Redeeming Holy Days from Pagan Lies

Did Christianity Steal the Date of Sol Invictus?

The claim is that Sol Invictus “Invincible Sun” is a more ancient pagan holiday in Rome celebrated on December 25^th. The claim assumes that this pagan holiday was so popular and dangerous that the Christian Church sought to suppress it by establishing the celebration of Christ’s Nativity on December 25^th. By doing this, the claim continues, the Christians adopted the pagan day and some of the practices of that pagan festival to make the celebration of Christmas more appealing to pagans.

Remember first that the Christian faith is as old as the curse on Satan in Genesis 3:15. And while pagan worship of the sun certainly existed in Rome before the spread of the fulfillment of that promise in Christ came to the city; the celebration of Sol Invictus as a god in Rome actually came as pagans attempted to suppress Christianity. This early attempt as suppressing Christianity by means of the pagan worship of Sol is found in the Historia Augusta, a pagan history of Rome compiled in the fourth century AD.

The Historia Augusta in TheLife of Elagabalus (1.3) relates events from the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, a particularly twisted man, who reigned from 218-222 AD. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus came to be called Elagabalus after the name of the Syrian sun god, and was himself initiated as a priest of that false god. He viewed himself as the personal manifestation of the Syrian sun god. After coming to Rome and being established as emperor at the age of 14, the Historia states:

4 Elagabalus [established himself] as a god on the Palatine Hill close to the imperial palace; and he built him a temple, to which he desired to transfer the emblem of the Great Mother, the fire of Vesta, the Palladium, the shields of the Salii, and all that the Romans held sacred, purposing that no god might be worshipped at Rome save only Elagabalus. 5 He declared, furthermore, that the religions of the Jews and the Samaritans and the rites of the Christians must also be transferred to this place, in order that the priesthood of Elagabalus might include the mysteries of every form of worship.  [Latin]

And, coincidentally, very shortly after Elagabalus tried to establish worship of the Syrian sun god, Sol Invictus, he was thought to be too licentious and was assassinated by his own people, pagan Romans, at the age of 18 years old.

From that time there is no mention of the celebration of Sol Invictus in Roman history until the rule of Aurelian (A.D. 270-275). Aurelian did try to re-introduce the worship of Sol Invictus by decree in the year 274. But there is no record of this festival being held on December 25^th. “The traditional feast days of Sol, as recorded in the early imperial fasti, were August 8th and/or August 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th.”(Hijmans, p. 588 )

Aurelian did declare games to Sol every four years. But there is no record from the period or early historiographers that these games were associated with December 25^th in any way. The best evidence suggest that the games were held October 19-22 of their calendar. Anyway, on another coincidence, a year after Aurelian declared these games in honor of Sol Invictus, he was assassinated by his own pagan Roman officers out of fear he would execute them based on false charges.

The earliest calendar to mention that Invictus as a specified date for Roman religious life comes from a text of the Philocalian Calendar, VIII Kal recorded in an illuminated 4^th Century manuscript called The Chronography of 354. In this late manuscript the date is listed in Mensis December (The Month of December) as N·INVICTI·CM·XXX.
[The calender can be seen by clicking here ]

Many scholars through the years have assumed that INVICTI in this calendar must mean “Sol Invictus.” This is possible. However, elsewhere the calendar does not hesitate to make explicit mention of festivals to Sol, for example: on SOLIS·ET·LVNAE·CM·XXIIII (August 28^th) and LVDI·SOLIS (October 19-22).
Even if INVICTI does refer to Sol Invictus on December 25^th of this calendar, all this shows is that the celebration of Sol Invictus was placed on December 25^th after Christianity had already widely accepted and celebrated December 25^th as the Nativity of Christ.

There are many historians and people following them who will still assert that December 25^th is Sol Invictus in ancient Rome. Some will even claim that another religion, Mithraism, has close connection to this December 25^th celebration. In actual fact there is no ancient documentation tying Mithraism to December 25^th or Sol Invictus. The Christian celebration of the Nativity of Christ as December 25^th predates anything in the earliest actual documentation for Sol Invictus on December 25^th. That documentation is from the much later Philocalian Calendar Chronography of 354.

