Why Romans 14 is not justification for doing Christmas

Eph4:26 said:

Within the spirit of Roman's 14 that we are discussing states that I'm not to call people down for doing Christmas. It doesn't say that I have to put my stamp of approval on it -- for certain people.

Click to expand...

Forget Romans 14.
Do you believe that it is right for Christians to celebrate Christmas?

Eph4:26 said:

And with that. I am OUT!!

Click to expand...

Oh ok, bye then.

I don't what the point of any of your threads have been - apart from "I don't do Christmas, but you may if you wish,"

I don't know why you have constantly talked about the Christmas tree, and even Santa Claus - being in the garden of Eden; nor ehy you have epeatedly said that the Christmas tree represents the worship of self, nor why it is said to be an idol at which we bow down. Why go to the trouble to show us what you believe verses really say? Why the veiled, and sometimes outright, insults, if your conclusion is "if it's right for you to do Christmas, you should?"

It all seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Eph4:26 said:

This is the most cogent statement regarding this topic . . .

Originally Posted by Epiphoskei

". . .The kingdom of God is not about whether . . you put up a tree in the winter . . - the kingdom of God is about righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."
​

I have consistently documented a body of evidence within this topic and elsewhere within the form that demonstrates that your statement is true.

Originally Posted by Epiphoskei

". . . you're expressly forbidden from taking your own personal conscience issues and making it a prohibition for other Christians."
​

Anyone whose conscience says YES to Christmas, should DO Christmas.

And with that. I am OUT!!

Click to expand...

I guess Romans 14 is justification for doing Christmas after all, then...

Epiphoskei said:

I guess Romans 14 is justification for doing Christmas after all, then...

Click to expand...

Eph4:26 said:

Not for the reason you cited. Like your exegesis proof text of Col. 2:21, I couldn't agree . . . less.

You are reading into Paul's writings through the prism of your 21st Century moral relativism world view.

Click to expand...

I thought you were leaving? This must mean that you thought you had pronounced the last word.

Eph4:26 said:

Not for the reason you cited. Like your exegesis proof text of Col. 2:21, I couldn't agree . . . less.

You are reading into Paul's writings through the prism of your 21st Century moral relativism world view.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that reading into the passage that Christmas shouldn't be celebrated because it is supposedly pagan is being done from a 21st Century viewpoint as well.

katherine2001 said:

It seems to me that reading into the passage that Christmas shouldn't be celebrated because it is supposedly pagan is being done from a 21st Century viewpoint as well.

Click to expand...

Indeed, from a 21st century, pop-nondenominational pietistic viewpoint which supposedly distinguishes its practitioners from the Roman Catholic Church.

Next he is going to demand that everyone follow Olsteen's and Warren's "Daniel Diet" fad.

Forget Romans 14? We cant do that can we? Arguing over Christmas doth not edify, let us seek ways in which we may edify one another. The kingdom is not about Christmas, its about peace, righteousness and Joy in the spirit. If we live in the Spirit, lets us walk in the Spirit.


Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Rom 14:7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
Rom 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Rom 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Tzaousios said:

Indeed, from a 21st century, pop-nondenominational pietistic viewpoint which supposedly distinguishes its practitioners from the Roman Catholic Church.

Next he is going to demand that everyone follow Olsteen's and Warren's "Daniel Diet" fad.

Click to expand...

I rather like the Jesus diet myself

John 4:30 They went forth therefore out of the city, and were coming unto him.
31 And in the meanwhile his disciples were asking him, saying, `Rabbi, eat;'
32 and he said to them, `I have food to eat that ye have not known.'

I prefer the dietary command from Acts myself: "Kill and eat!"

Eph4:26 said:

Not for the reason you cited. Like your exegesis proof text of Col. 2:21, I couldn't agree . . . less.

You are reading into Paul's writings through the prism of your 21st Century moral relativism world view.

Click to expand...

Moral relativist is the last phrase that could describe me. I'm reading it through the first-century prism of anti-legalism.

Then, as now, men want to make up rules to abstain from perfectly acceptable behavior because a few legalists insist a certain behavior is inherently sinful, or inherently causes a proclivity towards sin in men. And they're wrong.

Roman 14 is not justifying legalism brethren, its teaching us more about love for one another. If we live by the law of love, should we only obey part of it, or all of it? Shall we pick and choose what suits us?

Epiphoskei said:

Moral relativist is the last phrase that could describe me. I'm reading it through the first-century prism of anti-legalism.

Then, as now, men want to make up rules to abstain from perfectly acceptable behavior because a few legalists insist a certain behavior is inherently sinful, or inherently causes a proclivity towards sin in men. And they're wrong.

Click to expand...

11822 said:

Roman 14 is not justifying legalism brethren, its teaching us more about love for one another. If we live by the law of love, should we only obey part of it, or all of it? Shall we pick and choose what suits us?

Click to expand...

There is also a thread on that topic

http://www.christianforums.com/t7575128/
legalism

cyberlizard said:

anyone care to define it for me... it get's used a lot on the forum, but I have never seen anyone give it a concrete definition.

Steve

Click to expand...

11822 said:

Forget Romans 14? We cant do that can we?

Click to expand...

Sorry, my fault. I didn't mean forget it completely or that it's not important.
I asked Eph 4:26 a simple question about whether he believed it was right or wrong for Christians to celebrate Christmas.
His reply began, "In the context of Romans 14 ....". I didn't want to discuss Rom 14 at that point; I just wanted him to answer to my question. Hence my comment "forget Rom 14."

Tzaousios said:

I thought you were leaving? This must mean that you thought you had pronounced the last word.

Click to expand...

If he wants the last word he should post and then ask for the thread to be closed.

Not that I want to put ideas into anyone's head ....

Strong in Him said:

Sorry, my fault. I didn't mean forget it completely or that it's not important.
I asked Eph 4:26 a simple question about whether he believed it was right or wrong for Christians to celebrate Christmas.
His reply began, "In the context of Romans 14 ....". I didn't want to discuss Rom 14 at that point; I just wanted him to answer to my question. Hence my comment "forget Rom 14."

Click to expand...

Its cool. i just love Romans 14, i always look for opportunities to bring it up.