Is Celebrating Easter Pagan?

[jwright82]

Yes; I was addressing Jessica; but since you posted I commented on your comment.

Sorry I was confused because you quoted me. It looked confusing.

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.

Yes your right. But if we are to be logical here than the question is if two things have one thing common here do they have all things in common? That is unless it can be shown that a reformed church emphasizing the doctrine of the ressurection on easter has all popish and pagan things in common with Rome than a dinstiction must be made, if we are to be reasonable about it. Simply asserting that it is pagan is not helpful. Simply asserting that it is the same as Rome again doesn't get us anywhere.

I did quote the references you posted to make my case though, so I don't think it is that easy. I also pointed out that those quotes are conditioned by there historical setting, that point has never been addressed thus far. I think that we can move forward in this but if either side raises a valid question than the other side must at least address it or we get nowhere. Passion for God's sabbath is a great virtue but the situation may be more complex than we thought and it is neccessary from time to time to reavaluate how we understand these truths.

 

[Philip]

There seem to be two main concerns and points of contention here:

a) whether the church could be Scripturally warranted in ordaining feast days.

b) whether such feast days would constitute an element or a circumstance of worship.

The answers, according to the stricter interpretation, would be "no" and "element." I personally question both of these positions. The first, it seems to me, is an argument that those instances where we seemingly have God countenancing new feasts are either secular feasts (akin to the 4th of July or Thanksgiving) or else that Jesus Himself did not participate (an argument from silence which I find unconvincing).

As for the second question, it also seems to me that calling a feast of the sort that Easter is an element of worship just seems odd.

 

[kappazei]

The Church is not called to sanitize pagan practices, but to come out from among them, be separate from them, and utterly repudiate them. Sanitizing pagan practices is no different than what the rebellious children of Israel did in Exodus 32.

I agree that 'sanitizing' should not be our Calling but don't we end up being salt and light to Them all the same while we're still here? I am thinking of how in Augustine's time the Christian emperors outlawed some of the more gruesome pagan practices in Rome.
Hey, maybe it's really the media/marketers who 'sanitised' the Pagan significance behind Easter eggs and bunnies!

 

[jwright82]

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.

Sorry for misunderstanding. You speak wisdom here. First off I would like to welcome to the PuritanBoard, I can tell from your posts that it will be very beneficial to me in any interactions that I have with you in the time to come.

To start perhaps the last question I asked abouth the difference between a preacher choosing to preach through the TULIP in july and that same preacher choosing to preach on Christ's ressurection on easter sunday, what is the difference? I elaborated on this on page 4 at the end. I don't what # post it was. I understand that you have limited time so I appreciate it. But I couldn't go there to grab my quote and write this, I will quote it here once I am done.

---------- Post added at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 PM ----------

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.

Here it is in context.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Dear James,

Not a newbie to the PB. Check my profile.

Question #1: Is it OK to preach on TULIP in July. Answer: Yes.
Question #2: Is it OK to preach on the resurrection on the day that folks call "Easter Sunday". Answer: Yes. I have repeatedly stated in this thread that preaching about the resurrection is not what's at issue. A preacher may preach on the resurrection 52 Lord's Days per year, in my estimation.

What I have contended for in this thread is that we have no warrant to call any Lord's Day "Resurrection Sunday, Reformation Sunday" etc. because the first day of the week belongs to the Lord. I have further asserted that because the Lord by His Apostles changed the day of worship, the Lord's Day, to the first day of the week to commemorate the resurrection in our *weekly* worship that such festival days are not only unnecessary, but un-commanded, and therefore forbidden by the regulative principle codified in our standards, which I believe are the standard of this board.

I would be happy to continue this exchange if you have further questions. And thank you for the kind words at the beginning of your post.

 

[MW]

James, please note that Rev. Ruddell has been here since 2007.

To clarify, preaching on the resurrection on a particular Lord's day does not constitute Easter observance. Marking a specific day on the church calendar as Easter and observing it accordingly is Easter observance.

