Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Why Protestantism is Theologically Dead! Christ is born! Glorify Him!

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

I ran across a sad writing by A "reformed" Protestant today and once again I had to shake my head in disbelief. This un-identifiable person chose to use Sacred Scripture to skip out on worshiping our Lord and His incarnation. Without the wonderful incarnation of our Lord all of us would have no Easter, and therefore none of us would have an advocate with the Father to enter into eternal life. This is another example of why Protestantism is Theologically Dead! This person chooses to act as a pagan, and yet uses Sacred Scripture to act as one. Here is what this person says on his blog. The hair stands up on my arms when I read it, because something like this can only be from the Devil.

"As an exercise of my Christian liberty, I will not be celebrating Christ's birthday on December 25, 2008. I will not be attending a "mass" or any substitute thereof. I do not plan to set aside any business concerns that would interfere with such religious exercises.

Instead, by engaging in worldly employments and recreations, I will not treat that day as holy. This is my Christian liberty, as Paul explained:

Romans 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks."

He then goes on to accuse the Catholic Church as being legalistic in telling people that Christmas is a Holy day of obligation! This is comical since this is anything but legalism if one really understands what is happening at Mass and what our Lord has done, and continues to do for us. There are many who twist the Sacred Scriptures to their destruction and he is another one. I have actually witnessed "Protestants" using Sacred Scripture to excuse abortion! Yes folks thats right. This person who will not identify himself then closes by trying to persuade others from not going to honor our Lord on Christmas as well!

Who else but Satan would want to draw people away from the infant of Christ? Who hated the incarnation of Our Lord and Savior enough to insult Him by not going to honor His incarnation? It is unbelievable, and once again proves what you get with Scripture Alone and every Tom Dick and Harry constructing their own man-made religion from it. I think I will go twice this Christmas to Mass and the Divine Liturgy to honor my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on this Holy Day of His birth. As for those who wish to reject Our Lord's birth because of their hatred for the real Gospel, let them be anathema, since they have already committed spiritual suicide. Here is the full post for those who want to read it.

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

Update: 12/25/08 12:26Am
I have just returned home from the Tridentine Mass celebrating Christmas with our Lord. The Mass is so beautiful and Christ comes to us personally in the Mass. If we just look to these passages of Scripture, they tell us how important Christ's incarnation is for us. Unfortunately for our "Reformed" heretic he seems to forget these passages that were read during the Christmas liturgy, in favor of abandoning the celebration of His incarnation.

1 And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled. 2 This enrolling was first made by Cyrinus, the governor of Syria. 3 And all went to be enrolled, every one into his own city. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem: because he was of the house and family of David, 5 To be enrolled with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child.

6 And it came to pass, that when they were there, her days were accomplished, that she should be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. 8 And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock. 9 And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear. 10 And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people: 11 For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David. 12 And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger. 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying: 14 Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.

And so here in these Scripture verses we see even the angels coming to pay homage to Our lord and Savior the infant Jesus on His birth. Yet we see that there are those who think themselves higher than angels, and higher than God Himself who try and persuade people to not give homage and praise to Our Lord on Christmas. What miserable wretched tools of hell they are indeed!


Anonymous said...

My take on the various Calvinist comments I've seen on their blogs. It might not be seasoned with as much grace as it ought, but I can't muster up much grace for them and I doubt that God can either.

Alexander Greco said...

Turretinfan is a radical anti-intellectual, plain and simple. People like that are impossible to reason with. It is better fit to leave them with their Coast to Coast personalities and not cast pearls before swine. We have seen how their anti-intellectualism has reduced their arguments to absurdities and lies. They lie about Church teaching (one example that I know you particularly enjoy was their contention that the Church condoned the pulling-out method), as well as others. It is a common occurrence for them to engage in fallacious reasoning, and when caught they A) ban you from their blog (Swan's reaction), B) cherry-pick which of your posts to post (Turretinfan's reaction), or C) place their heads in the sand and hope that you leave them alone if they refuse to post or comment on your comments (White's reaction).

It is not surprising that they attend the schools they attend (if at all), and are unable to have these anti-intellectual opinions published in reputable academic journals.

Turretinfan's ill-conceived argument is based on an ill-conceived premise of sola scriptura. So I say leave him to his absurdities. He does not chose to follow what God requires per the Church (bind and loose) by worshiping Christ's Incarnation, then so be it. It is not as if he worships Christ rightly anyways, and he certainly will not be worshiping God in Hell as a heretic. He is not a christian but a pseudo-christian for pseudo-christians and to them I say: Heresy!

As for me and my family, we will worship the Incarnate Word of God.

rightwingprof said...

