• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is it wrong for Christians to observe Christmas?

russell55

New Member
It has to do with love, respect, offending your brother, etc.
Absolutely. And not loving, not respecting, or offending your brother are both immoral and unholy.

Why wouldn't Paul eat meat offered to idols. It wasn't sinful. He had already stated that it wasn't in and of itself. Here is the specific quote.
You are right. Eating meat offered to idols wasn't immoral (or sinful) in and of itself. However, causing a brother to stumble IS immoral. If I could eat meat offered to idols without causing any of my brethern to stumble, then the act would not be immoral. But if my eating causes stumbling in a brother, then my act in eating is immoral, or even if I eat with callous disregard to whether my eating will cause stumbling, then my act is immoral.

Eating of meat has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with ethics which is different.
Huh? Ethics and morality are different? Boy, you are sure using the language differently than I do.....
 

IfbReformer

New Member
Originally posted by DHK:
Separation and holiness are inseparable. How much am I willing to sacrifice for the Lord in order that I may exhibit holiness in my life. It definitely will mean giving up a worldly lifestyle...

It has more to do than just simple morality. It has to do with love, respect, offending your brother, etc. Why wouldn't Paul eat meat offered to idols. It wasn't sinful. He had already stated that it wasn't in and of itself. Here is the specific quote.

1 Corinthians 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
DHK,

I agree that we should not offend our brother with our actions. But that is not what Biblical seperation is. Biblical seperation is standing up against the ungodly evil practices of the world.

It is not about standing up against those things that are not wrong, like giving gifts to our family and spending time with loved ones as is our habit during the holidays.

Sometimes we may choose to something like Paul did and not eat meat sacrificed to idols so as not to offend our brother.

But having said that, if not offending our brother meant never engaging in any practice that could possibly offend another brother at any time or place then Paul would never have wrote Romans 14.

In Romans 14 he teaches us as Christians how to live with one another, even when we may have different standards on things.

In fact if Paul thought a person should never eat meat that offended someone else(whether offered to an idol or if it was forbiden in the old Mosaic Law) then why did he write:

"He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."

Why did he not just command those who ate meat to stop as to not offend those who abstained?

Here is what Paul is saying in a practical example.

Lets say I do not believe having a television in my home is wrong(although I think alot of things on it are wrong).

And lets say I have a friend come over who has gotten rid of his television, do I need to throw out my TV and never watch it again? No. But I should not turn it on while he is visiting. That is not offending your brother plain and simple.

But what if it is something in public wherebye I offend my brother without knowing it?

Lets say I believe going to Movie Theaters is not wrong as long as the movie I am seeing is ok to watch.

And lets say my brother who believes stepping foot in a movie theater is wrong and sees me walking in the theater as he drives down the road. Well Paul addresses this as well when he writes:

Romans 14:10(NIV)
"10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat."

You see the brother who does not believe in going to shows should not judge me if he sees me walking into one. And I should not look down on him because he thinks it is wrong to go to a show.

I hope that helps your understanding of what offending a brother is.

As far as your sacrificing to get closer to the Lord goes, adding rules and regulations never brought anyone closer to the Lord. It is following the ones he has given us that does.

IFBReformer
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by IfbReformer:
Lets say I believe going to Movie Theaters is not wrong as long as the movie I am seeing is ok to watch.

And lets say my brother who believes stepping foot in a movie theater is wrong and sees me walking in the theater as he drives down the road. Well Paul addresses this as well when he writes:

Romans 14:10(NIV)
"10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat."
This verse you have taken out of context and misapplied. Would you apply it to going into a bar, or say taking a bit of heroin now and then. The way that you apply this verse is "situation ethics." What is right for me, may not be for you." Sorry, that is the wrong application. Paul had already stated that there was nothing wrong with eating meat offered to idols. On many other matters (in fact most matters) we have absolutes. God is a God of absolutes. Either it is right or wrong, and one must determine what God's will is on the matter.

You refer to rules and regulations. That again is the wrong view of Christianity. Christianity is not legalism. Christianity is living for Christ. The one who will have the most joy in their life is the one who walks closest to the Lord. How close are you walking to the Lord in a movie theatre? How much time are you spending in prayer and in the Word in a movie theatre?
You may think that the movie in and of itself is innocent enough, but what of all the trailers shown before hand as advertisements? Some of them no doubt showing scenes bordering on pornography? Do we support the Hellywood industry with our tithes and offerings? I can think of better ways to spend my money, and my time. Self-seeking Christians obviously don't know the value either of time or money. You go to the movie theatre and that is your Christian testimony. The world thinks that born again believers go to the movies, so they do to. You encourage it. But you encourage their pornography, their filth, and the dirtiest movies they can find to watch, because you have put your had of approval on the movie theatre. They have seen you do it. You have condoned it by your prosence, when you ought to have condemned it by your absence.

Separation is setting yourself apart from all sin, sinful practices, and those who associate with such practices. That includes Hollywood, in as much as is possible. There is a pastor in Denver who will not buy any groceries from any store that sells liquor, nor will dine at any restaurant that sells liquor. That is a hard line to follow. But throughout the many years of pastoring he never deviated from it. That is separation. It boils down to where you are going to draw the line. How close are you willing to live to God, or how close are you going to get to the world? "Whosoever is a friend of the world is the enemy of God?" What exactly did God mean by that? I can tell you one thing. He didn't mean go into movie theatres.

We are to be different, a nation called out by God, separated, holy, showing forth the praises of God. How many souls did you win to Christ in the movie theatre? How close to God did you get? You didn't. You got close (or more accurately,) you jumped right into the world. It is what John refers to in 1John 2--the lust of the eyes which is not of the Father, but of the world.

