SITE NOTICE | MORE..Feature Summary Revision 5! We're happy to make available a newly-updated feature summary brochure for SermonAudio! It is our fifth revision and provides a birds-eye view of the core features of the site in a beautiful layout. .. click for more info!
Banging on wrote: Donâ€™t expect any answers. Notice how Pharisees are always fixating on the externals of religious observance.. donâ€™t touch this, donâ€™t eat that, donâ€™t drink this, donâ€™t keep any special times, days etc...
I've noticed, brother. And it all seems to be motivated by the actions of the RCC. If the RCC does it, real Christians can't. They are conducting themselves like the militant Puritans of the 16th and 17th centuries.
For the most part I've stayed clear of this thread as it's all silliness to me. But for those who fear "looking" like a Roman Catholic if they partake..... by all means shun the holiday like the plague. As for me, I know what God requires of me and I don't concern myself with what the weaker brethren or the unregenerate think of me.
Interestingly, I was thinking of the same "will worship" text. Makes a good showing in the flesh but does nothing to please God.
. . .
I praise God He called you and your husband out of the darkness of the RCC. I was never part of that evil institution but there isn't anyone who despises it more than I save God Himself.
June A. Nadolny wrote: Shaun Willcock wrote: Briefly, in reply to â€śLurkerâ€ť below, John-UK answered correctly: he brought up the regulative principle. In the worship of the Lord, we are not to add our own ideas, thoughts, opinions. If it is commanded in the Word, then it is right; if it is not commanded, then it is not to be done. Sin is the transgression of Godâ€™s law, yes; but one transgresses the law when one adds to it as well. For this is feeble man claiming to know better than God how God must be worshipped. It is in effect saying to Him, I will worship Thee, but as I see fit. This is sin.
1) Where is the regulative principle commanded in the word?
2) Who has said the observance of Christmas is worship? Or Christmas is perceived as a holy day? Or arguing that Jesus was actually born on Dec 25th?
It's easy to defeat strawman assumptions but to automatically pin those assumptions on everyone who disagrees with you is disingenuous and just plain dishonest.
Personally, I find it very offensive that you (and others) would attempt to bind my conscience to your ill founded convictions. If you and others are not sure of what God requires of you; that's your problem. Don't try to make it mine.
John UK wrote: Hey, thanks to June, sc and sister B for your comments and encouragement after I was set upon by a band of ruffians yesterday.
Ha! I can't speak for the other ruffians but for myself; I wouldn't have said a word had you not boldly proclaimed all things Christmas are sin. A very serious charge that I believed deserved a very serious defense. But alas, you played the victim card.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Brother Lurker, enjoy the time with the grandkids and those people who bring them to your house. Godâ€™s blessings to you brother
Thank you, brother, for your kind wishes. Thank you too, SC, I think.
Our youngest two grands (10 and 26 months) live five hours away so we don't get to see them nearly as often as we would like. I hope you and your bride are enjoying your grands.... two I believe or have you added since we last talked?
On a side note regarding Chris's math challenge. I probably shouldn't rat him out but he did tell me in private some time back that after three years in the third grade his teacher graduated him to the fourth grade because she couldn't tolerate his refusal to shave. A personal hygiene problem, I suppose. He admitted he wasn't the smartest person in his class but took pride in the fact that he was the oldest.
John UK wrote: You never answered my question. So I have no desire to continue this exercise in futility with you. BO, I have no desire to continue this exercise in futility with you. James, I have no desire to continue this exercise in futility with you. Anyone else, I have no desire to continue this exercise in futility with you. Now you can all gather round the camp fire and sing Gin Gan Gooly etc and high five everyone. After all, you can do as you wish. Call it January 3rd day, and don't forget to bring your Gooly. Tomorrow is January 4th day, and then it's January 5th Day. Not.
It has never been my purpose to upset you and since I obviously have, I apologize and ask you to forgive me.
But my question seems perfectly legitimate and appropriate as you've know me for many years.... you know my heart towards God. So my question was meant to put your position to a practical test.
Anyway, I'll let it go and hope you really pray and think about why you all at once got so upset. And don't forget what I've said for many years; It's our job the present the truth but God's job to convince.
"This coming Saturday my wife and I will celebrate Christmas for a couple hours with our children and grandchildren. It is the only time of the year we are able to collect them all at one time to our home. Is it your position that in so doing we are violating one or both of the first two commandments of the Decalogue?"