I am back in Indiana for the season, and I went to Midnight Mass at my old parish. I had heard they had gotten a new priest, and that he was very traditional, and my current parish in Pennsylvania is a pretty conservative one. But I was unprepared for Mass last night. Novus Ordo, but ad orientem, with prayers at the foot of the altar, bells at the consecration, and the gloria and agnus dei in Latin. About the only thing that wasn't right out of my childhood was that there was no Last Gospel. It was a beautiful, solemn Mass, and a demonstration of how Novus Ordo should be done.

A very blessed Christmas to you all. Christ is born!

BJ Buracker said...


I'm sorry, but what about TF is anti-intellectual? His posts are frequently filled with exegesis, language studies, and logic, and they are generally devoid of personal attacks. That is the opposite of what you accuse him of. If you disagree, fine, but that is FAR from implying that he is anti-intellectual.

Can you provide examples of where TF eschews intelligence, logic, or knowledge? If not, then why did you make that claim?



Alexander Greco said...

Absolutely BJ, go and look up our discourse on contraception for starters, as well as what he is saying about Christmas. Simply because he confirms your opinion that does not make his arguments logical. Anyone who states that abstinence is a contraceptive technique in order to defend his disordered ideas about the sexual act is far from a rational person.

Also, if you don't find him being devoid of personal attacks then either you do not keep up with his blog, or he conforms to your bias.

BJ, the person least likely to commit a personal attack, from what I have read, is you. That goes for White, Swan (and all of his fellow bloggers), Turretinfan, and even me.

I think that your analysis of Turretinfan is flawed. Our discourse on contraception is enough to prove that, without getting into a protestant v. catholic argument over exegesis. You can approach contraception from reason alone (not to mention that you are a protestant, so you are already biased against the teaching authority of the Church so a discourse on those other issues would not be as fruitful).

Do you not find it offensive to call people 'papists' etc.? Have you ever looked up the origins of that word?

BJ Buracker said...


I think I missed the discourse on contraception. Do you have a link for it?

I agree with you about the term Papist, and hence I avoid it. I think it is best to refer to people the way they prefer to be addressed. Nevertheless, TF has written about his use of the word and why he uses it. Have you read that? While it may not be ideal, he does not use it in the traditional pejorative sense. I can try to find the link, if you haven't read it. That is significant.

And yes, I read his blog quite a bit, and it is rare for him to call people names or attack their character. I will not say that he is perfect on the matter or that there are no counterexamples, but I have been impressed with his Internet demeanor, a lot more so than many others on the Net (although I have met many charitable folks on the Net - Protestant and Catholic).

I hope you're having a blessed Christmas,


Matthew Bellisario said...

I have already proven that his interpretation of Romans is completely incorrect. Read my new post.

Matthew Bellisario said...

TF and Gene Bridges both made fools of themselves on the whole contraception debacle. It is all here on my blog archives. You can read it. There are like 4 of 5 different parts to it. They attempted to redefine contraception and the Catholic Church's teaching on it. It was quite humorous to watch those two clowns tripping over themselves trying to cover for each other's blatant errors. Yet none of their own called them on it. It is a wonder that we have no problem calling each other out as Catholics if we make a mistake on our blogs. But for them it just isn't going to happen. If I make a mistake then fine, I'll own up to it. But it is clear that this clown and his most of his buddies will never admit that they are wrong. Such is the case on this as well. There is no way you can use Romans 14 to justify not celebrating Christmas. The passage isn't even referring to the same issue. It is Paul talking to the Jews again and works of the law.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Go to August. The posts on contraception start there.

Alexander Greco said...

BJ, I still disagree with you over your analysis of Turretinfan's behavior and reasoning; however, I totally understand that I should give you more examples besides the contraception issue. Right now I do not have the time, nor would I want to take the time today, to go through his posts to point out those errors to you.

I respect you and would not call you an anti-intellectual even though we disagree. I know others who are not catholic and I would not call them anti-intellectuals. I do not just have a dislike for those whom I disagree with. Neither do I personally dislike Turretinfan. However, there comes a point when you must stop any discussion with someone like Turretinfan who continuously makes the same outlandish arguments he does which would never make it in serious scholarship, and I am surprised that you find them so well thought out. Be that as it may, I will point out some more of his errors to you at a later date.

BJ Buracker said...


I'm not necessarily claiming that TF's arguments are airtight, nor am I claiming that they are necessarily better than yours or Matthew's or Mark Shea's, etc. etc. Those are completely different topics.

My claim is that he is an intellectual, and his _typical_ posts reflect that. In other words, I am convinced that the charge of, "Radical Anti-intellectual" is unfounded.

Take your time with the posts. Today is Christmas, and you ought to be doing something more important than smacking me around :) If you have the time and remember (I understand if you forget), then just shoot me an email with the links: bjburacker [at] gmail [dot] com.


When you say, "Go to August," does that mean on your blog or on his?

