In essentials, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things love. A Look At Romans 14

 In essentials, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things love.

This seems time be the gist of what preachers and teachers use in defining Romans chapter 14. The most popular verses they like to employ are 5 and 6, especially when it comes to celebrating holidays like Christmas or Easter, for example. At face value, one can see how it's easy to read into the text something that is not there. Read the text for yourself.

 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

 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.

It would seem that Paul is giving us the liberty to treat any day the way we like. We must remove our 21 century thinking from the text and read it with the same understanding that the Romans, whom the letter was written to, had.

What is the background for the writing of this chapter? Rome, like other Christian communities throughout the empire where the gospel had been received, had Judaizers that tried to get the Gentile converts to obey the ceremonial law with circumcision, avoiding unclean foods and observing the sabbaths, new moon and other feast days found in the law of Moses. 

Being ensnared to be under the law (our schoolmaster Gal. 3:1-6; 24-25; 5:1) that God had ordained to be observed to serve and worship Him until the seed of promise came (Gal. 3:19) This is quite different than taking pagan worship of other gods and practicing them (Lev. 20:24, 26; Dt. 11:16). The difference is night and day. Though neither of them produce good results. How we serve, follow and worship God is an essential that requires unity.

Therefore, knowing this, it not only makes verses 5 and 6 better to understand, but in reality, the entire chapter.

That pagan holidays where not mentioned in this chapter is evident. Gentile believers generally cast away their former worship of idols (1 Th. 1:9) and dark arts (Acts 19:18-20), though those in Corinth being an exception, which caused Paul to warn them about their fleshly and worldly behavior. Nevertheless, false teachers did bring in foreign religions and philosophies corrupting sound doctrine (Col. 2:8, 18; 1 Tim. 1:4; 6:20; 2 Pet. 2:1-3, etc)

As history reveals, the celebration of Christmas and Easter came centuries later. A syncretizing, a mixing of "Christian" elements in with the pagan festivals as supposedly an "evangelistic' tool, is how these holidays originated. Which goes against the Word of God (Dt. 29:10-21; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1, etc). Today we would call this an unhealthy compromise in that we are compromising our core values and beliefs and standards of our faith and become spiritually and morally bankrupt. Don’t be deceived. Stepping away from God’s truth always begins with what appears to be a harmless thought or act. But the end result is deep regret, sorrow, bondage, and separation from God. (Heb. 12:15-17)

We see an example of this in king Solomon's life as recorded in 1 Kings chapter 11 where his heart was turned away from fully following the Lord, to also following other gods, which the Lord commanded not to do (v10; Dt. 13:2; 28:14; etc). As noted by Albert Barnes, "He (Solomon) thus became the author of a syncretism, which sought to blend together the worship of Yahweh and the worship of idols." As reading 1 Kings chapter 11 reveals that God was not pleased with this.

Even Paul asked the Corinthians, "what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God as God hath said..." (2 Cor. 6:16).

Paul also told the Corinthians - "the things the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils (idols, v28), and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. You 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 you provoke the Lord to jealousy?" (1 Cor. 10:20-22)

Just verses before this, Paul exhorted them with an example of when the children of Israel made a golden calf after the manner of the Egyptians from whom they came out from with the words, "neither be ye idolaters, as we're some of them (v 7). In chapter 6, Paul mentioned that some of the Corinthians had been idolaters (v 9), but have been sanctified, and set apart from that now, or as he said to the Thessalonians, "ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God" (1 Th. 1:9).  

He continued to exhort them in verse 12 saying, "Let him that standeth take heed, lest he fall (back into their old ways)". Then again reminded them in verse 14 to "flee from idolatry". 

