Originally posted by Hilston
What does that have to do with celebrating Christmas, Crow? If you had quoted the question I was answering, you would understand the statement. Here is the original question:
Of course! That's not Paul's point. Paul was drawing a contrast between the believer and the unbeliever. He wasn't accusing the believers at Galatia of doing this. Neither am I.
There is no correspondence Crow. One can be circumcised non-religiously. One canNOT celebrate Christmas non-religiously. That's the point and that's the offense.
I know exactly what the original question was, Hilston.
The whole kernel of this argument is whether celebrating Christmas separates a believer from Christ.
It is no different from circumcision in that the core issue is one of
why it is being done. And if a person were to celebrate Christmas because they felt it was obligatory, as was and may well still be done in some churches, I would agree with you that it was wrong. I do not see an indication that it would have consequences on one's salvation, but it would be wrong in the sense that we do not earn our salvation by our acts, observances, etc. Those are just acts of flesh.
And there is no harm in giving thanks for Christ coming to us. I do that every day all by my lonesome, and frequently in the company of other Christians and as long as I don't do it from a sense of obligation or believing that it is required for salvation, then I am not making it a Law and trying to earn justification.
Obligitory ritualism is wrong, and I know the effects it has had on Christians--in fact that is one of the reasons that my grandfather left the RCC--he was fed up with "days of obligation" along with several issues related to Mary which aren't applicable to this discussion. He felt like he was just going through motions.
Not one person in this discussion who celebrates does so out of obligation. If one chooses to celebrate, as Christians do today, that is far different from the compulsory observance of the Dispensation of Law.