Movie theatres, yes, that was a good example.
Situation ethics. That's a good example too.
DHK
 

IfbReformer

New Member
Originally posted by DHK:

This verse you have taken out of context and misapplied. Would you apply it to going into a bar, or say taking a bit of heroin now and then. The way that you apply this verse is "situation ethics." What is right for me, may not be for you." Sorry, that is the wrong application. Paul had already stated that there was nothing wrong with eating meat offered to idols. On many other matters (in fact most matters) we have absolutes. God is a God of absolutes. Either it is right or wrong, and one must determine what God's will is on the matter.
First lets look at this statement from you:

"The way that you apply this verse is "situation ethics." What is right for me, may not be for you." Sorry, that is the wrong application.

I am sorry that you and many of my other fundamentalist brethren have fallen into the error of "what is wrong for me, is always wrong for you too". I agree that where there are absolutes in scripture this is true. But many times our standards are based on our own personal application of scriptures.

Lets take for example our movie theater illustration:

Lets look at a passage you quoted:

James 4:4(NIV)
"You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."

Here was your application of this passage:
"How close are you willing to live to God, or how close are you going to get to the world? "Whosoever is a friend of the world is the enemy of God?" What exactly did God mean by that? I can tell you one thing. He didn't mean go into movie theatres."


Here is my application of that passage:
Lets look at friendship here, what is friendship? When you are a friend with someone you like the things they like, you approve of the things they approve of. The other part of this verse is "world" - what is meant by this? It is the ungodly system which opposes God.

Now when I go to the grocery store the world does that. Does that make me a friend of the world because I approve of the world's practice of to grocery stores? No.

Does that mean I approve of everything that is sold in the groceries stores - like some of the smutty magazines? No. If I approved of those I would be "a friend of the world".

What about book stores? I love to read history and computer programming books. When I go to B Dalton or some other book store and buy a book I am approving the world's practice of going to a book store. Does that mean I am a friend of the world? No.

Do I approve of all the books B Dalton sells? No. If I approved the smutty books they sell I would be "a friend of the world".

So being a friend of the world is approving of those things the world does that are inherently evil and wrong things to do.

So when I go to a movie theater am I approving the world's practice of going to a show? Yes, but does that make me a friend of the world - no.

Does that mean I approve of the wrong movies that are show there? No, if I did I would be a "friend of the world".

Lets now look at this quote of yours:
"You go to the movie theatre and that is your Christian testimony. The world thinks that born again believers go to the movies, so they do to. You encourage it. But you encourage their pornography, their filth, and the dirtiest movies they can find to watch, because you have put your had of approval on the movie theatre. They have seen you do it. You have condoned it by your prosence, when you ought to have condemned it by your absence."

So I and other Christians who go to shows that are not pornagraphic in nature are encouraging people to go to ones that are?

So when you go to the grocery store you are encouraging people to buy the smutty magazines then ah?

How about when you go to the book store and buy a history book you are encouraging other people to come there and buy a porngraphic book?

The answer to all of the above is you are not. Once again, the seperation you adovcate is not one taught in scripture. Biblical seperation is seperation from things and practices that in and of themselves are sinful - period.

The last thing I want to deal with that you said was calling my thinking "Situation ethics".

On this I plead guilty as charged. But so are you. There is nothing wrong with situational ethical practice, we all practice it each day. Certainly not all things are situational in nature, some are absolute while others are not.

For instance, going back to my TV example of a previous post. Is it wrong for me to watch TV if I am clear in my conscience before God that what I am watching is ok, then it is fine for that moment. But in another "situation", if I have a brother over my house who does not have a television it would be wrong for me to turn it on when he is around. So you see, sometimes the situation does determine if something is right or wrong to do.

One more example of "situational ethics". If a man comes up to my home trying to sell magazines and I shoot him for bothering me that would be wrong. But if he comes up to my home and trying to sell magazines and pulls a gone on me and I shoot him then it is not wrong to shoot.

In one "situation", my act of shooting him is murder, in the other "situation" my act of shooting him is self-defense.

Yes we are to be different than the world - on that we agree. But where we are to be different - that is where we disagree. I believe we are to be different by not engaging in those practices of the world that are inherently evil and sinful in and of themselves.

You believe we are to be different from the world by not engaging in practices that while they may not be sinful in and of themselves, they are abused by the world so therefore they are wrong even if not sinful.

Basically your thinking is,if it can be abused, then it is wrong. If it is made by a company that produces wrong things, even if the item itself is not wrong, then it becomes wrong by nature of guilt by association.

The two problems with your thinking are one - it is not Biblical, and two you do not and really cannot apply your thinking consistantly.

IFBReformer
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by IfbReformer:
Here is my application of that passage:
Lets look at friendship here, what is friendship? When you are a friend with someone you like the things they like, you approve of the things they approve of. The other part of this verse is "world" - what is meant by this? It is the ungodly system which opposes God.

Now when I go to the grocery store the world does that. Does that make me a friend of the world because I approve of the world's practice of to grocery stores? No.

Does that mean I approve of everything that is sold in the groceries stores - like some of the smutty magazines? No. If I approved of those I would be "a friend of the world".
When one enters a grocery store it is presumably to buy groceries. The Bible teaches: "Flee every appearance of evil." The groceries do not give an appearance of evil, but the movies do.

