Baptists and Christmas

[JM]

SPURGEON: Did he celebrate Christmas?
Posted on January 7, 2013 <- source


The following excerpt is taken from this sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who has been regarded by pastors of numerous denominations as the “Prince of Preachers”.

• Spurgeon’s understanding of Christmas in 1855 was it was Catholic not Protestant
• Spurgeon did not celebrate Christmas as stated by him in 1856
• Spurgeon told his church in 1857 to use Christmas gatherings for evangelism
• Spurgeon did preach on the birth of Christ during Christmastime in 1859and 1868
• Spurgeon’s learning brought him to believe Christmas to be of pagan origin in 1871
• Spurgeon no longer preached on Christmas after 1871. He died in 1892.
• Christmas was a witch’s sabbath used by Catholics on their festival calender and was generally suppressed both in England and the American colonies by the Protestants

The following excerpt is from Spurgeon’s last message on Christmas in 1871.

“WE HAVE NO superstitious regard for times and seasons. Certainly we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical arrangement called Christmas: first, because we do not believe in the mass at all, but abhor it, whether it be said or sung in Latin or in English; and, secondly, because we find no Scriptural warrant whatever for observing any day as the birthday of the Saviour; and, consequently, its observance is a superstition, because not of divine authority. Superstition has fixed most positively the day of our Saviour’s birth, although there is no possibility of discovering when it occurred. Fabricius gives a catalogue of 136 different learned opinions upon the matter; and various divines invent weighty arguments for advocating a date in every month in the year. It was not till the middle of the third century that any part of the church celebrated the nativity of our Lord; and it was not till very long after the Western church had set the example, that the Eastern adopted it. Because the day is not known, therefore superstition has fixed it; while, since the day of the death of our Saviour might be determined with much certainty, therefore superstition shifts the date of its observance every year. Where is the method in the madness of the superstitious? Probably the fact is that the holy days were arranged to fit in with heathen festivals. We venture to assert, that if there be any day in the year, of which we may be pretty sure that it was not the day on which the Saviour was born, it is the twenty-fifth of December. Nevertheless since, the current of men’s thoughts is led this way just now, and I see no evil in the current itself, I shall launch the bark of our discourse upon that stream, and make use of the fact, which I shall neither justify nor condemn, by endeavoring to lead your thoughts in the same direction. Since it is lawful, and even laudable, to meditate upon the incarnation of the Lord upon any day in the year, it cannot be in the power of other men’s superstitions to render such a meditation improper for to-day. Regarding not the day, let us, nevertheless, give God thanks for the gift of his dear son.”

 

[bcbsr]

SPURGEON: Did he celebrate Christmas?
Posted on January 7, 2013 <- source


The following excerpt is taken from this sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who has been regarded by pastors of numerous denominations as the “Prince of Preachers”.

• Spurgeon’s understanding of Christmas in 1855 was it was Catholic not Protestant
• Spurgeon did not celebrate Christmas as stated by him in 1856
• Spurgeon told his church in 1857 to use Christmas gatherings for evangelism
• Spurgeon did preach on the birth of Christ during Christmastime in 1859and 1868
• Spurgeon’s learning brought him to believe Christmas to be of pagan origin in 1871
• Spurgeon no longer preached on Christmas after 1871. He died in 1892.
• Christmas was a witch’s sabbath used by Catholics on their festival calender and was generally suppressed both in England and the American colonies by the Protestants

The following excerpt is from Spurgeon’s last message on Christmas in 1871.

