to OT ceremonies, and in some cases, pressing that observance to gentile Christians as well. Paul is arguing for acceptance of each other's practice during that time when the OT practices "laid in state" until they were forever put away for those who named the Name of Christ.

---------- Post added at 07:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 PM ----------

Dear Phillip,

We do not "celebrate" "Reformation Sunday". There is no such day, scripturally speaking. I have preached Gospel sermons on the Lord's Day nearest to that date, just as I believe one is free to preach on the Resurrection any Lord's Day of the year. Thank you as well for a thoughtful question.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Jessica, The thread topic is not my issue; you will need to get clarification what the thread author thinks. I think there are far more important questions that can be addressed from the basis of the second or fourth commandment, and other scriptural rules that may apply to circumstantial or otherwise indifferent matters.

But to so many of us, that's ALL that celebrating Easter is. So I'm asking how are those things pagan? If you are allowed to do it on ANY other Sunday, so it passes the RPW test, then it can't suddenly become Pagan if it's on April 8th, is my understanding. When this thread was started, "Celebrating Easter is Pagan," my question became, what am I doing that is Pagan? If that cannot be answered, then the thread is too broad and it isn't celebrating Easter that is Pagan but it is doing such and such that is Pagan and I'm looking for the such and such. Is preaching on Christ resurrected Pagan? Are eggs Pagan? Is the color yellow Pagan? Are bunnies Pagan? Are ducklings Pagan? Is "He is Risen" Pagan? Are sunrise services Pagan? Are breakfasts Pagan? Are fellowship meals Pagan? Is Grandma's house Pagan? Is ham Pagan? Is special music Pagan? Are lilies Pagan?
AND, if any of those ARE Pagan, then the issue still isn't April 8th, but every Lord's day.

I think his point is that we are dealing with two different questions here. The questions raised about what is permissable on the sabbath have nothing per se to do with whether or not Easter is pagan. If we determined that Easter is pagan it would in no way affect those broader questions. Like you and Phillip I see them as connected in a broader way but they get us off on a tangent that has nothing to do with whether or not Easter is pagan, which is the point of this thread. We could start another thread to hash all that out if we wanted to.

 

[jwright82]

Jessica, The thread topic is not my issue; you will need to get clarification what the thread author thinks. I think there are far more important questions that can be addressed from the basis of the second or fourth commandment, and other scriptural rules that may apply to circumstantial or otherwise indifferent matters.

I'm not Jessica. Both of our names begin with "J" though. These issues seem to bring up so many different issues that it is hard to keep it narrow. I do think that how we answer those questions affects how you are than forced to answer the others, if you are going to be consistant.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I've no idea what that means.

I do think that how we answer those questions affects how you are than forced to answer the others, if you are going to be consistant.

 

[jwright82]

Did I get you right and you wrote the wrong name? Its no big deal I just wanted to make sure you were talking to me.

You are presented with two questions. Is it o.k. for a church to dedicate the month of july to preaching on the TULIP? Is it o.k. for a church to dedicate the day of easter to preaching on the ressurection? If you answer yes to the first one and no to the second one than you now are in a position in which you must make a valid distinction between the two. How is the first one different from the second one? If you cannot or do not come up with a substantial reason why than your distinction is arbatrary.

No doubt if we follow the logic here like a chess game than the person will likley say that easter is a pagan or popish tradition. O.k. that is a valid distinction it clearly makes a substantial difference between the two. But if it is pointed out that what we call easter today is so different from what it used to be than the burden of proof is on the person claiming that it is pagan. So now the person has to provide some reason why it should be considered pagan or popish. If no reason can be presented than again it is a purely arbatrary distinction.

Sorry for this I think in purely logical categories and I work out the consequences of someones ideas in an instant. It seems to annoy people because they have no idea how I got from where they are to where I am, I am working on it . Van Til was that way so I am in good company. So if no valid distinction can be provided than how you answer question one will have to be, for consistancy sake, the way you answer question two. Vice versa how you answer question two will determine how you answer one. So without the valid distinction you either answer yes to both or no to both, or be inconsistant and arbatrary. Thats why we brought up those questions because it forces those who disagree with us to provide a valid distinction.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Todd, I appreciate your gracious reply. Very likely you realize there is a lot more at stake in discussions like these than the simple point at issue, and that is the validity of 1) Reformed theology in general, 2) The Westminster Standards as reflecting the Biblical data, 3) the Regulative Principle of Worship, and 4) even the Sabbath as the Biblical day of worship – in the eyes (and understanding) of believers who are not accustomed to / or convinced of these teachings. And even old salts (this one is 70!) who have more to learn concerning the doctrine which is according to godliness.

The very title of this thread can be offensive to those who with sincere, godly desire serve the Lord, albeit with much to learn. Of course, shock value has its place in the Way of Christ (to wit, the Book of Revelation uses it often with its vivid images to shake up the complacent saints), but it can also damage – especially if meted with a heavy hand.

When the impression is given in teaching such as in this thread, “This is the Law of godliness – obey it or stand condemned”, the heart recoils at what seems a pharisaic legalism, as the 4 items noted above are not immediately self-evident upon reading God’s word. Myself, I wandered in a doctrinal wilderness of Wesleyan perfectionism and Finneyesque pelagianism for decades till the Lord taught me very dramatically concerning the doctrines of grace, and shortly afterward, a Reformed Baptist pastor showed me the truth of the 5 points of Calvinism as regards soteriology. But there is much more to Reformed doctrine than soteriology. Threads like this can be really destructive to tender and young consciences – not to mention those not members of PB and from other theologies, or even unbelievers, looking in. A heavy-handed and terse rejoinder to sincerely seeking but erring souls – such as I have been even in this thread – does not have the savor of the winsomeness of Christ Jesus our Shepherd who leads us in paths of righteousness for His name’s sake, and can put souls off even from the truth.