Thanks, guys, I do appreciate it.


Matthew Bellisario said...

On mine. It is the first post in August and they continue on through the month.

Alexander Greco said...

BJ, I won't spend too much time on this today :). 'Radical anti-intellectual' is over-the-top, I admit. However, so is his argument against the celebration of feast days, Sundays, Easter etc.

BJ Buracker said...


Thanks, I'll take a look tonight, and as I have the time/energy. Too much good food and wine today.


BJ, I won't spend too much time on this today :).

Thank God! I think that's wise. :)

'Radical anti-intellectual' is over-the-top, I admit. However, so is his argument against the celebration of feast days, Sundays, Easter etc.

I think I can agree with this more or less. I certainly don't share either sentiments.

May our Lord bless you and keep you as you celebrate His coming today and always,


Paul Hoffer said...

What I found interesting in Mr. Fan's comments is his ignoring the fact that Christ Himself celebrated holidays. See, Lk. 2:42, Jn. 2:23, and 7:10. Thus, the notion of celebrating holidays is a biblical notion. We also see Jesus celebrating the Feast of Dedication aka Hanukkah at Jn. 10:22, a holiday that is found only in 2 Maccabees. This fact is interesting in two respects~that Jesus approved of and participated in an extra-biblical holiday (at least from the Protestant standpoint) and second that Jesus apparently is approving of (at least implicitly) a Deuterocanonical book, something that one can not say about several OT books that both Catholics and Protestants acknowledge as canon.

Thus, while Mr. Fan wishes to exercise his liberty not to worship Jesus Christ, His Savior, it is sad that he chose this occasion not to honor the One who gave him that liberty. If God has been gracious to him, he could have at least had taken the advice of the Psalmist used Christmas as an occasion to celebrate for this reason, if nothing else:

"This is the day which the Lord hath made: let us be glad and rejoice therein." (Ps. 117:24)

By the way, Mr. Fan's love of "The Westminster Confession" must not extend to Chapter 21 "Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day," Article V:
"The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as, also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides religious oaths, and vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasion; which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner."

The Second Helvetic Confession (1566) Chapter 24 provides:

"The Festivals of Christ and the Saints. Moreover, if in Christian Liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord’s nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly."

Article 67 of the Church Order of Dordt specifically mandated the celebration of Christmas.

Finally, Mr. Fan's own idol, Francis Turretin, opines on the subject of Fourth Commandment in his "Institutes of Elenctic Theology":

"The question is not whether anniversary days may be selected on which either the nativity, or circumcision, or passion, or ascension of Christ, and similar mysteries of redemption, may be commemorated, or even on which the memory of some remarkable blessing may be celebrated. For this the orthodox think should be left to the liberty of the church. Hence some devote certain days to such festivity, not from necessity of faith, but from the counsel of prudence to excite more to piety and devotion."

Apparently, Mr. Fan does not share the opinions of these Reformed authorities. This is perhaps besides the point as far as Christmas is concerned, but if T-fan is correct in the underlying assumption of his argument in disdaining the celebration of Christmas, it certainly shows the weakness of Reformed theology whereby individual members of the "Body of Christ" can say to each other, "I have no need of you" or your notions of honoring Our Lord. Cf. 1 Cor. 11:12-27.

Alexander Greco said...

TF: Rejecting Christmas as a holy day of obligation is not a rejection of honoring the Lord's Incarnation.

ME: BJ, how is TF’s statement logical? If Christmas is a valid solemn day, then not honoring the day would certainly be akin to not honoring the Lord’s Incarnation.

TF: Bellisario either is unable to think clearly or has decided to use his imagination in place of the actual arguments I set forth.

ME: BJ, is this comment not personal? Is this not an ad hominem?

TF: I do proclaim the truth of Romans 14, but not to reject honoring anyone but the legalistic church of Rome.

ME: BJ, how logical is this comment? Is he not just assuming premise A that he is proclaiming the truth of Romans 14, as well as premise B that the “church of Rome” is legalistic and not in accordance with Romans 14? It is not very logical to just assume all your premises in an argument.

TF: Ah, so Bellisario has now remembered what this is about - Christian liberty, not "reject[ing] honoring Our Lord's Incarnation," as he so dishonestly put it.

ME: BJ, is this an accurate statement? If it is MB’s position that it is not true Christian liberty to not honor Our Lord’s Incarnation on the Christmas, how is that being dishonest?

TF: This, of course, is what Bellisario ought to have done at once. But, at least he is doing it now. Let's see how he does:

ME: BJ, what do you think about this comment?

TF: I wonder how many commentaries MB has actually read.

ME: BJ, would you not call this a personal attack? Does it really matter how many commentaries MB has read as opposed to TF? I’m sure that the Mormons have several commentaries, so the number is irrelevant. What is at issue is the substance of the text.