“WE HAVE NO superstitious regard for times and seasons. Certainly we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical arrangement called Christmas: first, because we do not believe in the mass at all, but abhor it, whether it be said or sung in Latin or in English; and, secondly, because we find no Scriptural warrant whatever for observing any day as the birthday of the Saviour; and, consequently, its observance is a superstition, because not of divine authority. Superstition has fixed most positively the day of our Saviour’s birth, although there is no possibility of discovering when it occurred. Fabricius gives a catalogue of 136 different learned opinions upon the matter; and various divines invent weighty arguments for advocating a date in every month in the year. It was not till the middle of the third century that any part of the church celebrated the nativity of our Lord; and it was not till very long after the Western church had set the example, that the Eastern adopted it. Because the day is not known, therefore superstition has fixed it; while, since the day of the death of our Saviour might be determined with much certainty, therefore superstition shifts the date of its observance every year. Where is the method in the madness of the superstitious? Probably the fact is that the holy days were arranged to fit in with heathen festivals. We venture to assert, that if there be any day in the year, of which we may be pretty sure that it was not the day on which the Saviour was born, it is the twenty-fifth of December. Nevertheless since, the current of men’s thoughts is led this way just now, and I see no evil in the current itself, I shall launch the bark of our discourse upon that stream, and make use of the fact, which I shall neither justify nor condemn, by endeavoring to lead your thoughts in the same direction. Since it is lawful, and even laudable, to meditate upon the incarnation of the Lord upon any day in the year, it cannot be in the power of other men’s superstitions to render such a meditation improper for to-day. Regarding not the day, let us, nevertheless, give God thanks for the gift of his dear son.”

Basically he's saying he doesn't believe in Christmas, but he doesn't mind celebrating it.

 

[Dale]

I grew up as a Southern Baptist. I assure you that Christmas was most enthusiastically celebrated by singing Christmas carols and in numerous other ways.

Were the nativity chapters from the Book of Luke read at a witches sabbath?

I've never heard Charles Spurgeon quoted in a Baptist church. No one ever claimed that we know the date of Christ's birth. December 25 is simply when we celebrate it.

 

[JM]

Why not Advent...or Lent while we are at it?

Honestly, I took part in Lent last year and found it to be a great experience.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Dale]

Why not Advent...or Lent while we are at it?

Honestly, I took part in Lent last year and found it to be a great experience.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Jesus is the most important person who ever lived. His birth is surrounded by miraculous events. Why do we need to defend celebrating the birth of Jesus?

 

[JM]

From the Statement of Purpose for the Baptist forum, "The 66 Books comprising the Scriptures are given by the verbal inspiration of God, and as such are the only and all sufficient, authoritative rule of faith. Given their divine origins, the Scriptures are without error as originally given."

I guess that's why. The keeping of "holy days" is not in the Bible but most Baptists will keep Christmas as if it was a "holy day."

I'm just asking why not Advent or Lent? If we are allowing ourselves to keep holy days why not more?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Dale]

From the Statement of Purpose for the Baptist forum, "The 66 Books comprising the Scriptures are given by the verbal inspiration of God, and as such are the only and all sufficient, authoritative rule of faith. Given their divine origins, the Scriptures are without error as originally given."

I guess that's why. The keeping of "holy days" is not in the Bible but most Baptists will keep Christmas as if it was a "holy day."

I'm just asking why not Advent or Lent? If we are allowing ourselves to keep holy days why not more?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Some of the churches I have attended have used the four Advent candles and lit an additional candle for each of the four weeks of Advent. I've never heard anyone object to it.

Part of the answer to your question is that Advent is four consecutive Sundays. Lent goes on for over a month. Technically, Christmas is one day, even if we do spent a lot of time getting ready for it.

 

[Dale]

SPURGEON: Did he celebrate Christmas?
Posted on January 7, 2013 <- source


The following excerpt is taken from this sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who has been regarded by pastors of numerous denominations as the “Prince of Preachers”.

• Spurgeon’s understanding of Christmas in 1855 was it was Catholic not Protestant
• Spurgeon did not celebrate Christmas as stated by him in 1856
• Spurgeon told his church in 1857 to use Christmas gatherings for evangelism
• Spurgeon did preach on the birth of Christ during Christmastime in 1859and 1868
• Spurgeon’s learning brought him to believe Christmas to be of pagan origin in 1871
• Spurgeon no longer preached on Christmas after 1871. He died in 1892.
• Christmas was a witch’s sabbath used by Catholics on their festival calender and was generally suppressed both in England and the American colonies by the Protestants

The following excerpt is from Spurgeon’s last message on Christmas in 1871.