I brought this up to show again that the early Christians left their former manner of worship to serve the living and true God. Therefore, Paul was not telling the Romans it was okay to worship God as they worshipped their former gods. As Jesus said, "ye cannot serve both God and mammon" (Mt. 6:24). Again, Solomon's life teaches us that! Yet, to worship the one true God after the law of Moses was a snare to the Gentiles by the believing Jews (Acts 15:1-2; Gal. 4:10-11; Col. 2:16-17; etc)

Paul did teach that an idol is nothing (1 Cor. 8:4; 10:19). That we are not under the ceremonial law and that there is no unclean food to us (Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 10:25; 1 Tim. 4:4). Though at the first Jerusalem counsel to determine whether the Gentile converts needed to observe the law of Moses (Acts 15) it was determined that the Gentiles eat not food sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25). Eating foods sacrificed to idols is considered a stumbling block (Rom. 14:13; 1 Cor. 8:9; Rev. 2:14; 20).

Now, returning to the 21 century mindset of preachers and teachers. They often consider those who will not celebrate Christmas, Easter, etc, as the weak believers, yet consider themselves as the strong (Rom. 14:1-2). If this is the case, how should the stronger believers treat those whose consciousnesses are weak on such things?

In Romans 14 starting in verse 14 Paul says that "nothing is unclean of itself", but to him that esteemeth anything unclean, to him it is unclean". I think we understand this. Yet, Paul continues in verse 15, "But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably". Paul is saying that if you know it's okay to eat "bacon", for example, and you continue to eat it in front of your weaker brother, or even talk about eating it in front of your weaker brother, or even post such things on social media for your weaker brother to see, who believes it's not something a follower of Christ should do, then you are not walking in the love of Christ towards them! (1 Cor. 10:24; 28-29; 13:5; Eph. 4:1-3; Php. 2:4; 21, etc) In fact, Paul continues in the verse saying, "Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died". Would you be willing to walk in love and give up your "bacon" for a weaker brother?

In verses 19 and 20 Paul says, "follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God...it is evil for that man who eateth with offence".

Paul writes something similar to the Corinthians in chapter 8 of the first letter. In verse 9 he tells them to "take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak". That, "through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died". (v 11) Paul also refers to it as a stumblingblock in Romans 14:13.

In verse 12 Paul continues, "but when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ". Meditate on that for a minute. So if we continue with our "bacon" and doing our own thing (1Cor. 10:24; Php. 2:4), walking after our own covetousness (Jer. 6:13; Ez. 14:3; 33:31; Col. 3:5), we not only wound our weaker brother's conscience and possibly cause him to perish. Paul also calls it a sin against that weaker brother and Christ! 

What does Paul suggest to the stronger believer? "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother offend." So Paul says don't do it! Don't touch that "bacon"!

Jesus Himself also warned about offending one who believes in Him, saying, "it were better for him (the offender) that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and be cast into the sea (Mt. 18:6), than that he should offend one who believes in Him". (Lk. 17:2) So eating your "bacon" and offending, wounding, and destroying a weaker believer is quite serious indeed!

While I have been using "bacon" as an example. When we look back to Romans 14 and foods and days, the 21 century preacher and teacher should apply a similar approach to holidays such as Christmas and Easter. If a weaker brother is offended or wounded by your celebrating such holidays, then you, as the stronger believer, should say something along the lines of Paul - "if Christmas offends my weaker brother, I will have nothing to do with Christmas while the earth remains, lest I offend my brother". Yet, when have you heard a preacher or teacher say this, let alone practice it? Typically what is said and taught is, "I'll celebrate Christmas even though I know it offends you." What a display of Christian love! Jesus said, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (Jn. 13:35)

Therefore, would you conclude that the 21 century preacher or teacher is teaching the truth of God's Word and walking in love towards weaker believers by doing as they please without consideration of offending them? Certainly not! 

I hope you have learned a number of things through this brief article, primarily: 1) what Paul was truly writing about to the Romans in chapter 14 - speaking of the feast days, sabbaths, etc of the law of Moses and not pagan festivals of the like where Christmas and Easter have derived from; and 2) if the 21 century preachers and teachers instruct that it's okay to celebrate Christmas as long as it's to the Lord, yet offend and destroy the weaker brother who Christ died for, and sin against both them and Christ, because the weaker believer thinks it's wrong to celebrate - then how is their celebrating in honor of Christ? How is it "not seeking your own, but another's profit?" Is such a person loving in a Christ honoring way? Something for you to consider and take to heart and practice. Remember that "we are not to follow a multitude to do evil (bad)". (Ex. 23:2)

Again, I hope this article has been beneficial to you and that you may bear much fruit through it to the glory of God.