[For those interested in a more technical look see T.C. Schmid's article at http://chronicon.net/blog/christmas/sol-invictus-evidently-not-a-precursor-to-christmas/

What Can and Cannot Change in Our Relationship with God

Bryan Chapell, in Holiness by Grace: Delighting in the Joy That Is Our Strength (Crossway, 2001), 196, has a helpful chart looking at what does and does not change in the relationship between God and his children (lightly adapted below):

What Can Change	What Cannot Change
our fellowship	our sonship
our experience of God’s blessing	God’s desire for our welfare
our assurance of God’s love	God’s actual affection for us
God’s delight in our actions	God’s love for us
God’s discipline	our destiny
our sense of guilt	our security

(HT: Dane Ortlund)

These truths were wonderfully explored by the great Puritan theologian John Owen, who distinguished between our unchanging union with God and our changing communion with God. Kelly Kapic summarizes:

It is important to note that Owen maintains an essential distinction between union and communion.
Believers are united to Christ in God by the Spirit. This union is a unilateral action by God, in which those who were dead are made alive, those who lived in darkness begin to see the light, and those who were enslaved to sin are set free to be loved and to love. When one speaks of “union,” it must be clear that the human person is merely receptive, being the object of God’s gracious action. This is the state and condition of all true saints.
Communion with God, however, is distinct from union. Those who are united to Christ are called to respond to God’s loving embrace. While union with Christ is something that does not ebb and flow, one’s experience of communion with Christ can fluctuate.
This is an important theological and experiential distinction, for it protects the biblical truth that we are saved by radical and free divine grace.
Furthermore, this distinction also protects the biblical truth that the children of God have a relationship with their Lord, and as a relationship, there are things that can either help or hinder it. When a believer grows comfortable with sin (whether sins of commission or sins of omission) this invariably affects the level of intimacy this person feels with God. It is not that the Father’s love grows and diminishes for his children in accordance with their actions, for his love is unflinching. It is not that God runs from us, but we run from him. Sin tends to isolate the believer, making him feel distant from God. Then come the accusations—both from Satan and self—which can make the believer worry he is under God’s wrath. In truth, however, saints stand not under wrath, but in the safe shadow of the cross.
While a saint’s consistency in prayer, corporate worship, and biblical meditation are not things that make God love him more or less, such activities tend to foster the beautiful experience of communion with God. Temptations and neglect threaten the communion, but not the union [Works, 2:126]. And it is this union which encourages the believer to turn from sin to the God who is quick to forgive, abounding in compassion, and faithful in his unending love.
Let there be no misunderstanding—for Owen, Christian obedience was of utmost importance, but it was always understood to flow out of this union, and never seen as the ground for it. In harmony with Bunyan and other Dissenters like him, Owen “insisted upon a very personal and emotional experience of union with Christ and the Holy Spirit,” and out of this union naturally flowed active communion.

---

Kelly M. Kapic, “Worshiping the Triune God: Insights from John Owen,” introduction to John Owen, Communion with the Triune God, ed. Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor; foreword by Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), pp. 21-22.

7 Ways to Write an Awful Worship Song

by Stephen Altrogge

 

So you finally learned to play the guitar and now you’re wondering, “How do I write a truly awful worship song?” You’ve come to the right place, my friend. Here are some surefire ways to write a truly horrible worship song.

1. Recycle a Love Song.

Write a song for your girlfriend. When she breaks up with you, convert it into a worship song. Be sure to change all uses of “girl” or “baby.”

2. Use Time-Tested Rhymes.

Make sure you rhyme “love” and “above” at least twice.
The song becomes doubly awful if you can also incorporate the word “dove.” Example: “You sent your love from above, makes my heart feel like a pure white dove.” You get the point.

3. Be Vague About Your Theology.

Make sure to avoid any theology at all costs.
Don’t talk about atonement, wrath or any other biblical concepts. You want your song to be all about feeling. Don’t let the mind get in the way.
Repeat after me: “Worship is a warm feeling, sort of like heartburn, only better.”

4. Make the Song All About You.

The main point of your song should be your experiences and how God makes you feel.
Don’t bother with objective truth about God. I would suggest you use the words “I” or “me” at least 12-15 times.
For example: “I feel like singing, yes, I feel like spinning, because You make me feel so good inside. Like it’s my birthday, but more awesome.”

5. Be Incredibly Poetic.

If you can, muddy the waters with poetic phrases that don’t make much sense. Example: “Your love is like a warm summer’s breeze, washing over my heart like a crystal river.”

