Regulative Principle and Christmas
- Thread starter Rescued
- Start date
- Status
If only we had a prophet and a stone, maybe we could?
I understand. There is no general equity or principle to be pulled from the actions or role of magistrates and prophets. Everything they did was unique to them and has no bearing on the church.
We are not told that Samuel was authorized by the Lord to erect a structure or create a place of remembrance.
Ah, you were squaring up for an argument. I couldn’t quite tell what you meant in your first couple posts but I see now. We’ll as they say, “good luck with that”.
If a magistrate can call a synod as part of his broad mandate in scripture, then he can also name a day or topic of special remembrance.
It would be very strange for him to have the authority to call the church to address an issue authoritatively, and yet not have the authority to have them remember an issue or thing on a day.
Call an issue to be addressed? Sure.
Call an issue to be remembered? No.
This is the strange so-called RPW found here.
Let me know your price range and we can work something out. Our most popular model is the granite slab. But if you’re looking for something that’s perhaps a little classier, we also have different colours of marble available. For a limited time, we are offering a 7% discount on Stonehenge miniatures. A very nice addition to any mini-golf course.
Hmmm, prove this please.
The stones are great, but please sell them with the disclaimer that no one ever sing or preach around them for the RPW sake.
Logic.
If they can declare that they church shall address an issue, then they can declare that the church shall remember a thing.
If they can declare the greater, then they can declare the lesser.
It's not all that deep.
Oh I’m more worried about finding a prophet tbh. Got any of those?
Yikes. It was a joke.
And no self-respecting Presbyterian would ever say you can’t preach around a stone. Conventicles and all that.
Hmm... I might have a certificate somewhere from my Pentecostal days… Is it all right if it’s signed in crayon?
You cannot preach around a stone if scripture did not say you can preach around a stone.
The RPW here means you must provide chapter and verse for preaching near a stone, and if it's not there, then you may not preach near a stone.
At least if that stone is to make you remember something.
If it's a random stone, that's fine.
Is that really as simple as it is? Are there not more layers to this? For instance, December 25th, in many people’s minds, is not an ordinary day. It is, to them, a holy day. Were the magistrate to declare that day a special day of remembrance for the Incarnation, would there not be at least an appearance of association woth idolatry? If yes, it is not “benign” or “indifferent.”
But, frankly, the magistrate decreeing “a day of remembrance” is not really what’s at issue here.
Er… Maybe it’s time to review the RPW…
You're simply talking about the wisdom of declaring that day in particular, in this circumstance. That's a far cry from a principled objection. I have no beef with people who allow for the declaration of days, but don't think Christmas is wise. That's fine. But also a totally different topic.
The problem is when the RPW is weaponized to neuter the magistrate and the elders from declaring a remembrance or topic outside the Lord's Day or normal worship. That's what most anti-Christmas posts here are.
I agree, but that is the RPW that is usually argued here.
What are you arguing, exactly? Are you saying that a rejection of Christmas amounts to a rejection of the magistrate’s authority to declare a day of remembrance?
If your arguing for WCF 21:5 that’s great but what does that have to do with Christmas?
No, you can reject Christmas for all kinds of reasons and that's cool with me. If you want to call it unwise, that's fine by me.
It's just that most here reject Christmas because they reject the authority of churches or magistrates or societies to honor days or topics on particular days. They are against all such 'holy days' or the pretension of such. Holiness in this sense is simply being set apart as a thing for a particular reason, and the magistrate and elders have plenty of authority to declare or honor such things in special cases. The RPW here is weaponized here to neuter them of that power.
The topic of this thread is an example of that error. The church calendar or set apart days are a perfectly fine thing or within their sphere of authority to declare.
Not as far as I can tell.
Anyway, you’ve sort of lost me. You offered a critique of the RPW, I pointed out that that wasn’t a fair critique, and now you say that “that is the RPW that is usually argued here.”
The title of the thread speaks to this. The church calendar is legitimate and so are set apart days, or 'holy' days.
Elders or magistrates may be wise or unwise in declaring individual ones or administering them, but they have plenty of authority. And that's the question here.
Some reject Christmas because they reject the authority of churches or magistrates to honour days or topics on particular days.
Where are you getting this from? Where was this argued? I am trying to get a clear view of the argument before I respond.
You keep saying the “RPW here.” I don’t know if you mean that in a derogatory way. While currently it might be a minority position, the RPW as ”argued by many here” was historically standard within confessional reformed churches.
I don't understand your confusion.
It's the title of the forum and first post of the thread by the creator. Most here question the "liberty to ordain for ourselves and for the church special days of worship not instituted by God"?
I contend that it is self-evident, appears numerous times in Scripture, and is plainly inferred from the confession for the elders and magistrate to have said authority.
That is denied by everyone in the thread, basically.
The title of the thread is simply “Regulative Principle and Christmas.”
Are you saying this is your own view?
So the magistrate, according to you, has authority to declare or constitute special days. On what foundation do you claim this?
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Jeremy, to be fair, I do not believe that is what the RPW means for all here. Further this seems to conflate element and circumstance.
Again, not true. Maybe for some, but not “everyone basically”.
Eh? It is? They do? When did this happen?
I've listed two foundations already.
First, if the magistrate can convene the church to adjudicate an issue, then it plainly implies his authority to convene the church to remember an issue. If he can do the greater, then he can do the lesser.
Secondly, the reductio ad absurdum that Samuel is fine to erect his Ebenezer, so long as he doesn't preach or have people sing, because that would be worship not specifically directed in law.
Just trying to clearly understand your argument before I say anything.
Where in Scripture and where in the Confession? (The WCF?)
- Status