κυριακός What? More Greek?

Last time we looked briefly at the Greek word ekklesia as this is the word that is erroneously translated/substituted as 'church' in English translations of the Bible. 

I mentioned that the word 'church' didn't even appear until the mid-fourteenth century. 

So now I will look at how we came to the origin of the word 'church'.

'Church' has it's origin in an entirely different Greek word than ekklesia. The word being kuriakos. Kuriakos is only found two times in the NT (1 Cor. 11:20; Rev. 1:10), and a few times in the writings of the 'early church fathers', and not at all in the LXX. So it is difficult to develop an understanding of what the word means, yet it seems to apply a certain quality of belonging to a lord or master. This is an entirely different topic that I'll get into some time later.

Now over time, the place where believers met was called 'the Lord's house' using the Greek word kuriakon, which derives from kuriakos.

This word eventually became known as 'kirche' in German, 'circe' in Anglo Saxon, 'kirk' in Scotish/Norse, 'chereche, chiriche, chirche, churche, cherche, etc' in Middle English and 'cirice, circe' in Old English.

When Luther translated the NT into German in 1534, he did not use the word 'kirche' to translate ekklesia, but rather chose the German word 'gemeinde', which is similar to the English word community.

When John Wycliffe translated the first Bible into English in 1382 from the Latin, he translated the Latin word ecclesiam into "chirche". What led Wycliffe to do this?

According to the Ebenezer Cobham Brewers Dictionary of Phrase and Fable of 1898 concerning the word "church" it says:

"The etymology of this word is generally assumed to be from the Greek, Kuriou oikos (house of God); but this is most improbable, as the word existed in all the Celtic dialects long before the introduction of Greek. No doubt the word means "a circle." The places of worship among the German and Celtic nations were always circular. (Welsh, cyrch, French, cirque; Scotch, kirk; Greek, kirk-os, etc.) Compare Anglo-Saxon circe, a church, with circol, a circle." 

In England, the Druids would gather in stone circles, like Stonehenge, to worship their pagan gods. Many of the first Catholic houses of worship were located at these sites or were built with the stones from these sites. Therefore, the people attached the words "chirche", "cirice", or "kirk" to these buildings in error, as we learned in a previous blog post, ekklesia has no connection with a building, but rather a called out gathering of citizens, namely Christians.

When Tyndale translated the NT into English in 1536, he also did not use the word 'church' for ekklesia, but rather chose the word congregation. The Great Bible (1539) and the Bishop’s Bible (1568) also did the same.
In Wycliffe’s first translation of the Latin Vulgate into English in 1395, he used chirche for ekklesia. The Geneva (1557), Rheims-Douay (1582), and King James (1611) for some reason followed the approach taken by Wycliffe, rendering this “church” as have most English translations since then, simply because the KJV was the common translation for so many years.

It's interesting to note that in some modern languages, the true definition of ekklesia was used, like, in French (église) and Spanish (iglesia), rather than their word for 'church'.

As we have seen looking at the words ekklesia and kuriakos that the word 'church' did not originate from ekklesia nor from the concept of ekklesia. Ekklesia has an entirely different meaning than kuriakos. As you can see, there is a major problem here. We are not to add to or take away from God's Word (Dt. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6). Yet, the translators inserted the word 'church' in the English versions for ekklesia. They were not translating the word ekklesia in the text as one might expect. Rather, they were substituting an entirely different word, kuriakos, instead. This is wrong!

