Just wondering if the non-instrumentalists celebrate Christmas. I have an non-instrumental auntie that does, but she seems to feel guilty and I'm not sure if this is taught against in the majority of Churches of Christ.

-- Anonymous, December 23, 2001

Answers

E. Lee asks...."Can anyone give any word from God that requires her to do so? Can anyone give a “thus saith the Lord” that even remotely teaches us to do so? "

And I ask...."Can anyone give any word from God that prohibits her to do so? Can anyone give a "thus saith the Lord" that even remotely teaches us not to do so?"

Scott....you bring up a valid point about using this time of year.....when people's hearts are receptive....to seize the opportunity.

I did this last Lord's Day....and was blessed to have the opportunity to baptize a 15 year old young lady who had the courage to walk in front of 215 people and confess Jesus as Lord and be immersed into Him.

She made it clear to me.....she wanted to always remember Christmas as the time she gave Christ the gift of her life.

My oh my....how EVIL that sounds. (Note the sarcasm.)

Merry Christmas everyone!!

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2001

The last poster noted...."Many of us who celebrate Christmas do not do santa claus and stuff."

And many of us who celebrate Christmas.....do Santa Claus and stuff.....and we are smart enough to know the difference between fiction and non-fiction.

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2001

Robin...you say..."I just wanted to thank you for this reply!! This verse seems to be used to justify a great variety of things to which it was never meant to apply!! Thanks!"

I trust then that we can look forward to your proper exegesis and application?????

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2001

And we know why you are staying out of it Robin. :)

Because you do celebrate that old pagan, sinful, evil, holiday....as well as your local congregation.

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2001

Oh...by the way. I see Christmas services as an "aid" to worship and therefore...authorized.

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2001

Darrell....

Not to mention "June" weddings....and carrying the bride over the threshold.....ALL of paganistic origins.

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2001

Robin...you stated..."If you believe that Paul would have become a pagan, atheist, liar, prostitute, drunk, or sinner... just to win one, let me know...."

A finer "straw men" has never been constructed. You know full well that Scott never meant that.

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2001

Robin...you most certainly did!!!...when you accused him "in round about" terms of misapplying the passage of Scripture he quoted....by praising E. Lee for settting him straight.

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2001

Robin....

I appreciate you understanding....and I appreciate your clarification....and yes...I agree with E. Lee's analysis. However, I think his analysis is displaced. I felt Scott's use of the passage was acceptable in the discussion. That is....if people are thinking of Christ during no other time of the year....except Christmas....then I will use what is on their minds....to make an attempt at least....to teach the the truth more fully.

Now as per the straw man.

A straw man is when you misreprent a person's position and then tear it down.

I mistakenly thought this was what you were doing by discussing the aforementioned passage and then throwing in E. Lee's discussion of prostitutes, drunkards, etc. In doing so it appeared that you hinted that Scott's position could be taken to justify anything...and by agreeing with E. Lee.....you then tear down that straw man and show the absurdity of the argument and thus....Scott's position.

However, as you indicated....you meant none of this....and so my identification of what I thought to be a faulty argument....was misapplied due to your clarification.

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2001

I want to first of all commend E. Lee for a wonderful exegesis of the above stated passage. Outside of a few minor exegetical errors....his interpretation is nearly flawless.

But here is the problem....his application.

Allow me to "cut and paste" a few paragraphs.

E. Lee states..."But we can and should make harmless concessions that do not violate the truth of the doctrine of Christ to those with whom we meet in the hopes that they can see that we understand them and that they will give a fair hearing to the truth. But we cannot, and Paul does not teach that we should, violate or concede any truth, principle, or matter of faith in order to reach anyone."

In his application....and previous posts....E. Lee has of yet to show us in what way Brother Jewell has violated the Word of God now has he?? We are still waiting for the Scripture that shows conclusively that Brother Jewell has violated any clear Scriptural command of the Word of God. We have yet to be shown where Brother Jewell has conceded any truth, principle, or matter of faith in order to reach anyone.

What we have seen is that Brother Jewell acknowledged that in the celebration of Christmas, he has made, "harmless concessions that do not violate the truth of the doctrine of Christ to those with whom we meet in the hopes that they can see that we understand them and that they will give a fair hearing to the truth." (E. Lee's words.)

Pay attention now Robin...and I'll show you a "straw man."

E. Lee states...."This passage is not about the “waving of that which is RIGHT” and temporary yielding to that which is wrong in order to save those who practice those wrong things.......Only the ignorant would think that Paul was teaching such nonsense and there are many ignorant souls who thus teach this foolishness."

And again we await the Scriptural evidence, that in E. Lee's words....Brother Jewell...."yielded to that which is wrong in order to save those who practice such wrong things??"

Did I miss something?? Did he show us conclusively that Scripture is very clear that celebrating Christmas is evil and contrary to the Word of God?? A sin in need of repentance??

That is a straw man....for Brother Jewell never said such a thing now did he??

E. Lee's claims that I'm ignorant....not withstanding...I still say...."Wonderful exposition.....lousy application."

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2001

Again E. Lee...you do a great job of equivication.

The vast majority of the people on this board meant exactly what Scott meant in his last post when they talk about the church celebrating Christmas. We all very much know what Christmas is really all about.

However....to suggest that if individuals tell their kids about Santa Claus, etc.....they are lying to their children is the most perverted rational I have ever heard in my life.

John Wilson made it very clear historically that much about Santa Claus (i.e., St. Nick) is based on truth.

I have three children. The two oldest ones have never said..."Dad....we really hate it that you lied to us about Santa Claus."

Some of us have the ability to seperate fact from fiction....and having fun....from the great truths of life.

Following your logic all the way through....we ought to remove fantasy and play completely out of the lives of children because "we aer lying to them and they are living in a world of lies."

I guess we should stop reading Mother Goose, Peter Pan, and the likes to them as well....because it's all fantasy and a lie.

I've heard a number of parents say..."I don't tell my kids about Santa Claus because I want them to know I never lied to them."

Give me a break!!! If your kids can't tell the difference in the way you act a few days a year around a holiday and the way you live for Christ 365 days a year...I agree....you better not tell them about Santa Claus.

E. Lee.....as I've stated before....you are entitled to your opinion....and I respect your right to not celebrate Christmas. I have a preacher freind who goes on vacation every year around Christmas so he doesn't have to participate in the Christmas activities of the church which he does not subscribe to. But he refuses to make an issue over it.

The Kingdom of God appears to be big enough to handle both perspectives.

If you can't "do it in faith" as the Scripture says....more power to you. I have not condemned your belief....I only condemn your judgmentalism over a "non-issue."

Because....as lengthy as your posts are....and as much as you think so....you have not shared a single passage of Scripture that condemns the church for celebrating the Christmas holiday.

As John Wilson said....Christmas stands as a wonderful example of the triumph of Christianity over paganism.

"And to all...a good night!"

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2001

This is not a "thief on the cross thread" which has nothing to do with Christmas...which was the title of this thread.

If you want to carry on a "thief on the cross" diatribe....start your own thread so we can avoid it if we want to.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

No the Church of Christ do not celebrate Christmas. My Great Grandmother was a memeber of the Church of Christ and they never celebrated Christmas. But she always had a tree up for us kids when we went to her home. Did she feel guilty I don't think she did

-- Anonymous, December 24, 2001

The most conservative preach against it, the moderates "allow" members to decide if they want to individually but don't publicly do anything and the progressives will speak to it once, the Sunday before Christmas, but no special services for it. The "progressives" might even have a Xmas party.

-- Anonymous, December 24, 2001

Brethren:

Christ our Lord is the head of the church of Christ. (Col. 1:18; Eph 1:22,23; Romans 16:16). And He has not given any command in the inspired word of God for the church of Christ to “celebrate Christmas”. Since the church of Christ is subject to the head who is Christ she does not celebrate Christmas for Christ has not lead her by any of his words to do so.

Now, those members of the church of Christ who celebrate Christmas do so to please themselves and to fit in with the world and the customs of our society but they do not do so because Christ our Lord commanded or in any way whatsoever taught them to do so.

This Christmas business is not something that is a part of genuine Christianity. We have absolutely no record in the New Testament of the church of Christ celebrating Christmas. And, as hard as it might be for some to realize, there was a time since the resurrection of Christ when no one on this earth had ever heard of such a “celebration” as Christmas.

Where and when this practice originated is not as important as where it DID NOT originate. It did not originate from Christ who is the head of the Church of Christ. (Col. 1:18). He is the “head over ALL THINGS to the church which is his body…” (Eph. 1:22). One should not therefore expect the body to do anything that the head has not considered and commanded. Thus no one should expect the church of Christ to celebrate Christmas.

That it is a good thing to remember and thank God for the coming of our Lord into this world to save us goes without saying. But to institute it into a “Holy Day” without warrant or instructions from God is to take upon ourselves authority, which we do not possess for God has not granted such to us. And such presumption upon His sovereignty and power over the church of Christ is nothing short of open rebellion against the very Lord that bought us. It is the spirit of the one who is self-styled the “Vicar of Christ” on earth! Which is an evil spirit posing as an “angel of light”! Beware of the wiles of the Devil!

For this reason it seems that none could condemn the good and self sacrificing spirit which originally animated Christians through out the year by the love of Christ wherein they sacrificed of themselves to give to those less fortunate than they were. So, the Devil’s only hope was to redirect it and limit it. This he did by the imposition of a “Holiday” which would have the effect to stifle it and limit it to once a year. And he ingeniously has counterfeited the good and genuine Christianity, which gives of herself daily in the name of Christ without the superstitious and the commercial fanfare of “jingle bells”, and cocktails and eggnogs and lies about a fat man name “Santa Claus”. For Satan has always allowed counterfeits of Christianity as he has done in the case of Christmas so long as it was done in a Commercial and superstitious way so as to lead men, even by it, away from the very Christ which it would supposedly “celebrate!

Do not be deceived. The institution of a holiday designed once a year to use the very essence of Christianity which is love to ultimately destroy in the long run the faith that drives such Love. For he saw that he could thereby sap the spiritual life completely out of the body of Christ by substituting the daily doing of good in the name of Christ out of love for Christ for the seasonal doing of good for other reasons. And the added advantage of making it all appear to be nothing more than a superstition based upon myths about fictitious characters like Santa Claus was just a bargain too great for him to pass up and too deceptive for the unwary to notice. It was surely a bargain the devil was more than willing to make. For by this means he in essence takes away what would be if we followed the commands of Christ and substitutes instead one period of time out of a year for us to behave in such a good spirit instead of every day as we have been commanded. And he “wears us out” with this substitution so that we are far too spent and in debt to do good as we have opportunity during the rest of the year. It is a sad thing indeed. For Our Lord expects this kind of behavior out of us continually. (Gal. 6:10; James 1:27). “Be not weary in well doing”.

This is one major problem with establishing holidays for the church of Christ where God has not authorized them. They often have, in subtle ways, the effect of preventing the very regular and consistent behaviors, which he commanded us ever to do. For example, Christ established the first day of the week as the day of worship for the saints. (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1,2; Rev. 1:10). It became known as the “Lord’s Day”. And on that day we worship Christ our Lord and remember his death, burial and resurrection as he commanded us to do (1 Cor. 11:23-26). And then along comes the rebels and establishes “Easter” to once a year remember the resurrection of Christ and associates it with bunny Rabbits and Chicken eggs and many other silly things. The effect of which is to trivialize in the minds of children something precious to all the saints. Much the same has been done with the birth of Christ which had nothing whatsoever to do with “Christmas trees” and a fat man named “Santa Claus” or “St. Nicholas” flying through the air “with the greatest of ease” being pulled by flying reign deer! The association of such lies and superstition with Christianity must be appalling to any faithful Christian who thinks about it. And if you wonder about all of the factors, which contribute to the false notion that the Bible is just a “fairy tale” or a book filled with old superstitions or that it is just a nice little story that is not true. Then do not be surprised to find that you must include these superstitious holidays originating more from the pope of Rome than the Lord Jesus Christ among the long list that you could compile.

So, no the Church of Christ does not celebrate Christmas and SHOULD NOT DO SO. Can anyone give any word from God that requires her to do so? Can anyone give a “thus saith the Lord” that even remotely teaches us to do so? Believe me when I tell you that you will wait a long time before you will find anyone who can give book, Chapter and verse or a “thus saith the Lord” for celebrating the semi pagan holiday we all know of as “Christmas”. And anyone who will analyze Christmas sincerely and objectively, if such is possible in a world enamored by it, will find much in it that is completely contrary to the truth taught in God’s word. It may well be one of Satan’s most deceptive devices! Think seriously about these matters, brethren. Not all Christians who participate personally in this holiday are effected as we have described but Christianity as a whole has been so effected by these superstitions. Anyone who will give it some objective thought without the emotions so often associated with the practice of long held and loved traditions will be able to see it for what it really is. It does not take much to see that it is not something that originated from Christ our Lord. So, beware, there is another source of such things, which is counter to God in all things. And those of you who bring this nonsense of “Christmas trees” and “St. Nicolas” & “Jingle bells” etc. into your worship should be ashamed of yourselves!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 24, 2001

And yet we see angels proclaiming the good news of Christ's birth, shepherds going, worshipping, and proclaiming the coming of the Messiah, and wise men travelling long distances to celebrate the birth of God. If God saw fit to give those passages in His word and later does not tell us to celebrate Christ's birth or not celebrate Christ's birth, is not the example provided enough? Not only is there not a command to celebrate or not celebrate, the only occasions where Christ's birth is discussed we see people celebrating. To not celebrate then, I would think the absence of a "Thus sayeth the Lord" reflects more strongly against those who oppose than those who celebrate. Paul says he will become all things that he might win a few. Christmas is a prime time to win some for the Lord. Why are we allowing the opportunity to pass?

Scott

-- Anonymous, December 24, 2001

Well, then Mr. Saffold, have a relaxing "winter break" and a blessed year in 2002! You have certainly helped me understand where my "non" relatives are coming from.

-- Anonymous, December 24, 2001

"One man considers one day to be more holy than another. Another considers every day alike. Let each man be convinced IN HIS OWN MIND."

(In other words, if you want to celebrate Christmas or any other holiday, its between you and the Lord. You have freedom in Christ to do so or not to do so, but let no man say you are bound either to do so or not to do so.)

-- Anonymous, December 24, 2001

Brother Jewell:

You have said:

“And yet we see angels proclaiming the good news of Christ's birth, shepherds going, worshipping, and proclaiming the coming of the Messiah, and wise men travelling long distances to celebrate the birth of God.”

Indeed we do. But what we do not see anyone in the New Testament doing is “celebrating Christmas” now do we? For the one is an acceptable and authorized celebration of the actual supernatural virgin birth of Christ our Lord giving thanks to God the father for it. But this is quite different from celebrating the half-pagan holiday called Christmas with all of its mixture of fact with fiction. All of the superstition and lies about Santa Claus, Christmas trees, and flying rein deer and magic etc is contrary to Christ and His doctrine. You do not find a single angel, apostle of ordinary Christian doing and teaching these things in the New Testament, now do you?

And with this statement you ignore what we actually said about this matter which was as follows:

“That it is a good thing to remember and thank God for the coming of our Lord into this world to save us goes without saying. But to institute it into a “Holy Day” without warrant or instructions from God is to take upon ourselves authority, which we do not possess for God has not granted such to us. And such presumption upon His sovereignty and power over the church of Christ is nothing short of open rebellion against the very Lord that bought us. It is the spirit of the one who is self-styled the “Vicar of Christ” on earth! Which is an evil spirit posing as an “angel of light”! Beware of the wiles of the Devil!”

So, we acknowledge the good of praising God for the birth of Christ and we do in fact “remember him” including his birth every Lord’s day till he comes again. But this is not the same as “celebrating Christmas” now is it? And what you cannot and will never find in the New Testament is ANYONE celebrating Christmas with Christmas trees; handing out gifts and telling lies to their Children about Santa Claus etc. Christians never did this during the time when the Holy Spirit directly guided the church of Christ through the inspired apostles of Christ. The church of Christ in the New Testament did not celebrate Christmas and she continues to not celebrate such nonsense. And this was the question that was asked in this thread, wasn’t it? We were not asked if we celebrated the birth of Christ. We were asked if we celebrated Christmas and there is a big difference since there is much related to Christmas that has nothing whatsoever to do with the celebration of the birth of Christ which Christians cannot have anything to do with. So, for you to respond as if anyone who does not celebrate Christmas does not and cannot believe in celebrating the birth of Christ is an extremely unjust, unreasonable and, if I did not know you and respect you so highly, I would say deliberately deceitful misrepresentation of the truth.

I never said that we should fail to be thankful and praise God for the birth of Christ. But rather that we are to worship and praise God for these things in God’s prescribed way and not as the “pope” prescribed us to do it. And we are to do these things on the day of worship not merely once a year while neglecting it most of the year. So, do tell us Brother Jewell where you find anyone in the New Testament “celebrating” this half pagan mostly popish thing called Christmas? The birth of Christ is only the excuse for our Modern Christmas and from that point all else related to it is pure superstition and paganism.

Then you say:

“ If God saw fit to give those passages in His word and later does not tell us to celebrate Christ's birth or not celebrate Christ's birth, is not the example provided enough?”

It is interesting Brother Jewell that you have shifted from a discussion of “celebrating Christmas” to “celebrating Christ’s birth”. Christmas celebrates much other than the birth of Christ. Some celebrate Christmas without even contemplating the birth of Christ. In fact, the majority of the celebration is about “Santa Claus” rein deer, and Christmas trees, presents and the spirit of giving. No mention of the supernatural VIRGIN birth of Christ and how that God became man and dwelt among us. So, God did not by “seeing fit” to give passages which show the angels of God worshipping the virgin born Christ and the worship of God because of this birth see fit to justify Christians joining in half pagan celebrations that basically ignore Christ except in passing! And what you see in the scriptures is worship, praise, adoration all of which is completely opposite of a “celebration”. And we ask you what has “Santa Claus”, rein deer, and Christmas trees to do with the virgin birth of Christ our Lord? And what has all of the lies being told to innocent Children by fathers they must learn to trust concerning this fictitious character called “Santa Claus” have to do with “celebrating the birth of Christ”? Shall we celebrate the birth of him who is the “way, the truth and the life” by lying? And not only lying but lying to our own children? Now lying is condemned in the scripture is it not? Then lying to your children about Santa Claus is without excuse.

Then you say:

“ Not only is there not a command to celebrate or not celebrate, the only occasions where Christ's birth is discussed we see people celebrating.”

WE do not see anyone “celebrating” Christmas, now do we? What we see is people worshipping and praising God for the birth of Christ and this is exactly what Christians should do on a regular basis every Lord’s day. And this is exactly what we do each Lord’s day when we contemplate and remember Christ in his PRESCRIBED way in the taking of the lord’s supper. WE do this in memory of him. And it is appropriate to remember his miraculous birth, his sinless life and his horrible death and his final resurrection. God has set up the communion for such things and he did not set up Christmas at all. The pope of Rome who is not even a Christian at all set this up.

Then you say:

“To not celebrate then, I would think the absence of a "Thus sayeth the Lord" reflects more strongly against those who oppose than those who celebrate.”

