When Dates Become Doctrine

It’s that time of year when we hear all the hubbub about “keeping Christ in Christmas,” yet few pause to ask, “Who put Him there to begin with?”

Conscientious Bible readers are aware of the total absence of Christmas in the New Testament—but if they dare to voice this as a reason for concern…look out!

Questions. Assumptions. Strong feelings. 
And usually—more heat than light.

Some insist Christmas is a harmless celebration of Christ.

Others insist it’s an unauthorized religious observance that should be rejected outright.

What does Scripture actually allow—and what does it forbid?

There are folks on both sides of the argument, but sincerity has never been the same thing as authority.

The New Testament is not silent about worship. It is silent about Christmas.

There is no command to observe Jesus’ birth annually.


No example of the early church doing so.


No instruction to set apart December 25th as holy.

And yet—Scripture does speak to how Christians handle days that are not commanded, but are nevertheless regarded religiously by some.

That’s where Romans 14 enters the conversation.

“One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord…” (Rom. 14:5-6).

That passage is often cited. It is rarely examined carefully.

• Romans 14 does not authorize inventing acts of worship.


• It does not give permission to add holy days.


• And it certainly does not allow binding religious practices God never gave.

What it does address is conscience—specifically, how Christians treat one another when it comes to optional practices that God neither commands nor condemns.

So before we argue conclusions, we need to define categories.

What kinds of religious actions are already authorized?

What role does the calendar actually play?

Where does liberty end and presumption begin?

Until those questions are answered, discussions about Christmas will continue to generate more tradition than truth. Let Scripture—not sentiment—set the boundaries, even when that challenges what we’ve always assumed.

The Scope of Romans 14

I doubt there's any other passage so often stretched beyond what it was ever meant to carry. So let’s nail down what Paul is (and isn’t) addressing, so we can determine how it should be applied. As you read through the text, note that Paul is not discussing:

• worship innovation

• authority to create religious practices

• new holy days

He is addressing disputes over optional practices among Christians—specifically matters that God had neither commanded nor forbidden, but which some members of the church in Rome still practiced for conscience' sake.

Paul tells us this plainly: “Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions” (Rom. 14:1).

The issue is not sin.
 The issue is scruple.

There were two issues in particular: eating certain foods (vv. 2–3), and observing certain days (vv. 5–6).

Both were practices deeply tied to those with a Jewish background—who had habits, and sensitivities derived from the Law of Moses. Such observances were causing friction between Jewish and Gentile Christians learning to work and worship together in Christ.

Crucially, Paul is not saying these practices are imperative; he is saying they are not binding—and therefore must not be imposed.

That distinction matters as we discern how to rightfully apply the text.

Paul assumes several things that are often overlooked:

• The practices already existed.
 Paul is regulating behavior that was already happening—not authorizing new behavior.

• The practices were optional.
 No one was commanded to observe them.
No one was condemned for abstaining.

• The practices were personal.
 They were matters of individual conscience, not congregational or universal legislation.

The practices did not alter worship.
 Nothing in Romans 14 authorizes a new act of worship, a new assembly, or a new religious calendar.

“The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them” (Rom. 14:3).

Paul never once says, “Go ahead and institute these things.”


He says, “Don’t judge one another over them.”

This is where many applications go wrong.

Romans 14 does not:

• Authorize creating religious observances

• Justify adding worship services

• Sanctify man-made holy days

• Excuse binding traditions God never gave

Paul places clear limits on liberty elsewhere:

“…so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written…” (1 Cor. 4:6)

“Which all refer to things destined to perish with use—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion…” (Col. 2:22-23).

Romans 14 governs how Christians treat one another, not how worship is designed.

Liberty never creates authority.

It only operates within the boundaries God has already drawn.

In other words, Romans 14 doesn’t expand what God allows; it regulates how believers treat one another within what God already allows.

A Christian must refrain from judging another over optional matters.
 Christians cannot invent religious obligations and call it liberty.

This matters for the discussion ahead because if Romans 14 is misunderstood, everything downstream collapses.

Liberty becomes license.

Conscience becomes authority.

Tradition becomes doctrine.

So before asking whether something should be practiced, there's a more fundamental question:

Does Romans 14 even apply to the "Christmas question"?

That depends entirely on what exactly is being practiced.

Since Romans 14 addresses optional practices that already existed, were not commanded, were not forbidden, and were practiced by some out of conscience, the question is not, “Is December 25th meaningful to some?” Rather, the question is: “In what sense is December 25th being regarded and is there authority to regard that way?”

December 25th is just a date. Scripture nowhere assigns it religious significance. No authority. No instruction. No example.

Biblically, “observing a day” does not mean merely doing godly things on a particular date. Scriptural acts do not become new observances simply because they occur on a certain day. Doing what God has already authorized on December 25th no more constitutes “observing Christmas” than praying on Thursday constitutes observing Thursday. A day is only “observed” in the religious sense when it is treated as religiously significant in itself.

