In the Eastern church, Epiphany commemorates the baptism of Christ, but in the Western church it commemorates the visitation of the Magi. While it's good to commemorate both events, chronologically speaking, it makes more sense, on the heels of Christmas, to commemorate the visitation of the Magi. In popular piety, the nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke are combined, although the visitation of the Magi was about a year or so later:
Two fine performances of the same hymn:
I generally prefer the first although the second ends on a strong note (literally!) with a better descant and dramatic view of stained glass windows.
In the first performance it's nice to see the choristers instinctively rocking to the gentle rhythm of the hymn. And it's good to see men (as well as women!) singing Christian music in unison. Good for men to have that in common, directing and uniting their minds to the chief end of man.
(I'm struck by how many parishioners don't sing at all, even in traditional churches.)
What would Adam think if he could see (perhaps he can!) his posterity, thousands of years later, celebrating Christmas and Epiphany in this chapel? Although we are exiles, banished from Eden, we have made little Edens in the wilderness.
And a fine performance by another classic Epiphany hymn:
Why is it good to commemorate these things? Don't we commemorate all of Christ on the Lord's day? Why would I want to imitate two wayward, probably apostate, communions?
ReplyDeleteThat was my comment, Tom McClintock
ReplyDeletei) No, we really don't commemorate all of Christ on the Lord's day. In a Puritan style worship service, what is commemorated from one Sunday to the next depends on the content of the sermon, prayers, and Psalms for that Sunday. Every Sunday does not and cannot review each specific, significant event in the life and public ministry of Christ.
Deleteii) I'm not sure which "two" apostate communions you're alluding too. The Anglican Communion is a big tent. It has roughly three factions: liberals, evangelicals, and Anglo-Catholics. Both historically and up to the present, the evangelical wing of the Anglican communion include Calvinists.
I'm free to cherry-pick whatever is good and true in the orchard of Christian tradition. The orchard contains fruit trees as well as poisonous plants. So one has to be discriminating. But I'm not required to be loyal to any particular denomination.
Tom
DeleteWe may not commemorate every single thing about Jesus on the Lord's day, but every single thing can and will be preached about at some point.
The RCC and Eastern orthodoxy. Anglicanism is oh so far from faithfulness to the scriptures, but then I'm a Presbyterian.
Who said you were "free" to create "Christian tradition"? Where is that taught in the Scriptures?
Not a big fan of the RPW are you?
"We may not commemorate every single thing about Jesus on the Lord's day, but every single thing can and will be preached about at some point."
DeleteWhat's the relevant difference between having designated days to commemorate events in the life of Christ and random days depending on what the pastor happens to preach about on any particular Sunday?
"The RCC and Eastern orthodoxy"
Something isn't ipso facto bad by association with something bad. Mere association can't make something good into something bad. They don't have that power.
"Who said you were "free" to create 'Christian tradition'?"
You mean, like having a church with furniture? A pulpit? Lecturn? Pews? Chapter and verse division? Seminaries? The Westminster Confession? Bibles with books in a traditional order.
There's a difference between voluntary traditions and mandatory traditions.
"Where is that taught in the Scriptures?"
Christian duties are not reducible to what's prescribed or proscribed. There's a third category of permitted actions.
We don't need special justification to celebrate, commemorate, and expound events in the Gospels.
"Not a big fan of the RPW are you?"
No I'm not. Next question?
"We may not commemorate every single thing about Jesus on the Lord's day, but every single thing can and will be preached about at some point."
ReplyDeleteWhat's the relevant difference between having designated days to commemorate events in the life of Christ and random days depending on what the pastor happens to preach about on any particular Sunday?
Because the Lord's day is authorized by God, the others aren't.
"The RCC and Eastern orthodoxy"
Something isn't ipso facto bad by association with something bad. Mere association can't make something good into something bad. They don't have that power.
I'm not referring to mere association, that would be a fallacy, but to their sinful practices that so-call protestants and/or evangelicals love to ape.
"Who said you were "free" to create 'Christian tradition'?"
You mean, like having a church with furniture? A pulpit? Lecturn? Pews? Chapter and verse division? Seminaries? The Westminster Confession? Bibles with books in a traditional order.
You're actually equating "holy days" with pews or pulpits (lecterns), things that are common to all men? I would make the case that a "tradition" like the WCF is agreeable to the word of God.
There's a difference between voluntary traditions and mandatory traditions.
And then there are biblical traditions which God authorized in His word. I suppose your mandatory tradition falls in to that category or does it? It looks like Nadab's and Abihu's "voluntary tradition" didn't work out well for them.
"Where is that taught in the Scriptures?"
Christian duties are not reducible to what's prescribed or proscribed. There's a third category of permitted actions.
And where in the scriptures does it teach about these permitted things? Does not anything permitted have to conform to the general principles of the scriptures? Can I stand on my head in the corner screaming hallelujah and call it worship because it's my non-mandatory tradition? Is it permitted since it's not forbidden?
We don't need special justification to celebrate, commemorate, and expound events in the Gospels.
Ah, but I disagree. We need God's approval. All holy days in the OT were instituted by God. And the principle is the same in the NT (Matt 7). You now are submitted to a church calendar of "holy days". Days that God did not approve, days no apostle celebrated, and can't be justified by an appeal to scripture.....they are just will worship. Traditions invented by the sinful minds of men who think they have a better way.
"Not a big fan of the RPW are you?"
No I'm not. Next question?
No more questions for now, This explains it all.
"Because the Lord's day is authorized by God, the others aren't."