What about book stores? I love to read history and computer programming books. When I go to B Dalton or some other book store and buy a book I am approving the world's practice of going to a book store. Does that mean I am a friend of the world? No.
I don't normally frequent secular book stores any more because of the net. If I need to buy a book, I will go to a Christian book store. Choose your book stores carefully. Avoid the appearance of evil.

Do I approve of all the books B Dalton sells? No. If I approved the smutty books they sell I would be "a friend of the world".
You would be more than just a friend of the world; you would be one with deep spiritual problems. You don't have to go to that particular book store. I don't because I don't have to. You decide where to draw the line. The principle there is to "Avoid the very appearance of evil." Are people going to assume that you go into such bookstores to read history or smut? What kind of testimony do you have before the "world?"

So being a friend of the world is approving of those things the world does that are inherently evil and wrong things to do.
No, you are only half right. Being a friend of the world is approving those things the world does that may or may not be evil in themselves, but will keep you away from God. VCRs, TVs, movies, the way you dress, the places you go, the things you have, even the way you talk, all determine how worldly you are. And not one of those things may be immoral. Music is a good example. Will I fill my ears with that kind of music that is not edifying, and either mimics the world or is of the world, or will I fill my mind with Godly spiritual music? You have a choice. What will you do. Will you be worldly or Godly?

So when I go to a movie theater am I approving the world's practice of going to a show? Yes, but does that make me a friend of the world - no.
Yes you are. You are showing to the world that you approve of the movie theatre, and that going to movies is okay. Since the great majority of the movies are just filth, that is your advertisement to this world, of which you have become a friend of.

Does that mean I approve of the wrong movies that are show there? No, if I did I would be a "friend of the world".
See above.

So I and other Christians who go to shows that are not pornagraphic in nature are encouraging people to go to ones that are?
Avoid every appearance of evil. By your very actions of being there you have encouraged it. By extension, if you take one drink (beer) you give one alcoholic the excuse to get drunk. If by chance you may be a pastor the first qualification is "that he be found blameless."

So when you go to the grocery store you are encouraging people to buy the smutty magazines then ah?
No, grocery stores sell and advertise groceries. People assume that you are there to buy groceries. Nothing wrong in that.

How about when you go to the book store and buy a history book you are encouraging other people to come there and buy a porngraphic book?
Already answered. If it bothers you, avoid it.

The answer to all of the above is you are not. Once again, the seperation you adovcate is not one taught in scripture. Biblical seperation is seperation from things and practices that in and of themselves are sinful - period.
If you have read all the verses that I have posted in a previous post on separation you will see that your definition of separation does not match up with the Bible. If you take the nation of Israel for an illustration you can see this very clearly. Picking up sticks on the sabbath day was not immoral or wicked in and of itself, and yet it was punishable by death. Why? It was disobedience to God's command. Why the command, and other such commands. Most of them were to call to Israel's attention that they were a different nation, separated from all the other nations that surrounded them. Under the law, Israel definitely kept a legalistic form of religion. They had the law. We have grace.
But God is still calling a nation out to be holy, seperated, unto Himself. The world needs to know that God's people are different. Not just because they don't believe in murder or abortion, but because their entire lifestyle, their way of living is different from the people (the world) around them.

The last thing I want to deal with that you said was calling my thinking "Situation ethics".

On this I plead guilty as charged. But so are you. There is nothing wrong with situational ethical practice, we all practice it each day. Certainly not all things are situational in nature, some are absolute while others are not.

For instance, going back to my TV example of a previous post. Is it wrong for me to watch TV if I am clear in my conscience before God that what I am watching is ok, then it is fine for that moment. But in another "situation", if I have a brother over my house who does not have a television it would be wrong for me to turn it on when he is around. So you see, sometimes the situation does determine if something is right or wrong to do.

One more example of "situational ethics". If a man comes up to my home trying to sell magazines and I shoot him for bothering me that would be wrong. But if he comes up to my home and trying to sell magazines and pulls a gone on me and I shoot him then it is not wrong to shoot.

In one "situation", my act of shooting him is murder, in the other "situation" my act of shooting him is self-defense.
What is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong.
If it is wrong to lie, then it is always wrong to lie. If it is okay in some cases according to you then you have to take that one up with the Creator who imposed it on you. The same is true with murder. Thankfully I will never be faced with the situation you described because I don't own a gun, and never will. I trust the Lord to take care of me in such situations, and he always has.
Concerning TV, I would not be watching anything embarassing to anyone that would enter my home, even if the individual who entered my home didn't have a TV. Since it would not be offensive in content, I would ask if it would offend him, if it was important news or something like that, or just simply turn it off anyway.

I once offered a Muslim some pork, but he politely refused. He was not offended that we ate it and he did not (for there were other things to eat).

Yes we are to be different than the world - on that we agree. But where we are to be different - that is where we disagree. I believe we are to be different by not engaging in those practices of the world that are inherently evil and sinful in and of themselves.
My parents even believe that much; they are not yet saved. You just stated the one thing that keeps so many people from becoming saved (like my own parents). And that is: "the immoral insider and the moral outsider."
My parents live at a much higher standard than most professing evangelical Christians. Perhaps it is their own self-righteousness that keeps them from Christ. They don't consider themselves as sinners. Their lives are moral and upright. They could set a good example for many a Christian if only they were Christian. They don't do the things that you keep referring to: "practices that are inherently evil in and of themselves." So, taken to its logical conclusion, because my parents don't practice the things of the world (your definition), they must be friends of God, and therefore Christian. Right?
Obviously, being worldly entails much more than overt sinful practices.