“WE HAVE NO superstitious regard for times and seasons. Certainly we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical arrangement called Christmas: first, because we do not believe in the mass at all, but abhor it, whether it be said or sung in Latin or in English; and, secondly, because we find no Scriptural warrant whatever for observing any day as the birthday of the Saviour; and, consequently, its observance is a superstition, because not of divine authority. Superstition has fixed most positively the day of our Saviour’s birth, although there is no possibility of discovering when it occurred. Fabricius gives a catalogue of 136 different learned opinions upon the matter; and various divines invent weighty arguments for advocating a date in every month in the year. It was not till the middle of the third century that any part of the church celebrated the nativity of our Lord; and it was not till very long after the Western church had set the example, that the Eastern adopted it. Because the day is not known, therefore superstition has fixed it; while, since the day of the death of our Saviour might be determined with much certainty, therefore superstition shifts the date of its observance every year. Where is the method in the madness of the superstitious? Probably the fact is that the holy days were arranged to fit in with heathen festivals. We venture to assert, that if there be any day in the year, of which we may be pretty sure that it was not the day on which the Saviour was born, it is the twenty-fifth of December. Nevertheless since, the current of men’s thoughts is led this way just now, and I see no evil in the current itself, I shall launch the bark of our discourse upon that stream, and make use of the fact, which I shall neither justify nor condemn, by endeavoring to lead your thoughts in the same direction. Since it is lawful, and even laudable, to meditate upon the incarnation of the Lord upon any day in the year, it cannot be in the power of other men’s superstitions to render such a meditation improper for to-day. Regarding not the day, let us, nevertheless, give God thanks for the gift of his dear son.”

You might be on better ground to ask why modern Christians use a Christmas tree. The Christmas tree is a German custom and its introduction into British and American life is surprisingly recent. There is certainly no Christmas tree in the Bible.

But well decorated Christmas trees are pretty.

 

[mark kennedy]

The date of Christ's birth is definitely not December 25, that much is sure. There has been a winter holiday around that time traditionally because it's near the shortest day of the year, dead of winter kind of a thing. Christians, competing for attention with the pagan feasts decided to have a Christian holiday and they would make it about the birth of Christ. I think it's really that simple, they couldn't go to the feast of Mithra so they Christianized a popular time to have a holiday.

 

[RDKirk]

The date of Christ's birth is definitely not December 25, that much is sure. There has been a winter holiday around that time traditionally because it's near the shortest day of the year, dead of winter kind of a thing. Christians, competing for attention with the pagan feasts decided to have a Christian holiday and they would make it about the birth of Christ. I think it's really that simple, they couldn't go to the feast of Mithra so they Christianized a popular time to have a holiday.

Inasmuch as both Christianity and the old pagan religions were both legal in Rome for about half a century, and Constantine was considered the "chief priest" of all legal legal religions, pushing a holy day for Christians during the same period as the primary holy day for the pagans was good politics on his part. Made the Christians seem much more like the "normal religious folk" instead of like atheists.

 

[mark kennedy]

Inasmuch as both Christianity and the old pagan religions were both legal in Rome for about half a century, and Constantine was considered the "chief priest" of all legal legal religions, pushing a holy day for Christians during the same period as the primary holy day for the pagans was good politics on his part. Made the Christians seem much more like the "normal religious folk" instead of like atheists.

You know Christians were called at one time, atheists, because they refused to worship the gods of Rome? Polycarp was told to say, away with the atheists, perhaps in jest he waved at the mob that would soon burn him. Then he was told to swear by the genius of Caesar, and he refused and was burned at the stake.

Anyway, the way I get the story, the children of Christians were going to the feast of Mithra right around Dec. 25. Well Christians couldn't have this so they decided to have their own holiday, so they wouldn't go to a pagan feast for something to do in the dead of winter.

 

[RDKirk]

You know Christians were called at one time, atheists, because they refused to worship the gods of Rome?

That was the primary objection of the Romans to Christianity. There was no problem with Christians worshiping Christ--the Romans were polytheists, after all, and had no objection to throwing another god on the barbe.

But they were also extremely superstitious and demanded patriotism. Anyone who didn't appease the Roman patron gods was unpatriotic--trying to harm the nation--in addition to being atheist.

The Christian apologist Athenagoras gave a lengthy argument about 180 AD of why even by their own philosophers, Romans had no atheism case against Christians.