6. Use Well-Worn Musical Progressions.

If you can, keep your music and melody boring. I would suggest you use no more than four distinct notes in a song, so by the time someone is done listening to it they want to scream.
A worship scream, but a scream nonetheless.
It also helps if you use the chords G, C and D over and over.

7. Defend Your Song Like It’s Your Firstborn Child.

Do not, I repeat, do not let anyone make suggestions for improvement.
Tell people God laid the song on your heart. Tell people you really want to preserve the artistic integrity of the song. Tell people you already did the song at your campus ministry and a revival broke out.
Don’t take advice from anyone.

There you have it. Seven ways to write a terrible worship song. You can thank me later.

How I Absorbed Three Punches and Stood Up Anyway

by Tom Chantry

Although I’ve been worried about this election for months, only in the aftermath did I realize that I never really thought our country would re-elect a President who has been such an abject failure by any and every measure.  It just didn’t seem possible that we would do so, and so at some level I didn’t expect it at all.  As the results rolled in, I found myself reeling, unable to take in the enormity of what has happened to our nation.  I scarcely slept, unable to stop running through the implications of the disaster.  I was, to put it mildly, knocked down and stunned.

But God is gracious, and eventually I slept, and this morning I find myself back up off the mat.  Looking back, I can see what it was that took me so by surprise.  I allowed myself to think too highly of my country – to imagine that the American optimists were right and that there is something exceptional and wonderful in the American spirit which pulls us through the worst crises.  That smugness was knocked out of me by a series of blows as I realized anew that we are a culture of sin, a culture of stupidity, and a culture under judgment – none of which really surprises me in the light of day.  Those blows absolutely leveled me last night, but today I’m standing.  Here’s why:

The reelection of President Obama demonstrates the wickedness of America.  Make no mistake about it: a vote for the President was a wicked act.  It is not sufficient to say that he is pro-abortion; the man is in favor of offing unwanted kids outside the womb as well.  He not only celebrates the lifestyle of perversion; he wishes to deconstruct God’s institution of marriage for the benefit of the perverts, one of whom he appointed as a judge over us.  On every point of American policy in which there is a clear side of righteousness and a clear side of wickedness, he stands with the devils rather than the angels.

Most Americans, though, did not vote for him for those reasons.  The majority does not hold his extreme position on infanticide, and every referendum shows that the majority does not agree to the institutional legitimizing of perversion.  But on the issues of this election his position is also on the side of evil.  As I wrote two years ago in my political credo, fiscal policy is also moral in nature.  The unavoidable reality of this election is that when Governor Romney ran on fiscal sanity, the majority decided to cast their votes in favor of more free stuff from the government.

In other words, last night’s vote demonstrates one fundamental evil that has overtaken our society.  Today’s voter is unimpressed by the biblical ethic of work and responsibility; neither is he too ashamed to engage in systematic theft.  We have become Greece.  Only a nation of wicked thieves could have produced last night’s results.  So if I imagined that my countrymen were too good to re-elect this man, I was brought to a rude awakening.

But the second blow was even more unexpected:

The reelection of President Obama demonstrates the stupidity of America.  I know, I should be using a softer word than “stupid,” but as I said, I didn’t sleep much.  The Scriptures teach that sin makes us stupid.  Paul’s argument in the first chapter of Romans is essentially this: there is no fact more obvious than the existence of a Creator who deserves our worship, but sinful men refuse to see it, and in their wickedness they become driveling idiots.  Paul said it much better, but that was his point.

Moreover, we see this truth enacted all around us – and in our own lives – every day.  How often have you continued in a self-destructive sin, all the while knowing that it can only bring you to grief?  How often have you tried to convince a friend or a child of the obvious error of his ways, only to discover that his sin has too great a hold to be broken by common sense.  In fact, this is why “common sense” isn’t common; it is countered on every side by common iniquity.

Yesterday the prevailing sin of our nation led to an electoral suicide.  Never in our history have so many voted against their own self-interest.  Retired seniors voted for a President who will destroy their health care system and bankrupt their social security.  Out-of-work college graduates voted for a President who considers 7.9% unemployment a huge victory.  Black Americans voted overwhelmingly for a President whose policies left them far worse off than they were before.