Be not conformed to this world.
Be conformed to the image of Christ.
Those are two commands given. Sadly, most choose to disobey both.
DHK
 

TC

Active Member
Site Supporter
No, it is not wrong to recognize the birth of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Here is an alternative origin for our holidays. I'm still researching, but it is quite interesting.

http://www.drbilly.com/shed/

He is right in that most discussion of holidays rarely involves the early church. While we don't put up with the pagan re-writing of creation and such things, we let them re-write church history. For example, we let them tell us that halloween is based on the old druid (druids have no written history, so you can say whatever you want to about them and can never be proved wrong)festival of samhain. But, the truth is that samhain was always celebrated on September 22. The church celebrated All Saint's Day on November 1. The festivities began on the evening before - remember that the days started in the evening before (and the evening and the morning was the first day Gen 1:3). The pagans moved their celebration to October 31 long after the day was celebrated by the church. Yet we allow them to claim the day and hardly anybody talks of the christian origin of halloween. Halloween is the churches memorial day - in which we remember the saints of old who gave their lives for the cause of Christ. The day was adapted because of the great persecution of the early church - the saints that gave their lives are those that have gone on before. Halloween came about by the church remembering them. Now some totally ignore the facts and repeat every word the pagans say. What right does a pagan have to write church history? I won't base my life of what some revisionist pagan historian writes today. Nor should anyone else.

shalom
 

IfbReformer

New Member
DHK,

Your statement:
"When one enters a grocery store it is presumably to buy groceries. The Bible teaches: "Flee every appearance of evil." The groceries do not give an appearance of evil, but the movies do."
In 1611, people understood what the KJV translators meant by "appearance". You can tell what they meant by "appearance" from how they translated that same Greek word 'eidos' in these passages along with the one you stated:

Luke 3:22(KJV)
"And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape[eidos] like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."

Luke 9:29(KJV)
"And as he prayed, the fashion[eidos] of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering."

John 5:37
"And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape[eidos]."

2 Corinthians 5:7(KJV)
(For we walk by faith, not by sight[eidos]


1 Thessalonians:5:22(KJV)
"Abstain from all appearance[eidos] of evil."

So now do you understand that 'appearance' here is not how we use it in our modern english? Much bad theology has been made over the years from a misunderstanding of the old English. The NIV and NASB translate in our modern english correctly when they render it as:

1 Thessalonians 5:22(NASB)
"abstain from every form[eidos] of evil."

1 Thessalonians 5:22(NIV)
"Avoid every kind[eidos] of evil."

So yes I should "avoid every kind of evil". We agree on that completely. What is a kind of evil? It is me going to a particular movie that is filled with filth. It is not going to the Movie theater itself.

I would disgree with you that most of what is at the movie theater is filth. There are many movies that do have redeemable value, and this is where Christians must use discernment.

Going to a show does not give the appearance of evil to unbelievers. Going to a bad show does, but not simply entering the movie theater. Sure you could find me some exception to that some place. But most of the time the only people it gives the appearance of evil to is Christians like yourself who have your own preconceived notions.

Your Statement:
"Being a friend of the world is approving those things the world does that may or may not be evil in themselves, but will keep you away from God. VCRs, TVs, movies, the way you dress, the places you go, the things you have, even the way you talk, all determine how worldly you are. And not one of those things may be immoral. Music is a good example. Will I fill my ears with that kind of music that is not edifying, and either mimics the world or is of the world, or will I fill my mind with Godly spiritual music? You have a choice. What will you do. Will you be worldly or Godly?"
None of these things "determine how worldly you are".

It is the tapes that we play in our "VCRs" that determine if we are worldly or not - not simply having a VCR.

It is the television shows that we watch on our TV that determine if we are worldly or not - not simply having a TV.

It is the movies we watch that determine if we are worldy - not the fact that we watch movies.

It is the immoral or immodest clothes we where that determine if we are worldy, not the fact that the world may like to where the same polo shirt I have on.

It is the immoral and evil places that we go that determine if we are worldly, not the fact that I go to a Baseball game and so does the world.

It is the evil words and evil things we say that make us worldly, not because we use the same english as the world around us.

It is not listening to music that "mimics the world or is of the world" that makes us worldly -for all forms of music, whether folk, Classical or Contemporary music all have their origin in the world. It is listening to music that is has evil and sensual words and motions.

Yes I agree we have a choice, will we listen to and watch the evil movies and music of the world, or will we listen to and watch those things that are not evil.

Your Statement:
"Avoid every appearance of evil. By your very actions of being there you have encouraged it. By extension, if you take one drink (beer) you give one alcoholic the excuse to get drunk. If by chance you may be a pastor the first qualification is "that he be found blameless."
By my action of going to a non-pornagraphic movie I have encouraged someone to go see one?Your logic escapes me.
That would be like me saying by your going on the internet you encourage everyone to look at pornography on the internet since there is so much out there.

And no if I drink one beer I would not be giving an alchohalic an excuse to drink. Thats like saying if I take one bite of pizza I am encouraging a glutton to gorge themselves.

In fact the Scriptures compare the sin of drunkness to the sin of gluttony:

Proverbs 23:20-21(NIV)
"20 Do not join those who drink too much wine
or gorge themselves on meat,
21 for drunkards and gluttons become poor,
and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

The Scriptures only forbid drunkeness. Not drinking wine itself. I know this is going to rabit trail into this whole other discussion about wine. Hopefully not - that is not my point here.


Your Statement:
"The world needs to know that God's people are different. Not just because they don't believe in murder or abortion, but because their entire lifestyle, their way of living is different from the people (the world) around them."
I agree completely with this statement. We need to be different in more way than being against murder and abortion. We need to be different in how we respond to our bosses at work. We need to be different in not using the foul language our coworkers use.