The word 'church' could be an acceptable translation for kuriakos seeing it derives from that word. However, the word 'church' is not an acceptable translation for ekklesia. Consider this carefully. The Word of God is Truth (Jn. 17:17). Yet, the word 'church' should never be used for ekklesia - a called out assembly. What will you do the next time you read and see the word 'church'? What should you do the next time you read and see the word 'church'? Is what you are reading or saying true? We'll be judged for every idle word we speak (Mt. 12:36). If we are to call Bible things by Bible names, as a popular slogan goes, then how can we honestly think that we can use the word 'church' instead of called out assembly or congregation as the word ekklesia is genuinely defined? Calling a tree a rock doesn't make it so, no matter how many times we refer to it as such. Or how about calling an apple a banana? The same can be applied to referring to ekklesia as 'church' instead of a called out assembly or congregation. Just because we do, doesn't make it so.

Let me put it another way to show the seriousness of applying a word with a different meaning to another word. I'll use two Greek words this time you should be familiar with - christos and antichristos. Would substituting or swopping the meaning of either word make a difference? Most certainly! It's honestly no different with the word ekklesia. 

There are believers which profess that they belong to the true and biblical 'church' because it's name can be found in Scripture (maybe) and they will vehemently stand by it's name and vehemently condemn your assembly if it cannot be found in their English Bible. False teachers do the same with their doctrines of devil's (1 Tim. 4:1) because they use Bible names for them and deceive many (Mt. 4:6; 24:4-5, 11, 24; 2 Tim. 3:13). 

Now the believers of the true and biblical 'church' will say that 'church' of God (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; etc) and 'church' of Christ (which this one is sad because the phrase does not appear in Scripture! Check it out. How deceived can one be? Though you will find 'churches' of Christ once - Rom. 16:16) are biblical because they are found in their English translation of the Bible (except as noted above), which I have shown to be faulty. Though I have pointed this out to some of them, they just brush it off and continue on as if I never mentioned it. Is their doctrine more important than the truth? The apostle John said he has no greater joy than to hear that his children walk in truth (3 Jn. 1:4). Would John be pleased with them? Do they enjoy speaking and teaching lies (Rev. 21:27; 22:15)? Jesus told the Jews that they where of their father the devil. That he was a liar from the beginning and the father of lies. (Jn. 8:44) How are these believers different than the false teachers I mentioned early? 

Take time and reflect and decide what you will do with the English word 'church' in your Bible.

We Are The Lord's And Not Our Own

 For ye are bought at a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. - 1 Cor. 6:20

We have no right to ourselves. We are not our own masters. No true, genuine Christian can say, my time is my own, as those of the world say. It is not ours. Our time, our talents are not ours, they are God's. Our business even is not our own, but God's. Our house, our lands, our bank accounts, everything that we have is not ours, but belongs to the Lord; for He has bought us with His precious blood (Acts 20:28), and having bought us, He has purchased all that I have. Yet, many professing Christians have made lies their refuge and have given themselves over to the things of the world and of the flesh and not to the will of the Lord. We may call Him Lord, yet deny Him the right He has over every aspect of our vain lives. We cannot serve two masters. We serve whom we obey. Is it sin unto death or obedience to the will of God, Who purchased us with His precious blood unto righteousness? Have you counted the cost? Have you surrendered all to Jesus? If we don't forsake all, we cannot be His disciple.

ἐκκλησία - What? That's Greek To Me?

ἐκκλησία - Ekklesia is the Greek word where we are led to believe that we get our words 'church' and 'churches'. Yes, you read that correctly - "where we are led to believe". Let me explain. I will give you a little background information to start with.

One would think that it is common knowledge that the original manuscripts of NT letters have been lost and that our translations that we have in our own languages are based on copies of copies of copies of what those originals were.

We have learned through the course of time how the copies we have came into being. To start, the earliest copies were penned by those in the faith who were literate. Back in Roman times, a very small number were literate. They estimate that around only 10% were literate. So, copying errors where not uncommon in the early centuries because they were typically copied by a non-professional scribe in the assembly. Often the one whose home they gathered in. It wasn't until 331 when Constantine had Eusebius have fifty Bibles made to be available for the fifty 'church' buildings he was erecting. Since that time professional scribes started to be employed in copying the manuscripts. 

