Anyone here observe Lent, etc?

[Walter]

I was turned off by Lent when I was in college. Having no familiarity

If someone observes Lent, he is not Reformed, by definition.
To be Reformed should mean to have one's belief and practices constantly reformed by Scripture. Since Lent is not to be found in Scripture, if someone observes it, he is not Reformed.
If whatever one is giving up is something bad, why wait until Lent to stop doing it, and why take it up again afterwards? If it is something entirely permissible, it is false piety.

Let's say we add additional bible reading and devotional time? And, let's say at the end of the Lenten season I find that it has brought me to a closer walk with Jesus, would that be ok with you? Many people don't understand that Lent isn't necessarily giving something up but adding something. Many people also find that at the end of Lent they want to continue the practice that they began at the beginning of Lent. Non-liturgical Protestants like yourselves rarely understand this kind of discipline or benefits of it.

 

[David Kent]

Being that I am not Roman Catholic or Lutheran, I do not observe anything to do with the Lenten season. However, I do like lentils and try to observe them in a nice stew as often as possible.

I like lentils too. I get daily recipes from a Frenh site, Marmiton.org. They have lentil recipes and just yesterday they had some using lentils, lentilles in French
Chrome does a translation of the recipe, sometimes a bit strange, as it translated lentilles as lentis, and next time it transalated as lenses.

A man who attended a local Baptist church once said "My pastor has started lent classes." My friend and I both asked him "Why?" He paused for quite a time then said, "I suppose he thought it was a good idea." Later someone told me the other Baptist church in the town also observes Lent and othe RC practices. I suppose that is because they belong to Churches Together.

 

[ChrisTheSaved]

Bible teacher Susie Hawkins, a Southern Baptist:

North American Mission Board • My Lenten Journey

"I reconnected with a friend from a liturgical background who proved to be a valuable resource for all things Lent. Her encouragement then and even today has pushed me to pursue and eagerly anticipate this forty day period."

"Some say 'Lent is not in the Bible.'That is true, but neither is the word "'Trinity'. Lent is a word, a term describing a period of prayer, fasting and repentance and that is most definitely in the Bible!"

"It’s not too late to join the pilgrimage! Here are a few resources you may want to consider
Jesus Keep Me Near the Cross: Experiencing the Passion and Power of Easter by Nancy Guthrie.
The Final Days of Jesus, by Kostenberger/Taylor.
Lent for Everyone, by NT Wright or the YouVersion.
The classic Show Me the Way by Henri Nouwen.
Margaret Feinburg is offering an online Lenten Bible reading challenge."

Portrait of Susie Hawkins (stained glass window in the chapel of SWBTS, Fort Worth)

Two problems with your post, 1- That's the ugliest picture I have seen in a long time. 2- A women teaching men.

That's what s wrong with the liberal SBC.

 

[Walter]

Why do Catholics observe Lent?

By the solemn forty days of Lent the Church unites herself each year to the mystery of Jesus in the desert.
CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church #540 pg 138

 

[Jerome]

Two problems with your post, 1- [insult snipped]. 2- A women teaching men.

That's what s wrong with the liberal SBC.

What?

Susie Hawkins was on the committee in 2000 that rewrote the Bapt. Faith & Mess. for the Convention!


Those stained glass windows depict the heroes of The Conservative Resurgence!

Dorothy Patterson Gets Stained-Glass Windows Installed at Seminary Chapel

"The windows will immortalize Baptists who helped effect the culture change to more conservative attitudes in the Southern Baptist Convention, Patterson said. 'My dream was to portray the 20-year history of the conservative resurgence of the Southern Baptist Church,' said Patterson, wife of seminary President Paige Patterson."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you believe Luther was Reformed by definition?

No.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Let's say we add additional bible reading and devotional time? And, let's say at the end of the Lenten season I find that it has brought me to a closer walk with Jesus, would that be ok with you? Many people don't understand that Lent isn't necessarily giving something up but adding something. Many people also find that at the end of Lent they want to continue the practice that they began at the beginning of Lent. Non-liturgical Protestants like yourselves rarely understand this kind of discipline or benefits of it.

If you need to do additional Bible reading etc., why wait until Lent? And why stop at the end of Lent? If you find that something you started in Lent has been beneficial, that's great, but by carrying on with it you have negated Lent

 

[JonC]

No.

I agree in that I relate Reformed theology to Calvinism (Luther had a different view of the Law, baptism, Lords supper, ect).

On the other hand, those like RC Sproul argue Luther and Calvin both held Reformed theology.

I guess it depends if you relate Reformed to the Reformers or to Calvinism.

 

[Ran the Man]

Does anyone here observe Lent, or any of the "special" days associated with it?
Lent is supposed to be the preparation period for Easter with prayer, fasting, almsgiving, & penance.

However, Lent is not found in Scripture; neither is Ash Wednesday Maundy Thursday, etc. As for "Good Friday", it's plain Jesus did NOT die on a Friday!

While i have nothing against anyone observing those events, I myself reject them as non-Scriptural, & I don't want to ADD to god's commandments set forth in Scripture. I just don't believe they're Baptist observances.