We need to be different by not going to see bad movies, or listening to music with evil words, or buying books that are evil.

That is how we will show them that we are different. If we wear only black and white clothes that does more than show we are different, it shows we are distant. We are to keep Gods Word, not add to it so we can be more different.

I am reminded of few things Spurgeon spoke about the tendency among conservative Christians to add to the Word of God:

"I find ten commandments, and it's as much as I can do to keep them; and I've no desire to make them into eleven or twelve."

And this statement:

"There is growing up in society a Pharisaic system which adds to the commands of God the precepts of men; to that system I will not yield for an hour. The preservation of my liberty may bring upon me the upbraidings of many good men, and the sneers of the self-righteous; but I shall endure both with serenity so long as I feel clear in my conscience before God."

This article can be found at http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/cigars.htm
Your Statement:
"What is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong.
If it is wrong to lie, then it is always wrong to lie. If it is okay in some cases according to you then you have to take that one up with the Creator who imposed it on you. The same is true with murder.
What is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong.
If it is wrong to lie, then it is always wrong to lie. If it is okay in some cases according to you then you have to take that one up with the Creator who imposed it on you. The same is true with murder. Thankfully I will never be faced with the situation you described because I don't own a gun, and never will. I trust the Lord to take care of me in such situations, and he always has.
Concerning TV, I would not be watching anything embarassing to anyone that would enter my home, even if the individual who entered my home didn't have a TV. Since it would not be offensive in content, I would ask if it would offend him, if it was important news or something like that, or just simply turn it off anyway."
These are all cases of valid cases of "situational ethics" no matter how your try and dance around them.

In one case, to shoot someone would be murder, in the other it would be self-defense.

In one case to watch TV would be fine, in the other it would not, even if the show was fine.

As far as your statement "it is always wrong to lie." - really? What about when Rahab lied to protect the spies in Jericho?

"My parents even believe that much; they are not yet saved. You just stated the one thing that keeps so many people from becoming saved (like my own parents). And that is: "the immoral insider and the moral outsider."
My parents live at a much higher standard than most professing evangelical Christians. Perhaps it is their own self-righteousness that keeps them from Christ. They don't consider themselves as sinners. Their lives are moral and upright. They could set a good example for many a Christian if only they were Christian. They don't do the things that you keep referring to: "practices that are inherently evil in and of themselves." So, taken to its logical conclusion, because my parents don't practice the things of the world (your definition), they must be friends of God, and therefore Christian. Right?
Obviously, being worldly entails much more than overt sinful practices."
Lets zoom in on this statement of yours:
"So, taken to its logical conclusion, because my parents don't practice the things of the world (your definition), they must be friends of God, and therefore Christian. Right?"

I never said not practicing the evil things the world does makes you a friend of God! Works don't save us whether we are saved or unsaved. Boy was that a leap!

Thats great that your parents do live descent lives, but as you and I both know living a righteous life doesn't save you. If we are to be stricter than the unsaved then how about the buddahist monks -they are a lot more strict then we are, boy do we have a long way to go then.

Fortunately the Bible never tells us to make up rules so we can be more different, it just tells us not to do those things which are sin. It is such an easy concept to understand, but so hard to practice. And for some like you, it is not enough, you need to add a few more rules to the pot so you can feel more different.

Hey if that makes you feel closer to God, than by all means do it. If it causes you to judge your brother, then you better re-evaluate your attitude.

Your Statement:
"Be not conformed to this world.
Be conformed to the image of Christ.
Those are two commands given. Sadly, most choose to disobey both."
Yes sir, lets not be like the world in the evil practices it does. Lets be like Christ by doing the righteous things he did.

Sadly, two many people trip over these simple commands. They either do the evil practices of the world, or they add rules to God Word.

Matthew 15:9(NIV)
"They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

1 Corinthians 4:6(NIV)
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

IFBReformer
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by IfbReformer:
DHK,

Your statement:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"When one enters a grocery store it is presumably to buy groceries. The Bible teaches: "Flee every appearance of evil." The groceries do not give an appearance of evil, but the movies do."
In 1611, people understood what the KJV translators meant by "appearance". You can tell what they meant by "appearance" from how they translated that same Greek word 'eidos' in these passages along with the one you stated:

Luke 3:22(KJV)
"And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape[eidos] like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."

Luke 9:29(KJV)
"And as he prayed, the fashion[eidos] of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering."

John 5:37
"And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape[eidos]."

2 Corinthians 5:7(KJV)
(For we walk by faith, not by sight[eidos]


1 Thessalonians:5:22(KJV)
"Abstain from all appearance[eidos] of evil."

So now do you understand that 'appearance' here is not how we use it in our modern english? Much bad theology has been made over the years from a misunderstanding of the old English. The NIV and NASB translate in our modern english correctly when they render it as:

