Posted on 03/05/2025 3:53:01 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
There is no biblical mandate for celebrating Christmas. And yet, many evangelicals feel a sense of suspicion towards Christians who do not celebrate Christmas. We simply assume that to do so is rooted in our faith.
Historic Protestants have had differing opinions regarding Advent and Christmas. Martin Luther encouraged it. The Puritans utterly condemned it.
While there is no Biblical mandate to observe Lent, there are good reasons for churches to do so. Let me suggest 5:
1. Evangelicals are starting to ignore Easter...Many evangelical churches no longer recognize Palm Sunday...
2. Making Christmas a larger event than Easter betrays a lack of understanding of the gospel...Paul, writing the Corinthians, says that the event of Christ dying for us, being buried and being raised from the dead is the matter of first importance (1 Corinthians 15:3-5).
3. I have long suspected that the importance of Christmas in the contemporary church simply follows the lead of the wider secular culture, and not a careful examination of Scripture...
4. Lent is a period of fasting, of self-denial and of re-reading the account of our Lord’s sufferings. But in recent years, the gospel has been reinterpreted. We have made the gospel the story of fulfilling our greatest aspirations... we should have told the story of forsaking the world and its pleasures, of denying self and picking up our cross to follow Jesus....
5. Lent bears with it a sense of expectancy. In the end, the cross and the grave are resolved in the empty tomb...Making much of Easter will remind us afresh of what is enduring and what is temporary.
...Where there is no biblical command, there is freedom. However, by having this discussion, we might think of how we can emphasize the cross and resurrection. Perhaps it's time to reconsider our patterns.
(Excerpt) Read more at backtothebible.ca ...
Is it in the Bible?
Ok. I’m giving up Brussel sprouts for Lent.
Yes. It’s based on when Jesus spent 40 days fasting in the desert, and it’s found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
The Mennonites who have farm markets in my town celebrate Lent.
Heard they're laying off Easter Bunnies because of the egg shortage.
As it is not biblical why should it be a proscribed activity? Fasting needs to be a personal choice between God and the believer
In fact scripture actually tells us to do our fasting in secret, so Lent in a way could be argued as contradictory to scripture as it announces to the world your fasting.
Matthew 6:18 that thou be not seen of men to fast, but of thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall recompense thee.
That is only the fact that Jesus fasted, not that everyone must fast during that period.
Fasting is biblical, being required to fast on certain days as a Christian is not. It is a choice for a Christian and encouraged but not a command. Also, as I posted, fasting should be a private activity, not announced to the world, fasting is between God and the believer, not to be used as some announcement of piety.
Fasting and feasting are Biblical but Christmas, Lent and Easter are not.
Our church, affiliated with LCMS, observes both Lent and Advent.
That is the point I think all Christians should work from.
“Is it in the Bible”
Wil this help us grow in Christ or are we engaging in empty rituals? Is this actions over grace argument in a different form. That some how by engaging in proper ritual like lent we “earn” salvation?
Quick google search on the topic
Jesus emphasized that it’s not about rituals, but about a relationship with God based on the heart. He said that God sees the heart, and seeks those who worship Him “in the Spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).
Good one.
The reason we don’t know the date of Jesus birth because it’s not as important as the date of his death.
I can’t parse your use of ‘proscribed’.
But humans are and always have been ritualistic. We like ritual and create rituals to commemorate special occasions and to impress ourselves further with their meaning.
I don’t see any problem with Lent, ashes, eggs, whatever. If it’s meaningful to the individual, it’s meaningful.
The list of books included in the Catholic Bible was established as canon by the Council of Rome in 382, followed by those of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397. Between 385 and 405 CE, the early Christian church translated its canon into Vulgar Latin (the common Latin spoken by ordinary people), a translation known as the Vulgate. Since then, Catholic Christians have held ecumenical councils to standardize their biblical canon. The Council of Trent (1545–63), held by the Catholic Church in response to the Protestant Reformation, authorized the Vulgate as its official Latin translation of the Bible. A number of biblical canons have since evolved. Christian biblical canons range from the 73 books of the Catholic Church canon and the 66-book canon of most Protestant denominations to the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church canon, among others.
Translations to English can be traced to the seventh century, Alfred the Great in the 9th century, the Toledo School of Translators in the 12th and 13th century, Roger Bacon (1220–1292), an English Franciscan friar of the 13th century, and multiple writers of the Renaissance. The Wycliffite Bible, which is “one of the most significant in the development of a written standard”, dates from the late Middle English period. William Tyndale’s translation of 1525 is seen by several scholars as having influenced the form of English Christian discourse as well as impacting the development of the English language itself. Martin Luther translated the New Testament into German in 1522, and both Testaments with Apocrypha in 1534, thereby contributing to the multiple wars of the Age of Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Important biblical translations of this period include the Polish Jakub Wujek Bible (Biblia Jakuba Wujka) from 1535, and the English King James/Authorized Version (1604–1611). The King James Version was the most widespread English Bible of all time, but it has largely been superseded by modern translations. Some New Testaments verses found to be later additions to the text are not included in modern English translations, despite appearing in older English translations such as the King James Version.
Soooooooo…which one?
Doesn’t matter.
Magisterium -Tradition - Submission
Bible?
…just an afterthought.
A lot of things Evangelicals accept and practice are not explicitly laid out in the Bible. Just to name a few:
1. Altar calls (especially since Evangelicals don't have altars)
2. Accepting Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. The phrase is not there.
3. Having a copy of ones own Bible
4. The books that should be included in the Bible (the table of contents is not part of the Bible. It is added by the publisher)
5. The doctrine of "the Bible alone" (Sola Scriptura)
6. The doctrine of "Faith alone". There are many other verses that also teach the necessity of doing other things (Romans 2:6-10 and John 6:53, for example)
7. The idea of an imminent rapture based on the nightly news.
A lot of these things are good to do (just like Lenten practices) but they are not taught explicitly in the Bible.
Quitter!
No, neither is Easter, or Sunday worship. Yehoshuas birth was in September, he was the Passover sacrifice. Follow the Calendar established in the Old Testament. Or admit the Christian Holy days are traditions invented by mandkind.
Modern Bibles use different Greek NT manuscripts than the older ones (prior to 1881).
Those manuscripts had been “edited” and much material removed.
That’s why Acts 8:37 and other passages have “mysteriously” disappeared from modern versions.
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.