Not wanting to turn this topic to another track, (and it has been very well debated from lots of angles). but.... Isn't it time that true followers of Christ dropped the labels.... Paul, Apollos Russell, Mary Eddy Baker, CALVIN.....?
Maybe not vastly off-track, given the title of the post! I think maybe dear Mr Calvin has now some regrets for murdering brethren in Christ and deeming himself fit to write the "Institutes" at such a tender age. Yes, we have all sinned and come short, but when will we cease from man and esteem Christ, and his 'Institution' as complete and sufficient?
I hate this issue đ if it's ok to drink then it's ok to smoke weed if legal. Alcohol has destroyed many families in this land. Btw it's really prideful for the pro booze crowd to act as if they are so spiritual that they can drink and be such great Christians.... Don't give me that trash.
Mike wrote: Covetousness is not only the desire to possess worldly things, it's the desire to possess the things that belong to others (Exodus 20:17) You know, like liberal politicians and the uninformed who vote for them.
B McCausland wrote: 1. This reasoning is nonsensical 2. Repetition adds learning to the good-willed. So, you may reread past posts in case a refutation of facts presented is due. If not, your assumption is vain. 3. Yes, the first practice was a national festivity about the temple, the second was Scripture based custom. Booth instances do not apply to the topic presently discussed 4. Are you interested in the honest handling of Scriptures? Your reaction does not guarantee such Sorry that your post is full of pretext mixed with derision
#1 Precisely your reasoning. #2 You have presented no facts to substantiate pagan origins. #3 The issue was doing only things commanded by God, so it does apply. #4 Since you judge everyone on here, as Josh pointed out, your reaction was expected.
Perhaps you consider your judgements of ignorance, lacking in discernment and adding to scripture as respectful, inoffensive and not harrassing, or even consisting of Christian virtue, but other readers like myself consider them otherwise and very reflective of who you are.
pennelope wrote: the dismantlers continue on.... problem with Communion is that Catholics call it Mass. If we take Communion, don't we legitimize the Mass because they call it Mass?
More generally Satan has his version of Christianity and so we should have nothing to do with Christianity. Amazing how some people think.
None of the naysayers have provided any proof of the connection of Christmas with Paganism, nor answered my post about why Jesus attended the feast of dedication (not commanded by God) or why the Jews observed fasts not commanded by God and yet God said he would bless these fasts and make them feast days.
I get the distinct feeling that they're not interested in honestly handling the scriptures.
s c wrote: -- As far as the "sabbath"- Christ is our Sabbath but many want to follow after the shadows or try to insist that our sabbath day changed. ...another topic
What do you do with the 4th commandment? Ignore it altogether and pretend it was not part of the moral law?
As for something having to be commanded before it being done, assuming that your gender marries, did you marry? If so, was it in church? If so, how do you justify that?
In John 10. 22, 23 we read of Jesus attending the feast of dedication (now know as Hanukkah). Can you please show me where the Jews were commanded to observe this feast?
Also in the law of Moses, the commanded annual day of atonement was observed with fasting. However, other uncommanded fast days were observed in the fourth month, fifth month, seventh month, and tenth month. These added fast days were not unacceptable to the Lord. On the contrary God promised to bless his people in that he would turn these fast days into feast days! (Zech 8.19)
Maybe it's time you start presenting facts instead of your usual ignorant dogmatic assertions?
Rodney K. wrote: Well, you don't have to celebrate Christmas in order to believe in the incarnation. There are some very valid concerns held by many here (myself included) about the origin and legitimacy of Christmas. Even if we strip away the commercialism and paganism that the world associates with Christmas (Santa, Christmas trees, etc.) there are still issues. Jesus was almost certainly not born on Dec. 25th. As Bro. John UK proposed in an earlier post, why not change it to a more realistic date (Oct. 4th) and do away with the excesses of the world? It would be an interesting experiment, would it not? This is my last post today. I'm out of time. God bless!
We don't know exactly which was the 7th day in creation either, but it doesn't seem to stop SDAs observing Saturday as the Sabbath or indeed those who regard Sunday as the Christian Sabbath (transferred to the first day), even though they don't know that the Saturday is necessarily the 7th day. Maybe the actual day is not the issue?
Unprofitable Servant wrote: -- Your statement about the medic , unfortunately, shows how little you comprehend about the significance of the incarnation of our Lord but does explain your general attitude toward it.
We could equally say about the death of Christ that it is meaningless without the resurrection so let's not bother remembering that. Nonetheless, I doubt that ze will relent.
finish the quote wrote: -- Regarding not the day, let us, nevertheless, give God thanks for the gift of his dear son.â https://biblicalconnection.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/spurgeon-did-he-celebrate-christmas/ see also a sermon given by Mr. Spurgeon on 12/25/1859 on Isaiah 9:6 http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0291.php
Thank you for demonstrating that some will even manipulate the sayings of famous men to prop up their agenda. Disgraceful.
Spurgeon's habit was to preach Christmas sermons and he even published a collection of 12 as specimens of such.
sc wrote: -- Celebrating this particular aspect of Christ is somewhat like celebrating that a medic came on the scene where someone needed rescued but just showed up to dwell among the people. Not good news for the person dying.
What a dumb comment. The humiliation of the Son of the God coming into this world would be meaningless without his death, but his death would not have been possible without his coming. The two go hand in hand. What a shame that you have to belittle one to prop up this stupid pet peeve of yours, only one among ten thousand.
John UK wrote: .... The problem with "today" is, that by far the vast majority of sinners are distracted by all the trimmings and false joyfulness and false lovey dovey and acid stomaches and drunkenness and nativity scenes and Christmass Number ones and disney animations and midnight masses and phone calls and parties and orgies and trees and mistletoes and yule logs and Christmass trees and carols at christmass and airey-fairy films on TV and monopoly boards and foreign holidays and a million and one other th
Funny how you insist on God's sovereignty at times and then figure that these things are too difficult for him to overcome at other times.
John UK wrote: Yep! Same point again! It is ecumenists claim that the season offers opportunity for evangelism, saying that people are more likely to receive Christ at such a time. We need to understand better the sovereignty of God, and the power of the word, and the life-giving spirit. Yes indeed!
So much for preaching in season and out of season, right?
John UK wrote: These are words which I appreciate immensely. They are right on the button. We need to have more trust in God, that he is well able and well willing to save sinners in his own good time, without recourse to salesmanship or back-door emotional-impact or in any way pandering to the desires of the sinner; rather, to do things God's way invokes his blessing upon it, because it was sourced in his own will and purpose; we merely fit into his plans, do his bidding, prayerfully obey him, and then watch him at work, as he turns men and women around, and makes them saints.
Is this the same man who would rather an Arminian preach their gospel where there is no reformed witness, knowing full well all that that entails? Change of tune?
BRF wrote: The crusades were the work of the Roman Catholic church and particularly the Popes of the day. So to blame Christians is historically incorrect. The gospel as never been spread successfully by the sword. In fact it has been more effective under persecution than when in the ascendancy. May be that is why the church today seams so ineffectual a dose of persecution might just be spiritually good for us?
Not to mention that the crusades were a reaction to some 400 years of continuing Muslim aggression.