1 Thessalonians 5:22(NASB)
"abstain from every form[eidos] of evil."

1 Thessalonians 5:22(NIV)
"Avoid every kind[eidos] of evil."

So yes I should "avoid every kind of evil". We agree on that completely. What is a kind of evil? It is me going to a particular movie that is filled with filth. It is not going to the Movie theater itself.
</font>[/QUOTE]1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Verse 22. Abstain from all appearance of evil.
Not only from evil itself, but from that which seems to be wrong. There are many things which are known to be wrong. They are positively forbidden by the laws of heaven, and the world concurs in the sentiment that they are wicked. But there are also many things about which there may be some reasonable doubt. It is not quite easy to determine in the case what is right or wrong. The subject has not been fully examined, or the question of its morality may be so difficult to settle, that the mind may be nearly or quite balanced in regard to it There are many things which, in themselves, may not appear to us to be positively wrong, but winch are so considered by large and respectable portions of the community; and for us to do them would be regarded as inconsistent and improper. There are many things, also, in respect to which there is great variety of sentiment among mankind--where one portion would regard them as proper, and another as improper. There are things, also, where, whatever may be our motive, we may be certain that our conduct will be regarded as improper. A great variety of subjects, such as those pertaining to dress, amusements, the opera, the ball-room, games of chance and hazard, and various practices in the transaction of business, come under this general class; which, though on the supposition that they cannot be proved to be in themselves positively wrong or forbidden, have much the "appearance" of evil, and will be so interpreted by others. The safe and proper rule is to lean always to the side of virtue. In these instances, it may be certain that there will be no sin committed by abstaining; there may be by indulgence. No command of God, or of propriety, will be violated if we decline complying with these customs; but, on the other hand, we may wound the cause of religion by yielding to what possibly is a mere temptation. No one ever does injury or wrong by abstaining from the pleasures of the ball-room, the theatre, or a glass of wine; who can indulge in them, without, in the view of large and respectable portions of the community, doing that which has the "appearance" at least "of evil ?"
(Albert Barnes)
DHK
 

IfbReformer

New Member
Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by IfbReformer:
DHK,

Your statement:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"When one enters a grocery store it is presumably to buy groceries. The Bible teaches: "Flee every appearance of evil." The groceries do not give an appearance of evil, but the movies do."
In 1611, people understood what the KJV translators meant by "appearance". You can tell what they meant by "appearance" from how they translated that same Greek word 'eidos' in these passages along with the one you stated:

Luke 3:22(KJV)
"And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape[eidos] like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."

Luke 9:29(KJV)
"And as he prayed, the fashion[eidos] of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering."

John 5:37
"And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape[eidos]."

2 Corinthians 5:7(KJV)
(For we walk by faith, not by sight[eidos]


1 Thessalonians:5:22(KJV)
"Abstain from all appearance[eidos] of evil."

So now do you understand that 'appearance' here is not how we use it in our modern english? Much bad theology has been made over the years from a misunderstanding of the old English. The NIV and NASB translate in our modern english correctly when they render it as:

1 Thessalonians 5:22(NASB)
"abstain from every form[eidos] of evil."

1 Thessalonians 5:22(NIV)
"Avoid every kind[eidos] of evil."

So yes I should "avoid every kind of evil". We agree on that completely. What is a kind of evil? It is me going to a particular movie that is filled with filth. It is not going to the Movie theater itself.
</font>[/QUOTE]1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Verse 22. Abstain from all appearance of evil.
Not only from evil itself, but from that which seems to be wrong. There are many things which are known to be wrong. They are positively forbidden by the laws of heaven, and the world concurs in the sentiment that they are wicked. But there are also many things about which there may be some reasonable doubt. It is not quite easy to determine in the case what is right or wrong. The subject has not been fully examined, or the question of its morality may be so difficult to settle, that the mind may be nearly or quite balanced in regard to it There are many things which, in themselves, may not appear to us to be positively wrong, but winch are so considered by large and respectable portions of the community; and for us to do them would be regarded as inconsistent and improper. There are many things, also, in respect to which there is great variety of sentiment among mankind--where one portion would regard them as proper, and another as improper. There are things, also, where, whatever may be our motive, we may be certain that our conduct will be regarded as improper. A great variety of subjects, such as those pertaining to dress, amusements, the opera, the ball-room, games of chance and hazard, and various practices in the transaction of business, come under this general class; which, though on the supposition that they cannot be proved to be in themselves positively wrong or forbidden, have much the "appearance" of evil, and will be so interpreted by others. The safe and proper rule is to lean always to the side of virtue. In these instances, it may be certain that there will be no sin committed by abstaining; there may be by indulgence. No command of God, or of propriety, will be violated if we decline complying with these customs; but, on the other hand, we may wound the cause of religion by yielding to what possibly is a mere temptation. No one ever does injury or wrong by abstaining from the pleasures of the ball-room, the theatre, or a glass of wine; who can indulge in them, without, in the view of large and respectable portions of the community, doing that which has the "appearance" at least "of evil ?"
(Albert Barnes)
DHK
</font>[/QUOTE]1 Thessalonians 5:22(NIV)
"Avoid every kind of evil."

I seek to avoid every kind of evil, not things which are not evil that may to be appear evil to select few.

I think the author you quoted sums up your position nicely, however wrong it may be. Let me explain something to you. I don't think there is anything wrong with you drawing the line where you do on things, like not stepping foot in a Movie Theater even to see a good movie.

Thats fine, as Paul writes in Romans 14:5 - "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."

If you cannot walk into a theater in good conscience, or if you can't walk into a restrant that serves alchohal in good conscience, then don't do it. As Paul writes again in Romans 14:

Romans 14:23(NIV)
"But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."

Where the problem comes is when you draw the line someplace the Bible has not and then make that the line everyone else around you is held to. That is when you "judge someone else's servant"(Rom 14:4).

Since you quoted an author who summarizes your position I will requote an author I believe summarizes my position on this:

"I find ten commandments, and it's as much as I can do to keep them; and I've no desire to make them into eleven or twelve."

And this statement:

"There is growing up in society a Pharisaic system which adds to the commands of God the precepts of men; to that system I will not yield for an hour. The preservation of my liberty may bring upon me the upbraidings of many good men, and the sneers of the self-righteous; but I shall endure both with serenity so long as I feel clear in my conscience before God."

