ARCHIVE: Will You Be Celebrating Christmas?
- Thread starter Lucky
- Start date
Christine
New member
Yes it has, Novice. Mr. Hilston has proved it many times over in this thread. You may not want to accept it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.
You're not proving anything with emotional arguments like this.
That verse (Col 2:16) was written at a time the leagalistic Judaizers were trying to encourage Body members to follow the Law, including keeping the Sabbath, holidays, etc. Paul told the Colossians that they should not let the Judaizers judge them for their lack of participation in these holidays as the Body was not to keep them. I can imagine the Judaizers trying to make Body members feel guilty for not keeping the letter of the Law.
So? Paul judged those that kept holidays.
Novice, I've been reading along with the discussion, but I think I'd like Hilston to clarify this before I answer. Obviously, both are sins that God despises. Mr. Hilston, If you're reading this (and you probably are
), could you explain to me a bit better why celebrating holidays is a worse sin than an abortion? Thanks. 
Clete, do you believe Paul was wrong for rebuking Peter in public just for eating with his Jewish buddies?
Should everything we do be toward the aim of getting something from God, whether it is His blessing, the joy of obedient service to Him, the enjoyment of His universe, etc.? Are you saying that people celebrate Christmas NOT to gain something from God? I'm a little confused about what you said. Please elaborate.
Do you believe Peter was trying to gain points with God by eating with the Jews?
The scriptures teach that dispensational sins are more egregious and offensive to God than interdispensational or transdispensational sins. For example, murder is wrong and condemned in every dispensation. However, Cain got a pass. David got a pass. Paul got a pass. But let a non-Levite try to steady the ark, and he's killed on the spot. Let an Israelite pick up sticks on the Sabbath, and he's stoned to death. Let a high priest disrespect the holy of holies, and he's a dead man. The principle carries throughout scripture. Where does Paul say, "If you murder you have openly denied Christ as Head?" He doesn't. But he DOES say if you celebrate religious holidays you have openly denied Christ as Head.Originally posted by Christine
Novice, I've been reading along with the discussion, but I think I'd like Hilston to clarify this before I answer. Obviously, both are sins that God despises. Mr. Hilston, If you're reading this (and you probably are
Clete I believe you are in error.
It was wrong for those in the Body to be a stumbling block for those that were still under the dispensation of circumcision because those folks were still under the law and they had to continue to keep the law which is the message of Romans 14. This type of dispensational tension no longer exists! Now that there is only one dispensation in operation there is no "weaker brother" in the same sense as there was during the time of Paul's ministry.
The only thing in operation here is that if one thinks they need to observe certain laws then it is they who are attempting to put themselves under the law.
Therefore, Jim falsely thinking that it is unlawful to celebrate holidays is his own stumbling block and loving brothers in Christ should convince, and rebuke him with all longsuffering (although I do believe mocking is in order with the abortion statements). This is no different than rebuking Catholics whom think missing mass is a sin, Clete you wouldn't argue that we shouldn't attempt to convince Catholics otherwise would you? You wouldn't argue we were wrongly being a stumbling block for them would you?
Personally I think Jim has received more than fair treatment on this thread especially after some of the outlandish statements he has made.
Christine come to your senses!
My family and I celebrate Christmas every year... we have a blast! In fact, just the other night we all got together and made lefse (a Norwegian treat). Do you honestly believe I am more evil than a man who murders innocent babies?
Knight, I totally agree with you on this.
Was Paul rebuking Peter for thinking that observing Jewish food laws would save him?
Would you rebuke Paul for falsely thinking is it unlawful to observe Jewish food laws in Antioch? Why or why not?
Here's your chance to refute the explanation I gave to Christine. Please give it a shot, because no one else will touch it with a 3-meter hogspear.
What you call outlandish statement are actually biblical principles that you disrespect and dishonor, just so you can have your Christmas cake and eat it, too. And you haven't shown otherwise. You and your cohorts merely assert assert assert. You prove nothing. You operate on emotion-governed knee-jerk sentimentality and not on scriptural principles. Where is your biblical argument in support of your claims? This IS called "theology online," right? Where's the theology? Or will there just be more baseless declarations and liberalesque bashing?
That's not what I've said, Knight. The question is: What is more offensive to God: Dispensationally specific sins, or transdispensational sins? The scriptures indicate the former are more offensive to God.