Even though professional scribes were then employed, it didn't mean that copies were error free. I'm not going to get into all of that, but I believe that it's important to know that scribes were known to make changes in copying the manuscripts based solely on their theological bias of the Scriptures among other basic copying errors.

So, just as we have no original manuscripts of the NT that was written in the first century. We also do not have any 'Greek lexicons' written in the first century to draw from to know exactly how a word was used or defined in the first century. With this, let's look at the definition of the word ekklesia:

1577 evkklhsi,a ekklesia {ek-klay-see'-ah} 

Meaning: 1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly 1a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating 1b) the assembly of the Israelites 1c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously 1d) in a Christian sense 1d1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting 1d2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake 1d3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body 1d4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth.

Notice how ekklesia is not defined as the word 'church'. It's basic meaning is a gathering or assembly of people. I would like to point out that ekklesia was used in the Septuagint (OT Scripture in Greek. Also referred to as LXX), to refer to God's children. Let me draw on this further. Ekklesia is derived from the Hebrew word qahal (S# 6951) which is defined as an "assembly, company, congregation and convocation". Understanding this is helpful in why the Jewish translators that translated the Hebrew into Greek (LXX) used the word ekklesia for the word qahal.

As we know, the first Christians were Jews who commonly used the LXX. Even Jesus and the apostles quoted from it. So when the NT letters were written in the common language of Greek, addressed to both Jew and Gentile alike, it was only natural to refer to God's children as ekklesia as seen in the OT, as that was the only Scripture at that time. 

In recent centuries the word 'church' was added to the definition of ekklesia in lexicons. The reason the English word 'church' is a more recent addition to lexicons is because it didn't make it appearance until the mid-fourteen hundreds. So where did we get the word 'church' from? More on that next time.

Church? An Introduction

I probably don't need to tell you how common the word 'church' is, especially when it comes to the Christian world. Many refer to the place where followers of Christ gather as the 'church'. Many of these places even have the word 'church' in their title on a sign or on the building on the property.

The word 'church' is also commonly used to describe God's people.

The words 'church' and 'churches' appear in the NT 115 times.

My reason and prayer for presenting a study on this popular word, 'church', is to help unveil the truth of God's Word that believers will no longer continue in ignorance, not just on the word 'church', but on many things that have been erroneously taught and believed by those who profess a living and active faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I will be breaking this study into different parts. Yet, before I conclude this intro, I'll share the references that the words 'church' and 'churches' may be found, that you can check each reference and equip yourself to be more prepared for unlocking the truth this study will uncover and how you should respond to it.

Church 

Matt. 16:18; 18:17; Acts 2:47; 5:11; 7:38; 8:1, 3; 11:22, 26; 12:1, 5; 13:1; 14:23, 27; 15:3f, 22; 18:22; 20:17, 28; Rom. 16:1, 5, 23, 27; 1 Co. 1:2; 4:17; 6:4; 10:32; 11:18, 22; 12:28; 14:4f, 12, 19, 23, 28, 35; 15:9; 16:19; 2 Co. 1:1; Gal. 1:13; Eph. 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23ff, 27, 29, 32; Phil. 3:6; 4:15; Col. 1:18, 24; 4:15f; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:5, 15; 5:16; 2 Tim. 4:22; Tit. 3:15; Phlm. 1:2; Heb. 2:12; 12:23; Jas. 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:13; 3 Jn. 1:6, 9; Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14

Churches

Acts 9:31; 15:41; 16:5; 19:37; Rom. 16:4, 16; 1 Co. 7:17; 11:16; 14:33f; 16:1, 19; 2 Co. 8:1, 18, 23; 11:8, 28; 12:13; Gal. 1:2, 22; 1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:4; Rev. 1:4, 11, 20; 2:7, 11, 17, 23, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 22:16

Christmas, Christmas, Christmas

Christmas, Christmas, Christmas. It is a very popular worldly holiday celebrated by people the world over. It doesn't matter whether you believe in Jesus, or His heavenly Father or not. In each home throughout the globe, families tend to use the same customs in their celebration of this holiday. 