No one said anything about not celebrating the birth of Christ. But rather the popish and half-pagan holiday which places the virgin birth of Christ in the center of and on a par with a host of paganism and superstition called Christmas. Now there is plenty of condemnation for such practices in the scriptures. But to celebrate the birth of Christ is something that all should do. If Brother Patrick had asked if we celebrate the birth of Christ we would have answered in the affirmative. But he did not ask that now did he? He asked, instead, if we celebrate Christmas. The two are not the same. And anyone who thinks that one cannot celebrate the birth of Christ without doing so in the confines of this half pagan holiday called Christmas is simply ignorant of the truth. For the New Testament shows the celebration of the birth of Christ without the celebration of anything like our modern Christmas. If they could do it we can as well. In fact, they never did anything in their worship and praise of God that allowed anything pagan to be mixed with it. And those who celebrate the birth of Christ via Christmas are doing so in a pagan and materialistic way mixing truth with lies. This no Christian should ever do.

No one said anything about not worshipping and praising God for the birth of Christ. What we did was answer Brother Patrick’s question, which was whether the church of Christ celebrated Christmas. And we showed quite conclusively from the New Testament that the church of Christ never celebrated Christmas. They praised God for the birth of Christ and they remembered Christ in his prescribed way by taking of the Lord’s supper. But they nowhere “celebrated Christmas” with all of its nonsense related to Santa Claus, rein deer, and Christmas trees etc. Christians worshipped God and praised him for the glorious and miraculous virgin birth of Christ, indeed. But they never followed after this foolishness called Christmas, which is in many ways, a very mockery of Christ.

Then you say:

“ Paul says he will become all things that he might win a few.”

I am surprised to see you so abuse this passage. Paul would not have become a pagan in order to win one. He would not have become an atheist in order to convince them of the existence of God. He would not have become a liar in order to save a liar. He would not have become a prostitute to win prostitutes. He would not have gone on a drinking binge with a drunk in order to win him. He would not have sinned against God in order to save sinners. Surely you know the word of God better than this!

Then you say:

“ Christmas is a prime time to win some for the Lord. Why are we allowing the opportunity to pass?”

Every day is a “prime time” to win some to the Lord. And we do not let any of them go by, including Christmas. But we do not have to go along with the paganism and deliberate lies which permeate Christmas in order to win anyone to Christ during the time when men are pretending to “celebrate” his birth. When, in fact, they are actually celebrating Santa Claus, rein deer, Christmas trees, the spirit of giving, and worshipping the commercial God named “increased profits”!

We simply continue during that time to preach Christ just as we do in October and November or January or any other of the 365 days out of every year. We cease not to preach Christ. For the “gospel is the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16). And God has determined that “through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:18) and one does not need the help of a half-pagan holiday to help him reach anyone for Christ. If Christmas ended tomorrow and we never say the celebration again. We would have no less opportunity to convert people to Christ then we have right now. God has determined that “through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:18). He has not determined through the foolishness of a half pagan holiday instigated by the antichrist, the pope, who pretends to sit in the “place of Christ on this earth” to save anyone. Such foolish holidays are actually designed to lead men away from the truth of Christ. And it is shameful for any Christians to have anything to do with it.

But, to worship and praise God for the birth of Christ is scriptural, right, and acceptable to God for we do indeed see that occurring in the New Testament. But the celebration of Christmas with all of its paganism, and lies and superstitions is not acceptable to God and is not seen anywhere in the New Testament. IF Christmas were nothing more than a mere celebration of the birth of Christ absent all of the paganism and superstitions and lies we certainly would not object as strenuously as we do. But we would object to the absence of any authority from God for anyone to institute such a holiday in the name of Christ. For God has told us how we are to remember him for he said concerning the Lord’s supper, “THIS DO IN REMEMBERANCE OF ME”. This is the when, where and how that God has ordained for us to REMEMBER HIM. And Christmas is not ordained of God. Those who are not even Christians established it. The pope of Rome established it and not our Lord who is the head of the church of Christ.

So, yes we Christians worship and praise and thank God for the miraculous supernatural virgin birth of our Lord Jesus Christ but we do so without “celebrating” the half pagan popish holiday called “Christmas”. And we do not mix the supernatural birth of Christ with the superstitions of men, as does the popish holiday called Christmas. Nor put them on a par with one another by making Santa Claus who does not exist on a par with Jesus Christ who ever exists and reigns over his kingdom the church of Christ.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2001

Mr. Saffold,

You make an assumption that those of us who celebrate Christmas are participating in all the pagan and fleshly rituals which go along with the secular Americanized version. Many of us who celebrate Christmas do not do santa claus and stuff.

We celebrate the birth of our saviour, Jesus Christ, which is known by the youngest ones in our house as "Jesus's birthday party."

Galations chapter 5 comes to mind. We have the liberty in Christ to love and serve one another, why would anyone want to put themselves under a bondage of their own making?

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2001

Sister Laura:

You have said:

“Mr. Saffold, You make an assumption that those of us who celebrate Christmas are participating in all the pagan and fleshly rituals which go along with the secular Americanized version.”

I do not actually make that assumption, Sister Laura. But I know why you think that I do. Because I was complaining in my last post of those who celebrate just about every thing except the birth of Christ during the “Christmas holidays”. It is difficult when writing about these things to not paint with a broad brush. But I do not doubt for one moment that there are those who praise God for the birth of Christ and that this is all that they do when they celebrate “Christmas” (a word which is of popish origin). I am sure that this may be true and if it is it certainly would make any faithful Christian feel much better about it, wouldn’t it? SO, if you take away Santa Claus, the Christmas tree, the lies about magical and mystical things and focus on the virgin birth of Christ and the reading of scripture and teaching of the truth of God to your Children who could be against such a thing? But, if you limit such behavior to only once a year to be done on a day designated by the “pope of Rome” instead of the Lord Jesus Christ then you are still not following the doctrine of Christ. For Christ is the head of the Church.

“ Many of us who celebrate Christmas do not do santa claus and stuff.”

I thank God for you in that regard though I am certain that you can agree with me that you do not form a “majority” in this matter do you? Do you incorporate a “Christmas tree” in this “celebration”? I hope not for it does not originate from God’s words and is of pagan origin.

But some churches even put up a Christmas tree in the building and it sits there during the worship of God and they do have Santa Claus and rein deer, elves etc. So do you have anything to say about celebrating Christmas in this way? We object to it, how about you? Are you convinced that men are “at liberty in Christ” to follow after such things? Think about it. As I have stated Brother Patrick asked a question about celebrating Christmas. He did not ask if we celebrate the birth of Christ. And since you are celebrating nothing but the birth of Christ then do tell why celebrate Christmas at all? Can one not celebrate the birth of Christ without celebrating this popish holiday called Christmas? And if that is what we are really interested in doing why do we have ANY interest in Christmas? You see Christmas has so little to do with the birth of Chris that one is able to celebrate the birth of Christ completely without it. Then why not do just that?

Then you say:

“We celebrate the birth of our saviour, Jesus Christ, which is known by the youngest ones in our house as "Jesus's birthday party."”

Good, that is a good thing I am sure of it. But, you have no idea what day Christ was born, now do you? I can assure you that it was not December the 25th. And do you worship and praise God for the miraculous virgin birth of Christ our Lord on any other day of the year? But it is better that you are focusing on the birth of Christ instead of the pagan and Roman Catholic nonsense surrounding this holiday.

Then you say:

“Galations chapter 5 comes to mind. We have the liberty in Christ to love and serve one another, why would anyone want to put themselves under a bondage of their own making?”

You had best read this verse again. It has nothing in it’s context to do with freedom to do as one pleases in matters about which we have no authority from God to do.

No one is trying to “put anyone under bondage” to anyone but Christ our Lord. “Liberty in Christ” does not mean “liberty from Christ”. And nothing in the entire book of Galatians applies in its context to the subject we are discussing which is the authority to designate a holiday such as Christmas and bring it into the Kingdom of God whether the King likes it or not.

I appreciate you comments as always. And I have no doubt that you are paying attention and not going foolishly after any of the pagan nonsense related to Christmas. But the question was asked in a generic way so I had to give a generic answer. WE celebrate the birth of Christ often through the year when we partake of the Lord’s supper, which is designed by Christ as a MEMEORIAL to him. And we do not participate in humanly devised memorials especially those, which are so full of paganism and Catholicism.

I pray that our Lord will be with you and your family.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2001

E. Lee....

I'm mainly staying out of this discussion... but.... in response to Mr. Jewell you said, "Then you say:

“ Paul says he will become all things that he might win a few.”

I am surprised to see you so abuse this passage. Paul would not have become a pagan in order to win one. He would not have become an atheist in order to convince them of the existence of God. He would not have become a liar in order to save a liar. He would not have become a prostitute to win prostitutes. He would not have gone on a drinking binge with a drunk in order to win him. He would not have sinned against God in order to save sinners. Surely you know the word of God better than this! "

I just wanted to thank you for this reply!! This verse seems to be used to justify a great variety of things to which it was never meant to apply!! Thanks!

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2001

There are any number of items we use, personally, that have "pagan" beginnings. Maybe the Christmas tree is one. Of course, the wearing of wedding rings has pagan beginnings. The use of a wedding cake does as well (fertility goddess worship comes to mind). That certainly doesn't mean that a Christian who wears a wedding ring is a pagan, or is worshipping a pagan "god." It doesn't mean that when the newlywed couple feeds each other wedding cake that they are worshipping a pagan fertility goddess, hoping to have many children. Having a Christmas tree in the house doesn't mean someone is involved in pagan worship.

There is a cultural difference in the use of these, and many other items that at one time had a true pagan influence. When a person puts a face on a pumpkin, and places that pumpkin on the front porch, they aren't using it to ward off evil spirits ... at least I've never met anyone who does. It's a part of the culture.

Should we adopt all of the culture? Of course not. And if you believe it would be wrong for you to have a Christmas tree, or jack o lantern, or watch Harry Potter, or watch the Wizard of Oz, or play the "Santa" game ... THEN DON'T. Certainly God's Word is clear that worshiping a pagan god, or fearing the "boogie man," or practicing sorcery ... etc. etc. is wrong. But using trees, pumpkins, etc., etc. is something totally different. If it is wrong for you, don't do it.

But we need to be careful in transfering our level of spiritual maturity onto others. Maybe "maturity" is not even the correct word. I served with an elder in a congregation who was guilty of this kind of transference quite often: "Our family doesn't watch any TV after 8:00 PM ... there is nothing on worth watching." And if YOUR family did watch TV after that hour, you weren't showing spiritual maturity. "Our family doesn't listen to any secular music." And if your family did listen to secular music, you were sinning, and not "up to snuff" on their spiritual yardstick.

Romans 14, isn't it?

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2001

I wrote this article about a year ago, but I think it's worth repeating.

THE TRIUMPH OF CHRISTMAS

About this time every year I hear a familiar refrain. No, its not "Jingle Bells." It usually comes from other well-meaning Christians as well as some cultists (most notably Jehovah's Witnesses), and the name of the song is "Christmas is a pagan holiday and shouldn't be celebrated by Christians."

The argument draws parallels between current holiday observances and the ancient Roman feast of Saturnalia, Teutonic Yule festivities and Druidic observances which all happened to occur about this same time of year, the winter solstice. But does this "guilt by association" argument really hold any water?

Christmas, the celebration of the physical birth of Christ, is really an evidence of the triumph of Christianity over the pagan world. It was first started as a means of combating the heresies of the Gnostics and Manicheans, who both claimed that since (in their view) the physical body was evil, Jesus did not actually come physically but was instead some sort of spiritual manifestation.

It was originally celebrated around the first of the year but was moved into the month of December to combat another related threat to the church, that of Mithraism. The followers of the Zoroastrian god Mithra (the "Unconquerable Sun" god) believed their god came to earth, died and returned to life, as the Christians believed of Jesus. (However, unlike Christianity, which literally wallows in historical evidence, there was no evidence whatsoever to the Mithra story, it was completely mythological.) During the first couple of centuries of the young church, the cult of Mithraism posed a serious threat.

The church of that time had an attitude of assimilating the cultures around it. They deemed that as long as you celebrated and lifted up the name of Christ, and didn't do anything strictly prohibited by the scriptures, you were free to celebrate in whatever fashion you chose. So the festival took on the trappings of the Mithra festivities, the festival of Saturnalia (which also fell at this time), and, later, the Yuletide festivals and druidic observances of the time. The parallels were drawn between what the people already knew (their pagan observances) and the Gospel message, so that the Gospel would more readily spread into these new areas. Thus the holly became symbolic of the crown of thorns, the sacred trees symbolic of eternal life, etc.

Speaking of trees, contrary to popular opinion, the current practice of the Christmas tree actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the druids' practice of worshipping trees. The tradition started, so the story goes, when Martin Luther went for a walk one evening in the forests of Germany. Seeing the stars gleaming through the treetops, he was so awestruck by the majesty of God's creation he decided to imitate this wonder by placing a tree in his home and lighting it with candles. This tradition later was blended with another Germanic practice. In a popular religious play of the time depicting Adam and Eve, apples were hung from a tree to represent the forbidden fruit (which is also where we get our common misconception that the forbidden fruit was an apple). These later became red balls, or ornaments.

Anyway, the upshot of all of this is that the church's strategy, to supplant Manichaeanism, Mithraism, Saturnalia, Yule, et. al., with the Gospel message by commandeering their holidays, was an unqualified success. Jesus' commandment to "occupy" (Luke 19:13) was obeyed. The "Unconquerable Sun" was conquered by the Unconquerable Son. Today, we do not have temples to Mithra or to Saturn, we don't have followers of Mani running around, and the Gnostics, druids and all the rest (with the exception of the New Age and neo-pagan movements) are long gone. But the coming of the Son of God is honored every year! Christianity, Christ, has triumphed!

But what about Santa Claus, one might ask. Well, Santa is a bit of a different story. The modern myth of the "Jolly Old Elf" who lives at the north pole and flies around with reindeer has its origins in the 19th century, most notably in the poem, "Twas the Night Before Christmas." The name is actually a corruption of "Sinter Klaas", the Dutch word for Saint Nicholas. The Catholic feast of Saint Nicholas is celebrated in December with gift giving to children, hence the gift-giving portion of our modern observance. But who was this Nicholas? Nicholas lived during the 4th century, born into a rich family. He was a humble man of faith, who would deflect attention from himself and when asked who he was, would often answer, "I am Nicholas, a sinner; Nicholas, servant of Christ Jesus." Church tradition has it that as a young man, he found out about a poor man who had three daughters, who, unable to give them dowries, was about to abandon them to slavery or prostitution. He secretly in the night threw a bag of gold coins through the window of their house for each child, saving each of them in turn from that terrible fate. Later, as bishop of Myra, a town in Asia Minor (now known as Demre, in modern- day Turkey), he was imprisoned and tortured in the persecution of Diocletian for many years. He survived the persecution to participate in the famous Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The modern legend that has grown up around him certainly has nothing to do with Christianity. But the example of this man's personal triumph in Christ - his humility, his faith, his willingness to give anonymously to the poor, endure suffering for the cause of Christ, and stand against heresy - is certainly noteworthy, and would be a far better example to children at this time of year.

In closing, I would like to ask the question that the first paragraph begged. Namely, should people who take the name Christian be condemning other Christians for observing Christmas? I think Paul answered this in an unqualified NO when he wrote "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind" (Romans 14:5). In other words, it is between them and their Lord, and none of any one else's business. As Jesus would have said, take the log out of your own eye before worrying about the splinter in your brother's.

In His Service,

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2001

Thanks for the info, John.

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2001

What about Easter (I am not talking about the easter bunny stuff) and where is the authorization to celebrate the resurrection? Do the nons have any kind of celebration or commemoration like sunrise service?

And I know this is similar to what has been argued in other threads, but this authorization or lack there of is so absurd to me. It was written by one that we do not celebrate the birth of Christ because it is not authorized. But, I am waiting to see where other things, even if you call them aids are authorized. It seems to me from what I have read posts that say things are authorized when, but it seems only when it suits our purpose and then not authorized when it doesn't. All I ask for is a stand to be taken by the nons - if you believe that things have to be authorized to do then it must be applied to everything regardless. You can't call some aids, you can't call some expedient, it is logically, all or NONE! Not pick and choose. IMHO

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2001

Danny,

I only look forward to learning from you..... If you believe that Paul would have become a pagan, atheist, liar, prostitute, drunk, or sinner... just to win one, let me know....

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2001

Darrell,

I noticed that you slipped "Harry Potter" in the middle of "And if you believe it would be wrong for you to have a Christmas tree, or jack o lantern, or watch Harry Potter, or watch the Wizard of Oz, or play the "Santa" game ... THEN DON'T."

Yet, you never answered Danny in the Harry Potter thread when he said, "Last time I checked.....the celebration of Christmas did not involve witchcraft and incantations....unless you think the virgin birth was not a miracle of God. Also....I find no direct commands against the celebration of Christmas.

Now Scriptures against witchcraft, spells, incantations....where do we begin from the plethora that is available?? "

In other words, isn't dealing with witchcraft (as Harry Potter does) specifically forbidden??

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2001

re: the Harry Potter stuff. Certainly the Bible condemns the practice of witchcraft, etc. I do as well. Seeing the movie is not practicing.

The same argument against seeing the Harry Potter movie can be carried on to the Wizard of Oz movie ... the "Santa thing" (since he uses "magic" to get around the world in 24 hours, up and down the chimney, to make the toys, etc. etc. depending on what stories you read), and on and on. It depends on how far one wants to carry it.

I remember the Christian outcry against Smurfs ... pokemon ... and on and on it goes.

Again, if you believe it is wrong, then don't do it. But don't come down on someone else who doesn't believe it is wrong, if there isn't a "thus says the Lord."

And again, understand, I am 100% against the practice of witchcraft, horoscopes, ouija boards, tarot cards, etc. I believe the Bible is clear on these things.

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2001

Danny,

I never said Scott did.... Straw Man!

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2001

Danny,

You are right... I can see that by indicating in my reply that E. Lee's response was to Mr. Jewell that it might appear that I was explicitly condemning him. I really wasn't. However, I do not understand what he meant by his use of the verse....

What I meant to do was to thank E. Lee for pointing out that the verse can NOT be used to condone EVERYTHING... (which it IS used to do by many).

Do you disagree with what E. Lee wrote about the verse??

I have a question concerning Straw Men... and since you seem to be an expert, maybe you can help me. You indicated that I put up a Straw Man... yet I wasn't arguing with anyone (at least I didn't know I was)... how does that work?

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2001

Brethren:

It has been asked that we give some exposition on the following passage of scripture:

“To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. (1 Cor. 9:22)”

Now, it is my purpose to give what has been requested concerning the above passage. It has been asked what is the exegesis of this passage. Let us examine it to see just what it is talking about.

If anyone will take the time to read the context of this verse they will readily notice that these words are spoken in the context of Paul’s defense to those who would examine him. If one reads the entire context of his defense they will be able to see what Paul really meant when he said that he was made "all things to all men that by all means he might save some”. (1 Cor. 9:22). I invite you to think along with me and examine this context to understand what Paul’s purpose was in saying these words and what he intended to convey by them. I encourage you to first read the following passages for yourself so as to get an unbiased view of the context of these words before drawing any conclusions about what they mean. Please read 1 Corinthians 9:1-27.