For example, Sunday is not merely a day on which Christians happen to worship. It is a day set apart by God for specific acts of worship (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10). The day itself carries religious significance because God assigned it one.

By contrast, praying on Tuesday does not make Tuesday a religious day. The prayer is authorized; the calendar date bears no significance.

In the same way, praying, reading Scripture, or teaching about Christ on December 25th does not make December 25th a religious observance. Those acts are authorized every day. The date adds nothing.

A day is only “observed” in the religious sense when it is treated as sacred in itself—not merely when godly things are done on it.

If a Christian simply lives life on December 25th—working, resting, eating, praying, reading Scripture as on any other day—Romans 14 never enters the discussion. Nothing is being “observed.”

What if a Christian personally chooses December 25th to give special attention to Scripture about the birth of Christ?

Perhaps he reads Luke 2.


Offers thanks to God for His plan of salvation—bringing His Son into the world.


Teaches his children about Jesus’ being born, taking on human flesh (Jn. 1:14).

None of those acts are new.


None of them are invented.


None of them require December 25th to be holy.

Christians could do these things any other day of the week just as acceptably as on Christmas Day without imposing their choice on their brethren or looking down on them.

In that narrow sense—and only in that sense—Romans 14 may apply.

Not because Christmas Day is authorized, but because the acts themselves already are. The calendar adds nothing. The authority comes from God’s Word.

Authority answers the question: “May this be done at all?”

Romans 14 answers the question: “How should Christians treat one another when it may be done?”

So the text no longer applies the moment worshiping on a certain day is treated as more than a personal choice.

For instance:

• the day itself is treated as sacred,

• special religious services are created,

• participation is expected or assumed,

• or abstention is viewed with suspicion and condescension.

At that point, we’ve skedaddled past this being a matter of conscience.

It is now a matter of authority because we’ve introduced some new practice.

Romans 14 cannot be used to justify:

• creating religious observances,

• adding worship assemblies,

• or sanctifying a day God never sanctified.

The liberty Paul has in view does not stretch that far. Here’s what I mean—Romans 14 allows forbearance, not innovation.

It teaches Christians how to live together within what God has allowed—not how to introduce new religious structures and call them optional.

Paul never says, “Observe the day if you wish.” He says, “Don’t judge one another.”

Those are not the same thing.

So where does Christmas play into all this?

That depends on how it is framed:

As a civil or cultural holiday — a time to get together with friends and family, enjoy good food, and exchange gifts as a family tradition. In this case, Romans 14 is irrelevant.

As a choice to engage in already-authorized acts — such as praying with family, thanking God for sending His Son into the world, or reading Scripture about Christ’s birth (which, biblically speaking, is not “Christmas observance” at all). Rom. 14 could apply here, but only in the very narrow sense governing our attitudes mentioned earlier.

As a religious observance, service, or holy day — Romans 14 does not apply because none of these were ever authorized to begin with.

As we press further into this study, it becomes increasingly clear this is not a matter of liberty, but of worship authority.

That’s the distinction we must keep clear if we want Scripture, not tradition, to lead the discussion.

Scripture gives an explicit warning about what happens when days are treated as religious obligation.

“You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain” (Gal. 4:10-11).

Whenever men begin placing religious obligation where God had placed none—there is danger. Here Paul is gravely concerned over their submission to rules God never imposed in the New Covenant.

Paul’s fear was not that Christians were being “too religious,” but that they were allowing man’s imposed observances to function as if they carried divine authority.

And no day—however meaningful to some—may be elevated to religious obligation without His approval. This is not a rejection of worship. 
It is a defense of authorized worship. Christ’s Word alone authorizes.

A Brief Historical Note

While Scripture alone determines what is authorized in worship, a brief look at history helps explain how Christmas came to be practiced—and why it lacks any biblical precedent.

First, the date of Jesus’ birth is not given in Scripture, nor is there any evidence that the earliest Christians observed it annually.

Standard historical references acknowledge this plainly:

“Whether the early Christians thought of or observed Christmas is not clear.” — Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary

“The early Christians did not observe the festival of Christ’s birth, to which they did not attach the importance ascribed to his death and resurrection.” — Baker’s Dictionary of Theology

The earliest clear evidence of December 25th being observed as Jesus’ birthday appears in Rome in the fourth century, long after the apostolic era.

“The first recorded celebration of Christmas on December 25 occurred in Rome in A.D. 336.”
— Encyclopaedia Britannica

Historians widely note that December 25th likely gained prominence because it coincided with existing pagan festivals—particularly those associated with the winter solstice and the Roman celebration of the “Unconquered Sun” (Sol Invictus).

“The choice of December 25 may have been influenced by pagan festivals celebrating the winter solstice.” — Encyclopaedia Britannica

Later church leaders openly adopted a strategy of repurposing existing festivals rather than eliminating them outright—a policy documented in early medieval sources.