It seems odd that an unbeliever and a believer in Christ could celebrate a religious holy day since their ways, manners, customs, etc. are polar opposites as 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 clearly show, for example:

 14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?

 15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?

 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

 17 "Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate," says the Lord. "And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you.

 18 "And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me," Says the Lord Almighty.

 7:1 Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Yet, followers of Christ, whether they be pro-Christmas or not, both twist and pervert their pets verses to support their views. For instance, those opposed to Christmas often use Jeremiah chapter 10 as reference to a 'Christmas tree', yet the context is clear with other Scripture passages that it speaks of making idols out of a stock of wood. Then those in support of celebrating Christmas often use Romans 14 to comfort their consciences to observe this day, though Paul is speaking specifically of the Jew's various days they observe and the foods they eat. As this was always a stumbling block for early believers as not only the letter to the Romans shows, but as other letters also reveal.

God has called us out of darkness into His marvelous light (Jn. 8:12; 12:46; Acts 26:18; Col. 1:13; 1 Pet. 2:9) that we should be a people separated from the world and the things of it (Dt. 7:6; 14:2; Jn. 17:19; Rom. 12:1-2; Gal. 1:4; 6:14; 1 Cor. 3:17; Jam. 1:27; 1 Jn. 2:15-17, 1 Pet. 2:9), in entire and complete surrender to do His will (Mt.4:8-10;  6:24; 10:37-39; 16:25-26; Jn. 12:25; Rom. 6:6; 12:1-2; Gal. 2:20; Col. 2:20; 3:3) and to worship Him as a holy, set apart people. 

It's like the 'church' doesn't understand what it means to be a holy and set apart people to the Lord alone! To wear God's holy name (2 Tim. 2:19; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21-22; 3:15) and be viewed as 'common' by the world is to profane God's holy name (Lev. 20:1-8; 22:2; 2 Chr. 36:14-16; Jer. 2:23-33; 7:18-34; Ez. 20:30-49; 23:39-40; 2 Pet. 2:20)  Study the Word for yourself and see! We are to be the people of the Lord, yet why do we not look any different in our celebration of Christmas than unbelievers? He called us to be a people above all others on the face of the earth (Ex. 19:5;  Tit. 2:14). God is a jealous God; calls us to prove our love for Him by obeying His commandments (that if we don't obey, it proves that we hate Him and are, in fact, His enemies and that He will be against us!) (Ex. 20:3--6; Dt. 5:8-10; Jos. 24:14; Ps. 81:15; Rom. 1:28; 1 Cor. 10:19-21; Jam. 4:4). These are very serious things beloved! We cannot engage in any form of religion that derives from something other than the Scriptures. That's a compromise! It's what is known as pagano-Christianism - a blending of pagan customs with Christian customs. That Christmas and Easter and others are not of Christian origin, but rather of pagan origin is common knowledge, that can even be found in an encyclopedia. 

Let me put it another way - we have what is known as syncretistic religious holidays - that is, a merger, a combining or a bringing together of two or more different philosophical, religious or cultural principles, practices, or ideas into one. Where did the Israelites get the 'golden calf' from? Where do we get Christmas or Easter from? Not from the God of the Bible, but rather from others that we are commanded not to copy and follow (Lev. 18:3; 20:23; Dt. 12:30-31; Jer. 10:2-3; Ez. 20:32; 1 Cor. 10:19-22)! We cannot take the truth of God's Word, we cannot take Christianity and join it, or mix it to what is worship of a false, damnable, demonic doctrine of lies! We cannot do this! We are called to separate ourselves from such things (Lev. 20:26; 2 Chr. 29:5; Ps. 4:3; Rom. 6:13, 16, 19; 12:1-2; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 2 Cor. 617, 7:1; Php. 2:15; 1 Pet. 1:14-16; 2:5, 9; 4:1-2; 2 Pet. 3:11, 14; 1 Jn. 3:3)! If unbelievers see compromise in our life, they will be strengthened in their folly and rebellion. They will be comforted that we are not much different from them, so they will continue on in their evil course without any check of conscience.