Now it is important to notice from the previous chapters that there was a situation in Corinth to which the apostle Paul had been responding. He had been defending his apostleship against false and factional teachers who had cast doubt upon it. And Paul had hindered these men in several ways but one in particular was his habit of taking no pay for his services.

False or factional teachers coming to Corinth expected to be supported by the church according to the usual custom, but were hampered by the example of Paul, who had taken nothing for his services. To justify themselves and to discredit Paul, some of them appear to have gone so far as to deny Paul's appointment as an apostle, and to use his failure to demand wages as an evidence of their assertion. They argued that he knew he was not an apostle, and so forbore through shame to ask an apostle's pay. To settle this controversy, the Corinthians asked some such question as this: "Explain why, being an apostle, you did not take the wages due you as such."

Paul begins his answer by asking four questions that show both surprise and indignation. He asked, “Am I not free?” For in that day and time all free men were entitled to wages for work done. Only slaves worked without compensation. He does not intimate that he is free to do anything even sin against Christ as some would have you think. Then he asked “Am I not an apostle?” For as such he would be all the more entitled to take wages from them for his work than an ordinary less approved preacher of the gospel. Then he asked, “ Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” By asking this he defends the fact that he was an apostle because he had see Jesus Christ. For Apostles were to be witnesses of the resurrection of Christ (Acts 1:22;2:32; 10:4). Thus it was necessary that they should have seen the risen Christ. But Paul had seen more; on the way to Damascus, not only the risen, but also the glorified, Christ had appeared to him. This was Paul's first proof of apostleship. Then he asked, “ Are not ye my work in the Lord?” Now just how this was proof that Paul was an apostle is not always so evident. For could not the false teachers say the same thing for their converts? This is argument is far more concrete than initially appears on the surface. For in order for this argument to have any serious impact or meaning there would have to be something uniquely different about being converted by an apostle of Christ which would distinguish them from those who had been converted by others. For if there were no such distinction then the argument would carry little weight. And it seems that Paul’s habit of imparting the Holy Spirit through the lying on of his hands was just such a distinction and therefore it appears that this is that to which his question immediately refers them. (Acts 8:14-23; Acts 19:1- 6). This seems to be equivalent to the question asked by Paul to the Galatians when he was defending his apostleship to them as follows: “ This only would I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” (Gal. 3:2) In other words Paul had asked the Galatians a question which made it all quite clear. He was saying to them, “I need ask you but one test question to utterly condemn your conduct. I will refer you to your own experience. (Romans 1:5;16:26). When I came and labored among you, God approved and seconded my labor by imparting to you the miraculous powers Gal. 3:5;Mark 16:17-20; Heb. 2:4). and spiritual graces Gal.` 5: 14;4:5;Eph. 1:13)of the Spirit. “Now, did ye receive the Spirit by these works of the law, which these gospel perverters would have you perform, or did ye receive him by hearing and believing the gospel, which I preach?” Since they heard the gospel that Paul preached and obeyed it and received the Holy Spirit as they most likely would have through the lying on of Paul’s hands (Acts 19:1-6) the answer was obvious. The Galatians could give but one answer to this question, and that answer decided the point between Paul and his opponents, and showed that God was with the apostle, and not with his enemies. The presence of a church in Corinth, having in it Christians converted by Paul to whom he had imparted the gift of the Holy Spirit was the second proof of his apostleship. Impostors could not do such work (Matt. 7:15-20). Then he says, “ If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.” This was an argumentum ad hominem. Whatever Paul might be in the estimation of Judaizers and enemies. Those who owed their spiritual life to him must still hold him as an apostle. For if he were no apostle, they would not have received the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit which was the seal of his apostleship. Thus they and they alone could vouch for the genuineness and validity of his apostleship. So these Corinthian converts by their existence vouched for Paul's apostleship.

Then he responds more particularly to those who examined him and his behavior of working without wages. He says, “My defense to them that examine me is this.” This verse refers to what precedes it. It means that when called to defend his apostleship, Paul would point to the presence of a church of his established in Corinth as his answer. A similar answer had satisfied the other apostles Gal. 2:6-10). Thus having proved his apostleship, Paul proceeds to discuss the rights and privileges appurtenant to it. So, he asks a few other questions that brought the contentions of these false teachers to nought. He asked, “Have we no right to eat and to drink?” In other words “are we not entitled to be fed by the church?” He asked also, “Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer even as the rest of the apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?” 6 Or I only and Barnabas”? If Barnabas and Paul wrought out their self-support to be nobly independent, did their voluntary sacrifice of rights abolish those rights, or prove that they never existed? This late reference to Barnabas is interesting, for it shows that he was still at work and was still loved of Paul despite their disagreement concerning John Mark. Having thus proved his right to maintenance by the example of other church leaders, Paul now goes on to give an argument showing that the practice of these leaders was wholly lawful and proper.

First argument: Wages for service is the rule in all employment; in proof of this, three instances are cited, the soldier, the vinedresser, and the shepherd. “ Have we not a right to forbear working? 7 What soldier ever serveth at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?” In the East, vinedressers and shepherds are still thus paid in kind. Work without wages would be an unhealthy principle to use in church matters.

Second argument: The Law of Moses allowed wages for work. “Do I speak these things after the manner of men? or saith not the law also the same?” Paul asks these two questions to show that while he has appealed to human authority, he has also divine authority for the principle, which he asserts. Then he quotes the Law “ For it is written in the Law of Moses [Duet. 25:4) Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.” Grain in the East has never been threshed by machinery. Oxen usually thresh corn out. These are driven over it to tramp out the grain, and they sometimes draw a small sled or threshing instrument after them. The law forbade the muzzling of an ox thus employed, and in the East this law is still obeyed. Then he ask a very important question and gives an inspired commentary on this Old Testament passage, “Is it for the oxen that God careth, or saith he it assuredly for our sake? Yea, for our sake it was written: because he that ploweth ought to plow in hope, and he that thresheth, to thresh in hope of partaking.”

Paul's meaning is clear. In giving the law, God's proximate design was to care for oxen, but his ultimate design was to enforce the principle that labor should not go without reward; that each workman might discharge his task in cheerful expectation that he would receive wages for his employment. Paul asserts that God does not legislate for oxen and forget men. It is an argument a minori ad magnus such as Christ himself employed (Matt. 6:26-30). Third argument: The law of exchange demands an equivalent for value received. “If we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things?” What was earthly support in comparison with the riches of the gospel? If Paul had demanded his full carnal recompense, it would have been a meager compensation for blessings and benefits, which can never be weighed in dollars and cents.

Fourth argument: The concessions which you have made in supporting others having inferior claims debar you from thus denying apostolic claims. “If others partake of this right over you, do not we yet more? “Nevertheless we did not use this right; but we bear all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ.” Since Paul had left Corinth, the church had supported other teachers, and this stopped them from denying Paul's right to support. The apostle had not used this right, for to do so would have hindered him in planting the church. To demand maintenance subsequently would have given Paul's enemies a chance to impugn his motives, and say that he labored for earthly gain.

Fifth argument: Priests, whose office, like the apostolic, is purely sacred, are universally maintained by sharing in the sacrifices, which they offer. “Know ye not that they that minister about sacred things eat of the things of the temple (the offerings, etc.), and they that wait upon the altar have their portion with the altar?” ( Num. 18:8-13; Deut. 8:1).

Sixth argument: Christ himself ordained that ministers should be supported by those whom they serve. “Even so did the Lord ordain that they that proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel.” (Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7). This precept was all which Paul needed to urge. He no doubt elaborated this argument that the Corinthians might be fully convinced that he was perfectly aware of his rights at the time when he waived them. The apostle next sets forth more fully why he preferred to support himself rather than receive compensation from the churches. “But I have used none of these things [i. e., these rights]: and I write not these things that it may be so done in my case”. Paul had a right to receive wages for his labor. This right was guaranteed both by the customs of the people and the Law of Moses; he also had a right to some recompense as an equivalent for the blessings, which he bestowed. Moreover, he had a right to receive as fair treatment as that bestowed upon others. Again, he had a right as a man engaged in sacred affairs to be paid by those who enjoyed his services, and lastly as a minister of Christ, the law of Christ, demanded that he be supported. Paul had urged none of these rights, nor did he now assert them that he might shame the Corinthians for their neglect or prepare them to change their conduct toward him when he visited them as he intended. Then he says “for it were good for me rather to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.” So far from desiring pay from the Corinthians, he preferred to die rather than receive it, for to do so would deprive him of the glory and joy of preaching the gospel without earthly reward. By denying himself wages, Paul obtained free access to all men, and could found new churches. He gloried in the salvation of souls and in the honoring of Christ. Then he says, “For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of; for necessity is laid upon me; for woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel. 17 For if I do this of mine own will, I have a reward: but if not of mine own will, I have a stewardship intrusted to me.” He was commanded to preach the gospel. He could not glory therefore in doing it, for he did not do it of his own free will or choice but because it was a stewardship which he was obliged to discharge (Luke 10:7). Then he says “What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel without charge, so as not to use to the full my right in the gospel.” He found his reward in the happiness of preaching the gospel without charge, and in the feeling that as a steward he had not used his privileges to the full, and so was far from abusing them.

And it makes good sense to us now to read, in this context, our text, which has, been sorely abused by many today who ignore Paul’s argument and his purpose for saying these words. They do this in order to give his words a meaning, which would have made no sense whatsoever to his argument that he was prosecuting in this place. For it is in the context of the apostle Paul defending his apostleship and explaining his reasons for waving his rights as an apostle to receive wages from the church for doing his work that these words are spoken. He thus becomes whatever he must become even to the point of refusing to be paid to preach the gospel that he by all means might save some. And he lays down the principle that he could become whatever he needed to be in order to reach the lost including refusing to be paid.

“For though I was free from all men (and therefore had a right to demand wages of them and ignore their prejudices), I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more.” Here was yet another joy, which he found in preaching a free gospel. His spirit of self-sacrifice won the confidence of the people, and enabled him to make a larger number of converts. Though entitled to wages as a free man he preferred to work as a slave for nothing, accounting the additional disciples, which he made as a more acceptable hire than his maintenance. Moreover, after the manner of a slave, he had adjusted himself to the prejudices and idiosyncrasies of those, which he served as far as he innocently could. Now in this verse he is talking about his work as a slave and not a free man. As a slave would accommodate himself to the one whom he served so Paul accommodated himself to the idiosyncrasies of the persons he tried to convert. And then he gives examples how he did this. “And to the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain Jews”. He did not become a Jew by going back under the Law of Moses which would separate him from Christ (Gal. 5:4). Paul observed the Jewish distinction as to meat (1 Cor. 8:13)and performed their rites as to vows (Acts 21:26); and honored their feasts (Acts 20:16).; and classed himself among their Pharisees (Acts 23:6) which is something many in this forum would never do. He even had circumcision administered (Acts 16:13), where it did not interfere with the liberty of Gentiles (Gal. 2:3-5). All these were innocent concessions to and harmless compliance with the law. And the distinction here is between “innocent concessions” and “sinful practices” that were contrary to the gospel of Christ or a hindrance to it.

Though Paul was under no obligation to conform his conduct to the prejudices of others, he waived his own predilection in all matters that were indifferent. But his unbending, unyielding loyalty in all matters of principle was so well known that he does not deem it necessary to state that he never surrendered or sacrificed a single truth or right for any cause just so that he could win some. Then he says, “ to them that are under the law” (To these also Paul made harmless concessions).

Then he says, “as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law as without law.” He did not seek to enforce the laws of Moses among the Gentiles, as did the Jews. And he refrained from insulting heathens in their beliefs (Acts 19:37). He also dealt gently with their prejudices (Acts 17:30). Then Paul shows that his behavior was always in harmony with the Law of Christ “not being without law to God, but under law to Christ” Paul did not forget his obligations to the moral law, nor his duty to the will of Christ. Though behaving himself as a Jew in Jerusalem in things indifferent, he rebuked Peter openly for playing the Jew in Antioch in matters of principle (Gal. 2:11-21). Peter knew better (Acts 15:10). And though he made these harmless concessions so that he could win those both that were under the Law and those who were not he never sacrificed the truth for a moment in doing so. For he says, “ that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak” Paul was uniformly self-sacrificing and patient with those who were over scrupulous.

He then, in this context says, “ I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.” Thus with untiring zeal for the salvation of souls, Paul accommodated himself to all the shapes and forms of character which he met, if he could do so without sin (1 Cor. 10:33; 2 Tim. 2:10). But he never became just anything and everything that others expected him to become, even if it was sinful, in order to save others. And those who so abuse this passage to teach that we can become anything we want, even to the point of disobeying God, in order to be become like those that we hope to reach do so at their own peril. “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 3:23) and we should not “sin that grace may abound” (Romans 6:2). None can save sinners by becoming sinners or in any way whatsoever disobeying the commands of God in His inspired word. The very idea itself is absurd, isn’t it? And to accuse Paul of teaching such nonsense is to insult the Holy Spirit who inspired his teaching.

But we can and should make harmless concessions that do not violate the truth of the doctrine of Christ to those with whom we meet in the hopes that they can see that we understand them and that they will give a fair hearing to the truth. But we cannot, and Paul does not teach that we should, violate or concede any truth, principle, or matter of faith in order to reach anyone.

Brethren, it is my sincere hope that this brief exposition on these passages will help to at least slow the progress of the abuse of this passage. For this nonsense that we are justified doing things that are contrary to the will of God upon the false teaching that Paul encouraged such with his words stating that he became “all things to all men” that he might win some of them is pure ignorance. And at worst an evil deception. For this is far from the teaching of this or any other passage in the New Testament.

In actual context it was showing Paul’s reason for not accepting wages for his work. I find it quite humorous that we do not have any preachers quoting this verse to excuse themselves from being PAID a fine salary! But they will ignorantly quote it to justify participation in things, which are sinful and their endeavors to introduce unauthorized innovations into the worship of Christ our Lord. But you will wait a long time indeed before you read of any of these men quoting this verse in its context to justify their refusal to receive wages as did the apostle Paul and for the same reasons that Paul refused to accept wages. In fact, you will look long and hard before finding any of these men who would refuse wages even if they knew that they could reach more souls by doing so. Yet they run to this verse where Paul is explaining that he is an apostle and as an apostle has the right to receive wages but also the right to refuse them as he chooses. They do this to justify some imaginary freedom to be and do anything you want so long, even if it is sinful, so long as they reach many souls for Christ in the process. But you do not see them offering to actually do the same thing Paul offered here do you. You do not see them even contemplating refusing wages much less justifying their right to do so on the grounds of being all thingsw to all men that they may by all means reach some” now do you? But this verse is clearly in the context of Paul’s defense of his apostleship and his giving reasons and justifications for his waving of his rights as an apostle to receive such wages.

SO this passage is about the principle practiced by the inspired apostle Paul of the waving of our own rights to do things which we are at liberty and have every right to do in order to save as many as possible. We shall see how many are really willing to do such in due time. Just ask some of them who claim to be practicing things that are merely a matter of their own taste and are mere “expedients” if they would forego them to save anyone and see what kind of answer you get.

This passage is not about the “waving of that which is RIGHT” and temporary yielding to that which is wrong in order to save those who practice those wrong things. Paul is the perfect example of the former and Peter the example of the latter. And Paul resisted Peter to his face for yielding principles of right in order to pacify the Jews by behaving in a way that was contrary to the truth of the gospel. Yet he willingly yielded his right to receive wages that he might save some. And often made concessions in matters that were indifferent. Only the ignorant would think that Paul was teaching such nonsense and there are many ignorant souls who thus teach this foolishness.

I offer this information with a prayer that all might benefit from it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2001

Brother Danny:

You have said:

“I want to first of all commend E. Lee for a wonderful exegesis of the above stated passage. Outside of a few minor exegetical errors....his interpretation is nearly flawless.”

I thank you for the kind words.

Then you say:

“But here is the problem....his application.”

We shall see if this is true.

Then you accurately quote my words as follows:

“Allow me to "cut and paste" a few paragraphs. E. Lee states..."But we can and should make harmless concessions that do not violate the truth of the doctrine of Christ to those with whom we meet in the hopes that they can see that we understand them and that they will give a fair hearing to the truth. But we cannot, and Paul does not teach that we should, violate or concede any truth, principle, or matter of faith in order to reach anyone."”

Now what exactly is wrong with that general statement of application? You have accurately quoted my words but said nothing to indicate that such application is wrong in any way. In fact, you seem to use this very application in your following words:

“In his application....and previous posts....E. Lee has of yet to show us in what way Brother Jewell has violated the Word of God now has he??”

If, and I say if, it is sinful to follow after the lies related to Christmas such as lying to kids about Santa Claus and flying reindeer is not sinful then I cannot know what would be sinful. For such is a lie and lying is condemned in the scriptures. Now this is just given as an illustration of what I am talking about. Telling such lies to your children is not acceptable on the basis of the use Brother Jewell made of the scripture that he quoted.

Then you say:

“ We are still waiting for the Scripture that shows conclusively that Brother Jewell has violated any clear Scriptural command of the Word of God.”

WE said nothing about Brother Jewell violating any scriptural command from the word of God only that his application of this passage to justify celebrating Christmas was a misuse of the passage and this is surely was.

Then you say:

“ We have yet to be shown where Brother Jewell has conceded any truth, principle, or matter of faith in order to reach anyone.”

No one has even attempted to leave that impression. But we have shown that he abused this passage of scripture by begging the question. For he was saying that celebrating Christmas was acceptable on the grounds that we should be “all things to all men”. But this would not be true if anything related to the celebration of Christmas violated any of God’s commands and telling lies about Santa Claus and flying reindeer is a violation of the scriptures condemning lying. And overstepping the authority of Christ to institute in the church anything that he has not authorized is a violation of Col. 3:17 where we are told “whatsoever ye do in word or deed do all in the name of Jesus Christ giving thanks to God the father by him.” One cannot celebrate Christmas, as it is celebrated among us today by the authority of Christ since he did not authorize any such memorial to his birth. The Memorial that Christ instituted for us to remember him by is taken every Lord’s day. It is the Lord’s supper and not a yearly catholic and pagan holiday called Christmas. The early Church never celebrated Christmas and would be appalled at the deliberate lying practiced by many Christians during this season.

Then you say:

“What we have seen is that Brother Jewell acknowledged that in the celebration of Christmas, he has made, "harmless concessions that do not violate the truth of the doctrine of Christ to those with whom we meet in the hopes that they can see that we understand them and that they will give a fair hearing to the truth." (E. Lee's words.)”

You have correctly quoted my words but you failed miserably to even attempt to show that Christmas is a “harmless concession” now haven’t you? Do you believe that lying is a harmless concession? I do not.

Then you want Brother Robin to pay attention as follows:

“Pay attention now Robin...and I'll show you a "straw man."”

Brother Robin seems to pay very close attention to things and therefore I cannot imagine why you think you should admonish him to do that which he always seems to do quite well.

But you claim that the following is a “straw man”:

“E. Lee states...."This passage is not about the “waving of that which is RIGHT” and temporary yielding to that which is wrong in order to save those who practice those wrong things.......Only the ignorant would think that Paul was teaching such nonsense and there are many ignorant souls who thus teach this foolishness."”

The above statement is true and therefore is not a “straw man” unless you can prove otherwise and you have not done that now have you?