I think about it this way:
The time leading up to the Passover supper is important because it was the hardest part of his ministry before the Crucifixion. Can't we take time to remember it? How many times did he go hungry? How many miles did he walk?
Its not biblical, and? Putting flowers on grandma's grave isn't either but I'll be doing that. Catching beads at mardi gras isnt in the Bible, but I do that too.What's not no is yes, not vice versa.

 

[Ran the Man]

OK Ishtar had definitely receded as a worshiped deity in 4th century Rome but still around as many of the false gods/goddesses lingered long after their times of popularity known of course by other names. Also, yes Hislop's book (required reading in my college days) is not as accurate as one formerly supposed as indeed modern discoveries have shown. However there was an "egg" worship fetish in the practice of Ishtar passed on down no matter the later developments which I believe Hislop was not aware.

One of the factors in my departure from the Church of Rome was the fact that Roman Catholicism is a historical museum of compromised Christianity and Roman 4th century Paganism. Or at least in the local churches of my boyhood and my father's heritage of Italian Roman Catholicism.

The Stations of the Cross a ritual worship practice I believe was not so much a product of Paganism but a help for the illiterate worshipers of the Dark Age and has lingered on to this day.

No historian calls them the dark ages now days.It is well known those days were not dark and ignorant . The Catholics started the first scientific studies. Galileo got in trouble because he mixed science with religion. He was put under house arrest and still allowed to write his books. And he never proved Copernicus. That was not proven until the mid 1800s.

 

[Ran the Man]

The Catholic church isnt as bad as Protestants want to believe. The problem is Protestants go in with a full cup, full of themselves and thier so called correct view of doctrine.
By the way there are Roman Catholics, old Catholics, eastern rite Catholics, eastern orthodox, western rite orthodox...oh but they're all wrong.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I don't observe Lent or Advent. However, after fellowshipping with various Russian Evangelical Christian-Baptist churches, I do see the value of observing Pentecost and Ascension Day in addition to Resurrection Sunday and Christmas. Both P & AD offer the opportunity to preach on vital doctrines. On Pentecost, one can bring a message on the Holy Spirit or the nature and mission of the church. On Ascension Day, a message on the Second Coming would be appropriate.

 

[rsr]

No historian calls them the dark ages now days.It is well known those days were not dark and ignorant.

This is an interesting point. The historians who developed the concept of the Dark Ages considered everything from the eclipse of the classical period (roughly ending after the reign of Justinian, the last Roman emperor to rule effectively over both the East and West) to the Renaissance, or even the Enlightenment, to be a parenthetical period that rudely interrupted the progress of Western civilization. The more neutral term "Medieval" betrays the idea.

To be sure, there was plenty of misery in the intervening years, a not unexpected result of repeated "barbarian" invasions and plague that carried off a quarter to a third of the population. But it was not nearly as dark as the snooty historians portrayed. The Carolingian Empire, the continued scholarship of the East, even the reign of Alfred the Great, showed that not everything had been forgotten. Europe continued to produce first-class minds like Aquinas, as important a thinker as Aristotle or Plato.

Europe was, shall we say, backward because it was poor. Civilization is expensive. Europe, shorn of its access to food in North Africa and trade to the East by the Muslim advances, was poor. And weather didn't help. It is not surprising that the resurgence of Europe began with warmer weather; the first crusades, benighted as they were, occurred when weather turned better, allowing better crops. Crops and sheep (it's hard today to consider how important wool was in very early modern Europe) provided surpluses that allowed scholarship, military campaigns and a resurgence of architecture in the era of cathedral construction.

But I digress ...

 

[rsr]

The Catholics started the first scientific studies. Galileo got in trouble because he mixed science with religion. He was put under house arrest and still allowed to write his books. And he never proved Copernicus. That was not proven until the mid 1800s.

James Bradley, an English astronomer, actually provided the mathematical proof in the early 18th century.

And remember that Tycho Brahe, a Lutheran Dane, compiled a mountain of data that would become the basis of modern astrophysics. He developed a mixture of heliocentrism and geocentrism, but on the basis of mathematics, not religion.

And consider the contributions of Johannes Kepler, a Lutheran contemporary of Galileo, who postulated the laws of planetary motion that Galileo completely ignored. Galileo also insisted that tides were caused by the sun alone, when Kepler correctly said they were predominantly caused by the gravity of the moon.

So don't go overboard in trying to make the scientific revolution a "Catholic" invention.

 

[Ran the Man]

[QUOTE="Ran the Man, post: 2485815, member: 14692" The Catholics started the first scientific studies. Galileo got in trouble because he mixed science with religion. He was put under house arrest and still allowed to write his books. And he never proved Copernicus. That was not proven until the mid 1800s.

James Bradley, an English astronomer, actually provided the mathematical proof in the early 18th century.

And remember that Tycho Brahe, a Lutheran Dane, compiled a mountain of data that would become the basis of modern astrophysics. He developed a mixture of heliocentrism and geocentrism, but on the basis of mathematics, not religion.