God has commanded us not to learn the ways, customs and manners of others to worship Him as they do their gods and idols (Ex. 23:23-25; Lev. 20:23; Dt. 18:9-14; 2 K 17:7+; 21:1+; 1 Cor. 10:19-21).

As mentioned earlier, Christmas is derived form the worship of other religions is commonly known, yet preachers, elderships, etc. continue to lie to themselves for one (Dt. 11:16; Jer. 16:12; 17:9 Prov. 28:26; Heb. 3:12), and the flock as a hole (Is. 9:14-17; 28:14-15; 30:9-11; Jer. 7:4-15; 9:3-16; 14:14; 23:14, 25-40; Ez. 13:8-23; Amos 2:4), comforting them in their false worship of God (Is. 30:9-10; Jer. 9:3-6; 14:14; 23:25-26; 32; Ez. 13:8-9; 2 Tim. 4:3-4) in which He takes no delight in (Prov. 15:8; 21:27; Is. 1:10-15; 66:3; Jer. 6:20; Ez. 20:39; Amos 5:21-27; Mt. 15:7-9; Tit. 1:14).

Satan's primary goal in his war with God's children is to infiltrate with error, to get in His called out assembly and teach lies, errors, poor theology - to bring in stuff that sounds good and even tickles our ears, yet are doctrines of demons (2 Cor. 11:3-4; 13-15; 1 Tim. 4:1)

The result of mixing and blending the ways, manners and customs of the world and their many forms of worship with the purity and truth of God's Word is that the pure and true worship on the one and only true God gets perverted, polluted and corrupted by compromise and His people become useless and shameful and blasphemous (Lev. 24:16; Ez. 35:12; Col. 3:8; 2 Tim. 3:2) in mocking the truth before the world that we are to be a light, a witness and salt that will bring them out of darkness into His marvelous light.

Think about it. How can we worship God in an unacceptable manner? 1) to worship a false god; 2) to worship the true God in a wrong way; 3) to worship God in a self-styled manner; or 4) with a wrong attitude. 

Are you one who has chosen to follow the original teachings and practices and patterns and customs of the first century NT Christians? If so, it is known that they didn't celebrate Christ's birth. Therefore, are you a hypocrite? 

Examine yourself concerning your worship, to see whether you and your worship is reprobate, not approved, not standing the test of God's Word (2 Cor. 13:5; Jer. 6:20; Rom. 1:28; 2 Tim. 3:8; Tit. 1:16) which is truth (Ps. 19:7; Jn. 4:24; 17:17) and taking the appropriate actions necessary to be approved and pleasing before God. As a popular mantra among Christians today taken from Joshua chapter 24:15 says- "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Will you choose to worship and serve others gods along with Jesus? Or will you worship and serve Christ alone? Choose this day whom you will serve.
 

 Think on this:

People have created gods in their own image. They interpret God according to their own cultural biases, as well as what family, educational, and business associations have predisposed them to believe. They then attribute His favor to their political parties, athletic teams, motivations, and prejudices. All this is done with precious little careful study into, meditation upon, and especially wholeheartedly believing of His inspired revelation of Himself in the Bible.

At the worship service held in the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., a few days following the attack of September 11, 'clergy' from several different faiths or religions participated. Which 'clergyman' represented God? Which did God hear? Can they all be His representatives, even though they all believe differently? Do these differences not matter to Him? They must matter to those men; otherwise, they would not advocate their brand of faith. He makes very clear that no one comes to Him except through Jesus Christ.

Even this past Saturday at #StopTheSteal, many different faith groups came together in prayer, etc and the 'MC' of the event said, "This is an ecumenical event, if you believe in Jesus, I'm all in...and if you don't believe in Jesus in anyway, do you believe in the God of the Bible? That's good enough for me."

7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.

9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

- 2 Jn. 1:7-11

22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. - 1 Cor. 16:22