TF: And that is where MB stops quoting Chrysostom. Well, Chrysostom does mention the legalism of the Judaizers, and rightly so. Likewise, Chrysostom makes application of the text to the Judaizers who wanted to make folks follow the old laws. All this, of course, is perfectly harmonious with what I had said. It simply does not provide the further application to the innovation of holy days of obligation, or the particularly heinous abuse of asserting that it is a "mortal sin" not to regard such days as holy.

Indeed, Chrysostom, without using the word liberty, affirms Christian liberty, noting that what is important is thanksgiving. He doesn't apply this text to the problems of modern Romanism, but is that any surprise? He did not have a time travel machine.

ME: BJ, notice how TF agrees with MB, but then falls short of proving that Chrysostom would not uphold holy days of obligation. Yet we can clearly see that the Church did maintain Sunday observance and Easter etc. If TF were as logical as assumed, would he have easily made the argument that because OT laws etc. were done away (which is of one category) also apply to NT feasts (which is of another category)?

TF: Ah, another of Bellisario's imagined enemy positions. The "right to set his or her own worship schedule" position was not presented by me, and isn't the position I've been advocating. Instead, what I've been advocating is the idea that Christians are free not to regard these man-made feast days (such as Christmas, or All-Saints Day, or the like) or to regard them, as they wish. Scripture says so, and it is only legalists, such as Juadiazers and papists, that deny it.

ME: BJ, how is it that glossing over the categorical differences between OT feast days and NT feast days logical if TF does not prove why they would be similar. He only assumes that they should be treated the same. Once again, he uses the term papist. There is not one serious scholar who would use that term. I find it highly offensive, and he certainly is using it offensively. It is a derogatory term, and it is simply irrelevant how he tries to justify it. Objectively speaking an obese woman is fat, but would it be proper to call her a fat ass? The term ‘fat ass’ would certainly apply, but it is derogatory.

TF: Plainly aimed at them, perhaps, and yet not limited to them. In fact, as noted above, the Jews aren't specifically mentioned in the chapter. What is truly absurd is to suppose that the Old Testament laws given by Moses with respect to days and meats are not binding but that brand new laws are binding! How bizarre! The former had the authority of God, the latter have only the authority of man. If observance of the former is not mandatory, much less so is the observance of the latter.

ME: BJ, once again TF has not proven his position, but has only assumed the validity of his argument. He assumes that the Church does not have the authority from God, against those texts describing the Church’s authority. However, what is most important is that he continuously assumes the illogical position that the people of God in the OT are categorically equivalent to the Church.

TF: Really? Suppose that a church is run by Judaizers? Suppose they impose the days and dietary restrictions of the Old Testament economy? Surely then even the belligerant Bellisario

ME: BJ, calling MB “belligerent” is a personal attack, is it not?

TF: The whole concept of "liturgical calendars" isn't found in the New Testament. Presumably MB is simply repeating what he thinks his church's position on the subject is. This is not entitled to any weight for us, since it is not founded in God's revelation.

ME: BJ, once again TF assumes that A) sola scriptura, and B) that the CC is against Scripture. He has not proven this (keep in mind that it is common knowledge that the historical evidence is against him, there are several lists of feasts in the early church).

TF: Of course, it is not really in reference to that, as the explanation provided in the text proves. The explanation in the text indicates there are no Christina obligatory feast days, and no Christian obligatory fast days. For Romanism to claim that a man is committing a mortal sin by not going to Easter mass or by eating meat on a particular Friday, is to violate the Christian liberty God through Paul in Scripture gives to the believer. It is not freedom from the old diets and calendars to bondage to a new set of diets and calendars, but into liberty.

ME: BJ, once again TF makes the assumption that present/future feasts and practices were to be excluded, but where does Paul state that? He doesn’t.

TF: Shops open on Christmas! How sick! How terrible! What a travesty! People working and doing business on that day, just like in the time of the apostles, before anyone began to celebrate Christmas as though it were a holy day! What a revolting, disgusting concept. I mean, assuming one does not want the purity of the Apostolic church, of course. Otherwise, it sounds quite excellent - men glorifying God by industry, working with their hands.

ME: BJ, we can see now that TF is not the intellectual that he claims to be because he completely bypasses the point that Christians were ‘forced’ to keep their shops open on Christmas.

BJ, let this do for now. I get bored very easily when I have to correct absurdities such as those employed by TF.

Another thing that annoys me to no end is that TF has the audacity to constantly use the [sic] identification to point out grammatical errors in other people’s posts as if to beat his own chest in praise of his own imagined impeccability. Meanwhile, his posts have their own grammatical errors.

TF is not all bad; he does have some good things to say. However,

TF is often more biased than thoughtful.