Philip, you are free to argue on the basis of the RPW but there is no liberty to undermine the RPW. For clarification, the RPW is, What is not commanded is forbidden.

It is good when discussion can move beyond personal commentary. Let's leave commentary for the people who sit on the sidelines and know nothing of the challenge of robust discussion. For those involved in the discussion it is helpful to leave personal reflection on the sidelines.

Blessings!

 

[NaphtaliPress]

James, Rev. Ruddell and I essentially are on the same page, and as usual Rev. Winser succinctly identifies the distinction at issue. I will offer the full revised Gillespie extract yet again in PDF, but up the ante by including the full argument of chapters 1-3 or 4 (forget); but it is extensive; and tedious, so fair warning. Maybe a new thread could be started to discuss that argument some what in an organized fashion (yea, I know that this format is not conducive to that). You can find the text online but lacking the translations and bibliographical helps. Chapters 1-4 of part three of English Popish Ceremonies. PM me if interested. Rev. Ruddell, if this is of interest maybe you can take point, PM me if so.
I've got to pull back on this for now.

 

[Philip]

Philip, you are free to argue on the basis of the RPW but there is no liberty to undermine the RPW. For clarification, the RPW is, What is not commanded is forbidden.

With regard to the elements of worship, absolutely.

 

[MW]

Philip, you are free to argue on the basis of the RPW but there is no liberty to undermine the RPW. For clarification, the RPW is, What is not commanded is forbidden.

With regard to the elements of worship, absolutely.

If "days" aren't elements, I don't know what is. They were commanded under the OT and abrogated under the NT. Galatians 4:10, 11, "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." It is difficult to imagine the apostle would be speaking in such severe terms about a circumstance of worship.

 

[au5t1n]

As I understand it, a circumstance is something that does not stand alone and have its own worship significance but is a circumstantial aid to performing a commanded part or element of worship. Pews have no worship significance on their own, but we sit in them to hear the Word preached (or maybe you sit on something else--that's fine; it's a circumstance). The paper on which the psalms are printed has no worship significance on its own, but we use it to help us sing the psalms. A microphone has no worship significance on its own, but the preacher might use one to facilitate hearing the sermon. You may be interested to learn that Rev. Ruddell takes an iPad with him into the pulpit. He can do that. It's as lawful as using paper sermon notes, which are also circumstantial aids to preaching. They aren't parts of worship. No express warrant is required for them; just their usefulness to the commanded element of preaching. 10:00 am has no worship significance on its own, but we have to begin the service sometime, and that's as good a time as any. You get the idea.

If we didn't clarify that positive warrant is required only for elements and not circumstances, then we would have people saying, "Well, then why does your preacher use a microphone? Why do you use printed psalters? Why does your church have pews? The Bible doesn't command these things." But these things are circumstantials that enable the commanded parts of worship to be done decently and in order. It should be apparent that a Feast Day does not fit into the same category.

A Feast Day cannot be a circumstance because it does have worship significance of its own, and it is not necessary or even helpful to the performing of any of the commanded elements. Which part of worship is improved by a Feast Day?

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

But on the Lord's Day we honor the Lord alone, (Isaiah 58.13)

View attachment 2771

 

[Philip]

Galatians 4:10, 11, "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." It is difficult to imagine the apostle would be speaking in such severe terms about a circumstance of worship.

Unless such a circumstance was being made binding on the conscience, as it was in Galatia. In Romans 14, on the other hand, Paul says "let each man be covinced in his own mind."

And in the case of the day in question, we are already commanded to worship on it anyway.

A Feast Day cannot be a circumstance because it does have worship significance of its own

Not sure why it would, necessarily.

Which part of worship is improved by a Feast Day?

All of it?

Am I taking it that you are objecting to worship gatherings on days other than the Lord's Day as well?

 

[MW]

Galatians 4:10, 11, "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." It is difficult to imagine the apostle would be speaking in such severe terms about a circumstance of worship.

