Why do Sola Scriptura Christians celebrate Christmas?

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Here is something interesting from Dr. Scott Hahn.

She Gave the Word Flesh

Thank you for that AlegreFe Great read

God Bless

 

[LMW]

How does Sola Scriptura help us to decide what is a “good and godly tradition” and what is not?

Personally I believe the Divine Office, the Rosary, making the sign of the cross with holy water, novenas, genuflection and many other things are “good and godly traditions”. I know that none of them are found in Scripture but I don’t see them as being contrary to Scripture.

But many others think they’re not good at all. Some would even call them pagan and evil.

I also think Christmas is a good and godly tradition.

In deciding what is a good tradition and what is not, are we making a second rule of faith or practice alongside Scripture?

What would help us to understand if something was or was not would be to determine it’s origins. If something started with ancient pagan religions and then were “christianized”- that would go against God’s commands.

 

[AlegreFe]

Catholics do not base their faith on the Bible, but on Jesus. The Bible is based upon the Catholic faith.

We do base our faith on Scripture. But I know what you mean. The written Word of God as in Scripture is not the only thing on which we base our Faith.

The Word of God was revealed to us in a Trinitarian way. If you wish to purchase this DVD or CD set from Father Corapi, it’s a great resource and norm for our Faith. :yup: Just click the link and you will be taken to Father Corapi’s website. But it would be great if you read this first.

Divine Revelation
This revelation of God the Father to us in the Person of his
only Son is divine revelation simply and accurately put. This
revelation is transmitted to us in a Trinitarian way. There is
one God. There is one Word of God. However, we know that
God, although One is three divine Persons: Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit. Wherever one Person of the most holy Trinity is
there the other two must be due to the absolute unity of the
Trinity. This is what we refer to in theology as the divine
perichoresis or circumincession. Simply put, wherever one
Person of the Trinity is, there the other two must be.

Drawing an analogy from this Trinitarian theology, God’s
revelation to us is one and three. There is but one Word
transmitted, but it comes to us in three essential, integral,
and compenetrated modes. The Word of God is transmitted to
us in an oral way and a written way, however, when you have
any word or words there must be an authentic and
authoritative translator of the word(s), otherwise there is only
personal opinions and ultimate chaos.

Jesus Christ, while on the earth as the “Son of Man”, taught
orally. He said and did many things, and as St. John says
that he doubted that the world could contain enough books to
write it all. Jesus did not write a book, although the Bible
surely has God as its primary Author. Hence there are two
main wellsprings of revelation: an oral one and a written one.
The oral teaching of Jesus Christ given to the Apostles and
handed on by them under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—
the apostolic kerygma—has equal weight in the Catholic
Church with the written word of God, the Bible. This oral mode
of transmitting God’s revelation is called “Sacred Tradition.”
Either the written word or the oral must be authentically and
authoritatively interpreted. This is done by the Magisterium of
the Church. The Magisterium of the Church, or “teaching
office”, is the Holy Father and all of the bishops united to him
in teaching the substance of the faith given to us by the
Father through his only Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Hence, God our Father reveals himself to us in the Person of
his only Son. This revelation is transmitted in an oral way,
Sacred Tradition (the Apostolic Kerygma) and a written way,
the Bible. Both are interpreted authentically and authoritatively
only by the Magisterium of the Church.

So, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture (the Bible), and the
Magisterium of the Church are so intimately integral and
compenetrated that no one of them can subsist without the
other two. Just as God in fact would not be God if He were
only Father, or only Son, so too God’s revelation to us is not
authentic unless it is in fact the revelation of the one God
transmitted to us in a Trinitarian way: through Sacred
Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and authentically and
authoritatively interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church.

The substance of this teaching is found in the Catholic
Church’s pre-eminent document on divine revelation, “The
Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” or “Dei Verbum”
(Word of God), one of the sixteen major documents of the
Second Vatican Council. Although it is without question that
this is a document of monumental importance in Catholic
doctrine you will rarely find a Catholic who has ever heard of
either the document or its teaching.

 

[LMW]

The Bible is based upon the Catholic faith.

Did the early Christians base their faith on the Bible or on the oral teachings of the Apostles and their followers?

…and to be consistant not use drivers licenses or any pictures as that would be against a consistant understanding of modern Bible only followers.

-How is the bible based upon the Catholic faith?

-The early Christians relied on and liberally quoted from- as did Jesus- the Hebrew scriptures and then the ministry of Jesus was recorded in Matthew, Mark Luke and John. The majority of the Greek scriptures were written letters from apostles to congregations in that area at the time- they were intended to instruct them in how they as the newly formed Christian congregation should conduct themselves and how matters should be handled.