Then you say:

“And again we await the Scriptural evidence, that in E. Lee's words....Brother Jewell...."yielded to that which is wrong in order to save those who practice such wrong things??"”

WE did not say that Brother Jewell “yielded to anything wrong” in celebrating the birth of Christ. WE said that he would be yielding to that which was wrong if he was using those verses to justify everything related to celebrating the Roman Catholic and Pagan holiday Christmas. For if he practiced all of the things related to such, including the lying about Santa Claus, flying reindeer, and the placing of a Christmas tree in the assembly of the saints during the worship of Christ. Then he would be yielding to that which is wrong to save those who practiced such things. But as far as we could tell he spoke only in defense of celebrating the birth of Christ to which we had already said we do not object. But to celebrate the birth of Christ in relation to the humanly devised holiday along side of the pagan symbols and deceptions about magic and lies about Santa Claus etc he would be doing wrong. And we have sufficiently shown that lying is wrong and so is the establishment of anything as a holiday for the Church of Christ without any authority from Christ to do so. No one has a right to establish his own religion but the scripture is our only guide in matters of faith and practice and Christmas did not originate with the word of God. And we have shown that lying is sinful. And the establishment of “holy days” for the church of Christ without authority from Christ who has all authority is to go beyond and add to the word of God.

Then you say:

“Did I miss something??”

Yes, you missed a lot.

Then you say:

“ Did he show us conclusively that Scripture is very clear that celebrating Christmas is evil and contrary to the Word of God?? A sin in need of repentance??”

I am convinced that we did show that lying is sinful and all of you who have li8ed about anything including to your children about Santa Claus and flying reindeer do need to repent of telling those lies.

Then you say:

“That is a straw man....for Brother Jewell never said such a thing now did he??”

And we never said that Brother Jewell said anything in justification of the wrong things related to Christmas. He simply was trying to justify the celebration of the birth of Christ he did not say that it was justified to do so in the pagan and Roman Catholic holiday called Christmas. But he seemed to be saying that it would be alright to participate with the world in the manner in which they celebrate the birth of Christ on the grounds of being “all thing top all men”. And because he abused this passage by appearing to us to claim that we could justify following the world in lying to our children about Santa Claus and flying reindeer and joining in a celebration ordained by the Pope of Rome instead of our Lord Jesus Christ. And for that reason we stated that he abused this passage for it would not justify such nonsense by any means.

Then you say:

“E. Lee's claims that I'm ignorant....not withstanding...I still say...."Wonderful exposition.....lousy application." “

Now, Brother Danny, I have never claimed that you were ignorant and would not make any such claim for I do know better. I consider you very knowledgeable and do not believe that you would abuse this passage of scripture as I am convinced that Brother Jewell abused it. For if he was using it to justify lying to children about Santa Claus on the grounds that we should be “all things to all men that we might save some” he was abusing it. His argument was that this is a time when men celebrate the birth of Christ. And regardless of how they celebrate it, whether in truth or with lies, we are justified in joining with them in practices which are wrong (such as the traditional lies told about Santa Claus reindeers and myths and superstitions related to their celebrations). And that we are justified in doing such things because we are told to be “all things to all men that we may save some”. And this we flatly reject as being an appropriate use of this passage. Now naturally, if I were wrong about these things related to Christmas being sinful then he would not be abusing this passage. But, I have not seen anyone show that it is not sinful to lie to your children about Santa Claus and take seriously all of the superstitions and pagan symbols in the name of Jesus Christ, have you?

But as to the application you have agreed with the application for you used it yourself. The difference between us is that you do not believe that there are any wrong things associated with Christmas and I do. But I am convinced that if you believed that there was anything wrong with the celebration of Christmas that you would think that the application fits this issue quite well. So, your problem does not seem to be with the application but rather with whether or not anything related to the way our world celebrates Christmas is sinful. If it is sinful then our application to it is right. If not then it is surely wrong. And we are absolutely convinced that lying is wrong and that Christians should not lie even when they celebrate the birth of Christ or should we not say especially when celebrating the birth of Christ. And we also believe that we should remember Christ in the manner in which he proscribed and that is in the taking of the Lords supper every Lord’s day. For he said “THIS DO IN REMEMBERANCE OF ME”. He did not say “remember me every 25th of December in the way prescribed by the pope of Rome even if it is filled with lies, myths and sundry superstitions.

Now, Brother Danny, I have great respect for your knowledge and did not by any means call you ignorant. In fact, if anyone on this forum could correct me on anything it would be you. Anytime that you question anything that I say I stop to think about it and I continue to do so for I know that your knowledge is such that I can learn from you. In fact, I have learned much from you in the past few years in this forum. But, I have no objections to disagreeing with you about things and I highly respect you because I know that you would not have it any other way, now would you? Indeed we both would rather agree and that is the reason we discuss things about which we disagree, isn’t it? And if we keep doing this we might one day come to be of one mind. I at least pray that such will indeed be the case someday.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2001

So much writing, nice to see people are back to work. Anyways, now that my statements have been thoroughly analyzed from all sides, I figure I should take the time to explain my intent.

In use of the verse "all things to all men", I simply meant the celebration of Christ at the time of Christmas should be a forefront theme. When the world is celebrating a major holiday, albeit in ways some may see unfit, wouldn't it only be right to take that holiday and point them to Christ? I'm not condoning the use of Santa, reindeer, elves, or trees, simply taking people back to the birth of Christ- the original Christmas. Why should we let pagans twist a holiday to mean something other than what it should- the celebration of Christ. My use of the verse was simply a statement that we celebrate Christmas- my definition being "Christ's birth" so that the world might see and turn towards Him. To give another example, maybe we should stop collecting alms for benevolence because beggars often take the money they receive to buy alcohol. They take what was intended for good and turn it into evil. I would rather we find ways to bring it back to its true purpose rather than abandoning it.

God bless, Scott

P.S. Part of my concern in the statements that were being made is this: My wife's grandparents are not Christian. It had been my intention to celebrate Christmas with them and once again share the gospel at a time when they might be open to hearing. That was supposed to happen this morning, but we didn't tell my mother-in-law cause she is so concerned about causing offense. This morning, she decided she needed time alone with her parents and took away the opportunity I had. When we returned this evening, her grandfather had died. So if some of what I said above isn't clear or doesn't make sense or comes across too strongly, please be kind and understand the frame of mind I'm in. An opportunity lost, and now we don't know his fate. I hope he had come to Christ, but we won't know until we're in heaven.

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2001

Let me just add one other brief thought... Christmas is also a wonderful time for family to gather and give out of love for one another. Tonight we have family driving 250 miles to spend our "Christmas" together... We will have a great time that we may not have had otherwise! (and most likely eat way too much:)

One other thought... here is an article by Dave Redick from his web site, www.preacherstudy.com... I will paste it here for you... please note how Jesus celebrated the "non-biblical" holiday.

Christmas or Not?

As fairly new Christians and freshmen in Bible college, my wife and I didn't celebrate the Christmas holiday in the '70's. Someone had informed us of those dubious "origins" of Christmas in pagan worship and the medieval "Christ Mass" of the Catholic Church. Christ probably wasn't born on December 25th anyway, we were told. Not wanting to do anything offensive to God, much to the disapproval of our earthly family, we wrote home to California and nixed the traditional family celebration. How could we honor God or have anything to do with something that came out of paganism? Needless to say, they (the earthly family) weren't impressed.

Several years went by with no tree in the house in December. We weren't sure, so we didn't participate. Then someone pointed out that passage in John 10:22ff. The Jews celebrated a non-Biblical holiday called the Feast of Dedication (also known as the Feast of Lights or Channuka). I say "non-Biblical" because the Feast of Dedication originated between the Testaments. It was never commanded by God in recorded Scripture. It was a Jewish tradition with a lot of things in it that originated with man, not God.

So how did Jesus respond to this non-Biblical holiday? Did he stay home and refuse to participate? No! He was right there in the temple amid the celebrants taking advantage of the teaching opportunity. Alas! For us, at least, we had the answer! Today we celebrate the holiday (much the same as we do the Fourth of July). But we understand that it isn't an especially holy day (any more so than any other day).

I rejoice that people remember His birth each year. Even non- Christians get thoughtful and teary-eyed at Christmas. I intend to be right there among them, using the opportunity to teach them more about the baby who was born to be the Savior of the world.

Dave Redick

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2001

Which is one reason why I observe (at least marginally, anyway) Hannukah. Not only that I have worked and continue to work with a lot of Jewish people, but because Jesus gave us an example by himself also observing it, and because within it is a beautiful picture of the coming of the Messiah, a picture the Jews totally missed.

Just like within the celebration of Christmas is a beautiful picture that most gentiles totally miss.

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2001

Brother Jewell:

You have said:

“So much writing, nice to see people are back to work. Anyways, now that my statements have been thoroughly analyzed from all sides, I figure I should take the time to explain my intent.”

I appreciate your taking the time to explain your intent.

Then you say:

“In use of the verse "all things to all men", I simply meant the celebration of Christ at the time of Christmas should be a forefront theme. When the world is celebrating a major holiday, albeit in ways some may see unfit, wouldn't it only be right to take that holiday and point them to Christ?”

If this was your intention I can only agree with you. Certainly we should use every opportunity to reach those who have not obeyed the gospel with the precious gospel of Christ. And I hope that you agree with me that we can do this without celebrating the birth of Christ in the same way that the world celebrates it. Would it not be a great time to invite someone to come to observe how Christians are commanded to remember Christ when they take the Lord’s supper on the Lord’s day? For this is the way we are commanded to remember Christ isn’t it? For did not Christ our Lord say, “And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” (Luke 22:19,20). And the apostle Paul received this command establishing a Memorial to our Lord by the Lord himself. He tells us, “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” (1 Cor. 11:23). This is the LORD’s designated authorized memorial. If we are, as Christians going to do anything in as a memorial to Christ we are told exactly what to do in his memory. It has not been left to us to decide how, when and by what means or ceremony we shall remember Christ. We have been specifically commanded to remember Christ in this way. And therefore I cannot disagree that during the “Christmas season” when people are thinking about Christ that it would be good for Christians to continue to remember Christ as Christ commanded by the eating of the bread and drinking of the fruit of the vine in communion with Christ. And invite your friends who happen to be thinking of Christ to see how faithful Christians remember Him by observing that precious weekly memorial which was established by Christ himself from the beginning. But for Christians to go and follow after a memorial set up by someone other than Christ which is filled with superstitions and things contrary to the truth as taught by Christ is not a good way to do it. We cannot partake of the Lord’s table and the table of devils at the same time. Are we not told, “The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I [say], that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?” (1 Cor. 10:16- 22).

So, I do very much agree with you that we should take advantage of every opportunity to reach the lost for Christ and a time when men are talking about him all over the world is a good time to do so. And I would hope that you also agree that the right way to do it is to show them how the LORD JESUS CHRIST commanded those who love him to remember him. Instead of following those who do not even know Christ to their celebrations, which were not authorized by Christ that are filled with superstitions and falsehoods. It would be better to lead them to the Lord’s table on the Lord’s day rather than following them to the “table of devils” on Christmas day.

Then you say:

“I'm not condoning the use of Santa, reindeer, elves, or trees, simply taking people back to the birth of Christ- the original Christmas.”

I am indeed glad to hear you say this. For those are the things that I am convinced the scriptures do condemn. I do not believe that the “birth of Christ” was the “original Christmas” though the birth of Christ may have actually been the inspiration of the original Christmas for there is no such thing as “Christmas” in the word of God. Christians worshipped and served God faithfully for centuries before the idea of “Christmas” originated.

Then you say:

“ Why should we let pagans twist a holiday to mean something other than what it should- the celebration of Christ.”

Exactly my point, why should we let pagans establish a holiday of any kind to remember our Lord Jesus Christ and follow it instead of accepting the memorial established by the Lord wherein we actually commune with him and where his is actually present with us?

Then you say:

“ My use of the verse was simply a statement that we celebrate Christmas- my definition being "Christ's birth" so that the world might see and turn towards Him.”

If this were how you intended to use this verse then it would be appropriately used. And I hope you can see however that this verse is often abused to justify participation of things that are sinful. And that if you were using this verse to justify participation in so called “Christmas celebrations” that are not acceptable to God such as the things which you mention that you do not condone that this would indeed be an abuse of this passage.

Then you say:

“ To give another example, maybe we should stop collecting alms for benevolence because beggars often take the money they receive to buy alcohol.”

Maybe it would be better to distribute those “alms” in such a way as to prevent them from misusing the money. This is not a good example. For giving alms to the poor and needy is commanded and right. We have no authority to stop that which God has commanded us to do. (Gal. 6:10;James 1:27). But we have not been commanded to remember Christ through a half pagan and half Roman Catholic holiday established by the pope of Rome. We have instead been commanded to take the communion in “remembrance” of Christ. (Luke 22:19,20).

Then you say of these beggars that by alcohol with money that was designed to do them good that they turn it into evil as follows:

“ They take what was intended for good and turn it into evil.”

They do this because we allow them to. If we used the money to actually pay their rent or buy food or provide various services directly to them and pay not the beggar but rather the provider of the services or supplier of the goods such foolish things as this would not happen. This is the result when we give money to the beggar instead of buying him a meal, or going to his landlord (if he has one) and paying the rent or paying the power company for his electricity. It is indeed foolish to just take money out into the streets and give it to beggars that may abuse its purpose. And Christians who do such things are responsible for the abuse because they knew that such could happen with their “Alms” and did nothing to prevent it. The example of how the good Samaritan helped the man who had fallen at the hands of thieves shows that he did not just give the money to the suffering man and go on his merry way. He personally saw to the care of the man and placed money in the hands of a trusted provider of housing and told him to take care of the man and when he returned he would pay him. So, this example does not fit you case concerning Christmas. Christmas did not originate with Christ and therefore does not form any part of God’s original purpose, plan or design as a memorial to Christ. For there is only ONE authorized memorial to Christ and that is the Lords supper by which we have been COMMANDED to remember Christ. (Luke 22:19,20). No humanly devised Holiday designed to remember Christ could substitute for that which our Lord Commanded. Nor can it be taken on as an addition to the Lord’s command. It is a human tradition that causes men to disobey the commandment of God.

Then you say:

“ I would rather we find ways to bring it back to its true purpose rather than abandoning it.”

Christmas does not form any part of God’s purpose as stated in His word for it is not found there. Why not return to God’s original purpose and way of remembering Christ instead of trying to restore some human tradition that had not origin in and forms no part of God’s plan or purpose as revealed in His word?

Then you say:

“God bless, Scott”

Thank you.

And then you have a postscript:

“P.S. Part of my concern in the statements that were being made is this: My wife's grandparents are not Christian. It had been my intention to celebrate Christmas with them and once again share the gospel at a time when they might be open to hearing.”

I commend you for being with them during a time when they might listen to you and I have not condemned any such behavior as I am sure you would avoid condoning the things related to Christmas which are not according to the truth. And I am sure that you took advantage of every other opportunity that presented itself to teach them and that you were not so foolish as to depend solely upon waiting for Christmas to teach them. And we should not be so concerned about waiting until people are “open to hearing” the gospel of Christ. For Christ did not tell us to preach the gospel to those who are “open to hearing” it. He told us to preach the gospel to the whole world and he will hold each person responsible for how they hear and whether they obey it.

Then you say:

“ That was supposed to happen this morning, but we didn't tell my mother-in-law cause she is so concerned about causing offense.”

While I know that the intentions of those who seek to “not cause offense” are intended to be helpful, I am convinced that that one cannot preach the gospel of Christ without at some point causing “offense”. For the truth is offensive in nature because it is opposed to the lies that men would prefer to believe. This fear of causing offense will prevent many from EVER hearing, understanding or ever obeying the truth. So, though the intentions may be good the actual results of such timidity about preaching Christ “the rock of offense” because doing so might offend someone is the cause of many people going into eternity without Christ and without hope of eternal life. And those who are so timid should be ashamed for they are not helping the lost know the truth and come to Christ. At least those who preach Christ even though it offends can say that they have preached the truth and the person whom was offended had an opportunity to know the truth and obey the gospel. But if that person is cursed by being surrounded by people who would rather hide the gospel from them than to offend them. Then he is condemned by his friends to never know Christ our Lord and to never feel the need of repentance and to never yield in humble obedience to Christ. May God spare all men from those who are too timid and fearful of offending that they will not preach Christ to those who are lost and without hope in this world. May God lead those timid souls to repent and obey the command of our savior to preach Christ regardless of the cost? The “gospel is the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). And God had determined “through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:18). And if we knew just how serious it is for one to never obey the gospel of Christ (1 Thess. 1:8,9; 1 Peter 4:16-18) the very last thing that would EVER enter our minds would be concern that preaching the gospel might “offend” someone.

Then you say:

“ This morning, she decided she needed time alone with her parents and took away the opportunity I had.”

I do not to want be unkind to you at such a time as this. But it seems to me that you are correctly placing blame upon your “mother-in law” who was so concerned about causing offense. But that you unjustly avoid placing proper blame upon yourself for the same offense that she committed. For the truth appears, from what you have said, is that if you were not so concerned with causing offense you would not have allowed her to “take away” any opportunity that you actually possessed to preach the gospel of Christ to anyone.

Then you sadly inform us:

“ When we returned this evening, her grandfather had died.”

This brings tears to my eyes and grieves my heart though I do not even know the man. For you seem to be telling me that this man has now departed this life having never had the opportunity to hear the gospel of Christ. Or at the least he failed to obey it because everyone around him was so busy trembling at the thought of “offending him” that they let him die without Christ and without hope of everlasting life! What an awful tragedy! A man is surrounded by Christians and dies as far outside of Christ as one who lives in a remote part of the world where no Christian has ever been found! He would have been no better off having lived in a place where idolatry and Buddhism reign. Surrounded by Christians and still did not hear the gospel and was left alone about it. But at least we can thank God he left this world without being “offended” by anyone! What a shame and I pray that God will put a compete stop to our shameful lack of genuine concern for those who have not obeyed the gospel of Christ.

Then you say:

“ So if some of what I said above isn't clear or doesn't make sense or comes across too strongly, please be kind and understand the frame of mind I'm in.”

Brother, I am being as kind as I can to one who has allowed another to slip into eternity without the hope of eternal life in Christ because he just could not bring himself to risk “offending” anyone by preaching the gospel. And has failed to urgently plead with them to turn from sin and come to Christ for forgiveness. I do feel how sad this must be. For you for you have lost more than a relative. You have lost the golden opportunity to save a soul from death. You must be of all men the most miserable and I do weep for you. I weep not for your relative for all of my tears for him will not change anything for him. But I weep for you with a prayer that you will not allow this inordinate concern for “offending”{anyone to prevent you from preaching the gospel of Christ to those who have not obeyed it ever again. I admonish you to never allow such a thing to happen ever again if it is in the least bit within your power to prevent it. I beg of you to preach Christ with little concern over this matter of offense. The truth will offend so. In fact it will offend them until they do something about it. And that something just might be to obey the gospel of Christ.

Then you say:

“ An opportunity lost, and now we don't know his fate.”

Brother, please stop deceiving yourself. You do know his fate and just do not want to admit it. For, if I have read you correctly he has never obeyed the gospel of Christ. And if that is the case the inspired word of God announces his fate in the following words:

Peter ask a question:

“For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?”