Unless such a circumstance was being made binding on the conscience, as it was in Galatia. In Romans 14, on the other hand, Paul says "let each man be covinced in his own mind."

Are you suggesting a circumstance is by definition something which does not bind the conscience? That will not hold up under scrutiny. If the church decides to meet at place A and time Z, a worship participant is not free to disregard it in preference for place B and time Y. A circumstance is simply that without which the action of worship could not be performed. Once decided, it is as binding as the worship itself.

Romans 14 speaks of days of the Lord's appointing. They were binding on the conscience of the weak believer because he had not yet been convinced that they had been abrogated. There is no reference to non-binding circumstances.

 

[au5t1n]

All of it?

How exactly? I can understand how a microphone makes it easier to hear the preaching of the Word or how a printed psalter makes it easier to sing, but how does Easter facilitate any of the elements of worship?

Now, it might make someone enjoy them more, but that takes us back to Rev. Ruddell's (et al.) point pages ago that Easter tends to detract from the value of other Lord's Days.

Am I taking it that you are objecting to worship gatherings on days other than the Lord's Day as well?

I don't object. Without that we couldn't have Presbytery.

A Feast Day cannot be a circumstance because it does have worship significance of its own

Not sure why it would, necessarily.

Isn't the purpose of Easter to celebrate the resurrection of Christ?

 

[Philip]

Romans 14 speaks of days of the Lord's appointing.

Not all of the Jewish feasts were of this nature. For example the Feast of Dedication.

A circumstance is simply that without which the action of worship could not be performed. Once decided, it is as binding as the worship itself.

The colour of the church carpet (or lack thereof) is a circumstance of worship. I'm not sure how that is supposed to be binding.

I can understand how a microphone makes it easier to hear the preaching of the Word or how a printed psalter makes it easier to sing, but how does Easter facilitate any of the elements of worship?

By focusing the worship for that particular Lord's Day on the resurrection of Our Lord.

That is nice for you, Philip, but to every other Christian I know who celebrates Easter, the purpose of Easter is to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

 

[au5t1n]

I can understand how a microphone makes it easier to hear the preaching of the Word or how a printed psalter makes it easier to sing, but how does Easter facilitate any of the elements of worship?

By focusing the worship for that particular Lord's Day on the resurrection of Our Lord.

I guess if the only thing that was different was that the sermon was on the resurrection and maybe the normal flow of the Scripture reading was interrupted in favor of resurrection account readings, there wouldn't be much to object to. A "theme" on a given Lord's Day might be a circumstance, but even if it is, there is a difference between a theme and a holy day. You may say that to you it is not a "holy day," but does most of the congregation ever know this? When I was in another Presbyterian denomination where Easter is commonly celebrated, the prayer on Easter included thanksgiving that Christ was risen "today" (not the Lord's day, Easter day) and members greeted one another with "He is risen!" as though he were not risen (in the church calendar sense) yesterday. This is not a theme; it is a special day. Special days were elemental in the OT. Besides, circumstances are necessary for elements. How is Easter necessary? In a certain sense, every church has a theme every Lord's day. The minister preaches on something different every week, but we don't announce in July that Christ just healed a leper "today" and celebrate the healing on an annual Leprosy Healing Day.

That is nice for you, Philip, but to every other Christian I know who celebrates Easter, the purpose of Easter is to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

I don't think I understand. You said you don't see how a feast day must necessarily have a worship significance. I said the purpose of Easter (the feast day in question) is to celebrate the resurrection of Christ, which is a worship significance. What are the "two" things you're asking about? Sorry if I've missed something obvious. It happens.
(By the way, before I saw your response I edited the portion of the post which you quoted and removed the sarcasm. I meant it nicely in the first place, but that isn't always clear in textual communication, so I removed it. Sorry about that.)

 

[Philip]

When I was in another Presbyterian denomination where Easter is commonly celebrated, the prayer on Easter included thanksgiving that Christ was risen "today" (not the Lord's day, Easter day) and members greeted one another with "He is risen!" as though he were not risen yesterday.