How do we account for this electoral lunacy?  It’s simple, if you’ve read Romans 1.  Sin makes you stupid, and we are a nation of gross sinners.  So if I thought my countrymen were too smart to re-elect this man, I was predictably wrong again.

But even this realization did not rob me of sleep last night.  The knockout blow was yet to come:

The reelection of President Obama demonstrates God’s judgment on America.  It’s pretty hard to overstate how bad this election is.  For starters, the President’s policy remains to raise taxes, raise regulations, and deplete the nation of energy.  We’ve been calling this downturn a “recession” for a long time; soon we’ll recognize it for what it is.  As more businesses are shuttered, as loans dry up, and as greater and greater numbers are out of work we will have to start calling it the “Second Depression.”  By the end of this term there is expected to be a severe shortage of doctors as we actively demolish the world’s greatest health-care system.  China is now free to continue manipulating its currency, Russia is free to point its nukes wherever it pleases, and Iran is free to continue being Iran.  It’s bad – very bad.

But what did we expect?  As I said in my earlier article, it’s all very well and good to have a fiscal revolution, because fiscal policy is a moral issue, but it does nothing to address the deeper problems of our body politic.  Did we really think that God would be content to allow us to continue ignoring his laws – to continue embracing perversion and executing our infants – and that He would never bring an end to our wealth?  Did we think he would take no notice of a nation descending into vileness while His churches churned out a perpetual circus act?  In fact, judgment was predictable, and now we know the form that it has taken.

In Romans 1 Paul explained that sometimes God’s judgment comes in the form of allowing us to descend into greater wickedness.  Complain about His manna and He will force-feed you quail until you are nauseated by it.  Love evil, and God will give you your fill of it and more.  What we are seeing is the judgment of the American populace.  We have loved wickedness, and God has elevated a Degenerate to rule over us.  The Lord is just, and we are about to discover exactly what that means.

So I was staggered and overcome.  The thought of the horrors that we must now undergo was too much for me.  So why am I up off the canvas today, ready to resume my responsibilities as a Christian man?

The church has the only answer to the sin and stupidity of our nation, and the only response to the judgment of our God.  Now, don’t get me wrong; I don’t mean to suggest that as Christians we have the gospel and so we should retreat into a neo-monasticism in which we refuse to take part in the political life of the nation.  We were right to cast a vote for a man who is relatively upright and who espoused relatively upright policies.  We are right to weep today over the destruction that has come upon us.  In fact, if you are unready to get up off the mat today, I don’t blame you.  If you cannot smile, I sympathize.  Ultimately, though, it’s true: we have the only answer.

Policies can address political circumstances, but they cannot address the fundamental weaknesses of the American soul.  Where we stand today is not so radically different from where we stood in, say, 1980.  We don’t need another Reagan; we need the Holy Spirit.  If men are to turn from their sin and discover the wisdom that comes from serving God, they do not need better government, but the message which has been entrusted to the church.

This election was a catastrophe; there is no reason to pretend otherwise.  Furthermore, it demonstrates the far deeper perils which threaten us.  But we are Christians, and we know the answer, and He is the Prince of Peace.  Let’s be busy about the work of His kingdom today.

3-2-1

Is Faith Merely Assurance? - Heb 11:1

by Bill Mounce

A friend of mine recently pointed out a blog by John Piper on some upcoming changes (more properly, clarifications, precision) to his book, Future Grace, Revised Edition: The Purifying Power of the Promises of God.

One of those clarifications is going to be on the nature of faith in Heb 11:1. As you know, this is one of the more important verses in the Bible as it helps to define what “faith” is. I am always looking for new and clearer ways to define Christian terminology so that people outside the Christian tradition can understand — and for that matter, people within the tradition who tend to repeat words they don’t always understand. That’s what caught my eye.

This passage also points out the challenges of finding just the right English word for a Greek word. Sometimes, there just isn’t a word.

The NIV writes, “Now faith is confidence (ὑπόστασις) in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (also NLT). The problem with “confidence” (other than I always hear Julie Andrews singing when someone says the word) is that it is too weak. I can be confident, and wrong. Other translations speak of “assurance” (ESV, NASB, NRSV). The NET says, “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for.”
The HCSB is getting much closer to what the word means: “Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for.” The NKJV speaks of “substance.” The NJB has, “Only faith can guarantee the blessings that we hope for.” You can see what they are all struggling to say. Faith is the bedrock, complete and total, conviction of what is true, even though the fulfillment lies in the future. This is the context for John Piper’s statement.

