Posted on 12/16/2004 1:23:28 PM PST by Gamecock
In your view then, churches which do hold Christmas eve services are what? __________ Idolotrous? Blasphemous? Heretical? (these seem pretty harsh words so please fill in the blank with yours)
None of the above. They are simply in error. Like I think my Baptist brethern are in error on the meaning and mode of Christian baptism. We can lovingly disagree.
I would not necessarily put it on the same level as, say, Rome's views on Mary or other doctrines which are dangerous to one's soul.
And accordingly, you would what? Leave such a church, or rebuke the pastor/elders, or simply not attend said services? What action, if any, would you take?
I would seek a church close by that did not have such practices. If such a church were not available, I would not attend such services if they were held. I would make my views known to the session, and expect them to respect them.
Not me. I'm fairly thick skinned.
but I think that is pretty selfish of you. Why would you care what others thought? Why should you judge their motives?
How did I judge anyone's motives? I didn't question why they were disappointed. I would only be concerned about the fact that they were disappointed. That has nothing to do with motives.
However, saying I'm selfish, that is judging motives.
See the difference?
The error being a special service was held to commemorate something 'man' deemed special, in absence of God's command otherwise, right?
I would not attend such services if they were held.
Because then you would be in error with them, right?
But is there no imaginable condition of your heart that would please God, were you to attend that would prevent your presence from being 'in error'? Given God looks to the heart and commands us to worship in spirit & truth, could you not attend and so worship in a way that God would be exalted and pleased?
You don't understand Wesley's 2nd work of grace doctrine.
The birth was special, yes. It was an absolutely unique event. The day He was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended on Him was also special. The day He was transfigured on the mountain was special. All these, and more, events were special in the life of Jesus Christ. They all contributed in some way to who He was and what He did for His people.
The fact remainds that God nowhere commanded anyone to annually remember these events in any "special" celebration. Christmas is an invention of man.
On the other hand, God did give us clear instructions on how to remember Christ:
And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."Do you see the difference?
Opposed what....the holocaust?? Of course, we did.
Close enough.
Because then you would be in error with them, right?
"Whatever is not of faith is sin."
But is there no imaginable condition of your heart that would please God, were you to attend that would prevent your presence from being 'in error'? Given God looks to the heart and commands us to worship in spirit & truth, could you not attend and so worship in a way that God would be exalted and pleased?
"The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?"
Spirit and truth go hand in hand. To deny one is to deny the other. I can find no truth in Christmas celebrations.
So, presumably since Christmas celebrations lack scriptural 'truth' (not commanded by God), you feel prevented (precluded?) from worshipping the Lord in spirit and truth on such a 'man' made occasion.
Hence nothing can overcome the 'error' and otherwise redeem the service for God's glory, not even in your own heart which may be deceived by attending an erroneous service.
Right?
More commonly they took a pacifist stance and sided neither with England nor the colonies.
For that they were fined, jailed, beaten and tarred.
Apparently the tulip doesn't fall far from the tree. ;-)
Some Anglicans went with the English (Tories), and some went with the colonies, and, as you've stated, some remained neutral.
On the frontier, there were no methodists, reformed, baptists or otherwise who were not forced to choose sides. (Read "The Frontiersman" by Alan Eckert for a decent understanding of that era.)
The first general overseer ordained by John Wesley was Thomas Coke in 1784....after the War was over. It is only from that point that one can even begin to separate the methodistic Anglicans into the Methodist Episcopal denomination.
Throughout the Methodist awakening Wesley had forbidden his lay-preachers to administer the sacraments lest his people be accused of separating from the Church of England. An Anglican by conviction, Wesley wanted his unchurched converts to find a spiritual home in Anglicanism too. He knew as well that the Toleration Act that provided refuge for Dissenters wouldn't protect his people, since he had never had them register with the authorities as Dissenters. His people would be seen as disruptive concerning the established church (and therefore liable to criminal prosecution) yet unsheltered by the laws safeguarding Christians who had publicly identified themselves as non-Anglicans. Wesley had always wanted Methodism to remain a renewal movement within the mother-Church.In America the Methodist people were largely deprived of clergy and the sacramental ministry they provided. Wesley asked the Bishop of London to ordain men for the new world. The bishop refused. The shortage worsened after the American Revolution when nearly all the Anglican clergy, steadfastly loyal to the crown, returned to England. After much anguish Wesley "laid hands on" Coke. To anyone steeped in Anglicanism this could mean only that Coke had been consecrated bishop. On the same occasion Wesley ordained two lay-preachers as clergy for the New World. In the face of outrage from Anglican officialdom -- and fury from his brother Charles who had always vowed, "Ordination means separation!" -- Wesley resolutely stood by an insight that all biblical scholars today agree on: in the New Testament "bishop" (overseer) and "presbyter" (elder) describe the same person. Coke was to be the first Methodist bishop in the new world.
This thread is not about "proper" Christmas celebrations or non-celebrations. Knock it off.
Respectfully, why is there a problem with discussions related to the correctness or incorrectness of the celebration of Christmas?
A most excellent post.
Yes, but there were Anglican Methodists here.
From The Heritage of American Methodism. Kenneth Cain Kinghorn, 1999John Wesley commission these two British Methodist preachers [Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmore] as the first official Methodist missionaries to America. They arrived together at Gloucester Point, New Jersey October 24, 1769 and began immediately to minister. The two men preached in America until the winter of 1774 when political tensions between the American Colonies and Great Britain forced them to return to England.
Page 30Wesley's missionaries to this countryid incalculable good and helped nourish the growing vine of American Methodism. In total, John Wesley sent eight missionaries to America - Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmore (1769), Francis Asbury and Richard Wright (1771), Thomas Rankin and George Shadford (1773), Martin Rodda and James Dempster (1774). The onset of America's War of Independence, however, prompted all these workers except Francis Asbury to return to England.
Page 33
However, to keep a level-headed perspective on all of this, I recommend William F. Buckley's startling little book "Up from Presbyterianism."
Did you know that if it weren't for Calvinists, we'd all be speaking English today.
The emphasis is on the Anglican part. They were Anglicans who followed methodistic practice.
It would be similar to a Charismatic Methodist today. The denominational part is the Methodist part. The description of the type of Methodist would be charismatic.
The charismatic movement of that era was "methodism."
:>)
/sarcasm
Right. I didn't want to imply that it was the Methodist denomination. Just that they were part of the Methodist Societies.
You know there is a day of judgment coming sooner than most want to think , those that pervert the gospel or try to silence it will stand before the throne of a sovereign God that will not accept "but I ...."
The gospel is alive and well in most of the reform churches.. this Bible Presbyterian invites you to one of our churches if you happen to have one in your area ..... the gospel is alive and well there
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.