So I repeat, your (and others’) irenic and helpful approaches are much appreciated.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Dear Steve,

I do try to be irenic. Busy-ness and the keyboard are things that work against that, making a short statement (that can be mis-interpreted as acerbic) the easy way out. It is because of this that I don't wade in very often--I rarely have the time to put the necessary time into typing out things that I know are new to many.

In answer to your kind reply I would say that I am hearty agreement--there is more at stake than simply "Easter and its trappings". These issues are foundational to Reformed/Puritan Presbyterian Theology (which I unashamedly assert is the most consistently Biblical expression of Christianity)--you are right on target. It means so much more than soteriology, it is living by the Bible in all its liberty to do what God has commanded, and also the freedom to say "no" to our former hard master, sin. The ramifications for worship, ecclesiology, hermeneutics, theology proper (and the rest of the loci) are so far reaching that many do not see it today, run right past it, and do so with a high, ignorant, and vocal hand. Ignorance can be remedied, but only the Lord God Himself can cure the rebellion to His Word that lurks in all our hearts as remnants of our former days of bondage. I pray that instead of digging in because we are invested in a practice, that we would be invested in obedience.

As for your comment "This is the Law of Godliness--obey it or stand condemned" I would only reply that it is my prayer we all would understand the way we receive correction to be a window into the estate of our souls. When we dig in our heels and refuse correction, well, we all know what Solomon says in the Proverbs concerning that way. Thank the Lord that there was a man who took you aside and opened your eyes to the truth of the Scriptures. Thank the Lord that He Himself opened your eyes to see those great truths, and then kept pressing you with the truth. I pray for myself, following the example of the Apostle Paul that I would have that edgy kind of Christianity that "presses forward", never content with stasis. (Philippians 3) that I would never be so defensive as to close my eyes to correction because it's my ox that's being gored, my practice that's being evil spoken of. I desire, albeit haltingly and failingly, to obey the Lord, and not to be condemned, and I make every effort, again, weakly, to count those wounds of correction as faithful--because although they may be brought mediately by a fellow pilgrim, if they are faithful, then they are from Christ, who calls me His friend.

 

[jwright82]

When the impression is given in teaching such as in this thread, “This is the Law of godliness – obey it or stand condemned”, the heart recoils at what seems a pharisaic legalism,

I concur. In all honesty we on the other side of this issue have been met with with passionate replies that do not answer our questions or provide anyway forward in the discussion. I hope that we can move forward with a discussion but it doesn't seem likley at this point. Straw man arguments against our position are simply unhelpful at best. I for one admire and respect my brothers and sisters on the other side of this issue for their zeal in protecting the sabbath, you can never fault someone for that. But without answering our questions this discussion cannot move forward. There is no reason that we cannot move forward in this discussion but the other side will have to answer our questions in ways other than straw man arguments. I believe that we can move forward in this discussion but coperation on all sides is needed.

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 PM ----------

I would only reply that it is my prayer we all would understand the way we receive correction to be a window into the estate of our souls.

And we are open to correction. But look at it from our perspective. We ask questions that never get answered. The answers we do get are along the lines of what Steve mentioned. So we are finding it hard to see our "errors" in that envioroment. Perhaps if our questions got answered we could all move forward and get some good discussion going.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Yes; I was addressing Jessica; but since you posted I commented on your comment. I've already explained how I come at this question of what we do with things in worship notoriously abused to idolatry; per George Gillespie's argument which you said you did not have access to (but which I offered and it is online). Is it your contention that the pretended holy days are no longer idolatrous in the RCC? I think you would need to bear the burden of proof for that.

Did I get you right and you wrote the wrong name? Its no big deal I just wanted to make sure you were talking to me.

You are presented with two questions. Is it o.k. for a church to dedicate the month of july to preaching on the TULIP? Is it o.k. for a church to dedicate the day of easter to preaching on the ressurection? If you answer yes to the first one and no to the second one than you now are in a position in which you must make a valid distinction between the two. How is the first one different from the second one? If you cannot or do not come up with a substantial reason why than your distinction is arbatrary.

No doubt if we follow the logic here like a chess game than the person will likley say that easter is a pagan or popish tradition. O.k. that is a valid distinction it clearly makes a substantial difference between the two. But if it is pointed out that what we call easter today is so different from what it used to be than the burden of proof is on the person claiming that it is pagan. So now the person has to provide some reason why it should be considered pagan or popish. If no reason can be presented than again it is a purely arbatrary distinction.

Sorry for this I think in purely logical categories and I work out the consequences of someones ideas in an instant. It seems to annoy people because they have no idea how I got from where they are to where I am, I am working on it . Van Til was that way so I am in good company. So if no valid distinction can be provided than how you answer question one will have to be, for consistancy sake, the way you answer question two. Vice versa how you answer question two will determine how you answer one. So without the valid distinction you either answer yes to both or no to both, or be inconsistant and arbatrary. Thats why we brought up those questions because it forces those who disagree with us to provide a valid distinction.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

James,

You have made the charge a couple of times now that you have asked questions that have not been answered. Please forgive my dullness and indulge me by asking one question at a time, and I will do my meager best to answer. I thought I was addressing your concerns, but perhaps I have spoken so as not to be understood. Also, when you say above "and we are open to correction" I was not speaking in my post of any particular party, but us all.