John writes, “The closest thing we have to a definition of faith in the New Testament is in Hebrews 11:1, ‘Faith is the assurance (Greekhypostasis) of things hoped for.’ That word ‘assurance’ can mean ‘substance’ or ‘nature’ as in Hebrews 1:3: ‘[Christ] is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature (hypostaseos).’ Therefore, it seems to me, that the point of Hebrews 11:1 is this: When faith pictures the future which God promises, it experiences, as it were, a present ‘substantiation’ of the future.

The substance of the future, the nature of it, is, in a way, present in the experience of faith. Faith realizes the future. It has, so to speak, a foretaste of it — as when we are so excited about something and so expectant of it, we say, ‘I can already taste it!’”

I checked with Guthrie’s commentary, and George says much the same thing. “The word hypostasis, translated by the NIV as a participle (‘being sure’), is in fact a noun, which was used variously to communicate the idea of substance, firmness, confidence, a collection of documents establishing ownership, a guarantee, or a proof. It probably should be understood in 11:1, as in 3:14, in the sense of a ‘firm, solid confidence’ or a ‘calm courage’ with reference to things hoped for. Thus, we can translate this part of the verse: ‘Now faith is the resolute confidence….’ The examples that follow demonstrate a posture of firm confidence in the promises of God even though the believers had not yet received the fulfillment of those promises (11:39).”

We know that without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). The one indispensable quality of a true followers of Jesus is that he or she is completely and totally convinced that Jesus is who he says he is and will do what he says he will do. We trust not in ourselves but him Jesus and what he did, does, and will do for us. In fact, the purest form of faith sees very little difference between looking forward in the present, and what it will be like to actually experience the future when our hope becomes reality.

Perhaps it is better to say that faith sees the future as our present reality, and we do so with resolute confidence.

[my note:  How about smelling the Thanksgiving dinner before you actually get to eat it? Smell is, in a sense, (no pun intended) tasting, and not yet tasting the food that is yet to be fully realized once it hits your tongue. What do you think? Smell is real, but not the fullest experience of the meal.]

C.S. Lewis on Novelty in Worship

C.S. Lewis had a very a different perspective. According to him, worship is like dancing: practice makes perfect. And introducing new elements into the dance simply distracts the dancers and diverts their attention from what they’re supposed to be doing: worship. So here he is warning against novelty and change in worship. 

It looks as if [pastors] believed people can be lured to go to church by incessant brightenings, lightenings, lengthenings, abridgements, simplifications, and complications of the service. And it is probably true that a new, keen vicar will usually be able to form within his parish a minority who are in favour of his innovations. The majority, I believe, never are. Those who remain — many give up churchgoing altogether — merely endure.

Is this simply because the majority are hidebound? I think not. They have a good reason for their conservatism. Novelty, simply as such, can have only an entertainment value. And they don’t go to church to be entertained. They go to use the service, or, if you prefer, to enact it.

Every service is a structure of acts and words through which we receive a sacrament, or repent, or supplicate, or adore. And it enables us to do these things best — if you like, it ‘works’ best — when, through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it. As long as you notice, and have to count, the steps, you are not yet dancing but only learning to dance. A good shoe is a shoe you don’t notice. Good reading becomes possible when you need not consciously think about eyes, or light, or print, or spelling. The perfect church service would be one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God.

But every novelty prevents this. It fixes our attention on the service itself; and thinking about the worship is a different thing from worshipping. The important question about the Grail was ‘for what does it serve?’ ‘Tis mad idolatry that makes the service greater than the god.’

A still worse thing may happen. Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant. You know what I mean. Try as one may to exclude it, the questions ‘What on earth is he up to now?’ will intrude. It lays one’s devotion waste. There is really some excuse for the man who said, ‘I wish they’d remember that the charge to Peter was Feed my sheep; not Try experiments on my rats, or even, Teach my performing dogs new tricks.’

Thus my whole liturgiological position really boils down to an entreaty for permanence and uniformity. I can make do with almost any kind of service whatever, if only it will stay put. But if each form is snatched away just when I am beginning to feel at home in it, then I can never make any progress in the art of worship. You give me no chance to acquire the trained habit— habito dell’arte.

 C. S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer (Mariner Books, 2002), 4-5.