You're not evil, Knight, just misguided and stubborn against the scriptures that threaten to affect the things your sin nature has learned to enjoy. Abortionists are evil, but they're not my concern. The sins of people in the church are of greater concern. Paul makes this emphatic point when he tells the Corinthians they are to be worried about sinners within the church, not the people outside of the church. Those outside, God judges.
1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
BillyBob,
The scriptures teach that dispensational sins are more egregious and offensive to God than interdispensational or transdispensational sins. For example, murder is wrong and condemned in every dispensation. However, Cain got a pass. David got a pass. Paul got a pass. But let a non-Levite try to steady the ark, and he's killed on the spot. Let an Israelite pick up sticks on the Sabbath, and he's stoned to death. Let a high priest disrespect the holy of holies, and he's a dead man. The principle carries throughout scripture. Where does Paul say, "If you murder you have openly denied Christ as Head?" He doesn't. But he DOES say if you celebrate religious holidays you have openly denied Christ as Head.
If you have more than a bald baseless assertion to make in this regard, please go ahead and give us your best argument in support of your statement.
Thanks.
The scriptures teach that dispensational sins are more egregious and offensive to God than interdispensational or transdispensational sins. For example, murder is wrong and condemned in every dispensation. However, Cain got a pass. David got a pass. Paul got a pass. But let a non-Levite try to steady the ark, and he's killed on the spot. Let an Israelite pick up sticks on the Sabbath, and he's stoned to death. Let a high priest disrespect the holy of holies, and he's a dead man. The principle carries throughout scripture. Where does Paul say, "If you murder you have openly denied Christ as Head?" He doesn't. But he DOES say if you celebrate religious holidays you have openly denied Christ as Head.
If you have more than a bald baseless assertion to make in this regard, please go ahead and give us your best argument in support of your statement.
Thanks.
I wasn't talking about which crimes are worse or not. I was talking about the obviousness of the crime. If the crime against religious celebration were across all dispensations, then what you are saying would be obvious. And any crime that isn't obvious because of its ubiquity would have to be spelled out. You cite Gal 2 and Col 4 as the clear statements where we find this law. You are wrong that the passages are a clear law. They have different interpretations, and yours is one of the weak ones. But we'll get to that later.
I'll let Tim respond if he would like, I passed this post on to him.
For every ceremonial law that God had, there was an analogy reason for it. And for every non-ceremonial law God has, there is a practical reason for it. This fits neither. It cannot be ceremonial because that would defeat the purpose of having a law that existed solely to be not ceremonial. And we already agree that it isn't non-ceremonial (all non-ceremonial laws are across all dispensations).
Yes, grace was underneath the law in the prior dispensation. But a person with a good attitude that backslid on their observance of the Sabbath was still executed. Laws were not followed regardless of their love for God. And the economy of the laws had to include government control. It meant a Jew could consider themselves righteous for following every law, and still not really have a high regard for God.
In this dispensation, Love for God is what matters. If you don't follow the laws it doesn't matter directly. What matters directly is your attitude/motivation toward God, and if your attitude/motivation is bad, that will probably mean you will not do things to please God, including breaking laws.
Yet there is one more caveat. Because God does not have a strict regime for carrying out observance of the ceremonial laws, it wouldn't make sense for God to implement them.
God does spell things out for us to obey Him. But even a socialist that convinces themselves that taking your stuff is righteous, will themselves protest when you take their stuff. That is a naturally known law. It's the same with murder and every other law that is across all dispensations. Rom 2:14-15 explains that even non-believers have some kind of naturally known law in their hearts.
Hilston, the sin nature is not what drives you to celebrate the anniversary of someone's birthday. Especially someone you love.
The Col 2 passage is not emphatic. Col 2:14 sets the context that there is a reason why ordinances are not imposed on this dispensation. Because they are contrary to us, and so now we can ignore judgments concerning the kinds of ordinances that were a part of the previous dispensation. The command "let no one judge you" is the same as, despite your protest, as Paul's command to "let no one trouble me". It means he can ignore those who try to trouble him (give him grief), and the Col 2 passage should be interpreted likewise because of the context of the principle that was just laid out prior to saying "let no one judge you".