-How would using a drivers liscense or any other picture be against “modern bible only followers”?

 

[AlegreFe]

…Cont

scylla:

Did the early Christians base their faith on the Bible or on the oral teachings of the Apostles and their followers?

:yup: On the oral teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostles and their disciples!

scylla:

The strict Bible only, (not sola scriptura) followers who follow the King James version(or something similar with the 66 books that were decided upon by Martin Luther and finalized about 150 or so years ago.)
If they do not do anything related to religion outside the Bible, they shouldn’t celebrate Christmas, Easter, have wedding rings or funerals and to be consistant not use drivers licenses or any pictures as that would be against a consistant understanding of modern Bible only followers.

This is the point of the original post.

In Christ
Scylla

I also think this was the op’s point.

 

[kellie]

Well, I guess you have tto look at what the bible says about that. If what the bible discribes is what you are doing- then it is what God wanted… and if it is not, then perhaps it is not what God wanted… How is that logic flawed?

Because your logic is saying if God has not got it written down then it shouldn’t be done, just in case He disapproves of it.

The Lord said to Peter that He was building His church upon Peter, so with your theory, you should be Catholic, to follow what God wanted.

No one according to your theory should stray from the church that Christ built.

 

[AlegreFe]

Why did he have to die?

I’ll just point you back to my post.

AlegreFe:

But without His dying, He would not have resurrected.

Without His Resurrection we would not have been set free. But He had to die first in order to rise. And since death is part of our lives because of Adam & Eve, He had to destroy our death with His death. He also restored our lives with His Resurrection.

 

[AlegreFe]

-How is the bible based upon the Catholic faith?

What came first? The Bible as we know it today, or the Church? The Church! That is what scylla meant.

Jesus and the Apostles quoted from Scripture, correct; but that was the OT only.

The ministry of Jesus as recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was not written until much later. I’m sure someone here can p(name removed by moderator)oint the approximate time frame.

The epistles were written letters from Paul (and others) to the people to whom the faith was already taught orally. They were written to clarify and rectify some of their actions as a lot of them were not acting according to prior teachings from the disciples.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

There is no Pagan tie to the Jewish passover or marriage- so there could not be pagan motivation for Jesus attending those.

I’m not going to touch on the marriage part (because I agree with you that God insititued it with Adam and Eve), but this second part is kind of wrong.

While I do not think there was a pagan motivation for Jesus attending those festivals, there certainly were preexisting pagan Canaanite festivals which the Israelites adopted and transformed into Godly festivals (by God’s command at that).

There is little question that many symbols of Easter have been adopted from various cultures. But this is true for almost all Christian symbols, including the cross (the sign of the fish is the most unique and original Christian symbol).

But this has always been the case since the days of Abraham and Moses. That is, God’s people have always used symbols with which they were familiar from the surrounding culture, and then infused them with new meaning to commemorate and worship God. In the process the symbols are radically transformed into a means to express faith in the only true God in spite of their “pagan” origins.

Such sacred Hebrew institutions as animal sacrifice, circumcision, temple worship, the priesthood, and prophets, even names for God like El, were all adapted from preexisting counterparts in Canaanite religious practice.

Even the rituals of Passover itself were adapted from two preexisting Canaanite festivals associated with fertility, one celebrating the Spring birthing of livestock (the day of Passover) and the other celebrating the early barley harvest (the week long Feast of Unleavened Bread that begins on Passover)

Why on earth anyone would get upset by Christianity transforming a pagan festival into a Christian day of worship honoring Christ’s birth, when this exact same thing has clearly been done many times by the Israelites in ancient times, is simply beyond me.

 

[Steadfast]

Asteroid,

The website you got that defintion of Sola Scriptura from does NOT represent the classical Protestant understanding of the doctrine.

A much clearer presentation can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith which is the defining confessional document for Presbyterians (nearly identical formulations have been crafted for Baptists {London Baptist Confession 1689} and Congregationalists {Savoy Declaration}.

The WCF:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

Although I am not a Presbyterian but a Lutheran, I consider this useful and accurate and would urge you to become familiar with it before you ask any more questions about Sola Scriptura.

This is a pretty good treatment from a specifically Lutheran perspective.

The information from the website you posted from is deeply flawed and no Protestant other than a semi-arian anti-confessionalist fundamentalist would endorse it.

Such views are not Protestant, nor do they reflect the theology of the Reformation. If the only people you’re interesting in contending with are these kinds of people, good luck but I think you’d be spending your time more profitably by banging your head against a wall.

 

[Steadfast]

Again, and again for the record, Luther didn’t decide the Protestant canon. It’s frankly dishonest to say that he did.