And consider the contributions of Johannes Kepler, a Lutheran contemporary of Galileo, who postulated the laws of planetary motion that Galileo completely ignored. Galileo also insisted that tides were caused by the sun alone, when Kepler correctly said they were predominantly caused by the gravity of the moon.

So don't go overboard in trying to make the scientific revolution a "Catholic" invention.[/QUOTE]
Not discounting the post reformation discoveries. Just stating that they were never anti science and actually support it to this day. And the first universities for such were theirs.

 

[Ran the Man]

This is an interesting point. The historians who developed the concept of the Dark Ages considered everything from the eclipse of the classical period (roughly ending after the reign of Justinian, the last Roman emperor to rule effectively over both the East and West) to the Renaissance, or even the Enlightenment, to be a parenthetical period that rudely interrupted the progress of Western civilization. The more neutral term "Medieval" betrays the idea.

To be sure, there was plenty of misery in the intervening years, a not unexpected result of repeated "barbarian" invasions and plague that carried off a quarter to a third of the population. But it was not nearly as dark as the snooty historians portrayed. The Carolingian Empire, the continued scholarship of the East, even the reign of Alfred the Great, showed that not everything had been forgotten. Europe continued to produce first-class minds like Aquinas, as important a thinker as Aristotle or Plato.

Europe was, shall we say, backward because it was poor. Civilization is expensive. Europe, shorn of its access to food in North Africa and trade to the East by the Muslim advances, was poor. And weather didn't help. It is not surprising that the resurgence of Europe began with warmer weather; the first crusades, benighted as they were, occurred when weather turned better, allowing better crops. Crops and sheep (it's hard today to consider how important wool was in very early modern Europe) provided surpluses that allowed scholarship, military campaigns and a resurgence of architecture in the era of cathedral construction.

But I digress ...

Interesting history.

 

[Reformed]

Some more thoughts on Lent from a Reformed point of view...

Lent is not observed in Reformed churches for a few reasons. First, the Reformers considered it a popish invention, inexorably tied to Roman holy week observances. Second, it goes against the Reformed view of holy days. In most Reformed churches the only holy day that is to be observed is the Lord's day. There is no positive command in the New Testament to observe any day or season as holy. That designation is reserved for the Lord's day. Third, personal holiness and piety is something each Christian should strive for on a daily basis, not just at a certain time of year.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Let's say we add additional bible reading and devotional time? And, let's say at the end of the Lenten season I find that it has brought me to a closer walk with Jesus, would that be ok with you? Many people don't understand that Lent isn't necessarily giving something up but adding something. Many people also find that at the end of Lent they want to continue the practice that they began at the beginning of Lent. Non-liturgical Protestants like yourselves rarely understand this kind of discipline or benefits of it.

Any time, Lent or otherwise, if someone is in a place of intense self-denial [such as fasting, a deeper search of scriptures, or deeper prayer-closet time] as an exercise or discipline in seeking God that's a good thing.

I could only share my Lent observations of what I saw and heard. People giving up sins for 40 days for an unknown or least, unexpressed-to-me purpose, and then taking them back.

I'll have to disagree with you that people "like me" don't understand spiritual discipline or the benefits of it.

If seeking God in an intense manner for 40 days is what some people do for Lent that's good. I just have never seen that before.

 

[Walter]

Any time, Lent or otherwise, if someone is in a place of intense self-denial [such as fasting, a deeper search of scriptures, or deeper prayer-closet time] as an exercise or discipline in seeking God that's a good thing.

I could only share my Lent observations of what I saw and heard. People giving up sins for 40 days for an unknown or least, unexpressed-to-me purpose, and then taking them back.

I'll have to disagree with you that people "like me" don't understand spiritual discipline or the benefits of it.

If seeking God in an intense manner for 40 days is what some people do for Lent that's good. I just have never seen that before.

I understand you are sharing your personal observations and I seem to have been mistaken as to your lack of understanding of the value of spiritual discipline. My apologies.

I have a friend that's using "A Purpose Driven Life" in a Lenten study. A chapter a day works out well with 40 chapters

 

[HankD]

No historian calls them the dark ages now days.It is well known those days were not dark and ignorant . The Catholics started the first scientific studies. Galileo got in trouble because he mixed science with religion. He was put under house arrest and still allowed to write his books. And he never proved Copernicus. That was not proven until the mid 1800s.

Well - no - we don't want to offend the largest "Christian" body on earth with the truth.

It was the Dark Age where and when perhaps million were slaughtered for not bowing the knee to the pope and spiritually speaking it still is (at least in Europe) minus the torture and bloodshed.

So what if the Italian/German renaissance caused the first glimmer of light in Europe. It was the dawning of enlightenment in the darkest hour in Europe. Rome kept the tiny candle of literacy going but spiritually speaking there was also a spiritual famine in that darkness.

Yes people get saved in Catholicism IN SPITE OF THEIR CHURCH and yes I was such a one even before Vatican II caught on.

And I will admit that here in America the hierarchy is trying to shed the old grave clothes.