Gal 4:24 explains emphatically, clearly, and strictly, that the law that Paul did not want the Galatians to follow was the law given on Mount Sinai. It was the ceremonial laws, required, and obligatory for the previous dispensation. This does not apply if the law is not required or obligatory - like Christmas.
The reason this dispensation is more glorious than the previous is because this dispensation is ruled by pure grace, not grace and works like the previous one. What you are trying to do is create a dispensation that is the same as the last - same design, different laws.
I'm just curious, do you view all the dispensations the same? Just a different set of laws?
----------------------------------
edited to remove:
It simply wasn't supposed to be there. In fact, I remember removing it and I'm not sure how it got back in.
Last edited:
Not at all. There are reasons behind all of God's actions that can be ascertained in the scripture. God promotes clarity and specificity on all levels. That is something you don't get from any other worldview, including the Open Deist version of mid-Acts. These rebels have succeeded in proving that they only pay lipservice to their mid-Acts theology. It's optional to them. They don't have a zeal for God's Word. They don't believe it's all that important. Contrary to the teaching of scripture, social causes have a higher priority to these people than the detailed knowledge of God's Word.
So.. you agree that the "weaker brother" is not referring to another member of the Body?
Was the law to keep the Sabbath obvious? Why does a crime have to be obvious? Paul said his gospel will judge the men of this age. Judgment will be based on a specific standard that is not obvious to everyone. The obviousness of laws is not at issue.
But religious celebration is not a transdispensational crime. And even transdispensational laws were spelled out. Otherwise, they're superfluous, and God's laws are not superfluous.
Where do you get this idea? All laws have to be spelled out, otherwise men distort them to their liking and they end up doing what is right in their own eyes.
Do you really believe God intended multiple interpretations of His Word? If so, then your view of scripture and the God behind the scripture is worse than originally thought. If the Bible is legitimately open to multiple interpretations, how can you rely on God's Word? How can you trust the message(s?) He communicates? How do you ever know that you're obeying Him correctly? Or doesn't it matter?
Do you have any comments regarding his sloppy exegesis?
Hilston wrote:
Sorry, Yorzhik. I know you really want this to be the case. You even went as far as seeking out the Greek Scholar to support your behavior (and his own, by the way), just so you can have your Christmas cake and eat it, too. But the scriptures command otherwise, and you will be repudiating Christ if you choose to celebrate religious ceremonies and holidays.
Is that the best you can do, Yorzhik? Demonize me as an ascetic? My church doesn't do dour and somber communion rituals. We have a feast. My church doesn't mandate Sunday as a religious day of sober reflection and meditation. We hang out together all afternoon, root for the Steelers, have a cookout, and light up our Macanudos. You already know this, Yorzhik. You're just lashing out because the scriptures threaten your ritualistic and religious "fun." Peter thought it would be "fun" to eat with his Jewish buddies in Antioch, and Peter rebuked him to his face in public. But Peter had the sense to recognize that Paul wasn't just saying, "God doesn't want me to have any fun!"
Yorzhik, what are you talking about? Non-Levites were not allowed to touch the ark. If they did, they were killed on the spot. What kind of law is that? Religious ceremony invokes the ministry of angels. Paul makes that point several times. The Body of Christ is not to submit to angels, but the other way around.
Hilston wrote:
You are completely wrong. The gospel for today has laws active for this dispensation only. Search and see. We are not to follow Moses. We are not to follow the earthly Jesus the way Peter and the Eleven did. We are to follow the risen and glorified Christ as Paul followed Christ (1Co 11:1) and obey the ordinances that Paul delivered to the Body of Christ (1Co 11:2).
…
Israel's gospel was a gospel of grace; are you aware of that? So was the gospel of the nations. Each dispensation had laws and grace. This false notion of setting law in opposition to grace seems to be the source of myriad problems in your (and Tim's) understanding of scripture.
It's no different in this dispensation, Yorzhik. That's the point of Paul comparing Abraham's faith with the Body's in Gal. 3.
It's no different today. My children could consider themselves righteous because they obey me, and yet still not have a high regard for God. But that righteousness is not before God, which is what Paul explains in Romans 4. Abraham was justified (righteous) by works, but not before God (Ro 4:2 For if [since - condition of the first class] Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God).
It didn't matter in prior dispensations? This is where your logic leads, Yorzhik, contrary to scripture. Love for God and love for His Law were no less important than they are today.