John UK wrote: Lurker, to resort to partial quoting to bolster your point is unbecoming, and not like you at all. Here is the complete quote, and I will answer your question, even though you are unable to answer mine about the 36 holy days which the CoE celebrates every year. I would love to know what you think about the CoE celebrating these 36 holy days, which include christmass and easter and epiphany and 33 others.
No, I didn't say that a Christian must "read between the lines" of the first two commandments. What you must do is read the commandments, and see what God is saying. Once you grasp that, you can then say, "transgression of the law is sin" If anyone breaks the first two commandments, they have sinned.
John, I have no desire to continue this exercise in futility with you. But I will ask you this.
This coming Saturday my wife and I will celebrate Christmas for a couple hours with our children and grandchildren. It is the only time of the year we are able to collect them all at one time to our home. Is it your position that in so doing we are violating one or both of the first two commandments of the Decalogue?
Regarding what the CofE does; it matters not to me. I'm answerable to God for what I do.
Buckeyes wrote: (TMC) @ Lurker Yes, that is it! Thank you for the article, it is very interesting; Iâ€™ve not gotten a chance to view the video yet, but will when I can! BTW, did you see the response rhyme in the comments? â€śTo follow you, Iâ€™m not content, Until I know which way you went.â€ť
2) Lurker, here is the list of holy days in the CoE. Now you tell me which one is not sin and ought to be celebrated by all Christians.
1) Yes you did. "all the christmass holiday is manmade, and is therefore sin, and against God's will."
2) Diversion and rabbit trail. No one has insisted that Christmas should be celebrated by all born again Christians yet you are saying it should not be celebrated by any because it is sin. Huge difference.
I'll say this and get off your back since it isn't possible for you to defend your assertions biblically. The heathens have taken over Christmas just like they've taken over the rainbow so let them have it. That doesn't mean I can't observe the rainbow as a sign of the everlasting covenant God made with Noah or an annual observance of the birth of Jesus Christ with my family with a clear conscience before God. That you and others can't isn't my problem but I do respect your right to not touch the holiday. What I do not respect is attempting to speak for God that which He has not spoken.
John UK wrote: My assertion was made to show Christopher the difference between what he believes and I believe. I took his assertion which says that manmade aspects of the christmas holiday have no place in christendom, and I increased it to say that all the christmass holiday is manmade, and is therefore sin, and against God's will. I have established it in mine own mind from scripture that it is sin and against the will of God, and that he laments the christmass holidays every year, just as I do. If anyone can show me that christmass annual holidays are biblical, I promise you, I will celebrate them along with everyone else. The "key" to understanding this dilemma is found in a very detailed study of the first two commandments, not skimming the surface, but getting right down into the very depths of God's mind....
So Christmas is sin because it's manmade? And the only way to perceive it as sin is to read between the lines of the first two commandments with enlightened eyes to get into the mind of God?
Every born again Christian has the mind of Christ who is God. So what makes you so special that you can see Christmas as sin but the rest of us can't? Will SC, June and BMC go on record and agree with you that Christmas is sin?
John UK wrote: Good! So you're a Yea-sayer, brother. What do I say? I don't believe that the manmade aspects of the Christmas holiday (which is every aspect) have any place within Christendom, therefore it is sin. It all comes down to Sola Scriptura and Regulative Principle, that is the "key" issue.
To the best of my recollection, in all the years this discussion about Christmas has been going on here, this is a first. Someone labeling Christmas as sin.
That's pretty serious stuff, John. The apostle John said sin is the transgression of the law and I believe it was Paul who said that where there is no law there is no sin therefore on the last day the law is imposed (books are opened) by God so that sin may be imputed.
So are we to accept that Christmas is sin just because you say so or are you able to establish beyond a doubt from scripture that it is sin? Or was your assertion made in haste?
Buckeyes wrote: (TMC) @Lurker Hope you have a Blessed evening! One of the Elders at our church shared how when he was about 10 years old he stumbled across a particular headstone in an old graveyard that he can still quote verbatim. He was not saved at the time and it really shook him. I donâ€™t know it exactly but it roughly was something about passing by, â€śAs you are, so once was I, As I am, so you must be,â€ť then a line that ends with â€śmeâ€ť
Thanks for your reply, sister.
Perhaps this is the epitaph:
"Remember me as you pass by, As you are now, so once was I, As I am now, so you must be, Prepare for death and follow me."
It certainly should shake up an unbeliever.
