Pages

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

TFan on X-mas


From TFan’s blog:

I've noticed that there are a number of Christmas-related posts over at Triablogue (link to said posts). I admit I have not read the posts carefully (and some are just for fun)

True, some are just for fun.

In fact, I would not have even thought to mention their posts at all, had not one kind reader privately messaged me indicating that he believed Triablogue's posts were directed at me in some way (something I could not find in my quick perusal of the tagged Triablogue posts).

None of my posts is directed at TFan. The precipitating event was a post that Jason did in response to a post by snake-in-the-grass James McGrath (which was, in turn, plugged by snake-in-plain-view John Loftus at DC).

Jason’s post generated some negative feedback, at which point I began to do some posting on the subject.

I did use Scott Clark as a foil for some of my posting.

…I have not seen any advocating the idea that the church is permitted to make December 25 a holy day of obligation or arguing that God has requested that we honor Jesus' birth with a holiday. If Triablogue were to hold those positions, I would find it pressing to engage with their posts. I trust that both non-Reformed and Reformed members of Triablogue would agree with me that no church has the right to impose on the conscience a duty to celebrate Christmas, and that God has nowhere indicated that he wishes to be worshiped by an annual feast of the nativity.

This gets to the nub of the issue:

I can only speak for myself:

i) Since the celebration of Christmas is not an implicit or explicit divine injunction, I don’t regard the celebration of Christmas as a religious duty.

ii) Different Christians find different things edifying or unedifying. Some Christians opt out of Christmas entirely. Some Christians celebrate certain aspects of the traditional Christian package, but avoid others. That’s a point of liberty.

iii) Denominations and independent churches are free associations. Within that context, members can assume voluntary obligations. That’s by mutual consent. It’s like any human compact.

By the same token, participants can change their mind. Withdraw their consent. It’s not a blood pact which the hellhounds enforce.

In that qualified sense, I supposed a holiday could be a “day of obligation.” But that’s conditional. Contingent on prior consent. It can be nullified at will–although that shouldn’t be done capriciously or frivolously.

iv) Ironically, my own position is laxer than the traditional Dutch-Reformed position, where Christmas was a “day of obligation.” In Holland, way back when, the Reformed church was the state church, and it could impose Christmas as a “day of obligation.” Or so I understand.

So that presents something of a dilemma for “Confessional Calvinists” who take Reformed tradition as their touchstone.

I myself am admittedly a Biblicist. So that doesn’t present a dilemma for my own position.

11 comments:

  1. What's amusing about this line of logic is that it can be used against Sunday worship as well, making it something entirely optional. The result is a Christendom without any unified worship, and clear proof that Sola Scriptura doesn't work in practice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve,

    Check out the following interesting post (from last year) by Andrew Myers, concerning the observance of holy days in Dutch Reformed churches.

    http://virginiahuguenot.blogspot.com/2009/11/nadere-reformatie-contra-christmas.html

    Nick, Steve's "line of logic" began with "Since the celebration of Christmas is not an implicit or explicit divine injunction..." Sabbath observance is explicit, and the transfer of its authority to the first day of the week is implicit.

    The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation) says that the Apostles set apart the first day of the week, or Lord's Day; and that "The true and proper meaning, therefore, of this commandment tends to this, that we take special care to set apart some fixed time, when, disengaged from bodily labour, and undisturbed by worldly cares, we may devote our whole being, soul and body, to the religious worship of God." (Baltimore: Fielding Lucas Jr., n.d. [1829?]), p. 266. As I see few Romanists observing this, I'm forced to conclude that rejection of Sola Scriptura doesn't always help toward a unified practice/worship, either.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sabbath observance being explicit doesn't amount to much considering the Mosaic Law was abolished. The "transferring" to Sunday is not implicit, at least not in any way that would bind a Protestant. Romans 14:5f is the 'go to' text for those desiring to not believe in Sunday worship, and from there each person deciding how strictly it is to be observed.

    The quote you gave from the Roman Catechism, along with your commentary, is irrelevant here because you're confusing issues. The issue is not "How many people obey doctrine X?" but rather an inability to define doctrine X in the first place. A Catholic does not have the option to pick and choose which day(s) he will set aside for weekly worship and major holiday worship...where as we see in Protestantism each person can choose whether or not they want to celebrate Christmas and whether or not they need to worship on Sunday.

    ReplyDelete
  4. NICK SAID:

    "A Catholic does not have the option to pick and choose which day(s) he will set aside for weekly worship and major holiday worship..."

    Instead, he exercises the option of picking and choosing which denomination to follow. He cherry-picks the Roman Catholic denomination.

    "...where as we see in Protestantism each person can choose whether or not they want to celebrate Christmas and whether or not they need to worship on Sunday."

    Because these are legitimate questions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You can't "cherry pick" a denomination (not that the Catholic Church is a denomination) since the concept applies to picking and choosing among a host of doctrines which are a subset of the choice of a denomination. For example, if there was a Quaran, a Torah, and a Christian Bible on the table, selecting any one of those is not "cherry picking". Rather, after you select one of those books, to pick and choose which pages to keep and which to ignore is cherry picking.


    To say picking and choosing how, when, and if, to celebrate holidays and weekly worship are "legitimate questions" is to undermine the Formal Sufficiency of Scripture (Sola Scriptura). It's 500 years after the Reformation and Protestants can't even agree on what days Christians are to worship.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd rather be in a group that had difficulty coming to agreement on holidays than in a group that had difficulty condemning the sexual abuse of altar boys.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nice dodge, Peter. And thanks for the admission that Sola Scriptura cannot settle issues that affect the day-to-day life of Christians, in this case when and if to celebrate holidays and weekly worship.

    ReplyDelete
  8. NICK SAID:

    "You can't 'cherry pick' a denomination (not that the Catholic Church is a denomination) since the concept applies to picking and choosing among a host of doctrines which are a subset of the choice of a denomination."

    To the contrary, either your set of doctrines can pick your denomination or your denomination can pick your set of doctrines.

    "To say picking and choosing how, when, and if, to celebrate holidays and weekly worship are 'legitimate questions' is to undermine the Formal Sufficiency of Scripture (Sola Scriptura). "

    It would only undermine the sufficiency of Scripture if you assume that which day(s) to worship on is a Christian essential. So you're begging the question.

    If Scripture doesn't settle that question, that's because the question is adiaphorous.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nick said...

    "Nice dodge, Peter. And thanks for the admission that Sola Scriptura cannot settle issues that affect the day-to-day life of Christians, in this case when and if to celebrate holidays and weekly worship."

    Does the Roman Magisterium settle issues that affect the day-to-day life of Christians? Does it tell each Christian if or who to marry, where to live, what job to take, whether you will die of cancer at 30, &c.?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nick said:
    ---
    Nice dodge, Peter. And thanks for the admission that Sola Scriptura cannot settle issues that affect the day-to-day life of Christians, in this case when and if to celebrate holidays and weekly worship.
    ---

    Given that you're too stupid to understand basic English, let me spell it out. I never said that Sola Scriptura cannot settle issues that affect the day to day life of Christians. I said I would *RATHER* be faced with that than to be faced with your rapists thugs in bathrobes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nick:

    Yes, Sola Scriptura is not a fully armed and operational Death Star that can quash all rebellion.

    It doesn't even try to be.

    It's your church that has that model, not ours.

    -TurretinFan-kenobi

    ReplyDelete