None of this proves guilt by association, nor does it by itself settle questions of conscience. But it does affirm something important:

Christmas did not arise from apostolic teaching, New Testament example, or divine instruction. It arose gradually, through cultural accommodation and early Catholic decision-making.

That historical reality aligns perfectly with the biblical observation already made: 
God never placed religious significance on December 25th, nor did He instruct the church to do so.

Which brings us back to the central concern—not history, but authority.

Scripture tells us what God wants remembered religiously—the death of His Son (Acts 20:7).

History merely explains how men filled the silence.

I only include these historical notes to show that biblical silence and historical development tell the same story.

Sanctifying December 25th as a holy day lacks scriptural authority—there’s no command, no example, no apostolic instruction, or necessary inference that allows for this.

To attribute sacred status to December 25th is to act without divine authorization (Col. 3:17). Thus, treating the day itself as holy — is sinful, because it adds religious obligation where God did not.

Binding Christmas observance on others is sinful—when expected, required, imposed, or used as a measure of faithfulness, then it violates: Rom. 14 (misapplied), Gal. 4:10–11, and Matt. 15:9.

Binding where God has not is sin, whether done publicly or privately.

Institutionalizing Christmas as a local church observance is sinful. If a congregation: creates special Christmas services, treats December 25th as religiously special, structures worship around the holiday, it has moved out of Romans 14 and into unauthorized worship. That is sin, because worship is regulated by Christ’s authority, and no one has the right to invent acts of worship (Jn. 4:24; Col. 3:17).

If a Christian, by personal choice, on December 25th: prays, reads Scripture, teaches children about Christ, gives thanks for Christ coming into the world—these are authorized acts which any Christian can do (on any day). Meaning, he is not observing Christmas in any biblical sense, he is simply being a Christian on a day that happens to be December 25th.

Biblically speaking, prayer, Scripture reading, singing, and teaching done on December 25th are not “Christmas observance.” They are scripturally authorized acts done on a day God has not sanctified. The confusion comes from letting “Christmas” define the acts instead of the acts defining themselves.

“Observing Christmas,” in the religious sense, refers to treating December 25th as a special holy day commemorating Christ’s birth according to human tradition—and that is what Scripture does not authorize.

Final Thoughts

Discussions like this can easily harden into camps if we’re not careful.

People come to this subject from very different backgrounds. Some have grown up with Christmas as a cultural or family custom, without ever attaching religious meaning to the day itself.

Others have participated in religious Christmas observances for many years, often without pausing to examine whether such observance is actually authorized by Scripture.

Still others have abstained altogether, refusing even to recognize December 25th as a civic or national holiday out of reverence for God’s Word.

There are sincere people in all of these situations. But sincerity has never been the measure of truth, and it has no bearing on how Christians ought to treat one another—Scripture does.

Romans 14 is not what establishes the authority—or lack thereof—of Christmas. That question must be settled by what God has revealed, not by personal history or tradition.

But Romans 14 does speak to how brethren conduct themselves once questions of authority have been examined and convictions formed.

Unity is not preserved by everyone doing the same thing on December 25th, but by everyone submitting to the same Lord.

“So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another” (Rom. 14:19).

That pursuit does not require compromise of conviction. It does not require pretending that unauthorized practices are harmless or acceptable. And it does not require silence where Scripture speaks.

Those who insist that December 25th has no religious significance are not enemies of joy, gratitude, or love for Christ. They are seeking to honor God by refusing to sanctify what He has not sanctified.

And those who, on that date, engage in scriptural acts that are authorized every day—without elevating the calendar or binding others—are not thereby attempting to impose human tradition.

What must be resisted on all sides is the temptation to turn personal practice into a test of faithfulness, whether by binding what God has not bound or by judging motives where God has judged actions.

Unity is not achieved by pretending differences do not exist. It is achieved by agreeing on where authority begins and ends, and then loving one another faithfully within those boundaries.

Differences will not disappear. Faithful and sincere men, each honestly seeking the Truth, will not always reach identical conclusions. We all reason from within the limits of our own experience, background, and growth, and no two of us come to Scripture from the same place.

But when two men are of one mind in what matters most—when both are genuinely committed to knowing and living by the truth of the gospel—they will not become rivals. They will become partners.

Paul describes this kind of unity when he writes:

“Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel… being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose” (Phil 1:27; 2:2).

Men who share that single-minded aim will help one another and welcome correction.

They will not defend error for pride’s sake, nor will they treat every difference as a threat.

Differences in matters of faith—those things God has clearly revealed—will be resolved by submission to Scripture. Other differences, where God has not spoken, will be recognized for what they are: secondary, inconsequential, and unworthy of division.

If this discussion leads us to greater care with Scripture, greater respect for conscience, and greater commitment to obey Christ as He has spoken, then it will have served its purpose.