Charles Spurgeon

This article can be found at http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/cigars.htm

IFBReformer
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by IfbReformer:

Since you quoted an author who summarizes your position I will requote an author I believe summarizes my position on this:

"I find ten commandments, and it's as much as I can do to keep them; and I've no desire to make them into eleven or twelve."

And this statement:

"There is growing up in society a Pharisaic system which adds to the commands of God the precepts of men; to that system I will not yield for an hour. The preservation of my liberty may bring upon me the upbraidings of many good men, and the sneers of the self-righteous; but I shall endure both with serenity so long as I feel clear in my conscience before God."

Charles Spurgeon

This article can be found at http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/cigars.htm

IFBReformer
In the next couple of paragraphs after the one you quoted, Spurgeon says this:
If through smoking I had wasted an hour of my time—if I had stinted my gifts to the poor—if I had rendered my mind less vigorous—I trust I should see my fault and turn from it; but he who charges me with these things shall have no answer but my forgiveness.
I am told that my open avowal will lessen my influence, and my reply is that if I have gained any influence through being thought different from what I am, I have no wish to retain it. I will do nothing upon the sly, and nothing about which I have a doubt.
He said "I shall see my fault and turn from it." And in fact he did. Eventually he gave up the habit.
He said, "I am told that my open avowal will lessen my influence." He came to that realization. He gave up the habit.
DHK
 

IfbReformer

New Member
Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by IfbReformer:

Since you quoted an author who summarizes your position I will requote an author I believe summarizes my position on this:

"I find ten commandments, and it's as much as I can do to keep them; and I've no desire to make them into eleven or twelve."

And this statement:

"There is growing up in society a Pharisaic system which adds to the commands of God the precepts of men; to that system I will not yield for an hour. The preservation of my liberty may bring upon me the upbraidings of many good men, and the sneers of the self-righteous; but I shall endure both with serenity so long as I feel clear in my conscience before God."

Charles Spurgeon

This article can be found at http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/cigars.htm

IFBReformer
In the next couple of paragraphs after the one you quoted, Spurgeon says this:
If through smoking I had wasted an hour of my time—if I had stinted my gifts to the poor—if I had rendered my mind less vigorous—I trust I should see my fault and turn from it; but he who charges me with these things shall have no answer but my forgiveness.
I am told that my open avowal will lessen my influence, and my reply is that if I have gained any influence through being thought different from what I am, I have no wish to retain it. I will do nothing upon the sly, and nothing about which I have a doubt.
He said "I shall see my fault and turn from it." And in fact he did. Eventually he gave up the habit.
He said, "I am told that my open avowal will lessen my influence." He came to that realization. He gave up the habit.
DHK
</font>[/QUOTE]DHK,

Actually thats completely false. This is a myth that had been was spread years later. Look at the article I gave you the link to.

They have the most information as far as sermons, notes, and news paper articles and other things about Spurgeon, more than anyone in the world.

Spurgeon never gave up smoking cigars because he did not feel that it was wrong. In fact he had contests with friends of his to prove he could not smoke them for long periods of time and after he beat the he would start back.

IFBReformer
 

ScottEmerson

Active Member
Originally posted by IfbReformer:
Actually thats completely false. This is a myth that had been was spread years later. Look at the article I gave you the link to.
The quote posted was actually from that link. It's about 2/3 of the way down. They were his actual words.
 

mozier

New Member
I have always said that there is Christmas, and then there is Christmas.

First, there is the Christmas of booze, out-of-control office parties, alcohol, greedy children, tempers flaring, cheap liquor, increased credit card debt, wine, riots over the latest must-have item at Wal-Mart, warring families, the ACLU fighting the "horrors" of Nativity scenes or school pageants that may mention the name of Jesus and so offend the whole world, and car crashes caused by too much beer.

Then there is the Christmas that celebrates Christ's birth, gathers a family together in a warm embrace, exchanges thoughtful presents, goes to church and sings hymns in praise of Jesus Christ, and gives to those who have less than you.

If you keep the latter and spurn the former, then you will be all right.

I know there are some Christians (Granny Gumbo comes to mind) who are very Anti-Christmas. And that is fine, for that is their choice and I respect that. But for those who in their conscience see nothing wrong in marking the occasion of Christ's birth, may they not be put down for it, either.


mozier
 

Karen

Active Member
Originally posted by mozier:
[QB] I have always said that there is Christmas, and then there is Christmas........

Dear mozier,
You are very wise. A memorable post!

Karen
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Karen:
Originally posted by mozier:
[QB] I have always said that there is Christmas, and then there is Christmas........

Dear mozier,
You are very wise. A memorable post!

Karen
For those that really do celebrate Christmas (i.e. that events surrounding the birth of Christ) here is a question to ponder.

Why spend so much time on the events of his birth? What do you do when you celebrate the "birthdays" of other great people? When you have Presidents Day, for example, do you remember simply the events surrounding the births of Washington and Lincoln? Or do you remember Washington the man--what he accomplished in his lifetime, the things that he was most noted for, the fact that he was your first president, and all that he accomplished for you nation. Likewise for Lincoln: do you simply remember his birth, or do you know anything about his birth at all? It is his life you commemorate is it not? He was a great president in the history of your nation. You don't reflect on the house he was born in, and who was present at his birth. You remember Lincoln, the man, and what he was noted for.