Deletei) Actually, the NT doesn't enjoin us to practice corporate worship on any particular day. At best, that's a tenuous inference from apostolic practice, not a divine command.
ii) You're hung on up on *when* and *where* we do something rather than *what* we do. But we don't need extra divine authorization to commemorate events in the life of Christ. That's something we ought to reflect on.
"but to their sinful practices that so-call protestants and/or evangelicals love to ape."
Which assumes that it's sinful to commemorate events in the Gospels.
"You're actually equating 'holy days' with pews or pulpits (lecterns), things that are common to all men?"
i) I'm responding to you on your own grounds. You cast the issue in terms of whether we have the freedom to create Christian tradition. I gave examples. That's not equating holy days with church furniture but equating both with creating Christian traditions. Try keeping track of how frame your own position. If it's insufficiently discriminating, that's your problem, not mine.
ii) I didn't classify these occasions as "holy days". And in any event, that designation is just a linguistic convention from my perspective.
"I would make the case that a 'tradition' like the WCF is agreeable to the word of God."
Events that honor and expound the life of Christ are agreeable to the word of God.
"I suppose your mandatory tradition"
I didn't say or imply that I subscribe to mandatory traditions. Rather, I drew a conceptual distinction. And in the OP I explicitly denied that these Christian customs are mandatory. So your inference is fallacious.
"It looks like Nadab's and Abihu's 'voluntary tradition' didn't work out well for them."
And is that what's happening in churches which celebrate Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Good Friday, Easter, and Pentecost? So your comparison backfires. God hasn't expressed his displeasure at these customs by striking worshipers dead.
"And where in the scriptures does it teach about these permitted things?"
You think Scripture is supposed to give an exhaustive list of permissible activities? How many things do you do in the course of an average week that have no express authorization in Scripture?
"Does not anything permitted have to conform to the general principles of the scriptures?"
Communal events in the life of God's people that focus our attention on the significance of Christ's words and deeds in the Gospels conform to the general principles of Scripture.
"We need God's approval"
We already have God's approval to honor the memory of Christ's past actions, consider his heavenly reign, and prepare for his return.
"All holy days in the OT were instituted by God."
You're hung up on "holy days". Again, I haven't classified these events as holy days. Linguistic convention doesn't dictate how I must regard them–any more than naming days after Roman and Teutonic gods compels me to view them accordingly.
"You now are submitted to a church calendar of 'holy days'."
I haven't submitted to the church calendar. I'm quite selective about my participation.
"days no apostle celebrated"
Argument from silence.
"and can't be justified by an appeal to scripture"
Sure it can. We have a standing duty to reflect on the Gospels.
"they are just will worship. Traditions invented by the sinful minds of men who think they have a better way."
You're caught up in playacting. You're cast yourself in a Puritan role, reciting an old script. Robin Hood in tights. A poor substitute for genuine piety.
Boy, you really showed me Steve. Here I thought I was trying to be faithful but I'm actually a Puritan Robin Hood. Your so darn insightful. I know what I am Steve and you really don't. I think your blog has convinced you that you actually know about me. But just so you know, I don't consider myself a Puritan, but a Covenanter. You know those people who were set upon and murdered so long ago with the help of your Anglican brethren from times past. Erastianism just isn't a good or biblical way to run a church is it? Now it only remains to be seen which church will our race the other to the bottom....the Episcopalians or the Anglicans.
ReplyDeleteYou're have the same psychology neo-Confederates and their imaginary camaraderie with perfect strangers who lived and died generations before you were born.
DeleteAnd you're at no risk of being murdered if you attend a traditional Presbyterian church, so the heroism of the Covenanters doesn't rub off on you.
I have brethren in many denominations.
Tom McClintock
DeleteI guess these Anglicans were all murderers:
Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley. William Tyndale was arguably an Anglican too.
Or perhaps Richard Sibbes, William Perkins, John Preston.
Or perhaps John Newton, George Whitefield, William Wilberforce, William Cowper, Charles Simeon, Samuel Marsden, J.C. Ryle, Charles Bridges, Christina Rossetti.
Or perhaps J.I. Packer, John Stott, Mike Ovey, Vaughan Roberts, Broughton Knox, Graeme Goldsworthy, William Dumbrell, Peter Jensen, Phillip Jensen, Paul Barnett.
I doubt C.S. Lewis or Charles Wesley would pass muster for you, but I don't recall them murdering anyone.
Some more potential candidates here.
DeleteTo say nothing of Christians in Anglican churches in the Global South.
DeleteNow you're playing amateur psychologists? Now I'm a Puritan Robin Hood, neo-Confederate who feels a unhealthy kinship to ancient brethren, with a hefty dose of a delusional hero complex. Why don't you just come out and call me stupid and evil Steveo. I wait for your next round of name calling. I'm sure your just getting started.
ReplyDelete"I don't consider myself a Puritan, but a Covenanter."
DeleteWhat makes you think those are categorically different?
"Now you're playing amateur psychologists?"
You should be grateful that I'm saving you money on professional psychiatric bills.
"Now I'm a Puritan Robin Hood, neo-Confederate…"
No, I didn't say you were a neo-Confederate, but that you exhibit the same psychology.
"who feels a unhealthy kinship to ancient brethren"
Based on your stated sense of solidarity with Scotsmen who lived centuries ago. That was your doing, not mine.
"I'm sure your just getting started."
Actually, I presented a substantive, point-by-point response to your comments.
Look, you come here and recycle all the canned arguments for the RPW, as if I'm supposed to reinvent the wheel for your benefit. It's like atheists who expect Christians to start from scratch every time an atheist debates them, as if we haven't been over that same ground before.