Is there a usual greeting in your church? To some degree, I would wish that "He is risen" were our standard Christian greeting. You're right, in a way, that the Easter celebration includes particular liturgical emphases not present on other Lord's days, but on the other hand, most churches will have some variance in the weekly liturgy.

I don't think I understand. You said you don't see how a feast day must necessarily have a worship significance.

I meant worship significance on its own apart from the elements of worship. The celebration of Easter does not have "worship significance of its own."

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

“This is the Law of godliness – obey it or stand condemned”

Has this really been said in this thread? I am not sure this has been implied. Maybe it should be thought that this is a law of Godliness and to disobey it has consequences maybe but I have not read condemned. BTW, I would say that profaning and the trivialization of the Sabbath has had very ill effects upon the Lord's Church and our neighbors.

Steve to equate the Weslyan perfectionism of the 19th Century with what we hold to in the faith is not even close. I know you know this. I am saying this more out of respect for you and for those reading this. Yes, some may recoil and kick against the goad but that doesn't necessarily make it Pharisaical obedience as in that we are trying to establish our own righteousness. We just want to be pleasing to God and do what Deuteronomy 29:29 says.

The following ought to be understood better so that this charge of Pharisee wouldn't be levelled so quickly.

"The Gospel is temporary, but the law is eternal and is restored precisely through the Gospel. Freedom from the law consists, then, not in the fact that the Christian has nothing more to do with the law, but lies in the fact that the law demands nothing more from the Christian as a condition of salvation. The law can no longer judge and condemn him. Instead he delights in the law of God according to the inner man and yearns for it day and night.

Therefore, that law must always be preached to the congregation in connection with the Gospel. Law and Gospel, the whole Word, the full counsel of God, is the content of preaching. Among Reformed people, therefore, the law occupies a much larger place than in the teaching of sin, since it is also part of the teaching of gratitude.”

Herman Bavinck​

BTW, this is still true.

(Gal 6:7) Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.


(Gal 6:8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

And when others want to warn that there are violations to the Commandments for the purpose of maturity, I at least try to understand it and receive it. A lot of people just recoil and fight agianst it and won't receive instruction. I miserably fail at what God requires concerning the Sabbath. But I do know what He expects and I shouldn't cause others to have a false understanding of it. Isaiah 58 is very spelled out. I know you understand this. I love the law and hope I can keep growing in fulfilling God's will because it is full of love.

 

[Gesetveemet]

Just a couple thoughts, I do believe that there are few on this board has ever been in a covenant keeping Reformed Church in the Netherlands where they would not dare to have anything to do with the worlds Easter. Where they still cling to the old paths of the Reformation. Where they would not dare call the Lord's day a celebration day as if everyone in the church has reason to celebrate. No in those churches each and every Lord's day is a solemn event where a man is placed in the pulpit to become a mouth peace for God in the proclaiming of His gospel. Churches where the women still cover their heads and they have had enough sense to cling to the same Bible for the past 400 years. A place where they can carry someone out dead with only a brief pause so in order to continue with the preached word knowing the all importance of the conversion of a soul. Churches where the man in the pulpit would not dare use levity to get a chuckle out of the congregation and the elders do not stick out the hand of fellowship after the service if the doctrine was not right. In my opinion this thread has done a great injustice to those type churches and that sola scriptura does not make Reformed tradition unscriptural or invalid.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hi Randy,

I think there is some misunderstanding here. In no way did I mean to say that “Wesleyan perfectionism and Finneyesque pelagianism” have anything to do with what this board stands for – quite the contrary! this but the “doctrinal wilderness” I was in for decades (of spiritual failure!) and came out of precisely because of the truth and power in the Doctrines of Grace.

True things may be said in a harsh and abrupt manner which then conveys not the grace and truth of Christ but an all-too-human attitude of impatient holier-than-thou correctness – which then tends to make what is really true and good seem (note how I italicized that word in my previous post, #159) like pharisaic legalism. I know from my own experience – from my own heart! – that I have said true things but with a bad attitude (unaware I was doing so) which harmed rather than helped the cause of Christ. This is what I was cautioning against.