What an embarrassment. Did you even read this after you typed it? You, like the rest of the antinomialists here, have a low view of God's Word. The wonderful blessings and specific role that Christ, by His own blood, secured for His Body, you say they "don't matter." It's disgusting Yorzhik. Of all people, I thought you would respect God's word more than that.
This is relativism, Yorzhik. This is not moral clarity. This is ambiguous self-styled religiosity. It's sickening.
Yorzhik, there are some portions of the Bible that must've fallen out of yours. Rather large sections. You might want to replace your Bible with a complete one, because I think you'll find the missing portions to be quite important and instructive regarding ceremonial laws. For example, there's a section called Leviticus and one called Numbers. There are dozens and dozens of chapters that give detailed instruction regarding ceremonial laws. I encourage you to get these and read them.
Why does God spell things out if the law is known naturally?
So, in your view, is God simply restating the obvious?
The mistake you are making is that verse does not give authority to their understanding, because doing what is right in one's own eyes leads to the death (Pr 16:25). You cannot rationally tell a person "Murder is wrong because I know it deep down inside." So-called "natural law" has no authority. The very next verse indicates that God's law, not natural law, but specifically the law He gave to Paul, will judge all men of this age.
Hilston wrote: Oh, it's natural all right. It comes right out of nature -- the SIN nature. It is the rebellion of the sin nature that drives men into ceremonialism and religious holidays. That's why Paul's warning was so emphatic, unequivocal and strictly stated. Do not be enticed by these things, because they will entice you. You have been enticed, Yorzhik, and you've succumbed. You've given in to your fleshly nature, and you dress it up in religious garb in order to justify it.
I didn't say that. It is the sin nature that drives you to celebrate religious birthdays and anniversaries and holidays. These things entice and bewitch men of today, just as they did the Galatians. Sin is dispensationally specific. When people rebel against God, they do so in a way that is specific to the current law.
Says you. The passage is Col 2:14 sets the context that there is a reason why ordinances are not imposed on this dispensation. Because they are contrary to us, ...[/quote]Why are they contrary to us?
You miss Paul's point. He is equating Jewish ordinances to pagan ones. That is a prohibition. Paul doesn't leave it open to your personal preference or desire to "have fun." Was Paul rebuking Peter in public for not "ignor[ing] judgments concerning the kinds of ordinances that were a part of the previous dispensation"? Why does Paul make a point of writing to the Galatians about this event? Why use Peter as an example?
Yorzhik, this completely false. "Let no one trouble me" is nothing like "Let no one judge you." The third-person imperative doesn't grammatically correspond at all. Notice how you ignore all the other passages that DO correspond directly to the grammar of this passage just so you can have your Christmas cake and eat it too. Here's one that corresponds nicely:
Mt 9:30 And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.
You would rather focus on a verse that does not correspond just so you can claim that Paul was not being emphatic. You ignore this and other verses that unambiguously correspond because they convey emphatic commands. Go figure. People will do anything to justify their sin.
Why are they prohibited, Yorzhik?
You miss Paul's point: When they observed pagan holidays, they did service to the angelic realm (elemental spirits). Now that they are allowing themselves to be enticed and bewitched by the Jewish holidays, they are turning again to the angelic realm. That is the point. Celebrating religious holidays, whether pagan or Jewish, is angel worship (Col. 2:18).
Hilston wrote:
(I)t is not only emphatic, unequivocal, and strictly stated, but the consequences of violating these dispensational laws are far more grave and horrifying than murder or stealing. No where does Paul warn that stealing and murder will separate you from Christ. No where does Paul warn that lying or cheating will cause you to fall from grace. But he does say this about observing religious ceremonies and holidays.
This is eisegesis, Yorzhik. All dispensations were ruled by law and practiced by grace among God's elect. That's the point of Paul's discussion about Abraham and the faith and grace he had BEFORE the giving of the Mosaic Law.
That is what the scriptures teach, Yorzhik. What you are trying to do is to bury grace away from God's people of previous dispensations just so you can call Paul's laws "optional" and thereby justify your violations.
Of course, Yorzhik! That's what dispensation means! A different set of laws.
OF COURSE!!! It's what I've been saying all along. And those who believe Romans 14 applies today are hypocrites against their own interpretation whenever they say "Merry Christmas" to those who are offended by it.