And the apostle Paul gives the inspired answer:

“And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty. In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;” (2 Thess. 1:8,9).

So, first you fail because you are too timid to teach this man the gospel of Christ with is the “power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). And he dies without ever obeying the gospel. And then you try to get him into heaven by some other means with these words:

“I hope he had come to Christ, but we won't know until we're in heaven.”

You know that he did not come to Christ. For no man can come to Christ except they are “taught of God” and obey the gospel of Christ. “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” (John 6:44,45). And how shall a person be saved? “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:13-17). Then we are told how we are called, “That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thess. 2:14). And how does one obey the gospel? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” (Romans 6:3-6). This explains why Saul was told, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16). SO it is quite simple. “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13) and how does one “call on the name of the Lord, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16). So, if he never heard the gospel and believed it repented of his sins and was baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) he did not “come to Christ”. If he did these things what were you hoping to teach him before he died that your Mother in law thought would offend him so much? You are deceiving yourself into believing that he could come to Christ without having obeyed the gospel of Christ. Either he was baptized into Christ (Gal. 3; 26,27) or he was not. He either obeyed the gospel of he did not. (2 Thess. 1:8,9). And you admit that you KNOW that they were not Christians for you said the following:

“My wife's grandparents are not Christian. It had been my intention to celebrate Christmas with them and once again share the gospel at a time when they might be open to hearing.”

Now, Brother if they were not Christians is there any way whatsoever that this man had “come to Christ” without being a Christian? It grieves me indeed to be the one that must inform you of the sad fact that you failed to teach this man the gospel of Christ for fear of offending him. And now that he is deceased you want to “hope” him into heaven apart from Christ and obedience to the gospel of Christ. Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obeys him. (Heb. 5;8,9). If he did not obey the gospel in this life there is NO HOPE for him. This is the reason that we should be fighting every false teacher and liar in this world who are deceiving men into believing that they can be saved without obeying the gospel. Now what you have said may make you “feel better”. But you do not need to “feel better”. You need to DO BETTER. Do not allow your friends and relatives to leave this world without hearing the precious gospel of Christ, which is God’s power to save (Rom. 1:16). If you do fail you should feel very bad and ask God to forgive you and work hard to not allow it to happen again. But do not make excuses for it. And do not imagine that the consequence of this failure is not so bad because you can deceive and console yourself with the false hope that this man might have actually come to Christ without obeying the gospel. Fo9r this is simply not possible and not the truth. And then you pretend that you just cannot know how tragic this event turned out to be until YOU GET TO HEAVEN. You already know how tragic this even actually is, don’t you? You admit that he was not a Christian and he did not obey the gospel. Then you tell us that you wanted to teach him but he died without becoming a Christian in obedience to the gospel of Christ and you pretend that he might have made it some other way when you know better! Let me make it clear to all, including you, if you do not obey Christ you will not get to heaven yourself. (Heb. 5:8,9). And failing to preach Christ to those who are lost is disobeying Christ. For he commanded us to do so (Mark 16:15,16; Matt. 28:19,20).

I have told you this sad truth because I care about the lost and you my brother. You may be offended but the truth is better than a lie even if it is a “bitter truth”. For if you continue to fear offense and avoid teaching the gospel to those whom you might offend many are going to die without hearing the truth that would make them free (John 8:32). If you heed my “bitter” and sad portrayal of the truth you will be better yourself and fewer of your friends and relatives will die without Christ and without hope. If you pay no attention to it then not only will many around you be lost, you may be lost as well.

Please, Brother, do not wait till "christmas" to preach the gospel of Christ to one whom you know has never obeyed the gospel of Christ. Life is short and we have no promise of tommorrow. "Redeem the time for the days are evil". Now is the time! Today is the day! "Boast not thyself of tommorrow for we know not what a day may bring." "Preach the word, be instant in season and out of season, reprove rebuke and exhort with all long suffering and doctrine". I do pray for you during this awful time of grieve and sorrow over the loss of a dear relative who never obeyed the gospel of Christ, especially when you may have been able to do something about it. I cannot think of anything more tragic.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2001

Dear E. Lee Saffold,

Pardon my intrusion, but I have just one question. When you say "Exactly my point, why should we let pagans establish a holiday of any kind to remember our Lord Jesus Christ" I am slightly confused as wasn't the Christmas holiday established by Christians?

I was always under the impression that Christian crusaders in centuries past "took over" pagan rituals and festivals in order to spread the word of Christ. The two main examples are Christmas and Easter. December 25th (and the days surrounding it) was a pagan festival to coincide with the northern hemisphere winter solstice. We know from references in the Bible that Jesus was not born in winter.

Similarly, the time we now celebrate Easter was originally a pagan festival celebrating fertility (the goddess, Esta, I believe, but I may have the spelling wrong).

To sum up, it was not pagans who established the Christmas holiday but Christian crusaders.

May the Lord be with all of us,

David

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2001

Brother Danny:

You have said:

“Again E. Lee...you do a great job of equivocation. “

Well, that is a fine assertion for which you have offered no proof. We have not equivocated anything and you have not pointed to a single thing that could be called an equivocation, have you? You merely say such is the case and without even knowing what specific point you are convinced is an equivocation we are expected to believe you. Sorry, Brother, but it will take much more than mere assertions without proof to convinces us of the truthfulness of that assertion.

Then you say:

“The vast majority of the people on this board meant exactly what Scott meant in his last post when they talk about the church celebrating Christmas. “

I am not sure that this is true either. For those who have commented thus far have not said the same thing that he said.

Then you say:

“We all very much know what Christmas is really all about.”

I have not read anything thus far that would indicate that everyone knows what “Christmas is really all about”.

Then you say:

“However....to suggest that if individuals tell their kids about Santa Claus, etc.....they are lying to their children is the most perverted rational I have ever heard in my life.”

Is Santa Claus real? No. If I say he is real when in fact he is a fictitious character then I am lying. It is that simple.

Then you say:

“John Wilson made it very clear historically that much about Santa Claus (i.e., St. Nick) is based on truth.”

Brother John did not prove much of what he said about Santa Claus. But even if he could prove it all it would not demonstrate that all that is said about Santa Claus is true. For if “St. Nick” were the real Santa Claus when you tell your Children that this “St. Nick” who is dead is going to ride in a flying sleigh pulled by flying reindeer and land on the roof. And that he is actually going to come down the Chimney and leave the presents under the tree that they requested of him in letters that they wrote and you lied about mailing to Santa Claus you are doing quite a bit of LYING, aren’t you? And nothing that Brother John said could change that fact, can it? And a lie is not the pure absence of truth. A lie is the PERVERSION of the truth. And therefore we would expect some truth to be connected with almost any lie. A lie is truth corrupted. And Santa Claus is a complete corruption of the truth about Christ for this fictitious character has nothing whatsoever to do with the “birth of Christ”. And when we teach children that such a fictitious character is related in any way to the birth of Christ we teach a deliberate lie to them. And the fact that you correct this lie in later years when your Children are too smart and informed for you to get by with it does not excuse the lying.

Then you say:

“I have three children. The two oldest ones have never said..."Dad....we really hate it that you lied to us about Santa Claus." “

Well, we are not concerned with how your children view telling a lie or even if they excuse it. We are commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ through the inspired apostle Paul, “Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;” (Col. 3:9). But now you admit that you lied to your children and they are not unhappy about a lie that so far as they could tell did not harm them and were lots of fun. But God said, " Lie not to one another". And he does not excuse lying in order to provide a lot of fun for your children.

Then you say:

“Some of us have the ability to seperate fact from fiction....and having fun....from the great truths of life.”

I do not doubt this in the least bit. And this makes you all the more responsible for telling that which you are more than capable of knowing is a lie, doesn’t it? If you were not capable of separating “fact from fiction” you might be excused for telling a lie on the basis that you thought it was true when you told it. But when you know you are lying and lie anyway then you are without excuse.

Then you say:

“Following your logic all the way through....we ought to remove fantasy and play completely out of the lives of children because "we are lying to them and they are living in a world of lies." “

Certainly, if we are going to take any fiction and deliberately try to convince Children that it is FACT then we had better stop it for that is indeed lying to them. And lying is a sin.

Now how you connect this to my logic I just cannot tell? For when we read a story that is written as fiction. And we tell it in such a way as the Children are able to know that it is not intended to state facts but rather is designed to stimulate imagination about how things could have been or might have happened or could not really happen at all. And you inform them that this is just an imaginary story or a fairy tale which causes them to have fun without anyone deceiving them concerning its truthfulness is not the same as how the tales of Santa Claus are told.

For many go out of their way to make the fiction appear to be fact. Such as pretending to mail letters to Santa Claus. Dressing up like Santa Claus in order to make it appear that he is a real live being that can do these magical things. This is all a deliberate attempt to make fiction appear as fact. And that is a lie. But when fiction is told as fiction and everyone is aware of the fact that it is pure fantasy then they are not guilty of deception. But when they, as is the case with Santa Claus try to make fiction appear as fact by various and sundry deceptive tactics it is a lie and wrong.

Then you ask:

“I guess we should stop reading Mother Goose, Peter Pan, and the likes to them as well....because it's all fantasy and a lie.”

Well, you are right brother. If we are going to take all of these “fantasies” and try to convince our children that they are facts instead of fantasy then we had better get rid of such things. For it is not a lie when it is pure fantasy told as such to stimulate the imagination. But it becomes a lie when we step beyond that to trying to Convince children that it is not fantasy but instead it is fact. If that is what you are trying to accomplish with “Mother Goose, Peter Pan, and the likes” then you are telling them deliberate lies and that is wrong.

Then you say:

“I've heard a number of parents say..."I don't tell my kids about Santa Claus because I want them to know I never lied to them."”

Sounds like good parents to me. What is wrong with making every effort to not lie to your children about anything? This is surely the right spirit of a genuine Christian, is it not?

Then you say:

Give me a break!!! If your kids can't tell the difference in the way you act a few days a year around a holiday and the way you live for Christ 365 days a year...I agree....you better not tell them about Santa Claus.”

In other words are you saying that it is alright to tell a lie to your Children during Christmas when you are claim to be celebrating the birth of Christ who is the “way the truth and the life”? And that it is acceptable to do it so long as they can tell that you do not lie the other 364 days out of the year? Now that makes no sense to me at all. Have I understood you correctly?

Then you say:

“E. Lee.....as I've stated before....you are entitled to your opinion....and I respect your right to not celebrate Christmas.”

Of course we are and we knew that we were entitled to “our opinion” before you said it. Though we are not talking here about a matter of opinion but a matter of lying. And Lying is against the teaching of the word of God. Now that is a matter of faith and not opinion, isn’t it? And of course we appreciate your respecting our right to not celebrate Christmas. And we would not celebrate it even if you did not respect our right not to do it.

Then you say:

“I have a preacher freind who goes on vacation every year around Christmas so he doesn't have to participate in the Christmas activities of the church which he does not subscribe to. But he refuses to make an issue over it.”

Well just because he wants to run away and hide is no good reason that others should follow him, is it?

Then you say:

“The Kingdom of God appears to be big enough to handle both perspectives. “

Do you mean by this if God’s Kingdom were smaller there would not be room for “two perspectives”? And if it ever becomes so small which perspective would you through out? Truth is not determined, Brother Danny, by the size of the Kingdom of God. It is determined by the teaching of God’s word and everyone in that Kingdom must follow Christ who is the King. And our King does not teach us to celebrate this popish and half-pagan holiday called Christmas. And many of the principles that are taught by the king of the Kingdom of God are violated by this half-pagan and half-catholic holiday. But the size of God’s kingdom has NOTHING to do with the matter in the least, does it?

Then you say:

“If you can't "do it in faith" as the Scripture says....more power to you.”

Well this is not what the scriptures say. It does not say “what's not of faith more power to you”. It says “what’s not of faith IS SIN”. Read the passage for yourself:

“And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23). So, you admit then that it would be sinful for me to celebrate Christmas since I cannot do so by faith? Good. And you would admit that it is possible that others might not be able to celebrate Christmas by faith. In fact, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17) and since celebrating Christmas does not come from the word of God it cannot be done by faith, can it? And whatsoever is not of faith is sin. WE have the inspired word of God telling us that we can eat meat but we do not have word from God telling us that we should celebrate Christmas. Therefore it is definitely not of faith now is it?

Then you say:

“I have not condemned your belief....I only condemn your judgmentalism over a "non-issue." “

I know that you have not condemned what I believe to be true. You are just upset that my statement of what I believe about it and why is naturally a condemnation it itself of those who do otherwise, aren’t you? And this is not a “non-issue” just because you say it is a non-issue. If I am in any worship service and someone comes dragging in a Christmas tree it will be an issue. And it should be for what right has anyone to demand that others every one in the church “eat that which they would be damned if they ate”? When such a thing is done it violates very much the principle taught in Romans 14:23. So, it seems to me that since this is your argument you would at the very least agree with the inspired apostle Paul that there should not be any Christmas tree as a part of the corporate worship of the saints. If we can agree even this far I am convinced that God would be very pleased to see it.

Then you say:

“Because....as lengthy as your posts are....and as much as you think so....you have not shared a single passage of Scripture that condemns the church for celebrating the Christmas holiday. “

I believe that we have shown several good reasons from the scriptures that Christians should not celebrate Christmas and you have even added some to the list yourself by your misquoting of Romans 14:23.

Then you say:

“As John Wilson said....Christmas stands as a wonderful example of the triumph of Christianity over paganism. “

Brother John said it but he did not prove it to be true. In fact, if Christmas is a triumph for anyone it is a triumph for the Roman Catholic Church and a triumphant compromise between Catholicism and Paganism to turn men away from the true way to remember Christ who is to do it as Christ commanded us to remember him. He said, “this do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19,20). That is what the Lord Supper and communion is all about. It is about remembering the Lord on the Lords day. This is the authorized way to remember Christ. Christmas is the Roman Catholic and the Pope’s way of remembering Christ. I prefer Christ way above all else. And refuse to substitute anything for His way not to add anything to His way. It is His command and we must follow it. And when we add to it or take from it we are not following his commands.

Now let me tell you that I did not bring this subject up. The brother who asked this question in this thread wanted us to answer his question. We gave him the answer that he sought. If you do not really want to know why we do not celebrate Christmas then do not ask us. But if we have been asked then we should be allowed to answer with out anyone thinking that it was our intentional purpose to be unjustly and deliberately judgmental of other Christians. WE have stated our reasons strongly because we believe them firmly. What else could you have expected from us when someone has asked us to explain? And the one who asked the question has already stated that we gave him the understanding that he sought about the matter though he said it in a way that made it clear that he did not agree. And we did not insist that he agree with us. And others upon reading our reasons were upset about them. We expected as much for the popularity of Christmas makes it very hard to speak against. But we have done so because it is right to do so.

Then you say:

"And to all...a good night!"

I do pray fervently that you will have many good nights my brother. And that your family will be wonderfully blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ in your service and work for him. Please give my Christian love to Jenny for she is know by us as one who stands strong for truth and right. And we know that you love the truth as well. But we do not agree with you about celebrating Christmas but it is our prayer that someday we will agree.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2001

Brother Albert:

You have asked:

“Dear E. Lee Saffold, Pardon my intrusion, but I have just one question.”

Asking a question of me Brother Albert is not an intrusion. It is welcome.

Then you say:

“When you say "Exactly my point, why should we let pagans establish a holiday of any kind to remember our Lord Jesus Christ" I am slightly confused as wasn't the Christmas holiday established by Christians?””

I do not think that pagans established it. I was responding to what Brother Jewell had said using his language. He had asked something to the effect of “why would we allow pagans to take over a holiday, which was originally designed to celebrate Christ birth and twist it”. And in my response I was asking why would we allow them to establish a holiday for us in the first place. I agree with you that pagans did not establish Christmas and I should have made my point in such a way as to not leave that impression.

But, let me also point out that I do not believe that “Christians” established it either. And it certainly was not established by anyone with the authority of Christ. The apostles of Christ did not establish it. And no inspired person speaking on behalf of Christ established it. And I do not believe that the “crusaders” were Christians. I believe that they more Catholic than Christian. And no I do not believe for one moment that Catholics are Christians. So, Catholics established it and they compromised with paganism by taking some of their symbols into the celebration of Christmas. But to answer your question Pagans nor Christians established Christmas but rather Catholics compromising with paganism did establish it.

Then you say:

“I was always under the impression that Christian crusaders in centuries past "took over" pagan rituals and festivals in order to spread the word of Christ.”

This may be true but these “Crusaders” were not Christians just because they considered themselves Christians.

Then you say:

“ The two main examples are Christmas and Easter. December 25th (and the days surrounding it) was a pagan festival to coincide with the northern hemisphere winter solstice. We know from references in the Bible that Jesus was not born in winter.”

I believe that you are right about this fact.

Then you say:

“Similarly, the time we now celebrate Easter was originally a pagan festival celebrating fertility (the goddess, Esta, I believe, but I may have the spelling wrong).”

And I agree with you about this as well. And believe firmly that Easter is another such Holiday that Christians should avoid as well.

Then you say:

“To sum up, it was not pagans who established the Christmas holiday but Christian crusaders.”

I agree with you and appreciate the correction that it was not pagans who established Christmas. And I have never thought that they did establish it. My way of responding by trying to parallel the language of the one to whom I was responding caused me to say what I did in a way that surely left a false impression and I thank you for the just correction. And please let me also state again, however, that Christians did not establish Christmas either. For I am not convinced that the Crusaders were in fact Christians.

And then you say:

“May the Lord be with all of us”

I agree with this statement and hope you will agree that we should all “be with the Lord”.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2001

Dear E. Lee Saffold,

I have found one comment in your reply to me to be very interesting. In it you state that you "believe firmly that Easter is another such Holiday that Christians should avoid as well."

The reason I find it interesting is that many churches (and many people's faith) are based on the fact that Jesus died for our sins, then rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. Many people celebrate this at Easter.

If you believe that Easter should be avoided when should we celebrate Christ's great sacrifice for us? Does this relate to your statement that the holy sacrament (the bread and the wine) should be our only memorial to Christ, as commanded by Him?

May we all be with the Lord,

David.

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2001

Dear All,

I apologize - I mistakenly entered an incorrect email address on my previous posts (I was confusing it with another). I hope no-one was trying to contact me via email, or else another David Albert will have received your messages!

The correct one is on this post.

Peace be with you,

David.

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2001

Just a quick note of thanks. I appreciate the kind words shared by E. Lee in this time of grief and guilt. As if I didn't already have enough of a burden. Sometimes words are better left unsaid.

-- Anonymous, December 28, 2001

Brother Albert:

You have asked me the following question:

“If you believe that Easter should be avoided when should we celebrate Christ's great sacrifice for us?”

WE Christians celebrate Christ’s great sacrifice for us every Lord’s day by observing the Lord’s Supper and communing with him as he commanded us to do. For he said clearly, “THIS DO IN REMEMBERANCE OF ME”. (Luke 22:19,20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). So, when do we do this? We do it every Lord’s Day, which is the first day of every week. And by whose authority does anyone do it once a year during a humanly devised Holiday called “EASTER”? Please do not ignore that question. Do tell us who authorized that the church of Christ should observe Easter, if you believe that Christians should observe it.