 

[mark kennedy]

That was the primary objection of the Romans to Christianity. There was no problem with Christians worshiping Christ--the Romans were polytheists, after all, and had no objection to throwing another god on the barbe.

But they were also extremely superstitious and demanded patriotism. Anyone who didn't appease the Roman patron gods was unpatriotic--trying to harm the nation--in addition to being atheist.

The Christian apologist Athenagoras gave a lengthy argument about 180 AD of why even by their own philosophers, Romans had no atheism case against Christians.

Of you didn't worship the gods of Rome you were an atheist. There was an actual law that you couldn't start a new religion, it had to be one of the old ones. Controlling religion was kind of a big deal in antiquity.

 

[RDKirk]

Of you didn't worship the gods of Rome you were an atheist. There was an actual law that you couldn't start a new religion, it had to be one of the old ones. Controlling religion was kind of a big deal in antiquity.

According to Pliny the Younger's letter to Caesar, all that was required to keep the law was that Christians sacrifice to Augustus--as he reported to Caesar, there was no problem with their additional "superstitions."

 

[mark kennedy]

According to Pliny the Younger's letter to Caesar, all that was required to keep the law was that Christians sacrifice to Augustus--as he reported to Caesar, there was no problem with their additional "superstitions."

I can't find it but I had a discussion of why Paul and Silas were arrested in Macedonia and the reason the commentator mentioned was the law I described. There was no separation between church and state, the state was the church. Now that sounds about right, emperor worship was mandatory under pain of death.

 

[RDKirk]

I can't find it but I had a discussion of why Paul and Silas were arrested in Macedonia and the reason the commentator mentioned was the law I described. There was no separation between church and state, the state was the church. Now that sounds about right, emperor worship was mandatory under pain of death.

The reason Paul and Silas were arrested in Philippi was because they were discovered to be Jews in a city from which Jews had been expelled.

Philippi had been settled by Roman soldiers who had served under Brutus and Cassius (the murderers of Julius Caesar) in their final battle against MarK Antony. Brutus and Cassius were defeated and committed suicide. Rather than slaughtering their armies, Mark Antony permitted them to settle the old, abandoned Greek city of Philippi as a Roman colonia.

So Philippi was inhabited by Romans instead of Greeks. As a colonia, Philippi was directly under the authority of the emperor, and any Imperial edict concerning Rome applied in the same way to the coloniae.

The Emperor Claudius expelled Jews from Rome around 49 AD. Scripture notes this in Acts 18. This expulsion was also effective for Philippi. That's why there was no synagogue in Philippi when Paul and Silas visited (if there had been one there before). It's also why--uniquely--the accusation against Paul was the fact itself that he was a Jew and was spreading Jewish doctrine (they didn't at that time distinguish between Jews and Christians). In addition, because he was dealing directly with Romans and Roman government, his revelation of his Roman citizenship was particularly effective.

 

[Yekcidmij]

There's nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas. It didn't originate from Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, or anything else. Christians had observed or celebrated it for quite some time. The origins of the tradition appear to be from thinking that Jesus was conceived on the same day that he died (count back 9 months from Dec 25).

In other news, EO's and Copts celebrate it on 7 Jan. Armenians celebrate it on 6 Jan.

Calculating Christmas


.

 

[lismore]

Jesus is the most important person who ever lived. His birth is surrounded by miraculous events. Why do we need to defend celebrating the birth of Jesus?

Hi Dale. Perhaps because Dec 25th is not the Birth of Jesus? And we have some odd themes at his Birthday party, flying reindeer etc.

There's a scripture in the bible that talks about sacred vessels being 'Holy to the Lord'. God Bless

 

[Mary of Bethany]

There's nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas. It didn't originate from Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, or anything else. Christians had observed or celebrated it for quite some time. The origins of the tradition appear to be from thinking that Jesus was conceived on the same day that he died (count back 9 months from Dec 25).

In other news, EO's and Copts celebrate it on 7 Jan. Armenians celebrate it on 6 Jan.

Calculating Christmas


.

Just fyi - all Eastern Orthodox celebrate Christmas on December 25th - it just depends on which calendar is being used. It either coincides to the Gregorian date of December 25th or January 6th (December 25 on the Julian calendar).