OK... sorry.... I wasn't sure... and this whole topic reminded me of that.
I will get back to your other points later. I got sorta busy all the sudden.
ARCHIVE: Will You Be Celebrating Christmas?
- Thread starter Lucky
- Start date
I will get back to your other points later. I got sorta busy all the sudden.
philosophizer
New member
The reason it doesn't make sense to me is because of passages like this:
Romans 14:1-8 --
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
First Paul talks about eating. The Jews had rules about that too. But Paul says that in Christ it makes no difference. Notice he does not say to the man eating only vegetables, "Why are you refraining from meat? Are you puting yourself back into slavery?" No, he clearly declares that it doesn't matter. He basically says so what? Those things do not matter, only the man's conviction to Christ matters.
And then he speaks about sacred days saying, "each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." How can that be taken to mean that one is right and one is wrong? How is Paul showing any kind of preference there?
He says that they both do it "to the Lord." That seems to be Paul's focus. Not any of the acts themselves, but the conscience of the people.
So how does the prohibition of holidays make sense with the above passage?
Philosophizer, this has been discussed. For you to suggest that Paul is saying "so what?" misses the whole point and relevance of the passage. See the following link.
Is Paul saying "so what?".
Is Paul saying "so what?".
No, we do not agree. Murdering and blaspheming makes a person unrighteous under every dispensational law. Just as not keeping the Sabbath made a person unrighteous in under Israel's Law. Just as observing religious ritual and symbolism makes a person unrighteous under the Body's dispensational law.
Hmmmm... now you have me confused.
Didn't you recently state....
Crow made this same point about 6 pages ago and Jim ignored it.
But Philo you expanded on it and made the point even stronger. Good job. :up:
Isn't this called "Theology Online"? Are you both so theologically inept that you don't know or at least recognize the difference between justification before God (which is found in Christ alone) and the command to live righteous lives. The righteousness we have in Christ is not our righteousness, but Christ's. We are nonetheless called to live righteous lives. If a believer sins, that is not a righteous act, nor is he righteous in the commission of that act. His condition is in flux, but his position is secure. This is basic stuff. Are you guys so desperate to derail this conversation and the points that have been made that you have to resort to stanky red herrings like this one? It is a sure sign of desperation.
Obvious, blatant, glaring desperation.
As I reminded philosophizer, this has been discussed. For all we've been through, Knight, your confusion and ignorance continues to baffle and discourage me. Sadly, it no longer surprises me. See the following link.
"What Knight wishes Jim had ignored".
Thank you.
Sozo
New member
No Jim, this is not a "red herring". I went back to find the first post of yours, and the first question you asked relating to your points for not celebrating Christmas. You asked if we would agree with you concerning not murdering or blaspheming in it's relation to legalism. I asked you if doing those things would make you unrighteous (just as I am believe that you are claiming that celebrating Christmas can make you unrighteous). I think the foundation of your faith is flawed by your misunderstanding about righteousness.
You refuse to make a distinction between positional righteousness and conditional righteousness, and now you want to say that murder and blasphemy will not make a person unrighteous? Please step up to the microphone and speak clearly so the whole audience can hear you.
Sozo says: :sozo: "Murdering and blaspheming cannot make you unrighteous."
And all God's people said: :dizzy:
novice
Who is the stooge now?
The only sign of desperation I can see from reading this thread is your ongoing attempt at selling this lemon of an idea you have.
But maybe it all makes sense in the Matrix? :think:
The sad part is you have actually fooled others like Christine into this bondage. Christine you have liberty don't let them steal it from you!!!!!!
Where's the logic in that, novice? The fact that I'm stating an argument isn't a sign of desperation -- at all! A sign of desperation is denial and protest of the argument, such as we get from Knight and Sozo, despite a conspicuous lack of cogent counterargument, let alone a simple critique of my handling of scripture. It seems neither of them will touch the scriptures or the argument I've proffered with a proverbial 3-meter hogspear.
Novice, I'm going to lump you together with Knight and Sozo. You're the three stooges of unsupported statements and red herrings.
If Christine is a careful student of scripture, she will weigh the biblical arguments for herself and make a decision on that basis. What have you offered her, novice? What have Knight and Sozo offered Christine to convince her that I'm up a tree? Nothing but "Hilston, that's not a compelling argument." [irony]Wow. Awesome rebuttal.[/irony] Should Christine just take Knight's word for it? Should she just take your word for it? In your effort to save her from the evil Hilston, you disrespect her intelligence. How nice.
Sozo declares:
Knight, novice, et al: Does it embarrass you to have this guy on your side? If it doesn't, you've more problems than just your bad theology.
- Murdering and blaspheming cannot make you unrighteous.
[*]There is no relationship between morality and righteousness.
Knight, novice, et al: Does it embarrass you to have this guy on your side? If it doesn't, you've more problems than just your bad theology.
Jim bases his idea that holidays are forbidden for Christians upon the following two pieces of scripture....
Colossians 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Galatians 4:10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.
Colossians 2 seems to directly contradict the very idea Jim is trying to force others into believeing which is that it is forbidden for Christians to celebrate holidays!
Paul says... "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival"
Jim.... I am not gonna let you judge me!
In verse 18 Paul states... "Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels" and I would agree that worshipping angels is a bad thing but even still it is your own reward you are cheating yourself of! But the bottom line is summed up just a couple verses later....
We can look at that verse in two ways...
1. Why is Jim subjecting himself to a unbiblical regulation?
2. This verse explains what has been said about 20 times by several people on this thread... in that if you are celebrating holidays because you think you need to for salvation you are putting yourself under the law and that is bad. None of this has anything to do with those of us who have liberty in Christ and know that we need not perform any good works for salvation.
The other verse....
Galatians 4:10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.
Seems to be a much stronger verse for Jim's point unless of course you read the entire chapter (even the entire book of Galatians for that matter) which paints the obvious picture of Paul warning those NOT to leave the message of grace and fall for the false message of a works based salvation. Galatians 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,
Which brings us to....
Galatians 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?
Paul is obviously addressing those that are falling for the wrong gospel message! The problem isn't that these folks are observing holidays its that they are observing holidays AS A WORK!!!
And since nobody here that I know of is claiming you must observe holidays AS A WORK Jim's entire argument falls apart! Which of course is the same point I made (as did several others) many pages ago on this thread. Jim's premise is flawed and therefore his resulting argument is flawed.