Then you asked:

Does this relate to your statement that the holy sacrament (the bread and the wine) should be our only memorial to Christ, as commanded by Him?”

I do not believe the scripture calls the Lord’s Supper a “Holy Sacrament”. That is the “language of Ashdod” to Christians who follow only the word of God. It is the Lord’s supper. It is the communion of the body and blood of the Lord but no where is the word “Sacrament” found in the word of God. I call Scriptural things by scriptural names. And the Scriptures do not call the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20) a “Holy Sacrament”. The Scriptures call it the “Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20) and the scriptures call it the “Communion of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 10:16). But “Sacrament” is a word foreign to the inspired word of God and is use among those who do not understand the “Communion” with Christ by those who follow his teachings.

I do indeed believe that Christians should avoid the humanly devised memorial to the resurrection called Easter on the grounds that I have already stated. Christ our Lord established the Lord’s supper as a memorial to him. (Luke 22:19,20) It is the Memorial that we KNOW he wants since he established it Himself and commanded it. He did not authorize Catholics to join with pagans to establish Easter and then expect Christians to go and celebrate it instead of the memorial that He commanded. And this is exactly what happens in all too many cases. People do not remember the resurrection of Christ but once a year and that during Easter and they do it along “bunny rabbits and Easter eggs” all of which have nothing whatsoever to do with the resurrection of Christ. Our Lord established his own memorial and when we want to memorialize Christ our Lord let us do it in the way that he commanded and with the memorial that HE established. For in doing this we know that he is well pleased. (1 Cor. 11:23-26).

Christ establishes the only memorial for Christians to observe in his memory. And those who would like to show where he authorized us to establish other memorials to him will please show us from the word of God just where Christ our Lord authorized any men to establish some other memorial than the one he commanded. If they cannot do this then they must admit that they have NO authority from Christ, who is the head of the church of Christ, to establish any other memorial than this one for Christians to observe.

And you have said yourself the following:

“Similarly, the time we now celebrate Easter was originally a pagan festival celebrating fertility (the goddess, Esta, I believe, but I may have the spelling wrong).”

Now do tell us where Christ authorized anyone who is a Christian to establish any memorials to Him other than the one he commanded. And then show us from the scriptures where Christ authorized any one who is not even a Christian to establish memorials to be observed by the church of Christ of which they have neither part nor lot.

And this is the reason that this Christian objects to such things. Because Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth he is the one who must authorize what Christians do in the worship and service of God (Matt. 28:18; Col. 3:17). And because He is the head of the church (Col. 1:18) He, and he alone, has the authority to establish spiritual memorials for the church of Christ. And the POPE of the Roman Catholic Church, who is not even a Christian, has no authority over the church of Christ to establish a substitute memorial for the one that Christ our Lord Commanded us to observe. And he has no authority to establish anything for the church of Christ to observe since he is not a member of Christ body, the church. (Eph. 1:22,23). Christ commanded us to remember him in a particular, specific way. He said plainly “THIS DO IN REMEMBERANCE OF ME”. (Luke 22:19,20) And I remember Christ in the way that he commanded. I do not need any old warmed over pagan festival converted into an unauthorized Catholic Festival to do what Christ commanded me to do. I remember the birth, life, death resurrection and ascension of Christ my Lord EVERY Lord’s Day by observing the Lord’s supper and communing with him in it. And there, in the presence of Christ who is among us I remember him by communing with him. And I do not substitute any warmed over or remodeled pagan festival for the Memorial that Christ commanded for us to observe in his memory.

Again, Our Lord said concerning the Lord’s supper, “THIS DO IN REMEMBERANCE OF ME”. (Luke 22:19,20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). And that is what I do as a memorial to him. And in doing so every Lord’s day I “proclaim His death till he come”. This I know to be right for Christ commanded it. And HE is the head of the Church (Col. 1:8) and therefore is the ONLY one authorized to establish a memorial of any kind in the Church of Christ. I am following the commandment of CHRIST, who is my LORD and who is the head of HIS BODY the church of Christ.

Now I am aware that men who are not Christians have respected Christ enough to include him in their own humanly devised memorials and that may be good enough for those who are not Christians. But for Christians who are determined to obey Christ commands (Heb. 5:8,9) these human festivals and memorials to Christ mixed with paganism and false doctrines of Catholicism are just not acceptable to those who are following Christ. And I do not doubt that one could use these festivals as a starting point of discussion to lead men to talk of Christ. But they are hardly necessary for that purpose. For I have never had any trouble leading my friends, relatives and neighbors to talk with me about Christ and not once have I ever needed to attend and participate in their humanly devised festivals in order to lead them to do so. SO, the excuse that these holidays will help us reach more for Christ is nothing more than a sophism.

The answer to your question again is that I do not remember Christ as the world recommends but rather as CHRIST commanded. (Luke 22: 19,20; 1Cor. 11:23-26). Since this is what Christ Commanded this is what I do because I am a Christian and Christ is the Lord and I obey him in all that he commands. (Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 6:46).

To remember Christ in any other way than as he specifically commanded would be to disobey him. And this would be a sin against God. I will not do it no matter how popular Easter might be.

Now you have said:

“The reason I find it interesting is that many churches (and many people's faith) are based on the fact that Jesus died for our sins, then rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. Many people celebrate this at Easter. “

I do not know about “many people”. But I know that the faith of all faithful Christians is based in Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12) and upon the fact that He “died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day” (1 Cor. 15:1-4). And we must hear everything that he says to us, “For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, [that] every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. “ (Acts 3:22,23).

And no faithful Christian will fail to REMEMBER the resurrection of Christ every Lord’s day when he partakes of the Lord’s Supper wherein he communes with the Lord and remembers the Lord in the way in which He commanded them to remember him. He does not need a substitute memorial. The Christian is satisfied with the one the LORD JESUS CHRIST established. And they are going to always remember these things as Christ commanded them to do it. (Luke 22:19,20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). TO remember him in some other way is to disobey him. WE are told not to add to the word of God (Rev. 22:19,20). And I might ask you, just how do you think that the apostles and the early Christians remember Christ’s death, burial and resurrection without celebrating “Easter”? If they could do it so can we. And if we follow their inspired example as well as our Lord’s specific commands we will remember Christ in our Communion with him in the observance of the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s day as he commanded us to IN MEMEORY of him. This is how the word of God teaches us to remember him. The world cannot remember him for they do not KNOW him and have not yielded to his LORDSHIP over us. The world is not Christian and we should not allow those who are not Christians to lead us to disobey his commands. I will not. For “what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14). For the principle of having no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness applies very much in this case. “Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [them].” (Eph. 5:10,11). And we are to be wise understanding what the will of the Lord is. “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord [is]. “ (Eph. 5:17). And there is only one way to know the “will of the Lord” in a matter. You must go to the WORD OF THE LORD. And the word of the Lord Commands Christians to remember Christ in the taking of the communion or the Lord’s Supper not at some Catholic “holy Day” called Easter.

So, I am not convinced that your implication that because one’s faith is based upon the resurrection of Christ that he must therefore observe EASTER is justified. For Christ did not establish EASTER as a means of remembering him. It is a holiday established by the Catholics who are not Christians. Christians are more than able to remember the death, burial and resurrection of Christ by observing the memorial established by Christ HIMSELF without even giving the least bit of consideration to Easter.

The one who pretends to be the “Vicar of Christ on earth” and who seeks to usurp the very place of Christ in the hearts of His saints is the big promoter of this thing called “Easter”. But Christ never commanded or authorized it and for that reason early Christians never observe4d it and faith Christians today will follow their example. You see Christianity is taught in the New Testament. And the things we do in worship and service of Christ are found there and the things not found there are things that we do not do. There is not word concerning it in relation to the resurrection of Christ in the word of God. And those who observe Easter instead of observing the command of Christ to remember him when taking of the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine on the Lord's Day do so because they are not Christians. And if they are Christians and do so they are unfaithful to Christ and disobedient to His commands. It is that simple.

Easter may be the way those who are not Christians have chosen to remember Christ and his glorious resurrection but it is not the way faithful Christians remember him.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 28, 2001

Brother Jewell has said:

“Just a quick note of thanks. I appreciate the kind words shared by E. Lee in this time of grief and guilt. “

You are welcome.

And then he says:

“As if I didn't already have enough of a burden. Sometimes words are better left unsaid. “

And this is where the problem lies, isn’t it? How many souls will be lost this very night because someone thought that “sometimes words are better left UNSAID”! May God save us from those who think that they know when to leave the TRUTH unsaid. And may God spare us from those who believe that they know when it is best to leave the gospel of Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation, “left unsaid”!

Now, I do not believe in causing anyone unnecessary grief at any time. But when someone uses his or her grief as an opportunity to teach, that which is false. I will not allow them to hide behind their grief. If a time of grief is a time to leave things “unsaid” then it ought to be a time to leave false doctrine “unsaid” as well. And when Brother Jewell implied that this person who had never obeyed the gospel might some how have “come to the Lord” without obeying the gospel of Christ he, during his time of grief, took the time to speak false doctrine. And if he is not so grief stricken as to leave his false doctrine ”unsaid” then we do not believe that he is so grief stricken that we must be required to leave the truth “unsaid” either!

But, we have told him the truth during an awful time. But it was not wrong to do it and we have no apologies to make concerning having done so. And he has thanked us and we accept his thanks and express to him that he is welcome and can depend upon us to tell him the truth every time that he speaks that which is not true. And it does not matter if he speaks his untruths while grieving or not. If a time of grief and guilt is a time to leave things unsaid then it is surely a time to leave any and all false doctrines unsaid, isn’t it? And if the false doctrines continue to be spoken during a time of grief and guilt then it only stands to reason that the truth must not be left “unsaid” during the same time, now doesn’t it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 28, 2001

Mr. Saffold;

In the authorization thread, it was pointed out that the Non's use of worship facility, ie a "church building" was allowed because of the example of Jesus going to synagogue. Both are not specifically authorized by God but because Jesus used a synagogue, we can use a church building.

Using that logic, I present that the remembrance of Passover every year by the Jews was done by Jesus. The passover was not to be remembered just that time of year. But rather it was celebrated that God passed over Egypt and it began the Exodus.

In the same vein, because Jesus celebrated the passover, we too have a right to celebrate the resurrection. We call it Resurrection Sunday, but unfortunately the easter tag remains in some places. I too am against the rabbit and egg fertility rites issue. But to have a Sunday to celebrate specifically that our God freed us from the bondage of sin through the resurrection is affirmed if we use the same logical argument that the non's use to affirm a church building.

-- Anonymous, December 28, 2001

"Brother" Lee, are you clueless or just being intentionally thick? When Brother Jewell said, "Just a quick note of thanks. I appreciate the kind words shared by E. Lee in this time of grief and guilt", I think it was rather obvious that he was being sarcastic. Which is why he later said, "Sometimes words are better left unsaid." Brother Jewell was already torn up with grief and guilt over his loss as well as his missed opportunity. But rather than mourning with those who mourn, as Christ taught us, as usual you quickly leapt to the attack. You seized the opportunity to pour salt into his open wound of grief. How heartless and thoughtless! Moreover, how graceless! It is a sad but true fact that Christians are the only army that shoots at their own wounded, as you have amply proven with your posts. I think you owe Brother Jewell an apology, for despite the fact that your words were true, they were at best tactless and ill-timed, and at worst malicious and intentionally offensive.

-- Anonymous, December 29, 2001

Dear E. Lee Saffold,

Thank-you for your explanation. Your views have provided me with much insight on what a true Christian should do to remember Christ.

In your reply, you state "So, I am not convinced that your implication that because one’s faith is based upon the resurrection of Christ that he must therefore observe EASTER is justified." Please do not misunderstand me. I was not trying to imply any such thing. I was merely stating the fact that, rightly or wrongly, many people choose to celebrate Christ's resurrection at Easter.

May the Lord bless you and keep you,

David M. Albert

-- Anonymous, December 29, 2001

Brother Umstetter:

You have said:

“Mr. Saffold; In the authorization thread, it was pointed out that the Non's use of worship facility, ie a "church building" was allowed because of the example of Jesus going to synagogue. Both are not specifically authorized by God but because Jesus used a synagogue, we can use a church building.”

I do not know who “pointed this out” but it was not me. Indeed I am happy however to notice that you now admit that “Church buildings” are in fact authorized in the scriptures. Though the truth is that they are authorized in the command for us to assemble together for worship.

Then you say:

“Using that logic, I present that the remembrance of Passover every year by the Jews was done by Jesus. The passover was not to be remembered just that time of year. But rather it was celebrated that God passed over Egypt and it began the Exodus. “

I remind you again that you are not using “my logic” in making this argument for I have not made any such argument. But you willingly over look the simple fact that the Passover was authorized in the Old Testament to be observed as GOD COMMANDED. You cannot show that God commanded or in any way whatsoever “Authorized” the celebration of EASTER because he has not do so in any place in the New Testament. The example of Jesus observing a memorial authorized and commanded by God for the Jews to observe is nothing more than an perfect example of how we should observe the Memorial authorized by Christ our Lord concerning how we are to remember Him. And the only such authorized memorial to Christ in the word of God is the observance of the Lord’s Supper. And it is to be observed weekly (Acts 20:7) not once a year in some memorial promoted by the pope of Rome.

If you want to find a case where Jesus did as you would have us do you would have to find one where Christ attended and condoned a memorial established solely by men without any authorization from God to do so. And that, Brother Umstetter, is something you simply do not find Jesus Christ doing. For he said, “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” And again he said, “And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. “ (John 8:29). And again, “Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.” (John 4:34). And again he says, “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” (John 6:38). And then Jesus said that he would send (the apostles) in his name and explained that we are to do his will as delivered by them in the same way that he did the father’s will. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” (John 13:20). SO, just as Christ obeyed God by observing that which God had commanded concerning the passaover.

We are to obey Christ’s commanded to remember him in the manner in which he commanded. (Luke 22:19,20). And that means that we remember Christ death, burial, resurrection etc. when we partake of the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s Day. For this is the authorized way to do it. Anything other than this is “pleasing yourself” and disobeying the very direct command of God through Christ. Jesus said on the same night in which he was betrayed, “THIS DO IN REMEMBERANCE OF ME”. (Luke 22:19,20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). That is the command. And if you do anything else in His memory you betray Christ by disobeying that command.

Then you say:

“In the same vein, because Jesus celebrated the Passover, we too have a right to celebrate the resurrection. “

No one has said, least of all E. Lee Saffold, that we do not have a “right to celebrate the resurrection of Christ. Now this is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. WE not only have that right we are commanded to do it. And not only that we are commanded to remember Christ in a specific way. WE are commanded to “THIS DO IN REMEMBERRANCE OF ME”. DO what in memory of him? Take of the unleavened bread and drink of the cup” as Christ commanded. He said to do this in memory of him. SO, when we remember Christ this is how we are commanded to do it. When we remember the resurrection of Christ this is how we are commanded to do it. When we want to observe a memorial dedicated to Christ this is the memorial we are commanded to observe. You cannot show a single passage of scripture that gives any Christian a “RIGHT” to celebrate Easter. But we not only have a “right” but we have an obligation to obey Christ Commanded to remember him in the taking of the Lord’s supper. And this is how we are commanded to remember him. So, it is a sneaky trick on your part to attempt to make it appear that we are opposed to remembering the resurrection of Christ. For you know full well that we are not opposed to it. WE are simply telling the truth that this is what Christians are commanded to do in the taking of the Lord’s supper. And no humanly devised celebration can take the place of it not can it substitute for it nor can it even exist on a par with it. WE either do as Christ commanded or admit that he is not the Lord and we are in a spiritual democracy wherein we are at liberty to do anything we please whether Christ likes it or not. AS for faithful Christians they accept the fact that Christ is Lord and they do not presume to do as they please and hope that he will not be angry. They simply obey him in all things.

Then you say:

“We call it Resurrection Sunday, but unfortunately the Easter tag remains in some places. “

But God does not call it resurrection Sunday, now does he? WE remember the resurrection of Christ as he commanded on every Lord’s day for this is what Christ Commanded. And he did not command us to celebrate Easter on any Sunday. This is what “You want to do”. It is not what God commanded or in any way whatsoever authorized you to do. And you do not have any such authority in the church of Christ. Christ is the King over this Kingdom and you have no right to lead HIS Kingdom in any direction away from what the King has Commanded.

Then you say:

“I too am against the rabbit and egg fertility rites issue. “

Good, then you do not observe Easter either, do you?

Then you say:

“But to have a Sunday to celebrate specifically that our God freed us from the bondage of sin through the resurrection is affirmed if we use the same logical argument that the non's use to affirm a church building. “

God expects us to do this EVERY Lord’s Day. This is the very purpose of taking the Lord’s supper. There is not a Lord’s day that goes by when taking of the Lord’s Supper and Communing with Him that I do not reflect with much grace in my heart upon the fact that God freed us me from the bondage of sin through the precious sacrifice of Christ. And I contemplate that he has given me the hope of eternal live in the resurrection of Christ our Lord from the grave. Death has lost its sting and the grave has been swallowed up in victory! And I cannot image any faithful Christian failing to do such every Lord’s day. And cannot imagine why, and by whose authority he would designate or single out only one Lord’s Day out of an entire year to focus specifically on that which his mind should be focusing every single Lord’s day! It is shameful that any Christian would even contemplate such a thing!

And we do not understand why you continue to persist in this sectarian habit of calling your fellow Christians who do not celebrate these humanly devised holidays “NONS”. We are not “NONS”. We are Christians and bothers in Christ to all other Christians even those whom we are convinced are failing to do as Christ commanded in these matters. I do not have any unscriptural designations for you though I disagree with you vehemently. I still believe you are a Christian and a brother in Christ. But we could not expect one who is not willing to obey God in all things to care very much about being sectarian, now can we?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 29, 2001

Brother Albert:

You have said:

“Dear E. Lee Saffold, Thank-you for your explanation. Your views have provided me with much insight on what a true Christian should do to remember Christ. “

I sincerely thank you for your questions and welcome them at any time. For you ask very good questions and thought provoking ones as well. And I appreciate your kind words.

Then you accurately and justly correct me as follows:

“In your reply, you state "So, I am not convinced that your implication that because one’s faith is based upon the resurrection of Christ that he must therefore observe EASTER is justified." Please do not misunderstand me. I was not trying to imply any such thing. I was merely stating the fact that, rightly or wrongly, many people choose to celebrate Christ's resurrection at Easter. “

I apologize to you for it did appear to me that you might have been implying such. I see from your words that such was not the case. Please forgive the misunderstanding. And you are correct of course that it is a fact that some people do take this particular day and this day only in an entire year to celebrate Christ's resurrection. Indeed that is a fact, which I acknowledge. But, faithful Christians worship Christ every Lord’s day and remember him as he commanded in the great memorial establish by our Lord on the very night in which he was betrayed. Please accept my admonition that we do not betray him by substituting some other memorial than the one that he established for this purpose.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 29, 2001

Brother John:

You have said:

“"Brother" Lee, are you clueless or just being intentionally thick?”

I see no reason that any intelligent person would think that I am either of these.

Then you seek to give some justification for these comments as follows:

“ When Brother Jewell said, "Just a quick note of thanks. I appreciate the kind words shared by E. Lee in this time of grief and guilt", I think it was rather obvious that he was being sarcastic.”