I am tired of correcting this error so I’ll just suggest you read the following excellent article by my friend James Swan.

It’s a lot to read and it’s moderately scholarly but surely that won’t cause any problems for such doughty defenders of the whole truth as we have here at CAF.

 

[scylla]

I have been reading the article that you posted and it does look like Luther did decide the canon. I did make a mistake in saying 66 books as he left 73 books in the Bible but lowered the status by denigrating some books and this helped influence others to eventually kick out 7 books entirely.

As I said, about 150 years ago they took out the books that many people call apocryphal. I have a King James Version of the Bible which contains the 73 books, before they were taken out. It is over 150 years old.

Thanks for the link, I will read more of it. I see not too much need to defend Luther as he did repent many times of the horrible and vulgar things he said. He was passionate.

LMW
Others explained that the Bible wasn’t around for the early Christians.

The reason why having a drivers license would be wrong for many Bible only adherents is they split the 1st commandment and then interpret the 2 commandment as having no images. This also makes their wife’s into objects but that is another subject.
To consistantly follow that no images rule, no images would be able to be possessed by any followers of those groups.

Catholics have an authority which says that it isn’t interpreted that way, this is why we can possess nativity sets, statues, pictures of our kids and even drivers licenses without contradicting out belief system.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[asteroid]

Asteroid,

The website you got that defintion of Sola Scriptura from does NOT represent the classical Protestant understanding of the doctrine.

A much clearer presentation can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith which is the defining confessional document for Presbyterians (nearly identical formulations have been crafted for Baptists {London Baptist Confession 1689} and Congregationalists {Savoy Declaration}.

Although I am not a Presbyterian but a Lutheran, I consider this useful and accurate and would urge you to become familiar with it before you ask any more questions about Sola Scriptura.

My point entirely - there are many formulations of sola scriptura. It know for a start that the page I quoted wasn’t typical. However, it IS a formulation of sola scriptura. I’m very sorry if some Protestants would have what other Protestants would view as a false conception of the doctrine and that there is no unity in Protestantism on this, one of the main points of the entire Protestant Reformation.

Then again, I’ve been in lots of Protestant churches. Could any of them be said to be “classic” Protestantism?

Your urging is appreciated. However, I would ask you to understand that I’ve looked at the Westminster Confession of Faith before. That’s the sort of thing you do when taking two theology degrees at a university college that also combines as the training college for the Presbyterian Church of Wales. Several years ago I read the 1689 Baptist Confession after buying a copy from the Metropolitan Tabernacle Bookshop while I was a baptist lay preacher and deacon. I confess I haven’t read the Savoy Declaration even though the college where I took my degrees worked very closely with the college training up Welsh Congregationalist ministers.

The Westminster Confession for example states:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

It later states:

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

I won’t quote the Baptist Confession as it is identical in this section to the Westminster Confession.

Ok, here’s a controversy of religion. A tradition of man states that we should celebrate a festival commemorating the birth of Jesus on December 25th. Some Christians say this is a false tradition.

The supreme judge of this controversy can only be the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

So what does this judge say? Can we deduce this festival from Scripture? If so how? How do we deduce that we should have a special day in December (or January) called Christmas? And how do we do so without introducing anything like a tradition of men? And if such a festival can be deduced from Scripture then why didn’t the Puritans, famous for their love of and exposition of Scripture, celebrate it?

Sorry, too many questions. Which mirrors my current prayer life all too well.

 

[Sixtus]

Maybe the Puritans, the Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, some Anabaptists and others were right on this one - you can’t combine Christmas and Sola Scriptura theology.

Is ok. you do your thing, is ok.

Christ loved festivals. Water into wine at a weading feast.

Man was not made for the sabbath but the sabbath for man.

Christ created the universe to the glory of God the Father and for the pleasure of man. Lets enjoy for crying out loud.

Or let us be morbid, mournful, tearful, abolish this pleasure, abolish that pleasure, be solemn, not dress properly, do lota penance, die and think 'life as a **** so why did God create me.

Choice is yours.

 

[Catherine_S]

Well… is it? Has anyone done the research so we can know for sure whether it is or isn’t?

I think that there is a tendency to want to stick so loyaly to what we have always believed that we risk not seeing the forrest for the trees.

If the origins are pagan, I want to know. And if there is information in scripture that says that Christmas is something we should all be celebrating, I want to know that too… or if it indicates that God disapproves of it- that is also good to know.
I would not be willing to stick to a belief- just because it is Catholic- if the bible indicated it was wrong. That would be placing my thinking in opposition to God would it not?