There are many souls here paying rapt attention to this thread because of the importance of the issues, particularly because some of this information is new (new to some of us which have non-Reformed backgrounds) and goes against long-held sincere convictions. Especially when bringing the RPW to bear on celebrations of days – which may have fond as well as apparently godly associations to many – it behooves those doing the teaching to be gentle, understanding, and patient, which is what I commended Todd concerning. These things are too important to be dealt with with a high hand, i.e., as though we peons ought to get this stuff, and what’s our problem. That’s why teachers are to have mature and tender characters.

I brought up the other issues – Reformed doctrine generally, the Westminster Standards, and the Christian Sabbath – as they are really all bundled together in this discussion, and when one aspect is handled poorly, it reflects on them all. We are not talking about Biblical truth only here, but how it is presented, and how received.

Because of the nature of this board, which is confessional, and those who vary from its held values may rightfully be silenced, the maxim remains which states, “A man ‘convinced’ against his will is of the same opinion still.” When I am teaching I seek more than to silence opponents, but to win them over. My remarks were to that end.

I’m sorry, Randy, if they were not clear. You’ve been a good friend, and I take what you say seriously.

 

[Marrow Man]

Gesetveemet -- please fix your signature per PB rules (see the link in my signature below).

 

[au5t1n]

Good thoughts, Mr. Rafalsky, and thank you for the reminder.

Phillip, I'm on my iPod so please pass over (or Easter) my not using the Quote function.

I see what you are saying better now. I guess I think that if a church truly succeeds in taking the holy day out of Easter and makes it little more than a focus in the elements, then it seems to me it has taken Easter out of Easter. At that point I wonder, why do it? I guess I just think that if it were desirable or necessary to have "circumstantial focus days," it would at least be better not to coincide them suspiciously with Roman days notoriously abused to idolatry. I guess to me Gillespie's point via Chris Coldwell is the central issue.

I think this is the last I want to bring to the table on this thread, but I appreciate your thoughts and will read your response if you make one.

 

[Scottish Lass]

Jessica,
Sorry for the delay---I teach on Tuesdays and and Wednesdays are crazy around here. My main objection is to the additional meetings in many churches during the week prior---Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, etc. As far as other concrete examples of pagan/non-scriptural additions, many (even Reformed) churches do palm branches, flower crosses, change the colors of church vestments to mark days, etc.

As others have said better above, I see no scriptural example of adding anything to worship whether it be December or March/April. Surely in a Reformed church, Christ's resurrection is made clear each week, for without it we have no hope.

 

[jwright82]

Dear James,

Not a newbie to the PB. Check my profile.

Sorry. This is the first time that I have ever interacted with you, I would rather err on the side of being friendly. But I'll keep that in mind.

What I have contended for in this thread is that we have no warrant to call any Lord's Day "Resurrection Sunday, Reformation Sunday" etc. because the first day of the week belongs to the Lord. I have further asserted that because the Lord by His Apostles changed the day of worship, the Lord's Day, to the first day of the week to commemorate the resurrection in our *weekly* worship that such festival days are not only unnecessary, but un-commanded, and therefore forbidden by the regulative principle codified in our standards, which I believe are the standard of this board.

I would be happy to continue this exchange if you have further questions. And thank you for the kind words at the beginning of your post.

So its all in the name as they say? That is different but a little odd. I see the point but its like we are going to choose to preach on this subject this day but no one call it easter. This then In my humble opinion seems more a problem for theory than for practice. But never the less that is different from what I was pointing out before. I do have questions but they are off topic so maybe one day if I am curious enough I'll start a thread. Thanks.

James, please note that Rev. Ruddell has been here since 2007.

Yeah thanks for pointing that out. I have never interacted with him before but I wanted to be nice upfront, as we say in the American "down under" (the south) "you catch more flys with honey than with vinegar".