Indeed, it was wasn’t it? And it is therefore equally obvious to any intelligent person that my reciprocal “you are welcome” was equally sarcastic, now wasn’t it? At least you saw it is being very much out of place if it wasn’t sarcastic, now didn’t you?

Then you say:

“ Which is why he later said, "Sometimes words are better left unsaid." “

Which is exactly how we knew that his “thank you” was insincere” and rather sarcastic. And it is exactly the same reason that you can know that our response was with equal sarcasm, now isn’t it?

Then you say:

“Brother Jewell was already torn up with grief and guilt over his loss as well as his missed opportunity. “

Indeed he was and this might explain why he felt the need to leave the false impression that this person who had not obeyed the gospel might be saved without obeying the gospel. And in his grief he taught that such might be a possibility in a public forum where our readers could get the idea that this might be true. But it is not true and in was right and very much appropriate to correct that error. Now, if one is so grieved that they feel compelled by grief to teach that which is false then they are perfectly capable during a time of grief to have their errors be corrected. I will not allow anyone to hide his or her false doctrines behind grief and guilt. Guilt can be a good thing if it is coming from Godly sorrow which leads to repentance and reformation of life. And grief can be a good thing if it does not last too long because it makes us recognize the value and importance of things we often take for granted. And the TRUTH is one of those things.

Then you say:

“But rather than mourning with those who mourn, as Christ taught us, as usual you quickly leapt to the attack.”

What evidence do you have that I do not mourn His loss? I mourn it and do not want to hear of any more such losses. And I attacked his false doctrine, which indeed you are correct I am very QUICK to do. But, you on the other hand are entirely too slow to do such a thing. And one man has left this world without Christ because no one was quick to attack the false doctrines, which may have prevented him from coming to Christ. Indeed we had better learn to be quick for life is too short to allow men to die without having even heard of the precious hope that is in Christ through obedience to the gospel of Christ which is the “power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16).

Then you say:

“You seized the opportunity to pour salt into his open wound of grief. “

Now you could not prove this nonsense if your life depended upon it. He used this grief as an opportunity to teach false doctrine and we responded top correct those errors. We were not at all pouring “salt” into his wounds but a very strong “medicine” like "iodine” to protect him from infection. And because you do not know the difference between “Salt” and the “ medicine” truth you thought we were intentionally hurting him. When in truth we were helping him in ways neither of you understands.

Then you say:

“How heartless and thoughtless!”

You would say the same thing if you were in a hospital operating room. You might think on some occasions that the pain caused by the doctor was heartless and thoughtless. But it resulted in a cure, which would not have occurred if he had followed his “heart” and had “thought” of the pain instead of the ultimate end result. Now, nothing could be more heartless than to teach others a false doctrine. And when you come into this forum in a state of grief and use your grief as an opportunity to teach that it is possible that a person can be saved by Christ without obedience to the gospel of Christ (2 Thess. 1:8,9) then you are indeed very heartless. And if you can allow a person to fail to know the gospel of Christ and die without even having a chance to hear it because you do not want to “offend him” then you are heartless indeed. In fact none could be more heartless than to allow a person to die and go into eternity without ever having heard of the salvation that is in Christ Jesus because you are too tender hearted to TELL him the truth because it might offend him. A soul has gone out into eternity without hope and with out Christ lost forever because people were too heartless to tell him the truth because they were afraid they might offend him. Now, that will be on this brother's conscience all of his life. And we hope he seeks repentance and forgiveness for being so heartless. And you need to learn the same lesson before you have the blood of some precious soul on your hands as well!

Then you say:

“ Moreover, how graceless!”

This poor lost soul went into eternity without God’s grace because every Christian around him was being so “graceful"! You should be ashamed to pretend that this was a good thing and that none should state the truth about it. This is not a game. Souls are at stake in this life and you are worried about offending others.

Then you say:

“ It is a sad but true fact that Christians are the only army that shoots at their own wounded, as you have amply proven with your posts.”

You do not know the difference between “shooting” our wounded and providing the right medicine at the right time for them even if the medicine causes some pain. And you do not point to any of our post where you can prove that we have ever “shot a Christian soldier who was wounded”. You will find places where we have shot “traitors’ who were in reality fighting for the enemy. But we have never shot a wounded soldier of Christ. And you cannot prove that we have, can you. We have applied the good medicine of truth to Brother Jewell and have not in the least shot him dead. He will survive and if he will repent and teach the truth he will be better for it. But if he continues to believe that men can be saved without obeying the gospel or leaving that impression he will surely die of his disease. But what do you care? You only want us to stand over him and cry and show how much we care while we idly do nothing but watch him die of a disease for which we have the cure ready at hand. Now to us nothing could equal such cruelty.

Then you say:

“I think you owe Brother Jewell an apology, for despite the fact that your words were true, they were at best tactless and ill-timed, and at worst malicious and intentionally offensive. “

WE do not care much about what you “think” about these things Brother John. You admit that our words were true. That means they are good medicine and the best time to apply it is when the disease is just starting not after it has become out of control. SO, our administering this good medicine at the appropriate time was just as timely as the arrival of the infectious virus called false doctrine. The doctrine that on can be saved without obeying the gospel of Christ is a false doctrine and what Brother Jewell said about this matter was what was actually “false, ill-timed, and at worse malicious and intentionally deceptive!” So, his timing of the teaching of this false doctrine was indeed unfortunate. But our timing in applying the cure was exactly appropriate and prompted by his timing in teaching that which is false. If you are grieving do not go out and teach false doctrine. Such will not help your grief but will cause others to be lost as well.

So, our timing was good, our words were true and our intentions were those of a faithful Christian who cares about the souls of men more than their “feelings’. It was the right thing to do and we owe no man any apology concerning it and therefore you will not receive one from us. We are not in the habit of apologizing for doing the right thing. But Brother Jewell should apologize for teaching the false doctrine that one can be saved without obeying the gospel of Christ. But you did not care about that offense now did you? You do not care how many false things he might teach. You only care that he not be offended. You should be ashamed but I cannot tell if you are capable of such.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 29, 2001

Mr. Saffold;

You asked me why I made the distinction of nons. Non is short for non-instrumental. If memory served the logic that was presented by a non-instrumental person was Kevin Walker. And, you never disagreed with his logic. Not once. And it is known that when you disagree you write 10 pages usually. So from your fail to rebut Mr. Walker it was infered that you would agree with him. You also admit your acceptance and use of a "Church" building, again I point out that The NT never authorizes it.

Now back to the issue at hand, in an article previously posted on this thread attributed to Dave Redick, he pointed out that Jesus attended the festival of lights. A man made celebration. So, it is seen, 1 - the Jews remembered a day of God's great victory in Passover (albeit it WAS commanded of God); and 2 - Jesus celebrated a religious feast that WAS NOT commanded of God. Therefore, Christmas or Easter, for celebrating the mighty acts of God, is neither wrong or sinful.

And as per, Mr. Wilson's post, yes you might have said many right things, but you were indeed graceless and your timing was oh so wrong. Think about this MR. Saffold, could you not have waited a few weeks, then written to Mr. Jewel? Could you have given him some time to seek the Lord in this matter, then find out how he was doing, then share with him your thoughts?

And as per usual, Mr. Saffold you have very often used the term "I don't care what you think". Not caring what someone thinks is a lack of respect. If you want more people to respect what you write, show that you do indeed respect other's thoughts. Because your word is not sacred writ, you may know the whole of the word, but as has been pointed out, your exposition can truly lack. Just asking you for some humility and apologies to the people you cut down, but I have been waiting for weeks for you to apologize to me and the evidence is that it is really not an easy thing for you to do if you can do it all.

-- Anonymous, December 29, 2001

Along the same idea as this thread ... I posted the following in my e- mail newsletter I send out to supporters and others interested in the campus ministry work here at IUP: - - - - - - - - - - What is the origin of celebrating New Year's Eve? Celebrating the new year is probably the oldest holiday in the world. Virtually every culture from the beginning of time has had some custom to signify the coming of the new year. Over 4000 years ago the ancient Babylonians celebrated the coming of the new year around the end of March. This is a logical time for the celebration because it is the time of year when spring begins and new crops are planted. Like us, the Babylonians made New Year's resolutions. However, rather than resolving to lose weight, their most popular resolution was to return farm equipment they had borrowed. During the Roman Empire, the calendar eventually went out of synchronization with the moon. To put things back in order, Caesar let one year last for 445 days. In 153 BC the Roman senate declared that January first would be the beginning of the new year. Although this arbitrary date has neither astronomical nor agricultural significance, today we still consider it to be the start of a new year. The Romans continued to celebrate the new year but the early church condemned the holiday as pagan and continued to oppose the festivities throughout the Middle Ages. As a result, the New Year's Day holiday has only been celebrated by Western nations for the past 400 years. Source: Do Fish Drink Water? Puzzling and Improbable Questions and Answers by Bill McLain

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2001

Brother Umstetter:

You have said:

“Mr. Saffold; You asked me why I made the distinction of nons. “

Yes, I did ask you why you were being so sectarian in your language.

Then you said:

“Non is short for non-instrumental.”

Are we to gather from this then that you are trying to distinguish those of us who simply do as Christ commanded us to do by singing in our worship for other Christians and sever us from the body of Christ by your own authority? For in doing this you make a distinction between us who obey God and others who add to his word by doing their own will in using instrumental music in the worship that he never commanded them to do. And in making this distinction are you not being sectarian?

Then you say:

“If memory served the logic that was presented by a non-instrumental person was Kevin Walker. “

Now, I do not know exactly what you mean by this statement in relation to what appears to be an effort to justify your sectarian spirit in designating us as “nons” instead of Christians. For I am certain that your memory is quite defective if you are saying that Brother Kevin accepted and used the term “nons” in reference to himself and the rest of us who do not use instruments of music in the worship of God. For he most certainly never did any such thing. He did present some arguments, and very good ones, against the practice of instrumental music in the worship and you did a very poor job of answering him. And I did not say anything because as I had already pointed out to everyone I would not discuss that issue except in a formal debate. And that is still the case.

Then you say:

“And, you never disagreed with his logic. Not once. “

He made no arguments in support of this nonsense of referring to those who do not use instruments in their worship as “Non’s”. And we were under no obligation whatsoever to agree or disagree with his arguments. When you read the debate on this subject you will be able to determine if Brother Kevin and I disagree or agree with one another on the issue that he actually discussed which was the issue of instrumental music in the worship of God. Until then you simply will have no idea whether I would argue in exactly the same way as he did or not, now do you? For you cannot make any assertions stand concerning that matter unless you really believe that you can make a good argument from my silence. I would like to see you make that one. That would be interesting indeed.

Then you say:

“And it is known that when you disagree you write 10 pages usually.”

It is also know that when I agree I write 10 pages. So, not much can be inferred from that circumstance.

Then you say:

“So from your fail to rebut Mr. Walker it was infered that you would agree with him.”

I have not “failed” to rebut Brother Walker. I simply have not attempted to do so for I have no reason to rebut or agree with his arguments. He dealt very well with your nonsense and it is YOU that has a need to rebut him and thus far you have failed miserably to do so. And, even if I wanted to rebut him I am not sure that I could do so. But you are the one who pretends to be confident that you can rebut Brother Walker. But you have not even atempted it. In fact, you have ignored most of what he has said.

You will not be able to get me to discuss the issue of instrumental music outside of the formal debate by trying to get me to defend Brother Walker’s arguments. He did a fine job of that without any help from me. And it is you who have failed miserably in your feeble attempts to “rebut” Brother Walker’s arguments. You had your opportunity to debate me on the subject and withdrew from the opportunity. Now, Brother Jewell and I will debate the subject and you can listen in to that debate if you are very interested in it. And during the debate there will be a thread provided for you to make any comments that you like and neither participant in that debate will be allowed to respond to anything in that thread. Then after the debate there will be two threads one each for questions to separately be directed to the individual participants of that debate. If you have any questions of me concerning those matters then that will be your opportunity to ask them. And one question you might want to ask me then is if I agree with all that brother Walker had to say and I will be happy to provide you with my answer at that time.

Then you say:

“You also admit your acceptance and use of a "Church" building, again I point out that The NT never authorizes it.”

Again I tell you that the New Testament does authorize it very clearly and if this matter comes up in the debate you will see me present the evidence which shows it to be authorized. But you will just have to be patient like everyone else to see just how I will prove that a place of worship such as a building to worship in is authorized. But you have asserted that the New Testament DOES NOT authorize buildings to worship in. SO, we ask you to prove your assertion! Ha! You are the one who has placed himself in the position of affirming a negative Brother Umstetter and we would like to see you PROVE it. PROVE to us, Brother, that buildings to worship God in are not authorized of God and then tell us why you do not respect God’s authority in the matter! That should be interesting to read! Ha!

Then you say:

“Now back to the issue at hand,”

Well, it is about time that you got “back to the issue at hand”.

Then you say:

“ in an article previously posted on this thread attributed to Dave Redick, he pointed out that Jesus attended the festival of lights. “

In order for your argument based upon this to have any validity you must show that Christ actually attended this event with the purpose of celebrating the “Feast of Dedication”. (John 10:22,23 called by many in that day the festival of lights). You must also show that Christ “observed the festival of lights”. For unless you can prove this conclusively you cannot assert truthfully that Christ ever observed or celebrated any feast that was not authorized of God.

Now, just because one is in the proximity of an event does not mean he is attending that event for the purpose of observing or with the intention of celebrating it now does it. And one way to prove that he was there with such a purpose would be to show that he actually celebrated the event by participating in activities related to it. And this, Brother Umstetter, is the thing which you merely assume and assert but which you could not prove to save your life.

But, because you bring it up with the purpose of insulting our Lord by using it to show that he actually disobeyed God by doing something that God did not authorize him to do. We shall in, after examining the rest of your words concerning this matter, examine the passage of scripture wherein Jesus is found in Solomon’s porch in the winter in Jerusalem during the time when the Jews were celebrating the “feast of dedication”. And we shall see if he did in fact attend such with the purpose of observing or celebrating it as you falsely assert.

Then you say:

“A man made celebration.”

Indeed this festival was a “man made festival” as you say. It was the “Feast of Dedication” in New Testament times. The Jews designated it “Chanukkah”, “dedication” or “Consecration”. Josephus calls it “the lights” from one of the principle observances at the feast, which was based upon a tradition, which had it, that when Judas Maccabeaus restored the Temple, the oil was found to have been desecrated. Only one flagon of oil was found that was pure, sealed with the very signet of the high priest. The supply proved to be sufficient to keep the “sacred Candlestick” burning for only one day. But, according to the tradition, by a miracle, it actually kept the Sacred Candlestick burning for the entire eight days of the original feast of the dedication. And in memory of this tradition the “lights” were lit not only in the Temple but also in EVERY home. So that no person could be in the city of Jerusalem during that time without being in the proximity of this event, he did not have to be specifically in the temple to see it taking place. And there was a candle each day for each family member. Thus, if there were ten family members on the last day of this feast there would be eighty candles lit.

This feast commenced on the 25th day of Chislev and lasted eight days. Which means that it would have begun on Wednesday the 1st and ended on Wednesday the 8th of December. It was not of Biblical origin and therefore was not authorized of God. Judas Maccabaeus in 164 B. C. had instituted it, when the Temple, which had been desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes, was once more purified and rededicated to the service of God. (1 Macc. 6:52-59). It was also called the “Dedication of the Alter” (1 Macc. 6:52-59). Jesus took the occasion to teach the people that came together. There is no proof whatsoever that he observed it.

Then you say:

“So, it is seen, 1 - the Jews remembered a day of God's great victory in Passover (albeit it WAS commanded of God and 2 - Jesus celebrated a religious feast that WAS NOT commanded of God.”

Now, point number one is correct and the PASSOVER was commanded of God. Which means that it has no bearing whatsoever upon the point in contention. For the point over which we are contending here is whether a Christian can ignore Christ’s Command to remember him in the taking of the Lord’s Supper by substituting and adding to his command by celebrating and remembering Christ by some other unauthorized feast. Or by observing some memorial designated and based solely upon human authority with no divine authority whatsoever.

But point number two is far from correct. In this point you assert that Jesus “celebrated a religious feast that WAS NOT authorized of God”. Now, brother Umstetter, you could not prove that Jesus Christ ever “celebrated” any feast whatsoever that was not authorized of God if your life depended upon it! In fact, we do notice that you make no effort whatsoever to PROVE that Jesus Christ actually “celebrated” this feast. In fact, you do not even demonstrate from the word of God that it was his intention in going to the temple to “observe” this feast. And, as we shall show later the context gives us very good reason to believe that he did not and could not have celebrated this feast inasmuch as he was surrounded by the Jews who we seeking to find ways to accuse him. And that they also attempted to stone him. These things would have prevented his “celebration" of this feast if such were even his purpose for being in the temple at that time. But we shall see what he actually did while there in the temple, as was his habit, an in that we shall see what his purpose in being there actually was and it definitely was not to “celebrate the “east of dedication” as you falsely claim.

Then you draw your conclusion as follows:

“Therefore, Christmas or Easter, for celebrating the mighty acts of God, is neither wrong or sinful. “

Well, before your “therefore” can have any meaning at all you must prove that your premises are true. And this you have failed miserably to do so your conclusion is pathetically false. It is indeed wrong and sinful, for the reasons we have already shown, which you have completely ignored, to celebrate either Easter or Christmas as a memorial to Christ. Now, why do you not make some attempt to answer our arguments that we have made? For we have answered yours every time you make them.

Now, we will give an exposition of the passages showing the connection between Jesus Christ our Lord and the “feast of dedication” which was in fact an humanly designed festival which had not divine authority behind it whosoever. And remember that it was Jesus Christ who said, “Why transgress ye the commandment of God by your traditions?”

Here is all that the scriptures say about this Feast of Dedication and the connection of Jesus with it. “And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. “ (John 10:22,23).

And the following verses tell us what happened in the at Solomon’s Porch on that winter day:

“Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.”

Just as soon as Christ arrived the Jews “surrounded him” and they did not surround him with the intention of welcoming him to join with them in the “celebration” of this “feast of lights” now did they? No, the “feast of lights was the far from there minds.

For we are told:

“Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. I and [my] Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.” (John 10:25-31).

Now there is no indication here that Christ was participating in any “celbration of Lights” but rather that he was teaching these Jews who were trying to find an occasion to accuse him. And what we see him doing, instead of “celebrating the Feast of Lights” as Brother Umstetter has falsely asserted that he did on this occasion we see him doing what it was clearly his purpose to do which was teaching the truth. He was not celebrating or observing anything in the way of an unauthorized religious festival. And we see that his teaching angered the Zjews and they actually “took up stones to stone him”. Now this taking up stones to stone someone was NOT a part of “celebrating” the Feast of Lights”. So, thus far Christ has not done any “celebrating”. In fact, he has done the very thing that Brother Umstetter does not like to see any religious teacher do. He has offended his hearers with the truth! And they want to stone him to death rather than include him in a “celebrastion” opf the fgeast of lights!

Then we are told, in the face of this possible stoning Jesus continued to TEACH but he did not do so by saying, “Come on guys let us forget our differences and “celebrate” this wonderful “Feast of Lights” which is all that I came here to do! No. he came there to teach so he continued to do just that as follows:

“Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father [is] in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,” (John 10:32-39).