Christains celebrate The Birth of Christ , His Death and Resurrection as an act of love for Him.
What a great idea if the church picked those dates** to offset** the pagans celebrating their pagan beliefs at that time. Especially** if** pagans were converted and came to know Jesus Christ.
**Celebrate :clapping: **Celebrate and Shout for Joy this Christmas, show the pagans what you believe :dancing: and who knows maybe you will convert a few of them to Jesus Christ yourself .
.
**PS…**Remember as well that the Church existed before the bible and that the Catholic Church through the workings of the Holy Spirit put the bible together!! So every time you open it you are trusting that the Catholic Church knew what it was doing .
.

 

[Steadfast]

I have been reading the article that you posted and it does look like Luther did decide the canon. I did make a mistake in saying 66 books as he left 73 books in the Bible but lowered the status by denigrating some books and this helped influence others to eventually kick out 7 books entirely.

As I said, about 150 years ago they took out the books that many people call apocryphal. I have a King James Version of the Bible which contains the 73 books, before they were taken out. It is over 150 years old.

Thanks for the link, I will read more of it. I see not too much need to defend Luther as he did repent many times of the horrible and vulgar things he said. He was passionate.

LMW
Others explained that the Bible wasn’t around for the early Christians.

The reason why having a drivers license would be wrong for many Bible only adherents is they split the 1st commandment and then interpret the 2 commandment as having no images. This also makes their wife’s into objects but that is another subject.
To consistantly follow that no images rule, no images would be able to be possessed by any followers of those groups.

Catholics have an authority which says that it isn’t interpreted that way, this is why we can possess nativity sets, statues, pictures of our kids and even drivers licenses without contradicting out belief system.

In Christ
Scylla

Did you read the article by James Swan?

It gives an excellent overview of canonical history and shows that the monolithic consensus about the canon Catholics assume to have prevailed during the late middle ages just didn’t exist.

 

[Steadfast]

My point entirely - there are many formulations of sola scriptura. It know for a start that the page I quoted wasn’t typical. However, it IS a formulation of sola scriptura. I’m very sorry if some Protestants would have what other Protestants would view as a false conception of the doctrine and that there is no unity in Protestantism on this, one of the main points of the entire Protestant Reformation.

No, that wasn’t your point at all. Your point was to construct a strawman from a false understanding of Sola Scriptura and then to ask why “Protestants” don’t defend it.

I could just as fairly ask you to defend Rosemary Reuther or Matthew Foxe.

Then again, I’ve been in lots of Protestant churches. Could any of them be said to be “classic” Protestantism?

I don’t know where you’ve been, but I can justly suggest that you spend your time with those churches which have confessional standards since the rest are likely to change with their pastors.

Your urging is appreciated. However, I would ask you to understand that I’ve looked at the Westminster Confession of Faith before. That’s the sort of thing you do when taking two theology degrees at a university college that also combines as the training college for the Presbyterian Church of Wales. Several years ago I read the 1689 Baptist Confession after buying a copy from the Metropolitan Tabernacle Bookshop while I was a baptist lay preacher and deacon. I confess I haven’t read the Savoy Declaration even though the college where I took my degrees worked very closely with the college training up Welsh Congregationalist ministers.

Wonderful, you’re educated. Then why do you come here and ask us to defend something which is really representative of only an extremely small minority of (arguably heretical) Christians and present it as “Protestant” as though it was the general confession?

Again, I might just as fairly suggest that the current ambivalence in the American Catholic Church about birth control is illustrative of the attitude of the whole.

The Westminster Confession for example states:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

It later states:

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

I won’t quote the Baptist Confession as it is identical in this section to the Westminster Confession.

Ok, here’s a controversy of religion. A tradition of man states that we should celebrate a festival commemorating the birth of Jesus on December 25th. Some Christians say this is a false tradition.

Not me, I don’t. The only “false traditions” are the ones that undercut grace with works.

The supreme judge of this controversy can only be the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

So what does this judge say? Can we deduce this festival from Scripture? If so how? How do we deduce that we should have a special day in December (or January) called Christmas? And how do we do so without introducing anything like a tradition of men? And if such a festival can be deduced from Scripture then why didn’t the Puritans, famous for their love of and exposition of Scripture, celebrate it?

Because the Puritans were uptight, some of them anyway, and as i am sure you’re aware, they didn’t all reject Christmas.

 

[lak611]

I know plenty of Protestants (Lutheran, Methodist, and Evangelical) and all of them celebrate Christmas because the birth of Christ IS in the Bible. We don’t know the exact date of His birth, but we do know it happened. The only people I know who don’t celebrate Christmas are Jews, Muslims, and Jehovah’s Witnesses (who aren’t Protestants, but actually non-Christians–they don’t believe in the deity of Christ or the Trinity, either).