 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > MSN Encarta Article RE: Pagan Origin of Christmas | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 12/15/2003 1:29 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
Here is where Paul says that all things are good - "lawful" in this version. I got it off of www.blueletterbible.com
1 Cor. 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
1Cor. 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
Here Paul is simply saying that believers are free to do anything without condemnation because our sins are covered in Christ's blood. You may argue that celebrating Christmas is not expedient and doesn't edify people, but most would argue that it is extremely edifying.
This is off the subject of Christmas per se, but it certainly merits response. Do you honestly believe that "believers are free to do anything without condemnation because our sins are covered in Christ's blood?"
That is pure antinomianism. When Jesus spoke to the seven churches in Asia in Rev. 2-3, he never once said, "Your sins are all covered by my blood. When I look at you I don't see your sins. Continue in sin, that grace may abound!" No, a thousand times no! Jesus said, "I know your works..."
Commentators I've studied have said Paul was using a rhetorical device (irony, in this case) to poke holes in the Corinthians' antinomian ways of thinking. Careful attention to the context reveals that Paul was saying precisely the opposite of what you are saying:
1 Cor. 6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
12 ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are beneficial. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be dominated by anything. 13‘Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,’ and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, ‘The two shall be one flesh.’ 17But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. 19Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body. NRSV
Paul is obviously laying down some plain rules as to what is acceptable behavior for believers and what is not. He is definitely not saying "anything goes, you're covered by the blood no matter what!"
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/15/2003 5:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Haven't read this thread at all. Just wanted to say, isn't it interesting that whereas the church once took over pagan holidays and made them Christian, today Christian holidays are being over taken and made pagan. Hmmm.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 12/15/2003 6:23 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/16/2003 3:54 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
I'm wondering, what do you call the days of the week? What names do you give them?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/16/2003 4:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
John,
I'm wondering, what do you call the days of the week? What names do you give them?
First, second, third...
Do you call today "Tuesday"? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/16/2003 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Third day of the week. Generally I refer to them by their date, as in 12/16/03.
Do you ever slip up and call the days Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, etc.? | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 12/16/2003 6:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Third day of the week. Generally I refer to them by their date, as in 12/16/03.
Do you ever slip up and call the days Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, etc.?
Even if I do, it makes no difference to the main argument of this thread, as I also refer to Christmas while not observing it. The use of this nomenclature does not mean I subscribe to the symbolism behind it.
George Fox, founder of the Quakers, referred to days of the week as "First Day, Second Day," etc.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 12/16/2003 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
Here is where Paul says that all things are good - "lawful" in this version. I got it off of www.blueletterbible.com
1 Cor. 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
1Cor. 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
Here Paul is simply saying that believers are free to do anything without condemnation because our sins are covered in Christ's blood. You may argue that celebrating Christmas is not expedient and doesn't edify people, but most would argue that it is extremely edifying.
This is off the subject of Christmas per se, but it certainly merits response. Do you honestly believe that "believers are free to do anything without condemnation because our sins are covered in Christ's blood?"
That is pure antinomianism. When Jesus spoke to the seven churches in Asia in Rev. 2-3, he never once said, "Your sins are all covered by my blood. When I look at you I don't see your sins. Continue in sin, that grace may abound!" No, a thousand times no! Jesus said, "I know your works..."
Commentators I've studied have said Paul was using a rhetorical device (irony, in this case) to poke holes in the Corinthians' antinomian ways of thinking. Careful attention to the context reveals that Paul was saying precisely the opposite of what you are saying:
1 Cor. 6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
12 ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are beneficial. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be dominated by anything. 13‘Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,’ and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, ‘The two shall be one flesh.’ 17But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. 19Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body. NRSV
Paul is obviously laying down some plain rules as to what is acceptable behavior for believers and what is not. He is definitely not saying "anything goes, you're covered by the blood no matter what!"
No, you're misinterpreting my meaning. Of course we are not to be immoral, but Paul was clearly saying that Christians aren't bound by the traditional religious confines of strict observance of man-made laws and rules. He was saying that just as Jesus broke the Sabbath to heal, and the new Christians no longer needed to "observe months, days and years" like Judaic law demanded, we are not bound by man-made thinking in regards to celebrating our Lord in any way we choose. (The passage you quoted regarding days, months and years has to do with legalism. The author was saying that Christians aren't bound by legalistic observance of those days, etc., anymore.) But, God instituted those holidays for Man's pleasure. Our God is a celebratory God. Therefore, if people choose to observe those holidays in a true spirit of joy and celebration, it would be perfectly fine to still observe them. The author of that passage you quoted simply wanted his audience to understand that they no longer needed to observe those holidays legalistically in order to be saved.
You're legalistic rejection of a holiday that has been observed in honor of Jesus for centuries, is being done in the same spirit of legalism that the author was preaching against. There were religious holidays scheduled once almost every month of the Jewish calendar, because God is not some boring, old, grumbling fuddy-duddy who wants everyone to be miserable. He wants His children to celebrate Him - yes every day of the year - but if we choose to set aside special holidays to give Him special thanks and praise, that's perfectly in line with how He led the Israelites before Christ came - and Jesus celebrated those holidays, too.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/16/2003 11:23 AM (GMT -6) | | BJS: Seriously, John. Just admit it. He's got you here. You can see the point Gerry's making, which is why you are working so hard to avoid admitting that you refer to the days of the week by their names of "pagan" origin.
Tom: Yeah, and what about the months of the year?
Who cares whether or not Dec. 25th was a stinkin pagan holiday or not? It was redeemed and became something wonderful and holy. Just like WE were pagans and were then redeemed and become holy, so pagan events and dates and celebrations can be redeemed and filled with new meaning.
In Arabic the month of July is "Tamuz," a pagan (I think Babylonian) god. Big deal.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| 42 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:27 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|