Why should it be any different with Christ? Why concentrate just on His birth. We need to remember the reason why he came into this world. He came to die. He arose from the dead. We need to remember Christ, the man-God, and the miracles He did, and the Words that He spoke, not simply the events of His birth. We don't treat any other person that way. Should Christ be any different. In view of His birth, should not His life be celebrated?
Perhaps the Lord hid the real date of His birth from us for a good reason. Just a thought.
DHK
 

Karen

Active Member
Originally posted by DHK:
.......For those that really do celebrate Christmas (i.e. that events surrounding the birth of Christ) here is a question to ponder.

Why spend so much time on the events of his birth?

Why should it be any different with Christ? Why concentrate just on His birth. We need to remember the reason why he came into this world. He came to die. He arose from the dead. We need to remember Christ, the man-God, and the miracles He did, and the Words that He spoke, not simply the events of His birth. We don't treat any other person that way. Should Christ be any different. In view of His birth, should not His life be celebrated?
Perhaps the Lord hid the real date of His birth from us for a good reason. Just a thought.
DHK
Dear DHK,
Since you asked, :D here's my answer.
The birth of Jesus and its manner fulfilled many prophecies and is given significant space in the Bible. Including the genealogies which show prophetic fulfillment. The nature of the Incarnation and the virgin birth show us fundamental things about God the Son, Who Jesus is, and how He could accomplish our salvation.
This Birth is unlike any other, ever.

As far as other events in His life, this is where I part company with many other Baptists. I think following the traditional church calendar would be a GREAT IDEA! Because fundamentally that calendar follows the main revealed events in the Life of Christ and the establishment of the Church. Epiphany, January 6, the coming of the Light to the Gentiles. Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, as well as Easter. Ascension Sunday in May. Pentecost Sunday, Advent, there are others. Many Baptists just sort of do Easter and Christmas.

Yet we have (at least in many SBC churches)Senior Citizens' Sunday, Falls Creek Sunday, Graduation Sunday in May, Baptist Men's Sunday, etc., etc. I would indeed prefer to have these take less emphasis and emphasize more systematically all the events in Christ's Life.

There are some things we can learn from non-Baptists. I'll go ahead and admit that, in my town on Christmas Eve, when the Baptist churches are cold and dark, I'm at a beautiful Presbyterian service.
(I have lots of Presbyterian relatives.) In that same Presbyterian church on one Ascension Sunday, I heard the doctrine of Christ's Ascension proclaimed clearly and beautifully. First time I had ever heard that in church in spite of being a Baptist for over forty years.
More information than you wanted.


Karen
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Karen:
Since you asked, :D here's my answer.
The birth of Jesus and its manner fulfilled many prophecies and is given significant space in the Bible. Including the genealogies which show prophetic fulfillment. The nature of the Incarnation and the virgin birth show us fundamental things about God the Son, Who Jesus is, and how He could accomplish our salvation.
This Birth is unlike any other, ever.

As far as other events in His life, this is where I part company with many other Baptists. I think following the traditional church calendar would be a GREAT IDEA! Because fundamentally that calendar follows the main revealed events in the Life of Christ and the establishment of the Church. Epiphany, January 6, the coming of the Light to the Gentiles. Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, as well as Easter. Ascension Sunday in May. Pentecost Sunday, Advent, there are others. Many Baptists just sort of do Easter and Christmas.
It would be a sad thing indeed if every preacher had to wait until Christmas before he preached on the birth of Christ. I don't know; perhaps some do. It would even be a sadder thing if there are preachers who wait for Easter to preach on the resurrection of Christ. I preach on the resurrection every time I give the gospel, and many times that I am preaching a gospel message I am preaching about the birth of Christ as well. His birth is mentioned, and even expounded upon, throughout the year many times. We don't have to wait for one special day. We are not confined by calendars. God forbid. (Oh, I am not allowed to preach on the resurrection! It is not Easter yet!!)

I came out of the Roman Catholic Church, and am quite used to seeing Catholic Calendars which have a day for every saint. Liturgical churches have their missals, and common prayer books, etc. and know well ahead of time what will be the exact topic for that day. There's not much room left for the Holy Spirit.

We ought not to be following in the same footsteps. I enjoy expository preaching. I find no reason to discontinue preaching through a book of the Bible just because the world is celebrating a religious holiday or any other event.
DHK
 

Karen

Active Member
Originally posted by DHK:.........It would be a sad thing indeed if every preacher had to wait until Christmas before he preached on the birth of Christ. I don't know; perhaps some do. It would even be a sadder thing if there are preachers who wait for Easter to preach on the resurrection of Christ. I preach on the resurrection every time I give the gospel,.......We don't have to wait for one special day. We are not confined by calendars. God forbid. (Oh, I am not allowed to preach on the resurrection! It is not Easter yet!!)

I came out of the Roman Catholic Church, and am quite used to seeing Catholic Calendars.......There's not much room left for the Holy Spirit.

We ought not to be following in the same footsteps. I enjoy expository preaching. I find no reason to discontinue preaching through a book of the Bible just because the world is celebrating a religious holiday or any other event.
DHK [/QB]
Dear DHK,
I completely agree with you on many of your points. I was speaking in terms of conservative Presbyterians following a calendar of remembering events in the Life of Christ. You seemed to hear me in terms of a Catholic list of saints' days.
On Ascension Sunday, for example, there are innumerable ways to emphasize it. Scripture readings and hymns naturally come to mind. ;)
There is no reason why a pastor giving a sermon should not say what he thinks he should say at any time. But sometimes we as Baptists overemphasize, in my opinion, that God acts through us on the spur of the moment. God also acts through planning.

Karen
 
Top