Now again Christ continues to TEACH them which is clearly what he came there to do and they sought again to “take him” meaning that they wanted to arrest him. No, there is no “celebration” going on here, is there? What we have here is Christ, instead of “celebrating the “Feast of Lights” as Brother Umstetter falsely asserts. We have Christ teaching one more time as he had done during the feast of the Tabernacles teaching that he was the Son of God and proving it to them and the Jews seeking to STONE him and ARREST HIM but nothing about “celebrating the “Feast of Lights” with Him. No opportunity is available nor was one sought by Christ to “celebrate” this “Feast of Lights”. And Brother Umstetter just did not want you to read that far to realize that Christ never “Celebrated” this Feast and he did not intend to do so. For he was the Son of God and would have KNOW before going to the Temple on that day exactly what would occur there. Since he knew that he would have this opportunity to teach and that he would not be “celebrating” this feast it follows that he did not go to the Temple on that day for the purpose of celebrating an unauthorized “Feast of Lights” as Brother Umstetter has falsely asserted.

Now, after he escaped we are told that Christ went away as follows:

“Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand, And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode. And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true. And many believed on him there.” (John 10:39-42).

SO, we now see Christ leaving not only the Temple but the City of Jerusalem to go “beyond Jordan” where he continued the same work he did in Jerusalem and at the Temple. He taught the “many people” who resorted to him there and “MANY BELIEFVED on him there.” But notice that he left without EVER “Celebrating” the “Feast of Lights” in the Temple. And there is not a single place in the entire New Testament that shows Christ ever “celebrating” any “feast” or any other “Holy Day” that was NOT authorized by God. And Brother Umstetter could spend the rest of his life trying to find Christ doing such a thing but he will never be able to do it because there is no evidence in the entire New Testament that he did such a thing.

But, because Brother Umstetter is willing to do things that it is his will to do whether or not God authorizes it he wants us to believe that Christ our Oord would do such a thing. The problem is that we will not believe it until he can PROVE it to be the truth. And this, Brother Umstetter has pathetically failed to do, now hasn’t he?

NOW, there is not one single word in the entire New Testament that even remotely indicates that Jesus Christ actually celebrated or observed this “Feast of Dedication”. And if you will read the above verses you will see that the Jews surrounded Jesus and sought to find occasion to accuse him and attempted to stone him and Jesus left. There is not a chance that he “celebrated” this festival even if he had intended to do so.

But in the above passage of scripture there is not a single word that indicates in any way whatsoever that Christ intended to “celebrate” this feast. Solomon’s porch was the place he had, during the feast of tabernacles as well as other occasions, taught the people. And there is no reason whatsoever to believe that he came on this occasion to do anything other than that which he had always done which was to teach. And the fact that he did teach this lesson about the good shepherd is a strong indication that he came there with the intent of teaching that lesson.

And the fact that he was the Son of God he would have known that the Jews were going to surround him in this way and attempt to stone him. So, he would have known, in advance, that he was not going to be allowed the opportunity to “celebrate” this feast. But he went there anyway and the fact that the only thing we see him doing is teaching and then later escaping from the Jews who sought to stone him because of his teaching is, conclusive evidence that he did not “celebrate” this feast on that day. And, by inference, it is an indication that teaching was his purpose in coming to the temple. And the fact that he knew they would try to stone him is evidence that he had no intention of doing that which he knew in advance he would be prevented from doing.

So, he did not intend to nor could he have actually “celebrated the Feast of Lights” as Brother Umstetter falsely claims. For it was made impossible by the actual events that occurred while he was at Solomon’s porch in the Temple on this occasion.

It is easy to assert but difficult to prove assertions Brother Umstetter. So, do prove to us from the scriptures that Jesus Christ on this occasion actually intended to observe the festival of lights. Then prove to us he actually “celebrated this festival”. In fact, you cannot even prove that he even approved of this festival of lights from anything he did or said about it. You are completely unable to prove either of these assumptions, now aren’t you? But you boldly assert, without offering on ounce of proof, that Jesus Christ actually celebrated this “man made festival”. He did not observe or celebrate this festival and there is no evidence whatsoever that he ever intended to do so.

Then you say:

“And as per, Mr. Wilson's post, yes you might have said many right things, but you were indeed graceless and your timing was oh so wrong. “

Hogwash! I did not set the timing. Brother Jewell chose his own timing. He was not so bereaved that he could not teach the false doctrine that one can be saved without obeying the gospel of Christ and therefore he was not so bereaved that he could not be corrected for teaching that false doctrine. And we did say MANY right things. In fact, everything we said about that matter was right. And we were very right to say it when we said it. You cannot prove from God’s word that it was wrong for us to correct that false doctrine at the time that it was taught if your life depended upon it.

Then you say:

“Think about this MR. Saffold, could you not have waited a few weeks, then written to Mr. Jewel?”

Yes, I could have if I knew that Brother Jewell was going to be alive in a “few weeks” but we do not know that, now do we? And I could have done that if I knew for certain that none of our readers would die within that two weeks thinking that they could be saved without obeying the gospel. We will not make the same mistake that Brother Jewell made in assuming that his relative would live through Christmas and he would have a better opportunity to teach him. If we had done that we would have been guilty, as was our Brother Jewell, now wouldn’t we? He could have waited until after his grief had subsided to speak this false doctrine that a man can be saved without obeying the gospel of Christ, now couldn’t he? But I have not seen a one of you tell him so, now have I?

Then you say:

“ Could you have given him some time to seek the Lord in this matter, then find out how he was doing, then share with him your thoughts?”

Surely I could have if he was the only one about whom I was concerned in the matter and if we knew that he would live for “some time” to consider it. But he was not the only one I was concerned about, now was he? And I cannot know if he would live for some time to consider this matter, now could I? Our readers are paying attention and therefore he was not the only one for whom I had concern about believing this false doctrine. And it is interesting to note that neither you nor brother John have shown even the slightest concern about the false doctrine that one can be saved without obeying the gospel of Christ. Notice this friends for it is a sure way to mark false teachers. For you can know them when they have no concern for the teaching of false doctrine and nothing but criticism of those who teach “many true things”. Yes, brethren our readers are indeed paying attention!

Then you say:

“And as per usual, Mr. Saffold you have very often used the term "I don't care what you think".”

Indeed I do use that term but usually in contrast with what God says. I care about what God says about things and nothing about what man says concerning them. This is right and good and all men who would follow the truth will think exactly this way.

Then you say:

“ Not caring what someone thinks is a lack of respect.”

That is a fine assertion but what is the proof of it? I can easily respect a person while caring more for what God says than what he says. For God tells us “let God be true and every man a liar”. In fact, caring what another says about something is no indication of respect in the least. In fact, if respect is the only reason you care what one says you have a poor reason indeed for doing so.

Then you say:

“If you want more people to respect what you write, show that you do indeed respect other's thoughts.”

I do not care if people “respect what I write”. I am not writing to please anyone in or out of this forum. And I respect only the thoughts of those who are teaching that which is clearly in harmony with the teaching of God’s word. The rest is all false doctrine for which I will never have any respect. Brother Jewell taught that men could be saved apart from obedience to the gospel of Christ. That is false doctrine pure and simple. And I have no respect for any person’s thought that so directly conflicts with the clear teaching of God’s word.

Then you say:

“Because your word is not sacred writ, you may know the whole of the word, but as has been pointed out, your exposition can truly lack.”

My word is not Holy Writ indeed and I have never said that it was, now have I? And for that reason I do not care if anyone likes or agrees with MY WORDS. But the word of God is Holy Writ and those who teach contrary to it are teaching false doctrine. And it is a good thing to know the whole of God’s word, isn’t it? May God grant that all men will “know the whole of His word”! And I am as susceptible to error as anyone and stand ready always to be corrected. But thus far no one has shown that any of my “expositions” were “lacking” in anything, least of all YOU.

Then you say:

“Just asking you for some humility and apologies to the people you cut down, but I have been waiting for weeks for you to apologize to me and the evidence is that it is really not an easy thing for you to do if you can do it all. “

You have not shown anyone that I have “put down”. I have put down their false doctrines and ridiculous and absurd statements but I have not put any person down and you have not proven otherwise. And you will wait till Jesus returns for me to apologize to you. For you have deliberately taught that which is contrary to the word of God and you have played the hypocrite and I have rebuked you rightly for it. And therefore you are not likely to see me apologize to you. You need to repent of these things and you have simply not done so. And even if you repent I still owe you no apologies for in your case I have done the right thing.

Yes, apologizing for doing wrong is very easy and I am more than willing to do so when you prove to me that I have done wrong. Now this you have failed miserably to do. And you will never see me apologize just to pacify as you and several others do often. That is hypocrisy. If you see me apologize it will be because I have been convinced that I have done something wrong or sinful. But so far no one has convinced me of having done anything wrong or sinful in this forum that has not received a prompt apology and observed immediate repentance and reformation of behavior. And on those occasions wherein I have been convinced of being in error, especially in that which is contrary to the word of God an apology was quick in coming. And should you ever convince me of having done wrong in this or any other matter you will see immediate repentance. But one thing you will never see me do and that is to apologize merely to pacify and console a person’s feelings for having received from me a just rebuke for teaching that which is contrary to the word of God. This is the right way for Christians to behave when confronted with doctrines, which are contrary to the truth. And we will not repent of doing that which Christ has commanded us through the apostles to do.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 31, 2001

Mr. Saffold-

I do not want to make enemies or stir up trouble.

If you condemn the "magical", "occult" nature of the Christmas, then why, in your e-mail address, do you refer to dragons, which are obviously tied in with "magic" and "the occult". And the "007" portion of your e-mail address seems to refer to the James Bond movie series. I need not remind you of the immoral nature of Mr. Bond's character and the damaging impact this has had on society.

Now, I have no problems with referring to dragons or 007--I am actually fond of the James Bond movies. I have no problems celebrating the birth of my Lord Jesus Christ on December 25 either. I have no problems talking about Santa Claus and giving gifts either.

If you choose to hammer on Christmas and its "magical" "occult" nature, then you must apply the same logic to all areas of your life in order for your opinion to mean anything to me at all.

Im Him- D. Black

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2002

Mr. Black:

You have said:

“Mr. Saffold- I do not want to make enemies or stir up trouble. “

Well, we are certainly glad to know this, aren’t we? But, if telling the truth causes trouble then tell as much of it as you can.

Then you say:

“If you condemn the "magical", "occult" nature of the Christmas, then why, in your e-mail address, do you refer to dragons, which are obviously tied in with "magic" and "the occult". And the "007" portion of your e-mail address seems to refer to the James Bond movie series.”

I have said nothing in any of my post about the “occult”. I have however stated that I am against paganism being associated with any celebration of the birth of Christ and that is not because “I” say so but because God condemns paganism. But, my email address has no reference whatsoever to “magic” or “the occult”. I am a part of a Chinese family since my wife is Chinese. And the Chinese have given me a name that at one time was common among them. And I will not go into the details of how and why they gave that name to me. But, we converse with one another via the Internet and this is the reason for my email address being what it is. And I agree with you about the fact that James Bond was not a moral character but the reference to 007 is incidental. There were several persons among the Chinese who had the email address “gdragon” because it is a popular name among some of them. And the only way to get that name was to add numbers and that particular number happened to be one that was not taken. My Chinese friends did find that to be rather funny because of my former work in the Military. But your assumption that this email address was in any way designed to connect me with the occult or James Bond is completely wrong. And I am not like those who try to send a message of any kind with my email address. It is an identifier of my address to those whom I communicate with the most which is my family and not this forum. And I have other good reasons for it that is private and I am under no obligation to disclose those matters to you in a public forum. But you can rest assured that I will not change it just to pacify you and cater to your personal whims.

I could get another email address if there were good reasons to do so other than catering to your personal taste and preferences. But I will not do so and if it becomes an issue I will deliberately use it just to maintain my right and my freedom to do so. For my email address is as good as anyone’s and you have not proven that it has any connection with the occult in any way whatsoever.

Now, when you bring the “Christmas” celebration with it’s pagan symbolism into the worship of the church as a memorial to Christ then you are disobeying Christ’s command to remember him in the taking of the bread and wine every Lord’s day. For he said “do this in memory of me” (Luke 22:19,20). For he commanded us to remember him in this way and you are trying to remember him in some other way than the one that he commanded. And you demand that everyone in the church of Christ do it also when you bring it into the worship. And you have no scriptural right to do any such thing. And to equate my email address to such an insubordination to the commands of Christ concerning a memorial to him in the church of Christ is nothing short of ignorant. For the two things are not even closely related to one another.

Now

Then you say:

“I need not remind you of the immoral nature of Mr. Bond's character and the damaging impact this has had on society.”

If you thought that you did not need to remind me then why did you mention it? I am indeed aware of the immoral nature of Mr. Bond in his movies and I do not particularly like them. But, “007” is a number that is not always and solely associated with James Bond.

Then you say:

“Now, I have no problems with referring to dragons or 007--I am actually fond of the James Bond movies.”

So, you are fond of “bond” despite the “damaging impact this (immorality) has had on society”. But you do not like my use of the numbers 007 because it associates this Christian with James Bond and his immorality. You seem to be just a bit inconsistent yourself now don’t you? But, if you really have no “problems” with referring to dragons and 007.Then what on earth are you whining about? I am not fond of James Bond movies nor do I have anything whatsoever to do with the occult. My email address is certainly no indication that I have any such associations as you ascribe to me simply because they conjure up images in your mind when you read them that were not in mind when I formed them.

Then you say:

“ I have no problems celebrating the birth of my Lord Jesus Christ on December 25 either.”

And we are not concerned here with your problems. The question of this thread was “does the church of Christ celebrate Christmas”? I have shown from the New Testament clearly that the church of Christ never celebrated Christmas. And that Christ gave us only ONE way to remember him and that was through the Lord’s supper. (Luke 22:19,20). And that is how I do remember him every first day of the week. And nothing you have said demonstrates that God has authorized you or any other Christian to remember Christ in any other way. And lying to others in wrong even when it is done at Christmas time.

Then you say:

“ I have no problems talking about Santa Claus and giving gifts either. “

Again we are not trying to solve your problem. The fact that you have no problems lying to little kids about Santa clause is a problem that you will have to solve. And we doubt if you will ever solve it so long as you cannot see that telling a lie is not wrong just because you are having some fun with the kids at Christmas. We are answering the question asked inn this thread which was “does the church of Christ celebrate Christmas”. And we have proven conclusively that the church of Christ in the New Testament did not celebrate this holiday. And the Christians who lived in the days of the apostles when the Holy Spirit was guiding them directly did not set up any such celebration. And we have not condemned the “giving of gifts” on any occasion, Christmas or otherwise. But saying that this is an acceptable memorial to Christ our Lord other than the one he instituted for us to remember him every week is a far different matter altogether. In fact, you are speaking as if you have not been following this discussion in the least bit for you have most certainly strayed away from the real issue on this one.

Then you say:

“If you choose to hammer on Christmas and its "magical" "occult" nature, then you must apply the same logic to all areas of your life in order for your opinion to mean anything to me at all.”

No one is “hammering” on anything brother. I did not choose this topic. It was a question that was put directly to us as member of the church of Christ. And I responded to the question. And you do not like the answer even though you cannot find any flaw whatsoever in the arguments, which we have made. That may be the reason you have completely ignored them.

And I am not expressing my “opinion” to you. Christ said “This do in remembrance of me”. (Luke 22:19,20). He specified how we are to remember him and “Christmas and Easter” was not what he specifically commanded us to do in memory of him. And that is not an "opinion" it is that which Christ commanded. And this explains why the church of Christ instituted no other memorials during the days when they were being guided directly by the Holy Spirit. And it explains why those who do only what the Holy Spirit teaches through his word for us to do today also do not set up any other memorial for Christ than the one he instituted himself.

I do apply the same logic to all areas of my life and my email address is not proof that I do not. Your assumptions and misconceptions about my email address do not become my responsibility. They are YOUR problems not mine. My email address has nothing to do with the “occult” or James Bond. And just because you make that association does not mean that I have such intentions or that they must be so associated because you want them to be. In fact, it is my Chinese name given to me by my family. With the exception of the “007” which I have explained was incidentally necessary because others were using the same name. It is in fact my Chinese name. And the giving of that name had no connection with the “occult” whatsoever.

But the real reason you bring up this is because of the fact that you cannot answer the argument that we have made isn’t it? I have given several good arguments that have not even been mentioned. Rather they have been completely ignored, especially by you. SO, I would have more respect for your whining about my email address if you had at least made some feeble attempt to even approach the arguments that I have made from the scriptures in my previous post. But, since you have failed miserably to discuss them it seems the only thing you can do is complain that you do not like my email address.

That is my email address, I have used it for over two years in this forum and it has nothing to do with the occult and it is only incidentally connected with James Bond. And that is only because of the popularity of his movies in connection with that number. Does that mean that no one can ever use the number 007 without associating him or herself with “immorality”?

If you cannot answer our other arguments then just admit that you have no answer to them. For you current argument runs like this:

Major premise:

When one who speaks the truth appears to behave contrary to it then the truth that he taught becomes a lie.

Minor premise:

E. Lee Saffold’s email address is inconsistent with the truth that he taught

Conclusion:

Therefore the truth that he taught concerning Christmas has become a lie.

But, the problem is that both your major premise and your minor premise are not true. For if what I taught from the scriptures concerning Christmas is true then even if I give up that truth it would remain true because the behavior of the teacher has no bearing upon the truth. If it were true it would remain true even if I did anything that was inconsistent with or out of harmony with it. For then I would be as wrong as those who reject the truth that was taught wouldn’t I? To put it in more simple terms, Proving that I am wrong by using this email address does not prove that you are right to celebrate Christmas, now does it? It would only prove that I am a hypocrite but it would not justify you or anyone else in celebrating Christmas, now would it?

But, your minor premise has not been proven to be true either. For my email address has nothing to do with the “occult” or James Bond. All you have done is assert that it does but you do not prove it, now do you? If you receive a package in the mail and it happens to have the numbers 007 on it would you think that the box came to you from James Bond? And what if someone happened to have an address that was 007 would it mean that their house is a house of ill repute because they were associating themselves with the “immoral character” of the main character in some popular movie called James Bond? This happens to be my email address and I have explained why it is thus. And the fact that the number 007 is there is no evidence of any connection to Mr. Bond. Though, I admit that many have joked with me about it. But that is not how or why it came to be that way.

So, it should be obvious to any thinking person that your minor premise is false to the core. But, even if it were true your conclusion cannot be valid because your major premise is pathetically false. For even if it were true that I am in some way inconsistently accepting some paganism in my life, which I am not, it would not prove that the truth which we have sated about Christmas is false, now would it? Instead it would only prove that we are as guilty of wrongdoing as you are! And if that is the case then we had both best correct our ways! Unfortunately for your pathetic argument you have failed miserably to demonstrate that it is even remotely true, haven’t you?

And, you need not waste too much time trying to persuade me to change my email address. For I will not do so. It seems to me that you have been reading too much fiction and watching entirely too many movies and ignored your Bible far too much.

And, my email address may be a satisfactory excuse, in your mind, for you to ignore the truth of the arguments that we have presented but that excuse will not help you in the presence of God on the judgement day, now will it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2002