The following site has more information which may be of interest:
Dr. Tim wrote: Good point, Lurker. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, and once I no longer inhabit this mound of clay I couldnâ€™t care less what they do with it. The only reason I would want a tombstone is to have an inscription on it that would serve as one last opportunity to invite people to come to Christ. Thatâ€™s why I have requested that Isaiah 55:6 be engraved on it.
Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near.
Buckeyes wrote: (TMC) Iâ€™m sure the Lord will have no problem putting folks back together for the Resurrection, even Wycliffe. That said, I do find it interesting that archeologists can tell when many Pagan cultures adopted Christianity by the fact they started burying their dead in hope of Christâ€™s return, instead of burning them. I think it serves as a fascinating final witness- apparently even hundreds of years later. I also think graveyards remind people of their own end; a well-fertilized flower bed not so much.
I remember for many years before my mother died she would always tell us, her three sons: "After I'm dead and gone I don't want you going to the cemetery to mourn for me because I won't be there; I'll be in heaven." In the more than 20 years since she passed I've visited her gravesite maybe three times and never forgot what she told me. But turning the mortal remains of the deceased into fertilizer just seems to lack dignity and respect. Maybe something that would appeal to a humanist tree hugger who believes mankind is a detriment to the planet but I can't imagine Christians would approve.
Dr. Tim wrote: A true and sensible statement, Lurker. I sure hope we can wrap up this patter before Confederate Memorial Day. I need to store my Christmas lights and get the musket and kepi out of the attic.
Some days your lighthearted humor is the only thing that makes sense to me so know that you are appreciated.
Buckeyes wrote: (TMC) @sc Weâ€™ve gone back and forth on this topic for years. I appreciate that you and other former RCs have un-scriptural associations with December 25th as an obligatory â€śholyâ€ť day simply because of your past. As Iâ€™ve said again and again Iâ€™ve no problem with you and others not celebrating, much like the weaker brother that cannot eat meat offered to idols. However, I do take issue when false historical claims as to the origins of words and false timelines are presented over and over and over again. Propagating the same urban legends year after year- misleading and binding the consciences of others with lies is wrong.
I posted one comment early on and have remained silent on the subject of Christmas since. But one thing has stood out to me as I watched the discussion. No one who believes there is nothing wrong with celebrating the birth of Christ with a clear conscience toward God has tried to convince the naysayers to change their minds. Yet the same liberty of conscience is not reciprocated. I wonder why that is. Do they think Christmas is inherently evil simply because Rome has claimed it?
Anyway, that's all I have to say on the matter. Thanks for your contributions and I hope your day is blessed.
Just going by what Jesus said wrote: Matthew 22:35-40 If someone will show me where Jesus condemns same sex relationships Iâ€™ll be very glad to join you in condemning this great man who is serving the Lord.
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
While Jesus didn't say it, I doubt He'd contradict His Father.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I am no big fan of open borders, but the Trump administration's cures for a problem such as that, sometime to makes various cures look worse than the illness, as two following Protestants wrote excerpt from: "Donald Trump's Immigration Policies Could Threaten Religious Liberty" [ https://tinyurl.com/zk4qc43
It's interesting how people will scour the bible to find perceived "principles" to uphold their pet projects while overlooking the obvious:
Luke 16:25-26 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you **there is a great gulf fixed**: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Now the USA certainly isn't the third heaven but if a biblical principle is sought after.... why not this one which stands in contrast to all the other fuzzy "principles"? One can't get to the third heaven without an immigrant visa issued by the Son for He alone is the way.
Build the border wall with narrow gates for those who seek to enter lawfully. It's biblical.
Myron Baughman wrote: Witchcraft is only icing on the cake for the Devil and his minions. The real power is in State Socialism (the Beast) tied in with the approved Anti-Christ Religion of Islam. Catholicism will be totally corrupted by end times by Islam, thinking to join the two peacefully together, forming the bloody world religion found in Revelation. The false prophet who was dead but now lives, is of course, Mohammad.
To be perfectly accurate; the sea beast is the one who had the deadly wound to one of his seven heads which healed. The earth beast, whose number is 666 and gives the mark, is the false prophet.
Fast forward to Rev 19:20 where the sea and earth beasts are cast alive into the lake of fire..... then back to Daniel 7:11 where another picture is given of the same event in the same timeline just before the millennial reign of Christ (Daniel 7:13-14). When Daniel 7 is considered in context, it's not likely the false prophet is Mohammed.