Uh, John, you might, just maybe, be incorrect. Look up the Westminster confession and you'll find that the men who wrote it, and the original American presbyterian confession disagree with your use of the worrd "all."
Christmas was not celebrated as widely in the US at least before Queen Victoria and Prince Albert's time. Their celebrationl, and much published image, decorating a tree as was his German custom, brought that aspect into the "modern anglo-american" celebration. The sunday school movement is, in part, what brought it to many churches at that time.
By the way, if you would please notice that the Scripture says the shepards were in their fields by night, and notice they quit doing that long before dec 25 as it's too cold, you may find the choice of date curiously close to the celebrations for/of Jule (yule log), saturnalia, and juvinalia a (pre-Christian) Roman holiday of giving gifts to children.
If christmas is so thoroughly Christian, why does the world embrace it? The bible tells us the world will revile the works and workers of God.
On my birthday, and probably yours, all partygoers don't get gifts, unless they're 5.
Gold- kingship Frankinscense (used in holy temple preparations) - divinity Myrrh (used in embalming ritual/practice of the time-
1517... I read enough of his works to convince me that he did not have a grasp of the gospel.He wrote of purgatory..baptismal regeneration..and confessed his sins to an Anglican priest on a regular basis.He was a writer(just not a Christian writer) Good day.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Works? Easton Dictionary wrote: ...Works are "good" only when, (1) they spring from the principle of love to God. The moral character of an act is determined by the moral principle that prompts it. Faith and love in the heart are the essential elements of all true obedience.......
from Works, Good from the above said dictionary.
I doubt that anyone would dispute these points Jim, but the real point in the centuries old debate on faith is, - "Is faith a work of the sinner?"
James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? ..... 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."
Even James separates faith from works.
But does the Arminian (and the RCC) manage to separate them, especially in their ultimate result.
The "Jim Lincoln" on this post (for one) seems to need a refresher course in the English language. Perhaps someone in "Nebraska" can help out so he can get closer to a cigar instead of just having fun trying to pass.
"If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly ...belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8)."
But then of course these men, who were closer to the times of the apostles than we are, what did they know?