To clarify, preaching on the resurrection on a particular Lord's day does not constitute Easter observance. Marking a specific day on the church calendar as Easter and observing it accordingly is Easter observance.

I see the difference now. I'm still not entirely convinced but my questions are on a different topic so I will not get off topic again. But thank you.

James, Rev. Ruddell and I essentially are on the same page, and as usual Rev. Winser succinctly identifies the distinction at issue. I will offer the full revised Gillespie extract yet again in PDF, but up the ante by including the full argument of chapters 1-3 or 4 (forget); but it is extensive; and tedious, so fair warning.

Sorry Chris I don't remember you offering that to me before, I must have missed it. I look forward to the challange of reading it. After I post this I will PM you my email.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

What I have contended for in this thread is that we have no warrant to call any Lord's Day "Resurrection Sunday, Reformation Sunday" etc. because the first day of the week belongs to the Lord. I have further asserted that because the Lord by His Apostles changed the day of worship, the Lord's Day, to the first day of the week to commemorate the resurrection in our *weekly* worship that such festival days are not only unnecessary, but un-commanded, and therefore forbidden by the regulative principle codified in our standards, which I believe are the standard of this board.

I would be happy to continue this exchange if you have further questions. And thank you for the kind words at the beginning of your post.

So its all in the name as they say? That is different but a little odd. I see the point but its like we are going to choose to preach on this subject this day but no one call it easter. This then In my humble opinion seems more a problem for theory than for practice. But never the less that is different from what I was pointing out before. I do have questions but they are off topic so maybe one day if I am curious enough I'll start a thread. Thanks.

Dear James,

In my understanding, what is odd that otherwise confessional and Biblical-believing Christians would adopt extra-Biblical names and practices in worship, especially when those names are associated with the accretions of men obtruding themselves into the worship of God.

Thanks,

 

[ericfromcowtown]

Doing a basket at home is celebrating on your own, but how does your church putting on an Easter egg hunt qualify as "on their own"?

I don't see how a church Easter egg hunt is any different than a church picnic on the 4th of July.

Is a 4th of July church picnic, or some other celebration of Independence Day, common in reformed churches? That would make me squeemish, and not just because I'm Canadian.

 

[jwright82]

Dear James,

In my understanding, what is odd that otherwise confessional and Biblical-believing Christians would adopt extra-Biblical names and practices in worship, especially when those names are associated with the accretions of men obtruding themselves into the worship of God.

Thanks,

If thats what was going on than I would totally agree. Guilty by association is a slipperly slope. Back to the OP I mean what about easter is actually pagan? Back during the Reformation when distancing themselves from the idolatrous practices was a practical neccesity. That is the lay people were used to that way of religous life. So must all be thrown out to preserve the sanctity of the sabbath. If presbyterians start converting to catholicism because of celebrating easter than I would be the first to call for its practice to be abandond, underscoring the non-binding nature of it. I agree that many churchs abuse the sabbath on easter but I would say that this is more of an abuse than something being inherently wrong.

I am looking forward to diving into the stuff that Chris is going to send me, so I might change my mind or have more to say after that. But I want to read those chps. in their own context and look at if the arguments being developed are timeless truths applicable to all people at all times or were they just historical applications of timless biblical truths for the well being of the church at that time.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Eric,

I would think this but a pleasant occasion for the saints to gather for fellowship over a meal. We would give thanks to our Lord for the food and friendship, and living in a free land (so far), while remaining in accord with His word. Our children could play together, and the adults could converse as families are wont to do – we now being the family of God, world without end. This year the 4th of July falls on a Wednesday.

 

[jwright82]

Regrettably, the siren songs of the extra and contra-biblical trappings of Romish practice have influenced many professed ​Presbyterians down that road of apostasy to Rome.

I guess I'll believe it when I see it, surely there is some kind of poll out there. On a side note I am glad that Presbyterians aren't as obssessed with polls as evangelicals are.

 

[Romans922]

Read through the bios of many former OPC and PCA men who have gone to Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy: Authors | Called to Communion